In a previous blog, the defamation case pursued by Mr Hijazi against Mr Yaxley-Lennon aka Tommy Robinson was discussed. Further details on the background of the case can be read here.
Facts
Mr Yaxley-Lennon failed in the defence of the defamation claim in which he alleged that the allegations he had made in a number of videos about the Claimant were true. In addition to making a substantial six figure award in damages, Mr Justice Nicklin also granted an injunction, with a clear notice at the top of the order confirming the likelihood of prosecution if the injunction was breached, preventing Mr Yaxley-Lennon from repeating the allegations he had made against the Claimant.
The Solicitor General alleges that Mr Yaxley-Lennon breached the terms of the injunction a number of times after it was issued. The Solicitor General therefore pursues Contempt of Court proceedings against Mr Yaxley-Lennon. It is fair to say that Mr Yaxley-Lennon has not made it easy for the Solicitor General. The evidence before the Court at the recent directions hearing listed in respect of the Contempt of Court proceedings about service of the application demonstrates that Mr Yaxley-Lennon (albeit him being recognised by the process server that attended to serve the application) denied that he was the defendant when the process server served the application. Notwithstanding this position, the judge readily accepted that Mr Yaxley-Lennon had been served with the application for Contempt of Court but had chosen not to engage with the proceedings.
The judge decided that it was appropriate to issue a warrant for the arrest of Mr Yaxley-Lennon to ensure his attendance at the final substantive hearing for the following reasons:
1. The Court had concluded that Mr Yaxley-Lennon had deliberately chosen not to attend the directions hearing and accordingly there was a significant risk that he might not attend the final hearing;
2. It was in the interests of justice for Mr Yaxley-Lennon to be given the opportunity to be heard before a potential prison sentence is handed down; and
3. Given that the substantive hearing in the Contempt of Court proceedings would not be until late October 2024 and accordingly that the warrant would not be executed until early October 2024 at the earliest, it gave Mr Yaxley-Lennon the opportunity to seek to set the warrant aside if he chose to engage with the proceedings.
Comment
This case clearly demonstrates that the Court (ironically) will favour issuing a warrant for the arrest of a Defendant in Contempt of Court proceedings so that the Defendant will have the opportunity to be heard at the substantive hearing, which may lead to a period of incarceration if the application for Contempt of Court is found against the Defendant. This is perhaps not surprising given the fundamental right to a fair trial enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998.
How can we help?
Kevin Modiri is a Partner in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in civil disputes, insolvency, inheritance disputes, data breach claims and defamation claims.
If you have any questions concerning the subjects discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact Kevin or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us