There must be more to this

[JonathanM]

On the face of it, the CPS prosecuted two protestors for calling Iain Duncan Smith "Tory scum".

And when they were found not guilty, the Director of Public Prosecutions brought a judicial review.

There has to be more to this case. Hopefully, somebody can explain the legal basis. Maybe @motorbiking will help me out?

Reasonable for protesters to call Iain Duncan Smith ‘Tory scum’, court rules

High court rejects attempt to overturn acquittal of two protesters who made remarks outside 2021 Tory conference

www.theguardian.com

 

[motorbiking]

I just read the summary of the judgement. I haven't found a public link yet..

At a very high-level the defendants were charged with Sec4A Public Order act.

Public Order Act 1986

An Act to abolish the common law offences of riot, rout, unlawful assembly and affray and certain statutory offences relating to public order; to create new offences relating to public order; to control public processions and assemblies; to control the stirring up of racial hatred; to provide...

www.legislation.gov.uk

Threatening, abuse etc.. It's fairly clear that shouting at someone and telling them to f*o* out of Manchester and tory scum etc etc. meets that test. Lots of yobos get nicked every day for shouting and swearing abuse at people... but the defendants pulled a free speech argument and argued the conduct was reasonable. if you look at the video they kept their distance the whole time, so the abuse was more of a broadcast protest rather than in your face abuse. The CPS prosecutor at the magistrates did a pretty bad job of proving that the abuse was disproportionate to their rights and therefore not reasonable. There was basically a mix up as to whose job it was to prove what and on that basis the DPP called for a judicial review and lost. It's a bit strange because the law does say - its for the defence to prove their conduct was reasonable. They made a reasonable argument and the prosecutor failed to nail it, got p*ssed off and tried to flip the burden back on the defence. its actually for the state to make the argument against the right to free speech as being disproportionate. I suspect we will see a little tweak to the Public Order Act.

The court has not ruled that it is reasonable to call Iain Duncan smith Tory scum and tell him or anyone to f* o* they have ruled that its on the state to prove that in the circumstances a right to free speech is not a reasonable defence and the state must prove that the conduct and behaviour was disproportionate to that right. They also screwed up their appeal and submitted it out of time.

Reading between the lines the prosecutor did a pretty poor job of linking 3 offences together. Assault - someone dropped a traffic cone on his head, 2 separate instances of Sec4A, which they might have been able to link had they done their homework. We hear nothing of what happened to the other 3 who were arrested?

My guess is lazy prosecuting - it happens a lot at magistrates courts. They really don't expect the defendant to put up decent argument.

This bit is correct though:

The high court ruled that the defence needed to set out the facts for a “reasonable conduct defence” in relation to the freedom of expression and assembly rights in the European convention on human rights, but that it had been up to the prosecution to demonstrate the proportionality of an interference with those rights, which it had not done.

.

from the charging standard - pretty clear tbh.

It is a defence to section 4A and section 5 for the accused to demonstrate that their conduct was reasonable, which must be interpreted in accordance with the freedom of expression and other freedoms. If these freedoms are engaged, a justification for interference (by prosecution) with them must be convincingly established. A prosecution may only proceed if necessary and proportionate.

Roy & Nosenout our resident legal experts will be along shortly to tell me I don't know what I am talking about.

 

[JonathanM]

@motorbiking

Thank you.

I hadn't even realised things like this were an offence. Thanks for the hat tip about some of it being caught on video. I've now found one of them.

 

[motorbiking]

You wont find video of the cone being dumped on his head. That is clearly assault and would likely get you a month banged up. The guy they nicked was cleared because the CCTV was inconclusive not because its a lawful protest to dump a cone on someones head.. plenty of pranksters get done for egging politicians and similar.

Have a look at the defendants..

Man accused of attacking Iain Duncan Smith with traffic cone is cleared

The politician was repeatedly sworn at and labelled "Tory scum" before having the cone put on his head - but the man alleged to have done it is acquitted and awarded £37 in costs to cover his travel to court.

news.sky.com

 

[motorbiking]

Did you spot that this is the same magistrate/judge that was reprimanded for showing political support for a pro-Palestine offender and also the one who convicted the MP Bob Stuart of racially aggravated public order offence?