This forum is all about getting to the truth and that's exactly what Simon will find out. Hartley and co should be pleased at the latest developments
A lot of people have read this but it's for those who have not
Simon McKay:
If our politicians stand accused, then we should let a jury decide their fate
Published on Monday 18 May 2009 09:30
LAST summer, I received a telephone call from The Sunday Telegraph's home affairs correspondent Ben Leapman asking me to act for him in connection with High Court proceedings issued by the Speaker of the House of Commons.
The proceedings were an appeal against his successful battle before the Information Tribunal to get access to a number of politicians' expense claims.
Despite five years of determined effort to obtain the details of how Members of Parliament spent taxpayers' money, it seemed that the House of Commons was still not prepared to capitulate and hand the material over.
I agreed to represent Ben and appeared before the President of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court in London and two other senior High Court judges.
I was standing alongside a formidable team of QCs and other barristers, most of whom were instructed by the Treasury Solicitor in a final effort to prevent the details of expenses becoming public.
In the event, despite hours and hours of preparation, I had to say little; the judges were not impressed by the arguments advanced by the Speaker of the House of Commons and ruled against him. This judgment was the catalyst for the current furore surrounding the revelation of MPs' expenses.
After an adverse ruling by the High Court, most would deal with the consequences, possibly with humility but as a minimum at least with some reluctance. Members of Parliament, on one view, should be more prepared to observe the rule of law since they are part of the machinery of the executive and our elected representatives. But since the High Court ruling all that appears to have happened is further procrastination by MPs to confront the inevitable complaints that these matters are being made public at all and, perhaps most inappropriately, for the "bloodfest" to stop.
Certainly there is a dearth of apologies, either for the audacious claims some have made in the first place or once they have been caught out. Most seem to think that paying the money back is redemption enough.
If you or I put in a false or exaggerated claim for expenses knowingly or recklessly we could expect the full force of the criminal law to be brought down on us. To justify the arrest and interview of an individual under caution all that is needed is reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. This is a fairly easy standard to meet and the evidence alone of a false or misleading expenses claim would be sufficient.
The offences that may be committed include deception, described simply but eloquently by Mr Justice Buckley in 1903 as "to induce a man to believe that a thing is true which is false", which carries a maximum prison term of 10 years on conviction before the Crown Court. It can cover offences of deception committed by false representation but also omission.
There are also other offences of dishonesty or fraud that could properly be considered. Where more than one MP may have encouraged others to exploit the system, offences under the new Serious Crime Act 2006 could also be considered (described by one professor of law recently as a "prosecutor's dream"). They are relatively easy to prove and difficult to defend. The question for a jury will generally be whether the individual "must have realised that what he was doing was by the standards of reasonable and honest people dishonest".
If this doesn't force an MP who may have made an improper claim to break into a cold sweat, he or she may do well to reflect that the jury may include members of their constituency whose house has been repossessed, who have lost their job or who are confronting mounting debt, whilst he or she has been claiming for mortgages already paid, the cleaning of their swimming pool or even for trouser presses.
It is difficult to see why the public has to wait for a private prosecution to be brought against politicians when, if it was anyone else, they would be suspended, summarily dismissed and probably arrested, interviewed and charged.
I recall one case a few years ago when a woman was accused of stealing 5 from her employer. A private detective went into the shop where she worked, purported to buy an item, threw the money on the counter and left the shop claiming they needed to run for the bus. She was accused of not putting the money through the till. She was arrested, interrogated for hours and charged with theft. She lost her job, a vital source of income for her and her family and nearly lost her marriage.
No-one checked the till roll and, after weeks of badgering, eventually I was allowed access to the shop's records (there were dozens of till rolls scattered everywhere) and eventually found the roll for that day's takings. There at exactly the time the purchase took place was the entry of 5. The case against her was dropped, without apology or compensation. Why should she be treated less favourably than her elected representative?
Arguably, you could go further and ask why those who seek to represent us shouldn't be expected to conduct themselves to a higher standard.
Calls can be made for public inquiries, for a new independent watchdog to be established, or for measures to be introduced to restore confidence.
None of this is necessary. Arrest and, where appropriate, charge suspected MPs with criminal offences.
Let the juries acquit or convict them. This will create some accountability and may deter others from engaging in similar acts of dishonesty in the future.
Simon McKay is a solicitor advocate in Leeds and specialises in criminal and media law.
Ben Leapman
Victory in the High Court over details of MPs' expenses
By Ben Leapman Politics Last updated: May 16th, 2008
17 Comments Comment on this article
Full coverage of UK Politics
Today the High Court has delivered a damning verdict on the attempt by MPs to keep secret the details of their Additional Costs Allowance claims, which pay for their second homes.
I requested details of six MPs' expenses in January 2005. Earlier this year, the Information Tribunal ruled that I should be given everything I asked for.
The House of Commons appealed, resulting in a one-day hearing estimated to have cost taxpayers at least £100,000. Ably represented by my legal representative, solicitor advocate Simon McKay, I argued my case as strongly as I could and I am delighted by today's outcome.Â
The judgement, by a panel of three judges led by Sir Igor Judge, President of the Queen's Bench Division, is worth reading carefully.
"We are not here dealing with idle gossip, or public curiosity about what in truth are trivialities," the judges say. "The expenditure of public money through the payment of MPs' salaries and allowances is a matter of direct and reasonable interest to taxpayers.
"They are obliged to pay their taxes at whatever level and on whatever basis the legislature may decide, in part at least to fund the legislative process. Their interest is reinforced by the absence of a coherent system for the exercise of control over and the lack of a clear understanding of the arrangements which govern the payment of Additional Costs Allowance.
"Although the relevant rules are made by the House itself, questions whether the payments have in fact been made within the rules, and even when made within them, whether the rules are appropriate in contemporary society, have a wide resonance throughout the body politic. In the end they bear on public confidence in the operation of our democratic system at its very pinnacle, the House of Commons itself."
So today's result is a victory for democracy, for it will strengthen public confidence in the integrity of MPs. I sincerely hope that the Commons will think better of going to the Court of Appeal; it would surely be throwing good money after bad. Instead, it should put together a regular publication scheme which will give taxpayers full details of MPs' expenses claims, year in, year out.
One more point: I was the only journalist who requested the publication of MPs' second-home addresses, so I am particularly pleased that the judges agreed with me on this point. Most MPs, like ordinary voters, already publish their addresses on the electoral roll. Ever since Michael Trend, the former Tory MP, was caught claiming at a friend's address, there has been an overwhelming public interest in making public the addresses for which mortgage or rent is claimed. If the Commons won't carry out basic checks on claims, they need to make it possible for others to do so.
The Freedom of Information Act is one of this Labour government's biggest successes. I'm mystified as to why Speaker Michael Martin and his allies fail to recognise this.
Simon McKay:
If our politicians stand accused, then we should let a jury decide their fate
Published on Monday 18 May 2009 09:30
LAST summer, I received a telephone call from The Sunday Telegraph's home affairs correspondent Ben Leapman asking me to act for him in connection with High Court proceedings issued by the Speaker of the House of Commons.
The proceedings were an appeal against his successful battle before the Information Tribunal to get access to a number of politicians' expense claims.
Despite five years of determined effort to obtain the details of how Members of Parliament spent taxpayers' money, it seemed that the House of Commons was still not prepared to capitulate and hand the material over.
I agreed to represent Ben and appeared before the President of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court in London and two other senior High Court judges.
I was standing alongside a formidable team of QCs and other barristers, most of whom were instructed by the Treasury Solicitor in a final effort to prevent the details of expenses becoming public.
In the event, despite hours and hours of preparation, I had to say little; the judges were not impressed by the arguments advanced by the Speaker of the House of Commons and ruled against him. This judgment was the catalyst for the current furore surrounding the revelation of MPs' expenses.
After an adverse ruling by the High Court, most would deal with the consequences, possibly with humility but as a minimum at least with some reluctance. Members of Parliament, on one view, should be more prepared to observe the rule of law since they are part of the machinery of the executive and our elected representatives. But since the High Court ruling all that appears to have happened is further procrastination by MPs to confront the inevitable complaints that these matters are being made public at all and, perhaps most inappropriately, for the "bloodfest" to stop.
Certainly there is a dearth of apologies, either for the audacious claims some have made in the first place or once they have been caught out. Most seem to think that paying the money back is redemption enough.
If you or I put in a false or exaggerated claim for expenses knowingly or recklessly we could expect the full force of the criminal law to be brought down on us. To justify the arrest and interview of an individual under caution all that is needed is reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. This is a fairly easy standard to meet and the evidence alone of a false or misleading expenses claim would be sufficient.
The offences that may be committed include deception, described simply but eloquently by Mr Justice Buckley in 1903 as "to induce a man to believe that a thing is true which is false", which carries a maximum prison term of 10 years on conviction before the Crown Court. It can cover offences of deception committed by false representation but also omission.
There are also other offences of dishonesty or fraud that could properly be considered. Where more than one MP may have encouraged others to exploit the system, offences under the new Serious Crime Act 2006 could also be considered (described by one professor of law recently as a "prosecutor's dream"). They are relatively easy to prove and difficult to defend. The question for a jury will generally be whether the individual "must have realised that what he was doing was by the standards of reasonable and honest people dishonest".
If this doesn't force an MP who may have made an improper claim to break into a cold sweat, he or she may do well to reflect that the jury may include members of their constituency whose house has been repossessed, who have lost their job or who are confronting mounting debt, whilst he or she has been claiming for mortgages already paid, the cleaning of their swimming pool or even for trouser presses.
It is difficult to see why the public has to wait for a private prosecution to be brought against politicians when, if it was anyone else, they would be suspended, summarily dismissed and probably arrested, interviewed and charged.
I recall one case a few years ago when a woman was accused of stealing 5 from her employer. A private detective went into the shop where she worked, purported to buy an item, threw the money on the counter and left the shop claiming they needed to run for the bus. She was accused of not putting the money through the till. She was arrested, interrogated for hours and charged with theft. She lost her job, a vital source of income for her and her family and nearly lost her marriage.
No-one checked the till roll and, after weeks of badgering, eventually I was allowed access to the shop's records (there were dozens of till rolls scattered everywhere) and eventually found the roll for that day's takings. There at exactly the time the purchase took place was the entry of 5. The case against her was dropped, without apology or compensation. Why should she be treated less favourably than her elected representative?
Arguably, you could go further and ask why those who seek to represent us shouldn't be expected to conduct themselves to a higher standard.
Calls can be made for public inquiries, for a new independent watchdog to be established, or for measures to be introduced to restore confidence.
None of this is necessary. Arrest and, where appropriate, charge suspected MPs with criminal offences.
Let the juries acquit or convict them. This will create some accountability and may deter others from engaging in similar acts of dishonesty in the future.
Simon McKay is a solicitor advocate in Leeds and specialises in criminal and media law.
Ben Leapman
Victory in the High Court over details of MPs' expenses
By Ben Leapman Politics Last updated: May 16th, 2008
17 Comments Comment on this article
Full coverage of UK Politics
Today the High Court has delivered a damning verdict on the attempt by MPs to keep secret the details of their Additional Costs Allowance claims, which pay for their second homes.
I requested details of six MPs' expenses in January 2005. Earlier this year, the Information Tribunal ruled that I should be given everything I asked for.
The House of Commons appealed, resulting in a one-day hearing estimated to have cost taxpayers at least £100,000. Ably represented by my legal representative, solicitor advocate Simon McKay, I argued my case as strongly as I could and I am delighted by today's outcome.Â
The judgement, by a panel of three judges led by Sir Igor Judge, President of the Queen's Bench Division, is worth reading carefully.
"We are not here dealing with idle gossip, or public curiosity about what in truth are trivialities," the judges say. "The expenditure of public money through the payment of MPs' salaries and allowances is a matter of direct and reasonable interest to taxpayers.
"They are obliged to pay their taxes at whatever level and on whatever basis the legislature may decide, in part at least to fund the legislative process. Their interest is reinforced by the absence of a coherent system for the exercise of control over and the lack of a clear understanding of the arrangements which govern the payment of Additional Costs Allowance.
"Although the relevant rules are made by the House itself, questions whether the payments have in fact been made within the rules, and even when made within them, whether the rules are appropriate in contemporary society, have a wide resonance throughout the body politic. In the end they bear on public confidence in the operation of our democratic system at its very pinnacle, the House of Commons itself."
So today's result is a victory for democracy, for it will strengthen public confidence in the integrity of MPs. I sincerely hope that the Commons will think better of going to the Court of Appeal; it would surely be throwing good money after bad. Instead, it should put together a regular publication scheme which will give taxpayers full details of MPs' expenses claims, year in, year out.
One more point: I was the only journalist who requested the publication of MPs' second-home addresses, so I am particularly pleased that the judges agreed with me on this point. Most MPs, like ordinary voters, already publish their addresses on the electoral roll. Ever since Michael Trend, the former Tory MP, was caught claiming at a friend's address, there has been an overwhelming public interest in making public the addresses for which mortgage or rent is claimed. If the Commons won't carry out basic checks on claims, they need to make it possible for others to do so.
The Freedom of Information Act is one of this Labour government's biggest successes. I'm mystified as to why Speaker Michael Martin and his allies fail to recognise this.
