Fair Cop Court of Appeal 8-10 March

[Spero]

Please save the date! This is such an important hearing for freedom of speech, particularly around the issues of sex and gender.

The hearing will be for 1 1/2 days some time between 8-10 March, we don't have an exact listing yet.

Hopefully there will be some live tweeting.

Do support if you can.

twitter.com/WeAreFairCop/status/1361820204649639951?s=20

JC - erm er, the context of hate incidents in the guidance. May require police to take further action. A record without hate qualifier serves exactly the same, er similar purposes as with hate qualifer. Gives police particular intelligence. I find this very vague

Judge 'In a world without this guidance, would this have been recorded and what would it have been recorded as?'

Answer:
An incident. There would be no 'hate incident' flag.

Judge: A member of the public says 'I have seen a tweet on twitter and it has made me feel upset' For what purpose would this have been recorded?

Answer: (doesn't quite answer the question)...'hate qualifier does not proscribe a partlicular course of action'

*JC - court must exercise caution in terms of undermining the guidance across the board, given the range of circumstances it applies to.

[THEN AMEND YOUR BLOODY GUIDANCE]

This might cause concern because of the race hate crime

I am really struggling to hear it, well done those who are sharing the notes!

Discussing whether the guidelines sufficiently limit the policies actions:

JC - Quoting from the guidelines: "An incident should not be recorded... [from a person] who is reporting for a political or similar motive"

Lady judge - Hmmm... Not an easy task for the police to have to take

JC - Well...

Lady judge - Looking at the reality - we don't have windows into people's souls. Not an easy issue to resolve.

JC but guidance does make efforts to constrain police actions in difficult areas. The guidance directs them to consider the matters complainant raises. Judge didn't look at new guidance.

Judge - you said this case raised issues but give the impression its rare. Don't we have to consider the matter in a broader context. For e.g. a student who posted on facebook about homosexuality, saying it was sin and was reported and disciplined. That is another eg of stilfling

How do you square this circule. On the one hand race crime, which can be extremely serious and can build over time measured against Mrs B on the internet being offended. Both have the same 'sanctions' initially

Just trying to catch up one this one a bit. It's not very easy to follow the arguments. What's the general feeling on how well it's going?

JC is now earning his money. He is saying guidance needs to be better but is trying to make sure this procedure is not abandoned or so limited in scope it doesn't work

Ova difficult to tell, sometimes it's like CoP arguments would back up Harry's case. Odd really

I think the judge just told them they were trying to have their cake and eat it!

Thanks highame

Judge - in the real world how does this square with your statement that volume of messages is so large it is impossible for police to make decisions on safeguards. How do these safeguards operate when so many complaints?

[Junior lawyers - beware 'in the real word']
JC - I cant get away from high volume

Judge - you want your cake and to eat it. You now seek to rely on the prospect of investigation after the event.

This is interesting

It does seem that the judges have a very firm grasp of the issues.

Lady judge - Looking at the reality - we don't have windows into people's souls. Not an easy issue to resolve

Leyla Moran would disagree

JC I will always seek to do that! (delighted judicial chuckling). political motivation may not require any significant investigation. but you are right, some safeguards will require investigation.

Maybe could be curtailing police actions???

It's easy to browse away from today's hearing, return to the page, and become very confused by a growing sense of déjà vu. But then you realise that on returning to the page youtube has defaulted to playing the stream from yesterday.

JC This guidance does take considerable steps to addressing the problems raised in case such as Mr Miller but without significantly compromising the important principle of perception based recording. That is balance struck by College.

Have they already provided guidance, or do they intend doing that???

Now Harry's lot doing some summing up I think? IW - what seems to have happened is the CoP are EMBOLDENED by the judgment. The only substance I could ascertain was changed was that the CoP are bringing this into schools!

IW so a child who says something derogatory at school could be recorded. This gets worse not better. This is not constraints or sensible balancing. Its entrenching the errors already apparent.

KILLER POINT

we don't have windows into people's souls

It's never a good sign for someone when judges quite Elizabeth Tudor. I wonder if we'll hear the corollary

Is must a word to be addressed to princes?

IW We haven't been pointed to one restraint in the new guidance - instead it has become more extensive.

JC - new guidance makes it clear its a matter for the school management team not police.

Well, there ya go

Judge - we want a track changes document and a schedule of changes and deletions.

This is good ^ wonder if records are going to be as good as they have been in Tavi case?

IW 'victim' and 'suspect' now given specific approval by this guidance and a school child now becomes 'a suspect'.

Hope people are interested in this?

@PronounssheRa I was just about to say that I wonder if that was deliberate?

IW theme through JC's submissions was that due to operation of both sets of guidance, the Hate Crimes guidance in essence made no difference. He was asked how this incident would be recorded under National standards - and he could not answer. He is still unable to present the evidence that is the central plank of his case - he is saying 'none of this matters'.

I'm coming round to thinking that even if Harry Miller loses, there's enough here for the judges, and other legal people they talk to, to chew on to realise that they're looking at harmful institutional capture, even if they wouldn't themselves put it in those terms.

It looks like it's going to have to be a long march through lots of court cases for things to return to a balance of competing interests.