UK: Tommy Robinson fails in legal bid to overturn 18-month contempt of court sentence

Image: Jihad Watch

Tommy Robinson, legally known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, has failed in his attempt to overturn an 18-month custodial sentence for contempt of court, following a ruling by the Court of Appeal.

The 42-year-old was imprisoned in October for multiple breaches of a High Court injunction issued in 2021. This injunction prohibited him from repeating demonstrably false and defamatory claims against a Syrian refugee who had previously won a libel case against him. Robinson conceded to 10 separate violations of the order, which formed the basis for his sentencing by Mr Justice Johnson at Woolwich Crown Court.

Robinson’s legal counsel argued before the appellate court that his incarceration is adversely impacting his health, citing his diagnoses of ADHD and complex post-traumatic stress disorder (C-PTSD). His lawyers contended that his mental health has deteriorated due to prolonged segregation and limited access to support, warranting a reduction in his sentence.

However, the Solicitor General's legal team firmly opposed the appeal, asserting that there exists no valid legal basis for mitigation. They emphasized the gravity and persistence of Robinson’s actions, which included the production and dissemination of a film titled Silenced in May 2023. This film allegedly contravened the injunction by propagating the same libellous allegations, constituting four of the breaches. An additional six breaches were tied to a public screening of the film during a rally at Trafalgar Square in August 2023.

In delivering the original sentence, Mr Justice Johnson underscored the deliberate nature of Robinson’s defiance, labeling the violations “flagrant” and reaffirming the principle that “nobody is above the law.” The ruling reflects the judiciary’s firm stance on upholding court orders and underscores the seriousness with which civil contempt, particularly in the context of libel and harassment, is treated under English law.

This case serves as a significant precedent, reinforcing the enforceability of court injunctions and the legal consequences of contempt, even when rooted in civil litigation.

(This Article was originally published by Jihad Watch)