Bishop Hill reports that the CRU crew may escape prosecution for their crimes because there is a flaw in the law, according to the information commissioner’s office. Apparently, the FOIA is worded to make ‘lying like a weasel’ a summary, rather than indictable offence, and that means that a magistrate can’t try it more than six months after the crime.
That seems entirely remarkable to me. It means, as in this case, that if you only discover evidence of the crime more than six months after it happens, then they can get away scot free.
His Eminence had made an FOIA request for some emails, which the ‘imprisonment of information officer’ said they didn’t have, it had all been deleted, or eaten by the dog, or something. They no longer existed, so they were exempted from handing them out. Dead end. Except that some of those requested emails just showed up in Climategate.
Problem is, they only turned up two years after the request was made and turned down. So it supposedly is outside the time limit given in the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 s127.
Lie your ass off and then derail an investigation to hide your lies.
Just make sure you that do this for at least six months, so that you never have to pay up on the consequences of those lies.
Yet, in this same island nation, taking a swing with a bat at a guy with a knife who is burglarizing your home will always get you 2-5years.
There is a good reason for a severe time limit on summary stuff.
“Summary” means no trial … the judge just slaps your ass with a sentence. This prevents a judge in Britain ( or Canada ) from just throwing you in jail for two years for something you did last year that offended him.