Which court decided it?

High Court (Divisional Court) in 2019. Neutral citation: [2019] EWHC 1791 (QB).

Why does it matter for UK journalists?

Live-streaming outside a court can be strict-liability contempt if it creates substantial risk of prejudice. Social-media publication reach and permanence are relevant to the risk. The court sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment.

Attorney General v Yaxley-Lennon

[2019] EWHC 1791 (QB) — High Court (Divisional Court), 2019

Last reviewed: 14 July 2026Next review due: 14 January 2027

What the court held

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon ("Tommy Robinson") was found guilty of contempt of court for a Facebook livestream that risked prejudicing an ongoing sexual-grooming trial. Confirms that live-streamed social-media coverage of active proceedings can breach the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

Key rulings

Live-streaming outside a court can be strict-liability contempt if it creates substantial risk of prejudice.
Social-media publication reach and permanence are relevant to the risk.
The court sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment.

Topics

Contempt of courtSocial mediaStrict liability

Acts cited

Contempt of Court Act 1981

Authoritative source

Read the full judgment on BAILII (British and Irish Legal Information Institute):

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/1791.html

Related landmark cases

Landmark caseAttorney General v MGN Ltd [2011] EWHC 2074 (Admin)Read →Landmark caseHM Attorney General v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWHC 418 (Admin)Read →Landmark caseMonroe v Hopkins [2017] EWHC 433 (QB)Read →Landmark caseStocker v Stocker [2019] UKSC 17Read →

Case summaries are drafted by UK JournoHub Editorial for practising UK journalists. They are not legal advice. Always consult primary sources and, for high-risk stories, take specialist legal advice.