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
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.
A 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.
Mr Dein says Robinson did "not act with impertinent defiance...right from the outset the appellant albeit in a very stressful situation offered to have the live stream take down. It is clear from the beginning that any thoughts he had for disrupting the trial - and it is our contention there are none - were limited."
Mr Dein says that on a number of locations "the appellant made reference in the live stream to reporting restrictions" but that because the matters had been reported in the press before the ban came into place he did not believe he was doing anything wrong.
"A number of the factual matters were already in the public domain," he adds, pointing to press articles given to the judges.
"He did not intend to breach any order, albeit that he was aware that there was an order," Mr Dein says, adding that Robinson maintained a distance from the court and sought clarification from an officer over where he could film.
The Lord Chief Justice says Leeds Crown Court did not find Robinson had commited contempt by the act of filming itself.
He says the order he breached postponed any report of proceedings "whether or not they might cause difficulty for the trial".
He says Robinson committed contempt by filming in Canterbury, and notes that it is a "strict liability" offence, meaning that you do not have to intend to commit it or realise you are breaking the law to be convicted.
Mr Dein says there was"no malign or determined attempt to disrupt the proceedings or violate the order of the learned judge".
He says that three police officers were standing in close proximity to Robinson during part of the stream.
"With police officers watching on and not suggesting anything to the contrary...believing he was being observed by the judge, the appellant says 'this isn't contempt of court, is it?"
Mr Dein says Robinson "operating as a journalist did not intend to breach the learned judge's order, conducting himself in a matter that indicates in his own mind he was vigilant not to do so and far from showing defiance when the matter was brought to his ttention he immediately showed willingness to address any damage he may have done."
Mr Dein reveals that Robinson attended media law training with other members of Rebel Media, who he worked for at the time, in June 2017.
Mr Dein says insufficient regard was given to personal mitigation by Robinson's barrister in Leeds, Mr Harding.
Mr Dein says the only mitigation put forward in Leeds was in relation to the impact on Robinson's family and his children aged 7, 9 and 10, because Robinson "did not have time" to discuss other matters with Mr Harding.
Mr Dein notes that Robinson briefly worked with the counter-extremist Quilliam group - but does not mention their subsequent falling out and an incident where he took supporters to their offices and intimidated saff.
"The appellant had been seeking to better himself," he adds, saying he was hoping to become an "investigative journalist"
Mr Dein is now discussing Robinson's conditions in prison, saying the sentence should be reduced "because of the unacceptable conditions in which he has been held since the contempt of this fast-imposed sentence."
He says at HMP Hull and HMP Onley and "Separated from and treated differently from other prisoners, day-in, day-out".
The barrister says legal visits have been reduced and he was not permitted to leave his cell until all other prisoners had been locked up.