3 MINS AGO! Tommy Robinson declared not guilty in explosive terror trial verdict

3 MINS AGO! Tommy Robinson declared not guilty in explosive terror trial verdict

In a shocking turn of events, activist Tommy Robinson has been declared not guilty in a high-profile terror trial that captured national attention. After months of speculation, courtroom drama, and intense media coverage, the verdict has finally been delivered — and it’s sending shockwaves across the UK.

In this video, we break down what really happened inside the courtroom, the evidence that led to Robinson’s acquittal, and the reactions from both supporters and critics. Was justice truly served, or is there more to this story than meets the eye?

Stay tuned for full details, expert analysis, and updates on what this verdict means for Tommy Robinson’s future and for free speech in Britain.

👉 Watch until the end for the full timeline and aftermath of this explosive case.
📢 Don’t forget to like, comment, and subscribe for more breaking updates and in-depth reports.

#TommyRobinson #BreakingNews #UKPolitics #CourtVerdict #FreeSpeech

Transcript

00:00In July 2024, far-right activist Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, widely known as Tommy Robinson,

00:07was acquitted of a terrorism offence at Westminster Magistrates Court.

00:11The charge stemmed from his refusal to provide police with the pin to his mobile phone during

00:16a stop at the UK border. The verdict, delivered by District Judge Sam Guzzi, centered not on the

00:22refusal itself, but on the legality of the initial police detention, casting a spotlight on the use

00:27of counter-terrorism powers. The incident began at the Channel Tunnel in Folkestone.

00:32Robinson was driving a friend's silver Bentley Bentayga SUV, a high-value vehicle not registered

00:37in his name, on a journey to the Spanish tourist resort of Benidorm. He was stopped by officers

00:42from the counter-terrorism police, who proceeded to question him under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism

00:48Act 2000. According to the prosecution's account during the trial, the officers' suspicion

00:53was aroused by several factors. They reported that Robinson provided vague replies concerning

00:58his travel plans, and exhibited a, quote, concerning demeanor, notably making little to no eye contact.

01:05Furthermore, upon inspection, he was found to be carrying a substantial sum of cash, totaling

01:10£13,000 and €1,900. The police argued that this combination of circumstances, the luxury car,

01:17the large amount of money, and his evasive behaviour, justified the stop and subsequent investigation.

01:24However, a critical element acknowledged during the proceedings, was that the officers immediately

01:29recognised him, as the controversial political figure, Tommy Robinson. This recognition would

01:34become the cornerstone of the defence's argument, which successfully contended that the stop was not

01:39a routine application of counter-terrorism law, but a politically motivated act, targeting Robinson

01:45for who he was, and what he represented. The encounter between Tommy Robinson and the police

01:49was governed by a specific and powerful piece of legislation, Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

01:55This law grants officers at UK ports and borders exceptional powers. Crucially, it allows them to

02:00stop, detain and question any individual passing through these points, without needing any prior

02:06reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in wrongdoing. The stated purpose of this examination

02:11is solely, quote, to determine whether they may be involved in the commission, preparation,

02:16or instigation of acts of terrorism. Under these rules, individuals are legally compelled to answer

02:21questions fully and truthfully. Furthermore, they can be forced to provide passwords, pins, or encryption

02:27keys for any electronic device in their possession. A failure to comply with any of these demands is

02:32itself a criminal offence, separate from any other terrorist-related activity, and can result in a prison

02:37sentence of up to three months, and or a fine. It was under this legal framework that the situation

02:43escalated, from a questioning to a confrontation. After their initial inquiries, the officers demanded

02:48that Robinson hand over the pin to his iPhone. His response was immediate and defiant, captured in his

02:53reply, not a chance, broov. He justified this refusal, by asserting that his phone contained confidential

02:59journalistic material, and sensitive information, relating to quote, quote, vulnerable girls, positioning

03:05himself as a journalist, protecting his sources and his work. This claim set up a direct conflict

03:11between his professed journalistic privilege, and the police's statutory power. The officers, acting on

03:16the authority granted by Schedule 7, then led him to a private interview room and physically seized his

03:22phone. Despite this escalation, and the clear legal obligation, Robinson maintained his absolute refusal

03:28to provide the pin. This specific act, the willful failure to comply with the demand for his passcode,

03:33formed the basis of the criminal charge of failing to comply with a duty imposed under Schedule 7,

03:38for which he was later put on trial. The two-day trial at Westminster Magistrates Court,

03:43presided over by District Judge Sam Guzzi, was not a typical dispute over facts, but a fundamental clash

03:49over the motivation and legality of state power. The prosecution's case was straightforward, and focused

03:54on the letter of the law. They argued that Robinson's detention under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act

03:59was lawful, justified by the objective circumstances present at the Folkestone Crossing.

04:04The combination of the high-value Bentley not registered to him, the large sum of cash,

04:09and his reportedly vague answers and defensive demeanor, provided sufficient grounds for the

04:14officers to initiate the examination. Having been lawfully detained, Robinson was therefore

04:19under a strict legal duty to comply with the officers' requests, including surrendering his

04:24phone's pining. His willful and public refusal to do so, captured in his phrase, not a chance brove,

04:30constituted a clear-cut criminal offense. The prosecution's narrative was one of a citizen

04:35deliberately flouting a clear and necessary security law. The defense, led by barrister Alasdair

04:41Williamson K.C., adopted a radically different strategy. Instead of focusing solely on Robinson's

04:47actions, they launched a direct challenge against the very foundation of the prosecution's case,

04:51the lawfulness of the stop itself. Williamson argued that the stop was not a legitimate use

04:56of Schedule 7 powers, but was politically motivated. He contended that the predominant influence on the

05:02decision by P.C. Mitchell Thurgood to detain Robinson was not the car or the cash, but the simple fact of

05:07his identity. Oh look, it's Tommy Robinson. The defense claimed that Robinson was targeted for his high-profile

05:14political beliefs and activism, a quote, protected characteristic under equality law, rather than for any

05:20genuine intelligence-led suspicion of terrorism. To dismantle the notion of a credible terror threat,

05:25Williamson posed a powerful rhetorical question to the court. If MI5 didn't think that Mr. Lennon

05:32is a terrorist, what did P.C. Thurgood think he was going to learn by asking him about publicly

05:37available information? This argument sought to highlight the disparity between the assessment of

05:42the UK's premier domestic intelligence agency, and the actions of a border officer. Furthermore,

05:48the defense noted that Robinson's frequent trips to Benidorm were a matter of public record,

05:53and should have made the journey appear routine, thereby lessening suspicion, rather than heightening

05:57it. The defense's core argument was that the Schedule 7 power had been weaponized to harass a

06:03political opponent, rendering the entire detention process unlawful from the outset. District Judge Sam

06:09Guzzi's verdict was a meticulous and damning assessment of the police's conduct, leading

06:13directly to Robinson's acquittal. The judge's reasoning focused intensely on the procedural

06:17integrity of the stop, and his findings were sharply critical. He highlighted a fundamental failure in

06:22the officers' evidence, noting that they had no real recollection of the specific questions asked

06:28during the 40-minute detention. More crucially, he pointed to the absence of clear contemporaneous

06:33records detailing the reasons for selecting Robinson for a Schedule 7 examination in the first place,

06:39this lack of proper documentation was fatal to the prosecution's case, as it left the court with

06:44insufficient evidence to verify the officers, asserted justifications after the fact. Judge

06:50Guzzi's central conclusion was unequivocal, he stated that he could not be sure, to the criminal

06:55standard of beyond reasonable doubt, that the stop was lawful. In a powerful statement from the bench he

07:00declared, I cannot put out of my mind that it was actually what you stood for, and your political

07:05beliefs that acted for the principal reason for this stop. This finding went to the heart

07:10of the defense's argument.

07:11The judge further lent immense legal weight to this conclusion, by agreeing that the decision to

07:16detain Robinson appeared to be based on a quote protected characteristic. This term, drawn from

07:21the Equality Act 2010, refers to attributes such as race, religion, or philosophical and political

07:26belief, which are protected from discrimination. By framing Robinson's political identity in this way,

07:31the judge characterized the stop, as potentially discriminatory, and therefore unlawful. Judge

07:37Guzzi ruled that the entire process was tainted from the beginning, stating it, gave the impression

07:42of an arbitrary decision based on who you are. Since the initial detention itself was found to be

07:46potentially unlawful and motivated by improper considerations, all subsequent actions that flowed

07:52from it, including the demand for his phone's pin, were compromised. Robinson could not be legally

07:58convicted for refusing to comply with the demand that originated from an unlawful stop. The dramatic

08:03culmination of this legal reasoning was the judge's simple final pronouncement. I cannot convict you.

08:09With these words, Tommy Robinson was cleared of all charges. A decision that was met with immediate and

08:14loud cheers from his supporters gathered in the public gallery of Westminster Magistrates Court,

08:19marking a decisive end to the high-profile case. Following his acquittal, Tommy Robinson framed the

08:25verdict as a monumental personal victory. Speaking outside Westminster Magistrates Court,

08:30he repeatedly thanked billionaire Elon Musk, claiming Musk had funded his legal defense.

08:36In doing so, he portrayed himself as a vindicated victim of quote, state persecution,

08:42a narrative he had promoted in social media videos before the hearing. For Robinson and his supporters,

08:48the case was never about terrorism, but about the state weaponizing its powers to silence a prominent

08:54political critic. The verdict, however, gives rise to two starkly opposing narratives. For one side,

09:01it is a triumph for civil liberties and a crucial check on police overreach, protecting every individual

09:07from being targeted for their political opinions, however contentious. For the other, including likely

09:13critics and security officials, it is a concerning precedent that could hamper the practical application

09:18of essential counter-terrorism powers. The fear is that police officers, fearing legal challenges and

09:24accusations of bias, may become hesitant to stop high-profile individuals at borders, potentially creating a

09:30class of person immune from scrutiny. Ultimately, the trial's fundamental question was not whether Tommy

09:36Robinson was a terrorist, but whether the police used their extensive Schedule 7 powers lawfully.

09:41District Judge Gozi's ruling found that, in this specific instance, the power was tainted by

09:46discrimination, rendering the subsequent charge unsound. The case thus stands as a potent reminder of the

09:52delicate and perpetual tension in a free society. The balance between granting the state necessary tools for

09:58security, and the absolute imperative to protect citizens from the arbitrary use of those very powers.

3 MINS AGO! Tommy Robinson declared not guilty in explosive terror trial verdict

Category

Transcript

Be the first to comment

Recommended