Levy's presence at honours meetings now police focus

Police investigating the Cash for Honours scandal are said to be concentrating on a series of meetings which Lord Levy attended in which the subject of honours may have been raised.

They are specifically interested in whether Lord Levy later suggested to colleagues that his presence at the meetings should not be highlighted if possible.

He (Levy) had an advisory role in the submission of honours nominations. The shortlists are drawn up before they are presented to the Lords Appointments Commission. Typically, those meetings would include Downing Street staff and senior members of the party. But the final decision about who is to be nominated is taken by the prime minister.

Political sources said yesterday it would be perfectly legitimate for Lord Levy to attend meetings at which honours were discussed. Loans or donations given by party members should not preclude anyone from being considered for an honour by the prime minister, they said.

It is understood that Lord Levy did not contribute any names to the lists nor offered honours to any financial backer, but was simply asked for his opinion on potential peers.

This would appear to highlight why the case now concerns obstruction of justice rather than Cash for Honours. There is nothing illegal about Levy attending these meetings or even to suggest names for possible nominations, although there is no suggestion that he did suggest anyone.

However, were he to have attempted to have anyone deny or "forget" his attendance, then a criminal offence would have been committed. This now appears to be the line that the police are examining.

The Guardian reported that Ms Turner expressed concern in a legal document that Lord Levy was asking her to shape her recollection of events leading up to the nomination of honours to some Labour donors. The document was passed by her lawyers to the police. There is no evidence that this document recounting her differences with Lord Levy was passed to Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair's chief of staff, although at one point she apparently considered doing so.

It was being stressed by police sources yesterday that they did not regard Ms Turner, still under police bail, as in the clear, and she still had issues to answer about her cooperation with the inquiry.

Levy continues to protest his innocence:

In a vehement and emotional statement yesterday Lord Levy protested his innocence, claimed he was the victim of a smear campaign and raised doubts whether he would be able secure a fair trial if a criminal case were ever brought. He said the near year-long investigation was placing a huge strain on his family. His rabbi said Lord Levy believed he was being leaked against by the police, and was the victim of anti-semitism.

Two things fly at me here. One, it's a bit early in the day to be playing the "my client is unable to obtain a fair trial" card, especially as the said client has not been charged with any crime.

And two, I watched the Channel Four News interview last night in which Levy's Rabbi claimed that he was somehow a victim of anti-Semitism with open mouthed incredulity.

Neither argument is remotely relevant to the case under investigation and both begin to have more than a whiff of panic behind them. It reminds me of "Scooter" Libby's defence team's summation.

At this stage of an investigation it is best to argue using facts rather than aiming for an emotional defence. Levy's Rabbi, whilst no doubt seeking to help, most certainly did not. As reasoned defences go, it sounded deranged.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Cash for Honours, Lord Levy, Ruth Turner