The Fraudsters' Parliament -9

As promised, please find below the text of my comment to the The Herald/Sunday Herald website;


Dear heraldscotland,



Unlike Mr Darling, and many of those in what has become more widely known as the Westminster Fraudsters' Parliament, I am not a lawyer. As a taxpaying, voting citizen of the UK, I have read the Fraud Act 2006 which came into force in England in January 2007 and have come to the conclusion that it COULD have been written to deal specifically with those in this parliament who have been trousering taxpayers' monies!
The following text from the Act may cover the situation;


'1 Fraud
(1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).


(2) The sections are-


(a) section 2 (fraud by false representation),
(b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and
(c) section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).


(3) A person who is guilty of fraud is liable-
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both).


(4) Subsection (3)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference to 6 months.


2 Fraud by false representation


(1) A person is in breach of this section if he-
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation-
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.


(2) A representation is false if-
(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.


(3) "Representation" means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of-
(a) the person making the representation, or
(b) any other person.


(4) A representation may be express or implied.'




The explanatory notes accompanying the Act include the following text;


'Section 2: Fraud by false representation


10. Section 2 makes it an offence to commit fraud by false representation. Subsection (1)(a) makes clear that the representation must be made dishonestly. This test applies also to sections 3 and 4. The current definition of dishonesty was established in R v Ghosh [1982] Q.B.1053. That judgment sets a two-stage test. The first question is whether a defendant's behaviour would be regarded as dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people. If answered positively, the second question is whether the defendant was aware that his conduct was dishonest and would be regarded as dishonest by reasonable and honest people.'


I would suggest that the many and various attempts by MPs to change, obscure, conceal and ignore attempts to 'flush out ' these practices must be held as evidence that those concerned were aware that their actions were dishonest and that their behaviour would be regarded by dishonest by reasonable and honest people.

I note that this case fulfills at least two of the common public interest factors contained in Section 5.9 of the current Prosecution Manual which is used to determine whether or not the Crown Prosecution Service will instigate a prosecution namely:-


5.9
a). a conviction is likely to result in a significant sentence;
e). the defendant was in a position of trust;
o.) there are grounds for believing that the offence is likely to be continued or repeated, for example, by a history of recurring conduct;


As I mentioned earlier, I am not a lawyer... just a taxpaying citizen voter of the UK..... but am I the only one who is asking why this law has not been deployed against those MPs in the Westminster  Parliament who have 'misappropriated' public monies, irrespective of their political party or their level of seniority in that political party?


If the law DOES apply to MPs, as it applies to all of us in England (I am not sure of the situation in Scotland), when can I, a taxpaying citizen voter, expect to hear the slamming of cell doors behind the guilty?


Yours faithfully,


John L Bell
http://johnlbell.blogspot.com/

The web address of the website is;

http://www.heraldscotland.com/

The address of the article which prompted the comment is;

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/chancellor-quits-law-body-as-expenses-inquiry-begins-1.997379