🔗 Share this article

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

Denial to Provide Phone Pin

The right-wing campaigner, using his real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, reportedly declined to hand over his phone pin to police, stating it contained “journalistic material.” This happened after he was intercepted at the Channel tunnel on 28 July 2024.

Trial Claims on Counter-Terrorism Authority

On the last day of the proceedings, state lawyer the prosecution stated that the counter-terrorism powers used by law enforcement are designed to allow intelligence gathering. She asserted that officers had reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant still have links to right-wing groups, even following the disbandment of the English Defence League (EDL).

While his affiliation of the English Defence League has ceased, his views have not gone away. He is recognized for holding those views and therefore it is a valid concern to believe that on his telephone there may be data pertaining to acts of terrorism,” she told Westminster magistrates court.

Morris continued, “His beliefs – to which he is allowed – were not the focus for their concern on July 28. It was his association to others who are possibly involved in prohibited activities.”

Circumstances of the Stop

The activist had arrived alone at the Eurotunnel in a luxury vehicle belonging to a friend and was on his way to the Spanish resort of Benidorm with more than £13,000 in a carry-on, the court heard.

The funds was reportedly from a collection to offset expenses from arranging a large demonstration that took place the previous day in a London landmark.

Defense Arguments

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

His lawyer, Alisdair Williamson KC, argued in closing submissions that counter-terrorism police who detained Robinson had conducted a speculative search” and that he had been illegally held.

Referring to evidence from police who stated they contacted “partner agencies” after detaining him, the defense lawyer claimed this was a reference to the intelligence agencies and that lack of proof had been presented from MI5 to indicate his client was a security threat.

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

He noted that police had used an special authority that must be carefully regulated” to try to find out details that was already known. The barrister proposed that his client traveled to Benidorm frequently, which should have reduced the police suspicions about him.

Expenses and Verdict Date

The activist stated that his court expenses in the case were being paid for by the tech billionaire, the proprietor of social media and electric car companies, who has emerged as an ally of the campaigner and recently addressed a gathering arranged by him in the capital via a online broadcast.

A suggested date of next Tuesday for the decision was altered by the district judge, the judge, after the defense explained Robinson was due to be a invitee of the Israeli government from Wednesday 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 said he would deliver his verdict on the start of 4 November.