🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives informed the tribunal that police maintained valid concerns that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's mobile contained information related to terrorist activities when they stopped him last year as he attempted to depart from the UK.

Denial to Provide Phone Password

The far-right activist, using his legal name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, allegedly refused to hand over his phone pin to police, stating it included journalist content.” This happened after he was intercepted at the Channel tunnel on July 28, 2024.

Trial Claims on Anti-Terror Powers

On the last day of the trial, prosecutor the prosecution stated that the counter-terrorism powers employed by police are designed to permit information collection. She asserted that officers had reasonable suspicion to think the defendant still have links to right-wing groups, even after the dissolution of the EDL organization.

While his membership of the English Defence League has come to an end, his beliefs have not disappeared. He is recognized for having those opinions and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to think that on his phone there may be data pertaining to acts of terrorism,” she informed Westminster magistrates court.

Morris added, “His beliefs – to which he is allowed – were not the focus for their concern on 28 July. It was his connection to individuals who are potentially engaged in illegal actions.”

Details of the Detention

The campaigner had arrived by himself at the Eurotunnel in a luxury vehicle belonging to a acquaintance and was traveling to the holiday destination 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 cover costs from arranging a large demonstration that occurred the day before in a London landmark.

Legal Team Submissions

The defendant, who disputes non-compliance with counter-terrorism powers during the encounter on July 28 last year, could receive up to three months in prison or a potential £2,500 fine if found guilty.

His lawyer, defense counsel, said in final arguments that anti-terror officers who detained his client had conducted a speculative search” and that he had been illegally held.

Citing evidence from police who said they called other organizations” after arresting Robinson, Williamson claimed this was a reference to the security services and that lack of proof had been offered from the security service to indicate his defendant was a security threat.

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

He noted that officers had used an special authority that must be properly policed” to try to discover details that was already known. Williamson suggested that Robinson traveled to the resort regularly, which should have reduced the police concerns about him.

Legal Costs and Judgment Timing

Robinson stated that his court expenses in the proceedings were being covered by the tech billionaire, the proprietor of social media and electric car companies, who has emerged as an ally of the far-right activist and lately addressed a rally organized by him in the capital via a livestream.

A proposed day of next Tuesday for the verdict was altered by the district judge, the judge, after the defense said his client 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,” said the barrister.

The judge announced he would hand down his verdict on the morning of 4 November.