Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180-
196)
TUESDAY 30 JUNE 1998
COUNCILLOR STEPHEN
MURPHY AND
MR DAVID
WILMOT
Mr Linton
180. On the question of the amounts payable,
do you agree now that it would be useful if not just the Met but
all police authorities, police forces, were to make this a standard
practice, to publish the total amounts payable?
(Mr Wilmot) Again, to use the Chairman's expression,
I cannot disagree with you, but I cannot answer on behalf of other
police authorities. We would certainly, as we have already said,
go away, discuss it with our members—I cannot make the decision
on my own—discuss with the full authority. We will do that.
Ms Hughes
181. There was one question, just to check out.
I think you said earlier that since you have taken some of the
risks from 1992, did you say that the first £250,000 of any
claim would be met by the Authority?
(Mr Wilmot) Yes.
182. That is directly paid out of public funds
presumably, out of your own budget? I wonder what your view is
that this should not be public, an argument I do not feel is sustainable
on any basis whatsoever because it is directly public money.
(Councillor Murphy) It is in the accounts.
183. Is it in the accounts as to what the expenditure
is for settlement of claims?
(Councillor Murphy) It is actively recalled in the
accounts.
184. It is not clear in the accounts, I have
to say. It is not presented, as the Metropolitan Police presented,
as a separate table for damages awarded.
(Mr Wilmot) We have said we will look at doing that.
I am trying to go through my briefing notes, Chairman. There are
some figures on civil claims. I am just trying to get my head
round the actual table itself. I can make those available to the
Committee if you wish.
Chairman
185. Thank you. If there are any further points
which occur to you, anything to add to what has been said, just
send us a note. But please do it fairly quickly after today's
session because we are going to be coming to some conclusions
fairly shortly. May I just return to the central issue, the amount
of the damages in the Kevin Taylor case, damages and costs. Do
you have with you the legal advice that you have been given, about
whether you can answer the question or not?
(Mr Wilmot) The legal advice I have been given is
that if you ask me the question I answer it.
186. I do understand that, but we are anxious
not to put you into a position where you are in difficulty with
the court. What I want to know is if you have the legal advice
in writing in front of you.
(Mr Wilmot) Let me go through my file.
Mr Winnick
187. Are you accompanied by your legal adviser,
Mr Wilmot?
(Mr Wilmot) No. I fear that may have been by way of
telephone but I have a letter here.
Chairman
188. So you do not have anything in writing
from your lawyers on the subject?
(Mr Wilmot) No.
189. Right.
(Mr Wilmot) It is my understanding that there was
a sort of acceptance. If you had a court order, which prohibited
you from talking, you did not do it.
190. That was my understanding too but we are
not short of lawyers around this table and some of them take a
different view. Rather than get bogged down now, my inclination
is to go away and seek some definitive advice. If the advice is
that you are bound by that and that we should not ask then we
will not, but if the advice is that we can— I am not clear
that your advice does not permit you to answer the question.
(Mr Wilmot) If you ask me the direct question, Chairman,
I will answer it.
191. What I am getting at is that your legal
advisers obviously take the view that you are not bound by—
(Mr Wilmot) I would not answer it anywhere else except
here.
192. I understand. I am most anxious not to
put you into a position of embarrassment in relation to the court
decision. At the same time, I am anxious to get to the bottom
of exactly what the legal strength of that agreement is.
Mr Linton
193. Could I be clear, if it were a question
of contempt of court, that would imply that it would be the judge,
the court itself, which would penalise you if you were to reveal
the figures. But if it were simply the plaintiff or other parties
to the agreement who would have a justifiable complaint against
you, then even though the agreement was submitted to the court
it would not be a question of contempt, it would be a civil issue.
Is that not right? I am not a lawyer either.
(Mr Wilmot) I do not know.
194. Was your advice that it would be the actual
court which would be able to impose a penalty on you if the terms
of that agreement were released?
(Mr Wilmot) I would have thought so. There are different
parts to the agreement, one of which is to pay certain sums of
money. If you did not do that, I would imagine that it would be
the courts that would then force you to pay that money or would
take action against you. The remedy would be for either party
to go to the court and say, "This individual has been in
breach of this agreement." As Chief Constable I have to be
like Caesar's wife when it comes to legal issues. There is no
way in which I would wish to break a court agreement. There is
no desire on my part to thwart this Committee. If you ask the
question of me I can only repeat that I will answer it.
Chairman: I hear what you say and I am grateful
for that. Mr Hawkins.
Mr Hawkins
195. Chairman, I am simply going to suggest
that because clearly there are such different views held by different
Members of our Committee—my personal view as a lawyer is
that the Chief Constable is absolutely right and we should not
be asking him to breach a court order—the fact that it is
an agreement which has resulted in a court order does not make
it any the less a court order. It seems to me that effectively
all we are going to do is to go round in circles and the best
way, which I think you were suggesting, Mr Chairman, is to consider
the matter further and not detain our witnesses, or else we shall
just go round in circles as we have done.
Chairman: That is my inclination.
Mr Winnick
196. When I said to you earlier on, Mr Wilmot,
that the Committee is not going to press you, one or two of my
colleagues seem to disagree although I notice that no-one has
pressed you. I take very strongly the view that if you are of
the opinion that to answer our question would be contempt of court
I for one would consider it inappropriate to press you. Are you
quite clear in your mind, even though you have not got the written
advice from your counsel or solicitor, that to answer the question
of exactly how much was involved would be contempt of court?
(Mr Wilmot) I would say that. That is the impression
I have got, yes.
Chairman: Thank you very much, that concludes
the session. Thank you very much for coming, gentlemen.
| 
