[ad_1]
The original judge never specified what exactly his “contempt of court” charge was, so there was no way TR could have indicated in some way whether he agreed to the charge or not. The lawyer who was supposedly representing TR at the time (not TR’s own lawyer, but one hastily appointed by the court) did not object to the vague charges, which the judge then treated as a “guilty admission.” Therefore, the judge (probably the same “window-peeking” judge who was watching TR from the street outside the courthouse) simply continued “as if” TR had agreed that he had committed a crime.
This is so abnormal.
23. In considering the appropriate penalty, the judge found that the appellant had admitted contempt of court. He continued: “This morning, as you stood outside this building, you were well aware that the jury in this case had retired and you were also well aware that because you mentioned this in the video, you were prohibited from making any comments…
Thus, if a person stood on the street reading the local newspaper, he would be considered in contempt of the nearby court. He would then be picked up from the street and immediately imprisoned.
Now we hear from Britain’s top lawyer, Lord Chief Justice Burnett…
28.
Even in cases where the court deems it necessary to hear the contempt case immediately, it is often wise to adjourn the hearing of the contempt case to a later date, sometimes before another judge, after the immediate issues have been resolved.
This avoids any problem of the judge sitting as judge in his own case. In most cases involving interference with the public judicial process, the judge will refer the matter to the Attorney General.
and….
64. In this case, the scope of the alleged contempt was never set out in detail, let alone in written submissions or to the appellant. There was some confusion for all who participated in the hearing as to the nature of the contempt under consideration, not only in the brief exchanges but also in the sentencing comments.
…It is not at all clear what part of the video the appellant, through his lawyer, accepted and which amounted to contempt of court.
The man peeking through the window seemed to have suddenly gone crazy and arrested TR simply because he was TR. The judge considered it “offensive” because he talked about religion and race in general terms.
However, in delivering his sentence the judge made special reference to the appellant’s general comments made during the broadcast regarding his views on the nature of the religious and racial crimes alleged in the case being heard.
There is no doubt that these remarks may at least constitute contempt of court, but They are not in any sense reports of the proceedings themselves..
So there you have it. The LCJ believes that TR has a right to express his views on the street outside the courthouse. Yes, folks, that’s called free speech. And whether the judge looking out the window agrees or disagrees with those views, or is offended, is completely irrelevant. If he believes that those views amount to “hate speech,” he should file a complaint with the police.
The most damning thing is that this incident should not have triggered the suspended sentence of “contempt of court” imposed by the Canterbury court a year ago…
65 But we think it is clear from the judge’s remarks that he is concerned with The offence convicted was that the comments made by the appellant could not be covered by the order under section 4(2).
We then saw a scam that resulted in TR being subjected to harsher prison conditions than he deserved, even though he was guilty of contempt of court. TR was treated like a criminal when in fact he had committed no crime.
We think Failure to comply with the requirements of Part 48 of the Rules is not merely a technical failure. In contempt proceedings, where the liberty of the parties is concerned, it is necessary to identify the contemptuous conduct in question accurately and to identify the conduct of the alleged contemnor with sufficient specificity so that he can, with the help of legal advice, respond to the nominal criminal charge. In this case, it was not at all clear what the appellant had admitted and what parts of the broadcast the judge held that he was guilty of contempt in relation to which Order 4(2) was violated.
When the court mistakenly classified TR as a criminal (deliberately?), prison staff were later forced to remove certain privileges that were granted to prisoners held for the lesser crime of “contempt of court.”
74. Therefore, classifying the appellant as a convicted prisoner meant depriving him of the following rights: to be visited by a doctor or dentist, to be free to choose what clothes to wear, to be free from restrictions on prison visits and to send and receive correspondence.
There are some very serious flaws here. This was a real miscalculation.
77. In summary, the contempt of court found in the Leeds case Must be abolished because:
(1) It would be inappropriate to immediately proceed with the alleged contempt of court on the court’s motion after immediate steps have been taken to remove the offending video from the Internet. An adjournment is necessary to allow the matter to proceed on a fully informed basis; in any case
(ii) failure to comply with section 48 of the Rules
There is no express statement, oral or written, that the conduct constitutes contempt
Violation of the existing section 4(2);
(iii) it is unclear what conduct constitutes a violation of the order,
The conduct for which the appellant was sentenced went beyond
the order;
(iv) The contempt proceedings were conducted too hastily, resulting in
Counsel was unable to provide appellant with adequate mitigation measures.
78. The finding of contempt must be quashed and all subsequent orders shall be void.
leave.
Therefore, even if the case is to be heard again later, if TR is found guilty of contempt of court “again”, all of the serious deficiencies listed above will have to be addressed. If it turns out (which seems likely) that he did not deserve such treatment, then he will be entitled to a large sum of damages.
[ad_2]
Source link
