Win a fitness package worth more than £3,000

If people want a scapegoat over the decision not to prosecute over cash for honours, then David Perry, QC, is an obvious target.
When the Crown Prosecution Service hired Mr Perry to advise it on whether charges should be brought, they brought in a man widely regarded to be at the top of his game — one of the most sought-after criminal silks in the business.
Solicitors and fellow barristers alike praise him highly; and insist that his judgment call on this case, as others, will be impeccable.
“Probably the brightest criminal lawyer at the Bar; the outstanding criminal barriser of his generation, intelligent, thoughtful, realistic,” are some of the plaudits they produce.
From 2001 to 2006 he was Senior Treasury Counsel, prosecuting all the top cases in the fields of crime, extradition, fraud, judicial review — and with some commerecial and civil cases thrown in. He has been in every big criminal appeal in the past five years — including 56 hearings in the House of Lords. As is traditional, he then took silk on leaving that post in 2006. He is also a deputy High Court judge.
A workaholic who is at his papers seven day a week, 14 hours a day, Mr Perry is nonetheless unpompous, affable and popular — generous with his time to help others. “A path is always being beaten to his door,” a colleague said. “And the CPS uses him for everything — they can hardly move on a difficult case without running everything past him.”
On a case like cash for honours, Mr Perry will have looked purely at the legal case and whether it met the test of sufficiency of evidence. “He would not feel under influence or pressure, especially politically,” a fellow QC said. “And his decision would carry the day: the idea that the CPS would disagree with his view is inconceivable.”
His cases have included Blue Arrow, Barlow Clowes, Brent Walker (in all of which he defended); and more recently he prosecuted the Muslim cleric Abu Hamza.
On his appointment to the cash-for-honours inquiry, some questioned whether he had Labour Party affiliations, a charge flatly denied. And they pointed to a case in which he represented the Attorney-General, then Lord Goldsmith, QC, in a case brought by Greenpeace activists in 2004 — and succeeded in preventing the latter forcing the disclosure of the Attorney’s legal advice on the war in Iraq.
But friends say he is non-political: his hobbies are reading and gardening. “He’s extremely well read; interested in everything, good company. But not an outdoor man — he doesn’t do sport.” A Roman Catholic, he went to grammar school in Leicester. He is separated from his Spanish wife and has no children.
In May he was prosecuting counsel in the Official Secrets Act trial of a Cabinet Office official and former researcher charged with making a damaging disclosure of a minute of a meeting between Tony Blair and George Bush.
On the cash-for-honours case, Mr Perry and his team of two juniors have recently worked round the clock on drafting and revisions, with papers passing back and forth between his chambers at 6 King’s Bench Walk and the CPS to ensure that every point is watertight, every conclusion justifiable. One clerk said: “They typed it all out themselves, because of the need for the strictest confidentiality.”
Last week he delivered his advice to Carmen Dowd, head of the CPS special crime division. It fell to her to make the final decision, after the Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, stepped aside because he had been in the same chambers as Cherie Booth, QC, the Prime Minister’s wife.
And whatever the political fallout now from the decision, Mr Perry — and the CPS — will simply be satisfied that legally, they have got it right.
Industry sectors news at a glance. Interactive heatmap, video and podcast
The inside track on current trends in the charity, not for profit and social enterprise sectors
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
Everything the Business Traveller needs to know to make a better trip
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
05/2005
£13,500
08/2008
£109,950
2006
£10,750
Great car insurance deals online
£Excellent+ executive benefits
Torres and Partners
London
£49,229 - £62,035 pro rata
Charity Commission
London/Liverpool/Taunton
Alstom Power
Europe
Six Figure
Rolls Royce
Midlands/Europe
From £89,950
Great Investment, River Views
Special Offers now available
New Year in the USA!
.
Cruise the Islands of Hawaii - Pride of America
List your property with two leading travel websites
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.
Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths
News International associated websites: Globrix | Property Finder | Milkround
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
The explanation published on the CPS website - and presumably reflecting "Lord" Perry's advice - appears to be seriously deficient.
For example:
1. From the fact that no-one had complained of receiving an offer was incorrectly taken to rule out the possibility of charges based on such an offer.
2. Illogically, the possibility of an agreement was considered, even though this would have to include an offer.
3. A requirement that such an offer must be 'unambiguous' was incorrectly introduced from nowhere - even though an 'offer' might well be ambiguous yet its meaning obvious in the circumstances.
4. It was stated that there were 'proper reasons for the inclusion of all those whose names appeared on the 2005 working peers list'. In fact the Appointments Commission disagreed in the cases of three of the four, ruling them unsuitable even before it knew about the loans.
For these reasons and others the decision not to proceed was irrational, and open to judicial review in the courts.
Tim Wilkinson, brighton, UK
The explanation published on the CPS website - and presumably reflecting "Lord" Perry's advice - appears to be seriously deficient. For example: 1. The fact that no-one had complained of receiving an offer was incorrectly taken to rule out the possibility of charges based on such an offer. 2. Illogically, the possibility of an agreement was considered, even though this would have to include an offer. 3. A requirement that such an offer must be 'unambiguous' was incorrectly introduced from nowhere - even though an 'offer' might well be ambiguous yet its meaning obvious in the circumstances.
4. It was stated that there were 'proper reasons for the inclusion of all those whose names appeared on the 2005 working peers list'. In fact the Appointments Commission disagreed in the cases of three of the four, ruling them unsuitable even before it knew about the loans. For these reasons and others the decision not to proceed was irrational, and open to judicial review in the courts.
Tim Wilkinson, Brighton, UK
I instructed David Perry in many cases when he was a junior and I was in practice as defence solicitor. He is as reported in the article, simply the best! I have not seen him for many years now but I am sure that he would have done his job free from any pressure. The conspiracy theorists reaction that he must be "in on it" are quite farcical. The question here is simply how the police enquiry was allowed to get as far as it did.It is blindingly obvious that no one ever received an honour for being a nice guy! Governments reward people, and people reward people. That is how life works. The naive posturings about this are hilarious and a total distraction to the real issues facing Government and the country.
Martin Phillips, London,
I imagine Lord Hutton was likewise well regarded in legal circles some time ago.
The end result of following Mr Perry's view is that the CPS decision has in fact further undermined the public's trust in the political and legal professions.
There is a "public interest" aspect to all of this which surely requires that the evidence be put before a court.
If some of it is inadmissable or does not stand up to scrutiny then that is for the court to decide during the trial.
Those accused of wrongdoing would then have a proper forum to show and prove their innocence.
We now have the worst of all worlds - a cynical disbelieving public , those arrested still mired in the "evidence" which is public , a police service subject to political pressure and abuse , the CPS seen to be lilly livered and a government unaccountable for mirky actions.
What a legacy for Mr Blair.
Rob Green, Braintree, England
Forgive my cynicism but for Perry to have reached an opinion and Carmen Dowd to announce it just as Parliament breaks up smacks to me of a timely coincidence.
philip, Ipswich,
We want an appeal! if you took a poll on the matter, the public vote would be GUILTY, the silk needs to advise a black hat not a whitewash
Charles, Cannes, France