Search results

Just a gentle reminder that Yaxley-Lennon's first criminal conviction was for assaulting a policeman who was trying to stop him beating his own girlfriend

Changing the venue won't stop someone like Yaxley-Lennon though as he seems to think he has a roving commission to commit contempt of court in several locations ranging from Canterbury in the south-east to Leeds (where his current case originates) in the north of England, which is pretty much...

Er...I think you'll find his lawyers appealed the decision, the judge heard the appeal and gave Yaxley-Lennon the benefit of the doubt, CMG But what if it's higher profile than that? What if people who turn out to be jurors on Trial #2 see that the defendants in Trial #1 are convicted because...

We also have a principle here that justice, in so far as is practicable, should be administered as locally as possible. But I still don't see how geographical remoteness can prevent potential miscarriages of justice unless there are some kind of reporting/communicating restrictions: what if...

Brownback's intervention was irrelevant: I can assure you that Theresa May's government had absolutely zero input one way or the other in the initial sentence, appeal or retrial process. Which is as it should be.

No, just you and your echo chamber as represented by some here.

Yaxley-Lennon is a danger to himself and to others

The decision? No; I err on the side of innocent until proven guilty and let justice take its course

There has been no verdict; he hasn't had his retrial yet

So what happens when a group of connected persons (eg: a drugs gang) is too large for a single trial?

Yes, who might have got away with it thanks to Yaxley-Lennon's antics...

Ah, well there were two trials you see, connected but separate, arising from one large group of accused Asian men who had to be split into two groups as there were too many for one trial. Trial 1 was to happen before Trial 2. There were therefore reporting restrictions imposed on Trial 1...

Robinson was interfering with due process in the first place allegedly

Schrödinger's Muslim 'getting away with everything' while simultaneously 'surrounding Tommy Robinson in prison'

The remorse comment was in response to CMG's post immediately above mine. How do the marshals etc prevent jurors from having access to smartphones etc?

Why would I express remorse? I haven't done anything wrong. So how do you prevent the sort of sub judice interference with the administration of justice which could result in the innocent being jailed or the guilty going free as referred to by Martin in his post?

You weren't attacked: your OP title was challenged and shown to be inaccurate - Yaxley-Lennon has not 'won' anything except a retrial; his guilt or innocence have yet to be proven. When correctly challenged you called David a 'very weak man'. Explain how that is not a personal attack.

Your second paragraph is irrelevant. There is already a thread on Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. This isn't it. This is about healthcare.

No. Truth. He has had a TRIAL (as we call it here). The trial has today been found to have been conducted without all the potential evidence being ventilated. No. AKA potentially jeopardizing the trial of men accused of rape and sex abuse of children and letting the guilty go free and...

Nope. The UK is the same as it was yesterday. One individual has ordered a retrial. We will see what that trial brings