🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors told the tribunal that police maintained reasonable suspicions indicating Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's phone held information related to acts of terrorism when they stopped him in the previous 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 provide his phone pin to police, claiming it included “journalistic material.” This occurred after he was stopped at the Channel tunnel on July 28, 2024.

Prosecution Arguments on Anti-Terror Authority

On the final day of the proceedings, prosecutor Jo Morris argued that the counter-terrorism powers employed by police are designed to allow information collection. She claimed that police had valid grounds to think the defendant continued to have links to far-right activists, even after the disbandment of the English Defence League (EDL).

While his affiliation of the English Defence League has ceased, his beliefs have not gone away. He is recognized for having those views and therefore it is a valid concern to think that on his phone there may be data relevant to acts of terrorism,” she told Westminster magistrates court.

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

Circumstances of the Detention

The activist had arrived by himself at the Channel tunnel in a silver Bentley belonging to a acquaintance and was on his way to the Spanish resort of Benidorm with over £13,000 in a carry-on, the court was told.

The funds was reportedly from a collection to offset expenses from organizing a large demonstration that occurred the day before in Trafalgar Square.

Defense Arguments

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

His lawyer, defense counsel, argued in closing submissions that counter-terrorism police who stopped his client had engaged in a “fishing expedition” and that he had been illegally held.

Referring to testimony from officers who said they contacted “partner agencies” after arresting Robinson, Williamson claimed this was a allusion to the security services and that no evidence had been presented from MI5 to indicate his client was a security threat.

He asserted the officers’ intervention was “discriminatory” because it was based to a large extent on a protected characteristic.” He stated that the “predominant influence” on the choice to detain him was recognizing his identity”.

He noted that officers had used an “extraordinary power that must be properly policed” to try to find out details that was previously available. Williamson suggested that his client traveled to the resort regularly, which should have lessened the police suspicions about him.

Expenses and Verdict Timing

Robinson stated that his court expenses in the proceedings 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 spoke at a gathering arranged by him in the capital via a online broadcast.

A proposed day of the following Tuesday for the verdict was changed by the district judge, Sam Goozee, after Williamson explained his client was due to be a invitee of the Israel's administration from the midweek and would not come back 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.

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