Tommy Robinson has been convicted of harassing two journalists causing them to fear violence. The conviction is under section 4 of the Prevention From Harassment Act 1997 which says:
“A person whose course of conduct causes another to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against him is guilty of an offence if he knows or ought to know that his course of conduct will cause the other so to fear on each of those occasions.
(2)For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it will cause another to fear that violence will be used against him on any occasion if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct would cause the other so to fear on that occasion.
(3)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that—
(a)his course of conduct was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,
(b)his course of conduct was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or
(c)the pursuit of his course of conduct was reasonable for the protection of himself or another or for the protection of his or another’s property.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [F1ten years], or a fine, or both, or
(b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both.”[1]
The Guardian reports:
“Tommy Robinson faces up to 10 years in prison after being found guilty of harassing two journalists to the point it caused them fear of violence.
Journalists from the Daily Mail and their family members fled their homes after “bullyboy, intimidatory tactics” were deployed by the far-right activist, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, his trial was told.
Robinson had shared pictures of the family of one of the journalists online and said he had “tagged and bagged” all three reporters who worked on an article about his alleged role influencing unrest that broke out after the 2024 Southport murders. The charges related to two of the journalists, Andrew Young and Jacob Dirnhuber.
Dirnhuber and his partner had to leave their home, while Young and his family were provided with a close protection officer after an alleged campaign of intimidation that also included a call to the editor of the Daily Mail in which Robinson said he would make the journalists and their families “famous”.
Robinson was found guilty on both counts against him on Wednesday at Southwark crown court. The jury had deliberated for two days and had to be directed by the judge that they could return a majority verdict rather than a unanimous one.”[2]
Robinson’s followers have been quick to defend him. Rupert Lowe of Restore Britian argued that Robinson had been given a harsh deal by the establishment. On social media, memes appeared claiming arguing that Robinson had simply responded to sustained pressure, constantly being called a racist by journalists.
Other comments have suggested that the judge influenced the jury and therefore there should be a retrial.
It’s therefore worth pausing to think through what was going on in terms of the trial and problems with the reactions. In terms of the case itself, my understanding is that Robinson’s defence centred on a claim that he did not intend to harass or cause fear but rather that he was reacting to what he perceived as harassment on the part of the journalists including revealing his holiday location in Cyprus. This was at the time of the Southport riots and Robinson was engaging with and commenting on the events at the time.
In that light it is worth noting a few things. First, that the judge in terms of his directions encouraged the jury to set aside whatever opinions they might have of the defendant, in other words he was encouraging impartiality. Secondly, he directed that they could reach a majority verdict which was something he was correct to do.
An appeal case would require clear evidence that the judge had exercised undue influence, or primarily that he had made an error in law when advising the jury. I am not aware of any evidence or arguments that he had.
My understanding is that Robinson, or more properly, Yaxley-Lennon’s defence centred on the claim that he was not intending to harass/intimidate but rather he was seeking to ensure that the journalists were themselves properly investigated. The problem with this defence is two-fold. First, the specific offence does not require a jury to see into the mind of the defendant, to second guess what he was thinking, rather, it’s whether, the person ought reasonably to have known that their actions might create fear. In that respect, the court will have relied on objective evidence, specifically what Tommy Robinson said and did. In that respect identifying family homes, a quite different proposition to knowing where someone was on holiday whilst actively engaging in an inflammatory situation matters. Similarly, the language of “bagged and tagged” -a reference to body bags would count as well.
My concerns with what we have seen in terms of the trial and broader Christin Nationalist treatment of Robinson are three-fold. First, it should be concerning when the immediate response of people is in effect to cast doubt on the jury trial system. There is even some irony in that this is being questioned by those who you would expect to see trial by jury as one of the corner stones of British patriotic heritage.
Secondly, this links to what we have seen in terms of racist language, I have a concern about the way that language and actions, especially dehumanising language and intimidatory language is being normalised. I await to hear prominent Christian Nationalists to state that references to “bagged and tagged” along with identifying the family home of journalists and threatening to “make them famous” is acceptable.
Thirdly, there have been arguments for some time around whether or not Tommy Robinson is someone that Christians should be looking to for leadership. Some have been keen to argue that Robinson is a brother in Christ, a young Christian and complained that he is judged for past actions. It is worth noting that raising questions about fruit of conversion is not the same as rejecting a person’s faith. Nor are we talking about distant, past events.
Fourthly, we have also seen some Christians argue that they can see nothing wrong in Robinson’s words and actions, apart from him being a little bit salty. I have dealt with these arguments before but it is worth being clear, there is a court verdict determining that Robinson is not simply a good guy who occasionally uses salty expressions.
Welcoming and loving Yaxley Lennon does not require that we put him on a pedastor and endorse his ideology. We can love and welcome him whilst challenging words and behaviour. We want to point him to Jesus as Lord and Saviour.
[1] Protection from Harassment Act 1997
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/oct/28/tommy-robinson-found-guilty-of-harassing-journalists
