“Horrified”

“Abhorrent” 

“very upset and distressed“

“Physically sick”

This was the reaction of two witnesses at Poole Magistrates Court, during the long
awaited hearing of 80 year old David Skinner on 1st May. 

The former - a female police Sergeant of 19 years named Fern Graham - who confessed to seeing “deceased babies and road traffic victims” in her line of work, was totally horrified by what she saw. Short haired, possessing a regional accent and wearing a white blouse, we heard from the stand that she “spent about 30 minutes afterwards sitting in silence trying to  contemplate why someone would send that to me?” We later heard how she tried in vain to  stop others from opening the email.

The second - a staff admin at the station named Yvonne Fennick - who gave testimony behind a  curtain so as to not see Mr Skinner, burst into tears as she told of the negative impact the email  had had on her some 2 years earlier. She, a short lady, wearing a grey suit with white spiked hair and plimsolls to match, explained  “a few years back I lost a baby and seeing that image brought that memory back”. She said she was “gobsmacked and horrified” by what  she saw.  

The offending images were contained in a PDF labelled Mass Murder at Orphir Road Clinic,
and were attached to an email sent on 28th April 2024. They were intended for the recently re-elected Police Crime Commissioner for Dorset, David Sidwick, but were opened by junior administrators. The email was also sent to 3 other local Councillors who did not press charges. David was initially charged under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, but the charge was subsequently changed to the Communications Act 2003. District Judge MC Snow, presided over the case.

Under cross examination, PS Graham and Miss Fennick confessed to being very aware of
David's existence and views. The latter even stated she knew he had “strong opinions of
Abortion”. Yet both claimed they were ill-prepared for what they saw. They also denied taking  advice and or coordinating their witness statements despite including multiple shared words and phrases.

David, who sat encased in an open dock and wore a brown blazer, remained silent throughout proceedings except to declare the size of his state pension (he was formerly a teacher), when the judge finally convicted him.

The enormity of these dramatic scenes in Poole Magistrates court, encased by a huge mosaic of Solomon granting justice to (ironically) mothers and babies, are worthy of retelling in detail because they vividly encapsulate the incongruence at the heart of our justice system. A justice system that in the same 7 day period, saw an 80 year old man fined thousands of pounds for suggesting the police investigate the crime of killing babies (more than 10,000 at this clinic since 2017); yet simultaneously acquitted a woman who deliberately killed her child at 26  weeks’ gestation.

The Court at the Epicentre of a Trade War

A clear sense of excitement and foreboding filled us as we negotiated our way past an impertinent clerk into a 1970’s courtroom. The roomy court had a large window covered by battered blinds on one side with an A4 piece of paper stuck to them saying “do not open”.  Behind the  judge, large hexagonal wood paneling rose to the high ceiling,  interrupted only by an ornate crest, hanging high above the judges head, with the words Dieu et
mon droit- God and my right. Neither, it would turn out, were invited to give witness on this day.

Among the supporters present were a faithful crew of pro-lifers (mainly women over 40)  who have accompanied David on his previous failed visits to the court over the last year.  If lawfare is a means to wear people out, bore-fare is the boredom one experiences sitting on uncomfortable metal chairs awaiting your hearing. David and his supporters have done their fair share of this, having previously attended the court on 10 or so separate occasions. On this occasion they added two hours to their tally before the case was heard, and a further 4 hours as we awaited the negative verdict.  Fortunately on this occasion,  boredom (at least for me) was chased away by the inspirational conversation provided by staff from the Christian Legal Centre, who have represented David throughout. 

The same court has caused waves internationally, after it convicted Livia Tossici-Bolt for offering  consensual conversation outside of the Orphir road abortion clinic; as well as convicting Adam Smith Connor for praying inside his own head in the same zone. Consequently - through the interventions of the U.S. Vice President - this court appears to be the geographical epicentre of possible UK-US tariffs, yet no-one has yet made the link between possible hikes on US exports including: rare metals, aviation parts, medical equipment, nuclear reactors and Mustangs and the workings inside this concrete slap of a building on the south coast.  Nor could they, due to the  narrowness with which all cases of this kind are argued. 

Legal Arguments

According to section 127 of the communication act “a person is guilty of an offence” if he
fulfils two main criteria.  Firstly if “he sends by means of a public electronic communications…a message…that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing  character”. Secondly that he did so with “the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another”.

The judge, having been deeply moved by the “heartfelt” and “true feelings” of the
upset and weeping witnesses - whom he had offered tissues and an exit through
his office at the front of the court so as to not pass by David again - was utterly
satisfied that the images were “grossly offensive" and that “the only reason was to cause
offence and provoke some reaction” convicted David.

He was also adamant that David’s article 9 and 10 Human rights (being the right of freedom, conscience and religion and freedom of expression) were “not engaged in the case”.  The principal basis by which he concluded this was a case named Connolly vs Director of Public Prosecutions(DPP) [2007], in which a Roman Catholic anti-abortion activist named Connolly sent graphic images of aborted babies to several pharmacies in Solihull, Birmingham, as part of her protest against the morning-after pill. The court concluded that the restriction on her freedom of expression was justified to protect the rights of others. (LINK v Director of Public Prosecutions ). The fact that neither Graham nor Fennick were the intended recipient of the email was discarded, with both being seen as “collateral damage” in a campaign,  according to the prosecution, “designed for maximal impact”. 
 

Meanwhile the Defence made its argument on much broader terms.

Firstly that the email in question had been genuine and fair and not solely designed to cause offence.  David’s plea in the original email to the police commissioner was to “draw your attention to issues surrounding the BPAS abortion clinic” and request a “meeting” to discuss it further.  The first line of the PDF also eludes the need of an “investigation”.

ORIGINAL EMAIL

Secondly they argued that images changed minds and therefore are fair game in meaningful communication.  Defence Lawyer Rodgers Kiska cited Alan Kurdi and cigarette harm images in order to defend this point.

Thirdly, they argued that Dorset Police were not powerless private citizens, but public decision-makers. While David’s case is entirely different from the Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) surrounding the Ophir Road clinic in Bournemouth — under which Connor and Tossici-Bolt were prosecuted — it is linked in that the police were consulted during the creation of the PSPO in 2022 and have, in part, been responsible for making arrests within the zone. The same zones come under review every few years and theoretically, the Police could withdraw their support for the zone at the next review.

Fourthly and linking with this, the defence argued that Connolly vs DPP was an insufficient comparison due to the lack of decision making capacity of the people being communicated with. While the pharmacies in question could stop providing the morning after pill, they had no power to change laws. The police on this occasion can have an impact on local laws like the PSPO

To support their argument, they relied on the case of R v Thomas Casserly [2024]. This was a successful appeal in which Thomas Casserly was cleared of breaching the Malicious Communications Act 1988, after sending a “grossly offensive” email questioning whether a profoundly deaf and visually impaired town councillor with a muscle-wasting condition should hold public office. In his appeal, Casserly’s legal team argued that the email constituted a form of political expression protected under Article 10. Most relevant to Skinner’s case was the fact that the 1988 Act does not define what constitutes “grossly offensive”. As stated in the appeal judgment: 

“The right to free speech covered speech conveying offensive, disturbing or even shocking
information or ideas.”

Bigger than the Images

Perhaps the most epic moment of the trial, for me personally, was the moment David was
allowed to speak, not audibly, but through the mouths of his alleged victims.

Shortly into the start of proceedings, instructed by the state prosecution, a small man with  a bald head - Sgt Graham - read out two sections from David’s original email. The first was this:
 

"The fact that people change their minds when shown images of “aborted” babies enrages the abortion providers who do everything they can do to stop themselves being exposed. This includes their silencing and taking away the Human right to Freedom of speech and silent screams of the babies and their mothers who suffer from being coerced into having an abortion  by rapists covering up their crime; adulterers, like Boris Johnson covering up
their lust; parents covering up family shame; boyfriends not wanting the expense of raising a  child; employers not wanting to pay maternity leave; LGBTQs coping with their promiscuity;  Feminists driven by personal ambition; Ecco- warrior ideology and the worship of Gaia; BPAS  and MSI making a fortune from pregnancy and Satanists offering up babies as living sacrifices."
 

When questioned she stated that this passage was “homophobic” and contained “antisemitic” elements before concluding “everything Mr Skinner has written is against my beliefs and my ideology“.  She later referred to it as “incoherent ramblings”.

Suffice to say it is a broad and sweeping attack on culture. However, it is so broad that I’d argue it is a-political in nature and also crucially not without evidence. Few segments of society are overlooked in Skinners’ abrasive critique:  babies, mothers, coercive partners, heterosexual males, adulterers, parents, prime ministers and employers all rank  before the LGBTQI community, and are swiftly followed by feminists, eco warriors, Anglican bishops (who permitted a Gaia icon in Norwich Cathedral), and Satanists. 

Most of us will find ourselves in or associated with one of these heavily criticised groups. Quite why one group  should be any more offended than another was never asked?

Nor was much time given to the fact that many points were evidenced. The very same passage contained 11 hyperlinks (the full email hundreds) yet only three of which were allowed to be explored, albeit very briefly,  before the judge shut down this line of argument.

One of the points that Sgt Graham took the most offence too,  that LGBTQI people are promiscuous,  was never explored. Had they been allowed to click on the hyperlinked they would have been taken to the following article in American political Newspaper - The Hill which states – and I quote:

“Why do gay people care about abortion rights when they don’t need them?…Actually, we do. According to the National Institutes of Health, young lesbians, bisexual women and
gender-nonconforming people experience unintended pregnancies at higher rates than their  non-LGBTQ peers."

It is not the place nor mission of CBR UK to comment on the morality of the LGBTQI community,  but it is worth sharing what they say about themselves, especially when such evidence was shut out from the case relating to abortion.

The pursuit of truth felt secondary throughout proceedings. After each witness the judge asked, sometimes repeatedly, “how did you feel when you saw the email” as if this  was the key determiner of truth.  How David felt about being reported to the police by the police was never asked? 

More so, the handling of the abortion images, central to the case, while being initially robust, became increasingly sensitive and neurotic as the case went on, with witnesses being issued with more and more instructions as to how to handle them. They ended the case face downwards, and slipped into the centre of a large legal bundle. They may still be there- who knows.

David’s words echoed in my mind:

images of “aborted” babies enrages the abortion providers who do everything they can do to stop themselves being exposed. 

This wasn’t the only peculiar aspect of the proceedings. Throughout, there was a pervasive — and at times unprofessional — sense of personal offence. Not just the simmering hostility between the witnesses and Skinner, which might be expected, but more oddly, between the judge and Skinner himself.

Although David had been instructed by his legal counsel not to speak, and warned by the judge that his silence “may be drawn against him,” the judge had no qualms about questioning him directly. In a peculiar flurry of graphic rhetorical questions, the judge asked whether it would be acceptable to send David emails depicting gay pornography. The same judge — who later acknowledged that David was “a committed Christian” and appeared quite content with his analogy — repeatedly pressed whether receiving such emails (depicting homosexual “pleasure”) to his personal account should be considered “part and parcel” of living in a democracy.

 
The fact that no personal emails were used by David, that David is not a public figure, that he has no decision making capacity, and that sexually lude images designed to defile or arouse, are
distinct from real life depiction of second and third trimester abortion designed to humanise and convict – never entered the judges head, nor played any part in his verdict.  As  is so often the case on late night LBC interviews, whoever controls the microphone controls the discussion.

To the spiritually astute, even the spiritually blunt (of which I can barely claim membership), it  was obvious that while David was being tried on extremely narrow legal grounds, he was also being attacked on broad spiritual grounds; presided upon not so much by the judge but by the idols of the age, which David had not simply offended but awakened into action.

The Verdict

At 4.50pm, as the sun sank in the sky, security guards began packing up and stragglers
celebrated positive verdicts outside the court, we were invited back inside for David’s verdict. Snow silenced the court and waited for a journalist to join via an online system - clearly this was noteworthy - and began his summary. In it he recognised David was 80 years old, and had no criminal record, that he was a “Christian” with “deeply held views”. He acknowledged that his email had  been sent to multiple individuals and that David was known by the police commission office at the time.  It was here his sympathies were suspended as he pronounced judgement.  He was convinced that the email was sent with “no warning”, that the images attached to it of a “dead fetus” and “parts of aborted fetuses", were “extremely disturbing”  and had caused “upset” and “floods of tears”. He  said he had “no doubts that these were heartfelt and genuine feelings”. He dismissed the possibility that the email was at all a genuine enquiry, or request of investigation concluding instead that it had been deliberately designed to cause harm and offence. Summing up he convicted David on two counts of breaching the Communications Act, one for each “victim”. Despite attempts from the prosecution to send him to jail, it was here the judge’s sympathies were momentarily re-engaged when David was instead issued a fine plus court costs amounting to £3840.

All to  be paid within 14 days.

Spilling out into the evening sun, exhausted and disappointed supporters discussed the verdict,  took pictures and prayed for David. There can be no more fitting response. Where does one turn  when rights – David’s certainly, but more so the thousands of babies being killed inside the Orphir road clinic – are being ignored.  Dieu et mon droit.  To God of course- from whom all rights stem.


___________________________________________________________________

Your church and Human Rights is taking place this Saturday 17th May in Bournemouth - Book tickets now.