🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors informed the tribunal that police maintained valid concerns that Tommy Robinson's phone held information relevant to acts of terrorism when they stopped him last year as he attempted to leave the UK.

Denial to Provide Device Password

The right-wing campaigner, whose legal name is Tommy Robinson, reportedly refused to provide his password to police, claiming it contained “journalistic material.” This occurred after he was intercepted at the Channel tunnel on July 28, 2024.

Trial Claims on Counter-Terrorism Authority

On the last day of the proceedings, state lawyer the prosecution stated that the counter-terrorism powers employed by law enforcement are designed to allow intelligence gathering. She asserted that officers had reasonable suspicion to believe Robinson still have links to far-right activists, even after the disbandment of the EDL organization.

While his affiliation of the EDL has come to an end, his beliefs have not gone away. He is recognized for having those views and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to think that on his phone there could be information pertaining to terrorist acts,” she informed Westminster magistrates court.

The prosecutor added, “His beliefs – to which he is entitled – were not the subject for their concern on July 28. It was his connection to others who are possibly involved in prohibited activities.”

Circumstances of the Detention

The activist had arrived by himself at the Eurotunnel in a luxury vehicle owned by a acquaintance and was on his way to the holiday destination of the Spanish coast with more than £13,000 in a small bag, the court was told.

The funds was said to have been from a donation drive to cover expenses from organizing a major rally that took place the day before in Trafalgar Square.

Defense Arguments

The defendant, who disputes failing to comply with anti-terror laws during the incident on 28 July last year, faces up to three months in prison or a possible £2,500 penalty if found guilty.

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

Citing testimony from officers who stated they contacted other organizations” after arresting Robinson, Williamson said this was a allusion to the security services and that no evidence had been presented from the security service to suggest his client was a security threat.

He said the officers’ intervention was biased” because it was based to a “significant degree on a protected characteristic.” He said that the main factor” on the choice to stop him was “‘oh look, it’s Tommy Robinson”.

He noted that officers had used an special authority that must be carefully regulated” to try to discover information that was previously available. Williamson proposed that Robinson traveled to Benidorm regularly, which should have lessened the police concerns about him.

Expenses and Verdict Date

The activist claimed that his legal costs in the case were being covered by Elon Musk, the owner of social media and electric car companies, who has emerged as an ally of the campaigner and lately addressed a rally organized by him in the capital via a livestream.

A proposed day of next Tuesday for the decision was altered by the magistrate, Sam Goozee, after Williamson explained Robinson was due to be a invitee of the Israeli government from Wednesday 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.