OK, having now read the Parliamentary Commissioner report on Owen Paterson, and his summary of complaints against it, I can say if were hearing a 30 min permission hearing: a. I would require a huge amount of persuasion that he had not had a full opportunity to put his case 1/
The submissions he made were obviously legally sophisticated (and pretty ambitious); the pivot of the charges was the objective analysis of his approaches, whether there was a serious wrong (in milk food etc) and whether benefit were conferred/sought for those paying him. 2/
The 17 odd witnesses statements appear likely to be wholly irrelevant to these central issues, as is the fact that his interests were registered. The whole point of the paid advocacy rules is that they impose restrictions that go beyond mere declaration/registration 3/
They stop you from starting processes/debates unless the narrow serious wrong exception is met. Eg seeking the FSA’s accreditation by Randox to use its tech obviously goes beyond that exception. However, the found breaches of “declarations in writing” requirement do look minor 4/
Th meeting passage is a perfect example of the hearing before the Committee being used to narrow the Commissioner’s findings, with the number of in breach meetings being reduced from 25 to 16 upon him providing further evidence not given to the Commisioner. 5/
The key passage at 168 and following about the alleged denial of fairness/inability to lead evidence or XX is unimpeachable so far as I can see, para 169 capturing the the answer in a nutshell. If the decision-maker has had the 17 witness statements, read them and 6/
Rightly found them to be irrelevant there is no conceivable breach of natural justice in not calling them in. (Contrast a case of alleged assault or abuse where the charge turns on the accounts of the protagonists). 7/
The idea that this pretty exhaustively conducted 2 stage case of inquiry by the commisioner and then full review by the Committee evinces a broken system or justifies the egregious step of changing the rules mid game is absurd. The first thing a JR Court would expect also 8/
Would be full candour from the applicant, which would entail full disclosure of the substance of requests or instructions from Randox etc to Mr Paterson of which I can see little trace (though I may have missed). 9/
All in all the Cmtee decision looks pretty bomb proof: balanced, fair once you understand how relevance of material works, carefully reasoned (and probably carefully lawyered) and the very appeal/review of the Commssioner OP wanted. Given this what has happened next is tawdry END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
