Police Thought Stephen Yaxley-Lennon Had Terrorism-Related Information on Mobile Device, Court Hears.

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 tried to leave the UK.

Denial to Give Phone Password

The far-right activist, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, allegedly refused to hand over his password to officers, claiming it included journalist content.” This happened after he was stopped at the Channel tunnel on July 28, 2024.

Trial Arguments on Anti-Terror Powers

On the final day of the trial, state lawyer Jo Morris stated that the counter-terrorism powers used by police are designed to permit information collection. She asserted that police had reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant continued to have connections to right-wing groups, even following the disbandment of the English Defence League (EDL).

“Although his membership of the EDL has ceased, his views have not gone away. He is recognized for having those opinions and therefore it is a valid concern to believe that on his phone there could be information relevant to acts of terrorism,” she informed the court.

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

Circumstances of the Stop

The activist had turned up 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 court heard.

The money was said to have been from a donation drive to offset expenses from arranging a major rally that took place the day before in Trafalgar Square.

Defense Arguments

The defendant, who denies non-compliance with counter-terrorism powers during the incident on 28 July of the previous year, could receive up to 90 days in jail or a potential £2,500 fine if found guilty.

His barrister, defense counsel, said in final arguments that counter-terrorism police who detained Robinson had conducted a speculative search” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Citing testimony from officers who stated they called “partner agencies” after detaining Robinson, the defense lawyer said this was a allusion to the intelligence agencies and that no evidence had been presented from MI5 to suggest his client was a security threat.

He said the officers’ intervention was “discriminatory” because it was based to a large extent on a personal attribute.” He said that the main factor” on the choice to stop him was recognizing his identity”.

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

Legal Costs and Verdict Timing

Robinson claimed that his court expenses in the proceedings were being covered by the tech billionaire, the proprietor of social media and electric car companies, who has emerged as an ally of the campaigner and recently addressed a gathering arranged by him in London via a livestream.

A suggested date of next Tuesday for the verdict was changed by the district judge, Sam Goozee, after the defense said Robinson was due to be a guest of the Israeli government 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,” stated the barrister.

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