On Thursday 2 December 2010 the papers were filed at Court for an application for an appeal of my client Paul Chambers to the High Court. In a perhaps ironic twist, the receiving court - Doncaster Crown Court - was closed because of snow.
The appeal is formally called an "Appeal by Case Stated". These are appeals to the High Court on points of law. The Court will now have 21 days to consider the application: the decision should be just before Christmas. If granted, then there will be a High Court hearing early in the new year. However, if the application is not successful, then Paul has the option of a judicial review of that refusal, where the High Court can order that permision be granted.
The newly-appointed QC, Ben Emmerson, has described the grounds for the appeal as "strong". It will be Ben, one of the greatest human rights lawyers of his generation, who will have (if permission is granted or ordered) the task of engaging with the High Court as to the permissible use of the offences under section 127(1) of the Communications Act 2003 in the context of both the threat of terrorism and the ever-widening use of social media.
On a personal note, I never really expected the case to get this far. Nor did I expect to be the sole solicitor acting for Paul (I was joint solicitor for Paul with his local Doncaster criminal solicitor for the Crown Court Hearing, but as the case has now moved down to the High Court in London, I am now entirely responsible for the conduct of the case).
In this I am lucky to have the generous help of some exceptional lawyers. This nice piece in the The Lawyer provides some of the background to the putting together of the legal team. It must be said, I have felt like an far-inferior, Brummie version of Bob Geldof (though with similar hair) in making the calls and asking for favours.
Mine is not the only view on the applicable law and the conviction. So for completness, please see an interesting (though wrongly-titled) post on the INFORRM media blog here. There is also a counterview to mine here.
The case has now generated much considerable international interest, with articles in publications in Canada, Australia, the United States, South Africa, Germany, France, and so on. It appears that, like the Simon Singh litigation I was previously involved in, the case has caught the mood of the times. Of all the articles and posts published so far, my favourites are the ones by Graham Linehan, Nick Cohen, and - a brilliant piece - Charlie Brooker.
The last word must be about my client, Paul Chambers. All he did was tweet his exasperation about the prospect of not seeing a lovely girl he was to stay with for the first time. He then was arrested in front of his colleagues, interviewed at length, and convicted for an obscure offence (for which he was not even arrested). He has been in court five times, each time an incredibly stressful and gruelling ordeal. He has lost two jobs. And throughout, he has been consistently calm and well-humoured.
He could have walked away from this at any point and "drawn a line" and "got on with his life".
But he has not. Like Simon Singh before him, though in a different context, he just thinks something is wrong and he is determined - as far as possible - to see if it can be set right.
COMMENTS MODERATION
No purely anonymous comments will be published; always use a name for ease of reference by other commenters.
Any abuse or insults in respect of the Court will NOT be published.
Posts
11 comments:
This is a really important case and I'm glad you're still going ahead with it (although I wish you didn't need to).
I'd like to wish you and your client good luck. I so hope that some sensible version of "free speech" and keeping things in proportion wins through. For all our sakes.
Excellent post as ever.
Minor typos: couterview/counterview (end para 6), spare "/" end para 7.
One bizarre thought, there are writing, film and other rights to think of here. At the core of this is a great human-interest story of the relationship between two people being tested by the weather, then the CPS and the legal system. Get Richard Curtis, Ben Elton and Andrew Lloyd Webber to turn it into a hit film and musical?
I agree wholeheartedly with every bit of this post except that Paul could have got on with his life. I mean, yes, he could have shut up and paid the fine. But he'd still have the criminal record, wouldn't he? And that would still be keeping him out of work. It's an outrageously harsh consequence of a system that childishly applies black and white to ordinary people - and if you will excuse a bit of dramatic leaping, isn't it interesting that to the best of my knowledge nobody who has in all seriousness called for Julian Assange's murder been punished in any way?
I am truly amazed that it has come to this but so glad that both Paul and yourself have decided to see it through. There has without doubt been a miscarriage of justice and I wish you both all the luck in the world. Hopefully true justice will be done at last. Whilst the harm that it has caused Paul cannot be undone, some of it can be rectified.
Among many other things this is an attack on humour.
I hope Ben Emmerson is better at this than he is in prison law :-)
Thanks for everything, David. I've said it a million times, but we wouldn't want anyone else other than you coordinating the defence. As well as a formidable lawyer and campaigner, you've been an amazing friend. And awesome entertainment when you've had a glass or two of red!
Sarah x
It was an honour to have played a role, albeit a very minor one, when I tweeted coverage from the appeal in Doncaster. Whilst the change of venue means I won't be able to attend this further appeal I would like to take this opportunity to wish Paul, Sarah and the whole of the defence team the very best of luck. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the case (although my feelings are not in any way a secret) I thought that everyone I met who are involved in the case were/are terrific people with amazing guts and determination. If cases were decided on this, or maybe even just on common sense, then you will surely win out in the end.
It is obvious, from context, that Paul wanted the airport open. His threat to blow it up is, therefore, obvious, non-self-serving hyperbole. In other words, a joke.
By the way, didn't I hear on the radio that Robin Hood Airport is closed? Now here's an opportunity .. ooh ... it's the S.A.S. ... they're coming in the door ... I surrender .. aaagh!
Good luck!
(Of course... 'luck' shouldn't really come into it but given the weirdness, well downright ridiculousness, of the case to date perhaps it won't do any harm. In any case, you know what I mean).
Very simple -- cite this statement by US Senator, George Voinovich: http://tinyurl.com/2bqxznr , a perfect example of exactly the sort of hyperbole used by Paul Chambers. No one would dream of prosecuting Sen. Voinovich over something like this, despite the fact that it was uttered in today's "age of terrorism."
Post a Comment