Iain Dale made an interesting post the other day on Abrahamsgate: he wondered whether David Abrahams’s donations, given by him via two of his employees and a solicitor (I’m afraid I have to say I wasn’t much more surprised by that factette than by David Abrahams’s risible wish to keep his donations secret – does he seriosuly think that’s a laudable or even proper wish?), were impermissible under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. He referred to section 61, too, which creates offences.
Of course we don’t know the full facts about what happened yet, and as any law student knows you must know http://www.gooakley.com/ the facts before you can apply the law to them. On what we know at the moment, we can’t tell. But it may turn out that offences have been committed – depending what else comes to light.
As far as Abrahams is concerned, he had no duty to report his donations to the Electoral Commission. Very convenient for him.
Ms. Kidd, Mr. Ruddick and the solicitor Mr. McCarthy were, as Iain Dale suggested, obliged by section 54(6) of PPERA to ensure that Labour knew the money really came from Abrahams, but since Peter Watt knew it did, it appears that they did provide that information – so they committed no offence under section 54(7). Nor is there any reason to suppose the donation should not have been accepted since Mr. Abrahams presumably is a permissible donor – at least, if he’s on the electoral register, than he is – see section 54(2)(a). And assuming he is, there was nothing unlawful in Peter Watt’s accepting the donations.
Now clearly, the fact that Mr. Abrahams was the real donor was not properly reported to the Electoral Commission: they give Ms. Kidd and Mr. Ruddick as among the top donors to Labour in the third quarter of this year. So what about that?
Anyone knowingly arranging to facilitate donations by an impermissible donor commits an offence under section 61(1), and the treasurer of the party would have committed an offence under section 66 if he’d falsely declared that the donations were from a permissible donor. But as I’ve said, these donations presumably were from a permissible donor. If not, of course… then you’d have to suspect Peter Watts of an offence.
He certainly would have committed an offence under section 61(2) if he knowingly said anything to the party treasurer about the identity of a donor which was false in a material particular; and under section 148(2) if he knowingly gave materially misleading information to the party treasurer when asked for information. These seem to me the key provisions: arguably, if Watts told the treasurer than Kidd, Ruddick and McCarthy were the donors, that was false, since section 54(6) suggests they were merely agents for the actual donor, Abrahams. And Watts knew the true background.
So there might be criminal liability here, depending on what Peter Watts did. I think the difficulty for any prosecution would be a potential defence that Watts didn’t knowingly give false or misleading information in a material particular, since the information is required for the cheap oakley sunglasses purpose of checking that donations are from permissible donors – the background would only have been material had Abrahams not been on the electoral register. The CPS would need to take that potential defence into account in deciding whether to charge him, but I’m not sure it’s so obviously strong as to deter a decision to prosecute. Potentially a tough decision, that.
Schedule 7 to PPERA applies similar rules to donations to the Labour deputy leadership campaign: any amount over £1,000 was recordable. So we need to be told whether anyone in Harriet Harman’s campaign team knew what Peter Watts knew. If so, they’re in the same position as Mr. Watts. If not, Janet Kidd will have committed an offence under paragraph 6(5) of the Schedule, having breached paragraph 6(4).
A final thought: by trying to stay in the shadows, Abrahams has hurt Labour and Harriet Harman ten thousand times cheap oakley more than his money could ever have helped them.
UPDATE: As David Boothroy’ds correctly pointed out in the comments, Peter Watt (not “Watts” – I boo-booed about that) is registered as treasurer for the purposes of PPERA – in spite of the fact that Jack Dromey is actually treasurer of the Party. So Peter Watt can’t have committed offences under s61(2) and s148 – and no one else can have, since the “treasurer” knew.
That still leaves questions about the Harriet Harman donation, though.
a) Peter Watt, not Watts.
b) The Treasurer of the Labour Party for Electoral Commission purposes is ex officio the General Secretary, in other words Peter Watt himself. What is he supposed to have misled himself about?
The PPERA was drafted on the basis that the party receiving a donation would not know that it was coming through an agent rather than from the original source, which is why the Treasurer does not seem to have any duty under the Act to report that the donor was an agent. It’s all down to the donor and agent to report.
Thanks for correcting my mistake about Watt’s name, David. And for pointing out the treasurer/general secretary thing. A bit weird, that, given that he’s not the actual treasurer – but there you are. If that’s right I guess he can’t have committed offences under section 61(2) or 148, then.
That doesn’t of course address the Harriet Harman donation.
And I think you’re wrong about PPERA. My post links to the Electoral Comission’s explanation that reporting requirements on donor have now gone. So it’s not up to Abrahams. Let me know if you think I’m wrong about that.
It’s up to the agent to report, yes: but they did, in accordance with section 54(6). That provision makes clear that where intermediaries given money for someone else, it’s that someone else who’s the donor – not the intermediary. So Abrahams should have been reported as the donor. That’s what Peter Watt’s done wrong.
The fact that that misleading report leads to no criminal liability does tend to suggest there’s a loophole in PPERA: it should be an offence for the treasurer to make a declaration that a report is true if he knows it’s misleading as to the identity of a donor – whether or not the donor is a permissible donor.