No 10 begins legal battle over cash for honours

#1
Does this story count as an authorised leak? :?

Telegraph Online[/url], 15 November 2006"]
No 10 begins legal battle over cash for honours

Downing Street has instructed lawyers to challenge any prosecution based on the cash for honours investigation because ministers believe it has been compromised by unauthorised leaks.

The move is part of a concerted fight back by Downing Street after Tony Blair reacted with fury to reports alleging that the police net was closing in around him.

The lawyers have complained to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) that the investigation, which began in March, has been undermined by dozens of leaks to the media which they blame on Scotland Yard.

They claim there has been an "abuse of process" which, if accepted by the CPS, could scupper any prosecution. The move is part of a pre-emptive strike against the police.
1997-present: HM Armed Forces
1999: Serbia
2001: Afghanistan
2003: Iraq
2004: BBC
2006: The Metropolitan Police
2007: ?

Who's next on the pre-emptive strike list?

Not interested in truth and justice, just getting off the hook on a technicality... :x

More on the subject here: No wonder politicians are held in contempt, and here: Labour's lenders 'did not seek secrecy'
 
#2
Its got to get past Goldsmith first...
Goldsmith defends role in honours probe
Tuesday, 14 Nov 2006

The attorney general has defended his decision not to stand aside from the cash for honours inquiry, despite being a close ally of the prime minister.

Lord Goldsmith said he was the only person answerable to parliament for prosecutions conducted in the UK and that was a responsibility he could not give up.

Questions have been raised about his involvement in a case that has seen senior Labour figures and potentially Tony Blair – who appointed Lord Goldsmith to the post of top lawyer in the UK and who gave him his peerage – questioned about corruption.

more:- http://www.politics.co.uk/News/party-politics/party-politics/goldsmith-defends-role-in-honours-probe-$457817.htm
...........................................................................................

If you want a good briefing on the story, read this:-
http://mathaba.net/rss/?x=545728
 
#3
Who would benefit from 'leaking' details relating to the investigation by the Metropolitan Police? Not the police surely, as that would prejudice their case should they wish to bring charges against any individuals.

Who would benefit from prejudicing the case in advance of any charges being brought?

However, if any persons, who may have charges brought against them, had friends in very high places in the 'Met', then the 'leaking' could be 'engineered', thus prejudicing the case and possibly precluding any charges from being brought.

This entire matter is a disgrace and sums up the dreadful level to which this appalling government has sunk.
 
#4
It's interesting to note that No 10 is already preparing it's defences.The Met leaks like a sieve(just look at the number of hints going out of there straight to The Sun).No 10 is not much better,but tries to make it's spin positive.If the matter is presented to the Attorney General,no doubt he'll apply the 'public interest test''.Any guesses what the public interest will be in this matter? This whole think has all the hallmarks of a major pi$$ing contest,conducted via the media.
 
#5
Really don't see how giving information to the press is an abuse of process. It can be in certain cases, especially where there will be a trial by jury as it can be said that they are affected by the news and add that in to the evidence when it may not be factual.

In all other cases press involvement should be welcomed, cases are meant to be in the public eye, that is part of due process to ensure a fair trial.

Is Downing Street saying they don't trust the High Court Judges to be impartial to things they read in the newspaper? Not much trust in our legal system have they?

I really would like to see their justification as to why this interferes with due process.

I sincerely hope they don't get off on a technicality on this one, who else will they be answerable to? Can't see the Tories asking many questions at PM's PQ's. can you?
 
#6
Isquared,
you have a very good point there.
I wonder though if such self interested leaking could be considered perverting the course of justice?

Still, no charges have been laid yet so nothing so far is sub judice.
I think Blair will be getting some confidential help from the master spoiler, Karl Rove.
Does anyone know who his lawyers are?
 
#7
lsquared said:
Who would benefit from 'leaking' details relating to the investigation by the Metropolitan Police? Not the police surely, as that would prejudice their case should they wish to bring charges against any individuals.

Who would benefit from prejudicing the case in advance of any charges being brought?

However, if any persons, who may have charges brought against them, had friends in very high places in the 'Met', then the 'leaking' could be 'engineered', thus prejudicing the case and possibly precluding any charges from being brought.

This entire matter is a disgrace and sums up the dreadful level to which this appalling government has sunk.
Not to mention the level to which this appalling opposition has sunk, or - as well might be the case - my own party
 
#8
It's more that the "loans" that will get him. They were made after the end of the Liarbore Party's 2004-2005 financial year but before the accounts were prepared. As they had a material effect on the liabilities of the Party (in the form of the holding company) they should have been declared to the auditors and shown in the accounts. This is a serious breech of company law and as party leader, guess where the buck stops?

Also as Cyclops Brown was election co-ordinator, surely he would have asked where £14m had suddenly appeared from? He could get caught up as well (shame that)

It's like Watergate: it wasn't the original misdeed that did for Nixon, it was the cover-up
 
#9
A charge of false accounting would be so succinct.
That's all Blair has ever given us about so much.
 
#10
Why do people assume the Met has been leaking?

The Commons Public Administration Select Committee is regularly appraised of the progress of the investigation. Could the culprit be among their ranks?

There are plenty of other sources for leaks, including those questioned, who may be looking to stitch up others or to scupper the inquiry. There is also good journalism - for example, catching Levy in a panic-stricken conversation with Matt Carter (who he? fall guy?) in Blackpool.

I am sure that Yates of the Yard knows enough either not to leak or to leak without being caught!
 
#11
If it does go ahead, who would fund the Government's action? Or is it the Labour Party's action? I know they've been on a huge drive for funding just lately, but will they be dipping into their own coffers?


I have a nagging feeling the taxpayer may be called upon??? If that beaming, smirking tw@t is going to be claiming he was 'vindicated' at some point, I'd hate to think I'd been instrumental in providing assistance.
 
#12
"It's like Watergate: it wasn't the original misdeed that did for Nixon, it was the cover-up"

Yes I like that that Jim, now't like a spot of conspricy to bring Blairs Liers Down.
john
'Also as Cyclops Brown was election co-ordinator, surely he would have asked where £14m had suddenly appeared from?'

"Not much of an accountant", could be his epitph.
 
#15
I think they may look a bit closer at you. Given that I've only just posted this topical message, in good faith, and you're straight off subject, and onto your own petty agenda.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#17
frenchperson said:
I think they may look a bit closer at you. Given that I've only just posted this topical message, in good faith, and you're straight off subject, and onto your own petty agenda.
Bringing it back on. Weh heh! I'll bet there's some twitchy arrses who are having trouble getting their heads down tonight. By Alex Salmond's comment, he sound like a man who's enjoying himself. I do hope George Galloway has something to say on this.

The outcome will be interesting.
 
#18
Today, it has been announced that Inspector Knacker has made a great breakthrough in the cash for coronets case that is gripping Britain by the short and curlies.
Charges could be laid as soon as January apparently.

Such a shame. I would have much preferred that ugly little rumour to have been arrested at the Xmas dinner table during the desert course.

He should have been dragged out of No10 , past a baying pack of snapping paps, looking wild eyed, mouth stuffed with Xmas pud and Brandy butter drooling down his chin, looking like cum on a cheap rent-boy caught in the act.
 
#19
SLRboy said:
Today, it has been announced that Inspector Knacker has made a great breakthrough in the cash for coronets case that is gripping Britain by the short and curlies.
Charges could be laid as soon as January apparently.

Such a shame. I would have much preferred that ugly little rumour to have been arrested at the Xmas dinner table during the desert course.

He should have been dragged out of No10 , past a baying pack of snapping paps, looking wild eyed, mouth stuffed with Xmas pud and Brandy butter drooling down his chin, looking like cum on a cheap rent-boy caught in the act.
It would making a cracking Queen's Speech at 3pm on Xmas Day if she was able to break the news. Annus Fantasticus anybody? :p
 
#20
SLRboy said:
He should have been dragged out of No10 , past a baying pack of snapping paps, looking wild eyed, mouth stuffed with Xmas pud and Brandy butter drooling down his chin, looking like cum on a cheap rent-boy caught in the act.
Golly, Christmas sounds like fun in your house SLRBoy!

Personally I cannot begin to hope that Bliar will ever be charged but I am perhaps daring to dream....sanctimonious pug faced wazzock. I cannot bear somebody giving pious homilies from his personally designed pulpit, whilst secretly planning on how he might ravage the collection.

He should of worked harder at being a lawyer. Or indeed at being prime minister...first amongst equals eh? Probably.
 

Latest Threads

Top