Assessing the UK’s Current Approach to Addressing Deceptive Representations from Westminster Politicians: An Argument in Favour of Introducing a New Criminal Offence Covering Politicians Making Deceptive Representations to the Public

Abstract

Despite the plethora of regulation to sanction or discourage their use, Westminster politicians frequently make deceptive representations (false or misleading statements of fact). Such representations have existed throughout British politics, but recent scandals such as Partygate and the Brexit campaign have exposed their regular use. This shift invites questions about the suitability of the current regulatory approach, both in terms of what we should be regulating and how this should be done.

This thesis conceptualises regulation liberally. I posit, that to justify regulation, the behaviour must have certain qualities. In this sense, it must not just be a moral wrong (something which we ought not to do) but actually cause or risk causing harm. Using this conceptualisation as an apparatus, I identify the types of deceptive representations which warrant a regulatory response (these being, those which are made to Parliament and those which are made to the
public).

Viewed through this lens, I ask whether the current regulatory framework is effective at addressing these representations (either by discouraging their use or by providing a formal recognition and consequence). Based on theoretical and functionalist analysis, I put forward
recommendations for how to improve upon the design and use of the current mechanisms. In particular, I advocate in favour of a new criminal offence to cover the most egregious
deceptive representations which are made to the public. Using Duff’s model as guide, I put forward an argument for why criminalisation is the right response for this particular class of representations. I then turn to indicating how imposing criminal liability could work, paying attention to demonstrating how it could be drafted so as not to give rise to frequently cited objections, such as concerns over free speech or politicisation of the judiciary.