Peter Mandelson arrested

I wager that in case of AMW there was little "vetting", little "due diligence" no job description, no expenses policy, no formally signing up to Nolan's Principles and no annual signing a declaration of conflicts of interest statement (which I confirm annually as do and all others in Public Office roles) and no routine annual performance review. PM would have been subjected to all these conditions.

Not only are the police gathering evidence Cabinet officials are tasked with the same job. Conservative Party have already tabled a humble address to secure PM documents and Liberal Democrats seek to do the same for AMW- with aim of all being published for public consumption. I.e. jumping over hoops with each other to demonstrate "transparency" to the electorate. But cynically, I believe the Conservative and Lib Dem's prime purpose is to be able to see the documents so they can plan how to undermine Starmer as current LP Leader for PM's shortcomings/crimes.

The government has rightly pointed out they can't be published during a police enquiry. But the Cabinet Office can and no doubt will collaborate and share documents with the police enquiry. The King of course will agree to the humble address subject to being advised to only place the documents before the HoC after police enquiry concludes. As reported in the media this morning:

“Good morning. Spare a thought for Cabinet Office officials. They are already embarked on a massive exercise to collate, and vet, thousands of documents relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador, and his communications with government while he was in the job. That is so they can be published to comply with a humble address passed by MPs. Now it seems they are going to have to do a similar exercise for the paperwork relating to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s appointment as a trade envoy in 2001. The Liberal Democrats have an opposition day in parliament, meaning they can choose the motion for debate, and they have tabled their own humble address. it says:
'That an humble address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to require the government to lay before this house all papers relating to the creation of the role of special representative for trade and investment and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s appointment to that role, including but not confined to any documents held by UK Trade and Investment, British Trade International (BTI) and its successors, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Cabinet Office and the prime minister’s office containing or relating to advice from, or provided to, the Group Chief Executive of BTI, Peter Mandelson, the Cabinet Office and the prime minister regarding the suitability of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor for the appointment, due diligence and vetting conducted in relation to the appointment, and minutes of meetings and electronic communications regarding the due diligence and vetting'.

Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, has been giving interviews this morning, and she indicated that the government would not be blocking the motion. She told the Today programme: ‘We’re in favour of the principle of there being transparency around this. We think that’s important. Of course, the public have a right to see material that is relevant’.
But she also repeatedly stressed that it would be wrong to publish anything that might prejudice the police investigation into Mountbatten-Windsor. She said: ‘We will look at what the Lib Dems have set out [and we] will address the position later on in parliament when we come to that debate. But we do just need to be careful here because, as in the Peter Mandelson case, we have got a live police investigation here and none of us would want to do anything that would jeopardise it’.

This suggests the Commons is likely to end up passing a version of the motion, with an amendment saying publication will only happen when the police inquiry is over”.

Tuliptree

winterwhite

Mandelson almost certainly had more sensitive stuff to divulge than AMW and knew exactly what he was doing. The cases aren't parallel.

The outline facts are known. Pursuing the detail back over a decade or more could be another poor use of public funds.

You simply can’t say that at this stage as not enough obvs is known by us. A had been years in the RN and years as a senior royal so that could be relevant to his understanding of his role . And really- poor use of public funds pursuing justice? Where would the cut off time be drawn and by whom in what circumstances.? I’m always grateful in our system that we don’t generally have a statute of limitations.

You are right Tuliptree. It’s what you divulge that matters not what you know.
What we also don’t know yet is whether there are criminal cases to answer for either of them regarding people who were underage, sexual or violence, etc. neither of them have been called in for questioning on those issue so far, but that doesn’t mean they won’t be. I presume if there is a case, the sentencing would run concurrently.

winterwhite

Mandelson almost certainly had more sensitive stuff to divulge than AMW and knew exactly what he was doing. The cases aren't parallel.

The outline facts are known. Pursuing the detail back over a decade or more could be another poor use of public funds.

You simply can’t say that at this stage as not enough obvs is known by us. A had been years in the RN and years as a senior royal so that could be relevant to his understanding of his role . And really- poor use of public funds pursuing justice? Where would the cut off time be drawn and by whom in what circumstances.? I’m always grateful in our system that we don’t generally have a statute of limitations.

Just found the article about the storage units.
www.dailymail.co.uk/vertical-galleries/article-15584301/Report-Epstein-stashed-photos-hard-drives-storage-units.html

"The outline facts are known. Pursuing the detail back over a decade or more could be another poor use of public funds".

I agree the outline facts are more easily known. I respectfully disagree it would be a poor use of public funds to secure the documentary evidence.

Firstly, in theory it shouldn't be all that difficult for police IT officers to retrieve necessary evidence. Secondly and more importantly it is important for public trust. We read on GN post that trust in politicians has sunk to an all time low. Epstein file disclosures, not acting upon would extend that distrust to the current government, the police and the CPS. Thats the difference between the UK and the US- here the judiciary and police are independent from politics. Long may it remain the case.

I have read that Epstein had several storage units dotted around in different areas. I'm not sure they have found them all, so there may be huge amounts of paperwork hidden away which could drag this out for years. It really sounds as though Epstein was the keeper of Pandora's Box.

Thanks Lemonjam for your various posts -especially latest one. If either case does go to trial, even if found not guilty there could be huge damage for both of them and others reputationally in facts put forward in the prosecutionl case. Rightly or wrongly , a not guilty verdict isn’t necessarily perceived as innocent

Mandelson almost certainly had more sensitive stuff to divulge than AMW and knew exactly what he was doing. The cases aren't parallel.

The outline facts are known. Pursuing the detail back over a decade or more could be another poor use of public funds.

I also think that recognition by the SIOs in Windsor’s case realise that this will be a long term case because of all the complications and the restrictions imposed by Bail were not what they wanted.

Plus the law relating to misconduct is currently under review to make it easier to secure a conviction....

wilfully neglects+ wilfully misconducts+ no reasonable justification easier to prove for PM than AMW who was in an unpaid role: - no RF precedent in a government trade envoy role- others deferred to his RF connection- were expectations clearly set out- i.e. a job description ( possibly not as he was unpaid) - was he formally singed up to Nolan Principles in Public Office ( an oversight by the government if not but possibly not) - people turned a blind eye to his expenses- "colluding/allowing/justifying"? certain behaviours - all the circumstances making the charge much harder to prove without clear documentary evidence.

There are million of Epstein files to trawl through- there is international scrutiny on the case- the police and CPS will take as long as necessary to try and get the evidence clear to try and get those 3 ducks in a row.....

Here we go- found it and have cut and paste the relevant bits:

"AMW most likely would have been advised by his legal representative that misconduct in public office can carry a maximum life sentence. The offence is defined as when someone in public office "wilfully neglects to perform his or her duty" or "wilfully misconducts" to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder, without reasonable excuse or justification". It's a notoriously difficult offence to prove without solid ( documentary evidence is strong when verified) evidence plus because of the "wilful" element.

This offence has been used for prison officers for example. Eg officers that have taken bribes, brought in prohibited drugs etc into prison for inmates or had sexual relationships with a prisoner in custody. They were convicted because their misconduct was proved to be "wilful" (even if stupid, they thought they were in love or whatever) AND the misconduct undermined the public's trust in their role as a prison officer AND there was no reasonable excuse or justification for their misconduct as their job description and induction training clearly set out such behaviour amounts to gross misconduct. Fairly straight forward......

As the offence is so difficult to prove, under the public office ( accountability) there is a bill reviewing this offence which is currently before the House of Commons (Starmer/LP openly said their aim was to strengthen public accountability). The offence will be replaced with 2 new offences, more easy to prove, thereby strengthening accountability of those in public office. Watch the timeline as if and when AMW's case gets to court current law will be applied".

The documentary evidence whilst PM was in public office is more likely to be"
1) more easily retrievable
2) easier to verify

Plus the standards of his public office documented, clear and necessarily understood by PM.

ferry23
Are we going to see either of them charged? Or is this a case of "better be seen to be doing something" in order to placate the media and the public?

I really don't think that is the case. As far as Ive seen so far- justice is taking its necessary course- timescales not quick. I think I said earlier "misconduct in Public office" is a notoriously difficult charge to prove- you have to get quite a few ducks in a row- see Prince Andrew has just been arrested in Norfolk post 20/2 at 9.30 explaining why....

True M0nica, although a conviction can go ahead more quickly if something is found that warrants a life sentence on its own, for example. That often happens with murderers, not that I’m implying that is the case here.

I’m wondering if others, high profile types, might also be drawn in. I suppose time will tell on that.

In cases like these it can sometimes take months, even on occasion years before a charge can be brought becuase of the extent of the paperwork to be examined and the strings and wires that go back deep itno other peoples affairs and other jurisdictions.

This happens with major financial and fraud cases.

Ill effect even, sorry.
They will be charged if the evidence is there. So much information is already in the public arena from the Epstein files and what the police have already collected from others. I can’t see either of them wanting to go to trial, so if there is enough evidence against them I think both are likely to plead guilty.

Bail is imposed rather than RUI- released under investigation
because of 2022 legal reforms that shifted preference towards using Bail when it is " necessary and proportionate" to manage risks, protect victims and speed up investigations. This reversed PACE 2017 - the presumption in favour of RUI.

Bail can allow conditions to be imposed- like curfew- don't contact specific person/s, don't dispose of or tamper with evidence, don't access websites, email addresses etc- to protect victims, witnesses and the public- if necessary. Laptops and mobile phones are often secured by police to assist in investigation in addition.

AMW and PM were in 2 different police stations- so different senior officers in contact with CPS and making necessary and proportionate release decisions. Plus they may be further along the line in evidence collection with Mandelson in context of his allege crime. Plus they may have more witness evidence already collected specifically for PM- plus he had a job/role description and was subject to the Nolan principles whilst in public office- so perhaps easier to make a case that his standards fell short? ( I'm speculating here).

The new laws require the police to consider specific risk factors, making bail necessary when RUI does not sufficiently safeguard people- but thats probably not the case with either AMW or PM ( e.g domestic abuse cases).

RUI is more like being "in limbo"- it's not subject to time limits thereby allowing investigations to drag on for months or longer. Bail however requires regular review by senior officers- encouraging quicker investigations. In most cases (unless risks are high and it will be more frequent- if proportionate) ) the bail is set 3 months from the date or arrest- to return to that police station on that day at specific time. But the hope is that the investigation will conclude before that and a court date set. It can be extended to 6/9 or 12 months, with magistrates approval after that. His charge may be more specific/discrete in nature and/or over a shorter designated period allowing for shorter investigation period than AMW. There is higher accountability and administrative responsibility for police officers imposing bail.

In summary, The senior officer overseeing AMW's case deemed it not necessary or proportionate in his case to impose Bail- in PM's case the senior officer deemed it was necessary and proportionate in order to to manage risks and ensure better protection and faster justice.

ferry23

Are we going to see either of them charged? Or is this a case of "better be seen to be doing something" in order to placate the media and the public?

Well we don’t know yet do we? What I do know is that I’d hate to be anyone at any level involved with the decision whether to charge or not. If it were me I’d err on the side of caution towards charging ( given a realistic prospect of conviction and that the case is in the public interest) and let a jury decide. But whatever they do, they will be damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Not enviable

Are we going to see either of them charged? Or is this a case of "better be seen to be doing something" in order to placate the media and the public?

Freya5

Doodledog

This is an interesting development.

Assuming they both are charged and found guilty, it would be a PR disaster if PM got a harsher sentence than AMW. The charge is very vague, and as I understand it there are few, if any, precedents to fall back on for sentencing guidelines, so a lot will come down to discretion. I know the maximum sentence is life imprisonment (at His Majesty's pleasure, no less), but 'misconduct' covers a multitude of sins.

I wonder what's coming next.

As far as I'm concerned, Mandelson had greater power than anyone else, as regarding the State.

Having the power, and abusing the power you have to I’ll effect are two different things though. What’s important is the actual charge levelled against somebody?

Murder is a common law offence - rape used to be but there is now a statute - the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Common law

Keeping quiet - I think the coming law reference is to the fact that misconduct in public office is a crime under common law not statute. Doesn’t make a difference to trial.