Tommy Robinson's legal saga exposes lack of understanding around contempt of court laws

The protracted legal saga surrounding Tommy Robinson is shining an unexpected light on parts of Britain’s legal system – but not for the reasons he suggests.

The far-right figurehead characterises the allegations that could see him jailed for a second time as a “political witch hunt” and “establishment” plot.

But what the ongoing game of legal football really exposes is how little the general public – and even the judiciary – understand about the practical application of archaic contempt of court laws in a world where everyone is a publisher on social media.

Robinson himself was jailed over a Facebook Live video that allegedly broke a reporting restriction on grooming trials at Leeds Crown Court in May.

He was originally jailed for 13 months but was freed two months later because of procedural failings.

The Court of Appeal referred the case to the Old Bailey, where the Recorder of London has now passed it on to the attorney general, Geoffrey Cox QC MP.

He in turn will decide whether to instigate proceedings in the High Court over allegations that Robinson committed contempt of court both by violating reporting restrictions, and by “giving rise to a substantial risk of serious prejudice”.

Judges in the Court of Appeal noted that it would have been “more general practice” for the judge who jailed Robinson in May to refer the case to the attorney general instead.

In any event it is clear that Robinson, who has previous convictions for offences ranging from drug possession to assault and fraud, will thus find himself returning to court in the coming months.

After today’s proceedings, having once again been freed on bail, the English Defence League founder whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon took aim at Leeds Crown Court for failing to publicise the reporting restriction he was jailed for breaking.

The 35-year-old said that when he arrived in Leeds on 25 May he “could not obtain any specific details” of a ban covering a series of three Huddersfield grooming gang trials.

“The only time the notification about reporting restrictions was available was later that afternoon after the court had convicted me and sent me to prison,” he shouted through a microphone.

“I do not believe there is a website which holds such details.”

Journalists and lawyers have long been calling for a database of reporting restrictions to be created so they can check what orders are in place and comply with them.

Many courts currently rely on a journalist being present on the day that a restriction is imposed to be informed of it, despite a dramatic decline in the number of court reporters nationwide. Some orders are circulated to the media; others are not.

Sometimes notices are placed on courtroom doors and some judges contend that if journalists do not physically attend a case, they should not report on it at all.

Reporters are at least trained in the principles of contempt of court. Even the basics mean little to the wider British public despite the fact the same laws are applied to their social media posts.

But the sheer scale of contempt committed unwittingly online means it is only prosecuted in rare cases where material has had a significant impact or, like Robinson’s video, reach wide audiences.

The lack of understanding around the laws, which are in place to prevent juries from being swayed by information not heard in court proceedings, has rendered them ineffective and allowed critics – including far-right activists – to falsely characterise them as a means to censor freedom of speech.

Whether Robinson is jailed again or not, his case may force the judiciary to update contempt laws and the way they are enforced for the modern age.