Thread by @JoshuaRozenberg

Tommy Robinson hearing resumes at 1030. New readers start here: 5rb.com/news/divisiona… Richard Furlong for Stephen Yaxley-Lennon will argue that Dame V Sharp, president QB division, and Mr Justice Warby should dismiss the attorney general’s application to commit YL for contempt.

YL recalled to give evidence. Caldecott QC asks him about a new sworn statement made overnight. It relates to when he learned that there was no indication displayed at Leeds Crown Court that there were reporting restrictions in force.

Caldecott QC for AG makes further submissions. These relate to the mental element necessary for proving a breach of reporting restrictions. Does the defendant need to know that there is an order in force? Or is recklessness sufficient?

Caldecott QC for AG: there would not have been time for YL’s colleague to have checked whether reporting restrictions were in force before YL started the livestream. That was because the court was not opened until 0830. We say he made a reckless assumption because it suited him.

Caldecott QC for AG: we suggest that YL took a punt on being able to get away with naming the defendants, having found their names in the Huddersfield Examiner online.

Caldecott QC for AG: YL says he checked the Judicial College guidance online before starting his livestream and found he could report material that was already in the public domain. But if he had done so, he would have told his lawyers at the time. We suggest he checked later.

Caldecott QC moves on to the 3rd type of contempt alleged: direct interference with the administration of justice. This is common law (judge-made). He relies on a Court of Appeal decision about a Sun photographer called Simon Runting who chased a defendant leaving court in 1988

Caldecott QC: Runting was cleared of contempt of court on the evidence in 1989. But the Court of Appeal said “witnesses and others who had duties to perform at a court were entitled to go to and from the court without molestation, assault or threats of such”.

Caldecott QC for AG also cites the case of Kyle Cox and Damien Parker-Stokes bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/… who took photographs in court in 2014.

Next, Caldecott QC cites the “naked rambler” case bailii.org/scot/cases/Sco… [75] “It is fallacious, in my opinion, to suggest, as counsel for the complainer did, that the complainer had no mens rea because he sincerely believed that his conduct was not contemptuous.” (Lord Gill)

Caldecott QC for AG says YL’s filming was targeted at defendants when they were in a public street and should be treated as potentially innocent. Her knew they did not want to engage with him as they entered Leeds Crown Court. YL’s remarks on the recording had assumed their guilt

Sorry, “he knew…”

Caldecott QC concludes his submissions for AG. He says: “The administration of justice is part of the wider principle of the rule of law. If the administration of justice suffers undue disturbance, public confidence in the rule of law ultimately will be undermined.”

Closing submissions from Richard Furlong for YL. He quotes Judicial College guidance judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl… which says (para 4.5) that courts have no power to prevent publication of material that is already in the public domain. Furlong, unlike Caldecott, says this is correct.

Warby J to Furlong for YL: maybe the Judicial College was referring only to extraneous material when it said material in the public domain could be published. Furlong: YL was entitled to rely on advice from the Judicial College, if he knew about it. So that defeats recklessness.

Furlong for YL resumes his closing submissions. He is arguing that if recklessness towards reporting restrictions was sufficient for a finding of contempt of court it would cause difficulties for the media as a whole.

Furlong for YL: his client said in the livestream that material in the public domain was not capable of amounting to contempt. He could only have read this in the Judicial College guidelines so he must have read those, as he had claimed, before beginning the livestream.

Furlong for YL moves on to “strict liability” contempt. YL’s case is that he was not inviting his followers to harass the criminal defendants; that there was no substantial risk they would see the video; and that his comments were within the robust tradition of media comment.

Furlong for YL on strict liability contempt: YL argues that the defendants were well able to handle critical questioning — they showed no signs of intimidation — and that this was a one-off livestream so no additional measures would need to be taken by court staff.

Furlong for YL turns to common law contempt: Runting, the Sun photographer, chased the defendant a long way from court and yet he was not found to have been in contempt. Furlong argues that YL’s conduct fell well within the boundaries of reasonable journalistic behaviour.

Furlong for YL shows the court video of YL being questioned robustly by a BBC reporter outside court last year. What YL and the BBC had both done, he argues, amounted to legitimate questioning designed to provoke a response from the defendant. Furlong is not criticising the BBC.

Furlong completes his submissions for YL. Caldecott briefly responds. Court rises. Expected to return this afternoon.

Yaxley-Lennon case: Dame Victoria Sharp PQBD and Mr Justice Warby return to court.

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon found to have committed contempt on all three grounds alleged by the attorney general. Reasons to follow. Penalty to be decided on a date to be fixed.

It looks as if we won’t get the court’s full reasons for a few days. YL’s counsel questioning the court’s wish to deal with sentencing next week. YL in court, talking to his lawyers. Judges coming back into court now.

Dame Victoria Sharp: we’ll fix Thursday 11 July for sentencing. If YL wants to object to that, he can make written representations. Written judgment will go to the parties on Monday or Tuesday of next week.

Speaking after the hearing, the Attorney General Geoffrey Cox said:

“Posting material online that breaches reporting restrictions or risks prejudicing legal proceedings is a very serious matter and this is reflected in the Court’s decision today.”

Geoffrey Cox added: “I would urge everyone to think carefully about whether their social media posts could amount to contempt of court.”

Last words from me today on YL: contempt is not a criminal offence so there’s no need for bail. YL’s lawyers can’t advise him on an appeal until they see the court’s full reasons next week. It looks unlikely that they’ll persuade the court to postpone sentencing YL on 11th July.

The attorney general is of course right to say that social media posts may amount to contempt of court. Beyond that, I’m not planning to comment on today’s findings until we see the court’s reasons next week. Thanks to those readers who have liked my coverage yesterday and today.