Tommy Robinson was not ‘convicted of journalism’

But why has he attracted more opprobrium than the Muslim grooming gang he filmed leaving court?

Luke Gittos
Columnist

Share

Tommy Robinson, the ex-leader of the English Defence League, has been sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment after being found guilty of contempt of court. Two Old Bailey judges concluded that Robinson’s decision to film the defendants in a grooming-gang trial, outside Leeds Crown Court in May 2018, not only interfered with the trial but encouraged ‘vigilante action’.

One can see why the judges thought so. Robinson approached the defendants last year as they arrived at court demanding to know their thoughts on the trial, and then asked why the press was not harrassing them as it had harrassed Robinson – which the judge deemed, given the wider context, to be an invitation to Robinson’s supporters ‘to engage in vigilante action’. The trial was covered by reporting restrictions which made it illegal to report details of the case until its conclusion.

Ever since the verdict, Robinson’s supporters have claimed he is the victim of state oppression. Commentator Katie Hopkins claimed Robinson had been ‘convicted of journalism’, echoing the words on the t-shirt Robinson wore to his own sentencing. Geert Wilders, the Dutch far-right politician, said Robinson had been handed a ‘death sentence’ and invited world leaders to intervene. Robinson’s detractors have been even more vocal, celebrating his conviction as a victory against fascism and intolerance.

Robinson was ill-advised to report on the Leeds Crown Court trial in the way he did. The idea that his conviction for contempt of court is evidence of state oppression rather ignores the fact that Robinson himself knew he risked imprisonment when he decided to broadcast the footage of the defendants. He knew that the trial came with reporting restrictions, and he still decided to risk breaking them.

But his supporters do have a point about the level of media hatred thrown at Robinson, compared with the media’s treatment of predominantly Muslim grooming gangs. In the aftermath of the Rotherham sex-abuse scandal in 2013, the police’s cultural sensitivity towards the perpetrators, who were mainly Pakistani Muslim men, was identified as a reason why the gang was not stopped sooner. Labour MP Denis MacShane, who was MP For Rotherham between 1994 and 2012, accepted that there was a ‘culture of not wanting to rock the multicultural community boat’, which prevented him from raising the issue with local police.

Indeed, it is bizarre that Robinson has attracted more opprobrium from the commentariat than the Huddersfield grooming gang he was reporting on. The men involved were convicted of offences that the judge described as sitting at the ‘top of the scale’ of severity. One of the victims, who were almost all white working-class girls, was abducted from a care home, given ecstasy and then made to perform sex acts on the men. The outpouring of loathing for Robinson both ilustrates the skewed moral compass of many of his detractors, and also highlights the mainstream media’s fear of confronting predominantly Muslim grooming gangs.

Robinson was not ‘convicted of journalism’. However, he was convicted under laws which place overly stringent restrictions on what can be reported. The Contempt of Court Act 1981, which created the reporting-restrictions regime, gives the court the power to order the postponement of reporting where this is ‘necessary to avoid a substantial risk of prejudice to the case’. What underlies these provisions is the idea that a jury is liable to be unfairly influenced by media coverage of the case it has been tasked with adjudicating.

Yet there is little actual evidence that jurors are significantly influenced by what they read in the media. Research published by the Home Office in 2010 into juror decision-making claimed that jurors found media coverage about their case ‘difficult to put out of their minds’. But it did not find any connection between media reporting and case outcome. Juries are heavily directed by judges to disregard anything except the evidence before them in the courtroom.

It is true that Robinson risked collapsing the trial. The lawyers for these men could have claimed that their trial was being prejudiced by Robinson’s actions, as two, in fact, did, albeit unsuccessfully. But the bigger problem here was that this trial, precisely because of the reporting restrictions, was made vulnerable to accusations that the jury could be prejudiced. We should be more trusting of jurors to distinguish between evidence and reporting, rather than simply locking people like Robinson up for reporting a particular case.

Robinson did a stupid thing in reporting in the way he did. He knew he was in danger of flouting reporting restrictions. The mere possibility of undermining the trial of these men means he should have been more wary. But his case has revealed that certain sections of the media find it easier to sling hatred at Robinson than engage in an honest debate about why these vile sex-abuse gangs exist. Perhaps, in his limited way, Robinson has a point.

Luke Gittos is a spiked columnist. His new book, Human Rights – Illusory Freedom: Why We Should Repeal the Human Rights Act, is published by Zero Books. Order it here.

Picture by: Getty Images.

Corrections: The original version of this article stated that Robinson directly asked his supporters to harass the defendants, whereas in fact the judge interpreted some of Robinson’s comments as an invitation to his supporters to harass the defendants. The original version also described the Huddersfield grooming gang as a Muslim grooming gang, when it was a predominantly Muslim grooming gang. And it stated that lawyers for the defendants could have claimed that the trial was being prejudiced by Robinson’s actions, which would have caused it to collapse. Two of the defendants’ lawyers did in fact claim this, but were unsuccessful. The article has been amended to clarify these points.

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Comments

John Marsh

22nd July 2019 at 7:30 pm

This is more of a question that someone may know the answer. With the trial by jury justice system and the watering down of evidence and actually ignoring human rights laws many of these historic evidence trials are based on emotion and a person’s unsubstantiated word. So what evidence did the prosecution present. We know already everyone lies. Tommy Robinson may have fair points but he rants and raves like all news media and others with no detailed arguments. Also defendants as far as I am aware who claim innocence go to trial so I have to presume the “gang” are claiming innocence. Alexis Jay is currently involved in the big abuse enquiry and appears to rely heavily on “stories”. Are Asian men more likely to break the law on underage sex and this grooming thing. I have no idea as I said I know everyone lies and where convenient can also tell the truth. Men and women can do such terrible things to others I know men allow their physical desires to rape and groom, including murder. Women use their desirability to gain money, fame and manipulate. Thus my concern re evidence? I can find no reports from Tommy Robinson or main stream or anyone to what can be established as factual and what is alleged which may be the exact truth or over stated or under stated.

Justin Bieber

19th July 2019 at 7:22 pm

Tommy Robinson’s real name is: Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon

Maybe have a think on that for a bit……

Hana Jinks

20th July 2019 at 11:16 am

Excellent point.

Ummmm, sorry. I don’t get it. What are we meant to be thinking about again?

Justin Bieber

20th July 2019 at 7:35 pm

Keep thinking about it Hana, you’ll get there in the end

James Taylor

17th July 2019 at 11:51 am

I’m astonished, daily, that the mainstream narrative about this case is so brazenly misrepresented and just plain wrong. Not only is it openly the entire edifice of the mainstream media and the legal “experts”, including in the usually

J M

17th July 2019 at 10:12 am

This is one of the first Spiked articles I’ve ever read, but if it’s representative of their level of journalism, it may well be the last.

Thinker Prime

17th July 2019 at 1:57 am

The article and the press in the UK clearly miss the key point that the evil of the Grooming Gang – truly monstrous – because they are afraid of incurring the ire of the Multiculturalists and the Islamist terrorists – and instead distract themselves with the tiny infraction of Tommy Robinson – something that would be covered by freedom of the Press and freedom of Speech in the US. The problem of the UK is not Tony Robinson, it is the way the whole establishment has sold out the underage female population because of their cowardice. .

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.