Tommy Robinson was prosecuted for causing ANXIETY To “Alleged” Muslim Child Rapists. Does our judicial system treat Tommy differently?
Selective Prosecutorial Decision Making?
Tommy Robinson was prosecuted and imprisoned for a second time for the same offence back in July last year for contempt of court. The Conservative Attorney General decided it was in the public interest that he prosecute another case against Tommy, probably because Tommy won his appeal and the political and judicial elites needed to save some face.
Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Warby sent Tommy’s legal team the “judgement approved by the court for handing down” which provides a legal context for the decisions and judgements that were made culminating in him being found guilty of contempt of court.
“…the law insists that a defendant and witness, and indeed anyone else who has a duty to perform at court, whether in a criminal trial or in a civil trial, is entitled to go to and from the court, that is between his home and the court, whether on foot or otherwise, without being molested or assaulted or threatened with molestation.
There are two reasons for that, it seems to this court. The first is, there must be nothing to create in the minds of such persons any fear such as to make them less likely to wish to come to court to carry out their proper functions. The second reason, which is perhaps more difficult to put adequately into words is this: that the authority of and dignity of the court require that those who attend the court to carry out their duties should be allowed to do so without let or hindrance, and again without fear of molestation.”
The “judgement approved by the court for handing down” also noted that defendants should not be “harassed”, the legal papers cite several words including “ANXIETY”. The reasons for a justifiable prosecution are as plain as the day is light, Tommy Robinson “harassed and distracted” the now-convicted Muslim child rapists.
Tommy Robinson caused the now-convicted Muslim child rapists “ANXIETY” making them “fearful”. Defendants should be able to travel to and from court without fear of MOLESTATION. That’s precisely what the Attorney General levelled against Tommy during the court hearing as is evidenced below.
According to our sources, the above video relates to yet another predominantly Muslim child-raping gang. The defendants appeared at Bradford Crown Court. One of the “alleged” offenders is Police Constable Amjad Ditta; he is also known as Amjad Hussain. You can read more about him HERE and HERE.
If you want to read a more “in-depth” analysis of the legal reasoning used to protect Muslim child-raping monsters from ANXIETY – click HERE.
In the video at the top of this page you can clearly see and hear some of the “alleged” child rapists facing a barrage of hostile name-calling from an understandably angry crowd of people. Unfortunately, we are in a position where cases like this are all too commonplace, its a justified anger, its a justified hostility.
To be clear, we do not want anyone who vents their frustration and their anger at “alleged” Muslim child-raping monsters to be prosecuted. However, the obvious question remains. If Tommy was prosecuted and found guilty of causing “ANXIETY” to child-raping Muslims for merely asking questions (without shouting abuse or profanities), then there is an evidentiary basis to conclude a “selective” prosecutorial enforcement.
A selective prosecutorial enforcement that only applies to Tommy Robinson.