🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors informed the court that law enforcement had valid concerns that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's mobile held material related to terrorist activities when they stopped him in the previous year as he tried to leave the UK.

Refusal to Provide Device Pin

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

Trial Claims on Anti-Terror Authority

On the final day of the proceedings, state lawyer Jo Morris stated that the counter-terrorism powers employed by police are intended to permit intelligence gathering. She claimed that police had reasonable suspicion to believe Robinson continued to have connections to far-right activists, even after the disbandment of the EDL organization.

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

Morris added, “His beliefs – to which he is allowed – were not the focus for their attention on 28 July. It was his connection to individuals who are potentially engaged in prohibited activities.”

Details of the Stop

The campaigner had turned up alone at the Channel tunnel in a silver Bentley belonging to a friend and was traveling to the Spanish resort of Benidorm with more than £13,000 in a carry-on, the trial was told.

The money was reportedly from a donation drive to offset costs from organizing a large demonstration that took place the previous day in a London landmark.

Defense Submissions

The defendant, who disputes failing to comply with anti-terror laws during the incident on 28 July of the previous year, could receive up to 90 days in prison or a potential £2,500 penalty if found guilty.

His barrister, Alisdair Williamson KC, argued in final arguments that counter-terrorism police who detained Robinson had engaged in a “fishing expedition” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Citing evidence from officers who said they called “partner agencies” after arresting Robinson, the defense lawyer claimed this was a allusion to the intelligence agencies and that no evidence had been offered from the security service to indicate his client was a security threat.

He asserted the officers’ action was “discriminatory” 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 noted that police had used an “extraordinary power that needs to be carefully regulated” to try to discover information that was already known. Williamson suggested that his client journeyed to Benidorm regularly, which should have reduced the police suspicions about him.

Legal Costs and Judgment Timing

Robinson stated that his legal costs in the case were being paid for by the tech billionaire, the owner of social media and electric car companies, who has appeared as an ally of the far-right activist and recently addressed a gathering organized by him in the capital via a online broadcast.

A suggested day of next Tuesday for the verdict was altered by the district judge, Sam Goozee, after the defense explained his client was scheduled to be a guest of the Israel's administration 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,” stated the barrister.

The judge said he would deliver his verdict on the morning of 4 November.