Contempt of Court: The Case Against Rushing to Judgment

Date01 October 2018
Published date01 October 2018
DOI10.1177/0022018318803816
AuthorVince Ward
Subject MatterCase Notes
Case Note
Contempt of Court:
The Case Against Rushing
to Judgment
Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson) [2018]
EWCA Crim 1856
On 8 May 2017, during a rape trial at Canterbury Crown Court, the Appellant, Yaxley-Lennon (known
for political reasons as Tommy Robinson), filmed two reports which he subsequently broadcast on the
Internet and in which he commented on the trial. One of the reports was filmed on the court steps; the
other was filmed in the court building in which there were several notices indicating that filming or
taking photographs at court might be a contempt of court. The Appellant was also told by security guards
that filming might be a contempt of court. He was subsequently arrested and brought to court on 10 May
2017 when contempt proceedings were initiated and adjourned to 22 May 2017, on which day he was
found to have been in contempt of court by filming in the precincts of the court. He was committed to
prison for 3 months suspended for 18 months.
On 25 May 2018, the Appellant live streamed to the Internet video footage of himself commenting on
an active trial at Leeds Crown Court from the steps outside the building. The jury in the trial were in
retirement and the trial was subject to a Postponement Order under s. 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act
1981. The order stated:
Since it appears to be necessary for avoiding a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in
these proceedings, the publication of any report of these proceed ings shall be postponed until after the
conclusion of this trial and all related trials.
The Appellant was arrested and immediately brought before the trial judge who ordered that the video
footage was to be removed from the Internet and stood the matter down for the court to appoint an
advocate for him. Once appointed, the Appellant’s advocate accepted he had been in contempt of court,
the judge found accordingly, submissions were made in mitigation and the Appellant was committed to
prison for 10 months effective immediately. The judge also activated the suspended committal order
imposed by the Canterbury Crown Court on 22 May 2017. Five hours had passed between the filming
and the committal order. Importantly, at no point during the hearing were the particulars of the alleged
contempt put to the Appellant. He appealed against both findings that he was in contempt of court.
Held, dismissing the appeal against the finding of contempt and the committal to prison in relation to the
Canterbury case, allowing the appeal against the finding of contempt in relation to the Leeds case and
ordering a rehearing, that the process in the Leeds case had been ‘fundamentally flawed’.
Commentary
At the appeal in relation to the Leeds case Counsel for the Appellant argued:
That there had been breaches of Part 48 of the Criminal Procedure Rules which governs contempt
proceedings. These failings, he argued, were fatal to the finding of contempt.
The Journal of Criminal Law
2018, Vol. 82(5) 357–361
ªThe Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022018318803816
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT