LAST UPDATE | 4 Sep

GRAHAM LINEHAN ’S ONLINE posts about a transgender activist were “oppressive” and “vindictive”, a court has heard.

The 57-year-old comedy writer appeared at Westminster Magistrates’ Court today, where he faces trial accused of harassing transgender activist Sophia Brooks.

He has denied one count of harassing the activist on social media between 11 and 27 October last year, and a further charge of criminal damage of her mobile phone on 19 October last year.

Before going into court, the writer posed with a sandwich board-style sign which said on one side “There’s no such thing as a ‘transgender child’”, and on the other, “Keep men out of women’s sports”.

Prosecutor Julia Faure Walker said Linehan posted about the activist “relentlessly”.

Graham Linehan wore a sandwich board-style sign as he arrived at court. PA PA

She said: “These posts were not merely irritating or annoying, but rather oppressive and unacceptable, thereby crossing the threshold into harassment.

“These posts were not provoked by Ms Brooks online in respect of anything she had done to Graham Linehan.”

Faure Walker added: “The purpose of the posts was clearly not merely to relay events, to express political opinion, to criticise, to help identify perpetrators or to try to solve any crime.

“Nor is it a case that these posts merely presented ideas that may shock, disturb or offend.

“Rather, they were verbally abusive and vindictive, and reflected Mr Linehan’s deep disliking of Ms Brooks.”

Linehan, wearing a white shirt, grey jacket and dark trousers, appeared in the dock at the court and spoke to confirm his identity.

On 11 October last year, an LGB Alliance conference was disrupted when some girls inside released insects, the prosecution said.

They were escorted out, and Brooks was not one of them, Faure Walker said, adding: “There is absolutely no evidence she was involved.

“Despite there being no evidence that Brooks participated, Linehan linked disruption of event to her.”

Linehan posted online a number of times about Brooks, the court heard.

On 13 October last year, the defendant asserted that Brooks was “behind countless episodes of harassment of women and gay men both online and off”, adding “he is a deeply disturbed sociopath and I believe he had some involvement in Friday’s homophobic attack”, the prosecution said.

Giving evidence, Brooks told the court that she “felt alarmed and distressed” at being called a “deeply disturbed sociopath” by Linehan.

She added: “I was being branded as a deeply disturbed sociopath by a relatively famous person with over 500,000 followers – any of which could see Mr Linehan’s post and cause great harm to me.”

Linehan posted about someone with the name “Tarquin”, which Faure Walker said is the defendant’s “derogatory term” for the complainant.

Graham Linehan at Westminster Magistrates’ Court today PA PA

Asked how the Tarquin name came to be used, Brooks told the court: “It is apparently to do with my poshness.”

The defendant and complainant met for the first time on 19 October last year outside the “Battle of ideas” conference.

Brooks had been inside the venue and had been taking photos or videoing on her phone, then later the defendant “approached her with his phone, recording her and calling her a groomer and asking how many she had groomed”, the prosecution said.

A few hours later, Brooks was outside the venue, near the entrance. Linehan exited with other people.

While filming with her phone, Brooks called out his name and asked why he had called her a “domestic terrorist”, referring to the phrase that Linehan had used in his posts about her, the prosecution said.

Faure Walker said: “At this point Mr Linehan could’ve explained why he had called her a domestic terrorist, if indeed he had an explanation, or even ignored her… rather he responded in a way which is indicative of his extreme personal animosity towards her.

“He said ‘go away groomer’, ‘go away you disgusting incel’, he called her a ‘sissy porn-watching scumbag’.”

She then asked him to “account for his defamatory and abusive posts about her”, he did not answer, the court heard.

“He deliberately whacked the phone out of Ms Brooks’ hand,” the prosecution said, adding it caused damage to her phone.

The defendant was “clearly proud of what he had done”, the prosecution said.

Brooks called the police soon after, the court heard.

The posts online continued, including on 19 October saying “was interesting to meet Tarquin today. Absolute psycho”.

In another post, the defendant said “watch how Buffalo Bill uses the camera to hide his face”, the court heard.

On 22 October, the defendant said about Brooks that “he likes to handle people and then complain about being touched himself”, the prosecution said.

The defendant tried to get information about Brooks, saying “we believe Tarquin is studying”, then referred to a particular course, and said: “If you know him and want to help to stop him harassing people, please get in touch”.

Linehan also said “he’s been 17 years old for a number of years” in another post, the court heard.

On 24 October, Linehan wrote “he’s also a scumbag who harasses women”, the prosecution said.

The prosecution said the defendant also wrote: “If you encounter Tarquin in the wild, try to resist the urge to stick his cameras up his arse. He’s hoping to get you to do something he can report the police.”

As a result of the posts, Brooks felt “alarm and or distress”, the prosecution said.

Linehan was interviewed under caution on 5 February this year and provided a prepared statement.

Faure Walker said: “He said, in summary, that he considered that the complainant – whom he referred to as ‘Tarquin’ throughout the prepared statement – had harassed him, by approaching him and filming him at close quarters; he said he tried to ignore the complainant; the complainant provoked him and made a provocative statement; put the phone in his face; he grabbed the phone and threw it to the side; it was a reflex response.

“In relation to the online posts, the defendant did not accept it amounted to harassment; as a journalist – as he described himself – he believed exposing tactics of trans activities was in the public interest.”

The trial continues.