🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives informed the court that police had reasonable suspicions indicating Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's phone contained information related to terrorist activities when they stopped him last year as he attempted to leave the UK.

Refusal to Give Phone Pin

The far-right activist, whose legal name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, allegedly declined to provide his password to officers, claiming it included “journalistic material.” This occurred after he was stopped at the Eurotunnel on July 28, 2024.

Prosecution Arguments on Anti-Terror Authority

On the last day of the trial, prosecutor the prosecution stated that the anti-terror authorities used by police are designed to allow information collection. She claimed that police had reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant still have connections to far-right activists, even following the dissolution of the EDL organization.

While his affiliation of the English Defence League has come to an end, 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 phone there could be data relevant to terrorist acts,” she informed the court.

Morris added, His opinions – to which he is allowed – were not the focus for their attention on 28 July. It was his connection to others who are possibly involved 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 Benidorm with over £13,000 in a small bag, the court was told.

The money was reportedly from a donation drive to offset costs from arranging a large demonstration that occurred the day before in a London landmark.

Defense Submissions

The defendant, who disputes non-compliance 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 anti-terror officers who detained Robinson had conducted a speculative search” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Referring to evidence from officers who stated they called “partner agencies” after detaining Robinson, Williamson claimed this was a allusion to the intelligence agencies and that no evidence had been presented from the security service to indicate his client was a terrorist.

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

He noted that police had used an “extraordinary power that must be carefully regulated” to try to find out information that was previously available. Williamson suggested that his client traveled to Benidorm frequently, which should have lessened the police concerns about him.

Legal Costs and Verdict Date

The activist claimed that his court expenses in the proceedings were being paid for by the tech billionaire, the proprietor of social media and electric car companies, who has emerged as an supporter of the far-right activist and lately addressed a gathering arranged by him in London via a livestream.

A suggested day of the following Tuesday for the verdict was changed by the district judge, Sam Goozee, after the defense explained his client was due to be a invitee of the Israeli government from the midweek and would not come back 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 Williamson.

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