I blogged this a couple of times yesterday, but I thought it might be a good idea to summarise the position as regards what offences might potentially have been committed under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 as a result of David Abrahams’s secret donations, which were wrongly reported as having come from his intermediaries.
Since Peter Watt was registered with the Electoral Commission for PPERA purposes as party treasurer, responsible for reporting on donations, that means the relevant offence as far as he’s concerned is under section 65(4), since he clearly failed to comply with the reporting requirements, having wrongly identified a donor. He could potentially rely on the defence that he took all reasonable steps to ensure the requirements were complied with. But did he? Section 54(6) makes it clear that Abrahams was the donor – and Watt knew the money came from him. And on Watt’s own account he failed at the time to get legal advice, which he finally did at the weekend.
And Labour could be subject to a http://www.lependart.com civil penalty under section 147 in relation to the misreported donations.
As far as the donation to Harriet Harman’s deputy leadership campaign is concerned, there are a number of possible offences, depending on who told whom what.
If Janet Kidd failed to tell Harriet Harman’s team the money was really from Abrahams, then she may have committed an offence under paragraph 6(5) of Schedule 7 to PPERA.
If she did declare that Abrahams was the true donor, but a team member failed to tell Harman, then that team member may have committed an offence under section 61(2), which applies because of para. 9 of Schedule 7 (with Harriet in effect as “regulated donee” being her own Cheap Oakley treasurer, and in the same position, legally, as Peter Watt in relation to the wider donations).
And if Harriet Harman knew (which she denies of course) then she could have committed an offence under para. 12(2) of Schedule 7.
What are the maximum potential penalties?
Throw away the key!
Gosh! How lovely to welcome blog royalty to my humble abode they call Head of Legal! Mind you, you may not like being called royal…
Schedule 20 sets out the penalties for offences under PPERA. It’s a handy read-across guide.
In respect of each of the offences set out in my post the maximum penalties are be:
– on summary conviction: statutory maximum fine (I think that’s £5000) or 6 months
– on indictment : unlimited fine or 1 year.
I think it’s highly unlikely anyone’d go to prison – I’d go so far as to say it’s a fanciful idea. Sorry, Guido…. but these would not be the worst ways you could commit these offences, if you know what I mean.
Magistrates might send this up to a Crown Court judge just because of its rarity and high profile, so it’s possible it’d be tried in the Crown Court. I suppose also if Labour itself were prosecuted (I’ve not thought yet about whether the party itself might be prosecuted – but I will!) a big fine might be needed, so that’d be another reason for it to go to Crown Court.
Yep, I reckon the statory maximum means £5000.
No – none of the relevant offences looks to me to be “committable” by an organisation – apart from the Janet Kidd offence, of an agent failing to disclose the true donor, which I guess could be committed by a union or company. The others can only really be committed by the treasurer or regulated donee (=Watt or Harman) or by an individual party worker.
What about the recourses available relating to the donation listed as comin from Janet Dunn – it appears that Abrahams engineered her donation without her knowledge? That must be breaking a few rules and potentially not even electoral ones.
… and have any offences been committed that are not directly related to the PPERA?
I don’t think so. Some people might be rashly suggesting it’s false accounting – but to charge that under section 17 of the Theft Act 1968, there must be evidence that the suspect acted with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another. I don’t really see that that applies here as the wrong reporting was after the money was donated: Peter Watts could have reported the donations accurately, and it would have caused no gain or loss to Labour. Plus, I don’t think he’d be found to have acted dishonestly. So that’s out.
Other people might say money laundering offences apply: but the problem there is that the Money Laundering Regulations only apply to certain categories of people: see Regulation 3.
An interesting effect of Peter Watt resigning is that under PPERA 24(6) the Party Leader (Gordon Brown) effectively becomes the Registered Treasurer. So for a while Gordon Brown is legally responsible for the correct donation returns etc, as Peter Watt was! I guess the Labour Party will rapidly notify a replacement.
If Abrahams donation “agents” have not made the “paragraph 2 of Schedule 6” report to the Labour Party as reqd by s54(6), might that offer Peter Watt a defense? After all, if he has not been notified of all these details, perhaps he could argue he did not have the information to make a correct return (even if he suspected Abrahams was “the principal donor”).
I agree with you about s.24(6), rwedland: until Labour succeed in nominating another person under s.31(3), Gordon will be the treasurer! They may already have notified a change, of course.
And on s.54(6): yes, you’re absolutely right – and that’s what I’ve been saying in all my posts on this. If an agent declares the identity of the true donor to the party, they’ve discharged their legal obligations. Then it’s the party treasurer’s reponsibility (unless misled by a party worker who’s closer to the donation) to report the true donor’s name accurately. If the agent does not disclose, then obviously the treasurer can’t be expected to do anything but report the name of the apparent donor, i.e. the agent. So yes – if Janet Kidd etc. hadn’t disclosed, then Peter Watt would have a defence.
But of course he admits he knew who the true donor was…
As for Harriet Harman, now – on what we’ve been told, she does have exactly the defence you’re talking about.
Praguetory: of course Janet Dunn has now remembered the donations, so it’s no longer relevant.
But just supposing someone somehow managed to use an innocent agent to give money secretly: I think the relevant offence would be under section 148(3). The maximum sentence would be, as so often under PPERA,
– on summary conviction: statutory maximum of £5k or 6 months;
– on indictment : unlimited fine or 1 year.