The Times reports

'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.'

Indeed as Senior Treasury Counsel David Perry served as the Government man in criminal and civil cases where the actions of the Government were questioned.

Perry helped prosecute nearly every anti-war protester criminal case where the legality of the war in Iraq was brought into question, from the magistates courts right up to the House of Lords.

He was the Attorney General's man in the EDO Injunction case where he helped protect EDO MBM's secret supplies of military equipment to Israel, and supported the cover-up of EDO directors lies in court. He argued that the protesters belief that the weapons made by EDO MBM were used in war crimes in Iraq and Palestine, was simply imagination run wild and comparable to the crazed ramblings of the menatally ill.


The Times goes on, ' Mr Perry is nonetheless unpompous, affable and popular — generous with his time to help others.' In fact Mr Perry is so slimy, pomposity is too small a word for him, He simply oozes public school superiority and self importance, so oily is he that he appears to glide rather than walk down a hallway, and the others he wishes to help are always those in power. Don't expect him to help little old ladies across the road, unless they are somehow related to someone who might give him a promotion.


The Times continues: '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.” '

In fact on a case like cash for honours, Mr Perry will have looked purely at the power and influence of those being accused, and whether it was necessary that he twist the evidence in their favour. He would not need to be influenced or pressured because everyone in power would be confident that he would do right by them (just like he said he would at the last dinner party), and his decision would carry the day: the idea that the CPS would disagree with his view is inconceivable, after all they have careers to think of as well.