Examination of Witnesses (Questions 300-319)
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
JOHN YATES,
MS CARMEN
DOWD AND
MR DAVID
PERRY QC
23 OCTOBER 2007
Q300 Paul Flynn: No, whether there
is evidence that would have a significant effect on the investigation?
Ms Dowd: On the investigation?
Q301 Paul Flynn: Yes?
Ms Dowd: I think that is probably
for Mr Yates to say.
Q302 Paul Flynn: Mr Yates?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I am not quite sure what the question is.
Q303 Paul Flynn: The question is:
is there evidence that caused you to have this moment when you
thought perhaps there is something there, described as dynamite?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I said I did not have that moment.
Q304 Paul Flynn: The allegation is
that there was something in the diary of one of the people involved
which suggested that there was speculation, a conversation with
himself and a person in a position of influence in all this to
arrange that an honour would be made. Is it true that there was
such a report? If there is, why was it declared inadmissible?
Ms Dowd: I think it is an inappropriate
question in terms of the evidence and the facts of the case, et
cetera, and we are going to have to decline to comment.
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
Let me try that, with respect. All I would say is that in terms
of those entries, did that cause to us make further inquiries
and give us an increased confidence that there was something there?
Yes, they did. It is not for me to judge about their admissibility
or whatever, but did they cause us in early September of last
year to say, "Hmm, this is very interesting" and raise
our suspicions, then yes, they did.
Q305 Paul Flynn: Can we take it from
that that this will strengthen your case for carrying on? It was
based on far more than a political move by a Scottish National
MP. You were acquiring information that gave you reason to believe
that there was some substance in them?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
Absolutely.
Q306 Paul Rowen: Could I ask a general
question rather than specific. In your experience, having gone
through all this process and perhaps now understanding in a lot
more detail the Honours Act, what in your view would constitute
sufficient material in order to mount a successful prosecution?
A second point linked with that: what in your view constitutes
inadmissible evidence?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I do not know whether Mr Perry would like to have a go at this
one. I can give an investigator's view.
Q307 Paul Rowen: From your experience,
first of all. If you were to go forward with a successful prosecution,
what would you need?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
Let me give you an example what I would think, and Mr Perry might
say, "Nonsense." An overwhelming inference would be,
for example, somebody lending a political party £10 million
and getting an honour and never having a record of public service
or political contacts in whatever form. That, I would say, from
an investigator's perspective, could be construed as an overwhelming
inference.
Q308 Paul Rowen: Going back to Gregory,
that is not what he was doing, was it?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
Sorry?
Q309 Paul Rowen: Going back to the
original prosecution, it is not necessarily public servants. It
is if there is an agreement to lend money and an expectation of
an honour. Is that not really what you were looking for?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
Yes, that is why you have the Honours Act as opposed to the public
sector corruption bit, because it is actually wider than a public
servant, it could be anybody. As I said, these types of cases
are very, very difficult to prove because they are bargains made
in secret. Both parties have an absolute vested interest in those
secrets not coming out.
Q310 Paul Rowen: What documentary
evidence would you then want to be able to show that, yes, there
is a clear link here between money being lent or given and an
honour?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
That could be a range of things. It could be emails, it could
be money moving, it could be all sorts of issues.
Q311 Julie Morgan: Surely the whole
point of the CPS and the police working together closely, which
has been emphasised very strongly and developed, is to stop very
lengthy, very expensive investigations like this causing a lot
of agony to people, which has also been mentioned today, and surely
this is an example of where that working together has failed,
in the fact that this was not stopped at an earlier stage. Most
people said: "This is never going to get anywhere. You will
never get a prosecution under this", and I think that was
the general view, and yet, working together, this was failed to
be stopped, causing a great deal of agony to many people. Can
you comment on that?
Ms Dowd: Actually, I disagree
entirely with that. I think this is an example where we have perpetuated
best practice, we have worked closely together from the outset
and we have discussed this case all along the process. Of course
there are going to be cases that can properly be stopped and there
are other cases where there are still lines of inquiry to pursue,
and, as I said earlier, the nature of an investigation is not
only about ensuring that you secure evidence to convict people;
you will find along the way evidence that exonerates people too,
and during the course of that investigation there might be opportunities
to say that investigation is now concluded. I think what we did
was an example of how it works in an excellent way. We worked
closely together, the lines of inquiry were pursued, the full
file of evidence was submitted to us and we made our independent
assessment of that evidence in its entirety, made our decision
and communicated that with Mr Yates and his team.
Q312 Mr Prentice: At what point did
you decide that the investigation was in danger of becoming derailed
and you started talking about conspiracy to pervert the course
of justice? What was it that led you to talk about conspiracy
to pervert the court of justice? Who was conspiring to pervert?
Ms Dowd: I think it is obvious
that that strays into areas in relation to matters which we cannot
comment on, but I am not sure I would agree necessarily with your
idea that the investigation was being derailed.
Q313 Mr Prentice: Just thinking about
the centre of government again and all these emails and files,
are the emails in Number 10 and the Cabinet Office archived? Do
they run in sequences?
Miss Dowd: I am afraid I do not
know.
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
Neither do I.
Q314 Mr Prentice: Was everything
there and in sequence that you expected to be there?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
We were given access and full co-operation from the Cabinet Office
to examine whatever aspect of that we wanted.
Q315 Mr Prentice: Because you went
to California, did you not? Didn't you? To get a software company
that could resurrect emails which had been deleted? No?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I do not want to comment upon potential methodology or tactics
we may use.
Q316 Mr Prentice: It is a very straightforward
question.
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I am not sure whether we did or not, to be honest, but it would
stray into methodology and exposure of methodology.
Q317 Mr Prentice: Yes, because if
people were perverting the course of justice they might be deleting
lots of emails which you might think would be relevant. So my
question is, when you looked at the emails in Number 10, were
they all in sequence, did email B answer email A and so on and
so forth, or were there any gaps?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
You are taking us into evidential areas and I do not think it
is proper for me to comment on it.
Q318 Chairman: I bet they are all
in sequence now. Can I ask Carmen Dowd, because I think we are
still trying to get into the legal side which interests us, we
have not really probed yet on the adequacy of the law in this
area which makes it difficult to get convictions for practices
which we know are going on but because of the way in which they
go on it is very hard to get charges to stick. That is at the
heart of much of what this conversation is. When the police came
to you with their final report in April of this year, you said
in the statement you made afterwards, "Having considered
that substantial report in detail, the CPS invited the police
to undertake further inquiries." You had the final report,
what kind of further inquiries did you think would be useful in
helping you to form a view on all this?
Miss Dowd: Again, you are straying
into areas of evidence I am not going to comment on.
Q319 Chairman: I am not asking you
to comment in detail—names, people—I just want to
know what it means.
Miss Dowd: In order to answer
your question I am afraid I would have to stray into things that
I am not inclined to comment on.
| 
