BEHIND BARS
Why has Tommy Robinson been jailed for 18 months? Contempt of Court explained
See below for our explanation
TOMMY Robinson has been jailed for 18 months after showing a film containing slurs about a Syrian refugee.
The 41-year-old, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, appeared at Woolwich Crown Court today after breaching a 2021 High Court order barring him from repeating false claims about a then-schoolboy.
6
6
6
6
Far-right activist Robinson was accused of being in contempt of court over having "published, caused, authorised or procured" a film titled Silenced, which contained the libellous allegations.
The Solicitor General said he "knowingly" breached the order on four occasions.
WHY WAS TOMMY ROBINSON JAILED?
Robinson breached a 2021 High Court order barring him from repeating false claims about then-schoolboy Jamal Hijazi, who successfully sued him for libel.
The Solicitor General issued the first contempt claim against Robinson in June this year, claiming he "knowingly" breached the order on four occasions.
READ MORE ON ROBINSON
In court today, Robinson admitted the charges.
Lawyers previously told a judge that the breaches included Robinson having "published, caused, authorised or procured" a film titled Silenced, which contained the libellous allegations, in May last year.
The second claim was issued in August, concerning six further breaches, including playing the film to a demonstration in Trafalgar Square in central London earlier this year, which lawyers for the Solicitor General told an earlier hearing was a "flagrant" breach of the court order.
Aidan Eardley KC, for the Solicitor General, said the film was viewed "very extensively", including being seen by 2.2 million people after being reposted by Andrew Tate.
Most read in The Sun
And, he said in written submissions that by the time the second claim was issued, it "had received 44m views on X alone".
He claimed that all of the paragraphs of the injunction were breached "at one point or another" by the film.
The sentence for contempt of court can be up to two years imprisonment at the Crown Court or one month at the magistrates' court.
WHAT IS CONTEMPT OF COURT?
Contempt of court is a legal term that describes behaviour that interferes with the justice process or risks unfairly influencing a court case, according to .
Disobeying a court order
This could include a litigant breaking a freezing order, a protester entering land that's prohibited by an injunction, or someone breaching the terms of an Anti-Social Behaviour Injunction (ASBI).
Interfering with court proceedings
This could include disrupting a hearing, abusing court staff or witnesses, or shouting out in court.
Making unauthorised recordings
This could include making or publishing an audio recording of court proceedings without the court's permission.
Publicly commenting on a court case
This could include social media posts or online news articles that could prejudice the course of justice.
Taking photos or videos in court
It's usually a criminal offense to take photos or videos in a court room, the court building, or its precincts, or to publish such photographs or videos.
WHAT IS SILENCED?
Silenced is a film which contains the false and libellous allegations about Mr Hijazi which Robinson was banned from repeating.
Sasha Wass KC, for Robinson, told the court that the film's production was funded by Infowars, a company run by American Alex Jones, who has claimed that the 2012 Sandy Hook school massacre was a hoax.
The activist played the film to a demonstration in Trafalgar Square in central London.
It also remains pinned to the top of Robinson's profile on social media site X, while he also repeated the claims in three interviews between February and June 2023.
Mr Eardley said the film was viewed "very extensively";, including being seen by 2.2 million people after being reposted by Andrew Tate.
And, he said in written submissions that by the time the second claim was issued, it "had received 44m views on X alone".
READ MORE SUN STORIES
He claimed that all of the paragraphs of the injunction were breached "at one point or another" by the film.
Mr Eardley said in written submissions that the court ";can be sure that the defendant was responsible for the publication of the film" and "also intended that it should be shared as widely as possible via other channels".
6
6
Topics