Comments on: UK Freedom of Information Act “flaw” prohibits prosecution in Climategate scandal

By: Police pension fund conflict of interest raises question of Climategate cover up | CLIMATEGATE

Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:14:46 +0000

[...] UEA. The ICO stated that although staff at the UEA broke the law, they have determined (falsely) no criminal charges could be brought due to expiration of the prosecution time limit. This error in interpreting the criminal statutes [...]

By: Junk Scientist Phil Jones could face 10 years on fraud charges regarding the hoax of climate change « Apostle Islands Navigator

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:02:19 +0000

[...] Commissioner’s Office (ICO) decided that the UEA failed in its duties under the Act but said that it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too [...]

By: CRU-professorn Phil Jones riskerar 10 års fängelse. « Labbibia's Blog

CRU-professorn Phil Jones riskerar 10 års fängelse. « Labbibia's Blog — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:07:42 +0000

[...] Commissioner’s Office (ICO) decided that the UEA failed in its duties under the Act but said that it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too [...]

By: Climategate Professor Phil Jones could face ten years on fraud charges | Global Warming Skeptics

Sat, 30 Jan 2010 05:32:28 +0000

[...] Commissioner’s Office (ICO) decided that the UEA failed in its duties under the Act but said that it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too [...]

By: Climategate Professor Phil Jones could face ten years on fraud charges | CLIMATEGATE

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 05:05:57 +0000

[...] Commissioner’s Office (ICO) decided that the UEA failed in its duties under the Act but said that it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too [...]

By: mike t

mike t — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:03:52 +0000

Is this a deliberately included flaw? knowing the way this Labour government works,( giving you something with one hand and taking it back with the other).
It was probably included to save the arses of people investigated in exactly this type of situation

By: John O'Sullivan

John O'Sullivan — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:04:53 +0000

@Igor: private criminal prosecutions in England, although technically feasible never occur in practice as they are very quickly taken over by the Crown Prosecution Service and invariably dropped.

By: Igor

Igor — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:02:35 +0000

Although, if can be proven (esp. wrt §2(2)), §2 of the Fraud Act 2006 could apply… Private prosecutions are allowed in England, right?…

By: jazznick

jazznick — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:36:11 +0000

Here’s the flaw -
Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 creates the “offence of altering etc. records with intent to prevent disclosure”.
The six month time limit on a prosecution derives from the “type of offence” specified by subsection 3: “A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”
A “summary offence” is triable in the Magistrates Court (with no jury) and Section 127 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980 applies.
“127 Limitation of time
(1)Except as otherwise expressly provided by any enactment and subject to subsection (2) below, a magistrates court shall not try an information or hear a complaint unless the information was laid, or the complaint made, within 6 months from the time when the offence was committed, or the matter of complaint arose.”

By: JOHN

JOHN — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:01:21 +0000

People claim Bernie Madoff had the scam of the century. Climategate and all the other things turning up make old Bernie look like a piker. They should all be in the cell with Bernie.