🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors told the tribunal that law enforcement had reasonable suspicions indicating Tommy Robinson's mobile held material related to acts of terrorism when they stopped him in the previous year as he tried to leave the UK.

Refusal to Provide Device Pin

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

Trial Arguments on Anti-Terror Powers

On the final day of the proceedings, state lawyer Jo Morris stated that the counter-terrorism powers used by law enforcement are designed to allow information collection. She claimed that police had valid grounds to think Robinson still have links to right-wing groups, even following the disbandment of the EDL organization.

While his membership of the English Defence League has ceased, his beliefs have not gone away. He is recognized for having those views and therefore it is a valid concern to think that on his phone there may be information relevant to acts of terrorism,” she informed the court.

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

Circumstances of the Detention

The activist had turned up alone at the Channel tunnel in a luxury vehicle owned by a acquaintance and was on his way to the Spanish resort of Benidorm 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 arranging a large demonstration that took place the day before in Trafalgar Square.

Defense Arguments

The defendant, who denies non-compliance with counter-terrorism powers during the encounter on 28 July last year, faces up to three months in prison or a possible £2,500 penalty if convicted.

His barrister, Alisdair Williamson KC, argued in closing submissions that counter-terrorism police who detained Robinson had conducted a speculative search” and that he had been illegally held.

Referring to evidence from police who said they contacted “partner agencies” after arresting him, Williamson said this was a reference to the security services and that lack of proof had been offered from the security service to indicate his defendant was a terrorist.

He said 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 choice 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 discover details that was already known. The barrister suggested that his client journeyed to Benidorm frequently, which should have reduced the police concerns about him.

Legal Costs and Verdict Timing

Robinson claimed that his court expenses in the case were being covered by the tech billionaire, the proprietor of X and Tesla, who has emerged as an ally of the campaigner and recently spoke at a rally arranged by him in the capital via a online broadcast.

A proposed day of the following Tuesday for the verdict was changed by the district judge, the judge, after the defense explained his client was due to be a guest of the Israel's administration from the midweek 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 said he would deliver his verdict on the start of 4 November.