UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (7) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Prev | Next | Next Thread
Author: swynn102 Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 92615  
Subject: Re: Paul Braithwaite complaint Date: 18/03/2012 19:48
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 12
the matters before the court

"30. Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it has at any time been held by the authority for the purposes of—
(a) any investigation which the public authority has a duty to conduct with a view to it being ascertained—
(i) whether a person should be charged with an offence,"

"Whether a person should be charged with an offence" can only be decided by "a full criminal investigation". The SFO is trying to have it both ways, saying the SFO has a duty to conduct a full criminal investigation therefore I can’t have the information, and then not actually doing one.

This seems to be the key argument in the case.
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post  
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (7) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Prev | Next | Next Thread

Announcements

Free Investing Reports
Download these free Motley Fool reports today.
Compensation
The Government has agreed in principle to pay compensation - but when and how much?
Information on the 'Heartbleed' bug
So what is 'Heartbleed'? And what should you do?