Post

Nick Wallis

@nickwallis

Nov 25 • 59 tweets • 9 min read • Read on X

Hi and welcome to Westiminster Magistrates’ Court (in the sunshine) for the judgment in Rex vs Linehan. Comedy writer and sex realist campaigner Graham Linehan is accused of harassment and criminal damage.

Live tweet thread follows:

GL is present in court - he is waering a casual jacked a green top and light brown slacks. He has been invited to sit in court, not the dock.

J is sitting:
Mr Linehan you are obviously here for your judgment today - it’s going to be sent now to counsel. The judgment is 31 pages in total - some length - I have prepared a summary of that jusgment

which I am going to read out - so members of the press will be aware can be picked up from the

the summary is not part of the judgment

It’s important that I make it clear it’s not for the court to pick a side - there is a continuing to debate about sex, gender and identity - this court does not have to decide and is not doing so in this judgment

I have to listen to what is presented to me and apply the law.

In summary P referred to Brooks with female pronouns and D uses male

I will refer to C using gender neutral pronouns

11 Oct - 27 Oct 2024 - accused of harassment of Sophia Brooks in that he posted abusive comments about them on social media

2nd charge is crim damage of SB’s mobile phone - intending to destroy or damage or being reckless as to whether it would.

D agreed the posts were made and it is not discputed that D did throw the phone

In relation to the charge of harassment - D does not accept

D is of good character - it is not a defence, but it goes to his credibility and can count for him

Crown allege D's post were oppressive and unacceptable - C was not engaged with D when the posts began. D called C a groomer and incel. Several hours later outside BoI

C confronted D and D admits taking phone and throwing it

D says C was causing disruption at the BoI conference and was involved in releasing crickets at the LGBA conference. D asserts by taking the phone he was acting reasonably and disputes whether he damaged it.

J I heard from witnesses and watched video clips. I have concluded C was not giving entirely truthful evidence. D was a credible witness - "whilst firm in his views... he was not seeking to mislead the court"

P needed to prove harassment - that it met the criminal threshold. Not any course of conduct which causes alarm and distress is harassment. When considering what D ought to have known...

[sorry missed the end of that]
in relation to the charge of crim damage, P must prove the phone was damaged by D, that there was no lawful excuse, and was reckless as to damage
D did not harass C

[that looks like the most serious charge dismissed]

Whilst I am sure D's messages were deeply unpleasant, insulting and unnecessary - they were unattractive and annoying, but this is not criminal liability.
D NOT guilty of harassment.

Moving on to crim damage - D took C's phone, damage caused by D - this was credible evidence. D intentionally threw the phone, knew the risk, satisfied he was reckless. He was not using reasonably force to stop a crime.

Filming was only one part of the complaint. D complained of C following him. D could have walked away. he accepted he was angry said: "I guess it feels like surrender - that's why I threw it"
D has no lawful excuse - I find him guilty of this offence.

In summary I find D NOT guilty of harassment and GUILTY of crim damage.

[GL reacted with his eyebrows raised, arms folded moving slightly back and forth in his chair]

P counsel on her feet asking about damages - says damage was aggravated - J querying what she's asking for
P looking for "hostility" more than anger -
P turns to poss of restraining order on GL

J are you seeking a restraining order
P yes - inviting court to consider it - haven't taken instructions
J do you want to take instruction? Or just want me to consider it
P may not make a difference between application or invitation as court has to consider it first

P looking for £650 in costs - standard Mags court costs
P in terms in comp - £369 to rep damage to the phone
J okay
P court has got in the trial bundle the damage estimate being £369 - that's where I take the figure from

D counsel. - dealing with the last point first - no repairs were undertaken so there's no figure - we would like to see proof of costs incurred to C - it would, in my submission to be incorrect to make an order for comp

D as far as the s66 application is concerned it will perhaps come as no surprise that this is not a case to which the stat provision is properly addressed. "The insulting words used by GL did not relate to SB's trans identity. The related to SB's conduct as seen by GL as...

... explained in his evidence as "an abusive male". This was not a volley of insults addressed at the complainant uses [?] female name or female-coded clothing... or anything other than that"

"It is vital to take into account the context of this offence which involves at its heart the debate about gender identity, what it means, and it is important that those who are involved in the debate are allowed to use language that properly expresses their views without fear of excessive state interference."

"In respect of the RO, the invitation or app, whichever it is, is resisted. My sub on that point... three strands. First - since the threshold of harassment in the course of conduct... has not been cleared and in the circs of this case, the court should be slow to conc that the evidence before it...

... that that is sufficient to establish a risk of future harassment."

"GL is a journalist. His journalism centres heavily on the conduct of trans activists of which Ms Brooks is one. The background of this case involves provocative conduct by C and the raising of allegations in the service of... political point-scoring"

"The involvement of older more experienced trans activists in this case is important... the genesis of the harassment complaint can be found... with Lynsay Watson... and was adopted by C"

The CPS confirmed... that LW was involved in the high-profile arrest of GL as he entered the country on a separate matter. The relevance of this is that a RO would create the risk of handing to those who may be inclined to misuse the criminal justice process a "further weapon" to use against a high profile prize in future.

"As far as mitigation is confirmed the court heard from GL about his "perfectly awful" engagement in... a highly-important public debate. As the court fairly observed his views are "firm and firmly held" - they are both lawful and protected. The cost to him of his involvement have been enormous. The offence of which he has been convicted was, as you found, a momentary lapse of control. It was the culmination of circs where C's conduct - either in respect of GL or more widely could not be described as beyond reproach and was a failure on GL's part to take the kind of action that you set out in your judgment. The damage was minor, the process itself has been highly impactful on GL and maybe regarded by the court as a salutory lesson in terms of keeping his head should another situation so occur."

"Looking at the band of penalties appropriate to this... can be met by some form of discharge, reaching into if the court considers it proper, a Band A [something]"

J just going back to the compensation issue - are we agreed the position was C did not repair the damage
P compensation should be paid for personal injury, loss or damage resulting from...
J [looking at sentencing guidelines]

[whilst they are reading stuff - please note ONLY the "words in quotes" are direct quotes - everything else is a summary or characterisation of what is being said - Sarah Vine for D/GL is speaking v slowly, thank god]

P = prosecution
C = claimant Sophia Brooks (also SB)
D = defendant Graham Linehan (also GL)

J = judge, which I suspect you have worked out.

RO = restraining order

JFW - phone was not repaired. Is only a damage estimate, but the phone is still damaged so we believe it is a proper compensation application in the circs

[there are at least 8 journalists in court to report the conviction of a man for chucking someone's phone on the floor. By the way I've been told my application for documentation is unlikely to succeed as crim courts

prevent the release of documentation even when referred to in open court]

[both parties seem to agree on this, so whether the judge will even allow me to heard, I don't know]

J GL stand up pls - you are not guilty of H but you are guilty of crim damage on reckless basis, I am going to sentence you on this basis - this is Culp C or lesser culp - in terms of harm - it's Cat 2 and I therefore of a Band A fine with a discharge to a Band B fine

J at time of offence if you were hostile to that person being trans or perceived as trans I have to take that into account. I am not sure to the crim standard you demo'd hostility based on the person being trans

... so it's not going to aggravate the offence in this way. It was aggravated by C was not an adult when this offence was committed. You are a person of previously good character. I cannot give you credit for pleading guilty because you didn't. I fine you £500.

J moving onto compensation. The evidential picture seems to be that the phone had not been repaired. I appreciate C might choose to do so in due course, but I don't think it would be appropriate to make an order.
Court £650 costs and stat surcharge of £200

J re RO - in the circs of this case particularly acting in anger and finding of harassment, the test is not met so it would not be nec to make an order

[parties agreeing GL has 28 days to pay the total of £1350]

[SV is on her feet alking about my application - says they agree with CPS that I should not get docs - largely because they intend to appeal the conviction]

[I've just been invited to address the judge even though I don't technically have standing. I did so, just to put on the record that the story here, as far as I am concerned is how this case came to court in the first place.]

J has told me that as GL is likely to appeal, he may apply to the higher court once the hearing is over for me to see those Cris reports (which document the dealings between the complainant, his friends and the police)...

... for permission to release that documentation to me.

She asked me if there was anything else I wanted, and so I said the witness statements, but I understood I had no chance of those. She agreed - and said if it's any consolation even she doesn't get to see them.

[hearing ends]

I was able to report the Glinner trial and judgment purely on the basis of crowdfunded donations. If you feel what I’ve done has been useful and you haven’t already pls consider a one-off contribution to allow me to keep reporting going forward. Thanks! genderblog.net/donate/