🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives informed the court that police had reasonable suspicions indicating Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's mobile held information relevant to acts of terrorism when they detained him last 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, reportedly refused to provide his password to officers, claiming it contained journalist content.” This occurred after he was intercepted at the Channel tunnel on 28 July 2024.

Prosecution Arguments on Counter-Terrorism Authority

On the final day of the trial, prosecutor the prosecution argued that the anti-terror authorities used by law enforcement are designed to allow intelligence gathering. She asserted that police had reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant continued to have connections to far-right activists, even following the dissolution of the EDL organization.

While his membership of the EDL has come to an end, his beliefs have not gone away. He is recognized for having those opinions and therefore it is a valid concern to think that on his phone there could be data relevant to terrorist acts,” she told the court.

Morris continued, His opinions – to which he is entitled – were not the focus for their concern on July 28. It was his association to individuals who are possibly engaged in prohibited activities.”

Circumstances of the Detention

The activist had turned up by himself at the Eurotunnel in a luxury vehicle owned by a acquaintance and was on his way to the holiday destination of the Spanish coast with over £13,000 in a carry-on, the trial heard.

The funds was reportedly from a donation drive to offset expenses from organizing a major rally that took place the day before in Trafalgar Square.

Legal Team Submissions

The defendant, who disputes non-compliance with counter-terrorism powers during the incident on July 28 of the previous year, could receive up to three months in prison or a possible £2,500 penalty if found guilty.

His lawyer, defense counsel, argued in final arguments that counter-terrorism police who detained his client had engaged in a speculative search” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Referring to evidence from officers who stated they contacted “partner agencies” after detaining him, the defense lawyer claimed this was a allusion to the intelligence agencies and that lack of proof had been presented from MI5 to suggest his client was a security threat.

He said the police action was biased” because it was based to a “significant degree on a protected characteristic.” He said that the main factor” on the choice to stop him was recognizing his identity”.

He added that officers had used an “extraordinary power that must be properly policed” to try to find out details that was already known. The barrister suggested that Robinson journeyed to Benidorm frequently, which should have lessened the police concerns about him.

Expenses and Verdict Timing

The activist stated that his court expenses in the case were being paid for by the tech billionaire, the owner of X and Tesla, who has appeared as an supporter of the far-right activist and lately addressed a gathering organized by him in the capital via a online broadcast.

A suggested day of the following Tuesday for the verdict was altered by the district judge, Sam Goozee, after the defense explained Robinson was scheduled to be a invitee of the Israel's administration from the midweek 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.

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