🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives informed the tribunal that law enforcement maintained reasonable suspicions indicating Tommy Robinson's phone held information relevant to terrorist activities when they stopped him last year as he tried to depart from the UK.

Denial to Provide Device Pin

The far-right activist, using his real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, allegedly refused to hand over his phone pin to police, stating it contained journalist content.” This occurred after he was stopped at the Channel tunnel on July 28, 2024.

Trial Claims on Anti-Terror Authority

On the last day of the proceedings, state lawyer Jo Morris argued that the anti-terror authorities used by law enforcement are designed to allow intelligence gathering. She asserted that police had valid grounds to think the defendant still have connections to far-right activists, even after the dissolution of the EDL organization.

While his affiliation of the English Defence League has ceased, his beliefs have not gone away. He is known for having those views and therefore it is a valid concern to believe that on his phone there may be data pertaining to terrorist acts,” she told the court.

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

Details of the Detention

The activist had arrived alone at the Channel tunnel in a silver Bentley owned by a friend and was traveling to the Spanish resort of Benidorm with over £13,000 in a small bag, the trial heard.

The money was reportedly from a collection to offset expenses from organizing a major rally that occurred the previous day in Trafalgar Square.

Defense Submissions

The defendant, who disputes failing to comply with anti-terror laws during the incident on July 28 of the previous year, faces up to 90 days in jail or a possible £2,500 penalty if convicted.

His barrister, defense counsel, argued in closing submissions that anti-terror officers who stopped his client had engaged in a speculative search” and that he had been illegally held.

Referring to testimony from police who stated they called “partner agencies” after detaining him, Williamson said 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 officers’ action was “discriminatory” because it was based to a “significant degree on a personal attribute.” He said that the “predominant influence” on the choice to detain him was recognizing his identity”.

He added that officers had used an “extraordinary power that needs to be properly policed” to try to discover details that was already known. The barrister proposed that his client journeyed to Benidorm regularly, which ought to have reduced the police suspicions about him.

Expenses and Verdict Timing

Robinson claimed that his court expenses in the case were being paid for by Elon Musk, the proprietor of X and Tesla, who has emerged as an ally of the campaigner and recently addressed a rally arranged by him in the capital via a online broadcast.

A proposed date of the following Tuesday for the verdict was altered by the magistrate, the judge, after the defense said his client was scheduled to be a guest of the Israel's administration from Wednesday and would not return 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,” said the barrister.

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