🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors informed the tribunal that police maintained reasonable suspicions that Tommy Robinson's mobile contained material relevant to acts of terrorism when they detained him in the previous year as he attempted to depart from the UK.

Refusal to Provide Phone Pin

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

Trial Claims on Anti-Terror Powers

On the last day of the trial, prosecutor the prosecution stated that the counter-terrorism powers used by police are designed to allow intelligence gathering. She claimed that police had reasonable suspicion to think the defendant still have connections to right-wing groups, even after the dissolution of the EDL organization.

While his membership of the EDL has come to an end, his beliefs have not gone away. He is known for having those views and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to believe that on his telephone there may be data relevant to terrorist acts,” she informed Westminster magistrates court.

The prosecutor continued, “His beliefs – to which he is allowed – were not the focus for their attention on 28 July. It was his association to individuals who are potentially engaged in illegal actions.”

Circumstances of the Stop

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

The money was reportedly from a collection to cover costs from arranging a major rally that took place the day before in a London landmark.

Defense Arguments

Robinson, who denies failing to comply with counter-terrorism powers during the encounter on July 28 of the previous year, could receive up to three months in jail or a potential £2,500 fine if found guilty.

His barrister, Alisdair Williamson KC, said in final arguments that counter-terrorism police who stopped his client had engaged in a speculative search” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Referring to testimony from officers who said they contacted other organizations” after arresting him, Williamson said this was a allusion to the security services and that lack of proof had been offered from MI5 to suggest his client was a terrorist.

Williamson said the officers’ intervention was biased” because it was based to a large extent on a protected characteristic.” He stated that the main factor” on the choice to detain him was recognizing his identity”.

He added that police had used an special authority that must be carefully regulated” to try to find out details that was previously available. The barrister suggested that his client traveled to Benidorm regularly, which ought to have reduced the officers’ concerns about him.

Expenses and Judgment Timing

Robinson 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 lately spoke at a gathering arranged by him in the capital via a livestream.

A proposed day of the following Tuesday for the verdict was altered by the district judge, the judge, after the defense explained Robinson 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 Williamson.

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