The Cash For Honours "Scandal" or I don't believe it (part 2)

All becomes a little clearer, it would appear from today's Sunday Times that first David Perry QC declared that Sir Christopher Evans' "diaries would be inadmissible as evidence in a court case, or at least face significant challenges to their admissibility. They were, he said, merely “hearsay” - because the alleged meetings and discussions were disputed by Levy." These are the diaries that previously had "according to Whitehall sources, contained numerous references to discussions and meetings about honours with Lord Levy, a key adviser to Blair." Hmmm Circumstantial, "However, one CPS source alleged this weekend: “The Evans diaries are dynamite. They should have been enough for a case against Evans.”"

The second hurdle that Mr Perry put in the way of a prosecution was (as I predicted ) following Private Eye's City Slicker was the burden of proof, again from today's Sunday Times "Perry declared that for a case to succeed, the prosecution would have to show evidence of an “unambiguous” agreement to bestow and honour in return for funding. “He suddenly raised the burden of proof,” said a Whitehall source. “It was the first time he had mentioned unambiguous.”"

The Sunday Times article has some more comments regarding Mr Perry, "According to a well placed insider, the stumbling block was Perry who, as well as giving specialist advice on whether charges should be brought, also advised on which charges would be likely to lead to any prosecution. As a lawyer who acted for the government over Iraq, Perry was not known for taking an aggressive line against the Establishment. In the end he decided the evidence was not strong enough. His arguments effectively destroyed Yates’s position in one blow. It exposed the simple fact that the police case was, to use the words of one of those involved, “circumstantial”. One official said: “What I would probably say is that he [Perry] is a perfectly decent guy, but he’s risk-averse.”"

It all seems most peculiar to me, questions are being asked on various web site forums as to who might have put pressure on the CPS and how. Guido Fawkes has started a campaign to get a private prosecution launched, you can sign up to that here. Guido also makes a telling point on his blog here when he describes part of the case "One example will give you a flavour of the Loans for Lordships scheme - Gulam Noon has publicly stated that he made a £250,000 donation to the Labour party, which he correctly submitted (via Downing Street) on his vetting papers for the House of Lords Appointments Commission. Two days later on October 5, 2005 Lord Levy, Gulam Noon reportedly claims, telephoned him and referred to the £250,000 donation as a "loan" which need not be disclosed on his vetting papers. The Levy-intercepted and revised vetting papers were submitted to the House of Lords Appointments Commission, now without mention of the £250,000 "loan" / donation. When the Commission independently discovered the existence of the "loan" / donation they blocked the peerage - as presumably Lord Levy knew they would - why else would he intervene in the process? What was the Labour party's chief fundraiser doing intervening in the honours process anyway? Prima facie there is a case to answer. If the CPS won't bring it, they should at least not attempt to block others from doing so." The problem as I see it is that a private prosecution can be killed stone dead as the "Attorney General could, at any time, rule a private prosecution to be not in the public interest ("nolle prosequi"). This terminates the proceedings and this power is not subject to judicial control or judicial review." Now do you really think that this Government would allow any private prosecution to take place if there is any chance of success? Obviously the Attorney General (Baroness Scotland) should not block a private prosecution as one of the Attorney General's departments roles is described on the Attorney General's website like this "The Attorney General and Solicitor General (the Law Officers) are the chief legal advisers to the Government and are responsible for all crown litigation." Does the phrase possible conflict of interest come to mind?

Also I wonder if this pledge that I found here on the Attorney General's web site may be relevant "The Prosecutors' Pledge - From 21 July 2006, all major public prosecuting authorities will follow a new pledge to take into account and protect the interests of victims. The Attorney General has set out a Prosecutor's Pledge which requires all prosecutors to consider and support the interests of victims at every point in the case from charge to appeal in all types of case. Each prosecuting agency has looked at the commitments of the Prosecutors' Pledge and adapted it to their areas of work." Nice timing to introduce this pledge whilst a case against the Prime Minister and some of his closest advisers was in full swing.

You can read the full text of the CPS press release here. You can read Carmen Dowd's explanation as head of the CPS special crime division as to why she "advised by a team of independent counsel, led by David Perry QC" decided not to prosecute. She explains that "The Director of Public Prosecutions played no part in the decision-making process. In his stead, Carmen Dowd consulted the Director's Principal Legal Advisor, Chris Newell." It is arrangements like this that irritate me intensely. It is akin to saying that 'we know that X might be perceived as being biased so we have discussed it with X's close colleague instead' as though this removes any likelihood of a partial decision.

Many events over the past six years have led me to believe that this country is being run more and more like a banana republic and this matter does not dispel this thought. The trouble is that I cannot see how we, the people, will see any change for the better happen.