🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives informed the court that law enforcement had valid concerns that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's phone held material related to terrorist activities when they detained him last year as he tried to depart from the UK.

Denial to Give Device Password

The right-wing campaigner, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, reportedly refused to provide his password to officers, stating it contained “journalistic material.” This happened after he was stopped at the Channel tunnel on 28 July 2024.

Trial Arguments on Anti-Terror Powers

On the last day of the proceedings, state lawyer Jo Morris argued that the counter-terrorism powers employed by law enforcement are intended to permit intelligence gathering. She claimed that police had valid grounds to believe the defendant continued to have links to right-wing groups, even following the disbandment of the English Defence League (EDL).

“Although his membership of the English Defence League has ceased, his beliefs have not gone away. He is recognized for holding those views and therefore it is a valid concern to think that on his phone there may be information pertaining to terrorist acts,” she told Westminster magistrates court.

Morris added, His opinions – to which he is allowed – were not the subject for their concern on 28 July. It was his connection to others who are potentially 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 traveling to the Spanish resort of Benidorm with more than £13,000 in a small bag, the trial was told.

The money was said to have been from a collection to offset costs from arranging a large demonstration that occurred the day before in a London landmark.

Legal Team Arguments

Robinson, who denies non-compliance with anti-terror laws during the incident on July 28 last year, could receive up to three months in jail or a possible £2,500 penalty if found guilty.

His barrister, defense counsel, said in final arguments that anti-terror officers who detained Robinson had engaged in a speculative search” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Citing evidence from police who said they called other organizations” after arresting Robinson, the defense lawyer 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 security threat.

Williamson asserted the police action was biased” because it was based to a “significant degree on a personal attribute.” He said that the main factor” on the decision to detain him was “‘oh look, it’s Tommy Robinson”.

He added that police had used an “extraordinary power that needs to be carefully regulated” to try to find out information that was already known. The barrister proposed that his client traveled to Benidorm frequently, which should have lessened the officers’ suspicions about him.

Expenses and Verdict Timing

The activist 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 spoke at a gathering arranged by him in the capital via a online broadcast.

A proposed date of next Tuesday for the decision was changed by the district judge, the judge, after Williamson said Robinson was due to be a guest 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,” stated Williamson.

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