Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig380
The point here is that the police have requested parts of the Gray report be redacted because "it might prejudice their investigation", which is utter b*llsh*t.
The report is purely factual, which is useful evidence for the police, and would not prejudice their investigation. Furthermore, any contraventions are punished by fixed penalty notices or (at worst) a judgement by a magistrate, NOT a jury. This is because the regulations are absolute: people either did break regulations, or they didn't. So the report cannot possibly prejudice anything.
The Met intervening as they have is a purely political move to cover their own @rses, and the Governments'.
|
I don't agree. Yes, any factual items (such as copies of emails, statements about discussions etc) could probably be reported without problem but the Sue Gray report is not just a compilation of factual information, it's expected to draw conclusions on wrongdoing.
But drawing conclusions against criminal law from any facts established is a matter for the Courts in the legal system, not the Civil Service.
So the report can only offer an 'opinion' on whether Downing Street employees or MPs broke the laws in place at the time (just like the rest of us), although that opinion probably carries more weight due to the evidence gathered and worked through that the rest of us haven't, and presumably the Police haven't yet.
So, for example, if Sue Gray writes that in her conclusions section something like 'It was unwise to arrange these events but I don't think they went so far as to breach the Coronavirus Regulations' then it definitely prejudices what conclusion the Police can draw and what other evidence they would need to gather to conclude something different. Similarly the other way - can you imagine the media/public uproar if the Police/CPS conclude there was no grounds for prosecution if a published Civil Service internal suggests otherwise as the basis for internal disciplinary reprimands? It all changes the balance of probability point for their investigation, which matters a lot when trying to demonstrate a case can be proved "beyond reasonable doubt".
Like you, I'm suspicious that there's political murk in the mix but it's not as simple as just one or the other - there is some legitimacy to the Police request to avoid disclosure that could be prejudicial.