Bishop Hill Criminal charges could go ahead?
Jan 31, 2010 Climate: Jones FOI Christopher Booker has a second article in the Sunday Telegraph today in which he examines the ICO's claim that his hands are tied in the matter of criminal prosecutions at UEA because of the six months' time bar prescribed by the Magistrates Act. This story has generated considerable outrage in recent days, and some have suggested that more serious charges could be brought under different statutes altogether.
Booker makes two very interesting observations. First up he reckons that the six month for charges heard in magistrates' courts runs from when the offence was discovered rather than when it was committed. This is an opinion that has been aired elsewhere, and opinion seems to be divided on whether it is correct or not.
Intriguingly though, Booker also notes that charges of conspiring to defy the law could be brought under the Criminal Law Act 1977, where no time bar applies. Perhaps we haven't heard the last of this after all.
Reader Comments (17)
Let's hope we haven't heard the end of it. I agree with James Delingpole when he says "I’m in no mood for being magnanimous in victory. I want the lying, cheating, fraudulent scientists prosecuted and fined or imprisoned."
See http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100024416/climategate-time-for-the-tumbrils/
How I wish...
It's the lying cheating politicians that need to go to jail. I wonder what the treason act says about lying to the British public, when ed miliband talks about a war on the "siren voice" of climate skeptics you have to wonder what the sinister tone implys, and the open support of AGW activism - would that be any different than open support of any pressure group with a political agenda?
I wonder if a charge of misfeasance in public office could be made to stick?
This article, by a lawyer called John O'Sulllivan, reckons that Jones could be prosecuted for fraud. It bears careful reading, the case looks pretty strong.
http://www.climategate.com/climategate-professor-phil-jones-could-face-ten-years-on-fraud-charges/comment-page-1#comment-2114
Is sitting on information that should have been released a one time offence (dated the day you chose to break the law) or a continuous one (so the date of the last offence is the day you are discovered)?
We may have to plan for a private prosecution, I fear. Who would be best placed to raise funds for that?
I’m just finishing His Grace’s book. (Whether it makes a contribution to the current debate remains to be seen but that is no reflection of its merit. Hopefully, it will. Regardless, it will stand as an unimpeachable source for historians.)
Among the best chapters for me are those on the problems with peer review and scientific auditing in general and on the Hockey Stick as political icon. Good stuff. The latter especially helped to clarify my ideas.
I’ll probably be in a sceptic minority of one here but I’m not convinced that much purpose would be served by prosecuting Jones and chums. It’d be great fun to watch them breaking rocks in the Dartmoor snow and pining for warmer weather but the real culprits would get off the hook.
The main failure is that of the politicians who put no structure in place independently to audit the work of the climate-change industry.
A succession of public figures, many of them zealots, assigned a small group of seemingly unsupervised and unaccountable scientists a political task of international significance with only an immature science to perform it with.
It's the likes of Sir John Houghton, Sir David King, Sir Crispen Tickel, the Rt Hon David Miliband and the self-appointed tops of the eco-lobby who created the conditions in which open debate was suppressed.
The pressure on The Team has been intense. That doesn't justify what its members did but it does help one to understand it. The politicians wanted the data twisted (only don’t tell me how you do it). It was this rather than weak individuals that led to the science spinning out of control. With hindsight, the Climategate debacle or something like it was probably inevitable. Ditto I’m sure for Pachygate.
So - a question. Even if they are prosecuted, let alone convicted, how to hold to account those who virtually told them that, if they couldn’t fry the planet, then they should cook the books?
I'm not by nature vindictive but I agree that a few terms of imprisonment are necessary - to emphasise to the public how egregiously they have been misled, to drive a stake through the heart of Catastrophic AGW and, most importantly, to be a lasting reminder to scientists in the future that there are consequences to deliberate deception.
A scientist being led away in handcuffs might send a few salutary shivers down spines - not least in the medical field. It might even encourage some to come clean before the rozzers come calling.
The Chinese have a saying: "Chop off the heads of a few chickens to keep the monkeys worried."
While I agree the real problem makers are in public office, they watching the heads of their "scientists" roll will give them pause to think.
As for Jones et al., as the Queen of Hearts was fond of screaming: "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!"
Failing that, perhaps a few years being some bad man's girl friend will suffice.
DaveB - I posted before reading your post.
I agree with you about the higher ups, but the defences of those brought to court would be likely to incriminate at least some of those higher up.
In addition, the scientists concerned always had the option to speak out and/or resign - they didn't. Worse, most of them pursued their work of denigrating and blocking the work of others with venomous relish. They did not reluctantly attack others, they tried to destroy the careers of anyone who questioned them and gloated over the death of an honest adversary. I think we should reserve our sympathies for those damaged by the lies.
Billions of dollars have been wasted on the basis of their deceptions and if it was up to them Trillions more would follow. That money would have and could go towards alleviating real problems afflicting people now.
Again, I'm afraid I have no sympathy for those who encouraged this waste.
Sorry - my earlier post should of course have said Ed Miliband not David.
At long last we have a conspiracy that has turned out to be true. Furthermore, there is a good chance that we will get to the nitty gritty. Although i am not a scientist, i consider myself to be informed on this matter, having read most of the ipcc 4th report and all the available climategate material that is available. The ipcc report is full of caveats which did not make it to the summary.
It beggers belief that people like ed miliband can still mouth such phrases as "THE VAST MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS AGREE" and "WE KNOW X, IT IS A MATTER OF PHYSICS" What we really know is that the ipcc 4th report is a work of fiction, that the hockey stick graph is another and that AL GORE is AL GORE. ITS OVER ITS DEAD IN THE WATER, ITS FINISHED and the sooner our illustrious leaders realise it, the better for them and us.
PS We also know that the ecconomics of wind farms is about as good as the hadley computer modeling of the climate.
Only when supercomputers are available with 1000 times the capacity of existing computers. will there be a possibility of predicting future changes in climate and who or what is responsible and even then it will probably be debatable
Ok, what I do not get is how they figure the "six month statute of limitations" even applies here. Until the respond the the FOIA request with the data, they are commiting the violation every day, are they not?
@ Richard H
Agreed, but in the US and UK it is the caselaw that matters -- i.e. what the judges say, and they have not spoken as yet.
127:-
(1) ... a magistrates’ court shall not try an information or hear a complaint unless the information was laid, or the complaint made, within 6 months from the time when the offence was committed, or the matter of complaint arose
http://www.swarb.co.uk/acts/1980Magistrates_CourtAct.shtml
"or the matter of complaint arose"
discussion at Lucia's blog, any UK lawyers here may want to comment
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/foi-maybe-there-will-be-charges-filed/
On Sir David King exposing the hackers:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100024591/at-last-expert-sir-david-king-expertly-reveals-true-identity-of-climategate-hackers/
The police have already stated that the leaked FOI zip file was compiled by someone inside CRU for their own use, King suggests that the sophistication of the content points to a concerted targeted effort.
Not so.
Unless they got lucky and stumbled across THE ALREADY COMPILED FILE while hacking through the system – I think not.