Border security loophole allowed Tommy Robinson to leave UK after ‘assault'
The far-Right activist, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, allegedly assaulted a man at St Pancras station in London last week.
Viral footage circulating online depicted the apparent victim lying unresponsive on the floor.
Following the incident, the British Transport Police (BTP) said they were making 'arrest inquiries' before later saying a suspect wanted for questioning in connection with the alleged attack had boarded a flight and was no longer in the UK.
Robinson, 42, caught a flight from London Stansted to the Spanish island of Tenerife despite being flagged as 'wanted' by police almost five hours earlier.
The Sunday Times reported that the far-Right activist was waived through the Ryanair departure gate because the police alert was raised only after he had booked the flight and checked in online – the point at which passenger details are normally run past security watch lists.
UK airline officials are not obliged to check whether a traveller is wanted for suspected criminality immediately before embarkation.
Footage that went viral in the aftermath of the alleged attack showed Robinson looking agitated, while a man appeared to lie unconscious on the ground at St Pancras, saying: 'He f-----g come at me. He come at me bruv.'
As two members of station staff attended to the man, Robinson approached an apparent witness and added: 'He come at me bruv, you saw that.'
Last Monday, Robinson had been in the area to hand out leaflets to promote a 'free speech' rally he is planning to host in central London on Sept 13.
The alleged assault occurred near a Thameslink platform which runs to Luton, where Robinson has a family home.
It has been reported that Robinson's supporters claim that he had planned a trip abroad well in advance of the alleged assault at St Pancras.
The Sunday Times said he was due to travel to Tenerife last Wednesday morning, but he moved the flight forward by 24 hours.
A BTP spokesman said: 'Following a report of an assault at St Pancras station on July 28, officers have confirmed that the suspect, a 42-year-old man from Bedfordshire, boarded a flight out of the country in the early hours of the morning.
'Detectives are continuing to work closely to progress the investigation and bring him into custody for questioning.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
3 minutes ago
- Times
Symbolic gestures won't prevent illegal working
T he Home Office's latest move to crack down on illegal working in the gig economy feels more like political theatre than a serious solution. Announcing a plan to share data with food delivery businesses such as Deliveroo, Just Eat, and Uber Eats, specifically around asylum hotel locations, sounds bold on paper. But in reality, it is unlikely to achieve much. The government wants these companies to flag and cancel accounts repeatedly active in 'high-risk' areas. But this relies on the flawed assumption that such monitoring will deter or even detect illegal workers. It won't. The simple fact is that account sharing is incredibly easy to get around. More information will be shared with food delivery companies such as Just Eat, Uber Eats and Deliveroo ALAMY And the reality is that these companies do not have a genuine incentive to stop it. Unlike traditional employers, they are not subject to a penalty of up to £60,000 per illegal worker. So why would they invest in better checks or policing their own systems? The simple fact is that gig economy companies do not know who is using their apps, and who is engaging with their customers under their brand name, making illegal work easy, effortless and undetectable. If ministers were serious about tackling this issue, they would demand more — facial recognition or real-time identity verification every time a job is accepted could make a real difference. Illegal workers simply would not be able to operate. But until that's mandated, and until companies face real consequences, nothing will change. Worryingly, the issue does not end with gig economy firms. There is a troubling lack of understanding among traditional employers about their own compliance risks. Since 2022, businesses have been allowed to use digital verification services for right to work checks on British and Irish nationals. But many are using the same checks for foreign workers without realising that doing so leaves them legally exposed. Employers are surprised to learn that they are not establishing the all-important statutory excuse for their foreign workers. Large organisations — including NHS trusts, local authorities, universities and household organisations — are unknowingly putting themselves at risk. They believe using digital verification is enough — but it does not give them the legal protection they think it does. When foreign workers lose their right to work, or even exceed their permitted hours, employers are shocked to be slapped with penalties from the Home Office. Both the gig economy and traditional employment are riddled with loopholes. And while the government focuses on symbolic gestures such as data sharing, illegal work will continue, unchecked and undetected. If this crackdown is to mean anything, there needs to be more enforcement, starting with the government holding the platforms and third-party providers accountable. Emma Brooksbank is a partner at the law firm Freeths
Times
3 minutes ago
- Times
Eugene Shvidler case highlights threat to fundamental liberties
E ugene Shvidler left the Soviet Union in 1989 and obtained refugee status in the US before being granted a UK visa under the highly skilled migrant programme. A British citizen since 2010, Shvidler and his family chose to build their lives in England. He has not set foot in Russia since 2007, holds no ties to its regime, and has never been a citizen of the Russian Federation. Indeed, in 2022, he publicly condemned the 'senseless violence' in Ukraine. Nevertheless, that year the British government took the draconian step of freezing Shvidler's assets on the basis that he was 'associated with' Roman Abramovich, the former owner of Chelsea FC; and that he was a non-executive director of Evraz, a mining company carrying on business in a sector of strategic significance to Russia. Critically, because Shvidler is a British citizen, the asset-freeze makes it a criminal offence for him to deal with his assets anywhere in the world — subject to certain limited exceptions. Roman Abramovich, left, with Eugene Shvidler, centre ALAMY Ironically, had Shvidler not become a British citizen, the asset-freeze would be limited to his assets in the UK — he would have been better off. Instead, he cannot even buy food without obtaining a licence to do so. This is in circumstances where he has done nothing unlawful. It is unquestionable that the asset-freeze interferes with Shvidler's ability to have peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, a right guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. The question is whether such interference is justified in the public interest. Having failed to persuade the government and the lower courts that the answer to that question was a resounding 'no', Shvidler appealed to the Supreme Court to uphold his rights. Sadly, they did not do so — the majority decision of four to one deferred to the government on the basis that the executive branch has a 'wide margin of appreciation' when imposing sanctions for the pursuit of foreign policy objectives. Lord Leggatt did not defer. In a dissenting judgment that will roar through the ages, he championed the constitutional role that our courts should play in keeping checks and balances on the executive powers exercised by the government. Without that separation of powers, our fundamental liberties are under threat. Citing Magna Carta and Orwell, Lord Leggatt stood up for those liberties and declared unlawful the asset-freeze 'without any geographical or temporal limit' which has deprived Shvidler of the basic freedom to use his possessions as he wishes, a freedom to which he should be entitled as a citizen of this country. In 1989, Shvidler left a country in which — in his words — 'individuals could be stripped of their rights with little or no protections'. He has since left the UK for the same reason. James Clark is a partner at the firm Quillon Law; Jordan Hill, an associate at the firm, also contributed to this article
Times
3 minutes ago
- Times
Samantha Yelland prosecuted Constance Marten and Mark Gordon
Samantha Yelland, a solicitor, was the senior crown prosecutor and reviewing lawyer in the prosecution of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon, who were convicted of the manslaughter of their baby daughter after a lengthy and chaotic retrial at the Old Bailey, which the judge accused them of trying to 'sabotage' and 'derail'. The first time this case was tried, the jury was unable to reach a verdict on the most serious charge of manslaughter. Given there was no definitive cause of death or much of the usual evidence we rely on in homicide cases, we had to think creatively about what alternative evidence we could use. At the retrial, we were able to combine witness testimony and expert evidence, including analysis of weather data at the time of the offence. Becoming a trainee supervisor. I've experienced first-hand how the training you receive early on shapes your future career. It's important to me to help to give lawyers starting out in their careers the best start possible. All my fellow females striving to ensure equality in our profession. When I started there were hardly any female judges. Now, they make up half of all the judges at the Central Criminal Court. And most of my colleagues in the homicide unit are female. Read everything. I was once providing telephone advice to someone arrested for shoplifting. She was somewhat inebriated and, forgetting who she was speaking to, ended the call with 'bye, love you'. Ultimately this job is about victims of crime and their loved ones. The best and the worst bits of my day depend on whether they feel that justice has been achieved. A power for judges to impose extra time on top of a defendant's sentence if they were deemed to have unnecessarily wasted the court's time. • Read more law stories and insights from our experts I love a musical so it would have to be Times Law is taking a three-week break and returns on September 4
