Private Prosecution : Pledge Support
Graphic courtesy of Beau Bo D'OrThe Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, 2000 (‘the 2000 Act’) was dealt with far too perfunctorily in the CPS statement. More than one legal authority consulted by Guido thinks that there are avenues open to a private prosecution via the 2000 Act which have the advantage of not requiring the proving of a conspiracy.
The weakest part of the CPS statement is point 30:
The attempt by Levy et al to portray themselves as the victims of an over zealous policeman are contemptible. They deliberately subverted the law in a secret attempt to cover up donations made by persons they later put forward for honours. A fact they deliberately and disingenuously hid from House of Lords Appointment Committee. If you want to see justice done and the law upheld, pledge your support for a private prosecution here.
The weakest part of the CPS statement is point 30:
In relation to possible breaches of the 2000 Act, we are satisfied that we cannot exclude the possibility that any loans made – all of which were made following receipt by the Labour Party of legal advice - can properly be characterised as commercial.There are a number of related suspected offences under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 governing the evasion of restrictions on donations which provide a firm and clear basis for action. Crucially, a prosecution on this basis would avoid the difficulties of having to prove a conspiracy. It would also have the advantage that there are statements from donors already in the public domain which, contrary to the stated view of the CPS, exclude the possibility that the loans were made, or intended to be made, on a commercial basis.
The attempt by Levy et al to portray themselves as the victims of an over zealous policeman are contemptible. They deliberately subverted the law in a secret attempt to cover up donations made by persons they later put forward for honours. A fact they deliberately and disingenuously hid from House of Lords Appointment Committee. If you want to see justice done and the law upheld, pledge your support for a private prosecution here.
99 comments:
I was thinking along the same lines, and also believed that paragraph 30 is a strong case for why the decision not to prosecute was wrong.
I would also consider a private law action alleging a misfeasance in public office.
It would be so rewarding if someone/organization would prosecute these mendacious people. Stick their arrogance right up their arse, sideways. Justice will never prevail in this rotten, post Blair Country
Does the act define "commercial basis". If not, it's never going to happen.
How much does each person have to pledge?
We need a concrete estimate of how much this is likely to cost. I would be willing to put up some money (say 50 quid or something), provided enough other people would do the same. But if we are talking about needing 10,000 people we can probably forget it. 1000 might be doable.
First let us just see how much support there is for the principle, before quantifying the costs.
Six figures is a reasonably vague guestimate.
Hang on people - is this a stunt for Guido to get his betting money back?
De nerve of the Guy! He always backs his hunches to win and now he has lost he wants to "get it on eachway". That is called a 69 Guido and you a recent father too.
Bettor not, eh?
How do you get hold of all the evidence collected by the police?
Matrix Chambers might be a good place from which to retain council, I believe they specialise in skullduggery
I see that Lord Levy is thinking about bringing a charge of wrongful arrest against the police.
Perhaps the best thing is to see if Tony's little gang fancy their day in court. The onus will be on them to prove that the police acted improperly.
And then the police can reveal all the evidence that they collected on this case. It should make some very interesting reading.
Still feeling chipper, m'Lord?
JM - commercial basis = on terms similar to those available from the banks, simple really.
Guido - iirc people funding a prosecution may be liable for defence costs if the defendant is found not guilty, but this doesn't apply if their contribution is less than £6k [?]. Can anyone clarify?
Charles Moore has an interesting take on this in today's Telegraph - that the investigation's main purpose was to protect Iain Blair from the sack.
You're on.
http://prodicus.blogspot.com/2007/07/cash-for-honours-lets-get-lying.html
I've heard that the Spanish now refer to dodgy dealings as "English Practices"
"We need a concrete estimate of how much this is likely to cost. I would be willing to put up some money (say 50 quid or something), provided enough other people would do the same. But if we are talking about needing 10,000 people we can probably forget it. 1000 might be doable."
Are we taking about a private prosecution or a group peerage?
Oh well done. Could it be done on some kind of conditional fee arrangement ? If we won, as we should - I love the idea of OJ Levy getting stuffed in a civil court - would not the culprits be liable for our costs ? Are there no lawyers who would take a punt at it, pro bono ? Or on a costs only basis ?
Guido I have also linked to your article, put some legal backround up and also publisised it a bit. See here:
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2007/07/cash-for-peerages-private-prosecution.html
JM, "Does the act define "commercial basis". If not, it's never going to happen."
Neither is reasonable for described anywhere. There is no doubt that this would end up in the appeal courts solely on defining the term, but I think it would be what a commercial organisation whose business is to lend would lend at.
what a very smooth move. If we only get our hands on the evidence, it would be a massive achievment.
Pathetic - don't know when you're beaten, do you?
Count me in.
And Akehurst this is not about party politics or pettery point scoring it is about bringing a vile and corrupt man before the courts for punishment (Blair) for the way he has trampled on out democracy and , same goes for the Traitor Brown.
JHL this may be a way for you to both do something beneficial fo society and proove your supposed knowledge of the law.
As you know a lot of fun can be had tying people up in courts running up thier costs.
Would Guido's learned friends be of the oppinion that the action would not just be against the main personages in the case, Blair, Levy et al, but also against the Labour Party, with a view to bankrupting them and putting them out of their misery forever...
OJ Simpson stylee. Perhaps you could ask for the rights to Blair's image if you win.
pulls up a chair, pours another drink to watch Guido and sockpuppets prepare to leap off cliff in unison.
Come lads and lasses, you can do it..
So, is the Telegraph wrong when it says this:
"But there is no question of a private prosecution. Any attempt to bring one will be blocked by the CPS, using its statutory powers.
?
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing."
I may not be all that good but I cannot do nothing. The common weal is under attack. Hitch, sorry old boy this is not about bringing a vile and corrupt individuals before the courts it is about halting the march of corruption within the state.
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
When will Parliament speak? And, who will they speak for?
Forget it Guido, look its obvious, Cameron is a W****r, the Tories are going down the pan, Brown will call an election in October, its going to be '97 all over again, only bigger, if you can't accept it, pack your bags and piss off back to ireland: nuff said!
If I was Michael Levy and saw that The Hitch was talking to JHL, I would be a very worried man indeed...
But we live in strange times.
Luke Akehurst - we're a long way off being beaten, a very long way off.
There may be some Middle Eastern gentlemen who would be up for this and have suitably deep pockets. I would suggest that a few comments on the Al Jazeera website might flush out a wealthy sheikh or two.
This might be a good place to start -
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E9A36960-AB5A-43E7-A637-4628328249EB.htm?&choice=3&dgDiscID=167&dgPoolID=b206d24b-4b6e-48f8-a9d0-4430e665e358
It poses the following question - Can Blair make a difference in the Middle East?
And gets responses like this - 'Blair is not qualified for the role. He is a devout Zionist who has spent the last 5 years delighting in the mass murder of Iraqis .....'
Looks promising to me.
I'm very happy to pledge support, but can't make any major financial commitment. What should I do?
I really want to support this. Have not got a lot of spare cash at present but things might change by November, if so will pledge support.
Anonymous said...
I really want to support this. Have not got a lot of spare cash at present but things might change by November, if so will pledge support.
few more like this guy and your home and dry.
Guido:
If a private prosecution can't happen because of the stitch-up that NuLab have done on the supposed judicial system, perhaps we will have to find other ways to stop them suppressing the truth.
Perhaps an in-depth review of the case, using leaked information from the Police (which they were always accused of doing anyway) and published in a downloadable format offshore - say, on Piratebay?
Anonymous said...
I'm very happy to pledge support, but can't make any major financial commitment. What should I do?
Tell them the cheque is in the post,it always works for me.
Extracts - Readers' Letters Column
To the Editor
Sir
Does Father Christmas exist ?
Lots of Love
Catherine (aged 3)
_____
Reply
_____
Dear Catherine
Yes
Lots of Love
The Editor
************
To the Editor
Sir
Isn't Mr Blair innocent of Selling Peerages for Cash
Yours faithfully
John Doe
_____
Reply
_____
Sir
Yes, Catherine
Lots of Love
The Editor
jailhouselawyer said...I was thinking along the same lines....
Always impressed when the word "misfeasance" appears on a blog.
Sadly I think the odds of the Attorney General stamping on this are 100%. :-(
In order that this action can be funded I hearby offer a 'K' or a 'P' for large donations to the cause. Obviously I can only do my bit once we're in office.
Benedict White said...
How much does each person have to pledge?
Well there are quite a few Anonymous posters here,but they don't appear to have any money.Would this be a problem Benny ?
Please don't fret about the precise definitions of "reasonable" or "commercial terms". These are questions of fact, for the jury.
The judge directs them, in very broad terms, as to the meaning of the words and then it's up to the jury to decide their application to the particular facts of the case before them.
As to appeals, so long as the judge's direction is sound in law it is very difficult, almost impossible, to overturn a jury's finding on such questions.
sniper said...
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing."
I may not be all that good but I cannot do nothing. The common weal is under attack. Hitch, sorry old boy this is not about bringing a vile and corrupt individuals before the courts it is about halting the march of corruption within the state.
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
When will Parliament speak? And, who will they speak for?
So your going to do nowt then,much like the rest of this motley bunch of laptop warriors.Your bloody hilarious you know.
See below for why a private prosecution would be unlikely to get off the ground.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/factsheets/fs-privatepros.html
While you are at it, can't you prosecute Bliar for treason for signing away this country's sovereignty to a higher and foreign power?
That might just be the kick up the arse the unelected Caledonian dictator needs in order to give us the referendum promised in the manifesto on which his party was elected.
Count me in for 1k. Let's hope they are stupid enough to sue and save us the cost.
Ha ha! The lawyers will be most pleased by your pigheaded determination. Have fun wasting your money boyos
Count me in.
And still when mob or Monarch lays
Too rude a hand on English ways,
The whisper wakes, the shudder plays,
Across the reeds at Runnymede.
And Thames, that knows the moods of kings,
And crowds and priests and suchlike things,
Rolls deep and dreadful as he brings
Their warning down from Runnymede!
While I'm also starting dispair of Cameroonism, the word is that based on the by-election swings, Labour would be returned with a 10 seat majority. Anybody confirm this?
Also, I hope that fleet street will step up with reliable bag of used tenners for Yates' evidence and the civilian police workers will leak as they have done many times before today.
Another thing. As an ex-city man perhaps Guido can cofirm my hedgey mate's assurances to me that a massive globsal credit crunch is coming - he thought 2 years' time.
From what I understood, Chinese banks are lending cheaply at the minute, but when they run out of money, that's it for global cheap money.
Gordo and his merry men must know this, and surely have to factor this in for the timing of the next election. Their only aim is to get him a confirmed five year stretch at No10...
morrocanroll
Its a long shot, but must be done. Simple reason - the general public need to show that we do not accept being lied to, or patronised by our politicians. It is they who need to be reminded that they are OUR servants, Not the other way around
Let it go. Yesterday's men/women. Wasting your money going after now irrelevant retirees just distracts from changing the government and lets Brown off the hook. It may make you feel better in the short term, but with a long term view, you'd be better off putting your money, energy and imagination into upping the Tories game ahead of the coming general election.
All pledged up.
His Grace is bemused by the preponderance of cynical naivity, negativity, spinelessness, and the lily-livered. Of course this prosecution must be attempted. Yes, one may lose, but so what? His Grace would rather live having lost, than die having not tried at all. Principles are important, even in politics. What's the matter with you all?
I agree with Moore in today's Telegraph. The investigation was designed to keep T. Blair under the screw over his last year. The crimes were too serious and too close to Downing St ever to be made public.
The boys in charge have decided this won't proceed. Not for Blair's sake, but for their own. What chance do a bunch of pissheads like us have of changing that?
Let it go. Hopefully we can make mischief with the evidence when it's leaked. All we can ever hope for is to have a laugh at their expense.
This is about upholding the rule of law.
Guido, you may consider the Devil to be in your corner.
DK
If you want to know wqhy this is the right thing to do just listen to that pompous cunt dennis macshane on any questions? BBC radio 4 when asked about the loans. He lied, avoided and then lied again. we need to put these corrupt losers in their place. im in for a bag of sand.
Even i fyou dont care about this investigation you need to support it on the grounds these corrupt bastards have sent our troops to die in an illegal war, sent people on flights to torture, stood by and watched as lebanon was flattened and ruined our country . come on, its the right thing to do.
I'm in. But let's do this properly. If we're going to nail the bastards then let's make sure there's no chance whatsoever of them getting away. Do it properly or don't bother.
Afer some consideration..Private Prosecution is a goer boys. Not so keen on spending money on this but can donate time. Also, lots of Uni peeps work for law firms and if I ask they'll take this on, perhaps even at a discount. Next stage is to add up the cash. £1k I've seen so far. Will set up an account on Monday-strategy meeting to follow asap. Middle East idea is good. A couple of us will prob have to fly out there to sort. We need to do this properly though, is anyone an accountant etc?
In a sense a prosecution and conviction,which was in no way guaranteed, was not necessary. The conclusions of the CPS are as ludicrous as Hutton. We will discover quite how far our democracy has fallen when Insp. Yates mislays his laptop in the coming weeks (if not earlier). A private prosecution will not fly. None of the accused will sue the Met. since they dread the public airing of this dirty linen. This will never get to court. But then it doesn't need to. NuLab readers should stop crowing and would do well to reflect on the damage that has already been done to the NuLab brand and consider their response to the emergence of more detail about this sordid affair. Trial by media for NuLab. Ironic huh?
Signed up on the Pledgebank website you can put me down for £500. Nail the bastards.
Anonymous 1:43 said...
I see that Lord Levy is thinking about bringing a charge of wrongful arrest against the police.
I think that by far that would be the best way to prosecute them. Let Levy, Blair, Turner et al reincriminate themselves while chasing the pot of Metropolitan Police rainbow gold in their desperate race to clear their names and (more important) claw money in damages. That way the police can ask some potentially damning questions while in all innocence acting as the defendants in the case.
All you need is the judge to find in Levy's favour in the sum of one penny, with a specific that each side bear its own costs and a recommendation that papers on the case be passed over to the CPS for review. That way we see Levy hoist upon his own petard, bankrupted and face further prosecution.
(anyone can fantasise, as they say)
Just quoted a job for a pair of NuLab stalwarts - Merc in the drive, kids at private dayschool, hols in Tuscany - you've met the type.
I do believe they could inadvertently find themselves contributing most generously to this project.
Anybody got any surplus ID's hanging around? Labour Party do issue a credit card you know. Be nice if the Co-op bank could help finance this out of their bad debt provision.
Blah, blah, blah...dog with six back legs. This is all going nowhere.
Suggest you all get back to shit stirring on Monday with the incumbent government.
In the words of Alan Clarke to Thatcher on the eve of her knifing "of course you'll lose, but fight, fight on to the glorious end"
I'm prepared to put a couple of day's earning up. Look, if you're a well-meaning pauper, thanks but let's forget the negotiating about crumbs.
Politically the fight is well worth having:
1. It has some chance of success.
2. It will drag on for years, keeping "Labour Sleaze" in the headlines.
3. Presumably the Labour party will be on the defensive, not just Levy, since it is a party funding matter.
4. It is the right thing to do.
5. Imagine the joy at finally convicting that bunch of something.
If, as was suggested above, Lord Levy does bring an action against the Police - surely the standard of proof will be the civil standard: a balance of probabilities?
Criminal prosecution, as is well known, requires proving the case beyond reasonable doubt, a far higher standard than the civil burden.
I assume 'wrongful arrest' will lie in Tort and the civil burden will apply. One assumes, therefore, to defend the claim, that the Police will be able to submit their evidence... to rather more public scrutiny?
Guido may need to consult his learned friends on that point for a considered opinion.
I make no claims to offer an opinion at this point on a Saturday night... mea culpa
According to the Mail, "..the CPS lacked the courage to charge senior government figures."
Well we know whose in charge at the CPS, but looking at their site, they are practically all women, who unfortunately are pacific and conformist by nature and liable to be intimidated by eg Cashpoint, whereas a man simply would regard him as something less tasteful than that he flushes down the toilet every am.
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.
(Just thought I would remind everybody)
ps. I wonder when it will become an offense to quote that in public?
a perfect play. guido chases blair and levy in the courts. meanwhile brown wins his 1st election victory next may. the tories cannot claim the calling of the election is opportunistic because they allege that brown has no mandate anyway. he wins a majority of 50. cameron's modernisation grinds to a halt and the tory civil war, in abeyance since 1997, begins in earnest.
maybe guido you have to accept that while you lost the battle ie against levy and blair in the law, you won the war, ie the affair weakened him in office and hastened his departure. brown is the man now, and if you have a finite supply of bullets (for which read money and time and patience), perhaps you need to be aiming them at him?
Delete or let stand at your discretion, of course:
There's a certain former Canadian who somehow came into a title and who was subsequently abandoned by his former pals (and quite expensive company they were, too) and allowed to twist slowly and very publicly in the wind. He just may be the vengeful and litigious type. He certainly has a lot of experience in courtrooms. May not be good for cash, but perhaps for testimony.
I believe he can be reached through Barbara Amiel's office.
Julian
good point
Aitken&Archer anybody?
Casual sometime lurker here - just signed the pledge.
I'll go to £200 in the hope that there's a faint chance of returning this country to democratic government.
Given that there are extremely strong arguments for saying that the CPS applied the wrong evidential criteria in deciding whether or not to prosecute (see the comments of learned lawyers on your earlier thread), the question I put is: Are decisions by the CPS subject to judicial review?
The chance of prosecution was always slim due to the ease in which any paper trail could be made to disappear and verbal communications 'forgotten'.As I commented some months ago, an investigation into where the proceeds of the loans actually ended up would have been far more productive as I assume even this bunch of crooks would be required to keep some sort of accounts.
I would suggest that if there is to be some sort of fighting fund then any monies raised would be most productively used hiring some decent forensic accountants to look into the financial dealings of these spivs. An examination into the property portfolios of Blair and his bandits may be most revealing.
Lurked here for ages. Always enjoyed the site. I am not in the habit of commenting on the web as its full of tedium, but have signed up for the pledge!
Cautious 12:46 above
To anonymise donations publish sort code & number of suitable a/c. Anyone can slip a few quid over the bank counter. Signing the paying-in slip G Brown would encourage Labour Party unity.
The police stopped persuing the investigation along the PPERA line back last summer - theres no milege in it as "commerical terms" would have to be given such a broad defination. AND its now impossible to demonstrate that they were sham loans as the investigation itself has so bankrupted Lab Party funds that donars are not recalling their loans and they have, QED, become donations. It impossible to say if that would have happened without the financial impact of CforP enquiry.
Of course we all know that they all were sham loans given to avoid disclosure requirements, but that is neither here nor there.
As to the 1925 Act, the CPS statement could not have been more exonarating, despite some commentators pretending otherwise. The CPS: all those nominated had good reasons to be put forward as condidates for vetting to HOLAC, asside from financial contributions.
Erm, Barry Towbsley anyone?!
As for a private prosecution: treat yourselves, but its not happening.
Guido,
I'm up for a grand.
Only 12 folks more needed, then it's game on. By midday perhaps?
This story is not going away. Information continues to trickle out. Thus:
"The Sunday Times has also discovered that there was a second key piece of evidence – a diary kept by [Sir Christopher] Evans that allegedly details a series of meetings at the House of Lords in 2004 with Lord Levy, Blair’s chief fundraiser, to discuss a peerage.
"One well-placed Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) source said the diary was 'dynamite' and provided 'spectacular' evidence of an alleged 'agreement' for Evans to be ennobled in return for a £1m loan."
Puzzling. Assume, for the sake of argument, that the story is true. As an out of court statement the diary would be inadmissible in evidence against anyone other than the maker. But it would certainly have been evidence against Evans himself.
These are deep waters, Watson.
Voltigeur
very good point. follow the money is usually a good tactic.
In response to anonymous @ 8.50am decisions by the CPS not to prosecute are subject to judicial review: R v DPP, ex p C [1995] 1 Cr App Rep 136, CA.
I want my noney back. £1mil for a result of insufficient evidence. Thats not v good service is it? What ever happened to "No Win No Fee". And as for comming third the othert night, well!. And who thinks Tony pothead Mcnulty looks like a thug? I know its not the best polityical or educational coment, but its Sunday and the big fat green one i've just had, has er...um...er, where was I.
Gestapo tactics accused of being used by the police against Ms Turner and sources suggest my Lord is threatening to take legal action for wrongful arrest.
This level you reach where the law doesn't interfere with your life - Lord Conrad Black had similar thoughts - yet though he walks free until November - found guilty on something. Law hadn't read the film script there then - "with a single bo(u)nd he was free! Nice.
My Lord Levy may get his "wish" inadvertently. Be careful what you wish for Lord Michael Levy. I suspect from what I read - you may not have been arrested on a whim, sir.
Put up or shut up unnamed sources!
No - on reflection, until another matter has been settled to my satisfaction - spokes weasels - just shut up!
I'm In.
Today I heard the fat lady gargling in her dressing room!
A Pint for Justice.
Now that it looks that the 100 Justice Angels have been found
-
How about getting this appeal Viral-
For the price of only a pint of beer a week, we can all help
Lets make a fighting fund, where we can all committ to help- paid as suggested over the counter- i like the idea of G Brown signatures, hee hee
i.e. One pint of beer a week = £10 per month
two pints £20 etc
Just imagine, if we all contact our mailboxes - just 10,000 would give a fighting fund of £100,000 per month
There must be more than ten thousand supporters of the SNP alone who would not miss a pint, I am sure
What Legal Eagle says above opens up a new - a second - avenue, does it not?
evan's diary shows nothing other than his own indescretion and frustration. and the entries are years before the time he made the big loanations - hence why the cps decided the killer extracts would not be admitted as evidence at trial.
the only thing they really show is that new money is so much worse at playing this game than old money - thats what this is all really about.
anyway it will be leaked in full next week, no doubt.
I have changed my mind it would be cheaper and far more efective if we hired the services of a Russian hit man rather than some twat in a wig and gown.
The CPS report says the Labour Party received legal advice before accepting the loans. This is the first we've heard of it. In that case, how come the Labour Party treasurer didn't know about the loans? Who was the advice from? Cherie Booth, perhaps, or Lord Goldsmith?
There you are again with that FAITH thing I told you about.
This is Neo-Labours 3rd way Fascist Britain after 10 years. Did you seriously expect anyone to do ANYTHING?
Still have 'fun' if you wish, but be prepared for the worst of all outcomes.
( Being a public martyr for liberty is sometimes a tough job and can, may I remind you, be 'painfull. It's probelly best if you find an unmarried chap with no kidds for this one. Iain Dale would be better, no one would miss him after all. )
For example; keep your toothbrush handy, and do not commit in advance to any foreign holidays over the next year or two.
Oh and I nearly forgot. Dont on any account fly anywhere on private aircraft or take solitary walks in woods or seemingly unpopulated places.
One more thing get your heart checked out by a good TRUSTED independant foreign registered doctor. You never know when the thing may 'suddenly stop' for no sensible or legal reason.
howard 9:00am
Lurked here for ages. Always enjoyed the site. I am not in the habit of commenting on the web as its full of tedium, but have signed up for the pledge!
I drink to health sir, you are a lurker and a gentleman!
garypowell you maythink you are joking but I would put nothing past these bastards.
nappie man 11:23am
i.e. One pint of beer a week = £10 per month
two pints £20 etc
Although (put like this), that one pint of beer seems an almost insignificant sacrifice in the great scheme of things - in reality, if that pint of beer happens to be the one for which you are fixatively gasping and of which you have already formed a mental picture as it stands there in a frothy cap, gold-ice-cold gently effervescing in a tall glass on the bar...the sacrifice becomes more akin to going over the top at Passchendaele.
mr justice cocklecarrot 9:29am
Puzzling. Assume, for the sake of argument, that the story is true. As an out of court statement the diary would be inadmissible in evidence against anyone other than the maker. But it would certainly have been evidence against Evans himself.
The manner in which the CPS decision attempted to argue proof of an agreement essential to bringing a prosecution under the 1925 Act demonstates just how desperately the government wish to protect the bribers in this case - surely, the businessmen who 'loaned' money and subsequently made extremely revealing statements about the honours system are the most obvious targets for criminal proceedings. However, by wilfully misinterpreting the 1925 Act and adjudging as impossible a prosecution against individual donors, the CPS has sought to exclude this possibility - presumably because they are fully aware that such action would lead to donors squealing and dealing.
Guido should concentrate on pursuing prosecutions against the bribers under the 1925 Act as this is the only route to obtaining solid evidence against the bribees. Unfortunately, a conviction against Blair's aides under the 2000 Act will simply be viewed as a slap on the wrist - and they will be able to pass the affair off as 'a technical error of judgement'.
Nevertheless, the insertion of the 'legal advice get-out clause' at Section 30 of the decision (this being primarily a 'get-out clause' for the CPS) is prima facie evidence of the CPS bottling it. The inserted clause is both amateurish and unprofessional (what double damnation!) and displays that CPS lawyers well understand the uncertainty of the ground upon which they tread à propos the commerciality of the 'loans'. This clause was unnecessarily inserted in a state of panic - it may even have been added under the duress of direct political pressure from New Labour officials.
What happened to the charge of false accounting? Surely the Newlab Gestapo are guilty of this on the admission of their own treasurer on Channel 4 News!!!!!!!!
I'm with Hitch on this. Can't we just put the money towards buying some Polonium and a Russian fallguy?
7:14pm
Codswallop!!
fishing-expedition,
I am most insulted by your comment! Indeed! Furthermore, I note that you have failed to submit any written reasons for your judgement! I might tell you that I am highly distinguished in the field of jurisprudence and the holder of high office! Humph! I cannot, of course, reveal my identity here, but let it suffice to say that I was awarded a knighthood from the Queen in the 2007 New Year's Honours list for my tireless services to the enrichment of British cultural life - a deserved recognition of the fact that, in my spare time, I selflessly devote myself to making small pizzas out of bagels. I also act as an ad-hoc stand in for Tony and regularly knob Cherie when he can't be arsed.
Guido,
I am sorry to say that I think the chances of a successful prosecution on the basis of "uncommercial loans" is very slim indeed, unless there is conclusive evidence that the loans were, for example, not to be repaid.
First, the issue of "commercial" loans comes up in tax cases, where the courts are very reluctant to opine on what is commercial based entirely on matters like interest rates or loan terms. If the terms matched the terms that the Labour Party would get from the Co-op Bank or Nat West, that might be accepted as evidence of commerciality, but on the other hand the simple fact that banks are not offering loans on the same terms does not necessarily make the loan "uncommercial". After all, faced with many offers of a loan from different lenders, a rational person will choose the offer with the most advantageous terms. That doesn't make it an uncommercial loan.
Second, the burden of proof in a criminal prosecution is much higher than the balance of probabilities required in a tax (i.e. civil) case.
Ergo, without a smoking gun document saying that the loans did not have to be repaid, I would say that your case would go nowhere.
Mark,
Hiding / disguising a donation is an offence, if the situation as reported widely with regard to Mr Noon's donation is true, an offence has been committed.
He made a donation that was disguised as a loan.
Post a Comment