Letter of the Day | Naming parliamentarians under probe is morally, legally unjust

THE Editor, Madam:

I do not know which parliamentarians are under probe by the Integrity Commission for illicit enrichment. However, I’m strongly of the view that calls for them to be named and asked to recuse themselves are manifestly morally and legally unjust.

We should recall that three years ago, the Integrity Commission had indicated that two parliamentarians were under probe for illicit enrichment. To date, no parliamentarian has been prosecuted by the commission for that crime. Is it really a solid argument to posit that those parliamentarians should have been named then, and perhaps compelled to step aside? I think not. Had that transpired, those two would be in limbo for three years. Is that fair to elected or appointed officials, or anyone for that matter? I do not think so.

Additionally, to call for naming and sanction at the stage of investigation, especially in the circumstances where the commission appears NOT to have solid enough evidence to proceed in respect of the initial two mentioned in a parliamentary report, despite the passage of three years, would be unjust and a breach of due process.

The ‘name and recuse them’ proponents should also recall that the United Kingdom’s highest court, the Supreme Court, recently ruled in favour of arguments which cited as unjust and unfair naming people at the investigatory stage.

VIABLE PROSECUTION

The UK Supreme Court ruled that suspects in a criminal investigation have the right not to be named by the press until charges are brought. The ruling came recently after Bloomberg lodged an appeal to the court after an unnamed businessman, or ‘ZXC’ as he was referred to, and his employer were being investigated by a law-enforcement agency.

Bloomberg obtained a confidential letter from the UK agency, written to a foreign state, asking for information and documents about the businessman; the publication subsequently posted an article naming the man and details about the investigation.

This was met with a lawsuit from the businessman for the misuse of private information, with the High Court and Court of Appeal both finding that Bloomberg had breached his Article 8 rights under the European Convention of Human Rights. He was also granted an injunction and damages of £25,000. In essence, the courts agreed that a person has ‘a reasonable and objectively founded expectation of privacy’ about the fact of the investigation.

Therefore, there is strong recent and credible legal precedent that renders legally unsound calls to name parliamentarians who the Integrity Commission has told us are under probe. It’d be manifestly unfair.

We should also recall, the former Office of the Contractor General, which has been subsumed into the Integrity Commission, recommended dozens of high-profile public officials for prosecution, but NONE was prosecuted as the probe did not meet the threshold required for a viable prosecution. The sole outcome of those investigations and referrals was the tarnishing of the reputations of the officials. That’s an unjust outcome, as everyone is entitled to their good name unless there’s compelling evidence to the contrary which is provable in a court of law.

Given that track record, how seriously should we take this announcement that six parliamentarians are under probe and calls for the parliamentarians to be named?

BEV BUCHANAN