🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives told the tribunal that law enforcement had reasonable suspicions indicating Tommy Robinson's mobile contained material relevant to acts of terrorism when they detained him in the previous year as he tried to depart from the UK.

Refusal to Give Device Pin

The far-right activist, whose legal name is Tommy Robinson, allegedly refused to provide his phone pin to officers, stating it contained journalist content.” This occurred after he was intercepted at the Eurotunnel on 28 July 2024.

Prosecution Arguments on Anti-Terror Authority

On the final day of the trial, state lawyer the prosecution stated that the anti-terror authorities used by law enforcement are designed to allow information collection. She asserted that police had reasonable suspicion to think Robinson continued to have connections to far-right activists, even after the disbandment of the English Defence League (EDL).

“Although his affiliation of the EDL has come to an end, his beliefs have not disappeared. He is known for holding those views and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to think that on his telephone there could be information relevant to terrorist acts,” she informed the court.

Morris added, “His beliefs – to which he is allowed – were not the subject for their concern on 28 July. It was his association to others who are possibly involved in prohibited activities.”

Details of the Stop

The campaigner 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 the Spanish coast with more than £13,000 in a carry-on, the trial heard.

The funds was reportedly from a donation drive to offset costs from arranging a major rally that took place the day before in a London landmark.

Defense Arguments

The defendant, who disputes failing to comply with anti-terror laws during the incident on July 28 of the previous year, could receive up to 90 days in prison or a possible £2,500 fine if convicted.

His barrister, Alisdair Williamson KC, said in closing submissions that counter-terrorism police who detained Robinson had conducted a “fishing expedition” and that he had been illegally held.

Referring to evidence from police who said they contacted other organizations” after arresting Robinson, the defense lawyer said this was a reference to the intelligence agencies and that no evidence had been offered from the security service to indicate his client was a terrorist.

Williamson asserted the police intervention was “discriminatory” because it was based to a large extent on a personal attribute.” He stated that the “predominant influence” on the decision to detain him was recognizing his identity”.

He added that police had used an special authority that needs to be carefully regulated” to try to discover details that was already known. Williamson suggested that Robinson traveled to the resort regularly, which should have reduced the police suspicions about him.

Legal Costs and Verdict Timing

The activist stated that his court expenses in the proceedings were being paid for by Elon Musk, the owner of X and Tesla, who has emerged as an ally of the far-right activist and lately spoke at a rally arranged by him in London via a livestream.

A proposed day of next Tuesday for the verdict was changed by the district judge, Sam Goozee, after Williamson said his client was due to be a guest of the Israeli government from the midweek 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,” said the barrister.

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