The Metropolitan police have been accused of “double requirements” after saying they’d await the end result Sue Grey’s inquiry into alleged breaches of Covid legal guidelines at Downing Road events.
Scotland Yard indicated any police investigation would rely on proof unearthed within the Cupboard Workplace inquiry carried out by Grey, including: “If the inquiry identifies proof of behaviour that’s probably a legal offence will probably be handed to the Met for additional consideration.”
Some legal professionals and policing commentators described the strategy as suggesting there was one rule for these in energy and one other for everybody else.
Raj Chada, the top of the legal defence division at Hodge Jones and Allen, informed the PA information company:
The Met does appear to be saying there’s one rule for politicians and one rule for others.
The concept ‘we’re simply going to attend and see what occurs’ is remarkable in legal investigations as a result of it implies that proof can disappear.
The Met has double requirements on this. They broke up the Sarah Everard vigil in fairly heavy-handed phrases and the justification was Covid rules.
The Met is supposed to be fully unbiased and there to safeguard and make sure the regulation is utilized to all, regardless of standing. And it simply doesn’t really feel like that, does it?
The human rights barrister Kirsty Brimelow, who has defended circumstances of Covid breaches and is vice-chairman of the Prison Bar Affiliation, mentioned the police “clearly” didn’t want to attend for an inner inquiry “after they have already got proof and might simply achieve extra proof”.
Whereas the drive’s coverage to not examine breaches of Covid legal guidelines retrospectively is perhaps “greatest follow”, she mentioned there was a “heightened sense of accountability and accountability” as a result of this concerned a authorities which imposed the legal guidelines on the general public.
She added: “If there’s an unequal utility of regulation relying on standing, that is unhealthy for a functioning rule of regulation. It’s unhealthy for democracy.”
The Good Regulation Undertaking, which mentioned it had put the Met on discover that it could take authorized motion if the drive failed to analyze events at Downing Road, warned the strategy may harm public belief within the justice system.
A spokesperson for the mission mentioned:
We expect very clearly that it appears like there’s one rule for these in energy and one rule for everybody else. And we predict it’s insupportable – the operation of a separate legal justice system, which is a softer one for folks in energy or those that have affect and a harsher one for these with out.
We’re very involved in regards to the stage of injury that is doing to public belief within the rule of regulation.
Silkie Carlo, the director of Huge Brother Watch, described the scenario as a “gross injustice” and mentioned the Met had issued “1000’s” of fines for “minor Covid breaches”, including that it was “unimaginable” that the “most closely policed constructing within the nation” hosted events and but the Met was “ready for folks in that very same constructing to provide a report earlier than they determine whether or not to analyze”.
Jun Pang, coverage and campaigns officer at Liberty, mentioned the Met had “severe inquiries to reply” over its strategy whereas Norman L Reimer, the chief govt of organisation Honest Trials, mentioned: “We can’t have a justice system the place folks in energy can break lockdown with impunity whereas others are prosecuted and fined.”
However Nick Aldworth, a former Metropolitan police chief superintendent and counter-terrorism nationwide co-ordinator, informed PA a basic precept of policing was that forces have been “operationally unbiased from authorities” and warned that if the drive did examine the allegations of breaches retrospectively then it could be “completely proper and correct” that it then additionally seemed into any others reported.
