🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors told the court that police had reasonable suspicions that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's mobile contained information relevant to terrorist activities when they detained him in the previous year as he attempted to leave the UK.

Denial to Provide Phone Password

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

Prosecution Arguments on Counter-Terrorism Authority

On the last day of the proceedings, prosecutor Jo Morris argued that the anti-terror authorities employed by police are designed to permit information collection. She asserted that police had reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant still have connections to far-right activists, even after the disbandment of the English Defence League (EDL).

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

The prosecutor continued, His opinions – to which he is allowed – were not the focus for their concern on 28 July. It was his association to individuals who are possibly engaged in illegal actions.”

Circumstances of the Detention

The campaigner had turned up alone at the Eurotunnel in a luxury vehicle belonging to a friend and was on his way to the holiday destination of Benidorm with over £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 took place the day before in a London landmark.

Defense Arguments

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

His lawyer, Alisdair Williamson KC, said in closing submissions that counter-terrorism police who stopped Robinson had engaged in a “fishing expedition” and that he had been illegally held.

Referring to evidence from officers who stated they called “partner agencies” after arresting Robinson, Williamson said this was a allusion to the intelligence agencies and that no evidence had been offered from MI5 to indicate his client was a security threat.

He asserted 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 police had used an “extraordinary power that needs to be properly policed” to try to find out details that was previously available. Williamson suggested that Robinson traveled to the resort frequently, which should have reduced the police concerns about him.

Expenses and Judgment Timing

Robinson claimed 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 arranged by him in the capital via a online broadcast.

A proposed day of next Tuesday for the verdict was altered by the magistrate, the judge, after Williamson said his client was due to be a invitee of the Israeli government from Wednesday and would not return 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 the barrister.

The judge announced he would hand down his ruling on the start of 4 November.