Because sometimes, the law really does work.

Back in October 2024, I wrote about Stephen Yaxley-Lennon’s (aka Tommy Robinson) 18-month prison sentence for contempt of court. I predicted that any appeal would be futile. Fast forward to April 2025, and the Court of Appeal has confirmed that prediction by dismissing his appeal in Yaxley-Lennon v HM Solicitor General [2025] EWCA Civ 476.

Let’s break down the law behind it - and the judgment from the related judicial review - because the court’s reasoning is not just a win for procedural fairness. It’s a masterclass in how the judiciary deals with serial contempt and performative defiance.

Contempt of Court: A Tool of Enforcement

At the heart of the case was civil contempt: breaching an injunction imposed to prevent Yaxley-Lennon from repeating defamatory and dangerous claims relating to previous litigation. His breach was not only deliberate - it was proudly publicised.

Civil contempt is not a criminal offence in the traditional sense, but it’s punishable by imprisonment because it involves wilful disobedience of court orders. As the Court of Appeal reaffirmed, where a contemnor has shown no remorse, no cooperation, and no willingness to correct the record, a custodial sentence is appropriate.

Judgment Highlights: EWCA Civ 476

The Court of Appeal dismissed every limb of the appeal:

  • On timing: The appeal was 105 days out of time. Robinson’s team blamed mental health, lack of legal access, and prison conditions. The court didn’t buy it. There were no exceptional circumstances.
  • On the sentence: The court found that the sentencing judge had approached the matter properly. The breaches were serious. The 18-month sentence was severe—but not excessive.
  • On mental health: Robinson submitted that he suffers from ADHD and PTSD. The court accepted that he faces challenges, but they were already known at the time of sentencing and weren’t new or worsening in a legally meaningful way.

The final nail? The judges noted that Yaxley-Lennon could be released early - if only he purged himself of his contempt.

“He Holds the Keys to His Cell”

Under the rules governing civil contempt, a contemnor may be released if they purge their contempt - i.e., make an unambiguous public apology, withdraw the offending content, and agree to comply in the future.

Yaxley-Lennon has made no effort to do so. As the court observed, "he continues to assert that he has done nothing wrong."

That’s a choice. And it’s one with consequences.

Had he simply done what the law required - acknowledge the wrongdoing and promise to comply - he could have walked free months ago. He hasn’t. Because for Robinson, martyrdom is often the message. The sentence isn’t just punishment - it’s branding.

The Judicial Review Judgment: Yaxley-Lennon v Secretary of State for Justice (March 2025)

This earlier case challenged his segregation and prison conditions on Article 3 ECHR grounds (inhuman or degrading treatment).

The High Court said no. Segregation was a necessary and proportionate response to serious risks to his safety. The conditions were lawful. His cell had books, calls, exercise, a laptop, and regular mental health reviews.

It’s a significant finding because it undermines one of the key arguments made in the appeal: that the conditions of imprisonment were so exceptional they made the sentence disproportionate. The judicial review ruling confirmed that his treatment was within the law.

You can’t argue your way out of contempt based on how you're treated in custody - especially when that treatment is found to be reasonable.

Final Thoughts: The Law Isn’t Fooled by Performance

This appeal confirms what many of us already suspected: the courts are not swayed by political theatre.

The judgment affirms that civil contempt must be taken seriously. It reinforces that when courts make orders, those orders mean something. And it shows that while mental health matters, it’s not a shield against legal accountability when used disingenuously.

Yaxley-Lennon has the power to end his imprisonment. But he won’t use it - because the cell serves his narrative better than freedom does.