🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives informed the court that law enforcement maintained reasonable suspicions that Tommy Robinson's phone held material related to acts of terrorism when they stopped him in the previous year as he attempted to depart from the UK.

Refusal to Give Phone Pin

The far-right activist, using his real name is Tommy Robinson, allegedly refused to hand over his phone pin to police, stating it contained journalist content.” This happened after he was intercepted at the Eurotunnel on 28 July 2024.

Trial Claims on Anti-Terror Authority

On the last day of the trial, prosecutor Jo Morris argued that the counter-terrorism powers employed by law enforcement are designed to permit intelligence gathering. She asserted that police had reasonable suspicion to think the defendant continued to have connections to far-right activists, even after the disbandment of the English Defence League (EDL).

“Although his membership of the EDL has ceased, his beliefs have not disappeared. He is known for holding those opinions and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to believe that on his telephone there could be data relevant to terrorist acts,” she informed Westminster magistrates court.

Morris continued, “His beliefs – to which he is entitled – were not the focus for their attention on July 28. It was his connection to others who are potentially involved in illegal actions.”

Circumstances of the Stop

The activist had arrived 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 said to have been from a collection to cover costs from arranging a large demonstration that took place the previous day in Trafalgar Square.

Defense Arguments

Robinson, who denies non-compliance with anti-terror laws during the encounter on July 28 last year, faces up to 90 days in prison or a potential £2,500 fine if convicted.

His barrister, defense counsel, argued in closing submissions that counter-terrorism police who detained his client had conducted a speculative search” and that he had been illegally held.

Referring to testimony from officers who stated they contacted other organizations” after arresting Robinson, the defense lawyer claimed this was a reference to the intelligence agencies and that no evidence had been offered from the security service to suggest his defendant was a security threat.

Williamson said the police action was biased” because it was based to a large extent on a protected characteristic.” He stated that the “predominant influence” on the choice to stop him was recognizing his identity”.

He added that police had used an “extraordinary power that needs to be properly policed” to try to find out information that was previously available. The barrister suggested that Robinson traveled to the resort regularly, which should have reduced the officers’ suspicions about him.

Legal Costs and Judgment Timing

Robinson stated that his court expenses in the case were being covered by Elon Musk, the owner of X and Tesla, who has emerged as an supporter of the campaigner and lately spoke at a gathering organized by him in London via a online broadcast.

A proposed date of next Tuesday for the verdict was changed by the district judge, the judge, after Williamson said Robinson was scheduled to be a invitee of the Israeli government from the midweek and would not return 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,” said Williamson.

The judge announced he would deliver his verdict on the morning of 4 November.