Tommy Robinson, the controversial British activist whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, is once again at the center of a legal and political storm. On July 28, 2024, Robinson was stopped by Kent Police at the Channel Tunnel in Folkestone as he attempted to drive a silver Bentley Bentayga to Benidorm, Spain. The stop, conducted under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, has ignited a fierce debate over police powers, civil liberties, and the boundaries of state surveillance, all while Robinson awaits a verdict that could see him jailed or fined.
The incident began when officers noticed Robinson driving a high-value car not registered in his name, carrying more than £13,000 in cash and 1,900 euros. He had booked his ticket to travel on the same day—a detail that, according to police, raised suspicions. Officers also cited Robinson’s vague replies about his travel and his failure to make eye contact as further reasons for concern. As BBC reported, police said they were additionally uneasy because of Robinson’s "notoriety for associating with far-right activists."
Under Schedule 7, police at UK ports and airports have sweeping authority to stop, question, and detain individuals to determine whether they may be involved in terrorism. Those detained are legally obliged to answer questions and provide passwords or PINs for electronic devices. Failure to comply is a criminal offense, carrying the risk of up to three months in jail and/or a £2,500 fine.
When asked to provide the PIN to his iPhone, Robinson refused. According to court testimony, he responded bluntly: "Not a chance bruv… you look like c***s, so you ain’t having it." He insisted, "It’s my work, I’m a journalist," claiming the device contained sensitive information about "vulnerable girls." Prosecutor Jo Morris recounted that officers explained to Robinson the process by which journalistic material would be protected, but he remained defiant.
Robinson was led to an interview room, where he attempted to film himself declaring he had been arrested, only to be told by officers to "relax." During his interview, he reportedly told police: "For me it’s a win-win, it’s going to be bad for yous."
The trial at Westminster Magistrates’ Court has been anything but straightforward. Robinson, who pleaded not guilty, was represented by Alisdair Williamson KC. The defense argued that the stop and detention were unlawful and discriminatory, contending that officers acted based on Robinson’s political beliefs and public profile. "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 PA Media. He described the officers’ actions as a "fishing expedition" and said there was "no evidence that the stop was carried out diligently or expeditiously."
Williamson further argued that Robinson’s regular travel to Benidorm should have lessened suspicion, and questioned what police hoped to find that wasn’t already in the public domain. "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?" he asked.
Prosecutor Jo Morris, however, maintained that the officers’ concerns were reasonable given Robinson’s associations and behavior. "It is a reasonable suspicion to think that on his telephone there may be information relevant to acts of terrorism," she said. Morris conceded that "the stop may not have been perfect," but argued that imperfections did not render it unlawful. She emphasized that Robinson was warned of the legal consequences and offered legal advice, yet still refused to comply.
The legal arguments hinge on the extraordinary powers granted to police under the Terrorism Act. Williamson described these as "the only one there was to compel people under pain of criminal penalty to answer questions," stressing the need for "assiduous oversight." The defense’s position is that such powers must not be wielded on the basis of a person’s political views or notoriety alone.
The case has taken on added intrigue due to Robinson’s public statements and the involvement of high-profile figures. Before the hearing, Robinson posted on X (formerly Twitter) that billionaire Elon Musk had "picked up the legal bill" for what he called "this absolute state persecution." While Musk has not publicly confirmed this, Robinson’s claim has fueled debate over the influence of wealthy backers and the politicization of legal battles involving polarizing public figures.
District Judge Sam Goozee, presiding over the trial, has delayed his ruling until November 4, 2025. The reason? Robinson is traveling to Israel as a guest of the government. In a post on X, Robinson announced: "Now that my trial is behind me, I will have my verdict handed down on November 4th in London. I’m leaving soon for a trip to Israel — a proud patriot coming tomorrow to stand with the Jewish state and deepen my understanding of the fight against jihad." The judge stated he would "accommodate" Robinson’s travel plans, a decision that has drawn both criticism and support from various quarters.
The trial has exposed deep divisions over the use of counter-terrorism powers in the UK. Supporters of Robinson argue that his stop was a clear example of discrimination based on political beliefs—a dangerous precedent, they say, for free speech and civil liberties. Critics, meanwhile, contend that police must be free to use all available tools to prevent terrorism, especially when dealing with individuals associated with extremist movements.
Robinson’s case is emblematic of broader tensions in British society over security, free expression, and the policing of political dissent. The powers under Schedule 7 have long been controversial, with civil liberties groups warning of their potential for abuse. Yet the government maintains that such measures are essential in the fight against terrorism, especially in an era of heightened threats and complex networks.
As the November verdict approaches, all eyes will be on Westminster Magistrates’ Court. If found guilty, Robinson faces up to three months in prison and a substantial fine. But the outcome will likely reverberate far beyond the fate of one man, touching on fundamental questions about the limits of state power and the rights of individuals at the border.
Whatever the judge decides, the trial of Tommy Robinson has already become a lightning rod for debate over the balance between liberty and security in Britain’s modern democracy.
