Guilty verdicts at Southwark Crown Court
Tommy Robinson has been found guilty of harassing two Daily Mail journalists during the nationwide unrest that followed the murders of three young girls in Southport in July 2024. The activist, who stood trial at Southwark Crown Court under the name Stephen Lennon, was convicted on Wednesday 28 October 2026 of two counts of harassment causing fear of violence, one relating to each journalist.
The verdicts were returned by a majority of 10 jurors to two, after 11 hours and 25 minutes of deliberation. Robinson, 43, was released on bail ahead of sentencing on 16 December. Reporting of the case notes that he faces up to 10 years in prison for the offences, although the sentence itself will be decided by the judge at that hearing, taking account of the trial evidence, the law, and any mitigation put forward on his behalf.
The two journalists were Jacob Dirnhuber, an editor at the Daily Mail and MailOnline, and Andrew Young, a freelance investigative journalist working on the story. The court heard that both men were left fearing violence, and that they either left their homes or employed extra security as a result of Robinson's conduct. Prosecutors described the behaviour as bullying and intimidatory, a characterisation the jury accepted when it returned guilty verdicts on both counts. Coverage of UK court cases can also be found in our news section.
How the case began
The background to the case lies in the summer of 2024. After three young girls were murdered in Southport that July, riots spread across Britain, and Robinson repeatedly posted about the killings on social media. The Daily Mail tracked him down to Cyprus, where he was on holiday with his family, and published a story which accused him of stoking race riots from his sunbed.
That article, and the reporting trip behind it, formed the trigger for the conduct at the heart of the trial. Dirnhuber, as an editor, had dispatched Young to Cyprus to cover the story about where Robinson was and what he was doing, accompanied by a photographer. The newspaper's reporting described a series of posts by Robinson about the unrest, some of which it later said were shown to be false, including claims about stabbings in Stoke and Stirling. Robinson's case, as reported from the trial, was that he had only intended to put pressure on the journalists and the Daily Mail to remove a picture of his ex-wife from their website.
What followed, according to the prosecution, went well beyond a complaint about a photograph. The court heard that Robinson repeatedly contacted the two journalists, posted several messages about them on X, and said he had photos of their home address and family. On a telephone call with Young on 5 August 2024, he became increasingly menacing, telling the freelance journalist: "I'm coming to get you." The jury heard that Robinson went on to hire private investigators to find the home addresses of his victims, as well as that of the Daily Mail's editor-in-chief, Ted Verity. Photographs of Dirnhuber outside his home and cropped images of Young's family were posted online by Robinson, the court was told.
A clock on the Royal Courts of Justice building in London
Credit: The wub via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0. Illustrative image of a London court building.
What the jury was asked to decide
Harassment causing fear of violence is a serious offence, and the prosecution had to prove more than rudeness or aggressive criticism. Jurors had to be satisfied that Robinson pursued a course of conduct, through his messages, calls and posts, which he knew or ought to have known would cause the journalists to fear that violence would be used against them, and that it did in fact cause that fear.
The defence position, as reported, was that Robinson's intention was narrower: to press the newspaper to take down a picture of his ex-wife. That argument invited the jury to see the contact as forceful campaigning rather than intimidation. The prosecution case, by contrast, asked jurors to look at the pattern as a whole, including the hiring of private investigators, the references to home addresses and family members, and the language used in direct contact with Young. The jury accepted the prosecution case, by a majority of 10 to two on both counts.
The length of deliberation, 11 hours and 25 minutes, suggests jurors took time over the evidence rather than reaching a quick conclusion. Majority verdicts are permitted in England and Wales where a jury cannot agree unanimously after sufficient deliberation, provided at least 10 jurors agree. The judge addressed the jury after the verdicts, and Robinson sat down and shook his head quietly, according to court reporting.
A second conviction involving a journalist
This is Robinson's second conviction for harassing a journalist. In 2023, he was handed a five year stalking protection order after he shouted abuse outside the home of Lizzie Dearden, the former home affairs correspondent at the Independent, and her partner, and threatened to repeatedly return to the address. That history was part of the background reported around this trial, though the jury in the current case was asked to decide the two 2024 charges on their own evidence.
Robinson is a well known figure in British public life, and his trial drew attention for another reason before it began. He said that billionaire X owner Elon Musk, who often reposts Robinson and allowed him to return to the social media platform, was supporting his defence. Musk also paid for Robinson's defence last year when he was charged with failing to provide his phone PIN to police, a charge on which he was cleared by a judge, and Musk virtually attended a rally in London organised by Robinson last year. Those details do not form part of the charges, but they illustrate the public profile of the defendant and the audience that followed the case online.
The case also raises a wider question about the safety of journalists doing their jobs. Reporters who cover unrest, extremism and public order stories often work in difficult conditions, and the court heard that in this case two journalists changed how and where they lived because of fear. Press freedom organisations regularly warn that online intimidation can have a chilling effect, discouraging reporters from pursuing stories or causing them to withdraw from public facing work. The verdict in this case does not settle that wider debate, but it does establish, as a matter of criminal law, that the specific conduct toward Dirnhuber and Young crossed the line from criticism into harassment causing fear of violence. For related reporting on politics and public life, see our politics coverage and our opinion section.
What happens at sentencing
Sentencing is listed for 16 December, and Robinson remains on bail until then. At that hearing, the judge will hear submissions from both sides, including any personal mitigation and any victim impact material the journalists wish to put forward. The maximum sentence for the offences, as reported, is 10 years in prison, but a maximum is not a prediction. Judges in England and Wales follow sentencing guidelines, consider the seriousness of the offending, the harm caused, and the defendant's record, and set a sentence within the available range.
It is also possible that further reporting restrictions or other orders will be considered at sentencing, and the judge may address the question of costs and any protective orders. Until the hearing takes place, the precise outcome remains unknown, and any speculation about the length of sentence would be premature. What is known now is the verdict itself: guilty on both counts, by a majority, after a trial at Southwark Crown Court.
The case will be remembered, in part, because of its origin in a single newspaper story published during a summer of unrest. A report about a public figure on holiday in Cyprus, and a dispute about a photograph, escalated into months of contact, the hiring of investigators, and ultimately a criminal trial. The jury's decision brings that part of the story to a close, even as sentencing, and the wider conversation about online harassment of journalists, continues. Readers can keep up with developments on the homepage, and learn more about this site on the about page. Our world section carries related court and press freedom stories from outside the UK.
