Graham Linehan Criminal Damage Conviction Appeal – Day 1

The signal here is not great which might mean I update in batches.

The appeal is scheduled for two days (today and tomorrow). Mrs Justice Tipples (J) presiding. Sarah Vine KC (SV) is appearing for GL and Julia Faure Walker (FW) is appearing for the CPS.

There are two journalists in court. GL is sitting behind his legal team in the well of the court. There are four members of the public. There is a live link for observers.

Judge is here. GL acknowledges who he is. FW on her feet. Wants to raise a prelim matter of order made in Nov 2024 – which has only just come to both parties attn. Hard copies are being distributed.

J – I have no recollection of this FW had you done you may have informed the parties FW Sophia Brooks [SB – the original complainant] who is at court recognised your name and when I saw her this morning she drew my attn to this.

FW We were not aware of this, it is not in the public domain. It is an order re another case in which these parties are involved. J what do you want to do? make an application? take stock?

FW there is an arguable case that this gives rise to an appearance of bias. That may well be what we do next

J my reaction is that I have no recollection of this – if I had I would have done something. The way forward is for you and SV to make an application as you see fit. I have no recollection…

, but if there is a concern and ther is an application to be made, obvs I have to deal with this. How long do you need.

FW not long. [Tipples (J) is sitting with a panel. She’s explaining the situation to them]

J we’ll rise until 1040. There are also housekeeping ground rules to deal with, but let’s sort this problem out first. [court rises]

[Got my internet sorted thanks to help from Mathilde from PA Media who has told me about gov wifi. This is new to me.]

[Parties are ready to discuss situation with J. We don’t know exactly what the situation is as we can’t see the order. SB does not appear to be in court.]

Here is Southwark Crown Court btw

[They have nice security and a v good coffee bar on the ground floor. The toilets are clean and the lifts take forever.]

If all this is a mystery to you, I’ve done some extensive work on the original Glinner trial. You can read into it here: https://genderblog.net/?s=linehan All my work on the genderblog website is crowdfunded, so please do consider donating. Though given the entire appeal hearing…

… appears to be in jeopardy right now, hold off doing anything till we are definitely underway. Unless you have been meaning to donate and now w for work already done of course. https://genderblog.net/donate/

genderblog.net/donate/

[J is back] J I was asked to hear this appeal a little while ago in the place of another J who was unavail. Not sure when you became aware I was hearing the case FW two days ago

J since then I’ve been in corr with you and SV to manage the case and get it ready. Obvs if I had any recollection of the parties I would have flagged it. I had no such recollection.

J There has been extensive corr so we can get this case ready and no one has indicated any issue in relation to that.

[J is sitting with two lay mags I think] FW the parties know that whatever is in the order the court is well able to put it out of the court’s mind. J in that case we can proceed.

[Yay]

J none of us have read the first instance judgment [ie the judgment which found GL guilty of crim damage] as this is [she uses a technical term but basically it’s rehearing rather than a strict appeal. Apols if I’ve got this wrong]

[FW is explaining the language issue – saying she will call SB her and she. and Team GL will call her he. Parties invite the court to use neutral language…

… This is related to the statement used in Westminster Mags Court in the original trial which I published yesterday: https://genderblog.net/avoiding-compelled-speech-in-court/…]

genderblog.net/avoiding-compe…

Avoiding Compelled Speech in Court

J we will refer to the complainant as the complainant. Given both parties agree and neither party wants to use language to disrupt the proceedings and all parties are mindful this might…

… cause offence to those attending, there are not many people in court but any disruption will not be tolerated.

[court now doing a bit of case management chit-chat – there is going to be a bad character application against SB]

J I want to open the case before bad character app (BCA) is made otherwise I don’t understand the context of the BCA. FW the pros appeal bundles are not yet in court. They were supposed to be delivered this morning J we can’t deal with the BCA without the case being opened to us

J so I’d ask you to open it. If there are docs we need to see you need to tell us what they’ll say

[I forgot to issue the standard disclaimer. NOTHING i write is a direct quote unless it is in “direct quotes”. My tweets are summaries and characterisations of what is happening in court]

[I will try to collect some direct quotes for the report I aim to get up tonight. Rather than just send this to newsletter subscribers, I’ll make it publicly available. Your donations kindly fund free-at-the-point-of-consumption public interest journalism]

FW this appeal refers to one count of crim damage to a mobile phone on 19 Oct 2024 outside Church House in Westminster where the Battle of Ideas conft was taking place. It is not in dispute that the accused took and threw the phone of teh complainant.

It’s also not in dispute that GL made posts on soc media. SB was 17yo. SB is a transgender activist. GL held opposing views to the vomplainant. Before 19 Oct GL and SB had not met in person. GL had…

… however id’d the C as a TG activist. There is no dispute about what he posted about SB online. There was an event on Fri 11 Oct 2024 just over a week before the BoI confy. That event on 11 Oct was an LGB Alliance event at QEII confy centre in Westminster.

The LGBA promotes LGB rights from a GC perspective. SB does not agree with LGBA’s perspective.

J pls speak up FW during the LGBA confy on 11 Oct, the event was disrupted when some teenagers inside the venue released insects. They were escorted out and a call was made to cops about it at 4.19pm. SB was NOT one of those involved.

C never went inside that venue on that day. C arrived about 5pm – so after disruption and police call. And when SB did arrive she stayed outside some distance from venue. “There is no evidence SB took part, instigated or was involved in the release of insects in that venue”

FW – GL was not at the LGBA event nor involved with that org. But he linked the disruption – the release of insects to SB. His idea was that the the teenagers were acting at SB’s bidding. He posted online that SB was involved in this incidence of “domestic terrorism”

FW turning to events of 19 Oct 2024… the BoI confy was held at Church House in Westminster. This confy was not purely about gender activism. Various topics were discussed during the event. However during a panel session when issues of gender ID were discussed…

… it would appear that thos speaking were GC. The title of the panel was Gender Wars: is the end in sight. SB attended the confy with another TG activist called Freda Wallace.

“Someone took a photo of them inside the venue whilst they were both sitting down in the audience.”

This image [displays image of FW and SB] would be posted online by GL on 19 Oct. [FW points judge to image of chair in front of the pair] J what’s that? FW strap of SB’s camera

FW so that image was taken of them at some point whilst they were sitting down in the audience. It’s not known by whom J so that’s inside the confy centre FW yes and posted by GL on 19 Oct.

FW during the panel session on Gender Wars a lady called Fiona McEnena was speaking and SB and FW were both in the audince. SB had a large camera. At

some stage SB got up. She was filmed by others with the large camera. Now SB standing behind the audience taking or attempting to take photos of people taking

photos of her. Audible words were had [with Kate Barker?] SB then returned to collect her phone from her bag and she held it up towards others taking photos of her. She was escorted out by security at around 3.15pm.

FW – the defence will show videos of that to you. GL was not present. GL was outside the venue around 20 minutes after SB had been escorted out. According to SB GL was filming her.

FW – “GL called SB a “groomer” asking how many SB had “groomed” he also called SB an “incel”. These insults ullustrate GL’s attitude towards SB”

FW “a few hours later SB was waiting outside the venue entrance. The BoI confy had finished for the day. GL was exiting the venue with other people. Whilst filming from her phone SB was calling out “Graham” and was asking GL why he had called SB a domestic terrorist”

FW this was a ref to GL’s posts associating SB with the LGBA confy incident.

FW – GL could have walked away, but responded with “extreme animosity” – called him a “sissy porn watching scumbag” and said “go away groomer”

SB asked GL why he thought it was acceptable to call teenagers DT’s – in effet asking GL to accoun for what he had alleged. SB also asked “why am I a groomer””

“SB did say “you’re divorced” after GL had told him he was an incel. GL may have found SB to be annoying and persistent, but SB was not committing any crime. nor in any event a crime which required forcefully removing and damaging SB’s phone”

“GL was angry. He deliberately and forcefully took hold of the phone out of SB’s hand and threw the phone across the street. This too was captured on films as SB was using her phone to record during the incident”

[FW says she’s going to show 4 vides taken by SB, starting with one in which SB is saying “Graham, Graham”] J this is the first time I’ve seen them so I may ask you to show them again

[the videos are being played – GL and SB are trading insults]

[we’ve seen three so far]

[[fourth one is up]]

SB hi Venice Allen! [he is following GL] SB [to GL] Why do you think it’s acceptable to call teenagers domestic terrorists?

GL [was smiling at someone, sees SB and his expression changes. He reaches forward and the screen goes dark. There is a shout – “Oi!”]

FW – “GL taking hold of the phone throwing it to the ground caused damage to it and SB later obtained an estimate for its repair. There are photos of damage in some areas of the phone. When I call SB I will take her through those photos. P [prosecution ie CPS ie FW] suggest GL was proud of what he had done, because he alter tweeted “I’m quite proud that I grabbed his phone and threw it across the road””

[FW is showing us the post. It is a quote tweet by GL of a Julie Bindel post in which “I’m quite proud that I grabbed his phone and threw it across the road. He was furious” can be seen]

FW “clearly GL was pleased at perhaps gaining a sense of superiority over a TG activist”

FW – GL called SB “Tarquin” a label ascribed to SB online which GL knew was not SB’s real name. in a post on 23 Oct you’ll see GL says “more T footage dropping tomorrow” and this is a post of GL posting a vid of SB inside the BoI confy. Ms Brooks is in the middle holding…

… up a large camera and you can see someone filming SB with other people standing around inside the venue. At the bottom of the page – GL says “here’s the last bit of T footage. I firmly believe this guy was behind the attack on the LGBA confy”

FW – he’s posted another vid of SB holding up a phone with other people around him.

SV – can you read out the whole post FW yes his escalating behaviour and his association with violent criminals is something that needs to be looked into sooner rather than later @Metropolitan Police

FW – GL has asserted SB had harassed him by approaching him and filming him at close quarters and that grabbing the phone was a reflex response. When questioned he made not comment.

FW “the court is not being invited to take sides in an ideiological debate and furthermore whilst earlier events provide context, the P will invite the court to focue primarily on what happened immediately before

GL took hold of and threw SB’s phone. In terms of what the issues are. D [GL] does not accept that he caused damage to SB’s phone. The second issue is that D will

say he was using reasonable force to prevent crime, namely harassment.”

FW – The Prosecution must prove that there was damage caused to SB’s mobile phone that D was reckless as to whether it would cause damage and

thirdly he was not using reasonable force to prevent a crime. i’ve set out the relevant legal tests at the end of my note, I don’t propose to go through them orally.

[we move on to bad character application]

J are you going to deliver it orally or do you want us to rise so the magistrates can read the application first SV orally J confers J having heard the opening I’d like to give my colleagues a chance to read what you’ve put before the court SV it might be also worth reading FW’s

response. Parts of the app are conceded. Parts are not. J the one thing I’m not entirely clear about is whether its a proposal to call witnesses – what is it you are seeking to put before the court.

J tell us what’s in dispute – let’s proceed on that basis SV can you mark the written app in the following way J this is your doc SV 11 pages long J dated 5 Feb 2026 SV there is an intro

Sv and in respect of that such matters as will be asserted by the defence and are agreed by the Crown [P, SB etc]

[there’s lots of talking about the document and minor notes being added to it. it would be pointless trying to tweet this, but I will try to get hold of the application.]

[whilst the court has risen. Given my experience of trying to get hold of documents at the WMC trial, I doubt I’ll be successful]

I’ve got the application. Excerpts follow: In summary, the evidence for which leave is sought is capable of establishing the following: (i) That the Complainant posed as a detransitioned female in order to infiltrate gender critical campaigning and support groups;

(ii) That the Complainant used that infiltration to make bad faith complaints about gender critical campaigners; (iii) That the Complainant’s (now dismissed) allegation against the Defendant of harassment was untruthful and made in bad faith.

[…] It is the case for the Defendant that the allegation before the Court is a part of a series of attempts by trans-rights activists (of whom the Complainant is one) to misuse the justice system to achieve a victory against a high-profile opponent in the ongoing debate.

The Defendant has been a high-profile critic of gender identity ideology since 2018. As a consequence, he and his work as a comedy writer have been subject to ‘cancellation’. He has been subject to numerous complaints, the…

…first of which was made to police in 2018 by a trans activist named Stephanie Hayden. In November 2024, when the investigation into this matter was initially closed, Stephanie Hayden assisted the Complainant in drafting an

application for a civil injunction against the Defendant . The Complainant and Stephanie Hayden were joint complainants in the successful prosecution of a gender critical campaigner Sean Doyle for an offence against s.179 Online Safety Act…

… for posting an AI generated image of the two men kissing.

On 22nd October 2024, the first allegation to the police that the Defendant was harassing the Complainant came from a trans activist named Lynsay Watson.

Lynsay Watson is a former police officer who was dismissed for his campaign of harassment against a gender critical campaigner, Harry Miller . He is a

prolific author of civil and criminal complaints against gender critical campaigners of “transphobic harassment”. When police close investigations into his complaints, he makes or threatens complaints to the Professional

Standards Department, then to IPCO, and then to the Administrative Court for Judicial Review. Lynsay Watson was the author of the complaint which resulted in the Defendant’s high-profile arrest at Heathrow Airport on

1st September 2025, as he returned to the UK for his trial.

In his contact with the police, the Complainant stated that he was being assisted by “a former police officer”. Subsequently, when the investigation was initially closed, the Complainant contacted the police and threatened a

complaint to the Professional Standards Department, then to IPCO, and then an application to the Administrative Court for Judicial Review.

On the 23rd October 2024, a third party complaint to police alleging that the Defendant had attempted to assault the Complainant on the 19th October 2024. This complaint was made by a trans activist named Michelle Louise Burrows…

who is an associate of Lynsay Watson.

THE RELEVANCE OF MOTIVE The Defendant’s case is that, while he accepts taking the Complainant’s phone from his hand and discarding it to the ground, he does not accept that the

Complainant is telling the truth about these actions being the cause of the damage. The damage is very slight, and the phone was four years old at the material time. The Complainant’s evidence will be that the phone was in

pristine condition immediately before these events. The Court will be assisted by evidence of the Complainant’s motive(s) to give an untruthful or unreliable account about this matter.

The bad character evidence illustrates the strength of the Complainant’s hostility towards gender critical beliefs and public criticism of gender ideology. It demonstrates the duration and extent of his commitment to

undermining and delegitimising the gender critical movement.

THE EVIDENCE Let Women Speak LWS is a gender critical campaigning organization set up by Kellie-Jay Keene,

known as Posie Parker. Jo Atkins was a volunteer for LWS in early 2022. Early on in her involvement, she set up women-only regional group chats. She will give evidence that she met the Complainant through his attendance at LWS

events. He described himself as a detransitioner and expressed enthusiasm for LWS and a desire to join a local group chat. As a safeguarding measure, Ms Atkins would vet people who wanted to join the chats. She met the

Complainant but was unsure whether he was telling the truth about his age (he said he was 18) or about being a detransitioner. During his attempts to infiltrate the chat groups, the Complainant met with Ms Atkins twice. On the

first occasion, he showed her some literature from a gender clinic. On the second occasion, she took him to the British Museum, where he took a photo of her without her knowledge. In late 2022, after an LWS event attended by the

Complainant, Ms Atkins learned of other attendees doubts about his claims. He was never admitted to any group chats. After this, the Complainant posted the photo of Ms Atkins on social media with a comment akin to “taking a child

to a museum”. Ms Atkins interpreted this as an insinuation of improper purposes on her part.

Kentish Town WhatsApp Group Natasha Brown and Parand Mojabi met the Complainant at a LWS event in 2022. The Complainant told them that he was a detransitioned female.

Natasha Brown added him to a whatsapp group, in which he expressed great distress at the damage transition had caused him, reported on detransitioning “as it happened” and discussed gender critical politics. At the Complainant’s

request, his friend ‘Thomas’ was also joined to the group on the pretext that he was a detransitioned male.

Natasha Brown attended the second day of the Defendant’s trial, in support of the Defendant. She saw the Complainant and assumed that he was there for the same purposes. She then realized that the person she had believed was a

distressed detransitioner was the complainant in the trial. She will produce all of the whatsapp group messages which were available to her in September 2025. The messages (appended) show the representations that the

Complainant was making about who he was and his beliefs.

Harassment Allegation It is the case for the Defendant that he was regarded by the Complainant, and by the trans activists mentioned above, as a particularly desirable political

target, and that both allegations are motivated exclusively by bad faith. It is also the case for the Defendant that, after the Complainant had been exposed in his attempts to infiltrate the gender critical movement, he changed tack to provocation.

The following evidence which was relied on in the first trial is capable of illustrating the Complainant’s use of provocation and harassment of political opponents:

(i) Footage showing the Complainant being asked to leave a talk about the protection of single sex spaces because he had started to walk around the room taking photographs and footage of attendees without their consent;

(ii) The same footage showing the Complainant aggressively responding to a woman touching his arm and then complaining to a steward that “she touched me”;

(iii) Footage taken by Maria Maclachlan, a gender critical activist, of her conversation with the Complainant. In the conversation, the Complainant accuses Ms Maclachlan of lying about being assaulted by a trans activist (Tara

Wolf, who was convicted of the assault in 2019), accuses Ms Maclachlan of instigating the attack on herself, and repeatedly asks her why she is trembling. The Complainant can be seen visibly to enjoy this interaction;

(iv) Footage taken by the Complainant of his repeated confrontations of the Defendant leading up to the Defendant snatching his phone.

Further evidence not relied on at trial is footage taken at a LWS event shows the Complainant and Freda Wallace walking around the perimeter of the event with a loudspeaker playing, on a loop, a recording of trans activist Sarah Jane

Baker shouting “If you see a TERF, punch them in the fucking face”. In 2023, Baker was prosecuted for, and acquitted of, intentionally encouraging assault by beating. The playing of the audio post-dates Baker’s acquittal.

Evidence which is capable of demonstrating the Complainant’s untruthfulness about his alarm and distress in response to the Defendant’s social media posts is set out in a series of social posts from his own anonymous accounts.

(i) Numerous posts accusing a gender critical activist, Guy Robinson, of being a paedophile, a stalker, obsessed with 16 year old girls and of intimidating a child witness;

(ii) A post accusing a gender critical activist, Gillian Philip, of being a paedophile; (iii) A post stating that Ms Maclachlan instigated the attack on herself;

(iv) A post in which the Complainant expresses the wish that Kellie-Jay Keene (Posie Parker) had been attacked with acid rather than soup at an event where she was speaking;

(v) A post in which the Complainant seeks personal information about a woman he accuses of taking a photo of him as he left a court building. The post includes a photo of the woman;

(vi) A post of an audio recording in which the Complainant appears to threaten “TERFS” with the words “You will pay”.

[J is back – court is in session. All the above is taken verbatim from the BCA and so can be quoted]

[J talking to SV about definition of BC “commission of an offence or other reprehensible behaviour”]

J if there are points of law that falls for me to decide as for this BCA is this evidence relevant, is it bad character within the def of the 2003 act – we can assess that. If it is BC it can only go in under a legal gateway and that is for me to determine.

[both parties agree with J’s assessment of situation]

SV before I start I am aware there is in the public gallery a person who is a friend, associate and support of C and is referred to in the BCA. J a potential witness? SV depends on whether evidence is admissable it will depend on what C says

J is there an issue with him being in court? SV might be prudent to ask him to leave J who is he SV I know him as Thomas and he is sitting at the back of court J FW?

FW it’s not known yet the extent of fact dispute in this BCA and what I am not clear about at the moment is how relevant anything this person might say is going to be. It’s highly unlikely we’d need to take a statement from this person.

J i’d be grateful if Thomas would go outside the public gallery whilst this app is being discussed [Young male person with long dark hair leaves court]

SV this goes to C’s cred. D’s case “is that C is determined to see D – GL – convicted and that C readily depart from the truth to achieve that end”

SV “in a crim case… it is not for D to prove that C had a motive for lying but subject of course to the stat filter of s100, evidence both of motive and of dishonesty will on the face of it be relevant and admissable”

“the evidence on which the D seek to rely is a history of conduct incl speech and online conduct in which C lies by constructing a radically different back story in the sense of a personal history in order to infiltrate a women’s org… for the purposes of obtaining…

… private info in order to relate back to other TRAs” This went on between April 2022 and May 2023. Thereafter his MO changed and he adopted towards

members of that org (which is called Let Women Speak and other GC activists or indeed those who simply held GC view, adopted an aggressive and intimidatory

approach to those he regards as his enemy. C’s activities do not seem to have involved any reasoned debate. He will, “we expect accept that being seen as

being responsible for criminalising a GC activist of GL’s profile will afford him a great deal of status within his own activist community”

“In summary m’lday, the evidence for which leave is sought is capable of establishing first that he posed as a detransitioned female – that is a natal female – who underwent hormonal treatment to transition in order to appear male.”

“… and then changed her mind seeking then to reverse as far as possible the effects of the h treatment on the female body”

“The evidence that we seek to have admitted is capable of est that that was a deception perpetrated by C in order to infiltrate the group LWS”

“Further that C used that infiltration to make bad faith complaints about GC campaigners and to be clear when I say complaints I do not mean formal complaints… I mean complaints on soc med to make allegations and insinuations about others”

“Some of the material is capable of demonstrating C made bad faith complaints to the police and about the handling of those complaints by the police. Complaints about GC campaigners” and further C’s original allegation against D of harassment was we say untruthful and…

… also made in bad faith”. Further the evidence can est “C engaged in a practice of doxxing. Doxxing is spelt with two xx’s and it is the practise of publishing private …”

“… personal info about people without their consent and it is generally understood to be effectively a bad faith invitation for neg consequences for that person on soc …”

“med or even extending into real life in terms of harassment abuse… cancellation rep damage and the like”

D subs to the view human sex is universal binary and immutable and is a nec organising category for human soc. C thinks sex is subord to gender. We have called

this gender ideology. WE need not tell you this is hotly contested. This is “part of a campaign by a numver of TRAs of whom C is

one to discredit GC activists as individuals for political ends and in the context of this case is seeking to achieve a victory against GL because he is a high profile opponent by misusing the justice system”

C is connected with Steph Hayden. SH assisted with drafting SB’s statement for an injunction. SH attended as an SB supporter in the lower court. SB and SH were joint complainants in a successful pros of GC campaigner SD for a complaint against the online safety act.

[SV takes J to CRIS reports – police record of crime reporting logs] SV you’ll recall material date is 19 Oct – “there is a report to the police 3 days after the material date from a person called Lynsay Watson (LW).”

SV this was the first mention of an allegation of harassment. A glance will “indicate it is expressed in colourfully adjectival language”.

“LW is a former police officer – a natal male who ID’s as female and who was dismissed from the Leics police for a campaign of H against a GC campaigner called Harry Miller.”

“He has made numerous complaints against the criminal and civil mechanisms” against his poltical oppos. When police have proposed closing his complaints he threatens complaints to crim standards bodies.

[sorry police standards body]

SV on 24 Oct, “C has contact case management system who have noted there he is a police cadet and is being assisted by a former police officer”

“The relevance of the MO [modus operandi] of LW in making groundless complaints is the similarity…[takes to narrative box in doc] you will see an email from C setting out the steps that will be taken if the allegation…

… there C is writing to pol telling them he wants them to reopen the report or he will complain to prof standards, IPCO or by way of JR if nec”

“The principle issue in this case is whether C is telling the truth about the state of his phone before the confrontation with GL”

[SV takes J to P bundle of photographs of phone damage. Notes phone is 4 years old. Chat about quality of printing of photo]

[Now chat about damage visible to phone in the photos]

“The Q for you is whether that damage occurred on 19 Oct as a consequence of GL’s actions, or whether you think there is reasonable doubt” J well we have to be sure SV quite so, my lady

SV “the larger piece of evidence in support of our contention that C can and will sustain an elaborate deception for the purposes of undermining his political oppos is the WA chat that is set out in tab 3 of the bundle.”

SV I did not want to put any of those excerpts to the witness without their proper context. The extent of the depth of the perpetration was to talk repeatedly about his personal anguish for taking hormone treatment and being so unhappy that it makes him want to die.

SV “he affects to be impressed by KJK who was the founder of LWS. If I may take you please to tab1 p18…

[we are going through a bad character application (BCA) against SB – the Complainant (C) who infiltrated LWS WhatsApp (WA) groups by pretending to be a detransitioner]

SV moving then to par 3.6 of the BCA “Further evidence not relied on at trial is footage taken at a LWS event shows the Complainant and Freda Wallace walking …

… around the perimeter of the event with a loudspeaker playing, on a loop, a recording of trans activist Sarah Jane Baker shouting “If you see a TERF, punch them in

… the fucking face”. In 2023, Baker was prosecuted for, and acquitted of, intentionally encouraging assault by beating. The playing of the audio post-dates Baker’s acquittal”

SV Freda Wallace and C walking a speaker of the audio around the group of LWS women who had gathered at Reformers Tree and then left it playing at them.

SV there are numerous posts accusing Guy Robinson of being a paedophile with numerous allegations about his behaviour, a post about Gillian Phillip. The post about Maria MacLachlan relates to a piece of footage you will see later.

SV is taking J to a transcript of an exchange between SB and MM. So after Freda Wallace says “she-ra, she-ra” – SB says to MM “why did you accuse me of lying about your assault when I never even talked about it”

[hang on i think I’ve found it] FW She-Ra. She-Ra. SB Why did you accuse me of lying about your assault when I never even talked about it? MM I don’t remember you…

SB No, you just randomly accused me of lying about your assault one day on Twitter MM Well maybe it was, the only reason I’d do that is because you… FW You (inaudible) are MM …did. [To FW] No, I do not. SB You are a liar. MM I do not lie.

SB Yeah, you do. MM Oh, you’re just silly. SB You instigated it and then cried when you got assaulted. MM How did I instigate it? Did you actually see… SB You went up… MM …what happened SB …and you filmed them

MM Yeah, I filmed people who were filming us, who were sh… FW [interrupting] (inaudible) Don’t, don’t do that MM Don’t do what? Defend myself from your vicious, nasty misogyny? (inaudible from SB/FW) Fuck off. Just fuck off.

SB I’m building up to something, because when I got assaulted for filming at an event MM Oh, you didn’t get assaulted, you had somebody… SB Yes MM …no you did not

SB They attempted to punch me. That’s assault, common assault. MM They didn’t. SB And then they tried and they tried to slap my phone out of my hand MM No they didn’t SB So that’s common assault by beating

MM No he didn’t, he tapped your camera SB Mark (Whyther?) got convicted MM I know, I know he did, because you went running to the police like a little cry baby SB MM And you did in 2019 People called the police because I was punched to the ground by people like you

SB Oh, were you? MM Well obviously. It’s all on film. The judge saw it. My, one of my assailants… SB Why are you trembling? MM Sorry? SB Why are you trembling? MM Because I’m very, very angry.

SB Are you (inaudible)? MM Yes, of course I am. I’m extremely angry, I always get angry… SB I suggest you MM At misogynists, at nasty… SB I suggest you desist and go away. MM …people. You suggest? No, SB I suggest you desist and go away. MM No, no, no, you don’t tell me what to do. SB I said I… MM Prick

[we are being taken through a bunch of photos and screenshots of exchanges between C and various others in support of D’s case that SB acts in bad faith]

[including posts where the home address of @Legal Gengar Matthew Heath is made public and excerpts from his medical record are disclosed]

[we’re now hearing SB being recorded talking about GC campaigners not finding out his true identity and that he never loses]

SV “in short my submissions are as follows. it is artificial to disaggregate the events of 19 Oct 2024 from the history of C’s conduct towards and hostility towards GC …”

“… campaigners. SB’s credibility is at the heart of your decisions and the material on which we seek to rely will be of assistance to you in understanding the depth and …”

“… longevity of his hostility and demonstrate we say why he will not be fettered by the need to be truthful before this court about the material events.”

[discussion between FW and J about what P is accepting is admissible.] [court rises – we return at 2.05pm]

[court is due to resume shortly. GL has just re-entered court. there may be a problem reporting what occurs over the next few hours]

[there isn’t – there has just been a v long discussion about whether what I have been doing this morning was in some way unlawful. Both FW and SV made submissions as did I. The judge rose]

[and returned to say I could carry on as before. I’ll put all this in my report at the end of the day]

FW there is no issue that C and D hold strong entrenched views on either side of a public debate. There is also no issue that C accepted a conviction of GL would be a scalp or medal.

FW further evidence that C saw D as a “partic desirable political target” (quote from appl) and extreme antipathy – if that is what the evidence shows – will not

take that issue further in the light of what was accepted by C in teh first instance and in the light of evidence which P accepts is admissable. That includes the chron

of the police investgation – the app for a civil injuction, the influence of others, the C being able to provide D’s DOB and her reaction for info relating to that. “All those

matters can be deployed in xe”- and if they were to amount to reprehensible conduct they would be tied to this investigation and therefore relevant. Footage

pertaining to 19 Oct is admissable – footage of the C at the BoI showing confrontation between her and others there and being escorted out by security, footage taken

by Maria M over the afternoon that m’learned friend took you to and footage of the confrontation which is part of P’s case anyway. P accepts all that is admissible.

P also accepts that the post of the vid that SV played to you is also admissible.

FW suggests showing J and panel 19 Oct footage between SB and MM. FW what the court will hear is SB making an allegation against MM and MM making an allegation against SB and both allegations resulted in two people being convicted.

[there are tech issues showing the vid – it is the same one I posted part of the transcript to before, the one which starts with Freda Wallace saying “she-ra”]

[the video shows Freda Wallace and SB quizzing and taunting MM – she begins to get audibly distressed, but stands her ground “I was punched to the ground by people like you” she says “why are you trembling” says SB “I always get angry at mysoginists… prick”]

FW this is accepted to be admissible. There is an allegation either side. SB insinuated against MM. MM insinuated allegations against SB – it encapsulated people on either side of the ideological debate. It’s also relevant to allegations made in bad faith…

FW – when it comes to any allegations towards the police. if those allegations are made the court can bring this into account, but it’s hard to see how they can prove they are made in bad faith. That’s why the vid encapsulates the point. there are allegations made on either side

FW and MM makes an allegations about an event which resulted in conviction – it is unlikely the event was as she described.

FW there is a difference between being deceitful on soc med and lying to the police, which is effectively what D are saying happened when C said her phone was damaged. This does not show an attempt to pervert the course of justice nor to lie to the police.

FW a lot of D’s evidence is in 2022 when SB was 15. Some of the evidence is from 2024 when SB was only 17.

FW bad character of anyone else [ie SB’s associates] is entirely irrelevant.

FW when it comes to the history of the investigation which C can be xe’d on – in terms of when allegations were made, what they were, whether she was influenced by others. It’s about what she did, not what others who she has spoken have done in the past.

FW any evidence of backgrounds or proceedings they’ev been involved in is just not relevant and gives rise to satellite litigation. FW two final points…

FW when determining a matter of bad character application – relevance is relevant to probitive value of evidence on the assumption its true and on assessing an item of evidence a court need not assume the evidence is true on the basis of any material before the court [lost]

FW this refers to evidence not assertions, so where it is asserted there are allegations of bad faith – that’s not evidence so the court cannot regard it as such.

FW SV in starting her subs said the purpose behind this app was to provide the wider context and to assist in credibility – I accept the latter is a legit purpose but in respect – to provide context – “that is not a reason to admit evidence in a criminal trial procedure”

FW “the court is more than sufficiently informed as to the context of this offence and those involved”

[SV responds] SV two things – FW’s sub about bad char of others giving rise to sat litigation – the only facts about others we would seek to adduce are already in the public domain.

SV i do not suggest for a second that FW is insinuating anything about me but her subs about my summaries to the court of the import of statements not yet before the

court are only assertions and therefore cannot be accepted as true is not entirely proper. the D are not invited to disclose their witness statements. I am under

a duty to be accurate to the court and I would ask you to treat what I have told you about the facts of that evidence to be evidence and not assertions.

J okay we’re going to rise and decide what to [court rises]

[I am the only journalist in court. If you think what I am doing is useful, please please consider a donation to join my mailing list and support public interest journalism. It’s been thin pickings today and I would really like to be able to afford to come back tomorrow. But…

… I simply can’t if the crowdfunding model doesn’t work. This would be a shame as documents and evidence which come up in open court can only get obtained and reported if there’s someone here to do it. If you’ve already donated – tell your friends! https://genderblog.net/donate/

genderblog.net/donate/

Donate

Okay looks like we’re about to get going again soon. J is Judge – Mrs Justice Tipples sitting with two lay magistrates FW is Julia Faure Walker for the Prosecution – P. The complainant is Sophia Brooks (SB). SV is Sarah Vine KC for the Defence. The Defendant is GL. This is his

Sorry – GL is @Graham Linehan – this is his appeal against his November conviction for crim damage to a mobile phone. He is also the Defendant – D.

SB often gets call C for complainant. GL often gets called D for defendant.

We are waiting for a decision on a Bad Character Application (BCA) made by D against SB.

Even if the BCA succeeds the appeal is not over. The J can take it into account when considering SB’s evidence, and it means more evidence can be adduced which will make the trial longer.

Which means there’s a good chance it will spill over into next week. I have been told that GL will NOT be giving evidence in this appeal, but it is apparent SB will be. He has not been in court, but he is in the building.

What the BCA has done is expose in court the behaviours of a certain group of trans activists – infiltrating women’s groups, going to their meetings and playing audio advocating violence against them and being threatening/intimidating.

Whether it could or should have any bearing on the alleged damage allegedly caused by GL to SB’s phone is for the court to decide.

There are also wider public interest questions as to whether this cases is a proper use of the state’s resources. We are looking at at least six days of court time (if you include the original trial), hours and hours of judicial time coming to the judgment…

… not to mention the days spent by the CPS putting together both cases.

J is back and says re the BCA – other than the evidence which P has conceded can be admitted the BCA is dismissed. I’ll give reasons tomorrow. Let’s proceed with the trial.

FW can I call SB J just tell us the timetabling now. FW half hour with SB in chief SV it’s quite late in the day – the shape of my xe changes in the light of the court’s ruling. Could i have overnight to tighten it up so I’m quicker tomorrow.

J okay – evidence in chief now, then a timetabling catch up at the end of the day. xe tomorrow. I’ll give my reasons for the BCA at 0945 tomorrow.

[SB is being brought into court. He is wearing black shoes, black jeans, a baggy cream jumper and has long black hair, worn loose]

FW what is your full name SB Sophia Abigail Brooks FW in Oct 2024 how old were you SB 17

FW in what name are your ID docs such as passport and driving licence SB Sophia Abigail Brooks FW want to ask you about LGBA event on 11 Oct 2024. Had you heard of the LGB Alliance in Oct 2024 SB yes FW did you agree with their stance SB agree with their purported stance, but

… how they actually operate, I disagree FW explain SB they puport to be for LGB rights, but they’re not – they campaign to remove LGBT rights FW would you describe yourself as a TG activist SB yes

FW on 11 Oct 2024 – did you go to Westminster SB yes FW was there an LGBA event at QEII building in W SB yes FW when did you arrive SB 5pm

FW did you go inside SB no FW how far from entrance were you SB 20 – 30m FW were there barriers SB yes FW and you were by the barriers? SB yes

FW why were you there SB to counter-protest FW did you have anything to do with the release of insects inside the venue that day SB no FW did you know about it before it was to happen SB no

FW did you see GL that day SB no FW b4 that day did you have any comms with him at all SB no FW you gave police a collection of social media posts made by GL SB er I’d have to check FW did you come to know GL was posting online about you before 19 Oct SB I don’t remember

FW I’d like to ask you about the BoI confy on 19 Oct 2024. It was at Church House Westminster SB yes FW did you go inside the confy SB yes I had a ticket FW who were you with SB Freda Wallace

FW is Freda Wallace also a TG activist SB yes FW now in the bundle – the white bundle [SB has a copy] FW go to first page on tab 4. Ms B do you see a post of GL…

… showing a photo of you and Wallace sitting down. SB yes FW where were you SB watching the Gender Wars conference FW what were the speakers saying SB they were talking about gender medicine and supporting the conversion therapy element of it

FW were you initially sitting down SB yes FW were there lots of people around SB yes FW did you stand up SB yes FW what did you do SB walk into the walk way and start taking pictures

SB… of the panel FW what happened next SB Kate Harris or Kate Barker – i’ll describe them – a short woman with short hair and a white shirt tried to block my camera. J are they the same person? SB I’m not sure of their name – there are two Kates. Anyway this Kate person…

… started blocking my camera and people started filming so I went to get my phone so I could start filming FW and then you were escorted out SB yes FW when? SB I’d have to check my statement FW it was 3.15pm [no dispute from D]

FW did you encounter GL SB about 20 minutes afterwards he approached me – he was recording me with his phone and he shouted some things at me FW what did he shout SB “as far as I remember – incel and groomer”

FW what’s your understanding of the word incel SB shorthand term for involuntary celibate – someone who doesn’t have a sexual partner FW what gender SB typically male, in online discourse there’s a separate term for female incels.

FW what else do you remember about what GL said to you SB can I check my statement J gives permission FW 2nd page of your WS SB would you like me to read it out FW no just read it to yourself

FW I asked you what he shouted SB he shouted “how many kids have you groomed?” FW “what did GL do after that? SB he called me an incel and stormed into the building” FW did you broadly stay in the vicinity of Church House and surrounding streets? SB yes

FW did you encounter whilst in the vicinity other people who had been at the BoI confy SB yes FW “I now want to take you to events in the evening – or at least when it was getting darker and the time when people who had been attending the confy were leaving en masse”

FW were you outside CH at the entrance SB yes FW was Freda Wallace there at that point SB she’d left by the time I encountered GL

FW did you see GL coming out of the venue SB yes FW what did you say SB [laughs] I don’t know I’d have to check my statement FW did you give the police videos of your encounter with GL at this stage SB yes three videos

[we are watching video recorded by SB on his mobile phone. the vid is paused as we see GL – coming out of CH. “SB Graham Graham do you mind explaining why you called me a domestic terrorist? GL go away groomer you’re a groomer SB why am I groomer, why am I a groomer?”

We see the 2nd video SB is filming himself with GL in shot. example dialogue SB scumbag GL scumbag SB you’re the scumbag SB and you’ve been calling children terrorists GL you’re the incel – you’re divorced

FW why mention his divorce SB he brings up things like groomer and sissy porn – “I thought I’d add something which is true” FW to aid the court can you explain sissy porn is SB [giggles] I’ll try to do so without laughing. Sissy porn is a type of porn where a man will

[he actually said cisgender man] FW cisgender male – can you help the court? SB natal male FW would GL have any reason to call you this SB no FW why did he SB I can only think it’s because of my TG indentity

[we see the next video where the phone is grabbed] FW explain it SB I approached GL to ask him why he’d called children domestic terrorists, his face turned to anger, he grabbed …

… the phone out of my hand, put it behind his back, wouldn’t give it back and said “”go and get your fucking phone” and threw it into the street, with force.”

FW how close was GL to you when he took the phone SB the phone was a little bit zoomed in, but maybe 50 to 60cm away J so phone makes it look closer than it actually is FW why approach him SB “to ask him why he thought it appropriate to call teenagers esp me online”

FW did he ask you to stop filmign SB no FW did he explain why he called you a DT SB no he just responded with insults FW I’ve showed you 4 videos FW what time span was there between them SB all three were within 2 mins J 4 or 3? FW 4

FW so what happened SB he took my phone, he put it behind his back, he threw it across the street and told me to go and get my fucking phone FW you gave police photos of your phone SB yes

[takes him to the images]

J who took these? you or police SB I took them and took them to the police [ there is some discussion about the marks on the phone in the photos ]

[I think I’m going to have to jump to a new thread again to keep the nice person who formats them and puts them on the genderblog website happy!]