🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors informed the tribunal that law enforcement had reasonable suspicions indicating Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's phone held material relevant to acts of terrorism when they detained him last year as he tried to depart from the UK.

Denial to Provide Device Pin

The far-right activist, using his real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, reportedly declined to hand over his phone pin to officers, claiming it contained journalist content.” This occurred after he was intercepted at the Channel tunnel on 28 July 2024.

Trial Claims on Counter-Terrorism Authority

On the final day of the proceedings, state lawyer Jo Morris argued that the anti-terror authorities used by police are designed to allow information collection. She asserted that officers had valid grounds to believe Robinson continued to have links to right-wing groups, even following the disbandment of the EDL organization.

While his membership of the EDL has ceased, his beliefs have not gone away. He is recognized for having those views and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to think that on his telephone there could be data relevant to acts of terrorism,” she informed Westminster magistrates court.

The prosecutor continued, “His beliefs – to which he is allowed – were not the focus for their attention on 28 July. It was his connection to individuals who are potentially involved in illegal actions.”

Details of the Stop

The activist had turned up by himself at the Eurotunnel in a silver Bentley owned by a friend and was on his way to the Spanish resort of the Spanish coast with more than £13,000 in a carry-on, the court was told.

The money was said to have been from a donation drive to offset costs from arranging a major rally that took place the previous day in a London landmark.

Legal Team Arguments

The defendant, who disputes failing to comply with counter-terrorism powers during the incident on July 28 last year, faces up to 90 days in prison or a possible £2,500 fine if convicted.

His barrister, defense counsel, said in final arguments that counter-terrorism police who stopped Robinson had conducted a speculative search” and that he had been illegally held.

Referring to testimony from police who stated they contacted “partner agencies” after detaining Robinson, Williamson said this was a allusion to the intelligence agencies and that no evidence had been offered from the security service to suggest his client was a security threat.

Williamson said the officers’ intervention was biased” because it was based to a “significant degree on a personal attribute.” He stated that the “predominant influence” on the decision to detain him was “‘oh look, it’s Tommy Robinson”.

He noted that officers had used an special authority that needs to be carefully regulated” to try to discover details that was previously available. Williamson proposed that Robinson journeyed to the resort frequently, which ought to have lessened the police suspicions about him.

Legal Costs and Verdict Date

The activist claimed that his legal costs in the proceedings were being paid for by Elon Musk, the proprietor of X and Tesla, who has emerged as an supporter of the campaigner and lately addressed a rally arranged by him in London via a livestream.

A proposed day of next Tuesday for the decision was altered by the district judge, Sam Goozee, after the defense explained his client was scheduled to be a invitee of the Israeli government from Wednesday and would not come back until 25 October.

{“I wouldn’t trouble you if this was a trip to Benidorm. I would ask him to rearrange it but he is a guest of a foreign government,” said Williamson.

The judge said he would deliver his verdict on the start of 4 November.