@nickwallis: Morning. On the way back to We...

Morning. On the way back to Westminster Magistrates Court for day two of Graham Linehan’s trial for harassment and damaging a phone. Here is ⁦@Glinner⁩ at the end of yesterday’s hearing.

Yesterday the prosecution set out the case and the complainant (an 18yo male called Sophia Brooks) gave evidence, and was cross-examined. Read the tweet thread on that here:

View Tweet

I am deeply grateful to everyone who has seen fit to bung me the cost of a coffee, a pint or even a bloody London pint since I found out I was able to come back today. If you think you can afford to make a small donation, there’s more info here:

store29806256.company.site

I realise it’s not the most enticing looking link, but it’s a secure online payment portal run by Ecwid which I’ve been using for years to fund my Post Office and Depp court reporting and it works, which is the main thing!

Westminster Magistrates Court in the sunshine this morning. It's v close to Marylebone station for those not familiar.

Some shots of the scene directly outside from the queue to get in.

I am now in court, same seat as yesterday. Graham Linehan (GL) is sitting directly opposite me on the other side of the courtroom - outside the dock. The public gallery is once more heaving. @ThePosieParker is in the public gallery with a few other veterans of the gender wars.

The complainant - Sophia Brooks (SB) has plentiful supporters as well. Initially SB and two friends were going to sit at the back of court, but there's been a bit of a kerfuffle (one fell out of their seat and has been telling prosecuting counsel that something isn't acceptable)

... and it seems they've all now been moved to the public gallery. So the main well of the court is now just lawyers and hacks. Not as many journalists as yesterday (first day of a trial always attracts more attention), but often the more interesting details come up later on...

Yesterday the judge told court that prosecuting counsel would use female pronouns to describe SB, defence counsel would call him Ms Brooks and GL would describe him as a man. The judge made the point very clearly there would be no compelled speech in her courtroom. To that end..

I will mainly be using sex-based pronouns throughout my reporting unless quoting others. I have no desire to be discourteous to anyone, it comes from a personal and professional desire to describe reality/the world as it is.

Also PLEASE NOTE - everything I tweet is a summary and/or chracterisation of what is being said or happening in court NOT a verbatim record. Nothing is a direct quote unless I put it in "direct quotes".

Judge is in court, but deaiing with her list. Currently discussing a completely different case.

Yesterday the atmosphere was very relaxed. Today it seems quite charged. Despite fewer media we were all ticketed and the ushers were a lot stricter today.

Prosecuting counsel is Julia Faure Walker who I will likely call P for proescutor.
GL's counsel is Sarah Vine KC who I called SV yesterday which got slightly confusing with SB, especially as B and V are next to each other on the keyboard. I might try DC for Defence Counsel...

... with D for defendant (ie GL).

J for judge obvs. Once the youngest ever female judge in the country #trufact

What else can I tell you? It's hot and stuffy - the judge has already said people can take their jackets off and steps are being taken to keep the lawyers watered. I am not sure if steps are being taken to deal with the aircon, but it is mildly uncomfortable.

It's a windowless modern courtroom. I am not going to start describing the pattern of the carpet, but nothing is happening right now...

P on her feet telling J that the C (SB) was in the well of court with two friends and DC objected so they were moved to the public gallery. In doing so one fell over which was "humiliating", but everything seems okay now.

J right P believes SB should be addressed according to their affirmed gender and name. D says C is male and ID-ing as female does not alter this fact. DC will call C "the complainant" or "Ms Brooks". D will call C a male and use language like transsexual and gender ID.

J - language will not be policed, but it is likely that some of this language might cause offence - however any reactions from the public gallery including laughter as we had yesterday will not be tolerated and people will be removed if this happens.

[P calls Acting Det Sergeant Thomas Wells to give evidence for the P. He is affirmed]
P you are officer in the case
TW yes
P i/v\d GL on 5 Feb this year
TW yes
P did he have a prepared statement
TW yes

[also as I know it's important - J also said DC will use sex-based pronouns for SB]

[P taking the J through correctinos to GL's prepared statement, then reads it out]
- in Oct 1994 I was an invited speaker at the battle of ideas - I was approached by Tarquin (GL's name for SB) who filmed me at close quarters and tried to disrupt the event, despite being ejected he was able to harass people around the venue. He put his camera right in people's faces in order to provoke a reaction. People put their hands or things in front of the camera which he treats as a game - at the end of the day T approached me again, at the end of the day and make a provocative statement about my family situation - this is a highly emotional matter to me - in response I grabbed the phone and threw it to one side - I am sure this is what he wanted - however I had had enough of his provocation. I did not intend to damage the phone I have been informed I might have a criminal or civil claim against him but I do not want to pursue this. I did write about him on X but as a journalist I wanted to expose the activities of trans activists. I understand there is video footage which I have not seen - I don't know how it has been edited before being handed to police.
[NOTE THIS IS NOT VERBATIM!!!!]

P did you iv last 55 mins
TW yes
P did GL read out his statement and make no comment to any other questions
TW yes

[P asks TW about crickets being released into the QEII conference centre at the LGBA confy on 11 Oct 2024.]
P when were police called
TW 1619 hours by staff at the QEII
P have you seen the CCTV of the incident
TW yes
P did the incident happen shortly before the call
TW yes

P four individuals detained by conference staff
TW yes
P and none were SB
TW correct.

[DC on her feet to x-e TW]

DC do you have "Chris" reports of the case?
TW yes

DC for benefit of the public they are basically all the docs related to the cases including any emails statements observations by police etc
TW [agrees]

DC there were three "Chris" reports for this case.
TW yes
DC initial complaint was an assault - then a robbery?

TW was initially recorded as robbery yes
DC then later in Oct a new "CRIS" [now correct] report was generated around harassment
TW yes
DC and a call was taken from a Lynsay Watson about online harassment
TW yes
DC let's look at the harassment (H) CRIS first...

DC so first of all there is a record of an online complaint from a man called Michelle Louise Burrows. That is a complaint which makes ref to event at the battle of ideas confy [which came a couple of weeks AFTER the LGBA crickets confy at QEII]

DC the complainant says former comedy writer GL approached a 17yo girl and called her a sissy-porn watching scumbag and there is no doubt she would have been assaulted had he not been dragged away. Since then he has been trying to doxx her to get one of his thousands...

... of followers to assault her. GL has previous - he was given a caution by Norfolk police - he has a murderous hatred of trans people I respectfully demand you investigate.
DC GL is a man of good character
TW correct
DC no convictions nothing on pol database

TW correct
DC in 2017 a complaint was made about him using sex-based pronouns and the police called him
TW I became aware of that after taking over this iv
DC no charge of caution resulted
TW correct

DC Lynsay Watson gets in touch to say GL has been targeting SB because she is TG and he has a murderous hatred of trans people. GL is trying to doxx her. I fear if he is not stopped she will be killed. GL also bragged about chucking...

... her phone across the road - admission of aggravated criminal damage. I fear for SB's life. "Please act with haste this is an emergency safeguarding matter - this is rapidly getting out of hand."
DC so that was Lynsay Watson's report on 22 Oct 2024
[DC goes to another report]

[TG = transgender obvs
Lynsay Watson going to be LW now]

DC on the same day LW gets in touch someone gets in touch with the police there is an [anonymous?] complaint (AC) about GL's boasting online of chucking the phone. AC says they are gathering evidence against GL in order...

to make a criminal complaint.
DC then a new note two days later - Victim is a police cadet being assisted by a former police officer - victim advised what happened wasn't a robbery but is crim damage

DC takes TW to another report...
DC this is a continuation of the entry made that recorded LW's and Michelle Louise Burrows complaints about GL. In the box at the top could you confirm this commentary - reads - victim had been attending to take pictures but had denied...

... entry. Victim has obtained GL's address and says it's only a mile from where she lives. V advised not to attend GL's address.

DC goes to new entry on 14 Nov - the C has contacted police - wanting update - unhappy case has been closed and stalking offence not being pursued

[DC still reading from notes]
... advised not in a position to reopen - needs to pursue a complaint.

DC we now have an email from the complainant - Good morning - could you explain by what you mean with no...

... evidential leads of inquiry - I have provided his name full address, phone number and date of birth - I have provided all the tweets - there is enough evidence to pursue this. I have not been contacted by the OIC before he closed the case...

... If you do not reopen the case I will complain to prof standards, IOPC and seek Judicial Review (JR) if necessary. You have breached the victims code - [lists how], kind regards, Sophia.

DC following day, case reopened
TW yes
DC and you were made iv officer
TW yes

[DC takes him to a summary TW made of the complaint by SB]

DC in the 2nd par of your summary you say of GL - he has repeatedly referred to her (SB), despite SB being a woman. SB who is TG believes this is deliberate and has been done with a view to causing her distress.

... she believes this is a hate crime because she is being targeted because of her TG ID.
DC where did this come from?
TW my reading of what was on CRIS and that alone - I had not contacted C at that point

DC to put it mildly this is a slightly ticklish subject, but is it police policy to treat people as the sex they say they are.
TW yes
DC so if I said to you, I am a man, my name is Michael Vine, you would record me as a man
TW yes and I would refer to you as you would prefer.

DC second box on the report is by you. it starts with a note of a message you have sent to the press bureau that you are about to iv GL by arrangement
TW yes - hadn't scheduled an iv with him by then but I wanted to let them know as he is a well-known figure and it might cause...

... public interest.
DC in that box you say - I am intending to invite GL to a caution plus vol iv at CC police station - will offer iv on 23 Dec - I am making you aware as he is likely to post about it online. He is well know having written Father Ted, Black Books etc...

... more recently he has "become known for his strong anti-transgender views"
DC did that come from you
TW I wrote that - it was probably too strong a word - I should have said gender-critical
DC who were your sources
TW colleagues, publicly available info and the info...

... I had at hand.
DC moving on - let's look at the line which is a message from SB where he says I'm unavailable on Thu as I'm having my mobile assessed for damage GL may have caused when he threw my mobile across the street.
[TW confirms that's what it says]

DC moving on 7 Nov - further contact from LW. LW states - good afternoon El, hope you are well, just wondering if there was any update. Managed to contact SB and she has great confidence in your...

... abilities so I'll not push you for an update - but just to let you know the protection from harassment act offers unlimited fines. GL is 100% to crowdfund any fine imposed on him - he can crowdfund 100k in a week and will scoff at any fine...

- but any large fine would have a huge effect on GL and those he radicalises - trying to stop GL is surely a thing to seek - I will help anyway I can and can send a draft text for an witness statement...
DC did LW send a WS?
TW didn't get one if he did

P no re-examination
J no q's
TW leaves the witness box and returns to sit in the well of the court

P that is the prosecution case
J thank you
DC I would now like to make a submission of No Case to Answer

DC to summarise this process - what the court is tasked with now is to ascertain whether this court could reasonably convict GL on either charge. This is made on both charges, but my principle focus at this stage is on charge of harassment. You can decide this on credibility...

... of complainant. I would like to make clear for those listening that neither party is asking you to pick a side in what is a political ongoing contention between the conflict of rights and gender ID. The tone of the debate is the context of this debate, but the court is in ...

... the happy position of not having to define it.
DC a person's complaint about another's conduct must be assessed against the other person's conduct. The conduct of C is to be borne centrally in mind. This analysis is independent of the quality of the evidence.

DC did the conduct properly amount to H such that it attracts criminal sanction. The conduct at its height can be summarised as follows. GL published photos of the complainant largely in a public place and none said to be private.

DC secondly tagging the met police into a tweet that he believed Freda Wallace and SB had knowledge of the LGBA cricket attach

DC thirdly - asking for info and telling his followers he was preparing a document on this guy to give to police
- telling his followers to block SB's accounts
- describing him as a deeply disturbed sociopath

DC - the latter point being made in the context of the Freda Wallace group chat [where a threat/joke was made about KJK]
- calling him and FW "scumbang grooming homophobic sociopathic sadists"
- calling SB a "malignant narcissist"

- describing SB as "a psycho posh kid"
- posting that C was studying comp sci in London and that anyone who knows him and wants to stop him harassing people to get in touch

- asking if City Uni has a good comp sci course
- referring to the complainant as a porn addicted man and sociopath who harasses women
- stating his belief C was behind the attack at the LGBA
- tagging met police telling them to look out for SB and FW at a LWS event

DC these are sincerely held beliefs about C's conduct and they are directed at the police. GL wants the police involved. These are not a call to vigilantism and cannot be construed as such. Complaints of C's harassment ...

are not vexatious - there is sufficient evidence before this court to create a foundation from which it could be inferred that indeed C engages in conduct both objetively and subjectively is H..

... GL is not formal, polite or diplomatic. It is crude and to C unwelcome. Taken as a whole in the specific context of C's conduct and the wider political conduct this does not cross the threshold of oppressive.

DC we submit C's claim to be alarmed and distressed was robotic and unpersuasive
DC it is prima facie evidence that C engaged in behaviour v similar to that which he complains of. His conduct in person at BoI confy further supports the interpretation of his behaviour as H

DC moving on to crim damage of phone - evidentially this is a diff picture. GL did take the phone and throw it. Two matters are before the court - there is sufficient evidence for the court to consider at this stage. The first is C's credibility in his attribution of the damage

... on undated photos. images of damage we can be reasonably certain we can reliably tether to 7 Nov. In my submission it is unrealistic that a phone which is four years old was in pristine condition after 4 years of use.

... separately in respect of the crim damage there is the question of the position GL found himself on the 3rd occasion that he was approached in short succession after the BoI confy.

- the court has a description of a prelim form of H, brief footage has been seen of SB mentioning GL before the event before asking if he was being recorded.
DC I can play the relevant footage of that final capture, but C's response that he had a clear line of exit can't

... be seen on the camera.
DC do you want to see it again
J yes

[TECH TIME!!! will it work, will it not... exciting...]

[Credit where due - it was pretty swift - we see GL as people exit conference - he is being filmed by SB. it is dark. SB gets close with the phone and asks "why do you think it is acceptable to call teenagers domestic terrorists" - GL clocks him and within a second or two...

... has grabbed the phone which loses picture and "Oi! Oi!" can be heard.]

DC whilst of course I don't suggest that this was a slow calculated response, in order to get himself out of that situation - GL either had to stand and take more of it, or he had to move the complainant

... out of his way or he had to take the phone and get rid of it.
DC on that basis, it's my submission that neither count should proceed further because there is no case to answer on either. I appreciate of course perhaps a different situation on the evidential landscape...

... on H rather than crim damage. Before P responds I think I can say we would both be content if you are against me on either or both you can indicate that.

P the crowns evidence is 60 pages of soc med posts over a 16 day period. It is clearly targeted at an individual

P who is not engaging - it is repeatedly targeted at an individual - it goes over a threshold because it is repeated. It links SB to an event for which there is no evidence they were involved. SB says she only came to the event at 1700 - that was not challenged.

P this is repeatedly abusive comments made by a person with a very large following, celebrity status, a middle aged man in his 50s. He is of great influence. It is against a person who he might view who he might view as annoying, but who has a lower status...

... This was published to a very large audience online. In relation to the tweets which have been put before the court - D's comments are oppressive and H. Those tweets fall into the matter of a reasonable excuse for...

... which he has the burden of proof and we're not there. In respect of SB's tweets - they are in the context of ongoing situations where people insult each other. So we don't need to look futher than what he said over the BoI - "groomer... sissy-porn addicted... scum"

P told the court she found GL using male pronouns "rude" - quite measured. Yes she did say several times she was "alarmed and distressed", but there's no reason to believe she isn't telling the truth when she said that.

P as to criminal damage - she changed her cover that day and didn't see any damage - it's the sort of thing she would notice. GL threw the phone onto a road. It is likely there would be damage. There is no reason to...

... disbelieve her account. When SB challenged GL that was not a crime - nor is recording it - given the context. So there is no crime that GL was attempting to prevent. It was not to prevent crime but an act in anger and indicative of his dislike to the complainant.

- it tallies with his tweet about being proud of throwing the phone across the road.

[P ends]

DC - just on that last point - GL's note on being proud was in response to Julie Bindel's point about SB being a bellend and harassing women all day.

DC it is falacious to say that a consideration of the available defences cannot be considered by the court now. Finally what I would observe about the last recording is that there is a point when what might be described as provocative becomes harassment.

J am going to rise for a few minutes to gather my thoughts. also need a comfort break. We will resume at 12.15pm

[court rises]