A decorated Royal Marine Commando, Jamie Michael, has been put through a legal ordeal that should alarm every citizen who values free speech. Charged with “stirring up racial hatred” for expressing his views on social media, Jamie endured three weeks in prison before being granted bail. After a trial filled with politically charged arguments and attempts to criminalise his concerns, justice finally prevailed—Jamie was found Not Guilty.
But this is no victory lap. This case exposes the increasing weaponisation of the legal system against those who dare to challenge the prevailing narrative.
The Trial: A Fight for Free Speech
From the outset, it was clear that Jamie’s case was not about justice—it was about silencing dissent. The prosecution focused heavily on a video Jamie posted in response to the Southport murders, attempting to argue that his words were likely to stir up racial hatred.
The key points of Jamie’s speech? Urging people to hold politicians accountable, warning of growing security threats, and calling for peaceful community action. He explicitly stated that no violence should take place, yet the authorities still saw fit to arrest, charge, and remand him to prison for detention.
During the trial, the prosecution attempted to twist Jamie’s words, presenting a distorted picture of a man motivated by hatred. But under scrutiny, their case collapsed. Jamie had spoken passionately about his concerns, but within the boundaries of lawful speech. He had backed up his words with actions—working in his community, engaging in peaceful activism, and even welcoming differing viewpoints into discussions.
The judge acknowledged that political speech, even when controversial, is protected under freedom of expression. The jury saw through the attempt to criminalise Jamie for speaking out and returned the only just verdict—Not Guilty.
The Role of the State:
All Criminal cases are refered to the Crown Prosecution Service by the Police, the CPS have a duty to review the evidence to establish if it passes two tests and reaches a threshold:
• There must be sufficient evidence to ensure a realistic prospect of achieving a successful Prosecution and
• It must be in the public interest to proceed with the case.
Even a layperson viewing the video without any legal knowledge can see that the threshold for prosecution has not been met.
This case should have never made it to trial. It was driven by political pressure,
With individuals like Buffy Williams MS and her communications officer Ryan Evans playing an active role in pushing for Jamie’s prosecution. The police, instead of upholding the law impartially, acted as enforcers of ideological conformity.
The body-worn footage shown in court revealed how Jamie was misled at the point of his arrest. Officers reassured him it was “nothing to worry about,” and “it won’t take long” yet he was soon to be locked away for three weeks without trial.
After his arrest and being charged Jamie was held in custody to appear in court. Even when he appeared at court he was refused bail and not allowed to return home to his family.
There are strict rules the court must follow when refusing to grant a person bail:
The Bail Act 1976 allows courts to refuse bail or impose conditions if they believe there are substantial grounds to do so. The court must provide reasons for their decision.
When bail can be refused
• The defendant has a history of not appearing in court
• The defendant has a history of not complying with bail conditions
• The defendant has been convicted of a crime in the past
• The court believes the defendant would commit another offense while on bail
• The court believes the defendant would interfere with witnesses or obstruct justice
• The court believes the defendant would cause physical or mental injury to another person
Jamie did not fall into any of the above categories and should have been granted bail.
When does a decorated veteran, who has served his country with honour, become a bigger threat than the violent criminals he was speaking out against?
A Chilling Precedent
This case is a warning to all of us. If Jamie Michael—a veteran with an impeccable record and a commitment to peaceful activism—can be dragged through the courts for simply voicing his concerns, then who is next? How many others are being silenced, intimidated, and punished for questioning the establishment’s agenda?
This isn’t about race. This isn’t about hate. This is about a state willing to use its power to crush those who refuse to comply. It’s about a government that prioritises ideological policing over the real threats to public safety.
What Comes Next?
Voice of Wales will not let this go. Jamie and his family deserve answers. Why was he targeted? Who made the decision to prosecute him? What role did political pressure play? And most importantly—how do we stop this from happening again?
We will be demanding accountability from those responsible. We will be ensuring that Jamie’s story is heard far and wide. And we will continue to fight for the right of every Welshman and Briton to speak freely without fear of persecution.
Jamie Michael was a political prisoner. Today, he is free. But the battle for free speech in Britain is far from over.
Stay tuned—this is only the beginning.
Editorial by Dan Morgan, Voice of Wales
