Miller v College Of Policing

[yourhairiswinterfire]

Judgement will be here on Monday, finally. It's been about 9 months since the appeal.

twitter.com/WeAreFairCop/status/1471399029321969666

This was a good article by Sarah Phillimore if anyone needs a recap.

thecritic.co.uk/fair-cops-case-in-court/

Harry's just done a Facebook live but I can't listen to it yet!! Aaarggg!!! 🤣

Funny you should say that TheSonjaMorgan:

39. Mrs B1 who describes herself in her witness statement in these proceedings as a post-operative transgender woman, had Mr Miller’s tweets drawn to her attention by a friend. The judge found that Mrs B made a voluntary choice to read the tweets; they were not directed at anyone in particular or the transgender community, but were simply posted on Twitter to be read by Mr Miller’s Twitter followers or anyone else who might come across them. Further, there was no evidence of what Mrs B’s friend thought of them, or that anyone other than the friend, or Mrs B read them or found them to be offensive or indecent or complained about them [271].

Doing the happy dance here. It took so long, I'm so grateful to Harry for sticking this out!

I found this

@nauticant

I thought GiantKitten was being rather robust over Mrs B so I thought I'd have a look for myself:

twitter.com/WeAreFairCop/status/1472838207469494272

Those messages are quite something.

Fucking hell. The transwoman who reported Harry for hate and who the police took seriously, is the person who wrote those disgusting, hateful comments???

@OvaHere

Great news. None of this idiocy should ever have got this far.

Hear hear.

This is such excellent news, and I'd like to add my thanks to all those who have fought so hard to make this happen - huge congratulations to you all

This is hugely significant. Trans activists have a variety of weapons in their armoury for harassing gender critical people, and this was - the non-crime hate incident - was one of the big ones.

Along with the apology from the scouts over Maya, this feels pretty momentous.

Harry Miller interviewed on talkRADIO, 40 minutes from the start of the stream:

I am thrilled for Harry. What great news.

Got the timing wrong, the time on the stream is counting down rather than counting up because it's a live stream. It looks like it's about 1 hour 25 minutes from the start of the stream.

Yes. Congratulations and gratitude from this woman, and from the rest of the country that didn't even hear about non-crime incidents or grasp the implications.

This feels huge. Congratulations Harry and thank you. Also thank you to Sarah Phillimore and I know there are others involved too, sorry I don't know your names.

What the fuck are those messages from the Honey badger. Showing themselves to be an utter lunatic. Why the fuck the police listened to them for a second is beyond me. What a monumental waste of public funds.

Bloody hell. I can't believe that the police took Mrs B seriously.

judgment here www.judiciary.uk/judgments/miller-v-the-college-of-policing/

Why the fuck the police listened to them for a second is beyond me. What a monumental waste of public funds.

Well the transwoman said they had contacts in the police, I expect it’s true and it needs investigating.

Really excellent news. Dismantling this shitshow one step at a time. Well done!

I’m so pleased for Harry, it’s such a big victory.

@Redshoeblueshoe

Bloody hell. I can't believe that the police took Mrs B seriously.

They absolutely should have taken them seriously - as a threat and charged Mrs B under the malicious communication act. Surely it is as clear a case of malicious communication as ever there was!

They still should charge Mrs B

Looking at the judgment the thing that swung it for Harry Miller was that there has been a mandatory requirement to record NCHIs, which meant that there was no assessment of the incident to check whether it had passed a threshold of hate.

One clear solution would be for Police forces to assess NCHIs and then only to record them if a "hate threshold" was passed. All of the tens of thousands of them* reported each year.

*120,000 recorded between 2014-2019.

@Fenlandia

I'm sure some of the big names on Legal Twitter (who often aren't very sympathetic to GC arguments) will be cheering for this common-sense judgement...??

Liberty, Amnesty too - they surely don't support people being logged on police databases without being told...??

Amnesty? The crew who now advocate for the removal of political representation as a punishment for wrong think? I await their public announcement with (not) bated breath.

I note clicking on the link that Twitter is offering me this tweet, 2 by JK and a whole host of anti-vax opinions. Ironic self own by the writers of the social algorithms.

I think I might have missed some context. Are Mrs B and Honey Badger the same person? And when/why did they start threatening Harry? Those tweets are exceptionally unpleasant.

Legal cases are stressful and the toll on you and your family must have awful. Harry, thank you for pursuing this.

52. There are five grounds of appeal. These are (1) the judge was wrong to hold that the principle of legality is merely a principle of statutory construction, and therefore wrong to decide that the impugned provisions in Chapter 6 of the Guidance are lawful in the absence of express statutory or established common law authorisation; (2) the judge was wrong to hold that the approach in the Guidance to the mandatory recording of ‘non-crime hate incidents’ in the absence of any evidence of hate is lawful as a matter of common law; (3) the judge was wrong to hold that the impugned provisions in Chapter 6 of the Guidance involve no interference with the right to freedom of expression under Article 10(1) of the Convention; (4) the judge was wrong to hold that the impugned provisions in Chapter 6 of the Guidance satisfy the Convention requirement of “foreseeability”, with the consequence that he was incorrect to conclude that any interference with Article 10(1) of the Convention arising from those provisions is “prescribed by law” for the purposes of Article 10(2) of the Convention; and (5) the judge was wrong to hold that the impugned provisions in Chapter 6 of the Guidance are “necessary in a democratic society”.

Harry Miller won on grounds (3) and (5). This is not one of more straightforward judgments to read.