HM Attorney General v Stephen Yaxley-Lennon
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Warby,Dame Victoria Sharp |
| Judgment Date | 09 July 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] EWHC 1791 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: QB-2019-000741 |
| Date | 09 July 2019 |
[2019] EWHC 1791 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
THE PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Mr Justice Warby
Case No: QB-2019-000741
Andrew Caldecott QC and Aidan Eardley (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the Applicant
Richard Furlong (instructed by Carson Kaye Solicitors) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 4 & 5 July 2019
Approved Judgment
We direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION Mr Justice Warby
Introduction
This is the judgment of the Court on an application by Her Majesty's Attorney General for an order committing the respondent to prison for contempt of court.
The respondent is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, also known as Tommy Robinson. The application arises from what he did and said outside the Crown Court at Leeds on the morning of Friday 25 May 2018, when the jury was in retirement at the end of R v Akhtar, a long trial in which a number of men were accused of sexual offences against women and girls. The focus of the application is on the respondent's live-streaming of video of what he did and said, to an online audience via his Facebook page, which had been liked or followed by some 1.2 million people at the time.
In summary, the Attorney General alleges that the respondent's conduct amounted to contempt of court in three different respects. First, the online publication involved a breach of a reporting restriction order (“the RRO”) that had been imposed under s 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, and which prohibited any reporting of the Akhtar trial until after the conclusion of that trial and all related trials. Secondly, the Attorney General alleges that the content of what was published gave rise to a substantial risk that the course of justice in the Akhtar case would be seriously impeded, thereby amounting to a breach of the rule of contempt law known as “the strict liability rule”. Thirdly, it is alleged that by confronting some of the defendants as they arrived at court, doing so aggressively, and openly filming the process, the respondent interfered with the due administration of justice. Contempt of court is quasi-criminal in nature, so the onus is on the Attorney General to prove his case so that we are sure.
Permission to bring this application was granted by this Court after a hearing on 14 May 2019. We heard the substantive application on 4 and 5 July 2019, and on Friday 5 July 2019, we announced our decision in the following terms:
“The purpose of the law of contempt of court is to protect the integrity of legal proceedings, the administration of justice, and ultimately the rule of law, which is vital to the protection of the rights of every citizen.
Our conclusions are as follows. The respondent committed a contempt of court on 25 May 2018 in three respects: first, by breaching a reporting restriction imposed under s 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, in the case of R v Akhtar; secondly, by live streaming a video from outside the public entrance to the court, the content of which gave rise to a substantial risk that the course of justice in that case would be seriously impeded; and thirdly, by aggressively confronting and filming some of the defendants in that case as they arrived at court, thereby directly interfering with the course of justice.
In our judgment, the respondent's conduct in each of those respects amounted to a serious interference with the administration of justice.”
These are our reasons.
The history
Much of this has been set out in a judgment of the Court of Appeal [2018] EWCA Crim 1856 [2018] 1 WLR 5400.
Huddersfield
In 2017, a total of 29 individuals were charged with involvement in the sexual exploitation of young women and girls in the Huddersfield area. On 12 April 2017, there was a hearing at Huddersfield Magistrates Court, at which the defendants were sent for trial in the Crown Court. The respondent attended, and took part in video recorded reporting. There was other reporting of these proceedings.
Canterbury
On 8 May 2017, the respondent attended the Crown Court at Canterbury, at a time when a jury had been sent out to consider their verdicts at the end of a trial (unrelated to the Huddersfield charges) in which four defendants were accused of rape. The respondent filmed himself on the steps of the court building and inside the building, including two pieces to camera in which he described the trial as involving “Muslim child rapists”. He then published the footage on the internet. At a hearing on 22 May 2017, when he was represented by Leading and Junior Counsel, the respondent admitted contempt by filming in the precincts of the court. For this contempt, he was committed to a term of three months' imprisonment, suspended for 18 months.
Leeds
In the meantime, on 11 May 2017, there was a directions hearing before HHJ Marson QC in the Crown Court at Leeds, when the Judge made orders in respect of the Huddersfield charges. He directed that those charges should be tried in a series of three trials in Leeds, commencing in January, April, and September 2018. The first case was called R v Dhaliwal and others. The Akhtar case was the second of the three. These proceedings were reported in the Huddersfield Examiner and other media, including the BBC.
On 19 March 2018, in the Crown Court at Leeds, the RRO was made by HHJ Marson QC. It was headed, in capitals, “Notice to the Press – Reporting Restriction” and “Postponement Order”. It was made in the Akhtar proceedings, and provided that “The publication of any report of these proceedings shall be postponed until after the conclusion of this trial and all related trials.” The statutory provision under which the order was made was identified. The purpose of the order was specified: “Since it appears to be necessary for avoiding a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in these proceedings”. That is one of the statutory bases for making such an order, and although the grounds were imperfectly stated, no challenge was made to the RRO or the Judge's decision to make it until the skeleton argument for the present hearing.
On 16 April 2018, the Akhtar trial began, before HHJ Marson QC and a jury. There were originally 9 defendants. On Thursday 24 May 2018, the jury were sent out to consider their verdicts. By this time there were 8 remaining defendants. On the morning of Friday 25 May 2018, the respondent attended the court. He spoke to court staff. He was filmed speaking about the case, and speaking to some of the defendants. The video was live-streamed. Later that same day, the respondent came before HHJ Marson accused of contempt of court. The Judge adopted a summary procedure. The respondent took advice from Counsel, and admitted contempt. Counsel mitigated on his behalf. It was accepted that “he was aware there was a reporting restriction”, but Counsel submitted that there was mitigation that would “allow [the Judge] to draw back from the imposition of an immediate custodial sentence.” The Judge was not persuaded, and committed him to prison for 10 months, simultaneously activating the suspended order imposed at Canterbury, which was made consecutive. The respondent was therefore committed to prison for a period of 13 months. An RRO was imposed in respect of those events, pursuant to s 4(2). This was later lifted.
The jury deliberated for the rest of 25 May 2018, and were then sent away until the following Tuesday, 29 May. On that day, Counsel for two of the defendants applied unsuccessfully for the discharge of the jury, relying among other things on the way in which the respondent had confronted the defendants and the allegedly prejudicial nature of what had been said. On Friday 1 June 2018 there was a large demonstration by the English Defence League outside the Crown Court at Leeds, protesting at the respondent's arrest and imprisonment. One of the defendants in the Akhtar trial, Sajid Hussain, absconded. His Counsel had expressed concern on his behalf about the demonstration, which had been advertised in advance. On Monday 4 June 2018, a fresh application to discharge was made, based on the effects of the demonstrations. This was rejected. On Tuesday 5 June 2018, the jury returned their verdicts, finding each of the remaining defendants guilty on all counts that had been left to the jury for decision.
London: the Court of Appeal
The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) (“CACD”) but only against the sentence imposed by the Crown Court at Leeds. The Criminal Appeal Office, on reviewing the papers, identified some procedural flaws in the process in Leeds, which prompted an appeal against the finding of contempt. The respondent also sought to appeal out of time against the Canterbury committal and sentence.
His case was heard on 18 July 2018. On 1 August 2018, the Court handed down the judgment to which we have referred. It refused to extend time to appeal against the decisions made at Canterbury, and quashed the committal order made at Leeds. In outline, the Court's reasons were that (i) it had been inappropriate to deal with the matter summarily; (ii) although it was tolerably clear that the nub of the allegation was breach of the RRO, there had been no clear statement of the conduct alleged to represent such a breach; (iii) the Judge's reasoning did not make clear what he considered to be a breach, and relied on conduct which – if it was contempt — could not have amounted to breach of the RRO; and (iv)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Craig Baxter v Sarah Doble
...of proof rests with the Claimant, and the facts must be proved to the criminal standard (see HM Attorney-General v Yaxley-Lennon [2019] EWHC 1791 (QB), at paragraph 3). In other words, I must be satisfied so that I am sure of findings of fact that tend to show, or may show, that the offenc......
-
R v John Jordan
...category of contempt in the face of the court or contempts closely related to such contempt”: see [66]. In Re Yaxley-Lennon (No 2) [2019] EWHC 1791 (QB), [2020] 3 All ER 477 [88] the Divisional Court held that specific intent was not an ingredient of contempt by “direct interference with t......
-
HM Attorney General v Crosland
...for seeking the committal of the respondent and that it is in the public interest that the application should be heard; see Attorney General v Yaxley-Lennon [2019] EWHC 1791 (QB); [2020] 3 All ER 477, paras 23 and 98 to 101. The conduct alleged to constitute the contempt is not disputed an......
-
Craig Winch
...who would be bound by a contra mundum order (cf. the observations in McKeag (above) at [17] and Attorney General v Yaxley-Lennon [2019] EWHC 1791 (QB) [55]). In consequence, claims seeking contra mundum relief fall into an exceptional category where the Court is justified in granting an or......