Retrospective criminal investigations (aka the No.10 party)

[gmaz]

I'd like to know the legal view on this as Raab and the Met are saying that they do not investigate retrospective crimes. Is this because parties have since been made legal so although it was a crime 12 months ago, it is no longer and therefore they cannot be prosecuted?

I guess an equivalence would be still investigating homosexual acts from the 1960's, even though this has been made legal.

[SteveScooby]

If a law has been repealed or replaced a prosecution can still be launched sometime later. Historic sexual offences for example have often been updated with newer legislation, but the law at the time of the offence is used.

Other than summary only offences, which have a 6 month time frame, there is no statute of limitations on prosecution/investigation being completed.

[edthefed]

Crimes are investigated retrospectively where appropriate

I believe the Met had previously said they would not retrospectively investigate alleged breaches of Covid Regulations which is understandable in some ways ( is it really worthwhile investigating every "last year my neighbour had more people in the house than was allowed")

Dont forget that since coming to power this Government reduced Police numbers by 23000 so the capacity to investigate is also reduced and you cant allocate such an enquiry to a response PC, it has to go to a major investigations department

However "public interest" always has a part to play in such decisions and the Met have decided to investigate as two MPs have now formally complained

And of course Raab and his colleagues will not want an investigation !

[Bigends]

SteveScooby said:

If a law has been repealed or replaced a prosecution can still be launched sometime later. Historic sexual offences for example have often been updated with newer legislation, but the law at the time of the offence is used.

Other than summary only offences, which have a 6 month time frame, there is no statute of limitations on prosecution/investigation being completed.

I believe that Covid related offences are summary only therefore out of time after 6 months

Edited by Bigends on Sunday 5th December 13:43

[bitchstewie]

Of course the Police investigate things retrospectively.

The in/out register for one of the most secure buildings in the country on the night in question seems a decent place to start for anyone who wanted to look into it.

My guess is politically it's a massively embarrassing stshow for everyone involved and nobody wants to get into it.

[Largechris]

bhstewie said:

Of course the Police investigate things retrospectively.

The in/out register for one of the most secure buildings in the country on the night in question seems a decent place to start for anyone who wanted to look into it.

My guess is politically it's a massively embarrassing stshow for everyone involved and nobody wants to get into it.

Realistically can’t see it going anywhere. Obviously they are guilty but that doesn’t matter these days.

Attendees will say it was a work meeting. Police won’t pursue it because it will make them look even worse for not investigating in the first place.

[agtlaw]

Bigends said:

I believe that Covid related offences are summary only therefore out of time after 6 months

Incorrect. See Time Limits on this page:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/coronavirus-...

"Offences under the Coronavirus Regulations are not governed by the 6 month time limit (from the offence date) set out in section 127(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts. The Regulations are made under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 and section 64A of this Act states that the time limit for proceedings is:

- before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the date on which evidence which the prosecutor thinks is sufficient to justify the proceedings comes to the prosecutor’s knowledge; and

- within 3 years of the date of the commission of the offence."

[agtlaw]

gmaz said:

I'd like to know the legal view on this as Raab and the Met are saying that they do not investigate retrospective crimes. Is this because parties have since been made legal so although it was a crime 12 months ago, it is no longer and therefore they cannot be prosecuted?

No, that's nonsense.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

gmaz said:

I guess an equivalence would be still investigating homosexual acts from the 1960's, even though this has been made legal.

That's a poor example, because the law has changed because society had moved on and we now realise it was a bad law. But in this case, the law on parties has been repealed, but for other reasons, and we still think the law at the time was a sensible law.

A better equivalent would be if I'm caught doing 60 on the motorway thru roadworks where the limit had been reduced to 40, will they prosecute if, the next day, the roadworks finished and the limit went up to 70? Of course they fking will.

This is a cop out. The law was broken, and the police have been pressurised/instructed not to take it further, because we have a corrupt govt with a crooked PM.

Now others can pile in and tell us it would have been worse under Corbyn, to excuse the whole thing.

[Mr Miata]

edthefed said:

Crimes are investigated retrospectively where appropriate

I believe the Met had previously said they would not retrospectively investigate alleged breaches of Covid Regulations which is understandable in some ways ( is it really worthwhile investigating every "last year my neighbour had more people in the house than was allowed")

If it’s not legally enforced then why should people follow the regulations ?

[anonymous-user]

I suppose in an ideal world, this sort of absolute nonsense wouldn't need the police to go anywhere near it - the public backlash from such a blatant act of p*sstaking would do those involved some significant poitical damage. But of course, as things stand, BoJo & his rabble can do what the hell they like, safe in the knowledge that come election time there's nobody else to vote for

[bitchstewie]

Southerner said:

I suppose in an ideal world, this sort of absolute nonsense wouldn't need the police to go anywhere near it - the public backlash from such a blatant act of p*sstaking would do those involved some significant poitical damage. But of course, as things stand, BoJo & his rabble can do what the hell they like, safe in the knowledge that come election time there's nobody else to vote for

This is the side of it that I really don't understand.

People were literally being fined or told they couldn't visit family or see dying family members a year ago.

Looks like the people who told them that had a party.

Amazing how people will put up with people literally laughing in their face and still back them and vote for them.

[anonymous-user]

bhstewie said:

Southerner said:

I suppose in an ideal world, this sort of absolute nonsense wouldn't need the police to go anywhere near it - the public backlash from such a blatant act of p*sstaking would do those involved some significant poitical damage. But of course, as things stand, BoJo & his rabble can do what the hell they like, safe in the knowledge that come election time there's nobody else to vote for

This is the side of it that I really don't understand.

People were literally being fined or told they couldn't visit family or see dying family members a year ago.

Looks like the people who told them that had a party.

Amazing how people will put up with people literally laughing in their face and still back them and vote for them.

Agreed, but who else is there to vote for?! Seriously! The Tories have hit the jackpot the past few years; Brexit meaning they can do what they like with no checks or balances from above, and Labour being an absolute car crash so no worthwhile scrutiny from across the Commons either. God help us!

[Ian Geary]

Southerner said:

Agreed, but who else is there to vote for?! Seriously! The Tories have hit the jackpot the past few years; Brexit meaning they can do what they like with no checks or balances from above, and Labour being an absolute car crash so no worthwhile scrutiny from across the Commons either. God help us!

(This thread didn't exist this morning when i posted on the Boris thread)

So there's two issues there

1) members of the govt/Whitehall getting caught out massively with allegedly double standards, and legally being held responsible for that

2) the lack of alter alternatives to hold them politically to account.


I'm pretty central politically, but I can only hope the continual bringing to light how badly the govt have behaved either has some effect on the Tory leadership mechanism, or the political landscape around potential alternative parties.

People are right insofar as "as long as you vote for them" nothing will change.

RT hon May found out the hard way what happens when you lose favour (did she ever have favour I wonder?). CMD was spineless and did a runner.

We'll have to see about Boris, but the truth needs to come out on this so people can make an informed judgement.

[bitchstewie]

Southerner said:

Agreed, but who else is there to vote for?! Seriously! The Tories have hit the jackpot the past few years; Brexit meaning they can do what they like with no checks or balances from above, and Labour being an absolute car crash so no worthwhile scrutiny from across the Commons either. God help us!

Vote for whoever you think best represents your interests.

That's not the same thing as (not yourself) barely giving a st or just dismissing this as tittle tattle and seemingly completely misunderstanding the role of the Police which is what the likes of Raab are doing.

https://twitter.com/RobDunsmore/status/14674340616...

Remember this guy is the Justice Secretary.

Truly mind boggling.

[clockworks]

Was it a party organised by the Tory party, or Boris himself, or by staff employed directly by Boris, or by civil servants who worked there?
If Boris or the Tory party didn't organise it, did they give explicit permission?

From what I've heard, Boris didn't attend.

Pretty stupid thing for them to do, but I wonder how many of the people calling for action bent the rules themselves last Christmas?

[Boosted LS1]

Southerner said:

bhstewie said:

Southerner said:

I suppose in an ideal world, this sort of absolute nonsense wouldn't need the police to go anywhere near it - the public backlash from such a blatant act of p*sstaking would do those involved some significant poitical damage. But of course, as things stand, BoJo & his rabble can do what the hell they like, safe in the knowledge that come election time there's nobody else to vote for

This is the side of it that I really don't understand.

People were literally being fined or told they couldn't visit family or see dying family members a year ago.

Looks like the people who told them that had a party.

Amazing how people will put up with people literally laughing in their face and still back them and vote for them.

Agreed, but who else is there to vote for?! Seriously! The Tories have hit the jackpot the past few years; Brexit meaning they can do what they like with no checks or balances from above, and Labour being an absolute car crash so no worthwhile scrutiny from across the Commons either. God help us!

Well there's Angela Raynor for a start, lol. Dim as ditchwater, nice legs but a really foul mouth and she's almost at the top of the labour party ffs. They've got no chance.

[Captain_Morgan]

clockworks said:

From what I've heard, Boris didn't attend.

Pretty stupid thing for them to do, but I wonder how many of the people calling for action bent the rules themselves last Christmas?

Didn’t attend the leaving party in Nov or the Xmas party?

From what I understand what might well be considered rule breaking illicit gatherings were a regular occurrence at No10 with either a nod and wink from Boris or his attendance in person.

Quite shocking especially for anyone deprived of contact with sick and dying loved ones during this period.

[Hungrymc]

Boosted LS1 said:

Well there's Angela Raynor for a start, lol. Dim as ditchwater, nice legs but a really foul mouth and she's almost at the top of the labour party ffs. They've got no chance.

Ignoring the slightly odd comment about her appearance.

I think that’s the more fundamental question. Are we happy with the way politics is conducted today with the dishonesty, corruption and evasive responses. It’s an odd world where we accept these things from our government and think a ‘foul mouth’ (was that for the scum comments? Would we also class the comments made by Boris several years previous that she was referring too as ‘foul’?) is even less credible.

[edthefed]

Mr Miata said:

If it’s not legally enforced then why should people follow the regulations ?

There are many 1000s of laws and regulations that are not enforced as it is completely impractical to do so, have a look at the Licensing Act,Town Police Clauses Act and also the law around Hackney Carriages

People generally in this country are law abiding