🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors told the tribunal that police had valid concerns indicating Tommy Robinson's phone contained information relevant to acts of terrorism when they detained him last year as he tried to depart from the UK.

Denial to Give Device Pin

The far-right activist, using his real name is Tommy Robinson, reportedly refused to provide his phone pin to officers, stating it contained journalist content.” This happened after he was intercepted at the Channel tunnel on 28 July 2024.

Trial Arguments on Anti-Terror Powers

On the last day of the proceedings, state lawyer Jo Morris stated that the counter-terrorism powers employed by law enforcement are intended to permit information collection. She claimed that officers had valid grounds to think the defendant still have links to right-wing groups, even after the disbandment of the English Defence League (EDL).

While his affiliation of the English Defence League has come to an end, his views have not gone away. He is known for having those opinions and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to believe that on his phone there may be information pertaining to acts of terrorism,” she told the court.

The prosecutor added, “His beliefs – to which he is entitled – were not the focus for their attention on 28 July. It was his association to individuals who are potentially involved in prohibited activities.”

Details of the Stop

The activist had arrived alone at the Channel tunnel in a silver Bentley belonging to a friend and was on his way to the holiday destination of Benidorm with more than £13,000 in a carry-on, the trial heard.

The money was said to have been from a collection to offset expenses from organizing a major rally that took place the previous day in Trafalgar Square.

Legal Team Arguments

The defendant, who disputes non-compliance with counter-terrorism powers during the encounter on July 28 of the previous year, could receive up to 90 days in jail or a possible £2,500 penalty if found guilty.

His lawyer, Alisdair Williamson KC, argued in closing submissions that counter-terrorism police who stopped Robinson had conducted a “fishing expedition” and that he had been illegally held.

Citing testimony from police who stated they contacted other organizations” after detaining Robinson, Williamson claimed this was a reference to the security services and that lack of proof had been offered from MI5 to suggest his defendant was a terrorist.

He asserted the police intervention was biased” because it was based to a “significant degree on a personal attribute.” He stated that the main factor” on the decision to stop 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 find out details that was previously available. Williamson suggested that his client journeyed to the resort regularly, which ought to have reduced the police suspicions about him.

Legal Costs and Verdict Timing

The activist claimed that his legal costs in the case were being covered by Elon Musk, the owner of social media and electric car companies, who has emerged as an supporter of the campaigner and lately spoke at a gathering organized by him in London via a livestream.

A proposed date of next Tuesday for the decision was altered by the district judge, Sam Goozee, after the defense said his client was due to be a invitee of the Israeli government from the midweek and would not return until 25 October.

{“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 Williamson.

The judge announced he would deliver his verdict on the morning of 4 November.