🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors told the court that police maintained valid concerns indicating Tommy Robinson's mobile contained information relevant to acts of terrorism when they detained him last year as he attempted to leave the UK.

Refusal to Give Device Password

The far-right activist, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, allegedly declined to provide his phone pin to police, stating it contained journalist content.” This happened after he was intercepted at the Eurotunnel on July 28, 2024.

Trial Claims on Counter-Terrorism Powers

On the last day of the trial, prosecutor Jo Morris stated that the anti-terror authorities used by police are intended to allow information collection. She asserted that officers had valid grounds to think Robinson continued to have connections to far-right activists, even following 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 having those opinions and therefore it is a valid concern to think that on his telephone there could 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 focus for their attention on 28 July. It was his connection to individuals who are potentially involved in illegal actions.”

Circumstances of the Stop

The campaigner had arrived alone at the Eurotunnel in a luxury vehicle belonging to 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 heard.

The funds was reportedly from a donation drive to cover expenses from arranging a large demonstration that took place the previous day in a London landmark.

Defense Arguments

Robinson, who disputes failing to comply with anti-terror laws during the encounter on July 28 last year, could receive up to 90 days in jail or a possible £2,500 penalty if found guilty.

His barrister, Alisdair Williamson KC, argued in final arguments that anti-terror officers who detained Robinson had engaged in a “fishing expedition” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Citing evidence from officers who stated they called “partner agencies” after arresting Robinson, Williamson claimed this was a reference to the intelligence agencies and that no evidence had been offered from MI5 to indicate his defendant was a terrorist.

Williamson asserted the police action was biased” because it was based to a “significant degree on a personal attribute.” He stated that the “predominant influence” on the decision to stop him was recognizing his identity”.

He noted that officers had used an “extraordinary power that must be carefully regulated” to try to discover details that was previously available. Williamson suggested that Robinson traveled to the resort regularly, which should have lessened the officers’ suspicions about him.

Expenses and Verdict Timing

Robinson claimed that his legal costs in the proceedings were being paid for by the tech billionaire, the owner of social media and electric car companies, who has emerged as an supporter of the campaigner and recently spoke at a gathering organized by him in the capital via a online broadcast.

A proposed date of the following Tuesday for the verdict was changed by the district judge, the judge, after Williamson explained Robinson was due to be a guest of the Israel's administration from Wednesday and would not come back until October 25.

{“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.