2020 No. 10 Christmas Party!

[IvanV]

It also includes the former Chief Crown Prosecutor for NW England.

I hope he knows how police investigations work

And doubtless doesn't mind having rules that make his job made easier. Doesn't make it right.

[Woodchopper]

There is pushback by senior lawyers as to how a factual report could prejudice a police investigation.

Senior lawyers must not be familiar with investigation then. The way it works is that the police arrest a suspect and then ask them about the parties they attended. When the suspect denies being at a party, they say there is security camera footage. The suspect confesses and incriminates others. Later they may discover there was no security camera footage, a fact which they would have been aware of if they had read the full unredacted report.

The Secret Barrister offers a more nuanced version of this explanation and concludes that: "As things stand, there are potentially valid reasons for the Met’s stance."

[IvanV]

The Secret Barrister offers a more nuanced version of this explanation and concludes that: "As things stand, there are potentially valid reasons for the Met’s stance."

The Secret Barrister seemed to suggest it was a reasonable expectation for a suspect to find out what the police had on you before answering questions in their recent book "Fake Law", and also in their prior post on this subject. I was persuaded, and that was reason for my stance. The Secret Barrister now seem to have been persuaded otherwise. I'm therefore confused. The trouble is that whatever rule applies for a conspiracy of the eloquent also has to apply to the more normal situation of some poor confused inadequate in the police station again. We can't have one rule for top civil servants operating in concert, and one rule for the usual everyday inadequates who get stitched up by the police and fill our prisons.

[discovolante]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ode-c-2019

Check out para 11.1A.

I'd assume any MPs being interviewed under caution over their suspected attendance at an illegal rave party would have at least adequate legal representation, who could advise them on whether or not to answer questions put to them where the police claim to have CCTV but say they're still waiting for it or refuse to show it to them before the interview.

[Millennie Al]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ode-c-2019

Check out para 11.1A.

I'd assume any MPs being interviewed under caution over their suspected attendance at an illegal rave party would have at least adequate legal representation, who could advise them on whether or not to answer questions put to them where the police claim to have CCTV but say they're still waiting for it or refuse to show it to them before the interview.

11.1A requires that a person being interviewed

must be given sufficient information to enable them to understand the nature of any
such offence, and why they are suspected of committing it (see paragraphs 3.4(a) and
10.3), in order to allow for the effective exercise of the rights of the defence. However,
whilst the information must always be sufficient for the person to understand the nature of
any offence (see Note 11ZA), this does not require the disclosure of details at a time which
might prejudice the criminal investigation. The decision about what needs to be disclosed

I think that a statement that someone else said they were at the party is sufficient grounds to suspect and therefore disclosing that alone is sufficient to meet the requirement. CCTV might not be shown as it might also show other people who have not yet been questioned, or by revealing the exact view available it might prevent a suspect from saying something useful.

Frequently, the legal advice will be to say as little as possible, but many people feel a great urge to explain themselves and can be easily tempted into talking a lot.

[discovolante]

Frequently, the legal advice will be to say as little as possible

Where does this come from?

[IvanV]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ode-c-2019

Check out para 11.1A.

I'd assume any MPs being interviewed under caution over their suspected attendance at an illegal rave party would have at least adequate legal representation, who could advise them on whether or not to answer questions put to them where the police claim to have CCTV but say they're still waiting for it or refuse to show it to them before the interview.

That's what this modern authoritarian legislation is. At least those very politicians who chipped away at suspects' rights now get to see the other side of it. Though from Johnson's perspective there is an "or the horse might talk" element to any delay.

Suspects' rights have been chipped away at over the last 10 years, while politicians invented myths and recited lies to justify it. There's a steady stream of "unsafe convictions" located. But the standards to get your case reopened by the CCRB is so high, and the CCRB's capacity to process cases so low, that they are surely only the most egregious and the tip of the iceberg.

Lawyers do often advise innocent clients to sit there saying "no comment". They are often in that room precisely because there is some unfortunate circumstantial evidence. Defence lawyers know that presentation matters, and that you need to get your ducks in a row to avoid being stitched up. But the jeopardy recent legislation puts them under is that bit in the caution about "anything you may later rely on in court". In other words, if you don't say it now, it officially devalues it. This is a modern invention and a reduction in the suspect's right to silence.

[discovolante]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ode-c-2019

Check out para 11.1A.

I'd assume any MPs being interviewed under caution over their suspected attendance at an illegal rave party would have at least adequate legal representation, who could advise them on whether or not to answer questions put to them where the police claim to have CCTV but say they're still waiting for it or refuse to show it to them before the interview.

That's what this modern authoritarian legislation is. At least those very politicians who chipped away at suspects' rights now get to see the other side of it. Though from Johnson's perspective there is an "or the horse might talk" element to any delay.

Suspects' rights have been chipped away at over the last 10 years, while politicians invented myths and recited lies to justify it. There's a steady stream of "unsafe convictions" located. But the standards to get your case reopened by the CCRB is so high, and the CCRB's capacity to process cases so low, that they are surely only the most egregious and the tip of the iceberg.

Lawyers do often advise innocent clients to sit there saying "no comment". They are often in that room precisely because there is some unfortunate circumstantial evidence. Defence lawyers know that presentation matters, and that you need to get your ducks in a row to avoid being stitched up. But the jeopardy recent legislation puts them under is that bit in the caution about "anything you may later rely on in court". In other words, if you don't say it now, it officially devalues it. This is a modern invention and a reduction in the suspect's right to silence.

It's been around since 1994, which is pretty modern but a fair bit more than ten years ago.

It is a qualified right to silence though, in that it still exists to an extent but is more difficult to navigate, and while I'm not going to try and prescribe specific instances where a suspect might be OK to 'no comment' an interview and then raise a defence later (or at least it's worth taking the risk as an adverse inference isn't guaranteed). It tends to be in situations where the police provide inadequate disclosure to allow the suspect (or their legal representative) to assess whether the police are likely to have adequate evidence to make out all of the evidence of the offence in court. Which is often a matter of professional judgement (or judgement based on experience, if you're 'lucky' enough to have had plenty of it, I suppose). Why answer questions that risk leading to self incrimination when the police can't even show that you were at the scene of the crime, for example?

[Woodchopper]

We're all focusing upon the lockdown parties.

But now that the Met are investigating they will presumably be downloading the contents of people's phones and laptops. Its possible that they may come across other wrongdoing while doing that, like bribery.

Not saying that will happen, but any attempt by Johnson to use the Met investigation for his advantage has got to be very risky.

[Sciolus]

We're all focusing upon the lockdown parties.

But now that the Met are investigating they will presumably be downloading the contents of people's phones and laptops. Its possible that they may come across other wrongdoing while doing that, like bribery.

Not saying that will happen, but any attempt by Johnson to use the Met investigation for his advantage has got to be very risky.

Well, that's the question: how many worms are the Met willing to allow out of the can? If they try to confine their investigation to the parties, anything intrusive like examining phones will be disproportionate. Hell, a week ago they were saying that any investigation at all would be disproportionate. So it depends how far they allow themselves to ask questions like "why did plod turn a bind eye at the time? What else have police stationed at No 10 seen?" Answering any of those questions will inevitably prompt a lot more questions.

[tom p]

I wonder if, in theory*, this could be considered grounds for impeachment, given the special case of Johnson's criminality somehow managing to skirt the very edges of legality in terms of "misconduct in public office" yet his complete lack of honour meaning he refuses to voluntarily resign as convention would normally require.

The last impeachment in Britain was in 1805, relating to an allegation of misappropriation of funds. It resulted in an acquittal. That would be dealt with differently, and better, today. Impeachment has not been explicitly ended in Britain, but in practice it is obsolete. That's good. Having a party political court fails the separation of powers test, as does that other terrible US practice of party political selection of supreme court justices.

Of course, one B. Johnson wrote in a column that Blair should be impeached for his illegal behaviour, including lying to public & parliament, in the run-up to the illegal invasion of Iraq

[tom p]

Frequently, the legal advice will be to say as little as possible

Where does this come from?

The same place everything else he posts here comes from.

[Bird on a Fire]

Today's the day! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60195620

[IvanV]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ode-c-2019

It's been around since 1994, which is pretty modern but a fair bit more than ten years ago.

It was a 1994 Act that required the code to come into existence. That is the only significance of 1994. It is not a code that reflects the law as it was in 1994. It is a code that has been regularly updated to reflects changes in laws and attitudes. That 2019 version you point us to has just had an update to take account of transgender menstruation, a matter that was far from people's minds in 1994.

And one of the biggest things that changed since 1994 is the limitation of the right to silence. The fact that the limitation is found in a code that says it is a code under a 1994 Act does not mean that is how it was in 1994. It wasn't.

[WFJ]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ode-c-2019

It's been around since 1994, which is pretty modern but a fair bit more than ten years ago.

It was a 1994 Act that required the code to come into existence. That is the only significance of 1994. It is not a code that reflects the law as it was in 1994. It is a code that has been regularly updated to reflects changes in laws and attitudes. That 2019 version you point us to has just had an update to take account of transgender menstruation, a matter that was far from people's minds in 1994.

And one of the biggest things that changed since 1994 is the limitation of the right to silence. The fact that the limitation is found in a code that says it is a code under a 1994 Act does not mean that is how it was in 1994. It wasn't.

The "... later rely on in court" line has been used for 20+ years though. See for instance: Bill, The (1996).

[lpm]

It's here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... Update.pdf

[El Pollo Diablo]

Interesting. Johnson got naked and rode a camel down Downing Street at 2am for one of the parties. Witnesses were paid off.

[El Pollo Diablo]

Oh, and apparently civil servants held a "choose the penis" competition

[lpm]

12 parties looked at.

8 now handed to police, 4 not being looked at by police.

[El Pollo Diablo]

"it is not possible at present to provide a meaningful report setting out and analysing the extensive factual information I have been able to gather"

[El Pollo Diablo]

"In respect of the gatherings that the Metropolitan Police has assessed as not reaching the threshold for criminal investigation; they have not requested any limitations be placed on the description of those events, however, I have decided not to publish factual accounts in relation to those four dates. I do not feel that I am able to do so without detriment to the overall balance of the findings."

"More generally, I did consider whether it would be better to pause, as provided for in the terms of reference, and wait until the conclusion of the police investigation before publishing anything. However, given the widespread public interest in, and concern about, these matters, and to avoid further delay, I am providing an update on the investigation and I am setting out some general findings now. I have not made comment on whether individual gatherings were in line with the relevant guidance and regulations in place at the time. I did not judge it appropriate to do so given the police investigation that is now underway."

God I hate pdf files

[lpm]

Highlights:

Some of the behaviour "is difficult to justify".

"a serious failure to observe not just the high standards expected of those working at the heart of Government but also of the standards expected of the entire British population at the time."

"There were failures of leadership and judgment by different parts of No 10 and the Cabinet Office at different times. Some of the events should not have been allowed to take place. Other events should not have been allowed to develop as they did. "

"The excessive consumption of alcohol is not appropriate in a professional workplace at any time. Steps must be taken to ensure that every Government
Department has a clear and robust policy in place covering the consumption of alcohol in the workplace."

"Some staff wanted to raise concerns about behaviours they witnessed at work but at times felt unable to do so. No member of staff should feel unable to report or challenge poor conduct where they witness it."

"There is significant learning to be drawn from these events which must be addressed immediately across Government. This does not need to wait for the police investigations to be concluded."

[El Pollo Diablo]

"Specifically, the camel incident raises great questions about the fitness of Boris Johnson for leadership, especially at a time of national struggle."

[lpm]

The camel incident is the only big surprise.

But even without it there's no much that'll allow Johnson to shout "I'm cleared!"

[discovolante]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ode-c-2019

It's been around since 1994, which is pretty modern but a fair bit more than ten years ago.

It was a 1994 Act that required the code to come into existence. That is the only significance of 1994. It is not a code that reflects the law as it was in 1994. It is a code that has been regularly updated to reflects changes in laws and attitudes. That 2019 version you point us to has just had an update to take account of transgender menstruation, a matter that was far from people's minds in 1994.

And one of the biggest things that changed since 1994 is the limitation of the right to silence. The fact that the limitation is found in a code that says it is a code under a 1994 Act does not mean that is how it was in 1994. It wasn't.

You seem to be confusing the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which required the code to come into existence (see Part VI), with the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which limited the right to silence - see for e.g. section 34 - I've linked to the version that was in force as of 1995 (which was when the 1994 Act came into force, sorry bit of a mistake there as it received royal assent in 1994 but looks like it wasn't in force until 1995). The 1984 Code of Practice would have been updated to reflect the legislation.

If I've overlooked anything that says that setion 34 (and other relevant sections) weren't actually in force until some time after 1995 then I'd be happy to be corrected.