In our rush for pragmatism and to see the new coalition work, tinged with sympathy for a man doing an important job for the country and his personal affairs, we may have pushed aside the fact that former Chief Secretary to The Treasury David Laws may be found to have committed an act of fraud – which is usually regarded as a disqualifying act for high office, not a requirement (HT The Fat Bigot – below)
….Indirectly Mr Laws did deny his homosexuality by claiming reimbursement of rent because rent paid to a sexual partner could not be claimed under the rules as they were at the time. (I refuse to sink so low as to refer to any such partner as a rent boy.) By claiming reimbursement of rent he was asserting that the person to whom it was paid was his landlord and not his “partner”. That was untrue. He obtained money by asserting a falsehood. That is fraud. That he might have been entitled to claim the same or more money by telling the truth mitigates the offence. Indeed it might be such strong mitigation that no fair minded prosecutor would think it sensible to pursue criminal proceedings against him. It might even be such strong mitigation that a return to a senior position in government will be possible within a short period of time although I hope not, a propensity to fraud should be a disqualification for office not a requirement as it has been for the last decade.
Mr Laws’ choice was to preserve his privacy and forgo money or to forgo his privacy and receive money. Preserving his privacy and receiving money was not an option without acting fraudulently and jeopardising his whole career. It is a shame he chose the corrupt option but he has now done the right thing and resigned. And all for £40,000 he now has to repay.
It may be difficult, as Mr Laws himself admitted that his conduct left him no option but to resign, for the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner to come to a finding other than fraud. Will Mr Laws be charged if this is made out. Unlikely? Should he be, if fraud is established? Yes, if the rule of law is to have any meaning for the activities of those involved in Parliament?
Free speech – the gloves are off
Times: Lord Lester QC has tried to win libel reform with high-profile cases for this newspaper. Now he’s going in for the kill
Lord Lester writes: “In the 1960s, when I began to practise law, there was no positive right to free speech in English law. Free speech was a strong British political value, but as a matter of English law it was merely the space left by the criminal and civil law — official secrecy, fair trials, contract, confidentiality, copyright, defamation and the rest.
The full article is worth reading providing, as it does, powerful argument for the need for reform of libel law to balance the needs of reputation and free speech more effectrively than the present law does.
Family death ends insider dealing trial of City lawyer
The Times reports: A lawyer on trial for alleged insider dealing was excused from prosecution yesterday after his brother was killed in an assault. Andrew Rimmington, 40, who is accused of making a £40,000 profit buying shares in NeuTec Pharma after a tip-off from another lawyer, was discharged at Southwark Crown Court. His two co-defendants remain on trial. Judge Peter Testar told the jury that Mr Rimmington’s brother had died on Wednesday after an attack on May 15. The judge said he had concluded that it would be “unfair to expect Mr Rimmington to continue” and ordered the jury to discharge him.
It is still open for the FSA to seek a re-trial because Mr Rimmington has been discharged, not acquitted.
Officer charged with child sex offences
Independent: A police officer who headed a child abuse investigation unit has been charged with six child sex offences.Detective Inspector Glen Boulton, of West Midlands Police, is accused of offences involving two girls aged under 16, which were allegedly committed when he was aged between 12 and 17.
NHS trust may operate on cancer patient by force.
Times: A leading judge gave an NHS trust permission yesterday to sedate a cancer patient with a phobia of hospitals and needles and perform a hysterectomy considered necessary to save her life. The most senior family judge, Sir Nicholas Wall, granted the unnamed trust a declaration allowing it to use force if necessary to treat the 55-year-old woman, named only as PS. Sir Nicholas, who as President of the High Court Family Division also heads the Court of Protection, said that the trust sought permission “to ensure that PS undergoes necessary surgery”.
Leave a comment