Thread by @WeAreFairCop

It’s nearly judgment day.

Not sure yet what will happen but seems likely judgment will NOT be read out.

Therefore we hope to get a copy as soon as possible after 10.30am and will summarise and tweet.

See you here tomorrow!

#FairCopJR

Your designated tweeter now begins the long journey from Islington to the RCJ, as Frodo set off to Mordor. It’s quite hard to walk, staggering as I am under the weight of all this money I have been paid to do this, but onwards!

#FairCopJR

It’s a beautiful day and I am on top of the bus! #goodOmen #FairCopJR

One hour to go!

Sitting the in the public seats in Court 1. Some familiar? faces. Back row already full. #FairCopJR #FairCopJmt

Speaking to a trainee barrister Graham Smith - he thinks this case will be 'seminal' and it will 'go up'. He agrees it is 'concerning' the way speech is currently being regulated. #FairCopJR

Sharing row of seats with news agency - @SoniaPoulton is here. Looks like a lot of interest. Three rows of public seats now FULL. Others being turned away to hopefully go upstairs #FairCopJR

@SoniaPoulton We begin. Judge sets out background to case. Harry Miller strongly denies prejudice and is taking part in debate. The CoP is professional body to provide those working in police with skills and knowledge for effective policing.

@SoniaPoulton They publish Hate Crime Operational Guidance - HCOG. Any non crime incident perceived to be motivated by hostility or prejudice... must be recorded.

@SoniaPoulton Harry Miller reported by Ms B and they were recorded. She was the ONLY person to complain. Police visited and telephoned HM. I find the officer left MH with impression he might be prosecuted if he continued to tweet.

@SoniaPoulton Further communication from police warned of further action if 'escalation' - which was never defined.

@SoniaPoulton HM argues that HCOG is itself unlawful. And if lawful it nonetheless disproportionately breached HM rights. I conclude HCOG IS LAWFUL according to domestic law and Article 10. Draws on aftermath of Stephen Lawrence murder.

@SoniaPoulton BUT I also find the police interfered with the rights of HM in this case. Free speech includes the irritating, the contentious, the unwelcome and the provocative. The freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.

@SoniaPoulton HM TWEETS WERE LAWFUL

Police DID interfere with his Article 10 rights.

NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE OF HATE

@SoniaPoulton The police arguments do not adequately reflect the importance of free speech in a democratic society. Turnig up at his place of work undermines a cardinal freedom. We have never had a GESTAPO. We have never lived in ORWELLIAN SOCIETY

@SoniaPoulton Audience gasps and attempts applause.
BE QUIET! says Judge
This will be on judicial website imminently.

@SoniaPoulton Now argument on costs. HM wants ALL his costs - police have offered 50%.

@SoniaPoulton Whispers on the seats - this is powerful stuff.

@SoniaPoulton Judge - declaratory order that following actions by police in respect of Harry Miller, in combination, unlawfully interfered with HM's right to freedom of expression of Article 10(1) of ECHR.

@SoniaPoulton Unlawful actions - recording 31 tweets posted by HM on Twitter between Nov 2018 and Jan 2019 as 'non crime incident'.
Visit by PC Gal to HM place of work to speak to him about tweets
PC Gal warning HM that he might be prosecuted if escalated.
Twice in letters repeating

@SoniaPoulton Police directly or indirectly referred to risk of prosecution.

WHAT THE POLICE DID WAS UNLAWFUL

@SoniaPoulton The CoP say nothing about the declaratory order. They have no objection. Humberside object in relation to first criticism.

@SoniaPoulton Judge - I hear what you are saying. But nothing in my judgment detracts from the lawfulness of HCOG. First issue would not BY ITSELF lead to breach of Article 10. It is a combination of all four issues.

@SoniaPoulton Humberside continue to object. There is no basis in the judgment to say recording is unlawful.
JUDGE - I DO NOT SAY THAT. Hence why I used phrase 'in combination'. I specifically say that. the recording set the whole ball rolling.

@SoniaPoulton JUDGE - it is already clear in my judgment.
HUMBERSIDE - I seek permission to appeal in relation to any finding or the declaration that may be read that the guidance is unlawful.
JUDGE - this is covered.

@SoniaPoulton JUDGE asks Ian Wise QC to respond - he agrees it is absolutely clear. Policy is fine, recording is fine - its the combination of everything that happened after is UNLAWFUL.

@SoniaPoulton Ian Wise - expunging from the record is a way of re-writing history. Want police to amend and record their actions were unlawful.
HUMBERSIDE - WE STRONGLY OBJECT

@SoniaPoulton HUMBERSIDE - if the recording is not unlawful there is no basis to expunge it

JUDGE - agree. - to Ian Wise - The declaration gives you what you want.

@SoniaPoulton Ian Wise - we request that there is written reflection of what happened. That is entirely appropriate. Practical basis - crime records exist, checks could be made by those with no knowledge of these proceedings.

@SoniaPoulton JUDGE - what is shown on record made under HCOG.
Counsel doesn't know.
Humberside - cannot alter this to say recording is unlawful as your Lordship has said recording is NOT unlawful

@SoniaPoulton HUMBERSIDE - prepared to consider amendment to show that subsequent action was unlawful.

JUDGE - strong case to insert 'and the court then found...'

@SoniaPoulton <The Court Usher has a rainbow lanyard>

@SoniaPoulton JUDGE - consider making an order that the police amend record to show I have made a declaration in the terms I have. The neatest way.

Ian Wise - quite content with that.

@SoniaPoulton Humberside have 'less of an objection' but still object.

Judge happy to record mere recording by itself is not violation of Article 10 - police and CoP happy with this.

@SoniaPoulton We all agree that the record should be amended to include the declaration. This will be a mandatory order.

@SoniaPoulton No other arguments on relief. Now come to costs.

Now agreed re first defendant. HM will pay CoP costs.

Re second defendant i.e. Humberside, HM says he has wholly succeeded and is entitled to his costs.

@SoniaPoulton Humberside - HM has not been fully successful as court didn't find recording unlawful.

@SoniaPoulton Humberside agree to pay 50% of HM costs against THEM. <this is getting really tricky>

@SoniaPoulton Judge - but ALL the arguments in court were about the police actions! previously counsel attempted just to defend PC Gul's actions.

@SoniaPoulton Humberside valiantly battle on.

@SoniaPoulton Ian Wise QC responds - clear in judgment this is about the totality of the actions. In those circumstances HM victorious!

JUDGE - I AM WITH MR WISE. The reality is the battleground was the police actions and HM was successful there.

@SoniaPoulton Therefore exercising judicial discretion awards costs against Humberside.

@SoniaPoulton NOW PERMISSION TO APPEAL
Ian Wise has made written submissions.
Wish to leap frog to Supreme Court

JUDGE - lets just cut to the chase. Don't think my judgment is wrong <laughter>

@SoniaPoulton Does an appeal stand real prospect of success - no? BUT is there a compelling reason for appeal to be heard? That is the area we are in. Is this case sufficiently important?

I am granting permission to appeal - this should go straight to Court of Appeal at least.

@SoniaPoulton QUESTION - IS THIS CASE IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO GO STRAIGHT TO THE SUPREME COURT?

@SoniaPoulton Ian Wise - it is clear it requires exceptional circumstances - see Supreme Court guidance. That is obvious. We say we are in that territory. This is area of considerable public importance and SC has not considered social media and freedom of expression. This is important.

@SoniaPoulton Ian Wise - why go to the Supreme Court first and not the Appeal Court? That is the issue. We say - it will INEVITABLY go to the SC at some juncture in near future. There are incidents such as this on daily basis. Innumerable potential cases. 87K non crime incidents recorded.

@SoniaPoulton Therefore it is appropriate to leapfrog in this case. Much wider implications than just HM particular case.

@SoniaPoulton Cop - we don't just oppose the other side. We won't take unrealistic position. But realistically if it went to CA must be a chance it goes to SC anyway.

Judge - that is unknowable. Readily accept need for clarity and the importance of this case.

@SoniaPoulton Ian Wise - if you grant a certificate the SC will have to grant permission in any event. Appellant would make application and SC would consider it. They aren't bound by your decision. They could refuse.

@SoniaPoulton <this reads confusingly. I think what is being said that this Judge could say 'I think the SC should hear this' but they can still decline>

@SoniaPoulton JUDGE - we will have recital in order that there is agreement between HM and CoP that this is a suitable case for grant of certificate under section 12 AJA 1969 - recognising it is a matter for SC to grant permission. If they refuse I grant permission to go to Court of Appeal.

@SoniaPoulton SO WE ARE GOING TO APPEAL

Only question now is whether its Appeal Court or Supreme Court.

@SoniaPoulton Judge - it is very unusual thing to grant one of these certificates - seen leapfrog in Brexit and Pinochet case. These are very rare. Record in order I am being invited to do so.

@SoniaPoulton No other matters. Judge concludes
The summary I read out was for benefit of press. Judgment is very long and technical. But the judgment is the only authoritative explanation and you should bear that in mind.

@SoniaPoulton Judgment will be on the judicial website.

Ian Wise - can we send copy of your summary.
YES.

@SoniaPoulton HISTORIC DAY
View from the seats
'He's done a fantastic job'

See you in the Supreme Court!

Some screenshots you might like from the judgment - the conclusion.

Case in a nutshell

The basis of the ‘hate’

Ms B was VERY offended

She really was very, very offended

She was offended - but she wasn’t accurate

And PC Gul - for whatever reason - misrepresented the facts

1984 and Thought Police get a mention!

The substance of police unlawful action agaisnt Harry Miller

But the HCOG itself remains lawful

However - lawful guidance must be applied rationally!

It cannot be applied on a ‘whim’

We didn’t need the court to confirm this but he did - @Docstockk academic credentials are ‘impeccable’.

Some row back on ‘Terf’ as a slur but clear judicial recognition it’s not some harmless little acronym

Recognition of Jodie Ginsberg

We have never had a Gestapo or a Stasi ...

No legitimate comparison between what HM said and racist abuse

Doubts about Ms B as complaint

Ms B being upset did not justify breach of HM right to speak.

Historic day.
Important judgment.
Tide is turning.

Onwards to the Supreme Court!

Full judgment here

judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl…