The Telegraph whips up a new controversy about the Attorney General:
Lord Hermer is facing fresh calls to quit after personally signing off on the prosecution of Lucy Connolly.
Connolly, the wife of a Conservative councillor, was sentenced to two and a half years in prison after pleading guilty to stirring up racial hatred in the wake of the Southport killings last year.
…Lord Hermer, the Government’s chief lawyer, approved the 42-year-old’s prosecution despite having the constitutional power to prevent it, his office confirmed.
While Connolly’s sentence was decided independently from the Attorney General’s office, his involvement in the controversial case has raised fresh questions over his political judgment.
However, buried much further down in the article is some extra context that makes a mockery of this “fresh questions” framing:
Connolly was jailed for inciting racial hatred, which is an offence under the Public Order Act (1986).
That offence, along with 60 others, requires that the Attorney General give their consent to any prosecutions. (1)
In other words, the Telegraph‘s supposed revelation is nothing more than publicly available general information about how the legal system works.
Further:
It is rare for the Attorney General to refuse to give consent because, by the time it reaches their office, the Crown Prosecution Service will have itself determined that a successful prosecution is likely, it is understood.
It would be particularly surprising for the Attorney General to overrule the CPS in a case associated with widespread public disorder and violence. However, the initial paragraphs – inevitably – have been widely interpreted to mean that Connolly was prosecuted because Hermer took a special interest in her case, or even that by not blocking the prosecution he acted improperly. Thus Allison Pearson denounces the Jewish Hermer as a “globalist”, while GB News ideologue Patrick Christys implies that the story indicates that Keir Starmer was involved.
The Telegraph article also rounds up some quotes – indeed, it is likely that the story was contrived primarily as a vehicle to publicise criticisms from the likes of Suella Braverman and Nigel Farage. It is worth noting that the statements sourced from Kemi Badenoch and Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philip focus on Connolly’s sentencing; Badenoch claims that “our Attorney General is content to keep people like Lucy Connolly behind bars”, while Philp states that the “sentence seems unduly harsh”. It is alarming if senior political figures think that the Attorney General has a role in sentencing, or the power to reduce sentences.
A useful primer on the Connolly case has been provided by Matthew Scott at BarristerBlogger. His observations on Twitter/X about her sentencing appeal outcome are also worth reading. One wonders why none of the individuals quoted in the Telegraph story refer to her failed appeal; could it be that the story was prepared some time ago, and has been dusted off in order to bandwagon on a different controversy involving Hermer?
Note
1. The passage continues: “The requirement was designed to act as a safeguard to prevent the criminal justice system unreasonably clamping down on free speech, The Telegraph understands”. One wonders why the paper preferred this mysteriously sourced explanation over the CPS website, which refers to ensuring “a consistent approach”.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Leave a Reply