How the Met police may be erring in its political insider betting investigation
We should be wary of extending "misconduct of public office" to parliamentary matters, even in nod-along cases
Some may be tempted to clap and cheer at the news that a Conservative politician is facing a Metropolitan police investigation in respect of alleged political insider betting.
But this may not be something to clap and cheer, given the potential implications.
By way of background, there is an offence under the Gambling Act in respect of “cheating” when gambling.
Over at Prospect I have done a post (click here) on that offence and why it is perhaps hard to prosecute in practice for insider betting - that is betting based on confidential information.
That said, if the Gambling Commission or any other appropriate investigating body or prosecuting authority believes it can make out a case for the “cheating” offence in these circumstances, then there is nothing inherently wrong with that.
But.
The Metropolitan police appear not to be investigating the politician in respect of the “cheating” offence - but for another offence, known as Misconduct in Public Office.
This is a far more easy and elastic charge to bring - although it is reserved for public officials and civil servants.
As such, this is the offence that the police officers allegedly caught up in this scandal face.
But the primary politician caught up in this matter is not and was not a public official or a civil servant.
At the material time he was what is called a “parliamentary private secretary” - an unpaid and nominal post which, as the “parliamentary” part of its title suggests, exists only the context of parliament.
In effect, a “parliamentary private secretary” is merely a ministerial bag-carrier and go-fer when parliament is sitting, a post to give to a certain kind of backbencher.
It is not in any meaningful way a public office.
If that is the basis for the hapless politician facing Met investigation then that is fundamentally misconceived.
(And if it is his (former) status as a member of parliament then that is also fundamentally misconceived.)
If there is misconduct as a parliamentarian then that is a matter for parliament, and not the police.
In essence: if the Gambling Commission or the Met can make out the “cheating” offence - or any other general offence - then they should proceed as normal. No sensible person would object.
But if the Gambling Commission or the Met cannot make out the “cheating” offence - or any other general dishonesty offence - then there should be no further action.
For the notion of the Met self-extending its remit so as to regulate parliamentarians under an inflated defintion of “public office” is an overreach.
All because an offence is seen as easier to prosecute it should not always be preferred.
For that, in itself, may be a form of procedural cheating.