Finally we have the proof that Lucy Connolly was stitched up

For non UK readers who may not remember Mrs Connolly’s case. In the immediate aftermath of the murder in Southport of three little girls at a dance class by Axel Rudakubana a 2nd generation immigrant from a Rwandan family Mrs Connolly tweeted in distress and grief (her own child had died some years previously) an angry, violent and intemperate tweet. A few hours later when she had calmed down she thought better of it and deleted it, but not before a ‘neighbour’ had made a screenshot and sent it to the authorities. She was promptly arrested, charged, persuaded (I’d like to know how – the name of that duty  solicitor has never made it into the public domain) to plead guilty and sentenced to 31 months imprisonment. Much longer than many a sex offender or physically violent offender receives. 

We know the government wanted to nip protest in the bud by coming down hard and harsh on protestors. I wrote this in the summer of 2024.  The Telegraph has both information about her case, and opinion from their reporter Allison Pearson, who was herself investigated by Essex police for her social media opinions.

Lucy Connolly had her prosecution for stirring up racial hatred fast-tracked for approval by Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, official documents show.

The childminder’s case was treated as an “emergency charging decision”, under which specialist counter-terrorism prosecutors secured consent for her prosecution from Lord Hermer’s office within 12 hours of asking for it on a Friday night.

The details have been revealed in Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) documents obtained by Connolly through a subject access request, under which individuals can obtain personal data and information held on them by organisations.

The documents reveal the behind-the-scenes actions of police, prosecutors and the Attorney General. Officials say her charge under the Public Order Act of 1986 required Lord Hermer’s consent by law, and the speed was stipulated under a national directive to deal with cases quickly to deter further disorder after rioting in the wake of the Southport killings of three girls.

However, the disclosure has sparked fresh claims that she was a “political prisoner” who was “scapegoated” by the Government.

Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, said: “This clearly shows that the Government wanted to make an example of Lucy Connolly … she was scapegoated by the Government, and it appears to me that, had she pleaded not guilty, she would have had a good chance of being acquitted.

“Thirty one months in prison for an offensive social media post is grossly disproportionate …an immigrant who sexually assaulted a 12-year-old recently got off with no prison at all.”

Last year, as I was researching the story of Lucy Connolly, I gradually became convinced that Lucy was the victim of a miscarriage of justice. Or, at the very least, the Northampton childminder, wife of Ray, a Tory councillor, and mother of two children (only one of them living, Harry was lost to NHS negligence aged 19 months) had been made an example of by a British state that was increasingly nervous that people no longer accepted its narrative on multiculturalism – “Diversity is our strength!”.

Lucy was denied bail, although as a first-time offender with a blameless record she was the perfect candidate for it. With remarkable speed, her case was rushed through. Lucy was held on remand in prison and was persuaded by a duty solicitor that “going guilty” was her best option if she wanted to be home in time for Christmas with her 12-year-old daughter.

Such a case might be expected to be heard in a magistrates’ court – I was told by one horrified magistrate that she would be “looking for any reason not to jail someone like Lucy” – but a magistrate could not have given Lucy a long sentence, something we could speculate the state was rather keen on in the aftermath of the Southport “riots”.

The Connollys were shocked when the judge at Birmingham Crown Court delivered a lecture on what a diverse and tolerant nation the UK was and then, apparently ignoring all the mitigating factors and the powerful testimonials from ethnic-minority parents, sentenced Lucy to a shocking 31 months in jail.

I was deeply suspicious about Lucy Connolly’s case. Ray Connolly was almost as demonised as Lucy for insisting on Sky News “my wife is not a racist”. I believed him. After my own brush with police over a long-deleted tweet, I began to talk to Lucy in prison, and heard how she was being denied the normal leave granted even to hardcore offenders. I came to the chilling conclusion she was effectively a political prisoner.

After I wrote about Lucy, her story was picked up around the world, contributing to a growing alarm that Britain – ironically led by “human rights” lawyer Sir Keir Starmer – was exercising censorship of our ancient free-speech rights.

Much of this was surmise and not easy to prove. Questioned about the case, the Prime Minister said he had no knowledge of it. Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, was said not to have been involved in the sentencing of Mrs Connolly and others arrested in connection with the Southport riots. When Lucy applied to the CPS for her files, they said they didn’t have them.

Like many things Lucy was told, that wasn’t true. She put in a SAR (Subject Access Request) and this week was finally sent all the relevant documents. Some of what they contain is utterly damning – not of Lucy but of the criminal justice system that was clearly in a hurry to punish her as harshly as possible.

Lucy was charged on the night of August 9. By 9.45am the following day – a Saturday, when good lawyers are hard to find – the CPS had got confirmation that Lord Hermer had signed off the prosecution. Up early, was he? Emails said the case had gone through as an “emergency prosecution”, what one senior barrister described to me as “almost certainly unlawful”.

Lord Hermer is a personal friend of Keir Starmur. Together with disgraced corrupt solicitor Phil Shiner, in 2005 when they were still in legal practice, they worked pro bono (ie unpaid and voluntary) on the Al-Skeini case   which opened the floodgates for a witch hunt of British troops for faked war crimes during the Iraq war.  

“They have to prove it’s an emergency – and it clearly isn’t,” he said. “What is it they’re trying to prevent? Mrs Connolly had already deleted her tweet. Saying it’s an emergency prosecution is clearly political.”

On email, the CPS continued: “There is evidence of other racist tweets sent on L.C’s account. Both before and after the particular tweet. This demonstrates that this was not a one-off regrettable tweet but part of her dislike for immigrants and a desire for…” [The final word of the sentence is redacted.]

Not true. “No further racist tweets were found on my phone or my Twitter account,” Lucy says. “This is confirmed by Northamptonshire Police in a reply to a complaint I made against them. There is one charge for one tweet on the indictment.” If the police or CPS claimed there were other racist tweets then they “misled the court,” says the barrister, “which is very serious.”

The courts were also told that charges and sentencing should reflect the “seriousness” with which Parliament “has approached the issue of racial hostility”. What has Parliament got to do with it? Isn’t the judiciary supposed to be independent?

As Lucy’s was a first offence she could have been fined and her case heard in a magistrates’ court. But, in the documents, the CPS reveals that they’ve been told that people (involved in Southport) are going to get custodial sentences of more than 12 months. Judges have been told that they will have to award a certain sentence. “They have a Sentencing Council which they claim is independent,” says the barrister. “Specifying what the sentence should be is definitely political interference.”