🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives told the tribunal that law enforcement had valid concerns that Tommy Robinson's phone contained material relevant to terrorist activities when they detained him in the previous year as he tried to depart from the UK.

Denial to Give Device Password

The right-wing campaigner, whose legal name is Tommy Robinson, allegedly refused to hand over his phone pin to officers, stating it included “journalistic material.” This occurred after he was intercepted at the Eurotunnel on 28 July 2024.

Prosecution Arguments on Counter-Terrorism Powers

On the final day of the proceedings, prosecutor Jo Morris stated that the counter-terrorism powers used by law enforcement are designed to permit information collection. She asserted that officers had reasonable suspicion to believe Robinson still have connections to right-wing groups, even following the disbandment of the English Defence League (EDL).

While his affiliation of the English Defence League has ceased, his views have not disappeared. He is recognized for having those views and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to believe that on his telephone there could be information pertaining to acts of terrorism,” she told the court.

The prosecutor continued, His opinions – to which he is allowed – were not the focus for their concern on July 28. It was his connection to others who are possibly engaged in illegal actions.”

Circumstances of the Detention

The activist had arrived by himself at the Eurotunnel in a silver Bentley owned by a acquaintance and was on his way to the holiday destination of the Spanish coast with over £13,000 in a small bag, the court was told.

The money was said to have been from a donation drive to offset expenses from organizing a major rally that occurred the day before in Trafalgar Square.

Legal Team Arguments

Robinson, who disputes failing to comply with anti-terror laws during the encounter on 28 July of the previous year, faces up to three months in prison or a possible £2,500 penalty if convicted.

His barrister, defense counsel, argued in final arguments that counter-terrorism police who stopped his client had conducted a speculative search” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Referring to testimony from police who stated they contacted other organizations” after detaining Robinson, Williamson claimed this was a reference to the security services and that lack of proof had been presented from MI5 to indicate his defendant was a security threat.

Williamson said the officers’ action was biased” because it was based to a large extent on a personal attribute.” He said that the main factor” on the choice to stop him was recognizing his identity”.

He noted that officers had used an “extraordinary power that needs to be properly policed” to try to find out details that was already known. The barrister suggested that his client journeyed to the resort frequently, which ought to have lessened the officers’ concerns about him.

Legal Costs and Judgment Date

The activist stated that his legal costs in the proceedings were being paid for by the tech billionaire, the owner of X and Tesla, who has appeared as an supporter of the far-right activist and recently spoke at a rally organized by him in the capital via a online broadcast.

A suggested date of the following Tuesday for the decision was changed by the district judge, the judge, after Williamson explained his client was scheduled to be a guest of the Israeli government from Wednesday 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 Williamson.

The judge announced he would deliver his ruling on the morning of 4 November.