🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors informed the court that police had reasonable suspicions that Tommy Robinson's mobile held information relevant to acts of terrorism when they detained him in the previous year as he attempted to leave the UK.

Denial to Provide Device Pin

The far-right activist, using his real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, allegedly refused to hand over his phone pin to officers, claiming it contained journalist content.” This happened after he was stopped at the Eurotunnel on July 28, 2024.

Trial Claims on Anti-Terror Powers

On the final day of the trial, prosecutor Jo Morris stated that the anti-terror authorities employed by police are designed to allow information collection. She claimed that officers had reasonable suspicion to believe Robinson still have connections to right-wing groups, even following the dissolution of the EDL organization.

While his membership of the English Defence League has ceased, his views have not gone away. He is recognized for holding those opinions and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to believe that on his phone there may be data pertaining to terrorist acts,” she told the court.

Morris continued, “His beliefs – to which he is entitled – were not the focus for their concern on 28 July. It was his association to individuals who are possibly engaged in prohibited activities.”

Circumstances of the Stop

The activist had arrived by himself at the Channel tunnel in a luxury vehicle belonging to a acquaintance and was traveling to the Spanish resort of Benidorm with over £13,000 in a carry-on, the trial was told.

The funds was said to have been from a donation drive to cover expenses from arranging a large demonstration that took place the previous day in Trafalgar Square.

Legal Team Arguments

The defendant, who denies non-compliance with counter-terrorism powers during the encounter on 28 July last year, could receive up to 90 days in jail or a potential £2,500 fine if convicted.

His barrister, defense counsel, said in final arguments that anti-terror officers who stopped Robinson had conducted a “fishing expedition” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Citing testimony from officers who stated they contacted “partner agencies” after detaining Robinson, Williamson claimed 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 terrorist.

He asserted the officers’ intervention was biased” because it was based to a “significant degree on a protected characteristic.” He stated that the main factor” on the choice to detain him was “‘oh look, it’s Tommy Robinson”.

He added that officers had used an special authority that needs to be properly policed” to try to discover information that was previously available. The barrister proposed that his client journeyed to Benidorm frequently, which ought to have reduced the officers’ suspicions about him.

Legal Costs and Judgment Timing

The activist claimed that his court expenses in the case were being paid for by the tech billionaire, the proprietor of X and Tesla, who has emerged as an ally of the far-right activist and recently addressed a rally arranged by him in the capital via a online broadcast.

A proposed date of the following Tuesday for the decision was changed by the district judge, the judge, after Williamson explained Robinson was scheduled 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 Williamson.

The judge announced he would hand down his verdict on the start of 4 November.