Mumsnet Logo
My feed

to access all these features

Feminism: chat

Punishment for trying to influence a judge

4 replies

nettie434 · 21/07/2021 14:02

Just to recap, the former MP, Charlie Elphicke, was jailed for two years for sexually assaulting two women.

Now the House of Commons standards watchdog has criticised five MPs for trying to influence a judge who revealed their support for Charlie Elphicke. Three of them will be suspended for a former MP who was jailed for sex attacks on two women.

It seems such a serious thing to have done. The sanctions seem to be so minimal. Is it because the Committee doesn't think assaulting two women is really a serious crime?

OP posts:

NumberTheory · 21/07/2021 16:53

I don’t think the decision is anything to do with the details of the Charlie Elphicke’s crime, so I don’t think it’s a sign the committee think sexual assault isn’t serious. From the (sparse) details in that link it’s to do with the MPs using House of Commons stationery to try and give their requests to the judge for their own privacy more influence, not about them using their positions to protect Elphicke.

I agree the sanctions seem ridiculously lenient for abuse of their position though. According to the article The standard committee said on Wednesday that the five MPs' behaviour was found to have "caused significant damage to the reputation and integrity" of the House of Commons. and The standards committee said: "The letters signed and sent by the members in this case were an attempt improperly to influence judicial proceedings. They appear to think that it’s so serious it deserves a ticking off for 2 of them and a one day suspension for 3. Not sure how the integrity and reputation of the HoC is maintained by what amounts to a smirking “don’t do it again” when they claim it’s serious. I think this instance is more to do with the HoC’s abysmal culture of low ethical standards for MPs in a more general sense and the out come would have been the same if Elphicke’s crime had been drink driving, sexually assaulting men or murder (I.e. not to do with any particular lack of concern about sexual assault of women).


nettie434 · 21/07/2021 21:18

Thanks Numbertheory. It's true that the details are sparse. That seems to be true of all the coverage. I thought it would have received more publicity.

The time it took for the case to come to trial is another story in itself.

OP posts:

NiceGerbil · 22/07/2021 02:16

If I have read that correctly then my comment is

Fucking cowardly bastards.

They gave him (I assume) character references saying he's lovely wouldn't hurt s fly.

Then freaked when they realised their references would become public as part of the trial.

And wrote to the judge saying please don't let anyone know we said he was awesome.

Not prepared to stand by their words.


Plus. Why not? Why would they not want them public given they had no doubt he was innocent..?


SerendipityJane · 25/07/2021 11:08

The standard committee said on Wednesday that the five MPs' behaviour was found to have "caused significant damage to the reputation and integrity" of the House of Commons.

You can't lose what you never had.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Sign up to continue reading

Mumsnet's better when you're logged in. You can customise your experience and access way more features like messaging, watch and hide threads, voting and much more.

Already signed up?