Mandy
- Thread starter Ian H
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
First Aspect
Guru
If by suspicious you mean to preserve fairness in the legal process, then yes. Put another way, if you believe that he is a law breaking toe rag who deserves to rot in jail, then releasing files now might be a bad thing.
Hard choice for you Magandy.
BoldonLad
Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
- Location
- South Tyneside
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c05vey47yddo, it would appear he is not using the duty solicitor
Pblakeney
Legendary Member
Was there ever any expectation that he would? 🤔
He's in the Epstein class. Although in the lower tier as he is actually being prosecuted.
Poacher
Active Member
Would you?
AuroraSaab
Pharaoh
Seeing as he can afford what is probably one of the UK's most expensive legal firms you have to wonder why he was tapping up Epstein for a paltry £10k in course fees for his boyfriend. MDR will be billing him more than that for Ubers.
BoldonLad
Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
- Location
- South Tyneside
Not according to his legal team, it would appear the Police did not agree.
He has been arrested, no court date yet
BoldonLad
Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
- Location
- South Tyneside
Not a decision I have been called upon to make, but I doubt I would have the choice to use Mishcon de Reya
spen666
Über Member
There is a good reason for that. He has not been charged with any offence (yet?)
BoldonLad
Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
- Location
- South Tyneside
Quite, so, he is not being prosecuted (yet),
Pblakeney
Legendary Member
Ah, legalese. I was not surprised to see the usual legal eagle pick me up on it as well.
"Yet" is doing the heavy lifting here.
First Aspect
Guru
Where is Max Clifford when you need him?
Jacob Rees Mogg disputes that here
View: https://youtu.be/7OuaOa_EYvk?si=m490wzzOul6xBT7P
Him being an arch Tory probably means for some of you here that it doesn't count though or something.
monkers
Shaman
Mogg is a bit confused here I think. The 1840 Act serves to protect Hansard rather than the supremacy of parliament.
The Met Police was already established 10 or 11 years before the 1840 Act, so while this was foreseen, the fact that there would be cameras, Parliament TV etc was not. Access to Hansard at that time was not so simple a process as it is today.
The requested papers are not papers that have already been laid before the house, therefore the 1840 Act does not apply.
Nonetheless, if I'm incorrect about any of that, it is of little consequence. The Contempt of Court Act 1981 protects ongoing investigations using a strict liability rule which makes it a criminal act for any person to reveal information that may cause serious prejudice to the administration of justice, or lead to bias of a trial jury.
Setting aside any bias I have either way about Mogg or Starmer, Starmer appears to be correct on legal basis for refusing to put the information in the public domain.
Last edited: