Tommy LOSES court case. __Thread Moved to GD__

[Brigade77]

AIUI Tommy was 'briefed' on this pupils past behaviour by a whistleblower teacher at the school, who for reasons unknown does not want to give evidence in court.

Tommy cannot prove his allegations in a way that will satisfy the court. this does not mean that they never happened !

This isn't over yet. There's a reason why Tommy represented himself on this occasion.

 

[fillyboy]

There's a reason why Tommy represented himself on this occasion.

And commended by the Judge for the way he handled his case I believe.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds it curious.

 

[JohnD]

Maybe a legal eagle could give us their opinion.

Better still, a highly trained and experienced judge could examine all the evidence in court, and hand down a verdict.

Well!

Upon my soul!

That's exactly what happened!

Who could have thought it?

The Court’s decision on the defence of truth

10. The Court found that the Defendant had failed to prove each of the seven incidents
upon which he had relied for his defence of truth [55]-[148]. In consequence, the
Defendant’s defence of truth failed.
“The Defendant took on the burden of proving his allegations to be true. He failed. In reality…
his evidence fell woefully short.” [163]

 

[Vinty]

Tommy should have been reminded of the old saying which goes..
"Any man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client".

 

[fillyboy]

Tommy should have been reminded of the old saying which goes..
"Any man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client".

I doubt legal aid was an option. The 'Claimants' had no worries about funding for their profitable little venture.

Rumour has it they will be filing a claim against the school next. $$$$$$$$

 

[ironsidebod]

Blimey, is this thread a micro study of the effects of lead solder and flux fumes on the thought patterns of plumbers?

 

[fillyboy]

Your legal questions answered, by Tommy Robinson | The Daily Mash

TOMMY Robinson is in the **** again after losing a libel case against a bullied Syrian teenager. Class. With his extensive knowledge of English law, here he answers your legal questions.

Dear Tommy, my neighbour’s leylandii are blocking the light to our new conservatory. What legal recourse do I have? Yours, Hugh

Kick the f**ker’s head in. The law can’t touch you for that. If he’s one of ‘them’ or a leftie me and a couple of the lads can pop round and intimidate him while pretending to be ‘journalists’.

Dear Tommy, I have badly libelled someone with strong racist overtones. What should I do? Susan

Susan, I’m assuming you have a legion of gullible followers who will send you money. Just start a crowdfunding whip round and you might even make a profit.

Dear Tommy, I wish to change my name. Do I need to see a solicitor? Yours, Iain Horseanus

I speak from experience here, Iain, and no, it costs just £42.44. I’d go for something working class-sounding, like ‘Robinson’ or ‘Tommy’. Basically anything that will prevent you being called a poof by your football hooligan mates.

Dear Tommy, I kicked a police officer in the head during a ‘domestic’, started a mass brawl, and put in fraudulent mortgage applications. What should I do? Graham

Sorry Gra, that’s completely outside my sphere of expertise.

Dear Tommy, I bought a strimmer from a friend for £20. It broke after its first use and now he refuses to give me my money back. Should I go to the small claims court, or should I write it off for the sake of our friendship? Paul

Paul, you need a strimmer because otherwise the ‘weeds’ will take over ‘the garden’. I think you know what I’m saying here.

Dear Tommy, after a variety of convictions the courts have lost patience with me and I’m headed for clinky. Do you have any advice? Davo

As a top legal advisor, almost a barrister, I’d suggest: go for the veggie food option in prison – you get bigger portions and the meat sausages will make you want to barf. Also watch your back in the showers and sleep with a sharpened toothbrush under your pillow.

 

[Captain Nemesis]

(4) The Claimant’s alleged possession of a screwdriver and/or a knife 85. The Defendant has advanced this allegation solely on the basis of an entry in the minutes of a meeting at the School, on 9 November 2018. During the meeting, the Claimant’s father complained of several incidents of bullying against his son. The minutes recorded the following words attributed by the Claimant’s father in the meeting: “Jamal was told to go to the House Office to check he had anything sharp in his bag. A knife and a screwdriver were found. Jamal said they were not his. School did not take any precautions.” 86. In their evidence, both the Claimant and his father explained what had happened. The Claimant said that, at the end of a PE lesson, he found a small silver screwdriver in his bag. It was not his, and he believed that it had been put there by someone else. He reported what he had found to his head of house, who had told him not to worry and that it would be sorted out. The Claimant took the screwdriver home and showed it to his father, telling him what happened. Jamal said that his head of house later told him that he had identified the person involved and had punished him. He did not tell the Claimant who it was. The Claimant’s father had raised the issue at the meeting because he was concerned that the screwdriver had not been confiscated by the School and that the Claimant had been allowed to keep it and bring it home. Cross-examined by the Defendant, the Claimant’s father was adamant that there was only a screwdriver; there was no knife

Cant believe that you still want to go there.

Here is the entire section dealing with that claim by the defendent. Ive highlighted a few important parts:

(4) The Claimant’s alleged possession of a screwdriver and/or a knife


85. The Defendant has advanced this allegation solely on the basis of an entry in the minutes of a meeting at the School, on 9 November 2018. During the meeting, the Claimant’s father complained of several incidents of bullying against his son. The minutes recorded the following words attributed by the Claimant’s father in the meeting:

“Jamal was told to go to the House Office to check he had anything sharp in his bag. A knife and a screwdriver were found. Jamal said they were not his. School did not take any precautions.” ​

86. In their evidence, both the Claimant and his father explained what had happened. The Claimant said that, at the end of a PE lesson, he found a small silver screwdriver in his bag. It was not his, and he believed that it had been put there by someone else. He reported what he had found to his head of house, who had told him not to worry and that it would be sorted out. The Claimant took the screwdriver home and showed it to his father, telling him what happened. Jamal said that his head of house later told him that he had identified the person involved and had punished him. He did not tell the Claimant who it was. The Claimant’s father had raised the issue at the meeting because he was concerned that the screwdriver had not been confiscated by the School and that the Claimant had been allowed to keep it and bring it home. Cross-examined by the Defendant, the Claimant’s father was adamant that there was only a screwdriver; there was no knife.


87. Neither the Claimant nor his father could explain why the minutes referred also to a knife as well as a screwdriver. Some confusion may have arisen because, in advance of the meeting, the Claimant’s father had written notes expressing his concerns. Those notes were in Arabic, and Mr Hijazi had used an interpreter during the meeting. Neither the Claimant nor his father had confirmed the accuracy of the minutes, which had been prepared by someone else and not seen by either of them at the time.


88. I accept the evidence of the Claimant and his father. There is no reliable evidence to suggest that the Claimant ever had a knife in his possession at school. The minutes appear to have inaccurately recorded Mr Hijazi’s expressed concerns. In any event, the discovery of the screwdriver was immediately reported by the Claimant to his head of house. It is likely that the matter was resolved as reported by the Claimant. Certainly, if any member of staff had considered that the screwdriver had been the Claimant’s, potentially to be used by him offensively, then that would have been a very serious disciplinary matter, perhaps even requiring the involvement of the police. At the very least, I am confident that the discovery of the Claimant in possession of one or more (potentially) offensive weapons would have been recorded in the Claimant’s school records.


89. Moreover, the likelihood of the Claimant reporting discovery of the screwdriver to his head of house if, in fact, the item was his, is so remote, it can be discounted. Equally, reporting the incident to his parents is not a step the Claimant would have taken if the screwdriver was his. Stepping back, the Defendant is seeking to demonstrate, as a matter of fact, the Claimant had gone to school equipped with a screwdriver and a knife, based solely on minutes of a meeting. I do not know who completed these minutes, when and based on what records. Against that, I have the sworn evidence of two individuals with direct knowledge of the events. I accept their evidence.


90. For the reasons stated, I have rejected the ‘propensity evidence’ relied upon by the Defendant.


You, who was not there, are free, of course, to decide that evidence given under oath was false, and to pick and choose which of it to believe according to your pre judice opinion.

You, who was not there, are free, of course, to allege that the trial was not fair.

You, who was not there, are free, of course, to think the decision "curious" because in your "reading" of the evidence there was no case to answer.

But what you are absolutely not free to do is to write this regarding the judgement of the court:

It does seem to back up the assertion that young Hijhazi was ... prone to carrying a screwdriver (and possibly a knife) in his school bag.

Because

That.

Is.

A.

Lie.

 

[fillyboy]

Cant believe that you still want to go there.

I'm not bothered either way if I'm honest, everything you highlight is subjective and there is as much evidence to suggest it's true as there is to suggest it's false. No-one knows for sure but I'd err toward documented stuff.

What are your thoughts on the young girl smashed on the back with a hockey stick or the kids who had sharp objects stuck into their hands by this lad, again there appear to be school records or testaments under oath verifying this.

You, who was not there, are free, of course, to decide that evidence given under oath was false, and to pick and choose which of it to believe according to your pre judice opinion.

On the contrary, I believe that an 18 year old girl is not going to go into a high court and lie about being beaten with a hockey stick by this lad, I believe her, the judge obviously didn't. It's all subjective. But surely if the judge doesn't believe her, she should be tried for perjury no?

88. I accept the evidence of the Claimant and his father. There is no reliable evidence to suggest that the Claimant ever had a knife in his possession at school. The minutes appear to have inaccurately recorded Mr Hijazi’s expressed concerns. In any event, the discovery of the screwdriver was immediately reported by the Claimant to his head of house. It is likely that the matter was resolved as reported by the Claimant. Certainly, if any member of staff had considered that the screwdriver had been the Claimant’s, potentially to be used by him offensively, then that would have been a very serious disciplinary matter, perhaps even requiring the involvement of the police. At the very least, I am confident that the discovery of the Claimant in possession of one or more (potentially) offensive weapons would have been recorded in the Claimant’s school records.

That's a humdinger, the judge is saying the last thing he would do if an offensive weapon were found in his bag would be to report it to his parents. I'm of the opposite opinion, if someone's caught bang to rights with a weapon, shout as loud as you can 'it's not mine - I've been framed'. Not in the Claimants school records?, So why did it appear in the minutes of a meeting with the parents and the school, Oh yes, 'translator error'.
Really?, which arabic languages could possibly transcribe a packet of cheese and onion crisps as a screwdriver and a knife?

 

[Brigade77]

"If people were free to tell the truth, I wouldn't be standing here," he told Mr Justice Nicklin.

 

[Captain Nemesis]

I'm not bothered either way if I'm honest, everything you highlight is subjective and there is as much evidence to suggest it's true as there is to suggest it's false. No-one knows for sure but I'd err toward documented stuff.

Which is what the judge did.

What are your thoughts on the young girl smashed on the back with a hockey stick or the kids who had sharp objects stuck into their hands by this lad, again there appear to be school records or testaments under oath verifying this.

None yet, except that your track record to date makes me wonder how accurately you are representing what the judgement says about those things.

That's a humdinger, the judge is saying the last thing he would do if an offensive weapon were found in his bag would be to report it to his parents.

Except it wasnt found by the school, was it.

The Claimant said that, at the end of a PE lesson, he found a small silver screwdriver in his bag. It was not his, and he believed that it had been put there by someone else. He reported what he had found to his head of house
.
.
In any event, the discovery of the screwdriver was immediately reported by the Claimant to his head of house​

So why did it appear in the minutes of a meeting with the parents and the school

According to the judge,

"The minutes appear to have inaccurately recorded Mr Hijazi’s expressed concerns."

But of course you dont want that to be the case, do you.

, Oh yes, 'translator error'.

But basically, it doesnt matter what anybody says, does it. Nobody here, no witnesses in court, no judges verdicts, are going to be accepted by you if they contradict the narrative you have decided you want to be true.

I wonder who you think you are trying to convince?

As I see it, there are basically 3 groups of people here.

1. Those, like you, who are already firmly convinced of a twisted narrative which has no need to be tethered to any truth
2. Those, like me, who can see your lies and misrepresentations for what they are
3. Those who are undecided.

Group 1 are already with you. They have drunk deeply of the Kool-Aid, and the closure of their minds to the facts is complete.
Group 2 are only going to become more convinced that you are an inveterate liar with every post you make.
Group 3 - I guess you must be hoping that they will also drink the Kool-Aid and join Group 1 rather than go and read the judgement for themselves.

It does seem to back up the assertion that young Hijhazi was ... prone to carrying a screwdriver (and possibly a knife) in his school bag.

No.

It.

Does.

Not.

It actually says the opposite. Your claim is a lie.

 

[noseall]

Was that post meant for somewhere else?

No. It was retaliatory...

you really are wet aren’t you

It's not a phrase I use particularly, so you'll have to ask your mate giz what it means.

 

[fillyboy]

87. Neither the Claimant nor his father could explain why the minutes referred also to a knife as well as a screwdriver. Some confusion may have arisen because, in advance of the meeting, the Claimant’s father had written notes expressing his concerns. Those notes were in Arabic, and Mr Hijazi had used an interpreter during the meeting. Neither the Claimant nor his father had confirmed the accuracy of the minutes, which had been prepared by someone else and not seen by either of them at the time

 

[Captain Nemesis]

How is that relevant to your use of the term "translator error"?

 

[Vinty]

If Tommy Robinson appeals and gets himself a decent Barrister there is a good chance the verdict could be overturned.

The idea that a laymen can take on the professionals and get a fair result is ludicrous.
I had a mate who ended up in court due to a marital dispute with his wife, he pleaded not guilty and just before the trial started he sacked his legal advisors and decided to defend himself.
He took to coming court with legal books which he had looked through trying to find loopholes.
He highlighted legal cases in the books which he believed contained legal precedents which were relevent in the case against him.
The judge and the jury got fed up with his antics and jailed him for 12 months.
He appealed, and this time he made sure he had proper legal representation.
On appeal the case against him was thrown out, he finally realised too late that if he had listened to his legal advisors at his original trial he would never have ended up in jail.