A judge has adjourned Tommy Robinson's rehearing over alleged contempt of court.
The 35-year-old, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, attended the Old Bailey on Thursday morning as hundreds of his supporters protested outside.
The Recorder of London, Judge Nicholas Hilliard QC, invited parties in the case to make written submissions on whether there should be a "substantive hearing" and how it should proceed.
He will make a decision on what will happen next at another hearing, which may take place next month
Why Tommy Robinson could find himself in jail again
The IndependentThe far-right leader to attend Old Bailey for rehearing over alleged contempt of court in LeedsRobinson is also accused of breaching the conditions of a three-month suspended sentence he was handed for a separate contempt offence in Canterbury in 2017.
Old Bailey judge to decide on whether to jail Tommy Robinson again for alleged contempt of court
Robinson was jailed in May over incident in Leeds but freed last month because of 'procedural deficiencies'Supporters have organised a protest to start ahead of the hearing and a significant police presence is expected to separate them from counter-demonstrators.
The Supreme Court
The official website of The UK Supreme Court.
R v Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)Please allow a moment for the live blog to load
A judge will later consider allegations that he “published a matter which is likely to cause contempt of court” during ongoing trials in Leeds.
Robinson was originally jailed for 13 months over a Facebook Live video he broadcast from outside the city’s crown court in May, but the findings were overturned last month and he was freed.
Court of Appeal judges ordered a rehearing, saying the “alleged contempt was serious and the sentence might be longer than that already served”.
Robinson is also accused of breaching the conditions of a three-month suspended sentence he was handed for a separate contempt offence in Canterbury in 2017.
In a video posted on his official Facebook page on 20 September, Robinson vowed that he would not apologise or make any admission of guilt, and said he was expecting to be jailed again.
Two large “Free Tommy” protests in London saw disorder break out earlier this year, with police attacked and demonstrators performing Nazi salutes and blockading a bus driven by a Muslim woman.
Robinson was released from prison on 1 August, when high-profile backers including the Ukip leader Gerard Batten, Dutch opposition leader Geert Wilders and the former Breitbart London editor Raheem Kassam hailed the verdict as a victory for “freedom of speech”.
The Court of Appeal found that procedural failings by the judge who jailed Robinson for 13 months at Leeds Crown Court “gave rise to unfairness” and meant proceedings were “fundamentally flawed”.
The Lord Chief Justice and two other judges said that while Geoffrey Marson QC was right to bring Robinson before him to have the Facebook video deleted and protect jury deliberations, the case was dealt with too fast and did not follow criminal procedure rules.
They found that Judge Marson “proceeded on the basis that the appellant had admitted his contempt” after Robinson’s lawyer apologised on his behalf, but he was not asked to respond to the particulars of the allegations himself.
Judges did not say Robinson had not committed contempt of court, and accused him of delaying the appeals “for tactical reasons and collateral advantage”.
Their judgment suggested that Robinson may have committed contempt both by violating reporting restrictions and with “generally prejudicial remarks”, including on the “ethnic and religious backgrounds of the defendants”.
“These comments were, at least potentially, capable of amounting to a freestanding contempt of court,” it continued.
“The alleged contempt was serious and the sentence might be longer than that already served if a finding is again made against [Robinson].”
Contempt of court laws aim to ensure fair trails in Britain by preventing juries from being swayed by information from outside the hearing, and apply to all forms of online and offline publications.
The offences are covered by a “strict liability rule”, meaning that intent and knowledge of committing them are not necessary for a conviction.
But Robinson’s case has become a cause celebre for far-right groups around the world, who characterise his treatment as a crackdown on “free speech”.
