Tommy Robinson Acquitted in Terror Charge Case, Thanks Elon Musk for Legal Support

By the Ark Magazine News Staff

Published: 4 November 2025

Illustrated impression of Tommy Robinson being acquitted (Andrea McGurran/2025)

LONDON — Far-right activist and self-described journalist Tommy Robinson, whose legal name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, was acquitted Tuesday of charges stemming from his refusal to provide police with the PIN to his mobile phone during a border stop at the Channel Tunnel in July 2024. District Judge Sam Goozee ruled the stop and subsequent detention unlawful, citing insufficient evidence and potential discrimination based on Robinson’s political beliefs.

The decision, handed down at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, has drawn both praise and criticism, particularly as Robinson credited tech billionaire Elon Musk for funding his nearly £100,000 legal defense against the charges brought under the Terrorism Act.

A Controversial Case

Robinson, 42, was stopped by police at Folkestone’s Channel Tunnel on July 28, 2024, as he drove his Bentley Bentayga en route to Spain. Officers invoked Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, which allows authorities to stop and search individuals at U.K. ports to determine potential links to terrorism. Police demanded Robinson unlock his phone, but he refused, claiming it contained sensitive “journalistic material.”

At the heart of the case was whether Robinson’s refusal constituted a failure to comply with counter-terrorism powers. During the two-day trial, Robinson’s defense argued that the stop was a politically motivated “fishing expedition” with no tangible evidence linking him to terrorism. Judge Goozee agreed, noting that the officers lacked credible justification for the stop and appeared to have acted based on Robinson’s anti-immigration activism.

“I cannot put out of my mind that it was actually what you stood for and your political beliefs that acted as the principal reason for this stop,” Goozee said in his ruling.

The judge added that Robinson’s views, while controversial, are a legally protected characteristic under U.K. law, and there was no evidence to suggest he posed any terrorist threat.

Elon Musk’s Role in the Defense

Speaking outside the courthouse after his acquittal, Robinson expressed gratitude to Musk, the owner of X (formerly Twitter) and Tesla, for covering his legal fees.

“First of all, thank you, Elon Musk,” Robinson said. “If it wasn’t for him, I wouldn’t have been able to fight this injustice. Why did it take an American businessman to stand up for freedom of the press here in the U.K.?”

Robinson’s claim of Musk’s involvement has sparked fresh scrutiny of the billionaire’s influence on British politics. While Musk’s team has not confirmed the funding, Robinson has repeatedly asserted Musk’s support in public statements. Musk has previously aligned himself with Robinson’s causes, addressing a rally organized by the activist in September and voicing opposition to Britain’s migration policies on his social media platform.

Political Fallout

The ruling has ignited controversy in Westminster, with members of the opposition voicing concerns about Musk’s involvement and its broader implications.

Emily Darlington, a Labour MP and member of the House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, called for a government inquiry into foreign interference. “This case highlights the troubling ways that figures outside the U.K. are attempting to influence our democracy,” she said.

Max Wilkinson, home affairs spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, echoed those concerns. “Whatever the outcome of this trial, the fact that Elon Musk is enabling far-right actors in our political system should send a shiver down the spine of every decent British citizen,” Wilkinson said.

The government has yet to issue an official statement on the matter, but the Ministry of Justice reiterated that judges in England and Wales are chosen by an independent body and that Robinson’s trial adhered to standard legal procedures.

Robinson’s Polarizing Legacy

A divisive figure in British politics, Robinson has long been associated with anti-immigration and anti-Islam rhetoric. His rallies have drawn both large crowds of supporters and widespread condemnation from human rights groups. Critics argue his activism fuels hate speech, while supporters view him as a defender of free speech and press freedom. Robinson maintains that his refusal to unlock his phone was an act of journalistic integrity.

“The state wanted access to my investigations and my work as a journalist,” he said outside the court. “This was never about terrorism—it was about silencing me.”

The judge’s ruling did not address Robinson’s self-description as a journalist, but media law experts have noted that journalistic protections under U.K. law do not grant immunity from counter-terrorism powers.

Key Elements of the Judge’s Decision

1. Unlawful Stop Based on Discrimination

   Judge Goozee ruled that Robinson’s stop and detention under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act at Folkestone’s Channel Tunnel on July 28, 2024, were unlawful. The judge concluded that the police had not provided sufficient evidence to justify the stop and search of Robinson.

Specifically, Goozee stated, “I cannot put out of my mind that it was actually what you stood for and your political beliefs that acted as the principal reason for this stop.”

The judge viewed the stop as being motivated by Robinson’s controversial public stance on anti-immigration issues, rather than any legitimate suspicion of terrorism. He emphasized that Robinson’s beliefs—though divisive—are protected under U.K. law. This acknowledgment of protected characteristics under British equality law played a significant role in the acquittal.

2. Weak Police Testimony and Evidence

   
   

   During the two-day trial at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, the defense pointed out inconsistencies in the testimony of the police officers who conducted the stop. The officers reportedly failed to recall key details about their interactions with Robinson, and their reasoning for suspecting him of links to terrorism appeared vague and unsupported.

   
   

   Judge Goozee specifically criticized the lack of documentation and clarity in the officers’ accounts, remarking that the stop seemed more like a “fishing expedition” than a targeted anti-terrorism operation. He noted that no evidence was presented suggesting Robinson had any ties to terrorism or individuals involved in terrorism, further undermining the legality of the stop.

   
   

3. Schedule 7 Powers and Their Limits

   
   

   The judge also highlighted the expansive and intrusive nature of Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, which allows police to detain and search individuals at U.K. ports without requiring reasonable suspicion. While Goozee acknowledged the importance of these powers in addressing terrorism, he stressed that they must not be misused or applied arbitrarily.

   
   

   In Robinson’s case, the judge found that the officers had failed to demonstrate that the stop was conducted within the spirit and purpose of the legislation. Instead, the judge suggested the stop was likely influenced by Robinson’s reputation and political activism, which goes against the principles of non-discrimination enshrined in the law.

   
   

4. Protected Characteristics and Freedom of Belief

   
   

   A significant aspect of the ruling was the judge’s recognition that political and philosophical beliefs, like those held by Robinson, are protected under U.K. discrimination laws. Goozee noted that while there can be an overlap between extremist views and terrorism, there was no evidence in Robinson’s case to justify treating him as a potential terrorist solely because of his controversial beliefs. This lack of connection between his activism and any actual threat further invalidated the police action.

   
   

5. Journalistic Material Defense

   
   

   Robinson argued that he refused to provide his phone’s PIN because it contained sensitive journalistic material related to his work. While the judge did not explicitly rule on whether Robinson’s claim to journalistic protections was valid, he appeared to accept that this argument added complexity to the case. Goozee acknowledged that the police’s actions could be perceived as an attempt to access Robinson’s investigative work, further bolstering the defense’s argument that the stop was politically motivated.

   
   

Judge’s Final Remarks

In his closing remarks, Judge Goozee expressed concerns about the discriminatory nature of the stop. He stated that while Schedule 7 allows police to question individuals about their beliefs and associations to assess potential links to terrorism, there must be a clear and lawful basis for doing so. In this case, the judge concluded that the stop lacked such a basis and was therefore unlawful.

Goozee summarized his decision by saying: “I cannot convict you when it is clear that the stop was not justified, and the evidence against you was insufficient and discriminatory in nature.”

Implications of the Ruling

The judgment has broader implications for the use of Schedule 7 powers, particularly regarding their potential misuse against individuals based on their political or ideological beliefs. It also raises questions about the balance between counter-terrorism measures and civil liberties, with critics warning that overly broad powers could lead to abuses and discrimination.

Broader Implications of the Ruling

Judge Goozee’s decision has raised questions about the use of Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, which grants police broad authority to stop and search individuals without requiring reasonable suspicion. Civil liberties advocates argue the law is ripe for abuse and disproportionately targets minority communities and political activists. But the judgment’s broader implications confirm Judge Goozee’s and civil liberties advocates concerns about abuse of power and discrimination due to overly broad powers against individuals based on their political or ideological beliefs.

“This case underscores the need for greater oversight of counter-terrorism powers,” said Shami Chakrabarti, a human rights lawyer and former director of Liberty, a U.K.-based civil rights group. “While terrorism is a real threat, these laws must not be used to discriminate against individuals based on their political beliefs.”

Conclusion

Robinson’s acquittal is unlikely to end the debate over his role in British politics or the extent of Musk’s support. As Robinson celebrated his legal victory outside the courthouse, dozens of his supporters cheered, waving Union Jack flags and chanting slogans in support of his anti-immigration agenda. For now, Robinson remains a polarizing figure whose battles in court are as much about his political ideology as they are about legal principles. Whether his acquittal strengthens his influence or further alienates him from mainstream politics remains to be seen.

This is a developing story and will be updated as more information becomes available.

---

Sources:

1.      District Judge Sam Goozee’s Ruling

·         Details of the judge’s ruling, including reasoning for the acquittal and key statements, were derived from court transcripts and summaries of the trial proceedings at Westminster Magistrates’ Court.

(No public link available; referenced from trial reporting.)

2.      Reuters Fact Check: Tommy Robinson Trial

·         Explains the legal framework of Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act and provides context on how judges are selected in the U.K.

·         Link: Reuters Fact Check (search "Tommy Robinson trial fact check")

3.      Politico Europe Article: Tommy Robinson Cleared of Terror Charge

·         Coverage of the trial and Robinson’s comments on Elon Musk’s financial support.

·         Link: Politico Europe (search "Tommy Robinson cleared of terror charge")

4.      The Guardian: Tommy Robinson Cleared of Terror-Related Offense

·         Reporting on the trial proceedings, the specifics of the police stop, and the judge’s ruling.

·         Link: The Guardian (search "Tommy Robinson cleared of terror-related offense")

5.      BBC News: Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act Explained

·         Provides background on the legal powers used during Robinson’s stop at the Channel Tunnel.

·         Link: BBC News (search "Schedule 7 Terrorism Act")

6.      Tommy Robinson’s Statements Outside Court

·         Robinson’s post-acquittal remarks, including his gratitude to Elon Musk, were gathered from live reporting outside Westminster Magistrates’ Court.

·         Source: Sky News (search "Tommy Robinson acquittal")

7.      Elon Musk’s Alleged Funding of Robinson’s Defense

·         Robinson’s claims about Musk’s financial support and Musk’s broader involvement in British politics were reported by Politico and The Guardian.

·         Links:

o    Politico Europe (search "Musk funding Robinson trial")

o    The Guardian (search "Elon Musk Robinson funding")

8.      Human Rights Commentary on Schedule 7

·         Analysis of the misuse of counter-terrorism powers, particularly Schedule 7, from civil liberties groups such as Liberty.

·         Link: Liberty (search "Schedule 7 misuse")

9.      Parliamentary Commentary on Musk’s Involvement

·         Statements from Labour MP Emily Darlington and Liberal Democrat spokesperson Max Wilkinson regarding Musk’s alleged influence in British politics.

·         Link: Hansard UK Parliament (search "Emily Darlington Musk")

10.  Background on Tommy Robinson

·         Details on Robinson’s political activism and prior legal issues from BBC News and The Guardian’s archives.

·         Links:

o    BBC News (search "Tommy Robinson profile")

o    The Guardian (search "Tommy Robinson far-right activism")