Will be posting live from court this morning where the trial of @PSCupdates & @STWuk continues in front of District Judge Daniel Sternberg who cleared Tommy Robinson of breaching a dispersal order at a London anti-antisemitism march in April 2024, as reported by BBC News. THREAD
There are far more police irregularities in this case, so let’s see if he again rules ‘no case to answer’.
Mark Summers for the defence argues Judge should dismiss case as an unlawful prosecution. Has only 15 to make case. Cites case law to show Judge has the responsibility to deal with public law. Higher Courts have ruled these regulations unlawful.
Judge must say that the Court of Appeal has already struck down these regulations. Summers says serious disruption is not to be applied to minor issues. Court of Appeal decided to amended regs. ‘More than minor’ disruption was applied in this case and this had been struck down.
Commander Slonecki of the Met did not avoid this trap. He applied the wrong definition of disruption which had been struck down by the High Court.
Applied BBC exclusion zone based on the wrong definition of disruption.
Summers says Crown are now saying that the judge must apply the right conditions retrospectively. Says this makes a nonsense of public law. You can’t be convicted of laws other than those applied at the time.
Cumulative disruption is not just a ‘common sense’ regulation as Crown says. That’s why it had to be included in primary legislation.
Previous law says you cannot aggregate protests in order to rule them illegal.
Summers cites previous cases. Police did not have the power to do this under primary legislation. Regulations gave them this power. But these were struck down as illegal by Court of Appeal.
Government have tried to re-introduce these powers, which shows that they did not exist previously and are not a matter of ‘common sense’.
Summers says Crown says ignore all that, Slonecki didn’t need to take the human rights of the protestors into account at all. Summers shows this is not consistent with legal precedent.
There can be no conviction on the basis of laws that were in force at the time. Slonecki did not do this. He should never have taken abortion clinic exclusion zones and applied in this case.
*weren’t
Crown prosecution now asking for 10 min break to look at new material.
Crown now replying. Says that case law shows that if there is ‘reasonable belief’ by a senior police officer a ban should be imposed that is enough.
Crown: that’s it. Reasonable belief for a ban by the police is enough. Crown says that there was reasonable belief and there was overwhelming evidence that it was the case.
Crown now just relying on police testimony to prove that there was evidence that he needed to impose to ban.
The whole prosecution case now relies completely on the police opinion and on material provided by Zionist lobby groups.
Crown tries to dismiss previous case law. Says police did evaluate that there would be serious disruption, and that this was more than minor, so law stands.
Crown is now out of time. Very poor reply, let’s see what the judge has to say.
Summers responds. Says Crown is arguing that public law is irrelevant and so only factual arguments, not legally enshrined human rights.
Summers to judge: if you are prepared to follow the Crown in dismissing human rights all I can say is bon voyage and I’ll see you in the High Court.
Judge dismisses the ‘no case to answer’ in few sentences, noting that he is not obliged to give his reasons.
Summers now refers evidence already moved. Summers says he will move directly to final speeches because the Crown case is ‘hopeless’. Will not call defence witnesses. Court rises until 2pm
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
