Alistair Bonnington

From then until now, we all applied a settled system of law in this area. But now the Met seem to be saying that a reversion to the discredited Stirling approach is appropriate. Their argument, as I understand it, is that publicising the Sue Gray findings will lead to witnesses who are yet to be interviewed by the Met to “tailor their evidence” to accord with what they read in the Gray Report concerning the evidence of other witnesses. In my days of practising in Glasgow Sheriff Court we used to call this lying – but maybe that word is too harsh for today’s sensitive politicians.

The obvious first comment on the Met’s contention is that the current situation is entirely their own fault for initially deciding that they would not investigate and so leaving the matter to an internal Downing Street inquiry. Surely you can’t plead your own incompetence as a valid reason in any argument. Secondly, what prejudice can be caused by the full Gray findings seeing the light of day? How can publication of her report prevent the Met compiling their own dossier and if appropriate going to the court to prosecute? Think of the example of an HR department in a big company investigating allegations of improper conduct by an employee. The HR people produce a report for the managing director. Inevitably the terms of the report “leak” within the company. The managing director decides that the allegations are so serious as to make him believes that a criminal charge of attempted rape might be appropriate. So he calls in the police. What is to stop the police detectives disagreeing with the findings of the internal HR report? Nothing. Certainly there could be an angle for cross-examination by the defence at any criminal trial using the differing conclusions in the HR report and the police inquiry. But so what? That’s not an unknown phenomenon. Judges and juries have been dealing with that kind of thing for ages. Nobody has suggested before that the criminal courts are unable to cope with such a situation. In any case as I understand these Covid regulations there would be no trial here, just fixed penalties.

So what on earth is this ridiculous Met position all about? Cynics will say that the Prime Minister’s team has succeeded in having the Met put out this ridiculous statement in order to scupper and delay the Gray Report. We in Scotland are not in a position to criticise, given that we were treated to the appalling spectacle of the Holyrood Salmond inquiry having been subverted on a regular basis by Crown Office threats to MSPs and the media that they would be liable to prosecution if they published certain documents or evidence. Again the laws of contempt of court were used – in that case section 11 of the Act. The Crown Office maintained that they were doing no more than they would do in any case where a breach of the Act was likely. I advised many Scottish and UK newspapers and then the BBC on contempt law for many decades. What the Crown Office said about their actions in the Salmond inquiry was a downright lie. Why they acted as Sturgeon’s lackeys in this matter I don’t know. But that’s precisely what they did.

It is for those lawyers still at the coalface of daily battles on pre-trial publicity to take this matter forward. In my court days, I tried to advance the notion that the public should be informed of all governmental affairs unless there is a compelling reason to keep it secret. I believe that in a democracy this general principle is the only sound starting point. The Met’s request should be ignored. As many more eminent lawyers than me have already stated, there is no constitutional basis for the Met’s interference here. What disturbs me here is that politicians are again using the law as an excuse for their deceitful actions. In my voting lifetime we have gone from having many people of principle and honesty in government and Parliament to what can only be described as primarily a collection of those accidentally chosen from the ranks of the unemployed. Let’s not allow them to misuse the law to support their devious dealings.