🔗 Share this article

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

Denial to Provide Device Password

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

Prosecution Claims on Anti-Terror Powers

On the last day of the trial, state lawyer Jo Morris stated that the anti-terror authorities employed by law enforcement are designed to allow information collection. She asserted that officers had valid grounds to believe the defendant continued to have links to right-wing groups, even following the dissolution of the EDL organization.

“Although his membership of the EDL has ceased, his beliefs have not gone away. He is known for holding those opinions and therefore it is a valid concern to believe that on his phone there could be information relevant to terrorist acts,” she told Westminster magistrates court.

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

Circumstances of the Detention

The activist had turned up alone at the Eurotunnel in a silver Bentley owned by a friend and was on his way to the holiday destination of Benidorm with over £13,000 in a small bag, the court was told.

The funds was reportedly from a collection to offset costs from organizing a major rally that took place the previous day in Trafalgar Square.

Legal Team Arguments

The defendant, who disputes failing to comply with anti-terror laws during the encounter on 28 July last year, faces up to 90 days in prison or a possible £2,500 fine if convicted.

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

Referring to testimony from police who stated they called other organizations” after detaining him, Williamson claimed this was a allusion to the intelligence agencies and that no evidence had been presented from MI5 to suggest his client was a terrorist.

Williamson asserted the officers’ intervention was “discriminatory” 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 “‘oh look, it’s Tommy Robinson”.

He added that police had used an special authority that must be carefully regulated” to try to find out information that was previously available. Williamson proposed that his client traveled to the resort regularly, which should have lessened the police concerns about him.

Legal Costs and Judgment Date

The activist stated that his court expenses in the case were being covered by the tech billionaire, the proprietor of X and Tesla, who has emerged as an supporter of the campaigner and recently spoke at a gathering arranged by him in the capital via a online broadcast.

A suggested date of the following Tuesday for the verdict was changed by the district judge, the judge, after the defense explained his client was due to be a guest of the Israeli government from Wednesday and would not return 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 announced he would deliver his verdict on the start of 4 November.