Hi and welcome to this JK B'HAM Crime Report for VPN: REGIONAL NETWORKS:
Birmingham rapper Twista Cheese, whose real name is Omar Abdirizak, recently appeared before Birmingham Magistrates Court to plead not guilty to several serious charges. These charges stem from an allegedly threatening online video directed at right-wing activist Tommy Robinson. In the video, Omar allegedly suggested that Robinson was inciting attacks on mosques, which led to his arrest. Initially, he was charged with spreading false information under Section 179 of the Online Safety Act 2023. However, this charge was later dropped in favor of a charge for sending a grossly offensive or menacing message via a public communications network under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.
In addition to the charges related to the video, Omar is also facing allegations of possession of Class B drugs and a racially aggravated public order offence. Despite the seriousness of these accusations, Omar pleaded not guilty to all charges and was granted unconditional bail. The court will continue to hear his case in the coming months, with further hearings already scheduled. We will continue to provide updates as the case progresses.
Many readers have raised questions about why Omar Abdirizak was granted bail while many recent rioters, who committed offenses during periods of civil unrest, were not. This is a common question, and the answer lies in the legal nuances surrounding bail decisions.
In Omar’s case, his bail was granted for several reasons. Firstly, he pleaded not guilty to the charges, which means his case will proceed to trial rather than directly to sentencing. Under UK law, particularly the Bail Act 1976, there is a presumption in favor of granting bail unless there are substantial reasons to deny it. These reasons could include a risk of the defendant absconding, interfering with witnesses, or committing further offenses while on bail. The court, after considering the specifics of Omar’s case, likely found that these risks were not significant enough to warrant denying him bail.
On the other hand, many of the recent rioters did not receive bail for several key reasons. Many of these individuals pleaded guilty to their charges, which accelerates the legal process, moving directly to the sentencing phase. Given that sentencing could be imminent, courts often decide that remanding these individuals in custody is appropriate. Furthermore, the nature of the rioters’ offenses—often involving violence or threats of violence—suggests a higher risk of them reoffending or posing a threat to public order if released on bail.
Under the Bail Act 1976, the court has the discretion to refuse bail if it believes there is a significant risk that the defendant might commit further offenses while on bail, especially when public safety is a concern. In the case of rioters, the violent nature of their actions during periods of unrest can potentially lead to decisions to keep them in custody until sentencing.
In conclusion, while both cases involve serious offenses, the legal treatment of each depends on various factors, including the nature of the charges, the pleas entered, and the potential risks posed by granting bail. Omar Abdirizak’s not guilty plea, coupled with the specifics of his case, resulted in his release on bail, while the rioters’ guilty pleas and the severity of their actions during civil disturbances led to a different legal outcome.
STAY TUNED and check out our upcoming Friday 23rd article from new colleague Natalie Smith cutting through the spin to reveal the real statistics and untold truths regarding bail decisions for those accused of offences relating to the recent riots and pleading 'not guilty'!!
Well, that’s all for now. But until our next article, please stay tuned, stay informed, but most of all stay safe, and I’ll see you then.
Jason King
Birmingham City-Desk
Twitter (X) @JasonKingNews
Commentaires