Lawyers "Sickened" by Judiciary's Treatment of Lucy Connolly—Non-Violent Southport Protestor Update

Key revelations from Allison Pearson's recent exposè in The Telegraph with some added context.

In the wake of the Southport protests/riots, the state arguably needed a fall guy. Someone to set an example of. And they it looks like they found one in Lucy Connolly.

This week, The Telegraph’s Allison Pearson sat down with Lucy’s husband, Ray, revealing thus far undisclosed details about her case and how she was, and still is, being mistreated today.

Her story evokes uncomfortable parallels with other cases—like that of former Royal Marine Jamie Michael—where his online criticism of illegal immigration led to state persecution and alleged intimidation.

Lucy was one of more than 1,500 people arrested following the unrest after the July 29 murders of three little girls—Elsie Dot Stancombe, Bebe King, and Alice da Silva Aguiar—by Axel Rudakubana.

She took no part in the riots. She wasn’t even near them. Her crime involved a tweet—posted at 8:30pm on the night of the murders. It read:

“Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f---ing hotels full of the b-----ds for all I care, while you’re at it take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist so be it.”

It was a savage, emotionally charged post. But “Set fire to [x] for all I care” is very different to calling for outright arson.

She walked the dog, came home, and deleted the tweet. It was visible for less than four hours.

The next morning, as parents arrived to drop their children off at Lucy’s home-based childcare business, police showed up and arrested her. Ray, her husband, had no idea what was going on.

The children Lucy had cared for included those from Nigerian, Somali, Jamaican, Bangladeshi, Lithuanian and Polish families—hardly the CV of a vehement racist.

But at the police station, Lucy’s apologies and explanations fell on deaf ears. “Whatever I’d done, police made it quite clear I was going down for this,” she recounted. “Their intention was always to hammer me.”

A young duty solicitor commissioned a psychiatric report—but the assessment lasted just an hour, conducted over a video call.

Nothing like the thorough evaluation she received years earlier after the horrific death of her infant son, Harry, due to NHS negligence. That diagnosis had confirmed she suffered from PTSD.

Then, things turned cynical.

The police and CPS released a public statement claiming Lucy had told officers she “did not like immigrants” and that “children weren’t safe around them.”

Except, she didn’t say that. The full accurate police transcript read:

“I’m well aware that we need immigrants… I’m well aware that if I go to the hospital there are immigrants working there and the hospital wouldn’t function without them. I’m [also] well aware of the difference between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants and they are not checked and [nor is] what they might have done (any crimes) in their country of origin – it’s a national security issue and they’re a danger to children.”

Lucy’s mother challenged the CPS directly. They eventually corrected the statement on their website. One would think she had a solid case for defamation.

Police also accused her of additional “racism”, which boiled down to Lucy once calling a friend “Pikey” after he’d jokingly called her a “Brummie c--t.”

All considered, she was formally charged under Section 19 of the Public Order Act on 10th August—“publishing material intended to stir up racial hatred.”

She applied for bail but was swiftly denied.

And this is where the double standard comes in.

Compare her treatment to that of Labour MP and mayor Dan Norris—arrested just days ago on suspicion of rape, child sex offences, child abduction, and misconduct in public office. Within hours, he was released on conditional bail.

Lucy, by contrast, was held on remand—on suspicion of breaking a non-violent crime. Some reports conflict on the timeline, but all agree: she was held on remand before she entered a plea and up to her sentencing.

Lawyers told Pearson they were “astonished” by the denial of bail.

There were no substantial grounds. She’d already deleted her social media. She was very unlikely to reoffend or flee—not with a husband and 12-year-old daughter at home.

One Southport defendant’s lawyer told Pearson it likely wasn’t formal political pressure but “informal”—a “herd mentality” triggered by fear of further unrest.

Stuck in jail, Lucy faced a grim choice: fight and risk months inside awaiting trial, or plead guilty and get out quicker. “I might not get to court until spring,” she told Ray. “I want to be home with Ray and Holly.”

So that was that, she was to plead guilty—despite insisting that it was not her intent “to be racist”.

Ray gathered character references for her upcoming sentencing hearing. One came from a Nigerian-born doctor whose children Lucy cared for as a childminder.

Raymond Connolly, who serves as a Conservative councillor for West Northamptonshire

The doctor said, “I have never had any cause to doubt Lucy’s kindness…” Lucy even acted as a formal referee when her family members when they applied for British citizenship.

“She personally drove to my home to drop these letters herself”, the doctor wrote.

Another came from an immigrant whose children Lucy cared for, saying “she is compassionate and empathetic… We came to this country as immigrants working in the NHS.”

The “Activist-Judge”

But none—none—of this appeared to matter to His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC, Recorder of Birmingham, when he handed down Lucy’s sentence on 17 October—two full months after she was denied bail.

Inman made sweeping assumptions:

“When you published those words, you were well aware of how volatile the situation was. As everyone is aware, that volatility led to serious disorder in a number of areas of the country where mindless violence was used to cause injury and damage to wholly innocent members of the public and to their properties... ”

But there was a glaring problem.

While Lucy’s tweet may have been provocative, savage, whatever you want to call it, the court had no material evidence that her words led a single person to commit violence.

No indication that someone saw her post and then went out and committed a crime. There was also no objective evidence of her intent to stir racial hatred despite her plea.

Inman then referenced “other tweets” that included “further racist remarks”—but failed to explain how. The example cited came from a WhatsApp message Lucy sent on 5 August, the day before her arrest:

“…raging tweet about burning down hotels has bit me on the arse lol”

Clearly, she had no idea what was in store. But no race was mentioned. Nor did it suggest malice—more like regret, albeit glibly expressed.

Inman continued:

“You also messaged that if enquiries of you were made, you would deny you were responsible for the message and if you were arrested you would ‘play the mental health card.’”

That remark from Lucy, made in jest or not—we simply don’t know—may have referenced her 2011 PTSD diagnosis following the death of her 19-month-old son. Inman seemed to interpret it in the worst way possible.

He also claimed Lucy showed no sympathy to the Southport victims. But her infamous original tweet included the line:

“I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure.”

She voiced sympathy from the start—explicitly.

The judge’s language became more political than judicial:

“It is the strength of our society that it is both diverse and inclusive. There is always a very small minority of people who will seek an excuse to use violence and disorder… Sentences for those who incite racial hatred and disharmony in our society are intended to both punish and deter.”

There it was, “punish and deter”.

Before sentencing Lucy he acknowledged:

“You have a good family and a young daughter who is undoubtedly missing you terribly. I also take into account that this will be the first time you have been in prison.”

That didn’t stop him from issuing a whopping 31 months in prison—two and a half years. She was ordered to serve 40% of the sentence.

Compare that to another case Inman presided over: Mohammed Abbkr—the man who set two Muslim worshippers on fire in 2023.

He was found guilty of attempted murder. And yet, Inman deemed a prison sentence “inappropriate” due to Abbkr’s mental health condition evidenced by some psychologists. He issued an indefinite hospital order instead.

Then there’s the case of Haris Ghaffar, 19, who pled guilty to violent disorder after joining a masked mob that stormed a Birmingham pub in August.

Haris Ghaffar.

The pub, The Clumsy Swan, was targeted reportedly after false rumours spread that the disbanded English Defence League was “planning to target the Muslim community.”

Ghaffar kicked at the door while staff and patrons barricaded themselves inside. Inman sentenced him to just 20 months.

Inman’s politically charged statements, along with his pattern of choosing the more lenient end of the sentencing range for violent crimes and the harsher end for non-violent offences, suggest more than a lapse in judgment—they point to potential ideological bias.

His apparent disregard for Lucy’s mitigating factors only adds weight to the accusation—a first-time offender, mother of a 12-year-old girl, wife to a man with serious blood illness, and someone with documented trauma.

Lawyers who spoke to Pearson were baffled. “Sickening,” said one. “Outrageous,” said another. “A normally reliable judge was wildly out.”

Imprisonment

HMP Peterborough.

After the sentencing hearing, Lucy messaged Ray and Holly:

“Please don’t live on chicken nuggets and Haribos.”

Once inside, Lucy found herself housed with drug dealers, thieves—and murderers. One, “Patio Sue,” had buried both parents in her back garden.

And yet, Pearson reports that Lucy adjusted well, given the circumstances. When asked by fellow inmates why she was in, and told them “for a tweet,” they cracked up.

But her struggle didn’t end there.

Lucy has been eligible for Release on Temporary Licence (ROTL) since November. The scheme permits two overnight visits per month for low-risk inmates. It’s unavailable to violent, sexual, or terrorist offenders.

Lucy qualifies. Yet, her applications have been denied.

Ray said Lucy’s probation officer fought for her. But prison officials reportedly said there was “no way” she’d be released—because of press and public perception.

Lucy filed a formal complaint. The official excuse was that her risk assessment wasn’t complete—despite being told otherwise.

“I’ve read every single case about requirements for ROTL,” She said. “Are you low risk to the community? Yes. Are you the primary carer for your child? Yes.”

To add insult, two other prisoners—convicted of death by dangerous driving—were granted home detention curfews during the same period. They’re home on a more generous release scheme.

Eventually, disillusioned with the Peterborough facility, she requested a transfer to a prison in Staffordshire, where she’s now appealing for release with the support of the Free Speech Union.

The Injustice System

Ray summed it up to Pearson, bluntly:

“They want to use her as an example. Political? Maybe. But I think they just want to send a warning: Watch what you say—because if you don’t, the consequences could be horrendous.”

That, perhaps more than anything, is the real message. Lucy was made an example of. Even if it meant tipping the scales of justice.

Contrasting her case to fellow non-violent Southport protestor Megan Morrison, a 27-year-old from Workington, Cumbria, makes her excessive punishment even more pronounced.

Megan, too, was charged with publishing material with the intent to stir up racial hatred. Her post—uploaded to Facebook—showed a photograph of violent disorder outside a Holiday Inn in Rotherham housing asylum seekers with a caption suggesting the same should happen outside the Cumberland Hotel.

The cases are remarkably similar. Both involved incendiary posts and came amid heightened public tensions.

But when Megan was sentenced in March, she received a six-month jail term, suspended for 18 months. She was ordered to complete 160 hours of unpaid work and abide by a two-month nighttime curfew.

Judge Nicholas Barker accepted her remorse. She had apologised and withdrawn from social media. And unlike Inman who used his hearings to lecture offenders about “diversity” and “inclusivity,” Barker kept it grounded:

“What you did was to demonstrate an implied assertion that you supported the actions that these mindless thugs were taking.”

It seems some of our judges are capable of fair(er) justice. Others are simply not. Perhaps folks abroad looking on—maybe even some liberals—can now see why the British justice system is under such intense and growing scrutiny.

You can read Pearson’s full exposè—here (highly, highly recommended).

---

---

• Do you think if things stay the way they are our best days are ahead of us?

• Are you going to sit down and watch as our media/government officials push for yet more invasive, authoritarian, censorious policy?

• If you want to do something today to change that, supporting citizen journalists like myself could make a genuine difference. In the past year alone, The Stark Naked Brief reached over 90 million people on X (Yep, 90 crazy.) Sometimes, all it takes is one post to wake someone up…

---