🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors told the tribunal that police had valid concerns indicating Tommy Robinson's phone held material related to terrorist activities when they detained him in the previous year as he tried to depart from the UK.

Denial to Provide Phone Pin

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

Prosecution Arguments on Anti-Terror Authority

On the last day of the trial, state lawyer Jo Morris argued that the anti-terror authorities employed by police are intended to allow intelligence gathering. She claimed that police had reasonable suspicion to think the defendant continued to have links to right-wing groups, even following the disbandment of the EDL organization.

“Although his affiliation of the English Defence League has come to an end, his beliefs have not disappeared. He is known for having those opinions and therefore it is a valid concern to think that on his phone there could be data relevant to terrorist acts,” she told Westminster magistrates court.

The prosecutor continued, “His beliefs – to which he is entitled – were not the subject for their concern on 28 July. It was his connection to individuals who are possibly involved in prohibited activities.”

Details of the Detention

The activist had arrived alone at the Eurotunnel in a silver Bentley owned by a acquaintance and was on his way to the holiday destination of the Spanish coast with more than £13,000 in a carry-on, the trial was told.

The funds was said to have been from a collection to cover costs from organizing a major rally that occurred the day before in Trafalgar Square.

Defense Submissions

Robinson, who denies non-compliance with anti-terror laws during the incident on July 28 last year, could receive up to 90 days in jail or a potential £2,500 penalty if found guilty.

His lawyer, defense counsel, argued in final arguments that anti-terror officers who detained his client had engaged in a speculative search” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Citing evidence from police who stated they contacted “partner agencies” after arresting him, Williamson said this was a allusion 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 police intervention was “discriminatory” because it was based to a large extent on a protected characteristic.” He said that the main factor” on the choice 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 information that was already known. The barrister suggested that Robinson traveled to Benidorm regularly, which ought to have lessened the police concerns about him.

Legal Costs and Judgment Date

Robinson claimed that his court expenses in the case were being covered by Elon Musk, the proprietor of X and Tesla, who has emerged as an supporter of the campaigner and recently addressed a rally organized by him in London via a livestream.

A proposed day of next Tuesday for the verdict was altered by the district judge, Sam Goozee, after the defense said his client was due to be a guest of the Israeli government from the midweek and would not return 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 announced he would hand down his ruling on the morning of 4 November.