Someone in this nice, recently expensively refurbished building took the time out to patronise me. I feel honoured, of course.
It would appear that the Correspondence Officer of The Direct Communications Unit at 10, Downing Street, SW1A 2AA did, indeed, forward my letter to Mr. David Call-Me-Dave "to the relevant Government department so that they may reply to you, in detail, on the matters you raise", because on Friday last I received a letter from the Ministry of Justice's Sentencing Policy and Penalties Unit, replying to me, in detail, on the matter I raised with Mr. David Call-Me-Dave, in which they also had the good manners to take a little time to patronise me as well.
A Mr. Nick Pointz (an invention of a name surely? I thought that what what Mrs. Chris Huhne did on behalf of her estranged husband?) wrote to me on the matter: I have reproduced his text in italics below, with my interpretation of the text, my "reading between the lines" if you will, in the standard font (and within parentheses):
Dear Mr. Tampon
Thank you for your letter of 17 August to the Prime Minister, in which you raise a number of issues about sentencing. (Actually, it was just one; to whit, what did he think a appropriate tariff should be for multiple breaches of the Data Protection Act, corruption of serving police officers, perverting the course of justice and obstructing police officers in the course of their duties).
I hope you will understand that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet receive a high volume of correspondence (usually in the form of invitations to non-executive directors of lobbying firms, investment banks and arms companies, I should imagine), and unfortunately it is not possible for them to reply personally to every letter they receive (because they cannot be arsed, unless you are the CEO of Barclays Capital).
Your letter has been transferred to the Sentencing Policy and Penalties Unit in the Ministry of Justice (possibly the least taxed Civil Service department serving HM Government). I apologise that it has taken so long for you to receive a reply (irony, or perhaps sarcasm, at work here, one feels).
Government Ministers and their officials cannot comment on individual sentences (unless, of course, there is a reporter nearby willing to capture the "soundbite"). This is not through lack of concern on interest, but because sentencing decisions are made by the courts alone, which are independent from Government (a fact which successive Home Secretaries have seen fit to ignore when political expediency is at stake, but we shall let that one pass).
As a result, I cannot comment on what the appropriate tariff would be for the offences you mention (indeed, as that was not what I wanted; I asked the organ grinder, not the monkey). However, I can set out the maximum penalties available in law for these offences:
- Data protection offences. There are a number of offences under the Data Protection Act, each with their own maximum penalties. For example the offence of unlawfully obtaining personal data has a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine.
- Corruption of police officers. There is a series of offences that might cover this, including bribery (with a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment) and fraud (also with a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment).
- Perverting the course of justice. This carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
- Obstructing a police investigation. Obstruction of a police constable in the execution of their duty carries a maximum penalty of 1 month's imprisonment.
Within these maximum penalties, courts will consider the culpability of the offender (if he is found guilty of the offence, sure he is 100% "culpable"?) and the harm the offence caused. Courts will have regard to these two elements, together with other aggravating or mitigating factors, when determining the appropriate sentence.
Yours sincerely (etc.),
So, according to my new best friend Mr. Pointz (perhaps, given his outlining of sentencing policy as above, I should call him "Bullet"?), the Prime Minister's former best friend Mr. Andrew Coulson shall be looking down the barrel at life imprisonment when his role in the interference in the investigation into the murder of Miss Milly Dowler is tested in court. I wonder if Mr. David Call-Me-Dave shall comment that "it is good that the courts feel able to give out these sentences" if Mr. Coulson does indeed feel the full force of the sword of the judiciary?
Do others feel. however, that the mooted reply "fuck off, Tampon" may have been nearer to the eventual outcome?
No comments:
Post a Comment