@Tikay10 And still the personal attacks continue . Certain people are obviously no longer interested in maintaining this as a Tommy Robinson thread .
Ok , do you think naz shah should of been sacked for her retweeting and liking post telling Children who had been raped they should shut their mouths for the sake of diversity ?
“Everyone deserves a fair trial” ( Including TR, SYL) Does what TR ( SYL) did outside court impact on the fairness of the trial?
No, if it did surely a crown court judge would have been able to preside over the case, and not the Attorney General. judge marston who tried and sentenced TOMMY, the same judge who gave the nonces bail as he deemed they were not a risk to the community, and were not a flight risk. p.s one of the nonces is still on the run.
Mail and Mirror guilty of contempt in Levi Bellfield case Newspapers 'significantly exacerbated' risk of serious prejudice in high-profile jury trial of Milly Dowler murderer
• Read the Levi Bellfield contempt judgment Josh Halliday
Wed 18 Jul 2012 12.01 BST First published on Wed 18 Jul 2012 12.01 BST This article is over 6 years old Shares 16 Levi Bellfield The articles contained background information about Levi Bellfield, which the high court ruled on Wednesday went 'far beyond' what the jury had been told in court. Photograph: Metropolitan Police/PA The Daily Mail and Daily Mirror have been found guilty of contempt of court over their coverage of Levi Bellfield's conviction for the abduction and murder of schoolgirl Milly Dowler.
Bellfield was convicted on 23 June 2011, but the judge dismissed the Old Bailey jury before they could reach a verdict on a second charge, that he had also allegedly attempted to abduct schoolgirl Rachel Cowles, blaming media coverage.
In a judgment handed down at the high court in London on Wednesday, Sir John Thomas, the president of the Queen's Bench Division, and Mr Justice Tugendhat said coverage in the two newspapers did "significantly exacerbate" the risk of serious prejudice to the high-profile jury trial.
Advertisement
Thomas, speaking on behalf of both judges, said: "I am sure that each publication did create such a substantial risk of serious prejudice.
"The allegations of his sexual interest in and depraved conduct to young girls was highly prejudicial to the count that the jury were then still considering. What was set out went way beyond what the jury had been told or what had been broadcast on the preceding evening.
"I have little doubt that if the jury had not been discharged, there would have been a seriously arguable point that the conviction was unsafe."
Thomas and Tugendhat did not rule on what financial penalty must be paid by the two newspapers. That must now be decided after legal argument between the attorney general, Dominic Grieve QC, and counsel for the two titles, Associated Newspapers for the Daily Mail and Mirror Group Newspapers for the Daily Mirror.
The attorney general's office said the fines to be paid by the newspapers would be decided at a costs hearing in October.
Thomas added: "In my judgment, although there was no further or additional prejudice resulting from the publication of that part of the article in the Daily Mail that related to the [Megan] Russell murder, there was further and additional risk of prejudice created by the articles in both the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror in relation to Bellfield's interest in and rape of girls.
"The terms in which those articles were written did, in my judgment, significantly exacerbate the risk of serious prejudice."
Contempt of court proceedings against newspapers are still relatively uncommon, despite two prosecutions in the past 12 months.
In July last year the Daily Mirror and Sun were found to have breached the Contempt of Court Act with their coverage of the arrest of Christopher Jefferies, who was later released without charge, in the Joanna Yeates murder case. The Mirror was fined £50,000 and the Sun £18,000.
The offending articles were published by the Daily Mirror and Daily Mail on the day after Bellfield's conviction for the murder and abduction of Milly Dowler, while the jury was considering another charge on the attempted kidnapping of Cowles.
The articles contained background information about Bellfield, which the high court ruled on Wednesday went "far beyond" what the jury had been told in court.
"There was a real risk that the jury would have thought that the additional material was relevant to the remaining count where he was charged with attempting to abduct a schoolgirl," Thomas said.
"I am quite satisfied that both the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror by publishing the further material, particularly that relating to his rape of girls, created a quite separate and distinct risk of serious prejudice."
The attorney general said in a statement: "This case shows why the media must comply with the Contempt of Court Act. It is unfortunate that the deluge of media coverage following the Milly Dowler verdict, not only by these papers but also other media outlets, led to the judge discharging the jury before they had completed their deliberations on a charge of attempted kidnap, ultimately depriving Rachel Cowles of a verdict in her case.
"This prosecution is a reminder to the press that whilst the jury is still to reach a verdict on all counts of the indictment the Contempt of Court Act applies. The question of penalty is now for the court to consider."
A Trinity Mirror spokesman said: "We are surprised at the court's decision.
"The Daily Mirror has been found to have been in contempt of court over a story published after the jury had convicted Levi Bellfield of abducting and murdering Milly Dowler but whilst it was still deciding on whether he had attempted to abduct another young girl the day before he abducted Milly.
"At the outset of his trial the jury was told that since Milly's disappearance Bellfield had murdered two young women and attempted to murder another. We cannot see how on a realistic and dispassionate view it can be concluded that what we published, namely allegations of his violent treatment and sexual abuse of his ex-wife and a former partner and an allegation that he had once boasted of raping a disabled girl, could have prejudiced the jurors against Bellfield when they already knew that he had committed two murders and one attempted murder and they themselves, on the basis of all the evidence they had heard during the trial, had convicted him of abducting and murdering Milly Dowler.
"We will therefore be giving careful consideration to the question of an appeal."
A spokesman for Associated Newspapers said: "Whilst we have nothing but sympathy for Rachel Cowles and her family, and share their dismay at the discharge of the jury in her case, we are disappointed by this decision.
"This case was wholly exceptional given what had already been put before the jury about Levi Bellfield.
"In the course of the trial, the jury were told that Bellfield had been convicted of the murders of two young women, Marsha McDonnell and Amelie Delagrange, and the attempted murder of another, Kate Sheedy. The jurors had found him guilty of the abduction and murder of Milly Dowler before the publication of our article. The trial judge also gave the jury clear directions at the outset of the trial and in his summing up to ignore anything that was published outside the courtroom.
Should we as citizens of the UK abide by the law of the land , or ignore it?
Ie , if a court rules you in contempt, and issues a warning not to do it again, should we do it, or ignore?
TOMMY didnt ignore it, he played by the rules, even went on a course about contempt of court. Do you think he deserved a prison sentence for the offence, and if so why didnt the newspapers on the levi bellifield face the same justice ?
The article is by Becky Boumelha who is a member of Momentums coordinating group. Momentum is a people-powered, vibrant movement. We aim to transform the Labour Party, our communities and Britain in the interests of the many, not the few.
Our proposition is simple: if more of us come together, we can use our skills and energy to tackle every challenge head on. Using our collective power, our campaigning, networks and tech, we can transform society for the better.
From our view of the Labour Party, to how we change Britain for the better, we’re up front about where we stand.
Indeed, not saying she doesn't have an agenda but I think she makes some good points regarding further polarisation of the Brexit debate. Your thoughts?
“Everyone deserves a fair trial” ( Including TR, SYL) Does what TR ( SYL) did outside court impact on the fairness of the trial?
The attorney general hasn't made up his mind yet !
I’m asking people who participate on this thread their opinions, trying to get back on track, the use of an exclamation mark in your reply seems unnecessary.
The article is by Becky Boumelha who is a member of Momentums coordinating group. Momentum is a people-powered, vibrant movement. We aim to transform the Labour Party, our communities and Britain in the interests of the many, not the few.
Our proposition is simple: if more of us come together, we can use our skills and energy to tackle every challenge head on. Using our collective power, our campaigning, networks and tech, we can transform society for the better.
From our view of the Labour Party, to how we change Britain for the better, we’re up front about where we stand.
“Everyone deserves a fair trial” ( Including TR, SYL) Does what TR ( SYL) did outside court impact on the fairness of the trial?
The attorney general hasn't made up his mind yet !
I’m asking people who participate on this thread their opinions, trying to get back on track, the use of an exclamation mark in your reply seems unnecessary.
The article is by Becky Boumelha who is a member of Momentums coordinating group. Momentum is a people-powered, vibrant movement. We aim to transform the Labour Party, our communities and Britain in the interests of the many, not the few.
Our proposition is simple: if more of us come together, we can use our skills and energy to tackle every challenge head on. Using our collective power, our campaigning, networks and tech, we can transform society for the better.
From our view of the Labour Party, to how we change Britain for the better, we’re up front about where we stand.
Indeed, not saying she doesn't have an agenda but I think she makes some good points regarding further polarisation of the Brexit debate. Your thoughts?
I think she's totally over playing TR's role or impact on Brexit .
Comments
Does what TR ( SYL) did outside court impact on the fairness of the trial?
Had to read up on the lady as I didn't know her.
If she meant to like and retweet the disgusting post then she should resign or be sacked.
judge marston who tried and sentenced TOMMY, the same judge who gave the nonces bail as he deemed they were not a risk to the community, and were not a flight risk.
p.s one of the nonces is still on the run.
Ie , if a court rules you in contempt, and issues a warning not to do it again, should we do it, or ignore?
Mail and Mirror guilty of contempt in Levi Bellfield case
Newspapers 'significantly exacerbated' risk of serious prejudice in high-profile jury trial of Milly Dowler murderer
• Read the Levi Bellfield contempt judgment
Josh Halliday
Wed 18 Jul 2012 12.01 BST First published on Wed 18 Jul 2012 12.01 BST
This article is over 6 years old
Shares
16
Levi Bellfield
The articles contained background information about Levi Bellfield, which the high court ruled on Wednesday went 'far beyond' what the jury had been told in court. Photograph: Metropolitan Police/PA
The Daily Mail and Daily Mirror have been found guilty of contempt of court over their coverage of Levi Bellfield's conviction for the abduction and murder of schoolgirl Milly Dowler.
Bellfield was convicted on 23 June 2011, but the judge dismissed the Old Bailey jury before they could reach a verdict on a second charge, that he had also allegedly attempted to abduct schoolgirl Rachel Cowles, blaming media coverage.
In a judgment handed down at the high court in London on Wednesday, Sir John Thomas, the president of the Queen's Bench Division, and Mr Justice Tugendhat said coverage in the two newspapers did "significantly exacerbate" the risk of serious prejudice to the high-profile jury trial.
Advertisement
Thomas, speaking on behalf of both judges, said: "I am sure that each publication did create such a substantial risk of serious prejudice.
"The allegations of his sexual interest in and depraved conduct to young girls was highly prejudicial to the count that the jury were then still considering. What was set out went way beyond what the jury had been told or what had been broadcast on the preceding evening.
"I have little doubt that if the jury had not been discharged, there would have been a seriously arguable point that the conviction was unsafe."
Thomas and Tugendhat did not rule on what financial penalty must be paid by the two newspapers. That must now be decided after legal argument between the attorney general, Dominic Grieve QC, and counsel for the two titles, Associated Newspapers for the Daily Mail and Mirror Group Newspapers for the Daily Mirror.
The attorney general's office said the fines to be paid by the newspapers would be decided at a costs hearing in October.
Thomas added: "In my judgment, although there was no further or additional prejudice resulting from the publication of that part of the article in the Daily Mail that related to the [Megan] Russell murder, there was further and additional risk of prejudice created by the articles in both the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror in relation to Bellfield's interest in and rape of girls.
"The terms in which those articles were written did, in my judgment, significantly exacerbate the risk of serious prejudice."
Contempt of court proceedings against newspapers are still relatively uncommon, despite two prosecutions in the past 12 months.
In July last year the Daily Mirror and Sun were found to have breached the Contempt of Court Act with their coverage of the arrest of Christopher Jefferies, who was later released without charge, in the Joanna Yeates murder case. The Mirror was fined £50,000 and the Sun £18,000.
The offending articles were published by the Daily Mirror and Daily Mail on the day after Bellfield's conviction for the murder and abduction of Milly Dowler, while the jury was considering another charge on the attempted kidnapping of Cowles.
The articles contained background information about Bellfield, which the high court ruled on Wednesday went "far beyond" what the jury had been told in court.
"There was a real risk that the jury would have thought that the additional material was relevant to the remaining count where he was charged with attempting to abduct a schoolgirl," Thomas said.
"I am quite satisfied that both the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror by publishing the further material, particularly that relating to his rape of girls, created a quite separate and distinct risk of serious prejudice."
The attorney general said in a statement: "This case shows why the media must comply with the Contempt of Court Act. It is unfortunate that the deluge of media coverage following the Milly Dowler verdict, not only by these papers but also other media outlets, led to the judge discharging the jury before they had completed their deliberations on a charge of attempted kidnap, ultimately depriving Rachel Cowles of a verdict in her case.
"This prosecution is a reminder to the press that whilst the jury is still to reach a verdict on all counts of the indictment the Contempt of Court Act applies. The question of penalty is now for the court to consider."
A Trinity Mirror spokesman said: "We are surprised at the court's decision.
"The Daily Mirror has been found to have been in contempt of court over a story published after the jury had convicted Levi Bellfield of abducting and murdering Milly Dowler but whilst it was still deciding on whether he had attempted to abduct another young girl the day before he abducted Milly.
"At the outset of his trial the jury was told that since Milly's disappearance Bellfield had murdered two young women and attempted to murder another. We cannot see how on a realistic and dispassionate view it can be concluded that what we published, namely allegations of his violent treatment and sexual abuse of his ex-wife and a former partner and an allegation that he had once boasted of raping a disabled girl, could have prejudiced the jurors against Bellfield when they already knew that he had committed two murders and one attempted murder and they themselves, on the basis of all the evidence they had heard during the trial, had convicted him of abducting and murdering Milly Dowler.
"We will therefore be giving careful consideration to the question of an appeal."
A spokesman for Associated Newspapers said: "Whilst we have nothing but sympathy for Rachel Cowles and her family, and share their dismay at the discharge of the jury in her case, we are disappointed by this decision.
"This case was wholly exceptional given what had already been put before the jury about Levi Bellfield.
"In the course of the trial, the jury were told that Bellfield had been convicted of the murders of two young women, Marsha McDonnell and Amelie Delagrange, and the attempted murder of another, Kate Sheedy. The jurors had found him guilty of the abduction and murder of Milly Dowler before the publication of our article. The trial judge also gave the jury clear directions at the outset of the trial and in his summing up to ignore anything that was published outside the courtroom.
Do you think he deserved a prison sentence for the offence, and if so why didnt the newspapers on the levi bellifield face the same justice ?
Your thoughts?
Its pretty simple how things work, ask and question get an answer.
If he cannot reply to a basic question he cannot expect people to answer questions from him.
Stupidly I answered his question and as per silence from him and you posting a deflecting comment sadly I was hoping to get things back on SYL.
I've been MIA for around 14 hours & just seen this nonsense.
The thread is CLOSED until further notice.