An expert witless
Posted by Christie Malry on September 25, 2011 at 9:59 pm
Ritchie is an expert, he tells ye!
I wrote the following at the request of the Brighton Evening Argus for publication after the close of the UK Uncut trial in that city, in which I appeared as an expert witness to explain the links between tax avoidance and the cuts agenda of this government.
Now, an 'expert witness' is a pretty important concept in the UK legal system. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about it:
In England and Wales, under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), an expert witness is required to be independent and address his or her expert report to the Court. A witness may be jointly instructed by both sides if the parties agree to this, especially in cases where the liability is relatively small.
So, as an independent expert beholden to the Court, it would be pretty improper for an expert witness to criticise the court's and the CPS's process immediately following the conclusion of a trial. Say, like this:
I regret that the judge, sitting as a magistrate, did not accept that the link was close enough to justify the actions taken during peaceful protest by UK Uncut supporters
Or, indeed, like this:
Shame on the judge? For understanding the way the law works better than a retired accountant does? But there's more:
I'm pretty sure the five who were found guilty might quibble with the view that, because the judge found the other four innocent, that all of them were really innocent too. Judges don't mess about - a guilty verdict against any single person means that there was sufficient evidence to prove that that person did commit the offence. If they weren't really guilty, they would have been found innocent. From a purported 'expert witness', this is astonishing, irresponsible and - frankly - idiotic.
But there's still more:
Had all nine been found innocent, then one might have been able to make the case that these prosecutions were malicious. But five out of the nine were found guilty! How on earth can anyone possibly claim that these prosecutions were malicious when over half produced a guilty verdict? Were the police conspiring with the judge under the instructions of David Cameron himself? What is Ritchie smoking?
However, I think we can safely say that Ritchie was not an 'expert witness'. He was just an ordinary witness for the defence. And I bet the five who were found guilty wish they had hired a rather higher quality witness.
Ritchie is also very naughty here:
So the tax gap is, I estimate, up to £120 billion. In fairness I should note H M Revenue & Customs do not agree, but because of my work they have published their own estimates, which come to £60 billion at present – exactly half of what I suggest.
HMRC does not say that the tax gap is £60bn. They say that it's £35bn, with tax due-but-unpaid of £25bn. Now, to the extent that this due-but-unpaid tax is never paid, it forms part of the tax gap. And, indeed, HMRC estimates what portion of due-but-unpaid tax will never be paid, and they include it in the tax gap. So Ritchie is double-counting this element of tax. To the extent that this due-but-unpaid tax is ultimately collected, it cannot be part of the tax gap.
I trust that Ritchie will see the profound error of his ways, and I'm sure he'll want to write to the judge at the earliest opportunity to inform him that he made an administrative mistake. Otherwise, the judge may have had the wrong impression about just how plausible it is that we could close the deficit by reducing avoidance alone. Misleading the court, whether deliberately or accidentally, is serious business, and we wouldn't want Ritchie to end up in trouble for it.
I fear Righteous may have cover here. I attend Tax Tribunals as an expert even although such Hearings do not have formal provision for an 'Expert'. The Tribunal members still have a requirement for my de facto expertise, so I attend anyway. CPR doesn't hold, but I adhere to it anyway as best practice. In the strictest possible sence I am not an Expert, but it is a fair representation of my role (which has been challenged in the High Court but upheld that I am a de facto expert).
I understand Magistrates courts are the same, so the same logic would/could apply to him.
Actually, thinking about it, his transgression is not to refer to himself as an expert, but to imply that he is an expert on whether the protest was fair. That's the Judge's role, not the expert's. Murphy can opine on whether there is/was a legitimate debate to be had on the Govt policies, and whether there were realistic alternatives for protestors to campaign for (i.e. it was not just a violent nihlistic protest). But whether it's "fair" is a whole other matter almost certainly outside his brief.