🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors told the tribunal that police had valid concerns that Tommy Robinson's mobile contained information related to acts of terrorism when they detained him last year as he attempted to depart from the UK.

Denial to Provide Phone Pin

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

Trial Claims on Counter-Terrorism Powers

On the final day of the trial, state lawyer Jo Morris argued that the anti-terror authorities used by police are intended to allow intelligence gathering. She claimed that officers had reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant continued to have connections to far-right activists, even following the disbandment of the English Defence League (EDL).

While his membership of the EDL has come to an end, his beliefs have not disappeared. He is recognized for holding those views and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to think that on his phone there may be information relevant to acts of terrorism,” she told Westminster magistrates court.

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

Circumstances of the Stop

The campaigner had arrived alone at the Channel tunnel in a luxury vehicle owned by a acquaintance and was traveling to the holiday destination of Benidorm with over £13,000 in a small bag, the court heard.

The funds was reportedly from a donation drive to offset expenses from organizing a large demonstration that occurred the day before in Trafalgar Square.

Defense Arguments

The defendant, who disputes non-compliance with anti-terror laws during the incident on 28 July last year, faces up to three months in prison or a possible £2,500 penalty if convicted.

His lawyer, defense counsel, argued in final arguments that counter-terrorism police 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 arresting Robinson, the defense lawyer claimed this was a reference to the security services and that no evidence had been presented from the security service to indicate his defendant was a security threat.

He said the officers’ intervention was “discriminatory” because it was based to a “significant degree on a personal attribute.” He stated that the “predominant influence” on the choice to detain him was “‘oh look, it’s Tommy Robinson”.

He added that police had used an special authority that needs to be properly policed” to try to discover information that was previously available. Williamson suggested that his client journeyed to the resort regularly, which should have reduced the officers’ suspicions about him.

Legal Costs and Judgment Timing

The activist claimed that his legal costs in the proceedings were being covered by the tech billionaire, the owner 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 London via a livestream.

A suggested date of the following Tuesday for the decision was changed by the district judge, Sam Goozee, after Williamson explained his client was due to be a invitee of the Israel's administration 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 morning of 4 November.