Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 260-279)

ROBERT WARDLE

27 JUNE 2007

  Q260  Bob Neill: The final thing I wanted to ask, if I may, more generally. You talked about those circumstances upon which you would seek advice from the Attorney on public interest and you also said on evidential matters.

  Robert Wardle: Yes.

  Q261  Bob Neill: I am interested in the set-up. You have got your very experienced in-house lawyers, the team who will present the case in the Crown Court brought in much earlier on. What sort of circumstances are there where you would need to seek the Attorney's advice on matters of evidence when you have got a silk and experienced juniors to do that?

  Robert Wardle: Perhaps I should qualify it. Maybe not so much matters of evidence but whether the case we are putting forward is one that is likely to result in a conviction; in other words, the evidential test. Sometimes we are bringing cases where the law may be unclear, there may be decisions that we would have to rely on, and it is at that stage that I would probably consult the Attorney. I think that is how I would put it.

  Q262  Bob Neill: No doubt on the basis of the advice you had had from your silk and others at that point?

  Robert Wardle: Yes. You would almost certainly have a conference, if it was a big case, and you would go along and discuss it, certainly.

  Q263  Jeremy Wright: I wanted to take you back briefly to the line of questioning that Mr Howarth was pursuing earlier on about the qualifications on what considerations you should take into account in deciding whether or not to proceed with a prosecution and whether you should not. What he was putting to you was that, in terms of international relations, that was a matter which should not be taken into account, but that national security, quite properly, could be. I think that was the thrust of your evidence?

  Robert Wardle: Yes.

  Q264  Jeremy Wright: What I am not entirely clear about is that, when you described your understanding of the national security consideration in this case, my reading of what you were saying was that there would be damage to the relationship between this country and the Saudi Arabian Government which would then cause the flow of information to either lesson or cease altogether?

  Robert Wardle: Yes.

  Q265  Jeremy Wright: Is not the difficulty with that that what, in effect, you are saying is that the damage to national security is a knock-on effect of the damage to international relations? It is not a case here where pursuing a particular prosecution would involve the release of information which would instantaneously damage British national security. There is a knock-on effect, is there not?

  Robert Wardle: I take that point, but I do not think it makes any difference. If the damage is going to be done, that is that.

  Q266  Jeremy Wright: You say it does not make any difference, but is not the problem with that that every case which might damage international relations might, as a knock-on effect, damage national security?

  Robert Wardle: Yes, but I did not discontinue this investigation because of the damage to international relations; I only did because of the very great risk of damage to national security. There are other cases, certainly, where we pursue our inquiries overseas, which may well cause damage to international relations, but I would not normally take that into account unless there was any subsequent damage that might be caused. I think one would have to look at the case, the importance of the case, the seriousness of the case. If it was a relatively trivial one, it would not be at the SFO, but then, obviously, one would not deal with it; but if it was a serious case, such as this investigation was, then it would need an awful lot to stop me pursuing it in terms of causing damage, as it were, to another country or the people in power at the time.

  Chairman: Mr Howarth, do you want to come back on that?

  Q267  David Howarth: I want to come back to the point about risk and the papers that you were shown and the points that Mr Tyrie was putting to you. Did any part of those papers take into account the risk that the information about Prince Bandar, for example, would come out into the public realm anyway?

  Robert Wardle: From recollection, and I do not have copies of those papers, I do not think it did.

  Q268  David Howarth: So the assumption was that the closing off of the investigation would mean that all that information would remain private, was the word you used?

  Robert Wardle: Yes. I think that is right.

  Q269  David Howarth: Does that also apply to the obvious problem which would flow from Mr Tyrie's question, which is that if other countries get to know that Britain gives in to this sort of pressure, that in itself could be a threat to our national security? Was that risk taken into account in the decision?

  Robert Wardle: No, it was not expressed in the risk, and I am not sure how much of a risk it really is. I think this was an exceptional case. We are continuing other investigations, both into BAE Systems Plc and into other the areas, where we are doing our best to pursue them. I think that the risk of people thinking we can get away with it, which is effectively, I think, what you are saying, will be lessened if we are able to pursue those investigations, which we are, indeed, doing.

  Q270  Mr Tyrie: A couple of quick things. First of all, on the issue of national security, clearly we are at a state of some tension and a heightened level of threat. That threat may not remain at the same level as it is now, that may diminish in a year or two, we cannot say. This investigation has already taken several years. Is this the sort of investigation which, given the enormous amount of work that has already been undertaken, you might want to return to? In other words, have you put in place arrangements to keep the assessment of the national security threat under review which led you to halt the investigation?

  Robert Wardle: The answer to the second point is, no. As to reopening it, I do not think it can be reopened at this stage absent any new developments. I am not ruling out anything as to what will happen in the future.

  Q271  Mr Tyrie: But do you not think it is important that we do keep the assessment of this threat, that is the threat of the collapse of the flows of information on possible terrorist activities in the UK, under constant review and that every three to six months, a year, you go back and ask: is this threat at the same level? Are we still confident that pursuing this investigation would lead to a security risk?

  Robert Wardle: Assuming that the level of threat were to reduce dramatically, which would effectively allow me to reverse the decision, I would then have to decide whether I could start up an investigation, again, having told the company and individuals and the like that it had been discontinued.

  Q272  Mr Tyrie: I have to be hypothetical in asking these questions, but let me put it very plainly. Suppose there is a change of sentiment about this in the Saudi regime?

  Robert Wardle: Certainly.

  Q273  Mr Tyrie: That could change over night.

  Robert Wardle: Certainly.

  Q274  Mr Tyrie: Would not the sense of a security threat be something you would want to consider immediately?

  Robert Wardle: If that did happen I think one would need to stop, one would need to take stock of where we had got to with the investigation, whether there was any practical way of reviving it and, if so, whether there was ever going to be the likelihood of a prosecution given the fact that time had passed, given the fact that individuals had been told or the company had been told it was being discontinued.

  Q275  Mr Tyrie: Could I ask your office to consider that they should keep under review the assessment of the national security risk and be available to answer questions before this Committee, or others, to enable you to say that you think it is unchanged?

  Robert Wardle: Well, I will certainly—. I think the team will do that in any event.

  Q276  Chairman: You can always ask them.

  Robert Wardle: I can always ask them.

  Q277  Mr Tyrie: Otherwise where does this leave the credibility of the Act that we have so recently put on the statute book? That is what the public are concerned about.

  Robert Wardle: Can I make this point, because I think there is a danger here. First of all, nobody has been charged, certainly nobody has been convicted, but I am conducting other investigations into alleged offences relating to corruption which involve BAE Systems Plc in other countries, such as South Africa, Romania, Czechoslovakia, and there are others. Of course I will look at the evidence on all those cases, I will look at the public interest on all those cases, and we will be looking at anything else that may occur.

  Q278  Keith Vaz: You have not spoken to the Prime Minister about this?

  Robert Wardle: No.

  Q279  Keith Vaz: The only politician you have spoken to is the Attorney General?

  Robert Wardle: And the Solicitor of course.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 26 July 2007