Day one of Tommy’s Contempt Of Court charge has thrown up a MASSIVE legal question. Prosecutor Andrew Caldecott QC accused Tommy of SUBJECTIVE RECKLESSNESS.
Attorney General Geoffrey Cox QC saw fit to bring charges against Tommy again, the first round of political persecution failed miserably, not of course without a cost. Tommy already served pretty much three months in solitary confinement and came out of prison a different man; he now needs medication to control mental health issues.
Tommy talks about those issues HERE.
Of course, this was not the first time Tommy spent time in solitary confinement. The government have used lawfare and the prison system in an attempt to crush Tommy for some time now. Back in January 2013, Tommy’s then barrister Charles Sherrard QC said he spent a full ten months in solitary confinement at four different prisons “for his safety”.
Solitary confinement is not so good for a person’s mental health, especially for prolonged periods. In 2015 the Prison Reform Trust revealed that:
Segregation units and close supervision centres (CSCs) entail social isolation, inactivity, and increased control of prisoners – a combination proven to harm mental health and wellbeing.
You can find more about that report HERE.
Lord Woolf, Chair of the Prison Reform Trust and a former Lord Chief Justice, said:
“The complexity of segregation brings many challenges to already beleaguered prison staff and prisoners who for whatever reason, cannot manage or be managed in, the main body of an establishment. Segregation, though it may sometimes be necessary, must not be prolonged or indefinite.
Well, we suppose it’s about how “prolonged” is defined, is it a day, a week, a month, three months, ten months?
The report also found that in January of 2015, of all the segregated prisoners within the prison system:
71% spent less than 14 days in segregation, 20% spent between 14 and 42 days, and 9% were segregated for longer than 84 days.
Tommy Robinson is a nine percenter!
Andrew Caldecott QC – the man representing Attorney General Geoffrey Cox QC – said (referring to Tommy):
“He was at court, he could have ascertained its terms with ease, either on the day or earlier, and it was a wholly unreasonable risk to speculate as to what the terms were, or might be, and that subjective recklessness is enough.
“Even if he did not know for certain the terms of the order he knew the existence of such an order was likely and again was subjectively reckless.”
The tabloid-trash papers pounced on the “SUBJECTIVELY RECKLESS” angle like vultures drawn to a rotting carcass. A new strategy emerged, the government angle for the prosecution is now defined.
So what is SUBJECTIVE RECKLESSNESS?
From a legal standpoint, it is that a defendant must be aware that a risk exists or will exist, or that result will occur or that there is a risk that it will and, in the circumstances known to the defendant, they unreasonably go on to take the risk.
You can read more about that HERE.
The SUBJECTIVE RECKLESSNESS angle simply put, means that Tommy MUST forsee a risk or a result and then proceed to go on and take the risk anyway.
Let’s hope the Judges see sense as Tommy laid out a compelling case in his defence.