🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors informed the tribunal that law enforcement maintained reasonable suspicions indicating Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's mobile contained information relevant to terrorist activities when they stopped him last year as he attempted to leave the UK.

Refusal to Provide Phone Pin

The right-wing campaigner, using his real name is Tommy Robinson, allegedly declined to provide his phone pin to police, claiming it included journalist content.” This occurred after he was intercepted at the Channel tunnel on July 28, 2024.

Prosecution Arguments on Counter-Terrorism Powers

On the last day of the proceedings, prosecutor Jo Morris argued that the counter-terrorism powers used by police are intended to permit intelligence gathering. She asserted that officers had reasonable suspicion to believe Robinson still have connections to far-right activists, even following the dissolution of the EDL organization.

While his membership of the English Defence League has come to an end, his beliefs have not disappeared. He is known for holding those views and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to think that on his phone there could be data pertaining to acts of terrorism,” she informed Westminster magistrates court.

The prosecutor continued, “His beliefs – to which he is entitled – were not the subject for their concern on July 28. It was his association to others who are possibly involved in illegal actions.”

Circumstances of the Stop

The campaigner had arrived by himself at the Channel tunnel in a silver Bentley owned by a friend and was traveling to the holiday destination of the Spanish coast with more than £13,000 in a small bag, the court heard.

The funds was said to have been from a donation drive to offset costs from arranging a major rally that took place the previous day in Trafalgar Square.

Defense Arguments

Robinson, who denies failing to comply with anti-terror laws during the incident on July 28 last year, could receive up to 90 days in prison or a possible £2,500 penalty if found guilty.

His lawyer, defense counsel, said in closing submissions that counter-terrorism police who detained Robinson had engaged in a “fishing expedition” and that he had been illegally held.

Referring to testimony from police who said they contacted other organizations” after arresting Robinson, Williamson said this was a allusion to the intelligence agencies and that lack of proof had been offered from MI5 to suggest his defendant was a security threat.

Williamson asserted the officers’ action was biased” 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 noted that police had used an “extraordinary power that needs to be carefully regulated” to try to discover information that was already known. The barrister proposed that Robinson journeyed to the resort regularly, which ought to have reduced the police suspicions about him.

Legal Costs and Verdict Timing

The activist stated that his court expenses in the case were being paid for by the tech billionaire, the owner of social media and electric car companies, who has appeared as an ally of the campaigner and recently addressed a gathering arranged by him in London via a livestream.

A proposed date of the following Tuesday for the verdict was altered by the magistrate, Sam Goozee, after Williamson explained Robinson was due to be a invitee of the Israeli government from the midweek and would not come back 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,” stated the barrister.

The judge announced he would deliver his ruling on the morning of 4 November.