@nickwallis: Good morning and welcome to Co...

Good morning and welcome to Court 1 of Southwark Crown Court. Comedy writer and campaigner Graham Linehan (GL) is appealing his conviction for criminal damage to a mobile phone. He arrived at court around 9.39am
Live tweets follow.

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

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

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

Judge is here. GL acknowledges who he is.

FW on her feet. Wants to raise a prelim matter of order made in Nov 2024 - which has only just come to both parties attn. Hard copies are being distributed.

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

FW We were not aware of this, it is not in the public domain. It is an order re another case in which these parties are involved.

J what do you want to do? make an application? take stock?

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

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

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

FW not long.

[Tipples (J) is sitting with a panel. She’s explaining the situation to them]

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

[court rises]

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

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

Here is Southwark Crown Court btw

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

If all this is a mystery to you, I've done some extensive work on the original Glinner trial. You can read into it here: genderblog.net/?s=linehan

All my work on the genderblog website is crowdfunded, so please do consider donating. Though given the entire appeal hearing...

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

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

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

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

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

[Yay]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FW - "GL called SB a "groomer" asking how many SB had "groomed" he also called SB an "incel". These insults ullustrate GL's attitude towards SB"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[we've seen three so far]
[fourth one is up]
SB hi Venice Allen! [he is following GL]
SB [to GL] Why do you think it's acceptable to call teenagers domestic terrorists?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[we move on to bad character application]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've got the application. Excerpts follow:

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

who is an associate of Lynsay Watson.

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

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

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

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

undermining and delegitimising the gender critical movement.