Tommy Robinson tells court he had photos taken of journalists’ homes to pressure them

The case concerns actions Robinson accepted taking against Andrew Young and Jacob Dirnhuber, two MailOnline journalists. He denied that those actions were intended to intimidate them, but acknowledged using private investigators and applying pressure through personal information and direct contact.

He said photographs were taken of the journalists’ homes. He shared a photograph of Dirnhuber at his home, as well as photographs of the wife and daughter of one journalist. He sent messages, spoke by telephone with one journalist, and obtained the personal number of Daily Mail editor-in-chief Ted Verity before leaving him a voicemail.

Robinson said he told the journalists he would get their addresses and use them as a “play card”. He also said he would make Verity and his family famous. He claimed his aim was pressure over a published photograph, not physical violence. The jury must assess whether his conduct amounted to harassment causing fear of violence.

In UK criminal law, harassment causing fear of violence generally concerns a course of conduct that causes another person to fear violence on at least two occasions. The alleged behaviour can involve messages, calls, publishing information, or other acts. A physical attack is not required for the charge.

The key issue is the effect and context of the conduct. Investigators and prosecutors examine what was done, how repeatedly it happened, what the accused knew or should have understood, and whether the conduct caused fear of violence. In this case, the allegations include messages, telephone contact, photographs of homes, and online posts about the journalists.

Robinson denies both charges. He says the journalists knew he would not attack them physically. The prosecution says they were scared of him, and the court heard that journalists and family members left, or considered leaving, their homes. The jury will decide whether the legal test is met.

The prosecution concerns two MailOnline journalists: Andrew Young and Jacob Dirnhuber. Robinson faces two counts of harassment causing fear of violence, one charge linked to each journalist. The article therefore gives clear figures for the journalists and charges.

The homes connected with the case are the journalists’ homes. Robinson said private investigators photographed their homes, and the court heard that Dirnhuber and his partner left their home after alleged threatening emails. Young’s family also considered leaving their home. The article does not state a precise number of homes beyond these two journalists’ homes.

The article also does not provide a complete numerical count of family members. It identifies Dirnhuber’s partner, Young’s family, and the wife and daughter whose photographs Robinson shared. Those descriptions may overlap with people affected by the events, so the safest answer is that several family members were involved, but their exact number is not stated.

The alleged campaign had consequences beyond direct contact with the journalists. The court heard that journalists and family members had to flee their homes after Robinson used what prosecutors called “bullyboy, intimidatory tactics”. Their homes became part of the pressure because Robinson arranged for photographs to be taken there.

Dirnhuber and his partner left their home as a result of threatening emails he allegedly received. Young’s family also considered leaving their home. Robinson shared photographs of one journalist’s wife and daughter, adding family members to the public dispute. The article does not say exactly how long anyone stayed away.

The case also includes online messages from other people after Robinson tweeted about the journalists. One user told Dirnhuber they would beat him. Robinson said he did not agree with such messages and did not know who sent them. The trial must consider the alleged impact of Robinson’s conduct and the wider threats that followed.

Robinson said he targeted the journalists because he believed the Daily Mail had published an unwanted photograph of his ex-wife. The image appeared in a story about his time in Cyprus, alongside the headline “Stoking race riots from his sunbed”. He said the situation made him panic and feel he was in a race against time.

He claimed publishing a photograph of Dirnhuber at home was reasonable because he wanted pressure placed on the newspaper. He also contacted the journalists and Ted Verity, the Mail’s editor-in-chief. However, Robinson conceded that when he sent messages, spoke to one journalist, and left Verity a voicemail, he had not actually asked the Mail to remove the image.

That admission matters because it separates his stated reason from the steps he took. The prosecution can point to the addresses, photographs, calls, and messages as an intimidation campaign. Robinson says he was restrained and seeking a response over the article, not threatening physical violence.

A person accused of harassment may deny wanting physical violence, but the alleged offence can still turn on whether their conduct caused fear of violence. That is why prosecutor Ben Holt questioned Robinson about how the journalists and their families reacted. The prosecution says fear was real, even though Robinson insists he would not beat anyone.

Holt also raised threatening messages posted by other people after Robinson used his X account to identify or discuss the journalists. One user told Dirnhuber they would beat him. The prosecution’s apparent point is that Robinson’s public output created an atmosphere in which others added threats. Robinson rejected responsibility for those messages and said he did not know who sent them.

The court must separate Robinson’s own conduct from other people’s actions while considering the overall effect. His claimed lack of violent intent is relevant, but it does not automatically settle whether his messages, calls, photographs, and posts caused fear of violence.

Criminal law protects strong criticism and disputes about journalism, but it does not give people unlimited freedom to pursue or frighten individuals. The important distinction is usually between expressing disagreement and engaging in a course of conduct that targets a person, invades their privacy, or causes fear of violence. A physical assault is not necessary.

In this case, the alleged conduct included private investigators, photographs of homes, direct messages, a telephone call, a voicemail, and public posts about the journalists. Robinson says these acts were pressure over a newspaper photograph. The prosecution says the pattern became intimidation, particularly because journalists and family members feared for their safety.

The court must assess the whole context, including what Robinson said, what he did, and the consequences. Other people’s threats may help explain the wider atmosphere, but they do not automatically make Robinson responsible for every message. The jury must decide whether his own conduct crossed from forceful criticism into unlawful harassment causing fear of violence.