Emma West appeared at Croydon magistrates court on 3rd January. She will stand trial on two racially aggravated public order offences, one with intent to cause fear. She will next appear in court – Croydon Crown Court - on 17 February 2012.
The charge with “intent to cause fear” arises because a passenger, Ena-May Eubanks, claims Miss West hit her left shoulder with a closed fist. This charge comes under section 31A of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/37/section/31). It carries a potential sentence on conviction on indictment of “imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine, or to both”.
Anyone who has watched the video on YouTube will think the idea that she intended to cause fear when she was a white woman surrounded by hostile ethnic minorities laughable. The CPS are clearly playing the pc game by hitting her with the most severe charges possible. (The official line on what is a racially aggravated offence can be found at http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/racially_aggravated_offences/).
Miss West has yet to plead, but the fact that she has opted for a Crown Court trial (which will mean the case is heard before a jury) rather than a hearing in a magistrates court strongly suggests she will plead not guilty ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/03/woman-accused-tram-race-rant). This is because she risks a heavier sentence in the Crown Court and it would make little sense to opt for the case to be heard in the Crown Court if she does not intend to plead not guilty. There is of course the danger that she may be intimidated into pleading guilty by the promise of a lighter sentence.
Her bail conditions are that “she does not travel on a tram within Croydon and Sutton, lives and sleeps at her home address and does not comment on the case.” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16394046).
Bearing in mind that Miss West was remanded in custody against her will for “her own safety”, it does seem rather rum that the same court is insisting she stays in her own house when her address was read out in open court.
The ban on travel on the local tram system could be pretty penal. She has two small children and the tram system may be the only means she has of taking them with her when she has to leave her house.
Her blanket gagging so she cannot comment on the case is remarkable. Engaging in any of the following can breach the sub judice rules and constitute contempt of court:
1. obtaining or publishing details of jury deliberations;
2. filming or recording within court buildings;
3. making payments to witnesses;
4. publishing information obtained from confidential court documents;
5. reporting on the defendant’s previous convictions;
6. mounting an organized campaign to influence proceedings;
7. reporting on court proceedings in breach of a court order or reporting restriction;
8. breaching an injunction obtained against another party;
9. anticipating the course of a trial or predicting the outcome; or
10. revealing the identity of child defendants, witnesses or victims or victims of sexual offences. (http://www.out-law.com/page-9742)
Only 4, 6, 7, 8 would seem to have any application in the context of banning her from commenting on the case. Number 9 might seem to have relevance, but by pleading one way or the other the outcome of a case is anticipated. It would be absurd if it applied to a defendant.
Nos 4,6, 7,8 could have been dealt with by banning those specific acts, although it is unlikely she would be in a position to do these things. For example, it is wildly improbable she could mount an organised campaign to influence proceedings. It is also true that cases can be discussed while a case is active in the context of a discussion of public affairs, for example, it would be acceptable to discuss Miss West’s case as part of an examination of how the justice system treats black on white offences compared with white on black offences.
What does her general gagging tell us? Simple. The liberal elite are truly terrified that the politically correct house of cards they have built will be blown over if any of the vast resentment and anger at mass immigration and its consequences within the native British population is allowed into the public fold.