District Judge Sam Goozee on Nov. 4, 2025, acquitted Tommy Robinson of an offence under U.K. counterterrorism laws, finding police had detained him because of his political beliefs rather than any legitimate terrorism concern. Robinson, whose legal name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, later thanked Elon Musk, saying the billionaire funded his legal defense.
A U.K. judge has cleared Tommy Robinson of a terror-related offence stemming from his refusal to provide police with his phone PIN during a border stop, ruling the underlying detention was unlawful. Delivering the verdict at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, District Judge Sam Goozee said he "cannot put out of my mind that it was actually what you stood for and your beliefs that acted as the principal reason for the stop." (reuters.com)
The case arose from a Schedule 7 counterterrorism stop at the Channel Tunnel terminal in Folkestone on July 28, 2024. Prosecutors said officers became suspicious because of Robinson’s demeanour, same‑day travel arrangements and the high‑value vehicle he was driving — a friend’s silver Bentley — as he headed to Benidorm, Spain. Robinson declined to unlock his iPhone, saying it contained journalistic material. (reuters.com)
In explaining his decision, Judge Goozee criticised the officers’ evidence, noting they had “no real recollection” of the questions put to Robinson and appeared confused about their powers. He said the decision to stop him appeared to be based on a protected characteristic linked to his beliefs and concluded he could not convict. (theguardian.com)
Outside court, Robinson thanked Elon Musk, saying the U.S. entrepreneur had covered his legal costs. “Why has it taken an American businessman to fight for our justice here and our fight against terrorism charges for journalists?” he told reporters. Reuters also reports Musk has amplified Robinson’s posts on X and appeared by videolink at a recent London rally Robinson organised. (reuters.com)
Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows police to stop and question people at U.K. ports to determine potential involvement in terrorism, and refusing to provide information — including device access — can be an offence. But the court found the stop in this case was not carried out for the statute’s proper purpose, rendering the prosecution unsustainable. (theguardian.com)
