An Account of the Appeal Judgement in Tommy Robinson’s Case

Our British correspondent Alan Smith returns with an account of yesterday’s appeals court decision that resulted in Tommy Robinson’s release from prison after serving slightly more than two months of a thirteen-month sentence.

Previously: A Detailed Account of Tommy Robinson’s appeal

R v Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson)

Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
On appeal from the Crown Court sitting at Canterbury and Leeds

by Alan Smith
1 August 2018

The Appeal judgement was announced in Court 4 at the Royal Courts of Justice. There was a notice on the door of the court room warning the public that filming would take place, and that those not wishing to be caught on film should sit at the rear of the court.

The doors were unlocked at 10am, and a stern female official warned people not to film or take photographs or “He will put you in the cells.”

Tommy’s QC, Jeremy Dein, arrived at this time with his female junior, and they took their positions on one side of the court room.

The video monitors that featured Tommy Robinson during the appeal hearing on 22 July 2018 were turned off.

At 10.29am, a female court official said “All rise,” and Lord Burnett and Mrs Justice McGowan entered.

Lord Burnett said words similar to the following:

“I should say I’m handing down two judgements this morning, but it will only take a short time. I want silence as I read them.

“For the reasons that are given in the written judgement, the appeals are dismissed [there were faint sighs in the public gallery]. The respondent will pay costs of £5,000. The judgement will be made available in the usual way”.

Lord Burnett went on:

“Stephen Yaxley-Lennon was committed to prison for thirteen months for contempt of court on 25 May 2018, including the activation of the three month suspended committal order. The appellant made an application for an extension of time. We refuse the extension of time for Canterbury on 22 May 2017; the appellant has admitted contempt as identified at the time, and the process was fair. We allow the extension of time for Leeds, as the process was flawed. We direct that the Leeds case be reheard [anticipation in the gallery].

“Pending the rehearing, the appellant will be released [applause broke out on one side of the public gallery; Lord Burnett, annoyed, said, “No. I said silence.”] …on the condition that the appellant attends the rehearing, and that he does not approach within 400 metres of Leeds court.

“I will be referring the case to the London Recorder. Thank you”.

The court rose at 10.32am, the matter having lasted no more than three minutes.

Supporters left the building, where there was a noisy commotion outside. On the left (as one leaves the building) was a demonstration of around a dozen Socialist Workers Party activists, standing behind a barrier. Tommy supporters were on the right hand side, with two rows of police separating them (both rows of police had their backs to the SWP demonstrators). More police were standing at opposite ends, and on the other side of the road; sixty or more.

The SWP demonstrators were chanting the following phrases (each phrase was repeated five or six times, before moving onto the next one):

Racist pigs
Tommy, go to Hell; take your Nazi mates as well
Shoot yourself like Hitler
Fascist scum
We are black, white, muslim and jew, and we are gay
Tommy, stay in jail; take your Nazi mates as well
Nazi scum, off our streets
Scum, scum, scum

These chants were co-ordinated by a young Somali or African woman (speaking with an English accent) shouting through a loudspeaker. The other protesters were a mixture of dishevelled student types, both male and female, a middle-class woman, and a couple of black activists. The police made no reaction to the chants.

After a while, one of the Tommy supporters called out: “we don’t need a loudspeaker” and they started two chants of their own: the well known “Tommy, Tommy, Tommy, Tommy Robinson”; and “He’s coming home” (adapted from a football anthem). From time to time, a passing taxi hooted support to the Tommy supporters.

The atmosphere among the Tommy supporters was very upbeat, and many stood around chatting. After a while, a group of us decamped to the pub to celebrate.

21 thoughts on “An Account of the Appeal Judgement in Tommy Robinson’s Case

  1. TR will be on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News program this evening, Thursday, at 8PM!
    This will be his first media appearance other than briefly speaking to Ezra Levant with Rebel Media yesterday. That interview is on

  2. I would expect that the worst that Tommy could get on a rehearing (if they bother with one) is a verdict of having been in contempt and sentenced to time already served. Of course, if a Court goes into whether or not there was a legitimate forensic purpose in the gag order (which would be whether it was necessary to preserve the integrity of the three consecutive trials concerning the same subject matter), whether the gag order was sufficiently clearly expressed so that Tommy, or anyone, would know whether what he did was in breach of it, or whether, if the gag order were sufficiently clearly expressed, whether Tommy breached it, then there might be a determination that either Tommy didn’t breach it, or it shouldn’t have been there in the first place. And next time around there should be proper procedure and a chance to ventilate all relevant issues.
    Anyway, here’s a link to Michael Smith’s article publishing an image of the complete judgment:

    • I don’t think he will see any more jail time on this charge. The judge will say in view of the two months served already, no further custody.

      • Tommy Robins the simple minded people’s champion. He deserves to go to prison. He deliberately broke the law and a suspended sentence.

  3. This was a terrible abuse of government power. An obvious injustice. Unfortunately, something similar is happening in the USA with the special counsel and the Manafort imprisonment and now trial.

    • Sadly, it appears that justice is whatever the powers-that-be decide it is, or isn’t, as in this case. Study the Dred Scott and Kelo v. New London cases. You will find that the judges turned the law inside out and on its head to reach the verdict that they were told to. Tommy could be silenced with a lifetime ban on the type of reporting that resulted in the contempt of court charge that is at issue here. Stay tuned, film at 11:00.

  4. There’s no doubt the Elites and the Whitehall mandarins had the wind up after the protest marches for Tommy’s release. 20,000 people on the streets is more than most politicians, May included, could attract to a town hall meeting. Those same faceless suits would have pondered in the days before the judgement what might happen if Tommy’s appeal was rejected?
    Did some nameless permanent under secretary have a quiet word with one of the judges in his Pall Mall club, “Might be a good idea if that Robinson chappee got bail, know what I mean old boy.” We’ll never know.

  5. To reiterate what Ezra reported from the Appeal case:

    * The judge should not have put Tommy on trial that same day
    * The judge should not have conducted the trial “summarily”
    * The judge should have clearly seen that Tommy’s lawyer did not have proper time to prepare his case
    * The judge never presented what Tommy had allegedly done wrong
    * The judge did not watch the entire video of Tommy, that supposedly was proof of his contempt
    * The judge did not follow the criminal procedure rules
    * The judge pronounced a sentence that was disproportionate

    There is a convention, if not a rule, that if a judge witnesses an arrest he must not act in the case. The judge observed Tommy from an upstairs window. He may well have witnessed the arrest, and may even have requested it.

    • All of these failings by Judge Marsden raise serious questions as to his competence. But perhaps when one has power, competence isn’t so important.

      Regarding Tommy’s arrest, if it can ever be known exactly who ordered the arrest (with seven police officers, no less) then the extent of the establishment’s vendetta against him would become much clearer. It could have been the judge exerting his power (but can judges order police action?) but more likely came from higher up. Up until the arrest, the police had observed and talked with Tommy, indicating no problems with his behaviour.

      At his arrest, Tommy was told by the police that he was being taken into custody for “breaching the peace.” That charge seems not to have been mentioned in court but it served to give the powers-that-be time to scramble around for a charge that would stick—settling soon on “contempt of court.” The appeal judges noted that Tommy was never told clearly what specific action of his was in contempt of court. Yet Judge Marsden muddled on and imposed a 13-month jail sentence—a travesty.

    • Imagine the outcry if members of Muslim paedophile rape gangs had been on the receiving end of what Tommy has had to put up with.

  6. And the sanctions applied to the original Judge who erred on multiple points of Law will, no doubt, be terrifically severe. Perhaps it would be too much to ask for a quarter of a moist bus ticket massaged gently across the back of his hand in such a way as to make an example of this Sharia Judge?

  7. Here are the details of the cases Tommy was reporting with names,addresses and charges;also photo gallery of defendants entering the court house .

    Huddersfield Daily Examiner : 11 May 2017.

  8. I mostly see the reports of the what he went through in detail when he is being interviewed. I haven’t seen it in print. The only difference between what he describes and 1984 with a Ministry of whatever is nobody is telling him to say Islam is good or 4+4 is 5. I could tell from pictures he lost weight. I think he lost 40 lbs. I think it is worthy of a comment from Trump. If it is true that the press is also lying about him pleading guilty to contempt them I am left with out words.

  9. I was surprised when Tommy Robinson was arrested for “A breach of the peace” as I had been told some months earlier by a police officer that the offence of breach of the peace no longer existed and had been replaced by other legislation (public order act I think)

Comments are closed.