A good piece from @JonUngoedThomas on some of the (many) problems with Sue Gray's inquiry. theguardian.com/politics/2022/…
You can see the Terms of Reference for her enquiry here. 
Her primary purpose is to investigate whether there were breaches of the guidance. She isn't asked to look at whether a criminal offence was committed.
Both criminal law and guidance were constantly changing. The application to the changing (1) criminal law and (2) guidance of the various fact patterns she gathers are intricate and different questions. She is asked to answer the second and she isn't asked to look at the first.
So it wouldn't be at all surprising to me, given the nature of the terms of reference, if she didn't refer anything to the Met. This won't mean there was no criminal offence - merely that she didn't look for one. You don't count goats if you are asked to count sheep
This is a problem given that the Met's position is that it won't investigate unless Sue Gray refers evidence of a crime to it.
It's almost like the conjoint effect of the terms of reference of the inquiry and the Met's position are designed to ensure no criminal investigation.
It's almost like the conjoint effect of the terms of reference of the inquiry and the Met's position are designed to ensure no criminal investigation.
(Of course there are a whole host of other problems with and conflicts in the inquiry too - the fact that she is investigating her boss, lacks the power to compel the production of evidence, is relying on in-house rather than external lawyers, and so on.)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
