Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, the controversial activist widely known as Tommy Robinson, has been convicted of a terrorism-related offence following a dramatic courtroom confrontation that was broadcast to thousands of viewers.
The Live-Streamed Incident
The conviction stems from an incident outside Leeds Crown Court in May 2023, where Robinson live-streamed himself approaching a defendant involved in an ongoing terrorism case. During the broadcast, which attracted approximately 450,000 viewers, he revealed the identity of the individual and made numerous allegations about their case.
Prosecutors argued that Robinson's actions created a "substantial risk" of seriously prejudicing the ongoing legal proceedings. They contended that his broadcast could have influenced potential jurors and undermined the integrity of the trial process.
Legal Proceedings and Defence
Robinson, founder of the far-right English Defence League, faced trial at Hull Crown Court where he pleaded not guilty to the charge of failing to comply with a section 58A notice under the Terrorism Act 2000.
His defence team argued that Robinson was exercising his right to freedom of expression as a journalist and claimed he had been covering the case as part of his work. However, the prosecution maintained that his actions crossed legal boundaries designed to protect court proceedings.
Previous Legal Encounters
This conviction adds to Robinson's extensive history of legal troubles. The 41-year-old activist has previously served prison time for contempt of court after filming defendants in another criminal case outside Canterbury Crown Court in 2017.
His previous conviction resulted in a 13-month sentence, of which he served approximately 10 weeks before being released following a successful appeal.
Sentencing and Implications
The court has adjourned for sentencing, which is scheduled for a future date. Legal experts suggest the conviction underscores the strict limitations on reporting active court cases in the UK, particularly those involving terrorism charges.
This case highlights the ongoing tension between press freedom and legal protections for fair trials, setting a significant precedent for how social media broadcasting intersects with legal proceedings.
