Matthew Scott

Why the Met’s partygate redaction makes legal sense

Cressida Dick (photo: Getty)

Having said just days ago that they had no objection to Sue Gray’s report being published, the Met have now executed a screeching, tyre-burning U-turn and have asked that the parts of her report dealing with the most serious allegations – the only parts in which anyone has any interest – should not be published until they have completed their own investigation. No. 10 will be more than happy to comply.

Nobody can be in any doubt about the staggering, bumbling ineptitude of its presentation, but the latest Met position does actually make some sense. This is not because publication of the Gray report could possibly prejudice any criminal trial: leaving aside the exceedingly improbable possibility that charges of misconduct in public office might result from the inquiry, the Met is investigating offences that can be tried only in a Magistrates Court. There will be no jury.

Partying in Downing Street was clearly shameful and hypocritical – whether or not it was technically in breach of the lockdown rules

The reason is that if you are conducting a criminal inquiry the last thing you want to happen is for witnesses to be told what other witnesses have said.

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in