Is David Perry QC, the so-called independent barrister appointed by the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, a member of the Labour Party? The reason I ask is that this cash for honours prosecution requires no bias in favour of the suspects, because a conflict of interest arises if David Perry QC is a Labour Party member. He is relatively inexperienced, only being a QC since 2006. And, his track record has appeared to improve under the Labour government. Is there a link here? For example, his CV states "Regularly briefed on behalf of the Attorney-General and as amicus curiae in the Court of Appeal". So, we have a regular contact with the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith. I would have thought that genuine independence required a somewhat greater distance?
UPDATE: Here. It beggars belief that the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, is continuing to insist that he will not give up his power to have the final say on whether prosecutions are brought in the cash for honours case. He has a duty to stand aside, and an Order of Mandamus could be sought from the High Court to force him to do his duty. The arguments against his keeping a grip on the reins of power are that; he bought his honour from Tony Blair; he is a good friend of Tony Blair; he is a member of the Cabinet; he is a member of the Labour Party.
It is no good Lord Goldsmith insisting that he would judge the case objectively. On two previous occasions he has failed to do that, firstly over his legal advice which initially was against the legality of the Iraq war and he changed it to suit Tony Blair, and when he should have advised pursuing the BAE/Saudi arms deal prosecution he did not do so. Furthermore, his recent assurance fails to state that he will reach a decision independently of the Labour Party. I think that this omission speaks volumes where his true loyalty lies. And, it is not with the public interest.
Lord Goldsmith states he will appoint an independent barrister after he has consulted other parties. This being the case, how come that David Perry QC has already been appointed? Perhaps, Lord Goldsmith intends to consult other parties when he has made his final decision not to prosecute? Given Lord Goldsmith's contempt for the rule of law, it is laughable that he maintains that his first duty is to the law and not to party politics. I suspect that there will be quiet a few judges scratching their wigs in puzzlement at Lord Goldsmith's legal analysis and the illogic of his logic.
1 comment:
He looks like a nice boy. String him up with the rest of the old boy's network.
Post a Comment