Louise Haigh, Transport Secretary until 28 Nov 2024

[whole diary]

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

Haigh admits pleading guilty to 2014 criminal offence



Transport Secretary Louise Haigh has admitted pleading guilty to a criminal offence relating to a police investigation over a mobile phone she claimed was stolen.

In a statement, Haigh said she told police she had lost her phone during a mugging on a night out in 2013 but later found it had not been taken.  She said it was a "genuine mistake" but had been advised by a lawyer "not to comment" during a police interview. The police then referred the case to the Crown Prosecution Service, she said.

She said she pleaded guilty to making a false report to police at magistrates' court six months before becoming an MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) in the 2015 election, and received a discharge - the "lowest possible outcome".

A discharge is a type of sentence given to someone who is guilty of an offence but where the court decides not to impose a significant punishment.

Whitehall sources have told the BBC that the transport secretary declared her discharge on appointment to the shadow cabinet when the Labour Party was in opposition.

The BBC has been told Haigh received a conditional discharge, but have not been able to confirm details of the specific offence.

In a statement, Haigh said: “In 2013 I was mugged while on a night out. I was a young woman and the experience was terrifying.  I reported it to the police and gave them a list of what I believed had been taken - including a work mobile phone that had been issued by my employer.  Some time later I discovered that the mobile in question had not been taken. In the interim I had been issued with another work phone.  The original work device being switched on triggered police attention and I was asked to come in for questioning.  My solicitor advised me not to comment during that interview and I regret following that advice.  The police referred the matter to the CPS and I appeared before magistrates' court.  Under the advice of my solicitor I pleaded guilty - despite the fact this was a genuine mistake from which I did not make any gain. The magistrates accepted all of these arguments and gave me the lowest possible outcome - a discharge - available.”

Haigh has been Sheffield Heeley MP since 2015, and held a number of shadow ministerial and shadow cabinet roles before becoming transport secretary when Labour won the election in July.

She is also a former Special Constable, a volunteer police officer with full powers of arrest, and served with the Metropolitan Police until 2011.

The chair of the Conservative Party said the prime minister has "serious questions" to answer about the matter.  Nigel Huddleston said in a statement: "These are extremely concerning revelations about the person responsible for managing £30bn of taxpayers' money."

[Electric train]

Such a shame, she was someone that rail industry executives have said they could work with she had a clear view of what the Government aims were but listened to and took in their opinions

At least she went quickly, unlike the antics of the previous administration

[grahame]

Such a shame, she was someone that rail industry executives have said they could work with she had a clear view of what the Government aims were but listened to and took in their opinions

At least she went quickly, unlike the antics of the previous administration

As reported on the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page)

Louise Haigh has resigned as transport secretary after pleading guilty to a criminal offence related to incorrectly telling police that a work mobile phone was stolen in 2013.

In a letter to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, Haigh said she was “totally committed to our political project” but that it would be "best served by my supporting you from outside government”.

Her resignation comes a day after she admitted that she told police she had lost her phone during a mugging on a night out but later found it had not been taken.

She said it was a "genuine mistake" but had been advised by a lawyer "not to comment" during a police interview. The police then referred the case to the Crown Prosecution Service, she said.

She said she pleaded guilty to making a false report to police at a magistrates' court six months before becoming an MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) in the 2015 election, and received a discharge - the "lowest possible outcome".

Whitehall sources told the BBC that the transport secretary declared her discharge on appointment to the shadow cabinet when the Labour Party was in opposition.

Others may not share my view, but I am shocked that the follow-up to a mugging (which was an assault that no-one is suggesting was her choice) leads to the loss of someone who seemed to be shaping up to being a good secretary of state for Transport. We would like our politicians to be perfect, but we would be wise to accept the great deal of good and skills they have to offer if they have been slightly less than that perfection.   

Edit - adding that I do wonder slightly if we have a full story

[TaplowGreen]

Odd that she's resigning now, despite making Starmer aware of her criminal offence when he appointed her to the Shadow Cabinet.

[eightonedee]

It is speculation, but reading the statement set out on the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) website, the problem appears to be that she retained it after she found it and was found out "when she switched it on".

The inference is that she wrongly was retaining it, possibly for her own use, rather than immediately notifying the Police and handing it in.

While that might seem a fine distinction, it is an important one. It changes an innocent error to possible theft.

[Electric train]

Such a shame, she was someone that rail industry executives have said they could work with she had a clear view of what the Government aims were but listened to and took in their opinions

At least she went quickly, unlike the antics of the previous administration

As reported on the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page)

Louise Haigh has resigned as transport secretary after pleading guilty to a criminal offence related to incorrectly telling police that a work mobile phone was stolen in 2013.

In a letter to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, Haigh said she was “totally committed to our political project” but that it would be "best served by my supporting you from outside government”.

Her resignation comes a day after she admitted that she told police she had lost her phone during a mugging on a night out but later found it had not been taken.

She said it was a "genuine mistake" but had been advised by a lawyer "not to comment" during a police interview. The police then referred the case to the Crown Prosecution Service, she said.

She said she pleaded guilty to making a false report to police at a magistrates' court six months before becoming an MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) in the 2015 election, and received a discharge - the "lowest possible outcome".

Whitehall sources told the BBC that the transport secretary declared her discharge on appointment to the shadow cabinet when the Labour Party was in opposition.

Others may not share my view, but I am shocked that the follow-up to a mugging (which was an assault that no-one is suggesting was her choice) leads to the loss of someone who seemed to be shaping up to being a good secretary of state for Transport. We would like our politicians to be perfect, but we would be wise to accept the great deal of good and skills they have to offer if they have been slightly less than that perfection.   

Edit - adding that I do wonder slightly if we have a full story

Odd that she's resigning now, despite making Starmer aware of her criminal offence when he appointed her to the Shadow Cabinet.

HM Opposition were trying to us it for political point scoring, you know the same bunch that were charged and convicted in the partygate scandal and did not resign.

Instead of a Secretary of State or Government Minister becoming the story she went, I suspect she will be back in some role in the future   

[Phil]

Odd that she's resigning now, despite making Starmer aware of her criminal offence when he appointed her to the Shadow Cabinet.

The phrase "thrown under a bus" springs to mind...

[TaplowGreen]

Odd that she's resigning now, despite making Starmer aware of her criminal offence when he appointed her to the Shadow Cabinet.

The phrase "thrown under a bus" springs to mind...

.....or perhaps a P & O ferry?

Either way, Starmer's judgement once again called into question, although handy timing given that all the noise today will be about assisted suicide.

Perhaps ironic.

[JayMac]

An honourable resignation, done quickly.

A refreshing change from the wrongdoers and lawbreakers of the previous administrations who often had to be dragged kicking and screaming from office.

[JayMac]

Swindon South MP^▸ (Member of Parliament), Heidi Alexander, has been named as the new Secretary of State for Transport.

[ChrisB]

It is speculation, but reading the statement set out on the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) website, the problem appears to be that she retained it after she found it and was found out "when she switched it on".

The inference is that she wrongly was retaining it, possibly for her own use, rather than immediately notifying the Police and handing it in.

While that might seem a fine distinction, it is an important one. It changes an innocent error to possible theft.

Fraud....she obtained a more modern one from her employer while retaining the old one & not handing it back.

[eightonedee]

Fraud....she obtained a more modern one from her employer while retaining the old one & not handing it back.

Not quite Chris - the new phone would have remained a work tool she was issued with for work by her employer. The issue is that there was the appearance that she might have been trying to retain for her own benefit the phone she reported as having been lost.

We don't have details of the actual offence, but (again speculation by a retired lawyer who was not a criminal lawyer and who learned his criminal law as a student before the modern law of theft and fraud was enacted) it appears that prosecution may have been under s3 of the Fraud Act 2006, which provides

Fraud by failing to disclose information

A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a)dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and

(b)intends, by failing to disclose the information—

(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss

If there was no intention, then she should have defended the charge. The problem would have been (and here we do not have the material facts as to timing) it appears that she was found out when she switched on the phone and this came to the attention of the Police. The failure to report it immediately to the Police and her employer is something that is "unfortunate". Although we don't know how much she originally told him, Starmer's problem is that as a former Director of Public Prosecutions he ought to have perhaps investigated further a conviction for an offence involving dishonesty.

I agree that this looks minor compared to BoJo's serial mendacity, the disgraceful affair if the attempt to change the rules of conduct to "help out" Owen Patterson after his egregious breach of the rules against taking payments to advocate for business interests (or indeed, in the interests of balance, the murky affair of Peter Mandelson's undisclosed loan from Geoffrey Robinson when making a mortgage application), but Haigh did study law so should have been aware of the basic principles. Starmer also has a problem in that his "cleaning up politics" agenda has already been undermined by his (and his chancellor's) acceptance of substantial gifts from Lord Ali. As both a lawyer and former senior public servant he should have known that he should have refused them.

To her credit, it looks like she "jumped" rather than was "pushed".

[Bob_Blakey]

I rather think anybody with a functioning moral compass wouldn't have put themselves forward for election to parliament after receiving a conviction (for fraud in this case) or other official sanction. Unfortunately plenty of our elected representatives evidently take a different view.

[TaplowGreen]

Fraud....she obtained a more modern one from her employer while retaining the old one & not handing it back.

Not quite Chris - the new phone would have remained a work tool she was issued with for work by her employer. The issue is that there was the appearance that she might have been trying to retain for her own benefit the phone she reported as having been lost.

We don't have details of the actual offence, but (again speculation by a retired lawyer who was not a criminal lawyer and who learned his criminal law as a student before the modern law of theft and fraud was enacted) it appears that prosecution may have been under s3 of the Fraud Act 2006, which provides

Fraud by failing to disclose information

A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a)dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and

(b)intends, by failing to disclose the information—

(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss

If there was no intention, then she should have defended the charge. The problem would have been (and here we do not have the material facts as to timing) it appears that she was found out when she switched on the phone and this came to the attention of the Police. The failure to report it immediately to the Police and her employer is something that is "unfortunate". Although we don't know how much she originally told him, Starmer's problem is that as a former Director of Public Prosecutions he ought to have perhaps investigated further a conviction for an offence involving dishonesty.

I agree that this looks minor compared to BoJo's serial mendacity, the disgraceful affair if the attempt to change the rules of conduct to "help out" Owen Patterson after his egregious breach of the rules against taking payments to advocate for business interests (or indeed, in the interests of balance, the murky affair of Peter Mandelson's undisclosed loan from Geoffrey Robinson when making a mortgage application), but Haigh did study law so should have been aware of the basic principles. Starmer also has a problem in that his "cleaning up politics" agenda has already been undermined by his (and his chancellor's) acceptance of substantial gifts from Lord Ali. As both a lawyer and former senior public servant he should have known that he should have refused them.

To her credit, it looks like she "jumped" rather than was "pushed".

(Loud applause) Exactly this.

"Yeah but the Tories" doesn't cut it I'm afraid, their behaviour (and it was reprehensible), does not in any way mitigate this.

Starmer (rightly) set a much higher bar for his Government, it's depressing that in the case of himself, his Deputy, and now Haigh, they seem to be struggling to meet it.

Honesty and integrity are absolute qualities - you either have them or you don't - and we should be able to expect them both of our elected representatives, be they blue, red, yellow or whatever.

[ChrisB]

Fraud....she obtained a more modern one from her employer while retaining the old one & not handing it back.

Not quite Chris - the new phone would have remained a work tool she was issued with for work by her employer. The issue is that there was the appearance that she might have been trying to retain for her own benefit the phone she reported as having been lost.

Being reported by the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) as having pleaded guilty to a fraud offence
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxy1kp73y9o

I appreciate that media outlets do get reporting wrong, so show me another outlet that thinks she pleaded guilty to a different charge?