Ross Hamilton

🚨🇬🇧 They say, “Tommy was protecting his family.” “They did it to him first.” Two excuses. A jury heard and rejected both. The Mail wrote about a public figure on holiday. Tommy hired private investigators to photograph journalists’ homes, then told a million followers “I will find you.” That isn’t the same thing. And it isn’t protection. Here’s what the jury actually heard. What happened In August 2024, while England was rioting, Robinson was on holiday in Cyprus, posting about the riots to his followers. The Mail found him there and ran a story: “Stoking riots from his sunbed.” Over the next three days he went after the two reporters, Jacob Dirnhuber and Andrew Young. 🔺5 August: a direct message to Dirnhuber. “I’ll be knocking at your door.” 🔺5 August: a phone call to Young. Robinson told him he’d be coming to his home and that he’d “have to move house.” 🔺6 August: a post naming Dirnhuber, saying he and the other Mail journalists had “today been located.” 🔺7 August: a video to around a million followers. He said he had details of where they and their families lived. He told them to abide by “men’s rules.” Then: “The men, on the other hand, I will find you.” He also hired private investigators to photograph their homes. He admitted it in court. The result: Dirnhuber moved house. Young was given a close protection officer. The law The charge was harassment causing fear of violence. The prosecution had to prove a course of conduct that made each man fear violence on at least two occasions, and that Robinson knew or ought to have known it would. That last part is an objective test. What Robinson says he meant doesn’t decide it. What decides it is what a reasonable person would expect a million followers to do with “I will find you.” His defence He said he was protecting his family. That is a real defence in law, if the conduct is reasonable for protecting someone. Police had given him four threat-to-life warnings. The jury heard all of it. Why it failed He admitted the aim was pressure. Telling a million people where journalists live doesn’t protect your children. It endangers theirs. 🔺He didn’t dispute that they were frightened. Asked in evidence, he said no. 🔺He never complained to the press regulator. He never asked the Mail to change or remove the story. The legal route was there. He skipped it. 🔺His own words. “Men’s rules” is not the language of protection. One is journalism, however much you dislike it. The other is a threat. The jury He chose this. At the magistrates’ court he was offered a trial there. He opted for a jury instead, saying he wanted 12 members of the British public to hear the evidence. They did. They convicted on both counts. Sentencing is on 16 December.