🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors informed the court that law enforcement had reasonable suspicions that Tommy Robinson's phone contained material related to acts of terrorism when they detained him last year as he tried to leave the UK.

Refusal to Give Device Pin

The far-right activist, whose real name is Tommy Robinson, allegedly declined to provide his phone pin to police, stating it included “journalistic material.” This happened after he was intercepted at the Channel tunnel on 28 July 2024.

Prosecution Arguments on Anti-Terror Authority

On the last day of the trial, prosecutor Jo Morris stated that the counter-terrorism powers used by police are designed to permit information collection. She asserted that police had reasonable suspicion to think Robinson still have connections to right-wing groups, even following the disbandment of the English Defence League (EDL).

“Although his affiliation of the English Defence League has ceased, his beliefs have not gone away. He is recognized for having those views and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to think that on his telephone there may be data pertaining to acts of terrorism,” she told the court.

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

Details of the Detention

The campaigner had turned up by himself at the Channel tunnel in a luxury vehicle owned by a acquaintance and was traveling to the holiday destination of the Spanish coast with more than £13,000 in a carry-on, the trial heard.

The funds was said to have been from a collection to offset expenses from arranging a large demonstration that occurred the day before in Trafalgar Square.

Defense Arguments

Robinson, who denies non-compliance with anti-terror laws during the encounter on 28 July last year, faces up to three months in jail or a potential £2,500 penalty if convicted.

His lawyer, defense counsel, said in closing submissions that anti-terror officers who stopped Robinson had conducted a speculative search” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Citing testimony from police who stated they contacted “partner agencies” after detaining Robinson, the defense lawyer said this was a allusion to the intelligence agencies and that no evidence had been presented from MI5 to indicate his defendant was a terrorist.

He asserted the officers’ action was “discriminatory” because it was based to a large extent on a protected characteristic.” He stated that the “predominant influence” on the choice to stop him was “‘oh look, it’s Tommy Robinson”.

He added that officers had used an special authority that needs to be carefully regulated” to try to discover details that was previously available. Williamson proposed that his client traveled to the resort regularly, which should have lessened the officers’ concerns about him.

Legal Costs and Verdict Date

Robinson claimed that his court expenses in the case were being covered by Elon Musk, the proprietor of X and Tesla, who has appeared as an ally of the far-right activist and lately spoke at a gathering organized by him in London via a livestream.

A proposed day of next Tuesday for the decision was changed by the magistrate, Sam Goozee, after Williamson explained his client was scheduled to be a invitee of the Israeli government from the midweek 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 the barrister.

The judge said he would hand down his verdict on the morning of 4 November.