The Guardian has a front page report with the headline :
Levy's presence at honours meetings now police focus
This can't really be much of a surprise to anyone, as I suspect that has been a key part of the investigation from day one. Though possibly the police may be interested to find out why getting this information has been like getting blood from a stone.
However one thing I would wish to make clear is this. If Lord Levy attended every meeting which discussed honours, and insisted people got homours because they had donated money, that does not prove that the 1925 Honours, prevention of abuses act. Giving a peerage because someone has given you money is not the same as agreeing to give a peerage if someone gives you money. There would need to be proof of soliciting money in return for an honour, or soliciting an honour in return for money.
That said there could be charges of perverting the course of justice.
The other interesting article is the leader by Alan Rusbridger which you can find here, which carries the headline "Damn us if you will", and is a defence of a free press and goes a little further in providing an explanation of how the Guardian beat the Attorney General.
Lastly, Alan, I know you will be reading this tomorrow, because of a security issue in your webmail, which I inadvertently looked at. Could I suggest you email me so I can put you in touch with a company who can do secure webmail systems?
2 comments:
Giving a peerage because someone has given you money is not the same as agreeing to give a peerage if someone gives you money. There would need to be proof of soliciting money in return for an honour, or soliciting an honour in return for money.
That's a good point as far as the 1925 Act is concerned. But giving someone a peerage because they had given you money would certainly be the common law crime of misconduct in public office.
Anonymous, I am not sure you are right. It seems to me that it is within the power of the Queen, (on whose power the Prime minister acts) to grant a peerage to anyone for any reason.
The 1925 act made it illegal for that reason to be a barter, but went no further.
Had common law existed that could already have achieved what the 1925 act achieved I suspect it would have been used.
Post a Comment