Yaxley-Lennon sent back to jail after retrial
Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, who calls himself Tommy Robinson, has been sent back to jail by a court at the Old Bailey on charges of contempt of court for breaching the reporting restrictions on trials at Canterbury and Leeds.
It is worth stressing that this is not, and never has been, the free speech issue which Yaxley-Lennon and his supporters pretend it to be. The reporting restrictions which he broke merely delay reporting of the details of a trial in process until that trial and sometimes (as in the Leeds case) one or more linked trial has been completed so that the evidence of the witnesses and the deliberations of the jury are not compromised and the defendants get a fair trial.
There are a number of real and serious threats to free speech in Britain.
THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM.
As the judge who handed him the original suspended sentence for his behaviour at Canterbury told Mr Yaxley-Lennon in May 2017,
"This contempt hearing is not about free speech.
This is not about 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.
As I have already indicated, because of what I knew was going on I had to take avoiding action to make sure that the integrity of this trial was preserved, that justice was preserved and that the trial could continue to completion without people being intimidated into reaching conclusions about it, or into being affected by “irresponsible and inaccurate reporting”.
If something of the nature of that which you put out on social media had been put into the mainstream press I would have been faced with applications from the defence advocates concerned, I have no doubt, to either say something specific to the jury, or worse, to abandon the trial and to start again.
That is the kind of thing that actions such as these can and do have, and that is why you have been dealt with in the way in which you have and why I am dealing with this case with the seriousness which I am.”
She then added that he
"should be under no illusions that if you commit any further offence of any kind, and that would include, I would have thought, a further contempt of court by similar actions, then that sentence of three months would be activated, and that would be on top of anything else that you were given by any other court.
In short, Mr Yaxley-Lennon, turn up at another court, refer to people as “Muslim paedophiles, Muslim rapists” and so and so forth while trials are ongoing and before there has been a finding by a jury that that is what they are, and you will find yourself inside. Do you understand?“
The opinion of the judge in the case at Leeds where Mr Yaxley-Lennon showed up a year later was that's basically what he did, and he did indeed find himself inside.
The appeal court found that there were some procedural issues with that second conviction - though not with the first one - so they quashed it, releasing him from prison and referred the matter to the Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox to decide whether to bring fresh charges.
(Probably a welcome relief for Geoffrey Cox from giving legal opinions about the Brexit backstop!)
The Attorney General did decide to bring fresh charges, resulting in the court action at the Old Bailey. The High court heard that in May 2018, Yaxley-Lennon live-streamed a video outside Leeds Crown Court that contained information in breach of reporting restrictions. He also approached defendants and told his followers to “harass them”.
On 5 July, the High Court found Yaxley-Lennon to be in contempt of court, because:
Speaking after the sentencing today, Attorney General Geoffrey Cox said:
"Today’s sentencing of Yaxley-Lennon serves to illustrate how seriously the courts will take matters of contempt.
"Posting material online that breaches reporting restrictions or risks prejudicing legal proceedings has consequences, and I would urge everyone to think carefully about whether their social media posts could amount to contempt of court."
Yaxley-Lennon has been given nine months in total - three months for the original suspended sentence plus six months for the second offence.
He has previously served ten weeks so has been committed to prison for a further nineteen weeks but becomes eligible for parole after ten of those weeks.
It is worth stressing that this is not, and never has been, the free speech issue which Yaxley-Lennon and his supporters pretend it to be. The reporting restrictions which he broke merely delay reporting of the details of a trial in process until that trial and sometimes (as in the Leeds case) one or more linked trial has been completed so that the evidence of the witnesses and the deliberations of the jury are not compromised and the defendants get a fair trial.
There are a number of real and serious threats to free speech in Britain.
THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM.
As the judge who handed him the original suspended sentence for his behaviour at Canterbury told Mr Yaxley-Lennon in May 2017,
"This contempt hearing is not about free speech.
This is not about 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.
As I have already indicated, because of what I knew was going on I had to take avoiding action to make sure that the integrity of this trial was preserved, that justice was preserved and that the trial could continue to completion without people being intimidated into reaching conclusions about it, or into being affected by “irresponsible and inaccurate reporting”.
If something of the nature of that which you put out on social media had been put into the mainstream press I would have been faced with applications from the defence advocates concerned, I have no doubt, to either say something specific to the jury, or worse, to abandon the trial and to start again.
That is the kind of thing that actions such as these can and do have, and that is why you have been dealt with in the way in which you have and why I am dealing with this case with the seriousness which I am.”
She then added that he
"should be under no illusions that if you commit any further offence of any kind, and that would include, I would have thought, a further contempt of court by similar actions, then that sentence of three months would be activated, and that would be on top of anything else that you were given by any other court.
In short, Mr Yaxley-Lennon, turn up at another court, refer to people as “Muslim paedophiles, Muslim rapists” and so and so forth while trials are ongoing and before there has been a finding by a jury that that is what they are, and you will find yourself inside. Do you understand?“
The opinion of the judge in the case at Leeds where Mr Yaxley-Lennon showed up a year later was that's basically what he did, and he did indeed find himself inside.
The appeal court found that there were some procedural issues with that second conviction - though not with the first one - so they quashed it, releasing him from prison and referred the matter to the Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox to decide whether to bring fresh charges.
(Probably a welcome relief for Geoffrey Cox from giving legal opinions about the Brexit backstop!)
The Attorney General did decide to bring fresh charges, resulting in the court action at the Old Bailey. The High court heard that in May 2018, Yaxley-Lennon live-streamed a video outside Leeds Crown Court that contained information in breach of reporting restrictions. He also approached defendants and told his followers to “harass them”.
On 5 July, the High Court found Yaxley-Lennon to be in contempt of court, because:
- His online publication of details about the criminal case involved a breach of a reporting restriction order imposed under s4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
- The content of what he published online gave rise to a substantial risk that the course of justice in the criminal case would be seriously impeded, thereby amounting to a breach of the rule of contempt law known as “the strict liability rule”.
- By aggressively confronting and filming some of the defendants in that case as they arrived at court, he interfered with the course of justice.
Speaking after the sentencing today, Attorney General Geoffrey Cox said:
"Today’s sentencing of Yaxley-Lennon serves to illustrate how seriously the courts will take matters of contempt.
"Posting material online that breaches reporting restrictions or risks prejudicing legal proceedings has consequences, and I would urge everyone to think carefully about whether their social media posts could amount to contempt of court."
Yaxley-Lennon has been given nine months in total - three months for the original suspended sentence plus six months for the second offence.
He has previously served ten weeks so has been committed to prison for a further nineteen weeks but becomes eligible for parole after ten of those weeks.
Comments