This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/05/tommy-robinson-failed-to-check-on-reporting-ban

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Tommy Robinson faces jail after judges find him in contempt of court Tommy Robinson faces jail after judges find him in contempt of court
(about 1 hour later)
Tommy Robinson faces jail after high court judges found him in contempt of court for filming defendants in a criminal trial and broadcasting the footage on social media. Tommy Robinson faces jail again after being found in contempt of court for “aggressively confronting and filming” defendants in a criminal trial and broadcasting the footage on social media.
The former English Defence League leader faces up to two years in prison for the incident in May 2018, when he filmed defendants accused of the sexual exploitation of young girls and livestreamed the footage, in breach of a reporting ban, outside Leeds crown court. The former leader of the English Defence League (EDL) – whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – could be imprisoned for up to two years in relation to the incident in 2018, when he filmed defendants accused of the sexual exploitation of young girls.
The court said on Friday that his conduct “amounted to serious interference with the administration of justice”. The sentence will be decided at a later date. The footage, in breach of a reporting ban, was then livestreamed from outside Leeds crown court while the jury was considering its verdict.
Earlier, judges heard Robinson had been reckless and breached a reporting restriction because he wanted the public to see the faces of the defendants in a criminal trial. Robinson, 36, from Luton, Bedfordshire, had denied any wrongdoing, insisting that he had only referred to information that was already in the public domain.
Lawyers for the attorney general, Geoffrey Cox QC, whose application to have Robinson committed to prison was heard at the Old Bailey, said Robinson’s “whole objective” was to “get the defendants’ faces out there”. However, judges at the Old Bailey said on Friday that his conduct “amounted to serious interference with the administration of justice”.
Outside the court, ripples of anger turned into howls of fury and disbelief as the verdict filtered through. One of the judges, Dame Victoria Sharp, said he had breached reporting restriction imposed on the trial by livestreaming the video from outside the public entrance to the court and by “aggressively confronting and filming” some of the defendants.
A small group of supporters marched towards the court entrance, to barriers sectioning off police from the public, and began chanting “shame on you” as they pointed at the court. “In our judgment, the respondent’s conduct in each of those respects amounted to a serious interference with the administration of justice,” she said.
Earlier, Andrew Caldecott QC, for the attorney general, told the court that a security officer at Leeds crown court said he had suggested Robinson should check at the court office for reporting restrictions. Next Thursday has been set as a provisional date for his sentencing, depending on the availability of a medical expert.
The barrister said the “critical question” was why Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, “declined the invitation to take this obvious step which would have put the matter beyond doubt”. Outside the Old Bailey, where hundreds of supporters of the anti-Muslim activist had been gathering since morning, police drew batons as some rushed security barriers when news of the verdict filtered through.
He added: “We say the answer clearly is that he made a reckless assumption as to what he might be able to do because it suited him to do so, and the reason it suited him to do so was that his whole objective was to get the defendants’ faces out there.” Addressing supporters after he left the court, Robinson said the verdict was wrong, adding: “I’ve been convicted ’cos of who I am, not what I’ve done.”
Caldecott told Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Warby, who heard the case, Robinson had taken a gamble by referring to details in previous reports of the Huddersfield grooming case, which had been published before the reporting ban was ordered. An application to have him committed to prison was made by the attorney general, Geoffrey Cox, who said after the hearing: “Posting material online that breaches reporting restrictions or risks prejudicing legal proceedings is a very serious matter and this is reflected in the court’s decision today.
He said: “Mr Yaxley-Lennon did find the Huddersfield Examiner online and … because the names and the charges had been out there earlier, he took a punt on being able to get away with mentioning them to give necessary context to the people he was filming.” “I would urge everyone to think carefully about whether their social media posts could amount to contempt of court.”
Robinson, who denied any wrongdoing, said he did not believe he was breaching reporting restrictions and that he only referred to information that was already in the public domain. Earlier, judges were told by lawyers for Cox that Robinson’s “whole objective” was to “get the defendants’ faces out there”.
Robinson sat next to his lawyers in court as Caldecott summarised the attorney general’s case. Andrew Caldecott QC told the judges that a security officer at Leeds crown court said he had suggested Robinson should check at the court office for reporting restrictions.
Robinson broadcast the footage on 25 May 2018 while the jury in the second grooming trial was considering its verdict. A reporting restriction was in place which postponed the publication of any details of the case until the end of a series of linked trials involving 29 people, in an attempt to ensure all defendants received a fair trial. The “critical question” was why Robinson “declined the invitation to take this obvious step which would have put the matter beyond doubt”.
Robinson, 36, from Luton, Bedfordshire, was arrested, charged and sentenced to 13 months on the day of the broadcast after being found in contempt of court. Caldecott added: “We say the answer clearly is that he made a reckless assumption as to what he might be able to do because it suited him to do so, and the reason it suited him to do so was that his whole objective was to get the defendants’ faces out there.”
The video lasted an hour and a half and was viewed online 250,000 times after being livestreamed on Facebook. He said Robinson had taken a gamble by referring to details in previous reports of the Huddersfield grooming case, which had been published before the reporting ban.
He served two months in jail before being freed after the court of appeal overturned the finding of contempt in August 2018. “Mr Yaxley-Lennon did find the Huddersfield Examiner online and he took a punt that because the names and the charges had been out there earlier, he took a punt on being able to get away with mentioning them to give necessary context to the people he was filming.”
The case was then referred back to the attorney general, who announced in March that it was in the public interest to bring fresh proceedings against Robinson. Robinson had broadcast the footage – which was viewed online 250,000 times after being livestreamed on Facebook - on 25 May 2018. A reporting restriction was in place which postponed the publication of any details of the case until the end of a series of linked trials involving 29 people, in an attempt to ensure all received a fair trial.
Sharp and Warby gave permission for the attorney general to bring a new case against Robinson at a hearing in May. Robinson had been arrested, charged and sentenced to 13 months after being found in contempt of court but served just two months before being freed after the court of appeal overturned the finding of contempt in August last year.
The case was then referred back to the attorney general, who announced in March that it was in the public interest to bring fresh proceedings.
UK newsUK news
newsnews
Share on FacebookShare on Facebook
Share on TwitterShare on Twitter
Share via EmailShare via Email
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn
Share on PinterestShare on Pinterest
Share on WhatsAppShare on WhatsApp
Share on MessengerShare on Messenger
Reuse this contentReuse this content