It was only a half day this time, but it confirmed to me that counsel for the BNP should have put up his hands on behalf of his client yesterday, after counsel for EHRC finished his submissions, and said "It's a fair cop, gov. You got me bang to rights. Very sorry, sir. Won't happen again."
Instead much time was expended submitting arguments that were later dismissed as "superficially clever" by the EHRC counsel.
BNP counsel went through the BNP constitution (which I now believe to be cursed) referring to the home visit requirement that new potential and non-white members would be required to endure before being admitted as a member. A member of the BNP Reform group remarked later how awful it was. "It makes us look like retards. We are retards!"
I forget exactly why he thought it would be helpful to mention this damning evidence of intention to evade the spirit of the order which asked that the party cease and desist from inserting clauses that were either directly discriminatory or indirectly so.
It was only a technical defence which was meant to support the argument that while paragraph 1 and 2 of the order were clearly breached by the party, paragraph 3 was not.
Moore Bick LJ gently questioned the helpfulness of making this submission to BNP counsel who was nevertheless quite determined to put it, though I cannot imagine that it would have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving meltdown.
Indeed, I suspected him of even feeling a little sorry for David Reade QC for having such a hopeless case and even helped him in suggesting arguments and procedures for him to employ on behalf of his client, such as on the nature of an application and the possibility of judicial review.
It seemed that Mr Reade was simply oblivious to hints and the assistance rendered to him to which the appropriate response would have been "I am grateful to your lordship for anticipating my argument and putting it so succinctly." Instead, he was fumbling with his words while using language quite woefully inelegant compared to Mr Allen's.
Very interestingly, Mr Reade looked to me to be mixed-race and seems an interesting choice for the BNP. If I were leader I would have gone for the blackest bestest barrister in London.
Ramsey J did the same thing too, by summing up in a few succinct sentences the argument he was so laboriously and lengthily trying to make.
Justice Ramsey was incorrectly addressed as Lord Justice Ramsey by Mr Allen for EHRC, who opportunistically and flatteringly declared that he was certain Justice Ramsey would very soon become Lord Justice Ramsey in any event. We all laughed. He also remarked that the county court order whom Mr Reade alleged to be ambiguous was in fact quite clear on any reasonable construction of its wording. Indeed, it was quite prescient in that it exactly anticipated what the Chairman had in fact done.
Orders are not made to be evaded, he said. Quite so. Too bad then that this tricksiness has been done at the expense of members and donors while enriching lawyers both very competent and not particularly competent.
When Mr Reade pleaded in mitigation the anxiety his client must have been feeling at his imminent punishment, Moore-Bick LJ's response was "I do hope for your client's sake that you are wrong." This provoked general hilarity in court.
The question was asked what the benefits a BNP member with non-voting rights enjoyed. Mr Reade's answer was that he was afraid he could not help his lordship on that. Moore-Bick LJ suggested that perhaps being a member of a party in support of a common cause might be the answer.
Towards the end, counsel for Tanya Lumby the co-defendant Mr Lay stood up and said that there was no benefit to being a member, none whatsoever. The constitution was a stitch-up and no member at all can make a decision in either the AGM or EGM that could not be immediately vetoed by the Chairman. The only thing a voting member could use his vote on was in a leadership election, and that was it. (The subtext of this, it was suggested to me, was that all white members are just as disadvantaged ultimately as any non-white member would be by the BNP constitution, believed to be cursed. To lift the curse the constitution must of course be changed, but will the Chairman tolerate any dissent or criticism?)
Moore-Bick LJ remarked that he could not quite see what relevance this statement had to the proceedings, but doubtless his aggrieved client who had been dragged into this whole sordid affair must have demanded that he say such a thing (in the hope that the press would pick it up) since he has just been sitting there for the past two days with nothing to do for the fee she was paying him.
All in all a very entertaining two days watching British justice operating with such judicious elegance.
Judgment reserved till probably the second week of December. Eddy Butler predicted c £150,000 of costs awarded against the party.
Below is Eddy's version:
http://eddybutler.blogspot.com/2010/11/day-two-of-equalities-commission-case.html?spref=fb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU4X1mW5ikQ&feature=player_embedded#!
Eddy Butler and Richard Edmonds outside the RCJ commenting on the hearing.
Instead much time was expended submitting arguments that were later dismissed as "superficially clever" by the EHRC counsel.
BNP counsel went through the BNP constitution (which I now believe to be cursed) referring to the home visit requirement that new potential and non-white members would be required to endure before being admitted as a member. A member of the BNP Reform group remarked later how awful it was. "It makes us look like retards. We are retards!"
I forget exactly why he thought it would be helpful to mention this damning evidence of intention to evade the spirit of the order which asked that the party cease and desist from inserting clauses that were either directly discriminatory or indirectly so.
It was only a technical defence which was meant to support the argument that while paragraph 1 and 2 of the order were clearly breached by the party, paragraph 3 was not.
Moore Bick LJ gently questioned the helpfulness of making this submission to BNP counsel who was nevertheless quite determined to put it, though I cannot imagine that it would have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving meltdown.
Indeed, I suspected him of even feeling a little sorry for David Reade QC for having such a hopeless case and even helped him in suggesting arguments and procedures for him to employ on behalf of his client, such as on the nature of an application and the possibility of judicial review.
It seemed that Mr Reade was simply oblivious to hints and the assistance rendered to him to which the appropriate response would have been "I am grateful to your lordship for anticipating my argument and putting it so succinctly." Instead, he was fumbling with his words while using language quite woefully inelegant compared to Mr Allen's.
Very interestingly, Mr Reade looked to me to be mixed-race and seems an interesting choice for the BNP. If I were leader I would have gone for the blackest bestest barrister in London.
Ramsey J did the same thing too, by summing up in a few succinct sentences the argument he was so laboriously and lengthily trying to make.
Justice Ramsey was incorrectly addressed as Lord Justice Ramsey by Mr Allen for EHRC, who opportunistically and flatteringly declared that he was certain Justice Ramsey would very soon become Lord Justice Ramsey in any event. We all laughed. He also remarked that the county court order whom Mr Reade alleged to be ambiguous was in fact quite clear on any reasonable construction of its wording. Indeed, it was quite prescient in that it exactly anticipated what the Chairman had in fact done.
Orders are not made to be evaded, he said. Quite so. Too bad then that this tricksiness has been done at the expense of members and donors while enriching lawyers both very competent and not particularly competent.
When Mr Reade pleaded in mitigation the anxiety his client must have been feeling at his imminent punishment, Moore-Bick LJ's response was "I do hope for your client's sake that you are wrong." This provoked general hilarity in court.
The question was asked what the benefits a BNP member with non-voting rights enjoyed. Mr Reade's answer was that he was afraid he could not help his lordship on that. Moore-Bick LJ suggested that perhaps being a member of a party in support of a common cause might be the answer.
Towards the end, counsel for Tanya Lumby the co-defendant Mr Lay stood up and said that there was no benefit to being a member, none whatsoever. The constitution was a stitch-up and no member at all can make a decision in either the AGM or EGM that could not be immediately vetoed by the Chairman. The only thing a voting member could use his vote on was in a leadership election, and that was it. (The subtext of this, it was suggested to me, was that all white members are just as disadvantaged ultimately as any non-white member would be by the BNP constitution, believed to be cursed. To lift the curse the constitution must of course be changed, but will the Chairman tolerate any dissent or criticism?)
Moore-Bick LJ remarked that he could not quite see what relevance this statement had to the proceedings, but doubtless his aggrieved client who had been dragged into this whole sordid affair must have demanded that he say such a thing (in the hope that the press would pick it up) since he has just been sitting there for the past two days with nothing to do for the fee she was paying him.
All in all a very entertaining two days watching British justice operating with such judicious elegance.
Judgment reserved till probably the second week of December. Eddy Butler predicted c £150,000 of costs awarded against the party.
Below is Eddy's version:
http://eddybutler.blogspot.com/2010/11/day-two-of-equalities-commission-case.html?spref=fb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU4X1mW5ikQ&feature=player_embedded#!
Eddy Butler and Richard Edmonds outside the RCJ commenting on the hearing.
No comments:
Post a Comment