The fuss that has been generated following the arrest and questioning of Ruth Turner does pose some questions about how there can be investigations into political figures.
There may well be legitimate questions about why it was necessary to mount a dawn raid. A Prime Ministerial aide is hardly likely to be a serious flight risk, but to see Ministers questioning police operational decisions regarding investigations into their own government creates conflicts of interest left, right and centre.
The “cash for honours” inquiry is of course the most prominent police inquiry into the activity of politicians but it isn’t the only one. There have of course been a number of investigations into ballot fraud involving elected councillors. Sometimes those can be people with direct involvement in the democratic accountability of the Police, for example Colin Inglis was the Chair of the Humberside Police Authority when investigated (and subsequently acquitted) of child abuse charges.
There is of course no suggestion in any of these cases that any undue influence has been put on the police. But there can also be no certainty that police investigations aren’t tempered by knowledge that it is their political “masters” they are investigating. Deciding your going to question the Prime Minister is what you might call the ultimate “career decision”!
As that most overused Judicial quote has it, “justice must not just be done, it must also be seen to be done”.
America has a system of special prosecutors which can be appointed to investigate government figures over misconduct when in officer to seperate out the investigation from the machinery of government. Might it not be time to consider something similar here?
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
20C night
Sammy Going South and the morality of employing child actors
Lessons from 1936 and 2026 for the Liberal Democrats (LDN#211)
Recipe for a real change of direction
Day 9304: So Farewell Then, Kier Starmer
Tristan Ward
Chloe
GWYN WILLIAMS
Jana
Pawel Urbanski
4 Comments
I’m ready to do my duty.
And the Starr Report wasn’t political?
Your suggested solution is a non sequitur to the issue (if there is an issue at all).
“There may well be legitimate questions about why it was necessary to mount a dawn raid. A Prime Ministerial aide is hardly likely to be a serious flight risk…”
Why it had to be at dawn I’m not sure, but the reason for a raid (i.e. turning up unexpectedly) was that they wanted to avoid the possibility that she would start a large bonfire in her back garden, using her files for kindling and her hard drive as a core around which to build up the wood.
Not that I am suggesting that this was her plan, but they had a duty to be sure.
America needs special prosecutors system partly because the US Attorneys (Federal prosecutor) are appointed by the Administration and are seen as quasi-political.
Getting appointed as a US Attorney is sometimes a first step of a further political career. Ask Rudi Guilliani.
But as Duncan points out Kenneth Starr was a completely political figure whose investigation was circus that did not much for justice and ruined the lives of several innocent people.
Here, I I’m not aware of any significant concern that the CPS, as the national public prosecutor, is politically biased.
However, vigilance remains, as ever, the price of freedom.