🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives informed the tribunal that law enforcement had valid concerns indicating Tommy Robinson's mobile contained information relevant to terrorist activities when they detained him last year as he attempted to leave the UK.

Refusal to Give Phone Password

The right-wing campaigner, using his legal name is Tommy Robinson, allegedly declined to provide his phone pin to officers, claiming it contained journalist content.” This occurred after he was stopped at the Eurotunnel on July 28, 2024.

Prosecution Arguments on Anti-Terror Authority

On the final day of the trial, state lawyer the prosecution stated that the counter-terrorism powers employed by law enforcement are intended to permit intelligence gathering. She asserted that police had valid grounds to think Robinson still have links to far-right activists, even following the disbandment of the English Defence League (EDL).

While his membership of the English Defence League has ceased, his views have not disappeared. He is known for having those views and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to believe that on his phone there may be data pertaining to acts of terrorism,” she told the court.

Morris continued, His opinions – to which he is allowed – were not the focus for their concern on 28 July. It was his connection to others who are possibly involved in illegal actions.”

Details of the Stop

The activist had arrived by himself at the Eurotunnel in a luxury vehicle belonging to a friend and was traveling to the holiday destination of the Spanish coast with more than £13,000 in a small bag, the court heard.

The money was reportedly from a donation drive to cover expenses from arranging a large demonstration that occurred the previous day in a London landmark.

Defense Arguments

The defendant, who denies non-compliance with counter-terrorism powers during the encounter on July 28 of the previous year, faces up to three months in prison or a possible £2,500 fine if found guilty.

His barrister, Alisdair Williamson KC, said in closing submissions that anti-terror officers who stopped his client had conducted a “fishing expedition” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Referring to evidence from police who said they called “partner agencies” after arresting him, Williamson claimed this was a reference to the intelligence agencies and that lack of proof had been offered from the security service to indicate his client was a terrorist.

Williamson asserted the officers’ intervention was “discriminatory” because it was based to a large extent on a protected characteristic.” He stated that the main factor” on the decision to detain him was recognizing his identity”.

He noted that officers had used an “extraordinary power that needs to be properly policed” to try to discover information that was previously available. Williamson proposed that Robinson journeyed to the resort frequently, which should have lessened the police suspicions about him.

Expenses and Judgment Date

The activist claimed that his court expenses in the case were being paid for by the tech billionaire, the proprietor of social media and electric car companies, who has appeared as an supporter of the campaigner and recently spoke at a gathering organized by him in London via a livestream.

A suggested date of the following Tuesday for the verdict was altered by the district judge, the judge, after Williamson explained Robinson 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,” said Williamson.

Goozee said he would deliver his verdict on the morning of 4 November.