🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives told the court that police maintained reasonable suspicions that Tommy Robinson's phone held material relevant to acts of terrorism when they stopped him last year as he attempted to leave the UK.

Refusal to Provide Phone Password

The right-wing campaigner, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, allegedly refused to hand over his password to police, stating it contained journalist content.” This occurred after he was stopped at the Eurotunnel on 28 July 2024.

Trial Claims on Anti-Terror Authority

On the final day of the trial, state lawyer the prosecution argued that the anti-terror authorities employed by police are designed to permit information collection. She claimed that officers had reasonable suspicion to think the defendant still have links to far-right activists, even after the dissolution of the English Defence League (EDL).

“Although his membership of the English Defence League has come to an end, his beliefs have not gone away. He is recognized for holding those opinions and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to think that on his phone there may be information relevant to acts of terrorism,” she informed Westminster magistrates court.

The prosecutor added, His opinions – to which he is entitled – were not the focus for their attention on July 28. It was his connection to others who are potentially engaged in prohibited activities.”

Details of the Stop

The activist had arrived by himself at the Eurotunnel in a luxury vehicle owned by a acquaintance and was traveling to the Spanish resort of Benidorm with more than £13,000 in a carry-on, the court heard.

The funds was said to have been from a collection to offset costs from organizing a major rally that took place the day before in Trafalgar Square.

Legal Team Arguments

The defendant, who disputes non-compliance with counter-terrorism powers during the encounter on 28 July last year, faces up to 90 days in prison or a potential £2,500 fine if found guilty.

His lawyer, defense counsel, said in final arguments that anti-terror officers who detained his client had conducted a speculative search” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Citing evidence from police who said they contacted “partner agencies” after detaining him, Williamson claimed this was a allusion to the security services and that no evidence had been presented from the security service to indicate his client was a security threat.

He asserted the police intervention was “discriminatory” because it was based to a large extent on a personal attribute.” He stated that the “predominant influence” on the decision to detain him was “‘oh look, it’s Tommy Robinson”.

He noted that officers had used an special authority that must be properly policed” to try to find out information that was previously available. The barrister proposed that his client traveled to the resort regularly, which ought to have lessened the officers’ concerns about him.

Legal Costs and Verdict Date

The activist stated that his legal costs in the proceedings were being paid for by Elon Musk, the proprietor of social media and electric car companies, who has emerged as an ally of the campaigner and lately spoke at a gathering organized by him in the capital via a online broadcast.

A suggested date of next Tuesday for the verdict was altered by the district judge, the judge, after Williamson explained his client was due to be a invitee of the Israel's administration from Wednesday and would not come back 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 the barrister.

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