🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors informed the court that police had valid concerns indicating Tommy Robinson's phone contained information related to terrorist activities when they detained him in the previous year as he tried to leave the UK.

Denial to Provide Phone Password

The far-right activist, whose legal name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, reportedly declined to hand over his phone pin to police, claiming it included “journalistic material.” This occurred after he was stopped at the Channel tunnel on July 28, 2024.

Prosecution 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 intended to permit information collection. She claimed that police had reasonable suspicion to think Robinson continued to have links to far-right activists, even after the dissolution of the English Defence League (EDL).

“Although his affiliation of the English Defence League has ceased, his views have not gone away. He is known for holding those views and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to believe that on his phone there could be information pertaining to terrorist acts,” she told the court.

The prosecutor added, “His beliefs – to which he is entitled – were not the focus for their concern on July 28. It was his association to individuals who are possibly involved in illegal actions.”

Details of the Detention

The campaigner had turned up by himself at the Eurotunnel in a luxury vehicle owned by a friend and was traveling to the Spanish resort of Benidorm with more than £13,000 in a carry-on, the trial was told.

The funds was said to have been from a donation drive to offset costs from arranging a large demonstration that occurred the day before in Trafalgar Square.

Legal Team Submissions

The defendant, who denies non-compliance with anti-terror laws during the incident on 28 July last year, could receive up to three months in prison or a possible £2,500 fine if found guilty.

His barrister, defense counsel, argued in closing submissions that counter-terrorism police who stopped Robinson had engaged in a speculative search” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Citing testimony from officers who said they contacted other organizations” after arresting Robinson, Williamson said this was a allusion to the security services and that no evidence had been offered from the security service to indicate his defendant was a terrorist.

He asserted the officers’ action was “discriminatory” because it was based to a large extent on a protected characteristic.” He said that the “predominant influence” on the decision to detain him was “‘oh look, it’s Tommy Robinson”.

He noted that officers had used an “extraordinary power that needs to be properly policed” to try to discover information that was previously available. The barrister suggested that Robinson traveled to Benidorm frequently, which ought to have reduced the police suspicions about him.

Legal Costs and Judgment Timing

The activist stated 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 appeared as an ally of the far-right activist and lately addressed a gathering organized by him in the capital via a online broadcast.

A proposed day of next Tuesday for the decision was altered 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 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 Williamson.

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