Sturgeon to resign as FM

[ProfessorDavey]

Indeed, the web is marvellous to help guessing by anyone with no experience.

Weird comment from the guy who routinely posts comments which contain little else other than a link to something on the web.

[Nearly Sane]

Weird comment from the guy who routinely posts comments which contain little else other than a link to something on the web.

  Could you offer a couple of examples of what you mean?

[ProfessorDavey]

Indeed, the web is marvellous to help guessing by anyone with no experience.

Actually the web is a marvellous source of information to allow someone with little direct experience of a topic to understand more.

Provided, of course, that you use a reputable source of information and not rely on someone's twitter speculation.

And in this case I would have thought that an article on Search powers, and obtaining and executing search warrants from the College of Policing and its link to the relevant law, specifically the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, is about as reputable a source as you can get. Providing of course, that we were discussing a matter relating to the search of property and its execution. Oh, yes - that's exactly what we were discussing.

But hey ho, Chip's voiced his opinion and linked to a tweet of a brief video clip and deemed it 'farcical'.

You do understand what the term non-equivalence means, don't you.

[ProfessorDavey]

  Could you offer a couple of examples of what you mean?

Err check out your list of recent posts:

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?action=profile;u=3795;area=showposts;start=0
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?action=profile;u=3795;area=showposts;start=25

Numbers 3, 13, 17, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35 and 36

all fit perfectly with my comment - all being posts which contain little else other than a link to something on the web.

[Nearly Sane]

Err check out your list of recent posts:

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?action=profile;u=3795;area=showposts;start=0
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?action=profile;u=3795;area=showposts;start=25

Numbers 3, 13, 17, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35 and 36

all fit perfectly with my comment - all being posts which contain little else other than a link to something on the web.

So the examples are are things I don't state in an objective statement from. I think you have made a category mistake on. I did think about saying that in my last reply but I wanted to get confirmation of your confusion. Thank you for your asdiduous work in doing so.

[Nearly Sane]

Actually the web is a marvellous source of information to allow someone with little direct experience of a topic to understand more.

Provided, of course, that you use a reputable source of information and not rely on someone's twitter speculation.

And in this case I would have thought that an article on Search powers, and obtaining and executing search warrants from the College of Policing and its link to the relevant law, specifically the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, is about as reputable a source as you can get. Providing of course, that we were discussing a matter relating to the search of property and its execution. Oh, yes - that's exactly what we were discussing.

But hey ho, Chip's voiced his opinion and linked to a tweet of a brief video clip and deemed it 'farcical'.

You do understand what the term non-equivalence means, don't you.

Yes, I know you've tried a lazy ad hom to help your guessing

[Nearly Sane]

To get us back on topic, here's Yousaf commenting. And going as far as I think he's been advised to go. But it is sort of him doing what Prof D's hypothesis of Yousaf throwing Sturgeon under a bus


https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23441019.humza-yousaf-distances-nicola-sturgeons-snp-leadership/

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, I know you've tried a lazy ad hom to help your guessing

Oh dear - nice try at a diversionary tactic. But won't work.

Please explain, when discussing a matter relating to the search of property and its execution, why an article entitled Search powers, and obtaining and executing search warrants from the College of Policing which links to the relevant law, specifically the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 would not be a highly reputable source of relevant information on ... err ... the search of property and its execution.

[Nearly Sane]

Oh dear - nice try at a diversionary tactic. But won't work.

Please explain, when discussing a matter relating to the search of property and its execution, why an article entitled Search powers, and obtaining and executing search warrants from the College of Policing which links to the relevant law, specifically the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 would not be a highly reputable source of relevant information on ... err ... the search of property and its execution.

I didn't introduce the ad hom.

[ProfessorDavey]

To get us back on topic, here's Yousaf commenting. And going as far as I think he's been advised to go. But it is sort of him doing what Prof D's hypothesis of Yousaf throwing Sturgeon under a bus


https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23441019.humza-yousaf-distances-nicola-sturgeons-snp-leadership/

Which rather proves two of the points I've been making.

First that Yousaf will distance himself as far as he can from Sturgeon/Murrell - I think saying the following:

'he was "very, very clear that the governance of the party was not as it should be" and said the party would not be recruiting his wife - Nadia El-Nakla - an SNP councillor in Dundee - as the party's new chief executive.'

Meets my criteria of throwing Murrell under the bus. The second part is a hardly veiled attack on Sturgeon, so she's been pushed to the edge of the curb, kind of teetering on the edge with a little push placing her in front of the bus.

My second point is about the legal vs political and that when it suits him politically to do the 'no comment' thing he's happy to do so. But when it suits him politically to make a highly pointed comment about Murrell's stewardship of the party, which arguably could be seen to prejudice a trial, the whole legal thing goes out of the window. His comments and/or lack of them are driven by the politics not the legality as he's well aware that you have to go a very long way before comments enter the territory of contempt.

[ProfessorDavey]

I didn't introduce the ad hom.

Yawn.

Please explain, when discussing a matter relating to the search of property and its execution, why an article entitled Search powers, and obtaining and executing search warrants from the College of Policing which links to the relevant law, specifically the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 would not be a highly reputable source of relevant information on ... err ... the search of property and its execution.

[jeremyp]

Because the actions of the police are such that as a citizen you have no grounds to question that assumption?

I do not, at this time, have any grounds to question my assumption. If you have some evidence that is more substantial than general cynicism about the police and politicians, please do tell.

[jeremyp]

I would still suggest you have missed out an if following the 'Even".

I suppose that it is possible that the legal web site he quoted was wrong, but, as long as it was accurate, PD has demonstrated that contempt does not yet apply, because Murrell has not yet been charged with a crime.

[jeremyp]

To get us back on topic, here's Yousaf commenting. And going as far as I think he's been advised to go. But it is sort of him doing what Prof D's hypothesis of Yousaf throwing Sturgeon under a bus


https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23441019.humza-yousaf-distances-nicola-sturgeons-snp-leadership/

My wife is not going to be applying for the role of chief executive

Yep. Here's that bus.

[ProfessorDavey]

I do not, at this time, have any grounds to question my assumption. If you have some evidence that is more substantial than general cynicism about the police and politicians, please do tell.

Indeed - NS claims that the number of police and time taken for the search is 'farcical', yet is completely unable to back up this assertion.

He's refused to address my question about how long searches usually take - I suspect he has absolutely no idea because, of course, most searches aren't conducted in front of 24-hour rolling news cameras.

And on that point he doesn't appear to have acknowledged that an additional complexity in this instance will be dealing with the press, media, photographers, drones out side the property. This will necessarily require additional police time and resource.

And, despite asking several times, he has failed to answer why an article entitled Search powers, and obtaining and executing search warrants from the College of Policing which links to the relevant law, specifically the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 would not be a highly reputable source of relevant information on ... err ... the search of property and its execution.

I wonder why that might be - perhaps because it demonstrates that under the law a search of this nature is required to be conducted in a painfully painstaking manner, certainly every document clearly recorded, likely every document sifted to identify relevant and non relevant material and probably copied before removal. Under the legal rules it is hardly surprising that a search of this nature will be lengthy.

Yet NS accuses me of 'guessing' when I have actually informed myself from gold-standard reputable sources - including the actual primary legislation on the matter. Rather NS posits hyperbole like 'farcical' from a position of complete ignorance of the actual processes and the law. And worse seems to refuse to accept highly reputable sources of information, when provided on a plate to him (just one or two clicks away), presumably because they undermine his hyperbolic prejudged and ignorant view.

Hey ho, was ever thus.

[Nearly Sane]

Indeed - NS claims that the number of police and time taken for the search is 'farcical', yet is completely unable to back up this assertion.

He's refused to address my question about how long searches usually take - I suspect he has absolutely no idea because, of course, most searches aren't conducted in front of 24-hour rolling news cameras.

And on that point he doesn't appear to have acknowledged that an additional complexity in this instance will be dealing with the press, media, photographers, drones out side the property. This will necessarily require additional police time and resource.

And, despite asking several times, he has failed to answer why an article entitled Search powers, and obtaining and executing search warrants from the College of Policing which links to the relevant law, specifically the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 would not be a highly reputable source of relevant information on ... err ... the search of property and its execution.

I wonder why that might be - perhaps because it demonstrates that under the law a search of this nature is required to be conducted in a painfully painstaking manner, certainly every document clearly recorded, likely every document sifted to identify relevant and non relevant material and probably copied before removal. Under the legal rules it is hardly surprising that a search of this nature will be lengthy.

Yet NS accuses me of 'guessing' when I have actually informed myself from gold-standard reputable sources - including the actual primary legislation on the matter. Rather NS posits hyperbole like 'farcical' from a position of complete ignorance of the actual processes and the law. And worse seems to refuse to accept highly reputable sources of information, when provided on a plate to him (just one or two clicks away), presumably because they undermine his hyperbolic prejudged and ignorant view.

Hey ho, was ever thus.

This room in your head is very comfy.

[ProfessorDavey]

This room in your head is very comfy.

and he accuses me of ad hominem attacks.🙄

Hey, ho - was ever thus.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Good - well let's hope we can get to the bottom of this one, as neither you nor I are specialists, yet I'd imagine both Roddy Dunlop and the firm of Livingstone Brown are, and for reasons I don't understand they don't seem to agree with each other.

Roddy Dunlop's tweet wasn't speculation - he said contempt of court protections are triggered on arrest and he seems to have backed that up with an image of the relevant legislation, which seems pretty clear that arrest is a trigger for when contempt of court applies. The legislation he posted was the Contempt of Court Act 1981, Section 2 which says:

2                     Limitation of scope of strict liability.

(4) Schedule 1 applies for determining the times at which proceedings are to be treated as active within the meaning of this section.

If we look at Schedule 1:


SCHEDULE 1 U.K.
Times when Proceedings are Active for Purposes of Section 2

3 U.K.       Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, criminal proceedings are active from the relevant initial step
                specified in paragraph 4 [F32or 4A] until concluded as described in paragraph 5.

4 U.K.        The initial steps of criminal proceedings are:—

                           (a)arrest without warrant;

                           (b)the issue, or in Scotland the grant, of a warrant for arrest;


5 U.K.         Criminal proceedings are concluded—

                           (a)by acquittal or, as the case may be, by sentence;

                           (b)by any other verdict, finding, order or decision which puts an end to the proceedings;

                           (c)by discontinuance or by operation of law;


7 U.K.        Proceedings are discontinued within the meaning of paragraph 5(c)—

                           (b)in Scotland, if the proceedings are expressly abandoned by the prosecutor or are deserted simpliciter;[/i]

[ProfessorDavey]

Roddy Dunlop's tweet wasn't speculation - he said contempt of court protections are triggered on arrest and he seems to have backed that up with an image of the relevant legislation, which seems pretty clear that arrest is a trigger for when contempt of court applies. The legislation he posted was the Contempt of Court Act 1981, Section 2 which says:

2                     Limitation of scope of strict liability.

(4) Schedule 1 applies for determining the times at which proceedings are to be treated as active within the meaning of this section.

If we look at Schedule 1:


SCHEDULE 1 U.K.
Times when Proceedings are Active for Purposes of Section 2

3 U.K.       Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, criminal proceedings are active from the relevant initial step
                specified in paragraph 4 [F32or 4A] until concluded as described in paragraph 5.

4 U.K.        The initial steps of criminal proceedings are:—

                           (a)arrest without warrant;

                           (b)the issue, or in Scotland the grant, of a warrant for arrest;


5 U.K.         Criminal proceedings are concluded—

                           (a)by acquittal or, as the case may be, by sentence;

                           (b)by any other verdict, finding, order or decision which puts an end to the proceedings;

                           (c)by discontinuance or by operation of law;


7 U.K.        Proceedings are discontinued within the meaning of paragraph 5(c)—

                           (b)in Scotland, if the proceedings are expressly abandoned by the prosecutor or are deserted simpliciter;[/i]

I don't think i ever said that Dunlop's comments were speculation - he's a highly respected lawyer. My initial understanding was based on the link from another legal source, which implied that contempt kicking in at the point of charge, but this may be wrong. It does seem a bit strange that two distinct and reputable legal sources are implying something different.

So your links to the actual act are helpful - suggests perhaps kicks in at arrest rather than charge. As does this:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/contempt-court-reporting-restrictions-and-restrictions-public-access-hearings

This states:

'"Active" is defined in Schedule 1 Contempt of Court Act 1981 and proceedings are active if a summons has been issued or a defendant arrested without warrant.'

However it goes on to say (my emphasis):

"Where a warrant has been issued, proceedings cease to be active once twelve months' have elapsed without the suspect's arrest, and where there has been an arrest when the suspect is released without charge otherwise than on bail.'

So given that Murrell has been released without charge and I don't think he was released on bail, this might imply that the case was 'active' in contempt terms for a couple of days from the point of arrest until Murrell was released without charge, but in now not active, until a further stage occurs.

There is also an interesting point on risk - the document states:

'Risk is judged at the time of publication. The longer the gap between publication and the trial ("the fade factor"), the less the substantial risk of serious prejudice is likely to be. The absence of actual prejudice resulting from publication does not prevent it from being a contempt but may be relevant in deciding whether there was a substantial risk of serious prejudice.'

Given that we are at an early stage, we don't know whether there will be charges, let alone a trial I think this reduces the risk of comments at this stage being seen to pose a substantial risk of serious prejudice. And given the comments in the press, media etc I don't think they (or their lawyers) think there is a significant risk. Indeed, where it suits Yousaf, he's been pretty robust in his comments which imply that governance wasn't as it should be and that Murrell (and by inference Sturgeon) bear responsibility. Of course, when it suits him and he doesn't feel a response is politically useful to him, he's more than willing to say 'cannot comment on an ongoing investigation'.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Second day of a search of not that big a home with 20 police on a possible fraud case.

Interesting they decided to go for a 2 day spectacle. In 2015, up to 20 police only took only one day (08:00 until 19:00) to search Lord Bramell's 4 bed, 2 bathroom, 3 reception room £1m + detached house in Crondall Farnham Surrey, in relation to Operation Midland's high-profile child sex abuse allegation, which turned out to be complete fantasy.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I don't think i ever said that Dunlop's comments were speculation - he's a highly respected lawyer. My initial understanding was based on the link from another legal source, which implied that contempt kicking in at the point of charge, but this may be wrong. It does seem a bit strange that two distinct and reputable legal sources are implying something different.

So your links to the actual act are helpful - suggests perhaps kicks in at arrest rather than charge. As does this:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/contempt-court-reporting-restrictions-and-restrictions-public-access-hearings

This states:

'"Active" is defined in Schedule 1 Contempt of Court Act 1981 and proceedings are active if a summons has been issued or a defendant arrested without warrant.'

However it goes on to say (my emphasis):

"Where a warrant has been issued, proceedings cease to be active once twelve months' have elapsed without the suspect's arrest, and where there has been an arrest when the suspect is released without charge otherwise than on bail.'

So given that Murrell has been released without charge and I don't think he was released on bail, this might imply that the case was 'active' in contempt terms for a couple of days from the point of arrest until Murrell was released without charge, but in now not active, until a further stage occurs.

There is also an interesting point on risk - the document states:

'Risk is judged at the time of publication. The longer the gap between publication and the trial ("the fade factor"), the less the substantial risk of serious prejudice is likely to be. The absence of actual prejudice resulting from publication does not prevent it from being a contempt but may be relevant in deciding whether there was a substantial risk of serious prejudice.'

Given that we are at an early stage, we don't know whether there will be charges, let alone a trial I think this reduces the risk of comments at this stage being seen to pose a substantial risk of serious prejudice. And given the comments in the press, media etc I don't think they (or their lawyers) think there is a significant risk. Indeed, where it suits Yousaf, he's been pretty robust in his comments which imply that governance wasn't as it should be and that Murrell (and by inference Sturgeon) bear responsibility. Of course, when it suits him and he doesn't feel a response is politically useful to him, he's more than willing to say 'cannot comment on an ongoing investigation'.

NS in his reply #618 linked to a statement from the police in Scotland that Murrell has been released without charge but that Contempt of Court Act still applies.

On Wednesday, a Police Scotland spokesperson said: “A 58-year-old man who was arrested as a suspect earlier today in connection with the ongoing investigation into the funding and finances of the Scottish National Party, has been released without charge pending further investigation.

“The man was questioned by Police Scotland detectives after he was arrested at 7.45am. He was released from custody at 6.57pm.

“Officers also carried out searches today at a number of addresses as part of the investigation.

“A report will be sent to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

“The matter remains active for the purposes of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and the public are therefore advised to exercise caution if discussing it on social media.

“As the investigation is ongoing we are unable to comment further.”

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

There is also an interesting point on risk - the document states:

'Risk is judged at the time of publication. The longer the gap between publication and the trial ("the fade factor"), the less the substantial risk of serious prejudice is likely to be. The absence of actual prejudice resulting from publication does not prevent it from being a contempt but may be relevant in deciding whether there was a substantial risk of serious prejudice.'

Given that we are at an early stage, we don't know whether there will be charges, let alone a trial I think this reduces the risk of comments at this stage being seen to pose a substantial risk of serious prejudice. And given the comments in the press, media etc I don't think they (or their lawyers) think there is a significant risk. Indeed, where it suits Yousaf, he's been pretty robust in his comments which imply that governance wasn't as it should be and that Murrell (and by inference Sturgeon) bear responsibility. Of course, when it suits him and he doesn't feel a response is politically useful to him, he's more than willing to say 'cannot comment on an ongoing investigation'.

The National https://www.thenational.scot/news/23436112.contempt-court-cant-media-report-peter-murrells-arrest/
states: Also to be remembered is that while the 1981 Act is UK-wide, contempt of court is taken much more seriously in Scotland than south of the Border.

It quotes what Dunlop has to say regarding the risk:

Dunlop had written previously: “Again: a reminder of the requirements of contempt of court. Your tweet will, unless deleted, be available forever. What might seem ok today might not be tomorrow. And it will be visible anywhere, and so even if sent from Scotland might be a contempt of English cases (or v/versa).

“Accordingly, commenting on ongoing criminal proceedings requires extreme caution and, to be frank, is best avoided – not only to avoid contempt but also because you do not want to risk imperilling the trial.”

The UK Government provides a useful checklist of things which you should avoid if you do not want to fall foul of the law once a person has been arrested and a case made "active".

The list of actions to be avoided includes:

- saying whether you think a person is guilty or innocent

So I think it makes sense for the FM to avoid saying anything that could be interpreted as speculation that Murrell is innocent.

Given that Alex Salmond availed himself of his right to judicial review against the Scottish government for its handling of a non-criminal investigation, presumably the Scottish Government won't want to be seen to get it wrong in relation to an actual criminal investigation.

[Nearly Sane]

and he accuses me of ad hominem attacks.🙄

Hey, ho - was ever thus.

And chips for free as well.

[Nearly Sane]

He's not the Messiah...

I love the smell of outrage in the National

https://archive.vn/ZAGvD

[jeremyp]

He's not the Messiah...

I love the smell of outrage in the National

https://archive.vn/ZAGvD

Too soon?