🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors informed the tribunal that police maintained valid concerns indicating Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's phone held material relevant to terrorist activities when they stopped him last year as he attempted to depart from the UK.

Refusal to Provide Device Password

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

Prosecution Claims on Anti-Terror Authority

On the last day of the proceedings, prosecutor Jo Morris argued that the anti-terror authorities employed by police are designed to permit intelligence gathering. She claimed that police had reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant still have connections to right-wing groups, even following the dissolution of the EDL organization.

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

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

Circumstances of the Detention

The activist had turned up alone at the Channel tunnel in a silver Bentley owned by a friend and was traveling to the Spanish resort of Benidorm with more than £13,000 in a small bag, the court was told.

The money was reportedly from a donation drive to cover costs from organizing a major rally that occurred the day before in a London landmark.

Legal Team Submissions

The defendant, who denies non-compliance with counter-terrorism powers during the encounter on 28 July last year, faces up to three months in jail or a possible £2,500 penalty if convicted.

His lawyer, defense counsel, said in closing submissions that anti-terror officers who stopped Robinson had conducted a “fishing expedition” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Citing evidence from police who stated they contacted other organizations” after arresting him, Williamson claimed this was a allusion to the security services and that no evidence had been presented from MI5 to indicate his defendant was a security threat.

Williamson said the officers’ action was “discriminatory” because it was based to a “significant degree on a protected characteristic.” He stated that the main factor” on the choice to detain him was “‘oh look, it’s Tommy Robinson”.

He added that police had used an special authority that needs to be carefully regulated” to try to find out information that was already known. The barrister suggested that his client journeyed to Benidorm frequently, which ought to have lessened the police concerns about him.

Legal Costs and Verdict Date

The activist stated that his court expenses in the case were being covered by the tech billionaire, the proprietor of social media and electric car companies, who has emerged as an ally of the campaigner and lately addressed a gathering organized by him in the capital via a online broadcast.

A proposed day of next Tuesday for the decision was changed by the district judge, Sam Goozee, after the defense explained his client was due to be a guest 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,” stated the barrister.

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