
Bristol Court tramples on freedom of speech
A magistrates court in Bristol has convicted two Christian preachers charged with public order offences.
The case against two other men collapsed.
Justices of the Peace Mr Robert Stacey (Chairman), Mr Gerry McDermot and Mrs Josephine Ramsden gave judgment on Tuesday 28th February 2017. The justices rode roughshod over principles of freedom of speech set out in a catalogue of previous cases.
They imposed a fine and costs on each convicted totalling £2016.
Afterwards it emerged Robert Stacey is a high-ranking Freemason – Click here for our investigation into ‘the craft’.
The case arose over an outreach in Bristol city centre last July (2016). Four preachers were setting out the Gospel in front of John Wesley’s Chapel in Broadmead.
Out of the four, Don Karns had charges laid and then withdrawn. Having heard the prosecution case against Adrian Clark, their worships decided he had no case to answer. That left Michael Overd and Michael Stockwell who were found guilty today.
Public Order Act
The men were prosecuted under the Public Order Act 1986. This says, at Section 5:
‘(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—
‘(a) uses threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
‘(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening or abusive, ‘within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.’
The Court saw a video of the whole event recorded by one of the defendants.
In the video Mr Overd described the crowd as ‘depraved’ because of their ignorance of God. He told them he had been like that himself. He said all mankind were liars and thieves, and he specifically included Mohammed and the Buddha in that. Allah was a false god, he said, and only Jesus Christ was the way to salvation. He denounced extra-marital sex and homosexual behaviour.
Crossed the line

But the Crown, said Mr Ian Jackson, prosecuting, held that these ‘crossed the line’.
Mr Stockwell told the crowd the ‘Thief comes to kill, steal and destroy’. ‘People were on their way to hell because of their failure to adopt the world view of Christianity’, said Mr Jackson.
The inclusion of homosexuality in a list containing thieves and drunkards also crossed the line into abuse.
But Michael Phillips, defending, told the court the list of sinners was in the Bible, at 1Cor 6:9-10. It was the same passage cited in the Appeal Court case of Alison Redmond-Bate, where important principles of free speech were laid down and her conviction set aside.
There, as in this case, said Mr Phillips, a hostile crowd gathered and the police were called to maintain order. There, as in this case, the preachers rather than the trouble-makers were wrongly arrested.
Witnesses gave false evidence
The prosecution brought four witnesses. Event Sales Manager Dimitri Lavallée, describing himself as a Buddhist, had called the police, by falsely telling them the preachers were making racist and homophobic statements. He saw no violence and heard no threats. He evidently did not like ‘peoples faith and lifestyle choices’ being criticised.

Witness Ahsanul Khan said he was shopping and engaged the preachers about Islam and the authenticity of the Bible. He agreed he enjoyed the cut and thrust of debate. But he did not like the preachers ‘saying all of us were sinners’. They were ‘discriminating us’, he said.
Alexander Walker could not remember the substance of any remarks but said some in the crowd were ‘incensed’ by them.
Finally, Lindsay Tamsin Powell said she was in Bristol’s Broadmead saw a placard about Islam and heard the preachers say gay people ‘would burn in hell’. A preacher told a gay person he was ‘disgusting’, she said.
She stayed for about an hour, did not see any violence, but said she was ‘upset’. Ms Powell did not to see people ‘hated on’. She thought we should be ‘nice to each other’. The preachers ‘told a Muslim guy he would burn in hell’, she said.
Mr Phillips asked Lindsay Powell to identify which man in the dock said gays and Muslims would ‘burn in hell’. She pointed to Mr Stockwell. But it was never said, Mr Phillips told her. ‘Disgusting’ was never said either. There was no anti-Islam placard. Her testimony was false.
All the witnesses accepted they had stayed around and anyone was free to listen or to leave.
Provoking violence?
Mr Robert Stacey, speaking on behalf of the bench, said the case revolved around whether the individual behaviour of the two defendants crossed the line between freedom of speech and public disorder. He said the case law set the bar very high before the law should intervene. Speakers had to ‘move into the territory of provoking violence’, he said.
The court heard no evidence of any violence. But the bench held the mere fact some disorderly elements in the crowd became restless meant the preachers had provoked violence. Mr Stacey, who had some difficulty in reading what he had written and pronouncing long words like ‘Catholicism;, said the preachers were abusive and disorderly.
In addition, they were motivated by hostility to religious beliefs and therefore the offence was ‘aggravated’. This was despite the statute law saying religious aggravation only kicked in when hatred was directed at members of a religious group, not at their religious beliefs in isolation.
The case was proved ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’, added Mr Stacey.
Bristol case highlights uncertainty
Mr Phillips told Christian Voice there was an automatic right of appeal to the Crown Court to be heard by a circuit judge, far more learned in the law than lay magistrates. Moreover, it is almost certain the convictions will be quashed there. But in the meantime, Mr Overd and Mr Stockwell have this conviction hanging over them and other preachers – and the law – appear to be in a state of uncertainty.
It surely cannot stand, as Mr Overd reported, that some police forces maintain the right of preachers to freedom of speech while others arrest them. There should be much better guidance both to police forces in the United Kingdom and to the Crown Prosecution Service.
Michael Overd and Michael Stockwell have appealed to the Crown Court. The last time that happened, the Crown’s case collapsed. It will again. What happened last time is still a good read! Street preaching is legal!
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.







Roman justice eventually decided that prosecution giving false testimony should take the punishment if they were shown to have given false witness. I kinda think that if the UK was as enlightened, rather than being sub-pagan, quite a few might think twice before blowing a false whistle. One wonders whether Christophobic police should also face dismissal if found to have falsely arrested those declared to be innocent of false charges. Gotta say I have lost confidence in British police over the decades.
Wonder if Christian crowds (as pro-God & pro-homosexuals), getting agitated around a prohomosexualism or proIslamic preachers, wouldn’t get arrested rather than the preachers they dobbed in. Ah, the scales of justice?
The critical issue in this case is that the right to speak the word of God in public is protected. This must be defended up to the Supreme Court and/or the European Court of Human Rights. My understanding of the judgement by the magistrates at first instance is that preaching on, for example, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 was held to be in breach of the Public Order Act. This must be overturned.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (ESV)
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
The JP’s logic is that the list associates homosexuality with theft and drunkenness, is abuse. This cannot be allowed to be incorporated into the law as a precedent. The rights of Christians to preach the Bible in a public place must be upheld as a human right. Analysis of the Bible clearly indicates that homosexuality is a sin. This may offend some, but that does not make it abuse – rather fair comment, our right to state in accordance with our Christian faith.
Notwithstanding the allegedly false witness brought in this case, it is on this issue Christian’s must make a sacrificial stand.
I have blogged about this:
http://www.bobhutton1.blogspot.com
Clearly the accused were not guilty under English Law where Mens Rea is an absolute requirement unless specifically excluded by the Act of Parliament involved. Obviously the Magistrates are unaware of this.
However, the comments you quote demonstrate the lack of understanding of the appropriate Biblical Doctrine. No where in God’s Word is the close friendship between men (and women) condemned or even criticised. In fact, as regard David and Jonathan it is applauded. What IS completely condemned is Sodomy and Buggery. See 1 Cor 6 v 9 -11. Please note, they are NOT unforgivable sins: “and such were some of you, but…..). As individuals, we may feel more offended by certain act.
The preacher’s (especially street preachers) direction is to preach the Word of God. They would do well to stick to the simple words of Scripture which God promises is the Sword of the Spirit and will cut into human consciences. Then there is no possibility of them being accused (at least in true Christian based societies) of law breaking. We know that the preaching of the Word will cause offence and that Jesus is the basis thereof (I Peter 2.v 8) but if we leave the Holy Spirit to stir up peoples consciences, the Police are not going to arrest Him (using the male pronoun to include the female and whatever description applies in Heaven!).
But, I have no scriptural authority to dictate what another Bible believing Christian truly believes to be his God inspired action, nor to assume my beliefs are infallible (other than those which are clearly and indisputably stated in Scripture).
Remember, no one can ever be “reasoned” or “argued” into God’s Kingdom. That is solely God’s province although He has graciously involved humans in the process of preaching the Gospel.
The three will be in my prayer time so please keep us up to date in the matter.
Calling ordinary people depraved, liars and thieves, is offensive .
Telling people they are going to burn in hell is offensive.
A Muslim could equally tell you that you are going to burn in hell .This kind of discussion is not going to get you anywhere. Love thy neighbour .
It’s offensive, but is it criminal? The answer to that is what the magistrates got wrong.
The crime is not one of causing offence, but ‘abuse’. It is not a Public Order Offence to state something that some may disagree with, or even be offended by. The statement must be abusive, beyond reasonable doubt, ie in the opinion of most reasonable people a personal, severe and totally unacceptable insult, and hence not a statement of general opinion or belief. Preaching the Bible will sometimes cover issues that people disagree with. And it may well offend some. But it is palpably a statement of belief. Any Biblical quotation is tacitly preceded with “I believe that” and “I invite you also to believe that”. A statement of personal belief, faith, cannot reasonably be held to be offensive, as it is inherently open to the recipient to disbelieve it. For a Christian to state that, uniquely, ‘Jesus is the way, the truth and the life; No one comes to the Father except through Him’ (John 14:6) is no more or less offensive that a Moslem to say, as they do, the only way to allah is through Muhammad. Both would disagree with the other but both should reasonably wish protect peoples’ rights to expound their faith and beliefs.
English law associates the Bible with the truth, which is why one is invited in court to swear an oath to tell the truth on it, and also it’s role in the Sovereign’s Coronation oath. If the law recognises it as true, as in Libel, statement of truth cannot reasonably be held to be abusive and hence illegal.
You know that, and I know that, and the Defence set that out. But Robert Stacey and his colleagues still found our brothers guilty.
Rox: “Love thy neighbour”
if sinners (and that includes you Rox, as it once did us all: all true Christians have repented and were once sinners and have now been forgiven, and are attempting to follow Jesus, love our neighbours, etc (although, to a greater or lesser degree far from perfect in this life)) ARE going to hell unless they repent and accept forgiveness through Jesus’ death on the cross for our sins, as the Bible says, then the loving thing to do is to warn them of the consequences of their actions in choosing not to repent. This is what Christian street preachers are attempting to do. Not to warn them would be the UNloving thing to do.
I don’t think I’m all that bad.
Where in the Gospels does Jesus say that everybody is a sinner who is going to Hell, and where does he describe Hell as a place full of demons who will torture these sinners ?
“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3v23)
“All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.” (Isaiah 64v6)
John 3v18, Matt 25v46, etc etc etc, Jesus spoke a lot about hell as a place of everlasting punishment, more than any other subject apparently. Jesus primary “mission” was to come to this earth as the Son of God and Man, to die on the Cross to take the punishment OUR sins deserve, satisfying God’s justice and righteousness (sin MUST be punished somehow: this is justice), so that we may go free.
This article summarises it well: https://www.gotquestions.org/who-will-go-to-hell.html
I pray you will come to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, Rox.
A sad day for British so-called “justice”. More to come? These vague definitions of “causing offence” etc were always going to be used eventually against Christians and Christian street preachers, maybe that’s what the devil had in mind when he put it into the minds of our legislators to do it. Meanwhile moves are afoot to criminalise criticism of islam. The PC, feminised British Police, as the article says, will arrest the ones “provoking violence” rather than the ones engaging in it.
Meanwhile, most of the so-called “church” sleeps on.
A further report on the matter from Christian Concern – http://christianconcern.com/our-concerns/freedom-of-speech/street-preachers-convicted-for-quoting-bible-in-modern-day-heresy-tri
Here is the Bristol Post report, including video of the incident. The comments and their evaluation generally support free speech. http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/christian-street-preachers-found-guilty-of-abusing-bristol-shoppers-and-causing-angry-scenes/story-30169790-detail/story.html
[…] Bristol Magistrates Convict Preachers […]
Rox: “I don’t think I’m all that bad”
Doubtless, Rox, but the standard for being justified before God and entering heaven is ABSOLUTE PERFECTION. Only one person has ever been absolutely perfect, the Lord Jesus Christ. Unless you are as perfect as Him (and no-one else is) you are on the “broad road to destruction, and many are they that travel thereon”. True Christians have recognised their sinfulness before God, accepted Jesus’ death on the Cross as payment for their sins, and now try their best to live holy lives pleasing to God. Christians say that Christ’s righteousness has been imputed to them, so that when God looks at us, He see Jesus’ righteousness, for we realise we have none of our own. You may have heard the phrase, “covered by the Blood”, this is what it means.