Tommy Robinson is jailed, and in my 26 years in the courts I can't recall a more blatant or serious example of this type of contempt

All of us are subject to the law of the land. That law includes the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which makes clear that nothing about an “active” criminal case can be published, if it “creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced”.

This is the general rule and it applies to all stages of a criminal case from the moment a suspect is even arrested. Generally, the law does not prevent reporting events from inside the courtroom, provided that it amounts to a “fair and accurate report of legal proceedings held in public, published contemporaneously and in good faith.”

However, there are many cases where publication, even of the proceedings in court, may create a risk of prejudice, either to the case being tried or to a future trial. In such cases, the trial judge has the power to make an order under s.4(2) of the Act, postponing the reporting of any part of the trial, for a long as necessary, to eliminate that risk as far as possible. The maximum sentence for contempt of court is two years in prison.

In the case of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka “Tommy Robinson”), there was a s.4(2) order in place preventing the publication of details of “Trial 1” (a public grooming trial) whilst further linked trials remained in the pipeline and, crucially, before the jury had returned its verdicts.

Ignoring that order completely, Yaxley-Lennon streamed full details of the defendants in the trial via Facebook Live, published a video “encouraging his followers to harass the defendants”, and “photographed and intimidated” them as they entered court.

There are further protections of those attending court buildings, preventing behaviour which might otherwise interfere with justice or disrupt proceedings. Everyone attending a criminal court has the fundamental right to do safely and peacefully.

The judge’s power to postpone reporting is used most often when the court is dealing with a series of trials, whether of the same defendant(s), or arising out of the same police investigation.

The purpose of the order is to ensure that the jury, either in the ongoing trial or some future trial, does not hear evidence, via the traditional media or online, which may be inadmissible or otherwise prejudicial to the trial process.

In my 26 years of practice in the criminal courts, I cannot recall a more blatant, serious or disruptive contempt of court, by publication, than that carried out by Yaxley-Lennon in this case. It is clear from the sentence handed out to him of nine months (although he will be committed in prison for 19 weeks and will serve up to one half of that period) that the court felt the same way.

It is fundamental to the fairness of every criminal trial that the jury’s verdict is based on what jurors hear in the courtroom, under the watchful eye and legal control of the judge, and not on anything they have heard elsewhere. Every jury is now directed in strong terms, under threat of imprisonment, not to search for information about the case online and to disregard anything they may inadvertently see in the press, or on television.

Professional journalists are well aware of the restrictions to prevent contempt of court, and are generally assiduous in ensuring that they abide by orders of the court. They are wise to do so, if they want to remain in long-term employment, as the offence is one of strict liability, meaning that a journalist (and their employer) is criminally liable for publishing seriously prejudicial material, even if there was no intent to do so.

There have been many cases, in recent years, of contempt by social media users, but none so provocative, deliberate and widely publicised as that of Yaxley-Lennon in the Leeds Crown Court case.

What seems to have failed to strike home with Yaxley-Lennon’s vocal band of supporters, in particular on social media, is that the whole point of reporting restrictions is to protect the integrity of the trial process for everyone. Yes, it is about ensuring a fair trial for the defendants but, equally, the sort of prejudicial conduct, engaged in by Yaxley-Lennon, can lead to the collapse of some very serious cases.

The consequences of such a development always fall most heavily on the victims, who may have to endure the experience of giving evidence all over again, at a retrial, or, worst of all, may see the charges dropped altogether, allowing their abusers to go free. And all because an attention-seeking agitator, with a webcam and a big mouth, decides that the law does not apply to him.

Yaxley-Lennon was convicted by Mr Justice Warby, a senior High Court Judge, and the newly appointed President of the Queen’s Bench Division, Dame Victoria Sharp, one of the most senior judges of the Court of Appeal. They found that his behaviour “amounted to a serious interference with the administration of justice”, including his “aggressive confronting and filming of the defendants”.

Their decision was intended to make a clear statement of intent to all those tempted to use social media to bypass the law and the orders of the court, upon which the lawful administration of justice depends. Publish content in contempt of the law, which applies to everyone in this country, and you risk going to prison. There are legitimate ways and means of campaigning on criminal justice issues, but deliberate disobedience of court orders is not one of them.

Yaxley-Lennon protested that he was “convicted ‘cos of who I am, not what I’ve done”. I do not know whether he really believes that or not but, the truth is, he was convicted because he shamelessly and deliberate broke the law. His actions put at risk the interests, not only of the defendants, but of the trial process, the public and, most worryingly, of all those poor girls who came forward so bravely, to give evidence of the unimaginable crimes committed against them.

Chris Daw QC is a barrister who specialises in serious and complex criminal cases