Tweet
That's about the only explanation I can think of when one considers the Aubyn Hill and Colin Campbell cases:
- 3 men independently make the same "mistake" (and an odd one at that considering that all 3 should by now know the difference between an "employee" and a "contractor") and the DPP basically says that unless she is certain of a conviction then there is no case for perjury.
- a man not provided answers to a few questions in requisitions during an investigation and according to the DPP, she found that said man had no lawful justification or excuse for not providing the responses and (in her own words) "in so doing, he has, on the face of the legislation, obstructed and hindered the contractor general in the execution of his functions in relation to this investigation" but that with no independent material that clearly contradicted the man's position or indicated that the man was trying to cover up any matters the case would be weakened on the concept of intent to commit a crime. According the DPP apparently there must be proof of criminal intention to commit an act for her to mount a viable prosecution.
Now maybe I missed it, but since when has ignorance of law become an excuse? If in the DPP's own words she found that someone, anyone had "on the face of the legislation, obstructed or hindered the contractor-general" then hasn't that person violated the law? If so and the violation of that law comes with penalties (fine or imprisonment), isn't that person supposed to be charged? So is she now saying that if maybe when driving someone runs over her sister because she just stepped out into the street suddenly from behind an obstruction and her sister was crushed to death but that person supposedly had no intent to run her over then the driver shouldn't be charged for manslaughter? Is she really saying that if you break the law, but have no intention to break the law then you shouldn't be charged? Should we all just decide not to read any laws in the future so we can just do whatever we want and then claim ignorance?
- 3 men independently make the same "mistake" (and an odd one at that considering that all 3 should by now know the difference between an "employee" and a "contractor") and the DPP basically says that unless she is certain of a conviction then there is no case for perjury.
- a man not provided answers to a few questions in requisitions during an investigation and according to the DPP, she found that said man had no lawful justification or excuse for not providing the responses and (in her own words) "in so doing, he has, on the face of the legislation, obstructed and hindered the contractor general in the execution of his functions in relation to this investigation" but that with no independent material that clearly contradicted the man's position or indicated that the man was trying to cover up any matters the case would be weakened on the concept of intent to commit a crime. According the DPP apparently there must be proof of criminal intention to commit an act for her to mount a viable prosecution.
Now maybe I missed it, but since when has ignorance of law become an excuse? If in the DPP's own words she found that someone, anyone had "on the face of the legislation, obstructed or hindered the contractor-general" then hasn't that person violated the law? If so and the violation of that law comes with penalties (fine or imprisonment), isn't that person supposed to be charged? So is she now saying that if maybe when driving someone runs over her sister because she just stepped out into the street suddenly from behind an obstruction and her sister was crushed to death but that person supposedly had no intent to run her over then the driver shouldn't be charged for manslaughter? Is she really saying that if you break the law, but have no intention to break the law then you shouldn't be charged? Should we all just decide not to read any laws in the future so we can just do whatever we want and then claim ignorance?
Comment