🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives told the tribunal that law enforcement maintained reasonable suspicions indicating Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's mobile contained information relevant to acts of terrorism when they detained him in the previous year as he attempted to depart from the UK.

Refusal to Provide Phone Pin

The right-wing campaigner, using his legal name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, allegedly refused to hand over his password to officers, stating it contained “journalistic material.” This occurred after he was intercepted at the Eurotunnel on 28 July 2024.

Trial Claims on Counter-Terrorism Powers

On the last day of the proceedings, prosecutor Jo Morris argued that the counter-terrorism powers employed by law enforcement are designed to permit intelligence gathering. She claimed that officers had reasonable suspicion to think the defendant continued to have links to right-wing groups, even following the dissolution of the EDL organization.

“Although his membership of the English Defence League has come to an end, his views have not gone away. He is known for holding those opinions and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to think that on his phone there could be information pertaining to terrorist acts,” she informed 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 individuals who are potentially involved in illegal actions.”

Circumstances of the Detention

The activist had arrived by himself at the Channel tunnel in a silver Bentley owned by a friend and was traveling to the holiday destination of the Spanish coast with over £13,000 in a small bag, the trial heard.

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

Defense Arguments

Robinson, who disputes failing to comply with counter-terrorism powers during the incident on 28 July of the previous year, could receive up to three months in jail or a possible £2,500 penalty if convicted.

His barrister, defense counsel, argued in closing submissions that counter-terrorism police who detained his client had engaged in a speculative search” and that he had been illegally held.

Citing evidence from police who said they contacted other organizations” after arresting him, Williamson said this was a reference to the security services and that no evidence had been offered from the security service to suggest his defendant was a terrorist.

Williamson said the police intervention was biased” because it was based to a large extent on a personal attribute.” He said that the “predominant influence” on the choice to stop 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 discover details that was already known. The barrister suggested that his client traveled to Benidorm regularly, which ought to have lessened the officers’ concerns about him.

Expenses and Verdict Date

Robinson claimed that his legal costs in the case were being paid for by the tech billionaire, the proprietor of social media and electric car companies, who has appeared as an ally of the campaigner and lately spoke at a rally arranged by him in London via a livestream.

A proposed day of the following Tuesday for the verdict was altered by the district judge, Sam Goozee, after the defense said Robinson was scheduled to be a invitee of the Israeli government from Wednesday and would not come back until 25 October.

{“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 Williamson.

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