🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives told the tribunal that police had valid concerns that Tommy Robinson's mobile held material related to acts of terrorism when they detained him in the previous year as he attempted to leave the UK.

Denial to Give Phone Password

The right-wing campaigner, using his real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, reportedly declined to provide his phone pin to police, stating it included “journalistic material.” This occurred after he was intercepted at the Channel tunnel on 28 July 2024.

Prosecution Arguments on Counter-Terrorism Authority

On the last day of the trial, state lawyer the prosecution argued that the anti-terror authorities employed by police are designed to permit information collection. She asserted that officers had valid grounds to think Robinson still have links to far-right activists, even following the disbandment of the English Defence League (EDL).

While his membership of the English Defence League has ceased, his views have not gone away. He is recognized for holding those opinions and therefore it is a valid concern to think that on his telephone there could be information relevant to terrorist acts,” she informed Westminster magistrates court.

The prosecutor continued, “His beliefs – to which he is entitled – were not the subject for their attention on 28 July. It was his association to others who are potentially involved in prohibited activities.”

Details of the Detention

The activist had turned up alone at the Eurotunnel in a silver Bentley owned by a friend and was traveling to the Spanish resort of the Spanish coast with more than £13,000 in a carry-on, the court heard.

The money was said to have been from a donation drive to offset expenses from organizing a large demonstration that occurred the day before in a London landmark.

Legal Team Arguments

Robinson, who disputes failing to comply with anti-terror laws during the encounter on July 28 last year, could receive up to three months in jail or a potential £2,500 penalty if convicted.

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

Referring to testimony from police who stated they called other organizations” after detaining Robinson, the defense lawyer claimed this was a reference to the security services and that lack of proof had been offered from MI5 to indicate his client was a security threat.

Williamson asserted the police intervention was “discriminatory” because it was based to a “significant degree on a personal attribute.” He stated that the “predominant influence” on the choice to detain him was recognizing his identity”.

He added that officers had used an special authority that must be carefully regulated” to try to find out information that was already known. The barrister proposed that Robinson traveled to Benidorm frequently, which should have reduced the officers’ suspicions about him.

Legal Costs and Judgment Timing

The activist claimed that his court expenses in the proceedings were being paid for by the tech billionaire, the proprietor of social media and electric car companies, who has emerged as an ally of the campaigner and recently addressed a gathering arranged by him in the capital via a online broadcast.

A suggested date of the following Tuesday for the decision was altered by the magistrate, Sam Goozee, after the defense explained his client was due to be a guest of the Israel's administration from Wednesday 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,” said the barrister.

Goozee said he would hand down his ruling on the morning of 4 November.