I haven’t seen the terms of the injunction and must, to some extent, guess what I am allowed to say. I will tread very warily.
A judge, I don’t know whether I am allowed to name him and will assume I am not, has conducted a court hearing into the antics of a rather obnoxious chap called Tommy Robinson. I know the result of that hearing, but the judge has ordered that I must not reveal it. I do seem to be able to say that, as a result of the hearing, Mr Robinson is no longer at liberty. More than that I may not say without risking incarceration myself. I am not, for instance, allowed to tell you whether the judge thought it would be reasonable for Mr Robinson to be represented by a lawyer.
No, there is slightly more, I think, which the judge will allow me to say. Mr Robinson was hauled up in front of the judge because he has extreme right wing opinions. No one may, these days, be appointed to the judicial bench unless he supports the opinions of Tony Blair. My guess, but it has to remain a guess because the judge has refused to explain his decision, is that he considers those with right wing opinions should not be at liberty.
And that is it. An English court has incarcerated a man for holding unpopular opinions in peace time and has both refused to explain why and ordered that anyone who reports what was said at the hearing should be imprisoned.
Of course, because I have a lively imagination, I can conjure up reasons why whatever it is Mr Robinson was up to should not, at least for a while, be revealed to the public. But I simply can’t think of any rational explanation for why the judge, who, as I have said, has refused to give us any indication of why he came to the conclusion which he will not allow me to reveal, thinks any decent English judge could deprive a subject of Her Majesty of his liberty and decline to give the slightest hint of why he has done so.
I have probably been unfair to the anonymous judge. He may well not have done whatever it is he did which resulted in Mr Robinson being in prison, as a result solely of his commitment to New Labour. There could have been good reasons for the decision. But his refusal to give any explanation at all was bound to lead to those of us who have concerns for the rights of the Queen’s subjects concluding that there could well have been grossly improper reasons for his orders.
Mr Robinson is, I think, a rather horrid chap. Those of my friends who are on the Left in politics will assume, because the man is on the Right, that I approve of him. They will say that I only suggest the anonymous judge should have treated him as a member of the human race because he is on the Right. Oh, how horribly wrong my friends are. I think all of Her Majesty’s subjects are entitled to the protection of the law. Had the incarcerated chap been one of Mr Corbyn’s anti-semite friends I would have been just as furious.
There can be no excuse for English judges imprisoning people without explaining in public why they are doing so.