🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors told the court that law enforcement maintained valid concerns indicating Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's phone contained information relevant to terrorist activities when they detained him in the previous year as he attempted to leave the UK.

Denial to Provide Phone Pin

The far-right activist, whose real name is Tommy Robinson, allegedly refused to hand over his phone pin to police, stating it included “journalistic material.” This occurred after he was intercepted at the Channel tunnel on July 28, 2024.

Trial Arguments on Counter-Terrorism Powers

On the last day of the proceedings, prosecutor Jo Morris argued that the anti-terror authorities employed by police are designed to allow information collection. She asserted that police had reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant continued to have links to right-wing groups, even after the dissolution of the English Defence League (EDL).

“Although his affiliation of the English Defence League has come to an end, his views have not gone away. He is recognized for holding those views and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to think that on his phone there may be data relevant to acts of terrorism,” she informed the court.

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

Details of the Stop

The campaigner had arrived alone at the Channel tunnel in a luxury vehicle belonging to a acquaintance and was traveling to the holiday destination of the Spanish coast with over £13,000 in a carry-on, the trial was told.

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

Legal Team Arguments

Robinson, who disputes non-compliance with counter-terrorism powers during the encounter on July 28 last year, faces up to 90 days in jail or a possible £2,500 penalty if convicted.

His lawyer, defense counsel, argued in final arguments that anti-terror officers who detained Robinson had conducted a “fishing expedition” and that he had been illegally held.

Citing evidence from police who said they contacted other organizations” after arresting Robinson, the defense lawyer claimed this was a reference to the intelligence agencies and that no evidence had been presented from MI5 to suggest his client was a terrorist.

He said the police intervention was “discriminatory” because it was based to a “significant degree on a protected characteristic.” He said that the “predominant influence” on the decision to stop him was “‘oh look, it’s Tommy Robinson”.

He added that police had used an special authority that must be carefully regulated” to try to discover information that was already known. The barrister suggested that Robinson traveled to the resort frequently, which ought to have lessened the officers’ concerns about him.

Expenses and Judgment Timing

The activist claimed that his legal costs in the case were being covered by the tech billionaire, the proprietor of X and Tesla, who has appeared as an ally of the campaigner and recently spoke at a gathering arranged by him in London via a online broadcast.

A suggested day of the following Tuesday for the verdict was altered by the magistrate, the judge, after Williamson explained his client was due to be a guest of the Israeli government from Wednesday 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.

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