The Professors passion for "The Science of Deceit" started here...

Employed by the Ministry (in a covert capacity) to help introduce the law ending dishonest politics, you can see his hand all over the posts of past.

Current political circumstances have forced him to reveal himself and as we speak, MPs are signing up to re-introduce The Elected Representatives (Prohibition of Deception) Bill for debate with over 80,000 voters supporting them.

Posts before Jan '08 are purely for the record (with hindsight they make fascinating reading). Posts after May 13th mark the Professor's return.


Meet the Professor

Thursday, March 15, 2007

The Misrepresentation of the People Act (Mk 2)

After much too-ing and fro-ing over the mens rea required for an offence we seem to have agreed that recklessness to the truth by one of our elected representatives should constitute an offence and therefore the defences in Section 3 shouldn't include "had no intent to deceive or conceal".

Any further suggestions gratefully received. The revised Act follows ;


The Misrepresentation of the People Act

A

Bill

to

Ensure honesty, transparency and accountability from

the representatives of the People and their employees.




The obligation for honesty and transparency in matters of government by those elected to represent the People and their employees is absolute. They act on behalf of the People, their sovereignty flows from the people and is conditional upon such honesty and transparency.


S.1 Where an elected representative of the people or an agent employed on their behalf recklessly or with intent to deceive, publishes or causes to be published in their employment in office, a statement or account which to their knowledge is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular, they shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.

S.2 It shall be an offence under this Act for a representative of the people, or agent employed on their behalf to –

  1. Publish a statement, promise or forecast which he knows to be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular, or

  2. Dishonestly conceal any material facts whether in connection with a statement, promise or forecast published by him, or

  3. Recklessly publish (dishonestly or otherwise) a statement, promise or forecast which is misleading, false or deceptive in a material manner.

S.3 It shall be a defence for any person charged with an offence under section 2 of this Act to show that at the time of the offence he -

  1. did not know, or could not have been reasonably expected to know that his act or conduct would create an impression that was false or misleading, or

  2. had no part in causing or permitting the publication of the statement or any part thereof, or

  3. could not reasonably be expected to have known that the statement to which the charge relates was inaccurate or misleading, or

  4. took all due care to ensure the accuracy of the statement, or

  5. acted in the interest of National Security.

S.4 Where a person causes any wasteful employment by knowingly making to a person a false report tending to show an offence has been committed, or tending to show he has information material to any police enquiry, he shall be liable for this offence on indictment only.

S.5 A person guilty of an offence of misrepresenting the people under this Act shall be liable upon summary conviction and or indictment and or be disqualified forthwith from standing as an elected representative of the people or their agent.

5 comments:

  1. Pauline Quirke15 Mar 2007, 10:48:00

    I agree that recklessness to the truth should be an offence. However, it will be very difficult to prove that a politician has committed this offence

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pauline Quirke said...

    "I agree that recklessness to the truth should be an offence. However, it will be very difficult to prove that a politician has committed this offence"

    There are those investigating the cash for honours affair who may disagree with you. Time will tell. Fact is, the only reason this cash for honours business is being investigated is there was a statute making it a criminal offence on the books. we need a similar statute to deal with "misleading statements" which are now as common (as Bottomley points out) as drink driving used to be.

    ReplyDelete
  3. We sit in courts up and down the country on a daily basis deciding whether a defendent is telling the truth. Why shouldn't we be able to do it with politicians ?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Please could anyone post the
    official definition of
    "National Security" and does the act
    extend to Martial Law and make Officers,Chiefs of Staff accountable
    for Intelligence Service lies/false
    flag operations, and the Security
    clearance of evidence downgraded
    under the given act.

    ReplyDelete