The story, published while he was in Cyprus in August 2024, reported on Robinson’s comments about the Southport riots, which took place that summer.

After its publication, with the headline “Stoking riots from his sunbed”, the activist said he wanted to challenge the journalists “on camera”.

The founder of the EDL said he was left “panicked and terrified” after the Daily Mail’s story was published.

Robinson first became aware of the story after his phone “started going crazy with people messaging me”.

And, today, when asked how his family had been impacted, he insisted he would “not endanger any innocent family”.

When the story was published, he said, his family moved to a different room in the hotel after he raised concerns with the building’s security.

The defendant told the court he hired investigators to find the addresses of freelance journalist Andrew Young and editor Jacob Dirnhuber.

In Southwark Crown Court today, he insisted he did not want to hurt their families. Explaining he wanted to “put pressure on them”, he told jurors: “I wanted to find the journalists.”

The defendant denied that hiring the private investigators, who he enlisted to take photographs of the journalists’ homes, was meant to “intimidate them”.

When asked whether there was “any need at all” to share picture of the home addresses, Robinson said: “As I said at the time, I was desperate and I didn’t publish their addresses or their images.

“It was an attempt to bring the Daily Mail to the table.”

He further said he believed it to be “totally reasonable … under the circumstances” to post a picture of Mr Dirnhuber outside his home online.

When asked by defence lawyer Alisdair Williamson KC if he wanted to expose the journalist to threats of violence, he said: “Not at all.

“I didn’t really think about what he was being exposed to.”

Robinson told the court he was trying to encourage the paper to take down a picture of his ex-wife from the published story.

He said he wanted to ask the Daily Mail about “the wrongness of what they had done” during a conversation his alleged victim branded “menacing”.

He added: “I just wanted them to acknowledge – is it OK? If I was to do this to you, would that be OK?”

Shortly after the article was published, he said people were sharing the name of the hotel he was staying at in Cyprus, with some “telling people to head there”.

When Mr Williamson asked if his comments after the Southport stabbing were “rather intemperate”, he agreed, adding that he made “calls for calm” afterwards.

The defendant told the jury: “I would not endanger any innocent family. They could have run the story without giving my location.

“They shouldn’t have done that and this is not journalism, this is endangering us. I would find the men on camera and ask them how was I stoking race riots?

“They put the story out there and it’s everywhere and all of a sudden, it’s matter of fact.

“The main question I wanted to ask is: is it OK what you have done?”

The defendant pleaded not guilty to two charges of harassment causing fear of violence in July last year. The trial continues.

Tommy Robinson Weeps in Court During Journalist Harassment Trial

Tommy Robinson broke down in tears while giving evidence at Southwark Crown Court, where he is facing allegations of harassing two journalists from the Daily Mail and MailOnline. The political activist became visibly emotional when questioned about the impact of a newspaper article on his family, as a trial examining social media posts, private investigators and alleged intimidation entered a critical stage.

Robinson, whose legal name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, denies two charges of harassment causing fear of violence. The allegations relate to events in August 2024, when he became involved in a dispute with journalists over a story published during a family holiday in Cyprus.

The case has attracted considerable attention because it raises difficult questions about press freedom, online influence, personal privacy and the responsibilities of people with large social media followings. It also places the competing accounts of the defendant and the journalists at the centre of a legal process in which the jury must determine whether the prosecution has proved its case.

Emotional testimony in the witness box

Robinson became tearful when his defence barrister asked how his public profile and the newspaper story had affected his children. He struggled to answer, wiping his eyes with tissues as he described the pressure he said his family had experienced.

He told the court that he had been shocked and frightened after learning that the MailOnline article had been published while he was in Cyprus in August 2024. The report, headlined “Stoking riots from his sunbed”, concerned his social media activity during the unrest that followed the Southport murders.

Robinson said the article had caused his phone to receive a large number of messages and claimed that information about the hotel where he was staying had circulated online. He said his family moved to another part of the hotel after he spoke to security staff.

His emotional testimony offered the jury an account of the personal impact he says the incident had on him. However, the central issue in the trial is not simply whether Robinson felt distressed by the reporting. It is whether his subsequent actions towards the journalists amounted to harassment causing fear of violence under the law.

The dispute with two journalists

The prosecution concerns Robinson’s conduct towards freelance journalist Andrew Young and Daily Mail editor Jacob Dirnhuber.

The court heard that Robinson hired private investigators to find the journalists’ home addresses and obtain photographs. He acknowledged that he wanted to locate them and put pressure on them after becoming angry about the article.

Robinson maintained that he wanted to question the journalists on camera about their reporting and challenge what he considered to be the publication of damaging and potentially dangerous information about his family.

He denied intending to encourage violence against either man or their relatives. He said he wanted the newspaper to address his concerns and remove an image connected with the article.

However, the journalists’ position is that Robinson’s actions made them fear violence. The prosecution argues that the combination of public posts, messages and attempts to identify their home addresses went beyond an ordinary dispute between a public figure and the press.

That disagreement is central to the case. Conduct that one person describes as an attempt to demand answers can be experienced very differently by the person targeted, particularly when the individual making the demands has a large online following.

Prosecutors challenge Robinson’s explanation

During questioning, Robinson was pressed about the consequences of publishing information and images connected to the journalists.

Prosecutors argued that identifying reporters and drawing attention to them on social media could expose them to hostile responses from followers. The court heard evidence about comments posted by other users, including threatening messages directed at one of the journalists.

Robinson denied encouraging anyone to threaten or attack the reporters. He said he did not agree with the hostile comments and maintained that he had not intended to put the journalists or their families in danger.

He also argued that his actions were motivated by concern for his own family after the newspaper published information about his holiday.

The prosecution’s case, however, is that Robinson should have understood the potential consequences of using his public platform to target individual journalists. With a substantial online audience, a post identifying a person can attract attention far beyond the original dispute.

The jury must consider the evidence as a whole, including the words Robinson used, the material he published, the circumstances in which it appeared and the impact on the alleged victims.

Why the newspaper article became so contentious

The original article was published during a particularly tense period in Britain. The Southport murders in July 2024 were followed by unrest and widespread online speculation, with false claims about the suspect contributing to public anger.

Robinson said he was alarmed by the article and believed the publication had put his family at risk by reporting where he was staying. He argued that the newspaper could have reported on his social media activity without identifying his location.

He also said he wanted the journalists to explain why they had published the material and to address what he considered to be its consequences.

The dispute illustrates the difficulties that can arise when journalists report on controversial public figures. Reporters have a responsibility to investigate matters of public interest, while also considering accuracy, privacy and the potential consequences of publishing identifying information.

Public figures, meanwhile, can challenge reporting they believe to be unfair or harmful. They can seek corrections, submit complaints to the relevant press regulator or pursue legal remedies where appropriate.

The question before the court is whether Robinson’s response crossed a legal boundary. His objections to the article do not automatically justify every action taken in response, but neither does the existence of a dispute itself establish criminal harassment.

The importance of social media responsibility

The trial has also highlighted the wider consequences of social media activity. Online platforms allow public figures to communicate directly with supporters, challenge reporting and present their own accounts of events.

That access can be valuable, particularly when people believe that traditional media coverage has misrepresented them. But a large following also means that posts directed at specific individuals can generate intense attention and potentially expose those individuals to abuse.

Even where a person says they did not intend to encourage threats, the effects of their actions may still be relevant to how a situation is understood. The law must assess the specific conduct and applicable legal requirements rather than assuming that every controversial post is criminal.

The case is therefore likely to be watched by people interested in the relationship between online speech, journalism and personal safety.

It also serves as a reminder that disputes should be handled through lawful and proportionate channels. Complaints about reporting can be pursued without publishing personal information or creating circumstances in which others might feel threatened.

What happens next?

Robinson has pleaded not guilty to the two charges. The prosecution and defence have presented competing explanations of his actions, leaving the jury to assess the evidence and reach a verdict.

Prosecutors argue that his behaviour caused the journalists to fear violence and cannot be excused as retaliation for an article he disliked. The defence maintains that Robinson was frightened for his family and wanted to challenge the journalists over what he believed was irresponsible reporting.

Neither the defendant’s tears in court nor the strength of the allegations alone determines the outcome. The jury must apply the law to the evidence presented during the trial.

The proceedings also underline the distinction between an accusation and a conviction. Until the jury reaches its decision, Robinson remains entitled to the presumption of innocence.

A case about fear, accountability and press freedom

The trial has brought together several contentious issues: the treatment of controversial public figures by the media, the limits of online retaliation and the responsibility that comes with a large audience.

Robinson’s emotional evidence has drawn attention to his account of the pressure on his family. At the same time, the allegations against him concern the safety and wellbeing of two journalists who say his actions caused them to fear violence.

The court must now determine whether the prosecution has established the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Its decision will depend on the evidence and the legal standards governing harassment, not on public opinion about Robinson, his politics or the newspaper involved.

Whatever the verdict, the case offers a wider lesson about disputes between public figures and the media. People have the right to challenge reporting and defend their reputations, but those disagreements must be considered alongside the safety and rights of the individuals involved.

In an era when online messages can reach enormous audiences within minutes, the boundary between public criticism and targeted intimidation remains an important issue for courts, journalists and social media users alike.