Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Tommy Robinson, the court case and (guffaw) 'free speech'

Only it's a summary
Summary + full here

I've only skimmed both but there is quite a touching bit in one of them where the judge says he reckons the kid who attacked Jamal Hijazi is also a victim and has been used by Yaxley.
 
Costs follow the event, so as Yaxley lost the case, he'll normally be ordered to pay the costs. Costs for a case like that could be £50k to £200k depending on the length of the trial etc.

If he's bankrupt, by definition he doesn't have money to pay. But if he's going to be getting money from his OnlyFans or whatever, that income can be tapped into to pay the damages and the costs. It's not straightforward to do though as Yaxley will probably set it up so the money is never in his hands, and so can't be touched
 
LOLcakes in the oven!

Anti-Islam activist Tommy Robinson has lost a High Court libel case brought by a Syrian schoolboy.

Jamal Hijazi was filmed being attacked in the playground at Almondbury School in Huddersfield in October 2018.

The English Defence League founder, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, claimed Mr Hijazi attacked "young English girls".
Mr Justice Nicklin ruled in Mr Hijazi's favour and granted him £100,000 in damages.
Shortly after the video of the incident went viral, Mr Robinson claimed in two Facebook videos that the teenager was "not innocent and he violently attacks young English girls in his school".
In the clips viewed by nearly one million people, the 38-year-old also claimed Jamal "beat a girl black and blue" and "threatened to stab" another boy at his school, allegations the teenager denies.

 
God knows however there may be two questions or more . Is their a legal right to appeal the decision and secondly does that route require means beyond what he has .

He's representing himself so an appeal wouldn't cost anything.

You need leave to appeal many court decisions. I'm not sure about defamation cases

e2a. He would need permission to appeal.
 
Some good clarifications rubbershoes nice one.

Bit of a charade if he can wriggle out of it but the judgement is clear. Obviously I would like the lot paid in full...
I imagine that this means that for the next quite a few years, Yaxley-Lemon and his financial affairs are going to be very much under scrutiny.

I wonder what happens if he continues to perpetrate libels to take advantage of the fact that he's effectively "judgement proof"?
 
I imagine that this means that for the next quite a few years, Yaxley-Lemon and his financial affairs are going to be very much under scrutiny.

I wonder what happens if he continues to perpetrate libels to take advantage of the fact that he's effectively "judgement proof"?
Quite. If he is constantly successfully begging for money but remains bankrupt then questions will be asked you'd think.

And as he knows from the "filming court attendees" debacle, if you keep doing the same thing you end up with a custodial.
 
Update from the BBC, could be £500k in costs. :D

The English Defence League founder, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, claimed Mr Hijazi attacked "young English girls".
Mr Justice Nicklin ruled in Mr Hijazi's favour and granted him £100,000 in damages.
He was also ordered to pay legal costs which the BBC understands amount to about £500,000.
The final figures will be agreed and submitted to the High Court as part of forthcoming hearings to establish his means and assets.

There's going to be some sort of special judicial hearing to find out what assets he may have hidden.

 
If has good advice, there is no reason for him to ever hold any assets in his name again. He can continue this civil action performances for as long as he wants.he’s a twat but not thick. Why bother suing if you have to pay your own costs. Nice little paradigm going on there
 
If has good advice, there is no reason for him to ever hold any assets in his name again. He can continue this civil action performances for as long as he wants.he’s a twat but not thick. Why bother suing if you have to pay your own costs. Nice little paradigm going on there
Of course, this presumably works the other way around.

If he is bankrupt and unable to pay costs and damages awarded to him, presumably I could - hypothetically - suggest that someone in a similar position to him likes being fucked by shaved goats while under a shower of hazelnut yogurt and pigeon shit, with goldfish nibbling at his bollocks, and there would be nothing that such a hypothetical bankrupt person could do about it...? :hmm:
 
Where did the kid get the money to start suing in the first place from? Was there someone with deep pockets and a strong enough dislike of Tommy willing to stake half a million on it?
 
Where did the kid get the money to start suing in the first place from? Was there someone with deep pockets and a strong enough dislike of Tommy willing to stake half a million on it?
From the BBC report

Jamal Hijazi's lawyers welcomed the judgement and praised Mr Hijazi's "courage" in pursuing the claim. Francesca Flood, from Burlingtons Legal, said: "Jamal and his family now wish to put this matter behind them in order that they can get on with their lives. They do, however, wish to extend their gratitude to the Great British public for their support and generosity, without which this legal action would not have been possible."
 
Back
Top Bottom