🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors informed the tribunal that law enforcement maintained reasonable suspicions indicating Tommy Robinson's phone contained information related to acts of terrorism when they detained him in the previous year as he tried to depart from the UK.

Refusal to Give Device Pin

The right-wing campaigner, whose legal name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, allegedly declined to hand over his phone pin to officers, claiming it contained journalist content.” This happened after he was intercepted at the Channel tunnel on 28 July 2024.

Prosecution Arguments on Anti-Terror Authority

On the final day of the proceedings, prosecutor Jo Morris stated that the anti-terror authorities employed by police are intended to allow information collection. She asserted that police had valid grounds to believe Robinson still have links to far-right activists, even after the disbandment of the English Defence League (EDL).

While his affiliation of the English Defence League has ceased, his beliefs have not disappeared. He is known for having those views and therefore it is a valid concern to believe that on his phone there could be information relevant to acts of terrorism,” she informed the court.

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

Circumstances of the Stop

The activist had arrived by himself at the Channel tunnel in a luxury vehicle owned by a friend and was traveling to the Spanish resort of the Spanish coast with over £13,000 in a small bag, the trial was told.

The funds was reportedly from a collection to cover costs from arranging a large demonstration that occurred the day before in a London landmark.

Defense Arguments

The defendant, who denies failing to comply with counter-terrorism powers during the incident on 28 July last year, faces up to three months in jail or a potential £2,500 fine if convicted.

His barrister, defense counsel, argued in closing submissions that counter-terrorism police who stopped Robinson had conducted a “fishing expedition” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Citing testimony from police who stated they contacted other organizations” after detaining him, the defense lawyer claimed this was a allusion to the intelligence agencies and that no evidence had been presented from MI5 to indicate his defendant was a terrorist.

Williamson said the police action was “discriminatory” because it was based to a large extent on a personal attribute.” He said that the “predominant influence” 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 find out details that was already known. Williamson suggested that Robinson traveled to the resort regularly, which ought to have reduced the police concerns about him.

Expenses and Verdict 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 ally of the campaigner and recently addressed a rally organized by him in London via a online broadcast.

A proposed date of the following Tuesday for the decision was changed by the magistrate, Sam Goozee, after Williamson said his client was scheduled to be a guest of the Israeli government 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,” stated the barrister.

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