The course of justice
I feel almost vindicated by Fraser Nelson's article in the latest edition of the Spectator, which says that the police are never going to be able to prosecute anyone for contravening the Honours (Prevention of Abuse) Act 1925.
Nelson writes: "This is why Jonathan Powell, Mr Blair’s chief of staff (and one of those who have been interviewed by the police) is so incensed at the media coverage. He tells friends emphatically that there is no chance of any conviction. It remains my understanding that he is right. There are hard questions about Labour’s accounting practice, and whether a loan granted to a near-bankrupt organisation can in any way be regarded as ‘commercial’ (and therefore non-declarable). But in six months of investigations, email-reading and interviews, police have found no conclusive evidence of corruption with which to press charges against any of Mr Blair’s close advisers."
So as I recently wrote, the police are going to go hard for convictions for perverting the course of justice. This begs the question, what is the course of justice?
If no crime has been committed, the course of justice is, surely, that everyone can go about their business without any further interference from the state. Where evidence has been destroyed, which might show otherwise, I agree, people must be accountable. But where misleading answers or obfuscation of some other type has been cleared up, and there is still no evidence of a crime being committed, I must question the motives of the police.
There is currently no crime of failing to indulge the cops in their grandiose schemes or refusing to bend over and take it like a man without blubbing. Most sensible people, when confronted by the police do not assume that just because they are law abiding respectable citizen, that the police will be on their side. Take the recent case of Nicolas Tyers who was dragged through the courts (until the judge threw out the case) for having "kidnapped" a 12 year old who had earlier smashed the windows of his chip shop, when in fact he was trying to make a citizen's arrest. No wonder, no one trusts the police's judgment these days.
Nelson writes: "This is why Jonathan Powell, Mr Blair’s chief of staff (and one of those who have been interviewed by the police) is so incensed at the media coverage. He tells friends emphatically that there is no chance of any conviction. It remains my understanding that he is right. There are hard questions about Labour’s accounting practice, and whether a loan granted to a near-bankrupt organisation can in any way be regarded as ‘commercial’ (and therefore non-declarable). But in six months of investigations, email-reading and interviews, police have found no conclusive evidence of corruption with which to press charges against any of Mr Blair’s close advisers."
So as I recently wrote, the police are going to go hard for convictions for perverting the course of justice. This begs the question, what is the course of justice?
If no crime has been committed, the course of justice is, surely, that everyone can go about their business without any further interference from the state. Where evidence has been destroyed, which might show otherwise, I agree, people must be accountable. But where misleading answers or obfuscation of some other type has been cleared up, and there is still no evidence of a crime being committed, I must question the motives of the police.
There is currently no crime of failing to indulge the cops in their grandiose schemes or refusing to bend over and take it like a man without blubbing. Most sensible people, when confronted by the police do not assume that just because they are law abiding respectable citizen, that the police will be on their side. Take the recent case of Nicolas Tyers who was dragged through the courts (until the judge threw out the case) for having "kidnapped" a 12 year old who had earlier smashed the windows of his chip shop, when in fact he was trying to make a citizen's arrest. No wonder, no one trusts the police's judgment these days.
