Category: Criminal Law

The Metric Martyrs case – twenty years on

30th May 2022

Before Brexit, there were the Metric Martyrs.

The key legal case here was a set of appeals which were decided by the High Court in 2002, in a judgment now known as Thoburn.

The street-level appellants faced criminal sanctions and other legal impediments because they dealt their groceries and wares in imperial measures rather than metric measures.

Re-reading Thoburn some twenty years later – in the light of the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union and this weekend’s ‘news’ about the government wanting to revive imperial measures – is an interesting exercise.

*

The first striking thing about Thoburn is the complexity of the applicable law.

Few lawyers – if any – would find it easy to follow paragraphs 8 to 35 of the judgment, which sets out all the relevant legal provisions.

Even the judge who gave the decisions of the court found it a complicated mess, saying at paragraph 81:

“In the course of the hearing I made no secret of my dismay at the way in which the criminal offences relevant to the first three of these appeals had been created. It is a nightmare of a paper chase. I accept that there was no prejudice to these individual appellants, who knew well what the law was because they were concerned to campaign against it. But in principle, I regard it as lamentable that criminal offences should be created by such a maze of cross-references in subordinate legislation.”

(The judge was Sir John Laws – notable to non-lawyers for his name and for being the uncle of Dominic Cummings – and it would be great if commenters assume these two things do not always need to be stated in their comments below.)

This judicial observation has wider import.

It is the lot of regulatory law – especially that law that regulates commerce and retail – to be complicated.

And this in turn means the law – like the one regarding the shape of bananas – will not fare well against the urges of simplification and distortion.

On one hand, you had the accessible image of market traders pricing and weighing their goods in imperial measurements for walk-up customers in English towns.

And on the other hand, you have pages and pages of impenetrable legal-ese which sets out why doing such a thing is a criminal activity leading to criminal sanctions.

Few onlookers would side with the legal-ese.

*

A second thing about the Thoburn case is just how hopeless the legal arguments were that were put on behalf of the traders.

Wide ‘constitutional’ submissions were made about ‘implied repeal’ and entrenchment of statutes – which were met by an equally wide-ranging ‘constitutional’ judgment.

This is why the Thoburn case is now – despite not being a Court of Appeal of House of Lords case – a staple of constitutional law teaching and essay writing.

The legal arguments were hopeless.

And this, in turn, was (in my view) a problem.

Many people at the time (and since) thought there was something not right about these prosecutions.

It was one thing to have common rules for cross-border trade within the single market, but it was another to prosecute and seek to give criminal records to local greengrocers and stall traders selling to local customers.

It seemed – to use a European Union concept – disproportionate.

But the hopelessness of the arguments at appeal indicates that here was a grievance here without a remedy.

There appeared at the time to be no way of practically contesting the disproportionate criminalisation of the grocers and the traders.

Even if you are (as I was and am) a supporter of the single market – and thereby of cross-border commercial standardisation and harmonisation – something just did not seem right about these prosecutions, but there was nothing that could be done about it.

And I submit that this sense of impotence in the face of what was perceived to be the legal impositions of the European Union was a contributing factor to what later became Brexit.

*

Weights and measures – like currencies – are both instruments and ornaments.

As means of exchange, such measures necessarily have to have a shared understanding – and anything which has a shared understanding will also tend to have cultural significance.

As this informative and fascinating thread by an author of a forthcoming book on weights and measures describes, one should not underestimate how important measures are to people:

https://twitter.com/jjvincent/status/1530905866689445888

I happen to have been born in 1971 and so was educated with metrification – and I still habitually think in miles, yards and feet, in stones and pounds, and in pints.

And this is despite not being especially patriotic, and not being opposed to metrification in principle.

I suspect it is not an idiosyncratic trait; I suspect many of you tend to think in imperial measures too.

*

But.

The government’s latest proposals. of course, do not make any sense.

This is partly because – after the Metric Martyrs case – both the United Kingdom and the European Union pulled back from strict applications of unified standards.

Supplementary indications of measures were to be allowed indefinitely – imperial markings as well as metric markings

And, in any case, often the relevant laws were home-made and not from Brussels:

As a former Lord Chancellor avers, this ‘policy’ is also a political rallying call which is made again and again:

*

The United Kingdom’s move towards universal measurements predates membership of the European Union and its predecessor communities.

And over time, no doubt, these more ‘rational’ and internationally acceptable measures will take hold.

(Few now can reckon in pounds and shillings – which also went in 1971.)

Yet it is one of those areas where law and policy cannot easily outpace lore and culture.

Units of measurement are the means by which people understand the world about them and indeed understand the dimensions of their own bodies.

They will not easily shift – and perhaps some may never disappear altogether.

The current government is in deep political trouble – and so it is not surprising that it seeks to get the benefit of nostalgia and sentiment.

Such a government should be treated with disdain.

But changing the everyday practices and conventions of a people is a slow process – and with metrification it still has not ended.

Not by a country mile.

**

Please support this independent law and policy blog so that it can continue – do not assume it can continue without your help.

For more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

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 and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

Of Partygate, questionnaires and police discretion – some footnotes to yesterday’s post

27th May 2022

The response to yesterday’s post – offering an explanation as to why the current Prime Minister only received one fixed penalty notice over ‘Partygate’ – was rather overwhelming.

The post was linked to by both the Guardian and Guido Fawkes – which must be rare – and commended by a former (proper) Lord Chancellor and a former Treasury Solicitor (the government’s most senior legal official) – and the post had over 12,000 hits.

The thing is that I do not know – could not know – if that explanation were true.

The current Prime Minister is entitled to legal advice and the protection of legal privilege – and, in a way, it is not a bad thing for a Prime Minister to have access to competent legal advice.

(The problem, of course, is that ready access to competent legal advice when facing criminal sanctions is something which everyone should be entitled – and that entitlement is under constant threat by government cuts to Legal Aid.)

The only merit of my explanation was that it explained the facts as we understand them better than any other explanation, without resorting to a conspiracy theory.

In an interesting thread today, the journalist Peter Walker has set out some useful background which also supports my suggested explanation.

https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1530131395133284352

https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1530132726048858112

The decision to issue a notice is not a judicial decision – no judge or court is involved.

The decision is made by a police officer, who must reasonably believe that an offence was committed.

The safeguard against people having sanctions based on just police discretion is that an individual can refuse to pay the penalty and, as the dreadful phrase goes, have their day in court.

Payment of a penalty also does not, by itself, constitute an admission to a criminal offence such that would, like accepting a caution, give you a criminal record.

If the police officer does not reasonably believe that an offence was committed then no notice will be – or should be – issued.

The suggested explanation I set out yesterday may not be compel a court or convince a jury or a judge – but that was not the test.

The suggested explanation had to be enough for a police officer not to reasonably believe that an offence had been committed.

And which police officer would gainsay that a senior minister had to perform an, ahem, ‘essential function’ of leadership of thanking staff and making them feel appreciated?

It was not much of an excuse, but it was enough for the job that it needed to do, and it looks like it did it.

*

But stepping back, there is a certain strangeness – if not idiocy – in investigating possible wrongdoing by questionnaire.

Especially if – as it seems – the questionnaires were not issued under caution (though I have not seen a copy of the actual questionnaires in question).

As any good regulatory lawyer would tell you – a regulator is only as good as the information to which it has access.

And so – as techies would say – Garbage In, Garbage Out (or GIGO).

The current Private Eye states that certain senior figures did not even return their questionnaires – or may have not completed all the answers.

From their perspective, that was prudent – even if maddeningly frustrating for the police and for those who wanted those who wanted the partying Downing Street staff and advisers to face sanctions.

One fears that senior figures – with access to competent legal advice – were advised not to complete or return the questionnaires, while more junior figures – not aware of their options and perhaps even trying to be helpful – basically wrote out their own fixed penalty notices.

If this is the case – and few will know for certain – then what was being actually sanctioned was not wrongdoing, but naivety.

And, if so, that would be one of many things which make ‘Partygate’ an unsatisfactory moment in our constitutional and political history.

*

Lastly, on questionnaires. here are the wise words of one of the greatest jurists never to be appointed as a judge, E. L. Wisty:

“… they’re not very rigorous. They only ask one question. They say ‘Who are you?’, and I got seventy-five percent for that.”

**

Please support this independent law and policy blog so that it can continue – do not assume it can continue without your help.

For more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

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 and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

The lawyering-up of Boris Johnson – how the Prime Minister’s statement on the Sue Gray report may give clues to how he escaped more penalties

26th May 2022

Let us start with one stark fact that demands explanation.

That fact is that the current Prime Minister received only one fixed-penalty notice in respect of the many gatherings at Downing Street, while others present received many more.

One response to this striking fact is to posit that there must have been a stitch-up or some other conspiracy – and nothing in what follows in this post denies that possibility.

This blog, however, is not a conspiracy blog, but a place for law and policy analysis and commentary.

And on that basis, let us look to see if there can be another explanation.

*

Let us now go to what the current Prime Minister said in the House of Commons yesterday, in his pre-prepared statement.

One passage was especially interesting:

“The exemption under which those staff were present in Downing Street includes circumstances where officials and advisers were leaving the Government, and it was appropriate to recognise them and to thank them for the work that they have done. [Interruption.] 

“Let me come to that, Mr Speaker. I briefly attended such gatherings to thank them for their service—which I believe is one of the essential duties of leadership, and is particularly important when people need to feel that their contributions have been appreciated—and to keep morale as high as possible. [Interruption.] 

“I am trying to explain the reasons why I was there, Mr Speaker.”

*

This passage seemed to be very carefully put together – and (as a former government lawyer) I gained the impression that it owed far more to legal advice than to any genuine articulation of Boris Johnson’s state(s)-of-mind.

Johnson was present, he claims, because he was fulfilling a management function – an ‘essential dut[y] of leadership’.

He was, he says, thanking staff for their service, appreciating people for their contribution, and keeping morale as high as possible.

*

If you read the last sentence again, you will see it says much the same thing in three different ways.

This is a trick many lawyers know and use to make it look like an obligation has been fulfilled.

It takes the form of [duty A] was fulfilled because of [x, y and z], where [x, y and z] are synonyms or near-synonyms.

*

The impression I had on listening to this passage of Johnson’s statement was that some lawyers had been presented with the unhappy facts of the Prime Minister attending leaving parties and giving toasts, with glass in hand.

How does one possibly convert that situation into something that brings it within the legal exemption of being part of a gathering that was reasonably necessary for work?

After all, a leaving party is not reasonably necessary for work, and toasts are not reasonably necessary for work.

But if you flip the description of what happened from parties and toasts to performing an ‘essential dut[y] of leadership’ by synonym, near-synonym, and near-synonym – ahem, thanking staff for their service, appreciating people for their contribution, and keeping morale as high as possible – then, there you have it, a reasonable excuse.

That excuse may not cover others present at the same gathering – but it would cover the one providing ‘essential leadership’.

And it would not cover the one gathering where that excuse – I mean, explanation  – would and could not apply – the birthday gathering.

That is why, I aver, he got a penalty for that indoor gathering but not the other parties.

My suspicion – which may or may not be well-founded – is that this is the very reason why someone is quoted as saying that the Prime Minister was assured that he would only get one penalty.

(Of course, this may be wrong and it may be that there were Metropolitan Police leaks or undue contacts between the Prime Minister’s office and Scotland Yard – but my theory has the merit of not needing any such conspiracy.)

*

Yesterday I set out this theory in a brief Twitter reply – which was not sufficiently clear – and I was told that I was wrong – that leaving parties and toasts were not and should not be reasonably necessary for work.

But I agree with those points.

My suggestion is not that leaving parties and toasts were, by themselves, reasonably necessary.

It is instead that providing ‘essential leadership’ is reasonably necessary – and this can be distinct from how that leadership manifested itself in particular circumstances.

And synonym, near-synonym, and near-synonym – thanking staff for their service, appreciating people for their contribution, and keeping morale as high as possible – may all be supposed examples of such ‘essential leadership’.

Of course, there were many other ways a senior manager could have performed these ‘essential’ tasks – by Zoom calls, or thank-you notes, and so on.

And indeed, during the lockdown, this is what other senior managers did so as to provide their (genuinely) essential leadership.

If your view is that the current Prime Minister could have performed his role without giving toasts at leaving parties, no sensible person will disagree.

But from a legal perspective, if that was his reason for being at a gathering – and if it is accepted that thanking staff for their service, appreciating people for their contribution, and keeping morale as high as possible can all be elements of a leadership function – then you can now see how the Prime Minister has managed to take the benefit of the exemption.

*

The theory set out above has the merit of explaining the striking fact stated at the head of this post: that the current Prime Minister received only one fixed-penalty notice in respect of the many gatherings at Downing Street, while others present at those gatherings received many more.

And if this theory is sound then it shows the irony – hypocrisy – of Johnson’s many attacks on ‘activist’ lawyers for others while taking the benefit of legal advice for himself.

It is also shows the unfairness of the more senior people in ‘Partygate’ getting lawyered-up when more junior figures were not able to do so, and so were penalised instead.

If Johnson should be toasting anyone, then it should be the lawyers that gave him a way of avoiding legal liability in this awkward situation.

But, no doubt, he will ‘move on’ – and start attacking lawyers again.

**

Please support this independent law and policy blog so that it can continue – do not assume it can continue without your help.

For more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

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 and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

‘Partygate’ is not ultimately about lying to parliament, or breaking the criminal law, or putting lives at risk – it is about fair dealing

24th May 2022

‘What is justice?’ is a question that has been long discussed by clever philosophers, jurists and political theorists.

But one way of understanding justice is to see it not as a thing, but the absence of a thing: justice means a lack of injustice.

Justice is thereby defined by what it is not.

A just society is one where concrete injustices have been addressed; a just outcome is the solution to an actual unjust situation; and so on.

And for many it is injustices that matter, for injustices rankle.

*

With ‘Partygate’ it seems what rankles most is the unfairness of it, the injustice.

That the current Prime Minister lied to Parliament and to the rest of us surprises no sensible person, for it is the one quality about Boris Johnson that all sensible people will know to be true.

That the current Prime Minister broke the law and guidance again is no shock – and, indeed, it would be more of a shock if, in any given situation, Johnson had followed the law and any guidance when he did not need to do so.

It does not even seem to matter to that many – though there are exceptions – that Johnson broke laws and guidance designed to keep people safe.

The anger about ‘Partygate’ appears (at least to me) not to be motivated primarily by the concern that Johnson was personally putting others at risk (though this will anger some).

What seems to be what upsets people about ‘Partygate’ is that while others were immensely affected because they had to comply with rules, or were punished if they did not, the Prime Minister and others in Downing Street casually did not comply with those rules.

The rules, of course, that Johnson and his government imposed upon the rest of us – the laws his government issued and enforced, the guidance he and his government promoted night after night.

The stories which appear (again to me) to be getting the most traction on news sites and on social media are those from people who, for example, could not visit their loved ones on their deathbeds or were not able to attend funerals.

Had the story been about Johnson in a serious dilemma choosing to break the rules to see a loved one in hospital or attend a funeral, then people would perhaps be more forgiving.

Many people in extreme situations may choose to break rules.

But the situations in which Johnson and his circle broke the rules were not extreme situations or dreadful dilemmas.

And this disparity in the seriousness with which one abided with the rules is what annoys – disgusts – people who would otherwise shrug.

Not the lies, not the rule-breaking itself – but the unfairness.

*

‘Partygate’ is not about parties or cakes; and it is not ultimately about lying to parliament, or about breaking the criminal law, or about putting lives at risk; it is at bottom about fair dealing.

And that is why – months into this scandal – ‘Partygate’ will not go away easily.

Downing Street partied while the rest of us were prevented from going to visit deathbeds or attend funerals, at the behest of Downing Street.

That was unfair.

**

Thank you for reading – and please support this independent law and policy blog so that it can continue.

So for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

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 and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

The importance of access to good legal advice: how Johnson had only one penalty while junior Downing Street staff had many

23rd May 2022

Some of the best lawyers in the country work for those who often state publicly their disdain for lawyers.

Some of the best media lawyers work for the tabloid press who insult lawyers on front pages and blame them for many social and political ills.

And some of the best regulatory and procedural lawyers help populist politicians and pundits get out of all sorts of scrapes.

None of this is surprising – being part of the tabloid media or being a populist politician or pundit is a high-risk activity.

Such figures will regularly face civil and/or criminal liability in what they want to say or do, but thanks to their good lawyers they are kept safe.

The irony is, of course, that the stock lines-to-take of such figures include ridicule and hostility towards the lawyers who help others.

Those lawyers are ‘activists’ and invariably ‘left-wing’ – some are even ‘human rights’ lawyers.

In other words: the populists dislike lawyers that keep other sorts of people from legal harm, while taking the benefit of lawyers who keep populists safe.

From time-to-time you can see this discrepancy in practical examples.

During the phone-hacking cases, certain publishers took the benefit of outstanding legal advice, while sometimes letting individual reporters and their sources fend for themselves.

And last week we saw the same with the Downing Street parties and the now-closed Metropolitan police investigation.

It would appear that senior Downing Street figures escaped penalties while junior staff incurred them.

And it seems to be the situation that this discrepancy may be because senior figures had the the benefit of deft legal advice in how to complete (and not complete) the questionnaires, while more junior staff provided answers that had  not had the benefit of such advice.

This sort of ‘getting off on a technicality’ would – if it were about migrants or other marginalised group, or loud protesters – be met by emphatic criticism from populist politicians and the tabloid press.

But as it is the leaders of a populist government, then there is hardly a word.

There is nothing wrong with such senior figures having access to competent legal advice.

The issue is not that some have access to good lawyers, but that not everyone does.

Everybody facing criminal liability should have access to the legal advice of the standard that assisted Boris Johnson in ‘Partygate’.

And when you next see denouncements of ‘activist’ lawyers, remind yourself that those denouncements often come from those with ready access to the best quality legal advice, when those that need help from ‘activist’ lawyers often do not.

**

Thank you for reading – and please support this independent law and policy blog so that it can continue.

So for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

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 and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

Four possible consequences of Partygate

19th May 2022

Partygate, again.

Today the Metropolitan Police announced the end of their investigation.

This means that, in small part, the Partygate issue comes to an end.

But there are at least four things which may now flow from the circumstances of the unlawful gatherings at Number 10 during the pandemic.

*

The first, of course, is publication of the Sue Gray report.

This unseen report now has many expectations loaded onto it.

It is useful to remind yourself of her terms of reference.

Whatever is – and is not – in her published report, it is more likely than not to be in accordance with these terms of reference.

It is also useful to remind yourself of her truncated interim ‘update’.

That update indicated – though not in any definite way – where there may be problems for Downing Street when the final report is published (see this blog’s previous post here).

Two paragraphs of the update, in particular, are worth reminding yourself of:

“ii. At least some of the gatherings in question represent a serious failure to observe not just the high standards expected of those working at the heart of Government but also of the standards expected of the entire British population at the time.

“iii. At times it seems there was too little thought given to what was happening across the country in considering the appropriateness of some of these gatherings, the risks they presented to public health and how they might appear to the public. There were failures of leadership and judgment by different parts of No 10 and the Cabinet Office at different times. Some of the events should not have been allowed to take place. Other events should not have been allowed to develop as they did.”

Whether the report leads to any political change – and whether it is, in fact, the timebomb suggested by the earlier post – is, of course, determined by politics and the remarkable capacity of the current Prime Minister to evade accountability.

*

The second consequence of Partygate is – on the face of it – potentially more significant constitutionally.

This is the House of Commons committee’s investigation into whether the Prime Minister misled parliament.

Here a difficulty for the Prime Minister is not so much whether he realised the parties he attended were unlawful gatherings, but when he knew.

This is important because, as this blog has previously set out, it appears that the Prime Minister is not only under an obligation to put the record straight, but also to do so at the earliest opportunity.

This point was well explained by Alexander Horne in this thread:

Even if the Prime Minister did not realise at the time the gatherings were unlawful, he no doubt knew once he saw the Sue Gray report and/or was advised in response to the Metropolitan Police investigation.

The committee may perhaps find that Boris Johnson did tell parliament at the first available opportunity, or it may hold the rule somehow does not apply, or it may censure him.

Again, the political consequences of any censure – or sanction – are not predictable with the current Prime Minister.

But misleading the House of Commons and not correcting the record as soon as one can are still serious matters, even in this age of Johnson, Brexit and 2022.

*

A third possible consequence of Partygate is the worrying normalisation of politically motivated reporting of opponents to the police.

This blog recently set out this concern – and the concern has also been articulated by newspaper columnists:

This is an issue distinct from the obvious truth that politicians should not be above the law.

This issue is about when there is political pressure for there to be police intervention in respect of opponents, where such pressure would not be applied in respect of one’s own ‘side’.

Unless a report would be made to the police in the same circumstances when it was a political ally rather than an opponent, the report is being made on a partisan basis.

And routine goading of police involvement – and their coercive powers – on a partisan basis is not a good sign in any political system.

*

The fourth possible consequence is more optimistic.

The covid regulations were an exercise in bad and rushed legislation, where – even accounting for it being a pandemic – insufficient care was given to the rules imposed and to how they were enforced.

This was pointed out at the time – by this blog and many other legal commentators.

The fact there was a pandemic was used as an excuse for shoddy drafting rather than it being the reason.

And part of the shoddiness was, no doubt, because these were seen by those in the executive as being rules for other people – that is, for the rest of us.

One perhaps positive thing about Partygate is that senior officials, politicians and advisers in the government now are aware that such rules can apply to them.

This may mean that in the event of another pandemic requiring similar rules, the provisions will have more anxious scrutiny before being put in palce and enforced.

That said, of course, it is perhaps also possible that the government will just make sure that future rules expressly do not apply to Whitehall.

But we have to take what possible positives that we can from this gods-awful governmentally-self-inflicted political, legal and constitutional mess, known as Partygate.

**

Thank you for reading – and please do support this blog, so that it can carry on for you and others.

These free-to-read law and policy posts every week-day do take time and opportunity cost to put together, as do the comments to pre-moderate.

So for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

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 and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The real problem with Beergate – and with Partygate

9th May 2022

There are many ways to look at the ‘Beergate’ political story – about the police investigation into what Leader of the Opposition did and did not do at (or after) a campaign function.

One way is to follow the political soap opera – and to ponder if the Leader of the Opposition will resign if he faces a penalty, if this will then backfire on the government supporters who have made this such a political story, and if voters will get tired and dismiss this and ‘Partygate’ with the shrug that says ‘they are all the same’.

Another way is to anxiously scrutinise the applicable law and to query whether the gathering was for work purposes or not.

And there is a third way, which requires stepping back to wonder if something more significant is going on.

Do ‘Partygate’ and ‘Beergate’ signify a shift in standard political tactics towards using reports to the police of one’s political opponents and encouraging investigations and sanctions?

For it is one thing to campaign against one’s political opponents.

But it seems another to actively seek that they face police attention.

Of course, from time to time – and in a society under the rule of law – politicians will get arrested, prosecuted, convicted and punished.

And that can be in respect of ‘political’ offences – such as regulate electoral matters – or more straightforward criminal activity.

Sometimes such investigations may have potentially important political implications – such as the cash for honours scandal about fifteen years ago, or the more recent parliamentary expenses scandals.

But in each of these cases, the involvement of the police seemed exceptional – and not part of the mundane, day-to-day politicking of Westminster.

And generally it seemed police involvement was not weaponised for political advantage (though there were one or two exceptions of minor Members of Parliament who liked referring matters to Scotland Yard).

Now, however, police involvement could not be more central to politics.

The fate of the Prime Minister and of the Leader of the Opposition depend, in part, on exercises of police discretion.

Not even a court is involved – just decisions of police officers as to whether it is reasonable to believe covid rules were broken.

(It would only become a matter for the courts if those police decisions are not accepted.)

Perhaps all this is just a one-off – just an extraordinary result of intrusive pandemic regulations that are no longer in place.

Or perhaps this marks a shift to using police involvement as a regular aspect of political activity.

So before we get carried away – one way or another – with clamouring for penalties to be imposed on which politicians you like least, perhaps we should think about where this is going.

For it may not be a good place for our politics to go.

**

Thank you for reading – and please do support this blog, so that it can carry on for you and others.

These free-to-read law and policy posts every week-day do take time and opportunity cost to put together, as do the comments to pre-moderate.

So for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

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 and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

The Lord Chancellor’s extraordinary tweet about the Tracey Connelly case

6th May 2022

Here is a tweet from the Lord High Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (and a qualified solicitor):

It is a tweet that goes to one of the most important issues for any constitution: the respective powers of the executive and the judiciary in individual legal cases.

Tracey Connelly, as is widely known, was the mother of Peter Connelly, who died in 2007.

In 2008 she was convicted of “causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable person” – though not of murder or manslaughter – and she was sentenced to indefinite imprisonment for public protection, with a minimum term of five years.

It was reported that the then Attorney General considered referring the sentence to the Court of Appeal for being unduly lenient – but it seems no such referral was ever made, no doubt because the sentence was appropriate for the offence for which Connolly was actually convicted.

(Steven Barker was also convicted of this and another offence involving another child – and in respect of Peter Connolly’s death the sentence was for twelve years.)

That minimum of five years for Tracey Connelly expired in 2013 – and it appears she was released on licence from 2013-15 – but almost ten years later she is in prison.

This is because the Parole Board has, until recently, repeatedly refused her parole.

As the parole specialist Andrew Sperling explains in this useful and important thread, the test for the Parole Board is preventative rather than punitive:

Sperling also helpfully sets out that the Ministry of Justice participated in the Parole Board’s deliberations.

The Ministry of Justice officials all supported Connolly’s release.

This is the Lord Chancellor’s very own department.

*

The Lord Chancellor even had the opportunity to challenge the Parole Board decision – and that was rejected.

In a fully reasoned and detailed decision, each of the Lord Chancellor’s grounds for his application were rejected.

The judgment even contained these remarkable paragraphs:

Ouch.

The Lord Chancellor – seriously – instructed counsel to say that the Parole Board had not taken proper account of his views, but he did not and could not identify what those views were.

That is embarrassingly bad.

*

The Lord Chancellor now wants to do things differently.

He wants to be able, as a politician and a minister, to personally overturn decisions of the Parole Board even when his own department’s officials support release.

Presumably this would be a power that would be exercised in those few cases that are selected by the media to be notorious.

*

What is the Lord Chancellor’s motivation for wanting a ministerial veto?

Here, again, Sperling is spot on:

*

Let us look again at the extraordinary tweet of the Lord Chancellor:

There is no sensible doubt that the cruelty in the Connolly case was substantial and warranted significant punishment.

And the court sentenced her for that offence.

A sentence which the government did not (and probably could not) challenge at the time as being unduly lenient.

The question is whether it is now safe for Tracey Connelly now to be released.

That question has been considered, with reference to relevant material, by the Parole Board, an independent body, with input from the Lord Chancellor’s own officials.

An answer was then reached by the Parole Board, which the Lord Chancellor could and did challenge in court, and the the Parole Board’s answer survived that challenge.

And the answer the Parole Board reached was ‘yes’.

*

The issue is not that the executive should not have any role in questions of sentencing and probation in individual cases.

The executive should and does have a role.

The executive can refer seemingly unduly lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal.

The executive can make representations and submissions to the Parole Board.

The executive can apply so as to challenge a decision of the Parole Board.

This is how the separation of powers should and does work in practice.

Punishments should not be at the personal fiat of any minister, even that of the Lord High Chancellor.

**

Thank you for reading – and please do support this blog, so that it can carry on for you and others.

These free-to-read law and policy posts every week-day do take time and opportunity cost to put together, as do the comments to pre-moderate.

So for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

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 and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

Why it will really matter when the Prime Minister realised he had misled the House of Commons – even if his four misleading statements were in good faith

22nd April 2022

As the cliché of American political reporting has it: what did the president know, and when did he know it?

Applying this same sort of question to current British politics, it may not be important so much that the prime minister (says he) did not realise he had misled the house of commons on four occasions, but about when he realised he had done so.

Here we need to look at this Twitter thread by the estimable Alexander Horne:

It will be impossible for any sensible person to believe that the prime minister did not realise at the time he misled the commons that he was lying.

Of course he did.

But – let’s pretend that the prime minister inadvertently misled the house of commons and that he believed in the truth of what he was saying.

Let’s pretend.

At some point between then and this week, he would have come to the realisation that he had misled the house of commons.

That might be when he had subsequent advice and briefings in respect of his evidence to the Sue Gray investigation.

It might have been when he had sight of the Sue Gray report.

It might have been when he had subsequent advice and briefings in respect of his evidence to the metropolitan police investigation.

But it is unlikely that the first time he realised was when he received his (first) fixed penalty notice.

Now, let us turn to a curious form of words used by the prime minister last Tuesday in his statement to the house of commons (emphasis added):

“Let me also say—not by way of mitigation or excuse, but purely because it explains my previous words in this House—that it did not occur to me, then or subsequently, that a gathering in the Cabinet Room just before a vital meeting on covid strategy could amount to a breach of the rules.”

At the time, that the two words “or subsequently” struck me as odd and in need of explanation.

The words did not seem like mere surplusage.

And now, given Horne’s highly useful and informed thread, the meaning of those two words are apparent.

For it is one thing for the prime minister to claim that he did not realise at the time of his four statements that he was misleading the house of commons.

But it is quite another for him to also maintain that he corrected “any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity”.

At some point between the four misleading statements to the house of commons and last week’s statement, the prime minister became aware that those four statements were not true.

(Of course, he knew at the time he misled the house, but let us continue pretending for the sake of exposition and analysis.)

And if and when the Sue Gray report is published (and/or the briefing given to the prime minister for the metropolitan police inquiry is disclosed) it may become plain that the prime minister did not correct “any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity”.

Those two words “or subsequently” are going to be doing a lot of work.

For, if it can be shown that even if the prime minister did in good faith mislead the house of commons on each of those four occasions, he also needs to satisfy the privileges committee that he corrected “any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity”.

And it may be that the Sue Gray report – or other information – may show that is just not true.

Given the powers of the privileges committee, that will not be a comfortable position for the prime minister.

He should brace, brace.

**

Thank you for reading – and please support this blog so that it can carry on.

These free-to-read law and policy posts every week day take time and opportunity cost to put together, as do the comments to moderate.

So for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

***

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 and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

Partygate and parliament: law and policy, tactics and strategy, privileges and penalties

21st April 2022

Well.

Those were an interesting few days in parliament.

We went from a government bullishly seeking to block the prime minister being investigated by the powerful committee on privileges, to supporting the opposition motion.

This government cannot even get political gangsterism right.

Great credit here should go to the opposition parties.

Faced with a law-breaking prime minister who has said – on any view – incorrect things to parliament about the facts relevant to that law-breaking, the opposition could have gone for censure motion, or a confidence motion, or a contempt motion.

And had the opposition done so, it would have been defeated – perhaps on a whipped vote.

But instead the Labour leadership put forward a motion to which no sensible member of parliament could object, and the motion even said any consideration by the privileges committee should await the end of the Metropolitan police investigation.

And the Labour chair of the privileges committee – who had been vocal in his disdain of the prime minister on this issue – said he would recuse himself, thereby removing another possible objection.

Against this tactical savviness, the government position collapsed.

First there was to be an amendment: but that went.

Then the vote was to be unwhipped: and that went.

And in the end, there was not even a vote.

The motion went through on the nod.

Let’s just think about that.

A motion of the house of commons that a sitting prime minister should be investigated by the privileges committee in respect of four statements he made in the house about the circumstances of that law breaking went through – and not a single member of parliament opposed it.

Of course: asking for an investigation is one thing – and the committee may well not find the prime minister in contempt.

But – in and of itself – that such a motion should go through without any objection is remarkable.

One reason for the opposition’s tactical success is that Conservative members of parliament do not want another situation like with Owen Paterson – where they were whipped to frustrate a report, only for the position to be reversed in front of their eyes.

Another reason is that – as this blog has previously averred – a parliamentary majority is no barrier to Nemesis following Hubris.

Other prime ministers in command of working majorities have been brought down before between elections – Thatcher, Blair – and so there is no reason this one cannot be either.

A privileges committee investigation is a serious matter, as they have the power to recommend suspensions from the house.

Another investigation – following the Sue Gray and metropolitan investigations – will also keep this issue alive – and that is, no doubt, the strategic goal of the opposition.

The constitutional Wednesday Addams in any of us can only smile at all of this not going away.

*

What is happening here is – in effect – a parliamentary stress-test, an anxious examination of our constitutional arrangements.

What do you do with a law-breaking prime minister who has misled the house of commons?

Can this be checked and balanced?

The answer to this should not be a civil servant’s report – however independently minded the civil servant.

Nor should it be a decision by the police to issue a penalty, or not.

It is – rightly – a matter for parliament.

And this week’s deft parliamentary footwork by Labour and the other opposition parties has ensured that there will be a parliamentary answer to this particular parliamentary question.

**

Thank you for reading – and please support this blog so that it can carry on.

These free-to-read law and policy posts every week day take time and opportunity cost to put together, as do the comments to moderate.

So for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

***

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 and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.