🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors informed the tribunal that police had reasonable suspicions that Tommy Robinson's phone contained information related to terrorist activities when they stopped him last year as he tried to depart from the UK.

Denial to Give Device Password

The far-right activist, using his real name is Tommy Robinson, allegedly refused to hand over his password to officers, claiming it included journalist content.” This happened after he was stopped at the Channel tunnel on July 28, 2024.

Trial Arguments on Anti-Terror Authority

On the last day of the trial, state lawyer the prosecution stated that the anti-terror authorities employed by law enforcement are designed to allow information collection. She asserted that police had reasonable suspicion to think the defendant still have links to far-right activists, even after the dissolution of the EDL organization.

While his affiliation of the EDL has ceased, his views have not gone away. He is known for holding those views and therefore it is a valid concern to think that on his telephone there could be information pertaining to terrorist acts,” she told Westminster magistrates court.

The prosecutor added, “His beliefs – to which he is allowed – were not the focus for their concern on 28 July. It was his association to individuals who are potentially engaged in illegal actions.”

Details of the Stop

The activist had turned up alone at the Channel tunnel in a silver Bentley owned by a acquaintance and was on his way to the Spanish resort of the Spanish coast with over £13,000 in a carry-on, the court heard.

The money was said to have been from a donation drive to offset costs from arranging a major rally that occurred the day before in a London landmark.

Defense Submissions

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

His barrister, Alisdair Williamson KC, argued in final arguments that counter-terrorism police who detained Robinson had engaged in a speculative search” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Citing evidence from officers who stated they called other organizations” after arresting Robinson, the defense lawyer claimed this was a allusion to the security services and that no evidence had been presented from MI5 to indicate his defendant was a terrorist.

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

He noted that police had used an special authority that needs to be properly policed” to try to find out details that was previously available. Williamson suggested that Robinson journeyed to Benidorm regularly, which should have lessened the police concerns about him.

Legal Costs and Judgment Date

Robinson stated that his legal costs in the case were being covered by the tech billionaire, the proprietor of social media and electric car companies, who has emerged as an supporter of the campaigner and lately addressed a gathering arranged by him in London via a livestream.

A suggested date of next Tuesday for the decision was changed by the magistrate, Sam Goozee, after Williamson said Robinson was due 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 the barrister.

Goozee announced he would hand down his verdict on the morning of 4 November.