🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives told the tribunal that police maintained reasonable suspicions indicating Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's phone held material relevant to terrorist activities when they stopped him last year as he tried to depart from the UK.

Refusal to Provide Phone Pin

The right-wing campaigner, using his legal name is Tommy Robinson, reportedly declined to provide his phone pin to police, stating it contained journalist content.” This happened after he was intercepted at the Channel tunnel on July 28, 2024.

Prosecution Claims on Counter-Terrorism Powers

On the last day of the trial, prosecutor Jo Morris argued that the anti-terror authorities employed by law enforcement are designed to permit information collection. She claimed that police had valid grounds to believe the defendant continued to have links to far-right activists, even following the disbandment of the EDL organization.

“Although his membership of the English Defence League has come to an end, his views have not gone away. He is recognized for having those opinions and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to believe that on his telephone there could be data pertaining to terrorist acts,” she told the court.

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

Circumstances of the Stop

The activist had turned up by himself at the Eurotunnel in a luxury vehicle belonging to a friend and was on his way to the holiday destination of Benidorm with over £13,000 in a carry-on, the court was told.

The money was said to have been from a donation drive to cover costs from organizing a large demonstration that took place the previous day in Trafalgar Square.

Legal Team Arguments

The defendant, who denies failing to comply with counter-terrorism powers during the incident on 28 July of the previous year, could receive up to 90 days in jail or a potential £2,500 penalty if convicted.

His lawyer, defense counsel, argued in final arguments that anti-terror officers who detained Robinson had engaged in a speculative search” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Citing testimony from police who stated they called other organizations” after arresting him, the defense lawyer said this was a allusion to the intelligence agencies and that lack of proof had been offered from the security service to indicate his client was a security threat.

Williamson said the officers’ intervention was “discriminatory” because it was based to a “significant degree on a protected characteristic.” He stated that the main factor” on the choice to detain him was recognizing his identity”.

He noted that police had used an “extraordinary power that needs to be properly policed” to try to discover details that was already known. The barrister proposed that Robinson traveled to the resort frequently, which ought to have reduced the police concerns about him.

Legal Costs and Judgment Timing

Robinson claimed that his legal costs in the proceedings were being covered by the tech billionaire, the owner of social media and electric car companies, who has emerged as an supporter of the far-right activist and lately addressed a gathering organized by him in London via a online broadcast.

A suggested date of the following Tuesday for the verdict was altered by the magistrate, Sam Goozee, after Williamson said his client was scheduled to be a invitee of the Israel's administration from the midweek and would not return 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,” said the barrister.

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