If you think the verdict in R v Stephen Lennon is about one polarising figure, think again.
The court has just handed down a warning far bigger than the defendant: law enforcers in this country attempted to mount a terrorism-based prosecution against a man, not because he looked like a terrorist, but because they recognised him and disliked his political beliefs.
That is not hyperbole. That is the court’s finding.
What actually happened at the border
On 28 July 2024, Stephen Lennon drove to the Channel Tunnel alone in a Bentley. He handed over his passport. Within 34 seconds, officers had “selected” him for a Schedule 7 terrorism examination. They admitted recognising him immediately. They admitted knowing his political profile. They admitted being aware of his recent public activity.
And crucially, they could barely remember what questions they asked him beyond political ones.
The CCTV showed Lennon being left in public view at the booth for 22 minutes, and over 40 minutes passed before anyone formally detained him. The officers themselves could not explain what legal power justified that half-hour-plus limbo. None could clearly recall their reasoning. None could recall any terrorism-related questioning, just questions about his views, his associations, and “far-right” ideology.
Once detained, officers demanded the PIN to his iPhone. Lennon refused, citing journalistic material, something the law specifically requires to be protected. He was then prosecuted for refusing to hand over the PIN.
Let that settle: the state attempted to criminally convict someone because he refused to let officers browse political and journalistic material on his phone under terrorism powers.
The judge’s findings should make the country’s hair stand on end
The legal test was simple:
- Was the stop genuinely for the purpose of determining if Lennon appeared to be a terrorist?
- And did his political beliefs influence the decision to stop him?
The court’s findings were devastating:
- The judge “cannot be sure” the stop had the lawful terrorism purpose required by Schedule 7.
- But the judge was sure about something else: Lennon’s political beliefs “had a significant influence” on the officer’s decision to stop him.
- That makes the stop unlawful, discriminatory, and therefore the prosecution collapses.
- The final words: “I therefore find you not guilty.”
In a democracy, that should be a front-page warning flare.
This was not counter-terrorism. This was ideology-policing.
Schedule 7 is one of the most intrusive powers the British state possesses. It allows officers to stop, question, and detain individuals at borders with no suspicion whatsoever. The courts have tolerated this only because the powers are meant to be used exceptionally, strictly, and for terrorism purposes alone.
In this case, the officers:
- Used the power on a man they recognised for his politics.
- Could not describe any terrorism-related grounds.
- Could not recall any terrorism-related questions.
- Could not explain over 40 minutes of delay.
- Could not demonstrate anything beyond political curiosity and ideological discomfort.
Yet they pursued a criminal charge anyway, an accusation that could carry prison time.
If that’s not state over-reach, the term has no meaning.
This should alarm you—even if you dislike Lennon
Too many people will shrug this off because they dislike the man at the centre. That attitude is how liberties die. We do not build or maintain free societies by trusting the state to act fairly only against people we approve of.
Because if political belief is now a Schedule 7 “trigger”, if recognition at a checkpoint is enough, if phones containing political or journalistic material become open season, then nobody with an opinion, a platform, or a protected political stance is safe.
Today it was Lennon. Tomorrow it will be another journalist. Next week, an activist. Next month, someone who posts the wrong thing at the wrong time. Next year it could be you.
This case shows the machinery is already primed.
People need to push back—now
The UK is edging into dangerous territory when the state is:
- Comfortable using terrorism legislation on political dissidents,
- Comfortable detaining individuals for their beliefs,
- Comfortable demanding access to journalistic material,
- And then comfortable prosecuting them when they refuse.
If we don’t push back against this, we’re signalling to the state that these powers can be stretched, bent, and weaponised according to political convenience.
Democracies don’t usually lose their freedoms with a bang. They lose them through bureaucratic drift, operational shortcuts, and “just this once” exceptions. The court stopped this one. Will it stop the next?
The bottom line
The R v Lennon verdict is not a story about one individual. It is a story about the British state testing the limits of its most extreme powers, and being caught using them for the wrong reasons.
The judge said it plainly: the prosecution could not prove that the stop wasn’t driven by political beliefs.
That should terrify anyone who believes in liberty, due process, and democratic accountability.
This wasn’t counter-terrorism. This was state over-reach. And unless the public pushes back, the next target won’t need to be famous to be vulnerable… only identifiable.
The transcript of the verdict has been released, you can find it here: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/R-v-Stephen-Lennon.pdf
By Jack Lions
Rachel Reeves said in an interview after her speech about the budget ” Countries are lining up to do trade deals” it’s a big fat lie that brexit made our economy worse. Brexit made our economy better.