I haven’t been over to look in on Praguetory’s ongoing efforts to mutate into Guido-Lite for while - but a quick visit today yielded up this absolute gem…

When I submitted my 10 Downing Street petition [which calls for Goldsmith to step aside from any involvement in CPS deliberations in the cash for honours investigation] for approval a week ago (it took four days to get the nod), the potential conflicts of interest were already clear. Sir Ken Macdonald, the director of Public Prosecutions, had stood aside from this case because he was a member of the same chambers as the prime minister’s wife. However, Lord Goldsmith had already clarified his intention to stay in post for constitutional reasons.

Lord Goldsmith’s main line of argument for staying in post has been blown out of the water with the revelation that a law passed in 1997 allows the former Labour donor to delegate his powers to the Solicitor General.

What a brilliant idea, PT - Goldsmith can step aside and allow the Solicitor General to take over responsibility for determining whether Lord Levy et all should face criminal charges…

Just one small point… you do know who the current Solicitor General is, don’t you?

No, didn’t think so…

It’s actually Mike O’Brien QC, the sitting LABOUR MP for North Warwickshire.

I think a new strapline for PT’s blog might be in order - how about…

PRAGUETORY - GIVING DUMB A BAD NAME.

UPDATE

It seems that PT still hasn’t come to terms with Denis Healey’s first law of holes - when in one, stop digging, as he’s now replied in comments with this…

I do know who the Solicitor General is - he would still be an improvement on someone who is a member of the Cabinet and has received gifts from an organisation linked to Lord Levy. My point was that Goldsmith’s excuse is just that, an excuse. As this article shows the person who should be taking the decision is probably Carmen Dowd, head of the special crime division at the CPS.

To clarify matters somewhat further, Mike O’Brien MP is the Labour member of parliament for the constituency of North Warwickshire.

Since 1997 he has served as:

A junior minister at the Home Office (1997-2001)

Minister of State at the Foreign Office (2001-2004) - and its worth noting that the brief of the current incumbent of this position, Dr Kim Howells, is listed by the FCO as including, ‘the Middle East, Afghanistan and South Asia, Counter Narcotics, Counter Proliferation, Counter Terrorism, UN and UN Reform‘. Unless this has changed substantially since O’Brien’s departure, this would very likely have brought him into contact with Lord Levy, who has acted as Blair’s special envoy to the Middle East since 2002.

Minister for E-commerce, Energy & Competativeness at the DTI (2004-2005),

And Solicitor General (2005 - )

Mike is man of considerable personal integrity and would, no doubt, be perfectly capable of setting aside his party affiliation and considering this matter dispassionately were he to be called upon to do so. However, he would still in no way be considered sufficiently independent to satisfy either the press or opposition parties.

If you were to take the time to properly understand the legal position in this matter, rather than indulge in a piece of fifth-rate show-boating for your own self-aggrandisement, then you would appreciate that:

1. Dowd does not have the legal authority necessary to consider the full scope of the question as to whether charges should be preferred in this matter.

2. So far as Dowd’s authority extends she is empowered to evaluate the documentation provided by the police and reach a conclusion as to whether there appears to sufficient evidence to prefer charges and, if so, under which statutes.

3. What Dowd cannot do is consider or rule upon, amongst other things, the question of whether it is the public interest that charges be brought - such authority is vested in the Attorney General’s office and cannot, legally, be delegated to a third party other that, perhaps, the Solicitor General.

4. Should charges be brought without Goldsmith’s assent, Levy (and any others charged as a result of this investigation) would be in a position to challenge the decision to press charges by a judicial review, on the grounds that the CPS has failed to follow due process to the letter and give due consideration to the question of whether a prosecution is in the public interest.

5. Were this to happen, the Judicial review could not but find in the plaintiff’s favour and remit the matter back to the Attorney General for further consideration.

In short, Goldsmith can either do his job now, and place any advice received from the independent counsel engaged to advise on this case, into the public domain as validation of whatever decision he arrives at OR he can try to step aside and decline to have involvement in the decision, in which case a court will eventually have to compel him to do the job he should have done in the first place.

Should he attempt to take the latter route then the delays resulting from a judicial review and the inevitable flurry of media interest that would generate, would raise serious questions as to whether Levy and others could receive a fair trial and whether, by that time, the combination of overweening media and persistent leaks and speculation might have become so irredeemably prejudicial as to preclude any prosecutions - this being another matter on which the Attorney General may make a ruling, but not a member of CPS staff.

Should any case against Levy et al fold on the basis of prejudice arising from the media interest/coverage, whether on a decision by the AG, who would probably not be Goldsmith at that point, or due to court ruling - which is always a possibility - then we would see all hell break loose.

You side would cry foul and level allegations of a fix. Our side could nought but institute a full inquiry into the leaks and media coverage, one that could easily extend to a number of blogs, especially that of Paul Staines who, were that to happen, might find cause to consider himself fortunate should he only be regarded as a witness.

There is an old proverb that begins, ‘For want of a nail, a horse was lost…’ that you should look up and reflect upon here…

…after you’ve taken the time to acquaint yourself properly with the basic workings of our constitution and judicial system.

It’ll save me the trouble of having to try to educate you, and you the problem of consistently making yourself look a complete twat.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 2nd, 2007 at 9:43 am and is filed under The War On Stupid, Tories. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.