|
CASH FOR HONOURS
|
|
HOME | CASE STUDIES | LAW | NEWS | POLITICS | RIGHTS | SCANDAL | SITE INDEX | WHISTLEBLOWING |
|
20 April 2007 - The file from the police investigation into whether people were nominated for honours in return for money has been handed over to prosecutors.
The year-long probe had widened in recent months to look into any attempt to pervert the course of justice.
Assistant Commissioner John Yates
Scotland Yard said that 136 people had been interviewed. They include Tony Blair and some of his closest aides.
The Crown Prosecution Service will now decide whether anyone should be charged. All involved deny wrongdoing.
A Scotland Yard spokesman said that what they consider to be their main file on the investigation was "a 216 page report with supportive material".
He said there had been extensive consultation with the CPS during the inquiry, and this was the 12th police submission - in total they have handed over 6,300 documents.
Cash for Peerages (also Loans for Peerages, Cash for Honours, Loans for Honours) is the name given by some in the media to a political scandal in the United Kingdom in 2006 and 2007 concerning the connection between political donations and the award of life peerages. This is not the first time cash for peerages has been a problem in the politics of the United Kingdom. Most famously it featured during the early-20th-century Premiership of David Lloyd George. There were also allegations of it during the last Conservative government under John Major.
In March 2006, several men nominated for life peerages by the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, were rejected by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. It was later revealed they had loaned large amounts of money to the governing Labour Party, at the suggestion of Labour fundraiser Lord Levy. Suspicion was aroused by some that the peerages were a quid pro quo for the loans, and the incident was referred to the Metropolitan Police by Scottish National Party MP Angus MacNeil as a breach of the law against selling honours. Since then various members of Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have been questioned, and Labour's Lord Levy has been arrested and later released on bail.
A recent quirk of electoral law in the United Kingdom meant that although anyone donating even small sums of money to a political party had to declare this as a matter of public record, those loaning money, even for an indefinite period, did not have to make a public declaration. Since the scandal has been unveiled, the Labour party has had to repay these loans and is now in considerable debt.
On March 2, 2007 the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, obtained an injunction against the BBC, preventing the organisation from reporting a story they claimed was in the public interest. The injunction was sought at the request of the police, with the Attorney General taking no political role. On March 5, 2007 the injunction against the BBC was modified. While still barred from revealing the content, it was able to confirm that the document that triggered the investigation into an alleged Downing Street cover-up was sent by Number 10 aide Ruth Turner. It had been sent to Tony Blair's chief of staff, Jonathan Powell and concerned Labour's chief fundraiser Lord Levy.
Lord Levy Labour party fund raiser
Background
Historically, hereditary peerages were awarded to members of the landowning aristocracy and royal favourites. In the late 19th century, peerages began to be awarded to industrialists with increasing frequency. Well-substantiated allegations that titles were sold during David Lloyd George's Prime Ministership led to the passing of the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925. In the second half of the 20th century the granting of hereditary peerages, other than to members of the Royal Family, virtually ceased, giving way to life peerages, which have been granted since the passing of the Life Peerages Act 1958. They are given to a wide range of individuals on the recommendation of the leaders of the major British political parties, including opposition parties.
In May 1998, the then Chairman of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee, former Conservative Cabinet Minister Lord Pym, told a House of Commons Select Committee that the committee considered a political donation a point in a nominee's favour as it indicated involvement in public life, and that the nominee had "put their money where his mouth is". The House of Lords Appointments Commission was established in 2000 to check the suitability of those nominated for an honour.
In the summer of 2005, a list of 28 people nominated for working peerages was prepared. The list contained 11 Labour nominees, 8 Conservatives, 5 Liberal Democrats, 3 members of the Democratic Unionist Party and one member of the Ulster Unionist Party. The Green Party of England and Wales ultimately declined to nominate. The list was referred to the Appointments Commission in the usual way. Publication of the list was delayed and stories began to appear in the press stating that the Commission had concerns about some of those nominated on grounds of their large donations to political parties. In February 2006, stockbroker Barry Townsley, who had donated £6,000 (and loaned £1m on commercial terms) to the Labour Party and contributed £1.5m to a City Academy under a government scheme, withdrew his acceptance on the grounds of press intrusion into his private life.
Townsley, who is currently the subject of an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office, was followed by property millionaire Sir David Garrard, who withdrew his name in March 2006. Sir Gulam Noon, the British-Indian food company millionaire, was also nominated by the Labour Party after having made donations and loaned money (he also had his nomination rejected by the Appointments Commission). Sir Gulam told the Times newspaper a "senior party man" told him "there was no reason why I should declare this loan because it was refundable". "I was told by this same person that because there was interest on the loan it was a commercial matter and would not come under the same party funding rules as a donation."
The list of working peers, minus the withdrawn and queried names, was published on 10 April 2006.
Chai Patel
On 8 March 2006, Dr Chai Patel (Director of the Priory healthcare group) who had donated £10,000 to the Labour Party complained that he was being rejected by the Commission. He said "It is a fact that I have donated, but what is being implicated is that I would be rewarded with a peerage. I have never asked for any favour for the money that I have donated. My children suggested that if I had not given this money, I would not be seen in this light. But I happen to support this Government. I gave money to the party because I happen to believe in what it stands for. I can't change what has happened." Patel stated that he had asked a Queen's Counsel for advice on whether his human rights were being abused by the Commission.
On 29 March 2006, Patel withdrew his name from the list of nominees for a peerage. He said that at no time did he have any expectation of a reward nor had he been offered anything in return, yet on a BBC 'Today' programme he expressed the view that he wanted to serve in the Upper House (the Lords) as he felt that his life experience ensured that he could make a valuable contribution there. He has also stated in a letter to the House of Lords Appointments Commission that "I feel that, given my accumulated experience and deep sense of public service, as well as being able to devote the time to undertake the responsibility effectively, I would be able to make a contribution to the parliamentary process."
1997 Labour Party commitments
The 1997 General Election Labour Party manifesto was entitled "new Labour because Britain deserves better". In the section headed "We will clean up politics", the text pointed to the debasing of democracy through Conservative MPs who had taken cash for asking questions in the House of Commons. A pledge was made to the "reform of party funding to end sleaze" with the commitment to a law to require all parties to declare the source of all donations above a minimum figure, which Labour already did voluntarily. Foreign funding would be banned. These commitments were delivered in 2000 with the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
It also described the need to reform the House of Lords which would end the right by law of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. This commitment was delivered in 1999 with the House of Lords Act 1999. In relation to the system of appointment of life peers Labour’s stated objective was to ensure that over time party appointees as life peers would more accurately reflect the proportion of votes cast at the previous general election, a commitment that has since been altered so that the two main parties in the House of Lords should instead have approximately equal strength.
Loans
On 12 March 2006, the Sunday Times reported that shortly before being told that he would receive a peerage, Patel had been asked to change a donation to the Labour Party he was planning to make into an unsecured loan. On 26 March 2006, The Independent confirmed that it was Lord Levy who had asked Patel to switch using this unsecured loan approach. He agreed and loaned £1.5m to the party, telling them that he would be prepared to change the loan into a donation at some point in the future. Over the next few days stories were printed which stated that the Labour Party had borrowed £3.5 million from private individuals during 2005, the year of a general election. It was subsequently revealed that a total of £13.95 million had been loaned by wealthy individuals to support Labour's election campaign. The figures released mean the bulk of the £17.94m the party spent on its general election campaign was paid for by loans from individuals. The terms of the loans were confidential.
Loans made on commercial terms, at between 1% and 3% above the banking base rate as was the case here, are not subject to reporting requirements to the Electoral Commission. However the Treasurer of the Party, Jack Dromey, stated publicly that neither he nor Labour's elected National Executive Committee chairman Sir Jeremy Beecham had knowledge of or involvement in the loans and had only become aware when he read about it in the newspapers. Dromey stated that he was regularly consulted about conventional bank loans. As well as announcing his own investigation he called on the Electoral Commission to investigate the issue of political parties taking out loans from non-commercial sources.
Tribune magazine reported that Dromey had intended to reveal his inquiry exclusively in the Labour-oriented magazine later that week, but having heard that Tony Blair intended to announce an inquiry the following day, toured television studios on the evening of 15 March 2006 announcing his inquiry (video). Dromey feared he would be blamed for the debts by an inquiry organised by 10 Downing Street (Tribune 2006/3/24 p5). Dromey's announcement created much media interest to which Blair had to respond to at his monthly press conference the next day. Blair said he wanted to shake up of the honours system and improve the rules covering party funding.
The affair centred on two aspects of Labour's political fund raising activities. First, to what degree was there a tacit or implied relationship between the large scale donors and their subsequent recognition via the honours system? Second, the rules on party funding (applicable to all political parties in the UK) require that anyone donating £5,000 or more must be named - but loans of any amount do not have to be declared provided they are made on commercial terms. This loophole raises accusations of undue secrecy and potentially calls into question the probity of those involved in procurement and handling of such large and anonymous sums, particularly when the elected party treasurer was unaware of the existence of the loans.
Lord Levy, a close friend of Tony Blair (who is the Prime Minister's personal envoy to the Middle East, as well as occasional tennis partner), has raised funds for Labour and was identified in the press as a key figure in arranging the loans and on 17 March 2006 it was announced that the Public Administration Select Committee of the House of Commons had invited him to give evidence on political financing. Committee Chairman Tony Wright said:
Another issue is repayment: the Labour Party owed about £14m before the election. The interest on the loans amounts to £900,000 a year and some of the loans have to be repaid within months, either through further borrowing or gifts. In these circumstances, one unanswered question concerns why Lord Levy asked for loans rather than gifts.
It was disclosed on 25 March 2006 that the only persons privy to details of the loans were Tony Blair, Lord Levy and Matt Carter.
On March 25, 2006 it was revealed that Scotland Yard had requested that parliament halt the public administration committee hearing with four of the peerage nominees, Sir David Garrard, Sir Gulam Noon, and Chai Patel, Barry Townsley as it could prejudice the criminal investigation. The assistant commissioner, John Yates asked for the parliamentary investigation to be postponed.
The Guardian revealed that many of the people who had made loans to the Labour party had been major donors to charities with which Lord Levy had been involved, namely, the Community Service Volunteers, Jewish Care and the NSPCC. Sir David Garrard, Andrew Rosenfeld, and Barry Townsley are patrons of Jewish Care; Richard Caring, proprietor of the Ivy in London, had raised £10m for the NSPCC, and Sir David Garrard, Dr. Chai Patel, Andrew Rosenfeld, Richard Caring, and Derek Tullett are all connected to the Community Service Volunteers.
In July 2006 it came to public attention that Lord Levy had allegedly told Sir Gulam Noon, a businessman nominated for a peerage, not to tell the Lords vetting committee about his loan to the Labour party. On 20 April 2005 Noon had agreed to lend Labour £250,000 on commercial terms. He paid the funds on 28 April. He had originally offered to make a donation of between £50,000 and £75,000 but Levy wanted £1m. They then negotiated a loan, rather than a donation.
A letter sent to Sir Gulam at this time by Labour said that his £250,000 loan was not "reportable" under relevant legislation.
On 3 October 2006, Sir Gulam was informed by a Labour official that the prime minister was nominating him for a peerage. On 4 October 2006, Sir Gulam received the nomination forms for joining the House of Lords. These asked him to list his contributions to Labour. Sir Gulam gave the papers to his accountant, who put down the £250,000 on the form along with just over £220,000 of straight donations he had made since 2000. On 5 October 2006 Lord Levy told Sir Gulam that he should not have included the £250,000 on the papers sent to the Lords Appointments Commission, because it was not a donation, and was therefore not legally required to be disclosed. Sir Gulam retrieved the papers from Downing Street and submitted a revised document that made no mention of the £250,000.
In March 2006, the Lords Appointments Commission found out about the loan. Its chairman, Lord Stevenson, then wrote to the prime minister asking that Sir Gulam's nomination for a peerage be withdrawn.
Full list of Labour Party contributions
On 20 March 2006 the Labour Party issued the full list of 12 lenders together with the sums involved:
One of the lenders, Lord Sainsbury of Turville was, until November 2006, a government minister. Initially Lord Sainsbury of Turville incorrectly announced that he had reported the loan to the Department of Trade and Industry's Permanent Secretary. He later apologised for unintentionally misleading the public by confusing disclosures about a donation of £2m with the loan for the same amount which in fact he had not reported. He faces an investigation by Sir John Bourn, head of the National Audit Office, for a possible breach of the ministerial code.
Conservative Party loans
On 31 March 2006 the Conservative Party published a list of 13 wealthy individuals and companies to whom it owed a total of £15.95 million:
The identity of 10 backers it had repaid - including a number of foreign nationals - was not revealed. These loans had totalled £5 million. Some of these lenders were concerned not to reveal their identity fearing that it might compromise their existing business arrangements with the government. Their details, including one foreign backer, will be provided "in confidence" to the Electoral Commission. Initially the party had sought to not disclose to anyone the names of two lenders who requested confidentiality.
The party had an outstanding £16 million bank loan and £4.7 million was owed to local Conservative Party associations.
The Electoral Commission welcomed the decision to publish the list - but said it had written to the party asking for more details on the loan terms.
Criminal investigation
Corrupt procurement and award of honours is legislated against by the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 and the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 and the Metropolitan Police investigated three complaints they received under these Acts. The police are also investigating whether false declarations were made to the Electoral Commission, which is an offence under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. On 27 March they gave MPs more details of its inquiry into the complaints and the Public Administration Select Committee agreed to postpone its hearing on this issue in order not to prejudice possible police action. The criminal inquiry and the Electoral Commission investigation both stretch back to 2001.
6 April 2006 - Electoral Commission announced that its own investigation was to be suspended until the police completed their inquiries. The Electoral Commission was not satisfied that election funding laws had not been breached.
13 April 2006 - Metropolitan Police arrested former government adviser Desmond Smith under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act. Smith, headteacher of All Saints Catholic School and Technology College, was a council member of the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust, which helped the government recruit sponsors for the City Academy programme. Lord Levy is the President of The Council of the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust.
12 July 2006 - Lord Levy was arrested by the Metropolitan Police in connection with the enquiry.
20 September 2006 - Businessman Christopher Evans was arrested by police in connection with the enquiry.
22 November 2006 - The police questioned a serving Cabinet minister, for the the first time, as a witness in the investigation, Secretary of State for Health Patricia Hewitt.
14 December 2006 - Police questioned Prime Minister Tony Blair at Downing Street; he was not arrested or interviewed under caution.
15 December 2006 - Police questioned Jack McConnell, the First Minister of Scotland.
January 2007 - Police questioned, under caution, John McTernan, the Director of Political Operations at 10 Downing Street seconded to the Scottish Labour Party to run its campaign for the Scottish Parliament general election of 3 May, 2007.
19 January 2007 - Ruth Turner, Director of Government Relations at 10 Downing Street, was arrested by police both under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act and on suspicion of perverting the course of justice. She was later released on bail. She was the first salaried Government official to be arrested in the inquiry, which followed a search of 10 Downing Street's computer systems by an independent IT expert.
26 January 2007 - Prime Minister Tony Blair was questioned in Downing Street for a second time—once again, not under caution. The interview, which lasted 45 minutes, was not publicly revealed until 1 February 2007 at the request of police due to what they described as "operational reasons". A Metropolitan Police spokesperson stated that Blair was only being "interviewed as a witness" but declined to state whether the interview related to alleged breaches of the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act or alleged perversion of the course of justice.
30 January 2007 - Lord Levy was arrested again on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, while still on bail from the previous arrest. He was subsequently bailed.
7 February 2007 - Crown Prosecution Service confirm head teacher Des Smith will not face any charges.
20 February 2007 - On reporting to a police station under her bail terms, Ruth Turner was interviewed for a second time and re-bailed.
2 March 2007 - The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, obtained an injunction to prevent the BBC airing a story about the cash for honours investigation.
5 March 2007 - after a request to the Attorney General, the BBC was allowed to reveal that the email was sent by Number 10 aide Ruth Turner to Tony Blair's chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, and concerned Labour's chief fundraiser Lord Levy The BBC were still not allowed to reveal the contents of the email
6 March 2007 - after both the police and the attorney general failed to obtain an injunction, The Guardian newspaper revealed that the police had shifted their focus from whether there was an effort to sell peerages to whether there has been a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. It emerged that Turner and Levy had a meeting in 2006, an account of which was passed by her lawyers to the police, and around which the police are seeking clarification of whether Levy asked Turner to "shape" the evidence she gave to Scotland Yard. On the same day, the Daily Telegraph newspaper revealed that Ruth Turner had not actually sent the email, because she feared it would be damaging if it fell into the wrong hands. Later in the day the BBC gets the injunction against them lifted, and confirm that their story is similar in substance to that published in the Guardian.
20 April 2007 Police file on the investigation sent to the Crown Prosecution Service - see section below
Connection with education funding
Desmond Smith was the subject of a Sunday Times investigation, which led to his resignation from the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust. At that time a Downing Street spokesman said "It's nonsense to suggest that honours are awarded for giving money to an academy.". This was later contradicted when it was confirmed that the 'citations' explaining the case for putting Sir David Garrard and Barry Townsley in the House of Lords 'prominently' featured their role in helping academy schools. Downing Street sources said the Prime Minister wanted their political support in the Lords for the controversial policy, adding that the Prime Minister felt that anyone who gave their time, commitment and money to establish an academy - to help children in previously failing schools - 'had a strong claim to be considered for an honour'. 'What we wanted was people with expertise in academies as working peers, taking the Labour whip, who could actively contribute with a massive amount of knowledge to the debate on education in the House of Lords.'
Garrard gave £2.4m for an academy in Bexley, south London. Townsley gave £1.5m for another in west London.
Political reaction
There was widespread support for an enquiry and some calls to revise the process of party political funding.
Labour Party
Tony Blair
Speaking at his monthly news briefing on 16 March 2006, Tony Blair confirmed his knowledge of the loans but denied any connection between the large loans from three private individuals and whether they were subsequently nominated for honours. Blair said all three men were known party donors and would have made excellent Labour "working peers". He suggested that further changes to the honours system might be needed.
When questioned, the PM commented that he did not think that Dromey had revealed details of his lack of involvement in the handling of the private loans in order to undermine or implicate either him or 10 Downing Street. Dromey's very public expression of concern (he toured various television channels to interview on the matter) raised suspicion among some supporters of Tony Blair that his actions were deliberately designed to embarrass the Prime Minister and consequently benefit Prime Minister in-waiting Chancellor Gordon Brown. Dromey denied this, saying he had been forced to go public when his persistent questioning failed to satisfactorily resolve the matter.
Charles Clarke
Also on 16 March 2006 the then Home Secretary stated "The treasurer should know about all the fundraising issues that arise."
However, he later called into question Dromey's competence, saying he had "serious questions about Jack Dromey's capacity" as Labour treasurer and the fact Dromey did not know about the loans meant "you have to wonder how well he was doing his work" finally adding, "I don't know why Jack behaved as he did." He rejected as "nonsense" a suggestion that the treasurer had spoken publicly about the loans to speed up the transition of power from Blair to Chancellor Gordon Brown.
Sir Jeremy Beecham
Sir Jeremy Beecham, chairman of Labour's governing body, the NEC, accused Charles Clarke of speaking out of turn and defended party treasurer Jack Dromey. He said the treasurer "shouldn't be criticised" and had "acted perfectly properly". It was "absolutely clear that the reasons that NEC officers, including the elected party treasurer, did not know about the loans had nothing to do with any failings on their part". He added: "Jack Dromey has always carried out his responsibilities with great diligence and retained the absolute confidence of the NEC in ensuring that this issue is dealt with." In an interview on BBC2's Newsnight he said Clarke had not read the situation correctly. "I don't know how closely Charles has been involved in all this. He's not been on the National Executive for a number of years. I wouldn't have said it in Charles Clarke's position."
Harriet Harman
In a measure aimed to avoid any conflict of interest, Dromey's wife Harriet Harman — a minister in the Department for Constitutional Affairs — relinquished her responsibilities for overseeing electoral reform and House of Lords reform.
Diane Abbott
Writing of Dromey's reaction in The Times of 17 March 2006, left-wing Labour MP Diane Abbott said:
Clare Short
Former cabinet minister and Blair critic Clare Short described the issue with characteristic bluntness:
Ian McCartney
The Labour Party chairman Ian McCartney defended the loans with the BBC quoting him as saying:
On 31 March 2006 McCartney said the Conservative Party still looked like they had "something to hide" by not revealing the identity of their foreign lenders. "We need to know who these people are, where they reside, where they pay tax, how much they lent and on what terms. "It is not up to the Tories to claim that they did not breach the law. That's the job of the Electoral Commission. "By failing to provide these details the Conservatives and David Cameron are fuelling suspicion that they have even more to hide."
John Prescott
John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, told the BBC that he was "not happy" he found out about the millions loaned to the Labour Party by reading it in the papers but insisted the loans would later appear in the party's audited accounts. He refused to give a guarantee that Labour had not given peerages for loans, saying "I am bound to say not all the information possibly is out yet and we are still looking at it."
Prescott said he favoured a change to state funding but also said he would not rule out the suggestion that private loans should be capped: "There's a kind of unhealthy approach to political financing in this country. What we need to do is have a healthy debate."
Prescott himself became involved in accusations of influence peddling when newspapers suggested he had made planning decisions in favour of Minerva plc, a company chaired at various times by two of the lenders involved, Sir David Garrard and Andrew Rosenfeld. He told BBC One's The Politics Show he did not "know anything" about the firm or secret loans to the party.
He said he had received the planning requirements for a skyscraper in London and the Park Place shopping centre in Croydon but felt the decision could be made locally. "I passed it over to Croydon and City of London Corporation. They made the decision, not me. It's quite untrue to say there was a deal or I made the decision."
Of Garrard and Rosenfeld he said, "I don't think I have ever met them. I don't know who the companies are and I certainly don't know if they were giving money to the Labour Party. I am not a great one for circulating among businessmen. I just do my damn job and therefore I resent it when these implications are made. I have not made any money from politics for God's sake. But I am here doing what I can best in public service. My reputation is important to me. My politics is important to me."
"I make my mistakes from time to time and we have to be answerable to you guys but not when it's a lie," he added.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Amendments to the Electoral Administration Act to make it a legal requirement that loans to political parties are made public in a similar way to donations will be urgently considered by Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the Lord Chancellor.
Conservative Party
David Cameron
"We've got to stop this perception that parties can somehow be bought by big donations either from very rich people, or trade unions, or businesses."
The Conservative Party admitted that it has engaged in similar borrowing (but did not reveal any links to nominations for peerages). Such loans have been reported in party accounts though the annual accounts are not yet published for the period covering the 2005 general election.
David Cameron's proposals are:
These proposals would also reduce the number of MPs from 646 to less than 600.
Francis Maude
Conservative Party chairman Francis Maude said he "regretted" accepting loans from abroad but insisted it had not broken the law. He said it had to pay back £5m to lenders who wanted to remain anonymous including a number of foreign nationals.
"These loans represent a very small part of our financial backing - I wish we hadn't done so but we have and we have now set the record clear we have repaid those loans and the matter is perfectly clear," Mr Maude told BBC Radio Five Live. "It would clearly have been better if we hadn't as things turn out but that's the way it is." He insisted the Tories had done nothing wrong and that Labour had been "much less transparent about this whole process than we have."
He said he was "very proud" of the people who lent money to the Tories and insisted they had not supported the party out of "self-interest" because, he argued, it had not stood much of a chance of gaining power in recent years.
Liberal Democrats
Sir Menzies Campbell
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said that his party had not nominated anyone for a peerage who had loaned it large sums. He said the Lib Dems received loans from three people in the period before the General Election and have declared their names and the sums lent. He urged transparency on funding, and suggested a £50,000 cap on donations by individuals and a reduction in maximum permitted party election spending from £20m to £15m:
Police file sent to Crown Prosecution Service
The Metropolitan Police team, investigating the affair and led by Assistant Commissioner John Yates handed its main file on the cash for peerages inquiry to the Crown Prosecution Service on Friday 20 April. Under English law, it is now up to the CPS to decide whether to bring charges against any of the 136 people interviewed.
Previous instances
The expression "cash for peerages" has a long history. Titles have constantly been granted to court favorites and allies. James I was more overt; he created the title of baronet and sold them for £1,500 each to raise money for his war in Ireland.
In the 1920s David Lloyd George was involved in a barely concealed "cash for patronage" scandal managed by Maundy Gregory, which resulted in the 1925 Act which barred it (purchase of peerages had not previously been illegal), and in 1976 Harold Wilson's resignation honours list was similarly embroiled in what became infamously known as The Lavender List (hand-written on lavender paper by Marcia Williams). This, though widely deemed to include some unsuitable and unsalubrious nominees, rewarded Wilson's friends and carried no suggestion of overt reward for money — given or loaned. Lord Kagan, ennobled in the Lavender List, was convicted of fraud in 1980 — for some years he had been funding Harold Wilson's Leader's office. Sir Eric Miller, knighted in the Lavender List, committed suicide in 1977 while under investigation for fraud; he too had helped fund Harold Wilson's Leader's office.
In the 1960s, Roy Thomson had some justifiable claim to a peerage as a Canadian and later British publisher. As even his company history observes, "Roy had noted that all proprietors of newspapers seemed to become members of the House of Lords. He had also noted this was emphatically ‘a good thing’" and he showed himself ready to do whatever was required to achieve this goal, believing at first that it could be a simple open purchase but moving on to explicit lobbying of prime ministers. He contributed money to charitable bodies which were deemed to improve his chances. Eventually, having bought The Scotsman, The Sunday Times and later The Times, he became sufficiently important to Harold Wilson that he was "raised to the peerage" as Baron Thomson of Fleet.
As recently as 2004 the issue of large donations to a political party being linked to the award of a peerage arose when Paul Drayson donated £555,000 to the Labour Party. His company, Powderject, had also received a valuable government contract to make vaccines.
References
A - Z of Sussex officer investigations
Melanie Ann Liebenberg (Doctor)
The above is just a few of a number of persons likely to be investigated in respect of certain cases brought against Wealden Action Group members, on the instigation or encouragement of known Masons, councillors, or planning officers, many of which are themselves Masons.
Full details of this case will be available for publishing in newspapers from 25 April 2008 subject to confirmation. This will include full disclosure of all factors relied on photographs of the officers concerned, the CPS staff, expert witnesses, teachers and the subjects of the allegations, the defendant, alleged victim and family and others, video footage, transcripts and an exclusive from the defendant. The case is to be heard in September 2007 at a Crown Court in Sussex, which we will advise of closer to the time.
Newspapers are warned that interim, they should be exceptionally careful about reporting this matter, due to a Section 39 Order. Those in attendance at Court will already know the identity of the girl and that a Not Guilty plea has been entered on all counts.
Armed with the name of the girl, newspaper reporters will be able to investigate the matter for themselves, for the purposes of balanced reporting at the appropriate time, but should take special care where allegations are already on the table with the police investigating the possibility that such reporting is likely to reveal the identity of the girl concerned to the general public.
This case looks set to be every bit as exciting as the BBC 'The Verdict' drama. It is bound to raise a whole raft of questions as to social issues, how the system works, who it protects, who it doesn't protect and what might have gone wrong within the family concerned. Just who the victim is in these cases is sometimes hard to define.
It could be that the defendant deliberately set out to abuse a young girl, or he could be the victim in the wrong place at the wrong time. It could be the young girl feels the need for attention she is not getting at home, and this is a cry for help. Indeed, there are a number of possible explanations, but one thing is for sure, the trial is bound to explore the situation and the jury deliver a verdict.
As for the players, what will happen to them? How will this affect their lives, their family and future, and what are the lesson to be learned? See below for details.
A DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY - GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT
We are following this case in Sussex, England, since the law has changed. The allegations follow the break up of a 3 year long relationship with a single parent mother claiming suicidal thoughts in the early stages of the relationship, with reminders. Some three months after the girl believed her mother's boyfriend was not coming back, and after another rejection by her absent natural father, the 14 year old daughter alleged assault, which she claims took place in the preceding years, but chose not to mention at the time.
Is this an attention seeking cry for help, a mental disorder, blackmail, or did these events take place? PA 20-11-06 (Full and exclusive rights to this story available)
The mother and single male had known each other for a couple of years prior to getting together, having been introduced by the mother's father. The relationship began to get serious when the family invited the single male to a birthday party, after which the man began dating the mother. Pretty soon the lady had talked the gent into moving in with her and her two children, a boy and a girl, on a temporary basis. With a promise they would move to his home once repairs had been effected.
They enjoyed weekend family outings like any other. The girls father had shown up on a couple of occasions in the first year, but did not keep this up. In fact it is somewhat incredible that the mother allowed this, since the breakup had been particularly bitter, involving a break-in (simulated burglary) and other terror tactics. The girls natural father was prone to affairs and in fact has several children with different mothers all out of wedlock.
As the long term plan was for the family to move in with the bloke, to begin with the family unit would spend weekends at the chaps home, so everyone would get used to the idea. Apart from the companionship of country walks and shopping outings, he was particularly good with his hands, able to make things for the children, but he was also an entrepreneur with plans to expand his business. However, he was also kindly disposed to teaching the children various skills and went out of his way to think of projects which might interest them.
The long term plan faded into a distant memory, as the mother and her family applied pressure for him to abandon his home. It transpired the mother did not own her own home at all, but it was owned or managed by her parents. This too came as something of a shock to the male, since he was led to believe otherwise and that they would eventually pool resources.
Undeterred, he continued to live with the family and they became engaged, hoping things would turn out for the best. With the short hours he was now forced to work, his business development slowed to a crawl. All his money went on outings and travel. Although the mother at first supported him in his endeavors, her demands of his time began taking its toll. To make matters worse the mother's family did not understand his business at all. They kept trying to make him change his career, to support their daughter and forget all that he'd worked on for the past 12 years. They also made it plain they did not want their grandchildren living anywhere, but the home they managed for their daughter.
Indeed, they expected their daughters partner to abandon his home and questioned him on every occasion when he spent money at this location, or on anything other than the family. Things finally came to a head when the children's grandfather rowed with their daughter's suitor for the first time, the older man accusing the single male of not contributing enough to the running of his daughter's home, not picking up the children from school and continuing with his business plans, rather than change to a career they preferred.
BONDING
Inevitably, the substitute father became good friends with the children. The girl would confide her day to day troubles and would expect attention, as would any daughter. The boy took to the various projects like a duck to water. He became quite adept at making things and his school performance improved from the practical experience. He too demanded a high level of attention.
The girl was not as easy to please, since the man could not sew or dance and did not fancy walking dollies in prams, etc. So he concentrated on sport and coached her during phases of her wanting to be a pop star. He had special clothes made to try and make them feel part of his world. He arranged for the girl to be with horses, until she lost interest in this also, when she got into sport in a big way. In fact sport, dancing and acting took over her life, to the point where she wanted to start a dancing school. Previously, she had wanted a stables.
His presence was required at nearly all parties, functions and outings and he genuinely felt part of the family and wanted to see the children do well. He actively promoted them, bought them a computer each, all of which they enjoyed and must have added to their confidence. Naturally, he was by this time very much in love with his partner, confiding that he trusted her completely. They almost never had a cross word. But would rather bottle up their emotions.
The girl continued to have problems at school and with certain friends. At this time she entered puberty, which of course made things worse and mood changes became apparent, which the bloke admits, he had trouble coping with. There were now two potentially moody females to cope with. If the girl was having a bad day or not getting her way, she would take it out on him, since she could not treat her mother in that manner. The bond they had developed, now became something else. He became the emotional punch-bag. The only friendly face for the bloke was the young lad.
RAIN CHECK
After the row between her father, the chap felt he could not live up to the expectations they had of him. He felt inadequate and unable to cope, where all he could do to salvage some dignity and self respect, was to return to his home. This might also give him the opportunity of recovering financially and effecting repairs to the building, by now more urgent than the two or so years ago he had left them.
He offered to return at weekends to continue the relationship, enjoy outings, etc as before. He did not want to abandon the family or leave his partner is a state where she might do something silly. It seems his partner did not appreciate the demands she had made on him and he had not appreciated what would be demanded of him. He bought a large tv and other electrical devices and was frequently called upon to sort administrative issues, his partner appeared not to be able to cope with - mend this and that. He became the repair man. He also went on a holiday with the family, which he could ill afford, and to a location he'd rather not.
During the weekdays at home he missed the family. But, when he returned at the weekend, things were not the same. The children, who'd previously enjoyed many hours on a one to one basis, only got minutes. They were rushed to bed, or to some other event and the family unit began breaking down. The mother was on edge during these weekends, possibly due to feeling neglected but also due to work and financial pressures, and medical problems.
Unfortunately, just when things were beginning to get better, the mother had a serious car accident, which unfortunately was her fault, in the process wiping out two other vehicles. This incident appeared to unbalance her judgment on unrelated issues. Perhaps, one straw too many. Despite the fact she was also on a tight budget, she went on a spending spree. The bloke offered her a free car - she insisted on a newer, better one than his. There were other significant purchases. Where the chap had been holding off on several business items, just in case there were other emergencies, he now felt justified in making the investment.
Undoubtedly, during this troubled time the girl lost the father figure. Homework too, had started getting more demanding and her sport was just about an everyday after school matter of fact, or therapy. The boy too did not get any time, and in fact the mother deliberately kept them apart, despite part completed projects crying out to be finished. One can imagine the confusion in the minds of the children. It may have seemed to them they had become pawns in a pre-marital tussle. The engagement was called off.
One weekend not long after this, the mother attacked the bloke and threw him out of her house. Rejection was hitting them both hard. Contact became less and less. The bloke tried to one last ditch attempt to get things back on the rails at Christmas 05, but just as he was limbering up to ask for her hand in marriage again, the mother staged a fight about almost nothing. It might have seemed like nothing to the bloke, but she'd obviously been storing up issues they never talked about and finally let fly. At this point the bloke collected up his belongings and left, having been completely degraded in front of her whole family. If you want to end a relationship, this is one certain way to go about it.
Her parents tried to get them together again, but it didn't work. There were a few outings, which were very awkward, and during which the chap wondered why he was there at all. Finally, the mother told him she had a new relationship and that was that. Shortly after this, the girl made her allegations.
OTHER ISSUES
Other factors to be taken into consideration are that the mother is a trained psychiatric nurse. The Mother and daughter live next door to a policeman. The accusers grandfather is a mason, a district councillor and sits on a local police committee. This is only interesting after learning the officer conducting a taped interview admitted they would not normally follow up on such a claim. It is interesting because most senior police officers are masons - and masons sometimes do favors for each other! However, that may not be an issue unless the grandparents are not called to give evidence.
Quite often false allegations are levied at defenseless single males. They become the victims of their own kindness, if they join and support, then decide to leave the family. They are especially vulnerable where a young girl is part of the family group and where the girl is between the ages of puberty and leaving school, perhaps does not have much luck with the opposite sex (no boyfriend). Such girls sometimes hang out with teachers during lunch breaks. In this case we are advised the girl would spend lunch breaks with a male teacher.
GRIEF
The bloke remains devastated at the break up, and despite all he's gone through still feels deeply for the family. He is now faced with a grueling series of court appearances, where he has no alternative but to defend himself and reveal all the details he believes should be held forever private.
Already, the police have put him in an awkward position, by publishing the allegations, including the girls name, for all to see. Indeed, this may not have been the proper thing to do and we will be looking into this aspect of the proceedings in due course. The press to are contributing to these issues, where previously published web articles may (according to the Police) identify the girl. Hence, we are taking every precaution not to reveal the girls name or address. This will of course change when she is no longer a minor.
The single man is still somewhat confused as to why the girl felt it necessary to pursue such a desperate course, when if any of the family had wanted attention, they had only to telephone. He says he'd not abandoned the family and had hoped it would be possible to recover the situation given time. Yet it seems as if the girl wants more than attention. It might be she wants to punish someone, or maybe something else? But what is her lot and why? Is she a deprived child. Apparently not. Her grandparents are relatively wealthy.
So, who is/are the victim(s) here. The bloke, the mother, the boy, the girl, or all of them................................... to be continued.
CONVICTION QUASHED OVER 'MADE UP' VAMPIRE CLAIM
A man who was sentenced to eight years in prison in 2004 after a teenager falsely alleged he repeatedly raped her in "vampire" rituals had his conviction quashed yesterday.
Leon Benjamin Forde, 21, of Lincoln, was jailed 18 months ago after the girl claimed he subjected her to a sex ordeal two years previously, when she was 13. But he won his freedom at the appeal court after the prosecution accepted the girl's testimony was undermined by evidence uncovered from a computer diary which suggested she had "made it all up".
Mr Forde later said his time in prison had been "hell".
TEACHER
CLEARED OF RAPE TOO LATE
after battling to clear her son Darryl's name
The
music teacher, who protested his innocence, died in his cell from an
undiagnosed blood cancer. He had served 18 months of an eight-year
sentence. It comes as government guidance designed to speed up investigations into alleged abuse of pupils is introduced in schools. Unions say this will reduce the risk of innocent teachers being smeared by false allegations.
Chris Keates, general secretary of the NASUWT, said: “This is an extreme and tragic illustration of the consequences of malicious allegations and underlines the need for these new procedures.”
Mr Gee’s 88-year-old mother, Molly, awarded £62,493 costs by the court, said the case should be a warning to other teachers.
“It all boiled down to one girl’s word against his, and the jury believed her,” she said. “That’s all it took to send my son to prison and it has left me very angry and grief stricken. I don’t think anyone should have to work alone with a child – it is just too easy for an allegation like this to be made.”
Mr Gee, a supply teacher who taught brass instruments, was found guilty at Leeds crown court in January 2001 after being accused of raping and indecently assaulting a pupil in a Huddersfield school in 1989. He died aged 55 in August 2002, a month after a second appeal failed.
His
conviction was eventually quashed when his mother alerted the Criminal
Cases Review Commission, which asked a leading psychiatrist to report on
his accuser. The study cast doubt on her mental state. It also emerged
that the girl, now 26, made similar allegations against another man, whose
conviction was quashed earlier this year.
SEX ATTACK LIAR NAMED BY PEER 19th October 2006
A woman with a long history of crying rape who sent an innocent man to jail was named in Parliament amid calls for a change in the law.
Shannon Taylor was unmasked by a peer who told the House of Lords her lies had put father-of-two Warren Blackwell behind bars for more than three years.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Lord Campbell-Savours used Parliamentary privilege to expose her identity and lambast the 'shabby' police investigation that saw Mr Blackwell imprisoned.
Legal experts praised his decision to speak out to prevent other men falling victim to fake sex attack allegations.
Mr Blackwell, 36, whose loyal wife Tanya never doubted his innocence, was dramatically cleared at the Appeal Court last month after Miss Taylor's background as a serial fantasist was exposed by a Criminal Cases Review Commission investigation.
But although his name was blackened, anonymity laws meant his accuser's was automatically protected, and she became known only as Miss A.
Even the appeal judges wanted to name her - but were powerless to do so - to warn other blameless members of the public.
The Daily Mail led calls for her identity to be revealed before she put another innocent man through torment.
Yesterday, Lord Campbell-Savours - said to be motivated by 'outrage' at the case - stood up and publicly did so.
He asked fellow peers: "Is not the inevitable consequence of the workings of the law, as currently framed, that we will carry on imprisoning innocent people like Warren Blackwell, who was falsely accused by a serial and repeated liar, Shannon Taylor, with a history of false accusations and multiple identities?
"As a result of her accusations, he spent three and a half years in prison following a shabby and inadequate police investigation, and was only exonerated when the Criminal Cases Review Commission inquiry cleared him and exposed her history."
The Labour peer added: "Shouldn't mature accusers who perjure themselves in rape trials be named and prosecuted for perjury?"
Miss Taylor's own daughter backed the decision to disclose her name, saying: "She is a danger and the public needs to be warned. She needs prosecuting for what she did. She is every man's worst nightmare."
Mr Blackwell's ordeal began when his accuser, now 38, claimed she had been seized with a knife outside a village club early on New Year's Day 1999, taken to an alley and indecently assaulted.
She later picked him out of an identity parade and a jury found him guilty, even though there was no forensic evidence against him and he had no previous convictions.
Eventually, the case was investigated by the Criminal Cases Review Commission which found that the woman had made up at least seven other fake allegations of sexual and physical assault, including against her own father. She frequently changed her name and police forces did not realise they were dealing with the same woman.
Her own mother has described her as "a persistent liar, very manipulative and a bully" who frequently claimed to have been beaten, sexually attacked and raped - all of which were untrue. She has a history of mental illness and self-harm.
The original investigation by Northamptonshire Police was exposed as shoddy, with Mr Blackwell's lawyers claiming that normal safeguards and procedures were completely ignored. He plans to sue.
Yesterday, a friend of 63-year-old Lord Campbell-Savours explained why he decided to speak out. He said: "He named her because he was outraged. He doesn't think it's got anything to do with the issue of rape, he thinks it's an issue of perjury.
"This woman made up the story and told lies and he can't see why a person who has perjured themselves should be protected, irrespective of the type of offence.
"Sometimes people have to stick their heads above the parapet in cases where the law is clearly an ass and needs to be reformed.
"He thinks the law around anonymity, particularly where false accusations have been made, needs to be changed."
Welcoming the development, Mr Blackwell, from Woodford Halse, Northamptonshire, said: "It's absolutely fantastic. I didn't think anybody would have the guts to name her.
"This woman needs to be stopped. The fact is, she remains free to carry on crying rape and up till now has been enjoying the full protection of the law. It's absolutely crazy that she could not be named and shamed, because innocent men need to be warned to avoid her like the plague.
"Now I hope she will go on to be prosecuted." But she is unlikely to face charges for perjury or perverting justice.
Northamptonshire Police yesterday claimed there was "insufficient evidence", while Crown Prosecution sources have cited her mental illness as a barrier.
But Mr Blackwell's barrister Anne Johnson said: "There is a clear public interest in her being prosecuted for perjury or the very least wasting police time.
"It's fantastic that somebody of authority has finally come out and named this woman. The issue needs to be aired otherwise nothing will be done."
At Mr Blackwell's appeal last month, Mr Justice Tugendhat admitted that similar tragic cases could follow because of the lies of the 'Miss A', adding that Parliament had not seemed to have considered this possibility when framing the law. Last night the judge said he did not wish to comment on yesterday's twist.
In the 1970s, the Daily Mail campaigned for women in sex cases to be granted automatic anonymity, to protect genuine victims of genuine crimes. Although Miss Taylor has now been publicly named, there is nothing to stop her changing her identity yet again.
Callers to her most recent address were told by her boyfriend that she no longer lived there.
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below?
It is unfortunate that in my opinion women seem to be able to make allegations and men are treated as guilty unless proven innocent. This spills over into family law where this happens all the time. It is time for laws to be changed and the system to be exposed for what it is. I take my hat of to the judge for naming this women. It is about time that more professional people i.e. judges and lawyers started looking at what is right and wrong instead of either following there own political agenda or lining their own pockets.
The sentencing for false accusations of rape should be as harsh, and enforced as harshly, as rape itself.
Warren Blackwell and wife Tanya - Guilty until Proven Innocent
Man freed but serial rape accuser remains anonymous12th September 2006
Warren Blackwell and his wife Tanya outside the Court of Appeal
An innocent man jailed for a sex attack was dramatically cleared after it emerged that his 'victim' is a serial liar with a long history of crying rape.
But because of laws that protect her anonymity, judges are powerless to name and shame her, leaving her free to make more false accusations against blameless members of the public.
Mr Blackwell, 36, hugged his loyal wife Tanya and wept as the Appeal Court quashed his conviction.
He described his accuser as "every man's worst nightmare".
Mr Justice Tugendhat admitted, however, that similar tragic cases could follow because of the lies of the woman, Miss A.
"Parliament does not seem to have contemplated this situation.
"There appears to be no means of displacing her entitlement to anonymity."
In the 1970s, the Daily Mail campaigned for women in sex cases to be granted automatic anonymity, but now there are questions about whether the law has gone too far.
Warren Blackwell's nightmare began when Miss A, now 38, claimed she had been seized with a knife outside a village club early on New Year's Day 1999, taken to an alley and indecently assaulted.
She later picked Mr Blackwell out at an identity parade.
There was no forensic evidence against him and he had no previous convictions.
'She needs to be stopped'
Yet Mr Blackwell, from Woodford Halse, Northamptonshire, was found guilty and spent three years and four months behind bars.
Eventually
the case was referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) which
assigned Detective Chief Inspector Steve Glover, to investigate. He
discovered that the woman:
The Crown Prosecution Service did not oppose the appeal.
David Farrell QC, for the Crown, said: "This conviction is unsafe. What has come out of the woodwork paints a picture of a woman with immense personal problems with serious difficulties in distinguishing between truth and lies."
If this information had been known at the time of the trial, he added, "this case would not have made it off the ground".
Mr Blackwell said: "Clearly something has to be done about this woman. She needs to be stopped. The prosecution say she is psychiatrically disturbed, but insane people who murder are tried and if found guilty put away."
Mr Blackwell, who plans to sue police over his ordeal, will now have his name removed from the Sex Offender Register.
His accuser has a history of mental illness and self-harm - once inscribing the word 'HATE' on her body with scissors.
However, because she has changed her name at least eight times, and moved between addresses in at least three counties, it seems police never realised they were dealing with the same woman.
For Mr Blackwell, her accusations meant he missed more than three years of family life. His son Liam, ten, and stepdaughter Holly, 16, were three and nine when his ordeal began.
His 36-year-old wife said: "I never doubted him for a second. We were together six years before it happened, and ever since."
Add your comment | View all Comments (48)48 people have commented on this story so far. Tell the Mail on Sunday what you think using the links above. I
think that most right-thinking people would support a change to allow
these people to be identified. It might even have some deterrent effect. When
you name the accused guilty or not you should also name the accuser. If
his photo is published then so should hers be. Let's have things equal
and fair all round. This
government does not have the time to waste on changing this law they are
all too busy jostling for the top office job.
F.A.C.T.
(Falsely Accused Carers and Teachers)
Guidance
for education staff and volunteers in schools
This site is protected under Article10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|
|
This site is free of © Copyright except where specifically stated 1997 - 2007. Any person may download, use and quote any reference or any link, and is guaranteed such right to freedom of information and speech under the Human Rights and Freedom of Information Acts. However, be aware that we cannot be held liable for the accuracy of the information provided. All users should therefore research matters for themselves and seek their own legal advice and this information is provided simply by way of a guide. Horse Sanctuary UK Limited. All trademarks herby acknowledged. |
