{ "generated": "2026-10-19T13:49:40.741Z", "about": "Selected public-record profiles and legal studies (category: legal-study), not a judges database or complete criminal records. Preserve source types, attributed accounts, review dates and coverage limits. Analysis is distinguished from court findings.", "profiles": [ { "category": "legal-study", "checked": "2026-10-17", "tags": [ "uk", "open-justice", "anonymity", "press-freedom" ], "id": "anonymity-orders", "title": "Anonymity orders", "subtitle": "PPT, the Guardian and the publicity paradox", "summary": "An order can protect a person’s identity while its own existence becomes news. PPT illustrates the distinction between anonymity, reporting restrictions and secrecy about proceedings.", "jurisdiction": "England and Wales · High Court, King’s Bench Division", "scope": "PPT remains anonymised here. No names, speculative identities or identifying clues are included. Allegations are not findings of fact.", "status_note": "Status at source review, 17 October 2026: the public judgment addresses anonymity, not the merits of the permanent-injunction claim. It lists trial for 27–28 October 2026; this page records no trial outcome.", "featured_source": "guardian", "highlights": [ { "label": "5 October 2026", "value": "Anonymity ordered", "detail": "Claim KB-2026-003646 · Nicklin J", "target": "order-details" }, { "label": "9 October 2026", "value": "Public reasons", "detail": "[2026] EWHC 2560 (KB)", "target": "public-judgment" }, { "label": "The distinction", "value": "Not a super-injunction", "detail": "Reporting the order is expressly permitted", "target": "publicity" } ], "sections": [ { "id": "order-details", "title": "What the order protects", "intro": "Read the prohibition together with its express exceptions.", "entries": [ { "id": "identity", "title": "Identity protected; media defendants named", "kind": "Court order", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "On 5 October 2026, Nicklin J ordered that the claimant be known as PPT and refused anonymity for ITN and Guardian News and Media. Paragraph 6 prohibits publication of the claimant’s identity or material likely to identify him directly or indirectly in connection with the proceedings. It also permits information contained in the order to be communicated.", "sources": [ { "id": "ppt-order", "title": "PPT v ITN and Guardian: anonymity and reporting restrictions order", "publisher": "Courts and Tribunals Judiciary", "type": "Court order", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/ppt-v-independent-television-news-limited-and-guardian-news-and-media-limited-anonymity-and-reporting-restrictions-order/", "checked": "2026-10-17", "date": "2026-10-05", "locator": "Order §§1, 5–6" } ] }, { "text": "Paragraph 8 permits information in public judgments and qualifying public court documents. Paragraph 11 directs publication of the order. This is not a blanket permission to publish other material about the claimant.", "sources": [ { "id": "ppt-order", "title": "PPT v ITN and Guardian: anonymity and reporting restrictions order", "publisher": "Courts and Tribunals Judiciary", "type": "Court order", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/ppt-v-independent-television-news-limited-and-guardian-news-and-media-limited-anonymity-and-reporting-restrictions-order/", "checked": "2026-10-17", "date": "2026-10-05", "locator": "Order §§8 and 11" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "public-judgment", "title": "What the judgment does—and does not—decide", "intro": "A procedural protection is not a finding on the allegations.", "entries": [ { "id": "claim", "title": "The contested injunction claim", "kind": "Judgment", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "PPT seeks to restrain proposed media publications and broadly denies the allegations. His claim relies on medical evidence and asserted risks under Articles 2, 3 and, if necessary, 8 ECHR. The defendants resist the claim, relying on Article 10 and public interest. Nicklin J’s public judgment expressly leaves the substantive issues for trial.", "sources": [ { "id": "ppt-judgment", "title": "PPT v Independent Television News Limited & Anor [2026] EWHC 2560 (KB)", "publisher": "The National Archives", "type": "Judgment", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2026/2560", "checked": "2026-10-17", "date": "2026-10-09", "locator": "§§1, 8–16" } ] }, { "text": "The court maintained PPT’s anonymity but refused to hide the media defendants’ identities. It reasoned that some risk of speculation does not make anonymity worthless; each additional restriction needs its own justification. The judgment lists an expedited trial for 27–28 October 2026, not a concluded result.", "sources": [ { "id": "ppt-judgment", "title": "PPT v Independent Television News Limited & Anor [2026] EWHC 2560 (KB)", "publisher": "The National Archives", "type": "Judgment", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2026/2560", "checked": "2026-10-17", "date": "2026-10-09", "locator": "§§27–34, 35–49" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "publicity", "title": "How anonymity becomes a news story", "intro": "Independent Tribunal analysis, grounded in the published order.", "entries": [ { "id": "guardian-report", "title": "The Guardian’s report", "kind": "Media reporting", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "The Guardian reported the injunction application on 16 October 2026.", "sources": [ { "id": "guardian", "title": "Reporting on PPT’s injunction application", "publisher": "The Guardian", "type": "Reporting by a party to the proceedings", "url": "https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/oct/16/well-known-individual-tries-to-secure-permanent-injunction-against-guardian-and-itn", "checked": "2026-10-17", "date": "2026-10-16" } ] } ] }, { "id": "paradox", "title": "Publicity is not the same thing as identification", "kind": "Research method", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "The paradox is real as a question: can publicising a request for anonymity increase curiosity about the protected person? It may. But this page does not measure that effect or establish that protection failed. Nor does attention alone demonstrate a breach. The order’s permission to report its contents and its prohibition on identifying PPT serve different purposes.", "sources": [] } ] }, { "id": "open-justice", "title": "Why publish the order at all?", "kind": "Legal framework", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Rule 39.2(5) provides for publication of anonymity or private-hearing orders unless the court directs otherwise. It also gives non-parties a route to challenge them. Public availability lets people scrutinise restrictions without being entitled to discover the protected identity.", "sources": [ { "id": "cpr", "title": "Civil Procedure Rules, rule 39.2", "publisher": "Ministry of Justice", "type": "Procedure rules", "url": "https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part39", "checked": "2026-10-17", "locator": "Rule 39.2(5)" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "editorial-method", "title": "Our reporting boundary", "intro": "Scrutinise the decision, not the protected person.", "entries": [ { "id": "no-speculation", "title": "No identity puzzle", "kind": "Research method", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "We link the public order, public judgment and Guardian report. We do not repeat rumours, invite guesses, combine clues or make claims about undisclosed allegations. Whether greater secrecy would better balance protection and scrutiny is considered on the super-injunctions page; jigsaw identification is examined through the separate Scottish Murray case.", "sources": [] } ] } ] } ], "sources": [ { "id": "ppt-order", "title": "PPT v ITN and Guardian: anonymity and reporting restrictions order", "publisher": "Courts and Tribunals Judiciary", "type": "Court order", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/ppt-v-independent-television-news-limited-and-guardian-news-and-media-limited-anonymity-and-reporting-restrictions-order/", "checked": "2026-10-17", "date": "2026-10-05" }, { "id": "ppt-judgment", "title": "PPT v Independent Television News Limited & Anor [2026] EWHC 2560 (KB)", "publisher": "The National Archives", "type": "Judgment", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2026/2560", "checked": "2026-10-17", "date": "2026-10-09" }, { "id": "guardian", "title": "Reporting on PPT’s injunction application", "publisher": "The Guardian", "type": "Reporting by a party to the proceedings", "url": "https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/oct/16/well-known-individual-tries-to-secure-permanent-injunction-against-guardian-and-itn", "checked": "2026-10-17", "date": "2026-10-16" }, { "id": "cpr", "title": "Civil Procedure Rules, rule 39.2", "publisher": "Ministry of Justice", "type": "Procedure rules", "url": "https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part39", "checked": "2026-10-17" } ], "related": [ { "id": "super-injunctions", "title": "Super-injunctions" }, { "id": "jigsaw-identification", "title": "Jigsaw identification · Craig Murray" } ], "url": "https://independenttribunal.org/research/anonymity-orders/" }, { "id": "hamas-deproscription", "category": "legal-study", "title": "Hamas deproscription", "subtitle": "Fahad Ansari, Riverway Law and the challenge to UK proscription", "summary": "The application to remove Hamas from the UK’s proscribed list: who brought it, the reported appeal history, the legal route and the documents still needed to establish progress.", "checked": "2026-10-19", "jurisdiction": "United Kingdom · proscription and POAC proceedings", "tags": [ "uk", "proscription", "legal-process", "courts", "research" ], "scope": "Legal-process reporting, not endorsement of Hamas or its violence. Hamas remains a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK. An application to change that status is not a decision changing it.", "status_note": "Checked 19 October 2026: the Home Office list still includes Hamas. A campaign update reports refusal in July 2025, an appeal in August 2025 and a 2026 procedural timetable. No final POAC determination or deproscription order has been located in this review; the timetable does not establish that its scheduled steps occurred.", "research_links": [ { "id": "proscription-litigation", "title": "Palestine Action proscription litigation — a separate case" }, { "id": "terrorist-connection", "title": "Terrorist connection add-on — a separate sentencing question" } ], "highlights": [ { "label": "Present UK status", "value": "Still proscribed", "detail": "Home Office list · checked 19 October 2026", "target": "current-status" }, { "label": "Application announced", "value": "9 April 2025", "detail": "Fahad Ansari · Riverway Law", "target": "application-team" }, { "label": "Progress record", "value": "Appeal reported", "detail": "Final outcome not established here", "target": "reported-appeal" } ], "sections": [ { "id": "status", "title": "Start with the legal position", "intro": "The application and the organisation’s current designation are separate facts.", "entries": [ { "id": "current-status", "title": "Hamas remains proscribed in the UK", "kind": "Official legal status", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Hamas remains on the Home Office’s list of proscribed terrorist organisations. The UK extended proscription to the whole organisation on 26 November 2021; its military wing had been proscribed since March 2001. Filing an application or appeal does not itself remove a group from that list.", "sources": [ { "id": "home-office", "title": "Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations — Hamas entry and deproscription procedure", "publisher": "Home Office", "type": "Official list and procedural guidance", "url": "https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or-organisations--2/proscribed-terrorist-groups-or-organisations-accessible-version", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "Hamas entry and deproscription procedure" }, { "id": "2021-order", "title": "Islamist terrorist group Hamas banned in the UK", "publisher": "Home Office", "type": "Official announcement", "url": "https://www.gov.uk/government/news/islamist-terrorist-group-hamas-banned-in-the-uk", "date": "2021-11-26", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "26 November 2021 announcement" } ] } ] }, { "id": "legal-route", "title": "Application → refusal → appeal → implementation", "kind": "Official procedure", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Home Office guidance describes a written application under section 4 of the Terrorism Act 2000, normally to be determined within 90 days. Following refusal, the applicant may appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeals Commission (POAC), which applies judicial-review principles. A successful challenge and the steps implementing removal must be recorded separately.", "sources": [ { "id": "home-office", "title": "Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations — Hamas entry and deproscription procedure", "publisher": "Home Office", "type": "Official list and procedural guidance", "url": "https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or-organisations--2/proscribed-terrorist-groups-or-organisations-accessible-version", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "Deproscription" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "people-and-application", "title": "Fahad Ansari and Riverway Law", "intro": "Identify the lawyers and their procedural role without equating legal representation with the client’s conduct.", "entries": [ { "id": "application-team", "title": "9 April 2025 · the application is announced", "kind": "Legal team’s announcement", "date": "2025-04-09", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Riverway Law’s press release identifies solicitor Fahad Ansari as its director and announces a section 4 application submitted that day on behalf of Mousa Abu Marzouk, a Hamas political-bureau official. It names instructed barristers Franck Magennis and Daniel Grütters. This establishes the team’s public account of the application, not acceptance of its arguments by a court.", "sources": [ { "id": "launch", "title": "Legal challenge to end UK ban on Hamas launched", "publisher": "Riverway Law · copy hosted by Islam21c", "type": "Legal team’s press release, not a judgment", "url": "https://www.islam21c.com/wp-content/uploads/Hamas-Deproscription-Press-Release.pdf", "date": "2025-04-09", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "Pages 1–3" } ] }, { "text": "The application argues that proscription conflicts with international-law obligations and disproportionately restricts speech, assembly and political discussion. These are the applicant’s legal arguments. The Home Office’s position remains that Hamas is a single organisation concerned in terrorism, rather than separable political and military entities.", "sources": [ { "id": "launch", "title": "Legal challenge to end UK ban on Hamas launched", "publisher": "Riverway Law · copy hosted by Islam21c", "type": "Legal team’s press release, not a judgment", "url": "https://www.islam21c.com/wp-content/uploads/Hamas-Deproscription-Press-Release.pdf", "date": "2025-04-09", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "Summary of grounds" }, { "id": "home-office", "title": "Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations — Hamas entry and deproscription procedure", "publisher": "Home Office", "type": "Official list and procedural guidance", "url": "https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or-organisations--2/proscribed-terrorist-groups-or-organisations-accessible-version", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "Government’s Hamas assessment" } ] } ] }, { "id": "riverway-name", "title": "Why later sources use a different Riverway name", "kind": "Dated organisational reporting", "date": "2025-07-07", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Legal Futures reported that Riverway Law ceased trading in its existing form on 29 June 2025 and announced a restructuring associated with Riverway to the Sea. This page retains “Riverway Law” for the original application and Fahad Ansari’s documented role; it does not infer a present solicitor-of-record or regulatory status from a later brand name.", "sources": [ { "id": "riverway-change", "title": "Solicitor acting for Hamas ditches traditional law firm model", "publisher": "Legal Futures · Neil Rose", "type": "Professional news reporting", "url": "https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/solicitor-acting-for-hamas-ditches-traditional-law-firm-model", "date": "2025-07-07", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "Closure and proposed restructuring" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "progress", "title": "Progress and the limits of the public record", "intro": "The following sequence is attributed to the deproscription campaign’s update. The underlying refusal letter and procedural orders have not been independently inspected for this page.", "entries": [ { "id": "reported-appeal", "title": "July–August 2025 · refusal and appeal reported", "kind": "Campaign-reported procedural history", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "The Deproscribe campaign reports that the Home Secretary refused the Riverway application in July 2025 and that Hamas submitted seven appeal grounds to POAC in August. It also describes a separate CAGE application in June 2025. Those applications should not be conflated.", "sources": [ { "id": "campaign-update", "title": "Updates in the legal applications for deproscription", "publisher": "Deproscribe campaign", "type": "Campaign account; underlying orders not inspected; numeric publication date ambiguous", "url": "https://deproscribe.com/updates-in-the-legal-applications-for-de-proscription", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "2025 sequence" } ] } ] }, { "id": "reported-directions", "title": "January–March 2026 · further procedural steps reported", "kind": "Campaign account, not an inspected order", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "The same update reports a January 2026 strike-out application by the Home Secretary involving closed material, followed by March directions concerning evidence. This is the campaign’s description; no conclusion about the merits or content of undisclosed material can be drawn from it.", "sources": [ { "id": "campaign-update", "title": "Updates in the legal applications for deproscription", "publisher": "Deproscribe campaign", "type": "Campaign account; underlying orders not inspected; numeric publication date ambiguous", "url": "https://deproscribe.com/updates-in-the-legal-applications-for-de-proscription", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "2026 sequence" } ] } ] }, { "id": "reported-timetable", "title": "May–July 2026 · a timetable, not confirmation of compliance", "kind": "Reported deadlines", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "The update lists 20 May for the Home Secretary’s reasons, 26 June for Hamas’s response, and 31 July for further government statements and evidence. Those dates have passed, but this review has not obtained the filings or a later determination. Scheduled dates are not evidence that documents were filed or that an appeal succeeded.", "sources": [ { "id": "campaign-update", "title": "Updates in the legal applications for deproscription", "publisher": "Deproscribe campaign", "type": "Campaign account; underlying orders not inspected; numeric publication date ambiguous", "url": "https://deproscribe.com/updates-in-the-legal-applications-for-de-proscription", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "Published timetable" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "research-next", "title": "What we need to establish next", "intro": "Independent Tribunal research priorities: document the progress without manufacturing certainty.", "entries": [ { "id": "missing-documents", "title": "The next additions to the record", "kind": "Research method", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Seek the refusal decision, appeal number and filed grounds, public procedural orders, any open reasons concerning closed material, and the latest hearing notice or judgment. Record an event date, publication date, source type and outcome for each addition. A refusal, a procedural appeal and final removal from the list must remain distinct.", "sources": [] }, { "text": "This page is a dated research starting point, not an automated monitoring service. It concerns a separate organisation and separate proceedings from Palestine Action’s proscription challenge. Findings in one case should not be transferred to the other.", "sources": [] } ] } ] } ], "sources": [ { "id": "home-office", "title": "Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations — Hamas entry and deproscription procedure", "publisher": "Home Office", "type": "Official list and procedural guidance", "url": "https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or-organisations--2/proscribed-terrorist-groups-or-organisations-accessible-version", "checked": "2026-10-19" }, { "id": "2021-order", "title": "Islamist terrorist group Hamas banned in the UK", "publisher": "Home Office", "type": "Official announcement", "url": "https://www.gov.uk/government/news/islamist-terrorist-group-hamas-banned-in-the-uk", "date": "2021-11-26", "checked": "2026-10-19" }, { "id": "launch", "title": "Legal challenge to end UK ban on Hamas launched", "publisher": "Riverway Law · copy hosted by Islam21c", "type": "Legal team’s press release, not a judgment", "url": "https://www.islam21c.com/wp-content/uploads/Hamas-Deproscription-Press-Release.pdf", "date": "2025-04-09", "checked": "2026-10-19" }, { "id": "riverway-change", "title": "Solicitor acting for Hamas ditches traditional law firm model", "publisher": "Legal Futures · Neil Rose", "type": "Professional news reporting", "url": "https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/solicitor-acting-for-hamas-ditches-traditional-law-firm-model", "date": "2025-07-07", "checked": "2026-10-19" }, { "id": "campaign-update", "title": "Updates in the legal applications for deproscription", "publisher": "Deproscribe campaign", "type": "Campaign account; underlying orders not inspected; numeric publication date ambiguous", "url": "https://deproscribe.com/updates-in-the-legal-applications-for-de-proscription", "checked": "2026-10-19" } ], "url": "https://independenttribunal.org/research/hamas-deproscription/" }, { "category": "legal-study", "checked": "2026-10-17", "tags": [ "uk", "open-justice", "anonymity", "press-freedom" ], "id": "jigsaw-identification", "title": "Jigsaw identification", "subtitle": "Craig Murray and the limits of anonymous reporting", "summary": "Not naming someone is not always enough. The Murray judgments examine identifying information in context—and distinguish deliberate publication from an intention to break the law.", "jurisdiction": "Scotland · High Court of Justiciary and Appeal Court", "scope": "A selected case study of contempt and reporting restrictions, not a complete biography or criminal record. No protected complainer is named and no identifying puzzle is reproduced.", "status_note": "Important correction to the supplied research notes: the 2022 appeal judgment explicitly rejects a strict-liability description. The legal explanation below distinguishes the mental element from the objective identification-risk assessment.", "highlights": [ { "label": "25 March 2021", "value": "Contempt finding", "detail": "[2021] HCJ 2", "target": "case-record" }, { "label": "11 May 2021", "value": "Eight months", "detail": "Custodial sentence imposed", "target": "sentence" }, { "label": "25 March 2022", "value": "Challenge rejected", "detail": "[2022] HCJAC 14", "target": "appeal" } ], "sections": [ { "id": "case-record", "title": "The court record", "intro": "The protected trial participants are referred to as complainers in the Scottish judgments.", "entries": [ { "id": "finding", "title": "HM Advocate v Craig Murray", "kind": "Judgment", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "The High Court, comprising Lady Dorrian, Lord Menzies and Lord Turnbull, found Murray in contempt on 25 March 2021 over publications connected with Alex Salmond’s trial. The relevant order dated 10 March 2020 prohibited identifying the complainers. Salmond’s acquittal and Murray’s contempt proceedings concern different questions.", "sources": [ { "id": "murray-finding", "title": "HM Advocate v Craig Murray [2021] HCJ 2", "publisher": "Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service", "type": "Judgment", "url": "https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/mmyirfpd/high-court-judgment-hma-against-craig-murray-25-march-2021.pdf", "checked": "2026-10-17", "date": "2021-03-25", "locator": "Introduction; discussion of the 10 March order; conclusion" } ] } ], "date": "2021-03-25", "citation": "HM Advocate v Craig Murray [2021] HCJ 2" }, { "id": "context", "title": "Identification can arise from the combination", "kind": "Judgment", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "The court considered material in context, not just whether a name appeared. Information that allows a section of the public to identify a protected person can be enough; it need not identify them to everybody. The risk was assessed objectively. This page explains that principle without reproducing the details used to identify individual complainers.", "sources": [ { "id": "murray-finding", "title": "HM Advocate v Craig Murray [2021] HCJ 2", "publisher": "Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service", "type": "Judgment", "url": "https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/mmyirfpd/high-court-judgment-hma-against-craig-murray-25-march-2021.pdf", "checked": "2026-10-17", "date": "2021-03-25", "locator": "§§54–58" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "sentence", "title": "Sentence and competing arguments", "intro": "Submissions and findings are attributed separately.", "entries": [ { "id": "custody", "title": "Eight months’ imprisonment", "kind": "Sentencing statement", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "On 11 May 2021 the court imposed eight months’ imprisonment, initially delaying the warrant for three weeks to allow an appeal. Its statement distinguishes the established breach of the anonymity order from other allegations of contempt it rejected.", "sources": [ { "id": "murray-sentence", "title": "Craig Murray: petition and complaint — sentencing statement", "publisher": "Judiciary of Scotland", "type": "Sentencing statement", "url": "https://judiciary.scot/home/sentences-judgments/sentences-and-opinions/2021/05/11/craig-murray-petition-and-complaint", "checked": "2026-10-17", "date": "2021-05-11", "locator": "Opening statement and summary of findings" } ] }, { "text": "Murray’s counsel argued that a fine would be proportionate, invoking freedom of expression and comparisons with other media contempts. The court treated the repeated risk to protected complainers as serious and concluded custody was required. These are competing submissions and the court’s determination—not a finding that all critical reporting is contempt.", "sources": [ { "id": "murray-sentence", "title": "Craig Murray: petition and complaint — sentencing statement", "publisher": "Judiciary of Scotland", "type": "Sentencing statement", "url": "https://judiciary.scot/home/sentences-judgments/sentences-and-opinions/2021/05/11/craig-murray-petition-and-complaint", "checked": "2026-10-17", "date": "2021-05-11", "locator": "Comparative justice; proportionality; determination" } ] } ], "date": "2021-05-11" } ] }, { "id": "appeal", "title": "What the appeal clarified", "intro": "The later reasoning matters when summarising the test.", "entries": [ { "id": "mental-element", "title": "Not strict liability", "kind": "Appeal judgment", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "The Appeal Court explained that the mental element relates to deliberate publication. A publisher need not intend to commit contempt for deliberately published material to breach an order. The separate objective question is whether the publication creates a real or substantial risk of identification. The court expressly rejected describing this as strict liability.", "sources": [ { "id": "murray-appeal", "title": "Craig Murray v HM Advocate [2022] HCJAC 14", "publisher": "Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service", "type": "Appeal judgment", "url": "https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/2r0cceui/high-court-judgment-petition-to-the-nobile-officium-by-craig-murray-against-hma-20-january-2022.pdf", "checked": "2026-10-17", "date": "2022-03-25", "locator": "§§60–63" } ] } ] }, { "id": "outcome", "title": "The challenge and sentence appeal failed", "kind": "Appeal judgment", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "On 25 March 2022 the court rejected Murray’s challenge to the finding and sentence. Its opening records that he had served about four months in custody. We do not infer the legal mechanism of release or current status from that sentence alone.", "sources": [ { "id": "murray-appeal", "title": "Craig Murray v HM Advocate [2022] HCJAC 14", "publisher": "Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service", "type": "Appeal judgment", "url": "https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/2r0cceui/high-court-judgment-petition-to-the-nobile-officium-by-craig-murray-against-hma-20-january-2022.pdf", "checked": "2026-10-17", "date": "2022-03-25", "locator": "§1; conclusions and §82" } ] } ], "date": "2022-03-25", "citation": "Craig Murray v HM Advocate [2022] HCJAC 14" } ] }, { "id": "analysis", "title": "Anonymity, scrutiny and equal treatment", "intro": "Independent Tribunal analysis · questions for evaluating the system.", "entries": [ { "id": "press-freedom", "title": "What should readers scrutinise?", "kind": "Research method", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Protecting people who give evidence and allowing scrutiny of a prosecution are both important. Relevant questions include whether an order is clear, whether enforcement is consistent across publishers, whether risk is demonstrated in context, and whether punishment is proportionate. Raising those questions does not require exposing protected identities.", "sources": [] } ] }, { "id": "different-jurisdictions", "title": "Do not collapse different cases into one rule", "kind": "Coverage limitation", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "PPT concerns a civil anonymity order in England and Wales; Murray concerns contempt in Scotland. Permission to report one order is not permission to disclose identities protected by another. This is a historical case study, not a statement that all Scottish anonymity law remains as it stood in 2021. Later changes and other statutory protections require their own review.", "sources": [] } ] } ] } ], "sources": [ { "id": "murray-finding", "title": "HM Advocate v Craig Murray [2021] HCJ 2", "publisher": "Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service", "type": "Judgment", "url": "https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/mmyirfpd/high-court-judgment-hma-against-craig-murray-25-march-2021.pdf", "checked": "2026-10-17", "date": "2021-03-25" }, { "id": "murray-sentence", "title": "Craig Murray: petition and complaint — sentencing statement", "publisher": "Judiciary of Scotland", "type": "Sentencing statement", "url": "https://judiciary.scot/home/sentences-judgments/sentences-and-opinions/2021/05/11/craig-murray-petition-and-complaint", "checked": "2026-10-17", "date": "2021-05-11" }, { "id": "murray-appeal", "title": "Craig Murray v HM Advocate [2022] HCJAC 14", "publisher": "Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service", "type": "Appeal judgment", "url": "https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/2r0cceui/high-court-judgment-petition-to-the-nobile-officium-by-craig-murray-against-hma-20-january-2022.pdf", "checked": "2026-10-17", "date": "2022-03-25" } ], "related": [ { "id": "super-injunctions", "title": "Super-injunctions" }, { "id": "anonymity-orders", "title": "Anonymity orders · PPT and the publicity paradox" } ], "url": "https://independenttribunal.org/research/jigsaw-identification/" }, { "id": "rajiv-menon-kc", "title": "Rajiv Menon KC", "subtitle": "Defence advocacy, jury independence and the contempt proceedings", "summary": "A dedicated record of Menon’s work and the proceedings arising from his Filton closing speech. Court decisions, the defence position and wider professional concerns are kept distinct.", "checked": "2026-10-19", "jurisdiction": "England and Wales", "tags": [ "uk", "palestine-action", "filton", "advocacy", "open-justice", "courts" ], "scope": "A public-record profile, not a finding of professional misconduct. A procedural ruling, an allegation of contempt and a final determination are different things.", "status_note": "Latest judicial decision located in this review: 24 July 2026, ordering a stay pending jurisdictional and procedural challenges. Later professional commentary continues to describe unresolved proceedings. No final contempt judgment or later appeal outcome has been established here as of 19 October 2026.", "research_links": [ { "id": "palestine-action", "title": "Palestine Action research collection" }, { "id": "filton6", "title": "Filton6 and the wider proceedings" }, { "id": "terrorist-connection", "title": "Terrorist connection add-on" } ], "highlights": [ { "label": "Professional background", "value": "Called 1993 · silk 2011", "detail": "Garden Court Chambers", "target": "professional-background" }, { "label": "12 May 2026", "value": "Jurisdiction ruling", "detail": "Not a final decision on contempt", "target": "may-appeal" }, { "label": "24 July 2026", "value": "Proceedings stayed", "detail": "Further challenges left to be decided", "target": "july-stay" } ], "sections": [ { "id": "the-person", "title": "The advocate", "intro": "Professional background from his chambers, separated from the disputed proceedings.", "entries": [ { "id": "professional-background", "title": "Criminal defence and public-interest cases", "kind": "Chambers biography", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Rajiv Menon KC is a barrister at Garden Court Chambers. Its biography records his call to the Bar in 1993 and appointment as Queen’s Counsel in 2011. His work includes criminal trials and appeals, inquests, public inquiries and cases involving protest and state power.", "sources": [ { "id": "biography", "title": "Rajiv Menon KC — professional biography", "publisher": "Garden Court Chambers", "type": "Chambers biography", "url": "https://gardencourtchambers.co.uk/barrister/rajiv-menon-kc/", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "Professional biography" } ] }, { "text": "The biography lists work on the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, Hillsborough Inquests, Grenfell Tower Inquiry and UK Covid-19 Inquiry. These are professional instructions, not an endorsement by those inquiries of every position he has advanced.", "sources": [ { "id": "biography", "title": "Rajiv Menon KC — professional biography", "publisher": "Garden Court Chambers", "type": "Chambers biography", "url": "https://gardencourtchambers.co.uk/barrister/rajiv-menon-kc/", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "Inquests and inquiries" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "court-record", "title": "The proceedings, step by step", "intro": "The jurisdiction of a court to hear an allegation must not be confused with whether the allegation is proved.", "entries": [ { "id": "closing-speech", "title": "January 2026 · the disputed closing speech", "kind": "Court record and defence response", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Menon represented Charlotte Head in the Filton trial at Woolwich Crown Court. Mr Justice Johnson considered that the closing speech breached directions concerning jury equity and other matters. Menon disputes the accusation. The resulting proceedings concern his advocacy, not an allegation that he participated in the underlying factory action.", "sources": [ { "id": "june-ruling", "title": "Re Rajiv Menon KC — ruling of 22 June 2026", "publisher": "Courts and Tribunals Judiciary", "type": "Crown Court ruling", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Re-Rajiv-Menon-KC.pdf", "date": "2026-06-22", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "Background and case-to-answer reasoning" }, { "id": "lag", "title": "A fundamental question about the balance between judicial authority and the defence’s independence", "publisher": "Legal Action Group · Raj Chada", "type": "Professional commentary; updated 2 October 2026", "url": "https://lag.org.uk/article/218789/-a-fundamental-question-about-the-balance-between-judicial-authority-and-the-defence-s-independence-", "date": "2026-09-25", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "Account of the allegation and denial" } ] } ] }, { "id": "may-appeal", "title": "12 May 2026 · the first referral cannot proceed by that route", "kind": "Court of Appeal · jurisdiction", "date": "2026-05-12", "citation": "Re contempt proceedings against Rajiv Menon KC [2026] EWCA Civ 573", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "The Civil Division’s decision concerned the route by which the Crown Court had referred the matter to the High Court. The July judgment explains the result: the matter was left with the trial judge to consider other available steps, including referral to the Attorney General, the Bar Standards Board, or another High Court judge sitting in the Crown Court. This was not a final acquittal on the contempt allegation.", "sources": [ { "id": "may-ruling", "title": "Re contempt proceedings against Rajiv Menon KC [2026] EWCA Civ 573", "publisher": "Courts and Tribunals Judiciary", "type": "Official judgment listing", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/in-the-matter-of-contempt-proceedings-against-rajiv-menon-kc/", "date": "2026-05-12", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "Judgment identification" }, { "id": "july-ruling", "title": "Re Rajiv Menon KC [2026] EWCA Crim 966", "publisher": "The National Archives · Find Case Law", "type": "Court of Appeal judgment", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/crim/2026/966", "date": "2026-07-24", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "Paragraph 1" } ] } ] }, { "id": "june-referral", "title": "22–29 June 2026 · renewed proceedings", "kind": "Crown Court procedural decisions", "date": "2026-06-22", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "On 22 June, Johnson found a case to answer and considered proceedings to be in the public interest, while recognising the importance of uninhibited defence advocacy. He directed referral to a Presiding Judge to decide whether proceedings should be instituted and assigned to another judge. A case-to-answer finding is not a final determination of contempt.", "sources": [ { "id": "june-ruling", "title": "Re Rajiv Menon KC — ruling of 22 June 2026", "publisher": "Courts and Tribunals Judiciary", "type": "Crown Court ruling", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Re-Rajiv-Menon-KC.pdf", "date": "2026-06-22", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "Case to answer, public interest and procedure" } ] }, { "text": "The July judgment records that, on 29 June, Mr Justice Nicklin directed summary contempt proceedings and a summons for a hearing before Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb on 28 July. That listing was subsequently affected by the appeal decision below.", "sources": [ { "id": "july-ruling", "title": "Re Rajiv Menon KC [2026] EWCA Crim 966", "publisher": "The National Archives · Find Case Law", "type": "Court of Appeal judgment", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/crim/2026/966", "date": "2026-07-24", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "Paragraph 5" } ] } ] }, { "id": "july-stay", "title": "24 July 2026 · stay pending further challenges", "kind": "Court of Appeal · procedural order", "date": "2026-07-24", "citation": "Re Rajiv Menon KC [2026] EWCA Crim 966", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Males LJ and Cutts J allowed an appeal against the refusal to vacate the hearing and ordered a stay of the proceedings before Cheema-Grubb J. They left the existing appeal to address Menon’s jurisdictional and procedural challenges. They did not decide those challenges or the merits of the contempt allegation.", "sources": [ { "id": "july-ruling", "title": "Re Rajiv Menon KC [2026] EWCA Crim 966", "publisher": "The National Archives · Find Case Law", "type": "Court of Appeal judgment", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/crim/2026/966", "date": "2026-07-24", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "Paragraphs 14–21" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "why-it-matters", "title": "Judicial authority and independent advocacy", "intro": "Competing concerns deserve to be stated accurately, without turning either side’s argument into a finding.", "entries": [ { "id": "court-position", "title": "The court’s concern", "kind": "Judicial reasoning", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Johnson’s ruling stresses compliance with legal directions and the administration of justice. It treats the alleged conduct as more than a single isolated remark. The issue is therefore not captured completely by saying a lawyer was prosecuted merely for representing an unpopular client.", "sources": [ { "id": "june-ruling", "title": "Re Rajiv Menon KC — ruling of 22 June 2026", "publisher": "Courts and Tribunals Judiciary", "type": "Crown Court ruling", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Re-Rajiv-Menon-KC.pdf", "date": "2026-06-22", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "Public-interest reasoning" } ] } ] }, { "id": "professional-concern", "title": "The concern about a chilling effect", "kind": "Attributed professional commentary", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Garden Court Chambers argues that the proceedings could inhibit lawyers’ ability to defend clients fearlessly. Raj Chada’s Legal Action commentary frames the dispute as one about the balance between judicial authority and defence independence, and records Menon’s denial. These are attributed professional views, not a court’s resolution of that balance.", "sources": [ { "id": "chambers-record", "title": "Rajiv Menon KC: contempt proceedings — documents and responses", "publisher": "Garden Court Chambers", "type": "Chambers’ account and resource index", "url": "https://gardencourtchambers.co.uk/news/rajiv-menon-kc-contempt-proceedings/", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "Chambers’ position and resource collection" }, { "id": "lag", "title": "A fundamental question about the balance between judicial authority and the defence’s independence", "publisher": "Legal Action Group · Raj Chada", "type": "Professional commentary; updated 2 October 2026", "url": "https://lag.org.uk/article/218789/-a-fundamental-question-about-the-balance-between-judicial-authority-and-the-defence-s-independence-", "date": "2026-09-25", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "Commentary, updated 2 October 2026" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "next-documents", "title": "What would update this page?", "intro": "A dated research record, not an automated live court feed.", "entries": [ { "id": "coverage-limits", "title": "Outstanding source checks", "kind": "Coverage limitation", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "The next decisive documents would be a judgment on the outstanding jurisdictional appeal, an order changing the stay, or a final contempt decision. None has been located in this review. A planned hearing or public meeting is not evidence that a hearing took place or that an allegation was proved.", "sources": [] }, { "text": "Garden Court maintains a dedicated page linking judgments, the closing-speech transcript and professional responses. It is a useful source index from Menon’s chambers, rather than an independent adjudication of his case.", "sources": [ { "id": "chambers-record", "title": "Rajiv Menon KC: contempt proceedings — documents and responses", "publisher": "Garden Court Chambers", "type": "Chambers’ account and resource index", "url": "https://gardencourtchambers.co.uk/news/rajiv-menon-kc-contempt-proceedings/", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "Useful links and resources" } ] } ] } ] } ], "sources": [ { "id": "biography", "title": "Rajiv Menon KC — professional biography", "publisher": "Garden Court Chambers", "type": "Chambers biography", "url": "https://gardencourtchambers.co.uk/barrister/rajiv-menon-kc/", "checked": "2026-10-19" }, { "id": "june-ruling", "title": "Re Rajiv Menon KC — ruling of 22 June 2026", "publisher": "Courts and Tribunals Judiciary", "type": "Crown Court ruling", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Re-Rajiv-Menon-KC.pdf", "date": "2026-06-22", "checked": "2026-10-19" }, { "id": "lag", "title": "A fundamental question about the balance between judicial authority and the defence’s independence", "publisher": "Legal Action Group · Raj Chada", "type": "Professional commentary; updated 2 October 2026", "url": "https://lag.org.uk/article/218789/-a-fundamental-question-about-the-balance-between-judicial-authority-and-the-defence-s-independence-", "date": "2026-09-25", "checked": "2026-10-19" }, { "id": "may-ruling", "title": "Re contempt proceedings against Rajiv Menon KC [2026] EWCA Civ 573", "publisher": "Courts and Tribunals Judiciary", "type": "Official judgment listing", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/in-the-matter-of-contempt-proceedings-against-rajiv-menon-kc/", "date": "2026-05-12", "checked": "2026-10-19" }, { "id": "july-ruling", "title": "Re Rajiv Menon KC [2026] EWCA Crim 966", "publisher": "The National Archives · Find Case Law", "type": "Court of Appeal judgment", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/crim/2026/966", "date": "2026-07-24", "checked": "2026-10-19" }, { "id": "chambers-record", "title": "Rajiv Menon KC: contempt proceedings — documents and responses", "publisher": "Garden Court Chambers", "type": "Chambers’ account and resource index", "url": "https://gardencourtchambers.co.uk/news/rajiv-menon-kc-contempt-proceedings/", "checked": "2026-10-19" } ], "url": "https://independenttribunal.org/research/rajiv-menon-kc/" }, { "id": "richard-heart", "title": "Richard Heart", "subtitle": "Richard James Schueler · crypto projects, litigation and the public record", "summary": "HEX, PulseChain and PulseX; the dismissed US civil case; Finnish criminal allegations; and the October 2026 detention in Türkiye. Separate proceedings, separate standards of proof.", "checked": "2026-10-19", "jurisdiction": "United States · Finland · Türkiye", "tags": [ "crypto", "regulation", "courts", "cross-border" ], "scope": "A sourced public-record profile, not a verdict on a person. Allegations, court decisions, official announcements and a party’s response are identified separately. Detention does not establish guilt.", "status_note": "Update to the supplied 14 October compilation: on 17 October 2026, Türkiye’s Justice Ministry announced that Schueler had been detained on 14 October. The US SEC action was dismissed in 2025. No final Finnish criminal judgment or completed extradition has been established in this review.", "provenance": { "starting_point": "User-supplied dossier compiled 2026-10-14; used as research leads, not as proof.", "reviewed": "2026-10-19", "changes": "Updated detention confirmation; corrected the description of the US dismissal; omitted unsupported biographical claims, victim details and speculative asset totals." }, "related": [], "highlights": [ { "label": "United States · 2025", "value": "SEC action dismissed", "detail": "Jurisdiction and territorial reach of securities law", "target": "dismissal" }, { "label": "Finland", "value": "Criminal allegations", "detail": "Tax evasion and assault; no final judgment located", "target": "finnish-record" }, { "label": "Türkiye · October 2026", "value": "Detention announced", "detail": "17 October official statement about 14 October operation", "target": "detention-update" } ], "sections": [ { "id": "latest-update", "title": "Latest update: detention confirmed by official announcement", "intro": "The newer source changes the status of the original media reports. It does not resolve the allegations.", "entries": [ { "id": "detention-update", "title": "14–17 October 2026 · Istanbul", "kind": "Official announcement, corroborated by reporting", "date": "2026-10-17", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Türkiye’s Justice Ministry published a statement on 17 October saying Richard James Schueler had been detained in Beşiktaş on 14 October. The Block separately reported Justice Minister Akın Gürlek’s confirmation. The original dossier’s statement that no official confirmation had been located is therefore superseded. The ministry page was search-indexed during this review but redirected to its homepage when opened; the corroborating report is linked alongside it.", "sources": [ { "id": "turkey-ministry", "title": "Justice Minister announces Richard James Schueler’s detention in Istanbul", "publisher": "Republic of Türkiye · Ministry of Justice", "type": "Official announcement; indexed text, direct URL redirected during review", "url": "https://www.adalet.gov.tr/1-milyar-dolarlik-kripto-vurgununun-suphelisi-istanbul-da-yakalandi", "date": "2026-10-17", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "Statement dated 17 October 2026; indexed text" }, { "id": "turkey-report", "title": "Turkey confirms Hex founder Richard Heart’s arrest", "publisher": "The Block · Zack Abrams", "type": "Reporting on the minister’s announcement", "url": "https://www.theblock.co/news/regulation/2026-10-17-turkey-confirms-hex-founder-richard-hearts-arrest-says-police-seized-7-15-million-and-six-cold-wallets-418852", "date": "2026-10-17", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "Minister’s confirmation" } ] }, { "text": "The ministry announced seizures across 15 addresses, including US$7.15 million, six cold wallets and 28 watches. These are the authorities’ reported inventory figures, not independently audited valuations or findings that the assets were criminal proceeds. Earlier media totals differ and should not be added together.", "sources": [ { "id": "turkey-ministry", "title": "Justice Minister announces Richard James Schueler’s detention in Istanbul", "publisher": "Republic of Türkiye · Ministry of Justice", "type": "Official announcement; indexed text, direct URL redirected during review", "url": "https://www.adalet.gov.tr/1-milyar-dolarlik-kripto-vurgununun-suphelisi-istanbul-da-yakalandi", "date": "2026-10-17", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "Reported searches and inventory" } ] }, { "text": "The Block notes a discrepancy: the minister described crypto-fraud allegations in the US and Finland, while the Finnish-requested Red Notice concerned suspected tax evasion and assault, and the US SEC lawsuit had already ended. Its report does not establish whether Türkiye received an extradition request. An announcement of detention must not be read as a revived SEC case or a criminal conviction.", "sources": [ { "id": "turkey-report", "title": "Turkey confirms Hex founder Richard Heart’s arrest", "publisher": "The Block · Zack Abrams", "type": "Reporting on the minister’s announcement", "url": "https://www.theblock.co/news/regulation/2026-10-17-turkey-confirms-hex-founder-richard-hearts-arrest-says-police-seized-7-15-million-and-six-cold-wallets-418852", "date": "2026-10-17", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "Heart’s Red Notice and unresolved extradition question" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "projects", "title": "The person and the projects", "intro": "What the projects are, how they were described, and what those descriptions do not prove.", "entries": [ { "id": "identity", "title": "Richard Heart / Richard James Schueler", "kind": "Public identity", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Richard Heart is the name used by Richard Schueler, founder of HEX, PulseChain and PulseX. The SEC’s 2023 release identifies the three projects and his involvement. This profile follows the legal and institutional record rather than attempting to certify claims about his wealth, intelligence, early business career or investment performance.", "sources": [ { "id": "sec-release", "title": "SEC charges HEX founder Richard Heart — release 2023-143", "publisher": "US Securities and Exchange Commission", "type": "Regulator’s original allegations; case subsequently dismissed", "url": "https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023-143", "date": "2023-07-31", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "Identity and affiliated projects" } ] } ] }, { "id": "project-summary", "title": "HEX, PulseChain and PulseX", "kind": "Project background from the court record", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "The dismissal order describes HEX as an Ethereum token, offered from December 2019, with a lock-up mechanism marketed as staking. PulseChain is an Ethereum fork with the PLS token; PulseX is its exchange project with PLSX. The order records fundraising labelled “sacrifices” in 2021–22 and token launches in May 2023. Its background recounts the complaint: that is not a trial finding or an investment endorsement.", "sources": [ { "id": "dismissal-order", "title": "SEC v. Schueler — memorandum and order, 28 February 2025", "publisher": "US District Court, EDNY · reproduced by Midpage", "type": "Court decision; third-party text reproduction", "url": "https://app.midpage.ai/document/securities-and-exchange-commission-v-1000431717531", "date": "2025-02-28", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "Background I(a)–(c)" } ] } ] }, { "id": "charitable-fundraising", "title": "2021 · SENS research fundraising", "kind": "Recipient organisation’s account", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "SENS Research Foundation’s 2022 annual report credits the PulseChain Airdrop initiative with raising approximately US$27 million in summer 2021 and thanks Heart for encouraging followers to donate. This is the recipient’s account of a community fundraiser—not evidence that the entire sum was his personal donation, and not a resolution of any unrelated legal allegation.", "sources": [ { "id": "sens-report", "title": "SENS Research Foundation — 2022 annual report", "publisher": "SENS Research Foundation · archived by Lifespan Research Institute", "type": "Fundraising recipient’s annual report", "url": "https://lifespan.io/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/SRF-AR-2022-1.2.pdf", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "Page 14 · Richard Heart" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "us-civil-case", "title": "United States: the SEC civil case", "intro": "Securities and Exchange Commission v. Schueler, 1:23-cv-05749 (CBA)(PK), Eastern District of New York.", "entries": [ { "id": "sec-complaint", "title": "31 July 2023 · civil allegations filed", "kind": "Regulator’s allegations", "date": "2023-07-31", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "The SEC alleged unregistered crypto-asset securities offerings raising more than US$1 billion across the projects. It separately alleged that Heart and PulseChain diverted at least US$12 million to luxury purchases, including cars, watches and the Enigma black diamond. These were civil allegations, not established losses or a criminal verdict. The dismissal below is essential to any account of this complaint.", "sources": [ { "id": "sec-release", "title": "SEC charges HEX founder Richard Heart — release 2023-143", "publisher": "US Securities and Exchange Commission", "type": "Regulator’s original allegations; case subsequently dismissed", "url": "https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023-143", "date": "2023-07-31", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "Allegations and requested civil remedies" } ] } ] }, { "id": "dismissal", "title": "28 February 2025 · complaint dismissed", "kind": "Federal court decision", "date": "2025-02-28", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Judge Carol Bagley Amon granted the motion to dismiss. The order found insufficient suit-related US contacts for personal jurisdiction. It also held, independently, that the complaint did not adequately plead domestic transactions or conduct within the territorial scope of federal securities law. Describing the ruling as jurisdictional only misses that second ground.", "sources": [ { "id": "dismissal-order", "title": "SEC v. Schueler — memorandum and order, 28 February 2025", "publisher": "US District Court, EDNY · reproduced by Midpage", "type": "Court decision; third-party text reproduction", "url": "https://app.midpage.ai/document/securities-and-exchange-commission-v-1000431717531", "date": "2025-02-28", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "Discussion I–II" } ] }, { "text": "This was a dismissal of a civil pleading, not a criminal acquittal or a trial determination that the alleged conduct occurred. The court allowed an amended complaint if the SEC could remedy the deficiencies in good faith.", "sources": [ { "id": "dismissal-order", "title": "SEC v. Schueler — memorandum and order, 28 February 2025", "publisher": "US District Court, EDNY · reproduced by Midpage", "type": "Court decision; third-party text reproduction", "url": "https://app.midpage.ai/document/securities-and-exchange-commission-v-1000431717531", "date": "2025-02-28", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "Background; Discussion III; conclusion" } ] } ] }, { "id": "sec-no-amendment", "title": "21 April 2025 · SEC declines to amend", "kind": "Defence counsel’s account and contemporaneous reporting", "date": "2025-04-21", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Heart’s co-counsel, Clark Smith Villazor, reported that the SEC notified the court on 21 April that it would not amend its complaint; the firm links the filing and describes the outcome as a complete victory for its client. Contemporary reporting likewise records the decision not to continue. That closes this civil action; it does not decide separate Finnish allegations.", "sources": [ { "id": "defence-response", "title": "SEC declines to file amended complaint against Richard Heart", "publisher": "Clark Smith Villazor LLP", "type": "Defence counsel’s statement with links to court documents", "url": "https://www.csvllp.com/latest-news/sec-declines-to-file-amended-complaint-against-csv-client-richard-heart-cementing-a-complete-victory-for-mr-heart-in-the-secs-case-against-him", "date": "2025-04-23", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "23 April account and linked SEC notice" }, { "id": "sec-closure-report", "title": "Richard Heart declares victory as SEC declines to amend", "publisher": "The Block", "type": "Contemporaneous reporting", "url": "https://www.theblock.co/news/regulation/2025-04-23-hex-richard-heart-sec-fraud-suit-351621", "date": "2025-04-23", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "April 2025 reporting" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "finland-and-notices", "title": "Finland and international notices", "intro": "A separate criminal investigation. Suspicion, a remand order, a notice and a conviction are different procedural stages.", "entries": [ { "id": "finnish-record", "title": "13 September 2024 · remand in absentia", "kind": "Reporting on police and court records", "date": "2024-09-13", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Yle reported that Schueler was remanded in absentia on suspicion of gross tax evasion and assault. It dates the suspected tax conduct to 2 June 2020–2 April 2024 and the suspected assault to 16–17 February 2021. Quoting the investigating officer, Yle describes discrepancies between tax returns and the Tax Administration’s income assessment. This page has not independently obtained the Finnish remand order or a subsequent indictment; it does not present those suspicions as convictions.", "sources": [ { "id": "yle-remand", "title": "Finnish police suspect US crypto influencer of gross tax evasion and assault", "publisher": "Yle News", "type": "Reporting quoting police and describing the remand order", "url": "https://yle.fi/a/74-20112197", "date": "2024-09-17", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "17 September 2024 report quoting detective Harri Saaristola" } ] } ] }, { "id": "red-notice", "title": "What a Red Notice does—and does not—mean", "kind": "INTERPOL procedure and case reporting", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "October 2026 reporting records a Red Notice issued at Finland’s request in December 2024. INTERPOL explains that a Red Notice asks police to locate and provisionally arrest a person pending extradition, surrender or similar action. It is not an international arrest warrant; each country determines its legal effect. A notice is not a finding of guilt.", "sources": [ { "id": "turkey-report", "title": "Turkey confirms Hex founder Richard Heart’s arrest", "publisher": "The Block · Zack Abrams", "type": "Reporting on the minister’s announcement", "url": "https://www.theblock.co/news/regulation/2026-10-17-turkey-confirms-hex-founder-richard-hearts-arrest-says-police-seized-7-15-million-and-six-cold-wallets-418852", "date": "2026-10-17", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "Finnish request and December 2024 notice" }, { "id": "interpol", "title": "About Red Notices", "publisher": "INTERPOL", "type": "Official procedural explanation", "url": "https://www.interpol.int/en/How-we-work/Notices/Red-Notices", "checked": "2026-10-19", "locator": "About Red Notices" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "research-notes", "title": "Research notes and outstanding questions", "intro": "Do your own research: follow the documents, check dates and identify who is making each claim.", "entries": [ { "id": "coverage-limits", "title": "What remains unverified here", "kind": "Coverage limitation", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "No final Finnish criminal judgment, completed extradition, Turkish charging document or subsequent custody order has been established in this review. The next useful records would be an official Finnish update, a Turkish judicial order, any extradition decision and a response from Schueler or his current criminal counsel. The US counsel’s 2025 statement is not a response to the 2026 detention.", "sources": [] }, { "text": "The supplied JSON was a starting point, not a source of verified facts. This edition omits uncorroborated personal biography, graphic details of an alleged victim’s experience, unsupported exact tax totals and speculative asset ownership. It is selected coverage, not a complete criminal record or a live custody tracker. AI-generated summaries and repeated headlines do not replace the underlying evidence.", "sources": [] } ] } ] } ], "sources": [ { "id": "turkey-ministry", "title": "Justice Minister announces Richard James Schueler’s detention in Istanbul", "publisher": "Republic of Türkiye · Ministry of Justice", "type": "Official announcement; indexed text, direct URL redirected during review", "url": "https://www.adalet.gov.tr/1-milyar-dolarlik-kripto-vurgununun-suphelisi-istanbul-da-yakalandi", "date": "2026-10-17", "checked": "2026-10-19" }, { "id": "turkey-report", "title": "Turkey confirms Hex founder Richard Heart’s arrest", "publisher": "The Block · Zack Abrams", "type": "Reporting on the minister’s announcement", "url": "https://www.theblock.co/news/regulation/2026-10-17-turkey-confirms-hex-founder-richard-hearts-arrest-says-police-seized-7-15-million-and-six-cold-wallets-418852", "date": "2026-10-17", "checked": "2026-10-19" }, { "id": "sec-release", "title": "SEC charges HEX founder Richard Heart — release 2023-143", "publisher": "US Securities and Exchange Commission", "type": "Regulator’s original allegations; case subsequently dismissed", "url": "https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023-143", "date": "2023-07-31", "checked": "2026-10-19" }, { "id": "dismissal-order", "title": "SEC v. Schueler — memorandum and order, 28 February 2025", "publisher": "US District Court, EDNY · reproduced by Midpage", "type": "Court decision; third-party text reproduction", "url": "https://app.midpage.ai/document/securities-and-exchange-commission-v-1000431717531", "date": "2025-02-28", "checked": "2026-10-19" }, { "id": "sens-report", "title": "SENS Research Foundation — 2022 annual report", "publisher": "SENS Research Foundation · archived by Lifespan Research Institute", "type": "Fundraising recipient’s annual report", "url": "https://lifespan.io/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/SRF-AR-2022-1.2.pdf", "checked": "2026-10-19" }, { "id": "defence-response", "title": "SEC declines to file amended complaint against Richard Heart", "publisher": "Clark Smith Villazor LLP", "type": "Defence counsel’s statement with links to court documents", "url": "https://www.csvllp.com/latest-news/sec-declines-to-file-amended-complaint-against-csv-client-richard-heart-cementing-a-complete-victory-for-mr-heart-in-the-secs-case-against-him", "date": "2025-04-23", "checked": "2026-10-19" }, { "id": "sec-closure-report", "title": "Richard Heart declares victory as SEC declines to amend", "publisher": "The Block", "type": "Contemporaneous reporting", "url": "https://www.theblock.co/news/regulation/2025-04-23-hex-richard-heart-sec-fraud-suit-351621", "date": "2025-04-23", "checked": "2026-10-19" }, { "id": "yle-remand", "title": "Finnish police suspect US crypto influencer of gross tax evasion and assault", "publisher": "Yle News", "type": "Reporting quoting police and describing the remand order", "url": "https://yle.fi/a/74-20112197", "date": "2024-09-17", "checked": "2026-10-19" }, { "id": "interpol", "title": "About Red Notices", "publisher": "INTERPOL", "type": "Official procedural explanation", "url": "https://www.interpol.int/en/How-we-work/Notices/Red-Notices", "checked": "2026-10-19" } ], "url": "https://independenttribunal.org/research/richard-heart/" }, { "id": "roger-hallam", "title": "Roger Hallam", "subtitle": "Court record and public background", "summary": "The Heathrow and M25 appeals, earlier trial reporting, mentions in other judgments, and the public background of a climate campaigner. Outcomes and sources kept distinct.", "checked": "2026-10-17", "jurisdiction": "England and Wales", "tags": [ "uk", "protest", "courts", "sentencing", "climate", "research" ], "scope": "A selected public-record research profile of Julian Roger Hallam, the climate campaigner. Not a complete criminal record, not a finding by Independent Tribunal, and not an entry in a judges database. Judicial findings, reported outcomes and self-description are identified separately.", "status_note": "Read the outcomes, not just the original sentences. A sentence reduction is not an acquittal; refusal of permission to appeal is not a fresh merits judgment. This page does not certify current custody, licence conditions or every subsequent proceeding.", "highlights": [ { "label": "M25 · sentence appeal", "value": "5 years → 4 years", "detail": "7 March 2025 · conviction was not under appeal", "target": "m25" }, { "label": "Heathrow · conviction appeal", "value": "Appeal dismissed", "detail": "16 April 2025 · conviction upheld", "target": "heathrow" }, { "label": "Supreme Court · M25 application", "value": "Permission refused", "detail": "8 October 2025 · no arguable point of law", "target": "later-developments" } ], "sections": [ { "id": "later-developments", "title": "Later developments", "intro": "The supplied 2025 appeal record has a later Supreme Court outcome. Release reports are a separate question from the sentence imposed.", "entries": [ { "id": "supreme-court", "title": "8 October 2025 · permission to appeal refused", "kind": "Official case record", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "In UKSC/2025/0096, Lord Hodge, Lord Hamblen and Lord Richards refused permission to appeal. The application concerned whether the protest sentences disproportionately interfered with Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court recorded that the application raised no arguable point of law. This was a permission decision, not a further full appeal judgment.", "sources": [ { "id": "uksc", "title": "R v Hallam and others · UKSC/2025/0096", "publisher": "UK Supreme Court", "type": "Official case record", "date": "2025-10-08", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2025-0096", "locator": "Permission to Appeal" } ] } ] }, { "id": "release-report", "title": "Release reported in August 2025", "kind": "Reporting and self-description", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Socialist Worker reported his release on 15 August 2025, attributing the news to Just Stop Oil. Hallam later wrote on his own website that he left prison in August and resumed organising; the account refers to a recording made in December 2025. Neither source is a prison release order. We have not independently established the licence terms or his current custody status.", "sources": [ { "id": "release-news", "title": "JSO activist Roger Hallam released from prison", "publisher": "Socialist Worker · Camilla Royle", "type": "Reporting attributed to Just Stop Oil", "date": "2025-08-15", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://socialistworker.co.uk/environment/jso-activist-roger-hallam-released-from-prison/" }, { "id": "release-self", "title": "How to start a revolution in 2026", "publisher": "Roger Hallam", "type": "Self-description", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://rogerhallam.com/how-to-start-a-revolution-in-2026/" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "as-a-defendant", "title": "As a defendant", "intro": "Two different prosecutions and two different kinds of appeal. The Heathrow appeal challenged conviction; the M25 appeal challenged sentence.", "entries": [ { "id": "heathrow", "title": "Heathrow drones · conviction upheld", "kind": "Published judgment", "citation": "Maxey & Hallam v R [2025] EWCA Crim 472", "date": "2025-04-16", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "On 15 December 2023, an Isleworth Crown Court jury convicted Hallam and Larch Maxey of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance. The trial judge is named as HHJ Edmunds KC on the appeal cover. Michael Lynch-White had pleaded guilty; another defendant was acquitted.", "sources": [ { "id": "heathrow-appeal", "title": "Maxey & Hallam v R [2025] EWCA Crim 472", "publisher": "Courts and Tribunals Judiciary", "type": "Published judgment", "date": "2025-04-16", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Court-of-Appeal-FINAL-JUDGMENT-R-v-MAXEY-and-HALLAM-202400258-B4-202400261-B4.pdf", "locator": "Cover and paragraphs 1–2" } ] }, { "text": "The 2019 Heathrow Pause plan involved drones inside the airport’s restricted zone. The prosecution alleged an agreement intended to force the airport to close. Hallam and Maxey were arrested on 12 September before any drone flew. The limited flights that followed did not disrupt air traffic. Their defence was that this was publicity, not an intention to close Heathrow.", "sources": [ { "id": "heathrow-appeal", "title": "Maxey & Hallam v R [2025] EWCA Crim 472", "publisher": "Courts and Tribunals Judiciary", "type": "Published judgment", "date": "2025-04-16", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Court-of-Appeal-FINAL-JUDGMENT-R-v-MAXEY-and-HALLAM-202400258-B4-202400261-B4.pdf", "locator": "Paragraphs 3–9" } ] }, { "text": "William Davis LJ, Goss J and Dexter Dias J dismissed the conviction appeal on 16 April 2025. They rejected challenges concerning the case to answer and the jury’s route to verdict. Counsel: Henry Blaxland KC and Michael Goold for the appellants; James Curtis KC and Martyn Bowyer for the Crown.", "sources": [ { "id": "heathrow-appeal", "title": "Maxey & Hallam v R [2025] EWCA Crim 472", "publisher": "Courts and Tribunals Judiciary", "type": "Published judgment", "date": "2025-04-16", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Court-of-Appeal-FINAL-JUDGMENT-R-v-MAXEY-and-HALLAM-202400258-B4-202400261-B4.pdf", "locator": "Cover; paragraphs 2 and 34" } ] }, { "text": "The defendants’ solicitors confirm that suspended sentences were imposed on 5 April 2024. This sentencing information comes from a separate source, not the conviction appeal’s disposition.", "sources": [ { "id": "heathrow-solicitors", "title": "Heathrow Pause protesters receive suspended sentences", "publisher": "Hodge Jones & Allen", "type": "Defence solicitors’ statement", "date": "2024-04-05", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://www.hja.net/news-and-insights/press-releases/falsely-accused-of-crime/heathrow-pause-protestors-receive-suspended-sentences/" } ] }, { "text": "Contemporaneous reporting gives two years, suspended for 18 months, and 200 hours of unpaid work for Hallam.", "sources": [ { "id": "heathrow-report", "title": "Heathrow sentencing report", "publisher": "The Independent · Jordan Reynolds", "type": "Court reporting", "date": "2024-04-05", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/roger-hallam-heathrow-extinction-rebellion-government-isleworth-crown-court-b2524112.html" } ] }, { "text": "In July 2024, HHJ Hehir cancelled the community requirements attached to the Heathrow sentence. That is not the same as quashing the conviction or finding Hallam not guilty.", "sources": [ { "id": "sentencing", "title": "Rex v Hallam and others · HHJ Hehir’s sentencing remarks", "publisher": "Courts and Tribunals Judiciary", "type": "Sentencing remarks", "date": "2024-07-18", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Hallam-and-others.pdf", "locator": "Paragraph 51, pages 14–15" } ] } ] }, { "id": "m25", "title": "M25 conspiracy · sentence reduced", "kind": "Published judgment", "citation": "Hallam & Ors v R [2025] EWCA Crim 199", "date": "2025-03-07", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "A Southwark Crown Court jury convicted Hallam on 11 July 2024 of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance. HHJ Christopher Hehir imposed five years on 18 July. The case concerned the organisation of Just Stop Oil gantry protests on the M25, 7–10 November 2022; the court described his leading role and a planning Zoom call on 2 November.", "sources": [ { "id": "m25-appeal", "title": "Hallam & Ors v R [2025] EWCA Crim 199", "publisher": "Courts and Tribunals Judiciary", "type": "Published judgment", "date": "2025-03-07", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/R-v-Hallam-and-Others-Judgment.pdf", "locator": "Paragraphs 52, 57, 59 and 67–70" } ] }, { "text": "The aggravating factors included knowingly breaching an injunction, relevant previous convictions and offending while on bail.", "sources": [ { "id": "m25-appeal", "title": "Hallam & Ors v R [2025] EWCA Crim 199", "publisher": "Courts and Tribunals Judiciary", "type": "Published judgment", "date": "2025-03-07", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/R-v-Hallam-and-Others-Judgment.pdf", "locator": "Paragraph 62" } ] }, { "text": "Lady Carr LCJ, Lavender J and Griffiths J reduced his sentence to four years on 7 March 2025. They accepted the seriousness of the offending and the relevance of deterrence, but found five years manifestly excessive. Conscientious motivation, proportionality and avoiding sentence inflation remained relevant. The conviction was not in issue.", "sources": [ { "id": "m25-appeal", "title": "Hallam & Ors v R [2025] EWCA Crim 199", "publisher": "Courts and Tribunals Judiciary", "type": "Published judgment", "date": "2025-03-07", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/R-v-Hallam-and-Others-Judgment.pdf", "locator": "Paragraphs 85–87 and 191(i)(a)" } ] }, { "text": "Hallam’s appeal counsel were Danny Friedman KC and Owen Greenhall, instructed by Hodge Jones & Allen. Jocelyn Ledward KC and Fiona Robertson appeared for the Crown in the M25 conspiracy appeals.", "sources": [ { "id": "m25-appeal", "title": "Hallam & Ors v R [2025] EWCA Crim 199", "publisher": "Courts and Tribunals Judiciary", "type": "Published judgment", "date": "2025-03-07", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/R-v-Hallam-and-Others-Judgment.pdf", "locator": "Appearances" } ] }, { "text": "The Supreme Court subsequently refused permission to appeal in October 2025, as set out above. The four-year sentence should not be described as a continuing five-year sentence, nor does a sentence length establish how much time someone actually spends in custody.", "sources": [ { "id": "uksc", "title": "R v Hallam and others · UKSC/2025/0096", "publisher": "UK Supreme Court", "type": "Official case record", "date": "2025-10-08", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2025-0096" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "earlier-record", "title": "Earlier trial and sentencing background", "intro": "A reported acquittal belongs alongside convictions. A judge’s account of earlier offending is not a substitute for the underlying case files.", "entries": [ { "id": "kings-college", "title": "King’s College London · reported jury acquittal", "kind": "Court reporting and campaign account", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Contemporaneous accounts report that a Southwark Crown Court jury unanimously acquitted Hallam and David (Dave) Durant of criminal damage in May 2019. The allegations concerned chalk-spray protests at King’s College London in January and February 2017 over fossil-fuel divestment. Real Media published a detailed trial account; Extinction Rebellion announced the acquittal on 10 May.", "sources": [ { "id": "kings-report", "title": "Crown Court acquittal for divestment direct action · full court report", "publisher": "Real Media", "type": "Court reporting", "date": "2019-05-19", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://realmedia.press/divestment-action-acquittal/" }, { "id": "kings-xr", "title": "Climate activists unanimously acquitted by jury", "publisher": "Extinction Rebellion UK", "type": "Campaign account", "date": "2019-05-10", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://extinctionrebellion.uk/2019/05/10/climate-activists-unanimously-acquitted-by-jury/" } ] }, { "text": "No written judgment for this trial was located in this review. The acquittal is reported as an outcome, not proof that the jury accepted a particular legal argument or that there is a general climate-protest defence. The reporting describes the judge limiting the proposed climate arguments.", "sources": [ { "id": "kings-report", "title": "Crown Court acquittal for divestment direct action · full court report", "publisher": "Real Media", "type": "Court reporting", "date": "2019-05-19", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://realmedia.press/divestment-action-acquittal/" }, { "id": "kings-xr", "title": "Climate activists unanimously acquitted by jury", "publisher": "Extinction Rebellion UK", "type": "Campaign account", "date": "2019-05-10", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://extinctionrebellion.uk/2019/05/10/climate-activists-unanimously-acquitted-by-jury/" } ] } ] }, { "id": "sentencing-record", "title": "What the July 2024 sentencing remarks actually record", "kind": "Sentencing remarks · attributed findings", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "At paragraphs 49–51, Hehir records protest-related convictions in 1987 and 1988 and eleven further convictions between 2017 and 2024. This is the sentencing judge’s account at that date, not an independently reconstructed full criminal record. The conviction count and timing should not be extrapolated to later years.", "sources": [ { "id": "sentencing", "title": "Rex v Hallam and others · HHJ Hehir’s sentencing remarks", "publisher": "Courts and Tribunals Judiciary", "type": "Sentencing remarks", "date": "2024-07-18", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Hallam-and-others.pdf", "locator": "Paragraphs 49–51" } ] }, { "text": "Hehir assessed Hallam as a leading organiser who obtained the motorway-disruption model and supervised its implementation. He also recorded Hallam’s comparison of his own influence with David Attenborough’s. Those are attributed observations in the remarks, not Independent Tribunal’s assessment of Hallam’s influence.", "sources": [ { "id": "sentencing", "title": "Rex v Hallam and others · HHJ Hehir’s sentencing remarks", "publisher": "Courts and Tribunals Judiciary", "type": "Sentencing remarks", "date": "2024-07-18", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Hallam-and-others.pdf", "locator": "Paragraphs 52–56" } ] }, { "text": "Hehir said trial disruption did not itself increase the sentence, but affected his assessment of rehabilitation. This is his sentencing explanation, not a finding on a separate charge.", "sources": [ { "id": "sentencing", "title": "Rex v Hallam and others · HHJ Hehir’s sentencing remarks", "publisher": "Courts and Tribunals Judiciary", "type": "Sentencing remarks", "date": "2024-07-18", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Hallam-and-others.pdf", "locator": "Paragraph 60" } ] }, { "text": "Attribution matters: the 2021 public-nuisance offence resulting in a 2023 community order is discussed under Daniel Shaw; the five-week Inner London sentence and Lewes suspended sentence are discussed under Louise Lancaster. They must not be added to Hallam’s record.", "sources": [ { "id": "sentencing", "title": "Rex v Hallam and others · HHJ Hehir’s sentencing remarks", "publisher": "Courts and Tribunals Judiciary", "type": "Sentencing remarks", "date": "2024-07-18", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Hallam-and-others.pdf", "locator": "Paragraphs 61–62 and 69–70" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "other-judgments", "title": "Mentioned in other judgments", "intro": "These passages concern evidence or context in other proceedings. They are not additional convictions of Hallam and do not make him an appellant in those cases. Injunctions against persons unknown may have a wider scope than their named parties.", "entries": [ { "id": "national-highways-appeal", "title": "National Highways v Persons Unknown", "kind": "Civil injunction appeal · contextual mention", "citation": "[2023] EWCA Civ 182", "date": "2023-02-23", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Before Sharp P, Flaux C and Lewison LJ. Paragraph 10 recounts evidence from Ms Higson identifying Hallam as a leading figure in Insulate Britain and Just Stop Oil and quoting his forecast of mass protests on roads and at oil refineries. This is evidence in the injunction proceedings, not a criminal finding against him.", "sources": [ { "id": "highways-appeal", "title": "National Highways v Persons Unknown [2023] EWCA Civ 182", "publisher": "Find Case Law · The National Archives", "type": "Published judgment", "date": "2023-02-23", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2023/182", "locator": "Paragraph 10" } ] } ] }, { "id": "national-highways-final", "title": "National Highways v Persons Unknown", "kind": "Final injunction · contextual mention", "citation": "[2023] EWHC 1073 (KB)", "date": "2023-05-05", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Cotter J’s final-injunction judgment repeats that account at paragraph 32. The reference is part of the evidence concerning anticipated protest activity; it is not a separate adjudication of Hallam’s criminal liability.", "sources": [ { "id": "highways-final", "title": "National Highways v Persons Unknown [2023] EWHC 1073 (KB)", "publisher": "Find Case Law · The National Archives", "type": "Published judgment", "date": "2023-05-05", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2023/1073", "locator": "Paragraph 32" } ] } ] }, { "id": "valero", "title": "Valero Energy v Persons Unknown", "kind": "Civil injunction · judicial characterisation", "citation": "[2024] EWHC 134 (KB)", "date": "2024-01-26", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Ritchie J recounts a witness’s reliance on Hallam’s 4 November 2022 YouTube video at paragraph 28. At paragraph 69, the judge characterises his statements as “dark and ominous threats” when assessing the need for an injunction. That wording is the judge’s characterisation, not a criminal verdict or this site’s description. Paragraph 2 uses “Richard Hallam”, while the relevant later passages expressly name Roger Hallam; the name discrepancy is retained here as a source caution.", "sources": [ { "id": "valero", "title": "Valero Energy v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 134 (KB)", "publisher": "Find Case Law · The National Archives", "type": "Published judgment", "date": "2024-01-26", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2024/134", "locator": "Paragraphs 2, 28 and 69" } ] } ] }, { "id": "hicks", "title": "Hicks & Ors v R", "kind": "Other defendants’ conviction appeal · contextual mention", "citation": "[2026] EWCA Crim 706", "date": "2026-06-05", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Before Edis LJ, McGowan J and Griffiths J. Paragraph 82 discusses a juror’s internet research in another Just Stop Oil trial, including articles about Hallam’s original five-year sentence. The historical articles do not undo his subsequent reduction to four years. Hallam was not an appellant in this juror-misconduct appeal.", "sources": [ { "id": "hicks", "title": "Hicks & Ors v R [2026] EWCA Crim 706", "publisher": "Find Case Law · The National Archives", "type": "Published judgment", "date": "2026-06-05", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/crim/2026/706", "locator": "Paragraph 82 and appendix" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "public-background", "title": "Public background and campaigning", "intro": "Selected organisational and biographical context, with self-description distinguished from independent or official records. This is not an endorsement of a campaign or a comprehensive biography.", "entries": [ { "id": "farming-research", "title": "From farming to movement research", "kind": "Publisher biography and self-description", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Chelsea Green identifies Hallam as a former organic farmer. His own biography describes farming in Wales and later research at King’s College London on mobilisation and civil disobedience. We attribute those details to the sources rather than treating them as verified academic credentials or claiming a completed doctorate.", "sources": [ { "id": "publisher-bio", "title": "Roger Hallam · author biography", "publisher": "Chelsea Green Publishing", "type": "Publisher biography", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://www.chelseagreen.com/writer/roger-hallam/" }, { "id": "hallam-bio", "title": "About Roger Hallam", "publisher": "Roger Hallam", "type": "Self-description", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://rogerhallam.com/about/" } ] } ] }, { "id": "movements", "title": "Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain and Just Stop Oil", "kind": "Organisational history", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Chelsea Green’s biography places Hallam alongside Gail Bradbrook, Simon Bramwell and others at Extinction Rebellion’s founding in 2018. Hallam’s own biography identifies him as a founder of Insulate Britain and Just Stop Oil; the 2023 National Highways appeal recounts evidence of his leading role in both. These sources establish historical involvement, not his present authority to speak for any organisation.", "sources": [ { "id": "publisher-bio", "title": "Roger Hallam · author biography", "publisher": "Chelsea Green Publishing", "type": "Publisher biography", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://www.chelseagreen.com/writer/roger-hallam/" }, { "id": "hallam-bio", "title": "About Roger Hallam", "publisher": "Roger Hallam", "type": "Self-description", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://rogerhallam.com/about/" }, { "id": "highways-appeal", "title": "National Highways v Persons Unknown [2023] EWCA Civ 182", "publisher": "Find Case Law · The National Archives", "type": "Published judgment", "date": "2023-02-23", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2023/182", "locator": "Paragraph 10" } ] } ] }, { "id": "burning-pink", "title": "Beyond Politics / Burning Pink", "kind": "Official review and regulator record", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "The government-commissioned Walney review describes Hallam’s move from a formal Extinction Rebellion role in 2020 to Beyond Politics, also known as Burning Pink. Its footnote 879 places political-party registration in October 2020, not June. The Electoral Commission separately identifies Burning Pink as a deregistered party and records that its accounts investigation found no offence and imposed no sanction. The government review is not a court judgment.", "sources": [ { "id": "walney", "title": "Protecting our Democracy from Coercion · Walney review", "publisher": "GOV.UK", "type": "Government-commissioned review, not a judgment", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/independent-review-political-violence-and-disruption/outcome/protecting-our-democracy-from-coercion-accessible--4", "locator": "Paragraph 3.97 and footnote 879" }, { "id": "electoral-commission", "title": "Concluded investigation concerning Burning Pink", "publisher": "Electoral Commission", "type": "Regulator statement", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media-centre/electoral-commission-concludes-investigations-political-parties-british-national-party-and-burning" } ] } ] }, { "id": "writing", "title": "Common sense for the 21st century", "kind": "Publication and political argument", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Chelsea Green published Common Sense for the 21st Century: Only Nonviolent Rebellion Can Now Stop Climate Breakdown and Social Collapse on 7 November 2019 (ISBN 9781645020004). The publisher presents it as an argument for mass nonviolent civil disobedience, disruption and willingness to face arrest as a route to political change. That is the book’s political programme, not a legal justification for particular conduct.", "sources": [ { "id": "book", "title": "Common Sense for the 21st Century · publication details", "publisher": "Chelsea Green Publishing", "type": "Publisher catalogue", "date": "2019-11-07", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/common-sense-for-the-21st-century/" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "coverage", "title": "Coverage, limitations and corrections", "intro": "Checked on 17 October 2026. Published records are selective, and different sources answer different questions.", "entries": [ { "id": "method", "title": "What was checked", "kind": "Research method", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "The supplied citations were checked against the published judgments or the court’s own PDFs, with the Supreme Court case record checked separately. Earlier trial outcomes and biography use the specifically attributed sources below. A match for “Hallam” alone is not sufficient: unrelated people and Sheffield Hallam references are excluded. This is a review of the listed sources, not an exhaustive search of every court file.", "sources": [] } ] }, { "id": "publication-gaps", "title": "What the public record cannot establish here", "kind": "Coverage limitation", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Find Case Law receives selected judgments, not a complete register of prosecutions. Most magistrates’ court decisions are not published there; that does not mean no record can ever be obtained. Crown Court sentencing remarks may be separately published, as Hehir’s were. Missing search results are not proof that a case did not happen, and a published decision may have a later appeal outside the collection.", "sources": [ { "id": "coverage", "title": "Courts and coverage", "publisher": "Find Case Law · The National Archives", "type": "Official service documentation", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/courts-and-coverage" } ] }, { "text": "This page does not reconstruct every Extinction Rebellion-era prosecution, every civil committal, the full Heathrow sentencing order, or current release and licence conditions. Corrections to the supplied notes include separating co-defendants’ records, replacing the outdated five-year headline with the appeal outcome, and distinguishing a reported jury acquittal from a reasoned judgment. Further primary records can be added without turning background research into a judges-database entry.", "sources": [] } ] } ] } ], "sources": [ { "id": "heathrow-appeal", "title": "Maxey & Hallam v R [2025] EWCA Crim 472", "publisher": "Courts and Tribunals Judiciary", "type": "Published judgment", "date": "2025-04-16", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Court-of-Appeal-FINAL-JUDGMENT-R-v-MAXEY-and-HALLAM-202400258-B4-202400261-B4.pdf" }, { "id": "m25-appeal", "title": "Hallam & Ors v R [2025] EWCA Crim 199", "publisher": "Courts and Tribunals Judiciary", "type": "Published judgment", "date": "2025-03-07", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/R-v-Hallam-and-Others-Judgment.pdf" }, { "id": "sentencing", "title": "Rex v Hallam and others · HHJ Hehir’s sentencing remarks", "publisher": "Courts and Tribunals Judiciary", "type": "Sentencing remarks", "date": "2024-07-18", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Hallam-and-others.pdf" }, { "id": "uksc", "title": "R v Hallam and others · UKSC/2025/0096", "publisher": "UK Supreme Court", "type": "Official case record", "date": "2025-10-08", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2025-0096" }, { "id": "heathrow-solicitors", "title": "Heathrow Pause protesters receive suspended sentences", "publisher": "Hodge Jones & Allen", "type": "Defence solicitors’ statement", "date": "2024-04-05", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://www.hja.net/news-and-insights/press-releases/falsely-accused-of-crime/heathrow-pause-protestors-receive-suspended-sentences/" }, { "id": "heathrow-report", "title": "Heathrow sentencing report", "publisher": "The Independent · Jordan Reynolds", "type": "Court reporting", "date": "2024-04-05", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/roger-hallam-heathrow-extinction-rebellion-government-isleworth-crown-court-b2524112.html" }, { "id": "kings-report", "title": "Crown Court acquittal for divestment direct action · full court report", "publisher": "Real Media", "type": "Court reporting", "date": "2019-05-19", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://realmedia.press/divestment-action-acquittal/" }, { "id": "kings-xr", "title": "Climate activists unanimously acquitted by jury", "publisher": "Extinction Rebellion UK", "type": "Campaign account", "date": "2019-05-10", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://extinctionrebellion.uk/2019/05/10/climate-activists-unanimously-acquitted-by-jury/" }, { "id": "highways-appeal", "title": "National Highways v Persons Unknown [2023] EWCA Civ 182", "publisher": "Find Case Law · The National Archives", "type": "Published judgment", "date": "2023-02-23", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2023/182" }, { "id": "highways-final", "title": "National Highways v Persons Unknown [2023] EWHC 1073 (KB)", "publisher": "Find Case Law · The National Archives", "type": "Published judgment", "date": "2023-05-05", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2023/1073" }, { "id": "valero", "title": "Valero Energy v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 134 (KB)", "publisher": "Find Case Law · The National Archives", "type": "Published judgment", "date": "2024-01-26", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2024/134" }, { "id": "hicks", "title": "Hicks & Ors v R [2026] EWCA Crim 706", "publisher": "Find Case Law · The National Archives", "type": "Published judgment", "date": "2026-06-05", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/crim/2026/706" }, { "id": "publisher-bio", "title": "Roger Hallam · author biography", "publisher": "Chelsea Green Publishing", "type": "Publisher biography", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://www.chelseagreen.com/writer/roger-hallam/" }, { "id": "hallam-bio", "title": "About Roger Hallam", "publisher": "Roger Hallam", "type": "Self-description", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://rogerhallam.com/about/" }, { "id": "book", "title": "Common Sense for the 21st Century · publication details", "publisher": "Chelsea Green Publishing", "type": "Publisher catalogue", "date": "2019-11-07", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/common-sense-for-the-21st-century/" }, { "id": "walney", "title": "Protecting our Democracy from Coercion · Walney review", "publisher": "GOV.UK", "type": "Government-commissioned review, not a judgment", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/independent-review-political-violence-and-disruption/outcome/protecting-our-democracy-from-coercion-accessible--4" }, { "id": "electoral-commission", "title": "Concluded investigation concerning Burning Pink", "publisher": "Electoral Commission", "type": "Regulator statement", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media-centre/electoral-commission-concludes-investigations-political-parties-british-national-party-and-burning" }, { "id": "release-news", "title": "JSO activist Roger Hallam released from prison", "publisher": "Socialist Worker · Camilla Royle", "type": "Reporting attributed to Just Stop Oil", "date": "2025-08-15", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://socialistworker.co.uk/environment/jso-activist-roger-hallam-released-from-prison/" }, { "id": "release-self", "title": "How to start a revolution in 2026", "publisher": "Roger Hallam", "type": "Self-description", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://rogerhallam.com/how-to-start-a-revolution-in-2026/" }, { "id": "coverage", "title": "Courts and coverage", "publisher": "Find Case Law · The National Archives", "type": "Official service documentation", "checked": "2026-10-17", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/courts-and-coverage" } ], "url": "https://independenttribunal.org/research/roger-hallam/" }, { "id": "sean-middlebrough", "title": "Sean Middlebrough", "subtitle": "The Filton proceedings, his account, and the public record", "summary": "A sourced profile of Sean “Shibby” Middlebrough. Read the later court reporting alongside his earlier account, without confusing different Filton defendants or trials.", "checked": "2026-10-19", "jurisdiction": "England and Wales", "tags": [ "uk", "palestine-action", "filton", "protest", "courts", "research" ], "scope": "This page separates reported court outcomes, prosecution allegations and Middlebrough’s own statements. It is a selected public-record profile, not a complete criminal record or an entry in a judges database.", "status_note": "Latest outcome located in this review: the BBC’s report of 14 September 2026. The older November 2025 account is not a current case-status update. No later sentence, appeal outcome or custody status is established here.", "research_links": [ { "id": "palestine-action", "title": "Palestine Action research collection" }, { "id": "filton6", "title": "Filton6 and the wider proceedings" }, { "id": "terrorist-connection", "title": "Terrorist connection add-on" }, { "id": "hunger-strikes", "title": "The hunger strikes" } ], "highlights": [ { "label": "Later court reporting", "value": "Conviction reported", "detail": "BBC · 14 September 2026", "target": "reported-outcome" }, { "label": "His earlier account", "value": "November 2025", "detail": "Electronic Intifada · attributed statement", "target": "his-account" }, { "label": "Wider Filton coverage", "value": "Real Media", "detail": "Third trial · different defendants", "target": "filton-reporting" } ], "sections": [ { "id": "later-reporting", "title": "Read the later outcome first", "intro": "The publication date and the date of a reported event are different. This is court reporting, not a judgment reproduced by Independent Tribunal.", "entries": [ { "id": "reported-outcome", "title": "Criminal damage · conviction reported in his absence", "kind": "BBC court reporting", "date": "2026-09-14", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Dominic Casciani reported that an Old Bailey jury convicted Middlebrough of criminal damage in August 2026, in his absence. The prosecution alleged an organising role in the August 2024 Elbit break-in. Other counts remained unresolved; Middlebrough denied the outstanding violent-disorder allegation. A retrial was provisionally listed for June 2028.", "sources": [ { "id": "bbc", "title": "Key convicted Palestine Action member on the run", "publisher": "BBC News · Dominic Casciani", "type": "Court reporting", "date": "2026-09-14", "checked": "2026-10-19", "url": "https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxly50gm0npmo", "locator": "Conviction and outstanding charges" } ] }, { "text": "The BBC reported that Judge Patrick Field KC lifted the restriction on reporting the conviction on 14 September. The delay concerned a separate prosecution over an alleged protest plan at Boris Johnson’s 2022 wedding party. That proceeding had been postponed indefinitely for legal reasons, according to the report.", "sources": [ { "id": "bbc", "title": "Key convicted Palestine Action member on the run", "publisher": "BBC News · Dominic Casciani", "type": "Court reporting", "date": "2026-09-14", "checked": "2026-10-19", "url": "https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxly50gm0npmo", "locator": "Reporting restriction" } ] } ] }, { "id": "absence-report", "title": "Temporary bail and failure to return", "kind": "Dated reporting, not a live whereabouts claim", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "The BBC described temporary bail granted on 20 October 2025, a required return to HMP Wandsworth on 24 October, and a subsequent arrest warrant. It reported him absent as of September 2026. This page does not establish his present location.", "sources": [ { "id": "bbc", "title": "Key convicted Palestine Action member on the run", "publisher": "BBC News · Dominic Casciani", "type": "Court reporting", "date": "2026-09-14", "checked": "2026-10-19", "url": "https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxly50gm0npmo", "locator": "Disappearance after bail decision" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "his-account", "title": "His account, in its original context", "intro": "A person’s explanation is part of the record. Publishing it with attribution does not make it a legal finding or establish a defence.", "entries": [ { "id": "november-statement", "title": "10 November 2025 · Electronic Intifada", "kind": "Reported personal statement", "date": "2025-11-10", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Abubaker Abed’s report identifies Middlebrough as a Liverpool activist known as Shibby and publishes his explanation for not returning after temporary bail for his brother’s wedding. He rejected the terrorism label and described his position using the words “prisoner of war”. That is his political self-description, not a legal status established by this review.", "sources": [ { "id": "ei", "title": "Exclusive: Absconded activist refuses to be “prisoner of war”", "publisher": "The Electronic Intifada · Abubaker Abed", "type": "Reporting and attributed personal statement", "date": "2025-11-10", "checked": "2026-10-19", "url": "https://electronicintifada.net/content/exclusive-absconded-activist-refuses-be-prisoner-war/51056", "locator": "Opening account and statement" } ] }, { "text": "He described prolonged pre-trial detention, sharing a small cell and spending up to 23 hours a day locked inside. The article also reports earlier cases in which charges were dropped. These are attributed accounts; no prison inspection findings or underlying disposal orders have been obtained for this page.", "sources": [ { "id": "ei", "title": "Exclusive: Absconded activist refuses to be “prisoner of war”", "publisher": "The Electronic Intifada · Abubaker Abed", "type": "Reporting and attributed personal statement", "date": "2025-11-10", "checked": "2026-10-19", "url": "https://electronicintifada.net/content/exclusive-absconded-activist-refuses-be-prisoner-war/51056", "locator": "Grim conditions; earlier proceedings" } ] }, { "text": "The article predates the later conviction report. Its description of an anticipated April 2026 trial must therefore be read as a plan reported in November 2025, not today’s timetable.", "sources": [ { "id": "ei", "title": "Exclusive: Absconded activist refuses to be “prisoner of war”", "publisher": "The Electronic Intifada · Abubaker Abed", "type": "Reporting and attributed personal statement", "date": "2025-11-10", "checked": "2026-10-19", "url": "https://electronicintifada.net/content/exclusive-absconded-activist-refuses-be-prisoner-war/51056", "locator": "Trial date as then reported" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "filton-reporting", "title": "Follow the Filton trials with Real Media", "intro": "Featured ongoing court reporting for the wider proceedings. Keep each defendant, charge and trial separate.", "entries": [ { "id": "third-trial", "title": "The third Filton trial", "kind": "Real Media court reporting", "date": "2026-10-18", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Real Media’s page, dated 18 October 2026, provides continuing coverage from Woolwich Crown Court, credited to Betty Dempsey and note-takers. It follows five defendants before HH Judge Lees. Middlebrough is not one of the five defendants identified in that report: it is wider Filton context, not a report of his own trial.", "sources": [ { "id": "real-media", "title": "The Third Filton Trial", "publisher": "Real Media · Betty Dempsey and note-takers", "type": "Ongoing court reporting · wider proceedings", "date": "2026-10-18", "checked": "2026-10-19", "url": "https://realmedia.press/third-filton-trial/", "locator": "Introduction and defendants" } ] }, { "text": "The coverage follows prosecution evidence, cross-examination, video material and challenges to digital and cell-site evidence. Read allegations and challenges as competing courtroom positions, not as conclusions reached by the jury. The version reviewed here reports ongoing proceedings rather than a final verdict.", "sources": [ { "id": "real-media", "title": "The Third Filton Trial", "publisher": "Real Media · Betty Dempsey and note-takers", "type": "Ongoing court reporting · wider proceedings", "date": "2026-10-18", "checked": "2026-10-19", "url": "https://realmedia.press/third-filton-trial/", "locator": "Weeks 2–3" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "reading-the-record", "title": "What still needs checking", "intro": "Independent Tribunal research notes: preserve uncertainty instead of filling gaps with a plausible story.", "entries": [ { "id": "date-discrepancy", "title": "The bail chronology is not identical across sources", "kind": "Source comparison", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Electronic Intifada describes a four-day release starting on 23 October; the BBC gives a 20 October bail decision and 24 October return deadline. We have not reconciled these accounts against the bail order.", "sources": [ { "id": "ei", "title": "Exclusive: Absconded activist refuses to be “prisoner of war”", "publisher": "The Electronic Intifada · Abubaker Abed", "type": "Reporting and attributed personal statement", "date": "2025-11-10", "checked": "2026-10-19", "url": "https://electronicintifada.net/content/exclusive-absconded-activist-refuses-be-prisoner-war/51056", "locator": "Opening chronology" }, { "id": "bbc", "title": "Key convicted Palestine Action member on the run", "publisher": "BBC News · Dominic Casciani", "type": "Court reporting", "date": "2026-09-14", "checked": "2026-10-19", "url": "https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxly50gm0npmo", "locator": "Bail chronology" } ] } ] }, { "id": "coverage-limits", "title": "Documents not obtained in this review", "kind": "Coverage limitation", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "No sealed conviction record, sentencing remarks for Middlebrough, bail order, reporting-restriction order or subsequent appeal decision was obtained. The reported result is attributed to the BBC rather than presented as our inspection of a court file. No sentence should be inferred from another defendant’s case.", "sources": [] }, { "text": "This profile does not identify a present location, reconstruct routes of travel, or assess how he avoided custody. Its purpose is to document the proceedings and scrutinise the sources. The broader collection separately addresses proscription and terrorism-related sentencing; neither should be silently substituted for the offence reported here.", "sources": [] } ] } ] } ], "sources": [ { "id": "bbc", "title": "Key convicted Palestine Action member on the run", "publisher": "BBC News · Dominic Casciani", "type": "Court reporting", "date": "2026-09-14", "checked": "2026-10-19", "url": "https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxly50gm0npmo" }, { "id": "ei", "title": "Exclusive: Absconded activist refuses to be “prisoner of war”", "publisher": "The Electronic Intifada · Abubaker Abed", "type": "Reporting and attributed personal statement", "date": "2025-11-10", "checked": "2026-10-19", "url": "https://electronicintifada.net/content/exclusive-absconded-activist-refuses-be-prisoner-war/51056" }, { "id": "real-media", "title": "The Third Filton Trial", "publisher": "Real Media · Betty Dempsey and note-takers", "type": "Ongoing court reporting · wider proceedings", "date": "2026-10-18", "checked": "2026-10-19", "url": "https://realmedia.press/third-filton-trial/" } ], "url": "https://independenttribunal.org/research/sean-middlebrough/" }, { "category": "legal-study", "checked": "2026-10-17", "tags": [ "uk", "open-justice", "anonymity", "press-freedom" ], "id": "super-injunctions", "title": "Super-injunctions", "subtitle": "When the existence of proceedings is itself restricted", "summary": "Anonymity protects an identity. A super-injunction adds a restriction on revealing the existence of the order and proceedings. The difference matters for public scrutiny.", "jurisdiction": "England and Wales · civil non-disclosure orders", "scope": "A legal explainer, not a catalogue of secret cases. This page does not identify protected parties or reproduce restricted material.", "status_note": "Read the actual order, not just a headline. An anonymous claimant, a private hearing and a super-injunction are not interchangeable descriptions.", "highlights": [ { "label": "The distinction", "value": "Identity ≠ existence", "detail": "Different restrictions protect different information", "target": "definitions" }, { "label": "The starting point", "value": "Open justice", "detail": "Restrictions need justification", "target": "safeguards" }, { "label": "The policy question", "value": "Protection and scrutiny", "detail": "A separate argument from what the law permits", "target": "analysis" } ], "sections": [ { "id": "definitions", "title": "What makes an injunction “super”?", "intro": "Three concepts that are often conflated.", "entries": [ { "id": "two-layers", "title": "Two layers of restraint", "kind": "Legal framework", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "The Neuberger Committee’s 2011 report distinguishes an interim ban on publishing private or confidential information from the additional ban on disclosing that the order and proceedings exist. That second layer is the “super” element. An anonymised injunction may protect the same underlying information without concealing the existence of the case. Anonymity alone does not make an injunction super.", "sources": [ { "id": "neuberger", "title": "Super-injunctions, anonymised injunctions and open justice", "publisher": "Courts and Tribunals Judiciary", "type": "Committee report", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Reports/super-injunction-report-20052011.pdf", "checked": "2026-10-17", "date": "2011-05-20", "locator": "§§2.13–2.18" } ] } ] }, { "id": "private-hearings", "title": "A private hearing is a separate decision", "kind": "Legal framework", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "CPR 39.2 starts with public hearings. A court must justify hearing a matter privately; protecting an identity is a separate necessity question. Unless the court directs otherwise, orders made under rule 39.2(3) or (4) are published on the Judiciary website, and non-parties can seek variation or discharge.", "sources": [ { "id": "cpr", "title": "Civil Procedure Rules, rule 39.2", "publisher": "Ministry of Justice", "type": "Procedure rules", "url": "https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part39", "checked": "2026-10-17", "locator": "Rule 39.2(1)–(5)" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "safeguards", "title": "Why secrecy needs safeguards", "intro": "Protection must be justified, not simply requested.", "entries": [ { "id": "necessity", "title": "Strict necessity and limited duration", "kind": "Legal framework", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "The interim non-disclosure guidance requires evidence for departures from open justice and consideration of less restrictive measures. Paragraph 15 treats secrecy about the proceedings as exceptional, for example where short-term secrecy prevents an order being defeated before notification. Longer restrictions require truly exceptional circumstances. Agreement between litigants cannot waive the public’s interest in open justice.", "sources": [ { "id": "guidance", "title": "Practice guidance: interim non-disclosure orders", "publisher": "Courts and Tribunals Judiciary", "type": "Practice guidance", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Guidance/practice-guidance-civil-non-disclosure-orders-july2011.pdf", "checked": "2026-10-17", "locator": "§§9–16" } ] } ] }, { "id": "ppt-comparison", "title": "PPT is a contrasting example", "kind": "Court order", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "The published PPT order of 5 October 2026 conceals the claimant’s identity but expressly permits information contained in the order and public judgments to be reported. It also directs publication of the order itself. Those provisions are why the separate PPT page describes an anonymity and reporting-restrictions order, not a super-injunction.", "sources": [ { "id": "ppt-order", "title": "PPT v ITN and Guardian: anonymity and reporting restrictions order", "publisher": "Courts and Tribunals Judiciary", "type": "Court order", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/ppt-v-independent-television-news-limited-and-guardian-news-and-media-limited-anonymity-and-reporting-restrictions-order/", "checked": "2026-10-17", "date": "2026-10-05", "locator": "Order §§6, 8 and 11" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "analysis", "title": "Should the existence of anonymity also be hidden?", "intro": "Independent Tribunal analysis · a policy question, not a statement of current law.", "entries": [ { "id": "trade-off", "title": "The publicity paradox", "kind": "Research method", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Reporting an attempt to remain anonymous may attract attention to the very subject being protected. That is a plausible risk, not proof that every report defeats anonymity. A default ban on reporting orders could reduce attention, but would also hide judicial decisions from scrutiny and make unnecessary restrictions harder to challenge.", "sources": [] } ] }, { "id": "questions", "title": "What would justify the extra restriction?", "kind": "Research method", "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Our starting questions are: what concrete harm is anticipated, what evidence supports it, would a narrower restriction work, and when will the decision be reviewed? The objective is meaningful protection with accountable decision-making—not an invitation to solve a protected identity. The linked case studies examine permission to report an order and the consequences of publishing identifying material.", "sources": [] } ] } ] } ], "sources": [ { "id": "neuberger", "title": "Super-injunctions, anonymised injunctions and open justice", "publisher": "Courts and Tribunals Judiciary", "type": "Committee report", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Reports/super-injunction-report-20052011.pdf", "checked": "2026-10-17", "date": "2011-05-20" }, { "id": "cpr", "title": "Civil Procedure Rules, rule 39.2", "publisher": "Ministry of Justice", "type": "Procedure rules", "url": "https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part39", "checked": "2026-10-17" }, { "id": "guidance", "title": "Practice guidance: interim non-disclosure orders", "publisher": "Courts and Tribunals Judiciary", "type": "Practice guidance", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Guidance/practice-guidance-civil-non-disclosure-orders-july2011.pdf", "checked": "2026-10-17" }, { "id": "ppt-order", "title": "PPT v ITN and Guardian: anonymity and reporting restrictions order", "publisher": "Courts and Tribunals Judiciary", "type": "Court order", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/ppt-v-independent-television-news-limited-and-guardian-news-and-media-limited-anonymity-and-reporting-restrictions-order/", "checked": "2026-10-17", "date": "2026-10-05" } ], "related": [ { "id": "anonymity-orders", "title": "Anonymity orders · PPT and the publicity paradox" }, { "id": "jigsaw-identification", "title": "Jigsaw identification · Craig Murray" } ], "url": "https://independenttribunal.org/research/super-injunctions/" } ] }