🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives informed the court that law enforcement maintained valid concerns that Tommy Robinson's phone held information related to terrorist activities when they stopped him last year as he attempted to leave the UK.

Denial to Give Device Password

The far-right activist, whose legal name is Tommy Robinson, allegedly declined to hand over his password to officers, claiming it contained journalist content.” This occurred after he was intercepted at the Channel tunnel on 28 July 2024.

Prosecution Arguments on Anti-Terror Authority

On the final day of the proceedings, state lawyer Jo Morris stated that the counter-terrorism powers employed by law enforcement are intended to allow information collection. She asserted that officers had reasonable suspicion to believe Robinson still have links to right-wing groups, even following the disbandment of the English Defence League (EDL).

“Although his membership of the EDL has come to an end, his beliefs have not gone away. He is recognized for holding those opinions and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to believe that on his telephone there could be data pertaining to acts of terrorism,” she informed Westminster magistrates court.

The prosecutor continued, “His beliefs – to which he is entitled – were not the focus for their attention on 28 July. It was his connection to others who are potentially involved in illegal actions.”

Details of the Detention

The activist had arrived by himself at the Eurotunnel in a silver Bentley owned by a acquaintance and was on his way to the holiday destination of the Spanish coast with over £13,000 in a small bag, the court heard.

The money was reportedly from a collection to offset costs from organizing a major rally that occurred the previous day in a London landmark.

Defense Submissions

The defendant, who denies non-compliance with anti-terror laws during the incident on 28 July last year, faces up to three months in jail or a possible £2,500 fine if convicted.

His lawyer, Alisdair Williamson KC, argued in final arguments that counter-terrorism police who detained his client had engaged in a speculative search” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Referring to testimony from officers who said they contacted “partner agencies” after arresting Robinson, Williamson said this was a reference to the security services and that no evidence had been offered from the security service to indicate his defendant was a security threat.

Williamson asserted the police action was “discriminatory” because it was based to a “significant degree on a personal attribute.” He said that the “predominant influence” on the choice to detain him was “‘oh look, it’s Tommy Robinson”.

He added that officers had used an “extraordinary power that needs to be properly policed” to try to discover information that was previously available. The barrister suggested that Robinson journeyed to the resort regularly, which ought to have lessened the police suspicions about him.

Legal Costs and Verdict Timing

The activist claimed 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 lately spoke at a gathering arranged by him in the capital via a livestream.

A proposed day of the following Tuesday for the verdict was altered by the magistrate, Sam Goozee, after the defense said his client was scheduled to be a guest of the Israeli government from Wednesday and would not come back 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,” stated the barrister.

The judge announced he would hand down his verdict on the start of 4 November.