🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives told the court that police maintained valid concerns that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's phone held material relevant to acts of terrorism when they stopped him in the previous year as he attempted to leave the UK.

Denial to Give Phone Pin

The right-wing campaigner, using his legal name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, reportedly refused to provide his phone pin to officers, claiming it included journalist content.” This occurred after he was intercepted at the Channel tunnel on 28 July 2024.

Trial Claims on Anti-Terror Powers

On the final day of the trial, prosecutor Jo Morris argued that the counter-terrorism powers employed by law enforcement are intended to allow information collection. She claimed that police had reasonable suspicion to believe Robinson continued to have connections to right-wing groups, even following the dissolution of the English Defence League (EDL).

“Although his affiliation of the EDL has come to an end, his beliefs have not disappeared. He is known for having those opinions and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to think that on his telephone there may be information pertaining to acts of terrorism,” she told Westminster magistrates court.

Morris continued, His opinions – to which he is allowed – were not the focus for their attention on 28 July. It was his connection to individuals who are possibly involved in illegal actions.”

Circumstances of the Detention

The campaigner had turned up alone at the Channel tunnel in a silver Bentley owned by a friend and was traveling to the holiday destination of Benidorm with over £13,000 in a small bag, the court was told.

The money was reportedly from a collection to cover expenses from organizing a large demonstration that occurred the previous day in a London landmark.

Defense Arguments

The defendant, who denies failing to comply with anti-terror laws during the incident on 28 July of the previous 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 counter-terrorism police who stopped Robinson had conducted a speculative search” and that he had been illegally held.

Citing evidence from officers who stated they called other organizations” after detaining him, the defense lawyer said this was a allusion to the intelligence agencies and that lack of proof had been presented from the security service to indicate his client was a terrorist.

He asserted the officers’ action was “discriminatory” because it was based to a “significant degree on a personal attribute.” He said that the “predominant influence” on the decision to stop him was recognizing his identity”.

He noted 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 journeyed to the resort regularly, which ought to have lessened the police concerns about him.

Legal Costs and Judgment Date

The activist stated that his court expenses in the proceedings were being paid for by Elon Musk, the owner of social media and electric car companies, who has appeared as an ally of the campaigner and lately spoke at a rally arranged by him in the capital via a online broadcast.

A suggested day of the following Tuesday for the decision was changed by the district judge, the judge, after Williamson said 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,” said the barrister.

Goozee said he would hand down his ruling on the morning of 4 November.