cash for honours decision
In a case such as this, the essence of the offence lies in that unambiguous agreement. If one person makes an offer, etc, in the hope or expectation of being granted an honour, or in the belief that it might put him/her in a more favourable position when nominations are subsequently being considered, that does not of itself constitute an offence. Conversely, if one person grants, etc, an honour to another in recognition of (in effect, as a reward for) the fact that that other has made a gift, etc, that does not of itself constitute an offence. For a case to proceed, the prosecution must have a realistic prospect of being able to prove that the two people agreed that the gift, etc, was in exchange for an honour. (CPS Decision)
So unless one or both of them is stupid enough to admit an ‘unambiguous agreement’ or the police find documentation of such an agreement…
Whatever, such statements as ‘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’ hardly sound like a ringing declaration of innocence.
21 July 2007 at 12:18 pm
I agree, I picked up that paragraph 30, which I think says it all. On Newsnight, neither Christopher Evans nor Chai Patel could answer the accusations. I noted that Lord Levy also refused to answer any journalists questions, on advice from his solicitor, which would indicate that they should have stood trial and faced cross examination in the dock. Nobody is required to self incriminate themselves. However, the wall of silence would have been penetrated in a court of law.
As for the government stating that it needs to regain public trust. You don’t do that by such blatant displays of corruption.