Zelensky Must Strike Minerals Deal, Says...
Current Affairs1 min ago
.
No best answer has yet been selected by beancrisp. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ."The police could've used the resource they used to violate his freedom of expression to arrest anyone attacking him over the sign."
But the officer's concern was not solely for the safety of Mr Sleeper. From the "Christian News" summary:
“The basis for the arrest was not confined to the possibility of harm coming to Mr. Sleeper himself but extended to the potential risk to ‘other persons’ as a result of public disorder,” Justice Sweeting explained in the ruling."
I sometimes criticise lawyers and the courts for siding against the police when they have had to take a split-second decision. M'Learned friends take six months, in agreeable suuroundings, disecting the event in minute detail and come to a different conclusion.
In this case they have done just that but sided with the officer. Mr Justice Sweeney's judgement runs to 28 pages and examines Mr Sleeper's five grounds of appeal thoroughly:
https:/
He came to this overall conclusion:
"I conclude that the Judge was entitled to find on the evidence that that the arrest and detention of the Appellant was lawful. He did not misapply the law or fall into error. It follows that this appeal is dismissed."
“…is he just appealing the Judgement of wrongful arrest or has he been put in prison or given a sentence?”
The first. He was never charged with a criminal offence.
His appeal to the High Court was against a decision in a case he brought in the County Court against the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. This was a claim for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment.
Following his arrest he spent about twelve hours in custody. Two of the twelve were spent whilst he received medical attention and four more waiting for his solicitor to arrive.
The County Court found against Mr. Sleeper and he appealed to the High Court on five grounds. Three of these rested on matters of fact whilst two were matters of law. Mr Justice Sweeney dismissed his appeal on all five grounds.
If he is to appeal to the Court of Appeal he will need “leave” (i.e. permission) to do so. I believe that is unlikely to be granted.
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.