Phil Jones and the CRU have escaped prosecution under the Freedom of Information Act because of the 6 month get out clause, Jones however is still open to prosecution under the 2006 Fraud Act.
What the Times and the rest of the media are overlooking is that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), not the ICO, are responsible for announcing the results of the police investigation into the Climategate scandal. The ICO is merely a non-departmental public body which reports directly to Parliament, sponsored by the Ministry of Justice and deals solely with data protection, FOIA regulations, privacy, electronic communications regulations and environmental regulations.
What is not being intelligently reported is that Jones is still liable as lead conspirator in the UK’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and may face prosecution under the United Kingdom Fraud Act (2006). If convicted of the offense of fraud by either false representation, failing to disclose information or fraud by abuse of his position, he stands liable to a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment.
In this article I shall demonstrate that the fuss over the FOIA infringement, although in itself succeeding in achieving no conviction, does demonstrate that the ICO has acted improperly and may have prejudiced the outcome of any prosecution Jones may face for far more serious offenses for false representation (section 2) and failing to disclose information (section 3) under the Fraud Act (2006).
Hat tip to John O Sullivan at Climategate.com
An event happened today at the BBC that only three months ago would have caused Michael Mann and Phil Jones to start sending emails to the BBC, there was an open and frank discussion about the belief in the Church of Climatology on the most important and influential political show on UK television. The question was left until the last 12 minutes of the show, but the question about Phil Jones and CRU breaking the law was asked.
Before Aardvark continues on the AGW question there is another relevant and important factor, the location of the show which this week was from Basildon. Basildon is one of those microcosms of British politics, a constituency that mirrors national opinion pretty accurately, bear this in mind.
The heretic question was first passed to Labour minister for something or other Ben Bradshaw.
This is first time post Copenhagen that a member of Brown’s warmist Cabinet has publicly answered a direct question about AGW.
Bradshaw immediately condemned the CRU for breaking the law and then praised them for all the good work they have done with the IPCC on man made Climate Change, priceless. Climategate and Glaciergate were not mentioned just the pre Copenhagen warmist lie.
Bradshaw got little audience support and a few laughs for some of his alarmist statements. Read the rest of this entry
From the Commons Science and Technology Committee Parliament Web Site.
NEW INQUIRY ANNOUNCED: THE DISCLOSURE OF CLIMATE DATA FROM THE CLIMATIC RESEARCH UNIT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA
The Science and Technology Committee today announces an inquiry into the unauthorised publication of data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA). The Committee has agreed to examine and invite written submissions on three questions:
— What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
— Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate (see below)?
— How independent are the other two international data sets?
The Committee intends to hold an oral evidence session in March 2010.
For further information please see the press notice dated 22 January 2010.
The Independent Review will:
1. Examine the hacked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes.
2. Review CRU’s policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings, and their compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice.
3. Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the University’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’) and the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’) for the release of data.
4. Review and make recommendations as to the appropriate management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds .
Looks like the science is far from settled, still a deafening silence from Gordon Brown and Ed Milliband still hoping that Climategate will go away.
For all Climategate posts click here