AFTERNOON: Sarah Jane Baker v CPS - 31st Aug 2023 - Court Report.
2pm [Court back in session]
[J invites P to proceed]
P: Thank you. We are trial ready and will open the case. I've already done intros. SB is charged with a single offence; [reads] The court will note previous offence discontinued. P case is that SB encouraged others to commit others to commit battery. She exorted her audience to punch people in the face and encouraged such offences.
8th July was a planned march under Transplus Pride. During the march, SB made a speech to a gathered crowd. Location uncertain but footage shows what looks to be Wellington Arch. This was the end of the march route. SB admits presence and making the speech in question. SB said she was speaking on behalf of Trans Prisoner Alliance. [Reads what SB said on vid] I hope tech works. Put sound up please. We appear to have sound issues.
[More SB supporters coming in to public gallery. It is now full.]
If I may play that. [Plays video of SB saying “I was gonna come here today and say something nice and fluffy….if you see a TERF punch them in the fucking face”]
P: As I say I'll come back to that. This is just the opening. P's case is that the words used were clearly capable of encouraging members of the assembled crowd, some who can be seen in the footage offering enthusiastic support, to go out and commit the offence of battery against people SB referred to as TERFs by punching or assaulting them. Crown say SB incited violence against people who did not agree. TERF acronym means Trans Exc -
J: - say slowly
P: Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist. This refers to people, usually women, but not always, who do not believe transgender people who identify as female should be regarded as such. I use term TERF with caution and it is considered a slur. Neutral term would be Gender Critical feminist, GC for short. P says that not only can SB's intention be gleened from her words but also her admissions and comments on arrest. During which, she told followers on social media that they should not punch TERFs. That'll be played. Understood SB accepts presence, location and words used. The issue will be solely on intent. Regarding law, for the court's mens rea requirement, SB must intend to encourage or assist anticipated offence. This should not be conflated that the offence should be committed. I see fit to give Blackstone law ref.
J: I'm familiar with the law. Must be intent not just act committed
P: Section 47, a41.3. CROWN case. As ever P bring case and up to P to prove. The case is reduced to section 9 statements and facts.
[Reads statement from Police Officer] The officer says the allocated bronze officer of trans pride is meeting at the march. He goes on about how protest was to be policed and any Met police strategy. He says climate of distrust in police and de-escalation of police presence asap. The unit were deployed along route and monitored the gathering. A small vehicle-mounted soundsystem and established 2000 people were present with more joining. Those present were in good spirits, no-one was concerned of people gathering. Then there was 5000 in attendance. I drove along road and spoke to a few, no hostility to march and no sign of counter protest groups. No problems. There was a rally in Duke of Wellington area and mood was good at all times. As the rally dispersed people walked in all directions. People crossing the road and a number of attendees stopped to thank police. None were deployed to incidents and, on the whole, positive towards police. [End of this evidence]
Next evidence are section 10 agreed facts. Agreed facts are admitted in evidence. The 1st heading is defendent [reads SB's details name, address and DOB].
The next section deals with arrest at 4.50pm by PC Baker - no relation - on inciting violence. SB is read rights and after arrest SB was transferred to Charing Cross police station. SB was not interviewed under caution. Footage was downloaded by Police Officer from Twitter, now known as X. We have footage of the arrest from PC Baker. I'll play both when finished.
Next is the incident in question, SB present at trans pride March, person speaking into mic was her. The term TERF, according to Wikipedia, stands for Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist . Judge I propose to play the 1st video again and then next footage.
Does tribunal wish to see again?
J: No
P: This is footage from PC Baker's body camera. Allegations of incitement of violence.. had become apparent SB made threats to others. They said they attended address of SB in police vehicles. Knocked on door and SB appeared at top floor window. SB asked why they were there and the Police Officer explained and arrested her. SB asked them to wait as she wanted to livestream it to her fans. The entirety of the arrest is subject to footage. "SB was informed she'd be arrested, let us in house, cooperated, we went upstairs. SB got some belongings to take to custody, was allowed a cigarette and to go to the toilet, was compliant throughout and placed in front stack arrest position. SB was then put in the van."
There were responses to the caution heard in the footage. 2nd statement from PC Baker, there's footage- (convenes with D if anything else before). It's 15 mins long
J: Is it relevant?
P: Yes
[VIDEO plays of PC Baker's bodycam - We see a doorway, police speaking via intercom. PC puts gloves on.
Pc: How are you? We're here to speak to miss Baker.
Female voice: About?
PC: She's gonna need arrested on this allegation. I'll be straight up, it's
that you have allegedly incited violence against others.
SB: [live streaming] This is live feed. If you're watching then my solicitor is watching. They're arresting me now. I did read Suella Braverman today.. and spoke to probation. I've been officially cautioned by it this morning.
PC: I appreciate you cooperating but sorry need to take you in.
SB: So I'm going to Charing Cross Police Station. If they imprison me, just share me.
PC: Appreciate that you're gonna come.
SB: Trans rights are human rights. One struggle one fight. Don't punch TERFs and I'm really sorry that I said that.
SB: You wanna come in? You're not gonna jump on me?
PC: Not at all
SB: I have two greyhounds
PC: That's fine. The case is ready to go so you should be dealt with quickly. You got everything you need? Phone?
SB: I've been doing therapy.
PC: Grab what you need.
SB: I need my hormones. Can I have a cigarette?
PC: Yes if you want. Appreciate you being cooperative.
Male voice: Sarah you want me to video this?
PC: Our cams are recording
SB: (to live stream) So it looks like Suella Braverman has managed to persuade Met police to arrest me although probation service ruled I had no case to answer. I think this is an issue with left wing as well as right. I'd fight for their right for free speech. I'll probably deserve to go there for all I've said and I'm sorry for all offence caused. It was not my finest moment and I let myself down. BE TRANS. I love you all.
[P stops video]
P: Do you want any more played?
J: It's not up to me. Is it relevant?
P: The rest is not relevant to the case no. Note to court, footage stops at 8.18. That is entirety of case for Crown. I formally close the case.
J: Thank you.
D: I call SB
[SB is led by 2 officers to stand]
Clerk: Any religious beliefs.
SB: I'm a Christian
[SB is sworn in. Note: when giving evidence, SB often stopped mid sentence (I mark these with a '-') and spoke very fast.]
D: Explain the purpose of this particular march.
SB: London trans pride is the biggest- figures about 5000, at biggest 33K- corporate pride is corporate. London trans pride is a protest in itself. For trans to come together in one safe space to express our opinions and views, dismay, we can be together as a community not sponsored by corporates. We can take to streets and say WE EXIST.
D: What time did u get there?
SB: Sorry, haven't had my hormones today so my memory hazy. Probs 10. AM that is.
D: It had been agreed this was a march that went through certain parts of London?
SB: Yes
D: Were you part of it?
SB: Indeed
D: And there was a stage at the end?
SB: Yes
D: Do you remember how many people spoke?
SB: We had some of most prominent trans famous people there, one off Doctor Who, Munroe Bergman, Bergdorff - a list of celebrities there - but you know I'm not a professional model just a writer and politician -
D: How many people spoke?
SB: About 20, about 10 individuals, and a few organisations like What the Trans. I was the last person to give a speech.
D: What was the general vibe?
SB: It's a celebration that we'd manage to exist for the last year. There'd been attack in Clapham and attack on a trans squat- We existed for another year- lets keep going- we can go for another one- to a group of people who would rather see us destroyed.
D: There's reference to the word TERF in your speech. Can you clarify the length of speech?
SB: That was the entire speech.
D: What is your understanding of the word TERF?
SB: That there's- there's 2 groups- 2 distinct groups of trans exclusionary groups. We have moderates that believe transgender people should not take part in female sports, they're discouraged from using female changing rooms regardless of whether they've fully transitioned- these are trans exclusionary- there's moderates and then you have TERFS- they are not feminists these are people like Rishi Sunak, like Kier Starmer, who says women do not have penises. That may or may not be so but when the cabinet are saying they'll destroy trans community- TERFs ban us from public discourse and are online talking about trans genocide, like Turning Point UK. They're beating up young activists. We say we'll just stand with our flags in defiance against people who want to distinguish us. They want to remove Gender Reassignment. The people on the front benches want to remove trans people from human rights. We're living in dark times. I may not present well but I'll stand and be really annoying-
D: Back to term TERF. What's your understanding of rhe type of people who display TERF awareness? How do they display to you?
SB: They believe they have women's interests at heart from people like me who they accuse of encouraging their children to transition. They call me a child mutilater. It's not my fault their kid at university wants to transition. I take the blame for that. They say it's my fault that they're not gonna have grandchildren.
D: What have you experienced from TERFs?
SB: I have friends who are TERF- I'm a moderate, I'm not full left, lib dem now- want to have debates. These ppl want trans community destroyed and us to have no rights.
D: What is your personal experience with people who class themselves as TERFS?
SB: Lots of protests. We saw young activists beaten up by Turning Point- one of our trans sisters got beaten up outside pub- 16 year old transwoman got beaten up by Posie Parker and her acolytes- look, it wasn't my finest hour, I didn't have my hormones and I'm quite annoying but I don't want people to be hurt from something I said. I know I can be obnoxious and wish I could take the words back.
D: There's no issue with the words you said?
SB: Indeed
D: What did you intend?
SB: I wanted to get on front page of Daily Mail. Trans Pride never makes national news. I believe my job is to get on front page and that trans people exist and we are here and need support. We are small and marginalised. Only people suffering more than us are migrants. Thank God I'm not a trans migrant. TERFs are anti vaxers, anti migrants, anti ulez, wicked, spiteful, mean people. Whether I'm a transwoman or not I've removed my own testicles. There are groups who believe I'm mentally ill. I exist and demand the right to shoot mouth off as long as within the boundaries of the law.
J: Slow down
SB: Sorry
J: I'm aware you are passionate.
D: What is your general view of how transgender community react to violence?
J: She's not qualified to speak for all of the community
SB: I can speak for the community I know. They're kind folk, most have been rejected all their life by family and friends (starts to cry) some of us don't pass well because we're poor, we can't get jawbones shaved off or implants, alot of us have nothing but clothes we have and the benefits that the system deems we’re allowed to have to survive.
We're denied opportunities to work, not because there's no work but because employers are worried. First question that gets asked is what toilet do they use or pronouns. And if they don't use right pronouns are they gonna be sued? We are the most marginalised on the planet, people gtting their kids taken away because they're trans. London is supposed to be best and queerest in world- we've had arson. We're living in dark times and this is the far right actively encouraged by politicians- I don't want nobody being hurt and I’m sorry I don't express myself well but I can get on front page of Daily Mail and ram the transgender agenda down their throats so they choke on it. We are gentle kind folk and attacked at the moment online. Even our families are attacking us (cries more).
J: Thank you
D: Are u all right?
SB: I'm absolutely fine.
D: One element of offence is that you intended to encourage an offence. What did you think would happen as result of what you said you were addressing?
SB: That nothing negative would happen and London trans pride is a protest and that's what we're there for. I wasn't there to be liked, was there to be provocative and get attention, not to feed my own narcissism, but to make sure the trans community is visibly present and we're not erased from public discord [sic]
D: I'll ask again. What did you intend to happen by saying the words?
SB: I was just being funny. It was London trans pride. It was last speech. Noone's gonna follow me, I wouldn't even follow me. [SB Supporters laugh] Hats off to police. It was a great day....noone protesting against us...last speech of day and- you know- bit tired- feeling a bit- I don't know- I didn't mean it- I don't want noone beaten up for rubbish that comes out my mouth... I just wanted attention for some of the causes I believe in.
D: What was the response?
SB: A round of applause.
D: After the march, was there any violence?
SB: That never happens at trans pride. Some people after said I pushed it a bit and should turn it down in future. I could have expressed myself more positively. I get frustrated too- I've had my ID confiscated by a London bus driver, who said I was fake women- 3 years ago 20 men beat me up. I've not responded in physical way. If anyone's been traumatised I'm sorry, I'm trying not to be a mean person. They're accusing the left wing of being woke. They're trying to shut down the left wing. All I do is go to protests and hold up flag or banner to be annoying. If being annoying is a crime then sorry. Noone has ever been hurt from something I've said. I would never say it again and wish I can take it back and whatever consequences I have to take. For what it's worth, I wish I could take it back
D: Why do u wish you hadn't said it?
SB: Because I'm in a male prison. Trans people don't have the protection we once did. I'm on a wing with male sex offenders and they keep touching me and making inappropriate comments. I've not been able to have shower since I was arrested. 2 months now. There's no individual showers, all communal. I don't like prison but there are consequences to what I say.
D: No more questions.
P: I'm hoping going to ask you few questions. The narrow issue is what you intended when you made speech. You accept being there and the words you used, etc and when you were arrested? We agree so we don't need to go into all that?
SB: Yes
P: You said you write books. You spoke to a crowd at Wellington Arche with 5000 people on the march. We saw on the footage the significant amount of people. When you were arrested you decided to broadcast your arrest to your followers. Presumably through social media platform?
SB: Yes.
P: Am I right in saying that you know that your words are listened to by potentially thousands of people?
SB: Yes.
P: You knew that at Wellington Arch?
SB: Yes
P: You've characterised the trans comm as non violent. In general many thousands could have heard your words. You can't speak for all of those. Would you agree with me that your words could have encouraged someone, any one of them, to punch someone else in face?
SB: Indeed
P: We know you write and broadcast. Are you saying your words were just rhetoric? No intention for others to punch people. Couldn't be sure of that people were non violent? You agree?
SB: If you say so
P: You knew exactly the words you were using and that you intended people to cause violence
SB: I disagree with 2nd bit
P: [reads video footage] is that what you were going to say, you were going to be nice and fluffy?
SB: I was going to say we'd had a great year and it had come to my attention of attacks on the transgender community and increase in anti trans rhetoric and active- and Tory party and PM and Priti Patel, Suella Braverman were making statements that women don't have penises. I changed a speech I was going to give.
P: Precisely
SB: I couldn't think on my feet.
P: You even say in your speech what you were going to say. You chose to say something else and the thing was to go and punch someone in the face
SB: Yeh I knew it'd make the front pages
P: Exactly you knew exactly what you were saying
SB: It wasn't the first speech I've given and it won't be last. I wanted to be provocative and the trans community not to be forgotten. The aim was to be on the front of the Daily Mail and I got it. Most of my followers are right wing, people who despise me and hate I exist. They buy my books.
P: We're running away here. The point was, people who don't agree with you follow you. You choose your words specifically?
SB: Most of time I'm careful with the words I use but I can be impulsive.
P: You have significant antipathy and dislike of people you call TERFs?
SB: No not all. I'd fight for their rights as much as my own. They buy my books they share our social media and pro trans propaganda as they put it.
P: You asked your audience to punch those people in the face, regardless of what you call them, do you agree?
Sb: That's the truth, yes.
P: You say you just stand with flags and banners. What part of telling people to punch people in the face is part of your quiet activism?
SB: The police said I had no case to answer. They said comes under Freedom of Speech.
P: I won't get into that. What I'm driving at, is this: you said about anti-trans language towards trans community, my point was this, I'll put squarely, that it enrages you, it angers you?
SB: It saddens me. I lay at night and cry. It makes me sad that people have no life but to come online and click bait me, threaten to have my dog killed and my partner raped. I feel sad because I don't feel like this for these people. I tease them. I understand enough about law to know what I said. If someone acted on my words that's their choice. I can't take responsibility for for...if I told someone to jump off a bridge, doesn't mean I want them to, not that I'd tell someone to do that.
P: You DID tell your followers to NOT punch TERFs. You had to go online and say don't do that?
SB: I don’t have the power you seem to think I have. I'm obnoxious, that's not a crime
P: If you had no intention why did you feel the need to counter demand? [Supporters laugh]
SB: I'd get in Daily Mail again- Not ultra right- Give me an order to shut my mouth in future but you're destroying my life by sending me to prison. Noone listens go me. My Mrs doesn't listen to me.
[Supporters laugh]
P: You broadcast to thousands of people but noone listens to you?
Sb: I don't listen to me. [Supporters laugh] I'm not always right, I don't make the best decisions. Can't take back the words. God forbid anyone would act on my words. Doesn't make me a demon- but because of the speech, even 3 days after that, the stuff I was getting, people said their husband would come and beat me up. It's online and maybe they're just as much as a doughnut as I am. [Supporters laugh] I'm an idiot but my heart is pure. I'm not taking this lightly either.
P: Yes you are. You've been playing to the gallery the whole the time. Because of your antipathy you encouraged people to punch people in the face?
Sb: Define antipathy
J: Use another word.
P: Dislike. Because you dislike them you've told people to punch people in the face. Do you agree?
SB: No. I feel sorry for them they have so much hatred for me. I talk rubbish sometimes
P: Those are all my questions.
SB: Bless.
D: How many people did you see who fit your description of a TERF?
SB: None.
D: So how many people would be hurt?
Sb: None.
D: No further evidence
P: Given that the evidence has taken 90 mins its not really for me to rehash everything you've heard again. I've put it squarely to SB.
J: What if a person tries to get a headline in the paper, is that intention?
P: If court thinks intention is to get headline however Crown say...
[J interupts and cites case]
P: Foresight can be used as evidence towards whether SB did in fact do what the Crown say. If you find it was incidental, I freely accept it may not be enough to make determination. The Crown has made points and the points to deliberate are choice of words and necessity to counter demand which got a titter from the audience earlier. If he had.. sorry she...if she had not had intention then there'd be no need for follow up later. I said I wouldn't reopen case all over. Any other questions?
J: No you've been very helpful.
D: If we focus on the offence and intention, we need to look at audience on the day.
J: It was online too.
D: No it wasn't live streamed.
J: It was put on later.
D: We address the audience and the stage. You have heard the reasons for the march because the trans community suffer abuse. SB said she was there to celebrate her community was still alive a year later. You've heard violence inflicted on her because of her classification in society. We look at what SB is facing. The offence being referred to is battery but then moving to legislation, did she have intent for that to be case?
J: The point has already been crystallised. The issue I need to resolve is what was going through her head when using those words.
D: Nothing has been put forward other than what SB has said. Prosecution evidence from Police officer was that this was a peaceful protest. You heard from SB that she wanted to get noticed about transgender community and problems they face. As you can see in the legislation, it doesn't matter that it could have been foreseeable or in hindsight. It specifically states her intention. As you are aware this was event hosted by trans communities. Thousands attended and it was peaceful and friendly. Zero hostility. No counter protesting. This is where you've heard that the trans community come together. Numerous people trying to get recognition in a society where they are constantly abused. This was to celebrate trans community. No protesters. Who did she intend to be hurt? She's come to attention of politicians on social media. No evidence from Crown that any of this was circulated from SB. She isn't the person who placed this anywhere. The term TERF, definition approved, trans exclusionary, take that into account as it's because of the concerns of TERFs. If we think of all people excluded in society, sex, skin colour, orientation, SB says trans are ostracised. We've seen numerous political activists incarcerated over years. We go back over centuries for women who fought for women's rights, today we have SB fighting for transgender community. If you find her guilty today you must find that it was likely to happen. There's no evidence for that. On that basis SB is not guilty. That is all.
J: Thank you. In every case Prosecution has to prove guilt for the defendent, not for the defendent to prove their innocence. Must be sure of guilt. This case is a narrow issue. Very simple question, what was going through her mind when she said the words? It's not in dispute that SB said "If you see TERF, punch them in the fucking face". Whether a celebration or not, there was a group and you were last speaker on the day with 5000 present. You've described to court a group of people who hold differing views to those which you hold. My job is not to pass comment on the views. My job is to look at the offence to see if you are guilty. P's case was given by way of admissions and Witness Statements. You have given evidence. You are a self described politician broadcaster and writer and you have political views regarding the trans debate. You accept people at various places in the spectrum. Some hold extremist views some moderate. Term used today is a term this court has been told is a slur. Stands for Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist and it's those persons which were the target of your words. I have to ask myself why you said those words. Did you intend others to carry out battery? Well the evidence I've been given in particular from you is that you are an attention seeker and wanted to get on the front page. In fact you'd already decided what the speech was going to be and you said you changed it. You were going to say “vote them out” then chose to say what you said. Your position is that you were just teasing, that, you were an idiot (Everyone laughs and Judge smiles), just, you say an attempt to get on the front page. P has reminded me rightly that foresight of consequences cannot be equated with intention but what you foresaw is something I can use as evidence and draw inferences from it. Am I sure you intended them to be carried out? I have a doubt. I think it’s also possible you are just an idiot [supporters laugh] - in fact you said it yourself - who was trying to get attention to your cause, that you didn’t intend for people to do it.
But you said it because you wanted the publicity for your cause and for those reasons I find you not guilty. [Supporters cheer, SB punches air]
[D queries charge]
P: The intention to encourage, the attempted charge of 4a was dealt with.
J: Caution, I need to make it absolutely clear I was not persuaded by the Crown case that you wanted other people to do that but that your intention was possibly to get on the front of a newspaper and so I find you not guilty.
[Court adjourned. Supporters cheers. All rise. Judge leaves. SB presses head through the two glass fronts of holding box and shouts. 'I'm not really an idiot". Supporters all laugh. SB taken out]