Tommy Robinson jury hears closing arguments in harassment trial

What happened

A jury has been asked to convict Tommy Robinson of harassing two journalists, with prosecutors arguing that his anger over coverage of a family holiday did not justify threatening those responsible. Closing speeches began on Friday at Southwark Crown Court in London after Robinson had given evidence.

Robinson, 43, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, denies two counts of harassment causing fear of violence. The charges concern his conduct towards Andrew Young and Jacob Dirnhuber, who were working for the Daily Mail in 2024.

The prosecution says Robinson used private investigators to locate the journalists and arranged for photographers to visit their homes. It presents those actions, alongside his calls, messages and online activity, as an attempt to intimidate the men after they helped expose his whereabouts in Cyprus.

Jurors heard that Robinson sent Dirnhuber a message announcing his intention to turn up at his home. In a separate telephone conversation, he allegedly shouted and swore at Young, said he had investigated the journalist’s family and threatened to come after him.

The evidence also included a voicemail left on the mobile phone of the Daily Mail’s editor-in-chief. The caller identified himself as Robinson and said he had tracked down everyone concerned. Prosecutors placed that communication alongside the approaches made directly to the two complainants.

In an online video, Robinson told journalists that he knew where they and their families lived and would find them. Ben Holt, prosecuting, argued that Robinson’s invocation of a personal code governing conduct towards families carried a threat of violence, rather than merely expressing disagreement with the article.

The court heard that police were contacted repeatedly because of the journalists’ concerns. Holt also drew attention to hostile online responses from Robinson’s supporters after some of his posts, arguing that the reaction helped explain why the men feared what might follow.

The background

The dispute arose during the unrest that followed the killing of three girls at a dance workshop with a Taylor Swift theme in Southport on 29 July 2024. Robinson was abroad with relatives and friends while posting about the disturbances on social media.

The Mail examined his activity on X and his stay at a Cyprus holiday resort. Its coverage portrayed him as encouraging unrest while remaining overseas, away from the events about which he was posting. That portrayal angered Robinson, the jury heard.

Dirnhuber and his team sent Young and a photographer to Cyprus. They located Robinson beside a sunbed with his mobile phone. Holt told the court that Robinson’s own posts about his location had enabled the journalists to find him.

A photograph of Robinson’s former wife was published with the coverage. The prosecutor acknowledged that using it might have been a poor decision, while telling jurors that the article did not discuss her. Robinson’s children were mentioned in the text but were not pictured.

Robinson told the jury that identifying the hotel and publishing the photograph had left him panicked. His concern, he said, was that the coverage exposed his former wife to danger. The defence relied on that fear when asking jurors to assess his subsequent behaviour.

There was also an agreed history of threats against Robinson. Facts read to the jury included four police warnings concerning threats to his life, issued across 2018, 2019 and 2024. The last of those came shortly after the Mail article appeared.

Jurors additionally heard about a video posted in August 2024 by Omar Abdirizak. Addressing Robinson, he referred to the presence of pirates and Muslims in many locations before making a gesture resembling the use of a rifle. That video formed part of the evidence about the threats Robinson faced.

What people are saying

Holt’s closing argument centred on the difference between seeking protection and seeking revenge. He said Robinson had not asked the journalists or their editor to remove or change the article during the communications at issue, and argued that his behaviour instead demonstrated a desire to punish them.

The prosecutor told jurors that Robinson had accepted that circulating pictures of journalists’ homes and partial images of people close to them was meant to apply pressure. Holt disputed Robinson’s position that those targeted would not consequently have feared violence.

He also challenged the idea that mirroring another person’s behaviour made a response reasonable. In the prosecution’s account, Robinson wanted the journalists to experience the insecurity he believed they had caused him. Holt argued that feeling wronged did not provide a defence for threatening someone else.

The size of Robinson’s online audience was another element of the prosecution’s case. Jurors heard that he had about a million followers on X at one stage and that one post attracted 4.7 million views. Holt said some followers could behave unpredictably.

Alisdair Williamson KC, defending, asked the jury to consider Robinson’s actions against the reality of his fear for his family. He argued that Robinson’s conduct was justified in those circumstances and suggested jurors might regard aspects of his response as restrained.

Williamson also criticised the journalists’ response to Robinson’s distress. He argued that they had shown indifference both to his concerns about the coverage and to its effect on him, including by failing to engage with him by telephone.

What happens next

The trial continues, with the competing closing arguments putting the interpretation of Robinson’s conduct before the jury. The speeches are submissions by the lawyers: jurors must reach their decisions from the evidence and apply the legal directions given by the judge.

In a criminal trial, the prosecution bears the burden of proving its case. Jurors must be sure of a defendant’s guilt before convicting; the defendant does not have to establish innocence. That standard applies separately to each of the two charges Robinson faces.

The jury’s task concerns the alleged harassment of Young and Dirnhuber, rather than a general judgment on Robinson’s politics or the merits of the newspaper’s coverage. The holiday article and the threats against Robinson provide the circumstances in which the charged behaviour must be assessed.

A separate complaints process also features in the case. Holt told the court that Robinson had complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation on Thursday, more than two years after the incident. That organisation considers complaints about newspaper standards, a different function from the criminal court’s consideration of the harassment allegations.

Why this matters

For people facing threats in the UK, the case illustrates the distinction between evidence that explains someone’s fear and a legal justification for their response. Jurors must weigh Robinson’s documented experience of threats alongside the prosecution’s allegation that he deliberately frightened others.

For journalists, the alleged conduct concerns the boundary between scrutiny of their professional work and approaches involving their homes and relatives. The court must decide whether Robinson’s response crossed the criminal threshold, while preserving his right to have each allegation proved before any conviction.