🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors informed the tribunal that law enforcement maintained valid concerns indicating Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's mobile held information relevant to acts of terrorism when they detained him last year as he attempted to leave the UK.

Denial to Give Device Pin

The right-wing campaigner, using his legal name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, allegedly refused to hand over his password to officers, stating it included journalist content.” This occurred after he was intercepted at the Channel tunnel on July 28, 2024.

Prosecution Arguments on Anti-Terror Powers

On the final day of the trial, prosecutor the prosecution stated that the counter-terrorism powers employed by police are intended to permit intelligence gathering. She asserted that officers had reasonable suspicion to think the defendant continued to have links to right-wing groups, even after the dissolution of the English Defence League (EDL).

“Although his membership of the English Defence League has ceased, his views 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 could be information pertaining to acts of terrorism,” she informed Westminster magistrates court.

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

Circumstances of the Detention

The activist had arrived by himself at the Channel tunnel in a luxury vehicle owned by a acquaintance and was on his way to the holiday destination of Benidorm with more than £13,000 in a carry-on, the trial was told.

The money was said to have been from a collection to cover expenses from arranging a large demonstration that took place the previous day in a London landmark.

Legal Team Submissions

The defendant, who disputes non-compliance with anti-terror laws during the incident on July 28 last year, faces up to 90 days in prison or a possible £2,500 fine if found guilty.

His lawyer, Alisdair Williamson KC, said in closing submissions that anti-terror officers who stopped his client had conducted a “fishing expedition” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Citing evidence from police who stated they called other organizations” after arresting Robinson, Williamson said this was a allusion to the intelligence agencies and that lack of proof had been offered from MI5 to indicate his defendant was a terrorist.

He asserted the officers’ action was “discriminatory” because it was based to a “significant degree on a protected characteristic.” He said that the “predominant influence” on the choice to stop him was “‘oh look, it’s Tommy Robinson”.

He added that officers had used an “extraordinary power that must be carefully regulated” to try to find out details that was already known. The barrister suggested that his client journeyed to Benidorm frequently, which should have lessened the officers’ concerns about him.

Legal Costs and Verdict Date

The activist claimed that his court expenses in the case were being paid for by the tech billionaire, the owner of X and Tesla, who has appeared as an ally of the campaigner and recently spoke at a gathering arranged by him in London via a online broadcast.

A proposed day of the following Tuesday for the verdict was altered by the magistrate, Sam Goozee, after the defense 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.

Goozee said he would hand down his ruling on the morning of 4 November.