Credibility of the complainant
47. I have some concerns about the credibility of the complainant and the answers which they gave the court. I am not prepared to say that they have given evidence which is entirely incapable of belief and in some aspects, accept that they were giving the court honest evidence. However, I am not prepared to find that they have given me entirely truthful evidence. There are a number of inconsistencies or areas of concern which leads me to this conclusion.
48. Firstly, the complainant used the phrase ‘alarm or distress’repeatedly. Little further explanation was given as to how the defendant's actions made the complainant feel. This in and of itself may not be something which would go to credibility and may go only to my assessment of whether the complainant was alarmed or distressed by the conduct. However, what does affect credibility is the fact that when it was put to the complainant that it was not just coincidence that these were the words used in the relevant statute, the complainant said it was just
coincidence. Given that the complainant was a police cadet at the time and seemed to be in communication with Lynsay Watson a former police officer, it would have been perfectly reasonable for the complainant to have stated that the reason that they were using this phrase was because they were aware of it through these routes. However, the fact that the complainant denied that this was the case is what leads me to have some concerns about credibility.
49. Secondly when it was put to the complainant that on a certain date the police notified them that no action would be taken against the defendant, they denied that this was the case. They were reluctant to accept that this had happened despite the evidence demonstrating that the complainant was well aware of this and indeed was seeking to, in effect, appeal this decision and was threatening legal action if the decision was not reviewed.
50. Thirdly the complainant was very reluctant to accept that they had said to the police when making the complaint about the defendant, that they were not willing to inform the police about how they had obtained the defendant's personal contact details. The complainant said that they did not say this and was not reluctant, however it is quite clear from the police notes that this is what the complainant told the police.
51. Fourthly the complainant was very reluctant to answer how many Twitter or X handles they were
responsible for. Initially the answer was “I don't know”. They were then asked how many accounts they had and they said, “I don't know”, they were asked if it was one or two and they said they don't know. Three Twitter or X handles were then put to the complainant who then accepted that they were responsible for them and then during the course of discussion about a post the complainant had made, a fourth became clear.
52. I am not rejecting the complainant’s evidence in its entirety. I accept the complainant’s evidence where it is corroborated by audio, video, documentary or other supporting evidence.
Evidence of DC Wells
53. DC Wells gave live evidence as the officer in the case. He confirmed that the defendant was interviewed on the 5th February 2025 by agreement and supplied a prepared statement. Extracts from that prepared statement were provided in the trial bundle and read to the court. Following this the defendant was asked questions and provided no comment.
54. DC Wells confirmed that in relation to the release of crickets at the LGBA conference on the 11th of October 2024 he has looked at the CCTV and compared this to the time that the report was made. He confirmed that the release of insects and the call to police was at 1619, this therefore being before the complainant said they arrived. He confirmed that security were able to detain 4 people and none of those suspects were the complainant. On the 19th of October, the date of the BOI conference, an initial complaint was made to the police, subsequently there was the complaint of assault by the complainant which is arising from the facts of the phone incident and then on the 22nd of October 2024 a new report was generated in relation to an allegation of harassment. That harassment allegation originated as an online complaint by someone called Lynsay Watson. A complaint was also made by Michelle Louise Burrows.
55. DC Wells was taken to the entry in the police report in which the complainant was said to have obtained the defendant’s address but would not disclose how. He also referenced the report entry showing that on the 14th of November 2024 the complainant made contact stating they were unhappy with the report being closed which is the same date that the complainant signed the statement in the civil proceedings. The police reports then show on the 9th of December 2024 the complainant emails the police asking why no further action is being taken and if the report is closed without good reason they will complain to professional standards escalating to the IOPC or judicial review where necessary. DC Wells was taken to the part of the police report dated the 7th of November 2024 in which the complainant says that they are unavailable between certain times because “I am having my mobile assessed for damage that Linehan may have caused when he forcibly removed it from my hand and threw it across the street.”
And
78. I generally found the defendant to be a credible witness. He was willing to make concessions for example when accepting that he had no evidence to back up his claim that the complainant was a sissy porn watcher and was willing to accept which comments he regretted and which he did not. Further he made a number of concessions which, if he was seeking to mislead the court, in my view he would not have done. For example, but not limited to these examples, he accepted that outside of the BOI conference the complainant was committing no offence but said that the complainant is clever and does not commit offences. He also confirmed that he did not see the complainant harass or take photographs of anyone else outside of the BOI but he found out about this later.
And
Credibility of defence witnesses
101. I found the defence witnesses to be generally credible and have no reason to doubt what they were saying to me. Each are heavily involved in the GC movement and have strong views. Clearly even honest witnesses will recall things incorrectly at times and honest witnesses will often give slightly different versions of what happened to other witnesses, having seen it from their own point of view. There are minor inconsistencies between the defence witnesses particularly for example where it was suggested that the complainant put the camera in Julie Bindel's face while she was sat down with her laptop but Julie Bindel does not recall this happening. It was suggested that Ms Bindel was not giving honest evidence because she said that she was close enough to the complainant outside and the defendant to see and hear what happened but did not hear the unpleasant words the defendant used about the complainant. Having reviewed my notes of the evidence, when asked why she was nearby but could not hear the comments she said that she could not answer that and she did not say that she couldn't hear them but said that she didn’t hear them but she was harassed and anxious. It was not in my view a case of witnesses seeking to mislead me or to exaggerate evidence.
And
116. Firstly, the complainant did not describe the effect that this conduct had on them in any way other than to simply say that they were “alarmed and distressed” and they used this phrase repeatedly. I accept that the complainant was 17 at the time, 18 at the time that they appeared before me and a young witness. I accept that it is sometimes difficult to articulate oneself when appearing before a court and that is a stressful experience. However, it was striking that no matter what was asked of the complainant, this was the answer. I counted at least eight occasions in their evidence in chief when they were asked how they felt in response to an action
of the defendant and that was the answer that they gave. On occasions they were able to explain why that was and one of the answers was that the defendant had a large following and they were concerned that anyone could see the post and cause grave harm to them
117. Secondly, despite expressing such concern, the complainant attended the BOI conference on the 19th October 2024 where they must have known that there would be a large number of people in attendance who held opposing views. Furthermore, whilst the complainant may not have known that the defendant would have been present, having seen the defendant was present, they approached the defendant on more than one occasion, filming the defendant, engaging with the defendant, responding to the defendant’s unpleasant comments to them,
calling him an incel too. In one of the videos in which the complainant films themself and the defendant whilst calling him an incel, the complainant in my view looks visibly happy and not distressed. These in my view are not the actions of someone who was alarmed and distressed in the way that the complainant sought to portray.
118. Thirdly, the complainant did not report the posts immediately and when they were reported, it was not by the complainant. The complainant’s evidence was that by the 11th October 2024 they were aware of the posts of the defendant about them. Yet on the 19th October 2024 after the BOI when the complainant does contact the police, they report what is described as an assault, what I have described as the phone incident. The complainant does not report
for example that this man has also been harassing them online and they are upset, harassed, alarmed, distressed (or whatever form of words might be chosen) about that. In fact, the first person to report the harassment was not the complainant at all. It was reported by Michelle Louise Burrows and Lyndsey Watson. It was only later that the complainant then engaged with the police about the harassment allegation.
That's got to sting.
The judge basically said Brook was a liar who was put up to this by others, whilst saying Glinner and those who defended him were credible witnesses who told the truth as they saw it with no interest in trying to deliberately misleading the court - unlike Brooks.
It also does a good job of nerfing Watson's credibility in the process and marking him as a shit stirrer who seeks to use the courts as a weapon.
I know it's not a win for Glinner in full, but yep that's all fairly glorious and harsh - but not unfairly - on Brooks and his cronies.