Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240-259)
ROBERT WARDLE
27 JUNE 2007
Q240 David Howarth: I am still trying
to understand why that is a matter of confidentiality. The only
sense it could be is if the identities of people were revealed.
That is why I am surprised at your answer that it did not have
to do with the identities of people, unless we trying to protect
Swiss banking, which I think we halted a long time ago.
Robert Wardle: No, we are certainly
not trying to do that. Obviously where those payments have been
made to the individuals and where they had finally ended up. This
was a corruption investigation; of course it was. I do not know
what the result of that would have been had we followed those
accounts through. I know there has been a good deal in the press,
I know there has been a good deal on the television, but I do
not know that. Whether that be so or not, who can tell. We were
looking to see whether payments had been made to an agent or a
public official that would, in effect, have given grounds for
a prosecution in this country.
Q241 David Howarth: Was that person's
official position a matter of importance in the decision to end
the prosecution?
Robert Wardle: That is not quite
right. I think that it was still then at the investigational stage
of course. Whether the identity of the individual would have emerged,
we needed to know that in order to be able to say whether that
would effectively have come within the 1906 Prevention of Corruption
Act; in other words that the person or individual who finally
got the payment was either acting as an agent or a public official.
Q242 Mr Tyrie: I would like to clarify
one or two points that you have already alluded to. Presumably
you do not stop an investigation whenever it might cause offence
to another country if you investigate a bank account that might
be sitting in Switzerland somewhere?
Robert Wardle: Absolutely.
Q243 Mr Tyrie: What was it particularly
in this case that was so offensive that you felt triggered the
public interest element of your decision?
Robert Wardle: The advice I was
given was that the authorities in Saudi Arabia felt that this
was a private matter, a private agreement between two governments,
and for cultural reasons, whatever it was, they would have found
it so much an offence that they would not co-operate with us on
important issues.
Q244 Mr Tyrie: Did you agree with
that view?
Robert Wardle: I was satisfied,
on what I had been shown and certainly the conversations I had
with our ambassador, that that was right, that the co-operation
would have been withdrawn. In fact, yes, I would have been satisfied
it would have been. Certainly there was a very serious risk.
Q245 Mr Tyrie: What we are talking
about here is the security co-operation, the co-operation for
exchange of information about matters relating to anti-terrorism?
Robert Wardle: Absolutely.
Q246 Mr Tyrie: What was your reaction
when you discovered that another government, effectively, was
putting a gun to our heads and saying, "You are not to investigate
further, otherwise we will withdraw co-operation arrangements
and leave your country less well defended"?
Robert Wardle: My reaction was,
I suppose, I was resigned to it, that is where we were, and disappointing
certainly when one has invested a good deal of time and a great
deal of work on the part of my professional staff. It was very
disappointing, of course it was, but sometimes you have to accept
that.
Q247 Mr Tyrie: Do you think that
there would be room for doubt in the forming of that judgment
or do you think it was absolutely clear-cut? Maybe I will put
the question another way and give you a moment to think about
the answer you may want to give. If those papers that you said
you received from Richard Mottram—. I think you said it
was Richard Mottram?
Robert Wardle: Yes.
Q248 Mr Tyrie: And if the evidence
that you were given by the ambassador was written down and put
on a piece of paper or you were to come over and give it in oral
evidence in a closed session to a group of people who could see
these papers and then they could report on its general conclusions,
are you confident they would come to the same judgment, or do
you think that there is some room for doubt and that those people
might come to another judgment? This is a finely balanced thing.
Robert Wardle: I understand. I
do not think it was finely balanced. I was satisfied, on what
I had heard and what I had seen, that the damage was going to
be done. There is a limit, of course, to what you can do if you
are investigating or prosecuting to get behind it—I fully
accept that—but I certainly did whatever I could do to get
as much evidence behind that sort of information as I could. I
think talking to the ambassador was particularly helpful, certainly
in my mind. Put it another way. If this had occurred again, I
think I would make the same decision. I do not think I would be
in any doubt about it.
Q249 Mr Tyrie: Just to be clear,
this was in order to maintain the flow of information coming from
Saudi Arabia to Britain to enable us to reduce the risk of terrorism?
Robert Wardle: Yes, I think that
is right, certainly as far as domestic terrorism was concerned,
and also I think there was an issue of the security of our soldiers
serving overseas.
Q250 Mr Tyrie: I will come on to
the serving overseas soldiers in a moment, but were you at the
time that you made this judgment also able to look at the extent
to which the Saudi Government was dependent or finding valuable
information that we were passing them in their security interests?
In other words, were you in a position to form an overall judgment
about the likely reaction of the Saudi Government?
Robert Wardle: I think that I
was, again, because of the help from the ambassador. I went into,
or I was told of, the effects that would occur to us. Balancing
that, "Were the Saudis bluffing?", I suppose really
is the way one can approach it. From what I was told, my view
was that they were not.
Q251 Mr Tyrie: Can I ask you briefly
about the news that we have had from the United States that a
Department of Justice investigation is underway? Do you think
that the same sorts of material and papers are going to want to
be obtained in the United States in pursuit of that inquiry?
Robert Wardle: I simply do not
know at this stage, but my guess is, yes, they will be wanting
a good deal of the sort of material that we have already gained.
Of course, what their investigation is into, exactly what they
are looking for and what they have to prove, may be different
and, as a result, the evidence they are looking for may also be
different.
Q252 Mr Tyrie: But the general conclusion
that I am perhaps leading you to is that this issue is not going
to go away, is it? There are going to be more and more demands
for forensic examination of the basis of this decision?
Robert Wardle: I simply do not
know. That may not be the case as a result of the United States'
investigation, although I do not think the Department of Justice
themselves have even confirmed that there is one, but so be it.
I believe it has come up. Whether the Swiss investigation will
have any effect, again, I simply do not know.
Chairman: Any supplementary points?
Mr Neill?
Q253 Bob Neill: On that last point
in relation to the MLA, if it ever happens, an MLA request, there
are a number of grounds upon which it can be granted or sometimes
refused, one of which, I think, is national security or other
interest?
Robert Wardle: Yes.
Q254 Bob Neill: Would you expect
to be consulted if that event arose?
Robert Wardle: Yes.
Q255 Bob Neill: Have you been in
the past?
Robert Wardle: I cannot remember
being asked about another MLA request where national security
was an issue. Certainly, as far as this one is concerned, we will
be consulted, but we may be asked to carry it out.
Q256 Bob Neill: In relation to BAE,
the Attorney told us that, as well as spending about three days
going through, as I understand it, the case papers and talking
to the investigators, he also sought independent legal advice?
Robert Wardle: Yes.
Q257 Bob Neill: At what stage were
you aware that the Attorney had sought advice independent of yourselves?
Robert Wardle: I cannot give you
the exact date. It would have been round about November of last
year that his legal secretary told me that he was intending to
consult his own silk. Of course, we had a team, we had a first-rate
criminal silk in the team line up and others. If he wanted his
own advice, that is fine.
Q258 Bob Neill: You make the point
that you have an experienced in-house team and you always brief
the prosecuting team much earlier than other agencies?
Robert Wardle: Absolutely, yes.
Q259 Bob Neill: I was wondering whether
you could assist me about this. Have there been other instances
when you have found the Attorney seek independent advice outside
the prosecution team in relation to such an investigation or potential
prosecution?
Robert Wardle: Not in one of my
cases, as far as I am aware, although I understand it has happened
in others.
| 
