Tommy Robinson arrives at Old Bailey court to large crowd of supporters
For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
A judge has adjourned Tommy Robinson's rehearing over alleged contempt of court.
The 35-year-old, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, attended the Old Bailey on Thursday morning as hundreds of his supporters protested outside.
The Recorder of London, Judge Nicholas Hilliard QC, invited parties in the case to make written submissions on whether there should be a "substantive hearing" and how it should proceed.
He will make a decision on what will happen next at another hearing, which may take place next month
Please allow a moment for the live blog to load
Tommy Robinson supporters protest outside the Old Bailey
Show all 16
A judge will later consider allegations that he “published a matter which is likely to cause contempt of court” during ongoing trials in Leeds.
Court of Appeal judges ordered a rehearing, saying the “alleged contempt was serious and the sentence might be longer than that already served”.
Robinson is also accused of breaching the conditions of a three-month suspended sentence he was handed for a separate contempt offence in Canterbury in 2017.
In a video posted on his official Facebook page on 20 September, Robinson vowed that he would not apologise or make any admission of guilt, and said he was expecting to be jailed again.
Two large “Free Tommy” protests in London saw disorder break out earlier this year, with police attacked and demonstrators performing Nazi salutes and blockading a bus driven by a Muslim woman.
Robinson was released from prison on 1 August, when high-profile backers including the Ukip leader Gerard Batten, Dutch opposition leader Geert Wilders and the former Breitbart London editor Raheem Kassam hailed the verdict as a victory for “freedom of speech”.
The Court of Appeal found that procedural failings by the judge who jailed Robinson for 13 months at Leeds Crown Court “gave rise to unfairness” and meant proceedings were “fundamentally flawed”.
The Lord Chief Justice and two other judges said that while Geoffrey Marson QC was right to bring Robinson before him to have the Facebook video deleted and protect jury deliberations, the case was dealt with too fast and did not follow criminal procedure rules.
They found that Judge Marson “proceeded on the basis that the appellant had admitted his contempt” after Robinson’s lawyer apologised on his behalf, but he was not asked to respond to the particulars of the allegations himself.
Tommy Robinson march: Far-right protesters demand EDL founder release
Show all 50
Judges did not say Robinson had not committed contempt of court, and accused him of delaying the appeals “for tactical reasons and collateral advantage”.
Their judgment suggested that Robinson may have committed contempt both by violating reporting restrictions and with “generally prejudicial remarks”, including on the “ethnic and religious backgrounds of the defendants”.
“These comments were, at least potentially, capable of amounting to a freestanding contempt of court,” it continued.
“The alleged contempt was serious and the sentence might be longer than that already served if a finding is again made against [Robinson].”
Contempt of court laws aim to ensure fair trial in Britain by preventing juries from being swayed by information from outside the hearing, and apply to all forms of online and offline publications.
The offences are covered by a “strict liability rule”, meaning that intent and knowledge of committing them are not necessary for a conviction.
But Robinson’s case has become a cause celebre for far-right groups around the world, who characterise his treatment as a crackdown on “free speech”.
Regarding Robinson's comments earlier about the Old Bailey being the 'highest court in the land' - for those of you wondering what the correct answer is, it is the Supreme Court of England and Wales
While we're waiting for the case to start, here is the previous ruling at the Court of Appeal. Judges freed Robinson in August because of procedural failings by the judge who originally jailed him at Leeds Crown Court.
They ordered that a rehearing of the matter took place at the Old Bailey, and here we are
The start of the hearing has been delayed. The parties of the case are present but the public gallery remains empty and the judge, the Recorder of London His Honour Judge Nicholas Hilliard QC, isn't here yet
Angus McCullough QC, the advocate of the court, is explaining that he was appointed by the Attorney General but is not acting on his behalf and is "completely independent"
Richard Furlong QC, who is representing Robinson, says he is going to make submissions to the court in writing. We don't know what they are about precisely, but it seems to concern procedure.
Judge Hilliard says he will make his decision publicly because "there's a public interest in what is going on and what form the proceedings take"
Judge Hilliard: "I'm very anxious that what happens in these proceedings, in whatever form they take, that they can be reported fully and contemporaneously. That is very important."
Judge Hilliard says a prospective next date is 23 October, but that is not set in stone. He says he wants to continue with the case as soon as possible for everyone's benefit, including Robinson's.
