🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives informed the tribunal that police maintained reasonable suspicions that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's phone contained information relevant to acts of terrorism when they detained him last year as he tried to leave the UK.

Refusal to Provide Phone Password

The far-right activist, using his legal name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, allegedly declined to provide his password to officers, claiming it included journalist content.” This occurred after he was stopped at the Channel tunnel on July 28, 2024.

Prosecution Claims on Anti-Terror Powers

On the last day of the proceedings, state lawyer Jo Morris stated that the counter-terrorism powers used by police are intended to permit information collection. She claimed that police had valid grounds to believe Robinson still have links to right-wing groups, even following the disbandment of the EDL organization.

“Although his membership of the English Defence League has come to an end, his beliefs have not gone away. He is recognized for holding those views and therefore it is a valid concern to think that on his phone there may be information relevant to acts of terrorism,” she informed the court.

The prosecutor added, “His beliefs – to which he is allowed – were not the focus for their concern on 28 July. It was his association to others who are potentially engaged in illegal actions.”

Details of the Detention

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

The funds was reportedly from a collection to cover expenses from organizing a large demonstration that took place the previous day in Trafalgar Square.

Defense Arguments

The defendant, who denies non-compliance with anti-terror laws during the incident on July 28 of the previous year, faces up to three months in prison or a possible £2,500 penalty if convicted.

His lawyer, Alisdair Williamson KC, said in closing submissions that anti-terror officers who detained his client had conducted a “fishing expedition” and that he had been illegally held.

Referring to testimony from police who said they contacted “partner agencies” after detaining him, Williamson claimed this was a allusion to the security services and that no evidence had been presented from MI5 to suggest his client was a security threat.

He said the officers’ intervention was biased” because it was based to a “significant degree on a personal attribute.” He said that the main factor” on the choice to detain him was recognizing his identity”.

He noted that officers had used an “extraordinary power that must be carefully regulated” to try to discover details that was previously available. Williamson proposed that his client journeyed to Benidorm frequently, which ought to have lessened the police concerns about him.

Expenses and Verdict Timing

The activist 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 appeared as an supporter of the far-right activist and recently addressed a rally arranged by him in the capital via a online broadcast.

A proposed day of the following Tuesday for the decision was changed by the magistrate, Sam Goozee, after the defense explained his client was due to be a guest 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,” stated the barrister.

The judge announced he would deliver his ruling on the morning of 4 November.