🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives informed the tribunal that police had reasonable suspicions that Tommy Robinson's phone held material related to terrorist activities when they detained him last year as he attempted to depart from the UK.

Refusal to Give Phone Password

The right-wing campaigner, whose real name is Tommy Robinson, reportedly declined to hand over his phone pin to police, stating it included “journalistic material.” This happened after he was intercepted at the Channel tunnel on 28 July 2024.

Prosecution Claims on Anti-Terror Powers

On the final day of the proceedings, prosecutor Jo Morris argued that the counter-terrorism powers used by law enforcement are intended to permit information collection. She claimed that police had valid grounds to think Robinson continued to have links to far-right activists, even after the dissolution of the EDL organization.

While his affiliation of the English Defence League has come to an end, his views have not disappeared. He is known for holding those opinions and therefore it is a valid concern to think that on his telephone there could be information relevant to acts of terrorism,” she informed the court.

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

Details of the Detention

The activist had arrived alone at the Channel tunnel in a silver Bentley belonging to a friend and was traveling to the Spanish resort of the Spanish coast with more than £13,000 in a carry-on, the court was told.

The money 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.

Defense Arguments

Robinson, who denies failing to comply with counter-terrorism powers during the incident on 28 July last year, could receive up to 90 days in jail or a possible £2,500 penalty if found guilty.

His barrister, defense counsel, argued in final arguments that anti-terror officers who stopped his client had conducted a speculative search” and that he had been illegally held.

Citing testimony from police who said they called other organizations” after detaining him, Williamson claimed this was a reference to the intelligence agencies and that lack of proof had been presented from the security service to indicate his defendant was a security threat.

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

He added that officers had used an “extraordinary power that must be carefully regulated” to try to find out information that was previously available. Williamson suggested that his client journeyed to the resort regularly, which ought to have reduced the officers’ concerns about him.

Expenses and Verdict Date

The activist claimed that his court expenses in the case were being covered by the tech billionaire, the owner of X and Tesla, who has appeared as an supporter of the campaigner and recently addressed a rally organized by him in London via a online broadcast.

A proposed day of next Tuesday for the decision was changed by the magistrate, the judge, after the defense said Robinson was scheduled to be a guest of the Israeli government from Wednesday 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,” stated Williamson.

Goozee said he would deliver his verdict on the morning of 4 November.