This morning Charon QC spoke to me about Geert Wilders, and my view that his exclusion is unlawful – it was a good chance for me to put together all the strands of my analysis, as set out my previous posts, and add yet another thought flowing from the fact, that emerged yesterday, that Wilders seems to have been in the UK only weeks ago and without causing trouble.

I think that seriously undermines any suggestion that his presence or conduct here would threaten our society, at least when you look exclusively at his likely conduct rather than that of others. Even if Jacqui Smith didn’t know he’d been here, the fact is he’s proved he can come here without trouble; it surely cannot be proportionate to exclude him in advance now.

Yes, he may have been charged in Holland since then, or is about to be, but the legislation makes clear that even a conviction would not in itself justify exclusion (see regulation 21(5)(e)) – so it follows that a mere accusation is a weak basis for Jacqui Smith’s decision. And the Home Office’s letter made no reference to that, anyway.

And, by the way, as far as I know, no one’s been arrested or invited to a police station to discuss last night’s showing in the House of Lords of Fitna – a film that, however offensive to some, those who are unbiased enough to watch will find hard to describe as threatening. So can it seriously be suggested that Wilders would commit an offence under section 29E of the Public Order Act by merely being present at the showing?

The more I think about this the more confident my view becomes: if Wilders appeals, I think he’ll win.

Listen to the podcast here.