Accused of ‘double standards’ over situation at Downing Street parties found


The Metropolitan Police has been accused of “double standards”, after saying it would await the results of a government investigation before deciding to investigate violations of COVID laws at Downing Street parties.

Scotland Yard indicated that any police investigation would depend on the evidence revealed in the Cabinet Office investigation by Sue Grey, adding: “If the investigation identifies evidence of behavior that is potentially a criminal offence, it is considered Will be passed on to the Met for further consideration.”

Some lawyers and police commentators, describing this approach, suggested that one rule was for those in power and the other for all.

Raj Chada, the head of criminal defense at Hodge Jones and Allen, told the PA news agency: “It looks like the Met is saying there’s a rule for politicians and a rule for others.

It’s understandable why the British public thinks those in power play by different rules

“The idea that ‘we’re just going to wait and see what happens’ is unheard of in criminal investigations because it means evidence may be missing.

“The meteorological department has double standards on this. He broke all the everward vigilance in very heavy words and the rationale was the rules of Kovid.

“The Met is there to be completely independent and to ensure that the law applies to all, whatever the situation. And it just doesn’t seem like it, right?”

Human rights barrister Kirsty Brimello, who has defended cases of covid violations and is vice president of the Criminal Bar Association, said police “obviously don’t need to wait for an internal investigation” when they already have evidence and can easily get more evidence” “

While the force majeure may be a “best practice” for not probing violations of COVID laws retrospectively, it said there was an “increased sense of responsibility and accountability” as it involved a government that enforced the law on the public. Was.

He continued: “If there is unequal application of law depending on the situation, it is bad for a functioning rule of law. It is bad for democracy.”