🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors told the court that law enforcement had reasonable suspicions indicating Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's phone held information relevant to terrorist activities when they detained him in the previous year as he attempted to leave the UK.

Refusal to Give Phone Pin

The right-wing campaigner, using his legal name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, allegedly declined to hand over his password to officers, stating it included “journalistic material.” This occurred after he was intercepted at the Channel tunnel on July 28, 2024.

Trial Arguments on Anti-Terror Authority

On the last day of the trial, prosecutor the prosecution argued that the anti-terror authorities employed by police are intended to allow information collection. She claimed that officers had reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant continued to have links to right-wing groups, even following the dissolution of the EDL organization.

“Although his affiliation of the English Defence League has ceased, his views have not disappeared. He is known for holding those views and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to think that on his phone there could be information relevant to acts of terrorism,” she informed the court.

Morris continued, His opinions – to which he is entitled – were not the focus for their attention on 28 July. It was his connection to individuals who are potentially involved in prohibited activities.”

Details of the Stop

The activist had arrived alone at the Channel tunnel in a silver Bentley owned by a friend and was traveling to the holiday destination of the Spanish coast with over £13,000 in a carry-on, the trial was told.

The funds was reportedly from a collection to cover costs from organizing a major rally that occurred the previous day in a London landmark.

Legal Team Arguments

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

His lawyer, Alisdair Williamson KC, said in closing submissions that counter-terrorism police who stopped his client had engaged in a speculative search” and that he had been illegally held.

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 no evidence had been presented from MI5 to suggest his client was a security threat.

He said the officers’ action was biased” because it was based to a large extent on a personal attribute.” He said that the main factor” on the decision to detain him was recognizing his identity”.

He added that officers had used an special authority that needs to be carefully regulated” to try to discover details that was already known. The barrister suggested that his client traveled to Benidorm regularly, which ought to have lessened the police suspicions about him.

Expenses and Judgment Timing

Robinson stated that his legal costs in the proceedings were being paid for by the tech billionaire, the proprietor of social media and electric car companies, who has emerged as an supporter of the far-right activist and lately spoke at a gathering arranged by him in London via a online broadcast.

A proposed date of the following Tuesday for the decision was changed by the magistrate, the judge, after the defense explained Robinson was scheduled to be a guest of the Israel's administration 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 the barrister.

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