As Robin and supporters began to assemble on the pavement outside the court and set up banners, a member of the court security came out to take a look, and went back inside, mumbling something about staying off the private area. He came out a bit later to take exception to some people who were taking advantage of the elevated grass area to display their banner, but was roundly ignored.

A man in plain clothes with a curly wire leading up to his earpiece arrived and announced that he was a policeman, followed soon after by two Community Support Officers, who wanted to know what was going on. Having established that we were there to support Robin at his court appearance, the plain-clothes man spoke to someone on his radio, stating that there was no trouble being caused (evidently he didn’t count the people standing on the grass as “trouble”).

In the mean time, there was some confusion over whether supporters would be allowed to observe the court hearing. Having initially been told that nobody would be admitted to the court room beyond those taking part in the case, some supporters asserted that they should be admitted, and engaged the plain-clothes man in a question-and-answer session on the subject. Stating that he was not part of the court service and that it would not be proper to intervene with the court staff on their behalf, he suggested that they ask to speak to the head usher on the subject. Wishing Robin good luck, and admonishing the supporters not to block the footpath, he bade the group farewell and went about his business, with the two CSOs also drifting off.

After another delegation went to speak to the court staff, it transpired that the supporters could attend the court appearance after all, provided the banners were put away, and all the other court rules regarding photography, bag searches, phones and the like, were obeyed.

After long wait in an ante-room which wasn’t designed with groups of twenty or so in mind, the Inland Revenue’s legal representative arrived, and then the door to the court room was unlocked from the inside, the Claimant and Defendant admitted to the room, and then the supporters were invited to come in and take seats.

With the court in session, the representative for the Inland Revenue handed over to the judge (after being prompted to show it to Robin) a certificate of debt stating that Mr Brookes owed the sum of £589.92 in unpaid income tax, plus £80 court costs.

When asked what he had to say for himself, Robin explained that he had been withholding his income tax since March 2003 because he did not want to pay for war and preparations for war. He pointed out that he was not trying to avoid paying tax; in fact he wanted to pay his tax, but wanted to do so with an assurance that the tax he paid would not be used to fund war. Hence he was keeping the withheld tax money in a dedicated account until he receives such an assurance and can then turn the money over to the Inland Revenue.

“Killing is the worst kind of crime”, he said, “and paying for killing is as bad as doing the killing oneself”.

He addressed the counterargument which is sometimes put against the peace tax resisters’ case, that he had the option to influence the use of his taxes through the ballot box, by pointing out that this was not an option in his case, with Plaid Cymru being the only party with a Peace Fund policy. Plaid Cymru are a Welsh nationalist party, and for obvious geographical reasons do not tend to field candidates in Wiltshire.

He went on to explain that he was part of the group known as the Peace Tax Seven who are currently seeking a judicial review into the right of people to refuse to fund war through their taxes, and said that until the judicial review has taken place, he should not be obliged to turn over the taxes he has withheld.

The judge interrupted a few times to clarify the progress and timescales of the judicial review, and established that papers had already been lodged, had been turned down twice, and were currently awaiting a ruling from the court of appeal, expected in the next couple of weeks.

The representative from the Inland Revenue had nothing more to say when asked.

Summing up, the judge stated that the amount of tax owing was not in dispute, but that the way in which it was used was being disputed. He noted Robin’s moral arguments and reasons for withholding his tax, and also the supporters who had turned up to almost fill the small court room. However, it seemed clear to him that under section 70 of the Tax Management Act 1970, having been presented with a certificate stating the amount of tax owed, he had no option but to uphold the Inland Revenue’s claim, and ruled that the outstanding sum be paid by 5th May 2006.

By a strange co-incidence, this court hearing occurred twenty years almost to the day, since the Peace Tax Bill 1986 was introduced to parliament.

More about the Peace Tax Seven:  http://www.peacetaxseven.com