🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives informed the court that law enforcement had valid concerns that Tommy Robinson's mobile held information relevant to acts of terrorism when they detained him in the previous year as he attempted to leave the UK.

Denial to Give Device Pin

The far-right activist, using his real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, reportedly declined to provide his phone pin to police, claiming it contained journalist content.” This happened after he was stopped at the Channel tunnel on July 28, 2024.

Prosecution Claims on Anti-Terror Authority

On the final day of the proceedings, state lawyer Jo Morris argued that the counter-terrorism powers used by law enforcement are intended to allow information collection. She asserted that officers had reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant still have links to right-wing groups, even following the disbandment of the EDL organization.

“Although his affiliation of the English Defence League has come to an end, his views have not disappeared. He is known for holding those opinions and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to believe that on his telephone 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 focus for their attention on 28 July. It was his connection to others who are potentially engaged in prohibited activities.”

Circumstances of the Detention

The activist had arrived by himself at the Channel tunnel in a silver Bentley belonging to a acquaintance and was traveling to the Spanish resort of the Spanish coast with over £13,000 in a small bag, the court was told.

The funds was said to have been from a donation drive to cover expenses from arranging a large demonstration that occurred the day before in a London landmark.

Defense Submissions

Robinson, who denies non-compliance with anti-terror laws during the encounter on 28 July last year, faces up to three months in prison or a possible £2,500 penalty if found guilty.

His lawyer, defense counsel, said in closing submissions that anti-terror officers who detained his client had conducted a “fishing expedition” and that he had been illegally held.

Referring to testimony from officers who said they contacted other organizations” after detaining Robinson, Williamson said this was a reference to the intelligence agencies and that no evidence had been presented from the security service to indicate his client was a security threat.

He asserted the police action was “discriminatory” because it was based to a “significant degree on a protected characteristic.” He said that the “predominant influence” on the choice to detain him was recognizing his identity”.

He noted that officers had used an “extraordinary power that needs to be carefully regulated” to try to discover information that was already known. Williamson proposed that Robinson traveled to the resort frequently, which should have lessened the police suspicions about him.

Legal Costs and Verdict Date

The activist claimed that his legal costs in the proceedings were being covered by the tech billionaire, the proprietor of social media and electric car companies, who has appeared as an supporter of the far-right activist and lately spoke at a gathering organized by him in London via a livestream.

A suggested date of the following Tuesday for the verdict was altered by the magistrate, Sam Goozee, after the defense explained Robinson was scheduled to be a invitee of the Israeli government from the midweek 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,” stated the barrister.

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