Impeach the Prime Minister for Perjury
There are doubts that the way in which Justice Leveson has managed the Leveson Inquiry may be inconsistent with conventional judicial process. There are serious questions of impartiality and the efficacy of an inquiry if it seeks to allow individuals to determine the relevance of their own evidence. I Shah Sher have evidence of a Downing Street cover-up with the suppression of hundreds of parliamentary emails.
Sign the petition: http://www.causes.com/causes/799317-safety-first-protest/actions/1697871#
Visit the Protest: http://www.facebook.com/events/512272705452334/
Join the Group: www.facebook.com/groups/justicefirst
30th October 2012
House of Commons
Dear Member of Parliament
Re: The Prime Minister's Non-disclosure of Leveson Inquiry evidence
The Prime Minister refused to answer questions on non-disclosure of Leveson Inquiry evidence and end speculation of a Downing Street Cover-up. A long standing convention of parliament is that members display professional regard by answering questions of public interest, irrespective of personal differences.
The Prime Minister stated he would provide any emails related to News
Corps controversial bid for control of BSkyB. He promised "If any are found, I will make them available to the inquiry." No 10 had not subsequently told the inquiry it had turned up anything.
The Prime Minister falsely promised to tell the truth about matters which affect the outcome of the inquiry
Perjury is considered a serious offense as it can be used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice.
The Prime Ministers defence is that he has provided all the information requested by Justice Leveson. The argument Justice Leveson has only requested one email so the others are irrelevant is surprisingly negligent as it assume foreknowledge of the content of the other emails that forms part of an investigative inquiry. The requirement of impartiality dictates that any information pertaining to the News Corp bid for BSkyB be handed over for investigation without prejudice. Is Justice Leveson asking the individuals concerned to act as their own judge?
There is a conflict of interest in personally judging the relevance of emails as the disclosure of the existence of the emails may be embarrassing for the Prime Minister, who personally ordered the Leveson Inquiry in the wake of the News of the World phone hacking scandal.
The concern is by consulting with Downing Street personnel with no official capacity in the Leveson inquiry the Prime Minister initiated an alternative inquiry to establish the level of co-operation. A personal inquiry to determine relevance against the role of Justice Leveson is dishonest. This betrays public confidence since it was the Prime Minster who personally setup the Leveson Inquiry to establish the truth, however here he is withholding information from the inquiry. The public feeling is that it is one rule for the Prime Minister and another rule for everyone else.
Justice Leveson's partiality should be questioned as he has neither demanded the information or condemned the withholding of evidence.
Further it raises serious questions of the impartiality of the whole inquiry and the way it has been run. Since how effective can an inquiry be, if it seeks to allow individuals to determine the relevance of their own evidence?
As the most accountable person in the country, it is vital for the Prime Minister to give full disclosure to the Leveson Inquiry in the public interest and to end speculation of a Downing Street cover-up. Downing Street accepts such communication do exist and they have already been reviewed by the Prime Minister.
"If the Prime Minister has taken any steps to prevent any material, relevant or not - whether texts, emails or notes of conversations, between David Cameron and Rebekah Brooks, Andy Coulson and News International - from coming into the public domain, then people will think is yet another instance of the Prime Minister being less than straight-forward with the country."
"The PM must make sure that every single communication that passed between himself and Brooks and Coulson is made available to the inquiry and more important, to the public." - Chris Bryant MP
The government chose to dismiss the role of the chief legal adviser, Dominic Greave and consult an issue of national importance, as a personal matter. As a result the Prime Minister discriminated the role of Mr Grieve to obtain the wrong advise: the Brookes-Coulson emails were outside Lord Justice Leveson's remit and so did not offer them up to form part of his report, expected to be published next month.
The Attorney-General was not consulted, the Prime Minister's role within the government requires normal legal channels to address questions that could affect the government.
It should not be up to a lawyer inside Downing Street, with no official capacity, to decide whether a text or email was relevant to the inquiry.
As the most accountable person in the country, it is vital for the Prime Minister to give full disclosure. The dossier must be released. The Prime Minister must redress any indiscretion to pervert the course of justice.
It is with regret, that once again we see the shameful example of self-interest and office placed before public interest and civic duty.
We have reached the stage in this country where the sovereignty of the people must be acknowledged in a written constitution, the custody of which will be vested with the legislature chamber, our lordships will be guardians of the constitution and all people every where will have testimony to the dignity of man.
The most culpable person is the Attorney-General, who in view of the facts has chosen not to advise the government of its legal responsibilities.
For the Attorney-General to remain silent while the PM discharges his legal responsibilities to disclose Leveson Inquiry evidence amounts to an abdication of responsibility from an office charged with upholding the integrity of the government.
Since the action of the PM could be unlawful, jeopardising the security of the country's government, it is time for the Rt Hon Dominic Grieve, Attorney-General to take responsibility for advising the government accordingly.
Rt Hon Dominic Greave MP
Attorney General's Office
20 Victoria Street
General Inquiries: 020 7271 2492
As the most accountable person in the country, it is vital for the Prime Minister to give full disclosure to the Leveson Inquiry in the public interest and to end speculation of a Downing Street cover-up.
"'Good and bad ministers come and go, but there are deeper tides which one might hope are slowly pushing us towards policies that are better thought through. One is the tightening grip of the rule of law. The attorney general's slippery changes of mind over the Iraq war were notorious, but they were as nothing compared with those of his predecessor during the 1956 Suez crisis, who wrote to the PM to explain that he was backing the misadventure, even though he thought it illegal. The law can still be bent, but it can no longer be openly flouted. Human rights and judicial review have steadily raised the bar, forcing the authorities to demonstrate that they are not arbitrary or irrational. Whether it is the DNA database, votes for prisoners or dodgy targets to dock jobseekers' benefits, if ministers and departments forget that they are bound by the law, courtrooms will rudely remind them of it."
Shaheeb M. Sher
This petition closed about 3 years ago
Value the democratic process that holds public accountability for all those in public office.
Represent the public feeling that it is one rule for the Prime Minister and another rule for everybody else.