Saturday, February 10, 2007

Opéra féerie

Synopsis

Two weeks ago, the Treasury Solicitor, Laurence O’Dea, promised us a reply to our enquiry regarding the-evidence-that-no-one-dares-mention-in-polite-company.
Having not received an answer from Mr O’Dea in the “early course”, we telephoned about the reasons for this delay. (He had had, after all, at least four months to ponder on this quandary.)

Thus, we managed to find out that what had been holding Mr O’Dea up, this time round, was the need to ‘consult the Department for Transport’ before committing himself in writing.

So, we surmised, the Treasury Solicitor’s recollections about the evidence in the Gaul investigation, which he himself had been charged to pull together during the RFI (*), depended on advice from the DfT.
Once this advice is received, he will be able to add his legal ornaments to it and send us a reply.
However, he indicated, we shouldn’t expect a clear-cut answer to our question, but simply another version of the same old song.

……………………………………………………………………………………………….

(*) During the Re-opened Formal Investigation, the Treasury Solicitor, who works for the Attorney General, on whose behalf the inquiry was conducted, is responsible for the collection of all evidence related to the case and for handing it over to an independent technical expert, also appointed by the Attorney General.

The independent technical expert must then insure that all relevant technical evidence is presented to the RFI.

However, the Treasury Solicitor’s main role as provider of advice and legal representation to government departments introduces, we think, a fundamental inconsistency in a process designed to establish the truth, but where the inflow of information is controlled by a party with a possible vested interest.

3 comments:

peter said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
gadfly said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
peter said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.