🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives informed the tribunal that law enforcement maintained reasonable suspicions indicating Tommy Robinson's phone contained material related to terrorist activities when they stopped him last year as he tried to depart from the UK.

Refusal to Give Device Password

The far-right activist, whose legal name is Tommy Robinson, allegedly declined to hand over his password to officers, claiming it contained “journalistic material.” This happened after he was intercepted at the Channel tunnel on 28 July 2024.

Trial Arguments on Anti-Terror Powers

On the last day of the trial, state lawyer the prosecution argued that the anti-terror authorities used by law enforcement are designed to permit intelligence gathering. She claimed that police had valid grounds to believe the defendant continued to have links to right-wing groups, even after the dissolution of the EDL organization.

While his membership of the English Defence League has come to an end, his views have not disappeared. He is known for holding those opinions and therefore it is a valid concern to think that on his phone there could be information pertaining to terrorist acts,” she told Westminster magistrates court.

Morris added, His opinions – to which he is entitled – were not the focus for their attention on July 28. It was his association to others who are potentially engaged in prohibited activities.”

Circumstances of the Stop

The campaigner had turned up by himself at the Channel tunnel in a silver Bentley belonging to 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 heard.

The money was said to have been from a collection to cover costs from organizing a large demonstration that occurred the previous day in Trafalgar Square.

Legal Team Arguments

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

His lawyer, defense counsel, said in closing submissions that anti-terror officers who stopped his client had engaged in a speculative search” and that he had been illegally held.

Citing evidence from officers who stated they contacted “partner agencies” after detaining Robinson, the defense lawyer said this was a reference to the security services and that lack of proof had been offered from MI5 to indicate his client was a terrorist.

He said the police action was biased” because it was based to a large extent on a personal attribute.” He stated that the main factor” on the choice to stop him was recognizing his identity”.

He added that officers had used an special authority that needs to be carefully regulated” to try to discover information that was already known. Williamson suggested that Robinson journeyed to the resort regularly, which should have reduced the officers’ concerns about him.

Expenses and Judgment Date

The activist claimed that his legal costs in the proceedings were being paid for by Elon Musk, the proprietor of social media and electric car companies, who has emerged as an supporter of the campaigner and recently spoke at a gathering arranged by him in the capital via a livestream.

A suggested date of next Tuesday for the decision was altered by the magistrate, the judge, after the defense said his client was due 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,” stated Williamson.

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