DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES
Letter to the Parliamentary Relations
and Devolution Team, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, from the
Clerk of the Committee, 25 October 2004
Further to our telephone conversations of Friday
and today, I am writing on behalf of the Committee to request
a confidential briefing for them on the Office's handling of the
Craig Murray case. The Committee's interest arises from its duty
under the Standing Orders of the House to inquire into, inter
alia, the administration of the FCO.
As we discussed, and in the knowledge that the
Office has already reached a view on this request, I would appreciate
a written response in time to be considered at the Committee's
meeting which begins at 2.30 tomorrow, 26 October.
Steve Priestley
Clerk of the Committee
25 October 2004
Letter to the Clerk of the Committee from
the Parliamentary Relations and Devolution Team, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office, 27 October 2004
Thank you for your letter of 25 October requesting
a confidential briefing on the FCO' s handling of the Craig Murray
case.
Craig Murray is currently suspended from duty
on full pay, pending consideration of an allegation of possible
gross misconduct. As you will no doubt understand, it would not
be right to provide a briefing on the handling of this case, or
indeed any disciplinary case, until such time as the disciplinary
process has run its course. This approach is consistent with Cabinet
Office guidance on "Departmental Evidence and Response to
Select Committees". If the Committee would find it helpful,
I would of course be willing to inform the Committee of the outcome
of the disciplinary process once it has been completed.
I would, however, like to take this opportunity
to reassure the Committee that the FCO has fair and robust procedures
for investigating cases of possible misconduct. These have been
and will continue to be scrupulously observed in relation to Mr
Murray.
As the Foreign Secretary has told your Chairman,
he and Sir Michael Jay would be happy to brief your Committee,
orally and in confidence, on the procedures which apply (without
reference to the particular case of Mr Murray).
Chris Stanton
Parliamentary Relations and Devolution Team
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
27 October 2004
Letter to the Chairman of the Committee
from the Permanent Under Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office, 7 January 2005
MEMBERS OF THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE—ALLEGATIONS
OF CRIMINAL ACTS COMMITTED OVERSEAS
I undertook to provide the Committee with a
written outline of FCO policy and procedures on handling alleged
criminal acts committed overseas by members of the Diplomatic
Service.
The FCO follows the best practice approach recommended
by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) in
handling allegations of criminal acts involving FCO staff. Although,
in line with this approach, allegations of criminal acts do not
automatically trigger a disciplinary process, the FCO will normally
instigate disciplinary proceedings for any offences which may
result in the officer being unsuitable for his or her work and/or
which may bring the FCO into disrepute. This would normally include
offences involving dishonesty, drugs, violence or inappropriate
sexual behaviour.
If it appears that a criminal offence may have
been committed, we will also normally seek the advice of the Crown
Prosecution Service.
Disciplinary proceedings may be suspended until
the criminal investigation is concluded and any consequent criminal
proceedings disposed of by the courts.
If the officer under investigation resigns before
the disciplinary process has run its course, the employment contract
between that individual and the FCO comes to an end. The FCO is
unable to conclude any unfinished disciplinary process if the
individual is no longer employed by us.
There are differences between the employment
of members of the Diplomatic Service, the terms of which are governed
by the employment contract, and the terms and conditions of armed
services personnel which follow military law. Disciplinary matters
involving members of the armed services are dealt with under a
statutory framework which applies wherever in the world they are
based, and in effect means that the armed services have their
own legal system for handling such matters. In addition, members
of the armed services are obliged to serve for a specified period
of time and cannot easily resign in the same way as a member of
the Diplomatic Service is able to.
The UK courts have no jurisdiction over prosecuting
a diplomat in the UK for an offence committed overseas unless
it is an indictable offence committed by the individual when acting
or purporting to act in the course of his or her employment, under
section 31 of the Criminal Justice Act 1948. Broadly speaking,
an employee is deemed to be acting in the course of their employment
if at the material time they are legitimately going about their
employer's business. If criminal acts were committed by a diplomat
abroad in the course of employment, we would normally ask the
UK Police to investigate with a view to prosecution, collecting
evidence abroad where necessary and, on any reasonable assessment,
achievable. It is likely that this would be the case whether or
not the individual was still employed by us.
Members of the Diplomatic Service are of course
entitled to immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving
State. However, HMG's staff overseas must not abuse their privileges
and immunities. If the host state wished to prosecute in a particular
case immunity would not be unreasonably maintained and would be
waived if it were clear that an individual would be treated fairly
and that the work of the Post would not be prejudiced.
Sir Michael Jay KCMG
Permanent Under Secretary of State
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
7 January 2005
| 
