Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
15 MAY 2006 DEPUTY
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
JOHN YATES
QPM, DETECTIVE SUPERINTENDENT
GRAHAM MCNULTY
AND MS
CARMEN DOWD
Q1 Chairman: Let me welcome our witnesses
this afternoon. As you know, this is a private session, although
we will conduct it in a formal way and it will eventually, in
some form, with agreement, be published as part of the report.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates:
Right.
Q2 Chairman: This is designed to
encourage maximum openness on both sides. We are delighted to
see Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Yates again. We saw you
six weeks ago on 27 March, I think.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates:
That is right, you did.
Q3 Chairman: You are accompanied
by Carmen Dowd, who is the Head of the Special Crime Division
of the Crown Prosecution Service.
Ms Dowd: That is right.
Q4 Chairman: Thank you very much
indeed for coming along. I think, Mr Yates, you want to say something
by way of introduction.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I do not know whether it would help you if you have an update
to tell you where we are? It might take about five minutes if
that is okay.
Q5 Chairman: Please.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates:
First of all, I am very grateful to the Committee for the earlier
decision not to resume your deliberations until I had the opportunity
to brief you this afternoon, it has made a great difference and
I am very grateful to you for that. I would say significant progress
has been made, although there have been some inevitable delays,
mainly due to the elections on 4 May when clearly the focus of
parties was elsewhere and were not able to help us 100% of their
time; I understood that. We have recovered and been provided with
a very large amount of documentation from the three major parties.
It has taken some time to gather what they consider to be relevant
and provide it to us. There are some gaps in the information.
We are working very hard with all the parties to see those issues
are addressed. It would, of course, be regrettable from our perspective
if we had to resort to any more formal means to gather this material.
In any event there is a significant and ongoing task to sift through
that material and analyse it for evidential value. I have set
the parameters of the inquiry, and these are thus: firstly, the
initial focus is the provision of loans to the three main parties
and the nomination by parties to the House of Lords Appointment
Commission 2005; secondly, the sponsorship of the city academies
and nominations for honours which might be associated with such
sponsorship. Of course, as ever, these inquiry parameters remain
flexible and can be adjusted over time as necessary pending what
information we get. At this stage we are considering matters under
the Honours (Prevention of Abuse) Act 1925 as well as the Political
Parties Election and Referendum Act 2000. Of course, other relevant
legislation may come into play depending upon what the inquiries
reveal. As no doubt you are aware, there are a number of other
bodies and people looking at parallel issues. To reduce the risk
of duplication and overlap I have met with some key people, these
being the Electoral Commission, the Constitutional Affairs Select
Committee as well as Sir Hayden Phillips, who has been commissioned
by the Prime Minister, as you are aware, to look at the state
funding of parties. All have agreed, and again I am very grateful,
that the police should take the lead and undertaken to exercise
the utmost caution to ensure that none of their inquiries undermine
our investigation. Our investigation is making progress and has
already uncovered, in my view, a number of issues which merit
further detailed examination. Clearly I will be reluctant to go
into the detail of that at the moment due to the obvious evidential
and disclosure issues which may arise in the future. You will
be aware that a number of witnesses have already been seen and
interviewed, a number of individuals have been interviewed under
caution. One man has been arrested in connection with a specialist
schools academy matter, and he is now under police bail. I did
take an initial view, and I think one I expressed to your good
selves, that it may have been possible to interview at an early
stage witnesses or suspects, those individuals who the Committee
have indicated may be of interest to yourselves. The view was
that it may have been possible to get an early account from these
people and then revisit them if the developing inquiry indicated
that would be helpful. This would not be the normal practice but
may, of course, have enabled your good selves to resume deliberations
at an early stage. As I indicated from the outset we are working
closely with the CPS—Carmen and her colleagues—and
senior counsel to ensure that the investigation remains focused
and, indeed, proportionate. We have already made an initial submission
to the CPS consisting of a report and over a thousand pages of
documents. As recently as Saturday we recovered a further nine
ring binders full of documentation, and clearly that takes time,
again, to sift and analyse. I know final operational matters are
clearly matters for ourselves as the police. CPS, counsel and
ourselves are of the view that to interview individuals out of
sync when all the facts would not be available would not be sensible.
To do so would be contrary to normal practice and would, both
in my view and that of the counsel and CPS, be likely to undermine
the investigative process. This means, therefore, I will be asking
you—pleading with you—today to consider carefully
the position of the Committee with regard to certain key individuals.
The detailed rationale is this: I consider it is a danger that
information that may impact upon the investigation being released
into the public domain prior to the criminal investigation being
completed would potentially, consciously or unconsciously, influence
the accounts of those yet to be seen by the investigative team.
It may provide, also, an incomplete picture of events which might
itself place any witness who gives evidence before your Committee
in an embarrassing or prejudicial position in the future. By this
I mean that witnesses potentially seen by the Committee may not
have access to relevant documentation or pre-interview disclosure
which could assist them in completing their accounts. I consider
that in an inquiry of this sort it is of the utmost importance
that any questioning is conducted on an informed and comprehensive
basis so as to enable the witness to provide a full and detailed
account of any relevant events. The anxiety we have on the Committee
proceeding is that witnesses would not necessarily be provided
with that opportunity and this would not be either in their best
interests or the interests of the investigation. The second point
I make is this: it is of course the case that any police investigation
has to be conducted in accordance with the ordinary duty to act
fairly and impartially. This includes giving in certain cases
a caution to remind that person that he or she does not have to
answer any questions. We consider it important that the investigation
should be conducted with regard to the ordinary rules and that
it is undesirable for witnesses to feel as though they have to
give their account in public without the safeguard operated in
our investigation. The third and final point around this is this:
we also consider there is a risk that individuals may be deterred
or discouraged from co-operating with the police inquiry should
the Committee proceed. Already a number of potentially important
witnesses have declined to co-operate with my investigation because
they fear the wide publicity that would ensue. At the present
time, Members will note that there has been no breach of security
or leaks around the investigation. This, I know, is providing
some of the key witnesses with the confidence that their information
and evidence will be handled in an appropriate and sensitive way.
Finally, I move to this: it has been six weeks but in terms of
this type of investigation my inquiries are at a relatively early
stage. I recognise that some individuals who we wish to see are
fairly obvious and have also already been the subject of intense
media scrutiny. However, it is fair to say that there are a number
of other people who may be as equally important to the investigation
who move from the category of witness and suspect as the investigation
develops. I am reluctant to speculate on those particular people
in this forum as these are clearly very sensitive issues for all
parties involved. As I said to you when I was last before you,
for your Committee to interview any individuals who may be a relevant
witness or suspect in a criminal inquiry before he or she has
at least been interviewed by the police will be likely, in my
view, to undermine the investigative process. It is the view both
of senior counsel and of CPS that examining witnesses before the
Committee at this stage—at this stage—could have an
impact upon any criminal prosecution. As for timings, again I
am slightly reluctant to be committed on this particular point
but I have a dedicated team of around eight detectives working
on this case. They have been working extremely hard, every weekend,
since 27 March. All I can say is that the investigation will remain
focused and we will have to go where the evidence takes us. As
I am sure the Committee appreciates, these matters are far from
straightforward and certain issues, before we attempt them, will
require detailed legal advice before we move matters forward.
By necessity this, therefore, will take some time. In conclusion,
I am once again seeking your co-operation to ensure that my criminal
investigation is not unwittingly undermined by your quite proper
desire to make progress with your own inquiries. The matters which
interest us both are of the utmost seriousness and my early view
is that there are issues that do require further detailed examination
by us before the Crown Prosecution Service can come to a view
under either the evidential test or the public interest test.
These are, in my view, matters for the police to examine at this
stage within the quite proper constraints of the criminal law.
I am very grateful.
Q6 Chairman: Thank you very much
indeed for that. If we could ask you some questions. Can I ask
you, first of all, to tell us, having been on this now for a good
number of weeks, and having amassed, as you say, a thousand pages
of documentation and new ring binders being found every day, whether
your judgment now is that this is going to lead to a positive
conclusion in terms of charges?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates:
Ours, of course, is a search for truth and a search for evidence.
All I would say is there are matters which, in my view, require
further detailed examination. Whether that leads to the CPS taking
a view around charges or otherwise is a matter for CPS. The early
stage is far from simple, the documentation is very detailed,
in some cases it has been provided rather later than I would have
wished. I hoped to have been slightly further down the investigative
road than I am but we are moving along as fast as we can. The
outcome it would be very unwise for me to speculate on.
Q7 Chairman: If you can say to us,
"I can tell you we have done enough to tell you that there
is going to be some outcome to this. I cannot tell you exactly
what it will be, I cannot tell you the individuals and so on,
but I can tell you . . ." obviously that would shape the
way in which we approached it. If you say, "I have been doing
it for several weeks, there is all this documentation but I still
cannot form a judgment on whether it is going anywhere or not",
that probably leads to a different view.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I think you are asking me a very difficult question which is,
frankly, difficult to answer because we have not seen all the
key people. There are a number of very obvious individuals we
have not seen yet who we need to see. We will need to hear their
accounts. Until I have heard their accounts and matched them to
the other evidence that we are uncovering and analysing I cannot
say in this forum or any forum that something is going to lead
to a charge or a prosecution.
Q8 Chairman: I imagine—I watch
the programmes on the television, I am an expert on these things—normally
by a certain stage in an investigation you have a sense of whether
it is going somewhere. All I am asking you is, is it going anywhere?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates:
The indication I have given you is that there are matters which
require further examination. I think that is about as far as I
would dare go. There are matters which require further examination.
Where that leads to, what outcome, I cannot say.
Q9 Mr Prentice: We are all walking
on eggshells here, are we not?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates:
We are.
Q10 Mr Prentice: I am interested
in the conversation that you had with the CPS because when you
came to see us before, six weeks ago, you said that the investigation
was triggered—I am speaking from memory here—after
you had consulted the CPS. Am I right in my recollection?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates:
No. Clearly we would consult with the CPS first. The decision
to launch an investigation is one for the police. They would take
a view.
Q11 Mr Prentice: It is this business
of consulting the CPS. When you went along to see the CPS with
whatever evidence you had at that stage, whether it was press
articles or what have you, can you just take us through the dialogue
that you had, you and the CPS? Did the CPS say, to you "Given
what you have told us, we think that there is a likelihood of
a successful prosecution" or was it too premature to say
that? Did the CPS say, "Yes, on the basis of what you have
shown us, we feel it is in the public interest to have this investigation."
Did you have a discussion about an Act of Parliament which a lot
of people consider to be otiose because it has been around for
donkey's years and there has only been one successful prosecution
and that was way back in 1933? What happened when you had that
conversation with the CPS?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I will talk first and then no doubt Carmen will contribute afterwards.
We were at such an early stage. We had literally press cuttings,
we had the substance of the Sunday Times article and we
had the Act, and other matters as well but very, very preliminary
discussions were around, "Well, you have got to go and have
a look, have you not?" Now we have had a look, a preliminary
look, over six weeks, we have gathered material, there are matters
which require further looking into. I cannot say now, it will
be very difficult to say, "I am definitely going to press
charges here" and come back in nine months' time and I have
got nothing. It would be madness for me to speculate around charges,
evidential tests, public interest.
Ms Dowd: The purpose of CPS's
early involvement in an investigation of this nature is in order
to assist the officers in their operational duties, to remain
focused and to make sure there is progress made expeditiously
essentially. The CPS have undertaken to provide ongoing legal
advice as and when required around various investigative issues.
It is entirely a matter for the police as to how they conduct
their investigation but our involvement is to ensure that it is
focused and progressed in a certain way.
Q12 Chairman: What is happening is
that every issue that pops up in our political life at the moment,
people are saying, "Try the police with this one as well".
We started on very narrow territory—
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates:
Yes.
Q13 Chairman: — which was the
propriety of the honours system and the 1925 Act, and the subsequent
procedure that has been put in place to monitor propriety of the
system. We have now moved into the 2000 Act and the whole loans
versus donations issue. I sense that probably is looking more
interesting to you than the 1925 Act, but that is only a guess.
Then people are coming along and tossing all kinds of other things
at you as well, thinking that the police will have a go at those.
We have the stuff from Wales, we have all kinds of things going
on. On this basis this inquiry is going to run forever more.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates:
No, let me reassure you on that point. Our inquiry remains focused
on the issues I outlined at the start. It is on those two simple
issues. It is flexible but, believe me, I have been getting 20
letters a day on the same things as you have probably been getting,
probably the same copies actually, and they are going somewhere
else and will be dealt with as appropriate. In terms of this inquiry
it is very focused on these issues and the issues I have outlined
to you. I am absolutely determined that matters will not do that
and go far too wide and take forever. That is not in anyone's
interest, least of all the Committee, least of all the people
who are potentially under suspicion, least of all potential witnesses
with the recall many years later. We will remain focused and I
am determined that will be the case.
Q14 Mr Burrowes: Would you say that
your concern, as you outlined today, is primarily a concern about
potentially undermining the investigation as distinct from prejudicing
a fair trial.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I think it is in two stages. There is a potential at the end for
a fair trial to be undermined but at the moment I am focused on
the investigation in terms of what we are trying to do and what
we are trying to achieve. We are trying to get the best evidence
and the best accounts from our witnesses. Clearly all these issues,
if played out in the future, I think I said last time, could amount
to some sort of abuse argument being mounted by a defence team.
Q15 Mr Burrowes: You said that last
time. Particularly this time the concern is one in relation to
the investigative process: witnesses coming or not coming, feeling
inhibited, the quality of the investigation and whether it is
going to become good evidence. You are wavering more in that ground
rather than so much the evidential admissibility point.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates:
If we do not deal with the first bit properly we will never get
to the second bit.
Q16 Mr Burrowes: If we deal with
the first bit, surely it is not unusual for there to be other
inquiries conducted—internal inquiries, disciplinary inquiries—that
happen before or concurrently with an investigation? Someone can
have an employment investigation, someone can have a disciplinary
investigation, you may have concerns about these but those carry
on as normal and are dealt with appropriately by the courts when
evidence comes through.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I would probably dispute that but an analogy in terms of the police
criminal system, the discipline process, does not start until
the conclusion of any criminal proceedings. It is after that that
the discipline process starts. No doubt you can give me other
examples if it does happen but as a simple analogy of discipline
and crime, crime takes precedent every time.
Q17 Mr Burrowes: It is also the case
that evidence can come, in terms of investigative evidence and
you can get information to secure an investigation from internal
processes.
Ms Dowd: I think the key must
surely be whether the sets of parallel proceedings that you are
thinking of actually go to the very issues that both sets of people
are investigating. For example, on the summary dismissal of an
employee which relates to criminal investigation there would not
be a hearing or an examination of the evidence that would be at
issue in any criminal proceedings. For instance, in a coroner's
court they look at a specific area of how a person died, where
they died et cetera. Now very often coroner's hearings are adjourned
awaiting the outcome of a criminal investigation and/or proceedings
because the issue of how a person died is the essence of the criminal
matter. That might not always be the case, there probably are
circumstances where those issues are so diverse that there is
not going to be any crossover or potential risk.
Q18 Mr Burrowes: Let me give an example
and say in an employment situation where someone steals something,
they would have their own inquiry and that information could be
of assistance to the police and the questioning which goes on
in such an inquiry would not prejudice a subsequent trial. The
admissibility of that information would be dealt with appropriately
by the courts at the right time.
Ms Dowd: As I say, I think it
would depend on whether the issues go to the crux of the criminal
proceedings.
Q19 Mr Burrowes: As an example it
would do.
Ms Dowd: As an example, if an
employer had the power to summarily dismiss someone for stealing
then there would not be any hearing or investigation in that sense
around that issue. For instance, in the police disciplinary proceedings
they are on hold if the issues are concurrent to the criminal
investigations and, likewise, all the public sector disciplinary
proceedings are.
|
