Another Lucy, Gored by The Law

I am having some real difficulty understanding why there has been a generalised assumption that Lucy Connolly was guilty of an offence in relation to the following tweet:

“Mass deportation now. Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care. While you’re at it, take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist, so be it.”

The charge against her was under the Public Order Act 1986 section 19 (Publishing or distributing written material):

• A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence if—

(a)          he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

(b)          having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

It is always worth looking at the definitions and sure enough there is a definition in the Act:

17           Meaning of ” racial hatred “.

In this Part ” racial hatred ” means hatred against a group of persons in Great Britain defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.

So let us look at the tweet. Who are “the bastards”? Clearly, it is the people in “the fucking hotels” (but presumably not the staff). And equally, those hotels were the hotels housing those who had crossed the Channel in small boats (let us call them “illegal immigrants” for the moment). That is a group, for sure. Is it a group defined by colour? Clearly not; the illegal immigrants were not of a uniform colour. Race? Clearly not; the illegal immigrants were not of a uniform race. Nationality? Clearly not; the illegal immigrants were of several nationalities. Ethnic or national origins? Clearly not; again, the illegal immigrants were not from a single ethnic or national origin. Instead, the group tweet was concerned with was defined by reference to the fact that they were people that had crossed the channel in small boats, and who were now being housed at public expense in hotels. That is the group that Lucy Connolly was primarily objecting to.

That is not the only group that the tweet was addressing. It was also addressing “the treacherous government and politicians”. It might well be thought that this included not only politicians, but also others in government, in particular civil servants. Again, that is not a group of persons listed in section 17.

Now, you might think that stirring up a bit of hatred, intentionally or otherwise, against politicians, bike thieves, estate agents, human rights lawyers, parking wardens or people who cross the channel in small inflatable boats is all thoroughly objectionable. But regardless of your views about that, such hatred is not “racial hatred” within the meaning of section 17. And if it is not “racial hatred” within the meaning of section 17, there can be no offence under section 19.

Lucy Connolly now says that she did not mean to stir up any racial hatred at all. And so there is no offence under section 19(1)(a), notwithstanding the concessions made by her lawyers. What about sections 19(1)(b)? Well, there is a problem for the prosecution here. This is what the Court of Appeal had to say about it:

5              Just over three and a half hours later, the applicant removed that message. By then, however, it had been viewed many times and reposted for others to read. In all, the message was viewed 310,000 times and reposted 940 times

There was no evidence that Lucy Connolly’s post had stirred up any racial hatred within that 3 ½ hours. Rather, it had stirred up some agreement among all the people who would reposted it. Stirring up agreement is not the same thing as stirring up racial hatred. Insofar as racial hatred was stirred up (as far as I am aware, there is no evidence at all that it was in fact stirred up at all), or was likely to be stirred up, it was stirred up by all those people who retweeted it. Obviously, the police would not like to go to all the trouble of prosecuting them. 940 of them. Much easier to find a single scapegoat.

And then there are those words, “for all I care”. Those words mean, of course, exactly the opposite of incitement. Let us take a couple of practical examples:

The wife of habitual drunken husband says, “Go to the pub and get sozzled again, for all I can”. Is that wife encouraging her husband go to the pub and get sozzled again? Clearly not.

Not so hypothetical, look at this from The Guardian:

Jon Savage very generously gave me access to his recordings of Sid’s mum – a heroin addict – going, “I fucking told him, ‘I don’t care where you go. Sling yer hook. Fuck off. Sleep on a park bench for all I care.” This when Sid was 15 years of age. So a very damaged boy.

Was that mother encouraging her son to sleep on a park bench? No.

The highest that the charge could properly be brought against Lucy Connolly was that she was saying that she not prepared to take any active steps to intervene in any riotous attempt to ignite the hotels. Well, it is not an offence to decline to get involved in a riot. Or to say as much.

And so we come to the question of her pleading guilty, notwithstanding that she was not. That was on legal advice that was, admittedly with the benefit of hindsight, less than ideal. But it was worse than that. Not only did her lawyer, Liam Muir of Carter Osborne, adviser to plead guilty, but also apparently conceded that the offence was of the most serious kind. The Court of Appeal said:

28. Mr Muir did not dispute that the offence fell into category A1 of the guideline.

I advance no criticism of Mr Muir here; that is a debate for an entirely different forum. As a lawyer myself, I know that all sorts of factors, not available for public scrutiny, might affect what advice a lawyer gives to his client. All that is pertinent to remark here is that if the courts had properly applied the law, they would have found:

• that Lucy Connolly had committed no offence;
• and even if there had been a technical infringement of the law, it was at a very low category.

There is every reason to believe that the refusal of bail for Lucy Connolly, her conviction, and the severity of her sentence were all politically motivated. The reality is that Lucy Connolly is middle England. As a childminder, she regularly cares for children of all ethnic backgrounds. Understandably, she wrote this tweet in a state of anger at the murders of children.

If you have not done so, I urge readers to listen to the interview by Allison Pearson. Just over an hour long, but worth the time.

She might bring down the government of Keir Starmer. For all I care.

The Met Fails to Fire Sgt Di Maria

My first impression, when I read that the courts were to intervene to prevent the Metropolitan police from firing rapists from its ranks, was that this was another case of unwarranted court intervention. But then I had another look. It turns out that it has not been established that the officer in question, Sgt Lino Di Maria, has been guilty of rape, or of any other sexual offence. Indeed, it rather appears that the charges against him are preposterous. And that what the Metropolitan police have been doing, is not assuming innocence until proven guilty, but rather treating accusations, however far-fetched, as established fact.

The decision of the court is available online. Leaving aside some ridiculous trivial charges[1], there have been two allegations of rape against Sgt Di Maria, both by fellow police officers.

The first (allegation B) is that when she was voluntarily kissing Sgt Di Maria in her car following a gym session, Sgt Di Maria “forced her to have oral sex”. It cannot have been that awful for her, because just a few days later, she invited him back into her car. Here the complaint was that his penis entered her anus. According to Sgt Di Maria, this was an accident; the female officer in question being on all fours – consensually – he entered her anus in error. He subsequently apologised, which I suppose shows some small shred of decency in a thoroughly tacky episode. These things perhaps happen in the confines of a car? In any event, it took the female officer ten months to come to the conclusion that she had been raped, and report the matter. The conclusion of that process was that there was no case to answer, even of misconduct, let alone rape.[2]

The second allegation (allegation D) was even staler. The complainant in that case, another female police officer, alleged that Sgt Di Maria had raped her some six years earlier, when they were studying together, working on a combined essay. It cannot have been that shocking, because the evidence is that they then continued with the essay, that she said she found the sexual intercourse was enjoyable, and went on to have three further consensual sexual encounters with Sgt Di Maria before then taking up with another police officer. Again, an enquiry into her complaint found that there was no case to answer.[3]

None of this is to say that Sgt Di Maria is a perfect gentleman. But it does suggest that the Metropolitan Police has fallen, hook line and sinker, for the Keir Starmer suggestion that the police should reverse the usual presumption of innocence where an allegation of sexual misconduct have been made.

The performance of Sir Mark Rowley, as Commissioner of the Metropolitan police, has been abysmal. It is high time that he is fired.  And replaced by someone who goes after real crimes, such as theft and assault, rather than pursue a career as Archpriest of Woke.

---

[1] Such as an anonymous complaint by someone working with Sgt Di Maria that he had “commented on her clothes” and looked at her; see para 23 of the judgment.

[2] B: 12 August 2019

12. On 12 August 2019, the complainant, a serving police officer, made two allegations of rape. First, on 3 December 2018, after she and the Claimant had been to the gym together and were sitting in the back of the complainant’s car in the Tesco car park and kissing, the Claimant forced her to have oral sex. Second, on 9 December 2018, they left the gym together and went to her car in the Tesco car park, where the Claimant initiated sexual contact, and his penis entered her anus.

13. On 6 January 2020, the Claimant was interviewed under caution and gave a prepared statement. He stated that there had been two instances of consensual sex in the complainant’s car (the second incident was on 15 not 9 December). On the first occasion, she consented to oral sex, and he warned her that he was going to ejaculate. On the second occasion, the complainant was on all fours in the back of the car, and he accidentally entered her anus, not her vagina as he had intended, and apologised. In interview, the Claimant stated that he had no idea why she waited 10 months to report the incidents; they had not been in contact with each other since texting shortly after the second occasion, and two chance encounters.

14. On 2 January 2020, the Claimant was placed on restricted duty, with conditions. The restricted duty direction was reviewed and removed on 28 March 2020 but he remained subject to conditions not to have contact with the complainant and not to be involved in cases concerning sexual offences/violence.

15. On 12 June 2021, the Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”) decided to take “no further action” because of inconsistencies in the evidence which undermined the complainant’s case. These included emails and texts from the complainant to the Claimant after the first incident. She referred favourably to their “encounter”, told him when she could next meet him at the gym, and gave him her phone number. She had initially told her Inspector they had not sent texts to each other and not exchanged phone numbers. Witness statements were obtained from other officers which were “highlighted as undermining the case” because of the inconsistencies in the various accounts given by the complainant.

16. On 6 July 2021, a detailed Conduct Matter Investigation Report was made pursuant to the Conduct Regulations. The emails and texts exchanged between the complainant and the Claimant were discussed at paragraphs 6.1.6 and 6.1.7. The evidence and inconsistencies identified by the CPS were referred to in paragraph 5.122 of the Conduct Matter Investigation Report, and at paragraph 6.1.9 which concluded that the complainant’s case was undermined by the inconsistencies between the account of events she gave in interview, and the accounts which she gave to fellow officers.

17. The investigator concluded that there was no case to answer, as there was insufficient evidence upon which a reasonable tribunal could find, on the balance of probabilities,either misconduct or gross misconduct. All restrictions were removed.

[3] D: 6 June 2021

19. On 6 June 2021, the complainant, who was a British Transport Police officer, made an allegation to the police that the Claimant had raped her on 20 February 2015. She was studying at University with the Claimant and they were friends. They were working on a combined essay together at her home when he initiated sexual contact and vaginally raped her. She froze and said nothing. They then continued with the essay. She said that she had three further sexual encounters with the Claimant which were consensual.

Following an ABE interview, in which she said that she found the sexual intercourse enjoyable, and exchanged messages with the Claimant afterwards, the complainant said she did not wish to proceed with the criminal allegation. The police were not satisfied that the sexual activity was non-consensual.

20. This allegation was considered on 21 December 2021 in a detailed Conduct Matter Investigation Report, made pursuant to the Conduct Regulations. It stated that the  Claimant was not served with a form 163 because there was no indication of misconduct. Nonetheless he was invited to respond, which he did on 21 December 2021. He denied any wrongdoing and said he totally refuted the allegations. He explained that when studying at university between 2014 and 2016, they would flirt and text and “hook up” for sexual encounters. She was aware that he was married. Their sexual relationship came to an end because she had a relationship with another officer at the university.

21. The report recorded that the complainant decided not to proceed with the allegation. The report concluded that, because of the issues about consent, there was no case to answer, as there was insufficient evidence upon which a reasonable tribunal could find on the balance of probabilities, either misconduct or gross misconduct.

A Very Lumpy Carpet – It Is All Stunned Mullets

It is been apparent recently that an awful lot of what we were told by the powers that be has turned out to be – to put it mildly – not really true.

• We were told that the mRNA vaccines would stop us getting Covid, and would prevent transmission. In fact, neither of these turned out to be true.[1]

• We were told we had to stay at home, and wear masks, to stop us getting Covid. We now know that both of these were completely useless. Well, worse than useless, actually. By quite a bit.

• We were told that shutting down our traditional power stations in favour of wind turbines and solar panels would give us cheaper electricity. In fact, the evidence from all over the world has turned out to be the exact opposite; it makes electricity much, much more expensive. And, for that matter, much less reliable.

• For years, we have been told that the Arctic polar ice cap is just about to melt away as we experience runaway global warming. Instead, the Arctic polar ice cap has not melted away at all; it is the same size as normal. And both Greenland and Antarctica have been getting colder (this matters, because these are the places that are supposed to drown us when the ice melts);

Lucy Letby is Innocent

Since I am in a predicting sort of mood, allow me another prediction. The Lucy Letby case will, in the end, lead to her pardon. It will become increasingly apparent that her conviction was wholly unsafe, the evidence against her being entirely circumstantial and hopelessly flawed, and it will become a political necessity to relieve her of her whole life sentence. Given all the publicity, a retrial is impossible. And so a pardon it will be. It will go down in history as the greatest miscarriage of justice in UK legal history.

Let us start with why so many people already think she is innocent. Some of these people, like the eminent Dr Michael Hall, were present throughout pretty much all of the trial. Others like the politician Sir David Davis have studied the evidence in great detail. These people are pretty certain of Lucy Letby’s innocence. Others, like Peter Hitchens, refuse to be drawn on that, but merely say that they are sure that the conviction is unsafe. These people have no axe to grind in favour of Lucy Letby. Rather, they have looked at the evidence. All of the evidence against Lucy Letby was circumstantial. Nobody saw her harm any of the babies. It is all just inference. The fact is that a number of babies died. More than usual in a neonatal unit. There are at least a couple of explanations. One is that Lucy Letby is a serial murderer. Another is that this was a poorly performing hospital. In the absence of any direct evidence, one has to draw an inference. Which is more likely here? The overwhelming preponderance of expert evidence, as it has now emerged, is that this was a poorly performing hospital.