Tommy Robinson has lost a libel case brought against him by a Syrian schoolboy who was filmed being attacked at school.
The English Defence League founder – whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – was sued by Jamal Hijazi, who was assaulted in the playground at Almondbury Community School in Huddersfield in October 2018.
Shortly after the video of the incident went viral, Mr Robinson claimed in two Facebook videos that Jamal was “not innocent and he violently attacks young English girls in his school”.
READ MORE: Nigel Farage criticised for 'revolting' GB News report on English Channel migrants
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.
At a four-day trial in April, Jamal’s lawyers said that Mr Robinson’s comments had “a devastating effect” on the schoolboy and his family who had come to the UK as refugees from Homs, Syria.
Mr Robinson, who represented himself, argued his comments were substantially true, claiming to have “uncovered dozens of accounts of aggressive, abusive and deceitful behaviour” by Jamal.
However, in a judgment delivered on Thursday, Mr Justice Nicklin ruled in Jamal’s favour and granted him £100,000 in damages.
Catrin Evans QC, for Jamal, previously said that Robinson’s comments led to the teenager “facing death threats and extremist agitation” and that he should receive damages of between £150,000 and £190,000.
During the trial, Ms Evans described Mr Robinson as “a well-known extreme-right advocate” with an “anti-Muslim agenda” who used social media to spread his views.
READ MORE: JK Rowling praises SNP MP for 'incredible bravery' on women's rights
She added that Mr Robinson’s videos “turned Jamal into the aggressor and the bully into a righteous white knight”.
However, Mr Robinson maintained he was an independent journalist during the trial, telling the court: “The media simply had zero interest in the other side of this story, the uncomfortable truth.”
A hearing will follow Thursday’s judgment to consider the consequences of the ruling.
Jamal Hijazi’s lawyers have welcomed Mr Justice Nicklin’s judgment in favour of the 18-year-old.
Francesca Flood, from Burlingtons Legal, said: “It took great courage for our client, Jamal Hijazi, to pursue his libel action against such a prominent far-right and anti-Islam activist as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, better known as Tommy Robinson.
“We are delighted that Jamal has been entirely vindicated.
“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.”
READ MORE: Uzma Mir: If we want to challenge extremism, banning the hijab is not the answer
In his judgment, Mr Justice Nicklin said Jamal Hijazi suffered “particularly severe” consequences due to Tommy Robinson’s videos.
He said: “The defendant’s allegations against the claimant were very serious and were published widely. The defendant has admitted that their publication has caused serious harm to the claimant’s reputation.”
Discussing the media attention that was on the original viral video, he added: “The defendant’s contribution to this media frenzy was a deliberate effort to portray the claimant as being, far from an innocent victim, but in fact a violent aggressor.
“Worse, the language used in the first and second videos was calculated to inflame the situation.
“As was entirely predictable, the claimant then became the target of abuse which ultimately led to him and his family having to leave their home, and the claimant to have to abandon his education.
“The defendant is responsible for this harm, some of the scars of which, particularly the impact on the claimant’s education, are likely last for many years, if not a lifetime.”
READ MORE: 'Shocking': One in three who refuse to pay fine in Scotland escape prosecution
Mr Justice Nicklin continued: “The defendant took on the burden of proving his allegations to be true. He has failed.
“In reality, and for the reasons I have explained, his evidence fell woefully short.
“He has, however, persisted with the serious allegations he originally made, and has even added to them during the proceedings.
“The claimant has had to face them in the full glare and publicity of a High Court trial.
“It is my responsibility to make clear that the defendant has failed in his defence of truth, to vindicate the claimant and to award him a sum in damages that represents fair compensation. The sum I award is £100,000.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel