🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives informed the court that police had valid concerns indicating Tommy Robinson's phone contained information related to terrorist activities when they stopped him in the previous year as he tried to leave the UK.

Denial to Provide Device Pin

The far-right activist, using his real name is Tommy Robinson, allegedly declined to provide his phone pin to officers, stating it contained journalist content.” This happened after he was stopped at the Eurotunnel on 28 July 2024.

Prosecution Arguments on Counter-Terrorism Powers

On the last day of the proceedings, prosecutor the prosecution stated that the anti-terror authorities employed by law enforcement are designed to permit information collection. She asserted that officers had valid grounds to believe Robinson continued to have links to right-wing groups, even following the dissolution of the English Defence League (EDL).

“Although his affiliation of the EDL has ceased, his beliefs have not disappeared. He is known for having those views and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to believe that on his phone there could be information relevant to terrorist acts,” she told the court.

The prosecutor 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 potentially involved in illegal actions.”

Details of the Detention

The campaigner had turned up alone at the Eurotunnel in a luxury vehicle belonging to a friend and was traveling to the Spanish resort of Benidorm with more than £13,000 in a small bag, the trial heard.

The funds was said to have been from a collection to cover costs from arranging a major rally that occurred the previous day in a London landmark.

Legal Team Arguments

Robinson, who denies failing to comply with counter-terrorism powers during the incident on 28 July of the previous year, could receive up to three months in jail or a possible £2,500 fine if convicted.

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

Referring to testimony from officers who stated they called “partner agencies” after detaining Robinson, the defense lawyer claimed this was a reference to the security services and that lack of proof had been presented from the security service to suggest his client was a terrorist.

Williamson said the officers’ action was “discriminatory” because it was based to a large extent on a personal attribute.” He stated that the main factor” on the choice to stop him was recognizing his identity”.

He noted that officers had used an special authority that must be properly policed” to try to find out details that was already known. The barrister suggested that Robinson traveled to Benidorm regularly, which should have reduced the officers’ suspicions about him.

Expenses and Judgment Timing

The activist stated that his legal costs in the case were being covered by Elon Musk, the proprietor of X and Tesla, who has appeared as an supporter of the campaigner and lately addressed a gathering arranged by him in the capital via a online broadcast.

A proposed day of the following Tuesday for the decision was changed by the magistrate, the judge, after the defense explained his client was due to be a guest of the Israel's administration 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 the barrister.

The judge announced he would hand down his ruling on the morning of 4 November.