Why the rabble-rouser was in contempt

CONTEMPT legislation exists to ensure the fairness and integrity of criminal trials. The Contempt of Court Act 1981 states that it arises when there is a ‘substantial risk of serious prejudice’.

As in the Robinson case, an order may be made under section 4(2) of the Act to postpone reporting of a trial until its conclusion. When making such an order, a judge has to balance the interests of justice in a fair trial with other factors, including free speech and open justice.

Contempt can also be committed in other ways, such as taking photographs near the court or trying to speak to a juror. Potential penalties are imprisonment for up to two years, a suspended sentence or an unlimited fine.

Robinson filmed and live-streamed footage outside Leeds Crown Court in May 2018 of defendants accused of the sexual exploitation of young girls.

Senior judges said he was in contempt by breaching a reporting restriction, by live-streaming the video from outside the public entrance to the court and by ‘aggressively confronting and filming’ some of the defendants.

The reporting restriction was in place to postpone publication of any details of the case until the end of a series of linked trials involving 29 defendants to ensure all of them had a fair trial.

Judges said that the video ‘gave rise to a substantial risk that the course of justice would be seriously impeded’ and the confrontation of the defendants was a direct interference with the course of justice.