🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives told the court that police maintained valid concerns indicating Tommy Robinson's mobile held information related to acts of terrorism when they detained him last year as he attempted to depart from the UK.

Denial to Give Phone Password

The far-right activist, whose legal name is Tommy Robinson, reportedly refused to provide his phone pin to police, claiming it included journalist content.” This occurred after he was stopped at the Channel tunnel on 28 July 2024.

Trial Arguments on Counter-Terrorism Authority

On the last day of the trial, prosecutor Jo Morris argued that the counter-terrorism powers employed by law enforcement are designed to allow intelligence gathering. She claimed that officers had valid grounds to think the defendant still have links to right-wing groups, even following the dissolution of the English Defence League (EDL).

While his affiliation of the EDL has come to an end, his views have not disappeared. He is known for holding those opinions and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to think that on his telephone there may be data pertaining to acts of terrorism,” she informed Westminster magistrates court.

Morris continued, “His beliefs – to which he is entitled – were not the focus for their concern on July 28. It was his connection to individuals who are potentially involved 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 on his way to the holiday destination of the Spanish coast with more than £13,000 in a carry-on, the court heard.

The money was said to have been from a collection to offset expenses from organizing a major rally that occurred the previous day in a London landmark.

Legal Team Submissions

Robinson, who denies failing to comply with counter-terrorism powers during the incident on July 28 of the previous year, faces up to 90 days in prison or a possible £2,500 fine if convicted.

His barrister, Alisdair Williamson KC, argued in final arguments that anti-terror officers who stopped his client had engaged in a speculative search” and that he had been illegally held.

Referring to testimony from police who stated they called “partner agencies” after detaining Robinson, the defense lawyer claimed this was a reference to the intelligence agencies and that no evidence had been presented from MI5 to suggest his defendant was a security threat.

Williamson said the police action was biased” because it was based to a large extent on a personal attribute.” He said that the “predominant influence” on the decision to detain him was recognizing his identity”.

He noted that officers had used an special authority that must be properly policed” to try to discover details that was previously available. Williamson proposed that Robinson journeyed to Benidorm regularly, which ought to have lessened the police suspicions about him.

Legal Costs and Verdict Timing

The activist stated that his legal costs in the case were being paid for by Elon Musk, the proprietor of X and Tesla, who has emerged as an ally of the campaigner and recently spoke at a gathering arranged by him in London via a online broadcast.

A suggested date of the following Tuesday for the verdict was altered by the district judge, Sam Goozee, after Williamson explained his client was due to be a guest of the Israeli government 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 Williamson.

Goozee announced he would deliver his ruling on the start of 4 November.