Veteran street organiser, activist, and documentary maker Tommy Robinson has been cleared of a charge under British terrorism law over refusing to give police the access code to his mobile phone.
A British judge has acquitted Tommy Robinson, who was being prosecuted under his legal name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, of failing “to provide the PIN access code to your mobile” to a police officer, because the prosecution was unable to prove the detention of Robinson was legally undertaken in the first place.
Robinson had been stopped at the UK border last year while trying to drive to Spain. Detained under terrorism laws, officers demanded his mobile phone, and Robinson refused, stating that he worked as a journalist and had confidential information on the device and had to protect his contacts. In the end, Robinson’s journalism defence was not tried in court, but rather the whole pretext of the stop was found to be questionable, leading the judge to conclude Robinson could not be convicted of an offence.
Because the demand for the phone pin was made under terrorism law, if the prosecution had been successful, Robinson would have become a convicted terrorist and faced a lengthy prison sentence.
District Judge Sam Goozee said in his ruling that the purpose of the Terrorism Act 2000 is to investigate suspicions of the “commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”, and that he could not discount the possibility that the stop of Mr Robinson at the UK border was actually motivated by political discrimination against his beliefs.
The Judge wrote, “I find it concerning that the officers have no real recollection of questions asked of you… The officer also appeared confused about his powers under Schedule 7” and that said there was “no evidence” produced by the prosecution that any questions asked by the detaining police officers actually had anything to do with terrorism at all.
While police on the stand said the reasons for detaining Tommy Robinson had included that the car wasn’t his, that he hadn’t booked a ticket in advance, and that he gave evasive answers to initial questioning, and that these made them feel suspicious, the Judge stated that in fact: “I cannot put out of my mind that it was actually what [Tommy Robinson] stood for and your beliefs that acted as a principle reason for the stop… Those beliefs amounting to a protected characteristic”.
The police ran background checks against Mr Robinson on their computer in the first minutes of the stop, which “revealed nothing”, and failed to determine whether Robinson had been a person who is “concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism,” the judgement said.
In all, the judge said the whole case pivoted on two questions, whether the stop was “statutory” — that is to say, conducted in line with the purpose of the Terrorism Act 2000 — and whether the stop was “discriminatory”. On the first matter, Judge Gooze said the prosecution had failed to prove it and had consequently left him “unsure”, and on the second, he said the officers’ perceptions of Mr Robinson’s political views appeared to have “significant influence”.
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… I therefore find you not guilty.”
Walking out of court on Tuesday morning, Tommy Robinson’s first remarks were to thank Elon Musk, U.S. tech businessman and one of the world’s wealthiest men, for providing “nearly £100,000” to his legal defence. Robinson called the judgement a “slam-down against the police” who he characterised as having been “corrupt” and “unlawful”.
Robinson also took aim at the legacy media for their reporting on this trial, which he said had been dishonest and had neglected to report on the behaviour of the police while focusing exclusively on the allegations made against him. He said: “All those journalists sat on that trial, they knew the police acted unlawfully, they knew they acted illegally, they admitted it in court, and none of the journalists told you that”.
Read the full article here