David TC Davies asks a PMQ about private prosecutions

[Cwenthryth]

Was just catching up with yesterday’s politics show and this caught my attention.

David TC Davies, the only MP who has consistently supported gender critical women raising concerns about transgender ideology and the threat gender self-ID represents to women’s rights and safety etc, asked the following question at PMQs yesterday

Does my right hon. Friend think it acceptable that people with access to large sums of money are able to bring about private prosecutions in a way that undermines freedom of speech in this country?
Hansard link

One wonders what exactly he was getting at here, given various recent (failed) private prosecutions that have been discussed on this board, and others that are ongoing.

The answer was a fob off I think, and it was David Liddington anyway as May was off entertaining Trump.

I'm pleased at least one MP seems to understand that the legal system might be being abused.

It could also be a reference to the private prosecution of Boris Johnson?

In fairness, David TC Davies, turned up outside the Linda Bellos/Venice Allen court case and happily spoke to media present. A very public way of showing his concern about possible abuse of the system.

Though I agree this time his question was probably about Boris. Linda and Boris. I wonder whether they ever expected to be on the same side of an argument.

Boris is being prosecuted for misconduct in public office. Nothing to do with freedom of speech.

It could be portrayed as a free speech issue with Boris. Own view is there is no such thing as freedom to lie but I can see how the context of this one is difficult. The use of the criminal courts to settle what are essentially political grievances is a sign of the weakness of our political system currently.
I think pp’s and the legal process generally are being abused by certain people; the mp is right to ask the question.

We don't yet know what Boris' defence will be or even if the case will progress.

I'm not suggesting that it isn't very relevent to the private prosecutions by individual TRAs such as Guiliana / Hayden or those orchestrated by trans lobby groups etc.

David T Davies has consistantly stood up for women discussing their sex-based rights, against the dangerous illegal online practice of Dr Helen & Mike Webberley and particularly for the need to protect and respect vulnerable female prisoners.

He (like all MPs) has other focuses too.

If you look on his twitter feed the point is about Boris.

I’m sure he will be alive to the parallels tho, if alerted to them. I am not on twitter and cannot do this.

Its a "where do you draw the line" one.

I think the Bellow case was wrong, which is why I joined the protest outside the courtroom. Yet I contributed to the FairCop campaign.

Boris is the one in the Tory leadership race I would least like to see become PM. I have heard too many first hand stories of his laziness and arrogance, and his relationship with the truth seems elastic.

But...

This private prosecution is probably not the way to do it. If anyone who disagrees with anything (a doctors view that a brain dead baby should be allowed to die, say) is able to crowd fund to go to the courts, political and public sectors will get clogged up and paralysed. My assumption is that the big change is the availability of Crowd Justice type sites. The solution has to be some review of the tests needed before such cases can proceed. (I am thinking of you Steph.) The law does need to be tested, but constructively.

The solution has to be some review of the tests needed before such cases can proceed.

The case against Johnson is going through the judicial process.

The solution has to be some review of the tests needed before such cases can proceed.

The Magistrates Court decided Boris had a case to answer, but the High Court have just thrown it out.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/07/boris-johnson-has-misconduct-allegations-quashed-high-court/

The Magistrates Court decided Boris had a case to answer, but the High Court have just thrown it out.

Magistrates judged there was sufficient to issue a summons.

Different criteria.