🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors told the court that law enforcement maintained reasonable suspicions indicating Tommy Robinson's phone held information relevant to acts of terrorism when they stopped him last year as he attempted to leave the UK.

Refusal to Provide Device Pin

The far-right activist, whose real name is Tommy Robinson, reportedly declined to provide his phone pin to police, stating it included “journalistic material.” This happened after he was intercepted at the Eurotunnel on 28 July 2024.

Prosecution Arguments on Anti-Terror Authority

On the final day of the trial, prosecutor Jo Morris stated that the anti-terror authorities used by law enforcement are intended to permit information collection. She claimed that police had valid grounds to believe the defendant still have links to right-wing groups, even following the disbandment of the EDL organization.

While his membership of the EDL has come to an end, his views have not gone away. He is known for holding those views and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to believe that on his phone there could be data pertaining to acts of terrorism,” she told the court.

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

Details of the Detention

The activist had arrived by himself at the Eurotunnel in a luxury vehicle owned by a friend and was traveling to the holiday destination of the Spanish coast with over £13,000 in a small bag, the court heard.

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

Defense Submissions

Robinson, who disputes failing to comply with anti-terror laws during the incident on 28 July of the previous year, could receive up to three months in jail or a possible £2,500 penalty if convicted.

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

Referring to evidence from officers who said they called other organizations” after detaining him, 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.

Williamson said the officers’ action 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 recognizing his identity”.

He noted that police had used an “extraordinary power that needs to be properly policed” to try to discover information that was previously available. The barrister proposed that Robinson journeyed to the resort frequently, which should have lessened the police concerns about him.

Expenses and Judgment Date

The activist stated that his legal costs in the proceedings were being covered by the tech billionaire, the proprietor of X and Tesla, who has emerged as an supporter of the far-right activist and recently addressed a gathering organized by him in the capital via a online broadcast.

A suggested date of the following Tuesday for the decision was altered by the district judge, Sam Goozee, after the defense explained his client was scheduled to be a guest of the Israel's administration from the midweek and would not come back 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 said he would hand down his ruling on the morning of 4 November.