having observed some very questionable decisions of the CPS over recent times and the abject failure of OLAF in the EU and CPS in Britain to bring to book criminals in public office – be they the likes of MEP Giles Chichester who used somewhere in excess of £100K from the public purse to fund his ‘Letts’ diary business, the failure to prosecute Nigel Farage and his cronies for what seems to be abuse of office, self enrichment, the enrichment of their low life cronies thus bringing the body politic into disrepute, the failure to prosecute Ukip MEP Derek Clark for abuse of office and misuse of somewhere between £35K & £100K, nor prosecution of Ukip MEPs Stuart Agnew, Nigel Farage, Jeffrey Titford, David Bannerman, Graham Booth and probably others for both known and publicly identified misuse of public funding – not to mention what would seem to be a number of ‘stitch ups’ endorsed by The CPS.
Yet there has also been a serial failure on the part of The CPS structure to bring to Court and prosecute a considerable number of police officers who have been involved in various crimes not least of which have been numerous outrageous murders!
Hence I am sure readers will understand why I am more than a little sceptical of the integrity of the 9 charges brought against Ashley Mote the ex Ukip MEP!I make no claims of innocence for Ashley Mote relative to these charges as The CPS has all too often over egged their claims and a great deal more details are required before any responsible judgement of the claims can be made.
I wonder will this be just another crass series of claims cobbled together from lies, inuendo and misrepresentation as would seem the case against Jasna Badsak and that against Nikki Sinclaire where it would seem corruption of due process has played a significant part in the hands of what would seem to be corrupt police and dubious judiciary too closely associated with Ukip and other parties in the case yet lacking the integrity to prorogue themselves!
One is forced to wonder why some are harassed and persecuted over paltry sums, eg Badzak £2K and Sinclaire less than £15K (in reality at most around £8K alleged!) whilst others never face prosecution over infinitely larger sums purloined?
Is this what British Justice has debased itself to under the influence of EU Corpus Juris?
Let us see more details regarding the claims against the retired 78 year old Ashley Mote so long after the offences would seem to be alleged
Ex-MEP charged with fraud offences and misconduct in public office
Zoe Martin, of the CPS Special Crime Division said, “The CPS has today issued charges against Ashley Mote of obtaining a money transfer by deception, fraud by false representation, false accounting, receiving the proceeds of crime and misconduct in public office. We have decided there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and that a prosecution is in the public interest.
“Ashley Mote will appear before Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 3 November 2014.
“A decision has also been made that no further action will been taken in relation to a second individual who was investigated for offences of obtaining money transfer by deception, false accounting and fraud by false representation, as there is insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. In addition no further action will be taken against two other individuals who were investigated for offences of money laundering.
“These decisions were taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.
“May I remind all concerned that criminal proceedings against the defendant have been commenced and of his right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.
“Any decision by the CPS does not imply any finding concerning guilt or criminal conduct; the CPS makes decisions only according to the test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors and it is applied in all decisions on whether or not to prosecute.”
The CPS’s function is not to decide whether a person is guilty of a criminal offence, but to make fair, independent and objective assessments about whether it is appropriate to present charges for the criminal court to consider. The CPS assessment of any case is not in any sense a finding of, or implication of, any guilt or criminal conduct. It is not a finding of fact, which can only be made by a court, but rather an assessment of what it might be possible to prove to a court, in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.
This assessment is based on the evidence available arising out of the police investigation and not on the evidence that is likely to be gathered by the defence, and likely to be used to test the prosecution evidence. The CPS charging decision is therefore necessarily an assessment on the basis of the evidence that is available to the CPS at the time the decision is made.
CPS prosecutors must also keep every case under review, so that they take account of any change in circumstances that occurs as the case develops, including what becomes known of the defence case. If appropriate, the CPS may change the charges or stop a case.
Details of the full charges:
Charge 1: Misconduct in public office, contrary to Common Law
Charge 2: Acquiring criminal property, contrary to section 329 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Charge 3: Obtaining a money transfer by deception, contrary to section 15A of the Theft Act 1968
Charge 4: False accounting, contrary to section 17(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968
Charge 5: Obtaining a money transfer by deception, contrary to section 15A of the Theft Act 1968
Charge 6: Obtaining a money transfer by deception, contrary to section 15A of the Theft Act 1968
Charge 7: False accounting, contrary to section 17(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968
Charge 8: False accounting, contrary to section 17(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968
Charge 9: Fraud, contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006