🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors informed the tribunal that police had valid concerns indicating Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's mobile contained information related to terrorist activities when they detained him last year as he attempted to leave the UK.

Refusal to Give Device Password

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

Prosecution Claims on Anti-Terror Powers

On the final day of the proceedings, state lawyer the prosecution stated that the anti-terror authorities used by police are intended to permit information collection. She claimed that officers had valid grounds to believe the defendant continued to have links to right-wing groups, even after the dissolution of the English Defence League (EDL).

While his membership of the English Defence League has come to an end, his views have not disappeared. He is known for holding those views and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to think that on his telephone there could be data relevant to terrorist acts,” she told Westminster magistrates court.

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

Circumstances of the Stop

The activist had arrived alone at the Channel tunnel in a luxury vehicle belonging to a friend and was on his way to the holiday destination of Benidorm with more than £13,000 in a carry-on, the court heard.

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

Defense Arguments

The defendant, who disputes non-compliance with anti-terror laws during the encounter on 28 July last year, faces up to 90 days in jail or a potential £2,500 penalty if convicted.

His lawyer, defense counsel, said in final arguments that counter-terrorism police who detained his client had engaged in a “fishing expedition” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Referring to testimony from officers who stated they called “partner agencies” after arresting him, the defense lawyer said this was a reference to the security services and that lack of proof had been offered from the security service to indicate his client was a terrorist.

Williamson asserted the police action was “discriminatory” because it was based to a “significant degree on a personal attribute.” 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 “extraordinary power that needs to be carefully regulated” to try to find out information that was previously available. The barrister suggested that Robinson journeyed to the resort regularly, which ought to have reduced the police suspicions about him.

Expenses and Judgment Date

Robinson claimed 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 appeared as an ally of the campaigner and lately addressed a rally arranged by him in London via a livestream.

A suggested date of next Tuesday for the verdict was changed by the magistrate, Sam Goozee, after the defense said Robinson was scheduled to be a guest of the Israeli government from the midweek 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 start of 4 November.