• Tommy Robinson is cleared of terrorism charges related to refusing police access to his phone PIN.
• Judge ruled that police actions were politically motivated rather than based on evidence of terrorism.
• Elon Musk funded Robinson's legal defense, leading Robinson to publicly acknowledge Musk's support.

Tommy Robinson, a prominent figure in Britain's far-right movement, was cleared of terrorism-related charges on November 4, after refusing to provide police with his phone PIN. The charge was linked to his refusal to hand over access to his mobile during a border stop at the Channel Tunnel while driving a silver Bentley. Judge Sam Goozee determined that Robinson's detention was largely influenced by his political beliefs rather than any legitimate suspicion of terrorism, stating, "I cannot put out of my mind that it was actually what you stood for, and your political beliefs, that acted for the principal reason for this stop," according to Reuters and Le Monde.

Robinson was stopped in Folkestone while travelling with approximately £13,000 in cash. He contended that his phone contained sensitive journalistic material, which justified his refusal to comply with police demands. The court agreed that the police had overstepped their authority, ultimately leading to his acquittal, as detailed by Middle East Eye and India Times.

Following the verdict, Robinson expressed gratitude to Elon Musk, who he claims covered his legal fees. Robinson stated, "Thank you, Elon Musk... why has it taken an American businessman to fight for our justice here?" This financial backing and Musk's previous support for free speech have positioned Robinson as a polarizing figure in discussions regarding press freedom, according to Reuters and Middle East Eye.

The court's decision highlights ongoing debates in the UK concerning the balance of free speech against public safety and the potential for misuse of counterterrorism powers to suppress political dissent. Supporters argue that Robinson's acquittal underscores the risks of governmental overreach, while critics maintain he is repackaging his narrative as a champion of free speech amidst his history of far-right activism, as noted by India Times and Le Monde.