Were robinson witnesses excluded from Tommy Robinson libel trial

1. What the question is really asking — exclusion versus credibility

The crucial distinction in play is between witnesses being barred from testifying by a court order and the court accepting evidence but then disbelieving it; contemporary reporting shows the latter occurred: the trial record and post-trial commentary emphasise that the judge found the defence witnesses unreliable, rather than that they were prevented from appearing ^{[2] [3]}.

2. How the trial unfolded: who testified and what the judge decided

At the libel trial brought by Jamal Hijazi, the court considered testimony from a number of young witnesses assembled by the defendant, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (Tommy Robinson), and the judge ultimately found that “none of the Defendants’ witnesses’ evidence was found to be reliable” with some witnesses actively disbelieved and at least one described by the judgment as having perjured herself ^{[2] [3]}. The judge’s rejection of that evidence was a central reason Robinson lost the libel claim and was ordered to pay damages and costs ^{[1] [3]}.

3. Why a narrative of “excluded witnesses” circulated

Robinson himself framed parts of his defence around having been unable to secure credible testimony, telling the court he could not afford a lawyer and that several potential witnesses would only give evidence anonymously because they did not want association with him ^{[4] [5]}. Those public complaints — combined with social-media commentary and Robinson’s own claims about investigative obstruction — seeded the idea among supporters that witnesses had been shut out. However, the primary contemporary sources do not document judicial exclusion as the reason for the defence’s failure ^{[4] [1]}.

4. What the judgment and legal reporting actually say about witnesses

Legal summaries and post-trial reporting emphasize judicial findings on credibility: Nicklin J’s judgment dissects contemporaneous evidence and concludes that the defence witnesses’ accounts were not reliable and that some statements were contradicted by documentary material — effectively nullifying the truth defence Robinson relied on ^{[2] [3]}. Independent legal commentary and coverage of subsequent contempt proceedings underline that Robinson’s problems were evidential and procedural compliance with injunctions, not a blanket denial of the ability to call witnesses ^{[3] [6]}.

5. Limits of available reporting and alternative readings

Reporting reviewed does not show a formal ruling excluding named defence witnesses from testifying; it does show that some potential witnesses were reluctant to be publicly associated with Robinson and that his own actions later led to injunctions and contempt issues ^{[4] [7]}. It remains possible that pre-trial procedural decisions narrowed what evidence could be admitted in some respects, but the sources at hand focus on the credibility assessments in judgment rather than on exclusions of witnesses via judicial order ^{[2] [1]}. Where Robinson and his supporters claim unfair treatment, the published material documents the court’s contrary view that defence evidence was unreliable ^[3].

6. Bottom line

There is no authoritative reporting that Robinson’s witnesses were formally excluded from the libel trial; rather, multiple contemporary reports and the judgment record show the court heard defence witnesses and then found their evidence to be unreliable or dishonest, which is what undermined Robinson’s defence and led to the libel verdict and later enforcement actions ^{[2] [1] [3]}. Absent further court transcripts or new reporting documenting explicit exclusions, the factual record supports that the trial loss reflected credibility findings, not witness bans ^{[1] [3]}.