Skip to content

The Law and Policy Blog

Independent commentary on law and policy from a liberal constitutionalist and critical perspective

Donate

You can support this independent law and policy commentary by PayPal

Subscribe

Please enter your email address to receive notifications of new stuff by me here and elsewhere.

Pages

  • About
  • Comments Policy

Categories

Recent Posts

  • Explaining a 31-month sentence for a tweet 27th May 2025
  • A close reading of the “AI” fake cases judgment 9th May 2025
  • How the Trump administration’s “shock and awe” approach has resulted in its litigation being shockingly awful 22nd April 2025
  • How the United States constitutional crisis is intensifying 17th April 2025
  • A note about injunctions in the context of the Abrego Garcia case 14th April 2025
  • How Trump is misusing emergency powers in his tariffs policy 10th April 2025
  • How Trump’s tariffs can be a Force Majeure event for some contracts 7th April 2025
  • The significance of the Wisconsin court election result 2nd April 2025
  • “But what if…?” – constitutional commentary in an age of anxiety 31st March 2025
  • A significant defeat for the Trump government in the federal court of appeal 27th March 2025
  • Reckoning the legal and practical significance of the United States deportations case 25th March 2025
  • Making sense of the Trump-Roberts exchange about impeachment 19th March 2025
  • Understanding what went on in court yesterday in the US deportations case 18th March 2025
  • “Oopsie” – the word that means the United States has now tipped into a constitutional crisis 17th March 2025
  • Oh Canada 16th March 2025
  • Thinking about a revolution 5th March 2025
  • The fog of lawlessness: what we can see – and what we cannot see – in the current confusions in the United States 25th February 2025
  • The president who believes himself a king 23rd February 2025
  • Making sense of what is happening in the United States 18th February 2025
  • The paradox of the Billionaires saying that Court Orders have no value, for without Court Orders there could not be Billionaires 11th February 2025
  • Why Donald Trump is not really “transactional” but anti-transactional 4th February 2025
  • From constitutional drama to constitutional crisis? 1st February 2025
  • Solving the puzzle of why the case of Prince Harry and Lord Watson against News Group Newspapers came to its sudden end 25th January 2025
  • Looking critically at Trump’s flurry of Executive Orders: why we should watch what is done, and not to be distracted by what is said 21st January 2025
  • A third and final post about the ‘Lettuce before Action’ of Elizabeth Truss 18th January 2025
  • Why the Truss “lettuce before action” is worse than you thought – and it has a worrying implication for free speech 17th January 2025
  • Of Indictments and Impeachments, and of Donald Trump – two similar words for two distinct things 16th January 2025
  • Why did the DoJ prosecution of Trump run out of time? 14th January 2025
  • Spiteful governments and simple contract law, a weak threatening letter, and a warning of a regulatory battle ahead 13th January 2025
  • A close look at Truss’s legal threat to Starmer – a glorious but seemingly hopeless cease-and-desist letter 9th January 2025
  • How the lore of New Year defeated the law of New Year – how the English state gave up on insisting the new year started on 25 March 1st January 2025
  • Some of President Carter’s judges can still judge, 44 years later – and so we can see how long Trump’s new nominees will be on the bench 31st December 2024
  • “Twelfth Night Till Candlemas” – the story of a forty-year book-quest and of its remarkable ending 20th December 2024
  • An argument about Assisting Dying – matters of life and death need to be properly regulated by law, and not by official discretion 28th November 2024
  • The illiberalism yet to come: two things not to do, and one thing to do – suggestions on how to avoid mental and emotional exhaustion 18th November 2024
  • New stories for old – making sense of a political-constitutional rupture 14th November 2024
  • The shapes of things to come – some thoughts and speculations on the possibilities of what can happen next 8th November 2024
  • A postcard from the day after an election: capturing a further political-constitutional moment 6th November 2024
  • A postcard from the day of an election – capturing a political-constitutional moment 5th November 2024
  • “…as a matter of law, the house is haunted” – a quick Hallowe’en post about law and lore 31st October 2024
  • Prisons and prisons-of-the-mind – how the biggest barrier to prisons reform is public opinion 28th October 2024
  • A blow against the “alternative remedies” excuse: the UK Supreme Court makes it far harder for regulators to avoid performing their public law duties 22nd October 2024
  • What explains the timing and manner of the Chagos Islands sovereignty deal? 20th October 2024
  • Happy birthday, Supreme Court: the fifteenth anniversary of the United Kingdom’s highest court 1st October 2024
  • Words on the screen – the rise and (relative) fall of text-based social media: why journalists and lawyers on social media may not feel so special again 30th September 2024
  • Political accountability vs policy accountability: how our system of politics and government is geared to avoid or evade accountability for policy 24th September 2024
  • On writing – and not writing – about miscarriages of justice 23rd September 2024
  • Miscarriages of Justice: the Oliver Campbell case 21st September 2024
  • How Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Harris and Walz is a masterpiece of persuasive prose: a songwriter’s practical lesson in written advocacy 11th September 2024
  • Supporting Donald Trump is too much for Richard Cheney 7th September 2024
  • A miscarriage of justice is normally a systems failure, and not because of any conspiracy – the cock-up theory usually explains when things go wrong 30th August 2024
  • Update – what is coming up. 29th August 2024
  • Shamima Begum – and ‘de jure’ vs ‘de facto’ statelessness 21st August 2024
  • Lucy Letby and miscarriages of justice: some words of caution on why we should always be alert to the possibilities of miscarriages of justice 19th August 2024
  • This week’s skirmish between the European Commission and X 17th August 2024
  • What Elon Musk perhaps gets wrong about civil wars being ‘inevitable’ – It is in the nature of civil wars that they are not often predictable 7th August 2024
  • How the criminal justice system deals with a riot 5th August 2024
  • The Lucy Letby case: some thoughts and observations: what should happen when a defence does not put in their own expert evidence (for good reason or bad)? 26th July 2024
  • And out the other side? The possible return of serious people doing serious things in law and policy 10th July 2024
  • What if a parliamentary candidate did not exist? The latest odd constitutional law question which nobody has really thought of asking before 9th July 2024
  • The task before James Timpson: the significance of this welcome appointment – and two of the obstacles that he needs to overcome 8th July 2024
  • How the Met police may be erring in its political insider betting investigation – and why we should be wary of extending “misconduct of public office” to parliamentary matters, even in nod-along cases 28th June 2024
  • What you need to know about commercial regulation, in the sports sector and elsewhere – for there is compliance and there is “compliance” 25th June 2024
  • Seven changes for a better constitution? Some interesting proposals from some good people. 24th June 2024
  • The wrong gong 22nd June 2024
  • The public service of an “Enemy of the People” 22nd June 2024
  • Of majorities and “super-majorities” 21st June 2024
  • The strange omission in the Conservative manifesto: why is there no commitment to repeal the Human Rights Act? 12th June 2024
  • The predicted governing party implosion in historical and constitutional context 11th June 2024
  • Donald Trump is convicted – but it is now the judicial system that may need a good defence strategy 1st June 2024
  • The unwelcome weaponisation of police complaints as part of ordinary politics 31st May 2024
  • Thoughts on the calling of a general election – and on whether our constitutional excitements are coming to an end 29th May 2024
  • Another inquiry report, another massive public policy failure revealed 21st May 2024
  • On how regulating the media is hard – if not impossible – and on why reviving the Leveson Inquiry may not be the best basis for seeing what regulations are now needed 4th May 2024
  • Trump’s case – a view from an English legal perspective 24th April 2024
  • Law and lore, and state failure – the quiet collapse of the county court system in England and Wales 22nd April 2024
  • How the civil justice system forced Hugh Grant to settle – and why an alternative to that system is difficult to conceive 17th April 2024
  • Unpacking the remarkable witness statement of Johnny Mercer – a closer look at the extraordinary evidence put before the Afghan war crimes tribunal 25th March 2024
  • The curious incident of the Afghanistan war crimes statutory inquiry being set up 21st March 2024
  • A close look at the Donelan libel settlement: how did a minister make her department feel exposed to expensive legal liability? 8th March 2024
  • A close look at the law and policy of holding a Northern Ireland border poll – and how the law may shape what will be an essentially political decision 10th February 2024
  • How the government is seeking to change the law on Rwanda so as to disregard the facts 30th January 2024
  • How the next general election in the United Kingdom is now less than a year away 29th January 2024
  • Could the Post Office sue its own former directors and advisers regarding the Horizon scandal? 16th January 2024
  • How the legal system made it so easy for the Post Office to destroy the lives of the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses – and how the legal system then made it so hard for them to obtain justice 12th January 2024
  • The coming year: how the parameters of the constitution will shape the politics of 2024 1st January 2024
  • The coming constitutional excitements in the United States 31st December 2023
  • What is often left unsaid in complaints about pesky human rights law and pesky human rights lawyers 15th December 2023
  • A role-reversal? – a footnote to yesterday’s post 1st December 2023
  • The three elements of the Rwanda judgment that show how the United Kingdom government is now boxed in 30th November 2023
  • On yesterday’s Supreme Court judgment on the Rwanda policy 16th November 2023
  • The courts have already deflated the Rwanda policy, regardless of the Supreme Court judgment next Wednesday 10th November 2023
  • The extraordinary newspaper column of the Home Secretary – and its implications 9th November 2023
  • Drafts of history – how the Covid Inquiry, like the Leveson Inquiry, is securing evidence for historians that would otherwise be lost 1st November 2023
  • Proportionality is an incomplete legal concept 25th October 2023
  • Commissioner Breton writes a letter: a post in praise of the one-page formal document 11th October 2023
  • “Computer says guilty” – an introduction to the evidential presumption that computers are operating correctly 30th September 2023
  • COMING UP 23rd September 2023
  • Whatever happened to ‘the best-governed city in the world’? – some footnotes to the article at Prospect on the Birmingham city insolvency 9th September 2023
  • One year on from one thing, sixteen months on from another thing… 8th September 2023
  • What is a section 114 Notice? 7th September 2023
  • Constitutionalism vs constitutionalism – how liberal constitutionalists sometimes misunderstand illiberal constitutionalism 24th August 2023
  • Performative justice and coercion: thinking about coercing convicted defendants to hear their sentences 21st August 2023
  • Of impeachments and indictments – how many of the criminal indictments against Trump are a function of the failure of the impeachment process 15th August 2023
  • A note of caution for those clapping and cheering at the latest indictment of Donald Trump 8th August 2023

Archives

Masterdon link

Mastodon

How the Met police may be erring in its political insider betting investigation – and why we should be wary of extending “misconduct of public office” to parliamentary matters, even in nod-along cases

28 June 2024

Some may be tempted to clap and cheer at the news that a Conservative politician is facing a Metropolitan police investigation in respect of alleged political insider betting.

But this may not be something to clap and cheer, given the potential implications.

By way of background, there is an offence under the Gambling Act in respect of “cheating” when gambling.

Over at Prospect I have done a post (click here) on that offence and why it is perhaps hard to prosecute in practice for insider betting – that is betting based on confidential information.

That said, if the Gambling Commission or any other appropriate investigating body or prosecuting authority believes it can make out a case for the “cheating” offence in these circumstances, then there is nothing inherently wrong with that.

But.

The Metropolitan police appear not to be investigating the politician in respect of the “cheating” offence – but for another offence, known as Misconduct in Public Office.

This is a far more easy and elastic charge to bring – although it is reserved for public officials and civil servants.

As such, this is the offence that the police officers allegedly caught up in this scandal face.

But the primary politician caught up in this matter is not and was not a public official or a civil servant.

At the material time he was what is called a “parliamentary private secretary” – an unpaid and nominal post which, as the “parliamentary” part of its title suggests, exists only the context of parliament.

In effect, a “parliamentary private secretary” is merely a ministerial bag-carrier and go-fer when parliament is sitting, a post to give to a certain kind of backbencher.

It is not in any meaningful way a public office.

If that is the basis for the hapless politician facing Met investigation then that is fundamentally misconceived.

(And if it is his (former) status as a member of parliament then that is also fundamentally misconceived.)

If there is misconduct as a parliamentarian then that is a matter for parliament, and not the police.

In essence: if the Gambling Commission or the Met can make out the “cheating” offence – or any other general offence – then they should proceed as normal. No sensible person would object.

But if the Gambling Commission or the Met cannot make out the “cheating” offence – or any other general dishonesty offence – then there should be no further action.

For the notion of the Met self-extending its remit so as to regulate parliamentarians under an inflated defintion of “public office” is an overreach.

All because an offence is seen as easier to prosecute it should not always be preferred.

For that, in itself, may be a form of procedural cheating.

***

Comments Policy

*AS THIS IS A LIVE CRIMINAL CASE BE CAREFUL HOW YOU COMMENT*

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

More on the comments policy is here.

Posted on 28th June 2024Author David Allen GreenCategories Criminal Law, Parliament, Police and Policing, United Kingdom Law and Policy

12 thoughts on “How the Met police may be erring in its political insider betting investigation – and why we should be wary of extending “misconduct of public office” to parliamentary matters, even in nod-along cases”

  1. Winston Collinge says:
    28th June 2024 at 09:14

    In the terms & conditions of the betting companies they define cheating as ‘having information not in the public domain.’
    It would be my view that officers of the Conservative Party that had notice of the election date and placed a bet they would be cheating.
    Likewise, the candidate that bet that he would lose at the general election could have canvassing returns which confirmed that belief. That information would not be in the public domain and again cheating.

    Reply
    1. James says:
      28th June 2024 at 10:39

      I broadly agree, but while I’m no lawyer cheating according to contractual Ts&Cs and cheating that is criminally prosecutable seem to be two very different animals.

      Reply
  2. David Sweet says:
    28th June 2024 at 09:18

    Very interesting points, and the whole issue brings up some knotty ethical, and presumably legal, questions.

    To be absolutely clear I know nothing of the facts of the case except as widely reported and make no assumptions of the culpability or otherwise of any individual involved.

    However, there are wider issues on the issue of betting that are relevant in my view. First, any bookmaker who accepts bets on actions or decisions that are under the control of specific individuals is running (in my eyes) a real risk that someone who knows more about the situation than he does might ‘take him on’. The answer – to me – would be simply not to make a book on such events as the date of an election. No problem on betting on the aggregate results since no one person (in the West, anyway) can control that.

    There is a tendency (in my eyes) for the law to favour the maker of the book rather than the sucker who bets. An example, unrelated to current issues, is the prohibition in US casinos (as I understand it) of card counting – that is memorising the cards already played in a gambling game to have a better idea when certain cards may come up. I have never understood why this could be deemed unfair or malpractice. Seems to me like skill!

    Back to the political market, there was an interesting piece in the Guardian by Marina Hyde. In an earlier role she had contacted bookmakers when these political and similar ‘books’ were announced and discovered that it was actually quite hard to place a bet – the offers were all about publicity and not really seeking to bring bets in.

    Reply
  3. Michael H says:
    28th June 2024 at 09:21

    Thank you for this cool-headed and lucid explanation. It seems highly pertinent, and I can but hope that equally cool heads within the Met will stop and take stock.

    Reply
  4. Roger Gough says:
    28th June 2024 at 09:35

    What constitutes ‘cheating?

    Reply
    1. David Allen Green says:
      28th June 2024 at 09:41

      Click on the Prospect article, where I set out the offence.

      Reply
  5. George Mitchell says:
    28th June 2024 at 11:24

    The Metropolitan Police under Cressida Dick had to be dragged into investigating Partygate and even then operated a very light touch investigation during the heyday of Johnson. Now we’re in the twilight of the Conservative regime, are they just trying to show some apparent evenhandedness?

    Reply
  6. Keith Cruickshank says:
    28th June 2024 at 12:08

    You dismiss the option of the Met pursuing a parliamentarian in two brief subjective sentences. No doubt you have precedents to back up your opinion? But surely the job of an MP is the ultimate definition of ‘public office’? Also, whatever happened to the principle that all are equal in the eyes of the law?

    Reply
    1. David Allen Green says:
      28th June 2024 at 12:42

      “You dismiss the option of the Met pursuing a parliamentarian in two brief subjective sentences.”

      > Welcome to my blog; all my sentences are brief and written from my perspective. This is not unusual.

      “No doubt you have precedents to back up your opinion?”

      > No, because it is literally unprecedented; that is sort of the point of the post.

      “But surely the job of an MP is the ultimate definition of ‘public office’?”

      > Don’t call me Shirley.

      > And parliament has its own prerogatives and privileges. And someone who is not an officer of the Crown can hardly be the “ultimate” defintion of someone holding an office. That would be an office holder.

      “Also, whatever happened to the principle that all are equal in the eyes of the law?”

      > The offence literally does not apply to “all” but only to public office holders; that is why it is called “misconduct in public office”. The clue is in the name.

      Reply
  7. Roger Houghton says:
    28th June 2024 at 15:38

    “But surely the job of an MP is the ultimate definition of ‘public office’?”

    The role of an MP is to represent his or her constituents. That’s not a public office, is it? Unlike a government post, to which they are appointed by the Crown.

    Reply
  8. Lawrence Buckley says:
    1st July 2024 at 04:33

    Is there an offence of “wasting CPS time”, with which a senior police officer could be charged after seeking prosecution under the wrong statute, owing to culpable ignorance?

    Reply
    1. David Allen Green says:
      1st July 2024 at 07:05

      Please save this blog from yet more demands to have criminal prosecutions.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Post navigation

Previous Previous post: What you need to know about commercial regulation, in the sports sector and elsewhere – for there is compliance and there is “compliance”
Next Next post: The task before James Timpson: the significance of this welcome appointment – and two of the obstacles that he needs to overcome
Proudly powered by WordPress
OSZAR »