🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives informed the court that law enforcement had reasonable suspicions that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's mobile contained material related to acts of terrorism when they stopped him last year as he tried to leave the UK.

Denial to Give Device Pin

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

Prosecution Arguments on Counter-Terrorism Powers

On the final day of the proceedings, state lawyer the prosecution stated that the anti-terror authorities used by law enforcement are designed to allow intelligence gathering. She asserted that police had valid grounds to believe Robinson still have links to far-right activists, even following the dissolution of the English Defence League (EDL).

“Although his membership of the English Defence League has ceased, his beliefs have not disappeared. He is recognized for having those views and therefore it is a valid concern to think that on his phone there may be data pertaining to terrorist acts,” she informed the court.

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

Details of the Detention

The campaigner had turned up alone at the Eurotunnel in a luxury vehicle belonging to a acquaintance and was traveling to the holiday destination of Benidorm with more than £13,000 in a carry-on, the court heard.

The funds was said to have been from a donation drive to cover costs from arranging a large demonstration that occurred the previous day in Trafalgar Square.

Defense Arguments

The defendant, who denies non-compliance with counter-terrorism powers during the incident on July 28 of the previous year, faces up to three months in jail or a possible £2,500 fine if found guilty.

His lawyer, Alisdair Williamson KC, argued in final arguments that counter-terrorism police who stopped Robinson had conducted a speculative search” and that he had been illegally held.

Referring to testimony from officers who stated they contacted other organizations” after detaining Robinson, the defense lawyer claimed this was a allusion to the intelligence agencies and that lack of proof had been offered from the security service 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 stated that the main factor” on the decision to detain him was recognizing his identity”.

He noted that officers had used an special authority that must be properly policed” to try to discover information that was previously available. The barrister suggested that Robinson journeyed to the resort regularly, which ought to have lessened the officers’ suspicions about him.

Expenses and Judgment Timing

The activist stated that his court expenses in the case were being paid for by Elon Musk, the owner of social media and electric car companies, who has appeared as an supporter of the campaigner and recently addressed a gathering arranged by him in London via a online broadcast.

A suggested date of next Tuesday for the decision was altered by the magistrate, Sam Goozee, after the defense explained his client was scheduled to be a invitee of the Israel's administration 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,” said Williamson.

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