Live tweets from Day 3 of the Graham Linehan case at Westminster Magistrates Court.
I am going to attempt to live tweet proceedings but the connection is not great. Graham Linehan (GL) is attending from the US via videolink. GL is accused of harassment and criminal damage against a trans activist called Sophia Brooks (SB).
The trial was only due to last two days (4 and 5 September), but overran – hence this extra day.
We are in court – there are around 10 people on the press bench and a similar number in the public gallery.
I have been told my application for certain documents from the trial bundle is being put back to the end of the day and no decision will be made about that today. District Judge Briony Clarke is sitting. She asks GL his name and DOB
GL gives his name Graham George Linehan and DOB 22 May 1968
Judge (J) is reading out the agreed statement re pronoun use. Basically GL and his team will use sex-based pronouns and call SB Ms Brooks he/him or the complainant.
There will be 3 defence witnesses and submissions from both parties.
There is no jury – the judge has just indicated she will provide a written judgment at a later date TBA
Kate Harris is the first witness and has just been called. Whilst we are waiting for her to be sworn in…
PLEASE NOTE MY TWEETS ARE MERELY SUMMARIES OR CHARACTERISATIONS OF WHAT IS HAPPENING AND BEING SAID – NOTHING REPORTING IS A DIRECT VERBATIM QUOTE UNLESS IT IS IN “DIRECT QUOTES”
KH has been sworn in
Sarah Vine KC (SV) asks what she does
KH trustee of LGB Alliance
SV which you set up with Bev Jackson?
KH yes
SV what’s it’s purpose
KH to ensure matters of sex and gender can be disussed in the public square without fear of accusations of transphobia
SV is LGBA a reg charity
KH yes
SV was that a straightforward journey
KH [laughs] no – it took a year, which is about average, we were very careful to follow the rules re governance etc
SV was there subsequently an attemp by another charity to have your status revoked
KH not one charity it was an attempt by EVRY LGBT charity to have our status revoked.
Eventually Stonewal,, LGBT consortium, GI and GIRES were coordinated along with Mermaids by Jolyon at…
… the GLW to have our status removed
SV was that successful?
KH no
SV lets go to events of 11 Oct last year – the LGBA annual conference at the QE2 confy centre in Westminster -first one?
KH no we have them annually – it’s our biggest – I think it was our fourth
SV are there protests
KH yes
SV sign or relatively minor?
KH relatively minor
SV were there any protests when you arrived last year
KH possibly – can’t really remember so they must have been insig SV was there an event during conference?
KH yes
SV what happened?
KH many children are victims of the ideology that we fight which tells children they can be born in the wrong body – one speaker was @Jamie Reed Whistleblower –
SV you were about to interview her
KH yes
SV what happened?
KH I heard screaming – I came out into the auditorium and I saw
… people running towards the exit. I subsequently discovered that 1000s of live crickets had been released into the audience. All over the place – down’t peoples heads necks bags everywhere
SV who did this
KH i thought they weren’t attendees as they were kids and they looked panicked
SV were you able to identify who was responsible for the release of the crickets
KH not until 5 or 10 mins later
SV how many people were involved in the release of crickets
KH about 6
SV all young?
KH all young people – I met them in a room where they were being held by security – they were in a huddle like you might be at a netball match. I would say they were about 16
SV what was the purpose of their disruption
KH I asked why they did this and asked why…
… they just didn’t come and speak to me – I said they looked just like I did when I was younger. they said they’d tried to talk to me and that Jamie Reed was a threat to trans kids and they thought JR shouldn’t speak
SV did the talk go ahead?
KH yes the QE2 has a large auditorium, but they have a large side room and I interviewed her there.
SV if we work on the understanding the young people were TRAs – was that visible from they way they looked
KH no
SV any signs of any political affiliation
KH no they just looked like kids
SV let’s go to following week – to the Battle of Ideas (BoI) – you pay for a ticket and it runs over 2 days
KH yes
SV and when you get a ticket do you get the programme of speakers
KH it’s all online anyway
SV is there a hard copy timetable on arrival at the venue
KH yes
SV which says what the sessions are about
KH yes
SV so 19 Oct which I think was the first day – there was a session about “will the gender wars ever end”
KH yes
SV did you attend
KH yes
SV do you know Sophia Brooks (SB)
KH know him now
SV recognised him then?
KH no
SV do you know a man called Freda Wallace (@Freda The Peach)
KH yes
SV how?
KH he was v vociferous against us on twitter to the extent we made a complaint to his employer NW Ambulance SV so on 19 Oct did you see FW?
KH only at the panel thing
SV whats the format for the panel
KH 4 or 5 speakers with Claire Fox @Claire Fox chairing and 200 or so in the
… audience
SV you now know SB was there
KH yes
SV where were you sitting
KH side on
SV when did you see them
KH when I did – my heart sank
SV is about different ideas being held and spoken about respectfully
KH yes
SV did your heart sink because tehy had differing views?
KH my heart sank because over a decade no one who holds their views is capable of sensible dialogue – they work on malicious attacks…
… illegal acts and #nodebate – they have no constructive arguments and cannot seem to engage – these people have shown themselves to be incapable of dialogue and that’s why my heart sank.
SV did you make a literal note or them or a mental note
KH a mental note
SV when did SB next come to your attention
KH when Fiona McEnena (@Fiona ) was speaking I saw a “big bloke” stand up with a large camera and began to photograph “in a way I can only describe as intimidating” my reaction was not that this is someone in the
… conference in the interest of taking photos – he was in peoples’ faces “I think it was a deliberately intimidative move on his part. There was no stop – it went on and on and on”
SV “who was he photographing was he photographing the panel” KH “he was photographing…
… anybody and everybody. It felt intrusive” it felt tinged with violence – the courteous response to this is oh someone is doing something rather strange I hope he stops soon and he didn’t – it was deliberately provocative. It was very intrusive – he was capturing images to..
… take and keep – if he’d been waving a stick he would have been stopped, but an image is worse – he now owns your image.
SV what happened
KH disruption was complete FM kept speaking i don’t know how, but everyone knew what was going on – a large man was taking photos and…
… every time someone tried to tell him to stop he would say “don’t touch me! don’t touch me!” I just hoped security would turn up
SV did you do anything?
KH I took my conference programme and put it between the camera and the people he was trying to photo
SV I couldn’t say anything to him as the session was still ongoing – it was a bit pathetic looking back, but it was all I could do
KH did you photo him
SV don’t think so – wouldn’t want an image of him on my camera and I”m not sure I could whilst I was holding the programme
KH others do
SV what was FW doing
KH couldn’t see him – I think Fred/Freda was sitting in his seat – can’t help you with that
SV he – SB – was removed by volunteers and security
KH yes
SV after that did you notice anything that FW did – did he do owt to draw your attn to himself
KH I think he may have said we are here to engage in the BoI – my memory of that is not as clear as what the cameraman was
… doing. Afai remember FW left with the man who calls himself SB.
SV did they leave together
KH either together or Fred/Freda went soon after and session was able to resume.
SV says she’s going to play some footage – if you can tell us when we watch it if this records with your recollection of what happened
[we are watching a video of the confrontation between a woman talking about people in the room who have been victims of violence and SB – SB says – she’s touching me – don’t touch me] SB get a phone out – goes back into th room and starts either filming or taking photos
[FM is talking about sexual violence in the background]
SV stopping there is that you with the piece of paper
KH it is
[a/v continues – SB keeps filming – he is filming someone filming him – security arrives and SB is accompanied out either filming or photo-ing with his phone]
SV just stopping there – is this person [circles with cursor] Fred Wallace?
SV yes
SV after he had been escorted out did you stay in the session
KH yes
SV how did you feel
KH “just a sense of will it ever get better, really – these continuous attempts to silence and disrupt these important discussion – i just felt tired of it is the best way to sum it up”
SV “if he had approached you during the BoI and asked to debate something relating to sex and gender – something to do with why you disagreed with one another” what would you do?
KH I’d ask him if he was serious about it and if so I’d go for a coffee with him and we’d talk
KH I can’t tell you the number of times we’ve tried to engage the door is always slammed in our face – the only way we’re going to progress is if we talk to each other. So yes I would if he was sure he was serious
SV did you see him again
KH I saw him and Freda/Fred outside the
… conference doing a little demo with a sign saying something like TR are HR – but I didn’t have any further interaction
SV you know what this trial is about – did you see any confrontation or engagement btween
SB and GL
KH no
SV do you know GL
KH yes v well
SV thanks – now time for P counsel Julia Faure Walker
KH me and GL are old friends
P if he had asked you and you could have told him what happened at the QE2 centre
KH absolutely yes
P just want to ask you a little bit about the LGBA – please do not take them as an attack on an ideological viewpoint – you said LGBA is about allowing ideas about sex and gender can be debated in the public sphere without recriminations – and you say Jamie Reed…
and you fight against the sex reassignment of gender non-conforming children
KH yes
P so you think gender is sex-based
KH no that’s not a correct representation
P weren’t you formed as a charity for same-sex attracted people
KH so you believe in sex not gender
[there’s a discussion between counsel]
[counsel apologises and it’s clear she’s not too clear on gender/sex difference]
KH you’re getting me wrong – it’s not an ideological position to say there are two sexes – we uphold the law and biology
P that’s your view
KH no that’s a fact
– that’s incontrovertible
P what if someone wants to call themselves she that goes against your view
KH they can call themselves what they want – a zebra or a poodle – but that doesn’t stop them being a man – we mustn’t over-complicate that
P but you think that children…
… are victims of an ideology
KH yes – it’s a fiction and a damaging one
P so you won’t change your view
KH it’s not my view – every human being is born from a man or a woman – it’s just fact
P at the battle of ideas in Oct 2024 – GL was a speaker on one of the day
KH quite…
… possibly
P Julie Bindel
KH yes
P Az Hakeem speaking on why I won’t affirm your genderKH he’s one of our patrons
[P starts listing the large number of GC people speaking at the festival and a detransitioner called Ritchie Herron]
P have you ever seen Freda Wallace on news programmes explaining their point of view
KH I have seen attempts of FW to speak, but I don’t think he helps his cause P he’s quite rare
KH yes
P what about online – rare to have discussions between opposing views on this?
KH v rare
P who took photos of SB before he got up
KH no idea
P not saying it was you, but do you remember someone did
KH can’t remember
P did you take one before Ms Brooks stood up
KH can’t remember
… pretty sure I didn’t
[P passes phot to KH]
P see FW and SB sitting down
KH yes
P did you take that photo
KH not as far as I’m aware
[KH agrees it is a photo of them sitting at the BoI]
P at the beginning of the a/v we saw do you remember Brooks saying “you took a photo of me!”
KH don’t remember him saying that of me
P did you see anyone take a photo of him
KH no
P when we see Brooks taking photos we see them filming or photot-ing her
KH I don’t accept that
P we don’t see it on the video do we
KH that is a clip which isn’t from the beginning – it’s towards the end it finished with him being led out – there was quite a lot before – it’s a misrepresentation to say they were harassing him –
P but we have a photo of them sitting down
.. and then lots of people filming/photoing him
KH there’s a huge difference between taking a snap of someone sitting at the back of a room, and going round pushing a camera in their faces – I don’t want to overexaggerate but he was being intimidating…
… like he wanted to get everyone in his camera as if to say I can do this I can do what I like
I’m the big man here
P you have said Brooks was taking photographs – FM’s speech was only interrupted for more than 20s
KH no it was longer than that
P the clip shows it…
KH she carried on speaking throughout – don’t know how she did that’
P but her speech was only interrupted for 20s
KH I don’t accept that
P the chair was Baroness Claire Fox and at the end of the conference she gave a big speech about the good atmosphere of the conference…
… and the solidarity
KH wasn’t there
P whatever Brooks did it didn’t have a significant effect on the conference did it
KH yes I think it did – these attacks are cumulative – they build and build – they plan how to undermine our events – it’s part of an organised campaign
… of intimidation – and it makes you despair – because we know it just happens again again and again P not Brooks
KH I understand he attends all sorts of events even dressing up as a symapthetic woman to get access to events P not seen this yourself
KH no I’ve
seen videos and spoken to other women about him.
P but not seen it yourself
KH no
P and just going back to what you saw outside – “a little demo”
KH yes their normal behaviour – only 2 or 3 of them
P little demo
KH yes
[re-ex by SV]
SV you were asked about gender non-conforming children being victims of an ideology… is the fact that these children are gender-non-confirming – do you oppose children not conforming to gender norms
KH I am fully in favour of gender-non-conforming children – that was me –
I was put in the boys team at school and if someone had come along to me and I was told Iwas born in the wrong body and gave me hormones and surgery I would not have grown into the happy lesbian I am today
SV Battle of Ideas is a big festival – lots of events over two days all day
KH yes
SV and the audience are invited to take part as much as the panelists
KH yes that’s the idea
SV was there any disruption in any other event
KH no
J thanks for coming to give your evidence – stay or go – just don’t talk to anyone about thecase until all the evidence has finished.
[SV calls @Fiona – Fiona McEnena – SV says she isn’t sure on her surname pron]
[we’ll soon find out – I think it’s Mac-EN-EN-a]
[others think it’s Mac-EY-NEY-na]
[I am wrong – it’s Fiona Mac-Eh-NEyN-a]
Anyway FM is sworn in – SV is going through her SV – her Fair Play for Women work and lots more
SV would like to ask you about events of 19 Oct last year – you were invited to speak on a panel
FM yes
SV title?
FM “Gender Wars: is the end in sight” four speakers and a chair – we were told to prepare 5 or 6 mins as in introductory talk
SV when you are covering a subject like
S&G is it a long time
FM no it’s difficult to pack it all in
SV when were you
FM third – it’s so short because BoI wants to give the audience time to participate
SV were there people in the audience you recognised
FM yes – room was full
SV did you know or recog SB?
FM no
SV did you know or recog FW
FM yes
SV was that a concern?
FM no
SV you spoke about three things
FM the last one was male violence – I talked about women;s rights
FM I spoke about all women achieving equality of oppo and how long it had taken, how trans activism posed a threat and how violence was an underlying thing
SV what happened
FM I was doing a talk and I was aware of someone standing up and shuttling out
… into the aisle – he had his phone up to film and it was unusual – there was a lot of commotion around him
SV when he first got up was that something you saw directly
FM he was kind of in my eyeline, he was next to FW I was just aware of something happening in that part…
… of the audience. The thing seemed to escalate – people must have been telling him to sit down – I saw him with a camera in the face of someone I am pretty sure was Julie Bindel
SV did it stop you talking
FM it almost stopped me talking – we had a hubbub
… and people were moving and I must have stopped because Claire Fox quietly said “just keep going”
SV of your five or six minutes how much was disrupted by his actions
FM guessing – but I would think more than half
SV in terms of you felt how the impact of your talk went…
… did it have an effect on it
FM had an impact on me – because I was sure people couldn’t here. My husband told me he – even tho he was there to support me – told me he was distracted. It was an emotional subject and it felt very unfair to have it undermined…
… and trivialised in that way.
SV were you aware others were filming and photographing him
FM yes there was a whole ton of stuff going on which wasn’t people facing the panel and hearing us talk which is what they’d come for.
[we are shown the video again]
[we hear FM voice talking about male sexual violence against women whilst we are watching the confrontation between SB and others in the room]
SV by this stage how long had the disruption been going FM I was about half way through and just…
… trying hard to keep going.
[we possibly hear Claire Fox saying we’re going to carry on – on video FM talks about women having less chance of fighting off a male attacker…] SV do you remember this part of your talk?
FM yes
SV were you able to concentrate
FM no. It was
… frustrating to keep going because I knew I did not have the attention of half the room.
[we go back to the av with more FM talking about female safety and dignity – and how men don’t want women walking in on them having a pee at the urinals]
SV who is the woman in the spotty top
FM think it’s Julie Bindel – yes
[av keeps going as we hear FM talking and see SB being ejected by security – filming and photographing people as he goes]
SV did you see what happened after he left?
FM no
SV you are aware there was an altercation involving him and GL outside church house
FM yes
SV were you there
FM i was in the street – I wasn’t looking at them
SV did you witness owt?
FM I saw a phone land on the ground, that’s all
SV hands over to P
P Could we play the video again – I just want to see if we can have your help with who is saying something about “prats”
[a/v plays – SB says “she’s touching me – No she’s touching me” and then we hear a voice saying “we’re going to carry on”]
P was that CF
FM sounds like it
P so that was her telling you to carry on
FM yes
[going through the timeline – FM stops for a few seconds, CF says quietly to continue, there is more disruption then FM pauses again and CF says into the mic that they’re going to carry on]
P you’re still talking
FM I was doing my best
P you were able to continue
FM I was able
… to keep talking I don’t know if people were able to keep listening
P yes we see people turning her heads – you say you saw Brooks had his phone out – but in the video we see her with her big camera out, putting that away and then getting her phone out – are you mistaken…
… about it being her phone.
FM possibly yes
P so you could be mistaken about that detail
FM yes
P and camera-people from the event go round taking photos
FM yes
P whilst people are talking
FM yes
P and those photos are made public
FM yes
P and your image is in one of those public photos
FM yes
[evidence ends – no re-ex or J q’s – final witness is Julie Bindel]
[Julie Bindel JB @Julie Bindel is sworn in]
SV name
JB Julie Bindel
SV occupation
JB journalist
SV and you campaign against MVAWG
JB yes
SV when did you get involved in the sex gender debate
JB in 2003 I wrote about transsexuality and in 2004 i wrote a piece for the Guardian mag
… about a legal case about a male transactivist who wanted to work in a women’s refuge and I made the point that trans-identified men are still men
SV response
JB well it was early days – many of us had seen men claiming to be trapped in th wrong body, but by 2004 it was seen
… to be unkind to say that these were not women trapped in the wrong body. There were 200 letters of complaint to the Guardian and some in support but not many.
SV have you continued to maintain your stance
JB yes it’s impossible to campaign against MVAWG without seeing the threat from male transactivism – yes I have
SV have you been on the receiving end of any retirbutive measures
JB yes the gay press had become the LGBTQ+ press by
… then. In 2008 there were complaints I was up for a Stonewall award – the same year the NUS added my name to five fascist groups who they would no platform and that was just the early days.
JB yes and there was a constant mob, picket demos against me whenever I tried to speak
… when I spoke at the Vauxhall Tavern there was another baying mob outside and during the talk I was physically assaulted by a trans activist who was allowed to stay in the venue and continue to shout.
SV do yo know GL
JB yes
SV how
JB came across him on twitter – never watched Father Ted – became aware of him – I’ve seen him around
SV going to talk about LGBA – are you a member
JB no
SV did you attend confy
JB yes and year before
SV were you aware of protest
JB it’s a given outside gay events which don’t believe TWAW
SV did you speak in 23 or 24
JB both
SV did you see any last year
JB yes usual brightly coloured umbrellas TRAs shouting as delegates entered the building. There were two who shouted
… at me using my name – saying they see me, they see where I’m going etc SV know them?
JB yes
SV who?
JB one who refers to himself as Freda Wallace and Sophia Brooks
SV both male
JB yes
SV had you seen the before
JB yes
SV where
JB can’t recall specifics – there are so many events – there’s always these demos
SV why were they there in 24
JB to harass the delegates going in and out of the building
SV the crickets were released in the LGBA event – did you see him inside
JB didn’t see him inside – saw him outside on more than one occasion
SV did you make a connection between the crickets and FW and SB
JB oh I assumed they’d be involved. I’ve had interactions with TRAs
… like FW and SB – there are some who are just irritating, but there are some like FW and SB who give off an air of a threat.
SV what do you mean
JB – the glaring – the locked eye contact – it’s difficult to explain. Most men are perfectly decent human beings – but because of
… the work I do I have developed an instinct and I have been attacked. SB wanted to scare and he was certainly being menacing.
SV did you see the cricket releasers
JB no – saw a few people in masks but couldn’t ID them
SV did you speak to or contact GL about this event?
JB no
SV moving on to BoI event the next week – were you a speaker
JB I was
SV did you attend the Gender Wars talk
JB yes
SV where were you sitting
JB right hand side, half way down on the aisle
SV to the right as you look at the panel
JB yes
SV did you see SB and FW there
JB I did
SV when
JB they were making noises, chatting to the level where if you were in a cinema they would have been told
SV were they then
JB I think as they…
… became more emboldened someone told them.
SV where were they in relation to you
JB down and left – I could see them clearly
SV what were you doing
JB I was making notes on my laptop
SV what happened
JB someone tapped me on the shoulder and told me FW was tweeting about me
… saying I was there with my laptop out pretending to work. I thought it was weird he was in the same room and wanted to make it known he’d seen me
SV what’s the purpose of BoI
JB for respectful debate to scrutinise ideas so if I went in and there was a panel of men…
… saying feminism is bad – you don’t interrupt – you wait and listen and then you get your chance to speak.
SV and you’ve done that – where people strongly disagree
JB oh yes – I’ve been on panels with people calling feminism a cancer and one where one woman blamed…
… lesbians for sexual violence. It’s quite edgy.
SV were FW and SB engaging in that way.
JB no they were there to disrupt – they got louder – didn’t see them get up – heard something behind me and saw KH and Brooks holding his phone or a recording device really close to…
… her face and he was doing it to other women asking him to sit down and stop disrupting and he started to get really into women’s faces so I joined them to tell him to stop.
SV who was talking
JB think it was FM
SV were you aware of any photo of footage of you
JB yes Brooks tried to either photo or film me
SV did you take some footage
JB yes
SV and posted it on line
JB yes I was outraged they’d come to a free speech conference and they were trying to stop that session
[we are going to some a/v]
SV is this footage taken by you
JB yes
[it is filming SB from the rear as KH stars putting a piece of paper in front of his camera she goes and SB starts filming other women including JB. Security arrives]
SV again from your perspective – the standing up and moving around
JB several minutes – at least 5 mins I would say
SV did you see how many people he was photog/filming
JB about half a dozen women
SV did you see him with a camera rather than a phone
JB can’t swear to what…
… it was, but he was using something to put into the faces of the women SV men and women?
JB all women
SV did you see him after he was removed
JB yes leaving the confy at end of day to get an Uber – he and FW were there — shouting, following me closely down the road –
… camera-phone was out. Harassing and intimidating.
SV what was that like
JB I felt intimidated and scared. Scared. Not of Wallace. Of him. I was waiting for my Uber and I felt quite shaken. Wanted to leave the area but if I did I would have felt unsafe, because then he very
… likely would have followed me.
SV did you see any interaction between SB and GL
JB yes saw SB walking slowly in front of him – filming and waving the phone – it’s his MO
SV how did GL react
JB he was trying to do what we were all had tried to do previously
… stop filming, stop harassing, it’s very menacing being in your face. GL told him several times to stop, go away, leave it – words of that nature.
SV we know there’s no controversy about it – GL grabbed Brooks’ phone from his hand.
Did you see that?
JB I saw a sweeping motion
… and then the phone was flying.
SV what position was GL to SB
JB SB was in his face, close up, and GL was trying repeatedly to stop him filming [she makes a gesture showing a small gap with her hands] it was in that proximity
[we go to more av. – we se GL leaving…]
[it is filmed by SB – he tracks GL coming out of the venue – and asks him “why do you think its’ acceptable to call children domestic terrorist. GL clocks him and there is shouting including “Oi!” and the phone picture goes blurred then off]
SV did you see what happened?
JB yeah GL was leaving, SB came up to him and put the phone in his face
SV how close
JB ths close [makes hand gesture of between 3 and 5 inches]
SV what were his options
P objects – judge allows objection
SV if you have told someone more…
… than once to stop and they’re not stopping, would you say there is a typical way of behaving
JB I’ve been in many sits where TRAs are harassing me in quite close quarters sometimes I endure it and walk away, sometimes I try to alert others to say they are getting too close
and I do recall one time where I took a placard out of the hands of someone waving it very close to me because I thought he might hit me with it.
SV what was GL’s demeanor when you saw SB with the phone outside
JB he’d been his usual friendly self and v quickly he appeared
… like a man who had had enough, like he just wanted them to go away.
SV did you hear any of the language he used
JB I didn’t – similar to get out of my face go away
SV when you’ve been harassed by TRAs have you ever sought help from the police.
P objects – J allows objection – SV says JB knows about dealing with TRAs as is GL – so when it comes to what kind of assistance may have been available to GL – to what extent it might have been reasonable to expect to get assistance from the police. J doesn’t think it will
… assist to hear JB’s answer.
[cross-examination]
P did you hear GL call SB an incel
JB don’t recall
P what about sissy-porn watching scumbag
JB no
P no?!
JB I was being harassed myself
P groomer
JB no – but I’ve heard it used before – correctly
P really why
JB because it’s about people who want to groom people to engage in sex with minors
[we go to av of GL coming out of BoI filmed by SB – he approaches GL and asks q about domestic terrorist – GL says go away groomer and calls him an incel] SV so at this point SB was not harassing
you
JB no it must have been FW
P not SB
JB not for those few seconds
[more av filmed by SB of him and GL who is filming him – they exchange insults – “sissy porn watching scumbag… incel” which SB says “you’re the incel you’re divorced” etc]
P you weren’t close by
JB I saw it and heard them
P but not of those insults
JB no I said I don’t recall what was said
P you said he said go away
JB no I said words to that effect
P you said SB filmed you
JB yes
P but we don’t have any footage of that
JB no
[we then see the a/v of the final confrontation]
P did you see this
JB yes very clearly i remember this well SB filmed me or put the camera in my face without filming – whether it was just an act of harassment
P if you were nearby..
… why don’t you recall incel, sissy porn watching scumbag, groomer
JB can’t answer that – I heard his voice – don’t remember those words. I was anxious harassed and trying to get away
P weren’t trying to help GL
JB I was appalled when I heard this case was going ahead
as I had seen the level of harassment – and how he had been harassed. He was clearly not committing criminal acts. This was so clearly a case of GL being harassed and intimidated me and other women inside the venue and outside
P he pointed the phone at you and shouted at you – no threats no physical violence
JB that behaviour was a threat. he does it in the way abusive men follow women so they can’t get away – it was intimidation
P how far did was SB able to follow you
JB he gets close and gets in front of you – he gets on top of you
P so he didn’t follow you along the street
JB wallace did
P hours before
JB yes that was the beginning of the day
P you say you found out FW was tweeting about you – but your attendance had been publicised in advance with your photo
JB yes
P SV showed us the video you took of SB putting the phone in your face – is that what you were talking about
JB yes
P so you were standing
JB yes
P you weren’t sitting with your laptop
JB yes – no idea if they filmed me whilst I was sitting down
P so you weren’t aware of SB putting a camera in your face with your laptop
JB not whilst I was sitting down
P you describe chattering, muttering, upped the ante
… got up out of their seats. Do you accept that calling him intimidating was just by the way he looked at you
JB yes
P so you made an assumption there
JB If I had a mastermind subject it would be male violence, harassment and intimidation and I know it when I see it
P you said that you assumed SB was involved in the release of insects at the LGBA confy
JB yes
P you have no evidence of that
JB no evidence whatsoever just my assumption based on his behaviour based on his behaviour – if there was going to be sabotage I
… would assume it would be connected to the protest outside.
P last year SB stayed outside
JB yes
P didn’t see him inside
JB correct
P looking back at it now – is it possible SB wasn’t there until after the insect
JB I saw him in the morning
P are you sure?
JB yes
P mistaken looking back about when he arrived?
SB he’s an unmistakable presence. I saw him.
[evidence ends – J says she can leave]
SV that concludes our case
J says long lunch till 2pm
[After 2pm we have closing statements from P and SV]
[If you would like to make a donation to support this work and get signed up to my GenderBlog newsletter (I’ll get one out abouth this experience tonight) please consider making a one-off donation: ]
Your donations help me keep most of what I do free at the point of consumption – like this piece which went up on Monday: genderblog.net/cambridge-students-launch-single-sex-society-for-women
Okay we’re back in court. SV (defence counsel) is on her feet talking a couple of technicalities to the judge (J).
P (prosecution counsel) on her feet Julia Faure Walker
[she’s off]
P this prosecution is not about one-off mere comments or offence taken…
… Both sides of the GI debate have reasons for subscribing to what they do, but GL’s posts were repeated, abusive and unreasonable to a large audience and came from an obssessive possibly hatred towards TRAs – at the end of his evidence he said he hated them…
… But I’ll start with the crim damage – and what he said to her (SB – the complainant).
SB says the phone was not damaged. There was damage after GL threw it – there was crim damage. His actions were deliberate – he was angry with SB and he must have been aware…
… that he either intended or was reckless with whether crim damage would happen.
Now – does he have a reasonable defence? It won’t do to accuse SB of behaviour in the recent or distant past – he has to demonstrate that taking the phone and damaging it would prevent a crime
… it won’t do to import JB’s views as to what was reasonable. GL could not give any legal justifcation for his behaviour in taking and throwing the phone. He denies feeling threatened so that is not a defence…
… he was asked why he grab the phone he said “to stop him from doing it” – not anything about JB or anything towards anyone else – his only evidence was what was going on towards him. He said SB was annoying and persistent because his adrenaline was up and it felt like
surrender. Being annoying is not a criminal offence. He agreed SB had the right to challenge him and film his response and that he had the right to answer these questions and that SB had the right to follow him.
He does not say that SB was committing any crime or about to when he took the film. His defence of lawful justification fails. JB’s evidence does not rescue him. She cannot say what was going on in GL’s mind. The conduct was towards GL – he was not trying to protect anyone else.
JB did not hear incel, groomer or sissy porn watcher nor did GL say he was protecting JB. The defence relies on SB’s behaviour during the day. This was not something GL was trying to prevent at the time he damaged the phone. Also – there was no crime – we saw it on SB’s own vid
Ms Brooks conduct was not criminal – it may have been annoying disruptive and insulting, but it was not criminal. There was a difference between FM’s evidence about JB being filmed on her laptop and JB who didn’t notice that at all.
FM’s evidence was that SB had a phone out, whereas we know he had a camera. Also the evidence from KH about SB going round filming people doesn’t square with JB’s. Clearly someone took a photo of SB before she got up this lends support to SB’s allegation that someone…
… came up to her and took a photo. Someone took a photo of her as an attendee before then she got up. All these factual issues, however the court resolves them – it may not matter. SB’s behaviour at its height still does not give GL the lawful excuse to do what he did.
We have not seen any of SB’s photos published. And GL can hardly complain about publishing photos anyway. The disruption was small. Irritating and disrupting behaviour, but not a crime and no justification for GL taking and throwing the phone. It’s obvious GL was angry…
… and found her actions annoying. He had a deep dislike of her and what she represented. He was even proud of what he did. He said to her “groomer… incel” – this was 20 mins after coming out of the venue. SB was not provoking GL and those were the first words…
GL chose a disturbing and abusive words to level at a young trans activist. JB told us what a groomer is. It is abusive to be called that. GL’s attitude to TRAs in general became apparent during his evidence.
He used the word troon on sm – which he said was TRA and Gooner – someone who watches porn all day. His sm posts were oppressive and unacceptable in the circs. They targeted SB. At the time SB was 17 – GL knew this.
GL said SB had been active for years – and suggested SB had faked her driving licence. He cannot think about SB in a rational way. He was famous and had a following. He knew he was posting to 500k people and at the time had not met SB or interacted online. This was one…
… way abuse. JB has called someone a wanker. This is not the same. GL repeatedly linked SB to a crime she didn’t commit (releasing insects). He calls SB a sociopath and psycho, he says he associates with strange men. He called her Buffalo Bill – a transgender serial killer
the link is the trans. He tried to find out personal info about her. He says SB likes to handle people and then complain about being touched himself. That cannot be true. He said SB was disturbed and a porn-addicted man. This is not just offensive but abusive. Taken as a whole
they could cause alarm and address and we say they did. Whatever you think of SB and her behaviour – she was perfectly capable of being alarmed and distressed. The abuse went on after GL took her phone. SB was measured about her response to GL’s failure to use female pronouns
saying it was quite rude, but she was not alarmed or distressed. If she were exaggerating about being alarmed and distressed she could have said she was. It was online harassment. and GL knows what harassment is.
GL accepted in xe that tagging the Met in a tweet it was not the way to report a crime. He used abusive terms, mockery – he was not drawing attention to a crime, nor trying to prevent one. He wanted SB’s personal info – not to prevent crime.
He knew SB had already been in contact with the police, so the police would have her details – he did not need to gather details – it was nothing to do with preventing or detecting a crime.
GL accused SB of being involved in the cricket release. There is no evidence of this. The people responsible was arrested. SB was not among them. There is no evidence or history of SB doing it or SB suggesting it. Even GL accepted the teenagers involved could have come up
… with it themselves.
When assessing what is said about his belief in her involvement which I say I don’t believe is genuine – as you have to consider if it was his genuine belief… if he really wanted to know what happened at the event – he could have asked KH and had he asked KH
– on the basis of what she told us today there was no link whatsoever. GL didn’t ask. He didn’t bother to find out. He jumped to his conclusion and it was not rational. In any event the level of abusiveness levelled would not be for the purpose of detecting or preventing crime.
SB was not committing a crime – there is no rational reason to connect her to the crime.
The next defence is whether his tweets were reasonable “scumbag, homophobic, sociopathic, sadist” – when I asked him about that GL said all trans activists fit that description. That is not
reasonable. What about repeated “sociopath” and “psycho” – they referred to soup being thrown over another activist. Unpleasant, but that doesn’t justify the idea that SB is a sociopath.
What GL said about SB put a speaker under his car and followed him around all day. He was not followed around all day.
As for calling him a Buffalo Bill – he said that was because SB was harassing women – that does not equate to a serial killer.
He repeatedly attacked
SB online – he has not demonstrated that his tweets about SB were reasonable.
[P goes to authorities on what is reasonable – but notes abusive behaviour if found is not protected under ECHR]
[P ends with some technical legalities]
[Judge thanks her]
[SV for GL stands and checks GL can hear her and asks the clerk for some water]
[GL asks if he can go to the loo and get some water himself] J By all means Mr Linehan.
[There is a pause]
[GL is back. SV begins]
SV Judge I will start with the allegation of crim damage – there are two strands to be considered for the defence: 1 prevention of crime – addressed by P extensively, but it has to be said that notwithstanding GL’s lang to describe what was going on
… irritating and annoying – it can properly and reasonably be inferred that the way in which SB conducted himself was very much part of a a course of conduct designed to provoke and harass GL. It is not for
GL or his responsives to xe to set out the parameters of SB’s right to challenge him to seek a further answer to his q’s and whilst SB has those rights it is as ever the manner in which he does it.
That is important. The footage makes perfectly clear that the manner in which SB was asking those q and pursuing GL was entirely in bad faith. it was not in the spirit of enquiry – it was not – as he said to you that he sought a retraction or an apology or an…
… awakening – it was provocation and harassment which on the face of the footage SB enjoyed participating in. It was a game to him. The conduct persisted. SB would not listen to GL’s entreaties – irrespective of the language he used – his terminology was somethin about
which he asked and which he xplained in detail to the court – he used the terms groomer incel and troon with ref to and in context of aspects of the sex and gender debate.
“The surrender mentioned by my learned friend to which GL made reference when he described why he had cast
SB’s phone to the ground does not nec indicate surrender of a fight”
“It can just as easily be surrender to the consistent harassment and provocation. In any event if the court is sure the provisions of the criminal law act do not apply and that is something GL cannot avail himself. There remains the damage itself was not caused by his actions.”
Bearing in mind what SB is like – the court ought to be careful that the actions of GL did actually cause the damage. I would remind the court of the language SB used when SB took the phone to the Apple Store. His words were “to assess any damage which Linehan may have caused”
That’s some way from the certainty he presented in court. There MUST be some doubt that the marks on the phone we saw can be properly mapped to GL’s actions.
Turning now to the q of harassment. Abusive language in and of itself does not make harassment. Once again, context is all. A claimant is expected to come to the court with clean hands. In this case SB fails significantly when the court assesses in the round his conduct, cred
ibilty and motivations. The conduct complained of fails to cross the threshold from offensive to oppressive and unacceptable. Consider Op and Unacc with care. The notion is elastic and fact-sensitive. Words out of context are not oppressive. Even defamatory isn’t nec oppressive.
Nothing short of oppressive attracts crim liability no matter how unpleasant it might be. The P asked the court to consider GL’s posts of SB were about the prevention of crime and were not the sort of things a police officer in the prevention of crime would say
That’s a straw man. There’s nothing about the prevention of crime which requires it to be done so to a particular standard of courtesy or propriety.
GL was attempting to investigate SB – he posted a phot of SB wearing suffragette colours infiltrating a LWS speak event. GL says he’s preparing a doc on “this guy” to give to police.
Another tweet refers to the cricket release and GL appeals anyone there to make a crime report. GL WAS seeking to investigate SB. The tweets are obvious.
The crown’s position is that the posts were calculated to produce alarm and distress. This submission has little or no force. Irrespective of the knowledge GL has of the many anonymous accounts SB has… he at no point tagged SB or directed ANY message at SB.
There was no communication between them online.
Turning to whether they caused alarm and distress.
SB saying they were alarmed and distressed even if truthful are not nec sufficient. [goes to authorities which state things which cause alarm and distress are not nec harassment]
SV reminds the J of the footage filmed by Robbie Travers when RT asks if SB was involved in the cricket attack. SB does not deny it – he asks if RT is filming. This evidence goes to the truthfulness of SB’s apparent alarm and distress.
Turning to SB’s credibility. There is nothing to trust about what SB said beyond what is captured on video. His evidence is wholly unreliable and should not be used by the court as supporting P’s case.
SB was a police cadet at the time. Was helped by a former police officer Lysnay Watson and lawyer Stephanie Hayden. SB was asked how he felt and each time he recited alarm and distress – he said the fact it matched the statute was “coincidence”
It was his evidence GL’s posts were brought to his attention by a friend and that friend was definitely NOT LW. SB’s initial complaint to the police was about the phone. SB’s complaint about alarm and distress from the tweets only came after LW;s complaint to the police
and LW’s comms said he was in contact with SB. He was not alarmed or distressed. He complained because he thought it would be a good idea. His readiness to pursue and confront GL was not someone who was feeling alarm and distress.
The video evidence suggests he was enjoying himself. His evidence that he wanted and apology or retraction from GL is in bad faith.
His denial that he was causing problems inside the venue does not stand up. None of the witnesses with impeccable character who came to court
to talk about what they saw have any reason to want to commit perjury. They have mixed recollections. Any group of witnesses with exactly the same recollections should not be trusted.
SB does not have assymetric protection just because GL has a large following.
He posts sinister texts telling women who don’t accept his female identity. he is following what they are doing. He says what sounds like a threat to women “you will pay. I never lose”
SV goes to Maria McLachlan video. MM was assaulted by Tara Wolf. We hear SB repeatedly asking why MM is trembling. You might say because he is male he might not understand why it might be intimidating for MM to be intimidated by two men who are filming her.
I don’t say that I say he was intending to bully intimidate and victim-blame. Stereotypically abusive male behaviour to women. What SB has posted online isn’t that differnt from what GL posted about him.
SB has said he can track people, catalogue their every move and their information.
SB has produced a post which he considers to be acceptable in which he posts a photo of…
… someone leaving a building and asks for info on them for allgedly committing the offence of taking a photo in a courthouse.
Re GL’s insults. SB has referred to a GC person as “a weird nonce”
and a paedophile.
When SB was challenged on his wish the soup thrown on Posey Parker was acid, he was disdainful.
You have heard this morning J about SB’s conduct at the BoI. His behaviour towards women, that he started to get up and photograph attendees as soon as FM started speaking about the need for single sex services for biological females.
“In my submission, J, a conviction for harassment would require a double standard which has no place in the criminal justice system.”
[she is going to a Nicklin judgment from the civil courts which suggests the recipient of abusive communication should first attempt to shrug it off, be resilient especially if someone wants to be part of public debate]
The baseline Mr J Nicklin identified was a sense that people not involved in public debate should look after themselves. SB says he was made aware of the messages, by 11 Sep but did not tell the police until after they were sent to the police by LW. SB’s conduct…
… is the inverse of the expectations of any reasonable person. SB’s approach “was to seek offence to be taken. There is therefore in my sub no proper bass for accepting to the criminal standard what the…
… complainant says about his reaction to those posts, what their effect on him was or indeed any of his motivations about making those complaints to the police…
… His credibility is very shaky indeed in my submission and the court should therefore be slow to accept anything he has said in evidence, which is not precisely backed up by the evidence in the video presented to the court.”
[bit of legal argument about the strength of the Nicklin authority – J says she will read it in full]
[J wants to talk about dates – she says she is going to have a judgment ready early next week]
[J is now talking about my application]
J says Mr Wallis wants full trial bundle, opening notes written submissions and skellies – not nec a problem – but WS’s are not covered, so can you come to agreement between you and give him that. The other more controversial issue is the s.17 issue
– it’s not urgent and I would be minded to come to a come to conclusion
P on the opening note – he can get that from the press office and I’ve given him their address
[some chat about some of the things I’ve asked for – J asks if parties can agree whilst judge rises]
J then addresses me and asks if the parties can agree on my a and b requests and that she will have to give thought to my c request at a later date because she has to prioritise her judgment to the parties.
So judge has risen. Parties’ counsel are discussing something (hopefully what they will give me from my broad requests) and then I guess my specific request (which is basically the police correspondence with the complainant and the complainant’s friends and their internal comms)
(All of which was referred to extensively in open court during the first two days of the trial and are a matter of considerable public interest because they explain HOW this case came to trial)
Will be addressed at a later date or without any hearing.
J is still waiting whilst the parties discuss dates. I’ve just had a chat with counsel and it looks like I’ll be lucky to get any documentation out of this process for mysterious legal reasons.
My point is that as a journalist I am not just a court reporter – I am reporting what is in court (evidence, submissions, examinations) but I think it’s also important to look at this case in the context of how it came to court. That story is in the documents discussed…
… extensively in open court, which I can only request and am not entitled to. What I don’t quite get when or if I get to make the case, or if my application is the case and I don’t get a chance to answer questions or make representations.
And even if I did what objections or further considerations there might be.
[Judge is back]
Judgment will be delivered 25 November.
GL on bail till that date. Default position GL should return for verdict. If there are visa issues by that date he may appear remotely or the hearing may be adjourned till he can return
There was a side discussion about my application for the reports. Will write that up in a sec as we have to leave court. Trial has ended.
In short the parties are going to decide if i can have the police reports and correspondence with the complainant and the complainant’s friends that was referred to in court…. If I get that and i think there’s something more I need, I can make a submission (before 25 Nov)
to see if the judge will allow me to have anything else.
Anyway thanks for your support and retweets etc. Nothing like as dramatic today as it was on 4 & 5 Sep, but still some interesting stuff. I’ll be there to report from court on the 25th.
I’ll get a newsletter out tonight. If you want to subscribe – it’s a just a one-off donation to get signed up. Here’s the link. Thanks again and goodbye.
For those who have made it this far – here is some detail on both the prosecution and defence cases I’ve just published: genderblog.net/rex-v-linehan-the-prosecution-and-defence-cases-in-detail