Analysis: By Dominic Casciani, BBC home affairs correspondent
This morning, the Lord Chief Justice's ruling in Robinson's appeal underlined that the rule of law - the rules that apply to us all - must be applied fairly in all circumstances.
And that's why the Court of Appeal ruled that Robinson's second conviction in a year for contempt of court was flawed. In essence, the five hours from arrest to sentence at Leeds Crown Court was rushed.
Robinson wasn't told what specific parts of his activity at the court had been potentially prejudicial to a jury - meaning nobody to this day knows exactly what he did wrong.
Further, he immediately removed the offending video from Facebook on the court's order and the judge should have then adjourned the matter to give him longer to prepare a defence.
Tommy Robinson is still convicted of contempt in relation to his behaviour at Canterbury last year where he received his three month sentence for potentially derailing a fair trial.
Today, the Court of Appeal said that very same right to a fair hearing means Robinson should have a full opportunity to put his case without rushing to judge.
Comments
(Old Spike)
The first thing he's doing is going back to Tel Aviv.
(Old Spike)
Fortunately dickheads like him deserve to be tried under the same rules as everyone else. This is also true for religious terrorists btw.
(Old Spike)
^Didn't both of you exclaim in comments that what happened to Tommy was just a natural and fair application of British law? Yeah it was you two - I'm pretty sure both of you made comments to that effect.
Anyway, if Tommy does a video from Tel Aviv we'll add him to the list of conspirators.
(Old Spike)
At the time it appeared to be correct. Thanks to the revision process it appears now that the decision was rushed. The other convictions appear to be correct too.
No conspiracy here, move on.
(Long Spike)
Nah, you're a cunt.
And you fuck dogs.
(Old Spike)
LOL your contributions, as always, are formidable.
(Old Spike)
Not sure what your point is skeptoid, his case is going to retrial because he was apparently sentenced to quickly ... for a crime he committed while serving a suspended sentence for the same crime. The judge in the first case told him unequivically that he'd serve time if he did it again. Nothing has changed.
Do you seriously think this vindicates him or the people caught up in "free speech" hysteria?
(Old Spike)
The beef was and always has been that the law was improperly applied for political reasons. This ruling bears that out. You and DaftCunt derided that position and argued that it's just the impartial applicatin of British law and everyone raising objections was overreacting.
(Old Spike)
The previous judge told him unequivically that if he does it again he'll go away. He did it again & he went away. The fact that a ruling says his sentencing was too fast and he's to be retried doesn't prove that the hysteria you were caught up in has any merit. From memory it was all about "freedom of speech" & ignorance of UK media law.
Do you have evidence that the judge was politically motivated to sentence him?
IMHO the trial seems to imply that the judge doesn't like Tommy (I wonder why).
I guess we'll have to wait & see what comes of the retrial. Maybe a sentence reduction if the judge is more sympathetic to this repeat offender. Given his history I doubt he's going to get off lightly regardless of the judge. The fact remains that he committed a crime while serving a suspended sentence for committing the same crime. He even admits near the start of his 2.5 hour broadcast that there was a media ban on the trial he was reporting on. Seem like an open & shut case. His legal team may try to argue that he didn't know that he was within a certain distance of the trial or soemthing but we'll see.
(Old Spike)
He committed no crime.
(Short Spike)
Why is this rated so low ? The guy that made the video is fair when expressing his views on the matter.