Tommy Robinson, aka Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, jailed 18 months after defying court order on slander of Syrian refugee. Judge declares: “Nobody is above the law” as he’s sentenced for contempt of court.

Hi and welcome to this Video Production News Court Report.Hi and welcome to this Video Production News Court Report.

Amoungst slightly chaotic and emotional scenes as I arrived at court today, including the Police pulling one young man aside who had been refused entry to the Trial.Tommy Robinson real name, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon,Tommy Robinson real name, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon,was sentenced to 18 months in prison at Woolwich Crown Court after admitting to contempt of court. His sentencing marks the culmination of legal proceedings dating back to 2021, when a High Court order prohibited him from making or repeating defamatory claims about Jamal Hijazi, a Syrian refugee who had successfully sued Robinson in a libel case. By breaching this order, Robinson not only disregarded the court’s authority but has now entered a guilty plea, signifying an important legal acknowledgment of both the contempt charges and the unlawful nature of his prior statements.

Mr. Justice Johnson, in delivering his judgment, emphasized the legal principle underpinning the contempt of court finding, stating, “In a democratic society underpinned by the rule of law, court orders must be obeyed.” Johnson underscored that no individual can “pick and choose which laws or which injunctions they obey, or which they do not.” This notion is central to the UK’s justice system, which relies on the enforceability of court orders as a pillar of its authority. The judge remarked that Robinson’s actions constituted “a planned, deliberate, direct, flagrant breach” of a court order, going beyond mere negligence or recklessness. This conduct, the court ruled, met the threshold for custodial sentencing, given its repeated, willful, and public nature.

Implications of the Guilty PleaImplications of the Guilty Plea

Robinson’s guilty plea to contempt of court carries profound legal implications. Beyond admitting to violating the court order, his plea implies an acceptance of the legal context established by the 2021 order—a context in which Robinson’s statements were adjudicated as defamatory and damaging to Hijazi’s reputation. Legally, by choosing to reassert these claims through the filmSilencedSilencedand subsequently breaching the libel order, Robinson essentially reaffirmed the defamatory statements that had previously been ruled unlawful by the High Court.

In effect, his admission signifies a double-layered responsibility: acknowledging both his direct contempt of the court order and the original, unsubstantiated allegations, which the judicial system had firmly ruled against. This acknowledgment resonates deeply within UK law, intertwining elements of both contempt and defamation, and underlines the UK judiciary’s stance on repeat contempt offenders.

Background and BreachesBackground and Breaches

The case traces its roots back to 2018, when a video circulated widely showing Hijazi being attacked by another teenager at his school in West Yorkshire. Robinson subsequently posted a video to his extensive online following—then numbering over a million—alleging, without credible evidence, that Hijazi was a violent aggressor. This claim not only lacked substantiation but also led to severe harassment and death threats directed at Hijazi and his family. The defamatory nature of Robinson’s statements was formally addressed in 2021, when Hijazi won £100,000 in damages from Robinson. The court also imposed a strict injunction prohibiting Robinson from making further defamatory claims regarding Hijazi.

Despite initial compliance, Robinson resumed his public accusations in February 2023 and releasedSilencedSilenced, a film alleging that he was being unjustly suppressed. The court was informed that the film had been viewed tens of millions of times online, and in July of this year, Robinson premiered the film at a rally in Trafalgar Square, marking a highly public breach of the injunction.

Prosecution’s Stance on Rule of Law and Evasion of ComplianceProsecution’s Stance on Rule of Law and Evasion of Compliance

The Solicitor General’s representative, Aidan Eardley KC, argued that Robinson’s defiance of the injunction was not only intended to reach a wide audience but also served as a direct challenge to the rule of law. Eardley characterized the breaches as “high culpability,” given the number and nature of the violations. He presented Robinson’s actions as a sustained attempt to “thumb his nose at the court,” stating that Robinson’s public and repeated breaches demonstrated contempt for the judicial system itself. Eardley emphasized that some of the material remained accessible online and that Robinson retained control over certain outlets where it was hosted, underscoring an “evasive” approach to complying with the court’s restrictions.

Defense’s Argument on Free Speech and PrinciplesDefense’s Argument on Free Speech and Principles

Defending Robinson, Sasha Wass KC asserted that her client’s actions were rooted in his principles, notably his staunch belief in free speech. According to Wass, Robinson’s actions were neither dishonest nor self-serving but driven by a conviction that he was acting in the public interest. She raised concerns over Robinson’s previous experiences in prison, highlighting that he had been held in solitary confinement and had reportedly experienced trauma, including panic attacks and nightmares. Wass argued that Robinson’s actions were not motivated by a desire for personal gain but stemmed from his personal convictions—a point which the judge ultimately found insufficient as a defense against contempt charges.

Sentencing Remarks and Judicial ReproachSentencing Remarks and Judicial Reproach

In pronouncing the sentence, Mr. Justice Johnson left no room for ambiguity regarding the seriousness of Robinson’s violations. He noted that Robinson had shown “no inclination to comply with the injunction in the future” and remarked that “all of his actions suggest that he regards himself as above the law.” The judge underscored that Robinson’s conduct risked eroding public confidence in the judiciary, as it posed a direct challenge to the enforceability of court orders. He also cited the ongoing availability of the offending content as evidence of Robinson’s disregard for the court’s authority.

Justice Johnson did, however, offer a conditional reduction in Robinson’s sentence by four months, contingent upon Robinson’s active efforts to remove the infringing material from both his own accounts and external platforms. This measure underscores the court’s position that meaningful steps toward compliance could mitigate the severity of the contempt penalties, while Robinson’s continued defiance had, thus far, warranted the full custodial term.

Separate Legal Proceedings: Counter-Terrorism Act ChargeSeparate Legal Proceedings: Counter-Terrorism Act Charge

Robinson’s legal troubles extend beyond the contempt charges, as he faces a separate charge under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This charge stems from an incident in which Robinson allegedly failed to provide the PIN to unlock his mobile phone when detained by police at a UK port. Under Schedule 7, police have extensive powers to stop, search, and question individuals to assess potential involvement in terrorism-related activities. Robinson’s refusal to cooperate with these requirements has led to an additional legal proceeding, which will be addressed at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in November.

Broader Legal Impact and Final ObservationsBroader Legal Impact and Final Observations

This case serves as a stark reminder of the legal limits on freedom of expression, particularly when court orders are in place. Robinson’s case exemplifies the consequences of disregarding judicial mandates and the weight the UK legal system places on upholding injunctions. His repeated breaches highlight the judicial system’s broader challenge of ensuring compliance in the digital age, where content can reach massive audiences rapidly and remain accessible indefinitely.

The UK’s legal framework, as demonstrated in this case, remains resolute in its enforcement mechanisms. Robinson’s custodial sentence sends a clear message that defiance of court orders—no matter how public or ideologically driven—carries significant legal repercussions. Robinson’s case is emblematic of the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining the rule of law in the face of high-profile, deliberate contempt.

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.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.

Bénédict Tarot FreemanBénédict Tarot Freeman

Editor-at-LargeEditor-at-Large

VPN City-DeskVPN City-Desk

citydesk@vpnldn.co.ukcitydesk@vpnldn.co.ukcitydesk@vpnldn.co.uk