New Evidence Suggests Jailed Non-Violent Southport Protestors Were Subject to Intimidation and Poor Legal Representation...
Shocking revelations emerge in exclusive Jamie Michael interview.
The case of Jamie Michael—the former British Royal Marine Commando persecuted by the State for criticising illegal immigration online—sums up the free speech crisis we face today.
A man who served his country was dragged through the courts and repeatedly denied bail for a Facebook video. The charge? “Publishing threatening material” with “intent to stir up religious hatred.”
For details on his case (the Facebook video he posted was by all means tame—nothing that hasn’t been said, for example, in GB News’ London studio):
After a two-day trial, the jury took just 17 minutes to deliver their verdict—not guilty.
It was a humiliating outcome for the Crown Prosecution Service and a grim reminder of how easily the justice system can be weaponised.
Upon his acquittal, Jamie sat down with Dan Morgan (known as The Voice of Wales) and German-U.S. journalist Vicky Richter for an exclusive interview about his ordeal.
He revealed what many feared: alleged police intimidation, apparent negligent and/or incompetent legal representation, and seeming judicial bias.
Arrest
From the moment he was arrested, the mistreatment started.
Police told Jamie his “offence” could carry a seven-year sentence, aggressively handcuffed him despite his calm disposition, and kept him on remand for three days before his initial hearing.
(Meanwhile, violent suspects are often released far sooner—one occurring days ago in London with a man who slashed at another man with a knife.)
He was denied his right to a phone call, warned he might face a terrorism-related charge, and even reportedly threatened with the arrest of his partner.
That would have left their young daughter without a parent to care for her, which “panicked” him, as it would any parent.
The Initial Duty Solicitor
Now, Jamie’s first duty solicitor said something very interesting.
He said that if Jamie had posted the video three months earlier, police would probably have ignored it.
The laws hadn’t changed. The police hadn’t changed. The only difference? A new Prime Minister.
That same solicitor then suggested Jamie should plead guilty to reduce his sentence by a third.
He even implied Jamie had PTSD for commenting on a social media post of a homeless man in a camo-patterned sleeping bag because he thought he was another veteran.
Fortunately, Jamie promptly sacked him and sought help from The Free Speech Union.
The First Judge
During Jamie’s initial hearing, the judge shut him down when he tried to correct the incorrect title of a video shown in court.
That same judge ruled he was to be held on remand for months—until his trial.
Jamie spent another three weeks in prison before his new legal team via The Free Speech Union secured bail.
(Three weeks on remand for a non-violent crime.)
Once released, he was finally able to go home and see his little girl and partner.
But the police weren’t finished with him.
Jamie was meant to be released at 10 a.m. on his girlfriend’s birthday but reportedly wasn’t let out until 7 p.m.
The reason? Police were debating whether he should wear a tag or be placed under curfew—for a Facebook video.
The second judge who presided over Jamie’s trial, however, was what he described as "fair."
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
How the CPS justified prosecuting Jamie—when the jury took just 17 minutes to find him not guilty—remains a mystery.
Three police officers had told Jamie his video would likely lead to nothing. Usually, police struggle to convince the CPS to take on cases.
That raised speculation that his prosecution may have been driven from higher up—a politically motivated case.
After the Southport protests/riots, Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper made a point of cracking down on "hate speech" online, equating it with physical harm. Senior police chiefs echoed similar rhetoric.
Even the head of the CPS warned that his team were seeking out influencers on social media.
Impact on Jamie’s Life
In many ways, the prosecution itself was the punishment.
Jamie lost 30% of his business, was slandered by the mainstream media, and suspended from driving a local school football team to matches, which he had done for three years.
His partner found their young daughter crying in her room, confused about what was happening to her dad.
One acquaintance even falsely accused him of participating in the riots—a direct result of mainstream media reporting.
Wider Implications
By August 2024, the Metro estimated that over 1,000 people had been jailed after the Southport protests/riots.
Many were involved in serious, reprehensible violence.
But many were not. Among those sentenced were dozens of non-violent protestors who pleaded guilty and received reduced terms (though still incredibly lengthy sentences).
Some of the most high-profile cases include Lucy Connolly, Tyler Kay, and Peter Lynch—whose sentencing hearings were full of biased, politically-charged, and highly assumptive remarks from the presiding judges:
If they went through what Jamie endured—reported poor legal advice, police intimidation, and seeming judicial bias—it could arguably amount to coercion.
If that indeed proves to be the case and penetrates the wider mediasphere, it could shake the British “justice system” to its core.
Note of the 6 defendants to go to trial by jury for offences during the Southport unrest, only one has been found guilty. That’s an 83% success rate when those accused have judged by their peers.
I got in touch with Jamie on X yesterday and he said he’ll be releasing some more videos on his ordeal—will post them via Substack Notes as and when they come out.
You can follow Jamie on X here.
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 help change that, you can opt for a paid subscription and help citizen journalists like me attempting to stop it…
UK "justice" system is corrupt to the core. The prosecution was weaponised, and bail denied for free speech whilst rapists go free. The system is a mess and we can't get a free speech supporting Constitution fast enough.
It's not just the criminal justice system; the civil courts are corrupt and easily manipulated, and judges, solicitors and barristers don't even know the laws they are presiding over. Not only that, corrupt solicitors and barristers run amok!