Officers Suspected Tommy Robinson Had Terrorism-Related Data on Mobile Device, Court Hears.

Legal representatives told the tribunal that police had valid concerns that Tommy Robinson's phone held information related to terrorist activities when they stopped him last year as he tried to depart from the UK.

Denial to Give Device Password

The far-right activist, whose legal name is Tommy Robinson, allegedly declined to provide his phone pin to officers, stating it included “journalistic material.” This occurred after he was intercepted at the Channel tunnel on 28 July 2024.

Trial Arguments on Anti-Terror Powers

On the final day of the trial, state lawyer Jo Morris stated that the anti-terror authorities employed by law enforcement are designed to allow intelligence gathering. She asserted that officers had valid grounds to think the defendant still have links to far-right activists, even following the dissolution of the EDL organization.

“Although his membership of the EDL has come to an end, his views have not gone away. He is recognized for holding those views and therefore it is a valid concern to believe that on his phone there may be data pertaining to acts of terrorism,” she told the court.

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

Details of the Detention

The activist had arrived by himself at the Channel tunnel in a silver Bentley owned by a friend and was on his way to the Spanish resort of the Spanish coast with more than £13,000 in a carry-on, the trial was told.

The money was said to have been from a collection to offset costs from arranging a major rally that took place the day before in a London landmark.

Defense Submissions

Robinson, who denies failing to comply with counter-terrorism powers during the encounter on 28 July last year, could receive up to 90 days in jail or a possible £2,500 fine if found guilty.

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

Referring to testimony from officers who stated they called “partner agencies” after arresting Robinson, the defense lawyer claimed this was a reference to the security services and that lack of proof had been offered from the security service to suggest his client was a security threat.

Williamson said the police intervention was biased” because it was based to a large extent on a personal attribute.” He stated that the main factor” on the choice to stop him was recognizing his identity”.

He added that police had used an special authority that must be carefully regulated” to try to find out information that was already known. Williamson proposed that his client traveled to the resort regularly, which ought to have reduced the police concerns about him.

Legal Costs and Judgment Timing

Robinson claimed that his court expenses in the proceedings were being paid for by Elon Musk, the proprietor of X and Tesla, who has appeared as an ally of the far-right activist and recently addressed a gathering organized by him in London via a online broadcast.

A suggested date of the following Tuesday for the decision was changed by the magistrate, Sam Goozee, after the defense 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 the barrister.

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