Wednesday, January 16, 2008

PPER offences have no sentencing guidelines?

As has been well reported over the past few days, the Electoral Commission is currently consdering whether to pass the Hain Affair over to the police. This is primarily because as a regulator it has no real power of censure and when it finds the law - in this case the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 - to have been broken its only option is to send it to the Police.

As already mentioned, the Times leader this morning note that PPER is seen as a bit of an inconvenience by the people that passed it into law and should you need any evidence of that look know further than the Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw and the Ministry of Justice. When asked what sentencing guidelines had been produced for offences under the Act the answer was a glorious zilch. Zip. Zero. Nada.

Basically the Government's 'anti-sleaze' totemic law is taken so seriously by the Government that no one seems to have considered the possibility that anyone might actually break it. It really does sum up the sheer contempt that Labour have for the very laws that they themselves created. The PPER was always an act that was said to be about restoring trust. That no one has been directed to produce sentencing guideline for its offences just goes to show what they really think of it.

Who wants to bet that the result will be very low punishments setting the sentencing precedent for those that follow?


Anonymous said...


"The PPER was always an act that was said to be about restoring trust."? Don't think so.

In reality it was always intended to have one result and one result only; to choke off Michael Ashcrofts funding from the Conservative Party.

And as with everything the useless bunch of Zanu Labour arseholes set out to achieve they couldn't even get that right, they thought they were bullet proof. No-one would catch them with their hands in the till. But as usual it's all turned into a big smoking hole in their foot.

If there's any justice left in this world we'll shortly be hearing the sound of cell doors slamming behind Hain, Harperson and the various Alexanders.

A more complete bunch of incompetent, crooked and dishonest wankers you couldn't ever hope to find.

Anonymous said...

Would simple charges of money laundering and fraud suffice?

If they wanted to rapidly draft some guidelines a gander at page 44 onwards of this Electoral Commission guide might be of use.

Anonymous said...

Oh my goodness! When will you nasty people stop talking about laws! Peter Hain has broken no laws! The Prime Minister and the BBC and the Times newspaper say he has broken some rules, which must be an entirely different thing, and they should know rather better than you, shouldn't they?

If Peter Hain had broken a law it would be obvious wouldn't it? And if he'd broken a law that would be a crime and he would be a criminal. And would the BBC and the Prime Minister accept that a criminal was working in the Cabinet? Of course not! So please stop this blasphemy and please moderate your language and stop saying nasty things about poor Mr Hain.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

What are the sentences provided for in the Act itself?

The Sentencing Guidelines Council does not produce sentencing recommendations for every offence on the statute book.

Anonymous said...

I thought the maximum prison sentence was 1 year. So the sentencing guide lines could be "up to one year". Easy job.