Tommy Robinson’s Appeal CRUSHED in Stunning Court Showdown!

By Ben Freeman

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, better known as Tommy Robinson, has failed in his most recent legal attempt to reduce his 18-month custodial sentence for multiple breaches of a High Court injunction, following a detailed and firmly worded ruling from the Court of Appeal.

The appeal, which was heard on 16 April 2025, focused not on contesting the original conviction—admitted in full by Robinson in October 2024—but on the assertion that his prison conditions at HMP Woodhill, and his deteriorating mental health, warranted a significant reduction in sentence.

The three-judge panel, comprising Lady Chief Justice Carr, Lord Justice Edis, and Lord Justice Warby, dismissed the application in full. In doing so, the court reaffirmed that the original sentence imposed by Mr Justice Johnson fell well within the appropriate range, noting that the seriousness and persistence of the breaches placed the case at the highest end of culpability. The panel described the application as having no reasonable prospect of success.

Robinson’s ten breaches of the injunction stemmed from his deliberate repetition of false allegations against Jamal Hijazi, a Syrian schoolboy whom he had previously accused of violent conduct during his time at school. Those claims were found to be defamatory during a High Court libel trial in 2021, where Robinson was permanently injuncted from repeating them in any form.

The breaches involved not only republishing the original allegations, but actively rebranding and promoting them through a professionally produced online documentary and a series of interviews. At the time of sentencing, it was noted in court that Robinson’s film had been viewed over 44 million times across social media and an additional one million times on YouTube.

The appeal hearing did not revisit the substance of those breaches. Instead, Robinson’s legal team—led by Alisdair Williamson KC—argued that the sentence should be shortened in light of the psychological effects of his detention, claiming that he was being held in what they described as a form of de facto solitary confinement. The appeal submissions included references to Robinson’s ADHD diagnosis and a history of post-traumatic stress disorder, which they said had been exacerbated by his prison conditions.

In support of this argument, Robinson submitted a statement to the court, claiming:

“The solitary confinement is destroying my mind. I am terrified of the long-term consequences of the continued solitary confinement. I feel I am being provoked to react. I want to leave prison mentally well, not mentally broken.”

Williamson submitted that the prison regime at HMP Woodhill had effectively isolated Robinson to such an extent that it was now having a disproportionate and damaging effect on his mental health. The defence asserted that a transfer to a different prison, or a reduction in sentence length, would offer a more proportionate response.

The Ministry of Justice, represented by Tom Cross, resisted that application and relied on extensive evidence to demonstrate that the segregation of Robinson was not only lawful, but necessary in light of his ongoing security risk. Cross emphasised that Robinson’s own declaration on his first day at HMP Belmarsh—that he had a “conflict with followers of Islam”—combined with credible intelligence suggesting that other prisoners were plotting to attack or kill him, justified the decision to house him in a closed segregation unit.

In their judgment, the appeal judges gave considerable weight to that intelligence, which included reports that two inmates at HMP Woodhill had intended to attack Robinson to gain “kudos and notoriety”, and that one lifer had placed a “mark on his head”. The governor’s decision to place Robinson in a closed unit inaccessible to the rest of the prison population was therefore found to be reasonable and proportionate.

Furthermore, the judges firmly rejected the suggestion that Robinson’s prison regime constituted solitary confinement in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Evidence presented by Governor Nicola Marfleet of HMP Woodhill included a detailed description of Robinson’s daily routine and access to facilities. These included:

• Three hours daily out-of-cell time for gym, exercise, or recreational activities.
• Additional 2 hours and 45 minutes, three times a week, for voluntary painting and decorating work.
• A television, laptop, CD and DVD player in his cell.
• Four hours of phone access per day, during which Robinson had made over 1,250 social calls.
• Over 90 visits during his sentence, in an informal and comfortable setting, where he was allowed to receive food from the canteen.
• Daily visits from NHS medical professionals and weekly access to chaplaincy services and a Bible study session.

Marfleet’s statement, quoted in the judgment, made clear:

“It is not accurate to refer to Mr Yaxley-Lennon’s regime as ‘solitary confinement’ at all.”

The appeal court accepted that Robinson’s segregation does impact his mental health, but determined that such effects were being managed appropriately by regular NHS and prison-based psychological reviews. The ruling stated:

“There is nothing to suggest that the decision to segregate him was taken for the purpose of breaking his resistance or humiliating or debasing him. On the contrary, all the evidence shows that it was taken for his own protection and in the interests of preserving the safety of other prisoners and staff.”

The judges also noted that Robinson could, at any time, “purge his contempt” by removing the offending content from online platforms—something he has chosen not to do. They rejected the argument that prison was inherently harsher for him on account of his notoriety or beliefs, reinforcing the principle that legal orders apply equally to all individuals, regardless of public profile.

At sentencing, the original court had described Robinson’s behaviour as showing “no remorse, no respect, and no excuse.” The appeal court reaffirmed that conclusion, stating that there were no legal or factual grounds for reducing his sentence. As it stands, Robinson is expected to serve nine months in custody before automatic release in July 2025, after which he will remain bound by the existing injunction.

It is also necessary to clarify that, despite public confusion or misreporting, Robinson is a criminal prisoner, not a civil one. While contempt of court can arise in civil contexts, a custodial sentence for contempt constitutes a criminal sanction under UK law. Once a court imposes imprisonment for contempt—particularly in relation to a breach of a High Court order—the individual is treated within the criminal justice framework, not civil procedure. Mischaracterising this status leads to serious misunderstandings about the nature of the offence and the court’s power to enforce compliance with its rulings.

The Court of Appeal judgment has effectively shut down any remaining legal route for Robinson to seek a reduction in his sentence. The judiciary has drawn a firm line under the matter, reiterating that persistent contempt of court undermines the rule of law, and that such offences will be met with appropriate custodial penalties. The decision leaves no ambiguity: repeated defiance of judicial authority, regardless of motive or political framing, will be treated as a serious criminal matter.

Well, that’s all for now. But until our next article, please stay tuned, stay informed, but most of all stay safe, and I’ll see you then.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/HM-Solicitor-General-v-Yaxley-Lennon-Judgment.pdf