Police Believed Tommy Robinson Had Terrorism-Related Information on Phone, Trial Told.

Prosecutors informed the tribunal that law enforcement had valid concerns indicating Tommy Robinson's mobile held material relevant to acts of terrorism when they detained him last year as he attempted to leave the UK.

Denial to Provide Phone Password

The right-wing campaigner, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, allegedly declined to provide his phone pin to officers, stating it included journalist content.” This occurred after he was intercepted at the Eurotunnel on July 28, 2024.

Prosecution Arguments on Anti-Terror Authority

On the last day of the trial, prosecutor Jo Morris argued that the counter-terrorism powers used by law enforcement are intended to allow information collection. She claimed that officers had reasonable suspicion to think Robinson still have links to far-right activists, even following the dissolution of the English Defence League (EDL).

“Although his affiliation of the EDL has come to an end, his beliefs have not gone away. He is known for holding those views and therefore it is a valid concern to think that on his telephone there could be data pertaining to acts of terrorism,” she told Westminster magistrates court.

Morris continued, “His beliefs – to which he is allowed – were not the focus for their concern on 28 July. It was his association to individuals who are potentially involved in illegal actions.”

Circumstances of the Stop

The campaigner had turned up by himself at the Channel tunnel in a luxury vehicle belonging to a acquaintance and was on his way to the holiday destination of Benidorm with over £13,000 in a carry-on, the court was told.

The money was said to have been from a collection to offset costs from arranging a large demonstration that occurred the previous day in a London landmark.

Legal Team Arguments

Robinson, who disputes non-compliance with counter-terrorism powers during the encounter on 28 July last year, faces up to 90 days in jail or a possible £2,500 fine if convicted.

His barrister, defense counsel, argued in final arguments that anti-terror officers who stopped Robinson had conducted a speculative search” and that he had been illegally held.

Citing testimony from officers who said they contacted other organizations” after arresting him, the defense lawyer said this was a reference to the security services and that no evidence had been presented from MI5 to indicate his client was a terrorist.

Williamson said the police action was biased” because it was based to a large extent on a protected characteristic.” He stated that the “predominant influence” on the choice to detain him was recognizing his identity”.

He noted that police had used an “extraordinary power that must be properly policed” to try to find out information that was previously available. The barrister suggested that his client journeyed to the resort frequently, which should have lessened the officers’ suspicions about him.

Expenses and Judgment Timing

Robinson stated that his legal costs in the case were being paid for by the tech billionaire, the owner of social media and electric car companies, who has emerged as an ally of the campaigner and recently spoke at a gathering organized by him in the capital via a livestream.

A proposed date of the following Tuesday for the decision was changed by the district judge, Sam Goozee, after Williamson explained his client was due to be a guest of the Israel's administration from the midweek 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,” stated Williamson.

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