🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives told the tribunal that law enforcement maintained valid concerns indicating Tommy Robinson's mobile held material related to acts of terrorism when they detained him last year as he tried to depart from the UK.

Refusal to Give Phone Password

The far-right activist, whose legal name is Tommy Robinson, allegedly declined to hand over his phone pin to officers, stating it included “journalistic material.” This happened after he was intercepted at the Channel tunnel on 28 July 2024.

Prosecution Arguments on Counter-Terrorism Powers

On the final day of the trial, prosecutor the prosecution stated that the anti-terror authorities employed by police are designed to permit intelligence gathering. She claimed that officers had valid grounds to believe Robinson still have connections to far-right activists, even after the dissolution of the English Defence League (EDL).

While his affiliation of the English Defence League has come to an end, his beliefs have not disappeared. He is recognized for holding those views and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to think that on his telephone there could be data relevant to terrorist acts,” she told Westminster magistrates court.

Morris added, “His beliefs – to which he is entitled – were not the subject for their concern on July 28. It was his connection to individuals who are possibly engaged in illegal actions.”

Details of the Stop

The campaigner had arrived alone at the Channel tunnel in a luxury vehicle belonging to a friend and was traveling to the Spanish resort of Benidorm with over £13,000 in a carry-on, the court was told.

The money was said to have been from a collection to cover expenses from arranging a major rally that occurred the day before in Trafalgar Square.

Defense Submissions

The defendant, who denies failing to comply with anti-terror laws during the encounter on July 28 last year, could receive up to 90 days in prison or a potential £2,500 penalty if convicted.

His lawyer, Alisdair Williamson KC, argued in final arguments that anti-terror officers who detained Robinson had engaged in a speculative search” and that he had been illegally held.

Citing testimony from police who said they contacted “partner agencies” after arresting Robinson, the defense lawyer said this was a allusion to the security services and that no evidence had been presented from the security service to indicate his defendant was a security threat.

Williamson asserted the police intervention was “discriminatory” because it was based to a large extent on a personal attribute.” He stated that the main factor” on the choice to detain him was “‘oh look, it’s Tommy Robinson”.

He noted that officers had used an special authority that needs to be carefully regulated” to try to find out information that was previously available. Williamson suggested that Robinson traveled to the resort frequently, which ought to have lessened the police suspicions about him.

Legal Costs and Verdict Date

The activist claimed that his legal costs in the case were being paid for by Elon Musk, the owner of X and Tesla, who has emerged as an ally of the campaigner and lately addressed a gathering organized by him in the capital via a livestream.

A proposed day of the following Tuesday for the verdict was changed by the magistrate, Sam Goozee, after the defense said Robinson was scheduled to be a guest of the Israel's administration from Wednesday and would not return until October 25.

{“I wouldn’t trouble you if this was a trip to Benidorm. I would ask him to rearrange it but he is a guest of a foreign government,” said the barrister.

The judge announced he would hand down his ruling on the morning of 4 November.