🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives informed the court that law enforcement maintained reasonable suspicions indicating Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's phone contained material relevant to terrorist activities when they detained him last year as he attempted to leave the UK.

Denial to Provide Phone Pin

The far-right activist, using his legal name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, allegedly refused to hand over his phone pin to officers, stating it included “journalistic material.” This occurred after he was stopped at the Channel tunnel on 28 July 2024.

Prosecution Claims on Counter-Terrorism Powers

On the last day of the proceedings, state lawyer Jo Morris stated that the counter-terrorism powers employed by police are intended to permit intelligence gathering. She claimed that police had valid grounds to believe the defendant continued to have connections to far-right activists, even after the dissolution of the English Defence League (EDL).

While his membership of the English Defence League has ceased, his beliefs have not gone away. He is known for holding those opinions and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to think that on his telephone there could be information relevant to terrorist acts,” she told Westminster magistrates court.

The prosecutor added, His opinions – to which he is entitled – were not the subject for their concern on 28 July. It was his association to others who are potentially involved in prohibited activities.”

Details of the Stop

The campaigner had turned up alone at the Eurotunnel in a silver Bentley belonging to a friend and was traveling to the Spanish resort of the Spanish coast with more than £13,000 in a small bag, the trial heard.

The money was reportedly from a collection to offset costs from arranging a large demonstration that occurred the previous day in a London landmark.

Defense Arguments

The defendant, who denies failing to comply with anti-terror laws during the encounter on 28 July last year, could receive up to 90 days in jail or a possible £2,500 penalty if convicted.

His barrister, defense counsel, said in closing submissions that counter-terrorism police who stopped Robinson had conducted a “fishing expedition” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Citing testimony from police who stated they called other organizations” after arresting him, the defense lawyer claimed this was a allusion to the intelligence agencies and that lack of proof had been offered from MI5 to indicate his defendant was a security threat.

Williamson asserted the officers’ action was biased” because it was based to a “significant degree on a protected characteristic.” He stated that the main factor” on the choice to stop him was recognizing his identity”.

He added that police had used an “extraordinary power that must be properly policed” to try to find out details that was already known. The barrister proposed that his client journeyed to Benidorm regularly, which ought to have reduced the police concerns about him.

Expenses and Judgment Timing

The activist claimed that his court expenses in the proceedings were being covered by the tech billionaire, the proprietor of X and Tesla, who has appeared as an ally of the campaigner and recently addressed a rally arranged by him in the capital via a online broadcast.

A suggested date of next Tuesday for the verdict was changed by the district judge, the judge, after the defense explained Robinson was scheduled to be a guest of the Israeli government from Wednesday and would not return 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.

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