Tommy Robinson case: Supporters hurl beer cans as protests erupt after former EDL leader found in contempt of court

"The evidence has completely backed up and proved that I was correct, there was nothing on the door, nothing on the screen," he says.

"I would never have interfered with justice, you can see how shocked I was when I was arrested."

Robinson later fell out with the man who went inside the court to check on the restriction, and accused him of being an "infiltrator".

He says he was unable to get a copy of the photo from inside the court from this man for this contempt hearing.

Robinson leaves the witness box.

The attorney general's barrister is now putting his case that Robinson knew the reporting restriction was in place and should have sought details of this court order.

Andrew Caldecott QC for the attorney general, has suggested there are inconsistencies in the various accounts Robinson has given about his knowledge of reporting restrictions.

Robinson referred to the reporting restriction in his livestream video, saying he was "worried" he would not be able to give details of the verdicts.

He did not refer to any checks on reporting restrictions at his original contempt hearing in Leeds, which led to him being jailed for 13 months.

At the appeal hearing Robinson said he didn't believe that he was violating the reporting restrictions and so relied on information in the public domain (a report of an earlier hearing before restrictions were in force, in the Huddersfield Examiner).

He has told this hearing at the Old Bailey that he got a friend to see if there were any reporting restrictions on the door and TV screens, and personally checked the court website.

Mr Caldecott says Robinson's account of checking reporting restrictions is "impossible".

"The public were not allowed in court until 8.30am. We know the livestream must have started within minutes of 8.30am passing. That simply does not give time for the colleague to go through security, get up to the third floor, take a photograph of the court, come back down, also photograph the screens, then report to Mr Yaxley-Lennon. It is another striking element in the sheer impossibility of this account being true."

"This raises the critical question of why Mr Yaxley-Lennon did not take this step. His whole objective was to get the defendants' faces out there and he knew they were liable to arrive early at court."

"He also knew there were no media present there at all. That must have told him they weren't there for a reason - the reason was they couldn't report what was going on."

Mr Caldecott: 

What we suggest has happened here is that he found the Huddersfield Examiner online and took a punt that he could get away with mentioning the defendants. He wanted to say who they were and the charges they were facing or his livestream would be meaningless.

He says that Robinson only discovered a reference to being able to publish material in the public domain after his original contempt hearing. "If he checked it before the hearing, it would have been a stunningly obvious point to mention to his lawyers."

The lawyer for the attorney general turns to the issue of interfering with the administration of justice.

"The key question is whether a sufficient degree of seriousness is made out," he adds.

This involves looking at the "important" case of Runting and others  (1989) in the lever arch file of authorities.

The bus outside the court has been given a parking ticket, according to Press Association.

Robinson's supporters booed as the warden slapped the sanction on the front windscreen.

The warden - who appeared unaffected by the jeers - said the fine was £130, reduced to £65 if paid quickly.