5th December 2021
Yesterday this blog covered a government supporting politician saying openly that the police should not trouble themselves with the now infamous Downing Street party of last Christmas.
Today the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary said – incorrectly – that the police do not normally investigate offences more than a year old.
literally the justice secretary https://t.co/MgF4GlNWLZ
— Jim Pickard (@PickardJE) December 5, 2021
There is something up here.
Yesterday this blog averred that it is not a good thing for politicians to routinely be reporting each other to the police, and also that the penalties for parties a year ago were disproportionate.
So, on those bases, this blog is not cheering and clapping the prospect of the police and the criminal process getting involved in a matter of political controversy.
But.
Even taking any reservations at their highest, there is also something worrying about how ministers, their advisers and their political supporters are so nonchalant about having broken the rules themselves.
And for the nonchalance of the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary to extend to incorrectly stating the position of the police incorrectly, then that makes the situation very worrying indeed.
His language was also especially evasive:
Dominic Raab says the claims of a Downing Street party are “unsubstantiated”. #Marr
— Paul Brand (@PaulBrandITV) December 5, 2021
‘Unsubstantiated.’
The word a lawyer often uses when they cannot deny the alleged fact, but are instead pinning everything on a lack of proof.
It is invariably telling when the word is used instead of the more simple ‘untrue’.
Perhaps the government will brazen this out.
Perhaps it will be a mini-scandal soon forgotten in our exhausting, hectic news-filled times.
But it is worth pausing a moment to consider what is actually happening here.
There are credible, non-denied reports of a substantial breach of the criminal law in Downing Street.
That would be bad enough – though sometimes mistakes and misjudgments do happen.
But it is the cavalier attitude of the government and its supporters to these reports that is more concerning.
One rule for us – and no rules for them.
******
This daily law and policy blog needs your help to continue – for the benefit of you and other readers.
Each free-to-read post takes time and opportunity cost.
This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.
If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – both for the you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
*****
You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
******
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.
Comments will not be published if irksome.
“Perhaps it will be a mini-scandal soon forgotten in our exhausting, hectic news-filled times.”
Sometimes it’s good to look at things ‘in the round’ or put more simply, consider as many of the issues as you can.
I’d add that as a government ( of any hue) it also has to look at both strategic and tactical priorities ( at a global level) – kind of goes with the territory. Oh, and those priorities ( even when in a global pandemic).
Whilst not wishing belittle the complainant (or, their motives) I struggle to get too excited about an event that may or may not have happened when, we all know that people/neighbours and some friend’s also broke ‘the rules’ over last Christmas as well.
Ok, if this party is referred to the police, then ought we not be duty bound to report friends/neighbours/& family who also broke the rules at the same or similar times?
I guess, who is best to cast the first stone? I’m not.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-home-secretary-priti-patel-would-call-the-police-if-neighbours-broke-rule-of-six-12072281
Fair point, I suspect many blokes (perhaps a few less blokesses) will shrug, or even smile that such antics fit the winking Jack-the-lad act Boris sold them. But looking at things in the round also means awareness of the repeated pattern of “let us eat cake” – no rules for us, just for them, which must stink in blokes’ nostrils eventually…… eventually….
What might help is the odd wink from SKS himself who needs to loosen his tie and look more human. If he can break with his cardboard cut out of just looking like a more credible alternative and connect, then these the tories are toast.
Rules are made by governments, rules are broken by citizens yet only some of the rule breakers get punished. Such is the way of the world.
However I find it astonishing that it needs to be explained to members of the UK public like yourself that if a government ignores its own rules, then those rules have no moral authority whatsoever and any other rules a government might make are contaminated by its own manifest hypocrisy.
How the mighty have fallen.
If only government ministers held similar upstanding and righteous views.
And we have the usual disingenuous drivel from Tory MPs claiming anyone making a fuss over this is ‘playing politics’ and that it doesn’t matter because it was a year ago. As if a lack of trust at the highest level of government should be of no public interest.
This rotten government has to fall, and soon if the UK is to have any chance of recovery.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-home-secretary-priti-patel-would-call-the-police-if-neighbours-broke-rule-of-six-12072281
sorry wrong date
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/17/priti-patel-has-urged-people-report-neighbours-flout-christmas/
Consider for a moment what would be the consequences if the Met did their job here…
Isn’t the maximum penalty for this offence a £10,000 fine?
They probably spilled more than that in champagne, so why all the fuss to avoid it?
Is there a more serious offence hiding behind it?
Regular readers might expect me to reach for the CPS guidance on misconduct in public office (link below), but it seems unlikely that he was acting as prime minister at the party, he barely acts as prime minister at the best of times.
On the other hand, if they claimed for the party on expenses, then wouldn’t that mean it had to be an official event?
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/misconduct-public-office#_Toc519523916
Did your friends and neighbours who broke the rules make the law in the first place?
I know someone who broke the rules when entertaining a relative in his nineties. I am glad she did; it could easily have been his last Christmas, and since the Downing Street crowd didn’t think the rules should apply to them, I don’t see why they should apply to my friend either.
Excellent analysis and overview as usual. Thank you Mr Green.
I think we can, with no qualms whatsoever, pick and choose which laws and regulations we decide to adhere to, or not, and if it transpires we broke the rules a year ago then it is clear the law enforcement officers are playing petty politics with my beliefs (such as they are – if you don’t like them I have others). Yours etc. MP for “safe” Tory constituency with stonking majority.
Paul Cotterill has made some interesting comments about this, eg here: https://twitter.com/Bickerrecord/status/1467792733117034498?s=20
The TLDR is that the restrictions didn’t apply to Crown/government premises by default, only on an “opt-in” basis.
This would explain why they are happy to insist the parties were “in compliance with the law”, but won’t get drawn into the specifics – because although they are legally correct, it would be politically disastrous to say “they were compliant because there was one law for us, and another for you”.
Not sure if correct, but certainly an interesting idea which seems to make sense on the face of it.
The UK government seem very complacent that they have a veto on any future Scottish independence referendum, and that if the Scottish executive attempted to hold a poll without the sanction of the UK Parliament, then the international community would not recognise the result.
However, the more the UK government demonstrates through its attitude and its actions that the Rule of Law is an ‘optional extra’ – and the No 10 party scandal is just the latest of numerous examples of that – the greater the prospect that a Scottish vote for independence unsanctioned by Parliament might gain international recognition.
This government acts as if it is in the position of the owner of the business of government rather than elected representatives. They seem to have the same attitude towards laws as a landowner would have towards the concept of trespass.