🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives informed the court that law enforcement maintained valid concerns indicating Tommy Robinson's mobile contained information relevant to acts of terrorism when they stopped him in the previous year as he attempted to depart from the UK.

Refusal to Give Device Pin

The right-wing campaigner, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, reportedly refused to provide his phone pin to officers, claiming it included “journalistic material.” This happened after he was stopped at the Eurotunnel on 28 July 2024.

Trial Claims on Counter-Terrorism Powers

On the last day of the proceedings, prosecutor Jo Morris stated that the counter-terrorism powers used by police are designed to allow information collection. She asserted that officers had reasonable suspicion to think Robinson still have connections to right-wing groups, even after the dissolution of the EDL organization.

“Although his membership of the English Defence League has ceased, his views have not gone away. He is recognized for having those opinions and therefore it is a valid concern to think that on his telephone there may be information pertaining to acts of terrorism,” she informed the court.

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

Circumstances of the Stop

The activist had arrived alone at the Channel tunnel in a luxury vehicle owned by a acquaintance and was on his way to the holiday destination of the Spanish coast with more than £13,000 in a small bag, the trial heard.

The money was said to have been from a collection to cover expenses from arranging a major rally that took place the day before in Trafalgar Square.

Defense Arguments

The defendant, who denies failing to comply with anti-terror laws during the encounter on 28 July last year, could receive up to three months in prison or a potential £2,500 fine if convicted.

His barrister, defense counsel, argued in closing submissions that counter-terrorism police who detained his client had engaged in a “fishing expedition” and that he had been illegally held.

Referring to testimony from police who said they called “partner agencies” after detaining him, Williamson said this was a allusion to the intelligence agencies and that no evidence had been offered from MI5 to suggest his defendant was a terrorist.

He said the officers’ action was “discriminatory” because it was based to a “significant degree on a protected characteristic.” He stated that the “predominant influence” on the choice to stop him was “‘oh look, it’s Tommy Robinson”.

He added that officers had used an “extraordinary power that needs to be carefully regulated” to try to find out details that was already known. The barrister suggested that his client journeyed to the resort regularly, which should have reduced the officers’ suspicions about him.

Expenses and Judgment Timing

Robinson stated that his court expenses in the case were being covered by the tech billionaire, the proprietor of social media and electric car companies, who has emerged as an ally of the far-right activist and recently spoke at a rally organized by him in the capital via a online broadcast.

A suggested day of next Tuesday for the decision was altered by the district judge, Sam Goozee, after the defense explained Robinson was scheduled to be a guest of the Israeli government from the midweek and would not return 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 said he would deliver his verdict on the morning of 4 November.