THE JUDGE who jailed Tommy Robinson for 13 months admitted he watched little of Robinson’s Facebook live stream that was used as evidence that Robinson was in “contempt of court.”
According to Robinson’s producer Caolan Robertson, who was in court during Robinson’s sentencing, Judge Geoffrey Marson QC admitted that he barely watched Robinson’s livestream, despite it being the reason he was arrested.
“The number one most significant thing that actually caused a little bit of a gasp in the courtroom from a couple members of the press was when the judge actually admitted that he hadn’t watched the full livestream of Tommy talking,” Robertson said on the Alex Jones Show on Tuesday. “He only watched a very, very brief moment of it before he made up his mind [to imprison Tommy.]”
In contrast, during the arrest, the police told Robinson he was “creating a breach of peace” based on “the content of what you’re streaming:”
In other words, the content the judge never bothered to watch.
It seems that Judge Marson didn’t base his decision to imprison Robinson exclusively on the evidence presented.
Additionally, Robinson and his film crew were reporting outside the courthouse where the Muslim grooming trial was almost over, and, according to Robertson, they were careful to only report on facts of the case which were already public given that Robinson was previously accused of committing contempt last year.
Interestingly, RT reported on this before the outlet scrubbed its article due to the judge’s gag order against press covering the arrest – meaning that this simple fact was kept hidden from the public:
RT spoke to Robinson’s producer, Caolan Robertson, about the confrontation outside of Leeds Crown Court and Robinson’s subsequent arrest.
“Their case has been going on for about a year,” Robertson said. “Tommy had all the publicly available information… and on that live stream he repeated the information that was already public. We were very careful with language [as to not risk being held in contempt of court].”
The judge imprisoned Robinson under the assumption that his reporting would cause a mistrial by influencing jury opinion. But since Robinson was reporting on publically available facts – and thus facts already available to the jury – how could this be accurate?
And to declare a mistrial, a judge would have to look at what information had been leaked and whether it could have reasonably swayed the opinion of a jury.
Since Judge Marson admitted he had never bothered to look into the content of Robinson’s livestream, how could he know that Robinson’s reporting was evidence of jury tampering?
And if Judge Marson wanted to keep a public attention away from the trial, he completely screwed that up by fueling an international news story with his arrest of Robinson and his sequential gag order against press coverage.
Judge Marson helped Robinson by shining a supernova of a spotlight on the trial which Robinson couldn’t have done alone; in short, Judge Marson created a Streisand Effect.
Judge Marson’s very own tactics have contributed to the alleged harm he claims Robinson has done by merely reporting on the trial, and despite claiming he’s defending the due process of those accused at the trial, Judge Marson seems to have actually violated the due process of Robinson.