Tommy Robinson’s Court Setback

In November 2018, Stephen Yaxley Lennon, who styles himself Tommy Robinson, involved himself in the story of a Syrian refugee who had been attacked by one of his fellow pupils near the school they both attended at Almondbury, near Huddersfield. The attack had included what looked like an attempt at simulating water boarding. Lennon immediately took the side of the attacker and searched for dirt on the victim.

He claimed that the victim had, in association with three Muslim girls, beaten a white girl “black and blue”, that the beaten girl had had to be home schooled as a result, and that the victim had also threatened to stab the boy who attacked him. Sadly, not only was Lennon unable to pony up any evidence to support his claim, the mother of the girl who was beaten emphatically denied that the Syrian refugee had so much as touched her.

Worse for Lennon, he was then landed with a defamation claim from the Syrian refugee, Jamal Hijazi. This claim has now reached the trial stage at the High Court in London, where Mr Justice Nicklin is presiding. And it’s not going well for Lennon. At all.

As free sheet Metro has reported, “Tommy Robinson cannot defend his allegations against a Syrian schoolboy who was filmed being attacked in a school playground as in the public interest, the High Court has ruled … The 37-year-old claimed Jamal ‘beat a girl black and blue’ and ‘threatened to stab’ another boy at his school – claims which the teenager ’emphatically denies’”. As I noted at the time. And there was more.

“The judge handling the case today slapped down an attempt by Mr Robinson to defend his comments as in the public interest, saying his argument failed to respect the difference between his ‘subjective belief’ and objective truth. Mr Robinson’s defence pleads that he can prove his claims were true, although he since applied to amend it to also argue they were made in the public interest”. So what would have been in the public interest?

“Lawyers for Mr Robinson said he contacted the then-15-year-old boy who pushed Jamal in the footage, who is known in the case as ‘B’, along with three parents of children who had allegedly been assaulted by Jamal. Their application said it was in the public interest to publicise B’s version of events as there was ‘far more to the story’”. However.

“But they will not get to make the defence in court as the judge said there was a ‘complete absence of chronology’ for Mr Robinson’s investigations. Lawyers for Jamal argued Mr Robinson had very little time to carry out the interviews he claims to have conducted as his videos were published one and two days after the attack respectively”. And the verdict?

“Mr Justice Nicklin added: ‘In order to disclose a case with a real prospect of success, (Robinson) must make clear when the various interviews, and other steps upon which he places reliance, took place.’ He added the EDL founder has still failed to provide the names of anyone who accused Jamal of being violent towards them”. Oh dear!

Lennon may soon discover that there is a difference between shooting your mouth off in a video, and actually providing evidence to back that up. Moreover, that the case has now reached the High Court means it is going to be very expensive for him if he loses.

Stephen Lennon could have settled this action months ago. But now it’s too late.

Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/zelostreet7