Thread by @SCynic1

I think my own Keir Starmer story, may shed some light on how he makes decisions.
In 2006 I prosecuted a difficult case of manslaughter against 4 young people in respect of the death of another young person, who had a heart attack running away from an assault.
We won.
1/7

The Court of Appeal reversed that result on the basis that the death was not a foreseeable consequence of the type of unlawful act we alleged.
That seemed to me - then and now - to be wrong.
I advised going to what was then the House of Lords.
Starmer was the DPP.
2/7

As per the protocol we had a chat. I talked him through the issues. He asked me for a 2 page summary, & told me that he would ask the House of Lords to determine the issue (he also told me I’d lead the case, but that’s by the by).
I supplied my summary.
I heard nothing.
3/7

I actually thought he must have asked Treasury counsel to do the case, which was personally sad but professionally irrelevant.
Eventually, my (very nice) prosecuting solicitor told me that he had abandoned the entire idea.
I asked why - it was a very good point.
4/7

A lot of embarrassed shuffling later it became clear that he had been talked out of the idea by someone else (I do know who, yes), who knew nothing about the case and never spoke to me - or junior counsel or the solicitor - about it. Nor did Keir Starmer.
5/7

It wasn’t, I gathered, that he had persuaded the point would fail or was wrong (that could hardly have happened without speaking to the team). It was because the person who wanted it binned was going to make his life difficult if he didn’t bin it. Even though he was the DPP.
6/7

So, now I see @UKLabour gaslighting the Jewish community by saying this move will help a 2 solution - which it won’t at all - rather than confronting the disagreement & winning an argument, if it can - I remember my own experience of cowardice & indecision.
Hey ho.
//