🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives told the tribunal that law enforcement maintained valid concerns that Tommy Robinson's mobile held material related to terrorist activities when they stopped him last year as he attempted to depart from the UK.

Denial to Provide Device Pin

The far-right activist, whose legal name is Tommy Robinson, allegedly refused to hand over his password to police, stating it included “journalistic material.” This happened after he was stopped at the Channel tunnel on July 28, 2024.

Trial Claims on Anti-Terror Authority

On the last day of the trial, prosecutor Jo Morris stated that the counter-terrorism powers used by police are designed to allow intelligence gathering. She claimed that officers had reasonable suspicion to think Robinson continued to have links to far-right activists, 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 gone away. He is known for holding those opinions and therefore it is a valid concern to believe that on his phone there may be information relevant to terrorist acts,” she informed the court.

Morris added, His opinions – to which he is entitled – were not the focus for their concern on July 28. It was his association to individuals who are possibly involved in prohibited activities.”

Details of the Detention

The campaigner had turned up by himself at the Eurotunnel in a luxury vehicle belonging to a friend and was traveling to the holiday destination of the Spanish coast with over £13,000 in a carry-on, the court was told.

The money was said to have been from a collection to cover costs from arranging a large demonstration that took place the previous day in a London landmark.

Defense Arguments

Robinson, 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 found guilty.

His barrister, Alisdair Williamson KC, argued in closing submissions that anti-terror officers who detained his client had conducted a “fishing expedition” and that he had been illegally held.

Citing testimony from officers who said they contacted “partner agencies” after detaining Robinson, the defense lawyer said this was a allusion to the security services and that no evidence had been presented from MI5 to suggest his client was a security threat.

Williamson asserted the police action was biased” because it was based to a large extent on a protected characteristic.” He stated that the main factor” on the decision to detain him was recognizing his identity”.

He added that officers had used an “extraordinary power that must be carefully regulated” to try to find out information that was previously available. The barrister suggested that his client traveled to the resort regularly, which should have reduced the officers’ concerns about him.

Legal Costs and Judgment Date

The activist stated that his legal costs in the case were being covered by Elon Musk, the proprietor of X and Tesla, who has appeared as an ally of the far-right activist and recently spoke at a rally arranged by him in the capital via a online broadcast.

A suggested date of the following Tuesday for the verdict was altered by the district judge, the judge, after the defense said Robinson 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 the barrister.

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