Tommy Robinson being imprisoned for reporting on Muslim child rapists may have woken some journalists from their slumber. Is the judicial system protecting Muslim rapists?
Restricting The Truth
Journalism has come under fire; the latest case and conviction of Tommy Robinson perfectly highlights this issue. For those few journalists who want to report the news rather than create the news now seem to understand that reality. We have come to learn that certain individuals in certain cases who happen to belong to a certain religious demographic are offered special legal protections. But how and why?
TR.News recently highlighted the fact that a young ISIS organiser, tried and convicted at Manchester Crown Court, had been given legal protection by the woman who found Tommy Robinson guilty. Dame Victoria Sharp ruled that the Press could not name the young ISIS organiser, that his identity would be legally protected from public exposure even though he has now turned 18 years of age. This means from a legal standpoint, although he is now an adult and a convicted organiser of terrorism, the judicial system has decided to “protect him”.
You can find that article HERE.
Confronting The Charge Of Conspiracy Theory
It appears to be far more common than people believe. When those of us try to report the truth or research into wrongdoings, we can, and often are, labelled as “conspiracy theorists” or “racially motivated”. Those labels are intentional because they deliberately reduce the impact of reporting the truth.
Tommy has said for some time now that courts are making it more and more difficult to report on Muslim child-rape gangs. Judges are placing reporting restrictions on many cases, and Tommy believes this is an intentional way of hiding the truth from the general public, especially when there is a “public interest”.
Fighting Reporting Restrictions
A recent case involving more alleged Rotherham child rapists had the presiding judge rule on protecting defendants anonymity during the trial. Adele Forrest (deputy news editor of the Rotherham Advertiser) went to court to argue against the reporting restrictions because they were unlawful. Adele won the argument when she made her case saying:
“Not only were the restrictions involving four of the defendants made while the judge was sitting in chambers (in private), the Press were not given advanced notice of them or invited to challenge them, despite myself and another reporter being sat outside the courtroom.
I not only believed the manner in which they had been made was unlawful but I also believed correctly that the grounds on which they had been granted for two of the defendants were invalid.”
Judge Slater presiding over the case invited Adele to address the court, she pointed out rule 16.2(3) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2013 which states a court should not impose a restriction unless each party and any other person directly affected — including the media — was present or had been given the opportunity to make representations.
Judge Slater considered Adele’s argument against the reporting restriction. After being given “updated information” about two of the defendants who were granted anonymity it was found that the information he received about them had been “inaccurate”.
Overturning Reporting Restrictions
Judge Slater overturned his decision to protect the identities of two of the men involved and that he initially ordered the restrictions due to sensitivities concerning the case.
The question that needs to asking is what “inaccurate” information was the judge given in the first place which led him to protect the identities of the defendants?
Adele went on to say:
“Not being allowed in court to hear defence counsels’ arguments for applying for the restrictions meant we were on the back foot.
If I had not been present in court for those first two days, the trial would have opened with two restrictions made due to inaccurate information.”
If journalists are not allowed in court to hear the reasoning behind the defence’s case for anonymity, how can it ever be challenged? How many times has this “procedural error” protected the identities of those accused of gang-raping young children?
Hopefully, journalists will learn from this, do their job, and “press” the courts on reporting restrictions because it seems, at least on its face, this is but one example of procedural skulduggery. Who does that benefit?
You can find the original article HERE.