Is There Justice for Jews in Britain?

Reasons for non-attendance at upcoming retrial on 22-23 July 2010 may be gleaned from the following witness statements:

http://www.sirpeterscott.com/retrial.html

what does this have to do with justice for jews??

the defendant failed either to appear at his trial or to send a lawyer, and instead of sending a medical certificate appears to have sent a fax of something …

from the surrey comet 22nd december 2009:

Magistrates rejected his plea for an adjournment, delivered by fax, because he was suffering from swine flu …

on the basis of that limited information, it is difficult to see any reason why the court should not have gone ahead

on presentation of presumably fuller information, the court later set aside the conviction, as reported by the times higher educational supplement 26th april 2010:

On 23 April, the court set aside both the conviction and the arrest warrant on the grounds that the trial should not have gone ahead without the academic being present.

A directions hearing on 14 May will decide how to proceed with both the harassment charge and an outstanding offence under the Public Order Act, which relates to a chance encounter between Sir Peter and Dr Fredrics in Kingston.

so what injustice is being complained of, whether anti-semitic or not??

as to his non-attendance at the forthcoming retrial, it is difficult to see why that should be a problem (on the harassment charge): the prosecution evidence is the website itself, and that is not in dispute

the verdict will depend not on evidence, but on legal argument as to whether the website amounts to harassment, and as to whether it was reasonable, and both those can be argued by the defendant's lawyer without any need of (or advantage in) the defendant's presence

for clarification: the prosecution appears to be alleging a classic case of internet bullying, using a charge of harassment contrary to section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997

this offence is triable purely summarily (ie not by a jury), and carries a maximum of six months in prison or a £5,000 fine
it is a defence (subsection (3)(c)) for the defendant to prove that his conduct was reasonable

I am told that I will be charged and probably convicted with failure to appear for non-attendance at the re-trial, even though I have four fully documented reasons for non-attendance:-

1. Fear for my safety based on anti-Semitic threats.
2. Poor health - caused by anti-Semitic threats and harassment by Kingston University, including witness intimidation against myself and my family that resulted in criminal charges against a high ranking university official.
3. Lack of funds to travel to trial.
4. Immigration status that bars my entry into the UK.

I did not send a lawyer at the first trial because they withdraw the day before trial due to a conflict of interest, though they notified the court of the conflict and applied for a postponement on my behalf, which was denied. Even a medical certificate sent to the Court was simply ignored and not brought to the Magistrates attention until after they convicted me in absentia. That is why a district judge was forced to overturn the conviction in April 2010, but the CPS refiled the charges, despite there being no legal basis for them:-

In the case of Dehal v DPP [2005] EWHC 2154 (Admin), the lower court found that the defendant intended to insult and harass the President of the temple and that what he said was unjustified. The Divisional Court did not disagree with that factual finding. Mr Justice Moses said "there has been and could be no challenge to the finding as to the appellant's intention, but that does not help in any way as to the proportionality of the criminal prosecution...". He went on to hold that "However insulting, however unjustified what the appellant said about the President of the Temple, a criminal prosecution was unlawful as a result of s.3 HRA
and Art 10 ECHR unless and until it could be established that such a prosecution was necessary in order to prevent public disorder."

So wake up, British Jews -- there is no justice for Jews in Britain.

arthurphunding: In the case of Dehal v DPP … "However insulting, however unjustified what the appellant said about the President of the Temple, a criminal prosecution was unlawful as a result of s.3 HRA and Art 10 ECHR unless and until it could be established that such a prosecution was necessary in order to prevent public disorder."

yes, but dehal v dpp was a case under the public order act 1986, whose purpose (obviously) is to prevent public disorder (breach of public order)

the present case is under the protection from harassment act 1997, whose purpose is to prevent harassment of an individual

(incidentally, a prosecution under the protection from harassment act 1997 would not have been possible in dehal's case, since no "course of conduct" (requiring two or more incidents) was alleged)

dehal v dpp establishes that article 10.2 of the european convention on human rights prevents prosecution for words said or written unless such prosecution is …

necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of public health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others …

in that case, the relevant words were "necessary … for the prevention of disorder"

in the present case, i expect the crown prosecution service will say that the relevant words are "necessary … for the protection of the reputation or rights of others", and that preventing public disorder, although fundamental in dehal's case, is simply irrelevant in this case

if the alleged harassment is serious enough, there is no need to prove that the prosecution is necessary to prevent public disorder

(and of course the whole question of whether to prosecute clearly has nothing to do with the defendant being jewish)

Notwithstanding the fact that Dehal is a Public Order case, the issue of proportionality for the state breaching Article 10 rights applies.

Also, in Heathrow Airport Ltd v Garman, taking into account Article 10 rights, the court refused to grant an injunction in harassment against protestors at Heathrow Airport.

It is clear that the exercise of the right to free speech could fall within the concept of harassment provided that other necessary ingredients such as unreasonable and oppressive conduct were present. A claim for harassment can engage both Article 8 and Article 10 rights and, as a result, a balancing exercise has to be carried out.

Where there is a compelling public interest and/or legitimate reason for the conduct such as exposure of criminal conduct, there may be a defence under section 1(3) of the PFHA.

In my case, there is a compelling public interest and legitimate reason -- exposure of unlawful and/or corrupt behavior, which has been proven to have taken place in government inquiries.

arthurphunding: Also, in Heathrow Airport Ltd v Garman, taking into account Article 10 rights, the court refused to grant an injunction in harassment against protestors at Heathrow Airport.

ah, you've obviously got that (and the following two paragraphs) from http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/revisited-“harassment-and-the-media”-part-2-media-claims-in-practice/

i'm afraid you've been misled by that article: it is wrong: in that case, the court did grant an injunction, despite taking Article 10 into account: here's the injunction (from paragraph 118(h) of http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2007/1957.html) …

327. The order should provide that the protestors shall not:
328. (i) enter the area of land marked on the plan to be attached without the prior consent of the Claimant;
329. (ii) by impeding or preventing access to or egress from the airport or otherwise, obstruct or interfere with the operation of the airport or with any person acting in the execution or his or her duty in relation thereto; and/or
330. (iii) incite, aid and/or abet any person to enter the area of land specified in (i) above and/or to act in any of the respects referred to in (ii) above.

(the court did refuse to grant it under the protection from harassment act 1997, but only because it found there was no harassment: see paragraphs 77 to 104, and in particular …

99 (c) In determining what kind of behaviour is capable of amounting to harassment, the cases of Chambers and Jones are, it seems to me, of limited assistance, since both deal with legislation significantly different from the 1997 Act. In particular, having regard to the contrast between the offences created by section 2 and section 4 of the 1997 Act, "harassment" cannot, in the context of that Act, be confined to conduct which would place the victim in fear of violence. Neither in my view can it be right that harassment is confined just to conduct that will cause alarm and distress. Quite where the line is to be drawn and whether a particular type of conduct can properly be considered to amount to harassment will depend on the particular facts and circumstances of the incident in question. It is not a matter that can - save in a clear case - be predicted in advance. All I am able to say at this stage is that the fact that the actions of protestors will or may cause annoyance and inconvenience to the travelling public (whether by a blockade or any other form of action) does not necessarily mean that their conduct will amount to harassment. It may do. It may not.

note that in the whole of paragraphs 77 to 104, Article 10 is not mentioned at all)

arthurphunding: In my case, there is a compelling public interest and legitimate reason -- exposure of unlawful and/or corrupt behavior, which has been proven to have taken place in government inquiries.

the two paragraphs you quoted preceding that (from the same source) are too vague to be reliable: suffice it to say that a prosecution for harassment is not prohibited by Article 10 if it is "necessary … for the protection of the reputation or rights of others", and that ultimately the case will probably depend on whether the defendant's method of his exercise of free speech was reasonable, compared with the actual distress caused to the victim

(btw, "compelling public interest" is, i believe, nothing more than a cliché regularly used by the crown prosecution service and which appears to be almost meaningless: it does not occur in the european convention or in statute)

(and of course still nothing to do with the defendant being jewish)

Much of the website in question relates directly to my Jewishness, to the virulent anti-Semitism practiced by the University, its associates and its officials, and to the fact that my wife and I having been threatened by an anti-Semitic terrorist, with apparent ties to the University was of no interest to the court when deciding whether or not to hold me responsible for turning up to trial makes this case very much related to my being Jewish. I stand by what I have said previously, that is that were I not Jewish, I would not have been treated as I have been treated.

Since in the eyes of the British Courts and, apparently, yourself, happygoldfish, anti-Semitism simply doesn't exist in Britain, it is no surprise, of course, that the Court and you have espoused the positions you have.

Also please keep in mind that exposing criminal activity and or other public misconduct is a defence under the PHA, and on this basis alone, I've done nothing wrong.

Furthermore, it is an offence on its own for a public body (a university) to take action that impinges on the right to free expression. Public bodies are charged with a special responsibility to ensure that Article 10 is upheld, and so filing harassment charges could possible be a criminal offence in this instance.

"Since in the eyes of the British Courts and, apparently, yourself, happygoldfish, anti-Semitism simply doesn't exist in Britain"

Take no notice of her. She's a self-absorbed crank. She wouldn't admit to anti-Semitism in Blighty even if Jews were being rounded up.

@Joshua18 -- Thanks very much for saying that. I was beginning to lose hope in the Jewish community's awareness and acknowledgment of what goes on in Britain after reading all of the nastiness by happygoldfish. You've renewed my faith and have made my day, Joshua18!