A Devine precedent.
We shall soon see the calibre of Steel & Shamash, the Labour Party lawyers who are representing the trio of dishonourable fiends – Chaytor, Morley and the curiously electable delectable Jim Devine.
I thought their name rang a bell. They have ‘form’ when it comes to trying to hook Labour Party members out of the mire, unfortunately not successful form.
T’was they who were charged with the job of extracting Peter Watts from the stinking heap that was the anonymous Labour Party donations. Initially their advice was a qualified version of hiding the donations behind another name ‘should not be a problem’.
Mature reflection, or perhaps the advice of another colleague brought a change of heart.
Gerald rang. ‘I’ve been looking at the relevant piece of legislation again. I’ve just discovered an obscure clause regarding so-called “agency arrangements”.
‘It’s possible the law has been broken,’ he said quietly.
‘What does that mean for me?’ I whispered – but I already knew.
A month ago, when it was first announced that three Labour MPs were being investigated for expenses fraud, it was revealed that Steel & Shamash were representing them and had briefed two top silks to give their opinion as to whether parliamentary privilege could or should protect their clients from standing trial in a common or garden court.
“It is their opinion that there are substantial legal and constitutional arguments that this is, in fact, the case,” said a spokesman for Steel & Shamash. “Any possible future involvement of the prosecuting authorities in this instance raises serious constitutional issues that will affect not just our clients but the way parliament itself operates.”
The question of whether the prosecution of the MPs is unlawful revolves around interpretation of article nine of the 1689 Bill of Rights, which states: “Proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court.”
Unfortunately for Devine and Co, they are relying on a convention that has already been breached. MPs themselves decided that their affairs could be judged by external sources when they decided to give the unelected Sir Thomas Legg the right to to sit in judgement on the legality of their expenses claims.
I have a feeling that Gerald Shamarsh will be on the phone again shortly. To Jim Devine this time.
‘It’s possible the law has been broken,’ he said quietly.
‘What does that mean for me?’ I whispered – but I already knew.
Hoist by their own precedent methinks.
MPs had high hopes of Sir Thomas Legg, he was after all the Permanent Secretary to the ultimate high spending political figure – Derry ‘the wallpaper’ Irvine. Legg had seen nothing wrong with £8,000 beds, nor with £60,000 worth of wallpaper for the Lord Chancellor’s apartment. What could possibly go wrong with MPs expenses – had Iris Robinson not ordered a parsimonious £1,800 bed to revitalise her marriage?
Legg has been auditing MPs expenses since 2004. He would have audited Tony Blair’s expenses – of which no trace remains bar the £230 bill for shredding the evidence. He was close to Irvine, close to Tony ‘Miranda’ Blair, of whom Irvine was said to have joked ‘the closest star to Uranus’, close to all the Blairites. He knew where all the fiscal bodies were buried.
Devine wants to know why he is being singled out for prosecution when other MPs have been allowed to repay their ‘temporary acquisition of funds’ – definitely not theft.
He could start to look into the Blair inner circle, and not rely too heavily on the initial legal advice from a firm that eventually left another key Brown aide helping the police with their inquiries.
Blair showed a remarkable reluctance to hand over power. Perhaps Brown should have checked for anti-personnel mines before striding confidently down Downing Street.
-
1
February 6, 2010 at 14:22 -
Whatever happened to “It’s a fair cop, Guv?”
It is becoming normal for defence cases to be brought based on legal loopholes. I am sure that every hole possible will be looked into, but the one to worry them, should be the one they have dug for themselves.
-
2
February 6, 2010 at 14:59 -
I’ve got a question, why am I not on your ‘blogroll?
-
3
February 6, 2010 at 15:07
-
-
4
February 6, 2010 at 15:30 -
“Unfortunately for Devine and Co, they are relying on a convention that has already been breached. MPs themselves decided that their affairs could be judged by external sources when they decided to give the unelected Sir Thomas Legg the right to to sit in judgement on the legality of their expenses claims.”
There is also Harriet Harperson’s Court of Public Opinion.
They knew FOIA was coming. They spent much time and money afterwards trying to stop it applying to them. Then they tried to get away with blanking out all the important bits. Now they’re claiming they have done nothing wrong and in any case they can’t be touched.(Either they are above the law or they have done nothing wrong. Which is it Jim?) Parliament has had ample time to put this right by the taxpayers. They made their bed and now must lie in it.
Even if Parliamentary privilege has the troughers covered* it can be put aside by Parliament in specific circumstances if they choose to do the right thing.
* It does not apply to criminal matters and Erskine May has it as only covering what is neccessary for MPs to discharge their functions. To my unexpert eye that would mean claims that do not meet the Green book rules are not covered by PP.
-
5
February 6, 2010 at 16:06
-
-
6
February 6, 2010 at 15:57 -
Dear Mrs Raccoon
Our client Mr A Blair QC MP of 1 Rotten Row Bayswater has asked us for a reassurance from your good self that no further references to his eclectic sexuality (however veiled) will be made.
We are also instructed to act should any references be made to a morals charge brought against a man of high order disguising his name at Marylebone Magistrates Court in the Autumn of 1989.
Assuring you madame of our litigious attentions at all times we remain
Tryle & Errah
Allied to the D. Scurvy Chambers
Ithangyoo-
7
February 6, 2010 at 16:04
-
-
8
February 6, 2010 at 16:24 -
I bet MPs now wish they had appointed Lord Hutton instead of Sir Thomas Legg. A Lord might cost a bit mor than a Knight but you get what you pay for.
-
9
February 6, 2010 at 16:49 -
If they’re innocent, as they say they are, why hire expensive Lawyers?
-
10
February 6, 2010 at 17:09 -
Join the campaign….FREE THE LABOUR THREE.
We must fight on behalf of these ‘political prisoners.’
Campaign ribbons and “Free The Labour Three” T-shirts available here:
http://jess-the-dog.blogspot.com/2010/02/free-labour-three.html
http://jess-the-dog.blogspot.com/2010/02/free-labour-three-update.html
I’m off to a vigil at Addiewell Prison, down the road from Mr Devine’s house. Expect Sir Bob Geldof to give a press conference shortly…
-
11
February 6, 2010 at 17:47 -
I have put this comment on Last Ditch as well. Sadly, I have come to the opinion that of the many and various humanoid species that have existed in the past for some reason it is one of the most stupid that has survived. This is possibly as a freak of geographical location during one of the geophysical species wipe outs of the distant past. Survival of the dimmest?
-
12
February 6, 2010 at 18:15 -
Anna, your spelling is atrocious!
Surely if they’re lawyers for ZanuLabour, the correct appellation would be ‘Steal & Smash’, no?-
13
February 6, 2010 at 19:15
-
-
14
February 6, 2010 at 18:15 -
Dear Mrs Raccoon-Hatte
My clients have formed the opinion that you are not taking this libellous behaviour seriously. I must ask you to cyst & disease forthwith otherwise we shall be forced to engage the services of Cauliflower & Thumpe.
No ma’am, we were never Sue Grabbitt & Runne, although we are in secret discussions with Futte Antsy & Streaker of Plymouth, judicial gaggings and paedophile defences a speciality, no charabancs please. (Masons only)
Have YOU ever suffered an injury at home which was entirely your own stupid careless fault? Why not talk to our Utter Lack of Personal Ethics division?
Sincerely
M. O’Straw I was not there officer and I saw nothing in fact I nearly resigned and my brother is entirely normal so there.
xx -
15
February 6, 2010 at 18:24 -
Demetrius asks; Survival of the dimmest?
…………………..
Survival of the slipperiest, more like. No wonder the 3 ‘honorable’ Members who find themselves outside The Palace of Westminster’s sturdy portcullis are whining about being left outside Parliament’s fortified defences while the rest, who have rolled under the gate just as it sealed the entrance, enjoy a nerve-calming drink in the Privilege Saloon. -
16
February 6, 2010 at 18:46 -
You don’t have to have wits any quicker than Jim Devine himself to guess that he didn’t train as a lawyer. You don’t have to be Brain of Britain to guess that others, including those whose expense details were ‘accidentally’ shredded, are not only themselves lawyers but also happen to be espoused to QCs.
All MPs are equal but some MPs are more equal than others.
-
17
February 6, 2010 at 19:18
-
-
18
February 6, 2010 at 20:18 -
I’ll have you know that it took me many years to gain a ‘pass’ at zygote wit level and, although my hind legs aren’t actually tied together they are so massive so as not to pass easily past one another even at a gentle amble, I refuse to accept that an uphill stretch might be beyond me. Ha! Though the physical advantages of beauty and intelligence may have eluded me all my life (and I hope no-one will now bring up the advice of my GP in which he urged me to accept that most of my problems were due to what he called a very weak intellect), I am very proud of my zygote wit status and will not have zygote wits impugned so. Therefore I accept your challenge, even if there is the slightest chance that Jim Devine might beat me in an uphill challenge. At least I won’t have to explain my invoices.
-
19
February 6, 2010 at 20:37 -
Don’t egg her on Ms Raccoon.
I’ll lay odds she will be successful and the subsequent crowing may leave you brooding. Of course a hard boiled blogger such as your self may be able to take it, but that doesn’t make it all white. I’ll put my thinking capon and decide who I am going to support.
-
20
February 6, 2010 at 21:19 -
I don’t know what the cluck are you on about, young Saul. Therefore I shell ignore your pitiful yolks, but be assured you are on a wing and a prayer as of now. I’d leg it if I were you because your reasoning seems nothing more than feather-brained and, believe me, you seem very cock-sure of yourself…. I peck to differ …
-
21
February 6, 2010 at 21:22 -
Crow vadis?
-
22
February 6, 2010 at 21:25 -
Chick Gloria mundis
-
23
February 6, 2010 at 21:31 -
Eggo ergo sum.
-
24
February 6, 2010 at 21:35 -
Dippus soldats in.
-
25
February 6, 2010 at 21:35 -
Nestio, sed fieri sentio, et excrucior. (!)
-
26
February 6, 2010 at 21:39 -
I’m clutching at straws now….
-
27
February 6, 2010 at 21:40 -
Why does anyone? I blame the rubbish on the telly.
-
28
February 6, 2010 at 21:44 -
I’m sure you have a cheep jibe up your sleeve, so go on, pullus the other one…
-
29
February 6, 2010 at 21:51 -
Jim Devine: veiny, weedy, screechy……
-
30
February 6, 2010 at 21:52 -
Are you giving me a free run to hatch any old pun?
-
31
February 6, 2010 at 21:54 -
“Does that answer your question, or was your question designed to elicit your presence on my blogroll?”
‘Yes’ and ‘yes’ respectively, to be honest.
-
32
February 6, 2010 at 21:58 -
Consider it a free range.
-
33
February 6, 2010 at 21:58 -
Well done Mark, honesty is the best policy.
Nice try though.
-
34
February 6, 2010 at 22:00 -
Beak careful what you wish for, Mark.
-
35
February 6, 2010 at 22:04 -
Why did the Chechan cross the road?
To escape Russian oppression.
-
36
February 6, 2010 at 22:08 -
Peckticularly corny, if I may say so Saul….
-
37
February 6, 2010 at 22:10 -
Courtesy of Lee Mack. He can be found on Youtube, very funny guy.
Or doodle him on gobble.
-
38
February 6, 2010 at 22:14 -
Well, it looks like “There ain’t nobody here but us chickens”….
and I love Lee Mack (riddled wiv it, aint ‘e?)
-
39
February 6, 2010 at 22:20 -
Well that’s it for me chuck, MOTD is calling.
-
40
February 6, 2010 at 22:33 -
Chicken! Enjoy the kickin (and don’t at any time while you are watching the footballers crying when they have nearly broken their toenails give this a second thought!)…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0UsPLq_nvI
(sorry…. some sportsmen are just more weedy than others..)
-
41
February 7, 2010 at 16:16 -
Is it me or is there yet another reference on the comments to this post to the possibility that the NEW MAN NONCE himself, the Right Reverend Anthony Charles Lynton Blair is in fact homosexual? Such a notion is starting to do the rounds on certain blogs such as that of Mr Guido Fawkes or is that too much to expect? There has however been a long running rumour that the whole Bliar Broon Mandelbum thing is in fact a gay love triangle that went wrong?
-
42
February 8, 2010 at 12:01 -
The excellent Clarissa Dickson- Wright, who was in chambers with young Miranda blair, was probably the first to set the record straight.
{ 42 comments }