🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors told the tribunal that police had valid concerns indicating Tommy Robinson's mobile contained information relevant to terrorist activities when they stopped him last year as he attempted to depart from the UK.

Refusal to Provide Phone Password

The far-right activist, using his real name is Tommy Robinson, reportedly refused to provide his password to officers, claiming it included “journalistic material.” This occurred after he was intercepted at the Eurotunnel on 28 July 2024.

Trial Claims on Counter-Terrorism Authority

On the final day of the proceedings, prosecutor the prosecution stated that the counter-terrorism powers used by law enforcement are designed to permit information collection. She claimed that officers had reasonable suspicion to think the defendant still have links to far-right activists, even after the dissolution of the English Defence League (EDL).

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

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

Circumstances of the Stop

The activist had turned up alone at the Eurotunnel in a silver Bentley owned by a acquaintance and was on his way to the Spanish resort of Benidorm with more than £13,000 in a small bag, the trial was told.

The money was reportedly from a donation drive to offset expenses from organizing a major rally that took place the previous day in a London landmark.

Legal Team Submissions

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 prison or a possible £2,500 fine if convicted.

His barrister, defense counsel, said in final arguments that counter-terrorism police who stopped Robinson had conducted a speculative search” and that he had been illegally held.

Referring to testimony from police who said they called “partner agencies” after detaining him, Williamson claimed this was a reference to the intelligence agencies and that lack of proof had been offered from MI5 to indicate his defendant was a security threat.

Williamson asserted the police intervention was “discriminatory” because it was based to a “significant degree on a protected characteristic.” He stated that the main factor” on the decision to detain him was recognizing his identity”.

He noted that police had used an “extraordinary power that must be carefully regulated” to try to find out details that was already known. The barrister suggested that his client journeyed to Benidorm frequently, which should have lessened the police concerns about him.

Legal Costs and Judgment Date

The activist claimed that his legal costs in the proceedings were being covered by the tech billionaire, the owner of social media and electric car companies, who has emerged as an supporter of the campaigner and lately addressed a gathering organized by him in the capital via a livestream.

A suggested date of next Tuesday for the verdict was changed by the magistrate, the judge, after the defense said his client was due to be a invitee 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 Williamson.

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