28 June 2024
Some may be tempted to clap and cheer at the news that a Conservative politician is facing a Metropolitan police investigation in respect of alleged political insider betting.
But this may not be something to clap and cheer, given the potential implications.
By way of background, there is an offence under the Gambling Act in respect of “cheating” when gambling.
Over at Prospect I have done a post (click here) on that offence and why it is perhaps hard to prosecute in practice for insider betting – that is betting based on confidential information.
That said, if the Gambling Commission or any other appropriate investigating body or prosecuting authority believes it can make out a case for the “cheating” offence in these circumstances, then there is nothing inherently wrong with that.
But.
The Metropolitan police appear not to be investigating the politician in respect of the “cheating” offence – but for another offence, known as Misconduct in Public Office.
This is a far more easy and elastic charge to bring – although it is reserved for public officials and civil servants.
As such, this is the offence that the police officers allegedly caught up in this scandal face.
But the primary politician caught up in this matter is not and was not a public official or a civil servant.
At the material time he was what is called a “parliamentary private secretary” – an unpaid and nominal post which, as the “parliamentary” part of its title suggests, exists only the context of parliament.
In effect, a “parliamentary private secretary” is merely a ministerial bag-carrier and go-fer when parliament is sitting, a post to give to a certain kind of backbencher.
It is not in any meaningful way a public office.
If that is the basis for the hapless politician facing Met investigation then that is fundamentally misconceived.
(And if it is his (former) status as a member of parliament then that is also fundamentally misconceived.)
If there is misconduct as a parliamentarian then that is a matter for parliament, and not the police.
In essence: if the Gambling Commission or the Met can make out the “cheating” offence – or any other general offence – then they should proceed as normal. No sensible person would object.
But if the Gambling Commission or the Met cannot make out the “cheating” offence – or any other general dishonesty offence – then there should be no further action.
For the notion of the Met self-extending its remit so as to regulate parliamentarians under an inflated defintion of “public office” is an overreach.
All because an offence is seen as easier to prosecute it should not always be preferred.
For that, in itself, may be a form of procedural cheating.
In the terms & conditions of the betting companies they define cheating as ‘having information not in the public domain.’
It would be my view that officers of the Conservative Party that had notice of the election date and placed a bet they would be cheating.
Likewise, the candidate that bet that he would lose at the general election could have canvassing returns which confirmed that belief. That information would not be in the public domain and again cheating.
I broadly agree, but while I’m no lawyer cheating according to contractual Ts&Cs and cheating that is criminally prosecutable seem to be two very different animals.
Very interesting points, and the whole issue brings up some knotty ethical, and presumably legal, questions.
To be absolutely clear I know nothing of the facts of the case except as widely reported and make no assumptions of the culpability or otherwise of any individual involved.
However, there are wider issues on the issue of betting that are relevant in my view. First, any bookmaker who accepts bets on actions or decisions that are under the control of specific individuals is running (in my eyes) a real risk that someone who knows more about the situation than he does might ‘take him on’. The answer – to me – would be simply not to make a book on such events as the date of an election. No problem on betting on the aggregate results since no one person (in the West, anyway) can control that.
There is a tendency (in my eyes) for the law to favour the maker of the book rather than the sucker who bets. An example, unrelated to current issues, is the prohibition in US casinos (as I understand it) of card counting – that is memorising the cards already played in a gambling game to have a better idea when certain cards may come up. I have never understood why this could be deemed unfair or malpractice. Seems to me like skill!
Back to the political market, there was an interesting piece in the Guardian by Marina Hyde. In an earlier role she had contacted bookmakers when these political and similar ‘books’ were announced and discovered that it was actually quite hard to place a bet – the offers were all about publicity and not really seeking to bring bets in.
Thank you for this cool-headed and lucid explanation. It seems highly pertinent, and I can but hope that equally cool heads within the Met will stop and take stock.
What constitutes ‘cheating?
Click on the Prospect article, where I set out the offence.
The Metropolitan Police under Cressida Dick had to be dragged into investigating Partygate and even then operated a very light touch investigation during the heyday of Johnson. Now we’re in the twilight of the Conservative regime, are they just trying to show some apparent evenhandedness?
You dismiss the option of the Met pursuing a parliamentarian in two brief subjective sentences. No doubt you have precedents to back up your opinion? But surely the job of an MP is the ultimate definition of ‘public office’? Also, whatever happened to the principle that all are equal in the eyes of the law?
“You dismiss the option of the Met pursuing a parliamentarian in two brief subjective sentences.”
> Welcome to my blog; all my sentences are brief and written from my perspective. This is not unusual.
“No doubt you have precedents to back up your opinion?”
> No, because it is literally unprecedented; that is sort of the point of the post.
“But surely the job of an MP is the ultimate definition of ‘public office’?”
> Don’t call me Shirley.
> And parliament has its own prerogatives and privileges. And someone who is not an officer of the Crown can hardly be the “ultimate” defintion of someone holding an office. That would be an office holder.
“Also, whatever happened to the principle that all are equal in the eyes of the law?”
> The offence literally does not apply to “all” but only to public office holders; that is why it is called “misconduct in public office”. The clue is in the name.
“But surely the job of an MP is the ultimate definition of ‘public office’?”
The role of an MP is to represent his or her constituents. That’s not a public office, is it? Unlike a government post, to which they are appointed by the Crown.
Is there an offence of “wasting CPS time”, with which a senior police officer could be charged after seeking prosecution under the wrong statute, owing to culpable ignorance?
Please save this blog from yet more demands to have criminal prosecutions.