🔗 Share this article

Prosecutors told the tribunal that police maintained valid concerns that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's phone held information related to acts of terrorism when they detained him in the previous year as he tried to leave the UK.

Refusal to Provide Device Pin

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

Prosecution Arguments on Anti-Terror Powers

On the last day of the proceedings, prosecutor Jo Morris argued that the counter-terrorism powers employed by law enforcement are intended to permit intelligence gathering. She claimed that police had valid grounds to believe the defendant continued to have links to far-right activists, even following the dissolution of the English Defence League (EDL).

While his affiliation of the EDL has ceased, his beliefs have not disappeared. He is recognized for having those opinions and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to think that on his telephone there may be data relevant to acts of terrorism,” she informed the court.

The prosecutor continued, “His beliefs – to which he is entitled – were not the focus for their concern on 28 July. It was his connection to individuals who are potentially involved in prohibited activities.”

Details of the Detention

The activist had turned up by himself at the Channel tunnel in a silver Bentley owned by a friend 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 reportedly from a donation drive to offset expenses from organizing a large demonstration that took place the day before in Trafalgar Square.

Legal Team Submissions

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

His lawyer, defense counsel, argued in final arguments that counter-terrorism police who detained Robinson had engaged in a “fishing expedition” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Referring to evidence from police who said they contacted “partner agencies” after detaining Robinson, Williamson claimed this was a allusion to the intelligence agencies and that no evidence had been offered from the security service to suggest his client was a terrorist.

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

He added that police had used an “extraordinary power that needs to be carefully regulated” to try to discover information that was already known. Williamson suggested that his client traveled to the resort frequently, which ought to have reduced the officers’ concerns about him.

Expenses and Verdict Date

The activist stated that his legal costs in the case were being paid for by the tech billionaire, the proprietor of social media and electric car companies, who has emerged as an supporter of the far-right activist and lately 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 scheduled to be a invitee of the Israel's administration from Wednesday 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,” said the barrister.

The judge announced he would deliver his verdict on the start of 4 November.