🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives informed the tribunal 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 tried to depart from the UK.

Refusal to Give Device Pin

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

Prosecution Arguments on Anti-Terror Powers

On the final day of the trial, prosecutor the prosecution stated that the anti-terror authorities employed by law enforcement are intended to allow intelligence gathering. She asserted that officers had reasonable suspicion to think Robinson still have connections to far-right activists, even after the disbandment of the EDL organization.

While his membership of the English Defence League has ceased, his views have not disappeared. He is recognized for having those views and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to believe that on his telephone there may be data relevant to terrorist acts,” she informed Westminster magistrates court.

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

Circumstances of the Detention

The activist had arrived alone at the Eurotunnel in a luxury vehicle belonging to a acquaintance 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 offset costs from arranging 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 incident on July 28 last year, faces up to three months in prison or a potential £2,500 fine if convicted.

His barrister, defense counsel, said in closing submissions that anti-terror officers who stopped Robinson had engaged in a speculative search” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Referring to evidence from police who stated they contacted “partner agencies” after arresting Robinson, the defense lawyer said this was a allusion to the security services and that no evidence had been presented from MI5 to indicate his client was a terrorist.

He said the police intervention was biased” because it was based to a large extent on a protected characteristic.” He stated that the “predominant influence” on the decision to stop him was recognizing his identity”.

He noted that police had used an special authority that needs to be carefully regulated” to try to find out details that was previously available. Williamson suggested that Robinson traveled to Benidorm frequently, which ought to have lessened the officers’ concerns about him.

Expenses and Verdict Timing

Robinson stated that his legal costs in the proceedings were being covered by the tech billionaire, the owner of social media and electric car companies, who has appeared as an ally of the campaigner and lately addressed a rally arranged by him in the capital via a livestream.

A proposed date of next Tuesday for the decision was altered by the magistrate, the judge, after the defense said Robinson was due to be a invitee of the Israel's administration from Wednesday and would not return 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,” stated Williamson.

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