Overview of the Case
Tommy Robinson, real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, appeared at Westminster Magistrates’ Court for the opening of his trial related to a charge of frustrating counter-terrorism powers. Prosecutors allege that Robinson refused to provide access to his phone when stopped at the Channel Tunnel in Folkestone while en route to Benidorm in July 2024. He denies the charge, arguing the request infringes on his rights as a journalist and a public figure.
What Happened at the Channel Tunnel Stop
According to prosecutors, Robinson was stopped in his silver Bentley SUV after he gave short, vague replies about his plans and avoided eye contact. He was found with about £13,000 in cash and 1,900 euros, and the stop occurred as he prepared to travel to Spain for a few days. The police are said to have sought access to his mobile device, citing potential involvement in terrorism-related activity and the need to review electronic material relevant to ongoing terrorism powers.
The Police’s Position
Officers contended that they had probable cause to question the driver and to search devices under powers designed to counter terrorism. The case hinges on whether the suspect must provide a PIN to unlock a phone when stopped under counter-terrorism provisions. Police are legally allowed to stop and hold individuals at ports for up to six hours if they suspect involvement in planning or committing acts of terrorism, and the individual is typically required to answer questions and to provide access to electronic devices.
Robinson’s Response and Legal Arguments
Robinson’s defence team, led by Alisdair Williamson KC, has suggested that the stop could be discriminatory based on his political beliefs. The defendant purportedly told officers “Not a chance, bruv” and later described the device as containing sensitive “journalist material.” He claimed the phone included information related to vulnerable girls, asserting that it was work-related and protected by his status as a journalist.
Statements at the Hearing
During proceedings, prosecutors described the incident as a clear confrontation over the PIN and access to the device. Robinson’s stance has drawn attention given his high-profile status in UK political activism, including recent rallies and public statements on social media. In a pre-trial video posted on X, Robinson criticized what he described as “state persecution,” a sentiment echoed by his supporters outside the courtroom.
Potential Consequences and Next Steps
If convicted, Robinson faces up to three months in prison and/or a £2,500 fine. The case emphasizes the balance between national security powers and individual rights to privacy and journalistic material. The prosecution highlighted that the phone’s supposed contents related to his work and could be relevant to ongoing terrorism investigations, while the defence argued that the stop and demand breached rights and could be politically motivated.
Context and Reactions
The hearing comes shortly after Robinson led a large rally in central London under the banner “Unite the Kingdom.” The case underscores a broader public debate about the extent of counter-terrorism powers, privacy protections for journalists, and the accountability of high-profile figures who clash with authorities. The trial is ongoing, with both sides presenting evidence and arguments to determine whether the police acted within legal constraints when requesting access to the phone.
What to Watch Next
Observers will monitor the judicial process for rulings on admissibility of phone data, any potential discrimination claims, and the application of counter-terrorism powers in port-stop scenarios. The outcome will likely influence how similar cases are handled in the future and shape ongoing discussions about media rights and security obligations in the UK.
