‘I’ll make you famous’: court hears recording of Tommy Robinson threat to Daily Mail editor

Tommy Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, is accused of harassing two Daily Mail journalists in 2024. Prosecutors say he reacted angrily to reporting about his activities and used intimidating messages and online posts. He denies two charges of harassment causing fear of violence.

In a voicemail to editor Ted Verity, Robinson said he had located “every fucking one” of the journalists and had pictures that could appear in his story. He promised to make the journalists and their families “famous” and said he was prepared to “come knocking”. Andrew Young said his address was published online, while Jacob Dirnhuber said Robinson shared images and sent photographs of an unknown woman.

The alleged campaign affected journalists and relatives, not just the reporters themselves. Young feared Robinson’s 800,000 followers might seek revenge, and Dirnhuber and his partner left their home. The trial at Southwark crown court continues, with Robinson denying the charges.

In UK criminal law, harassment causing fear of violence generally concerns a course of conduct that causes a person to fear violence will be used against them. The conduct may include messages, surveillance, publishing personal details or other intimidation. It does not require the accused to say directly, “I will hurt you.” The prosecution must prove the required legal elements beyond reasonable doubt.

That differs from a straightforward threat of violence. A direct threat communicates an intention to harm someone. Harassment may work indirectly. For example, repeated contact, identifying a person’s home and displaying family photographs could make violence seem possible, especially when a large online following is involved. The article reports those kinds of circumstances in this case.

The exact legal test depends on the charge and evidence. Here, Robinson faces two counts involving journalists who said they feared violence or revenge. He denies the charges, and the jury must decide whether prosecutors have proved them beyond reasonable doubt.

The article gives a striking figure: Robinson had 800,000 followers on X at the time. That was the audience Young feared could see Robinson’s posts or statements and potentially “seek revenge” against him, his home or his family. The figure measures followers, not the number who actually viewed or acted on any message.

The reported mechanism was amplification. Robinson allegedly posted photographs, discussed journalists and their relatives, and made statements that were followed by social-media messages from anonymous accounts and apparent supporters. Young said his address was published online, and unknown men began appearing outside his home and another journalist’s home.

The case therefore concerns potential reach as well as the words themselves. A large following can increase perceived danger when personal information is shared. The trial will determine whether Robinson’s conduct amounted to harassment causing fear of violence. The article does not say how many followers acted or whether Robinson directed every message.

The journalists said they reported on Robinson’s activities in Cyprus because they believed he was working there. Dirnhuber told the court that posting on X formed part of how Robinson made money. The Mail therefore viewed his activity as a legitimate subject for journalism, rather than a purely private holiday matter.

This mattered because the reporting followed the 2024 Southport killings and accusations that Robinson had influenced subsequent riots. The Mail published a story headed “Stoking race riots from his sunbed”, which prosecutors said enraged Robinson. The journalists said they did not publish identifiable images of his children.

The dispute is therefore about both public-interest reporting and personal privacy. Prosecutor Ben Holt described Robinson’s reaction as a response to what he saw as an unnecessary intrusion into his holiday. Robinson denies harassment charges, while the journalists say the reaction included online exposure, intimidation and fear. The trial continues at Southwark crown court.

Personal information can turn online hostility into a real-world risk. An address identifies where someone lives. A photograph can help strangers recognise them or their relatives. Family details can expose people who were not involved in the reporting. Even without a physical assault, these disclosures can create fear, surveillance and pressure to leave home.

The article gives several examples. Young’s address was published by an anonymous X account, and unknown men appeared outside his home and another journalist’s home. Young’s daughter described a lone male in a vehicle seemingly photographing her. Dirnhuber and his partner left their home after images of him were shared online.

The wider effect can be lasting. Young feared followers might seek revenge, while Dirnhuber said he would be looking over his shoulder for a long time. He also said the alleged harassment could reduce his willingness to cover certain stories. The trial will assess whether this conduct caused fear of violence.

In a Crown Court trial, the jury is the fact-finding body. It listens to evidence, considers the legal directions given by the judge and decides whether the prosecution has proved each charge beyond reasonable doubt. The judge manages the trial and explains the law, but the jury decides whether the evidence establishes guilt.

Here, jurors have heard a voicemail allegedly left for editor Ted Verity. They have also heard recordings, witness statements from Andrew Young and Jacob Dirnhuber, and accounts from Young’s daughter. Other evidence includes online posts and messages from anonymous accounts and apparent followers. The jury must assess what those materials show and how reliable the evidence is.

The jury is not deciding whether Robinson’s reporting or politics were popular. It must decide whether the prosecution proved two counts of harassment causing fear of violence in 2024. Robinson denies both charges. The trial is continuing, so no verdict has been reported in the source article.

Freedom of the press means journalists can investigate, report and publish information without improper interference or intimidation. It matters because reporting can bring public attention to conduct that people in authority or public life would rather keep unseen. The freedom is not a guarantee that every report is correct or immune from criticism. It protects the ability to do the work independently.

The case shows why safety matters. The Mail reported on Robinson’s activities in Cyprus after the Southport killings and subsequent riots. Young said his address was published and feared revenge from followers. Dirnhuber said he and his partner left home after images were shared. He also said the alleged harassment could affect his willingness to cover certain stories.

When threats or exposure make journalists retreat, the public may receive less scrutiny and information. That is the broader concern, alongside the specific criminal allegations. The jury will decide the charges against Robinson. The article does not report a verdict, and the trial continues.