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 27th 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 2nd 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”
