David Boothroyd in his comment on my last post corrected me on a couple of factual points, as I pointed out in the update. As registered treasurer, Peter Watt (not Watts – apologies) can’t have committed offences under section 61(2) or 148 of PPERA.

But then since he was treasurer, responsible for reporting on donations, that means he may have committed an offence under section 65(4), since he clearly failed to comply with the reporting requirements, having wrongly identified a donor. Yes, he could argue he took all http://www.gooakley.com/ 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.

Oh, and Labour could be subject to a civil penalty under section 147.

Plus, there’s still the Harriet Harman donation. On the BBC a few minutes ago cheap oakley she seemed to be saying she and her team knew nothing about the money really coming from Abrahams – in which case, Janet Kidd may have committed an offence under paragraph 6(5) of Schedule 7 to PPERA.

2017-03-20T02:36:24+00:00Tags: , |