🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives told the court that police maintained valid concerns that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's phone contained information related to terrorist activities when they stopped him in the previous year as he tried to depart from the UK.

Denial to Provide Device Password

The far-right activist, using his legal name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, reportedly refused to provide his password to police, stating it included journalist content.” This occurred after he was intercepted at the Channel tunnel on 28 July 2024.

Trial Arguments on Anti-Terror Authority

On the final day of the trial, state lawyer the prosecution stated that the counter-terrorism powers employed by police are designed to permit intelligence gathering. She asserted that officers had valid grounds to think Robinson continued to have links to far-right activists, even after the dissolution of the English Defence League (EDL).

While his affiliation of the EDL has ceased, his views have not disappeared. He is known for having those views and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to think that on his telephone there could be information pertaining to acts of terrorism,” she informed Westminster magistrates court.

The prosecutor continued, His opinions – to which he is entitled – were not the subject for their attention on 28 July. It was his connection to others who are possibly engaged in prohibited activities.”

Circumstances of the Detention

The activist had arrived alone at the Channel tunnel in a silver Bentley belonging to a friend and was traveling to the holiday destination of the Spanish coast with over £13,000 in a carry-on, the trial was told.

The funds was reportedly from a donation drive to offset costs from arranging a large demonstration that occurred the day before in Trafalgar Square.

Defense Submissions

Robinson, who denies non-compliance with anti-terror laws during the encounter on 28 July of the previous year, faces up to three months in prison or a potential £2,500 fine if convicted.

His lawyer, defense counsel, said in closing submissions that counter-terrorism police who detained Robinson had conducted a “fishing expedition” and that he had been illegally held.

Citing evidence from police who said they contacted other organizations” after detaining Robinson, Williamson said this was a allusion to the intelligence agencies and that no evidence had been presented from the security service to suggest his client was a terrorist.

Williamson asserted the officers’ action was “discriminatory” because it was based to a large extent on a protected characteristic.” He said that the “predominant influence” on the decision to detain him was “‘oh look, it’s Tommy Robinson”.

He added that police had used an special authority that must be properly policed” to try to discover information that was previously available. The barrister proposed that Robinson journeyed to the resort regularly, which should have reduced the police suspicions about him.

Legal Costs and Judgment Timing

The activist claimed that his legal costs in the case were being paid for by the tech billionaire, the owner of X and Tesla, who has emerged as an supporter of the far-right activist and lately spoke at a gathering arranged by him in the capital via a online broadcast.

A suggested date of next Tuesday for the decision was altered by the district judge, the judge, after Williamson explained his client was due to be a invitee of the Israel's administration 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 Williamson.

The judge announced he would hand down his verdict on the start of 4 November.