The full transcript of the CPS decision not to prosecute any one is here.
In it it make pretty clear that even if anybody expected to receive an honour for the loan/donation, or if anyone was going to give an honour because of the loan/donation, there was no unambiguous agreement to give an honour for a loan/donation.
In a case such as this, the essence of the offence lies in that unambiguous agreement. If one person makes an offer, etc, in the hope or expectation of being granted an honour, or in the belief that it might put him/her in a more favourable position when nominations are subsequently being considered, that does not of itself constitute an offence. Conversely, if one person grants, etc, an honour to another in recognition of (in effect, as a reward for) the fact that that other has made a gift, etc, that does not of itself constitute an offence. For a case to proceed, the prosecution must have a realistic prospect of being able to prove that the two people agreed that the gift, etc, was in exchange for an honour.
Fair enough, as an agreement could be kinda hard to prove.
So. Definitely no agreement then… (nudge nudge wink wink)
Labels: Politix
Leave a Reply