The Abrahams donations: wild talk of non-PPERA offences

November 29 2007

Some people might be rashly suggesting offences other than those under PPERA might have been committed – but I think that’s wild talk, to be frank.

Some might suggest 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 http://www.lependart.com wrong reporting was after the money was donated: Peter Watts could have reported the donations accurately, and would have caused no gain or loss to Labour by doing so. 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.

2017-03-20T04:47:05+00:00Tags: , |

Those potential PPERA offences: the penalties

November 29 2007

Schedule 20 to PPERA lays down the penalties for offences relating to party donations: it’s a handy read-across guide.

In respect of each of the offences set out in my post yesterday, the maximum penalties are:

– on summary conviction (i.e. if the case is accepted by the Magistrates’ Court): statutory maximum fine (£5000) or 6 months;

– on indictment (i.e. if for some reason, such as the rarity of high profile of the case, or because the magistrates think their sentencing powers are insufficient given the seriousness of the alleged offence, the magistrates decide the case has to be sent up to a judge and jury in the Crown Court): unlimited fine or 1 year.

2007-11-29T11:30:00+00:00Tags: , |

The worst legal system in the world? Version 2.0

November 29 2007

I spoke too soon, and it makes me feel like Major Gowan. If you remember, when the American accuses Fawlty Towers of being the worst hotel he’d ever been in, the Major snaps. “No! No!” he protests. “There’s a place in Eastbourne…”

The charging of Gillian Gibbons is a disgrace not just to Sudan, but to Islamic legal systems all over the world. I’m afraid that, until legal systems like this, and like the Saudi one, are abolished, nothing that calls itself Islamic law can really be taken seriously as a fit system for any society to live by. Strong words, perhaps: but I think moderate, liberal-minded Muslims need to wake up, and http://www.lependart.com realise that this kind of thing – Islamist terror too, of course, but this website focuses on things legal – deprives the whole idea of Islamic law of any credibility at all, just as “really existing socialism” made it impossible to be taken seriously as a communist after, at the latest, 1956.

Really existing Islamic law seems to be doing its best to reveal itself as silly, small, nasty and misogynistic. I could thing of lots of other bad adjectives if I wanted.

2017-03-20T04:47:14+00:00Tags: , , |

Those potential PPERA offences – a concise summary

November 28 2007

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.

2017-03-20T04:47:33+00:00Tags: , |

Countryside Alliance v Attorney General: House of Lords Judgment

November 28 2007

The Lords have given judgment today in R (Countryside Alliance) v Attorney General. There were two appeals in fact: one by huntsmen and landowners heavily engaged in the hunting “lifestyle” so to speak, who argued that the Hunting Act 2004 breaches their Convention rights to respect for private life, to freedom of assembly and protection of property, and discriminated against them contrary to the article 14 Convention right. The other appeal was by among others Irish people and British people heavily engaged in the hunting business, who argued that the hunting ban breaches EU rules on free movement of goods and services, under articles 28 and 49 of the EC Treaty. Together these appeals form the second prong – the human rights and EC prong – of the legal challenge to the hunting ban, the first prong of which (the “Parliament Acts prong”) failed in the Lords in 2005 in Jackson v Attorney General.

This prong, too, has failed. Unsurprisingly in my view – it seems to me to have been sublimely obvious from the start that, even if any of the rights claimed was affected, the ban was amply justified in both human rights and EU law terms. But the legal caravan rolled on regardless, and so we end up with this inevitable judgment.

The Lords all agreed that http://www.lependart.com article 8 did not apply: as Lord Bingham explained in his speech, hunting is carried out in public and none of the Strasbourg cases gets close to saying a “lifestyle” such as involvement in hunting is protected by the article 8 right to respect for private life. The majority also thought article 11 on freedom of assembly was inapplicable – Lord Bingham was the only one who thought it might be engaged here. Again, the Lords were unanimous that involvement in hunting does not amount to a personal characteristic or status on grounds of which one can be discriminated against under article 14 – so the right not to be discriminated against was not applicable, either. The only Convention right engaged is the article 1 of Protocol 1 right to protection of property – but all the Lords agreed Parliament was entitled to conclude the hunting ban was in the general interest, and that in doing so it struck a fair balance between the private interests of huntsmen and the wider rights of the community. Lord Bingham said this was a paradigm case of judicial deference to democratic judgment:

Here we are dealing with a law which is very recent and must (unless and until reversed) be taken to reflect the conscience of a majority of the nation. The degree of respect to be shown to the considered judgment of a democratic assembly will vary according to the subject matter and the circumstances. But the present case seems to me pre-eminently one in which respect should be shown to what the House of Commons decided. The democratic process is liable to be subverted if, on a question of moral and political judgment, opponents of the Act achieve through the courts what they could not achieve in Parliament. (–§45)

He, and all the other Lords, ruled that, in spite of there being some uncertainty about the extent to which national rules effectively banning certain products or activities interfere with European free movement rules – in the Commission v Italy case the ECJ will address the question as far as free movement of goods is concerned when the Grand Chamber eventually rules on it – the ban was clearly a justifiable restriction on free movement in any event.

So on both human rights and EU law, an easy and obvious result. But there were a Cheap Oakleys couple of interesting passages in their Lordships’ speeches.

First, a one-liner from Lady Hale, in response to an argument by David Anderson QC that it is more difficult to justify restrictions on EU fundamental freedoms that interferences with Convention rights:

The suggestion that the EC claimants might succeed while the human rights claimants did not would be illogical and unjust and fuel the fires of anti-communitarian sentiment in a quite unnecessary way. (–§131)

If you follow that logic it seems to me to have interesting an important consequences for public law in the UK.

Second, though, and more interesting, was Lord Brown’s disagreement with Lord Bingham about deference – together with passionate argument that, though he accepted article 8 does not apply here, it ought to. First, deference:

I readily accept, as Lord Bingham suggests… that a degree of respect should be accorded to the decision of a majority of the country’s democratically elected representatives reached after intense debate. I am unpersuaded, however, that this is “pre-eminently” a case for such respect and I confess to some difficulty with my Lord’s suggestion that: “The democratic process is liable to be subverted if, on a question of moral and political judgment, opponents of the Act achieve through the courts what they could not achieve in Parliament.”… The democratic process is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the protection and vindication of human rights. Sometimes the majority misuses its powers…. Take the Irish legislation criminalising homosexuality considered in Norris v Ireland… Or consider the UK Government’s ban on gays in the military which was only ended after successful article 8 challenges were brought in Strasbourg.(–§§157-158)

And now the application of article 8, on which it seems to me he makes a very powerful liberal and democratic case for ordinary interests to be protected by article 8, so that legislators must at least justify banning them:

Take music or dance; or chess or bridge; or polo or golf; or climbing or canoeing. Should not a human rights convention ideally operate to ensure that all such activities could only be banned for good reason. Some perhaps may be regarded as more personal than others, carried out in circumstances of greater intimacy. But why should that be critical? All of them are activities to which people may choose to devote much of their lives and which for some are all-important. The Cheap Oakley Sunglasses alternative, clearly, is that any or all of these activities could be banned, perhaps by some Taliban-like administration, and that those affected, amateurs or professionals, however fundamentally, would have no right to call for a justification for the ban and no redress in the courts were none afforded. The government enacting such legislation would, of course, be politically accountable to the electorate. But if a majority in the country favoured such a ban, prompted, say, by feelings of prejudice or jealousy towards a wealthy or intellectual elite, there might in fact be political advantage in it.(–§140)

Great stuff, this: a modern rethinking, perhaps, of Dicey’s idea that your right to free speech is no less and no more important than your freedom to listen to a band or eat a bun.

2017-03-20T04:48:10+00:00Tags: , |

Harriet Harman, and Janet Kidd’s donation: possible offences

November 27 2007

I’ve been having another think about donationsgate, specifically thinking about potential offences in relation to the Harriet Harman donation.

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, but a team member failed to tell Harman, then that team member may have committed an offence under section 61(2), which applies http://www.gooakley.com/ because of para. 9 of Schedule 7 (with Harriet in effect as “regulated donee” being her own 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.

2017-03-20T02:36:06+00:00Tags: , |

Head of Legal "agrees with Pannick" shock

November 27 2007

Heavens! What’s going on? I actually agree with what he says in the Times today about European free movement and discrimination law, and sport: it http://www.gooakley.com/ really is no good ministers or sports bodies trying to find clever ways out the rules that prevent them trying to place limits on the number of foreign players. As David Pannick says, they’re almost certainly doomed to failure in the courts.

The government needs to negotiate amending legislation to create a carve-out for sport, if they really want to tackle this.

2017-03-20T02:36:10+00:00Tags: , , , |

More on donations offences – and civil penalties

November 27 2007

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: , |

Donations row: were offences committed?

November 27 2007

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.

2017-03-20T02:36:53+00:00Tags: , |

Livtinenko: widow goes to European Court of Human Rights

November 23 2007

I’m just watching Louise Christian in a telly press conference explaining the basis of her client Marina Livinenko’s complaint against Russia to the European Court of Human Rights. Russia is a signatory of course; and the complaint is that Russia has http://www.raybani.com/ breached the article 2 right to life, either by involvement in the actual killing or at least by failing properly to investigate the murder. She’ll also be claiming I think that her treatment has been inhuman, contrary to article 3.

Interesting, this: Christian was saying she’s not given up on the possibility that Andrei Lugovoi might still be extradited – as I’ve explained before, I really can’t understand this point of view, given the Russian constitution. But the Strasbourg claim seems to me entirely justified, and the most effective legal means of trying to hold Russia to account for Ray Ban outlet what happened. Ms. Christian also mentioned the possibility of an inquest in England at some point in the future.

Here’s a link to the Litvinenko Justice Foundation which Christian founded together with Marina, Boris Berezovsky and Alex Goldfarb.

2017-03-20T02:37:12+00:00Tags: , , |
Copyright 2022 Carl Gardner. Site by Samsara
Go to Top