🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives told the court that law enforcement had valid concerns indicating Tommy Robinson's phone held information relevant to acts of terrorism when they detained him last year as he tried to leave the UK.

Refusal to Give Phone Password

The right-wing campaigner, whose legal name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, allegedly declined to provide his phone pin to police, stating it included journalist content.” This happened after he was stopped at the Eurotunnel on July 28, 2024.

Prosecution Claims on Counter-Terrorism Authority

On the last day of the trial, state lawyer Jo Morris argued that the anti-terror authorities employed by law enforcement are intended to allow intelligence gathering. She asserted that officers had valid grounds to think the defendant continued to have connections to right-wing groups, even following the disbandment 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 having those views and therefore it is a valid concern to think that on his phone there may be data pertaining to acts of terrorism,” she informed Westminster magistrates court.

Morris continued, “His beliefs – to which he is allowed – were not the focus for their concern on July 28. It was his connection to individuals who are possibly engaged in prohibited activities.”

Circumstances of the Detention

The activist had arrived alone at the Eurotunnel in a luxury vehicle owned by a friend and was traveling to the Spanish resort of the Spanish coast with over £13,000 in a small bag, the trial was told.

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

Legal Team Arguments

Robinson, who denies non-compliance with counter-terrorism powers during the incident on July 28 last year, faces up to three months in prison or a possible £2,500 penalty if found guilty.

His barrister, Alisdair Williamson KC, argued in closing submissions that counter-terrorism police who detained Robinson had conducted a “fishing expedition” and that he had been illegally held.

Citing testimony from officers who stated they called “partner agencies” after detaining Robinson, Williamson claimed 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 terrorist.

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

He added that officers had used an “extraordinary power that needs to be properly policed” to try to find out information that was already known. Williamson proposed that his client journeyed to the resort frequently, which should have lessened the police suspicions about him.

Legal Costs and Judgment Date

The activist claimed that his legal costs in the case were being covered by Elon Musk, the proprietor of X and Tesla, who has appeared as an ally of the campaigner and recently addressed a gathering organized by him in the capital via a online broadcast.

A proposed date of the following Tuesday for the verdict was altered by the magistrate, Sam Goozee, after Williamson explained Robinson was scheduled 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.

The judge said he would hand down his verdict on the morning of 4 November.