Today, Tuesday 4 November, Tommy Robinson has been found not guilty of terror offences in court. The original charge centred not around an alleged plot, but because he told officers “Not a chance bruv” when asked for his phone pin code. He has now been cleared of the charge.
What Was the Charge?
Robinson was prosecuted under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which lets police stop anyone passing through a UK port to determine if they are concerned in the commission, preparation, or instigation of terrorism. If the stop is lawful, the person must answer questions and provide device access. Refusal to comply is a criminal offence.
The case turned on a simple exchange. Officers asked for Robinson’s phone access code, to which he responded, “Not a chance bruv… you look like c***s so you ain’t having it”, also telling officers that the handset held journalistic material and information about vulnerable girls.
In terms of the counter-terror laws, Robinson would have been guilty of non-compliance if the stop was lawful. However, the defence claimed the stop itself was unlawful and should never have happened in the first place – a claim which the judge eventually agreed with.
Why Was Robinson Stopped?
Counter-terror offices claimed they were concerned about his demeanour after he drove alone into an inspection area. They reported short, vague replies and a lack of eye contact. They also pointed to the fact that he had more than £13,000 and €1,900 in cash, had only booked his ticket to travel on the same day, and was in a “high-value” car not registered to him. Robinson told officers he was “going to Benidorm”.
As he was escorted to an interview room, Robinson tried to film himself saying he’d been arrested. Officers told him to “relax”, he called them “c***s” and clarified “It’s my work, I’m a journalist”. Later, he told officers “For me it’s a win-win, it’s going to be bad for yous”.
None of this, the court concluded, turned him into a genuine terror suspect.
What the Court Decided
District Judge Sam Goozee ruled the Schedule 7 stop was in fact unlawful. The defence argued that officers took a discriminatory stance, influenced by who he is portrayed to be in the media rather than what he was actually doing at the time. The judge’s ruling made the core point that, regardless of denying access to his device under counter-terror laws, Robinson should never have been stopped at all. In short, nobody can be convicted for refusing to comply with an unlawful request.
The state, said the court, must meet its own legal thresholds. Suspicion must rest on facts that connect a person to terrorism, not notoriety or political views.
Schedule 7 in Plain English
Schedule 7 gives police wide powers at ports and borders. They’re allowed to stop, question and detain anyone to check for potential terror involvement. If the stop is lawful, the person must cooperate – the purpose of which is speed and prevention, not ordinary criminal investigation. That’s why refusing to answer questions or provide device access codes can be deemed an offence.
The powers are incredibly strong, hence why courts scrutinise how they are used. The test here was necessity and relevance, and if officers cannot show proper basis for using Schedule 7, then all following demands fail with it.
Prosecution vs Defence
The prosecution said his notoriety and associations made it reasonable to believe the phone could hold material relevant to terrorism. They leaned on demeanour, cash, late booking, and the car not being registered in his own name. They claimed that these flags justified a Schedule 7 probe and PIN demand.
The defence, however, reminded the court that MI5 did not consider him a terrorirst and that the officers appeared to act on the thought “oh look, it’s Tommy Robsinon”. The case had to rise or fall on conduct and facts, not reputation. The court eventually sided with the law, not the noise.
Policing, Protests and the Media
High-profile stops generate sweeping headlines and the word “terror” travels quickly. Acquittals less so. If authorities want trust for serious public-order work, they need to honour the legal thresholds, clear records, and to conduct fewer speculative stops that collapse under scrutiny.
There’s also a free speech point here. Threats and incitement are crimes; offensive words are not. Robinson claimed journalistic material on his phone as well as sensitive information about vulnerable girls. Those claims don’t grant immunity from lawful orders, but it’s a key reminder that reporters and campaigners often carry protected content, and that the law must be applied in a way that respects both security and press freedom.
Final Thought
Governments are supposed to protect the public by applying exceptional powers carefully. They should not be over-reaching with their authority to fit a name or a headline. This verdict may not settle every argument about protest and policing in Britain, but it does restate a rule that keeps us on the right side of a free society. If the state wants full access under counter-terror laws, it must first prove the stop is within their own boundaries.
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.
The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.
Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.
Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.
Categories: Breaking News, UK News
TIME TO CELEBRATE!!! Ju$tice costs SO much!!
Glad to hear this. Maybe the sus scrofa domesticus are realising they are on the wrong side….