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?

Statement of remorse

"Baker, from Richmond in south-west London, was also asked why she wished she had not made the comments and said it was because she was now in a men's prison with sex offenders.
She added: "I'm with people who want to kill me, or rape me, or kill me and rape me.""

The defendants entire defence is based upon the idea that they didnt really mean it (they cant deny the video evidence of having said it). They brought into their defence that they are now in prison. They state that they are at risk there but not that they have a conviction for attempted murder while in prison, you have to wonder just who is at risk. The conviction for which they were imprisoned initially involves torture. This is not a person who shrinks from violence.

In that context asking whether the defendant is now in prison for a violent offence and the nature of that offence would seem to be entirely within the limited circumstances where it is relevant.

@Bromptotoo every post you make further reveals your bias. Nazis getting involved in America may have relevance to male violence against women in America, it does not here. Trying to smear by association is the tactic of those with no better argument.

In this country you can now legally get away with inciting violence against women.

If you think it doesnt encourage others www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/feminist-campaigner-left-black-eye-3054000<a class="break-all" href="https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/feminist-campaigner-left-black-eye-30540007" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">7

@Bromptotoo Where are the women's rights campaigners encouraging violence against any transpeople, because I've never seen one?

for those interested in when bad character can be given https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/bad-character-evidence

They brought into their defence that they are now in prison

Yes, but that stops short of revealing why they were in prison. You may think the reason they were in prison is relevant, but that does not mean it could be revealed to the court (unless, of course, the defendant chose to reveal it). The rules on this have been loosened a little, but they are still pretty strict.

@anyolddinosaur I'm sorry but you're way off beam (and out of order too).

I, of course, have views on Gender Recognition but I've kept them out of this conversation.

You have no reason to accuse me of bias and I'm asking you to withdraw it.

Anti trans stuff is rife in the UK, never mind the US, and to try and say it's not in part encouraged by rhetoric from people in the GC movement is blindness of the Nelsonian type...

What do you mean by "antitrans stuff" being rife in the uk? I've never seen any women's rights campaigner promote violence and since you havent come up with any examples I dont think you can have seen any either. I have seen several examples of women being assaulted, arrested, or just put in fear by violent trans activists. If you dont acknowledge the difference then again you are indicating bias. Apparently women peacefully upholding their rights are seen by you as promoting violence but a violent convicted criminal actually encouraging violence is fine because they claim they didnt really mean it.

According to you it's always the women's fault when there is violence. Take a good hard look again at what you have posted and then try to claim it's unbiased.

@prh47bridge I linked to the "bad character" guidance, this seems to me to fall within it. I've now been able to read the transcript of the evidence. The prosecution did not bring up the defendant's history of violence and did not challenge the defendant on perjury. They didnt appear interested in winning the case and allowed the defendant and the defence to make a mockery of the court. Someone was filming in court, the defendant was removed from the dock for a time. I'm slightly less annoyed at the magistrate and more annoyed at the prosecution.

@prh47bridge part of the defendant's defence was a statement that they had never harmed any woman. Would it, in your opinion, have been acceptable for the defence to ask if they had ever harmed a man? Could they have suggested to the defendant that they were in fact a violent individual and not the fool they claimed to be until after the verdict, when they said they were not really? Can and should potentially libellous comments made in defence be questioned?

This video explains quite a bit.

When the police first sent the case to the CPS it was a lesser, public order offence which relied not on SJB's intent, but on whether SJB megaphoning to a cheering mob, 'If you see a TERF, punch them in the fucking face' was likely to cause alarm or distress to members of the public.

Heather Binning and another woman were originally going to be witnesses, she said they had inadvertently arranged a women's meeting quite close to the trans pride event and she was having to advise women to hide their t shirts, badges etc. for their own safety. It sounded like there was quite a lot of alarm and distress.

The CPS upgraded the offence to inciting violence but because this didn't need to be shown to cause alarm or distress, the witnesses were deemed to be no longer necessary. All that mattered now was SJB's intent.

This in turn enabled SJB to paint 'TERFs' as extremists and to tell a pack of lies about women's rights campaigners physically attacking trans people, with no opposition.

So maybe it's possible to pressure the CPS to now bring the original, lesser charge? It would be good for these women to be allowed to take the stand and for the court to comprehend the effects of these aggressive men's actions.

Saying they had never harmed a woman is not libellous. It could be perjury, but since they only appear to have been convicted of harming men, it clearly isn't.

If they had said they had never harmed anyone, the prosecution could certainly have raised the convictions.

Responding to the statement that they had never harmed a woman by asking if they had ever harmed a man would clearly be an attempt to introduce the convictions into evidence by the back door. If the prosecution has decided the convictions are inadmissible (or a judge has ruled that they are), the defendant's statement that they have never harmed a woman would not be enough to allow them to be introduced in my view. I am not a judge so I cannot say for sure, but I suspect a judge would take a very dim view of a prosecutor who acted in this way.

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..

I think SJB probably did it for no better reason than he is an insane violent man but that's neither here nor there - he was found fit to plead.

The issue is not so much why SJB yelled through a megaphone, 'If you see a TERF punch her in the fucking face,' the issue is that a huge crowd cheered him on.

The context is a sharp increase in TRA violence towards women over the past year or two.

I do consider this a 'real issue' and to try and say it's not is blindness of the Nelsonian type...

Tribunal Tweets coverage:

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/sarah-jane-baker-v-cps

I am not a lawyer. In day to day life, if I am trying to judge if another person is telling the truth, I would give a lot of weight to their known character. If a person is a convicted murderer, it seems to me entirely reasonable to take that into account if they are accused of inciting violence. This is a person who is no stranger to violence.

Baker was charged under section 4a of the Public Order Act, which states that a person is guilty of an offence if they use “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour”.

Baker denied the charge and was remanded in custody. On 17th August, the court charged Baker with a second offence of “intentionally encouraging the commission of an offence, namely assault by beating”.

The first offence was dropped before trial.

Is it possible for the original complainants to now ask the CPS to review their decision to drop the first offence?

I've been looking at this:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/victims-right-review-scheme

'Victim’ is used to describe a person against whom an offence has been committed, or the complainant in a case being considered or prosecuted by the CPS;

Potentially could the women affected bring a private prosecution? This happened on the other side when a TRA accused Linda Bellos and Venice Allan of inciting violence, with much less reason than this. The CPS eventually took the case over and dismissed it.

I'm not suggesting they should do this, I'm just curious.

They can't start a private prosecution for the same offence, but they could start one for a different offence.

Thanks @prh47bridge

@prh47bridge Sorry, busy weekend. Can you explain to me why the exceptions for citing past convictions didnt apply in this case? I can see the prosecutor didnt try to use them - good reason for that or not, because it looks like not?

The libellous comment was nothing to do with past convictions but with the narrative of being the most persecuted group in society - largely lies, although I accept it's possible SJB believes some or all of it. One comment was libellous and not challenged at all by the prosecution.

Libel has to be aimed at a specific individual or a small identifiable group of individuals. Statements made in court are protected. Without knowing exactly what was said, I can't really comment any further on that. I have not read the transcript, so I don't know what you are referring to, I'm afraid. If you want to tell me more, I will be happy to comment.

Re the bad character evidence, you may think it is admissible under gateway 5 (substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant). However, in R v Samuel, it was held that the defendant's previous convictions for assaulting his partner were not relevant in a case of assault of another individual where the issue was whether he had the specific intent necessary to make out the offence. That is extremely close to this case, where the defendant had previous convictions for violence and the main issue was whether they intended to incite others to commit offences. Given the Samuel decision, it is unlikely that the courts would agree that the defendant's previous convictions were relevant in determining intent. That is even more so when you consider that, in the Samuel case, the convictions were for assault and he was being tried for assault, whereas in this case the convictions are for violence and the charge was inciting others.

Under gateway 6, the defendant very specifically said that they had never harmed a woman. If they had said they had never harmed anyone, that would have opened the door for their convictions to be introduced. However, since their convictions are all about violence towards men, gateway 6 does not give a way in.

Nothing in this case appears to trigger any of the other gateways.

gateway 6 . The defendant has a propensity to violence, even if so far confined to males when SJB was presenting as male. R v B [2017] EWCA Crim 35 allowed evidence of previous violence. SJB claimed to be a publicity seeking fool, previous convictions show they have acted violently.

gateway. 7 I dont repeat libel. SJB named an individual woman he accused of participating in a specific act of violence. Had there been a shred of evidence of this the police would undoubtably have charged them. They were probably not anywhere in the vicinity.

Can you give a year please for R v Samuel as google throws up a different case.

Gateway 6 - R v B shows that evidence of violence in a domestic setting against one person may be admissible when considering allegations of violence against other people in the same domestic setting. That is much more closely related than in this case, where you are trying to argue that a propensity for violence against men should be admissible when considering a charge of inciting others to violence against women.

R v Samuel was 2014. I don't think the judgement is available online.

If you can't give me any more indications about this alleged libel, or even point me at an online source for it, I can't comment any further on it.

@prh47bridge The tribunal tweets were posted above. If you are not commenting it's because you dont wish to look. I'll look for the R v Smauel judgement.

As I've pointed out sjb was violent to people who were the sex they identified with at the time. I'm trying to say that a propensity to violence tends to counteract the narrative advanced by SJB. The issue is a question of honesty, is the defendant sincere. I dont know if SJB pleaded guilty to torture and attempted murder before they were convicted, do you?

You are right that I cant find the full R v Samuel judgement online. However it seems that violence was not the issue as he had killed his wife. He claimed to have been too drunk to have intended murder. In previous convictions he had obviously not murdered his wife. I assume there was some evidence of his state of intoxication. He was convicted. it seems to have gone to the court of appeal on the issue of bad character and the appeal failed. Was it the judge or the court of appeal who ruled previous convictions not valid?

Sorry - I hadn't spotted the tweets. If you are referring to the mention of Posy Parker, I don't know what alleged incident the defendant was referring to, but I am not surprised the prosecution didn't challenge it. It was not germane to the case. Whether Parker or anyone else had assaulted anyone was entirely irrelevant. And, if the defendant believed it was a true statement, it is irrelevant to the question of truthfulness. I also note that this is appears to be a report by someone who was present and taking notes, not the official transcript.

I understand what you are saying. I am attempting to explain how the courts look at it, which is not the same way as you.

R v Samuel - Some of the mentions online are inaccurate (and it doesn't help that some of them talk about a 2020 case, which did involve murder, in a way that suggests it is the same case - it isn't). There was no murder. Samuel had been convicted of assaulting his (much smaller) partner previously. He was then charged with a more serious assault. His partner was again the victim. The prosecution needed to prove that he intended to cause serious injury. The previous convictions were introduced as evidence. The Court of Appeal ruled that the previous convictions should not have been introduced as they did not demonstrate any intent to cause serious injury. They nonetheless upheld the conviction, deciding that the prosecution had a good enough case without this evidence. Applying that to the present case, SJB's previous convictions show that they can be violent, but do not demonstrate any intent to incite others to violence. They therefore cannot be introduced in my view.

Unfortunately, I don't know SJB's original name, so I have no idea about the convictions. How they pleaded to earlier charges is again irrelevant as far as the courts are concerned.