Conservative candidate Craig Mackinlay charged over election expenses

A Conservative candidate has been charged over his election expenses.

Craig Mackinlay, who is running for South Thanet in the general election on 8 June, has been investigated for alleged overspending in the 2015 General Election campaign.

His election agent and a party activist have also been charged.

Police forces have been investigating whether MPs' agents should have filed costs for battle bus visits to constituencies under local expenses.

The Conservative Party said they had been campaigning "across the country for the return of a Conservative government" and, as a result, associated costs were regarded as national and not local expenditure.

Craig Mackinlay, 50, his agent Nathan Gray, 28, and Marion Little a party activist, 62, have each been charged with offences under the Representation of the People Act 1983 and are due to appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 4 July 2017.

Nick Vamos, CPS head of special crime, said: "On 18 April we received a file of evidence from Kent Police concerning allegations relating to Conservative Party expenditure during the 2015 General Election campaign. We then asked for additional enquiries to be made in advance of the 11 June statutory time limit by when any charges needed to be authorised.

"Those enquiries have now been completed and we have considered the evidence in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

"We have concluded there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to authorise charges against three people."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-40129826


Exactly the same evidence against all the others, so why have they not charged them as well. Is he the patsy to take the fall for the others as a damage limitation technique?

Its clearly not the same evidence, as they would have been charged.

If found guilty, he should go to prison

Obviously the reason why May pledged to shut down the Serious Fraud Office

http://www.cityam.com/264958/tory-manifesto-may-pledges-scrap-sfo

sassy wrote:Obviously the reason why May pledged to shut down the Serious Fraud Office

http://www.cityam.com/264958/tory-manifesto-may-pledges-scrap-sfo

So this will be an improvement then.



Theresa May has vowed to scrap the Serious Fraud Office as part of plans to improve the UK's handling of white collar crime if the Conservatives win next month's General Election.


"We will strengthen Britain’s response to white collar crime by incorporating the Serious Fraud Office into the National Crime Agency, improving intelligence sharing and bolstering the investigation of serious fraud, money laundering and financial crime," the manifesto, published today, says.

Wow, how naive can you get.   You actually believe that.  

Lawyers warn May against scrapping Serious Fraud Office
Change could disrupt investigations and efforts to fight economic crime, premier told



Abolition of the Serious Fraud Office could cause “significant disruption” to investigations, leading UK lawyers, including a former solicitor general, have warned the prime minister.

The warning came in response to the Conservative party’s election pledge to fold the SFO, which focuses on corruption and white-collar crime, into the wider National Crime Agency.

On Tuesday, a group of 19 leading silks, along with top criminal lawyers and anti-corruption campaigners, wrote to Theresa May, calling for a public consultation on the proposed shake-up. They said there would be “enormous” risks to changing the current structure.

If done in the wrong way, the change could lead to “significant damage” to the UK’s effectiveness in tackling economic crime and affect co-operation from other agencies, such as the US Department of Justice, the lawyers added.

Any structural changes risked “significant disruption to current investigations”, they said.

The SFO is investigating Barclays Bank’s dealings with Qatar at the height of the 2008 financial crisis, among other cases.

The lawyers also raised concerns about damage to staff morale and warned: “The departure of white-collar expertise from the SFO to the private sector could take many years to recover.”

Folding the SFO into the NCA, which reports directly to ministers and has its budget overseen by the Home Office, could lead to the loss of powers crafted for the SFO to fight economic crime, they added. The changes could also “lead to perceptions of political interference in economic crime investigations”.

The SFO, created in 1988 in response to a series of City scandals, reports to the UK attorney-general’s office. Unlike the NCA, it has investigators and prosecutors under one roof.

By contrast, the NCA has a wider remit ranging from paedophilia to cyber crime to human trafficking.

In their letter, the lawyers also questioned whether deferred prosecution agreements — US-style plea bargains where companies pay fines to escape criminal prosecution — would be as effective without the SFO.


Please use the sharing tools found via the email icon at the top of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.

“The SFO has brought in excess of £600m to the public purse through the use of these agreements,” they said.

The list of signatories to the letter represents some of the most eminent lawyers working in the field of white-collar crime.

As well as Sir Edward Garnier QC, a former Tory MP who was solicitor general in the coalition government, signatories include Mukul Chawla QC, the barrister who led the successful prosecution of Tom Hayes, the ex-banker who was jailed for 11 years for Libor manipulation.

The list also includes Sasha Wass QC, who secured the conviction of Kweku Adoboli, the rogue UBS trader, in 2012, and Lord Ken Macdonald QC, a former director of public prosecutions, and Hugo Keith QC, a barrister who was leading counsel to the inquests into the 7/7 London bombings in 2005.

Solicitors who have signed the letter include Stephen Parkinson, partner at Kingsley Napley, the law firm, and a former lawyer at the attorney-general’s office, as well as Ben Rose, founding partner at Hickman & Rose, the law firm.

Mrs May has long held the view the SFO should be part of the NCA. As home secretary, she tried to execute her plan in 2011 but was blocked by Ken Clarke, then justice secretary, and Dominic Grieve, then attorney-general.

https://www.ft.com/content/e0eb1214-4543-11e7-8519-9f94ee97d996

So some lawyers disagree, does that mean it is not going to be better?

Of course not, as nobody can predict.

So posting up an article to get others to argue for you, just does not cut it.

The fact is the present system is flawed with the SFO, even this is stated in your second link

So clearly things needs to change and this is looking to improve.

You seem to hold some warped conspiracy this is being done to hinder the apprehension of any possible criminal politicians (If Tory), when clearly its not. You need to stop buying into bullshit all the time.

Only time will tell if there is an improvement with this policy, but one thing is clear the SFO has been a continued failure

Give up Sass. Thorin has this earmarked as fake news. Or another smear against May.
But smears against Labour and Corbyn are legitimate .
In his weird world.

Angry Andy wrote:Give up Sass. Thorin has this earmarked as fake news. Or another smear against May.
But smears against Labour and Corbyn are legitimate .
In his weird world.

Lol that has to be the worst defense for Sassy who failed to argue her case and instead posted up articles.

How about you engage my points Andy?

Happy for you to try.

Way too busy to even try. Glirious day. Family picnic with dog at licsl park beckons. Certainly aint going to waste the day here when there are better things to do.
Catch you later.

Angry Andy wrote:Way too busy to even try. Glirious day. Family picnic with dog at licsl park beckons. Certainly aint going to waste the day here when there are better things to do.
Catch you later.

So why are you wasting time on here today then?





Hope you enjoy yourself

sassy wrote:A Conservative candidate has been charged over his election expenses.

Craig Mackinlay, who is running for South Thanet in the general election on 8 June, has been investigated for alleged overspending in the 2015 General Election campaign.

His election agent and a party activist have also been charged.

Police forces have been investigating whether MPs' agents should have filed costs for battle bus visits to constituencies under local expenses.

The Conservative Party said they had been campaigning "across the country for the return of a Conservative government" and, as a result, associated costs were regarded as national and not local expenditure.

Craig Mackinlay, 50, his agent Nathan Gray, 28, and Marion Little a party activist, 62, have each been charged with offences under the Representation of the People Act 1983 and are due to appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 4 July 2017.

Nick Vamos, CPS head of special crime, said: "On 18 April we received a file of evidence from Kent Police concerning allegations relating to Conservative Party expenditure during the 2015 General Election campaign. We then asked for additional enquiries to be made in advance of the 11 June statutory time limit by when any charges needed to be authorised.

"Those enquiries have now been completed and we have considered the evidence in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

"We have concluded there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to authorise charges against three people."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-40129826


Exactly the same evidence against all the others, so why have they not charged them as well.   Is he the patsy to take the fall for the others as a damage limitation technique?

I have little doubt, given your previous comments on this matter, that you can hardly wait for the most basic and important principle of British justice - that someone has a right to be presumed innocent until found guilty - is turned on its head to direct that someone must be presumed guilty until they can prove their innocence.

But only if they are Tories, of course.

If found guilty, he could always become the prisons minister, he would have first hand experience.

And of course Fred, if it was the Labour candidates under the spotlight you'd be saying that wouldn't you? Like hell you would. You go along with every untruthful smear you can find about Labour, but this isn't untruthful, it's fact.

sassy wrote:And of course Fred, if it was the Labour candidates under the spotlight you'd be saying that wouldn't you?   Like hell you would.   You go along with every untruthful smear you can find about Labour, but this isn't untruthful, it's fact.

Actually Fred would say exactly the same even if it was Labour

Fred is about the most impartial poster on here and I say that no matter that we dont get on.

Seriously not everyone is as badly biased as you

Innocent until proved guilty, or don't you agree with that?

sassy wrote:And of course Fred, if it was the Labour candidates under the spotlight you'd be saying that wouldn't you?   Like hell you would.   You go along with every untruthful smear you can find about Labour, but this isn't untruthful, it's fact.

As a matter of fact I would say exactly the same: Where criminality is concerned I don't differentiate - if they've done wrong they should be punished. And I don't start screaming for someone's head before he or she has been  found guilty by a jury of their peers...a principle that I applied equally to Labour minister Elliott Morley and Tory peer Lord Hanningfield.

Now,  try to come up with any post of mine that has ever said otherwise, and in the meantime I'll take no lectures in matters of principle from you.

When it comes to smears, however, I readily yield to your vast superiority and experience in that field.

Angry Andy wrote:If found guilty, he could always become the prisons minister, he would have first hand experience.

If he's found guilty he will get the punishment he deserves, and if he's won his seat he should forfeit it. Satisfied?

the only thing I question about this is the timing.
If he is found guilty then he should face what ever the punishment is.
However he is still the candidate and still innocent until he has his day in court, or doesn't that adage apply any more in corbyns britain.

Angry Andy wrote:If found guilty, he could always become the prisons minister, he would have first hand experience.

yes, he would, unlike many labour mp's who have very little experience outside of politics. Including their leader and shadow home secretary

sassy wrote:And of course Fred, if it was the Labour candidates under the spotlight you'd be saying that wouldn't you?   Like hell you would.   You go along with every untruthful smear you can find about Labour, but this isn't untruthful, it's fact.

during the expenses scandal to a man the tories on these forums were saying that everyone found guilty of troughing, no matter which party, should face the full extent of the law, it is not our fault that 1 in 40 labour mp's were crooks.