Independent and Leeds Live win legal challenge to report EDL founder Tommy Robinson's jailing for contempt after video live stream

Journalists have won a legal challenge to report on the arrest and subsequent jailing of English Defence League founder “Tommy Robinson” after he live streamed details about an active trial that is subject to blanket reporting restrictions.

Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, used Facebook Live to broadcast details about the ongoing trial outside Leeds Crown Court on Friday last week when he was arrested and later charged with contempt of court for the second time, it was reported.

Because of the risk of his comments on the trial prejudicing a jury, the reporting of Robinson’s own case  also had a reporting restriction imposed on it under Section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act.

The media gag, which was due to stay in place until the conclusion of the other trial, was successfully challenged in court by Leeds Live and in writing by The Independent.

A spokesman for The Independent said: “After Robinson’s arrest was broadcast live on social media and his assistants reported his imprisonment, the reporting restriction was effectively made redundant.

“The British media was left in the uncomfortable position of watching international outlets and members of the public spread inaccurate information and conspiracy theories that it was powerless to correct.

“It is a position we fear journalists will find themselves in more frequently in the years ahead, unless contempt of court law is urgently brought up to date.”

Today, both news websites were able to report that Robinson (pictured) had been jailed for 13 months after Judge Marson QC lifted reporting restrictions following their submissions.

Robinson’s sentence follows a previous conviction on the same charge last year for which he received a suspended sentence that was still in force when he filmed his comments outside the court last week.

According to PA, Robinson received 10 months for contempt of court and a further three months for breaching the terms of his suspended sentence.

In her sentencing remarks in the case against Robinson last year, Judge Heather Norton said: “This contempt hearing is not about free speech. This is not about the freedom of the press.

“This is not about legitimate journalism, this is not about political correctness, this is not about whether one political viewpoint is right or another. It is about justice and it is about ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly.

“It is about ensuring that a jury are not in any way inhibited from carrying out their important function.

“It is about being innocent until proven guilty. It is not about people prejudging a situation and going round to that court and publishing material, whether in print or online, referring to defendants as ‘Muslim paedophile rapists’.

“A legitimate journalist would not be able to do that and under the strict liability rule there would be no defence to publication in those terms.

“It is pejorative language which prejudges the case, and it is language and reporting – if reporting indeed is what it is – that could have had the effect of substantially derailing the trial.”

Picture: Reuters/Andrew Winning



Press Gazette's weekly email providing strategic insight into the future of the media


7 thoughts on “Independent and Leeds Live win legal challenge to report EDL founder Tommy Robinson's jailing for contempt after video live stream”

  1. Its all about a FAIR TRIAL.

    A Fair Trial means the verdict reached by a jury should be based ONLY on the evidence put to a court, examined and challenged in court and NOT, definitely NOT, on what someone has publicly published as a statement of fact.

    Juries should not be intimidated by public utterances of those who think their opinion is far more important, and accurate, than a jury hearing ALL the evidence and then making-up their own minds.

    Public utterances may unfairly influence a jury, but never a judge. it is claimed. The only source of information influencing a jury should be the evidence presented, examined and challenged in court according to the trial rules.

    Why is that so difficult for some to understand ?

    1. You are aware that the verdict had been reached and sentencing was being delivered at the time of his reporting yes? Therefore he could not be possibly interfering with the decision making process!
      I do wonder though why was Tommy vilified for this but the local rag had reported on the hearing before Tommy was there, Tommy has some views that I don’t necessarily agree with but to lock him up (in such a rapid way) and try to silence the press (I would like an explanation as to why the judge used that particular stick though) stinks of something that doesn’t quite seem to be inline with due process and the Bill of Rights.

1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply

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