00:00:00
So, you must have heard that the Court
00:00:01
of Appeal has refused to reduce Lucy
00:00:03
Conny's 31-month prison sentence. Now, I
00:00:06
can sit here and tell you in a technical
00:00:08
sense why the court ruled the way that
00:00:10
it did. And in a technical, boring, dry
00:00:13
legal sense, that makes some kind of
00:00:15
sense. But what it doesn't do is reflect
00:00:18
the reality, I think, of what the vast
00:00:20
majority of people think. Now, the
00:00:23
caveat, some people online are pleased
00:00:25
with it and they think that it's the
00:00:27
right decision, but the vast majority of
00:00:28
people that I've seen online say that
00:00:30
this is wrong. She shouldn't be spending
00:00:32
two and a half years in prison for a
00:00:33
single tweet, which she clearly regrets.
00:00:35
And whilst everybody agrees that the
00:00:37
tweet was wrong and shouldn't be said
00:00:38
and you shouldn't say those things and
00:00:40
all of that. It's just wrong that
00:00:42
someone spends 2 and 1/2 years in prison
00:00:45
for a single tweet. Now, I have a few
00:00:47
thoughts on this. Now, this is going to
00:00:49
be slightly different than my usual take
00:00:51
on these things because I I will refer
00:00:54
you to bits of the judgment. I will
00:00:55
refer you to the bits of the sentencing
00:00:57
guidelines, etc. But what I'm going to
00:01:00
talk about really is this is in my view
00:01:03
the best example of what I like to call
00:01:05
system and reality. I've referred to
00:01:08
this for many years now. System and
00:01:10
reality being the system being this is
00:01:12
how the system works. This is what it
00:01:14
does. These are the rules. These are the
00:01:15
laws and this is what happens and this
00:01:17
is the way it moves forward. And this is
00:01:18
how it all works. The reality is it just
00:01:21
doesn't reflect, I think, what the vast
00:01:24
majority of people think is right and
00:01:27
fair. And given that it is a justice
00:01:29
system and inherent within a justice
00:01:32
system, it should be fair. I don't think
00:01:34
people accept this. And I think this
00:01:37
really defines this country in not a
00:01:40
very good way. Now, this has obviously
00:01:41
caused quite a bit of stir. I'll refer
00:01:43
you to a few posts here. There's one
00:01:44
from Free Speech Union. There's one from
00:01:46
Rupert Low. Um, it's all over GB News,
00:01:50
etc. Free Speech Union says, "Uh, we're
00:01:52
deeply disappointed by this judgment. No
00:01:54
one disputes the tweet was offensive,
00:01:56
but the sentence of more than 2 and 1/2
00:01:59
years is plainly disproportionate." Um,
00:02:02
again, there's a boring technical legal
00:02:03
reason why it isn't. But that's not me
00:02:06
saying that I agree that it's right, and
00:02:07
it's not me saying that I agree she
00:02:09
should spend two and a half years in
00:02:10
prison for one tweet. I don't, as it
00:02:13
happens. Personal opinion alert. Don't
00:02:14
shoot me. I don't think she should be
00:02:16
spending two and a half years in prison
00:02:18
for a single tweet, however he and
00:02:19
horrible the tweet was. Do I agree that
00:02:21
it was wrong? Yes. Do I agree that
00:02:23
people shouldn't say those things? Yes,
00:02:24
with the caveat that we do have free
00:02:26
speech up to the points of a criminal
00:02:28
threshold. But do I think that that
00:02:30
criminal threshold and this sentence is
00:02:31
proportionate to one? No, I don't.
00:02:34
That's my personal opinion. I think it's
00:02:35
a bit ridiculous. But here we are. They
00:02:37
say Lucy should be at home with her
00:02:39
family, not locked up in jail, while her
00:02:41
husband Rey battles bone marrow failure
00:02:43
and her 12-year-old daughter struggles
00:02:44
to cope without her mother. And of
00:02:46
course, you can see further details in
00:02:48
their article. Now, again, just an
00:02:51
emphasis, this is a classic case of what
00:02:53
I like to call system and reality. The
00:02:56
system says, for reasons I'll show you
00:02:58
in a minute, the system says that she's
00:03:00
to stay there because of the reasons the
00:03:02
court has given and based on all the
00:03:04
rules, based on all the laws and all the
00:03:06
procedures and everything else, the
00:03:07
court has said this is the right
00:03:08
decision. The reality is I think the
00:03:11
vast majority of people think this is
00:03:12
just a bit ridiculous. With great
00:03:15
respect, uh I'm not criticizing the
00:03:17
court in this sense. I'm just saying
00:03:19
that I think that the system that has
00:03:21
led to this situation here is
00:03:23
ridiculous. This bit is the primary
00:03:26
point of the uh judgment here that I
00:03:30
think this is talking to one of the
00:03:32
grounds of appeal. There were two
00:03:33
grounds essentially. Um one attacking
00:03:37
the actual plea and that she didn't
00:03:39
really realize what it was and that the
00:03:40
legal advice was not appropriate etc.
00:03:43
and the lawyer at the time was
00:03:44
cross-examined on that point and
00:03:46
secondly there was a ground about
00:03:48
mitigation. Both were refused and so the
00:03:51
sentence stayed as it was. The principal
00:03:54
point here, this is on the first of
00:03:56
those grounds was where apparently she
00:03:58
signed this declaration here which said
00:04:03
I, Lucy Connelly, date of birth uh
00:04:05
confirmed that I do not wish to enter a
00:04:07
basis of plea and I'll explain that in a
00:04:10
minute. And I understand that this means
00:04:11
I'm conceding that at the point I
00:04:13
published the tweet, I intended to
00:04:15
incite as per the category 1 feature. It
00:04:19
transpires. This was supposed to be the
00:04:21
1A, but more about that again in a
00:04:22
minute. It says, I do this as I do not
00:04:25
believe I will be successful at a Newton
00:04:27
hearing. A Newton hearing is a mini
00:04:28
trial within a trial. So, a trial of the
00:04:31
issues. Again, I'll explain it in a
00:04:32
minute. And it goes on, I do not want to
00:04:35
risk my credit. You get credit for an
00:04:37
early guilty plea. This is my decision
00:04:39
under no pressure from anyone else. I
00:04:41
know therefore that this will be a
00:04:42
category 1A offense with a starting
00:04:45
point of 3 years imprisonment. Now, just
00:04:47
to unravel and unpack and explain that a
00:04:49
little bit in the boring legal detail,
00:04:52
this was saying that she doesn't wish to
00:04:54
enter a basis of plea. So, when you're
00:04:56
charged with something and you're
00:04:57
prosecuted, you can either say yes,
00:04:59
guilty as charged is the phrase, well,
00:05:02
the common phrase, which means you are
00:05:04
guilty as the charge sheet says. It
00:05:06
means that you admit everything they say
00:05:08
you did in the circumstances that you
00:05:09
did it and so on. However, and I've done
00:05:12
this in the few cases that I've done in
00:05:15
the criminal courts. I've done this with
00:05:17
clients before now where it's well, my
00:05:19
client says yes, I did it, but there's a
00:05:22
very good reason I did it. They were
00:05:24
threatening my family. They were, you
00:05:26
know, putting pressure on me. They were
00:05:27
threatening me. I I had no choice.
00:05:29
Whatever. There's a basis of plea that
00:05:32
is possible sometimes. So the basis of
00:05:34
plea could be yes I admit that I did it
00:05:37
but here's the reasons and the
00:05:39
whereforsu that I did it and so they
00:05:42
explain the basis of the plea. Now if
00:05:45
that's accepted by the prosecution now
00:05:48
usually when I've done those they are
00:05:49
accepted by prosecution council. We go
00:05:51
back and forth and they say yeah okay
00:05:53
we'll agree that we agree the wording. I
00:05:55
agree the wording with the client. They
00:05:56
agree the wording on behalf of the
00:05:58
prosecution and we put that forward as a
00:06:00
basis of plea. Of course, then the court
00:06:02
needs to accept it, but the court will
00:06:03
usually accept it. Um, but it's still
00:06:05
down to the court. But if it's not
00:06:07
accepted, if the prosecution do not
00:06:09
accept a basis of plea, then you have a
00:06:12
mini trial only on that one little
00:06:15
issue, and it's called a Newton hearing.
00:06:18
It's a trial within a trial. So, it's a
00:06:21
trial of that particular issue. And so
00:06:23
what they were saying here is this
00:06:25
declaration that she signed said that
00:06:28
she didn't think she'd be successful at
00:06:30
a Newton hearing, i.e. uh the basis of
00:06:33
plea and didn't want to risk credit. So
00:06:35
just to be clear, if they did have that
00:06:37
Newton hearing and she did put forward a
00:06:39
basis of plea and said, "Well, I do
00:06:41
admit it, but on this basis," and the
00:06:44
prosecution didn't accept it, and then
00:06:45
they had a mini trial, if she was
00:06:47
successful, she would retain all of the
00:06:49
uh credit for pleading guilty. If not,
00:06:52
she might lose some or all of it. So,
00:06:55
this was one of the principal reasons
00:06:57
throughout this on the first ground that
00:06:59
the judge didn't accept uh this ground
00:07:03
of appeal. And there were further
00:07:04
submissions to the court on the basis
00:07:05
that council contended that the words of
00:07:08
the tweet could not be read as serious
00:07:10
incitement to burn buildings with people
00:07:12
inside or to kill politicians,
00:07:14
submitting that on the evidence it was
00:07:16
never made clear to Lucy Connley
00:07:19
precisely what concession was being made
00:07:21
on her behalf. And further argued that
00:07:24
the judge should have questioned her
00:07:25
culpability, whether it truly fell into
00:07:27
category
00:07:28
A. The short version is the court didn't
00:07:31
accept that. But just to explain the
00:07:32
category A bit here, this is where we
00:07:34
come into the sentencing guidelines.
00:07:35
Category A is on the culpability. So if
00:07:39
it's accepted, and indeed it was here
00:07:42
because the court upheld that if it's
00:07:44
accepted here that the person had the
00:07:46
intention to incite serious violence,
00:07:49
then it falls into category A. And the
00:07:50
category one bit is simply that whatever
00:07:52
the publication was directly encouraged
00:07:55
the activity which threatened or
00:07:56
endangered life. So in this case, the
00:07:59
judge essentially said that because she
00:08:01
signed that declaration, the judge
00:08:02
didn't accept any argument or contention
00:08:05
that she didn't really mean that and
00:08:07
didn't really intend to incite the
00:08:09
serious violence to in to to get people
00:08:11
to burn buildings. So but that's again
00:08:14
system and reality. The system says she
00:08:18
signed this thing and her legal adviser
00:08:21
supposedly advised her what this meant
00:08:24
and she signed it and the court said
00:08:26
that we are unable to accept the
00:08:27
argument that on a close textual
00:08:29
analysis uh of the offending tweet that
00:08:32
this leads to a conclusion that there
00:08:33
was no more than an expression of
00:08:35
emotion which could not be taken
00:08:36
seriously. So it was argued on her
00:08:38
behalf that this was just an angry
00:08:40
tweet. It was an expression of emotions.
00:08:43
with everything that had happened in her
00:08:44
life and with everything going on in the
00:08:45
country, she was just airing
00:08:47
frustration. She was just showing how
00:08:49
annoyed and frustrated she was and that
00:08:51
it wasn't a serious incitement to
00:08:54
violence. She wasn't really saying you
00:08:57
lot go and do this thing, go and burn
00:08:59
the buildings, etc. The argument was
00:09:01
that she was not doing that. And that
00:09:03
could be interpreted as the reality in
00:09:05
my analogy of system and reality. The
00:09:08
system says that she did agree to that,
00:09:10
that she did agree that's what she was
00:09:12
doing. The reality is what I think a lot
00:09:14
of people think and what I genuinely
00:09:16
think really. I don't think if you
00:09:18
really come down to it and I know I'm
00:09:20
departing from what the court says here.
00:09:22
I mean this respectfully. So there are
00:09:23
only really two possibilities. Either as
00:09:26
the system would have it here that she
00:09:29
did really genuinely deep down she did
00:09:32
intend to incite other people to go and
00:09:34
burn buildings with people in it and
00:09:36
therefore cause serious violence and
00:09:38
harm. Either she really did intend to
00:09:41
incite that or she didn't. And now this
00:09:43
is a really subjective viewpoint here. I
00:09:46
just don't think she did. Even if it was
00:09:48
explained to her, even if she did sign
00:09:50
the thing, even if this has now led the
00:09:53
court to say that the words uh we're
00:09:56
reading from this bit in here, the
00:09:57
middle bit in yellow at the end here,
00:09:59
the words of the tweet are on their face
00:10:02
and incitement to serious violence.
00:10:04
Well, yes, if you read it word for word
00:10:07
without any emotion, without any real
00:10:09
deep down human understanding, yes, on
00:10:12
their face, they are an incitement to
00:10:13
serious violence. I think we all accept
00:10:15
that. I think we all accept that this
00:10:17
was wrong. And then the court rightly
00:10:19
said, it's important not to lose sight
00:10:21
of the fact that she willingly pleaded
00:10:23
guilty and she signed that declaration
00:10:25
and so on. But that doesn't break this
00:10:27
system and reality theory of mine that I
00:10:30
think does hold true on the system side.
00:10:34
She was told she signed it and the rules
00:10:37
say this and the sentencing guidelines I
00:10:39
mean I'll come back to the sentencing
00:10:40
guidelines and where they start. Um if
00:10:42
we look at the the maximum sentence for
00:10:45
this is 7 years and for a category 1A
00:10:47
the starting points 3 years custody with
00:10:50
a range of 2 to six years and you take
00:10:51
in the aggravating and the mitigating
00:10:53
factors etc. on the system on the face
00:10:56
of it it was right but the reality I
00:11:01
just don't think accords with what
00:11:03
people really think. Now, without
00:11:06
getting inside Lucy Connley's head, I
00:11:09
can't tell you precisely what she
00:11:11
thinks. Deep down in there somewhere,
00:11:14
did she really think that? I don't think
00:11:15
that's the case. Let me know in the
00:11:17
comments if you think she really
00:11:19
intended to incite people, as in
00:11:21
genuinely she really wanted her tweet to
00:11:24
make people go and burn the buildings. I
00:11:27
just don't think that's the case. But on
00:11:30
the face of it, on the system, on the
00:11:31
documents, on the law, on the sentencing
00:11:34
guidelines, on the declaration that she
00:11:36
signed and everything else, the court
00:11:38
drew the analysis that quote, "In those
00:11:41
circumstances, we are quite unable to
00:11:43
accept that she signed the endorsement
00:11:45
without any understanding of its
00:11:47
references to the culpability factor or
00:11:50
the starting point." We are also unable
00:11:51
to accept that her state of ignorance in
00:11:53
that regard continued throughout further
00:11:54
conferences with with Mr. Mia, or that
00:11:57
she entered guilty with no understanding
00:11:59
of what it entailed. Her acceptance that
00:12:01
she read and was content with Mr.
00:12:03
Maria's sentencing note, which includes
00:12:05
references to the sentencing guideline
00:12:07
and to the aggravating feature
00:12:08
specifically mentioned in the guideline,
00:12:10
clearly shows that she was well aware of
00:12:12
what she was admitting. It follows that
00:12:14
we reject the applicant's evidence on
00:12:16
which ground one depends and ground one
00:12:18
is unarguable. And as to ground two,
00:12:20
this was the aggravating and mitigating
00:12:22
circumstances. Those were her personal
00:12:24
circumstances. The court just summarized
00:12:26
very briefly and in short the court said
00:12:28
that the judge was entitled to conclude
00:12:30
that the serious aggravating factors
00:12:32
obviously about what was going on at the
00:12:33
time outweighed the mitigating factors
00:12:35
and therefore ground two didn't succeed
00:12:37
and therefore the sentence wasn't
00:12:39
reduced. So on paper, systematically,
00:12:43
legally, and technically that's why the
00:12:46
court ruled this way. I do this video in
00:12:49
the hopes that it helps somebody to
00:12:50
understand that this is technically why
00:12:53
it happened, but also just some
00:12:57
reassurance that I think there's a lot
00:12:59
of lawyers that won't agree with this. I
00:13:01
think a lot of lawyers will not agree
00:13:03
that 2 and a half years in prison for
00:13:05
one tweet is is right for a society. As
00:13:08
wrong as the tweet was, and as much as
00:13:10
we can all agree that she shouldn't post
00:13:12
those things and people shouldn't post
00:13:13
those things, I think this is a case
00:13:15
that shows system versus reality. And
00:13:17
the reality is a lot of people don't
00:13:19
accept it. And so comparing that for
00:13:22
example with this case here um where we
00:13:27
have former Labour MP Mike Aimsbury
00:13:30
talking about one mistake that he made
00:13:34
which you'll remember he was initially
00:13:35
given a 10-we prison sentence for
00:13:37
repeatedly punching somebody physically
00:13:39
punching somebody and then on appeal
00:13:40
that was suspended for 2 years. I'm
00:13:43
reminded of my own comment where I quote
00:13:45
posted this and said, "Humility is
00:13:46
commendable and takes courage because he
00:13:49
was admitting to his mistake here." But
00:13:51
Lucy Connelly also made one mistake and
00:13:53
didn't lay a hand on anyone. She should
00:13:55
not still be in prison. So, that was
00:13:58
just my view here. And I'll link a video
00:14:00
here talking about sentences and things
00:14:02
like that where victims genuinely don't
00:14:05
think that the punishment fits the crime
00:14:07
where the offender gets a very very low
00:14:11
sentence in many cases. I'll link that
00:14:12
video below. You can go and watch that.
00:14:14
That was partnered with five for one of
00:14:15
their TV programs. But also Rbert Low
00:14:18
has put pen to paper here to the justice
00:14:20
secretary and said, "I understand that
00:14:21
Lucy Connley has made an unpleasant
00:14:22
remark on social media. It was foolish
00:14:24
thing to post as she soon understood and
00:14:26
rapidly deleted. Can you honestly say
00:14:28
that having a young mother behind bars
00:14:30
is an efficient use of prison
00:14:32
punishment? I certainly can't. Who is
00:14:33
being served by having Lucy Connelly in
00:14:35
prison? It is definitely not the public,
00:14:37
who I believe would feel far safer if a
00:14:39
violent criminal was incarcerated in
00:14:40
that cell. Bearing in mind there's fewer
00:14:42
than a thousand places left and tens of
00:14:44
thousands of cases in the backlog.
00:14:47
Rupert Lo says it is morally repugnant
00:14:49
to separate a mother from her children.
00:14:50
Over one stupid social media post soon
00:14:53
deleted. It is not just Lucy. There are
00:14:55
others currently in prison for similar.
00:14:57
Is this really what the British justice
00:14:58
system should be prioritizing? Is this
00:15:00
what the British people want? Is it fair
00:15:02
and just? The answer to all of those
00:15:04
questions is a resounding no. Logic must
00:15:07
prevail and Lucy Connelly must be
00:15:08
allowed to go home. And that was Rupert
00:15:10
Low, MP. Let me know in the comments
00:15:12
what you think below. As I said at the
00:15:14
outset, I can tell you in a boring dry
00:15:16
legal sense why this makes legal sense
00:15:19
on the system of the rules and the
00:15:22
sentencing guidelines and the documents
00:15:24
she signed and everything else. I can
00:15:26
tell you all of that. That's the system.
00:15:28
And in my view, the reality is starkly
00:15:30
different. I think a lot of people think
00:15:32
this is disproportionate and wrong. But
00:15:35
that's my view. You may not agree with
00:15:37
me and that's perfectly fine. Let me
00:15:38
know in the comments if you disagree
00:15:40
with that and you think it's absolutely
00:15:41
right that she should remain in prison.
00:15:43
Equally, let me know if you think this
00:15:44
is heinenous and she should be let
00:15:46
allowed to go home. Let me know what you
00:15:48
think. Please do remember to like the
00:15:49
video and subscribe for these honest
00:15:51
views on these things. This is a rare
00:15:52
subjective view point of mine on the on
00:15:54
this video. But I have tried to explain
00:15:57
technically why it happened.
