🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives informed the tribunal that police had valid concerns that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's phone contained material related to terrorist activities when they stopped him in the previous year as he attempted to depart from the UK.

Denial to Provide Device Pin

The far-right activist, whose legal name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, allegedly declined to provide his phone pin to police, claiming it included “journalistic material.” This occurred after he was intercepted at the Channel tunnel on 28 July 2024.

Prosecution Arguments on Counter-Terrorism Authority

On the last day of the proceedings, state lawyer the prosecution stated that the anti-terror authorities employed by law enforcement are designed to allow information collection. She asserted that police had reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant still have links to far-right activists, even following the dissolution of the EDL organization.

“Although his membership 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 reasonable suspicion to believe that on his telephone there could be data pertaining to terrorist acts,” she told the court.

The prosecutor added, “His beliefs – to which he is allowed – were not the subject for their concern on 28 July. It was his connection to others who are possibly engaged in prohibited activities.”

Details of the Detention

The activist had turned up alone at the Channel tunnel in a luxury vehicle belonging to a friend and was traveling to the Spanish resort of Benidorm with over £13,000 in a carry-on, the court heard.

The funds was said to have been 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 disputes failing to comply with anti-terror laws during the encounter on 28 July last year, could receive up to three months in jail or a possible £2,500 penalty if found guilty.

His lawyer, Alisdair Williamson KC, argued in final arguments that counter-terrorism police who stopped his client had conducted a speculative search” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Referring to testimony from officers who stated they contacted other organizations” after arresting him, Williamson said this was a reference to the security services and that lack of proof had been presented from the security service to suggest his client was a terrorist.

He asserted the police intervention was “discriminatory” because it was based to a large extent on a personal attribute.” He stated that the main factor” on the decision to detain him was “‘oh look, it’s Tommy Robinson”.

He added that officers had used an special authority that must be carefully regulated” to try to discover details that was previously available. The barrister proposed that Robinson journeyed to Benidorm frequently, which ought to have lessened the officers’ concerns about him.

Expenses and Judgment Timing

The activist claimed that his court expenses in the case were being covered by the tech billionaire, the proprietor of X and Tesla, who has emerged as an ally of the far-right activist and lately addressed a rally arranged by him in the capital via a livestream.

A suggested date of the following Tuesday for the verdict was changed by the magistrate, Sam Goozee, after the defense explained his client was due to be a guest of the Israel's administration 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.

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