There follows a guest post by Andrew Rootsey, the solicitor acting for Debbie Hicks, an anti-lockdown protestor. Debbie is hoping to appeal two recent conviction to the High Court, but needs to raise £10,000 to do so. You can find her DonorBox fundraiser here.
As you may recall, we secured Debbie’s acquittal at Cheltenham Magistrates Court on the December 20th 2021 for offences relating to organising/being involved in organising a gathering of more than 30 people during a period of national lockdown or alternatively for participating in the gathering.
The relevant gathering was a protest held in Stratford Park in Stroud in November 2020 against the restrictions imposed on the British public under the Coronavirus Regulations. The protest was called the ‘Freedom Rally’ and was attended by more than 50 people.
The Stroud ‘Freedom Rally’ was held two days into the second national lockdown and therefore at the time it was illegal to organise a gathering of more than 30 people or to meet in groups of more than two people. A conviction would have left her liable for a £10,000 fine.
Ms. Hicks was acquitted of both offences after the court accepted our argument that her arrest and prosecution was a disproportionate interference with her human rights – namely the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, given that she was engaging in a legitimate protest.
The court found that Ms. Hicks had organised the ‘Freedom Rally’ and had breached the Coronavirus Regulations in force at the time by doing so. However, she had a reasonable excuse because she was attending a legitimate, peaceful and well-organised protest. The officers on the ground at the protest had been labouring under a misapprehension of the law – that protesting was not lawful under the Regulations – and were essentially imposing a blanket ban on protesting. Therefore, their actions in arresting her were not rational or proportionate.
In complete contrast – and a perfect example of how this contentious piece of legislation is flawed and open to misinterpretation – on the November 16th 2021 the City of London Magistrates Court convicted Debbie of breaching similar coronavirus regulations by protesting in Hyde Park against the imposition of lockdown restrictions during the pandemic. The District Judge in this case found that Debbie did not have a ‘reasonable excuse’ for protesting and found that the interference with her Human Rights was proportionate. Debbie was convicted and sentenced to a financial penalty.
The case raises important issues on freedom of expression and assembly, as well as the chilling of the right to protest. We wish to appeal this case to the High Court in order for the High Court to settle the important questions of law raised.
A fundamental consideration for the High Court is the ambiguity of the right to protest during the Coronavirus pandemic during periods of national lockdown and the operation of the ‘reasonable excuse’ jurisdiction in this regard.
The Government has made it clear, as have the courts, including in Debbie’s case before the Cheltenham Magistrates Court, that protesting during the Coronavirus pandemic was never illegal. Yet that was not always clear from the Coronavirus regulations nor was it the understanding of most police officers. How the reasonable excuse defence is to operate in these circumstances requires clarity and we are confident that the High Court will settle the issue in our favour and set a precedent for future cases and those seeking to appeal against their own convictions.
Debbie Hicks is probably best known for filming within the Gloucester Royal Hospital in December 2020 during Tier 3 restrictions. Debbie did so, exercising her freedom of expression, in order to highlight that Government restrictions were having a devastating effect upon access to healthcare across the board and to investigate mainstream media reports that hospitals were overflowing with patients.
Despite her efforts to avoid confrontation, she was challenged at the hospital by two employees. During the exchange, which lasted less than a minute, Debbie did not film the staff members. She explained the purpose of her visit and her views as to the provision of NHS services during lockdown. Staff members took offence at her comments and subsequently made a complaint to the police. Debbie immediately left the hospital voluntarily and was subsequently arrested at her home in front of her family and charged with using abusive, threatening or disorderly words or behaviour.
Debbie was not at the hospital deliberately seeking an encounter with staff. She has in the past been a vociferous supporter of the NHS and has supported NHS staff in respect of vaccine mandates.
In connection with this episode, Debbie stood trial for an offence under Section 5 of Public Order Act on January 6th 2022 and having adjourned the case in order to hand down his judgement the District Judge convicted Debbie of a S5 Public Order Act offence on January 19th 2022 at Cirencester Magistrates Court.
We wish to appeal this conviction as well and ask that the High Court settle this case on the basis that the District Judge was wrong in law to convict Debbie of this offence. We are firmly of the view that the Prosecution case simply did not cross the threshold of what constitutes abusive, threatening or disorderly words or behaviour. The District Judge’s analysis was flawed and did not properly interpret Supreme Court authorities nor give appropriate weight to Debbie’s rights of freedom of expression and assembly as enshrined in the European Convention for Human Rights, nor give appropriate weight to the political nature of Debbie’s views when the case law makes clear political freedom of expression should be given special protection.
Debbie is trying to raise £10,000 to take both cases to the High Court. She hopes that those who continue to believe in freedom of speech and the the right to protest will continue to support her. Our hope is that if we can get these convictions overturned, it will set a legal precedent for those convicted of similar offences and who may face prosecution in the future.
Debbie needs to raise funds in order to pay her legal costs and any help is hugely appreciated. Her fundraiser can be found here.
Andrew Rootsey is a solicitor at Murray Hughman.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“This is calculated ‘climate change’ propaganda marketed as entertainment.”
Almost all BBC output is political propaganda marketed as entertainment or news or current affairs or sports coverage. The goes for most TV ads and probably a whole load of other TV, films that I simply cannot watch any more.
Very true, and most of us have known that for many years. But ofcourse propaganda depends on most of the people not having sufficient time or inclination to investigate every issue as they are very busy with work and raising families. I am totally aware of all the TV propaganda, the Attenborough nonsense and the endless screeching about a “climate crisis” for political purposes which most people simply have no clue even exists. They think it is all about “science”. ——As my brother said to me once “Why would they say there is global warming if it isn’t true”? A classic example of how the propaganda works for most people. ——But the bit you mentioned about TV ads was the bit of your comment that had me laughing the most even if all of this stuff is no laughing matter. Almost every TV ad features a white wife and a black husband or vice versa, and you will find it very difficult to see 5 white people in an ad. You would think in a country where only 13% of people are black that this would be almost statistically impossible, and it actually makes a mockery of their “colour blind” excuse. Just like the excuse they used in the absurd Bridgerton TV program . But imagine if we had a period drama set in the Congo in 1850 and a quarter of the actors were white, or imagine if there was a film about Nelson Mandela and George Clooney was the lead actor. There would be flames coming out from the eyes of the social justice people.——Diversity only ever works in one direction.
Western civilisation committing suicide before our eyes. The idiots. The sheep who are going along with this will regret it when it’s gone.
I was just muting the ads but I need to look away now. Luckily I don’t watch much TV, mainly old films and re-runs, and I have shelves full of old books enough to last me until I am gone so I don’t need to buy anything contemporary. As far as I am concerned the people who are pushing this crap have declared war on me.
I also mute the ads or record TV programs and skip past them. I refuse to watch anything I deem to be pushing political agendas, mainly around Equality, Diversity, Race, Gender or Climate. If I want to watch drama I do not want social justice messages crammed in there. If I want to watch sport I do not want to hear about “taking the knee” or “there are not enough minority referees” I do not want to know whether a professional football player is gay. That is none of my business. etc etc etc
Appalling climate porn from Attenborough! The poor little penguin the rain! No context and no data. It is blatant brainwashing of our young for political reasons.
The most ridiculous bit is actually Then there will be a future for the planet — the planet, an enormous ball of stone (mostly), will have a future regardless of the fate of any individual species of animals currently living on it. The hybris is breathtaking. Humans are incapable of ensuring an uninterrupted power supply to their homes in the face of perfectly ordinary storms or end periodic, long-lasting flooding of vast swathes of the countryside but they and they alone can save the whole planet which is mortally endangered by their mostly insignificant presence.
Attenborough is somewhat notorious for being in favour of human extinction, preferably human self-extinction through birth preventation. Considering this, I wouldn’t want to take any advice regarding human affairs from him as it’s very unlikely that that’s meant to be beneficial to members of a species he openly despises. Additionally, the I am the anti-messias who’s going to bring mankind death to save the world! megalomanic delusion doesn’t exactly speek for a rational mind.
Why does the BBC fund sorry would-be murderous lunatics like him?
Because they don’t have to worry about earning the money they stuff in that charlatan’s pockets
The BBC didn’t do that in, say, 1954, and hence, the stock US platitude The state is sooo eeeeeviiiillll!!!127 remains the same tired nonsense it alway was.
The prevailing political wind in 1954 was different. At least in the US there are some major media companies presenting a slightly different view (well, mainly just Fox). In the UK I think the dominance of the BBC because of it’s guaranteed income stream, the stamp of authority that comes from being the state broadcaster, and it’s long history as the only broadcaster, give it a big advantage.
What’s the German TV media like? Anyone decent reaching good numbers of viewers?
The prevailing political wind in 1954 was different.
Precisely. The problem is not that the BBC has a guaranteed income stream. The problem is that the BBC is controlled (and presumably, largely also staffed) by people paying lip services to what the BBC is supposed to do while they’re actually doing someting completely different: Instead of informing a supposedly intellectually mature audience to enable its members to form opinions of their own, they’re telling an audience they believe to be too infantile to think right about anything what the opinions of its members should be.
What’s the German TV media like? Anyone decent reaching good numbers of viewers?
By and large, I have no idea about that as I stopped viewing TV in the mid-1990s and haven’t been living in Germany since December 2010. The general situation is probably worse: There are two public broadcasters, ARD and ZDF. ARD was the original one, the ZDF (Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen, second German broadcaster) was originally founded because it was believed that the ARD was organizationally too close to the SPD (social democrats, originally, today, its more genderqueer diversity whatevers seeking state employment) to report objectively about a CDU government. But that was in 1959 (original plan). Today, both of them are controlled by councils proportionally staffed by members of the established establishment parties and other organizations said parties consider socially important, eg, the churches.
The platitude is yours not mine. The problem started when the BBC stopped reporting the facts and decided to share their opinions with us. It’s difficult to say exactly when that happened but my best guess is around the early/mid 70s. I moved abroad in 1970 and returned to the UK in 1975. The starting point may well have been the protests around the Vietnam war. The Beeb looked across the pond and liked the prestige given to their US cousins affecting the political discourse and decided to follow the same path over here.
The arrival of the AGW scam poured fuel onto their self righteous fire. And the desire to be seen as still relevant in an age of social media ‘likes’ just fanned the flames.
And the matter is made worse by their choice of commentators, individuals without any relevant qualifications or background on scientific issues, which they demonstrate by only ever presenting one side of the argument.
This contradicts your earlier assertion: If the present-day BBC modelled its behaviour on US media companies, said behaviour can’t have been caused by the business model of the BBC being different from theirs.
A business model is a financial issue. Behaviour is a cultural matter. If you don’t have to worry about your income then you can choose your cultural approach without concern for any negative impact on your finances. The BBC sees itself as the state broadcaster and thus above such irrelevant issues as funding. US broadcasters are commercial animals and act accordingly.
The BBC’s behaviour is caused precisely because they are not commercial.
In the 21st Century the concept of a state broadcaster is only appropriate for a dictatorship. Lies are Truth.
The BBC will put anyone in front of a camera that is prepared to spout Liberal Progressive dogma. They will put a microphone in front a bin man as long as he tells the viewers that they need to cut emissions or be taking the knee. The BBC supposedly have a motto —Free Fair and Impartial—They are none of those things. Their world view is all to the Progressive Left despite the fact that half of Licence payers are not Progressives. So it is really remarkable that a Conservative government actually had an 80 seat majority just a short time ago. But as it turned out they are not really Conservatives which is why Labour now has a 36 point lead. The entire hand wringing political class pander to globalists and UN agenda’s instead of to the people who voted for them, but as we saw in Italy that can all change, but it can only change if the likes of the BBC are exposed for what they are.
Meanwhile in the arctic, sea levels are rising due to the ice sheets being weighed down by too many polar bears, and as the little icebergs they’re drifting around on sink under their weight, the killer whales are having them for breakfast – all caught on film by a sobbing camera crew singing sad songs of lament about climate change!
I believe that the Western Antarctic peninsula is the most populous area for homo sapiens in Antarctica. Maybe the Adelies want a bit of privacy.
No, they just want David Attenborough to stop feeling sorry for them!
Must be a case of That Attenborough guy has repeatedly been seen in neighbourhood. Better move elsewhere now before it gets even worse.
Nature programmes used to be more fun when they weren’t wrapped up in political soundbites. David Attenborough used to be a firm favourite of mine for his boyish enthusiasm and knowledge about his subject but his conversion to the religion of climate change has switched off that particular avenue of simple pleasure for me. The cherry-picking of images and statistics and the emotional manipulation of a public who are desperate for some sort of meaningful connection with the natural world but then get this emotional scattergunning of emotive scenes depicting penguins on their own or being stabbed to death by starving sea gulls. All we need are the massed violins of the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra playing Elgar’s Nimrod and a few bloodied feathers floating in the freezing waters and the masses will be burning their cars en masse and demanding Net Zero social credits and CBDCs and all the nonsense that is coming their way. Attenborough has that annoyingly quiet and sincere voice that makes people want to adopt him as their favourite grandad (in addition to Morgan Freeman) and, more worryingly, believe every well spoken metaphor to describe the ensuing catastrophe that emanates from his mouth. I think he is being played. If you could get access to him and show him the alternative data and facts, I’m sure he would be interested but this is a BBC show and I can only imagine that the show’s producers and backers are not interested in a balanced perspective. Cue violins as I watch my car being towed away…
Attenborough being played.
No way. He is a humanity hating eugenecist and it’s about time he sat down with God to explain his actions. Evil piece of shyte.
Strong words, HP. Is he really a eugenicist? I had no idea. Is he a mate of Gates?
Excellent article Chris
No doubt the Woke left will demand a state funeral for this cretin when he shuffles off this mortal coil. Please God.
Today’s substack by Steve Kirsch
https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=548354&post_id=79313774&utm_source=post-email-title&isFreemail=false&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo1ODMwMjgzNywicG9zdF9pZCI6NzkzMTM3NzQsImlhdCI6MTY2NjE2MzQyMywiZXhwIjoxNjY4NzU1NDIzLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItNTQ4MzU0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.3VXtFNBPJdnch-dKIXc5Dne9HfAT_thTanjLy_OfaMA
Really all you need to know about this overall topic is that the Nazi regime was the most environmentally focussed in history (Nazism is basically Nature-worship writ large);
And that the contemporary political movement was initiated by the formation of the German Green Party (the seed corn for all the other branches, including the British one) by former members of the Nazi Party immediately after the end of WWII.
OMFG. I don’t really like this hackneyed phrase but here, it’s absolutely appropriate: I don’t know what your smoking but you should absolutely stop it.
The German green party (Die Grünen) was founded in 1980 by a bunch of somewhat prominent ex-hippies, ie, the people who believed the USA was a fascist dictatorship which would need to be overcome by a violent (communist) revolution about 10 years earlier and who were the nucleus of all-things-woke of our times. They’d stone you to death it if became known that your grandfather once knew a guy who had been a passenger on a train someone who claimed to have heard of someone else who was claimed to have seen a real photo of Adolf Hitler had also used at an earlier date because of your irredemable contamination with fascist DNA if they were only allowed to do so (they’re still working on that).
Re:
‘The German green party (Die Grünen) was founded in 1980‘
Thank you for pointing that out, I researched the history of environmentalism in Germany a long time ago and have obviously become confused about organisational origins and dates in the interim.
The fact remains that there was complete continuity in post-war West Germany with the uniquely strong Nazi environmentalist (or conservationist) agenda and policies.
Hermann Goering’s Reich Nature Protection law of 1935 which “extended protection to rare or endangered plants and nongame animals, natural monuments and their surroundings, nature reserves, and other landscape areas in open nature” (sound familiar?) was kept in place, as was Hans Klose, the Nazi Director of the Reich Agency for Nature Protection – name simply changed post-war to the Central Office for Nature Conservation and Landscape Conservation.
‘by a bunch of somewhat prominent ex-hippies‘
The 1960s western hippy movement has strong ideological connections with the early 20th century German anti-urban / nature-loving Wandervogel movement, which was subsumed into the Hitler Youth when the Nazis seized power in 1933.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wandervogel
For those who still fall for the hippy ‘peace and love’ smokescreen, it’s worth remembering that the movement called those that it disagreed with ‘pigs’, had very few darker-skinned members, and one of the most famous examples of its communes was known as the Manson Family;
A long-haired and kaftan wearing grouping that murdered at least 9 individuals, including the pregnant actress Sharon Tate, in 1969.
They used environmentalism as one of their main motivations / excuses, and have a look at this image of Charles Manson:
https://www.altaonline.com/dispatches/a5330/charles-manson-true-crime-industry/
Note the swastika.
Beyond any hippy connections founders of the German Green Party in 1980 included August Haussleiter, a prominent Nazi who took part in Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch of 1923, Baldur Springmann a former member of the SA, and Werner Vorgel, another former Nazi stormtrooper was among the first members of the Greens elected to the Bundestag in 1983.
https://www.jpost.com/jewish-world/jewish-features/the-nazi-roots-of-the-german-greens-318973
the people who believed the USA was a fascist dictatorship which would need to be overcome by a violent (communist) revolution about 10 years earlier and who were the nucleus of all-things-woke of our times. They’d stone you to death it if became known that your grandfather once knew a guy who had been a passenger on a train someone who claimed to have heard of someone else who was claimed to have seen a real photo of Adolf Hitler had also used at an earlier date because of your irredemable contamination with fascist DNA if they were only allowed to do so (they’re still working on that).
Nazism and Communism are two sides of the same tyrannical, anti-democratic and mass murderous coin. Just like rival football hooligan gangs the adherents falsely perceive themselves to belong to opposite ideological and practical camps.
To illustrate this point the Nazi and German Communist Parties conspired together in the Reichstag to undermine and ultimately overthrow the liberal democratic Weimar Constitution
And just to tie the whole thing back to the inherently fascistic and misanthropic Green ideology, it is worth remembering that alongside Nazi environmentalism already covered the Marxist Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot murdered millions of civilians in Cambodia as a result of the Green-inspired ‘Clear the Cities’ programme.
I only watch match of the day now. Nothing else. Cancelled my tv license last week as I refuse to fund this woke left wing propaganda machine any more.