🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors informed the tribunal that police had valid concerns that Tommy Robinson's mobile contained information relevant to terrorist activities when they stopped him in the previous year as he attempted to depart from the UK.

Refusal to Provide Device Password

The right-wing campaigner, using his real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, allegedly declined to provide his phone pin to officers, claiming it contained journalist content.” This occurred after he was intercepted at the Eurotunnel on 28 July 2024.

Trial Claims on Counter-Terrorism Powers

On the last day of the trial, state lawyer the prosecution stated that the counter-terrorism powers employed by police are intended to permit intelligence gathering. She claimed that police had reasonable suspicion to believe Robinson still have links to far-right activists, even following the disbandment of the English Defence League (EDL).

While his membership of the English Defence League has come to an end, his views have not disappeared. He is known for having those opinions and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to think that on his telephone there could be data relevant to acts of terrorism,” she told the court.

Morris continued, “His beliefs – to which he is allowed – were not the subject for their attention on 28 July. It was his association to others who are possibly engaged in illegal actions.”

Details of the Detention

The campaigner had arrived by himself at the Channel tunnel in a silver Bentley belonging to a acquaintance and was traveling to the holiday destination of the Spanish coast with more than £13,000 in a small bag, the court heard.

The funds was reportedly from a donation drive to cover expenses from arranging a large demonstration that took place the previous day in a London landmark.

Defense Submissions

The defendant, who denies non-compliance with anti-terror laws during the encounter on 28 July last year, faces up to 90 days in jail or a possible £2,500 fine if found guilty.

His lawyer, Alisdair Williamson KC, said in closing submissions that counter-terrorism police who stopped his client had engaged in a speculative search” and that he had been illegally held.

Referring to testimony from officers who stated they called “partner agencies” after arresting him, Williamson claimed this was a allusion to the security services and that lack of proof had been presented from the security service to indicate his defendant was a security threat.

He asserted the police intervention was biased” because it was based to a “significant degree 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 properly policed” to try to discover details that was previously available. Williamson suggested that Robinson traveled to the resort frequently, which should have reduced the police concerns about him.

Legal Costs and Verdict Timing

Robinson claimed that his legal costs in the proceedings were being paid for by the tech billionaire, the owner of social media and electric car companies, who has emerged as an supporter of the campaigner and lately spoke at a rally organized by him in London via a online broadcast.

A proposed day of the following Tuesday for the verdict was changed by the magistrate, Sam Goozee, after the defense explained Robinson was due to be a invitee of the Israeli government from the midweek 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.

Goozee announced he would deliver his verdict on the start of 4 November.