Thread by @willchamberlain

I'm as thrilled as anyone that Tommy is out of prison.

That said, he is still in serious legal jeopardy. The contempt finding at Leeds was quashed for procedural reasons, not substantive ones.

Let's talk about what he faces going forward.

A thread.

#FreeTommy

First, the rationale for his release. The appeals court criticized:

1) the use of the draconian summary procedure,
2) the failure to specify the specific type of contempt and specific behavior at issue, and
3) the failure to fully consider mitigation evidence.

As a result, the case was not dismissed for time served.

The appeals court ordered a rehearing, because it believed that the contempt at issue was "serious."

Tommy will face a different judge, who may well throw him back in jail.

Two months ago I discussed how Tommy likely violated the reporting restrictions imposed on the underlying grooming trial. That is still the case.

Tommy will still not get the benefit of a jury trial.

The court only ruled that *summarily* whisking him away to jail 5 hours after the conduct in question was improper.

He will face another judge, who, after considering the evidence, can toss him back in.

This is still an archaic and draconian aspect of UK law.

To explain why, I'll talk about a US Supreme Court case on the same subject - Bloom v. Illinois.

Keep in mind - it was decided in 1968 - 50 years ago.

Bloom had similar facts. The contemnor was summarily 24 months by a judge with no jury trial, and argued that his 6th amendment rights were violated.

The court in Bloom recognized an obvious point that UK courts still, apparently, hasn't grappled with.

If jury trials are important - then criminal contempt, which carries severe consequences, should be tried to a jury!

I made this point two months ago. It still remains one of the most fundamentally unjust things about this case.

Tommy's reporting is a problem because it could taint a jury trial - but no one, apparently, thinks he's entitled to one himself!

British courts argue that the summary power is necessary to maintain the "dignity" of their courts.

Justice White explained why this was bull 50 years ago. Dignity is maintaned not by the "fear of unlimited authority" but by the firm application of standard procedures.

Justice White recognized that some contempt can be taken seriously.

But if it's serious enough to mandate heavy punishment (up to two years, in Britain!) then it's serious enough to justify a jury trial.

And if the court needs to use the summary power to maintain order in the courtroom, it can do so without imposing draconian sentences on a whim. For petty contempts, in the United States, the summary power is still available. ("Petty" meaning less than 6 months max sentence.)

To sum up: Tommy is still facing a "committal" of up to two years in jail, and he has no right to a jury trial.

This is simply wrong, and it's an injustice worth talking about.

I'll have more later about the injustice of the underlying reporting restrictions, which again people seem to be taking for granted.

Remember - Tommy is in jail for reporting on a criminal trial.

That couldn't happen in the United States, and it shouldn't happen in the UK.

FIN