In the latest abuse of our Nation’s “generosity” to illegal immigrants, following Mr Abu Qatada’s cost to the taxpayer rising to over an estimated £1m, his wife and family have been seeking an injunction, on the back of legal aid, to prevent any protesters from appearing outside their new taxpayer funded house in Stanmore, North London.

In the midst of suing all and sundry who might be contemplating protesting, the English Democrats and I surprisingly found ourselves included in the list of Defendants, despite never having expressed any intention to take part in any demonstration!

That is of course not the remit of a political party standing in elections and not a sensible approach for a political party to take.
That does not mean of course that the English Democrats would not morally support well-behaved and lawful demonstrations against Abu Qatada’s abuse of our welfare benefit system. It is English Democrats’ policy that non-citizens should not be entitled to any welfare benefits at all. We do also seek the immediate deportation of all illegal immigrants.

Having made our position crystal clear in various letters and also in a witness statement, which I reproduce below, even Labour supporting Bindmans solicitors who were acting for the Qatadas rushed to remove all mention of me and the English Democrats from the proceedings.

On Thursday I was in the High Court of Justice in the Strand before Mr Justice Silber and the Order was made removing us from these proceedings and also dropping all claims against us.

Here is my witness statement. What do you think?

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE                   CASE NO. HQ13X00479
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION

BETWEEN

I, Robin Charles William Tilbrook, of Quires Green, Willingale, Ongar, Essex, CM5 0QP, will say as follows:-

1. I am the Principal of Tilbrook’s Solicitors and Chairman of the English Democrats.

2. I would state, for the record, that neither I, nor the English Democrats, have ever organised or attended a demonstration at or near the Applicants’ house. Nor do I believe that any member of the English Democrats have ever attended any such demonstrations. So, with the greatest of respect, the chronicle of misbehaviour that the Applicants’ Solicitors affectingly relate cannot properly be laid at either my or the English Democrats’ door.

3. Further I have never had nor expressed any intention of attending any such demonstration nor have I or the English Democrats given any indication of any intent to do so.

4. I would also confirm that the English Democrats do not engage in street protests as a general rule, except to small media orientated events on issues such as prescription charges. The English Democrats are more involved in the ‘West Lothian’ question and the English Constitutional questions arising from devolution. Neither I nor the English Democrats have ever taken part in any protest relating to Islamists, such as Abu Qatada.

5. I would also point out that I confirmed the substance of what I am saying in this Witness Statement in writing in correspondence to Bindmans prior to them issuing any proceedings or applying for an Injunction. I am a Solicitor and Officer of the Court and so I do think, with the greatest of respect to them, they should have taken me at my word, especially given that the “evidence” which they offered against me and the English Democrats is ridiculously flimsy and comes from a third party website which does not even expressly state that either I or the English Democrats are involved in the new organisation or more pertinently the protest itself.

6. My primary involvement at the meeting reported in that email was a guest speaker on the topic of Englishness and, in particular, the rise in English National Identity which has been demonstrated in the results of the 2011 Census which shows that over 60% (more than 32 million people) within England have self-identified their national identity as being “English Only”.

7. I do naturally support the rights of people to protest and I do support those protests being done in an orderly and civilised manner, which I understand is the intention of the English National Resistance. That support fairly obviously does not give rise to any presumption that I or the English Democrats are somehow members of the organisation; any more than the comments of senior establishment politicians in Parliament criticising Abu Qatada could be taken to imply anything similar from them!

8. I am aware that Labour strategists have identified the English Democrats as a threat to them and that is particularly so, not only after our victories over them in the Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Mayoralty, but also our very good performance throughout South Yorkshire in the Police Commissioner elections in which we came second to the Labour candidate whilst winning the vast majority of all the second preference votes as well. I suspect that the sole reason for drawing me and the English Democrats into this matter was Bindmans’ Labour supporting agenda, rather than any proper legal basis. I regard that the whole way that the Injunction has been approached as being fundamentally a politically motivated abuse of process and, indeed, no doubt also of the taxpayers’ contribution through legal aid/public funding.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts in this Witness Statement are true.

Signed …………………………………….. Dated……………………………..

 Robin Charles William Tilbrook

Here is the BBC report of the outcome of the case:-

Abu Qatada’s family win injunctions against demonstrators

The radical cleric has been fighting deportation to Jordan for more than a decade
The family of radical cleric Abu Qatada has won an injunction preventing protesters from demonstrating directly outside their home.

His wife and five children were granted an anti-harassment order by a High Court judge in London.

The judge said demonstrations could still take place but they have to be more than 500 metres from the Qatada home in London.

Last year, a court blocked the cleric’s deportation to Jordan.

Home Secretary Theresa May’s appeal against that decision is due to be heard on 11 March.

The Palestinian-born Jordanian faces a re-trial in Jordan for allegedly conspiring to cause explosions on Western and Israeli targets in 1998 and 1999. He was found guilty of terrorism offences in his absence in Jordan in 1999.

Second injunction At the High Court, Mr Justice Silber said evidence showed the claimants, including two children under the age of 16, “have suffered extreme distress and upset” by the actions of demonstrators directly outside their home.

He accepted the evidence they were “effectively prisoners in their home” while the demonstrations were taking place.

He said the protests had “terrified” the family, particularly the younger children.

There was “powerful evidence” from the claimants of weekly demonstrations “with much shouting of abuse” such as “Abu Qatada off our streets” and “All Muslims are terrorists” and calls for him to be killed.

The legal action was brought against a number of groups, including English National Resistance, Britain First and the English Defence League, as well as against “persons unknown who are intending to assemble outside the home”.

The defendants argued the injunctions would interfere with their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights – in relation to freedom of thought, expression, and of assembly and association.

The judge pointed out Abu Qatada, whose real name is Omar Othman, was not a party to the proceedings.

He emphasised the case was not concerned with whether “Omar Othman should still be in this country or whether he should be in prison in this country” and was also not concerned with whether he or his family “should be provided with a house financed by the United Kingdom taxpayers”.

It was accepted “that it is perfectly legitimate” for there to be protests about his presence in the country and about the house provided to his family.

The injunctions granted continued previous orders made by another High Court judge earlier this month.

As well as the anti-harassment order, Mr Justice Silber granted a second injunction restraining the defendants from communicating or disclosing personal matters relating to the wife and children, such as their address, names, names of schools, and also images of them.

Abu Qatada was released on bail from Long Lartin prison, in Worcestershire, in November after spending most of the last 10 years in custody.

He was released after he won the latest round of his long-running deportation case. Immigration judges ruled there was a risk that evidence obtained through torture could be used at his retrial in Jordan.