Annex
Correspondence
from the Assistant Commissioner Robert F. Quick, Metropolitan
Police Service to the Home Secretary, 3 December 2008
Dear Home Secretary,
I am writing in response to a series of questions
raised by your officials which relate to the search of Damian
Green MP's parliamentary office on Thursday 27th November 2008.
The questions raised are set out below followed by the response
of the MPS.
Question 1: Was a warrant needed to search the
Parliamentary office?
No.
Section 8 (1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence
Act as amended permits a Justice of the Peace to issue a warrant
authorising a constable to enter and search premises where satisfied
on application by a constable that there are reasonable grounds
for believing:
a) That an indictable offence has been committed
and;
b) There is material on the premises mentioned
in subsection (1a) which is likely to be of substantial value
of the investigation of the offence and;
c) The material is likely to be relevant evidence
and;
d) It does not consist of or include items subject
to legal privilege, excluded material or special procedure material
and;
e) That any of the conditions specified in sub
section 3 applies in relation to each set of premises specified.
Section 8 (1a)
The premises referred to in subsection (1b) above
are:
a) One or more sets of premises specified in
the application or
b) Any premises occupied or controlled by the
person specified in the application
Section 8 (2)
Provides that a constable may seize and retain anything
for which a search has been authorised under subsection (1) above.
Section 8 (3)
Identifies the conditions mentioned in subsection
1(e) above and are:
a) That it is not practicable to communicate
with any person entitled to grant entry to the premises.
b) That it is practicable to communicate with
a person entitled to grant entry to the premises but it is not
practicable to communicate with any person entitled to grant access
to the evidence.
c) That entry to the premises will not be granted
unless a warrant is produced.
d) That the purpose of the search is frustrated
or seriously prejudiced unless a constable arriving at the premises
can secure immediate entry to them.
The effect of the condition in subsection 3 (c) is
that a Justice of the Peace may not issue a search warrant under
section 8 if he/she believes entry to the premises will be granted
without a warrant (ie by consent). As there was no basis for submitting
to a JP that it was believed that consent would be refused, it
was considered that it was not open to a constable to make an
application.
Question 2: Should the officers have told the
Serjeant at Arms she had the right to refuse permission without
a warrant?
Code B52 of the codes of practice state - "Before
seeking consent the officer in charge of the search shall state
the purpose of the proposed search and its extent. This information
must be as specific as possible, particularly regarding the articles
or persons being sought and the parts of the premises to be searched.
The person concerned must be clearly informed that they are not
obliged to consent and anything seized may be produced in evidence.
If at that time the person is not suspected of an offence the
officer shall say this when stating the purpose of the search."
On Wednesday 26th November 2008 police officers,
led by the Senior Investigating Officer, attended the Palace of
Westminster to speak to the Serjeant at Arms. The officers briefed
her to the effect that they were seeking permission to search
the Parliamentary office of an MP. The Serjeant at Arms was informed
that the police had applied for and been granted by a magistrate,
three warrants in relation to three other premises related to
the MP. The officers informed the Serjeant at Arms that the provisions
of Section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act required
that they first seek consent of the person who occupies or controls
the premises where they believe evidence may be found.
The officers explained the nature of the investigation
and the purpose of the search and were satisfied that the Serjeant
at Arms understood that police had no power to search in the absence
of a warrant and therefore could only do so with her written consent
or that of the Speaker. Prior to giving written consent the Serjeant
at Arms told the officers that she would seek legal advice. Further
discussion between the officers and Serjeant at Arms is detailed
in the officer's statements.
The Serjeant at Arms indicated that she would give
her consent at the appropriate time and that she would take responsibility
for informing the Speaker. It was further indicated the officer
would seek consent the following day on Thursday 27th November
2008 and the MP concerned would be identified to her.
On the 27th November 2008 officers attended the Palace
of Westminster where they again saw the Serjeant at Arms and
written consent to search was provided in two forms; namely a
signature on a standard police search form 101 and in a letter
provided by the Serjeant at Arms. It is understood that the Serjeant
at Arms had obtained legal advice in the interim. The legality
or otherwise of police actions in criminal investigations are
often subject to challenge and are settled through the judicial
process.
Question 3 - Did AC Quick have to write to the
Speaker, confirming the arrest?
Yes. It is understood that protocol requires the
police to write to the Speaker and notify him after the arrest
of a member of parliament: see Erskine May chapter 7.
Question 4 - When did he write?
Monday 1st December 2008.
Yours sincerely,
Robert F Quick QPM MBA
Assistant Commissioner
Specialist Operations
| 
