Tommy Robinson, the controversial founder of the English Defence League and high-profile figure in the UK’s far-right political landscape, has just lost a high-stakes legal battle. In a major ruling handed down by the Court of Appeal, his challenge against an 18-month prison sentence for contempt of court was firmly rejected. The judgment is being seen as a definitive statement from the judiciary: no one, regardless of public profile or political alignment, is above the law.
Robinson—whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon—was sentenced in October 2024 after admitting to breaching a court injunction by repeating defamatory allegations against Syrian refugee Jamal Hijazi. His appeal cited mental health struggles, solitary confinement, and human rights concerns. But the judges remained unmoved. Their message was clear: Robinson had “flagrantly” defied legal orders, and his imprisonment was both lawful and necessary.
This case isn’t just about one man. It’s a landmark moment in the ongoing debate over freedom of speech, the power of the courts, and the role of social media in spreading potentially harmful misinformation. As Robinson’s supporters rally and his critics breathe a sigh of relief, Britain watches closely to see what happens next.
Who Is Tommy Robinson?
To understand the significance of this ruling, you first need to understand who Tommy Robinson is—and why he’s one of the most divisive public figures in the UK today.
Born Stephen Yaxley-Lennon in Luton in 1982, Robinson first rose to national attention as the founder of the English Defence League (EDL) in 2009. The EDL, notorious for its anti-Islamic rhetoric and confrontational demonstrations, became a lightning rod in British politics. While Robinson stepped down from the EDL in 2013, citing its increasing association with racism, he has continued to be a vocal critic of Islamic extremism, immigration policies, and multiculturalism.
Over the years, Robinson has built a massive online following through social media, live-streams, and documentaries—many of which have been accused of inciting hatred or spreading misinformation. He’s had run-ins with the law before, including for fraud, assault, and previous contempt of court charges. Yet every time he’s faced consequences, he’s framed himself as a martyr for free speech.
To his supporters, Robinson is a truth-teller silenced by the establishment. To his detractors, he’s a dangerous agitator exploiting fear and division. This latest legal episode only reinforces that divide.
The Original Case and Sentence
The 18-month prison sentence that sparked this appeal originates from a particularly sensitive case: Robinson was previously sued for libel by Jamal Hijazi, a Syrian refugee who was filmed being attacked at school in Huddersfield. In 2018, Robinson published videos on social media accusing Jamal of violent behavior and serious crimes—claims that were entirely false and not backed by any evidence.
In 2021, the High Court found Robinson guilty of libel and ordered him to pay £100,000 in damages to Jamal, along with legal costs. But that wasn’t the end of it. In October 2024, Robinson released a documentary titled “Silenced,” which included the same defamatory content that the court had expressly ordered him not to repeat. By publishing this film, Robinson not only violated a court injunction but did so in a very public and deliberate way.
The result? A contempt of court charge and an 18-month prison sentence for knowingly and willfully breaching a legal order. The sentence reflected both the seriousness of the breach and Robinson’s history of disregarding the authority of the courts.
The “Silenced” Documentary and Breach of Court Order
At the heart of this contempt case is the documentary titled “Silenced.” Produced and shared by Robinson, the film was intended as a counter-narrative to what he called “mainstream media lies” and “politically motivated censorship.” But according to the court, it was little more than a repackaging of the same defamatory claims that had already been ruled unlawful in the libel case.
The documentary gained significant traction online, amassing hundreds of thousands of views across platforms like Telegram, Bitchute, and Rumble—channels known for hosting content banned elsewhere. This widespread distribution demonstrated just how impactful Robinson’s messaging still is, and how quickly misinformation can spread when unchecked.
What made matters worse was that Robinson was fully aware of the risks. The court had previously warned him about the legal consequences of repeating the allegations against Jamal Hijazi. Despite that, he chose to publish the documentary anyway—an act the judges later described as a “deliberate and cynical” violation of the court’s authority.
In their eyes, this wasn’t just a mistake or an act of passion. It was a calculated move to challenge the rule of law and portray himself as a victim of censorship.
Grounds for Appeal and Legal Arguments
Robinson’s legal team based their appeal on several arguments, most of which revolved around his mental health and the conditions of his imprisonment. They claimed that his time in solitary confinement at HMP Woodhill had caused severe psychological distress, exacerbated by underlying conditions such as ADHD and complex PTSD.
His lawyers argued that continued incarceration under such conditions could amount to cruel and inhumane treatment, potentially breaching his human rights. They requested a reduction in sentence, suggesting that alternative punishments could serve the same legal purpose without compromising his well-being.
The appeal also questioned whether the sentence was proportionate, considering the nature of the contempt. While they admitted to the breach, they argued it did not warrant such a lengthy sentence given Robinson’s personal circumstances and claimed political persecution.
However, the judges rejected these arguments, stating that while mental health considerations are important, they do not excuse blatant defiance of court orders—especially from someone with a documented history of similar offenses.
