High Court reserves judgement in BNP membership case

A legal ruling in a long-running dispute over the BNP's membership policy will not be made for at least a week after the conclusion of a High Court hearing on Tuesday.

The party voted to change its rules after facing a court injunction over its "whites only" membership. But the Equality and Human Rights Commission has argued the new rules were still "indirectly discriminatory".

BNP leader Nick Griffin has applied for the case to be thrown out.

Judgement in the case has now been reserved for at least a week.

Mr Griffin, who had vowed to represent himself, was not at court as he is in hospital being treated for suspected kidney stones. But BNP supporters and rival activists from Unite Against Fascism gathered outside the Royal Courts of Justice before the first day of the committal hearing began on Monday.

'Significant breach'

Earlier this year BNP members backed changes to the party's constitution to allow "non-indigenous Britons" to join, after the equalities watchdog took legal action.

But the Central London County Court heard in March that prospective members still had to sign up to principles including a duty to oppose the promotion of any form of "integration or assimilation" that impacted on the "indigenous British", and a requirement to support the "maintenance and existence of the unity and integrity of the indigenous British".

The commission argues that the principles could be interpreted to oppose mixed marriages and could force people to deny their own identity.

Robin Allen QC, acting for the commission, told the High Court on Monday that the BNP had "played with" the watchdog over the issue and had "persistently" failed to comply with previous court rulings.

Although he acknowledged that the party's constitution had now been largely revised, he said the offending clauses had been suspended not removed - describing this as a "significant breach".

The Commission is applying for the committal of Mr Griffin, BNP deputy Simon Darby and party officer Tanya Lumby.

But, David Reade QC, appearing for Mr Griffin and Mr Darby, said there was no case for the party to answer as the rulings on its constitution were ambiguous. "Where there is a court order that is unclear as to the facts, or ambiguous, committal is not appropriate," he said.

In a statement, the party described the legal action as a "taxpayer-funded assault on our freedom of association" that it would continue to fight.

The BBC's Mike Sergeant said that if the BNP lost the case, the equalities watchdog was likely to press for a substantial fine or for the party's assets to be seized.

BBC

What will happen to Griffin and co in court?

Griffin and co get their day in court today when they're up before the beak for not doing what the court ordered them to do following the case involving the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Porky Griffin, being someone's golden boy, seems to be Teflon-coated and thus able to avoid prosecution, despite the incredible amount of evidence of all kinds of criminality that is publicised and added to, it seems, almost weekly.

Nevertheless, we're hoping (though not holding our collective breath) for a decent result, preferably involving an astronomically huge fine to add to the outrageous costs that any court case of this kind seems to incur. Anything that bankrupts the BNP is fine by us.

There are a whole load of alternatives, the best of which is that he's banged up and we never have to see his fat face again, but even now he could escape the rope prison cell and probably will. Watch out, if you're anywhere near the Royal Courts of Justice, for him practising a sudden onset of dementia, a la another well-known dictator.

Let's see if we can predict the result. Vote on the poll (top-right) and if you can think of any better, or funnier, options, bung them in to us via the comments.

Life imprisonment with hard labour
Six months in a nick for softies
A shower of eggs every day for three months
An enormous fine which will bankrupt the BNP
A whacking great fine which the members will have to pay as usual
Martin Pervert Reynolds to crap on Griffin from a great height
A smallish fine which will be paid via a mysterious donation
A stern telling-off from a bad-tempered judge
Whatever happens, Griffin'll claim it's a victory so who cares?
It'll be adjourned because of the tube strike
Griffin will go to the wrong court
Griffin will claim he's sick
Griffin will claim he's dead

If you happen to be near the court, try to get a few pictures for our subsequent report and email them in. Just watch out for eggs - there's bound to be a few.

BNP faces financial turmoil if found in contempt of court

Nick Griffin could have his assets seized if high court rules that leader breached order to amend party's constitution

Fresh from its disastrous showing at the ballot box on 6 May, the British National party now faces financial turmoil with its assets threatened by court action. The high court is to decide whether Nick Griffin and two other BNP officials should face contempt of court proceedings in which their assets could be confiscated under a "writ of sequestration". The assets include Griffin's MEP salary, investments and pensions and any property that they might own. The case shows that no political party is above the law.

The contempt proceedings were brought by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) after the BNP was accused of failing to remove potentially racist clauses from its constitution. The BNP had been in breach of the Race Relations Act 1976 by admitting only white people to the party, but it revised its constitution in February to say it would allow people of any descent or origin to join, but only if the individual "agrees with or supports or does not oppose or does not disagree with the principles of our party".

However, the principles of the party in this amended constitution are still in terms of promoting indigenous over non-indigenous interests, including maintaining the "integrity of the indigenous British" and "restoring and maintaining" the indigenous British as "an overwhelming majority" (indigenous being defined by those that settled in these islands between 11500BC and 6 July 1189).

It is not difficult to see how this is contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976, because by signing up to the principles, any non-indigenous member would have to give up their racial and cultural identity. The BNP has also not changed its rule preventing new members from attending any party meeting until they have been interviewed by two BNP officials. A court in March ruled that this was intimidatory and directed against non-indigenous applicants.

If the high court rules that the BNP is in breach of the March order and gives permission to the EHRC to issue the writ, then it will appoint four commissioners. Two to three of the commissioners will be "authorised and commanded" to take possession of the BNP's assets. These assets will be kept in the hands of the commissioners until the BNP complies with the order to make its constitution free of racial discrimination.

Not only would this be a bitter pill for the BNP to swallow ideologically, it would also be financially punitive. A commissioner can cost up to £1,000 a day, and if the BNP has its assets confiscated, it will cost them up to £3,000 a day for those assets to be held. The BNP faces a period of financial turmoil.

Ed Williams is a barrister at Cloisters Chambers

The Guardian