EDL founder Tommy Robinson’s case sent back to Attorney General

The contempt of court case of former English Defence League leader Tommy Robinson has been sent back to the Attorney General after the “nature and extent of the controversies” emerged in a letter to the judge.

The defendant – real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – claimed he had “already won” as he addressed a crowd of supporters ahead of the hearing before the Recorder of London, Judge Nicholas Hilliard QC.

The court heard he denied breaching the Contempt of Court Act and making a broadcast likely to serious prejudice a trial at Leeds Crown Court.

He said: “It is sufficient to say that the nature and extent of the controversies to be considered emerged to my eye more clearly than before.”

The court heard in the current setting, lawyers would not be able to properly cross-examination of the evidence.

The judge said: “I think it necessary to look at quite a lot of the detail of what Mr Yaxley-Lennon said in the broadcast as to come to the overall picture as to what happened.

“I’m satisfied in the light of the issues as they now appear as they emerged from the statement of yesterday that cross-examination of Mr Yaxley-Lennon is necessary for a proper and thorough examination and resolution of the case that is in the public interest.”

Robinson was released on bail.

He was freed from prison in August after three leading judges quashed a contempt of court finding made at Leeds Crown Court.

But the 35-year-old could be sent back to jail if he is again found in contempt for filming people in a criminal trial in Leeds and broadcasting the footage on social media.

Robinson walked through the chanting crowd to make an address rather than take the easy route from behind the stage.

“We want Tommy out,” they shouted, as supporters filmed him on their phones.

They patted the suited EDL founder on the back and expressed their gratitude.

“No matter what happens today, I’ve already won,” he said.

“Their attempts to silence and stop people having the knowledge of the Muslim rape gangs that are terrorising our nation.

“The entire world is now watching.”

He blamed the Government, police and social services for “sacrificing a generation of our daughters at the hands of the multiculturalism alter”.

The media is “the enemy of the people”, he yelled, eliciting the crowd to respond: “Shame on you.”

England and Union flags, as well those for Ukip, were flying as dozens of protesters gathered.

Under the watchful gaze of officers, the largely male crowd chanted “oh Tommy Robinson”, while some got in an early can of Stella Artois before the
hearing.

A supporter in a Union flag suit said: “I have come here to support Tommy because there’s so many injustices going on in the world today.

“I’ve learned so many things in the last two years, such as the killings of anyone that’s not of the Islamic faith.”

A passing cyclist said: “Fascist.”

A small group of anti-fascism campaigners faced Robinson fans before the hearing.

Last month, Robinson was ushered into court amid similar scenes outside.

Following the brief hearing on September 27, a video appearing to show Robinson at a window within the court building was posted on the Twitter account of Ezra Levant, a reporter for the right-wing Rebel Media Organisation.

The video is believed to have been made in the canteen on the Old Bailey’s second floor. By the afternoon, it had been viewed more than 160,000 times.

Section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 (CJA 1925) makes it an offence to photograph people within court precincts.

City of London Police had confirmed they were looking into whether any offences were committed at September court appearance.

A spokesman for the Attorney General’s Office said: “This matter has been referred to the Attorney General’s Office. A Law Officer will consider all material afresh, and make a decision whether or not to refer Stephen Yaxley Lennon to the High Court for contempt.”

Both Leeds Crown Court and the Court of the Appeal had the option to refer the case to the Attorney General before, but made the decision not to, as is their right for contempt “in the face of the court”.