Senior barristers have deemed it “wholly unrealistic” to introduce a law that would prevent politicians from lying, warning of potential overwhelming complaints flooding the courts. The Criminal Bar Association has raised concerns about the proposed legislation, suggesting that any changes to the law could have significant repercussions. The association, representing legal practitioners in Wales and England, has cautioned against creating an offence of deliberate deception, insisting on careful consideration before implementing any amendments.
During a session with the Senedd’s standards committee, Jonathan Rees, a senior barrister, proposed expanding the existing offence of misconduct in a public office instead of introducing a new law. He expressed doubts about a proposition put forward by the Institute for Constitutional and Democratic Research, which aimed to disqualify politicians from office for deliberate deception. The potential influx of cases following such a law change could pose a substantial burden on the already strained court system, as highlighted by Rees.
In contrast, Alex Greenwood, a legal professional practising regulatory and criminal law, cautioned that the suggested model could infringe on established rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. Greenwood raised concerns about potential breaches of fundamental principles, including European human rights case law, natural justice, and common law. He also drew attention to the current backlog of cases in both crown and magistrates’ courts, emphasizing the challenges the legal system already faces.
The debate continued as the possibility of overwhelming the courts with additional cases was deliberated. Labour MS Lee Waters acknowledged the existing strain on the court system but questioned whether this should deter the implementation of new criminal sanctions. He argued that the practical limitations faced by the courts should not be the sole basis for shaping new laws, suggesting a more balanced approach to addressing the issue of political deception.
Despite the reservations expressed by barristers, the Welsh Government has committed to introducing a ban on politicians found guilty of deception before the upcoming election in 2026. Former counsel general Mick Antoniw outlined the government’s intention to disqualify members and candidates through an independent judicial process. Concerns were raised during a recent meeting by Antoniw, now a standards committee member, regarding the implications for parliamentary privilege and the potential politicisation of legal proceedings.
In response to the barristers’ testimonies, Richard Symons from the Campaign Against Political Deception emphasised the vital role of the courts in adjudicating disputed statements, while also highlighting the importance of upholding freedom of speech in political discourse. Symons underscored the need to consider existing legal mechanisms and processes that already regulate political claims and ensure the merit of cases brought before the courts.
As discussions unfold about the feasibility and implications of implementing a law to curb political deception, the complexities of balancing legal accountability with political discourse come to the forefront. The challenges posed by the potential influx of cases and the need to safeguard fundamental rights underscore the intricate nature of legislative changes in the realm of political honesty and accountability. Balancing the imperative for truth in public office with the practical realities of the judicial system remains a key consideration for policymakers and legal experts alike.