In paragraph 135 of his judgment in the Andrew Mitchell ‘Plebgate’ case, Mr Justice Mitting says that P.C. Rowland, the police officer whom Mr Mitchell was suing for libel, is ‘not the sort of man who would have the wit, imagination or inclination to invent on the spur of the moment an account of what a senior politician had said to him in a temper’.
In paragraph 174, however, the judge says that Mr Rowland did give a false account of how members of the public reacted to the incident. He goes on: ‘Embellishment of a true account by a police officer on the defensive is, of course, not acceptable, but it is understandable if done for that purpose.’
So he doesn’t make things up on the spur of the moment, but does later, and that is sort of all right: a striking doctrine, especially from a judge, of what is permissible in police evidence.
I think what Mr Justice Mitting is really saying, if you strip out judicial phraseology, is that P.C. Rowland is a pleb, therefore to be judged by low standards.
Because the judge believes that Mr Mitchell used that wicked word, he (Mr Mitchell) is now £2-£3 million poorer. Mr Justice Mitting is just as offensive to Mr Rowland as Mr Mitchell is alleged to have been. His career, however, is unimpeded.
This is an extract from Charles Moore’s Notes in the latest issue of the Spectator. Click here to subscribe.
Comments