The Metropolitan police have been accused of “double requirements” after saying they might await the result Sue Grey’s inquiry into alleged breaches of Covid legal guidelines at Downing Road events.
Scotland Yard indicated any police investigation would depend upon proof unearthed within the Cupboard Workplace inquiry carried out by Grey, including: “If the inquiry identifies proof of behaviour that’s probably a prison offence it will likely be handed to the Met for additional consideration.”
Some legal professionals and policing commentators described the method as suggesting there was one rule for these in energy and one other for everybody else.
Raj Chada, the top of the prison defence division at Hodge Jones and Allen, instructed 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 unprecedented in prison 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 utterly impartial and there to safeguard and make sure the legislation is utilized to all, no matter 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 may simply achieve extra proof”.
Whereas the pressure’s coverage to not examine breaches of Covid legal guidelines retrospectively could be “greatest observe”, she mentioned there was a “heightened sense of duty 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 software of legislation relying on standing, that is dangerous for a functioning rule of legislation. It’s dangerous for democracy.”
The Good Regulation Venture, which mentioned it had put the Met on discover that it might take authorized motion if the pressure failed to analyze events at Downing Road, warned the method might injury public belief within the justice system.
A spokesperson for the venture mentioned:
We predict very clearly that it appears like there’s one rule for these in energy and one rule for everybody else. And we expect it’s insupportable – the operation of a separate prison 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 degree of injury that is doing to public belief within the rule of legislation.
Silkie Carlo, the director of Huge Brother Watch, described the state of affairs as a “gross injustice” and mentioned the Met had issued “1000’s” of fines for “minor Covid breaches”, including that it was “unbelievable” 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 supply a report earlier than they determine whether or not to analyze”.
Jun Pang, coverage and campaigns officer at Liberty, mentioned the Met had “critical inquiries to reply” over its method whereas Norman L Reimer, the chief government of organisation Truthful Trials, mentioned: “We can not 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, instructed PA a elementary precept of policing was that forces have been “operationally impartial from authorities” and warned that if the pressure did examine the allegations of breaches retrospectively then it might be “completely proper and correct” that it then additionally regarded into any others reported.
