SPIN MUST NOT SABOTAGE JUSTICE.

For the past two days the papers have been full of speculation that the police investigating the so-called "Cash for Honours" scandal have recommended that the Prime Minister's chief fundraiser Lord Levy, the Downing Street Director of government relations, Ruth Turner, possibly also the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, Jonathan Powell, should be charged.

As far as I can discover, neither the police nor the Crown Prosecution Service have officially confirmed or denied these allegations, and nor should they at this stage. However, it has been made public that on Friday the police submitted ‘a 216 page report with supportive material’ to the Crown Prosecution Service.

In a statement, the police said: ‘The Met has had extensive consultation with the CPS during the enquiry and provided them with reports together with over 6,300 documents. To date 136 people have been interviewed as either witnesses or suspects. It is now a matter for the CPS to consider the evidence, advise us on whether any further enquiries are necessary and whether any charges should be brought’ (Scotland Yard Press Statement, 20 April 2007).

Despite all the speculation, it is clearly not possible for anyone except the police and CPS officers who have seen the full report to form a judgement about whether there has been criminal activity at the heart of government. But one thing which certainly is clear is that this case has demonstrated that the rules governing publicity for ongoing police investagations are in need of review.

For a year now there has been a vast quantity of speculation in the media and on the internet about the possibility of charges being brought. There have been millions of words written by people hostile to the government suggesting that there would be enough evidence to bring charges - and there have also been a large number of planted stories and opinion pieces from New Labour and their supporters suggesting that the whole story has been blown up out of all proportion and often attacking the police.

The only way we will find out whether there really is a strong case against anyone of criminal behaviour associated with Labour party fundraising, or indeed concerning any of the other allegations which have been made, will be if and when it comes before a court.

Sadly, one consequence of all the hype is that, if the Crown Prosecution Service does not launch a prosecution, many people will be convinced that they have been put under political pressure. However, the government have only themselves to blame for this situation.

Labour politicians and some of their friends in the media have publicly accused the police of responsibility for leaks to the media about the progress of Inspector Yates' investigation into "Cash for Honours". However, there is good reason to think that many of the media stories came from sources associated with the Labour government, and not from the police at all.

This raises an important question. Do our current judicial rules, particularly the "Sub Judice" restrictions on reporting as they currently stand, contain adequate safeguards against the possibility that people in official positions who believe that they may be accused of wrongdoing may arrange leaks of the progress of a police investigation in the hope of deliberately sabotaging any possible prosecution? The idea would be to create publicity about alleged offences so that the accused can use the defence that this publicity will make a fair trial impossible.

As soon as any trial which comes out of the current investigation is concluded, or if it becomes clear that there will be no trial, we need a fully independent review of the rules concerning press statements, leaks, and reporting of ongoing criminal investigation to make sure that spin - on either side - cannot sabotage justice.

One other point. The DPP, because he has worked on legal matters with the Prime Minister's wife, has rightly and wisely removed himself from any involvement in the decision whether to start a prosecution on Cash for Honours. The Attorney General should have done the same thing at the outset. If he has a scrap of common sense, or regard for the principle that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done, he must state now that he will take no part in any decision about any prosecutions in this case.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Nick Herbert on his visit to flood hit areas of Cumbria

Quotes of the day 19th August 2020

Quote of the day 24th July 2020