Are the police up to investigating politics?

This couldn't have come at a worse time for the police. Just as they are defending themselves over charges of heavy handedness involving Damian Green, the 11 month investigation into Peter Hain -Work and Pensions secretary until January - has fizzled into nothing.

Just as the 18 month cash for honours investigation collapsed into a pointless multimillion pound mess, so too has another long running probe disappeared down the plughole with little more than smears and stains on careers to show for it.

The Crown Prosecution Service, who decided it could not bring charges, has torn up electoral law in the process. They have decided Peter Hain was not legally responsible for over £100,000 of late donations because he wasn't the signatory on the campaign accounts. This has come as a surprise to the Electoral Commission, who thought that as candidate he was the "regulated donee" and therefore should take the rap.

So the much hated 2000 donations laws are now officially a complete mess, with the watchdog and police working by completely different rules. That wont sort itself out in a hurry.

But once again we had interviews under caution, and police sources saying "that the file provided a compelling case". Then nothing. Electoral law is clearly an overcomplicated ass, rather like the obscure offence of Damian Green is charged with. Perhaps the police should think twice before charging into political affairs in future?

Comments

[KWC]

As long as this debacle (and others like it)isn't the excuse they want to justify public funding of political parties!

[p.doff]

Mr Brown could kick start the economy by giving £10 to all those who believed that weasel Hain would not be prosecuted...ther are quite a lot of us.Now Hain is claiming that he has been proven innocent...The CPS meerely decided not to press charges & the little matter of not declaring £100 k. is swept aside.

[Matthew Cain]

Matthew Taylor has an interesting piece on this. He argues that there has been a lot of over-hyped commentary:

http://www.matthewtaylorsblog.com/politics/more-on-damian-green/

[A.M. Williams]

Why this decision on Hain today? A deal has been done to stop the Damian Green enquiry and let the Speaker off the hook. It will also serve to defer the schism that is forming between Harriet Harmen who has spoken sense and Gordon Brown who never does.

[Mike Rolph]

Given the performance Ms Smith and her minions should the DPP really be the final arbiters of the decision to prosecute. If there appears to be a case then let a jury decide. I dont think Mr Hain would have had such an easy ride there, neither would Blair and his pals.

[cengizkhan]

Seems to me that whether the police will act with the full vigour of the "law" depends upon whether the "miscreant" is a member of the government party or the opposition..

[BrianSJ]

It seems to be the CPS, rather than the main body of the police, that can't handle politics.

The problem isn't the police or any other investigative body, its the fact that in political matters the law is so vague it allows miscreants to cross the line but not break any laws. We've seen it happen many times under Labour when unacceptable behavior that most of us would consider an offense can be construed as nothing more than a minor case of taking the proverbial. It suits politicians of all parties to have loose rules and I doubt anything will change any time soon. Its too convenient to have a free get out of jail card although Labour action of Damian Green has broken ranks over this cosy arrangement and it will bite them in the rear when they're in opposition.

[Roger J]

Politicians are not above the law. This self-righteous indignation is ridiculous. If the police suspect serious breaches of confidentiality at Whitehall then they have a right to pursue all avenues otherwise it just encourages others to betray privacy and we have chaos. Employee trust is imperative and those who betray it, or encourage betrayal, should feel the full force of the law.

[Bill G]

Roger J. Breach of confidentiality is a civil offence. Its not a crime. Police have absolutely no interest or right to pursue it in any way what so ever. Can people try to get real.

[Willam]

CPS - haven for 3rd rate 2nd rate lawyers - simple really !

[cjno]

In answer to the headline question, one has to say 'no'. In fact, one doubts whether the police are up to investigating anything. They either want to preach social policy type platitudes on matters that don't concern them or shoot someone dead without further ado. The police 'service' is totally without honour in this country and needs a complete overhaul.

[Truthteller]

Another story kept quiet.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=C5XBhL6qC2o

[J Jenkins]

This is not a failure of the police investigation, it is the failure of the Crown Prosecution Service to bring a case. That, in turn, is due to the political influence on the way it operates and has GOVERNMENT SET TARGETS to meet on the percentage of successful prosecutions it has to achieve. So anything 'iffy' gets dumped, as in this and previous cases.

The effect of this is to undermine the rule of law, because instead of judges and juries being allowed to interpret the legislation and decide on guilt or otherwise, it is now being done by a government employed lawyer.

In the case of the Hain donations, my view is that the CPS has completely misinterpreted the Act of Parliament involved. The Act says that 'the responsible person' (for reporting to the Electoral Commission) when a 'members association' receives donations is the treasurer or, if there is no treasurer, ANY PERSON DEALING WITH THE DONATIONS.

However, once the 'members association' (the think tank set up to received the donations) passed any money on to Hain, then he immediately because 'a responsible person' too under the Act.

Read the legislation - it is freely available on the internet. Schedule 7 is the relevant part.

Charges should have been brought and a court / judge should have decided whether there was a case to answer under the act.

[Roger J]

Bill G - breaching the Official Secrets Act can be a crime. We are getting real - really fed up with continual 'leaks' by so-called civil servants who disgrace their profession and make politics even more disreputable.

[Saxon]

CPS (Criminal protection Society)! This the CPS was introduced they seem to have taken over the jobs of Magistrates, Judges and Juries - because they won't even prosecute a case unless there is a greater than 50% chance of getting a conviction. I always thought that the evidence was presented to the Magistrates or Jury and they decided the guilt or innocence of the accused. Regarding Hain - not a big surprise is it? The hypocracy of NuLabour scumbags is breathtaking. I'll sit back and finish my coffee and await the Stasi.

[john shepard]

roger J, if you had been reading the newspapers on this story you would have seen that Douglas Hurd amended the Official Secrets Act following the prosecution of two civil servants leaking information so that it only applied if the info affected national security or serious crime

[George Woodhouse]

What is really frustrating is that no one has a good thing to say about the current government - and quite rightly in my view. They are self serving and arrogant. But where is there any real opposition - we know the next lot will be no different and so it will continue until the revolution. Except, of course, we are either all too busy working to pay our taxes to start any sort of revolution; or living very comfortably on the generousity of the government funded by the taxes and so are quite happy with the status quo.

[Whistleblower]

Truthteller:
That video that you posted was excellent, and just shows how much the government does what it pleases and also controls the media.
If you missed it, it's here:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=C5XBhL6qC2o

[Daniel]

Why isn't anybody addressing the allegations of inducement? The criminal element in all of the Damian Green issue is not the leaking of information, however serious or embarrassing that might be, but the allegation of inducing a civil servant to commit malfeasance. The contents of the information delivered is secondary, it is the manner in which the information was procured. If the gave the Civil Servant money for supply of any documents (not necessarily official secrets), then a serious crime has been committed. Unless the police investigate we will never know what was used to induce the civil servant or whether there was any inducement at all.

[Owen]

"Why isn't anybody addressing the allegations of inducement?"

Because the only such allegations are the ones emanating from Mandelson's stooges, such as you.

"Matthew Cain" wouldn't be a nom-de-plume for Matthew Taylor, would it? Matthew Taylor is a shameless propagandist for Gordon Brown, but he notoriously likes to pose as impartial (only with a relentlessly anti-Conservative slant, which does tend to give the game away). If Cain really is separate from Taylor, I have to commend him for even finding Taylor's blog, which is as far from the mainstream as a lost Chachapoyan settlement - and a lot less worth visiting.

[Nicholas Beale]

The two cases are completely different. Hain was charged under a specific, well-defined statute and has been let off because the CPS found a loophole in the law. Green was arrested on a nebulous "common law" charge that has recently been thrown out by the court. And BTW he was NOT arrested for "inducement" but for "conspiracy" (see Hansard)

[Jeremiah]

At best Mr Hain can only claim to be 'presumed innocent'. I prefer the scottish phrase 'not proven' Clearl the police are nervous about prosecuting a member of the ruling party, but what I fear is even worse sis that judges appear to be leaning this way also

[M. Cawdery]

It seems that the police are incapable of investigating adequately any event that is related to zanulabour. The seem to be added in this by the CPS who, when the police have a case, simply decide not to prosecute

[FreedomOfSpeech]

The reason why the CPS don't pursue a charge is because they have to be certain that it will get past "half-time" - in other words, that there is sufficient evidence for a conviction to be feasible on the basis of the evidence they have.

If they don't, once it gets to half-time in the Courts, i.e. the close of the Prosecution case, the Defence will raise a "matter of law" with the Judge and try and get it chucked out at that stage. It is for the Prosecution to prove their case, not for the Defence to disprove it, and rightly so.

If they don't have enough evidence to get past half-time, they won't proceed.

Secondly, nice to see people are still spouting the "inducements for leaks" rubbish even though Ms Smith had her nose rubbed in Green's arrest warrant in the House on Thurday - nothing in the warrant about "counselling or procuring leaks" at all, it seems. Fortunately for Jacqui, she could rely on the parliamentary privilege that one cannot be sued for libel for speeches made in the House - oh, the irony of it!