🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors informed the tribunal that police maintained valid concerns that Tommy Robinson's mobile contained information relevant to acts of terrorism when they stopped him in the previous year as he tried to leave the UK.

Refusal to Provide Device Pin

The far-right activist, whose legal name is Tommy Robinson, allegedly refused to provide his password to officers, stating it included journalist content.” This occurred after he was stopped at the Channel tunnel on 28 July 2024.

Prosecution Arguments on Counter-Terrorism Authority

On the final day of the proceedings, prosecutor Jo Morris argued that the anti-terror authorities used by law enforcement are intended to allow information collection. She asserted that police had valid grounds to think the defendant still have links to right-wing groups, even after the dissolution of the EDL organization.

While his affiliation of the English Defence League has ceased, his views have not disappeared. He is recognized for holding those views and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to believe that on his phone there may be information pertaining to terrorist acts,” she told Westminster magistrates court.

The prosecutor added, His opinions – to which he is allowed – were not the focus for their attention on July 28. It was his association to others who are potentially engaged in illegal actions.”

Details of the Detention

The campaigner had turned up alone at the Channel tunnel in a luxury vehicle owned by a friend and was traveling to the holiday destination of the Spanish coast with over £13,000 in a small bag, the trial heard.

The funds was reportedly from a donation drive to cover expenses from organizing a large demonstration that took place the previous day in Trafalgar Square.

Defense Submissions

Robinson, who disputes 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 found guilty.

His barrister, defense counsel, said in final arguments that counter-terrorism police who stopped his client had conducted a speculative search” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Referring to testimony from officers who stated they called “partner agencies” after arresting Robinson, the defense lawyer claimed this was a reference to the security services and that lack of proof had been presented from MI5 to suggest his defendant was a security threat.

He asserted the police action was biased” because it was based to a “significant degree on a personal attribute.” He said that the main factor” on the choice to detain him was recognizing his identity”.

He noted that officers had used an “extraordinary power that must be properly policed” to try to discover details that was previously available. Williamson proposed that Robinson traveled to Benidorm frequently, which should have reduced the officers’ concerns about him.

Legal Costs and Verdict Timing

Robinson claimed that his legal costs in the proceedings 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 addressed a rally arranged by him in London via a livestream.

A suggested day of next Tuesday for the decision was changed by the district judge, the judge, after Williamson explained his client was scheduled 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 Williamson.

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