CPS refuses to reveal details of Nick Griffin's race hate trial

Prosecutors claim releasing information about 1998 case would breach BNP leader's data protection rights

The Crown Prosecution Service is blocking attempts to disclose details about the prosecution of Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National party, for race hate crimes, claiming that to do so would breach his data protection rights.

Griffin was given a suspended prison sentence in 1998 after being convicted of "publishing or distributing racially inflammatory written material", an offence under the 1986 Public Order Act. The following year he was elected leader of the BNP.

The prosecution centred on a magazine edited by Griffin called the Rune, in which he dismissed the Holocaust as a hoax. At the trial he sacked his legal team and, conducting his own defence, attempted to justify the material he had published.

Griffin has been widely reported as dismissing the Holocaust as an "extremely profitable lie" when he gave evidence at Harrow crown court. But no transcript of the hearing was made and the only records about the case are held by the CPS.

Although the trial was heard in open court and ended in Griffin's conviction, the CPS has rejected an request made under the Freedom of Information Act (FoI) for disclosure of information in its files on the grounds that it is "sensitive personal data" that is protected by the Data Protection Act.

In a letter to the Guardian, which submitted the request almost four months ago, the CPS said: "The majority of the information contained in the case papers is personal data.

"A large proportion of this personal data is sensitive personal data because it consists of information as to the commission of an offence and Mr Griffin's political opinions."

On appeal, the CPS last week reiterated its view that Griffin's rights are not outweighed by the public interest in the disclosure of the information.

Only last month the government announced fresh guidelines intended to give the public more information about criminal prosecutions.

Unveiling the guidelines, Alan Johnson, the home secretary, said they were intended "to set straight the misconception that human rights and data protection laws prevent criminals and their punishments from being exposed".

The Guardian is now lodging a complaint with the Information ­Commissioner's Office, which is responsible for final decisions on FoI requests.

The Guardian

Family of Winston Churchill slams BNP over far-right party's attempt to hijack wartime leader's legacy

Relatives of Sir Winston Churchill have denounced as ‘monstrous’ an attempt by BNP leader Nick Griffin to cloak himself in the mantle of Britain's greatest wartime leader.

The far-right British National Party’s election broadcast, which is screened nationwide this evening, features Mr Griffin quoting from one of Churchill’s most famous speeches. The BNP chief uses the broadcast to argue that modern Britain, with its record of welcoming immigrants, has betrayed the ‘the blood, sweat, toil and tears’ of those who fought for freedom in the Second World War.

The advert, which features footage of Sir Winston and British war graves, provoked fury from descendants of Churchill, who have tried to ban the BNP from appropriating his image. Tory MP Nicholas Soames, Sir Winston’s grandson, revealed yesterday that he has tried and failed to get election watchdogs to ban the BNP from using Churchill as a vote winner.

Mr Griffin was also accused of ‘sickening hypocrisy’ after it emerged that he once praised the 'limitless courage and sacrifice', of Hitler’s SS, and described the RAF’s bombing of Dresden as 'mass murder'.

Mr Soames told the Mail he has consulted lawyers and tried to get the Electoral Commission to step in and stop the BNP, but confessed he had been rebuffed. He said he has received ‘hundreds of letters’ from his grandfather’s generation distressed that the far right group is ‘abusing their memory’ and implying that Sir Winston would have backed the BNP’s racist cause.

‘It’s a monstrous thing to do. Most sensible people will be disgusted by the BNP’s use of Churchill’s face and imagery purporting to claim that my grandfather would have supported their policies. ‘It is such a disgusting and outrageous suggestion. They have no right to use Churchill’s face in this way. It causes tremendous offence to people of the wartime generation.

‘They were a generous generation. They weren’t a mean-spirited generation. It is deeply offensive to his family and if the law were different we would take steps to stop it. To suggest that he would have supported something as wicked as the BNP is beyond the pale.’

Newly uncovered copies of ‘The Rune’, a white supremacist magazine edited by Mr Griffin in the late 1990s, show that far from respecting Britain’s war effort in the 1940s he was a fan of the SS units that committed countless war crimes against the allies.

Mr Griffin published one article stating: ‘The tales of Waffen SS courage and sacrifices are almost limitless.’

Another piece claimed: ‘In an unbiased assessment of war-crimes, the Waffen SS were undoubtedly no worse than the troops of other nations – countless Allied war crimes are simply not publicised.’ In 1996 he organised a demonstration on the steps of Coventry Cathedral in which he claimed RAF pilots who bombed Dresden in World War Two were guilty of ‘mass murder’.

According to Griffin, the leaflets were written by 'veteran German patriot', Manfred Roeder, who fought for Hitler in the defence of Berlin in 1945 then founded a neo-Nazi organisation in the 1980s that was classified as a terrorist group by German authorities after it launched attacks against buildings housing asylum seekers.

A spokesman for the anti-fascist campaign group Searchlight said: ‘Griffin’s hypocrisy is sickening. This man is on record as praising the SS and accusing RAF pilots of committing mass murder. For him to evoke the memory of fallen British serviceman to further his campaign of division and hate is beyond belief.’

Jon Cruddas, the Labour MP for Dagenham, where the BNP hope to make gains, said: ‘This exposes the fact that Nick Griffin is on record praising the SS and attacking the RAF. It’s only because there is an election on that he’s pretending to be a supporter of the Armed Forces. People will see through the sham.’

Daily Mail

Nick Griffin, the finger and the Public Order Act 1986

BNP leader Nick Griffin swearing outside Leeds Crown Court

This article was submitted by one of our readers, Hexapla. We welcome any contributions from our supporters (as long as those contributions conform to the law and are in reasonably good taste). Please send your articles to us via email.

To mark his non-guilty verdict at the end of his November 2006 trial at Leeds Crown Court, BNP leader Nick Griffin celebrated, as you can see from the above picture, with a very public one-finger salute (good thing he wasn’t making a nazi salute like the one BNP Nottingham councillor Sadie Graham claims Nick Griffin made at a neo-nazi Blood and Honour concert in Scotland!).

We just thought we’d remind King Nick that he may have committed an offence under section 5(1)(b) of the Public Order Act 1986 Act, which we reproduce below for his benefit (highlighted in bold italics):

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he-

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

The interesting thing about section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 Act is that it need not be shown that the disorderly behaviour in question is in itself threatening, abusive or insulting, nor that it brought about any feelings of apprehension in the person(s) to whom it was directed (Chambers v DPP [1995] Crim LR 896). All that is required is for the behaviour to be generally abusive and it need not be directed at anyone in particular.

We’d also like to remind Nicky that a section 5 offence comes with a statutory power of arrest and is punishable via a fine. Nick Griffin is no stranger to the Public Order Act 1986. In fact, we’d be quite disappointed if it transpires that Nick Griffin doesn’t have the intimate familiarity of the Public Order Act’s provisions as we’d expect him to have. We remind readers that Nick Griffin was convicted back in 1998 under section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986 for inciting racial hatred against Jews for his editorship of issue 12 of The Rune magazine.

Now, do I report Nick Griffin to Welshpool or Leeds police ......... hope you understand Nick. After all, a crime is a crime.

¡No Pasarán!