🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives informed the tribunal that law enforcement maintained reasonable suspicions indicating Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's phone contained information related to acts of terrorism when they stopped him last year as he attempted to depart from the UK.

Refusal to Give Device Pin

The far-right activist, using his real name is Tommy Robinson, reportedly declined to provide his password to officers, stating it included journalist content.” This happened after he was intercepted at the Channel tunnel on July 28, 2024.

Prosecution Claims on Anti-Terror Powers

On the final day of the proceedings, state lawyer Jo Morris stated that the counter-terrorism powers employed by police are designed to permit information collection. She asserted that officers had reasonable suspicion to think Robinson continued to have connections to far-right activists, even after the dissolution of the English Defence League (EDL).

“Although his membership of the EDL has come to an end, his views have not disappeared. He is recognized for having those views and therefore it is a valid concern to think that on his telephone there could be information pertaining to terrorist acts,” she told the court.

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

Circumstances of the Stop

The activist had arrived by himself at the Channel tunnel in a luxury vehicle owned by a friend and was on his way to the holiday destination of the Spanish coast with more than £13,000 in a small bag, the court was told.

The funds was said to have been from a donation drive to offset costs from arranging a major rally that occurred the previous day in a London landmark.

Legal Team Submissions

The defendant, who disputes failing to comply with counter-terrorism powers during the encounter on July 28 last year, faces up to three months in jail or a potential £2,500 fine if convicted.

His barrister, defense counsel, said in final arguments that anti-terror officers who detained his client had conducted a speculative search” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Referring to testimony from police who stated they contacted “partner agencies” after arresting him, Williamson claimed this was a reference to the security services and that no evidence had been offered from the security service to suggest his client was a terrorist.

He asserted the officers’ intervention was biased” because it was based to a large extent on a personal attribute.” He said that the main factor” on the decision 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 previously available. Williamson suggested that Robinson journeyed to the resort frequently, which ought to have lessened the police concerns about him.

Expenses and Judgment Timing

Robinson claimed that his legal costs in the proceedings were being paid for by the tech billionaire, the proprietor of social media and electric car companies, who has emerged as an ally of the far-right activist and lately addressed a gathering arranged by him in the capital via a livestream.

A proposed day of next Tuesday for the verdict was altered by the magistrate, the judge, after the defense said Robinson was due to be a guest of the Israeli government 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 announced he would deliver his verdict on the morning of 4 November.