I find it difficult to discern the logic or any rational explanation why there should be any substantial redaction or postponement of the Susan Gray report pending the outcome of the Met investigation, instigated on the eve of the proposed and long awaited publication of the report.

The elephant in the room concerning the Owen Paterson tribulations, which appears to have been barely mentioned, is surely the thorny issue of Parliamentary Privilege.

In September 2017 I wrote an article ‘Revolutionary Changes to Police Bail’ (see Janes Solicitors website News and Opinion section). 

At the time I stated that although revolutionary, the changes brought about by the Policing and Crime Act 2017 had received scant media or public attention.    This would appear to still be very much the case and there has been very little judicial oversight of the fundamental workings of the new bail scheme.    There also appears to have been a dearth of academic interest in it. This is all surprising bearing in mind the impact of the new scheme on the thousands of people who have been suspected of offences but find themselves in limbo between their arrest or voluntary attendance at the police station (or other agency) and the often lengthy and protracted decision of whether the prosecution charge or decide to take no further action.

There has been plenty of both praise and condemnation of Lord Hain for his defiance of the Court injunction to name Sir Philip Green, invoking Parliamentary Privilege for this purpose.  

An alternative defence perspective 

The ENRC Court of Appeal Judgement clarifying the extent of litigation privilege has already received much praise and plaudits in particular from defence practitioners. 

The unequivocal ruling that the internal investigation commissioned by Decherts into the SFO allegations was covered by litigation privilege and therefore not disclosable to the SFO appears to have been universally welcomed, especially by corporate white collar defence firms and city lawyers.