🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives told the court that law enforcement maintained reasonable suspicions that Tommy Robinson's phone held material related to terrorist activities when they detained him in the previous year as he tried to leave the UK.

Refusal to Provide Device Pin

The far-right activist, using his legal name is Tommy Robinson, reportedly declined to hand over his password to police, claiming it contained “journalistic material.” This occurred after he was stopped at the Channel tunnel on 28 July 2024.

Prosecution Claims on Counter-Terrorism Powers

On the final day of the trial, prosecutor Jo Morris stated that the anti-terror authorities used by police are intended to permit intelligence gathering. She asserted that police had reasonable suspicion to believe Robinson continued to have links to far-right activists, even after the disbandment of the EDL organization.

“Although his membership of the EDL has come to an end, his views have not gone away. He is recognized for holding those views and therefore it is a valid concern to believe that on his phone there could be data relevant to terrorist acts,” she told the court.

The prosecutor added, “His beliefs – to which he is allowed – were not the subject for their attention on July 28. It was his connection to individuals who are possibly involved in illegal actions.”

Circumstances of the Stop

The campaigner had arrived alone at the Channel tunnel 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 small bag, the court was told.

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

Legal Team Arguments

The defendant, who denies failing to comply 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 convicted.

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

Citing testimony from officers who said they called other organizations” after arresting Robinson, Williamson claimed this was a allusion to the security services and that no evidence had been offered from MI5 to indicate his defendant was a security threat.

He asserted the police intervention was biased” because it was based to a “significant degree on a protected characteristic.” He stated that the “predominant influence” on the choice to stop him was “‘oh look, it’s Tommy Robinson”.

He added that officers had used an special authority that needs to be properly policed” to try to find out details that was previously available. Williamson proposed that his client traveled to Benidorm regularly, which ought to have reduced the police concerns about him.

Legal Costs and Verdict Timing

The activist claimed that his legal costs in the case were being paid for by the tech billionaire, the proprietor of social media and electric car companies, who has emerged as an supporter of the campaigner and recently spoke at a rally arranged by him in London via a online broadcast.

A suggested day of next Tuesday for the decision was altered by the magistrate, Sam Goozee, after the defense said Robinson was scheduled to be a guest of the Israeli government from the midweek and would not come back 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 the barrister.

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