I'm back in court; we're awaiting the judge; both counsel are at their desk. Adam Clemens, the lawyer for @CambsCops, is watching Rebel videos at
http://www.TommyTrial.com . I think he's a fan?
The first witness is Police Constable Steve Mason, from Luton (@bedspolice). He is called by Tommy's lawyer, Alison Gurden.
Mason does not have a written statement with him today; but Gurden may refer him to other documents.
Reminder: when British football teams play each other, police from the visiting team accompany their team (and fans) to the home city. They are "spotters", who tell the local cops which "risk" supporters might be trouble.
Mason says he's been a football spotter for @bedspolice for 11 years. "I'm the dedicated football officer... 99% of games" Ezra: sounds like a fun job
Gurden: what do you do the rest of the week? Mason: I go through any threat assessments for home games; and send risk assessment to other cities' cops when Luton's football team is about to travel
Gurden: what does "risk" mean? Mason: anything -- pyrotechnic; smash a seat up; 50-60 hooligans coming for a fight. EU definition of risk is used.
Gurden: what is the EU definition: Mason: "any person, known or not, that has the capability or possibility of public order or anti-social behaviour whether that's spontaneous or pre-planned, at any football event"
Gurden: someone can be a risk supporter on some occasions and not others? Mason: correct.
Gurden: if someone has been a problem, they could have that risk label attached to them?
Mason: could be. But some people have "come back" from ban orders to be "good as gold". "That's quite common" [that people can amend their ways]
Gurden: how long have you known Tommy Robinson? Mason: 14 or 15 years Gurden: in your policing capacity? Mason: yes.
Gurden: how often do you engage with Tommy? Mason: "I don't have to. He's going to the football matches, and I have no cause to speak to him."
Gurden: you're aware that he was told that he had to leave a pub in Cambridge in August of 2016. Were you there? Mason: yes
Mason: "I was a spotter"
Gurden: Had you attended the @CambsCops briefing in the morning
Mason: I don't think I did
Gurden: I appreciate that you're working from your memory (i.e. he has no contemporaneous written statement to review)
Gurden shows Mason the notes from the @CambsCops police briefing that morning.
Mason says it's not jogging his mind. "I don't recall seeing some of these slides before"
Mason: if they ask, I can provide extra slides; I generally don't. Gurden: you generally provide information though? Mason: yes
Gurden: did you provide any info to @CambsCops about Tommy? Mason: I don't think I did. I can't recall. The only thing I might say is, "he's got tickets to the game"
Gurden: when did you first see him on that day? Mason: before the game. He was around town with his friends and some children. I could remember seeing him but not actively speaking to him.
Gurden; did you see him during the match? Mason: no Gurden: and then after the match? Mason: I saw him at a pub there with a few friends and children and that was it really.
Gurden: and that would have been when after the match? Mason: rough estimation 5:30 or 6 p.m. initially Gurden: did you speak to him? Mason: I spoke with him in the pub
Mason: @CambsCops asked me to make an assessment of the Luton fans in the pub. I saw Tommy and family; I saw Luton fans I know on a weekly basis; just to get the mood; spoke to the landlady; and then I came back to report to my @CambsCops counterparts.
Gurden: was Tommy with the other Luton fans? Mason: no, he was upstairs.
Gurden: was the landlady on the video, the one you spoke with? Mason: yes.
Gurden: what was the "feel" that you got from the landlady Mason: "that there were no issues. There was some singing, but there was nothing over and above the ordinary for me. And when I spoke to the landlady she said they were relatively well-behaved."
Gurden: the singing and raucousness -- was that Tommy? Mason: no
G: where was Tommy in relation to the other Luton fans? M: I coudln't see him (from there) so I presume he was upstairs.
G: what was the intention of the downstairs group of Luton fans? M: they said they were going to continue drinking and watching the football match on TV.
Gurden: you were asked to assess Tommy? Mason: I went upstairs. Spoke to Tommy to see how things were. Everything was fine. He was no issues. Everyone he was with was no issues.
Gurden: did Tommy tell you what his next steps were? M: no G: why didn't you ask him? M: I didn't feel i needed to.
Police Constable Mason: Tommy didn't draw my attention as someone we needed to keep our eye on.
G: you spoke to the landlady, Tommy, the other group of fans -- how did you report back to @CambsCops Mason: spoke by mobile phone to Cambridgeshire counterpart, PC Cobbett
Mason: I stayed outside the pub G: who was there? M: just police officers. A few people coming out for cigarettes. Probably were out there for about an hour and a half
Gurden: how did it come about for Tommy to be asked to leave?
Mason: I went in to advise the [other] Luton fans to leave the pub at 6:30 p.m.
Judge asks Mason to slow down a bit and repeat his last line.
Gurden: were you told why @CambsCops wanted the Luton fans out by 6:30? Mason: I can't recall. Gurden: what was the response of the fans? Mason: the fans didn't want to go, they wanted to watch the remainder of the @ManUtd game, which would end at 7 p.m. anyway
G: did you pass that info back to @CambsCops M: yes G: how M: by radio or by mobile phone
Mason: PC Cobbett from @CambsCops said they were looking to do a s. 35 dispersal order G: Did you tell Luton fans? M: yes; other Luton fans were angry, as they hadn't done anything wrong; and when I spoke to Tommy, I got the same answer
G: was Tommy angry?
M: I wouldn't say angry -- just "bemused and upset" with that kind of thinking [e.g. kicking fans out 30 minutes before a big match was over]
G: were you asked for your views? M: yes G: how? M: yes, discussed with @CambsCops Cobbett G: What did you say? M: I didn't think it would be necessary. The only issue with Luton acting up was because it was half an hour [e.g. provocative demand by cops]
Mason: taking into consideration the mood at that pub, personally, I don't think it was needed [to kick them out 30 minutes before the match was over on TV] G: was there any response to that? M: I spoke to a police sergeant who said, "the decision's made, it's happening"
Mason: at this point, I had to leave, because other risk fans were on the move and I had to [escort them] G: any other interaction with Tommy? M: I can't remember M: I do remember speaking with him outside the pub, with his children playing right beside him on the grass area.
Gurden: when was that? Mason: definitely after the game
Gurden: where you there when the s. 35 dispersal order matter happened? Mason: no
Mason: I had gone off, on my own, with the other Luton fans
Mason: I could still hear what was going on with other Luton spotters (e.g. sounds like a radio or phone live audio chat group)
Mason: I was at the bus station, when another cop said, "it's all going to kick up here; they're dishing up 35's"
Ezra translation: trouble coming now that we're handing out arrest notices.
Mason: I said, "I'm really surprised; but I kind of knew it would happen" Gurden: why did you know it was going to happen? Mason: because the Luton fans were upset that they were being marched out of the pub [30 minutes before the match was over on TV]
Gurden refers Mason to an e-mail from Mason to @CambsCops on March 16, 2017.Gurden asks about a "gang" called Migs -- "men in gear".
Mason says he was just giving background about their history.
Mason's email (as read by Gurden) recalls that Tommy was watching TV, and it was 6:30 and they were being asked to leave
I don't have the e-mails in front of me; I think it's an "after action" report/conversation; my point is, I think this is evidence of recollection after the fact.
Gurden asks how Mason refers to Tommy -- in his nickname (Tommy) or his legal name (Stephen Yaxley-Lennon).
Mason: i don't really have cause to talk to him, but I'd call him Lennon.
Mason says 75% of the police forces attached to football games ask him about Tommy. Gurden: do they usually say "Lennon" or "Tommy Robinson"? Mason: probably Mr. Robinson
Gurden: do you know what he was drinking? Mason: I don't even think he was drinking? G: Alcohol? M: right, I think it was water.
Gurden: did you consider that he was a risk? The @CambsCops lawyer Mr. Clemens jumps up to object to this question to Mason.
Judge: I'm dealing with a pleaded case of harassment, that's what I'm concerned with. How does it assist me to know if this police officer thinks Tommy was a risk? Clemens: if we're going to argue this, have Mason leave the room Judge dismisses Mason for the moment
Gurden: part of this is: did Sgt. Street have reasonable basis to issue a s. 35 against Tommy. Gurden paraphrase: The whole point of having spotters from Luton is to rely on their experience and knowledge
Judge: if this witness were to say Tommy wasn't a risk, where does that go? Gurden: takes us to whether Sgt. Street should have taken that information Gurden: reminds the judge that Street's "intel" was an anonymous drunk fan who said, "watch out for Tommy"
Gurden paraphrase: did Sgt. Street of @CambsCops take advice from a drunk person on the street, but not an expert from Luton? E.G. did Sgt. Street indeed have a reasonable suspicion about Tommy?
Gurden: so it has to be looked at, in terms of whether Sgt. Street had reasonable suspicion. We need to look at the circumstances, not just Street saying so.
Adam Clemens (the @CambsCops lawyer): effectively this is an attempt to get expert evidence in through factual evidence. But even if I'm wrong, it doesn't impact [the cast] at all.
Clemens says the reasonableness of Street's conduct is judged by what was in Sgt. Street's mind, not what other people's view (e.g. Mason from Luton) might have been at that time.
Clemens says, once reasonable suspicion is formed, there is no obligation for "further inquiry", e.g. what Mason would have said.
Gurden: Street said that he hadn't formed an opinion. It was a fluid situation. I think it's very relevant.
Gurden: it's not just the officer's determination as to whether it was reasonable. It's the judge's job.
Remember: we're arguing over whether PC Mason can answer Gurden's question as to whether or not he thought it was reasonable to kick out Tommy. Clemens objects. This debate is happening with Mason out of the room
The judge questions whether this will have any proper legal weight; and she warns that the "very interested public gallery" might act as a jury, and come to their own conclusions based on what PC Mason answers.
Mason is invited back into the court. Gurden is allowed to ask the question.
Gurden: taking into account what you saw with Tommy, what's your expert opinion... Judge paraphrase: I'm not taking it as an "expert" opinion; but I'll ask for his view, but I'm not taking it as an expert view.
Gurden is trying to rephrase the question.
Gurden: when you saw Tommy and spoke to him, did you consider that he was going to be a risk of any kind of disorder:
Police Constable Mason: no.Gurden: it was suggested by (another cop) that Tommy would be a coordinator of disorder. Did you say that to the other cop? Mason: no. Gurden: did any other Luton officers say that to @CambsCops? Mason: not to my knowledge
Gurden: would Tommy be a coordinator of trouble (i.e. a hooligan)
Police Constable Mason: no.Clemens is cross-examining Mason now. When did you last see this? Mason: the day it was sent.
Clemens: do you have any contemporaneous notes on the day? Mason: no Clemens: is this e-mail to @CambsCops the only document in which you comment on whether Tommy was part of the risk group? Mason: I can't recall.
Clemens: you knew you were dealing with @CambsCops legal? Mason: yes Clemens: and the questions you were asked were clear and you understood them? Mason: yes So your comments in that e-mail are "the definitive" version?
Clemens is now reading from Mason's e-mail, "after-action", as sent to @CambsCops. Clemens reads that Mason said Tommy was identified as a "risk nominal". Is the reference to the association to "Migs" supposed to mean "historical"? Mason: yes.
Clemens reads from the e-mail: "provide a note of all the other people in the pub" Question: was he "with" these other risk supporters? Mason: his old friends were old known MIG supporters Clemens -- albeit historical. Mason: yes
Clemens: so he was with known Luton risk? Mason: yes
Clemens: if you say he was separate, why not make it clear in that e-mail that he was separate? Mason: perhaps I could have elaborated that they were historical risk, in hindsight I should have stipulated that in my e-mail.
Clemens reading more: others noted in the pub included [redacted] were they current or historical risk? Mason: historical Clemens: you identified other risk nominals. How many? Mason: 15 to 20
Clemens: you say, "they all seemed annoyed with the decision" Mason: yes Clemens: did you ever call Tommy "Yax?" Mason: I have done
I would classify Mr. Clemens as a "risk supporter" of The Rebel.
Clemens: where were the Cambridge fans? Mason: in a pub nearby Clemens: you can't serve a s. 35 dispersal notice on someone if they live nearby. Is it more sensible to serve a dispersal notice on the travelling fans (than local fans)? Mason: yes
Clemens: as far as decision-making, you would have deferred to the @CambsCops chain of command in their home town? Mason: yes.
Clemens is done. Gurden now re-direct questions.Gurden: you notified Tommy and the other group that he'd have to leave. You said the other group was quite angry. You said he wasn't angry -- he was "bemused and upset". When it was put to you, "Tommy was angry." Which was it?
Mason: It's hard to tell. It'd going to be an admixture of all three. I'm just trying to think of Tommy's thought processes. Initially he's going to be bemused "why are they doing this? upset "there are no issues" and kind of like...
...to be made to an officer come up to me in front of my kids -- that would anger me... I'm not Tommy, but the emotions that I would kind of see were all of those."
Gurden is now showing Mason his e-mail exchange with @CambsCops legal, about who was in the pub with Tommy. There are two redacted names with Tommy, and five other names elsewhere in the pub.
Gurden: you were asked by @CambsCops if they left the pub on their own accord. Why didn't you answer? Mason: I wasn't there at that point
Gurden: you were asked about your reference to Tommy as "Yax" How did your colleagues refer to him? Mason: with @bedspolice, it wouldn't be "Robinson".
Judge: this e-mail you sent to @CambsCops; there's a group downstairs of 5 known "risk nominals". And upstairs with Tommy and two other known risk. And you went to speak to them separately to find their intentions? Mason: yes
Judge: and you tell the @CambsCops and tell them that; and there's a back and forth telling them to leave; and then
Mason (Tommy?) leaves? Mason: yes.
Judge: were the children upstairs? Mason: yes Judge: when? Mason: at the start. 5:30, 6 p.m.
Judge: whose children? Mason: I wouldn't know
Judge: after that, do you know where the children were? Mason: on the grass outside, playing football
Judge: when you went back and forth, were the kids there then? Mason: yes, I think so -- the second time.
Mason: this was just before I'd left. Judge: so just as you were leaving, you spoke to him then Mason: yes Judge: that's not in this (after-action) e-mail Mason: yeah.
Gurden: that e-mail -- that was just answering specific questions you were asked? Mason: yes
Judge: that is the end of the evidence Mr. Clemens stands to do some housekeeping matters