Tommy Robinson appeal latest updates: Judges retire to consider judgement on whether to free EDL founder from prison
For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
Judges are considering an attempt by English Defence League (EDL) founder Tommy Robinson to be freed from prison.
The far-right leader, who is appearing under his real name of Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, was jailed in May after he broke blanket reporting restrictions on an ongoing set of trials by discussing them in a Facebook Live video.
A judge at Leeds Crown Court said Robinson admitted contempt of court and jailed him for a total of 13 months.
But his barrister told the Court of Appeal Robinson should be freed from prison and have his sentence "quashed" after arguing that criminal procedure rules had been broken.
Jeremy Dein QC argued that a judge at Leeds Crown Court should have adjourned the case to give Robinson further time with lawyers, and to respond to each allegation in detail, rather than jailing him within hours of the video being broadcast.
He also argued that the 13-month sentence handed down was "manifestly excessive" and may have been lower if a barrister was able to properly mitigate on his behalf.
The Lord Chief Justice said he and two other judges would consider the submissions and hope to come to a judgement by the end of July.
Please allow a moment for the live blog to load
Robinson was previously spared jail after committing contempt in another case in Canterbury in 2017, on the condition he committed no further crimes.
Judge Geoffrey Marson QC activated that three-month term and added 10 months for the new offence, telling Robinson that he risked causing a trial to collapse.
Protesters gathered outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London ahead of the hearing on Wednesday, which was before the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, the Rt Hon Sir Ian Burnett, Mr Justice Turner and Mrs Justice McGowan DBE.
They may choose to reserve judgement to a later date after hearing evidence.
It comes a day after reports that lobbying by the far-right Breitbart news website caused the US ambassador for international religious freedom to raise Robinson's case with the British government.
US Senator Sam Brownback reportedly told British ambassador Sir Kim Darroch the UK should be more “sympathetic” to the former leader of the EDL and warned Sir Kim that the Trump administration might publicly criticise its handling of the case.
Robinson has been forming links with the American alt-right, who characterise him as a “citizen journalist” and see imprisonment as a violation of freedom of speech.
Steve Bannon, the former Breitbart chairman who served as the White House chief strategist, has given his personal support to Robinson and former Breitbart London editor Raheem Kassam has coordinated two “Free Tommy” rallies.
The Tommy Robinson protest: in pictures
Show all 27A neoconservative US think-tank said it was funding both Robinson's legal costs and two protests in London on 9 June and 14 July.
The June protest saw Robinson supporters perform Nazi salutes and attack police, while Saturday's event - which merged with a pro-Trump march - saw demonstrators blockade a bus driven by a Muslim woman and several arrests.
MPs and campaigners warned that far-right extremists were rallying around his imprisonment to develop a new “racist street movement” with international support.
It comes as statistics show more extreme right-wing terrorists are being arrested and jailed than ever before, with the head of MI5 warning that their brand of extremism was “rearing its ugly head” once more.
Prosecutors and police said Robinson’s posts radicalised Darren Osborne, the terrorist who ploughed a van into a group of Muslim worshippers in Finsbury Park last year.
He adds: "So far as we are concerned we were greatly assisted throughout by Mr Doughty, who alerted us on receipt of papers as to concerns in relation to proceedings in Canterbury and as we have seen the complete picture we immediately took the points that are now set out in the grounds...in short it is our submission first that the complaints we made in relation to Canterbury and Leeds are well-founded and that there have been a congolmeration of procedural deficiencies that have given ride to prejudice and should lead to both findings being quashed."
The barrister says Robinson "could not have been aware" of the grounds now used for appeal and they are presenting them within five weeks of being instructed and "justice demands that time be extended and we are permitted to advance these arguments."
The finding of contempt at Leeds Crown Court should be quashed due to a series of procedural defects that made it "unfair and inappropriate", Robinson's barrister says.
He is citing legal rules and case law to support his case.
He notes that Robinson was jailed in Leeds five hours after the commission of the offence and is noting a previous ruling by Lord Justice Leveson.
He says Robinson was jailed at around 2.30pm on 25 May, after broadcasting a Facebook live stream that morning.
Robinson's lead barrister is Jeremy Dein QC, who is extremely experienced and has defended high-profile figures including Tulisa Contostavlos
Mr Dein says: "We do not place a great deal of weight on failure to identify the species of contempt pursued against the appellant."
He says the contempt the judge had in mind was a breach of a Section 4 (2) reporting restriction banning any reporting on the case Robinson discussed.
The Lord Chief Justice notes that Geoffrey Marson QC's sentencing remarks referred to wider potential prejudice caused by the video.
Mr Dein says "the judge should not have proceeded summarily in these circumstances", meaning that he should not have heard the case himself on the day of the offence.
Mr Dein says that the judge was correct in summarily ruling that the Facebook live stream must be removed, and says Robinson offered to help have it taken down himself.
"The finding of contempt made by the judge in Leeds should be quashed," he says.
Mr Dein says the live stream commenced around an hour before the case in session was in question, at around 9.30am, and he did not get representation until midday. Proceedings started after lunch that led to "significant substantial loss of liberty".
"The question is whether Mr Yaxley-Lennon was prejudiced, it is our submission that he certainly was."
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.