Thank you for your enlightening post on such a sensitive and momentous matter. As always, we are grateful for your time and work in telling us about the law.
A very interesting article as always. The question of the criminal law being codified sufficiently for the requirements of human rights appears a little strange to me as a lay person. I can understand the law not being made subject to the whim of the executive, but the argument surely fails both in the idea that any potential miscreant would check to see if what they were doing was illegal before considering a questionable action and that the rest of the English common law is so dependent upon precedent that such a task would be nigh on impossible. And as criminal law cannot be made retrospective for the same reasons, we are stuck with the common law in any case.
In addition, whilst the law is not morality, whenever someone does something immoral and/or for personal gain against the interests of the state as their employer, they should know they put themselves at risk. Whether that risk materialises as a criminal conviction should then depend on the investigation and trial and ultimately on the judgment of one's peers by jury trial. Though is a former Prince now a commoner for the purposes of such a trial?
I suspect most people who commit criminal offences (including misconduct in public office) do so because they think it very unlikely they will be caught. Awareness or lack of it about what the law does or does not prohibit may also be a factor in some cases, but I'd be surprised if many offenders made any attempt to check. Furthermore, in the particular case before us the person concerned may have somehow felt himself above the law.
And also felt very unlikely to be detected, at least by UK security or police forces. Which poses the question as to what the UK state now needs to do to prevent this happening in future - without relying on the US Congress to force publication of incriminating material.
Thank you for your enlightening post on such a sensitive and momentous matter. As always, we are grateful for your time and work in telling us about the law.
A very interesting article as always. The question of the criminal law being codified sufficiently for the requirements of human rights appears a little strange to me as a lay person. I can understand the law not being made subject to the whim of the executive, but the argument surely fails both in the idea that any potential miscreant would check to see if what they were doing was illegal before considering a questionable action and that the rest of the English common law is so dependent upon precedent that such a task would be nigh on impossible. And as criminal law cannot be made retrospective for the same reasons, we are stuck with the common law in any case.
In addition, whilst the law is not morality, whenever someone does something immoral and/or for personal gain against the interests of the state as their employer, they should know they put themselves at risk. Whether that risk materialises as a criminal conviction should then depend on the investigation and trial and ultimately on the judgment of one's peers by jury trial. Though is a former Prince now a commoner for the purposes of such a trial?
I suspect most people who commit criminal offences (including misconduct in public office) do so because they think it very unlikely they will be caught. Awareness or lack of it about what the law does or does not prohibit may also be a factor in some cases, but I'd be surprised if many offenders made any attempt to check. Furthermore, in the particular case before us the person concerned may have somehow felt himself above the law.
And also felt very unlikely to be detected, at least by UK security or police forces. Which poses the question as to what the UK state now needs to do to prevent this happening in future - without relying on the US Congress to force publication of incriminating material.
Thanks, I particular enjoyed this reference ‘One wonders whatever happened to the then head of the Crown Prosecution Service? ‘