By Tony O’Reilly-
The young man who heckled Prince Andrew did not face the courts in order to avoid the inconvenience and awkwardness of his defenceb embarassing the royal family, according to insiders at the Crown prosecution Service, The Eye Of Media.Com can reveal.
The man, who has never been officially named, shouted out. ”you are a sick old man’ as Prince Andrew joined family members behind the procession of the queen. He was arrested and charged with breach of the peace.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
The Crown Prosecution have declined to disclose the name of the young man involved.
Insiders from the Crown Prosecution have anonymously claimed that the Crown Prosecution Service did not consider it in the public interest for the court to hear a battle between the prosecution and the defence, in which the right to freedom of speech was likely to be an issue of contention.
According to inside sources, the young man pleaded not guilty to the charges of breach of the peace, making a dramatic court battle sure to attract press interest which would be undesirable for the crown and the royal family.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
Reliable sources told this publication that the debate of whether free speech permitted him to openly express his view about Prince Andrew was one prosecutors concluded could undermine the queen’s memory and further dragged the royal family’s name in the mud.
Another protester who was charged has also escaped court for the same reasons.
A anonymous source told this publication: ”Imagine his barrister giving a long speech as to why he was entitled to express his view about Prince Andrew, and the prosecution stressing that his actions amounted to a breach of the peace. It opens up old wounds many would rather leave shut.
‘The verdict would in those circumstances be open to press attention and scrutiny, and that’s if the judge gets it wrong. A case like this can be difficult and a question of opinion for judges at the Magistrates level. If the judge made an error and said freedom of speech was his right, it would misrepresent the true essence of freedom of speech”.
It follows an investigation by this publication for the past month into the reason why the young man and woman charged for breach of the peace were eventually not prosecuted.
Our inquiry has involved communication with inside sources in the Crown prosecution Service, some senior police officers with knowledge about the thinking surrounding the case, and some lawyers.
Human right campaigners were critical of police intervention during the queen’s funeral highlighting the right to free speech, but cops charged the offending parties with breach of the peace.
On November 22 The Crown Prosecution announced that the unnamed man who heckled Prince Andrew will no longer face a judge.
A statement by The Crown Office at the time read: “The procurator fiscal received a report concerning a 22-year-old male in connection with an alleged incident on September 12, 2022. After full and careful consideration of all facts and circumstances, the case was dealt with by way of an offer of an alternative to prosecution.”
In a not dissimilar case, police charged Symon Hill with threatening or abusive words behaviour and or disorderly behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
Mr Hill allegedly made the comments during the ceremony at Carfax Tower in Oxford in September. He will appear at Oxford Magistrate Court on January 31, 2023.
The Crown Prosecution Service was asked by this publication to explain why this case was different from the one in which Prince Andrew was heckled, and whether Mr Hill satisfied the legal threshold of pursuing a course of conduct likely to cause alarm or distress two or more times as defined in the Harassment Act 1998. They provided no response.
The right to freedom of speech is established in law as not being absolute, but subject to other rights depending on the specific circumstances. The decision not to proceed with the case raised eye brows among observant critics and analysts in The Eye Of Media, forcing a probe into the matter.
Another protester who was charged for protesting has also escaped court for the same reasons.
A source told this publication: ”Imagine his barrister giving a long speech as to why he was entitled to express his view about Prince Andrew, and the prosecution stressing that his actions amounted to a breach of the peace. It opens up old wounds many would rather leave shut.
‘The verdict would in those circumstances be open to press attention and scrutiny, and that’s if the judge gets it wrong. A case like this can be difficult and a question of opinion for judges at the Magistrates level. If the judge made an error and said freedom of speech was his right, it would misrepresent the true essence of freedom of speech”.
Freedom of speech is not an open right to just talk how you like, otherwise people would be allowed to attend funerals and refer to the deceased in derogatory terms and be protected by freedom of speech.
‘Free speech is there to allow the expression of genuine opinions and feelings in the correct setting and atmosphere”.
A CPS Prosecution spokesperson told The Eye Of Media.Com:
‘The Prosecution Code is followed for all cases reported to COPFS. The code explains how prosecutors make decisions on whether to prosecute, take alternative action or take no action. The code explains the factors that prosecutors take into account including legal, evidential and public interest considerations.
Alternatives to prosecution can be the most appropriate disposal for some types of crimes to be dealt with outside the court system to ensure that those who commit such offences are dealt with swiftly and effectively. This allows the Prosecutor and Court to focus on more serious crimes.
Prosecuting these individuals in court for minor crime is likely to have a similar outcome to any direct measure offered by the Procurator Fiscal.
The Procurator Fiscal will take into account all relevant facts and circumstances and decide’, it said.
However, the CPS has been unable to fully justify why it felt this necessary, nor has it revealed what alternatives it used to address the issue
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar