Tommy Robinson cleared of refusing to leave antisemitism march after Met police error

Get Instant Breaking News Alerts For Free Via Email

Get Our Breaking News Emails For Free

Tommy Robinson was found not guilty of disobeying the instruction to exit Westminster by law enforcement officers when he was apprehended during a protest against discrimination towards Jewish people in November of the previous year.

A high-ranking member of the Metropolitan Police has confessed that the dispersal order might not have been legitimate because he made an error on the documentation by putting the wrong date.

Robinson, also known as Stephen Yaxley Lennon, had refused to follow instructions when he got detained by the police in front of the Royal Courts of Justice.

After making his decision, District Judge Daniel Sternberg declared: "I'm unconvinced that there was a lawful approval."

You don't have to respond to the case.

The Metropolitan Police have stated that they will thoroughly examine the errors made in their procedures as well as the conclusions of the judge, in order to make sure that any necessary modifications are carried out.

The person who started the English Defence League went to a protest in the middle of London, even though the people in charge of the protest told him not to come. The protest was about the fighting between Israel and Hamas.

According to the trial at Westminster Magistrates' Court, Inspector Steve Parker-Phipps was in charge of overseeing specific parts of the protest and decided to enforce a Section 35 order as per the guidelines set out in the Crime and Policing Act 2014. His reasoning for this decision was based on the possibility of a "right-wing group" being present.

During court proceedings, it was revealed that Inspector Parker-Phipps had set the order at 10am on November 26 while his laptop battery was running low. However, he mistakenly dated the form for November 24.

During the court hearing, Alisdair Williamson KC, who is the defence attorney for Mr Robinson, expressed that there were multiple serious mistakes made by the Metropolitan Police when dealing with the situation. These errors were described as being completely disastrous.

When the inspector was questioned by Mr Williamson KC, he was told that the document was not accurate, right?

"Do we have reason to believe that there was a legal directive in effect?" The officer took a moment to respond before stating, "Negative."

After a brief period, Robinson was apprehended inside a cafe located on the Strand. According to the court proceedings, he began opposing the authorities and was eventually arrested.

Afterwards, he was hit with artificial pepper spray and restrained with handcuffs. Later, Robinson shared a video of himself on social media where his eyes were partly closed.

While being apprehended, the individual continually insisted to the authorities that he was in attendance as a reporter during the protest.

Many people who backed Mr. Robinson showed up for the trial and filled the area where the public sits.

After the decision was announced, a representative of the Metropolitan Police gave a statement saying that Stephen Lennon had been accused of not following an instruction to leave the area where the March Against Antisemitism was taking place on Saturday, November 26th.

Mr. Lennon has been declared innocent by the court due to several mistakes made by the police during the proceedings. We will examine the court's decision and make any necessary adjustments to our procedures without delay.

On that day, the choice was made to enforce a dispersal order. This was done so that the officers could have the authority to separate people or groups that had conflicting opinions. The main objective was to guarantee the safety of the public and diminish the possibility of chaos.

They stated that dispersal orders are often utilized in keeping public order, which has become more difficult over the past few months.

They stated that they would keep taking appropriate measures to maintain peace while keeping public safety a priority. This involves finding a balance between the right to protest and preventing disorder that may cause severe disruption.