Welcome readers from Steyn Online

 

The Orwell Prize have put out a fascinating statement on the J Hari affair.

The Council considered one article submitted by Hari in 2008, ‘How multiculturalism is betraying women’ (The Independent, 30 April 2007), on the basis of the evidence which had been received.  The Council concluded that the article contained inaccuracies and conflated different parts of someone else’s story (specifically, a report in Der Spiegel). The Council ruled that the substantial use of unattributed and unacknowledged material did not meet the standards expected of Orwell Prize-winning journalism…

On the afternoon of 14 September, a courier returned the plaque which had been awarded to Johann Hari on winning the Orwell Prize for Journalism 2008. There was no note of explanation. The prize money (£2000) has also not been returned. The director of the Prize telephoned the editor of The Independent who confirmed that Hari had returned the Prize, which was also confirmed later by Hari’s ‘A personal apology’, published online by The Independent.

Ha ha. The typical brave act of contrition by a self-proclaimed Leftist. Hand back the plaque – but keep the money!

In short, Johann Hari submitted a piece of writing which he said was his own work – but it wasn’t. Does this put him slap bang in the middle of the 2006 Fraud Act s.2? Let’s see:

2   Fraud by false representation

(1)   A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a)  dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b)  intends, by making the representation—

   (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.

(2)   A representation is false if—

(a)  it is untrue or misleading, and

(b)  the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

(3)   “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—

(a)  the person making the representation, or

(b)  any other person.

(4)   A representation may be express or implied.

(5)   For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).

Hari’s prize-winning article bid was obviously a representation under the Act, intended to help Hari make a gain for himself (ie to win the Orwell Prize). Plus it was obviously false, ie Hari knew that the article contained material not written by him but presented to the Prize as if it had been.

The only remaining question is, was it ‘dishonest’? Any normal person would say yes, but poor little Hari would no doubt argue strenuously that he had justified to himself his use of other people’s writing and so was not really ‘dishonest’: "How can I be accused of being dishonest when I really believed I was behaving reasonably and fairly?" The ultimate post-modern excuse top wriggle out of responsibility for anything.

Seems to me as a barrister manqué that the case should be put to the police. One for Jack of Kent (who has done some superb work on this one) to advise on?

* * * * *

Update as of 29 September   Hari has not returned the money (although he offered to do so. Instead has been ‘invited’ to make an appropriate donation (sic) to English PEN 

Let’s see if English PEN will confirm that the full £2000 has been paid to them by Mr Hari.