Being denied a lawyer or having the state interfere in justice proceedings is hardly a technicality

It's very easy for me

This is a full blown case of criminal mistrial.

He was denied the right to legal council, literally a right equally fundamental to a fair trial as the very concept of 'innocent until proven guilty'

This is not a case of 'oh, his name was spelled 'Tomy' on the official documents so it's mistrial, he goes free'

Well but can you throw the case on those grounds is what i am asking. Because he did broke that suspension and filmed himself doing that

Yes.

Well it will be interesting watching that

In any properly functioning legal system, not only would you be able to throw the case, you would be able to get the judge -barred from office-

Well it did look strange

You'd be able to get so much money in reparations their grand children would still be paying you

Fast track trial with media blackout

But the core of the case

Him breaking the suspension is valid

Again, that wasn't properly established.

Unfortunately

It wasnt properly establiahed but even i can see it happened

He filmed himself doing that

Irrelevant what someone can 'see' happening.

You mean everyone

You can have literally millions of eye witnesses, someone is -innocent- until the opposite is proven by due process in a court of law.

True

Thats the reason why he got into trouble in the first place afterall

But you have to admit that in propper trial he would lose

Again, doubtful, as I've seen plenty of arguments as to why he's innocent.

Why ?

I have seen arguments why the law is bad

But none to why he could not have break it

He arguably wasn't reporting from court property, I've seen people claim he wasn't reporting on the case, and merely using the courthouse as a backdrop...

Come now 😀

Thats very weak

If any of this is true or not, I dunno, we've not had a proper trial to establish the facts.

No but we can have opinion

And he clearly did reported on the case

In real time

During court proceedings

Thats the problem

To paraphrase Jean-Luc Picard: "A trial is a crucible, in it we burn away irrelevancies until we are left with a pure product: The truth." This 'crucible' was tainted, willingly so, and as such, to protect the concept of innocent until proven guilty, a mistrial must be declared and Tommy has to walk free. His guilt is, due to the actions taken against him, utterly irrelevant now.

Well it will be interesting for sure

@>Cytos, de lieve goede synth ironically, people are usually more likely to get a sunburn, because they are less likely to put on sunscreen or seek shade, but are still in the sun the whole time.

@zutt @Somi regardless of the truth, if there is not a fair trail, you cannot say with 100% certainty it was the truth. He may very well have lost a trail.... but he may not have. that is the point of legal counsel. He did ask what was considered court grounds to one of the officers or officials standing outside the court. This could be reference to trying to avoid breaking the law again. There is also where he reported any more than what other news outlets were reporting. But since the well was tainted, he could very well be let go....which is ironically what the defense of the media ban on the very trail he was reporting on is to prevent. to keep potentially guilty people from being let free because the trail is tainted by media coverage that has cause the jurors to be bias.