Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
240-259)
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
ROBERT QUICK
QPM
10 FEBRUARY 2009
Q240 Mr Winnick: It is always possible
that we may want to see him as well. Carry on.
Mr Quick: Indeed. I believe that
the chief superintendent began a conversation with the parliamentary
authorities on that date. In the following days the Metropolitan
Police took legal advice from its own lawyers in connection with
an anticipated operation. As a result of that advice three officers
including the senior investigating officer attended the palace
on 26 November.
Q241 Mr Winnick: Those police officers
just arrived here and were allowed into the building?
Mr Quick: I would stand to be
corrected on this point, but I believe they had an appointment
to speak to the Serjeant at Arms.
Q242 Mr Winnick: This is a very important
element of our inquiry. You say that an appointment had been made
with the Serjeant at Arms?
Mr Quick: It is my belief that
the Serjeant at Arms was expecting to meet officers of the Metropolitan
Police to discuss an investigation.
Q243 Mr Winnick: Three officers came
and saw the Serjeant at Arms?
Mr Quick: Led by the senior investigating
officer and two other detectives, yes.
Q244 Mr Winnick: What happened as
a result of that conversation? Did the Serjeant at Arms say she
needed to consult anyone else, or did she simply say they should
carry on their investigations in the building accordingly?
Mr Quick: Clearly, I was not present.
With that caveat, having read my officers' statements and being
briefed by them I am aware of a fairly protracted conversation
between the senior investigating officer and the Serjeant at Arms
about an operation that potentially involved the arrest of a Member
of Parliament and the seeking of consent to search a parliamentary
office. It is my belief that the Serjeant at Arms did take advice
from the Clerk of the House on legal matters pertaining to that
request for consent to search. It is also my belief that the officers
spoke to the Serjeant at Arms about the provisions of section
8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act which requires the police
to seek consent in these circumstances before applying for a search
warrant. I think those matters were dealt with in the letter that
I wrote to the Home Secretary and which I understand was placed
in the parliamentary library.
Chairman: We have a copy of that letter.
Q245 Mr Winnick: Have you seen the
statement made by the Speaker on 3 December when the new Parliament
met in which he dealt with what happened in relation to the search
by the police?
Mr Quick: I do not think I have
read the statement. I am aware of some media and newsprint reporting.
Q246 Mr Winnick: You have stated
that three warrants were applied for and granted, but why when
it came to the Palace of Westminster of all places was no warrant
applied for?
Mr Quick: It is quite routine
for the police not to seek a search warrant, because the law makes
it quite clear that in circumstances where it is believed consent
will be given they are required to seek consent as a first step.
Clearly, if consent is then refused it opens up the opportunity
to seek a search warrant.
Q247 Mr Winnick: In all these proceedings
did you keep the most senior police officer in the Metropolitan
Police, the acting commissioner, fully informed of what was happening?
Was he aware of it?
Mr Quick: Certainly, the deputy
commission, as he was at the time, was aware of it.
Q248 Chairman: Sir Paul Stephenson?
Mr Quick: Yes. He was aware of
the investigation's terms of reference.
Q249 Mr Winnick: Are you telling
us that he knew a search was to take place at the Palace of Westminster?
Mr Quick: He and I were both aware
of the operation but intended to seek consent for a search of
the parliamentary office.
Q250 Mr Winnick: He approved what
took place?
Mr Quick: He was supportive of
the operation at that time, yes.
Q251 Martin Salter: Can you tell
us at what time Damian Green's offices were searched and which
politicians were told in advance and when?
Mr Quick: I have a note that perhaps
I may refer to. To clarify your question, you seek to know who
was informed of our intention to search?
Q252 Martin Salter: Yes.
Mr Quick: The first person I contacted
on 27 November in relation to this was a Mr Edward Llewelyn, the
chief of staff for the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Cameron.
Q253 Chairman: At what time was that?
Mr Quick: That call was made at
1305 hrs or five past one in the afternoon.
Q254 Chairman: That was the first
call made?
Mr Quick: Yes.
Q255 Chairman: Was that before you
telephoned the permanent secretary?
Mr Quick: That is correct. That
was merely to seek a conversation with Mr Cameron. At seven minutes
past one Mr Cameron telephoned my office. I spoke to him and alerted
him to the fact that there was a police operation under way and
we intended to search some premises in connection with one of
his Members of Parliament.
Q256 Chairman: Did you tell him the
name of the Member of Parliament?
Mr Quick: Yes. I sought Mr Cameron's
assistance to try to trace Mr Green. Because we had taken a number
of decisions to soften the impact of our operational action and
not undertake our usual early morning arrest operation, which
would be normal practice, we were not able to trace Mr Green.
We therefore sought Mr Cameron's assistance.
Q257 Chairman: Did you tell Mr Cameron
at that stage that Mr Green was going to be searched and arrested
or just searched?
Mr Quick: I informed Mr Cameron
that imminently we would search a number of premises relating
to Mr Green. I also informed him that we required to speak to
Mr Green in relation to allegations and accordingly sought his
assistance.
Q258 Chairman: What was his reaction?
Mr Quick: Clearly, he was concerned
but he did agree to ask Mr Green to call my office.
Q259 Martin Salter: Therefore, at
1305 hrs you spoke to Mr Ed Llewelyn and at 1307 hrs you told
Mr Cameron that there would be a search and you named the Member
of Parliament concerned. When did the search take place?
Mr Quick: I think it took place
just after two o'clock.
| 
