🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors informed the court that law enforcement had valid concerns indicating Tommy Robinson's phone contained information related to acts of terrorism when they stopped him last year as he attempted to depart from the UK.

Denial to Provide Phone Pin

The far-right activist, whose real name is Tommy Robinson, reportedly refused to provide his password to police, claiming it included “journalistic material.” This occurred after he was intercepted at the Channel tunnel on 28 July 2024.

Trial Arguments on Anti-Terror Powers

On the final day of the proceedings, state lawyer Jo Morris argued that the anti-terror authorities employed by police are intended to permit intelligence gathering. She claimed that police had reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant continued to have links to right-wing groups, even following the disbandment of the EDL organization.

While his membership of the English Defence League has ceased, his beliefs have not disappeared. He is recognized for having those opinions and therefore it is a valid concern to think that on his phone there may be data pertaining to terrorist acts,” she told Westminster magistrates court.

The prosecutor added, His opinions – to which he is allowed – were not the subject for their attention on 28 July. It was his connection to others who are potentially involved in illegal actions.”

Circumstances of the Stop

The activist had arrived by himself at the Channel tunnel in a luxury vehicle belonging to a friend and was traveling to the Spanish resort of the Spanish coast with over £13,000 in a small bag, the trial heard.

The funds was reportedly from a collection to offset expenses from organizing a major rally that took place the day before in Trafalgar Square.

Legal Team Arguments

The defendant, who disputes failing to comply with counter-terrorism powers during the incident on July 28 of the previous year, faces up to three months in jail or a potential £2,500 fine if found guilty.

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 unlawfully detained.

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

Williamson said the officers’ intervention 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 “‘oh look, it’s Tommy Robinson”.

He noted that police had used an special authority that must be properly policed” to try to find out information that was already known. Williamson suggested that Robinson journeyed to the resort regularly, which ought to have reduced the officers’ concerns about him.

Expenses and Judgment Timing

Robinson stated that his legal costs in the proceedings were being paid for by the tech billionaire, the owner of social media and electric car companies, who has appeared as an ally of the campaigner and recently spoke at 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 district judge, the judge, after Williamson said Robinson was scheduled to be a invitee of the Israeli government from Wednesday and would not come back 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.

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