STEPHEN Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, alias Tommy Robinson, was freed on bail yesterday but remains a convicted criminal who could end up back in jail for contempt of court for even longer than he was originally sent down for.
Despite the jubilant claims of his supporters, Robinson, 35, has not been cleared entirely of the contempt of court charge he faced after he broadcast racist material about trials on Facebook. Instead, he will face what is in effect a re-hearing of the contempt charge, ordered by the Appeal Court because of mistakes in the procedure that saw him jailed for 13 months in May.
Robinson was committed to prison for two instances of contempt of court during trials of Muslim men on sex abuse charges. The first was in a court in Canterbury early last year and the second at Leeds Crown Court in May this year.
READ MORE: Behind street thugs like Tommy Robinson lies an extreme-right threat
Having been caught filming at the Crown Court and making prejudicial statements, Robinson was brought before Judge Geoffrey Marson who was anxious that the complex trial which was nearing its end should not be interrupted – lawyers for the defendants could have argued that the trial should be stopped because of Robinson’s activity.
Instead Judge Marson committed Robinson to prison for a total of 13 months just five hours after the offence was committed, and yesterday the Appeal Court, presided over by the Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett of Maldon, ruled that the Leeds court should not have acted so quickly and indeed “might have referred the matter to the Attorney General to consider whether to institute proceedings”.
Crucially the Appeal Court heard that, at the time, Robinson accepted his conduct was in contempt and had removed the offending item from Facebook.
Lord Burnett said that once Robinson “had removed the video from Facebook there was no longer sufficient urgency to justify immediate proceedings”.
Ironically for the co-founder of the far-right English Defence League who detests the European Union and all its stands for, he was released partly because the European Convention on Human Rights was transgressed during what the Appeal Court judges said was a “flawed process” that resulted in him being jailed.
Robinson was not told the exact nature of the charges against him in writing, which is a breach of his convention rights.
READ MORE: Why the rise of the populist right threatens Scottish independence
A lawyer for Robinson had earlier said that as his client had served the equivalent of four months in prison, the matter should not go to another hearing, which would effectively have freed Robinson immediately with no further charges.
The Appeal Court disagreed, the judgement stating: “The alleged contempt was serious and the sentence might be longer than that already served if a finding is again made against the appellant, particularly having regard to the suspended committal order made at Canterbury.”
The Appeal Court upheld that decision of Canterbury Crown Court to imprison Robinson for contempt of court last year, that sentence suspended for 18 months. The judgement stated that Robinson had accepted that he had been in contempt of court with his broadcast.
That means that if the re-hearing of the contempt case – to be held in London under a different judge – finds against Robinson again, then he will have the three-month term added into the totality of any imprisonment.
WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?
TWO fundamental principles of law were under scrutiny in the Appeal Court in London yesterday. One was the right of innocent people to a fair trial and the other was the right for an admitted offender to be treated fairly by the court.
Despite the fevered rants of Tommy Robinson’s supporters both here and in the US, freedom of speech had nothing to do with the case.
In a masterful judgement by Chief Justice Lord Burnett, the Appeal Court’s judgement on Robinson upheld both principles. The Muslim men on trial for sex abuse charges had the right to a trial free from his racist racings, but Robinson himself should never have been hauled before a judge five hours after his offence and then imprisoned for 13 months.
READ MORE: Far-right EDL founder Tommy Robinson freed on bail after conviction overturned
Robinson, who has also used the aliases Andrew McMaster and Paul Harris, has previous convictions for police assault and threatening behaviour and also for using a false passport to illegally enter the US – another irony given that he is supported by anti-immigrant activists on the American far right.
His supporters will no doubt contend that Robinson is a political prisoner who has been denied freedom of speech, but the fact is that he was jailed for the contempt of court charges that arose from his broadcasting of prejudicial material during two trials – conduct which he been warned about beforehand and which he has admitted in court.
The re-hearing of the case is the correct and fair way to proceed, but if the contempt committal is upheld, it will just be a question of how long he serves in jail.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel