On the first afternoon of his trial, Tommy Robinson posted a “court update” reporting a “general consensus among those in attendance”: “Where is the crime” and “How has this met the CPS threshold to prosecute?” That’s a defendant’s own account of how his trial is going, describing a public gallery that included his supporters. Lucy Connolly took it further. Robinson asked two questions. She answered them as statements, saying it “is not in the public interest” and does not meet the threshold to prosecute. She then concluded there is “absolutely no debating” that Britain lacks a fair, honest and independent judiciary. A question became a fact and the fact became a verdict on the whole justice system. The trial is live. Robinson is charged with two counts of harassment causing fear of violence to MailOnline reporters Andrew Young and Jacob Dirnhuber through his X account between 5 and 7 August 2024, and he denies the charges. It is listed as a five-day jury trial at Southwark Crown Court, which began on 19 October. Connolly’s post mixes up two completely different institutions. The CPS is not the judiciary. Prosecutors decide whether to charge. Judges don’t. Anyone who thinks the CPS got the charging decision wrong is criticising the prosecution service, and that says nothing about whether judges are fair, honest or independent. The CPS also doesn’t charge on public interest alone. The Code for Crown Prosecutors sets a two-stage test: first, is there enough evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction, and only then, is a prosecution in the public interest? You can disagree with how that test was applied. But asserting it “is not in the public interest” is her view, and it certainly isn’t an established fact. And “Where is the crime” is precisely the question this trial exists to answer. On the first day, the jury had barely begun hearing the evidence. The defendant has pleaded not guilty. He is presumed innocent. The verdict will be decided by a jury of ordinary members of the public, after hearing both sides, under rules of evidence designed to protect him. If the prosecution can’t prove its case, the jury acquits. Far from showing a corrupt system, that is the system doing exactly what it should. Which raises an obvious question. The trial isn’t over. If the jury acquits, does the judiciary suddenly become fair, honest and independent? A verdict on the whole justice system declared before the actual verdict is in tells us the conclusion came first. I agree with one line, though. Everyone should demand a fair and honest justice system, whether they love Robinson or hate him. But that principle cuts both ways: it means letting the trial run its course, and accepting that a jury, not a crowd in the public gallery or an X timeline, decides the outcome.