a private prosecution via the 2000 Act which have the advantage of not requiring the proving of a conspiracy.This is an excellent idea, and I'm willing to pledge - provided there will be no contingent liability for costs, as in the case of the Neil Hamilton libel case.
The weakest part of the CPS statement is point 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.
There are a number of related suspected offences under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 governing the evasion of restrictions on donations which provide a firm and clear basis for action. Crucially, a prosecution on this basis would avoid the difficulties of having to prove a conspiracy. It would also have the advantage that there are statements from donors already in the public domain which, contrary to the stated view of the CPS, exclude the possibility that the loans were made, or intended to be made, on a commercial basis.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Posted by Peter Risdon at 4:12 pm