Cash for Peerages, A private prosecution?

One thing that is clear from the Cash for honours affair is that those who suspect wrong doing are not happy. Guido has set up an online pledge to see how many people he can get together to back a private prosecution. I have signed it, see here.

This mainly centers on a rather obvious breech of the The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and in particular the loans made. Part IV of the act, section 50 says as follows:

Donations for purposes of Part IV.

50. - (1) The following provisions have effect for the purposes of this Part.

(2) "Donation", in relation to a registered party, means (subject to section 52)-


(a) any gift to the party of money or other property;

(b) any sponsorship provided in relation to the party (as defined by section 51);

(c) any subscription or other fee paid for affiliation to, or membership of, the party;

(d) any money spent (otherwise than by or on behalf of the party) in paying any expenses incurred directly or indirectly by the party;

(e) any money lent to the party otherwise than on commercial terms;

(f) the provision otherwise than on commercial terms of any property, services or facilities for the use or benefit of the party (including the services of any person).

Note (e) in bold. In principle a prosecution would turn on whether loans made, for Lordships, were or were not on commercial terms. There are statements in the public domain that indicate some certainly were not on what any sensible person would regard as commercial terms, and indeed it is arguable that were the Labour party in a position to borrow on commercial terms it would have done so. So if the loans were not commercial we get to section 61 which is here:

61. - (1) A person commits an offence if he-

(a) knowingly enters into, or

(b) knowingly does any act in furtherance of, any arrangement which facilitates or is likely to facilitate, whether by means of any concealment or disguise or otherwise, the making of donations to a registered party by any person or body other than a permissible donor.

(2) A person commits an offence if-


(a) he knowingly gives the treasurer of a registered party any information relating to-

(i) the amount of any donation made to the party, or

(ii) the person or body making such a donation,

which is false in a material particular; or

(b) with intent to deceive, he withholds from the treasurer of a registered party any material information relating to a matter within paragraph (a)(i) or (ii).

Now, we know that Jack Dromey the Labour party treasurer claims he was blissfully unaware of theses loans. If they were indeed not commercial then clearly there is an offence here as well.
though (b) would give some trouble as there is a need to show intent.

Now, it has to be said that the CPS did look at the issue of loans but dismissed them thus, at paragraph 30 of their statement:

30. In relation to possible breaches of the 2000 Act, we are satisfied that we
cannot exclude the possibility that any loans made – all of which were made
following receipt by the Labour Party of legal advice - can properly be
characterised as commercial.

Which seems a bit dismissive and rather odd. After all legal opinions vary,. look at Lord Goldsmith on the Iraq war. However what they seem to be saying is Labour's lawyers say it's OK so it is.

So, if you think we have been short changed, please read Guido here and sign the pledge here.

Cash for Peerages, no charges? Interesting timing?

Apparently there will be no charges in the cash for Honours inquiry, a bit of news that has been leaked to all news outlets prior to an official announcement tomorrow.

Hmm.. A cynic might thing the timing was odd, and perhaps designed to keep bad by-election results of the front pages.

But only a cynic would think that, surely?

Meanwhile there will be an enormous amount of leaking of evidence gathered. After all if it was clear cut and there was full co-operation they could have had this investigation done and dusted in a couple of months.

The BBC has this.

Cash for Peerages, Lord Levy to be charged?

According to this article in today's Independent on Sunday, sources in Whitehall think that Lord Levy will be charged in the Cash for Peerages affair. The same sources also think that Ruth Turner won't be, so that gives you an idea where the story came from.

Of more interest however is the prospect of Tony Blair giving evidence under oath in a trial. Could be tricky!

For more on the cash for peerages/ cash for honours scandal see here.

Hat tip to Politicalbetting.com for the Independent article.

Cash For Peerages, Tony Blair questioned by Police again! Was it under caution?

Apparently Tony Blair has been questioned again by police according to the Press Association.

I wonder if it was under caution, after all they wanted to question him under caution but did not, (see here) as he was a sitting Prime Minister.

Yesterday I asked if they would now question him under caution and it appears that they may have done.

This could be very interesting.

Many thanks to those on Politicalbetting.com for highlighting the news, Iain Dale also has this whilst Guido has this.

For more on Cash for Peerages see here.

Update 13:04

According to Radio 4's World at One Tony Blair was not questioned under caution.

Update 15:53

Apparently the questioning happened 3 weeks ago, but the news was not released until today.

Good news management?

I wonder if they will question him under caution?

Now will Tony Blair be questioned under caution?

Regular readers will remember that the word on the street was that Yates of the Yard did want Tony Blair questioned under caution, but decided mot to after they were sent strong signals that it would not be a good idea to do so to a sitting Prime Minister.

Well, he isn't anymore, and he is about to disappear to Jerusalem so I hope they question both him and Lord Levy before they are off!

Also Guido seems to think that Ms Courtney Coventry has been questioned again about what she or her husband may have been offered in the way of inducements to donate. (Please note she is not a suspect). I wrote this at the time the story broke as it was very funny!

Cash For Peerages, More inquiries requested by CPS

Apparently the CPS have asked Inspector Yates of the Yard to carry out further inquiries.

From that we can deduce that there is not enough to charge people, or can we?

It seems to me that they could need more evidence to charge some of the people involved but have enough on others. It could be stalling for time. It could also be that the evidence shows some inconsistencies which need ironing out.

There is of course one other possibility. That the CPS want Tony Blair questioned under caution, and are waiting until he is out of office to do so.

Of course all the Labour bloggers will be wittering on about how long this is all taking how much information is being leaked and how it is all politically motivated, but they would say that wouldn't they?

The BBC has this.

Blair's Resignation Honours list could damage his reputation!

Apparently when Tony Blair stands down, he will have a resignation honours list. I have speculated about who would want to be on this Dis-Honours list before. It appears that the list will be vetted by the House of Lords Appointments Commission.

What amused me though was this quote from Sir Alistair Graham on the BBC's website:

Former "sleaze watchdog" Sir Alistair Graham suggested it would be better to scrap resignation honours altogether.

"We do not need them and, as we know from a previous Labour prime minister, what you do with the resignation honours list can tarnish your reputation," he said.

Just what can Tony Blair do to tarnish his reputation exactly? Answers in the comments please!

The BBC has this.

Cash for Peerages, Palace warned Number 10

The Observer carries this article on its front page, saying that a senior courtier at Buckingham palace, Sir Robin Janvrin, told Johnathan Powell, Tony Blair's chief of staff that Yates of the Yard is a bit of a pain, who is relentless and dogged.

It is said Yates turned the palace inside out. Well, he was investigating a high profile case, so he should have. He is doing the same now. Good.

Clearly Yates is the right man for the job!

Cash for Peerages, Weekend papers speculation

There has been some interesting speculation in the papers this weekend over who will be charged in the Cash for Honours/Cash for Peerages affair.

When I heard the news I speculated that three people would be charged, and yesterdays Daily Mail carried this article claimed detectives were demanding the same people, Ruth Turner, Lord Levy and Sir Christopher Evans be charged. (Well that is the terms the Daily Mail used)

Needless to say the Crown Prosecution Service (The CPS) is now an arms length prosecuting authority and has made it clear that it decides and takes no recommendations from other agencies. (See Sky news here)

I didn't bother writing about all that yesterday because I had already covered the main points the day before here.

However I did speculate that two others could be charged and one of those in the frame would have been Tony Blair's chief of staff Jonathan Powell. The Sunday Times carries this article saying detectives believe there is enough evidence to prosecute Powell, quoting senior Whitehall sources.

All this is very interesting. Johnathan Powell is in the frame after that meeting with Turner and Levy last year which caused Ruth Turner to write a memo saying that Lord Levy was effectively asked her to lie. (I broke the injunction story here, then more details leaked here, The Times accused Lord Levy of trying to get Ruth Turner to lie, and I said that if Levy did not sue for Libel we would draw our own conclusions here.)

It's all good fun isn't it?

The question is when will the canaries sing?

You can read more on the Cash for Peerages here.

Cash for Peerages, File handed to CPS!

Yes, Inspector Yates of the Yard has handed his file over to the CPS. They will make the decision whether to charge bring charges or not.

The file is a 216 page report with supporting material. The police have consulted the CPS throughout the inquiry so clearly the contents of the file will come as no surprise.

There is, in my view a high likelihood of 3 people being charges. Ruth Turner, Lord Levy and Sir Christopher Evans. Quite possibly for perverting the course of justice rather than anything else. There may also be another 2 people charged.

The BBC has this.

For more on Cash for Peerages see here.

Cash for Peerages, Charges soon!

Well, according to page 12 of the News of the World they will be.

They speculate that 3 people will be charged with a high probability of another 2. Papers are to go to the CPS in about a month.

When I go shopping I will be armed with a notebook and will hopefully have more.

I wonder what Michael White would say if they are right?

Lord Cashpoint, the bogus count and his porn star wife

Shamelessly borrowing from last Sunday's Mail, this story made me laugh!

Apparently John and Courtney Coventry, who style themselves as The Count and Countess of Rozel rang up Labour party HQ offering to donate money. They then got invited to to a few engagements.

The story is a hoot. If you have not read it, I suggest you do! Very funny!

Cash for Peerages, Tony Blair was to be questioned under caution

According to this article in today's Sunday Telegraph the police wanted to interview Tony Blair under caution when they interviewed him for a second time on the 26th of January this year. They were advised by political intermediaries not to do so as that would make his position untenable, so he would have to resign.

Downing street have of course denied this, but they would wouldn't they?

The interview was recorded and a transcript sent for approval to Number 10, but as yet there has been no reply. Number 10 says "witness statements are being drawn up in the usual way". What? 3 months to agree the transcript of an interview? Pull the other one, its got bells on!

This puts a completely new complexion on things. At the time the interview was played down, he was interviewed as a witness, there is not accusation of wrong doing etc. ad nausiem. Well if in fact they wanted to caution him that is all out of the window.

It also seems that the police are surprised the Lord Levy and Ruth Turner have not been suspended given the seriousness of the investigation.

I wonder what Lord levy and Ruth Turner would say if charged?

Cash for Peerages, has it just got worse?

The reason why I ask is that I am in two minds about this report in today's Sunday Telegraph.

It reports on a letter sent by Sir Christopher Evans, Labour donor, lender and the man who had that note written in his diary talking of P's and K's.

The essence of the letter is that of course he talked money with Lord Levy, as that was hos job. They talked about a possible future role in politics for Sir Christopher Evans, in the Lords for example, what is wrong with that?

Legally it is difficult to tell. After all a jury will make the final decision if and when charges are brought. it will depend on whether the conversations amount to an inducement.

I do wonder if Sir Christopher has been as candid with the police. I do hope so or otherwise he can expect what I am sure will be an unwelcome visit.

What is certain though is that politically this is very damaging. Lord Levy is at the end of the day he money man. He has claimed to have had little or no role in nomination for peerages, (though the police may now want to ask supplementary questions) . Clearly that line is looking less tenable by the day.

Sir Chris and Lord Levy seem to feel they have been hung out to dry. The implication of that statement is that they will be bitter if that is the case. I wonder if charges will make them more talkative?

For more on the cash for peerages saga see here.

Cash for Peerages, Yates letter to the Public Affairs Select Committee

Guido has published a copy of Yates of the Yards letter to the Public Affairs Select Committee here.

What I found most interesting about it is this paragraph:

"As experience no shows, it is unwise to set myself any deadline to complete the investigation. To do so would be unrealistic in view of the fact that many matters, not the least of which is further evidence coming to light, are out side of my control."

Looks like the saga will carry on for just that little bit longer.

Mind you he does also promise to get the files over to the CPS as soon as possible, its just that the tone of that paragraph indicates it may be a little way off still.

Cash for Peerages, More on that BBC injunction

Well, according to BBC Radio 4's 6 o'clock news, the BBC has now been allowed to report the reasons for the injunction.

The BBC story is here. It is serious stuff.

According to it, Ruth Turner's document did in effect accuse Lord Levy of trying to get her to lie. I wonder if Bindman partners, Lord Levy's lawyers will be issuing an injunction against the Sunday Times. If they don't then some of us may draw adverse conclusions. (If Bindman Partners want to email me a statement on Lord Levy's behalf I will publish it).

Strong stuff indeed.

However the Met, and therefore presumably Yates of the Yard sought the injunction as they wanted to question Ruth Turner, John McTernan, and did wanted to retain the element of surprise.

That leads to the question how long has the Yard had the document, and if they only just got it, how did the BBC find out? If they had it for a while why not question sooner?

I also suspect that Yates of the Yard would have also wanted to question Lord Levy and Johnathan Powell again, but then maybe not.

Cash for Peerages, Has the Sunday Times got something?

The Sunday Times has this article, with the headline "Blair aides ‘plotted’ to foil police". It seems that the attempt to foil the police was not the latest leak (See here and here), on which Fraser Nelson has some interesting insight in this article in the Spectator, but the overall nature of Number 10's staff cooperation with the police inquiry.

Fraser speculates in his article that maybe staff at Number 10 are turning on themselves.

The Sunday Times is somewhat more forthright.

Firstly it alleges that Lord Levy tried to get other staff to lie over his involvement in recommending people for honours. As I have made clear in a previous article here, Lord Levy recommending someone for an honour is not legally an issue, and he need not have been worried about the police knowing that. Unless, which I will come to later.

The allegation that Lord levy tried to get people to lie to the police is a very serious one. I do hope the Sunday Times have good evidence to back up their claim. I know that Lord Levy's lawyers at Bindman partners read this blog, I suspect they will take the Sunday Times somewhat more seriously.

In short, if there is not a writ for libel issued against the Sunday Times by say, Tuesday of next week, things are looking bad for Lord Levy. Of course if they just spout the Abu Hamza defence again we will all draw our own conclusions.

The other key point raised is the potential for charges under the 1925 Honours, Prevention of abuses act against Lord Levy and Sir Christopher Evans.

I must stress that this is a remarkably easy crime to avoid. In order to make out the offence there needs to be evidence of a bargain being struck (Well we do have that P or K note).

I do not know how much of the article is speculation. What is clear is that the Sunday Times can't go around boldly asserting that Lord Levy asked people to lie to the police on his behalf without some evidence, otherwise they will get sued.

Oh, and at the bottom of the article there is a bit on how government wants to merge all the watchdogs that have given it such pain into one big one. No doubt this will cause some concern. On the upside the new body will be entirely responsible to parliament, not to the Prime minister.

You can read more on the cash for peerages saga here.

Hat tip to Witan on politicalbetting.com for the link to the Sunday Times article.

Update 10:20

The Independent on Sunday has this article which says that Lord Levy feels let down and may "turn on Labour". That would be one of the canaries singing and could deepen the crisis. I have always suspected that if the police had enough to charge someone then that someone would suddenly become very cooperative. I wait with baited breath!

It also has this little nugget at the end of the piece:

A senior figure close to the probe said the issue of whether both main political parties broke the law by hiding donations as "loans" was still "live".

Well we have not heard much about offences under the 2000 Political Parties, Elections and Referendum act recently but I certainly think it could be fertile ground for the police investigation.

Hat tip to Dez on politicalbetting.com for pointing it out.

Cash for Peerages, Lord Levy at nomination meetings

Today's Daily Mail carries two interesting stories in the cash for peerages affair.

In this article, the Daily Mail clearly states that Lord levy was at meetings which discussed nominations for peerages and other honours , and lobbied for people he thought should get peerages.

Now, that in and of itself is not actually a breech of the 1925 Honours, Prevention of Abuses act, because giving peerages because people have donated money to the party is not illegal. It would be illegal if a bargain had been struck, but this revelation does not add anything to that.

What might however, is if people questioned by the police had not been full and frank in their answers, and indeed tried to hide the involvement of Lord Levy. I do stress though that you DO NOT have to answer questions that are not asked.

It would be really quite funny and sad at the same time if someone went down for trying to cover up their part in something that whilst not politically acceptable was legal, perverting the course of justice along the way.

The other article the Mail carries is this one. It seems Sir Ian Blair, the gibbering idiot some clearly still see fit to hold any public office , sat at the same table at a large dinner and indeed conversed afterwards with a person suspected of a criminal offence, who is on police bail, Lord Levy. Dr John Reid, the clearly incompetent Home Secretary was at the same table, but not governed by police rules forbidding such contact.

It is shocking indeed that Sir Ian Blair seems to either not not or not care to obey the rules by which his subordinates must live. I doubt that will inspire much confidence in his force.

I have said before that Sir Ian Blair should resign. I suspect more calls will follow.

Cash for Peerages, The Guardian writes

Unsurprisingly the latest spat in the cash for peerages investigation has been all over the papers again today.

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?

Cash for Peerages, more on how the Guardian got away with it

I just watched an interview by John Snow, on Channel 4 news, of Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian.

Apparently the Attorney General started the process of getting an injunction around about 8 PM last night. Alan apparently made it clear that if they were shown the terms of the injunction, they would, for a time at least abide by it, looking to argue it the following day. However the Attorney General refused and spent the time arguing for a new one.

How silly. Still, the rest as they say is history.