🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors told the court that police maintained reasonable suspicions that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's phone held material related to acts of terrorism when they detained him last year as he tried to leave the UK.

Denial to Give Phone Password

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

Trial Claims on Counter-Terrorism Powers

On the final day of the proceedings, prosecutor Jo Morris argued that the anti-terror authorities employed by law enforcement are designed to allow information collection. She claimed that police had valid grounds to think the defendant continued to have links to right-wing groups, 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 believe that on his telephone there may be information relevant to terrorist acts,” she told Westminster magistrates court.

Morris continued, His opinions – to which he is allowed – were not the focus for their concern on 28 July. It was his association to individuals who are potentially engaged in prohibited activities.”

Details of the Stop

The activist had turned up alone at the Channel tunnel in a silver Bentley owned by a acquaintance and was on his way to the holiday destination of Benidorm with over £13,000 in a carry-on, the court heard.

The money was reportedly from a collection to offset costs from organizing a major rally that occurred the day before in a London landmark.

Legal Team Arguments

The defendant, who disputes 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 penalty if found guilty.

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

Citing testimony from officers who said they called other organizations” after arresting Robinson, the defense lawyer claimed this was a reference to the intelligence agencies and that no evidence had been offered from the security service to suggest his client was a terrorist.

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

He added that police had used an special authority that needs to be carefully regulated” to try to discover information that was already known. Williamson suggested that Robinson traveled to Benidorm frequently, which ought to have reduced the officers’ suspicions about him.

Expenses and Verdict Timing

Robinson claimed 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 emerged as an ally of the far-right activist and lately spoke at a rally arranged by him in London via a online broadcast.

A proposed date of the following Tuesday for the decision was altered by the district judge, Sam Goozee, after the defense said Robinson was scheduled to be a guest of the Israeli government 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,” stated Williamson.

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