🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives told the court that law enforcement had reasonable suspicions that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's phone held material related to acts of terrorism when they detained him last year as he tried to leave the UK.

Denial to Provide Device Password

The far-right activist, whose legal name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, allegedly refused to provide his phone pin to police, claiming it contained “journalistic material.” This occurred after he was intercepted at the Channel tunnel on 28 July 2024.

Trial Claims on Anti-Terror Authority

On the final day of the proceedings, prosecutor the prosecution stated that the anti-terror authorities used by police are designed to permit information collection. She asserted that police had reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant continued to have connections to right-wing groups, even following the dissolution of the English Defence League (EDL).

“Although his membership of the EDL has ceased, his views have not gone away. He is known for holding those views and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to believe that on his phone there may be data relevant to terrorist acts,” she informed Westminster magistrates court.

Morris added, His opinions – to which he is entitled – were not the subject for their concern on 28 July. It was his association to others who are possibly involved in prohibited activities.”

Details of the Stop

The activist had turned up alone at the Eurotunnel in a silver Bentley owned by a acquaintance and was traveling to the holiday destination of Benidorm with more than £13,000 in a small bag, the trial was told.

The funds was said to have been from a collection to cover expenses from organizing a large demonstration that occurred the day before in a London landmark.

Defense Arguments

Robinson, who disputes non-compliance with counter-terrorism powers during the encounter on July 28 last year, faces up to three months in jail or a possible £2,500 fine if found guilty.

His lawyer, Alisdair Williamson KC, said in closing submissions that anti-terror officers who stopped his client had conducted a speculative search” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Citing evidence from police who said they contacted other organizations” after detaining Robinson, Williamson said this was a allusion to the intelligence agencies and that no evidence had been presented from MI5 to suggest his defendant was a terrorist.

Williamson said the officers’ action was “discriminatory” because it was based to a large extent on a personal attribute.” He said that the main factor” on the choice to stop him was “‘oh look, it’s Tommy Robinson”.

He noted that officers had used an special authority that needs to be properly policed” to try to discover details that was previously available. The barrister suggested that his client journeyed to the resort frequently, which should have lessened the police concerns about him.

Legal Costs and Verdict Date

The activist stated that his court expenses in the case were being covered by the tech billionaire, the owner of social media and electric car companies, who has appeared as an supporter of the far-right activist and lately spoke at a rally organized by him in the capital via a online broadcast.

A suggested date of next Tuesday for the decision was altered by the district judge, Sam Goozee, after the defense explained his client was due to be a guest of the Israel's administration from Wednesday and would not come back until October 25.

{“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 hand down his ruling on the start of 4 November.