🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives informed the tribunal that police had reasonable suspicions indicating Tommy Robinson's phone held information relevant to terrorist activities when they detained him last year as he attempted to leave the UK.

Denial to Give Device Pin

The right-wing campaigner, using his legal name is Tommy Robinson, allegedly refused to provide his password to police, claiming it included journalist content.” This occurred after he was intercepted at the Channel tunnel on 28 July 2024.

Trial Arguments on Anti-Terror Authority

On the last day of the trial, state lawyer Jo Morris stated that the anti-terror authorities used by police are intended to allow intelligence gathering. She asserted that police had reasonable suspicion to believe Robinson continued to have links to far-right activists, even after the dissolution of the English Defence League (EDL).

While his affiliation of the EDL has come to an end, his views have not disappeared. He is recognized for holding those views and therefore it is a valid concern to believe that on his phone there could be information pertaining to terrorist acts,” she informed the court.

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

Circumstances of the Stop

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

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

Legal Team Submissions

Robinson, who denies failing to comply with anti-terror laws during the encounter on July 28 last year, could receive up to three months in prison or a potential £2,500 fine if found guilty.

His barrister, defense counsel, argued in final arguments that anti-terror officers who detained Robinson had conducted a “fishing expedition” and that he had been illegally held.

Citing evidence from officers who stated they called other organizations” after detaining Robinson, Williamson claimed this was a allusion to the security services and that lack of proof had been offered from the security service to suggest his defendant was a terrorist.

He asserted the officers’ action was biased” because it was based to a large extent on a personal attribute.” He said that the main factor” on the decision to detain him was recognizing his identity”.

He added that police had used an “extraordinary power that needs to be properly policed” to try to discover details that was previously available. The barrister suggested that Robinson journeyed to the resort regularly, which ought to have lessened the police suspicions about him.

Expenses and Verdict Timing

The activist claimed that his court expenses in the case were being paid for by the tech billionaire, the owner of social media and electric car companies, who has appeared as an supporter of the campaigner and lately spoke at a rally arranged by him in London via a livestream.

A proposed date of next Tuesday for the decision was altered by the district judge, Sam Goozee, after the defense said Robinson was scheduled to be a guest of the Israel's administration from Wednesday 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.

The judge announced he would deliver his ruling on the start of 4 November.