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.
| 
