Money for his appeal may not help Tommy Robinson to do politics. So long as democratic voices speak out when judgment comes next week. 1/24
On 21 July, England’s Court of Appeal Criminal Division heard “Tommy Robinson’s” appeal. @Barristerblog covered the hearing well here barristerblogger.com/2018/07/21/a-b… 2/
Foreign funding meant Robinson could afford a senior experienced barrister. As a rule, they are focussed on winning the legal case - not their client’s wider political campaign. 3/
Senior barristers reach the top of their profession - and stay there - when they succeed in the ecology of law, courts, judges & fellow lawyers. 4/
But Robinson’s gains from law have depended on being law’s *loser*. His victim status depends on his convictions & most of all his prison terms. 5/
Robinson-in-prison is far-right’s best proof of the corruption & wickedness of the “establishment”. 6/
Cases like this can still use litigation to advance overall strategy. But this depends on the legal issues in the case & crucially *why* the law was broken. 7/
Robinson‘s law-breaking isn’t an attempt to *change* a law, or even a conscious act of protest. He’s no Pat Arrowsmith > theguardian.com/society/2008/a… 8/
It really seems Robinson breaks contempt law by mistake. Wishful thinking, recklessness, hubris. But he doesn’t understand why it happens. 9/
This fits Robinson’s character & presentation - and works for his politics. He uses anger to signal honesty and he uses victimhood to signal importance. An angry blameless white man victim is good for racists to rally round. 10/
So Robinson’s relationship to law is different from most “political” clients. He isn’t defiant of it, he isn’t openly indifferent - and he doesn’t want to change it. 11/
Robinson’s case isn’t set to change anything *legal*. Nothing says he’s asking to change interpretation of contempt law or approach to sentencing. 12/
Instead of challenging content of law, Robinson just asks for a fair hearing under it. 13/
Lord Chief Justice Burnett - is clever & cautious. He’s kept this case to his court to sort it out. 14/
So, whatever unfairness court does/nt find, its judgment will articulately affirm English courts powers to control reporting during trials & to impose strong punishments to protect fair trial. 15/
Appeal court can correct unfairness, so any sentence reduction will be based on Robinson’s pleas of ignorance, mistake and good faith. 16/
And if sentence is upheld, court will base that on conclusions that Robinson is a reckless trial-wrecker. 17/
Either way, court’s actual reasoning won’t help Robinson’s politics. If he’d had a far-right lawyer to argue a hopeless case purely for politics it might have been different. But the money got him good lawyers. 18/
What matters is how public understand the judgment. Fair & firm treatment under a law for a serious purpose? Or misuse of a bad law, perhaps for political ends? 19/
Robinson & white power allies Wilders, Hopkins, Bannon - maybe Trump - will make a media moment of judgment. Selectively misrepresent & spin into a world of “brave” “silenced” voices & hatred of Muslims. 19/
We can’t help that. But how many mainstream commentariat will rush to print, without first trying to understand law or its rationale? (As many did in the Alfie Evans case) 20/
Let’s not make mistake of thinking Robinson can be ignored. Govt & Lab leaders must speak up. Defend the laws they make in Parliament. Explain to voters why fair trial has these protections. 21/
Let’s not make mistake of debating reform of contempt law - for now. This would hand the far-right a gift they haven’t been able to express: “Tommy’s Law!” Now is not the time. 22/
Let’s call on Robinson & Co to be silent during trials. Respect juries & judges. Leave them to deliver justice to accused & victims. Complain *after*, if there’s a reason. 23/
Our laws & courts are far from perfect. But right now the problem is contempt for the rule of law - not the law of contempt. Let’s take this change to affirm the rule of law. We look set to need it. 24/24
