🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives told the tribunal that law enforcement maintained reasonable suspicions that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's phone held information relevant to terrorist activities when they stopped him in the previous year as he tried to depart from the UK.

Refusal to Give Device Password

The right-wing campaigner, whose legal name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, reportedly declined to hand over his password to police, claiming it included “journalistic material.” This happened after he was intercepted at the Channel tunnel on July 28, 2024.

Prosecution Arguments on Anti-Terror Powers

On the last day of the trial, prosecutor the prosecution argued that the counter-terrorism powers used by police are designed to permit information collection. She asserted that officers had valid grounds to think the defendant still have connections to far-right activists, even following the dissolution of the English Defence League (EDL).

“Although his affiliation of the EDL has come to an end, his beliefs have not disappeared. He is recognized for having those opinions and therefore it is a valid concern to believe that on his phone there may be information relevant to terrorist acts,” she told Westminster magistrates court.

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

Details of the Stop

The activist had turned up alone at the Channel tunnel 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 court was told.

The funds was said to have been from a collection to cover expenses from organizing a large demonstration that occurred the day before in Trafalgar Square.

Defense Arguments

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

His barrister, defense counsel, argued in closing submissions that anti-terror officers who detained Robinson had engaged in a “fishing expedition” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Citing testimony from officers who stated they contacted other organizations” after arresting him, Williamson claimed this was a allusion to the intelligence agencies and that lack of proof had been presented from MI5 to suggest his defendant was a security threat.

He said the officers’ action was biased” because it was based to a large extent on a personal attribute.” He stated that the main factor” on the decision to stop him was “‘oh look, it’s Tommy Robinson”.

He added that police had used an special authority that must be carefully regulated” to try to find out details that was already known. Williamson suggested that Robinson traveled to the resort regularly, which should have reduced the police suspicions about him.

Expenses and Verdict Timing

Robinson stated that his court expenses in the case were being covered by Elon Musk, the owner of X and Tesla, who has emerged as an ally of the far-right activist and recently spoke at a rally organized by him in the capital via a online broadcast.

A proposed date of the following Tuesday for the decision was changed by the district judge, the judge, after Williamson said Robinson was due to be a invitee of the Israel's administration from Wednesday 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 the barrister.

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