Regina v Miranda Yardley: More DARVO from Helen Islan

In the Daily Mail today “Britain’s first transgender hate crime trial is halted after one day as judge says ‘there is no case and never was a case“, the complainant against me Helen Islan tries to distance herself from the proceedings which were brought in her name:

‘The decision to prosecute was made by the CPS, not me personally and I accept the verdict of the court.’

It does not surprise me she is trying to wash herself of responsibility. Having tried to blackmail the court by saying she was unprepared to give evidence unless her name was subjected to a press restrictions order, her evidence on Friday appeared to me to be incredibly dishonest as she attempted to distance herself from anything and everything she has said and done: apparently never having tweeted under her real name, it was ‘esoteric search engines’ which created and posted tweets under the name ‘Helen Islan’, as shown by screen captures of these tweets in the evidence bundle. In spite of admitting in her statement and even evidence given to open court that she was a volunteer with Mermaids, getting her to acknowledge anything was met with denial of the facts, attacks on my character and reversals… now where have we seen that before?

The upshot is, her evidence was like witnessing a tooth extraction. I suspect the judge agreed, from the way he was rolling his eyes and having to tell Islan to stop wasting the court’s time waffling and just answer the questions. Islan was so unreliable as a witness, so truculent, I would not have been surprised should she have been indicted for perjury.

Anyway, back to the original quote which I will reproduce again so that we are clear as to Islan’s words:

‘The decision to prosecute was made by the CPS, not me personally and I accept the verdict of the court.’

On 10 August last year, I received from Islan’s solicitors Mishcon de Reya a three page legal letter threatening me with a High Court injunction, action for defamation and a costs order. This letter was I believe funded by the Mishcon de Reya ‘Pink Law‘ initiative, so again Islan benefitted from LGBT without herself being a part of this world.

What a hypocrite.

11 Replies to “Regina v Miranda Yardley: More DARVO from Helen Islan”

  1. Thanks Miranda …you may be male by birth….but you have a true woman s heart..
    Keep up the much needed work…..I believe like many others we can all live together….but like all important issues it needs effort and thoughfulness…

  2. So sad that you’ve had to go through this, Miranda – but glad that it’s over for you. Take care of yourself and try and get some rest.

  3. A tremendous victory Miranda. So sorry you had to suffer through silently for months. You are real hero for so many of us. Xxxx

  4. Was very surprised and also very sad to learn that you had this stress and worry hanging over your head all these months. Awful experience that should never of happened!

    I have a lot of respect for you, you stay true in standing up for what is right and are very humble about it too.

    If anything this has shown those that may not already now what a true fucking legend you are, a legend in your own unique way.

  5. Sorry you had to go through the anxiety of having to defend yourself in Court but what a satisfaction it must be to find out the law is on your side. Great victory for fairness and rationality, thank you for representing such a sound critical voice against the madness of identity politics.

  6. Miranda didn’t need to defend himself in court. Helen Islan’s account was so unreliable the judge threw it out as “no case to answer”. Miranda was not the first to be harassed through the courts and won’t be the last either, more’s the pity. I fear this is just the beginning.

    Miranda, I think you’re fab and admire you so much for all that you say and do.

  7. Miranda, you are an incredible person. I’m so sorry you had to go through all of this, and thank you so much for everything you do on behalf of truth. It will win out in the end.

    Just for my own understanding, can you clarify something for me? Your lawyers (and the Daily Mail) say that this is the first transgender hate crime charged in the UK. Government hate crime data here https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/hate-crime-data says that there were 63 convictions for transphobic hate crimes in 2017-2018. What is causing the discrepancy? Is it ambiguity around the term “hate crime”? Thanks!

    PS this is not a goady question and I’m not accusing anyone of dishonesty. I’m just trying to get my head round the terminology for when I talk to people about the legal issues.

  8. You’re a wonderfully brave and brilliant person – a true civil rights campaigner on all levels, but especially protecting the ordinary population from creeping injunctions and scary silencing of diversity of opinions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *