🔗 Share this article

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

Denial to Provide Device Pin

The right-wing campaigner, whose legal name is Tommy Robinson, reportedly declined to hand over his phone pin to officers, stating it contained “journalistic material.” This occurred after he was intercepted at the Channel tunnel on 28 July 2024.

Trial Arguments on Counter-Terrorism Authority

On the final day of the proceedings, prosecutor Jo Morris stated that the counter-terrorism powers used by police are intended to allow intelligence gathering. She asserted that police had valid grounds to believe Robinson continued to have connections to far-right activists, even following the dissolution of the English Defence League (EDL).

“Although his membership of the English Defence League has ceased, his views have not disappeared. He is known for holding those views and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to think that on his phone there may be data pertaining to acts of terrorism,” she told Westminster magistrates court.

The prosecutor added, “His beliefs – to which he is allowed – were not the subject for their concern on July 28. It was his association to individuals who are potentially engaged in prohibited activities.”

Details of the Detention

The activist had arrived alone at the Eurotunnel in a luxury vehicle belonging to a friend and was on his way to the holiday destination of the Spanish coast with over £13,000 in a carry-on, the court heard.

The money was reportedly from a donation drive to cover expenses from organizing a major rally that occurred the day before in a London landmark.

Defense Arguments

Robinson, who disputes non-compliance with anti-terror laws during the incident on July 28 of the previous year, faces up to 90 days in jail or a potential £2,500 fine if convicted.

His barrister, defense counsel, said in final arguments that counter-terrorism police who stopped Robinson had engaged in a speculative search” and that he had been illegally held.

Referring to testimony from officers who said they called other organizations” after arresting him, the defense lawyer claimed this was a allusion to the security services and that no evidence had been offered from the security service to indicate his client was a security threat.

He said the police intervention was “discriminatory” because it was based to a large extent on a protected characteristic.” He stated that the “predominant influence” on the choice to detain him was “‘oh look, it’s Tommy Robinson”.

He noted that officers had used an special authority that needs to be carefully regulated” to try to discover details that was previously available. Williamson proposed that his client traveled to the resort regularly, which ought to have lessened the officers’ concerns about him.

Legal Costs and Judgment Date

The activist claimed that his legal costs in the case were being covered by the tech billionaire, the owner of social media and electric car companies, who has appeared as an ally of the far-right activist and lately addressed a gathering arranged by him in the capital via a livestream.

A suggested day of next Tuesday for the decision was altered by the district judge, the judge, after Williamson explained his client was scheduled to be a guest of the Israel's administration 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 the barrister.

Goozee said he would hand down his ruling on the start of 4 November.