Joey Barton Charged

Not the place to be discussing tommy Robinson , this thread will only end in arguments.

Think Rovers position on such a situation has been pretty consistent over the years. We may well employ someone with a previous criminal conviction provided the candidate has been completely honest (I.e. not kept any conviction secret), but it is a breach of contract and instant dismissal if a conviction is warranted whilst an employee of the club. An arrest doesn’t necessarily mean a conviction so it is whether the club itself considers there is a case to answer as to whether they stand by or cut loose their employee...so, for example, they may dismiss someone charged on a drugs offence if they have knowledge of the act taking place on their premises or caught on their cctv, they may continue to support their employee if they have no knowledge themselves as to the culpability of the employee. In the latter case it would be the court verdict determining the dismissal action. I imagine Fleetwood don’t want to hang their manager out to dry by dismissing him prior to the court case.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/tommy-robinson-sentencing-prison-jail-hearing-years-grooming-contempt-court-a8999366.html

All of us are subject to the law of the land. That law includes the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which makes clear that nothing about an “active” criminal case can be published, if it “creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced”.

This is the general rule and it applies to all stages of a criminal case from the moment a suspect is even arrested. Generally, the law does not prevent reporting events from inside the courtroom, provided that it amounts to a “fair and accurate report of legal proceedings held in public, published contemporaneously and in good faith.”



However, there are many cases where publication, even of the proceedings in court, may create a risk of prejudice, either to the case being tried or to a future trial. In such cases, the trial judge has the power to make an order under s.4(2) of the Act, postponing the reporting of any part of the trial, for a long as necessary, to eliminate that risk as far as possible. The maximum sentence for contempt of court is two years in prison.

In the case of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka “Tommy Robinson”), there was a s.4(2) order in place preventing the publication of details of “Trial 1” (a public grooming trial) whilst further linked trials remained in the pipeline and, crucially, before the jury had returned its verdicts.



Ignoring that order completely, Yaxley-Lennon streamed full details of the defendants in the trial via Facebook Live, published a video “encouraging his followers to harass the defendants”, and “photographed and intimidated” them as they entered court.

There are further protections of those attending court buildings, preventing behaviour which might otherwise interfere with justice or disrupt proceedings. Everyone attending a criminal court has the fundamental right to do safely and peacefully.



The judge’s power to postpone reporting is used most often when the court is dealing with a series of trials, whether of the same defendant(s), or arising out of the same police investigation.

The purpose of the order is to ensure that the jury, either in the ongoing trial or some future trial, does not hear evidence, via the traditional media or online, which may be inadmissible or otherwise prejudicial to the trial process.



In my 26 years of practice in the criminal courts, I cannot recall a more blatant, serious or disruptive contempt of court, by publication, than that carried out by Yaxley-Lennon in this case. It is clear from the sentence handed out to him of nine months (although he will be committed in prison for 19 weeks and will serve up to one half of that period) that the court felt the same way.

It is fundamental to the fairness of every criminal trial that the jury’s verdict is based on what jurors hear in the courtroom, under the watchful eye and legal control of the judge, and not on anything they have heard elsewhere. Every jury is now directed in strong terms, under threat of imprisonment, not to search for information about the case online and to disregard anything they may inadvertently see in the press, or on television.


Professional journalists are well aware of the restrictions to prevent contempt of court, and are generally assiduous in ensuring that they abide by orders of the court. They are wise to do so, if they want to remain in long-term employment, as the offence is one of strict liability, meaning that a journalist (and their employer) is criminally liable for publishing seriously prejudicial material, even if there was no intent to do so.



There have been many cases, in recent years, of contempt by social media users, but none so provocative, deliberate and widely publicised as that of Yaxley-Lennon in the Leeds Crown Court case.

What seems to have failed to strike home with Yaxley-Lennon’s vocal band of supporters, in particular on social media, is that the whole point of reporting restrictions is to protect the integrity of the trial process for everyone. Yes, it is about ensuring a fair trial for the defendants but, equally, the sort of prejudicial conduct, engaged in by Yaxley-Lennon, can lead to the collapse of some very serious cases.

The consequences of such a development always fall most heavily on the victims, who may have to endure the experience of giving evidence all over again, at a retrial, or, worst of all, may see the charges dropped altogether, allowing their abusers to go free. And all because an attention-seeking agitator, with a webcam and a big mouth, decides that the law does not apply to him.



Yaxley-Lennon was convicted by Mr Justice Warby, a senior High Court Judge, and the newly appointed President of the Queen’s Bench Division, Dame Victoria Sharp, one of the most senior judges of the Court of Appeal. They found that his behaviour “amounted to a serious interference with the administration of justice”, including his “aggressive confronting and filming of the defendants”.



Chris Daw QC is a barrister who specialises in serious and complex criminal cases

The whole of the parliament/ MSM and esp Labour Councilors stayed very quiet about gang rapes, You all created Tommy Robinson because you stayed quiet, no good moaning about him now, is it ?

But the BBC in this case were reporting on a court case.

Are you saying they lied about it?

moved.

Horrible c***.

Should be held to account as any other normal member of the public or football fan would. Stadium ban and as this isn’t his first violent offence for me he should serve a long time behind bars.