The Equalities and Human Rights Commission case against the British National Party has been adjourned until 8 November after a surprise development during proceedings today.

In a special report for Radio Red White and Blue, Nick Griffin MEP revealed that one of the lawyers pointed out that the case actually needed to be heard before a Divisional Court with two judges.

This was a court error, so the costs of proceedings will be borne by the court.

The sides agreed to a further timetable for the sharing of evidence while the court ruled that Mr Griffin’s motion to strike the case should be heard first.

The EHRC only submitted the last of its legal arguments to Mr Griffin this morning in court and one of the advantages of having a later court date enables the complete study of all available documentation. 

One of the consequences of the postponement is that the Act under which the court action was brought, will no longer be in force by the time of the next court date, which will pose an interesting legal conundrum for the EHRC.

Mr Griffin also thanked the activists who fought their way through terrible traffic problems to turn out for the event, and advised all that the party is operating as normal until 8 November.

Mr Griffin’s full interview can be heard by clicking in Radio RWB’s breaking news link here.

* Following the case, Mr Griffin and the barristers held a without prejudice meeting with the EHRC's John Wadham and QC Mr Allen at which it was discussed what steps were necessary to bring proceedings to a swift end.

These would primarily involve changes to the BNP's constitution (the EHRC has now accepted that Mr Griffin has the right to make such changes.)

 "The EHRC representatives indicated that even if the BNP's efforts to defeat the current litigation were successful, they would bring a completely new action against the party," Mr Griffin told BNP News this afternoon.

"Such a court action would be over any provisions in the BNP constitution which seek in any way to make acceptance of a home visit or agreement with our position opposing mass immigration and the dissolution of British identity as contained in sections 3.21 and 3.2.3 of the constitution," Mr Griffin said.

"This has clearly nothing to do with membership restrictions and is an attempt to move the goalposts once again.

"My initial reaction, which I will consider more fully before making a final decision, is that this is not an issue upon which it is worth engaging in a renewed bout of litigation. It is clear that a simple amendment to the constitution can slam the door in their faces, and I am most inclined to follow that route instead," Mr Griffin said.

"It is a good idea to settle the constitutional issue, not least so that it ceases to take up mental energy and financial resources which could be far better expended elsewhere.

"However, the reality is that the EHRC's contempt of court proceedings are a totally separate matter. The legal fact is that it cannot be discontinued without a further court hearing despite the fact that the commission may wish that this was not the case.

"My application to strike their contempt application therefore has to, and will, go ahead."