Legal position
Well well. The attorney general will issue a statement soon clarifying how he'll handle the outcome of "the cash for honours" investigation. has come under pressure to stand aside from any decision about whether to proceed with prosecutions which may (or may not, it should be said from the outset) include people close to the prime minister.
Demands for clarity have increased following the decisions of the Director of Public Prosecutions - a former colleague of Cherie Blair - and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police - who has regular dealings with the prime minister - to stand aside from decisions related to the investigation.
I understand that Lord Goldsmith (pictured) will soon reply to a letter from his Shadow - Dominic Grieve - asking him to clarify his position. He will say that his formal consent for proceedings will not be required if charges are brought under the law forbidding the granting of honours in return for payment or, indeed, under the law relating to the declaration of political donations. In this case, the Crown Prosecution Service will take the decision as to whether any charges should be brought.
The law does, however, require the attorney to give his formal consent to a small number of possible offences including corruption. In these circumstances, it is his duty, he says, to exercise his independent constitutional duty and to determine whether it is "in the public interest" to proceed. Usually, he would seek independent legal advice from a leading lawyer outside the CPS on this. I am told that it is likely that he would accept that advice.
Why the muddle until now ? The attorney is fiercely protective of his status not as a politician but as the government's senior and independent legal officer. He resents any suggestion of political motivation in consideration of this or any case and, incidentally, has the backing of attorneys past, whether Tory or Labour. He has struggled, however, to give the reassurance that some people are demanding that there will be no interference with this incredibly sensitive case. We will see whether this afternoon's statement silences the critics.
I'm 
Comments
Lord Goldsmith can claim to be as independent as he likes, but given that his advice on Iraq was altered to remove the doubts he had harboured, that he sits in Cabinet regularly (which doesn't go with the territory) and is an old friend of the Prime Minister, he must realise that the public may not perceive him as being outside the Blair inner circle.
As Tony Blair reaches the end of tenure as Prime Minister, Lord Goldsmith will be anxious to demonstrate his total independence and impartiality in any advice given in connection with the cash for honours investigation. It may be his last opportunity to counter the impression that he succumbed to pressure to modify his advice about the legality of the decision to to invade Iraq.
As I understand it, sofa politics under Tony Blair never requires anyone to say in public anything that could be compromising, so I would not expect the Attorney General to say anything compromising to him or TB. We are dealing with such a slippery bunch, however, that only a clear statement that the Attorney General will step aside will make give me any comfort.
We have the most honest and open democracey in the world. It is the media who are smearing our poloticians.
Hang on! "The attorney is fiercely protective of his status not as a politician but as the government's senior and independent legal officer." He is a friend of Tony n' Cherie, is a member of the Labour Party, has donated to the Labour Party, owes his role to Tony, owes his Life Peership and Baronetcy and membership of the House of Lords to Tony, his appointment to Attorney General was explicity linked by the media to his frendship with Tony and extensive work for the Labour Party. Independent Eh? I think not.
A different point? Why is the 91Èȱ¬ glossing over this story and the broader cash for peerages scandal. If it was the Tories it would be headline news. As it's your New Labour chums it's buried. I'm tired of paying for a TV version of The Guardian. I'll also wager you don't publish this. You never do.
The first question that popped into my head when reading this, Nick, wasn’t about the Attorney General or the prosecution case but the background constitutional picture and the fallibility of individuals. So much of our system is vague and dependent upon mere whim.
As an example, I was pressing my local politicians on the interpretation of the Human Rights Act. They had a vested interest in not grasping it because I was a nobody. Now those with power, status, and wealth are on the Cluetrain, everyone’s putting on a performance.
Clearly, someone like the Attorney General has knowledge and skill but what makes his judgement superior? Judges create precedent that flies in the face of reason. Managers forget their own training manuals. Politicians forget why they’re in politics. The list goes on.
Less ego and more reality seems useful.
Typical of Goldsmith really.
Is the attorney gernal not a cabinet minister! What is the point of making a statement as Tony Blair will be pronounced not guility. Perhaps another example of an open enquiry!
Remember who his boss is!
Will he do anyhing to harm him!
Whose Mr Goldsmiths boss?
Is he really going to pronounce Tony Blair as guility! If the police want to ask our PM about his activities it is there right to do so.
Has Mr. Blair not taken independant legal advise on the subject?
There is an issue here in terms of separtion of powers within the British Constituation. No figure is above the law, and if there is a case to be answered it should go through due process.
Hutton didn't stand aside and neither did Butler.
Both enquiries are considered a whitewash and are Government poodles.
Goldsmith will stand aside and whoever steps in will be considered a whitewash in waiting and a Goverment poodle.
Who is pursuing such an agenda?
Does Harry Perkins know?
Gary
No way is Lord Goldsmith even remotely independent of government, whatever he says. If he has anything at all to do with decisions over this affair, that would be one of the greatest political scandals for a good many years. If that happens, I do hope that you in the media will give the government a suitably hard time over it.
The A-G has to authorise certain prosecutions; that is what the legislation says. So Goldsmith has to either resign as Attorney General or distance himself from the decision by acting on independent advice. He's opted, sensibly, for the latter choice.
The focus on this narrow legal point obscures the real stink: that politicians have had biased and party-political control over the judicial system since Labour came to office. Previously, the Law Officers stood apart from the government herd and eschewed politics. This bunch have unashamedly turned an important constituitional principle to partisan advantage.
Speaking as a member of the Bar I have some concerns about the issue of independence insofar as working for the state is concerned. Will Treasury counsel be used? Don't forget that a leading QC will be looking for a nice High Court appointment. Send the papers out to the provinces where you will get a robust and honest view of the evidence.
Of course when talking to legal minds at this level you only get opinions - Lord Goldsmith's original opinion on invading Iraq was that it might be legally challenged with out a second UN resolution, and that only the UN security council could decide if a violation was serious enough to warrant military action. Of course if a week is a long time in politics, then 10 days must be an eternity in law.
You said:"The attorney is fiercely protective of his status not as a politician but as the government's senior and independent legal officer"
Not: his reputation for delivering fair and just legal judgements..
And as we have no written constitution, he can - within limits - decide what he wants.
Says it all really...
And if we had an Opposition.. but we don't .. they are just waiting their turn....
From my understanding the Attorney General has the support of previous AGs in both parties who say that his insistence on not counting himself out of any inquiry is the correct position. I suppose it may have something to do with the threat to national security or of possible treachery or government infiltration or some such in a high profile case. I don't think there's been a precedent and I'm not a legal person so I have no more idea than the next layman.
I thought that's why we appointed or elected knowledgeable people to these posts, so that they could use THEIR judgement. That saves the rest of us becoming armchair experts and usually accumulating a lot of muddled or incomplete information upon which to base our opinions.
It seems that the AG also said that if and when a prosecution were called for he would pass the handling of the case over to others. He isn't counting himself out completely (the PM needs a friend or two right now anyway) but is not likely to make the final decision. Seems fair enough to me. But then I don't pass early judgement on anyone. "Innocent until proven guilty" sounds like a sensible if novel idea these days. Maybe the British people, and the press, should latch on to that one.
Nothing like getting our priorities sorted out.
655,000 (and counting) of our fellow human beings are dead and nothing will be done to bring those responsible to justice and all the media want is to see a few for the alleged cash for honors scandal in a court of law.
Why, Nick, do you rarely address what the British public are really thinking? Time and again I read the comments to the Have Your Say discussions - for example this morning's on the Queen's Speech - and note the extreme repugnance which most of the country feels for Blair and his government, yet this is never reflected in normal 91Èȱ¬ news and current affairs broadcasts. Instead, we are treated like mushrooms with a sanitised version of everything. Maybe we should all start listening to and watching Aljazeera for a more balanced view.
This is the relevant 10 Downing Street petition.