Are Abrahams and Watt Conspirators?

Any first year law student would be able to advise the Labour Party what constitutes a criminal conspiracy:

Section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 provides:

"...if a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued which, if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions, either -

(a) will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement, or

(b) would do so but for the existence of facts which render the commission of the offence or any of the offences impossible, [added by S.5 Criminal Attempts Act 1981]

he is guilty of conspiracy to commit the offence or offences in question."

If the information about the behaviour of Newcastle  property developer, David Abrahams, and the Labour Party's former General Secretary, Peter Watt, is correct, then I'm sure it won't be long before the police are brought in.

It appears they both intended, against the clear provisions of the   Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, to hide the identification of the real donor. Contrary to what Brown tells us, this is definitely not a matter just for the Electoral Commission.

It seems that   Abrahams  and Watt have already admitted their parts in hiding the donor's identification.

Ignorantia juris non excusat.

Update 28 November 1.00 p.m.

Chris Huhne has just confirmed on BBC Politics Show that he has written to the Met Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair asking him to rake his stick around in this murky pool.

Update 28th November 6.00p.m.

Having had a squint at  S54  of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, it seems  be unlikely the CPS would consider conspiracy. That section imposes a maximum 1 year sentence of imprisonment. Offences under S54 could  be committed not only by Abrahams and Watt, but also by all those involved in allowing their names to be used to hide the original donors.

Each individual "donation" constitutes a separate offence. This is serious stuff.

Comments

[Edward Teague]

It is evident that the arrangements by DA preceded Watt, and happened under Gen. Secs. Matt Carter and the Trot Triesman (now ennobled) - we wait with interest to see if they were inward on DA's circumlocutionary donations. My guess is that they were.

What is un bloody believable is that Jon Mendelsohn - who is no intellectual slouch - did not identify the problem when he first saw it - well at least he says he didn't.

Even odder is the fact that this concealment was not identified by the many many folks who examine the Qtly reports a goodeal closer than chicken entrails were at Delphi.

The other fascinating (and as yet unanswered) question is where exactly did DA find £600,000 - Money laundering matters loom large if he cannot give a satisfactory explanation - after all one conduit was to so far unseen solicitor McCarthy upon whom the Serious crime acts etc., weighs very heavily.

DA would be unwise to go for long solitary countryside walks and to clear out his medecine cabinet in case he is given to taking an overdose of a prescribed or OTC medecine.

[Tony Hatfield]

Edward,

Your money laundering point is well made. Our firm used to be oh, oh so careful when a client, even a long standing one , tipped up large amounts of money to pay for, say, a conveyancing transaction.
As I pointed out in my previous post, this sort of illegal behaviour in political funding would be stopped dead in its tracks if the Money Laundering Regs applied to political donations.
I do hope for Mr McCarthy's professional career he's followed the Law Society's recommendations to the letter.
The more I think about this from a prosecutor's view( difficult I admit) the more I would lean towards conspiracy charges rather than charging only offences under the 2000 Act. After all, there may be three former Labour Party Chairmen, the donor and those who the media kindly describe as "proxies", involved. And each individual donation , the true source of which has been hidden from the Electoral Commission,comprises a separate offence under the Act.Conspiracy seems to properly represent what may have been going on.
It may also be helpful in prising one of the "minor players" away hoping one or more would give evidence for the prosecution.
t