An IPP prisoner is one who the court  decided needed to be imprisoned for public protection. Basically a person was given a set prison sentence, for example 3 years, but then on top of that the judge designated them as a danger to the public and that means they can’t be released until it has been decided by the parole board that the prisoner is no longer a risk of harm if released. 

The IPP scheme was abolished in 2012, and replaced with a scheme where a prisoner is now given a set sentence, say 3 years, and then (for certain offences) if the judge considers them dangerous, an extended sentence can be imposed, such as another 3 years.  Hence, extended term prisoners now have a release date.

Recent press reports about a young man with mental health issues who was given a sentence of less than a year but designated an IPP, and has served many additional years has resulted in mud slinging between the Parole Board, Ministry of Justice, Prisons and prisoners’ families.  Whereas on social media, suddenly prison experts seem to have come out of the woodwork..

The reality is that some of the IPP prisoners still incarcerated would be able to walk away from prison if released and live a normal life. Most wouldn’t, the years of incarceration and lack of support from within the prison system means that some who were not really dangerous when they were imprisoned may well have been made dangerous by the state.  Many of the current courses offered in prison are run by private companies for profit, they don’t actually benefit the prisoner, there aren’t enough places on the courses, and they often are cancelled or replaced by another bright idea course part way through, 

Many IPP prisoners downgraded to open conditions of released on licence are recalled due to minor breaches of their licence as the test for recall is not whether a person is becoming a risk of harm to the public, but rather whether they breach their licence conditions, such as by going to the pub for a pint, getting back late to the hostel. The recall system is part of the IPP problem. 

I am a lawyer working in prison law and representing IPP prisoners. Almost all of those I have represented have been released, those who haven’t been released have (with the exception of 2) been downgraded in category.  The 2 who have not been downgraded are preparing for a further hearing to determine whether they can be released.  

I’d like to say my clients have been released due to me having fantastic advocacy skills, but that’s simply not true. The secret to release for an IPP prisoner is preparation for the parole hearing. Not just taking the courses etc which the Ministry of Justice seems to think will all of a sudden make someone no longer dangerous.  A full package of information on the prisoner, an independent psychiatric report, evidence from family and friends about how they will support the prisoner on release, evidence the prisoner has thought realistically about their future such as the type of work they are going to be able to undertake and where they will live. These have to be realistic, for example, it is pointless for a sex offender to suggest they are going to set up their own tattoo business – no parole board is going to release a prisoner sentenced for serious sex offences, so that they can spend their days touching the skin of semi clad women. 

The parole board will provide a package for the prisoner prior to their hearing, but it’s very one sided, reports from the prison, reports from probation (often from a probation office who doesn’t know the prisoner and has spent no more than an hour interviewing them over a video link). For some reason the parole board members often seem to take more notice of the views of this probation officer who doesn’t know the prisoner, than a prison officer who has observed them on a daily basis. 

In the USA I work with youths who were given life without parole but who now have a chance of a rehearing. I also prepare for clemency hearings for death row prisoners, the last ditch attempt to persuade a State Governor not to execute a prisoner.  For both of these types of case I work with a mitigation expert who is appointed for the prisoner. We prepare a package of information which is not state biased and which gives another angle or perspective to the prisoners life.  

Just as in my criminal defence work when I question why anyone suspected or charged with an offence would rely on the police to investigate their defence, I question why any prisoner will just rely on the reports prepared by the prison & probation (both Government underfunded and controlled by targets which the prisoner knows nothing about).  

A few weeks ago I read an email from a lawyer to a young defendant’s mother in which the lawyer told the mother that probation had prepared a pre sentence report, they felt there was no need for an expert report so the lawyer wasn’t going to ask for one. The probation officer had spent 30 minutes on a video link with the defendant to prepare the presentence report, had not identified the youth’s mental health issues or learning difficulties. The youth was given an extended sentence on the say so of a private company employed probation officer who had no experience of dealing with youth defendants, and had only been a probation officer for less than a year, and on their own admission was told by their bosses they could spend no more than an hour on each pre sentence report they prepared. 
As lawyers we can do more to assist our IPP clients. As always, funding is an issue for many lawyers acting for prisoners, only a few law firms now have a prison law contract as the LAA actively encouraged firms not to apply for a prison law contract. Just travel costs alone to visit a prisoner can be extremely expensive, most IPP prisoners are housed in prisons in the middle of nowhere with no public transport links. A return train to the closest station and taxi from the station can often amount to more than £100 from London so it is very difficult to take on IPP cases pro bono. However in all of my cases I have found a solution, a solicitor who has hounded the LAA until they agree to fund an expert report, a family which manages to fund my travel to prison, a PhD candidate who is funded by their university and is prepared to assist with assessing my client, a charity which has gained access to a prison to offer a particular course. 

Just arguing the IPP prisoners should be released is not the answer, each prisoner is different, and each case should be taken on its merits. I question whether the Parole Board should be left with responsibility for trying to resolve the mess the Ministry of Justice has created by its dithering.  If the parole board focuses on IPP prisoners, this will create a backlog of other prisoners awaiting a parole board hearing. The current backlogs of over 2 years in many cases is already unacceptable. Although it should be said, a lot of the backlog is not only due to the parole board, but often due to the prison or probation not providing reports on time or not turning up to hearings. 

A solution would be to have a panel of High Court judges with criminal law experience, conducting a release hearing. The judge could sit with a parole board member and hear evidence much like in a parole hearing, but unlike a parole board, they could have power to replace the IPP with an extended term (if release was not deemed appropriate).  All IPP prisoners should get the equivalent of a pre trial review court hearing automatically, this hearing in front of the judge could be used to set a timetable for reports and other evidence, list the evidence etc which the judge requires, and set a date for the full hearing. Judges should have the authority to approve funding for lawyers and experts. In essence a court appointed lawyer & court appointed expert.  

We could learn a lot from the USA. Within months of the Supreme Court ruling that Life Without Parole for youths was unconstitutional, the first cases were back in court, unlike the Ministry of Justice dithering while dishing out sound bites, which does nothing more than show that it is out of its depth in dealing with this issue. 

I’m aware of an article on the Sun Online about Millwall FC fans being required to have the equivalent of Away Fan ID cards. The EFL have used the pitch invasion of some fans at the end of the play off at Wembley as a reason for requiring the fans to provide ID to purchase away tickets but in truth this is just an excuse and a slippery slope for all football fans who travel away.

In the 1980s and early 1990s the Government wanted to introduce ID cards for football fans and even drew up legislation which was debated in Parliament. The ID card scheme was never approved, partly because the question of how to allow alcohol to be served in corporate boxes while preventing fans in the stands from drinking alcohol then took priority and used up all the time set aside for the ID card discussions.  But, don’t for one minute think that the ID card idea has gone away.

A few years ago at the Brighton V Crystal Palace match, in which Crystal Palace secured a place in the Premier League, the Met Police sent out a message that everyone travelling to Brighton would be stop checked and would have to provide ID to show they were the fan named on their ticket. This plan fell apart as Crystal Palace didn’t print the fans names on the tickets, and Sussex Police refused to get involved in the scheme. But this is just one example of the fact ID for away fans has been bubbling under the surface for years.

If the EFL are successful in forcing Millwall FC to introduce away fan ID, this will be the start of the slippery slope. The next club which has a pitch invasion or some kind of fan issue will find itself in the same position as Millwall FC but then there will be the added justification ‘well it’s already been introduced at Millwall FC so why should you be treated differently’.

My phone has been red hot all morning with football fans moaning about the possibility of ID cards. I’ve got your back, I don’t agree with it, but on my own I can’t do anything about it. Grass roots campaigns can be hugely effective, and if the ID card idea is to be stopped it will need a well organised grassroots campaign from all fans who travel to away games, not just Millwall FC fans.  This affects any fan who travels to away games as it is campaigning against future restrictions which, if you don’t try and stop it now, will happen.

Bitching on social media, setting off smoke bombs outside the EFL offices and blaming the football clubs will not work.  Football fans have such a varied background (project managers, company directors, accountants, lawyers, journalists, lobbyists, campaigners, research students.. etc etc) this could be a grassroots campaign like no other but it requires football fans putting in the work. I’m happy to assist and coordinate, but I can’t do this without your help. 

Either stand up to the EFL now or get ready to hand over an ID card every time you travel away within the next 5 years. 

On 3^rd June 2017 Mr Roy Larner was a victim of the attack at London Bridge. He has been hailed a hero for his actions on that evening, but it should not be forgotten that he is also a victim who was quite seriously injured due to direct contact with an attacker. For the past five weeks Roy Larner has been involved in what can only be described as a media circus, as understandably the public wanted to hear his story of what happened on that evening.

Now that his account of that evening has been aired, it is time for Roy to take some time out and concentrate on his physical and mental health, as should everyone directly involved in an attack of such a horrific nature.

I ask that Roy is left to focus his attentions on making sure he is able to recover from the incident, and that he is not approached by any press, promotions or organisations with offers of interviews or assistance. All such approaches should be made through myself for the foreseeable future.

I also ask that members of the public respect his privacy, while he is very much a recognisable person due to the media attention, it should be remembered that he is a man who has suffered a very traumatic experience.

Any queries in relation to Roy Larner should be made to me on 07041 212357 or via email gurdena@btinternet.com.

Alison Gurden

Barrister

Mansfield 1 Gray’s Inn Square Chambers 0207 405 0001

This is a quick advice which is only in relation to the Celtic FC away matches as I need to obtain further documentation in relation to the suspension of season tickets at Celtic Park.

I am aware that a letter has been sent out to some season ticket holders informing them that their season tickets are under suspension and that they are also banned from attending away matches.. the exact wording is “..pending further investigation you are hereby suspended from attending (1) any Celtic FC or other matches at Celtic Park; (2)any matches involving Celtic FC at any other stadium in Scotland or elsewhere.” There is also mention of a refund for any fans who have purchased a ticket for the match against Rosenborg at Celtic Park.

There is a Celtic FC away match scheduled for 29^th July at Sunderland AFC.  A football club cannot ban people from entering any stadium other than its own. Hence, while Celtic FC can ban any person from entering Celtic Park, it cannot ban someone from entering Sunderland’s Stadium of Light. However, if Sunderland AFC wishes to ban Celtic FC fans from entering the Stadium of Light (even if only on advice or recommendation of Celtic FC) it can do so. If Celtic FC fans have purchased their Stadium of Light tickets using their membership, it is possible that Celtic FC have provided these details to Sunderland AFC, and those Celtic FC fans who have been suspended may find they are refused access to the Stadium of Light due to this information. However, neither Celtic FC or Sunderland AFC have made any suggestion that there is a refund system in place for any Stadium of Light tickets and that indicates (although don’t take this as gospel) that the Stadium of Light will not refuse entry to those Celtic FC fans who have purchased tickets and who Celtic FC have suspended. If they do refuse entry due to the request of Celtic FC, a claim can be made against Celtic for the costs of the tickets as no offer has been made for refund or compensation for not being able to attend. In addition, if Celtic FC has provided the details of all the suspended fans to Sunderland FC, that in itself may amount to a data protection breach.

In Short, at the moment it seems as though Celtic FC fans travelling to Sunderland AFC are likely to be granted entry to the Stadium of Light. Obviously those who have not purchased through a membership scheme cannot be traced on their tickets by either Celtic FC or Sunderland AFC. However, keep an eye on Sunderland AFC website incase there are any announcements from Sunderland FC to the travelling Celtic FC fans.

Celtic FC has made a veiled threat in its letter that anyone who tries to evade the suspension will have their season ticket revoked. It is possible for Celtic FC to do this as the club has the ultimate right to deny access to the stadium to anyone as it is a private venue. However, if there is a mass of fans who have their season ticket revoked it is possible to make a complaint to the Football Ombudsman, and in addition anyone who has their season ticket revoked will be able to claim for the cost of the season ticket and also likely be able to claim a small amount of compensation for the aggravation of having the season ticket revoked. But the bottom line is that Celtic FC can ban whoever they want from Celtic Park, no matter how unreasonable.

The recent publication of football fan photos, by the Metropolitan Police, highlights again the media spin which is placed on alleged ‘football hooligans’. When police publish a photo of someone wanted in connection with a rape or serious assault, the photo usually appears inside the newspaper, however today a few newspapers chose to put the photos of fans they want to speak to following the Millwall v Leicester match on their front pages.
What does it mean when the police release your photo to the media?

The police have identified from cctv footage or social media footage, people who were at the match and who the police believe were involved in disorder. This does not mean that a person has to make contact with the police if their photograph is published, However it is likely that if the police identify them (often through someone else contacting the phone number on the press release and providing a name), the police will turn up at the fans home address early one morning and arrest them. 

Once arrested and taken to the police station, the fan is entitled to a lawyer being present in interview. This is free of charge, and there is a misconception amongst many people arrested, that the lawyer is a police lawyer. That’s not true, the lawyer works for the defence. 

The other misconception is that if an arrested person doesn’t have a lawyer they will get out of the police station quicker. This is a comment that arrested people often tell me the police told them. That is rubbish! A standard stay in a police station after arrest is 6-10 hours, lawyer or no lawyer. But in my experience, those who don’t have a lawyer come out with stringent bail conditions, and are more likely to be charged with an offence. 

The alternative to an early morning knock at home by the police, is for a fan to identify themselves to the police as being in the photographs. It is still likely that the fan will be interviewed, but it can often be arranged as a voluntary interview at a time and date convenient to the fan. The fan is still entitled to have a lawyer present during interview. A voluntary interview also means that (unless the fan is then charged with an offence) they don’t have to give their fingerprints and DNA at the police station. 

If a fan self identifies, this can be done via their lawyer, so that arrangements can be made for the lawyer to attend the police station with the fan. 
What about the publication of the photos?

Once the person in the photo has been identified, there is no need for the police and media to keep the photo displayed on their websites. I am often contacted by fans who are concerned that months after they have been identified their image is still out there on the internet. While it’s not possible to guarantee that the photo is removed from the Internet completely, it is possible to ask that the websites containing the photo are updated to blur out the image. I regularly make contact with the police and press to ensure that the photo is removed. 

Anyone who is concerned about their image being in the press can contact me 07941 212357 or Melanie Cooke, Football Law Associates 07834 483092 for advice and assistance. 

The lawyer sits in the warmth of the high street coffee shop, watching a waify girl cross the road. It’s the middle of winter but the girl is dressed in jeans and a hoody, her hands in her pockets, hunched against the cold. She reaches the door of the coffee shop but hesitates, she doesn’t enter, this sort of place is alien to her, full of nicely dressed women holding toddlers, and grey haired women and bald men – pensioners chatting over their frothy coffees.

The lawyer bekons to the waify girl, waving her inside. She already has a latte and chocolate muffin on the table waiting for her.
The waify girl sits down, so obviously out of her comfort in the surroundings. The lawyer isn’t sure if the tears in the girl’s eyes are from the cold or something more.

The lawyer pushes the coffee and muffin across the table towards the girl “eat… you look cold and hungry..”

The girl starts to speak but it ends up in a sob “I can’t do this anymore, I’ve tried to get help but no one will listen to me. The Doctor can’t see me for the next 3 weeks, my probation officer just tells me to ring once a week and can’t wait to get me off of the phone, I’ve got nowhere to live, I’m not sleeping.. I’ve tried the job centre but they called the police on me last week, I was going there every day asking for help, but they kept refusing to see me without an appointment, saying I have to make an appointment online.. I haven’t got a fucking pot to piss in, how am I going to get on the Internet, if I can’t get in the building?..’

The lawyer remembers the girl from last year when she was full of optimism on being released from prison. Off of drugs and alcohol, and ready to start afresh. The lawyer can smell the alcohol on the girls breath at 11am and guesses that the girl is back self medicating with amphetamines and alcohol.. The black market version of anti depressants.

The girl sees the lawyer as her someone who helped her, listened to her in prison, arranged for a psychiatrist to assess her and give her a few counselling sessions and got her released from prison.

The lawyer sees it differently, a girl remanded in custody on a charge on which someone else had already accepted a caution.  The CPS had been so busy, the file wasn’t reviewed. The lawyer had tried to get the girl released from custody sooner but the court was too busy to list the case as cuts had meant court rooms had been closed. Only after threatening High Court action had the lawyer managed to get the girl’s case listed at court. The cps had dropped the charges that day, and the girl released from the court cells with nothing. Her only possessions were in the prison. The girl had walked out of the court house in the clothes she was wearing and nothing more.

The girl kept her eyes on the table as she whispered that she was OK as she was doing ‘favours’ for some blokes and in return they had let her sleep on their floor the last couple of nights. She’d been beaten last week and spent 6 hours at A&E in the warm, but they stitched her up and released her back on the street. She’d asked to see a mental health nurse, and was asked if she had suicidal thoughts, she’d said ‘No’ and was told the nurse was over subscribed, and she wasn’t in immediate need.

The lawyer made the girl look at her.. “And are you suicidal? Because it’s often nothing to do with mental health, it’s to do with the feeling that you can’t fight anymore”

The girl nods and gets up. “I’m not sure how much fight I’ve got left.”

The lawyer watches the waify figure hunch against the cold as the door slams behind her. She’s annoyed and frustrated, the girl is trying so hard to turn her life around but no one seems to care. She wonders whether the next time she hears about the girl it’s because she’s been found dead in a ditch.. No longer useful for those ‘favours’ to men twice her age, and overdosed on tablets which aren’t what her dealer has told her they are. One of the forgotten ones, who had been exited and overwhelmed to have been given a chocolate muffin!

So what do you think?  A too dramatic piece of fiction?  Well here is the kicker… I’m not really writing a novel,  this is not fiction.  This is the real account of my meeting with an ex client today. A girl trying to turn her life around, but knocked back every step of the way by the cuts and privatisation which has hit the public services on which so many vulnerable people rely.

I have been asked to give a few lectures about my life as a criminal and social justice lawyer to students interested in undertaking this type of work. Unfortunately, at the moment, I am not able to publicise my whereabouts in advance so I can’t give lectures, but I have decided to draft my talk anyway and upload it.

If you are expecting me to encourage all law students to become criminal or social justice lawyers as its a worthwhile role, you are going to be sorely disappointed by the time you finish reading this. If I have persuaded many of you not to undertake the work, that is probably a good thing. I have been a lawyer for nearly 20 years and make no mistake, there has never been a harder time to be a criminal or social justice lawyer than now. Legal aid cuts, or in some areas of law the complete abolition of legal aid, along with an increase in court costs has created a two tier justice system like never before. In the past 6 years, the Government has managed to rip the heart out of a legal system of which I used to be proud. But, although this Government has attacked the legal system like a pack of rabid dogs, the rot had already set in under the previous Labour Government, which set in motion the legal aid cuts. The eradication of lawyers who were passionate about ensuring that everyone had equal access to justice had begun. Those same passionate people had to pay rent or mortgages, repay student loans, provide for their children, and it was becoming increasingly hard to do so on the rates we were being paid for work, which is challenging and demanding, but which is not seen as being high on the scale of important things in life. Well that is until a person becomes involved in the legal system as a defendant or claimant, at that stage they appreciate the importance of a fully funded legal system staffed by people who care about their clients and the rule of law, but by that stage it is too late.

I’m a barrister with a predominantly criminal practice, but that strays into many other areas of law relating to the criminal justice system, complaints against the police, complaints against the CPS, judicial review, police disciplinaries, parole hearings and prisoner adjudications, inquests, criminal injuries compensation, press complaints, employment, Nursing and Midwifery Council hearings…. the list is endless of the types of issue which can result from a criminal case.

No one comes to me because they are happy and their life is good, I am not only a lawyer but also a quasi social worker, surrogate mother, or for some, just a piece of common sense. I don’t work nine to five hours, and I cannot do my job on a 40 hour week. I have lost count of the amount of times I have arrived at a family dinner just in time for desert having been in court or a police station after hours, have declined invitations to social events as I am too busy preparing for a case the next day, spent my Sunday travelling half way round the country to make sure I am in the right area of the country for a Monday morning parole hearing at a prison in the middle of nowhere. I used to say that it would be difficult to do my job if you weren’t passionate about it. I now say it is impossible.

Don’t get me wrong, I bitch about my job, when I am standing on a platform at 05:30 on a cold wet Monday morning waiting to start my 3 hour train journey to a court for what will turn out to be a one hour hearing, or when I get a wake up call from a client at 03:00 as they are in trouble, and when I realise at the end of the month that I am again going to struggle to pay my rent.

This is not a job where people are going to recognise your worth. If you want to be constantly congratulated for your work, go and do something else. After 9 hours on a police carrier with twelve police officers all asking me questions like “How do you sleep at night?’ “How does it feel to know that you have managed to get a guilty person acquitted so that they can go out and hurt someone again?” “How can you even consider representing a child rapist?’ the questions become weary, but its an experience I have had more than once, and it has made me realise that actually I am not thanked by the majority of the public for the work I do. Even my family members struggle to reconcile the fact that I was brought up in a family of high morals and ethics, yet one of my main areas of work is representing people who are accused of crimes, or have committed crimes, which are beyond most peoples worst nightmares. Click on any tabloid newspaper on the internet and you won’t have to search for long to find an article which describes criminal lawyers as fat cat lawyers, with dubious morals.

This job can be very lonely at times, even more so for a barrister than a solicitor as you rarely even have the daily camaraderie of an office environment. I spend hours sitting on trains on my own, waiting at court for my case to come on, sitting in cells with clients who have such mental health issues that its enough that they are able to chat to me about what they have had for lunch, working the twilight zone night after night (some of my friends refer to me as the vampire). And all the while I am dealing with someone else’s problems, which are so personal and confidential that I can’t sit around a dinner table and discuss them even with those closest to me, hence I am constantly bottling up other people’s problems. And even if it is not confidential, its a bit difficult to go out with a group of friends for the evening and when they say ‘oh how was work today? to reply, “oh you know, not bad, I spent the day looking at photos of a dead child so badly mutilated even her own mother wouldn’t have recognised her, that’s if her mother hadn’t also been strangled with such severity that her whole body turned blue, then mutilated and dumped.”

I have a large number of high profile cases on my docket at any one time. My cases are not high profile because the client is a celebrity, but usually because their alleged crime is high profile. This brings additional pressures, making sure that I protect a client (who often cannot help themselves due to the fact they are in custody or have mental health issues) from excessive press intrusion, from actions of the public or occasionally magistrates and judges who want to grandstand in front of the press or the packed public gallery. I rarely comment to the press, I don’t permit journalists or documentary makers to visit my clients, my usual comment when they ask is that my clients are not animals in the zoo.

I am not a high profile lawyer, you won’t find me commenting on legal issues on a tv news programme or featuring in articles in newspapers. I don’t do this for the notoriety, in fact the more I can fade into the background the better. You won’t find photos of me on the internet, and as much as possible I sneak out of a side door of court after a case. I have refused to be part of documentaries and with the exception of the Save UK Justice campaign you won’t find me endorsing any prominent campaign. That way I am totally independent, I work for my client and like to think I act in my client’s best interests. In my opinion the only way that you can ensure that you are acting in the best interests of the client is to make sure you haven’t any other affiliations or involvements which could sway how you act on a case. I will refuse a case if I think my actions on one case may conflict with those on another, the client is paramount.

Not all criminal lawyers are like me, many work from their local courts and have a local client base, and will work more regular hours. I have chosen my career path, it is my fault that I work long hours, have numerous pro bono cases running at any one time, have nightmares about some of the things I’ve seen and can’t un-see, and regularly miss dinner. But whether you chose to take on my type of work or be based more local to home, you will work long hours, be paid for about half of the work you actually do, face ethical situations which you would never have dreamed you would have to deal with, and quite often find that even your own client is not grateful for the work you have put in.

But despite all of that, it can sometimes, just sometimes, feel like the best job in the World!

As I have reported previously, my client, Tommy Robinson has been served with an application for a football banning order by Bedfordshire Police. It will be argued in Mr Robinson’s defence of the application that this is an attempt to breach his right to freedom of speech and assembly. It is an abuse of the legal process that the football banning order is being used as a ruse to create an exclusion zone in Luton so that he cannot undertake any political protests on Saturdays.

The application for the football banning order has been served by Bedfordshire Police, although it is believed that the real instigator of this application is the Home Office through the UK Football Policing Unit. It is believed that the emergency provisions invoked during the Euro 2016 football tournament were used as an excuse to prevent Mr Robinson from travelling to France and also as a means of introducing the application for the football banning order. Without these emergency provisions neither the police nor UK Football Policing Unit would have had grounds to serve the application on Mr Robinson.

This Football Banning Order application aims to prevent Tommy Robinson from entering the town of Luton for 12 hours on a Saturday when Luton Town FC are playing a home match, and from attending events overseas where England is represented. Without a Football Banning Order, the Home Office would struggle to find a legal mechanism to restrict Mr Robinson’s movements, as his political protests are not unlawful. While some may not agree with his views, Mr Robinson has just as much right to lawful protest as any other individual or group.

Hence it is a logical conclusion that this application is made as an abuse of the Bedfordshire Police power as it is actually an attempt by the Home Office to restrict Mr Robinson’s movement and expression of his political beliefs.

This is compounded by the fact Bedfordshire Police have included Mr Robinson being photographed in France holding a George Cross flag with Fuck ISIS written on it. The police application says this action is likely to incite racial hatred. Clearly, protesting against a banned terrorist organisation which has infiltrated both French and British soil is not inciting racial hatred. Mr Robinson has never stated that he believes that ISIS is linked to the mainstream Muslim faith, but has linked it to islamic extremism, in the same manner that the former Prime Minster, David Cameron, referred to the “Evil of ISIS.”

Mr Robinson was not at a football match while holding up this George Cross for the photograph. He was not even in the same town in which the England national football team were playing. Police intelligence reports state that it was believed that Mr Robinson would not attend the football matches in the South of France as he did not want to be in a position where his presence could be linked to any disorder, so how can it be argued that this is a valid application required to prevent Mr Robinson causing violence or disorder at football matches?

Mr Robinson is deeply concerned that in order to bolster this weak application, Bedfordshire Police has placed misleading information in front of the court. In particular, the application states that he was convicted of an offence of affray on Remembrance Day 2010. This is not true. In reality Mr Robinson was convicted of causing harassment alarm or distress to persons who were purposely burning replica poppies. Mr Robinson jumped a barrier to stop the deliberate insult to those who have given their lives fighting for their country. The irony is that Mr Robinson received a stronger sentence than the £50 fine imposed on those who were burning the replica poppies, and at least some of those supporting and encouraging the burning of the replica poppies are now either facing charges or have already been convicted of supporting or inciting support for a banned organisation (ISIS), including one person who was, just this week, sentenced to five and a half years in prison for inciting support for a banned terrorist organisation.

Mr Robinson has a court hearing on 19th September 2016. An update will be provided after that hearing.