🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors informed the court that law enforcement had reasonable suspicions that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's phone contained information relevant to acts of terrorism when they stopped him last year as he tried to depart from the UK.

Denial to Provide Device Password

The right-wing campaigner, whose legal name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, reportedly declined to provide his password to police, stating it contained journalist content.” This happened after he was intercepted at the Channel tunnel on 28 July 2024.

Prosecution Claims on Counter-Terrorism Powers

On the last day of the trial, state lawyer Jo Morris argued that the counter-terrorism powers used by police are designed to allow intelligence gathering. She claimed that police had reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant still have links to far-right activists, even following the disbandment of the English Defence League (EDL).

While his membership of the EDL has ceased, his views have not gone away. He is known for holding those opinions and therefore it is a valid concern to believe that on his telephone 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 subject for their concern on July 28. It was his association to others who are potentially involved in prohibited activities.”

Circumstances of the Stop

The campaigner had arrived alone at the Channel tunnel in a luxury vehicle owned by a friend and was traveling to the Spanish resort of Benidorm with more than £13,000 in a small bag, the trial heard.

The funds was reportedly from a collection to cover costs from organizing a major rally that took place the previous day in Trafalgar Square.

Legal Team Arguments

The defendant, who disputes failing to comply with counter-terrorism powers during the incident on 28 July last year, could receive up to three months in prison or a potential £2,500 fine if convicted.

His barrister, Alisdair Williamson KC, said in final arguments that anti-terror officers who stopped his client had conducted a speculative search” and that he had been illegally held.

Referring to testimony from police who stated they called other organizations” after arresting Robinson, Williamson said this was a allusion to the security services and that lack of proof had been offered from the security service to suggest his defendant was a terrorist.

He asserted the officers’ action was biased” because it was based to a “significant degree on a protected characteristic.” 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 “extraordinary power that needs to be carefully regulated” to try to find out details that was previously available. The barrister suggested that his client traveled to Benidorm frequently, which ought to have reduced the officers’ concerns about him.

Legal Costs and Judgment Timing

Robinson claimed that his legal costs in the proceedings were being paid for by the tech billionaire, the owner of X and Tesla, who has appeared as an supporter of the campaigner and lately addressed a gathering arranged by him in the capital via a livestream.

A suggested date of next Tuesday for the decision was changed by the district judge, Sam Goozee, after the defense explained his client was scheduled to be a guest of the Israel's administration from Wednesday 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,” stated Williamson.

Goozee announced he would hand down his ruling on the start of 4 November.