🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives told the court that law enforcement maintained valid concerns that Tommy Robinson's mobile held material related to terrorist activities when they stopped him in the previous year as he attempted to leave the UK.

Denial to Give Device Pin

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

Prosecution Claims on Counter-Terrorism Authority

On the last day of the trial, prosecutor Jo Morris stated that the counter-terrorism powers employed by police are intended to permit intelligence gathering. She claimed that officers had valid grounds to think Robinson continued to have links to right-wing groups, even following the dissolution of the EDL organization.

While his affiliation of the English Defence League has come to an end, his views have not gone away. He is known for holding those views and therefore it is a valid concern to believe that on his phone there may be data relevant to acts of terrorism,” she told Westminster magistrates court.

Morris continued, His opinions – to which he is allowed – were not the subject for their concern on 28 July. It was his connection to individuals who are possibly engaged in illegal actions.”

Circumstances of the Detention

The activist had arrived by himself at the Channel tunnel in a silver Bentley owned by a acquaintance and was on his way to the holiday destination of the Spanish coast with over £13,000 in a carry-on, the trial was told.

The funds was said to have been from a donation drive to offset expenses from organizing a large demonstration that occurred the day before in a London landmark.

Defense Submissions

Robinson, who denies non-compliance with anti-terror laws during the incident on 28 July last year, could receive up to 90 days in jail or a possible £2,500 fine if found guilty.

His lawyer, Alisdair Williamson KC, argued in closing submissions that anti-terror officers who detained his client had engaged in a “fishing expedition” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Citing evidence from officers who said they called other organizations” after detaining him, the defense lawyer said this was a allusion to the security services and that no evidence had been presented from MI5 to indicate his client was a terrorist.

He asserted the officers’ action was “discriminatory” because it was based to a “significant degree on a personal attribute.” He stated that the main factor” on the choice to stop him was “‘oh look, it’s Tommy Robinson”.

He noted that police had used an special authority that needs to be properly policed” to try to discover information that was already known. Williamson proposed that his client traveled to Benidorm regularly, which should have lessened the officers’ concerns about him.

Legal Costs and Judgment Timing

The activist stated that his legal costs in the proceedings were being paid for by the tech billionaire, the owner of X and Tesla, who has emerged as an supporter of the campaigner and recently spoke at a rally organized by him in the capital via a online broadcast.

A suggested date of next Tuesday for the decision was changed by the district judge, Sam Goozee, after the defense explained Robinson 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.

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