🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives informed the tribunal that police had reasonable suspicions indicating Tommy Robinson's phone contained information related to acts of terrorism when they detained him last year as he attempted to leave the UK.

Denial to Provide Phone Pin

The right-wing campaigner, using his real name is Tommy Robinson, allegedly declined to provide his password to officers, stating it contained “journalistic material.” This occurred after he was stopped at the Channel tunnel on July 28, 2024.

Prosecution Arguments on Anti-Terror Powers

On the final day of the proceedings, prosecutor Jo Morris argued that the anti-terror authorities employed by police are designed to permit intelligence gathering. She asserted that officers had valid grounds to believe the defendant still have links to right-wing groups, even after the dissolution of the English Defence League (EDL).

“Although his membership of the English Defence League has ceased, his views have not gone away. He is known for having those views and therefore it is a valid concern to think that on his phone there could be information pertaining to acts of terrorism,” she told Westminster magistrates court.

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

Circumstances of the Stop

The campaigner had arrived alone at the Eurotunnel in a luxury vehicle owned by a friend and was on his way to the holiday destination of the Spanish coast with over £13,000 in a small bag, the trial was told.

The money was reportedly from a collection to cover expenses from arranging a major rally that took place the day before in Trafalgar Square.

Legal Team Arguments

The defendant, who denies failing to comply with anti-terror laws during the incident on 28 July of the previous year, could receive up to three months in prison or a potential £2,500 fine if found guilty.

His barrister, Alisdair Williamson KC, argued in final arguments that counter-terrorism police who stopped his client had engaged in a “fishing expedition” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Referring to evidence from police who said they called other organizations” after detaining Robinson, Williamson claimed this was a allusion to the security services and that no evidence had been offered from the security service to suggest his client was a terrorist.

He asserted the police action was “discriminatory” because it was based to a “significant degree on a protected characteristic.” He said that the “predominant influence” on the choice to detain him was recognizing his identity”.

He noted that police had used an special authority that must be properly policed” to try to discover details that was already known. The barrister suggested that Robinson journeyed to the resort frequently, which ought to have lessened the officers’ concerns about him.

Expenses and Judgment Timing

The activist claimed that his court expenses in the case were being paid for by Elon Musk, the proprietor of social media and electric car companies, who has appeared as an ally of the far-right activist and recently spoke at a gathering arranged by him in the capital via a livestream.

A suggested date of the following Tuesday for the decision was changed by the magistrate, Sam Goozee, after Williamson said his client was due to be a guest of the Israeli government from the midweek and would not return until October 25.

{“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 deliver his ruling on the start of 4 November.