🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives told the court that police maintained valid concerns that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's phone contained information related to terrorist activities when they detained him in the previous year as he attempted to leave the UK.

Denial to Give Device Password

The far-right activist, whose legal name is Tommy Robinson, allegedly declined to provide his phone pin to officers, stating it contained “journalistic material.” This occurred after he was intercepted at the Eurotunnel on 28 July 2024.

Trial Arguments on Anti-Terror Authority

On the last day of the proceedings, state lawyer the prosecution argued that the anti-terror authorities employed by police are intended to allow information collection. She claimed that police had reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant still have links to right-wing groups, even after the disbandment of the English Defence League (EDL).

“Although his membership of the EDL has come to an end, his beliefs have not disappeared. He is recognized for holding those opinions and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to believe that on his phone there may be information pertaining to terrorist acts,” she informed the court.

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

Details of the Stop

The activist had arrived alone at the Eurotunnel in a silver Bentley owned by a acquaintance and was on his way to the Spanish resort of the Spanish coast with over £13,000 in a carry-on, the court was told.

The money was said to have been from a collection to offset expenses from arranging a major rally that occurred the day before in a London landmark.

Legal Team Arguments

Robinson, who denies failing to comply with anti-terror laws 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 found guilty.

His lawyer, Alisdair Williamson KC, argued in closing submissions that anti-terror officers who detained his client had conducted a “fishing expedition” and that he had been illegally held.

Referring to evidence from police who said they called “partner agencies” after detaining him, the defense lawyer claimed this was a reference to the security services and that no evidence had been presented from the security service to suggest his client was a security threat.

He asserted the police intervention was “discriminatory” because it was based to a “significant degree on a personal attribute.” He said that the main factor” on the decision to stop him was recognizing his identity”.

He added that officers had used an special authority that must be properly policed” to try to discover details that was previously available. The barrister proposed that his client journeyed to Benidorm frequently, which ought to have lessened the police suspicions about him.

Expenses and Verdict Timing

The activist claimed that his court expenses in the case were being paid for by Elon Musk, the proprietor of social media and electric car companies, who has emerged as an ally of the campaigner and lately addressed a gathering organized by him in the capital via a online broadcast.

A suggested date of next Tuesday for the verdict was altered by the district judge, the judge, after Williamson said his client was due to be a guest of the Israel's administration from Wednesday 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 Williamson.

The judge announced he would hand down his verdict on the morning of 4 November.