Lawyers question how publishing partygate report could prejudice police probe

Boris Johnson in the House of Commons
Support us and go ad-free

Lawyers have questioned how publishing the findings of Sue Gray’s inquiry could prejudice the police investigation into allegations of lockdown-breaking parties in Downing Street.

Scotland Yard has asked for the Whitehall inquiry to only make “minimal reference” to the events it is investigating as it seeks to avoid any prejudice to its probe. But it insisted it has not asked senior civil servant Gray to delay her report or place any further restrictions on other events.

The Metropolitan Police’s statement indicates that Gray will either have to make significant changes to her report before publication or delay it until after the force’s inquiry concludes.

“This is absolute nonsense”

But some legal figures have questioned why publishing the report would prejudice the police investigation.

Nazir Afzal, a former chief crown prosecutor for the North West, said on Twitter:

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

This is absolute nonsense from the Met Police. A purely factual report by Sue Gray cannot possibly prejudice a police investigation.

They just have to follow the evidence, of which the report will be a part.

Human rights barrister Adam Wagner, who has spent the pandemic interpreting complex coronavirus laws and explaining them to the public on social media, added:

I am not a criminal lawyer so perhaps I am missing something. How would a factual civil service report about events the police is investigating ‘prejudice’ their investigation?

The anonymous lawyer and author known as The Secret Barrister then added:

I am a criminal lawyer, and I too must be missing something, because there is no reason I can see as to why an independent police criminal investigation would in any way be influenced by, or would seek to influence, a civil service report.

There’s little risk of prejudice

But Nick Aldworth, a former Metropolitan Police chief superintendent and counter-terrorism national co-ordinator, said the report could prejudice the police investigation “by disclosing the evidence that they will gather and thereby giving the potential defendants an opportunity to conceal or alter evidence”.

Publication of official reports and other inquiries can often be delayed until a police investigation and any subsequent court case or inquest is concluded, typically to avoid the risk of prejudicing a jury if a criminal trial was to take place.

But in this instance, if police investigate under the provisions of the coronavirus regulations then there would be little risk of prejudice as the penalty for breaching lockdown rules is a fixed-penalty notice and it is highly unlikely to result in a prosecution.

Serious misconduct?

Some lawyers have questioned whether the incidents in Downing Street may be examples of malfeasance or misconduct in public office or neglect of duty. If police consider such offences, that could lead to a prosecution on more serious charges which may result in a prison sentence.

There is also speculation over whether the probe could open the door to possible action for perverting the course of justice, if officers discover those involved lied or tried to conceal evidence.

Featured image via – The Telegraph – YouTube screengrab

Support us and go ad-free

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us