It appears that poorly crafted law is going to mean no prosecutions for any of the CRU collaborators in the now famous leaked emails and documents. This from The Bishop Hill blog:
I’ve just come off the phone to the investigations office at the Information Commissioner’s office. I had made a request for information to UEA that, while only peripherally related to Climategate, has now turned up some interesting new information.
My original request was from a couple of years ago, asking for any correspondence between the CRU’s Mike Hulme and the BBC in relation to a body called the Cambridge Media and Environment Programme (see here for some background on this story). The original response from UEA was that all Prof Hulme’s emails prior to 2005 had been lost, an admission that appears rather embarrassing in the light of CRU’s suggestion that they had lost some of their original temperature data.
However, when the Climategate emails were released I noticed several email from Mike Hulme predating 2005, which appeared to contradict the earlier assertion that all such emails had been lost. Intrigued, I wrote to the Information Commissioner asking that this be investigated and today I had my response.
First off, I was told that while there appeared to be a problem, I needed to be clear that there would be no prosecutions under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act, regardless of the final outcome of the investigation. Although withholding or destroying information is a criminal offence under the terms of the Act, apparently no prosecutions can be brought for offences committed more than six months prior. As anyone who has made a UK FoI request knows, it can take six months to exhaust the internal review process before the ICO even becomes involved. The ICO can then take another six months before starting his investigation.
But there’s and interesting theory being proposed.
It seems quite clear that civil servants are able to withhold and destroy information without any consequences and it’s interesting to ponder how such a dramatic flaw can have found its way into the terms of the Act. Of course we in the UK are used to poorly drafted laws finding their way onto the statute books, but we might also consider the thought that Sir Humphrey might have knowingly inserted this crucial error, in order to ensure that when push came to shove he could keep things quiet without any concerns that he might find himself in hot water.
Conspiracy theory? Perhaps, but you have to admit, it’s a possibility.
I’m sure the collective of CRU is breathing a sigh of relief knowing this, however there may be other unforeseen repercussions coming from the investigation, and UEA may have other rules for professional conduct that may apply.
Stay tuned.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Like real Chicago mobsters and kingpins – they’re untouchable!
Conspiracy law is the handmaiden of prosecutors. Maybe this prosecutor’s sympathies lie elsewhere.
Tarby (07:06:40) :
You’re a clown.
Any statute with limitations of 6 months is no statute at all!
DaveE.
Carbon Dioxide (08:59:16),
You cannot claim for damages through the small claims system. You can only claim back what you have paid for a service.
Mailman
There is an E-Petition on the 10 Dowing Street website taking signatures to suspend CRU pending an investigation of its alleged wrongdoing. Anyone wishing to sign the petition is required to be British. There were already more than 2,000 signatures this morning. Anyone interested in signing?
Mike McMillan (07:26:30) :
I always thought it was those holes you got in wood planks left by the branch base in the trunk. I have no idea why I though this, but it seemed logical as many a small animal will get in/out of buildings through these.
A quick search reveals you are correct and my odd assumption completely baseless. I am disturbed that I can have believed something so clearly, and for so very long, with absolutely no factual basis.
But then again, I believed in Al Gore Warming for quite a while too before looking into it!
This is just another reason to be added to a long list of others to take this fight to the next level – in the courts. There’s more than enough evidence to rpove the AGW thesis as peddled by the likes of the IPCC is both a hoax and a fraud. Otherwise, the battles will go on for years if not decades to come. Who wants that?
JER0ME (14:47:34) :
Mike McMillan (07:26:30) :
Yes indeed – the things anyone can learn by reading WUWT on a daily basis. From the profound to the esoteric.
And, thanks to Pamela, I now follow the meanderings of the jet stream at:
http://squall.sfsu.edu/crws/jetstream.html
and get quite a laugh when the on-air TV meteorologist rambles on about the northern and/or southern “branch” of the jet stream, as though they are two separate, clearly defined rivers of fast moving air.
R. Craigen (10:29:23) :
This is often the case with foreign words as we are conditioned for certain patterns and sequences in words (that’s how we read, not by looking at each letter in turn – that would be way too slow). Odder still to my eyes is the plural, bureaux.
Unfortunate yet typical loophole that the lawmakers put into laws to slip through thus avoiding penalties. It’s an example of the vicious and widespread double standard that members of the cult of government implement to stand above the rule of law. It is also what gives citizens impetus in standing up to and fighting unjust laws enforced by government cult members who are immune from wrong doing even as they commit wrongs against the citizens by their very actions. This type of loophole is a sign of a deep seated “we’re better than the masses” culture of corruption within the cult of government and it’s various forms of agents.
At least it’s clear that the CRU guys careers will now be dogged by these allegations forever. In a way it could be worse for Phil Jones, et. al., at UEA as would it not be better to be charged and cleared than to not be charged and whitewashed by a limp law that has no teeth? Jones was guilty but the limp FOA law let him escape consequences from his scientific frauds.
Maybe there are other laws that have teeth that can be used to go after him and his CRU?
D.Patterson.
Couldn’t find a petition re suspend CRU. but signed 2 others. Several CRU petitions in the rejected list. Although we probably know it will make little impact, at least all those in the UK who can barely believe the enormity of the corrupted science process should try.
I suppose it should come as no surprise since laws are inherently political after all.
The linked video clips from the acclaimed British comedy show Yes Minister are quite appropriate: http://pathstoknowledge.net/2010/01/25/british-investigators-whitewash-cru-freedom-of-information-crimes-with-loophole-letting-jones-et-al-escape
“It seems that there is to be a full enquiry by the UK government into the whole Climategate affair…”
No – this is not a full parliamentary enquiry. It’s an enquiry by (and at the instigation of) the Parliamentary Committtee for Science and Technology, whcih is chaired by a LibDem (who appears to be a warmist). The other Parliamentary Committee with a remit in the area (ie environmental / climate etc) is charied by Tim Yeo, the Tory Environment spokesman who is definitely a warmist (otherwise he would not have got the brief!). I wonder what he thinks about the PCST enquiry – it’s probalby been set up with his blessing, to find the whistleblower rather than to examine the CRU miscreants.
One of the Tories on the PCST is Nadine Dorries, who is going to be a bit distracted by problems with her expenses claims… and the election in on May 6th or is it 8th, meaning Parliament will be dissolved in a couple of months anyway – So don’t hold your breath
“Although withholding or destroying information is a criminal offence under the terms of the Act, apparently no prosecutions can be brought for offences committed more than six months prior”
I don’t believe that loop-hole exists. Lab books and information in databases belongs to the lab/institute; you can’t destroy them.
The CRU will also have the dumps, on magnetic tape, going back at least 5 years on site and off site.
The backed up data is held by the computing people, not the department. Just because something is ‘deleated’ off the mainframe does not mean its gone; it is preserved.
John McCutcheon:
“But don’t forget, you people of England, you have already surrendered your right to prosecute through the criminal courts. The Crown Prosecution Service (the govt.) can take over your prosecution at any time and withdraw it. ….[snip] ….. I don’t like it but we may have to go down the US road where we elect our judges and police commisioners. There was a time, not so long ago, when these people were persons of integrity who understood their role in our governance.”
Two glaring examples in the news just in the last 24 hours:
Georgina Down’s heroic attempts to stop big business poisoning us with their chemicals got as far as the Court of Appeal only to be scuttled by the Govt taking over her case (and do note the spurious use of the term ‘scientist’ here, and the implications of this decision):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/jan/25/georgina-downs-pesticides?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments
And the shocking case of the [possibly illegal, certainly inexplicable] lockign up of all papers pertainign to the highly suspicious death of Dr David Kelly, which only came to light as a result of the FOI request by a group of doctors researching the case:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=117022§ionid=351020601
@DocMartyn:
UEA, the univeristy of which CRU is part, put out a directive that nothing int he CRU records was to be deleted very quickly after Climategate broke, so they are at least wised up to the possibility
I suggest a UK trained lawyer look seriously at the criteria that redesignates information into evidence. For example, in Canada a tax audit, which is an information review, can turn into an investigation if there’s evidence to suggest the books are cooked. In other words, an intent to deceive.
The Climategate e-mails are giving off a strong odour of just such a deception. Therefore, the information they contain no longer falls within FOI legislation but are now part of a criminal fraud investigation. Thus, M’Lord, I submit there’s no moratorium on the time limit if charges are being contemplated.
Any UK criminal lawyers here on this thread care to comment?
The original loophole, re Mike McMillam (07:26:30 of 25.01.10):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrasure
Fraud
The successful prosecution of an alleged fraudulent incident is not simple and depends crucially on the definition of relevant terms in statutes, on the common law and case law.
In Australia where I live ‘fraud’ is defined in this way:
A person who defrauds the Commonwealth or a public authority under the Commonwealth is guilty of an indictable offence. Quote from the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914, Section 29D.
Dishonestly obtaining a benefit by deception or other means (includes both tangible and intangible benefits). Quote from the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines – May 2002 issued by the authority of the Commonwealth Attorney-General.
My reading of a lot of Commonwealth case law leads me to this conclusion:
To commit fraud is to intentionally create a situation prejudicially affecting the Commonwealth in which any of the following occurs:
-dishonestly causing economic loss to the Commonwealth;
-dishonestly influencing the exercise of a public duty;
-inducing the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency to do any act to its detriment.
I imagine the situation is not greatly different in the mother country (ie the United Kingdom) or in Uncle Sam’s place (ie the USA).
Of course the UK law was written to cover buddies. So yes, it was a conspiracy. That is the only way laws get passed. Very true of us across the pond. Looks good, smells bad laws get on the books all the time. They are filled with special interest loop holes. If they didn’t have the holes, the thing would not see the light of day. It’s how things work. If we don’t like it, it is up to us to vote the buggers out.
The jet stream finally settled (somewhat) into its typical El Nino path, but it sure took a while for that to happen. Long after El Nino showed up, the stream was still coming over Oregon and heading in a southeast path with loops and dips. It has recently settled into the southern pineapple belt track that flows in a more northeast manner. But I think it will only stay there for maybe a month, if that.
Gee, why am I not surprised? No peer review before a jury for scientists who defrauded scientific peer review.
Fraud
The successful prosecution of an alleged fraudulent incident is a complex matter fraught with difficulties. It depends crucially on the definition of relevant concepts in statutes, the common law and case law.
In Australia, where I live, these are the relevant definitions:
Fraud is an indictable offence:
A person who defrauds the Commonwealth or a public authority under the Commonwealth is guilty of an indictable offence. Quoted from the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914, Section 29D.
Fraud means:
Dishonestly obtaining a benefit by deception or other means (includes both tangible and intangible benefits). Quoted from Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines -May 2002, issued by authority of the Commonwealth Attorney-General.
My reading of a lot of Commonwealth case law is this:
To commit fraud is to intentionally create a situation prejudicially affecting the Commonwealth in which any of the following occurs:
-dishonestly causing economic loss to the Commonwealth;
-dishonestly influencing the exercise of a public duty;
-inducing the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency to do any act to its detriment.
I expect that the situation is not much different in the mother country (ie United Kingdom) and in Uncle Sam’s place.
It’s probably a cardboard statue as well.
Most UK legislation is riddled with let-out clauses because it is drafted by Civil Servants, who even after the general decline in educational attainment among them, are a lot smarter than the toxic individuals we elect. How much proposed legislation is read, line by line by the majority of MPs is either very small or non-existant.