Panel set to consider complaint against ex-PCC Shaun Wright

DISGRACED ex-policing chief Shaun Wright could be invited before a panel to explain himself over claims he lied to Parliament in relation to child sex abuse in Rotherham — but cannot be forced to attend.

The South Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel will decide at a meeting in Rotherham on Thursday if the complaint — stemming from his appearance before the home affairs select committee in September 2014 — should be referred to Parliament for consideration or set aside.

Read on…

The South Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel watch it live on Thu, 9th Jun 2016 – 11:00 am :

22 thoughts on “Panel set to consider complaint against ex-PCC Shaun Wright

  1. So, if Wright is found to have lied on oath to a Parliamentary Select Committee, no action is likely to be taken.
    Two points occur, first, why bother putting him on oath? Secondly, why isn’t the Rt Hon Keith Vaz, Labour MP for Leicester East, Chairman of that committee, scourge of Rupert Murdoch and no shrinking violet, not screaming blue murder and telling the lads to light the brazier and get the Rack ready?
    I’ve heard it said, he doesn’t see pursuing this as a good career move.


  2. “DISGRACED ex-policing chief Shaun Wright COULD be invited”…………….”but cannot be forced to attend.”
    On June 6th ‘rothpol’ published this: “Shamed former police commissioner Shaun Wright is UNLIKELY to face action over claims he misled MPs about what he knew of Rotherham’s abuse scandal.”

    So if Wright tells SYPCP to ‘bugger off’ he can stay at his home to spend more time with his pension pot.

    SY.Police and Crime Panel aka Toothless Tiger.


    • Given your track record, I’m surprised you have the gall to make any public comment, Mr Vines.

      As you use the wrong test, it is unlikely that you’ll get to the right answer…but clearly you have learned nothing.

      The test is NOT what is ‘the political make-up of the Panel’, but what action the Panel takes in the light of the information it has to consider.

      And, of course, ‘the political make-up of the Panel’ is completely irrelevant if any of its members simply decide to absent themselves altogether from the meetings or, when a member deigns to attend, simply fails to ask any questions. [You wouldn’t have to declare an interest at this point would you Mr Vines?]

      [I have always been of the view that Shaun Wright was unfit to be considered for selection as PCC, let alone elected. But, for these purposes, that is an irrelevant consideration.]

      Irrespective of the prospects for success, I think the Panel ought to seek an outcome to the complaints via the ‘informal resolution’ process in accordance with the Regulations and guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

      If Mr Wright declines to participate, the Panel should:
      (1) refer the complaints to the Home Affairs Select Committee (it appearing that it is the only body which has the vires and the powers to pursue the matters); and
      (2) advise the Secretary of State that this case has revealed a gap in the Regulations and guidance, and invite her to bring forward revised Regulations and guidance to remedy the situation.


  3. A criminal set to be tried by a bunch of criminals. He lied UNDER OATH but the IPCC state this is not a criminal offence. I have never heard such unadulterated b****cks in all my life. Of course he committed a criminal offence for which he could be imprisoned for a good number of years but we all know he will be allowed “off the hook” because they are all as bent as one another and peeing in the same pot. Just another Labour “Fix”.


    • Please advise us all of
      (1) the specific criminal offence with which he could be charged; and
      (2) reference to the particular legislation and sentencing guidelines for that offence which would confirm your assertion that ‘he could be imprisoned for a good number of years’.


      • Janet im still waiting for the proof were you stated the majority of rotherham residents didnt support the march .i wont hold my breath


        • Look at the turnout.

          I rather think that if there was any significant support for the march it would have attracted more than a hundred people, the majority of whom appeared to be from outside Rotherham and to have numerous previous convictions for football hooliganism etc


      • Try Perjury Act (1911). Up to 7 years imprisonment. Keith Vaz even warned Mr Wright that he is under oath and therefore liable to commit an offence if he lies or refuses to answer.


        • Back to my original post of 7th June on this thread…why isn’t Vaz all over this like a rash?


        • I’m not aware that the Perjury Act applies to a Committee of the House of Commons. Perhaps you can produce the evidence for that.


        • Thank you for that. However, the position may not be quite as clear as you suggest.

          A little googling revealed that the House of Commons Library had published an updated briefing last week on Select Committees and their proceedings:
          House of Commons Library
          Select committees: evidence and witnesses
          Number 6208, 2 June 2016

          This then took me to
          Liaison Committee – Select committee effectiveness, resources and powers

          Written evidence submitted by the Clerk of the House

          30. The Parliamentary Witnesses Oaths Act 1871 empowers the House of Commons and its committees to administer oaths to witnesses, and attaches to false evidence the penalties of perjury. Section 2 of the Perjury Act 1911 provides maximum penalties on conviction of a false statement on oath, otherwise than in a judicial proceeding, of seven years penal servitude, or imprisonment for two years, or a fine (or a fine combined with one of the other two penalties).

          31. On the face of it, this looks like a solution. But there are problems. The first is that, however cross or frustrated a committee may be, the decision whether to prosecute rests not with Members but with the prosecuting authorities outside the House. If, applying the normal tests, they decide that there is insufficient prospect of a prosecution succeeding, they will not waste public funds by proceeding. This would probably be a damaging and very public setback for the committee concerned.

          32. Second, the prospects of a successful conviction will depend on the degree of fairness that a committee is able to demonstrate in the proceedings that led to the alleged perjury. Did the witness know in advance, before coming to the committee, that he or she would be put on oath? Were the questions asked clear, and designed to elicit fact and not opinion? Did the Committee at any stage badger or harass the witness? Was the witness under any constraint or duty that made it difficult to answer? Did the witness have access to advice (possibly legal advice)? The failure of a prosecution, once embarked upon, would be embarrassing to the committee and to the House.

          33. Third, the committee may think that the false evidence was on a material issue. The court may disagree: and s1(6) of the Perjury Act explicitly gives to the court the duty of deciding whether or not an allegedly untrue statement is material.

          34. Fourth, the trying of a case of perjury would mean that the court had to examine Parliamentary proceedings—something explicitly prevented by Article IX of the Bill of Rights.12 Erskine May says that this obligation upon the courts “is statute law and, unless there has been amending legislation, the protection it confers cannot be waived or not insisted upon by either House”.13 However, May also says that the passing of the Perjury Act “impliedly” amends the Bill of Rights. There is of course a difference between using Parliamentary proceedings as a means to establish a fact14 and exploring the details of the questions and answers in evidence before a select committee. It would be for the court to decide how far it could consider such material.

          35. These considerations may have been factors in there having been no prosecutions for perjury in respect of Parliamentary proceedings since the passing of the 1911 Act.


      • @ Janet Green. The offence is Perjury of course, Lying under oath, contrary to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which carries a penalty of up to 7 years in prison! Does that satisfy you???


  4. If Shaun Wright is guilty of wrongdoing what about the councillors Who are still in denial and are now back as cabinet members. They are as guilty as he is also Roger Stone should be asked questions as well


  5. May be labour Cllr Jane Senior could be called to give evidence and tell what she knew allegedly.
    After all she is the champion of the victims and ex manager of risk business acording to her book
    Surly if any one she should know the truth of who knew what and when who better to ask


  6. I doubt very much that Jane Senior will give evidence against her new Labour buddies.
    If she really wanted to open this particular can of worms you could ask why did she join the Labour party and stand as a candidate in the borough elections?
    Poacher turned Gamekeeper?
    Or Turncoat?


Leave your comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.