Tommy Robinson loses court case against police as judge says 'Mr Lennon is not as well known as he might think'

Tommy Robinson has lost a court case in which he claimed he was a victim of police harassment when he was asked to leave a pub, with the judge telling him he is "not as well known as he or his supporters might think".

The far-right figurehead - whose request to address the court was refused - had sued the Cambridgeshire Constabulary for harassment and was appearing at Peterborough County Court under his real name, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon.

He had claimed he was “humiliated” by officers from the force, who ordered him to leave a Cambridge pub he had visited with his children after a football match between Cambridge United and Luton Town, and followed him part of the way to a train station.

The EDL founder insisted he was targeted by police because of his beliefs.

But Judge Walden-Smith concluded that officers had acted lawfully and that their decision to eject him had been "risk-based", before ordering Robinson to pay £20,000 in costs.

“Mr Lennon’s complaint was that he had done nothing wrong and that he didn’t need to be moved on, that he was being singled out and moved on because of who he is.

“That is not in my judgement is the case. Mr Lennon is not as well known as he or his supporters might think."

After the judge read out her decision on Friday, there was a shout of "the law's an ass" from the public gallery and Robinson said the judgment reflected the "entire corrupt system".

She said that while the officer in charge of policing the Luton Town game in question knew of Robinson from policing EDL marches, "those are separate matters to the football match".

It came after one of the officers involved in the incident told the court he did not know who the 36-year-old was and thought the name referred to an "80s football hooligan".

Judge Walden-Smith continued: “In my judgement there is no evidence that Mr Lennon was being treated differently because of his beliefs on fundamental Islam."

Explaining her judgement that police were justified in deeming Robinson a risk, she said an officer had recalled the anti-Islam activist showed a "mix of emotions of bemused, upset and angry" upon being asked to leave the pub while the match was still being shown.

“In the video footage Mr Lennon was showing himself to be angry," she said.

She said that "as any good parent would, Mr Lennon tried to shield his children" from what was happening but said officers who followed him towards the station had followed "proper procedure" to ensure he did not loop back and return to the pub.

Judge Walden-Smith ruled that all of his claims, including several under the Human Rights Act, had failed.

Robinson said he was with his three children, aged between five and nine at the time, on a family day out.

Alison Gurden, representing him, said the police officer who asked him to leave "didn't take into account factors that he should have done".

She said Robinson had been going in and out of the pub to see his children outside.

"It wasn't necessary (to move him on) as there was... nothing to indicate Mr Lennon was likely to become involved in disorder," she said.

"He's there with his children and he's certainly not dressed for a fight, he's in his flip-flops."

Additional reporting by agencies