Officers Suspected Stephen Yaxley-Lennon Had Terrorist Information on Mobile Device, Trial Told.

Prosecutors told the tribunal that police had valid concerns that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's phone contained material related to terrorist activities when they detained him last year as he attempted to depart from the UK.

Refusal to Give Device Pin

The far-right activist, using his real name is Tommy Robinson, reportedly refused to provide his phone pin to police, stating it included journalist content.” This occurred after he was stopped at the Eurotunnel on July 28, 2024.

Prosecution Arguments on Counter-Terrorism Powers

On the last day of the proceedings, prosecutor Jo Morris argued that the anti-terror authorities employed by police are intended to permit information collection. She asserted that officers had valid grounds to believe the defendant still have connections to far-right activists, even after the disbandment of the English Defence League (EDL).

While his membership of the English Defence League has ceased, his views have not gone away. He is recognized for having those views and therefore it is a valid concern to think that on his telephone there may be information relevant to terrorist acts,” she told the court.

The prosecutor continued, His opinions – to which he is allowed – were not the focus for their concern on 28 July. It was his connection to individuals who are possibly engaged in prohibited activities.”

Details of the Detention

The activist had arrived by himself at the Channel tunnel in a luxury vehicle owned by a acquaintance and was on his way to the Spanish resort of Benidorm with more than £13,000 in a small bag, the trial heard.

The funds was reportedly from a collection to cover expenses from organizing a large demonstration that took place the day before in a London landmark.

Legal Team Arguments

The defendant, who denies non-compliance with anti-terror laws during the encounter on 28 July of the previous year, faces up to 90 days in jail or a potential £2,500 fine if convicted.

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

Referring to testimony from police who stated they called other organizations” after arresting Robinson, Williamson said this was a allusion to the security services and that lack of proof had been presented from MI5 to suggest his client was a security threat.

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

He added that officers had used an special authority that must be carefully regulated” to try to discover information that was already known. Williamson suggested that Robinson traveled to the resort regularly, which ought to have lessened the officers’ concerns about him.

Legal Costs and Judgment Date

The activist claimed that his legal costs in the case were being paid for by the tech billionaire, the owner of social media and electric car companies, who has emerged as an supporter of the campaigner and recently addressed a gathering organized by him in the capital via a livestream.

A suggested day of next Tuesday for the decision was altered by the magistrate, Sam Goozee, after the defense explained Robinson was due to be a invitee of the Israeli government from the midweek and would not come back 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,” stated Williamson.

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