🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives informed the tribunal that law enforcement had valid concerns that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's phone held information relevant to acts of terrorism when they stopped him last year as he attempted to leave the UK.

Refusal to Provide Phone Pin

The far-right activist, whose legal name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, reportedly refused to provide his password to officers, stating it included “journalistic material.” This happened after he was intercepted at the Channel tunnel on 28 July 2024.

Prosecution Arguments on Counter-Terrorism Powers

On the final day of the trial, state lawyer Jo Morris stated that the anti-terror authorities employed by law enforcement are intended to allow information collection. She claimed that officers had valid grounds to believe the defendant still have connections to far-right activists, even following the dissolution of the EDL organization.

While his affiliation of the EDL has come to an end, his beliefs have not gone away. He is recognized for having those opinions and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to believe that on his phone there could be information pertaining to terrorist acts,” she informed the court.

Morris added, “His beliefs – to which he is allowed – were not the subject for their attention on 28 July. It was his association to others who are possibly engaged in illegal actions.”

Circumstances of the Stop

The activist had arrived alone at the Eurotunnel in a silver Bentley belonging to a friend and was on his way to the holiday destination of the Spanish coast with more than £13,000 in a carry-on, the court was told.

The funds was reportedly from a donation drive to offset expenses from organizing a large demonstration that occurred the day before in a London landmark.

Defense Submissions

The defendant, who denies failing to comply with counter-terrorism powers during the incident on 28 July last year, could receive up to three months in jail or a potential £2,500 penalty if found guilty.

His barrister, defense counsel, argued in closing submissions that counter-terrorism police who detained Robinson had engaged in a speculative search” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Citing evidence from police who stated they contacted “partner agencies” after detaining him, the defense lawyer said this was a reference to the intelligence agencies and that no evidence had been presented from the security service to indicate his defendant was a terrorist.

He said the police intervention was “discriminatory” because it was based to a large extent on a protected characteristic.” He said that the main factor” on the choice to detain him was “‘oh look, it’s Tommy Robinson”.

He added that officers had used an special authority that needs to be carefully regulated” to try to find out details that was previously available. The barrister suggested that Robinson traveled to Benidorm regularly, which ought to have lessened the police concerns about him.

Legal Costs and Verdict Timing

Robinson 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 emerged as an ally of the campaigner and lately spoke at a rally arranged by him in the capital via a livestream.

A proposed day of the following Tuesday for the decision was changed by the magistrate, Sam Goozee, after the defense said Robinson was scheduled to be a invitee of the Israeli government from the midweek and would not return 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,” stated Williamson.

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