The serial criminal and notorious Islamophobe Tommy Robinson was acquitted at Westminster Magistrates’ Court today after District Judge Sam Goozée ruled that his detention under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 was unlawful.
The judge found that the stop at the Channel Tunnel in Folkestone on July 28, 2024, was influenced significantly by Robinson’s political beliefs, amounting to discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
Robinson, 42, was charged with wilfully failing to comply with a duty imposed under Schedule 7 by refusing to provide the PIN access code to his mobile phone during a counter-terrorism examination.
The prosecution argued that the stop was justified due to Robinson’s links to far-right activities and the presence of a high-value vehicle, vague travel plans, and a large sum of cash found during the search.
However, Judge Goozée determined that the evidence presented by the police officers did not sufficiently demonstrate that the stop was for the statutory purpose of determining whether Robinson was involved in terrorism, as required by the Terrorism Act.
In his ruling, Judge Goozée expressed concern over the officers’ lack of recollection regarding the questions asked during the examination and the apparent delay in deciding to detain Robinson.
The judge noted that Police Constable Thorogood, who initiated the stop, had identified Robinson before any interaction and was aware of his notoriety, suggesting an arbitrary decision influenced by Robinson’s political stance rather than legitimate security concerns.
Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest news and updates from around the Muslim world!
The judge stated: “I cannot put out of my mind that it was actually what you stood for and your beliefs that acted as a principal reason for the stop and acted as a significant influence on PC Thorogood’s thinking and decision making.”
The court heard that Robinson was stopped while driving a silver Bentley Bentayga, not registered to him, and was en route to Benidorm, Spain, with over £13,370 and €1,910 in cash.
Despite these factors, Judge Goozée found no evidence that the officers explored topics beyond Robinson’s political views during the examination, which failed to meet the threshold for a lawful stop under Schedule 7.
He remarked: “None of the officers can satisfy me otherwise due to their inability to recall or expand upon questions they asked you or topics that were covered during the examination process or explain what appears to be a complete lack of expedition between the time of your initial stop and the decision being made to detain you.”
Robinson’s defence, led by Mr. Williamson KC, argued that the exercise of Schedule 7 powers was not in accordance with the statutory purpose and was therefore unlawful, citing discrimination based on protected characteristics, including political beliefs.
The prosecution, represented by Miss Morris, contended that the stop was lawful, but the judge ultimately sided with the defence, stating that the Crown had not proven beyond reasonable doubt that there was no unlawful discrimination.
Judge Goozée emphasised: “If there is evidence of unlawful discrimination, it is for the Crown to satisfy me so I am sure there was no unlawful discrimination before a conviction may be imposed.”
He concluded, “In light of my findings the prosecution has therefore failed to satisfy me so I am sure there was no unlawful discrimination. Based on that, if the decision to stop and examine you was not in accordance with the statutory purpose, it is not lawful and I cannot convict you of an offence under para 18(1)(c).”
As Robinson walked free, supporters gathered outside the court, cheering the outcome, while critics of his activism expressed concern over the implications for counter-terrorism efforts.
Robinson expressed gratitude to Elon Musk for funding his legal defence, stating” “I was targeted because of my political beliefs. Thank you, Elon Musk, for fighting in my corner; you’re an absolute legend.”
Robinson also blasted the police and accused the mainstream media of misrepresenting the case.
“The outcome has found that the police discriminated against me based on my political beliefs…
“That judge’s verdict was a slam down against the police… It was corrupt, it was unlawful. For me I’m frustrated still, I should be happy but I’m not happy because I shouldn’t be put through this time and again.”
