Tommy Robinson Cleared of Failing to Comply with Police Dispersal Direction

Far-right activist Tommy Robinson has been cleared of failing to comply with a police dispersal direction.

Robinson, real name Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, 41, was accused of failing to comply with a direction issued under section 35 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

He has been cleared of the offence during a trial at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 23rd April 2024.

Having heard the prosecution's case - which was, quite frankly, abysmal - District Judge Daniel Sternberg, presiding over the trial, concluded that there was no case to answer. In other words, taking the prosecution evidence at its highest, no properly-directed and reasonable tribunal of fact could find the offence proved to the required standard.

The offence was said to have taken place on Sunday, 26th November 2023, when Robinson attended a protest march against anti-semitism in central London.

He was accused of failing to comply with a section 35 direction when he refused to leave the area outside the Royal Courts of Justice on The Strand.

By way of context, I should explain that a section 35 direction can only be issued where an officer of at least inspector rank has granted an authorisation under section 34 of the Act. Such an authorisation can only be granted for a maximum of 48 hours.

It now transpires that the section 35 direction Robinson was arrested over was issued outside the time and locality to which the section 34 authorisation applied.

Inspector Steve Parker-Phipps, who granted the section 34 authorisation, told the court that because his laptop was almost dead, he mistakenly timed and dated it as 10 am on 24th instead of 10 am on 26th November. That being the case, the authorisation had already lapsed by the time Robinson was arrested on the afternoon of 26th November.

Alasdair Williamson KC, defending, put it to Inspector Parker-Phipps: "This document is not correct, is it? Can we have any confidence that a lawful order was in place?"

The officer replied: "No."

With that it was game over. How could the prosecution possibly prove its case?

It also turns out that even if the section 34 authorisation had been valid, the manner in which the officer made the section 35 direction was defective. This is because the officer making the direction failed to take into account Robinson's claims of acting as a journalist at the protest - which, given his vast following, seems an entirely reasonable claim - and also gave insufficient time for Robinson to leave the area as directed.

This is a complete and utter shambles. How many reviewing Met and CPS lawyers have overlooked the glaringly obvious flaws in this prosecution? Did they feel compelled to get it "over the line" due to the high profile nature of the defendant?

A total waste of time, effort and public funds in prosecuting an offence that simply didn't exist. I take personal offence that such a fundamentally flawed, poorly prepared case has been pushed in the direction of the court. It's an insult. As if that's not bad enough, Robinson will undoubtedly now receive tens of thousands in compensation as a result of his unlawful arrest and detention.

This whole episode is absolutely cringeworthy.

Lucy Letby Appeal Hearing

The case of neonatal nurse Lucy Letby, who was convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder six more, will be considered by the Court of Appeal tomorrow.

Letby, 34, made two attempts on the life of one of the babies, so was convicted of seven counts of attempted murder.

She committed her crimes between June 2015 and June 2016, when she was working as a band 5 nurse on the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester Hospital, Chester.

Letby received a whole-life sentence for each of the fourteen counts she was convicted of.

Sentencing, The Hon. Mr Justice Goss, said: "This was a cruel, calculated and cynical campaign of child murder involving the smallest and most vulnerable of children, knowing that your actions were causing significant physical suffering and would cause untold mental suffering."

Letby has denied the crimes from the outset. At times during her ten month trial she sought to attribute blame to her colleagues and conditions on the unit.

The appeal hearing, before Lord Justice Holroyde, Lady Justice Sharp and Mrs Justice Lambert, is listed for 22nd, 23rd and 25th April 2024.

Caught Red-Handed: Door-to-Door Glove Sellers Had No Pedlar's Certificate

Two Teesside men have been convicted of selling gloves door-to-door without the required pedlar's certificate.

Jack Ford, 31, of Holmwood Avenue, Middlesbrough, and Scott McKenzie, 32, of Aire Street, Middlesbrough, were convicted of acting as a pedlar without a certificate at Carlisle Magistrates' Court on Friday, 19th April 2024.

It is an offence under section 4 of the Pedlars Act 1871 for anyone to act as a pedlar unless they hold a certificate authorising them to do so. The maximum penalty on summary conviction is a fine at level 1 (currently £200).

Although not a common offence, I have previously written a guide to the offence of acting as a pedlar without a certificate.

Neither defendant turned up for the hearing, so the Bench granted a prosecution application to proceed with the case in their absence. It is refreshing that the Crown had the foresight to serve all necessary documents on the defendants, as that is rarely to case in my experience.

Magistrates heard that Ford and McKenzie were selling gloves door-to-door in the Penrith area on the afternoon of Saturday, 7th October 2023.

George Shelley, prosecuting, said: "Police were called by a member of the public who lives in Stainton after a male had tried to sell items."

The pair were located after a quick search of the area. They confirmed to the officer that they had been selling gloves, but didn't have a pedlar's certificate.

According to Mr Shelley one of the defendants told the officer: "We don't peddle. We're just taking offers."

McKenzie told the officer: "You don't need a pedlar's licence around here. I've been here, like, 20 times. Everybody knows me. I'm on first name basis."

Magistrates found the case against both defendants proved.

They were each fined £60.

They were also each ordered to pay £24 surcharge and £85 towards prosecution costs.

Just Stop Oil Protestors Convicted of Aggravated Trespass for Sondheim Theatre Stunt

Five Just Stop Oil protestors have been convicted of aggravated trespass after storming the stage of a West End theatre production.

The five were convicted on Friday, 19th April 2024, following a two-day trial at Westminster Magistrates' Court. They are:

• Hannah Taylor, 23, of Dronfield Woodhouse, Derbyshire;
• Lydia Gribbin, 28, of Bristol;
• Hanan Ameur, 22 of Islington, London; 
• Noah Crane, 18, of Buxton, Norfolk;
• Poppy Bliss, 19, of Nottingham.

Gribbin and Crane were also convicted of criminal damage, after walking on top of the orchestra pit's protective netting.

The trial was presided over by District Judge Briony Clarke.

I have previously written guides on the offences of aggravated trespass and criminal damage.

The offences took place at the Sondheim Theatre, Shaftesbury Avenue, London, on the evening of Thursday, 5th October 2023.

At around 9 pm, just before the interval of the evening's performance of Les Misérables, the five rose from their seats, clambered onto the stage and refused to leave.

Once there they unfurled Just Stop Oil banners and started shouting campaign messages towards the packed auditorium. They were also accused of "locking on" to various items of stage furniture.

Members of the 1,000-strong audience could be heard shouting their disapproval at the protestors, who occupied the stage for around an hour. Several audience members filmed the incident.

The Sondheim had to refund around £60,000 worth of ticket sales when the performance was abandoned halfway through. Damage to the netting cost an additional £2,000. The court heard that these costs had been covered by the theatre's insurance.

A photograph of the five with the caption "Found Guilty; Still Defiant" has been published on Just Stop Oil's social media channels this evening.

As often happens in Just Stop Oil cases, the basis of their defence is not immediately apparent. Based on reports of the initial hearing, it would seem that the defendants were clutching at straws to come up with any sort of defence.

Many Just Stop Oil defendants just like having their day in court, because it affords another opportunity to spread the group's climate crisis message.

The five will be sentenced next month.