Trial Begins Over Channel Tunnel Stop and Counter-Terrorism Powers
The trial of far-right activist Tommy Robinson, born Stephen Yaxley Lennon, has opened at Westminster Magistrates’ Court amid escalating tensions around how counter-terrorism powers are used and who bears responsibility for associated legal costs. Robinson faced questions about his refusal to provide the pin for his phone to police under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act as he attempted to depart the UK via the Channel Tunnel last July.
Robinson, who entered the proceedings alone in a silver Bentley Bentayga linked to a friend, was en route to Benidorm with more than £13,000 in cash. Prosecutors say the funds were connected to a collection intended to offset expenses for a major rally held in Trafalgar Square the day prior. The defendant claims he travels with an Irish passport and has recently relocated to Spain, though he identifies as white English.
At the heart of the case is Robinson’s stance toward police demands for access to his iPhone. He asserts that the device contains journalistic material and thus should be protected, while the Crown argues the stop was necessary to determine whether he was involved in terrorism-related activity. Robinson’s position has sparked debate about the balance between journalism, protest, and security powers.
Claims of Musk’s Financial Involvement Spark Attention
On video recorded before entering court, Robinson asserted that Elon Musk has “picked up the legal bill” for what he called “absolute state persecution.” The claim has drawn immediate scrutiny, with Musk’s representatives noting they have not publicly confirmed any involvement. Musk, the CEO of X (formerly Twitter) and Tesla, has in recent months positioned himself as a controversial ally to certain far-right figures, including appearing at a London rally linked to Robinson.
The trial heard that Musk addressed the crowd via live video link, reportedly telling attendees that “Whether you choose violence or not, violence is coming to you.” The implication of corporate sponsorship—or personal financing—of legal defense for Robinson has raised questions about the influence of high-profile supporters in politically charged legal fights.
Legal Proceedings and Police Testimony
Prosecutor Jo Morris described the officers’ concerns regarding Robinson’s demeanor as he drove into the checkpoint area. He was recognised early, restrained when attempting to film, and recorded a message indicating he was being detained. The police sought the phone PIN but Robinson’s defense team argued the request was discriminatory given his political beliefs. The court also heard that the Bentley was a high-value, high-visibility vehicle reportedly booked at short notice, which investigators said added to the attention surrounding the stop.
Sgt Farmer, who has experience policing demonstrations by the English Defence League, explained that the “emerging threat level” from far-right ideology remained a consideration, despite the EDL’s disbandment in 2014. The barrister for Robinson argued that the line between political expression and alleged criminal activity can blur, especially in a climate of heightened security concerns.
Judicial Guidance and Next Steps
District Judge Sam Goozee instructed that Robinson’s address should not be published, citing credible life threats. The case, expected to span two days, was adjourned to continue on Tuesday as the court weighs the evidence and the legality of the measures used during the Channel Tunnel stop. The outcome will likely influence ongoing debates about the scope of counter-terrorism powers and journalistic protection in high-profile political cases.
What to Watch Going Forward
Observers will be keen to see whether the prosecution can demonstrate that the stop under schedule 7 was proportionate and necessary, and whether any financial support linked to Robinson’s legal challenge could affect perceptions of impartiality in the case. The question of Elon Musk’s involvement, whether directly or indirectly, remains a disputed and unresolved element at this stage of the proceedings.
