Dominic Grieve is no judge of Damian Green's innocence
Dominic Grieve, the shadow Home Secretary, has interfered with an ongoing police investigation by declaring that Damian Green is only guilty of doing his job. Before Damian Green is put on trial, if indeed he is put on trial at all, he will have to be charged by the police. It is far too presumptuous of Dominic Grieve to prejudge the outcome of the independent police investigation. Obviously, Dominic Grieve must now excuse himself from this whole affair because he has declared his bias in favour of his friend Damian Green. The police do not go around arresting MPs for simply doing their job.
Damian Green arrest: Video footage of police search released
Such interference by a senior Tory MP into an ongoing police investigation must surely warrant an arrest for attempting to pervert the course of justice, or at the very least arrested for obstruction.
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
Everyone has the right to an opinion about anything - including ongoing investigations and trials. Its nothing to do with the law what my, your or Dominic Grieves opinion is... and we are all free to express it.
ReplyDeletemutleythedog: If he was not the shadow Home Secretary, I would agree with you. However, it could be perceived that he is making an official judgment rather than just expressing an opinion.
ReplyDeleteSo, as I understand you, plod makes an unreasonable arrest, colleague of arressted man disagrees with this and points out the unreasonableness, and so should be locked up himself.
ReplyDeleteDo you propose locking up anyone who comments on this matter?
He's SHADOW Home Secretary. He can't do an official anything. Oh, 'it could be perceived...'. Well, it could be perceived that I'm Judge Jeffreys, but I'm not.
ReplyDeleteGod, you read one or two books in jail, get lucky in a court case and think you're an expert.
btw, if the Tories get in, there's not a chance of prisoners getting the vote. Have fun.
JW: No, you use the term unreasonable arrest, as far as I am concerned the arrest was both proportionate and lawful therefore not unreasonable. In my opinion, Grieve should have refrained from proclaiming his friend's innocence. It's not his job to judge his friend not guilty. There is the element of bias which means that Grieve has broken the rules of natural justice.
ReplyDeleteanonymous: My, my, we are tetchy. "God, you read one or two books in jail, get lucky in a court case and think you're an expert".
For the record, I would read one or two law books a day. I have not lost any of my legal cases. I am the foremost expert in the country on prison law.
BTW, if the Tories get in they have no option the same as Labour have no option. I am having fun.
' I am the foremost expert in the country on prison law.'
ReplyDeleteLinks to that assertion, please.
In this most recent matter you have shown yourself to be sadly deficient with regard to the basis sources of law.
'it could be perceived..'
'as far as I am concerned..'
'In my opinion,..'
are not sources of law.
You do have some expertise in prison law, but you do yourself no favours by commenting in those areas where you don't have any such expertise.
I am trained in one area of EU Law - and am qualified - but don't claim the right to give legal opinion in those areas where I am not qualified.
Sadly, it does appear in this case that the "police going around arresting MPs for just doing their job" as you put it, is exactly what has happened.
ReplyDeleteFACT - the information leaked was not a matter of national security.
FACT - no MP has ever been arrested before in such circumstances.
FACT - government talking heads are continuing to lie about the context and circumstances surrounding the case.
FACT - the police appear to have either lied or been lied to about the role of the DPP, then either lied or passed on a lie to the House authorities, as confirmed last night on Newsnight.
Our democracy is under full-frontal assault and they are making it sound all terribly reasonable.
Even though I also am a lawyer, I fail to understand the argument re Grieve.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I am aware, he has no judicial nor indeed any role in this matter whatsoever, so how can he 'excuse himself from the affair'.
He has just as much right to comment on it as anyone else, since nothing he says could be prejudicial to a proper enquiry or subsequent proceedings.
Furthermore, what is the 'interference', being talked about. Why do you suggest that filming a police search of one's premises need be intereference or for any other reason unlawful? On what basis would the Police be entitled to prevent Green's representitive from recording the search of his own office?
Please explain re Grieve and post your authorities re interference.
I have to say that I have real difficulty understanding the argument that the police had reason to arrest Damian Green.
ReplyDeleteThe documents that were leaked do not appear to have been covered by the OSA, and we are told that the charges being contemplated against relate to misconduct in public office.
The problem with that common law offence is that the misconduct alleged must be 'calculated to injure the public interest'; the documents that we have been told about are largely politically embarrassing, but hardly damage the public interest. As a result, from what is in the public domain at present, it appears to me that the arrest of Green (for whom the elements of conspiracy as well as the elements of the offence will need to be proved) was wholly disproportionate.
Ordinarily, MPs should not comment on issues sub judice - but no case is brought at present so that rule doesn't apply. Should MPs comment on an investigation? Within limits, I can see no reason why not - the limits not being breached by setting out arguments regarding the proportionality and actions of the police conducting the investigation.
Is shadow home secretary a official position as such?
ReplyDeletemutleythedog: He's officially the shadow Home Secretary, in opposition to the government, some will take what he says as coming from an authority figure.
ReplyDelete