On November 4, 2025, the halls of Westminster Magistrates’ Court echoed with cheers as Tommy Robinson, the British right-wing activist whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, walked free—cleared of a terrorism-related offence that had gripped the nation’s attention for months. The verdict, delivered by District Judge Sam Goozee, found that police had acted unlawfully when they stopped and questioned Robinson at the Channel Tunnel in Folkestone in July 2024. The case, which began as a routine border check, quickly morphed into a flashpoint for debates about free speech, police powers, and the growing influence of billionaire tech moguls in British public life.
Robinson, 42, was intercepted by officers while driving a friend’s silver Bentley Bentayga to Benidorm, Spain. The police, citing Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, demanded access to his iPhone and questioned him about the large sum of cash—over £13,000 and €1,900—he was carrying. When Robinson refused to hand over his phone’s PIN, arguing that it contained confidential journalistic material, he was charged under counterterrorism laws. “Not a chance, bruv… It’s my work, I’m a journalist,” Robinson told the officers, according to BBC. He also insisted that his phone held information about “vulnerable girls,” underscoring his claim to journalistic privilege.
The officers’ suspicions, as prosecutors later explained, were raised by Robinson’s “vague replies,” his demeanor, and the fact that he had bought his travel ticket only that day. Yet, as the trial unfolded, it became clear that the case was about much more than an awkward border encounter. Robinson’s defense, led by barrister Alisdair Williamson KC, argued forcefully that the stop was politically motivated—a “fishing expedition” based on Robinson’s notoriety rather than any real evidence of terrorism. “The predominant influence on PC Mitchell Thorogood’s decision to stop him was: ‘oh look, it’s Tommy Robinson,’” Williamson told the court, as reported by The Independent. He added, “If MI5 didn’t think that Mr Lennon is a terrorist, what did PC Thorogood think he was going to learn by asking him about publicly available information?”
Judge Goozee’s verdict was unequivocal. He criticized the conduct of the officers, noting their “no real recollection” of questions asked during the 40-minute stop and a failure to record clear reasons for selecting Robinson. “I cannot put out of my mind that it was actually what you stood for and your political beliefs that acted for the principle reason for this stop,” Goozee said, adding that the decision appeared to be based on a “protected characteristic.” The judge concluded, “I cannot convict you.”
Supporters in the public gallery erupted in applause as Robinson left the dock, hands in his hoodie pockets, visibly relieved after a three-week wait for the verdict. The moment, however, was not just a personal victory for Robinson—it was also a win for a surprising ally: Elon Musk. The billionaire owner of X (formerly Twitter) had quietly covered Robinson’s legal bills, a fact Robinson made public both before and after the trial. “First of all, thank you, Elon Musk… why has it taken an American businessman to fight for our justice here and our fight against terrorism charges for journalists?” Robinson declared outside the courthouse, as quoted by CBC.
Musk’s involvement in the case has raised eyebrows across the political spectrum. While he has not commented directly on Robinson’s acquittal, Musk has previously positioned himself as a defender of free expression and has restored Robinson’s banned account on X, giving the activist a powerful platform to share his side of the story. According to BBC, Robinson said, “Elon Musk I am forever grateful. If you didn’t step in and fund my legal fight for this then I’d probably be in jail.” For Robinson and his supporters, Musk’s intervention was more than just financial support—it was a lifeline in the battle against what they see as “state censorship” and political persecution.
The case has ignited a renewed debate in Britain about the delicate balance between free speech and public safety. Robinson’s backers argue that his acquittal exposes the potential for anti-extremism powers to be misused as tools of political suppression. They view the verdict as a landmark defense of civil liberties, especially for journalists and activists who challenge the status quo. “I’m so glad that [a] judge has given such a powerful judgment now that says it how it was: I was targeted because of my political beliefs,” Robinson told reporters, as cited by CBC. “On behalf of the government, counterterrorism [police] targeted me to try and get access to my phone as a journalist.”
Critics, however, see a different story. Robinson, a former leader of the English Defence League and a figure with a string of criminal convictions, remains a deeply polarizing presence in British public life. Many accuse him of attempting to rebrand himself as a martyr for free speech, rather than acknowledging his history of anti-Islam activism and inflammatory rhetoric. For these detractors, the case is less about government overreach and more about the complexities of policing extremism in a digital age.
Yet, the involvement of Elon Musk has added a new layer to the conversation. By funding Robinson’s defense and amplifying his voice on X, Musk has demonstrated the growing influence that tech billionaires can wield over political and legal narratives far beyond their own borders. Some observers worry that this marks a shift in how justice and public discourse are shaped, with private money and global platforms challenging the traditional gatekeepers of information. As The Independent noted, the case has “raised concerns about billionaire influence on British politics.”
Meanwhile, the legal implications of the case are likely to reverberate for months, if not years. Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 gives police sweeping powers at UK ports, including the authority to detain individuals for up to six hours and demand access to electronic devices. Robinson’s acquittal has prompted calls for greater oversight and transparency in the use of such powers, especially when they intersect with journalistic privilege and protected political beliefs.
As for Robinson, he remains defiant and energized, vowing to continue his activism and his campaign against what he calls “state persecution.” With the backing of Elon Musk and a reinvigorated platform on X, it’s clear that this is not the last the British public will hear from him—or from the ongoing debate over free speech, policing, and the role of powerful outsiders in shaping the nation’s future.
For now, one thing is certain: the courtroom drama that played out in London this November has left an indelible mark on the conversation about rights, power, and justice in modern Britain.
