One rule for them, the politicians, and another rule for us, the public. How often has that been the accusation in the last few years, as the media insist on reinforcing a them and us divisiveness, where the ordinary person is always the victim of unfairness. However, in the case of politicians where adverse unproven allegations are publicised, they are denied so often the rights of fairness normally applied to citizens, such as the presumption of innocence and natural justice. Misinformation, often deliberately manufactured and promulgated designed to assassinate a character on the back of mere suggestions, seems to have become almost acceptable and accepted. When real facts emerge, it is often too late to repair the damage.
OPERATION BRANCHFORM
The latest public hanging without trial is currently in play with Operation Branchform, a police investigation into possible fundraising fraud in the Scottish National Party. This case was started in 2021 but received barely any publicity prior to Nicola Sturgeon’s resignation as party leader. In addition to fraud, police are now looking into a loan to the SNP of £107,000 by Peter Murrell, Nicola Sturgeon’s husband and until recently chief executive of the SNP, and the ownership by the SNP of a £100,000 dormobile. In addition, the SNP auditors resigned in September 2022 and have not been replaced: and this only came to light after the new leader took office. Whatever one thinks of the SNP and individuals within it, no case of fraud has even been made and nothing has been proven: only allegations exist which may come to nothing.
The current victims of injustice are so far Peter Murrell and Colin Beattie, the recently resigned SNP treasurer. Both of them were arrested amid a hail of publicity, with considerable media comment. The police set up a tent in Peter Murrell’s Garden and spent 2 days searching the premises and garden, removing boxes of papers. It was like a television drama serious crime scene. Both men were after some hours released without being charged, pending further investigation. They may never be charged. If charged, they may not be found guilty. However, their reputations are surely tarnished forever. Of course, they may be guilty, but equally they may not be. Some people will now have made up their mind as to their guilt, which could be a grave miscarriage of justice. Whatever one’s view of Nicola Sturgeon, she is being publicly associated with the potential crime, again to the detriment of her reputation, without evidence. The way in which political opponents use allegations, however spurious, is perhaps indicative of the lowering of standards in public life. The case of Dominic Raab’s departure from Government discussed later in this piece raises serious concerns about the lust for smear with disregard for fact.
THE POLITICAL TRIAL OF BORIS JOHNSON
The investigation by the Privileges Committee (PC) into ex-Prime Minister Boris Johnson has been going on for months. Its remit is very narrow: did he knowingly, deliberately lie to the House of Commons when he asserted that, in relation to gatherings at No.10 Downing Street during the pandemic, he had been assured that no covid rules had been broken? Proving a person’s state of mind is a high bar.
If found guilty possibly the penalty is a draconian one – he could in effect be removed as a member of Parliament. If this was an employee of an organisation, or a possible criminal in court, the highest standards of justice would be observed. At least natural justice would apply, such as the right to be tried by independent and qualified people, who are totally free of bias or potential bias or prejudice, for example because they have a relationship with the accused or have previously been involved in the case.
The normal Chairperson of the PC, Chris Bryant, rightly recused himself from this case as he had pre-formed views publicly expressed about Boris Johnson’s character, namely that he was a liar. He was replaced by a new Chairperson for this case, Harriet Harman, who had likewise publicly denounced Boris Johnson as a liar.
All the members of the PC, as the judges and jury, had previous knowledge of and dealings with Boris Johnson. Some had certain adverse views of him. One member is of the SNP, whose policy openly and regularly declared is in effect that he is a lying rogue and should resign.
Although judicial in its substance, this is a political trial by politicians all with their own agendas. The British media had “convicted” him as a liar long before the PC was set up, as had all political opponents. The views of much of the public had been moulded and the technical narrow remit of this tribunal might well fall on many deaf ears. Having gathered evidence from whoever they saw fit, the PC published its preliminary views, without at this time having heard from Boris Johnson about his state of mind, suggesting he was guilty. Is that just? His interview was televised. When political committees are on television it is tempting for MPs to grandstand and demonstrate their brilliance to their public. For that reason alone, they are perhaps often skewed and misleading. A tribunal with an accused with so much at stake as in this case is hardly the occasion for that. Was there grandstanding, a certain cleverness being on show? Occasional remarks by the judges were indeed factually wrong.
Might this be considered a show trial? If this had related to an ordinary citizen, the unjust process and the unfairness would have been the main story. No hard evidence was produced to prove Boris Johnson lied. There was hard evidence that he received assurances as to compliance with rules. That is not to say he is innocent, but it is that the process is flawed. To a lot of people that does not matter, as they consider Boris Johnson deserves a good kicking for whatever bad they consider he has done. However, if perhaps the presumption of innocence and the rules of natural justice are being flouted, that brings the UK and Parliament into disrepute. In the event that Boris Johnson is acquitted, will those who called him a liar be required to repent and apologise? Such an acquittal is perhaps impossible given that the court of public opinion has made its mind up before the PC was even formed, and will politicians, to whom public opinion is their narcotic, wish to be seen to ignore it?
A CASE OF BULLYING OR NOT
So too, Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab (DPM). He has been investigated for allegations of bullying. The report by Adam Tolley KC is done. His remit was to ascertain the facts, including it seems the subjective judgement required as to whether bullying occurred. The decision as to the sanction, if any, was left with Rishi Sunak, Prime Minister. The report is now public, which means that opponents and the media can now also spin the facts and become the judge and jury again. Dominic Raab’s resignation has been inevitable from the day the investigation started. He vowed to resign if bullying was found. Two instances were found, and he has resigned, albeit disagreeing with the findings.
The resignation was inevitable because of opponents convicting him without evidence in advance, including civil servants and politicians. Fair game in politics perhaps. And also, because the media repeated the allegations so often. But the worst allegations came from unnamed sources, perhaps from people with agendas, such as senior civil servants who dislike him and see a chance to ruin him. The Observer of 5 February quoted a “senior Whitehall figure”, unnamed, which included the accusation that Dominic Raab is a psychopath who destroyed lives and careers. Yet one complaint quoted in the Daily Telegraph was from a civil servant, who would not be named, who was “damaged” because Dominic Raab, when confronted by a piece of written work from a highly qualified person which contained errors, possibly angrily said the work “was not good enough”. The impression many members of the public may have gained was of a man who regularly shouted, swore and threw things in meetings, reducing people to tears with his searing criticism of poor work product. Nobody can know what to believe when media information is bandied around without real evidence. However, some people will have concluded before the report that he is obviously a bully. Reputation finished. There could eventually only be one result.
The Adam Tolley (AT) report is worth reading. He found the DPM not to be generally vindictive or with intent to harm, character traits the ordinary person associates with bullying perhaps. All bar two of the many complaints were dismissed as without merit. AT describes media reports as “repeatedly inaccurate in significant respects”. He found no evidence of DPM having shouted, sworn or thrown things in meetings, or his hand gestures threatening. DPM had been a senior Minister in various roles for many years and in all that time no contemporaneous bullying allegation had formally been made, or informally suggested. One might have expected an upset civil servant at least to have complained to their boss, and the matter escalated to DPM by say a Permanent or Deputy Permanent Secretary. While AT found that on the balance of probabilities such people had told DPM that his behaviour had caused distress on occasions, no such person ever suggested bullying had occurred, until the snowball or avalanche as the media bandwagon rolled in 2022/3.
What behaviour qualifies as bullying? AT used a definition approved in a High Court case. Reading the two instances where AT found behaviour which he adjudged to be bullying, they were certainly not extreme nor perhaps clear cut. It seems that there can be bullying even when there is no malicious intent, and where it is adjudged that a person should have been aware that the behaviour could have a damaging impact on the recipient, as offensive, intimidating, undermining, humiliating, denigrating or injuring. Do these instances in so many years of Ministerial office make DPM a bully? People in high position with great responsibility rely on their colleagues to do things right. In times of stress, extreme behaviour may occur and it seems it could be very easy to cross a technical and somewhat subjective line unknowingly in the heat of battle. For example, in paragraph 172, AT explains that in a meeting DPM criticised a report for the absence of “basic information” or “basics”. AT judged that to be intimidating, as a person being criticised might experience that as “unfair personal criticism”. But if it was true, it can hardly be unfair, can it? In the real world it is possible that frustrated senior people regularly openly criticise imperfect work, or even raise their voices: it is not uncommon for such people to not appreciate the impact. While AT is entitled to have his version of bullying thresholds, perhaps not all people would share them.
All MPs, or at least all hard taskmasters, which it is to be hoped many MPs are to demand highest standards, may need to consider their own approach and mind their back in case of people who may get upset. Is this another example of creeping nannyism where the guiding principle is to become so insipid that fear of giving offence must dominate decisions? It comes to mind to consider what a Ukrainian fighting for their life everyday might make of the furore around a little upset in the UK.
At least it was unnecessary to find a breach of the Ministerial Code, as otherwise the Tower may beckon. However, it is worth noting that the Ministerial Code states that “exactly the same standards and norms should govern them (governmental offices) as govern any other workplace”.
This case could easily increase the risk of civil servants bringing down any Minister they do not like working with, perhaps because the Minister is implementing a policy, where the Civil Servants disagree. All Ministers who are frustrated by a Civil Service not performing as it should are likely to get angry, break a few eggs and upset people. They run the risk of the “bully” charge. And if the same norms are to apply as other workplaces, AT’s thresholds for bullying could have HR departments in a sweat, and the senior executives across the UK at risk. Is the “Bullying Bandwagon” beginning to roll.
SO WHAT?
The UK is renowned, certainly relative to most other nations, for its fair laws, and its standing for justice and natural justice. Its courts are among the most respected in the world. Consistency of treatment of citizens is essential. There cannot be one law for the public and another for politicians.
That mere allegations now have the power to ruin careers and reputations with the presumption of innocence taking a back seat is highly damaging. It reinforces the lowering of political standards. If political advertisements which tell lies are to be regarded as fair game, as currently some politicians are arguing, the erosion of standards will plumb new depths.
Some reverse gear is required, and the unanimous adoption of respectful values is needed so that real debate and real information can be the food for public thought, rather than exaggerated smear which in turn taints any judicial process.
