Magistrate acquitting person threatening violence

[anyolddinosaur]

Is there any way to protest against the actions of a magistrate when their decision was clearly biased and wrong?

SJB? I'm baffled. Women have been arrested for tying ribbons onto fences but a male prisoner out on parole can stand in front of a large crowd with a microphone and tell them to punch women in the face, but that's just a joke?

hi @anyolddinosaur

when you say “magistrates” - was it genuinely one? Normally it’s three and the idea is if they all agree it’s likely correct. not that it always is!

did they give a full discharge? Or a conditional discharge? The latter is sometimes a better tool to prevent further violence as rather than they have been punished and can forget, they have it hanging over them as a possibility for a longer time.

There is usually a bench and a LA. It's not a decision for a single magistrate.

Is this about Alan 'Sarah' Baker urging people to punch feminists? In public . On film.

Very strange verdict. Thankfully he is back in prison afaik as he is in breach of his bail conditions.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66676737

Baker is the subject of a life sentence for the attempted murder of a fellow inmate she attacked when in prison serving a sentence for kidnapping and torturing her stepmother's 19-year-old brother. Baker was recalled to prison following the events at the rally.
When Deputy Chief Magistrate Tan Ikram found Baker not guilty, the public gallery applauded.
He said he was not sure that when she said the words she did she had intended for them to be acted on, and added he thought it was possible that - as the defendant had told the court - "you said it because you wanted the publicity".

It's about Deputy Chief Magistrate Tan Ikram.

I don’t understand - is she in prison already as it refers to being subject to a life sentence?

@CRbear I was not in court. Only one magistrate has been mentioned. However although promoted by one particular case this is about a principle - is there any way to question/ complain a ridiculous acquittal? You can complain of too lenient a sentence!

@Snittle I am asking about a principle, not the individual. They have been recalled to prison for breaching bail conditions.

There is a chance the defendant being in prison has a bearing on the magistrates decision though.

Rightly or wrongly, what’s the point of fining someone who can’t pay and you can’t enforce a community order while someone is in prison.

That said, it should still have been a guilty verdict and then a discharge, but at that point you’re splitting hairs because the end outcome is pretty much the same.

The comments are relatively low level (although I 100% agree would be perceived differently if someone said punch a trans person), she showed remorse, publicly retracted the statement and with a decent defence solicitor I can see how the magistrate makes the not guilty decision.

If you have issues with the magistracy, maybe you could become a magistrate to help move the dial on other future trials.

I think the answer to your question is no. If the prosecution think it's egregiously off beam then they can appeal. But frankly, it's not in the public interest for there to be some sort of review every time there's a hue and cry from pressure groups such as, in this case, Gender Critical Feminists over 'wrong' acquittals or over light sentencing.

Deputy Chief Magistrate Tan Ikram is a professional, legally qualified, salaried District Judge; what used to be called a Stipendiary Magistrate. He will sit alone, it's Justices of the Peace - lay people who volunteer - that sit on a bench of three.

@anyolddinosaur were you in court or actually there when the incident occurred and a witness to what was alleged against Ms Baker?

Trying as best I can to look at this objectively in order for the offence to be made out and various things proved. The bench, whether lay or professional, have so certain that they are sure the offence is made out.

If Judge Ikram was not convinced of that then he has no choice but to acquit. Perhaps the event as described by the police and others who were there, wasn't what you think. Maybe the prosecution cocked up and failed to marshal the evidence properly - it wouldn't be the first time.

@Snittle Vacancies in North East only. I really doubt as a new lay magistrate I'd hear this type of case.

The purpose of any sentence is to be a deterrent to further crime. Remorse is easy to fake, especially under instruction from your defence solicitor. How much confidence would you place in the "remorse" of a violent criminal who tortured a young person and then attempted murder in prison?

@Bromptotoo If the event was not as described by the police and others who were there that what was it? Are you accepting the word of someone convicted of torturing a young person over that of the police and witnesses - why would you do that?

I used to be a magistrate.

A magistrate listens to the evidence alone.

No decision is made by 1 magistrate there are 3 on every case and it has to be the majority decision

@anyolddinosaur what you say about the word of police officers v that of a convict (whatever their offence) simply isn't how the law works. Neither should it be.

The question for Judge Ikram was whether the elements of the offence of incitement were made out by Ms Baker's actions at the day/time in question. He decided they were not. As of now I've only got the BBC report linked in a PP to go on. However that quotes Ikram as saying "he was not sure that when she said the words she did she had intended for them to be acted on". Baker may just have been seeking publicity.

It he wasn't sure then the prosecution cannot succeed; it's that simple.

I hold no brief for Ms Baker and am neutral as to her motivations here. Those on the GC side might be better focussing on real issues rather than tilting at windmills..

"Ms Baker" is an extremely violent, unhinged man who had already been escalating threatening behaviour to women before this. It sends a message to other violent men that threatening violence against women for speaking up about women's rights is ok. That's why many women are so bothered about it and don't have the luxury of "neutrality".

@Bromptotoo You suggested that the event as not as described by the police and witnesses. So not simply the word of a police office against a convicted criminal. There was also video evidence, their own words should have convicted them.

Sorry your bias is clear.

@anyolddinosaur as long as you see the defendant in this case through the prism of their previous conviction(s) you miss the point. They're neither here nor there. The question for the court was whether the words spoken on 8 July were intended to incite actual violence. Baker put forward an alternative account. Not that the words were not said but rather whether they were meant.

I've no bias either way and no skin in the Sefl ID/GC fight.

I simply tried to answer your question.

I dont get notification of tags, that's a waste of time.

You ignored video evidence, suggested there was some sort of alternative reality where the vents might not be as recorded by witnesses, suggest it's wasted effort to try and do anything about it. Your bias is clear.

Indeed SJB put forward an alternative account. When considering whether a statement was meant or not context is important, in this case that the person making the comments has an extremely violent history.

Edit - answering my post would be if there is a mechanism to complain and if so how?

You’d be surprised at how few people even feign remorse, so even pretending does go a long way. A good solicitor goes even further.

Also the magistrate may not have been aware of the previous offences if they were not considered relevant (I wasn’t in court so I don’t know what was shared).

And I heard much more serious cases in my first year (such as deciding bail for teenagers who had sexually abused a vulnerable man in a park). On my bench the listings are decided before we know who the magistrates are so you hear whatever is put in front of you.

I’m not sure where you live but lots of upcoming recruitment campaigns in London, Midlands, North West and Wales (and North East is further reaching than I had first thought). Although your obvious bias and favour towards police may hinder your interview prospects.

Every defendant is innocent until the magistracy/jury is sure they are guilty. The magistrate(s) obviously weren’t sure of all elements of the crime. In this case, they weren’t sure, so not guilty. I’m not a lawyer and I’ve not looked up the elements of the crime, but it might be that they couldn’t be sure of her intentions.

(Btw I’m not saying I agree, my gut reaction is I would’ve gone the other way but I can wholeheartedly say that without being in that court room you cannot know what your decision would be, nor should you. My views change frequently through the course of a trial as more information is provided).

Sentences are lenient these days if not actual physical violence ( just from watching tv progs I’d police) eg community service and 200 quid fine

OP, I think what Brampt is saying isn't biased.

They are explaining the system, and how what seems obvious, isn't.

Take a random person on a stage, hyped up with excitement, yelling whatever it takes to get the crowd to roar approval back at them.
If they yelled just to get that roar of approval then it isn't the same as trying to persuade people to go out and punch someone.

We know this is a violent person who rabble rouses against GC women and would happily assault people and encourage others to.

The court 'does not know' that. The court believed the random person may have just yelled out of excitement and to gain notoriety, rather than to get a woman punched.

It's a bit like rapists getting off because they may have misread the signals.

Effing infuriating.

@Snittle bias is clearly no impediment to being a magistrate, it's quite apparent in this case. As for "favour towards police" - in this case they couldnt lie because there was video evidence. I'm a woman, I have no reason to trust a modern police force, I was simply interested in what Bromptotoo was trying to get at.

My job required me to act impartially, my colleagues recognised I did and no performance review ever suggested a problem. I also recognise what not to say during an interview.

@pickledandpuzzled I've said I was not in court but bad character evidence can be given in court in certain circumstances. If it was not then the prosecution messed up, either accidentally or deliberately.

« she showed remorse, «

Of course. Absolutely prostrate with self loathing.

You asked if there was any way to protest a decision which you believed to be biased and wrong.

Obviously, you can protest in the sense of writing letters or demonstrating outside Judge Ikram's court. I think however you meant how could one get the decision overturned.

The answer to that, for practical purposes, is no. I suppose if there was a campaign to get the Police/CPS to look again and consider an appeal then that might achieve something but the bar that would have to be cleared is a (rightly IMHO) a high one.

I then went on, partly to answer other points in PPs, to explain from my pov as an observer of the law, as to what the actual position was in particular, the Ikram is a District Judge and not a lay magistrate.

I've no intention of getting down in the weeds over who, in the GC etc debate is right though I think both sides need to be a lot more careful about who they ally themselves with.

SJB is not alone on the anti side and the pro GC people, at least over the pond, seem to have quite a few people of the neo nazi persuasion in tow.

Really, I've no more to say than that.

I'm not taking sides.

The defendant's violent history is not necessarily part of the context. There are only limited circumstances in which the magistrate(s) or a jury can be told about a defendant's previous convictions. This is to ensure that the current charge is tried purely on the basis of the evidence. Information about previous convictions is normally only disclosed for sentencing purposes.

There is no question as to what was said, but this is an offence where intent is important. The offence is intentionally encouraging the commission of an offence. Therefore, the prosecution has to prove not only that the defendant said the words, but that they intended others to act on them. As this is a criminal case, they have to prove that beyond reasonable doubt. The magistrate's view was that they had failed to do so.

And no, there is no mechanism for you to complain.