Tommy Robinson, a figure who has long courted controversy in British public life, found himself at the center of another legal storm this week. On Monday, October 13, 2025, the 42-year-old activist—known to authorities by his real name, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon—appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court to face charges under the Terrorism Act. The case, which has attracted national headlines and drawn a crowd of supporters, hinges on Robinson’s refusal to provide police with the PIN to unlock his mobile phone during a stop at the Channel Tunnel in Folkestone back in July 2024.
According to reporting from The Independent and BBC, the incident unfolded as Robinson was driving a silver Bentley SUV toward Benidorm, Spain. He was stopped by British counter-terrorism officers at the UK side of the Channel Tunnel. The car, which Robinson said he was delivering for a friend, was not registered in his name, and he was the sole occupant—a fact that officers on the scene described as "unusual." PC Mitchell Thorogood, a counter-terrorism officer with Kent Police, testified that Robinson did not make eye contact during their exchange and had not purchased a ticket in advance, which further raised suspicions.
Under Schedule 7 of the 2000 Terrorism Act, police at UK ports have the authority to stop, question, and detain individuals to determine if they are involved in the commission, preparation, or instigation of acts of terrorism. Importantly, those detained are legally obligated to provide passwords or PINs for their electronic devices. Failure to comply can result in criminal charges, a fine of up to £2,500, and/or a jail sentence of up to three months.
When officers requested Robinson’s phone PIN, he flatly refused, reportedly telling them, “Not a chance, bruv.” He explained that his phone contained "journalist material," including information about "vulnerable girls," and insisted that unlocking it would compromise his sources. According to BBC, prosecutor Jo Morris told the court that Robinson had used an expletive at officers and reiterated his concerns about the sensitive nature of the information stored on his device. Morris also noted that the process for protecting journalistic material had been explained to Robinson at the time.
Robinson’s defense, led by barrister Alisdair Williamson KC, argued that the stop may have been discriminatory, targeting Robinson due to his well-known political beliefs. Williamson suggested that this was not the first time authorities had acted unlawfully toward his client, echoing Robinson’s own statements outside the courtroom. Speaking to Urban News Scoop after a lunch break, Robinson called the proceedings a “total abuse of the legal system” and said, “This is the second time I have been held unlawfully by the authorities in recent months.” He further claimed that he has not been able to rest due to 15 years of ongoing legal actions against him.
Adding another layer to the case’s complexity, the court heard that police found a small bag in the Bentley containing £13,370 in cash and €1,910 (about £1,660). Officers viewed the combination of the large sum of money, the unfamiliar vehicle, and Robinson’s solo travel as reasons for suspicion. PS Farmer, the supervising officer at the Channel Tunnel entrance, testified that Robinson said he was delivering the “extremely high value” Bentley Bentayga to Benidorm. Both Farmer and Thorogood admitted to being skeptical of this account.
The trial, which is expected to last two days, has attracted significant public attention. More than 30 of Robinson’s supporters queued from early morning to fill the public gallery, with at least one sporting a red "Make England Great Again" baseball cap—a nod to the divisive nature of Robinson’s political following. District Judge Sam Goozee, presiding over the case, ordered that Robinson’s address not be published after Williamson cited “credible threats against Mr Lennon's life.”
Robinson, who has previously served four prison terms for offenses ranging from contempt of court to assault and fraud, pleaded not guilty to the charges. He is being referred to as Mr. Lennon in court proceedings. The judge was informed that Robinson did not intend to give evidence in his own defense.
Outside the courtroom, the story took on an international dimension. In a video shared with his followers on X (formerly Twitter), Robinson claimed that billionaire Elon Musk, owner of the social media platform, had “picked up the legal bill” for his defense. While Musk has not publicly confirmed this, Reuters and BBC reported that Musk is indeed bankrolling Robinson’s legal fight—a detail that has only fueled the already heated debate surrounding the case.
Robinson has sought to frame his refusal as a matter of journalistic principle and source protection. In a video posted Monday, he expressed fears that granting police access to his phone could result in authorities “intentionally tampering with off-the-record sources.” He also alleged that police were involved in covering up activities by “Islamic grooming gangs” targeting young British girls, a claim he has made repeatedly in the past and which remains highly controversial.
The legal arguments in the courtroom focused on the balance between national security and press freedom. Prosecutor Jo Morris emphasized the legal requirements under the Terrorism Act and the specific procedures in place to protect journalistic material. Robinson’s defense team, meanwhile, cast the entire episode as an overreach—an attempt by the state to silence a dissenting voice under the pretense of counter-terrorism.
The outcome of the trial could have significant implications for journalists and activists alike. As the BBC noted, the Terrorism Act’s powers are broad, and the obligation to provide access to electronic devices has been a point of contention for civil liberties groups. If convicted, Robinson faces up to three months in jail and a £2,500 fine. He has adamantly denied the allegations against him.
With his supporters rallying in the gallery and the eyes of both his critics and admirers fixed on the proceedings, Tommy Robinson’s latest legal battle is more than just a question of one man’s actions at a border checkpoint. It is a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over free speech, state power, and the boundaries of press protection in modern Britain. The trial continues, and the stakes—for Robinson and for the broader principles at play—could hardly be higher.
