I am sitting in courtroom 2 of the Old Bailey. The judge has not yet come in. The judge has a special title: The Recorder of London. He is the most senior judge at the Old Bailey, which hears the most senior criminal cases. (So it's odd that he's hearing a civil contempt case.)
The judge has authorized live-tweeting in the court, but says no photography or recording is permitted.
The judge is addressing Mr. Furlong, Tommy's barrister. (In the UK, the legal profession is split between barristers and solicitors. John Carson is the solicitor; the barrister does the courtroom talking.)
The judge is addressing a request by Tommy's lawyers to refer the matter to the Attorney General, rather than proceeding on his own. The judge is issuing a decision on that request.
Tommy's lawyers have asked that the Attorney General prosecute the case; in an adversarial manner. The alternative is for the judge himself to hear the case personally. We are about to hear which way that goes.
"I am satisfied that I have jurisdiction" says the judge -- a premonition that he will hear this case today himself.
The judge says that last night he received a copy of Tommy Robinson's proposed witness statement. He is now asking Mr. McCullough for his views on that statement.
The judge is asking Mr. McCullough, who is styled as a neutral expert on the law, for whether or not it is still open for the case to be referred to the Attorney General for an adversarial hearing. McCullough says, "yes".
McCullough says it's up the judge how to proceed -- whether he wants to proceed himself, or to refer it to the AG for an adversarial hearing.
"It's perhaps always been a finely balanced decision", says the judge.
The judge confirms that it is Mr. Furlong's view that it should be referred to the AG.
The judge asks for any further comments -- remember, both of the lawyers have given written briefs to the judge (in private) before the hearing today.
It is a characteristic of the UK court system that many written pleadings or briefs are given to the judge privately -- and are not immediately visible to the public. As a Canadian, I find this to be a lack of transparency, one of many in the UK legal system.
The judge is essentially deciding: will he hear the matter himself right now, or will this thing be rescheduled, in the more adversarial setting proposed by Tommy's lawyers? (If the former, we will likely be done in a matter of minutes; if the latter, all day.)
I should note that this is the fifth court date Tommy has attended in this same matter. The first on May 25 in Leeds; then the appeal in July; then the appeal ruling in August; then the hearing in late September. Now today.
The judge is giving his views. He says he WAS satisfied that in the "very special circumstances" that he had jurisdiction to proceed. He emphasized WAS -- makes me think he's going to punt it to the AG.
The judge is reviewing the allegations against Tommy from Leeds.
"It HAD seemed to me that the important facts for my purposes had not seemed to be in dispute... was of the view that the proceedings should take place before me..." Again, it sounds like he might have changed his mind as recently as last night.
"Yesterday [I received] a copy of a statement by Tommy."
The judge says that Tommy's proposed witness statement is quite controversial, and therefore the matter is properly put to the AG, and that he will not conduct the re-hearing himself! So this is being rescheduled.
The judge is being very careful in his reasoning; I think he was ready to do a proper job; but Tommy's issues, prospectively raised in his witness statement, has convinced him it ought to be a proper hearing, in an adversarial setting, with cross-examination, etc.
I think this is a good result for Tommy. My one regret is that we have brought with us a large contingent of journalists to cover the substantive hearing, and that will not proceed -- I hope we can bring back those journalists for the hearing itself.
"All the evidence must be rigorously tested". Therefore, he is referring it to the AG. So, no hearing today. The judge apologizes to the lawyers, noting "all the preparation that has been done."
So we will have a 6th court hearing. And likely a 7th, where the decision is issued. And an 8th, where Tommy surely appeals. I doubt there has been an contempt of court case in UK history that has been such an odyssey. The man is truly being punished as a political prisoner.
In recent years, major newspapers in the UK have been found in contempt of court -- and have actually scuppered trials. They received modest (i.e. £10,000) fines. No endless trials, no prison time. Why the punitive exception for Tommy, only?
Is not part of the rule of law that no-one is above the law -- but no-one is below it? Why must Tommy go through all this -- and be the first journalist imprisoned in 70 years for contempt -- but the corporate media skate with a pittance of a fine?
The judge and Angus McCullough are bantering a bit; but the decision is done.
And we're done. The court is over. The judge is gone.