🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives told the tribunal that law enforcement maintained valid concerns indicating Tommy Robinson's mobile held material related to acts of terrorism when they detained him last year as he attempted to depart from the UK.

Refusal to Give Phone Pin

The far-right activist, using his legal name is Tommy Robinson, reportedly refused to hand over his phone pin to police, stating it contained “journalistic material.” This happened after he was stopped at the Channel tunnel on July 28, 2024.

Trial Arguments on Counter-Terrorism Authority

On the final day of the trial, prosecutor the prosecution argued that the anti-terror authorities used by police are designed to permit information collection. She asserted that police had valid grounds to think Robinson continued to have links to far-right activists, even following the dissolution of the English Defence League (EDL).

While his membership of the EDL has come to an end, his beliefs have not gone away. He is known for having those opinions and therefore it is a valid concern to believe that on his telephone there may be information relevant to acts of terrorism,” she informed the court.

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

Circumstances of the Detention

The campaigner had arrived by himself at the Channel tunnel in a luxury vehicle belonging to a acquaintance and was on his way to the Spanish resort of Benidorm with over £13,000 in a carry-on, the court heard.

The funds was reportedly from a donation drive to offset costs from organizing a large demonstration that occurred the previous day in Trafalgar Square.

Defense Arguments

The defendant, who disputes failing to comply with counter-terrorism powers during the incident on July 28 of the previous year, could receive up to three months in jail or a possible £2,500 fine if convicted.

His lawyer, defense counsel, said in closing submissions that anti-terror officers who detained his client had conducted a “fishing expedition” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Referring to evidence from police who said they contacted other organizations” after arresting Robinson, Williamson said this was a reference to the security services 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 personal attribute.” He stated that the “predominant influence” on the decision to detain him was recognizing his identity”.

He noted that police had used an “extraordinary power that must be properly policed” to try to discover details that was previously available. Williamson suggested that Robinson journeyed to the resort regularly, which should have reduced the police concerns about him.

Legal Costs and Judgment Timing

The activist claimed that his court expenses in the case were being covered by Elon Musk, the proprietor of X and Tesla, who has appeared as an supporter of the campaigner and lately spoke at a rally arranged by him in London via a online broadcast.

A proposed date of next Tuesday for the decision was altered by the magistrate, the judge, after Williamson explained Robinson was scheduled to be a invitee of the Israel's administration from Wednesday and would not come back 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 the barrister.

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