Woke Judges?

[dowie]

I think this is another example

Please do share other examples of !WOKE JUDGES! and no, some mad unit on X is not a great source.

There was another example shared later in the thread, see the Law Gazett article and the employment case re: the "gender-critical" woman the judgment of which was rather embarrassing and later overturned.

I think this is another example of lacking professional standards.

You don't have a clue.

Perhaps he doesn't then again perhaps you don't either, regardless, thanks to the power of Twitter, we can also see what people who do have a clue think! Such as these Barristers:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1757870028400037957

https://twitter.com/x/status/1758068585237237960

https://twitter.com/x/status/1758090995881943060

It doesn't seem like the sort of standard we ought to expect from a Judge and it has caused obvious issues re: the perception of bias or indeed apparent bias.

Guidance for Judges re: social media:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1757840003311325392

Ironically this same Judge warning others about the use of social media:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1758446180252479507

 

[dowie]

Nailed it....... When I see anyone use "woke" or "wokeness" as any sort of political commentary, you just know they're a few French fries short of a happy meal and lack any sort of basic understanding of political and economic / socioeconomic issues, you know, things that actually affect us all on a daily basis, not crying about what toilet cubical someone decides to use or their pronouns.

Ironically, these nu-conservative anti-woke lot are the biggest cry babies and hypocrites going, total wet flannels.

Are you sure that's not you? Nothing about toilet cubicles here but rather judicial impartiality, if you're unsure why that might be an issue then...

 

[dowie]

The same woke judge strikes again... another police officer is in trouble, this time for arresting a suspected fare dodger on a bus:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1791480502148280806

In this case, the issue was that she started kicking off when asked to show she'd paid for the bus by a bus inspector, the police officer then detained her and it turns out she could had paid and could have just shown the inspector that instead of causing a big commotion:

PC found guilty of assaulting woman over wrongful bus fare arrest

PC Perry Lathwood is guilty of assaulting Jocelyn Agyemang during an arrest in Croydon.

www.bbc.co.uk

The problem is how should fare enforcement work now?

It is an issue in London and TFL does run these operations where they send some inspectors to a particular train station or bus stop and have police present too. The inspectors can't physically detain people AFAIK and it is a criminal offence so what happens now if any fare dodgers can just refuse to comply and carry on walking?

Because now apparently if the police intervene in that situation and it turns out to be someone who did in fact pay for a ticket but just has an attitude problem they'll get placed on restricted duties and/or get done for assault.

 

[dowie]

Basically I'm not going to go with some CT about a judge being soft or somehow trying to undermine policing, I'm going to go with the line that the Judge having heard case and knowing the law as written and case law has gone with what precedent says is correct.

Yeah, it's hardly some conspiracy theory to suggest he's woke or to hold the opinion that this is a bad result... anyone can see the previous statements by this judge outside of court too or indeed what he chose to "like" on LinkedIn or re: the case in the OP people could note that the CPS are seeking a judicial review.

"Ms Agyemang said she told the inspector to walk with her as she was in a hurry. Lathwood then walked over and grabbed her to stop her", that's not refusing to show the ticket that's basically saying "i'm busy but you can talk to me while we walk".

No, this involves an oyster card rather than a ticket - something which she could have simply tapped on the machine, she didn't need to stop and hand over a ticket and wait for someone to check the date/time, correct zone etc. Most people just get their debit card/oyster card out when there are inspectors at a station/bus stop and you simply tap it as you exit so someone using that line and trying to walk off is obviously suspicious even if it just turned out she simply has an attitude problem.

 

[dowie]

The video I've seen doesn't show the very start of the confrontation so don't know what that looked like and if the officer came in hot, but it does show her trying to resist arrest and get away from the police officer, so not surprised she hurt her wrist.

One of the ones doing the rounds on social media is after the police officer has intervened and that seems to be preferred by the people celebrating it, the video on the BBC website has some of the interaction with the ticket inspector just before she's stopped by the police officer:

PC found guilty of assaulting woman over wrongful bus fare arrest

PC Perry Lathwood is guilty of assaulting Jocelyn Agyemang during an arrest in Croydon.

www.bbc.co.uk

I don't know if more happened (I've only seen the video in the bbc article) but considering the wording of the final sentence and what they highlighted in this short report, it seems like any attempt to arrest a potential fare dodger is not reasonable or a proportionate use of force.

There must be more to this that I ain't seeing.

The judge basically concluded that she could have been asked for her name and address and warned that refusing to give those could mean arrest. (For fare dodgers who are caught out by ticket inspectors typically they give their name and address and receive a fine in the post.)

But even fare dodgers who have been caught are cooperating in that case, she's not cooperating and is several meters away from where the bus has stopped and showing no intention of stopping ergo it seems quite reasonable for him to have physically stopped her. She could have just tapped the oyster card then but instead she kicked off even more created a big scene.

 

[dowie]

I know that clip doesn't show the full story, but based on what I've seen I can't help but disagree with the trial result. Seems to imply that police should act the same way as supermarket 'security guards' - chase after a suspect like 'excuse me sir, please come back I need to give you a warning! Sir, if you don't give me you name and address I will... sir, please don't get into that car, sir please come back!'

Basically that - it seems to be an absurd conclusion drawn from the fact that actual fare invaders are told they need to give their name and address or else they're liable to face arrest and then they if they give their details just get a fine in the post. The act of fare evasion itself doesn't result in an arrest just a fine in the post ergo the judge has concluded this was excessive for a suspected offence.

The problem is that happens when the actual fare evader is cooperating, she was already not cooperating with the ticket inspectors. Seemingly had the police officer just asked for her name and address there wouldn't have been an unlawful arrest in the eyes of the judge.

But also the police officer just grabbed her arm initially and then she started kicking off so it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to cuff her because of that.

I guess if he'd just said he was arresting her for breach of the peace instead of suspected fare evasion then he'd have been covered too.

 

[dowie]

Did the officer at the time he grabbed her have a legal reason to lay hands on her?

That is basically what it comes down to and the Judge seems to have decided that given the evidence, the legislation, the case law and the other circumstances he didn't.

That question has already been answered in the post:

"Seemingly had the police officer just asked for her name and address there wouldn't have been an unlawful arrest in the eyes of the judge.

But also the police officer just grabbed her arm initially and then she started kicking off so it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to cuff her because of that.

I guess if he'd just said he was arresting her for breach of the peace instead of suspected fare evasion then he'd have been covered too."

It seems like a bit of a reach by the judge and it's not like there aren't some questions about him. If it is appealed and the Court of Appeal holds up that that's correct then that would be far more robust than this guy.

[not quite an edit, but seen after typing the above]
I've just seen a longer version of the video where she is getting the card out and presenting it to the scanner at least twice whilst moving when she is distracted going to get her kid, the scanner actually beeps and it's during that the officer first seems to grab her.

Why not link to it?

A fare evader can also feign tapping the card and try to walk off so that in itself doesn't mean she shouldn't be stopped and being distracted by her child is a super lame excuse, she clearly had a big attitude problem and was just trying to walk off - let's see the longer video?

 

[dowie]

Here's a longer clip, has a few seconds before the BBC clip starts - she's clearly trying to walk off with another police officer putting her arms out, walking backward to try and get her to stop. She's already starting to kick off at that point before having her arm grabbed by the police officer who was subsequently charged for it: