Tommy Robinson loses libel case brought by Syrian schoolboy

Tommy Robinson has misplaced a libel case brought towards him by a Syrian teenager who was filmed being attacked in school.

The founding father of the English Defence League – whose actual title is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – was sued by Jamal Hijazi, who was assaulted within the playground at Almondbury group college in Huddersfield in October 2018.

Shortly after the video of the incident went viral, Robinson claimed in two Facebook movies that Jamal was “not innocent and he violently attacks young English girls in his school”.

In the clips seen by practically 1 million folks, Robinson, 38, additionally claimed Jamal “beat a girl black and blue” and “threatened to stab” one other boy at his college, allegations {the teenager} denies.

At a four-day trial in April, Jamal’s attorneys stated Robinson’s feedback had “a devastating effect” on the schoolboy and his household who had come to the UK as refugees from Homs, Syria.

Robinson, who represented himself, argued his feedback had been considerably 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 dominated in Jamal’s favour and granted him £100,000 in damages.

Catrin Evans QC, for Jamal, beforehand stated that Robinson’s feedback led to {the teenager} “facing death threats and extremist agitation” and that he ought to obtain damages of between £150,000 and £190,000.

During the trial, Evans described Robinson as “a well-known extreme-right advocate” with an “anti-Muslim agenda” who used social media to unfold his views.

She added that Robinson’s movies “turned Jamal into the aggressor and the bully into a righteous white knight”.

However, Robinson maintained he was an impartial journalist throughout the trial, telling the court docket: “The media simply had zero interest in the other side of this story, the uncomfortable truth.”

A listening to will comply with Thursday’s judgment to contemplate the implications of the ruling.

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *