🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives informed the tribunal that law enforcement had reasonable suspicions indicating Tommy Robinson's phone held information relevant to acts of terrorism when they stopped him last year as he tried to depart from the UK.

Denial to Give Phone Pin

The right-wing campaigner, using his legal name is Tommy Robinson, allegedly declined to hand over his phone pin to police, claiming it included journalist content.” This occurred after he was stopped at the Channel tunnel on 28 July 2024.

Trial Arguments on Counter-Terrorism Authority

On the last day of the trial, state lawyer the prosecution argued that the anti-terror authorities employed by police are intended to allow information collection. She asserted that police had valid grounds to believe Robinson continued to have connections to right-wing groups, even after the dissolution of the EDL organization.

While his affiliation of the EDL has ceased, his views have not disappeared. He is known for having those opinions and therefore it is a valid concern to believe that on his phone there could be data relevant to terrorist acts,” she informed Westminster magistrates court.

Morris continued, “His beliefs – to which he is entitled – were not the subject for their attention on July 28. It was his association to individuals who are possibly engaged in illegal actions.”

Circumstances of the Detention

The campaigner had arrived by himself at the Eurotunnel in a luxury vehicle owned by a acquaintance and was traveling to the Spanish resort of Benidorm with over £13,000 in a carry-on, the court was told.

The funds was reportedly from a collection to offset expenses from organizing a major rally that occurred the previous day in a London landmark.

Legal Team Arguments

The defendant, who denies non-compliance with anti-terror laws during the incident on 28 July last year, could receive up to three months in jail or a possible £2,500 fine if found guilty.

His barrister, Alisdair Williamson KC, said in final arguments that anti-terror officers who stopped Robinson had engaged in a “fishing expedition” and that he had been illegally held.

Citing testimony from police who stated they contacted “partner agencies” after arresting Robinson, the defense lawyer said this was a reference to the security services and that lack of proof had been presented from MI5 to suggest his client was a terrorist.

He said 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 decision 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. The barrister suggested that his client journeyed to Benidorm frequently, which ought to have reduced the officers’ concerns about him.

Expenses and Judgment Timing

Robinson claimed that his court expenses in the case were being covered by the tech billionaire, the proprietor of X and Tesla, who has emerged as an supporter of the far-right activist and recently spoke at a gathering organized by him in London via a livestream.

A proposed day of the following Tuesday for the decision was changed by the magistrate, the judge, after Williamson said his client was due to be a invitee of the Israeli government 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,” stated Williamson.

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