🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors told the tribunal that law enforcement had valid concerns indicating Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's mobile contained material related to terrorist activities when they stopped him in the previous year as he attempted to leave the UK.

Denial to Give Device Password

The far-right activist, using his legal name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, reportedly refused to provide his phone pin to officers, stating it contained “journalistic material.” This happened after he was intercepted at the Channel tunnel on July 28, 2024.

Trial Arguments on Anti-Terror Powers

On the final day of the trial, prosecutor Jo Morris argued that the anti-terror authorities used by police are designed to permit information collection. She claimed that police had reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant continued to have links to far-right activists, even after the dissolution of the English Defence League (EDL).

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

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

Circumstances of the Stop

The activist had arrived alone at the Eurotunnel in a silver Bentley owned by a friend and was traveling to the Spanish resort of the Spanish coast with over £13,000 in a small bag, the trial was told.

The funds was reportedly from a donation drive to offset costs from organizing a large demonstration that occurred the previous day in Trafalgar Square.

Defense Arguments

Robinson, who denies failing to comply with counter-terrorism powers during the encounter on July 28 last year, faces up to 90 days in prison or a potential £2,500 fine if convicted.

His lawyer, defense counsel, argued in closing submissions that anti-terror officers who stopped his client had conducted a “fishing expedition” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Referring to testimony from police who said they called other organizations” after detaining him, the defense lawyer said this was a allusion to the intelligence agencies and that no evidence had been presented from the security service to suggest his client was a security threat.

He asserted the officers’ intervention was “discriminatory” because it was based to a “significant degree on a personal attribute.” He stated that the “predominant influence” on the choice to detain him was recognizing his identity”.

He added that officers had used an special authority that must be carefully regulated” to try to discover information that was previously available. Williamson suggested that his client traveled to Benidorm frequently, which should have lessened the police suspicions about him.

Legal Costs and Judgment Timing

Robinson claimed that his court expenses in the proceedings were being covered by the tech billionaire, the owner of social media and electric car companies, who has emerged as an ally of the campaigner and lately spoke at a gathering arranged by him in London via a livestream.

A proposed day of next Tuesday for the decision was altered by the magistrate, Sam Goozee, after the defense said his client was due to be a invitee of the Israel's administration from the midweek 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,” said the barrister.

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