It'a shocking mess, but legally at present it's surely a no-hoper? Even if the CPS sought to reverse the normal order of action and gain and argue that there was, in effect, a pre-payment, they'd have to show that a payment when Mandleson was not a minister led to a specific action intended to benefit the payer 5 years later. Mandleson had been in government a record time in between and it would seem implausible that Epstein would have forgone an expected benefit during those periods. Moreover, ministers leak stuff to non-politicians all the time. Mandleson was seeking to manipulate a political outcome by talking to a businessman: he was technically the Chancellor's superior, who was doing the same however different his style and personality.
Thanks for the very clear explanation (as usual) of the current and proposed law. In relation to the proposed new offence do you think it covers the situation where A, who wishes to ingratiate himself with B in the hope or expectation of a benefit in the future, commits the relevant act? That may be a possible scenario and it does seem clear whether it is caught.
Good question. It might depend on whether that would be regarded by a reasonable person as seriously improper. Clause 12 also includes jury instructions on this.
It'a shocking mess, but legally at present it's surely a no-hoper? Even if the CPS sought to reverse the normal order of action and gain and argue that there was, in effect, a pre-payment, they'd have to show that a payment when Mandleson was not a minister led to a specific action intended to benefit the payer 5 years later. Mandleson had been in government a record time in between and it would seem implausible that Epstein would have forgone an expected benefit during those periods. Moreover, ministers leak stuff to non-politicians all the time. Mandleson was seeking to manipulate a political outcome by talking to a businessman: he was technically the Chancellor's superior, who was doing the same however different his style and personality.
Thanks for the very clear explanation (as usual) of the current and proposed law. In relation to the proposed new offence do you think it covers the situation where A, who wishes to ingratiate himself with B in the hope or expectation of a benefit in the future, commits the relevant act? That may be a possible scenario and it does seem clear whether it is caught.
Keep up the good work.
Good question. It might depend on whether that would be regarded by a reasonable person as seriously improper. Clause 12 also includes jury instructions on this.