I heard via Charon QC, while checking my blawg feeds between teaching freedom of the person and free movement of persons, the news that Peter Hain has resigned from the Cabinet following the Electoral Commission’s decision to refer his case to the police. Here’s the Electoral Commission’s statement; and here’s the statement Peter Hain made this afternoon.
The Electoral Commission says it has discussed the case with the CPS and the police, and that it’s now referred the case to the police to consider “whether an investigation should take place”. But surely this means the CPS and the police both think, based on what the Electoral Commission have said, that there is at least a reasonable suspicion that Hain has committed an offence under paragraph 12(1) of Schedule 7 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. That offence relates solely to the non-reporting of donations: much political flak is flying about the channelling of donations through the Progressive Policies Forum, but that in itself does not break the law.
The next step can only be for the police to interview him under caution as a suspect – I’m not sure they’ll really need to arrest him. Following that, they’ll pass the papers to the CPS for advice and, depending on what its legal view is, charge. Given his full cooperation with the Commission so far, however, I think they must feel his explanation does not amount to the defence under paragraph 12(3) that he took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence. Or at least, that it’s far from clear that it does. Unless fresh evidence emerges at this stage, therefore, or at least something makes the police see Hain’s explanation in a new light, it’s difficult to imagine that a charge (or if the police don’t think they need to arrest and bail him, a summons) will not follow in due course.
Presumably he’d appear in the Magistrates’ Court – City of Westminister Magistrates’ Court, I presume, at Horseferry Road – and the Magistrates would decide, following his plea, whether their sentencing powers (up to a £5000 fine, or 6 months in prison, under Schedule 20) are sufficient, or whether the case needs to be sent to the Crown Court for trial or (if he pleads guilty) sentencing. I suppose it’s possible they’d think a man recently on a Cabinet minister’s salary might need to be fined more that £5000.
I’ve said before that I feel a bit sorry for Peter Hain – it seems to me he’s in the unfortunate position of being caught by legislation that that imposes personal criminal liability on him – I’m not sure entirely appropriately. And whatever happens now, this looks and sounds like the end of his political career. Others have actually sinned worse and been less politically damaged, you might feel, and the legal trouble he’s in, about non-reporting, isn’t quite on all fours with the political trouble he’s in over the PPF. But I’m also pleased that the Electoral Commission has shown it’s prepared to refer a front-line politician to the criminal justice authorities: I doubt we will ever again see a case of a politician appearing not to take PPERA seriously.
Mr Gardner,
“But surely this means the CPS and the police both think, based on what the Electoral Commission have said, that there is at least a reasonable suspicion that Hain has committed an offence”
The more cynical might regard this move as being one of self-preservation.
You’ve reiterated your view that Hain’s personal liability under the terms of the Act may be unfair.
I fail to see how things could be otherwise. The notion of corporate responsibility rests upon there being some sort of a corporate body. Given the looseness of the rest of the Act and that donations may be made to individuals, where does responsibility then fall?
Frankly I feel that the most telling aspect of this charade is that Hain – and others -actually attempted to shift the blame elsewhere, to his appointees or even to the donors. Had there been a wider responsibility you can guarantee that today’s ‘resignation’ would never have arisen. One should also recall that the donations were specifically to support Hain’s campaign (it is said).
I’d suggest that we should expect and we deserve much higher standards of behaviour from these powerful (and well paid) people. These are supposed to be leaders. Are we seriously expected to model our actions on what we have seen up until now?
Yes, I do seem to be in a small minority of people who have the slightest smidgeon of sympathy for Hain at all! So much so that I’m tempted to defend that view constantly; and that makes it seems as though my only view on this is defensive of him. Not so: I just think it’s odd that this offence of incompetence, arrogance, neglect and so on ends up costing a man his career. Whereas everyone knows there was a link between policy and a donation from Bernie Eccleston; it’s obvious a Lloyd George trade has been going on in honours; and the government who brought in supposed transparency in donations deliberately used non-reportable loans to get round its own laws. All those thing strike me as much worse than what Hain has done – yet no one lost their job over any of them. That’s why I’ve expressed the bit of sympathy I have for him.
So, it’s what one might regard as ‘comparative sympathy’ then?
It’s not clear that Hain has lost his ‘career’ – whatever that might be for a politician. He certainly has lost office, but high office brings its own hazards, and Hain was perfectly happly to take on not one but two high offices. Let’s not kid ourselves, he’s done remarkably well – for himself – over the years and no doubt will find many other sources of income in much the same way as his former colleagues will do and have done. True he’ll possibly not earn at the same exalted levels as one Mr Blair, but he’ll still be a darn sight better off than most.
If, on the other hand, you feel that others, too, should be reaping these ‘rewards’ of their malfeasance, well I couldn’t agree more. The job of the authorities and prosecutors is to pursue that end and, as necessary, to highlight any deficiencies in legislation or powers. As always though, I’d temper that with an observation that everyone should understand the ‘intention’ of Parliament when such legislation is enacted and executed. So what precisely was the intention of Parliament in this case?
Hain’ll be back, never fear. How many times did Mandelson have to resign before he was given his job in central government at Brussels? We haven’t seen the last of Hain!
Yes, Unsworth: only comparative sympathy!
And as I keep saying, only a bit of it.