Genderblog: Final day of the Glinner trial

What is actually going on?

Witness Julie Bindel outside Westminster Magistrates' Court

I said on twitter I'd get a newsletter out tonight. This is that newsletter. Unfortunately, the link to the live tweets on Thread Reader App did not reproduce the full tweets (Master of the Dark Arts, Andrew, is on the case), I got stuck at Waterloo after the trains got borked and a document I wanted to share with you didn't quite reach me in time. So...

This is a quick and dirty newsletter. Another will follow tomorrow.

Today was the final day of Rex v Linehan. The much loved comedy writer (tm) and campaigner about Other Things, Graham Linehan (Glinner), is accused of harassment and criminal damage.

Although there were a couple of dozen people present in court today, Glinner wasn't one of them. He lives in Arizona and he'd apparently misplaced his passport. He couldn't be there in person. District Judge Briony Clarke allowed him to be present remotely. This is arguably fair enough as he was neither required to give evidence nor interact with any of the witnesses.

What's the story?

Graham Linehan on the first day of his trial back in September 2025

Whether or not Glinner criminally harassed on twitter someone or criminally damaged that same person's phone is very much not something I can talk about. This is a live case. The judge will hand down her decision on 25 Nov.

I have reported the evidence presented in court, but I am also keen to report the wider story. The wider story, in my view, is how this case came to court.

Over the first two days of this trial (on 4&5 Sep) it became apparent that initially, the police had little interest in the allegations against Glinner. They assessed, then dropped them. Then the complainant (Sophia Brooks - a male - this blog uses sex-mapped pronouns) and his friends made it clear they were going to make further complaints about various procedural failures the police had made.

The police had a choice. Either drop the case and face complaints about the way they had decided to do so according to the exact letter of procedure, or reinstate the case on the basis it would be less hassle/they'd changed their minds.

It is a rule of thumb that when presented with a decision, most people will choose the one which causes them the least hassle. It is at the very least possible, in my view (having watched all three days of evidence in this case), the police decided to recommend the CPS prosecute Glinner on the basis it would be less hassle not to. This, by any stretch of thinking, is not in the interests of justice.

I might be wrong, and do not wish to pre-judge anything without proper evidence, hence I have asked the court to allow me to see the police CRIS reports which may or may not shed some light on this matter. My application remains open and I hope it will be resolved before judgment is handed down on 25 November. I still might have to make representation to the court on that day.

Yeah - but what is the story?

Fiona McEnena, who gave evidence for the defence today

The story is whether or not this case should have come to court. And that's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of, whilst also trying to also report what happened in court.

We already know the police are potentially regretting sending five armed officers to arrest Graham Linehan when he landed at Heathrow in September on the basis of three arguably mean tweets he sent.

We already know the police have decided that on the back of the public outrage at the arrest of Graham Linehan by five armed officers in September, they have changed their policy on arresting people for mean tweets.

What we don't know is whether the prosecution of Glinner for harassment and criminal damage is due to their previous, now abandoned, policy or whether it exists outside of that. And because process is process, the courts now need to spend tens (hundreds?) of thousands of pounds of public money trying to work out whether the alleged £369 worth of damage to a phone and the meanness of certain tweets meet the criminal threshold.

Some facts

Kate Harris

Kate Harris from the LGB Alliance gave evidence and was cross-examined today. Then Fiona McEnena gave evidence and was cross-examined, then Julie Bindel gave evidence and was cross-examined (all by the admirable Sarah Vine KC for the defence and the equally admirable Julia Faure Walker for the CPS). All three witnesses were defence witnesses. Read my tweets about what they said here - or if we still haven't got it working - the live original thread on X starts here.

Strangely, given the nature of the trial, there were no prosecution witnesses other than Sophia Brooks.

After lunch today both parties gave their closing statements and then the court discussed my application for the above documents and then we all went home.

The consequences of a criminal conviction - even if they are for horrible tweets and £369 damage to a phone - are serious. There is a lot at stake for Glinner, his supporters and his legal team. There is nothing at stake for the complainant, Sophia Brooks, who has got a free hit at Glinner thanks to someone, somewhere along the line reversing the decision to discontinue this case, possibly for a quieter life. Or, of course, because they thought this was an important way of administering justice.

So many questions.

Thanks to everyone who is reading this - the people who signed up many moons ago, and those who signed up today. It means I can keep pursuing this story and I am grateful.

More tomorrow.

Nick

PS If you missed it, here's my piece on the three extraordinary women who launched the Cambridge University Society of Women on Monday.