🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors informed the tribunal that law enforcement had valid concerns indicating Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's phone held information 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 Tommy Robinson, reportedly refused to provide his phone pin to officers, stating it contained journalist content.” This occurred after he was intercepted at the Eurotunnel on 28 July 2024.

Trial Arguments on Counter-Terrorism Powers

On the last day of the trial, prosecutor Jo Morris stated that the counter-terrorism powers used by law enforcement are intended to permit information collection. She asserted that police had valid grounds to think the defendant continued to have links to far-right activists, even after the dissolution of the English Defence League (EDL).

“Although his affiliation of the EDL has come to an end, his views have not disappeared. He is known for holding those views and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to think that on his phone there could be information relevant to terrorist acts,” she told Westminster magistrates court.

The prosecutor continued, His opinions – to which he is entitled – were not the subject for their attention on July 28. It was his connection to individuals who are possibly engaged in illegal actions.”

Circumstances of the Detention

The activist had arrived by himself at the Eurotunnel in a silver Bentley belonging to a acquaintance and was traveling to the Spanish resort of Benidorm with over £13,000 in a carry-on, the court heard.

The funds was reportedly from a donation drive to offset costs from arranging a large demonstration that occurred the day before in Trafalgar Square.

Legal Team Arguments

The defendant, who disputes failing to comply with counter-terrorism powers during the encounter on July 28 last year, could receive up to three months in jail or a possible £2,500 penalty if found guilty.

His barrister, defense counsel, said in final arguments that counter-terrorism police who stopped Robinson had engaged in a speculative search” and that he had been illegally held.

Citing testimony from police who stated they called “partner agencies” after detaining Robinson, the defense lawyer said this was a allusion to the intelligence agencies and that no evidence had been presented from MI5 to indicate his defendant was a security threat.

Williamson asserted the police action was “discriminatory” because it was based to a “significant degree on a personal attribute.” He said that the “predominant influence” on the choice to detain him was recognizing his identity”.

He noted that police had used an special authority that needs to be properly policed” to try to find out details that was already known. Williamson suggested that his client traveled to the resort regularly, which should have reduced the police suspicions about him.

Expenses and Verdict Timing

The activist claimed that his legal costs in the case 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 campaigner and recently addressed a rally organized by him in London via a online broadcast.

A proposed day of next Tuesday for the verdict was altered by the magistrate, the judge, after Williamson explained Robinson was scheduled to be a invitee of the Israeli government 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,” stated Williamson.

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