Leading article: Step aside now, Lord Goldsmith
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.It would be difficult to conceive of a more glaring conflict of interest. It is usual for the Crown Prosecution Service to consult the Attorney General over whether to proceed with a prosecution in high profile or complex cases. But the notion that the present Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, should have anything to do with the decision over whether to prosecute the Prime Minister in the cash-for-honours affair is preposterous.
Due to a constitutional anomaly, the Attorney General is also chief legal adviser to the Government and sits in the Cabinet. To expect Lord Goldsmith to give the go-ahead to a case that would inevitably result in great embarrassment, and possible disgrace, to the man who appointed and ennobled him would test the self-control of a saint. And Lord Goldsmith is not that. Indeed, his record for independence in office thus far - particularly his legal ruling on the invasion of Iraq - has been less than inspiring.
It is quite clear what should happen. Lord Goldsmith must voluntarily exclude himself from any CPS decision to prosecute. Others have already shown the way on this. Ken Macdonald, the director of public prosecutions, has declared he will play no part in this particular case, because he is a former colleague of Mr Blair's wife. The head of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Ian Blair, has also indicated that he will keep the case at arm's length because of his personal acquaintance with Mr Blair. It should be noted that both have weaker connections with the Prime Minister than Lord Goldsmith.
Yet still the Government refuses to recognise the gravity of the situation. At his monthly press conference yesterday, an unusually reticent Mr Blair refused to answer any questions on this subject. And Lord Goldsmith himself refuses publicly to rule out playing a part in any prosecution decision that may arise. We are told that Lord Goldsmith probably would step aside if the case was put up for prosecution, but feels no need to say so now.
This silence is dangerous. The police investigation seems to be approaching its conclusion. Fifty witnesses have been questioned, including the former leader of the Conservative Party, Michael Howard. It seems likely that Jonathan Powell, Mr Blair's chief of staff, will be next. After that, the only main player outstanding is Mr Blair himself. If the case fails to result in a prosecution, the present ambiguity regarding the position of the Attorney General will inevitably raise suspicions that undue influence has been exerted somewhere down the line. We need guarantees that justice will be transparent - and we need them now.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments