Category: Police and Policing

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.

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.

Cressida Dick’s criticism of the ‘politicisation of policing’ is really criticism of accountability for policing

8th April 2022

Every so often, and without irony, you will hear the phrase “treated like a political football”.

You will also hear, about some area of human activity, that “the politics should be taken out of” it  – say, health or social care or education.

There is something in such a proposition – and there are certain fundamental principles, especially about human autonomy and dignity, where there should not be politics.

For example, whether someone should be tortured or not should really not be a matter for political debate.

But.

Because it is such a nod-along phrase – the sort which will get people saying “of course” or even clap and cheer – then it is a phrase that will tend to be misused.

And it is often misused by those who do not want there to be accountability for their uses of state power.

The goal of many with state power is to be free from any practical accountability, just as it is the goal of many businesses to be free from competition.

To have a check and a balance – to have things contested – is not what many with state power want.

Sometimes such opposition to accountability is effected with laws and processes – for example the undermining of freedom of information.

Sometimes it is done linguistically – with phrases such “politicisation”.

And here we come to the departure today of Cressida Dick from Scotland Yard.

Dick is the best leader the Police Federation never had.

A shop steward, not a police commissioner – Dick confused the interests of the police with the interests of the public.

And so when public confidence was lost in her (shop) stewardship, she had to resign.

In her farewell letter, Dick criticises the “politicisation of policing”.

What Dick is really criticising is accountability for policing.

And if you make that change, the rest of her resignation letter makes a lot more sense.

***

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 returns – and a reminder about how this still matters in constitutional terms

29th March 2022

The ‘Partygate’ problem has come back for both the Prime Minister and those who work(ed) with him in Downing Street.

Perhaps he – and his political and media supporters – had hoped the fog of war in Ukraine would obscure this ongoing political crisis from view.

But: no.

It is here again – and in this latest stage there are fixed penalty notices for a number of Downing Street staff.

These – in effect – fines appear to be just the first round, and it may be that further penalties are issued.

There may even be one issued to the Prime Minister.

Currently Downing Street is maintaining that no rules were broken – even though these fixed penalty notices mean that the Metropolitan Police have reasonably concluded after investigation that offences have been committed.

Perhaps Johnson and his staffers want ‘their day in court’ before they accept any rules were broken.

This is all engrossing political drama – even political soap opera.

So it is important to not overlook why any of this really matters.

It matters for two reasons.

First, it is about legality.

Those in government are not above the law – and certainly not above the coercive restrictions that almost-casually imposed upon the rest of us during lock-down.

(By ‘casually’ I mean that the rules were imposed often without proper parliamentary debate or scrutiny and were often published at the last moment before taking effect.)

Second, it is about accountability.

The Prime Minister expressly told the House of Commons that rules were not broken and that he was unaware of the pandemic of partying in Downing Street.

On the face of it, it looks as if the Prime Minister was lying.

Of course, in the real world, politicians lie all the time.

But, taking such a cynical view at its highest, there should still be some adverse consequence to a Prime Minister misleading the democratic house of parliament.

‘Partygate’ is only incidentally about parties – the triviality of the circumstances co-exist with serious issues of legality and accountability.

And that is why it has not been obscured by the fog of war.

The problem of legality and accountability is still there, and it needs to be addressed.

And until and unless the problem is addressed, the problem will continue to de-stabilise British politics – because it is not really about partying at all.

**

Thank you for reading.

This blog needs your support – for these free-to-read law and policy posts take time and opportunity cost to put together, as do the comments to moderate.

So for more posts – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please 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.

Two reasons why today’s ‘Reclaim these Streets’ high court decision is significant

11th March 2022

The ‘Reclaim these Streets’ decision was handed down by the High Court today.

In a welcome judgment, it was held by the High Court that the Metropolitan Police had acted unlawfully in respect of blanket banning a vigil during lockdown.

The ruling is detailed and thorough, but on the first reading there are two points that seem worth making.

First, the court placed the police decision-making under anxious scrutiny.

This was instead of the court’s usual deference to police decision making – where the long arm of the law is kept at more than arm’s length.

This is refreshing approach instead of the more familiar nodding-along by judges at police conduct.

Second, and just as refreshing, the court took the legal right to freedom of expression  – under Article 10 of the ECHR – seriously.

This was rather than the common lip-service paid by judges – who invariably mention free expression rights only to allow them to be interfered with.

*

This must have been a challenging case to bring, to prepare for and to argue, and so there should be considerable credit for the applicants and their legal team for doing so.

Indeed – in getting the court to overcome its traditional deference to the police and in getting that court to then take free expression rights seriously – it is difficult to imagine a harder such case to fight and to win.

Well done to all who were involved.

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1502252517631135752

******

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.

Today a “senior ally” of the Prime Minister appeared to place improper pressure on the police

11th February 2022

This was an interesting tweet from earlier today:

So much to unpack in this.

But perhaps the most striking thing is that such an utterance was made at all.

The journalist is experienced and well-regarded, and so we can safely assume this was said by someone.

Journalistic convention means “senior ally” could mean a range of people – including Boris Johnson himself – but it would be someone significant.

And what is this “senior ally” doing with this speech act?

Well.

It appears that they are seeking to influence the police investigation.

Indeed, in this context, the statement quoted could even amount to an attempt to intimidate or otherwise wrongly place pressure on the police.

You may remember that the Prime Minister said that there would not be “a running commentary” on the police investigation.

Well, this quoted remark is more of  “a getting carried away” commentary.

The correct position for the police would be to disregard such a statement – though it may irk them into imposing a sanction just so to show their independence.

And the correct position at Johnson’s end would be for a “senior ally” to have not said this at all.

But looking at the two Swinford tweets above, you get the sense that this is some “barrack-room” (or “cabinet-room”?) non-lawyer coming up with some clever-clever line – though one which would not survive contact with legal reality.

Such spinning and framing may work with the lobby, and thereby influence media processes, but it will not work with a legalistic process.

Wrong tool, wrong job.

Since that reported statement, it would seem wiser “allies” are aware of the unfortunate impression that statement gave:

That Downing Street even had to put out such an assurance is, by itself, telling.

It tells us that there are some in Number Ten who realise the legal danger the Prime Minister is in – and that effectively taunting the police is not a sensible tactic.

Perhaps this strange moment will be forgotten – but what may linger is the sense  that Johnson – either through his “senior allies” or otherwise – has a lack of seriousness about his legal peril.

That grave problems can be got out of by such desperate expedients.

Johnson and his “senior allies” should brace, brace.

******

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.

 

The Resignation of a Metropolitan Police Commissioner

10th February 2022

This evening the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police announced their resignation.

Good.

This was the senior police officer who supervised the operation that resulted in the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes and who obstructed the work of the Daniel Morgan inquiry.

This was the senior police officer who acted more like a shop steward for their police officers rather than the people’s commissioner of the police.

They were forced to resign.

Good.

*

But.

There is a problem here beyond the failings of this one senior police officer.

A structural problem about how the Metropolitan Police is a law unto itself – an effectively ungovernable mass of individuals permitted to routinely inflict coercive force on others without any meaningful accountability.

Yes: it is a Good Thing that the police are not under the direct power of any minister or other politician – that the police have absolute operational independence.

But this absolute operational independence should not be at the cost of an absolute lack of accountability.

Power tends to corrupt, and coercive power tends to corrupt absolutely.

As and when there are failings of the Metropolitan Police there is a mix of defiance (the “thin blue line” or “not in their shoes”), evasion and misdirection, and sometimes outright misinformation.

Any response, in fact, other than accepting and owning mistakes.

And these are the officers who can inflict their coercive powers on others on the basis of mere ‘reasonable suspicion’ – but refuse to be accountable to the public even on the basis of virtual certainty.

How do you solve this problem?

How do you have a police force that is operationally independent of the government – but also does not become an unaccountable abuser of its own powers?

Who should watch the watchmen – and how?

******

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.

Two things about the launch of the Met’s Downing Street investigation

25th January 2022

Well.

Downing Street is now bing investigated by the Metropolitan Police.

And we are told that the Sue Gray report will not be ‘paused’ – and that it may even be delivered to the Prime Minister this evening, with it being published tomorrow.

What can be usefully said about this?

Perhaps two things.

First, look (again) at the Terms of Reference – that is the best corrective to getting carried away with what the report may or may not include.

In particular note that it is structured as a fact-finding exercise.

Indeed, had Gray been tasked with apportioning culpability then there may have been reason for the report to be delayed pending the police investigation.

What Downing Street gained by making it a fact-finding exercise they lost by not having a plausible excuse for it to be delayed at this stage.

And second, note that the Terms of Reference say:

“As with all internal investigations, if during the course of the work any evidence emerges of behaviour that is potentially a criminal offence, the matter will be referred to the police and the Cabinet Office’s work may be paused. Matters relating to adherence to the law are properly for the police to investigate and the Cabinet Office will liaise with them as appropriate.”

This probably means that a government lawyer has had to advise on whether the threshold has been met for evidence to be referred to the police.

And – if so – this means that on that advice, Sue Gray has been satisfied that evidence does need to be referred.

In essence: for this evidence to be referred a government lawyer and a senior official have already had to be satisfied of its seriousness.

And, in commencing an investigation, the police concur.

This does not mean that anyone is necessarily guilty.

Suspicion does not mean guilt.

But.

The evidence uncovered is so serious that a certain threshold has been met.

Brace brace.

******

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.

The Rule of Law and the Colston Four – and why a jury acquittal shows a legal system working and not being undermined

 

The Colston Four defendants have been acquitted by a jury.

Some are contending, like this former cabinet minister, that this acquittal ‘undermines the rule of law’.

That contention is incorrect.

An acquittal is as much an aspect of the rule of law as a conviction.

Criminal courts can acquit as well as convict – both can be the outcomes of the application of due process in a particular case.

The Colston Four were acquitted by a jury – and the defendants did not deny the essential facts.

It can be open to a jury to do this – and this informative Guardian article sets out many other examples.

A jury returning a verdict that they are entitled to return is an example of the law in action, and not of a legal process undermined.

This is not to say that juries are perfect – indeed, many of the greatest miscarriages of justice have come from jury verdicts.

Juries do not always get things right.

But the constitutional importance of juries is not so much for the decisions they make, but for the decisions they take away from others.

The State may arrest, charge and prosecute a person – but they cannot convict and punish a defendant pleading ‘not guilty’ to a serious offence without a jury trial.

The implication of the former cabinet minister’s view quoted above is that it should not be open to a jury to acquit a person prosecuted for a serious offence – but only to convict and punish.

But that is not the ‘rule of law’ – it is something darker and nastier instead.

Others are fretting that the verdict creates a ‘precedent’.

It, of course, does not create any legal precedent – no jury can bind another jury, and each jury should look at the case before them on its own evidence.

Nor does it create any practical precedent – or, at least, not one which has any more force than the many previous examples set out in the Guardian article.

The real upset is that a court heard the evidence and acquitted the defendants.

This is what juries sometimes do – and they can do this because they are outwith the control of the prosecuting State.

One half-expects that this weekend’s press will see ‘government sources’ urging ‘a crackdown’ on ‘perverse’ acquittals – with a proposal for ministers to have a ‘fast track’ on imposing convictions.

And this is not to put an idea into the heads of government ministers – the idea is no doubt already there.

One irony – if that is the correct word – is that this very government sought to use primary legislation to enable ministers to break the law.

That proposal – over which the Advocate General and the Treasury Solicitor resigned (and the recently knighted former Lord Chancellor did not) – did more to undermine the rule of law than any verdict of a Bristol jury.

And the current hyper-partisanship of modern politics means that if, say, a group of fox hunters were acquitted by some shire county jury, the same people who are jeering the Bristol jury would be cheering the shire county jury instead.

But juries are juries – they make mistakes, but they are independent of State prosecutors.

And the noise of government supporters unhappy with a jury decision is the sweet sound of a working constitution.

*****

Thank you for reading – and now please help this daily law and policy blog survive.

It needs your help to continue for another year – for the benefit of you and other readers – there is no paid subscription model.

Each free-to-read post takes time and opportunity cost.

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.

If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – both for the you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

*****

You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

******

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.