QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
B e f o r e :
MRS JUSTICE FARBEY
|- and -|
|CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE||Respondent|
MR P. RATLIFF (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
Crown Copyright ©
LORD JUSTICE SIMON:
Incident two (comments made in the presence of court security staff)
Incident three (comments in court)
Mr Hilson: All right you could always pop it (the document) like as you goes to the aquatic centre. We're right next to the Olympic Park.
Ms McCarthy: She don't go. Her husband takes it.
This was a reference to the fact that the Judge has a daughter who attends sessions at the aquatic park. The appellants were correct in saying that it was the Judge's husband who took their daughter there.
Incident four (the birthday card)
Keep up the good work stealing for profit. Don't drink too much raspberry gin and stagger back to Sarf, London. Love Tony and Cheri. P.S. Send my regards to Christopher.
On or about 2 October a live video was uploaded to Mr Hilson's Facebook account. It included the appellants, together with a third person, discussing a number of matters. It is unnecessary to set out the highly derogatory statements about the Judge. However, there were remarks about, "... dropping her off at the Aquatic Centre and going for coffee."
Ms McCarthy: Thing is, we did mention a few of this stuff in court. You've gave a few hints, subtle hints, over and she's clocked right on to us. She clocked right on.
Mr Hilson: She locked her Facebook down. Her husband's is still open.
Ms McCarthy: She's done that because we addressed her in our document in her actual name, both names, so she knew we had information on her.
The findings in the Crown Court as set out in the case stated
We are sure that they were well aware that she would find the fact that they had uncovered this personal contact detail alarming and distressing and that the use of the email address did in fact cause her alarm and distress.
It provides compelling evidence as to their intention with regards to the earlier incidents of harassment detailed in incidents one to four.
In those circumstances, while we are sure that the contents of the video did in fact cause Her Honour Judge Atkinson alarm and distress, we are not sure that the appellants knew or ought to have known that she would be aware of its contents.
The question of law
The argument on the appeal