🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors informed the tribunal that law enforcement maintained valid concerns indicating Tommy Robinson's mobile held information relevant to acts of terrorism when they stopped him last year as he attempted to leave the UK.

Refusal to Provide Phone Password

The right-wing campaigner, whose real name is Tommy Robinson, reportedly declined to hand over his password to police, stating it included “journalistic material.” This occurred after he was intercepted at the Eurotunnel on 28 July 2024.

Trial Claims on Anti-Terror Authority

On the last day of the trial, prosecutor the prosecution argued that the counter-terrorism powers used by police are designed to permit intelligence gathering. She asserted that officers had reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant still have connections to right-wing groups, even following the disbandment of the English Defence League (EDL).

While his membership of the EDL has come to an end, his beliefs have not gone away. He is recognized for having those opinions and therefore it is a valid concern to believe that on his telephone there may be data pertaining to acts of terrorism,” she told the court.

Morris continued, “His beliefs – to which he is allowed – were not the subject for their concern on July 28. It was his connection to others who are possibly engaged in prohibited activities.”

Details of the Stop

The activist had arrived alone at the Channel tunnel in a luxury vehicle belonging to a friend and was on his way to the Spanish resort of Benidorm with more than £13,000 in a small bag, the court heard.

The money was said to have been from a collection to offset costs from organizing a large demonstration that took place the previous day in a London landmark.

Legal Team Submissions

The defendant, who disputes non-compliance with counter-terrorism powers during the incident on July 28 of the previous year, could receive up to 90 days in prison or a possible £2,500 fine if convicted.

His lawyer, defense counsel, said in final arguments that anti-terror officers who stopped his client had engaged in a speculative search” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Citing evidence from police who said they called “partner agencies” after arresting Robinson, Williamson claimed this was a allusion to the security services and that no evidence had been presented from MI5 to indicate his client was a security threat.

Williamson said the officers’ intervention was biased” because it was based to a large extent on a protected characteristic.” He said that the main factor” on the choice to stop him was recognizing his identity”.

He added that officers had used an special authority that needs to be carefully regulated” to try to discover details that was already known. Williamson suggested that his client journeyed to Benidorm regularly, which ought to have lessened the police suspicions about him.

Expenses and Judgment Timing

Robinson stated that his court expenses in the proceedings were being covered by Elon Musk, the owner of social media and electric car companies, who has emerged as an ally of the far-right activist and lately spoke at a rally organized by him in London via a livestream.

A proposed day of next Tuesday for the decision was altered by the district judge, the judge, after Williamson explained Robinson was due to be a guest 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,” said the barrister.

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