Louise Haigh

[Tryingtokeepgoing]

AIBU to think that if you really didn’t commit the crime, don’t plead guilty even if your solicitor advises you to. I mean, sure, for a traffic or speeding offence maybe that’d be the expedient thing to do. But fraud…?

Louise Haigh resigns over stolen mobile phone fraud conviction

https://www.thetimes.com/article/6772fe81-8e36-4e5d-baa8-4902a6553b4d?shareToken=3fe1e52cb5b31dc1a3e40721c219a69e

100.%
My employer very very strict on “loss/theft” of devices. They know they scams and if an employee is looking for a “bonus” from re-selling the “stolen” device … they’re going to get caught & consider you a thief or “gaining financially”

The thing I don't get is why she didn't just explain that she had found the phone and let the police and her employer know when she found it? Surely that's the obvious thing to do. If I lost my work phone or had it stolen, and then I found it, the first thing I would do is tell my employer and ask what they wanted me to do with it.

What's happened is the media with an agenda are digging hard for any angle against Labour they can find.

It's not the media who appointed her to a cabinet position knowing about the convictions then not supporting her.

And they aren't the Tories. Haigh has done the decent thing and resigned.

(Also, it was a very minor offence, hence the conditional discharge).

They did actually take part in riots though.

There doesn't seem to be a good explanation which would be compatible with her being in high office, whatever the truth of it.
Fraud/bad judgment/carelessness ?

I'm in 2 minds over this.

I don't think anyone with a criminal conviction should be an MP.

BUT - the knives have been out for her because of the P&O remarks which were entirely Labour's position at the time.

Either way, it's the nature of the job so I wouldn't be shedding any tears over a minister resigning. It says more about Starmer appointing her in the first place imo.

The claim that this educated, professional manager and ex- special constable and Unite official was wrongly advised to plead guilty is interesting in the light of all the people imprisoned in the summer riots - some guilty but many victims of miscarriages of justice. Probably the same with the 2011 riots. Which is a different issue but it's something to think about.

Decent? The woman that plead guilty to fraud?

If anyone actually read the article they’d see that Aviva investigated multiple instances she’d claimed a phone was stolen but she was only prosecuted for one. There is clearly much more to this.

Strange thing to do

There must be more to it. You simply do not get convicted of fraud if you are straightforwardly mugged and say your phone was taken and then 'ooops' no it wasn't, sorry I thought it had been'.

There is so much that is not being said.

Well the courts viewed it as a minor offence and her conviction is now spent. Should she be forever judged for it?

Having said that, like other posters, I wonder if there is more to it. She declared the conviction before she stood as an MP, so why now is it an issue? Maybe Starmer wanted rid of her, or maybe there are more revelations to come?

Well, yes, she had to, precisely in order to try to prove that they're not the Tories. No other choice, really

Particularly if there is more to it than "I was mistaken about the phone and badly advised".

And particularly after the freebies business, when more and more details kept coming out over days and weeks.

Not all of them.

Well if they didn't take part in the riots then pleading guilty was a bad idea.

And I agree that it is VERY interesting this came out when it is a spent conviction. A person who reveals the mere presence of a spent conviction can be prosecuted. So who revealed this to the media and why?

I still think, though, that a conviction for fraud over an apparent accident is unlikely and there is much much more. And that whoever revealed it knows there is more to it and wants it to come out.

and if you didn't commit fraud then pleading guilty was a bad idea

Same. What a strange case - I could tell you 10 much worse things ha that have happened that police won’t even sniff at.

I like to think that we SHOULD have people in power with personal experience of the criminal justice system, otherwise it’s just people with no clue making important decisions with which they have no ability to relate to

Look at all the people who pled guilty in the Horizon scandal though. It's bloody scary if the police show up at your door.

Oh really? I read she was 24. Fair enough then.

She may not be judged forever in the eyes of the law, but she will be judged in the eyes of the public. Someone who commits fraud (and this likely goes much further than a misplaced phone "mistake") is not a decent human being let alone suited to public office.

The Treasury had to agree to those pay rises before they could be offered so this is patently nonsense. I don’t think her resignation should have been necessary, particularly given the number of Tory phones that mysteriously went missing when the covid inquiry began. I can see why she has though, she’s gone because the government has to be seen to practise what it preaches.

The charitable view is they were advised to so they weren't held in remand and would get a lighter sentence. Never forget they had been told by the prime minister they would be found guilty. Haigh was under no such pressure.

My partner works in the court witness service. She says barristers very often advise clients to plead guilty in return for a lesser sentence. In Haigh's case, this may have been either because her barrister felt it was an unwinnable case OR because s/he didn't actually believe Haigh's explanation. Either way, if the barrister - in possession of all the arguments (which we are not) - felt it was unwinnable, s/he will have advised Haigh that sentencing for financial or fraud offences if often quite harsh if the offender doesn't plead guilty.

Look at all the people who pled guilty in the Horizon scandal though. It's bloody scary if the police show up at your door.

They did that to avoid hefty prison sentences when all the considerable 'evidence' was stacked against them. I don't know why anyone would plead guilty to stealing a phone if they hadn't.

Well yes, that's what she says.