🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors informed the court that police had valid concerns indicating Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's mobile contained material related to acts of terrorism when they detained him in the previous year as he tried to depart from the UK.

Refusal to Give Phone Password

The far-right activist, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, allegedly refused to provide his password to police, stating it included journalist content.” This happened after he was intercepted at the Eurotunnel on 28 July 2024.

Prosecution Arguments on Counter-Terrorism Powers

On the final day of the trial, state lawyer the prosecution argued that the counter-terrorism powers employed by law enforcement are intended to permit intelligence gathering. She asserted that officers had valid grounds to believe the defendant still have links to right-wing groups, even after the dissolution of the EDL organization.

While his affiliation of the English Defence League has ceased, his beliefs have not gone away. He is known for holding those views and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to believe that on his phone there may be data pertaining to terrorist acts,” she told the court.

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

Details of the Stop

The campaigner had turned up by himself at the Eurotunnel in a silver Bentley belonging to a friend and was on his way to the holiday destination of Benidorm with more than £13,000 in a carry-on, the trial heard.

The funds was reportedly from a collection to offset costs from arranging a large demonstration that took place the previous day in a London landmark.

Defense Submissions

The defendant, who denies failing to comply with anti-terror laws during the encounter on July 28 of the previous year, could receive up to 90 days in prison or a potential £2,500 fine if convicted.

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

Referring to evidence from officers who stated they contacted “partner agencies” after detaining him, the defense lawyer claimed this was a allusion to the security services and that no evidence had been offered from MI5 to suggest his client was a security threat.

Williamson asserted the police intervention was “discriminatory” because it was based to a large extent on a protected characteristic.” He said that the “predominant influence” on the decision to stop him was recognizing his identity”.

He noted that officers had used an “extraordinary power that must be properly policed” to try to find out details that was previously available. Williamson suggested that his client traveled to Benidorm regularly, which ought to have lessened the police concerns about him.

Legal Costs and Verdict Date

The activist claimed that his court expenses in the case were being covered by the tech billionaire, the proprietor of X and Tesla, who has appeared as an supporter of the far-right activist and recently addressed a rally arranged by him in the capital via a livestream.

A suggested date of next Tuesday for the verdict was altered by the magistrate, Sam Goozee, after the defense said Robinson was due to be a invitee 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 Williamson.

The judge said he would hand down his verdict on the start of 4 November.