Scottow conviction overturned on appeal.

[marvellousnightforamooncup]

Whoop!

Just seen her tweet.

I'm not sure this is true. There is that infamous video of SH having a go at a man on a recption desk (can't remember where), which was more recent than 2007 and they didn't appear to be trans in any way then...

Birkbeck College, I think where SH was studying law.

I wonder if anyone could please answer my query?

Looking on www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/3291.html

Point50. "I am required to travel abroad as part of my professional duties."

It is my understanding that said litigant obtains complete exemption from all court fees (to the tune of £5,000 each time a writ is issued, and there seem to be quite a lot) because the litigant is reliant entirely on state benefits (that being the only way to get the exemption.

So surely if the litigant told the court: "I am required to travel abroad as part of my professional duties" then the litigant is admitting that they are either

(a) working and claiming benefit
or
(b) getting exemption from court fees on illegal grounds.

Or have I misunderstood?

Perhaps someone could help me understand this?

Tarquin

Sensible to be circumspect- too much speculation about this particular litigant will bring the MN ban hammer to the thread. So sticking to facts:

SH currently states her employment as a 'legal consultant' for IA legal. In fact IA legal is a dormant company of which SH is the only director. They have only filed accounts at dormancy, which showed no change from their starting capital two years later, so presumably have never traded.

SH self-identifies as a lawyer on the basis of being an academic lecturing in law. She isn't an LLB and has never practiced. I can't actually find any evidence of when or where she's worked for a uni.

So it seems entirely possible she does rely solely on benefits for income. I can't see how this squares with her other statements.

www.judiciary.uk/judgments/scottow-v-cps/

Judgement from Kates appeal

@PronounssheRa

www.judiciary.uk/judgments/scottow-v-cps/

Judgement from Kates appeal

That's a fascinating read, thanks for the link

This appeal illustrates the need for decision-makers in the criminal justice system to have regard, in cases where they arise, to issues of freedom of speech. In that context I add by way of footnote that when reading the judgment of Nicklin J in Hayden v Dickenson, which Warby J has cited, I was surprised to read at paragraph 39 that the defendant, who like Ms Scottow had been arrested following a complaint made by Ms Hayden, was released on pre-charge bail, one condition of which was that she was “not to post on social media anything relating to the Claimant” [emphasis added]. It will have to be decided in some other case whether a condition of this kind can be justified under Article 10 or s 3(6) of the Bail Act 1976

I’ve just added this bit from the Scottow
judgement to the Ofcom thread:

‘Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.’

Kate’s appeal judges are quoting from
Redmond-Bate v DPP and the longer version is even better.

‘Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.‘

Decided: 23 July 1999
Court: High Court of Justice
Judge(s) sitting: Lord Justice Sedley; Mr. Justice Collins

What a fascinating read,

It is indeed.

This and the Dickenson case, together with the Keira Bell decision, show that many of the ways in which the gender identity ideology interacts with the medical establishment and the legal system, below the High Court level, runs against the law.

Will be interesting to see what happens in the Hayden V Scottow civil case, now that Justice Warby has removed the ‘stay’ and directed that it be transferred to his own list.

In the light of our decision, the stay on the civil proceedings will come to an end. This is not the context in which to review those proceedings, but they do require review. The interim injunction in this case is, in the experience of either of us, unprecedented in its breadth and content. An application for relief on similar lines was refused by Nicklin J in Hayden v Dickenson, observing that “I can scarcely conceive of circumstances in which the Court would grant an injunction in these terms”: see [55(b)], [67(ii)] and [68]. Examination of the court file reveals that, two years on, the injunction against Ms Scottow remains in place, and an application issued in June 2019, to commit Ms Scottow for contempt of court by breaching that order, remains pending. Under the version of Part 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules that is now in force the Media and Communications List (“MAC List”) is a “specialist list”, to which claims of harassment by publication are required to be assigned. That was not the position when this claim was issued. But as Judge in Charge of the MAC List I have made an order that Ms Hayden’s claim should be transferred into that List, and ordered a directions hearing to review the state of the case and its future progress.

It sounds like some (many?) of Hayden’s injunction orders have been handwaved through and rubber stamped without much scrutiny? And that Justice Warby is keen to take a considerably more detailed look at this one?

The stuff about the CPS inappropriately attempting to prosecute using a law for heavybreathing creepycallers is pretty golden, as was the scathing description of the police’s collection and preservation of evidence.

@donquixotedelamancha

Thank you for trying to clarify, There does seem to be a massive contradiction going on, between being a high flying professional jetting here and there to see (hinted at) high value clients and existing just above the poverty line on sickness benefits. It seems that both are being claimed at the same time. Weird.

"on the basis of being an academic lecturing in law".

Where has this person ever lectured in law, please?

Reading the Scottow judgement it's clear that there is always a bias in favour of the tw, which is not fair. I have found many of the tw's tweets massively upsetting and offensive. Can I get the police to call round and seize equipment? Can I prosecute?

I wonder how much all these antics have cost the public purse.

Coming back to Kate Scottow's appeal, it's clear the original judge got it wrong on the basics. From the appeal judgement:

The 2018 Messages conveyed, over a period of two months, a variety of different defamatory or insulting messages about Ms Hayden, to the effect that she was racist, xenophobic, bullying, dishonest, and fraudulent. There was some element of repetition, but only some. Between 9 November 2018 and 1 March 2019 Ms Scottow did not persist, she desisted. In 2019, she communicated again, but the
subject-matter was different. The 2019 Messages were all on the same topic, a new one, evidently prompted by the conduct of Ms Hayden in publicising, promoting and discussing the fact of the injunction. Ms Scottow’s messages questioned and
challenged Ms Hayden’s public position in relation to that, in various different ways.
These were, on a proper analysis, at least two separate courses of conduct, engaged in at different periods of time, separated by a period of several months, and they were of different character. For these reasons I find the District Judge was wrong in law to hold that the 2018 and 2019 Messages were, or could all be considered
to be, part of a single course of “persistent” conduct. It was not lawful to prosecute Ms Scottow in August 2019 for her conduct over 9 months earlier.

This is really elementary stuff. Even a non-lawyer can see that the second batch of tweets was nothing to do with the first - and that the first batch, therefore, should have been discounted by the judge because they weren't within the legal time limit.

What a clear and heartening judgement. I think I'll be refering to this quite often. Just hope Maya's case also prevails.
Not sure where this leaves the CPS and Police.

I just had to use search to find this
So happy to see so much sense “A prosecution and conviction on these facts would represent a grossly disproportionate and entirely unjustified state interference with free speech”

Kate’s thread is here if anyone wants to go slap her on the back mobile.twitter.com/Kate_Scottow80/status/1339163288077299715

And I found this useful mobile.twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1339182774989828099

From para [41] of the judgment:-

The District Judge’s finding as to Ms Scottow’s purpose is a finding of fact which in principle deserves respect.

(emphasis added)

Which is judge speak for "... but in reality deserves no respect whatsoever."

The judgment continues:-

But in my view her approach to that issue was flawed in several respects and her reasoning is deficient.

Judge speak for "she f*ed up big time"

Does this bode well for Maya and Allison's cases, do we think?

What is the Dickenson case please? I think I must have missed that one.

@OhLittleBoreOfWhabylon

What is the Dickenson case please? I think I must have missed that one.

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/3291.html

Justice Nicklin has asked SH to provide a witness statement regards to all the other cases Hayden is litigating. Nicklin has done two of Hayden’s cases so far, the second part of Hayden V Dickenson and and also Hayden V Yalland. Nicklin has noticed Hayden accuses them both of being the same anon internet account.

These screenshots are both from the Hayden V Dickenson link I posted above:

I notice Justice Knowles heard the first part of Hayden v Nicklin. Justice Knowles also heard Hayden v Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday.

I'm starting to really get into reading High Court judgements.

I love the politely restrained but scathing as fuck language the judges use. It’s a masterclass in posh-people’s put downs.

Thanks PlantMam

Hayden’s tweet thread about the judgement:

archive.md/N6QRI

So Hayden knows better than the judges and the CPS and is pissed that they did not listen to Hayden's helpful instructions and warnings?

Wow, now I've read Hayden V Dickenson and am developing quite a crush on this judge. But what an OUTRAGEOUS waste of police and court time! To think that only a tiny percentage of rape cases are brought to court.

It feels like the tide is finally, finally turning with Keira's case and this.

Not forgetting 'seahorse' dad.

Very happy for Kate.

Now a battle really worth fighting is to erase the 'blacklist' for people never convicted of any criminal offence but have raised concerns about women and safeguarding and listed by police as guilty of 'hate speech'. That really does have to stop.