District Judge John Temperley, verdict summary, Martin Brookes, Cllr Charles Haworth, Helen Briggs Chief Executive Rutland County Council

Martin Brookes accused of stalking and harrassing the chief executive of Rutland County Council and an Oakham town councillor has been found not guilty today (Monday).

District judge John Temperley found Martin Brookes, 47, of the Willow Crescent, Oakham, not guilty on all four charges at Leicester Magistrates Court.

Some of the points raised by District Judge John Temperley

VERDICT – SUMMARY

Law outlined. Reference made to cases of Handysides and Lingens and Art 10 ECHR.

Freedom of expression is crucial to society, favourable comments and also those that shock or offend.

Re: Cllr Haworth, nature of conduct outlined, txts, calls, loitering nr house. Photographing and filming. DJ states he is only concerned with events during period of charge.

Homophobic Oakham Town Councillor and 

Former Deputy Mayor Charles Haworth

Ref made to Cllr Charles Haworth being arrested.

Events going back to 2009 are however crucial when putting the charge in to context.

Haworth refered to The Laughing Stocks as ‘satire’ stating it ‘lampooned’ people

            “I disagree, it is deeply offensive, crude, crass, vulgar and homophobic”

The effect on the defendant is relevant.

I am certain Haworth supported blog sites ‘Planet Neptune’ and ‘Brooks and Pender are twits’, on this Haworth was “economical with the truth” this undermines his credibility.

There is no evidence to support Haworth saying Brookes made a silent, anonymous phone call on the 27^th of Feb. I have seen texts sent at that time and there is nothing offensive in them..

There is nothing to corroborate Howarths account re the alleged incident near his home which he says was on the 2.3.13. I am not sure it occurred and take no account of it.

17.3.13 Haworth says he had dozens of txts between 6pm and 1am arriving at a frequency of 1 every 10 seconds.

The exhibited evidence shows he received ONE!. There is no evidence to support Howarths account.

Def did send some txts earlier in the day using Chomp, he says these had the purpose of finding out who was TLS.  This evidence is uncontradicted. I accept the evidence of the defendant.

Re 19.3.13 I accept that the first meeting was a coincidence. Re 2^nd incident Haworth says he was harrased, I have seen the photo, he appears relaxed. Officers Gower and Walker totally undermine Haworths  account

Defendant has explained his presence and spoke to PC Walker regarding what he was doing.

I reject Howarths evidence, he exaggerated and embellished his account.

24.3.13. at the Town Hall, Howarths account is uncorroborated, I haven’t heard from Councillor Lucas.

Def was entitled to be there. The defs evidence is in line with that given by PC Lloyd. PC Lloyd contradicts and undermines the evidence of Howarth.

AT THE VERY LEAST THE EVIDENCE OF HOWARTH IS EXAGGERATED.

The def says it was that afternoon that he was near the home of Haworth, he gave a clear explanation of why he was there. There is no evidence to show def was filming Haworth, for the purpose of the charge I ignore this incident.

9.4.13 Library, DJ summarises what happened here. In emailing the browser history of Howarth it was a calculated deliberate attempt to embarrass Howarth

(but in my viewnot the Judges, justified to show the Town Councillor enjoys far right Nazi proganda)

The def sent 67 texts during the charge period, some were using the Chomp system. I am satisfied that the defendant had suffered immense distress and that his motivation in sending these messages was to expose Haworth as TLS.

Haworth was arrested, the police would not tell Def who it was that had been arrested, the abuse of the defendant continued. I accept Mr Swinglers submission that the defendant was ‘at his wits end’

The defendants actions DO amount to a course of conduct sufficient to be harassment BUT, weighed against all that had occurred his actions were reasonable and as such I find him  NG of both charges.

Re Briggs. In the period 16.12.12 to 6.6.13 the def sent emails and made blog entries impugning her ability and integrity. On this there is no factual dispute ex HVB1-12 are accepted by the defendant. But is it stalking or harassment?. I give account to the stat defences and art 10.

Briggs says “I have been in local government many years, I accept challenge and criticism” but she says defs actions were “disturbing” and that “no single individual has caused her such distress”

The attack transcended into her family life. She never asked def to remove any material.

She said the length of cc lists on emails was a personal vendetta against her.

Def defended his right to comment on her probity and conduct re Aman Mehra. There are many rumours in public domain regarding her probity and Mehra.

Def admitted receiving info from others in good faith.

I am only concerned with events in the charge period, Briggs and RCC are not on trial, I am not trying to resolve issues involving them.

However def sent a large range of emails on many issues, they did not all concern Briggs!. He has strong views and is obviously a thorn in the side of Briggs who has suffered genuine distress.

As a chief exec she should accept robust challenge

The case of LINGENS served by the defence involves a politician but is wholly analogous to Briggs.

Crown say def launched a systematic campaign against briggs alleging BULLYING, NEPETISM, MISUSE OF PUBLIC FUNDS AND PAYING BLOOD MONEY TO MEHRAS WIDOW.

Def says that it was all already in the public domain, some nationally inc BBC and Private Eye. Much of what def says is either correct or a repetition of other material.

He has personal views which are harsh, shocking and at times offensive.

I do not interpret his blog as a personal vendetta, the posts are at irregular times and cover a broad range of subjects.

Emails are of greater concern, not all are of direct ref to Briggs, but they DID amount to a course of conduct pursued by Def.

BUT – The emails were consistent with defs rights under art10 ECHR, they are sent using his freedom of expression and as such are not unlawful harassment and I therefore find the def NG of both charges.

(DJ asked if cps wished to apply for a restraining order, only on Briggs!!!!!, they said no but stated it was a matter for the DJ, his response was “I’m not making one”)

The DJ concluded by stating in open court “this was a long complex case, it is rare for a case of this length to be heard in the Magistrates Court, I wish to thank both advocates for their skill and expertise in presenting the case, it is clear that a lot of effort went in to preparing this case and that was of great assistance to me”