, 9 tweets, 4 min read Read on Twitter
So @GoodLawProject sued the Electoral Commission about its flawed investigation into whether (1) the DUP broke the law by accepting a “donation” from the CRC and (2) the CRC committed an offence by treating it as a donation rather than expenditure. waitingfortax.com/2018/09/19/the…
Part of the Electoral Commission’s defence included a Witness Statement attaching a secret exhibit that was (very unusually) sent to the Court but not to us. At the hearing we were allowed to see a copy of that secret exhibit, subject to accepting a duty to keep it confidential.
Although the Electoral Commission continue to disagree, I have been advised by Queen’s Counsel that the confidentiality was discharged when that secret exhibit was discussed in open court.
The exhibit is mostly interesting for what it doesn’t say. It doesn’t – perhaps there are other documents – say the EC took any serious interest in (1) or (2). The High Court has said it is "inevitable" the EC will need to come back to these investigations belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-…
But it does contain this extraordinary statement at the end.

Legally this statement is nonsense because there is no rule that because Vote Leave committed one offence it can’t commit another. But, worse, the EC says “therefore” it’s not in the public interest to investigate.
So they *could be* aware of other offences Vote Leave committed – but which they don't think they can prosecute.

(There are good grounds to think there are two other such offences Vote Leave has likely committed, with Veterans for Britain and CRC. There may well be more.)
It's worth standing back and remembering what @ElectoralCommUK - with the power of the State behind it - said to the BBC about @GoodLawProject's judicial review: that we are "fuel[ling] public mistrust where none is merited."

We rejected that allegation then and we reject it now
In summary, the Electoral Commission reckons – wrongly – there is a legal impediment to it finding Vote Leave committed further offences – and so has decided there is no public interest in investigating whether it did.

Jaw dropping.
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Jo Maugham QC
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!