The Tommy Robinson Arrest — What Americans Need To Understand

VennerRoad By VennerRoad, 31st May 2018 | Follow this author | RSS Feed
Posted in Wikinut>News>Politics

The recent arrest of the well-known firebrand Tommy Robinson and the summary justice meted out to him has caused outrage on both sides of the Atlantic.

The Tommy Robinson Arrest — What Americans Need To Understand

This outrage is justified in the United States, but only because most Americans appear to believe contempt of court is a trivial matter, or even one of no consequence.

Robinson was arrested outside Leeds Crown Court where an alleged grooming gang was on trial. The grooming of underage white girls and the terrible sexual abuse suffered by some of the victims is one of the great scandals of this politically correct age, but so are false convictions due to cases being tried in the court of public opinion, sometimes before charges are laid. This can and does happen on both sides of the Atlantic. In November last year, the Court of Appeal quashed one of the convictions of veteran entertainer Rolf Harris when one of his accusers was shown to be a fantasist. Many of those who have studied it have concluded that the whole case against him was contrived. Stateside, Bill Cosby was recently convicted of three offences against one of his many accusers, Andrea Constand. This was due to years of allegations in the media that he was a serial rapist. Although many of the other allegations against him were proven false, they continued and indeed continue to be parroted to this day.

Tommy Robinson’s supporters claim that his actions outside the court did not prejudice the trial of the defendants, and that his arrest ostensibly for breaching the peace, and what followed, was an over-the-top action of an increasingly repressive police state. Before considering that further, let us go back in time to 2012 and then to 1984. The contrast between these other cases to be discussed will help American readers understand the position of the judge who sentenced Robinson to 13 months behind bars.

On September 19, 2012, the 14 year old Cassidy Goodson gave birth secretly to a baby boy at her Florida home. And strangled him. She was arrested three days later. This was as shocking and horrible a crime as any child has ever committed, and Sheriff Grady Judd was intent on letting the world know. On September 28, the Polk County Sheriff’s Office uploaded an eight minute plus soliloquy to YouTube in which Judd referred openly to Goodson as a murderess. In the UK, any lawman who did that would be sacked summarily, would lose his pension, and would find himself behind bars shortly, because Judd’s words were as egregious an example of prejudicing a defendant’s case before it was heard as could be imagined.

Indeed, in 1945, the Editor of the Daily Mirror received a three month prison sentence for contempt after declaring murder suspect John George Haigh responsible for other murders. Haigh, who has become known as the acid bath murderer, was shortly hanged for the murder of the elderly Mrs Olive Durand-Deacon. While Haigh ran an unsuccesful insanity defence, rightly or wrongly Cassidy Goodson was sentenced to a mere 18 months.

In December 1984, Anthony Smith was stabbed to death in North London by Winston Silcott. After a judge in chambers application, Silcott was granted bail. He stood trial for murder, was convicted, and given the mandatory life sentence. A total ban was ordered not only during the trial but after his conviction. Most American readers will not understand why, but UK readers of a certain vintage will. In March 1987, Silcott was one of three people convicted of the notorious October 1985 murder of police officer Keith Blakelock, whose head was nearly hacked off during a riot at the Broadwater Farm Estate. The authorities went to these extreme lengths to ensure Silcott received a fair trial. His conviction and those of his co-defendants would eventually be overturned when it was revealed that the police had fabricated evidence. Silcott is a particularly distinctive individual due to his height, and it should have been apparent that he had not been at the crime scene, the riot being intensively photographed by the police.

The point of mentioning all the above is that at this time, we, the public, do not know what has been going on behind the scenes. Were any of those on trial at Leeds to face further charges, for example? However bland Robinson’s reporting may have been, his words were sure to have been magnified by his followers and supporters.

Although the thirteen month sentence he was handed sounds harsh, he was in breach of a suspended sentence, and it may be that the judge orders his release when he believes Robinson has learned his lesson; that has happened in contempt of court cases before. This does not mean there is no perversion of the rule of law in Britain, there most definitely is: Unexplained Wealth Orders are only the latest such monstrosity, but no one should be tempted to make a martyr out of Tommy Robinson, even if he has the best of intentions, a claim that is at best doubtful.


Cassidy Goodson, Contempt Of Court, Murder, Police State, Tommy Robinson, Winston Silcott

Meet the author

author avatar VennerRoad
Independent researcher based in South East London.

Share this page

moderator Peter B. Giblett moderated this page.
If you have any complaints about this content, please let us know


author avatar Mr B J Mann
23rd Jul 2018 (#)

"The point of mentioning all the above is that at this time, we, the public, do not know what has been going on behind the scenes. Were any of those on trial at Leeds to face further charges, for example?"


The correct solution to that problem is a restriction on reporting the names of (only) the affected defendants.

Reporting restrictions are only supposed to be imposed where there is significant and substantial risk of prejudice, and then only as a last resort, bearing in mind that widespread and immediate reporting is the main safeguard for fair trials.

And in the case of linked trials the judge is supposed to assume the jury will forget what they've read about the previous trial.

And if they won't, for some reason, the judge is supposed to assume they will follow the next trial's judge's instuctions to ignore anything they've heard outside of court.

Unfortunately the MSM, barristers, and especially judges, ignore all that!

Reply to this comment

Add a comment
Can't login?