Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
320-339)
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
ROBERT QUICK
QPM
10 FEBRUARY 2009
Q320 Ms Buck: I have now learned
that the round of communication that took place at lunch time
concerned the search and not the arrest and that communication
about the arrest took place only after it had happened. Before
the search began in any of the conversations you had with the
Cabinet Office, or with people on behalf of the Cabinet Office,
the Home Office, the chair of the MPA and Leader of the Opposition,
did anybody ask you whether you had a warrant?
Mr Quick: Yes. When we met the
Serjeant at Arms she was certainly aware that on 26 November that
we had warrants for three addresses but there was a long discussion
about the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and
an explanation as to why at that stage we had no warrant for a
search here and that in law we were required to seek the consent
of the occupier or controller of the premises that we wished to
search, namely a parliamentary office.
Q321 Ms Buck: But the only person
who asked you about a warrant or with whom you had a discussion
about a warrant, was the Serjeant at Arms?
Mr Quick: Yes, I believe that
is true. Of course, our own solicitors in Scotland Yard were aware
of it and advised us accordingly.
Q322 Mrs Dean: As I understand it,
you would have phoned Mr Cameron's office irrespective of wanting
him to find out where Mr Green was. You did not ring for that
purpose; you rang to inform him of what was happening.
Mr Quick: Indeed. Ideally, had
things gone entirely in accordance with our intention I would
have telephoned Mr Cameron in the first instance to inform him
of an arrest and a search operation. As it transpired we took
the decision to instigate the searches before we were able to
locate Mr Green.
Q323 Mrs Dean: Were you aware that
Sir Paul Stephenson had informed the chairman of the police authority
at round one o'clock that Damian Green had been or was about to
be arrested? You told us that the potential arrest was not mentioned
to people, so I wonder whether you are aware that Sir Paul Stephenson
had informed the chairman.
Mr Quick: Earlier in the day I
had had a conversation with Sir Paul. He informed me of his intention
to alert the chair of the police authority to the police operation
in the very broadest terms and I recognised that as entirely routine
in many respects between a chief officer and the chair of the
police authority. I am aware that later in the day, at 1.19, there
was a conversation in which the deputy commissioner advised the
chair of the police authority that we had had contact with Mr
Cameron and sought assistance in locating Mr Green. I believe
that at 1.36 there was another conversation between the chair
of the authority and the deputy commissioner and the mayor was
briefed with a bit more information.
Q324 Chairman: As far as concern
the Home Secretary and permanent secretary to the Home Office
they were alerted afterwards?
Mr Quick: Yes.
Q325 Chairman: Looking at the report
of Ian Johnston—of course, this Committee has not had the
privilege of seeing it but you have—is there anything you
regret in terms of the way in which things were conducted? It
seems that a lot of very senior officers—yourself as assistant
commissioner, the deputy commissioner, the deputy assistant commissioner
and various others—were involved in making telephone calls
all round London to try to locate Mr Green who was found 20 miles
away. Was there a touch of overkill in all this?
Mr Quick: I regret the controversy
that surrounds any police operation, not least this one, but I
think that our attempts to soften the impact of our operational
decisions made the operation more unwieldy than it might otherwise
have been. For example, we decided that we would not undertake
an early morning arrest, which operationally is often the most
sensible time when you can be sure of locating somebody you wish
to interview.
Q326 Bob Russell: Journalists would
also be on hand at that time, would they not?
Mr Quick: In the early morning?
Q327 Bob Russell: They have a habit
of being there, do they not?
Mr Quick: I do not understand
the point of your question. We made a number of decisions to try
to minimise the impact. Clearly, we had four addresses in various
locations to search. I am aware that the senior investigating
officer went to enormous lengths to ensure that the searches were
as discreet as possible and could be conducted as quickly as possible
with the minimum of inconvenience. That was an explicit investigative
strategy by the SIO.
Q328 Chairman: You said around about
the time—this is an opportunity for you to put your response
on the record—that the Tory machinery and their press friends
had mobilised against the investigation in a wholly corrupt way
and you felt very disappointed by the country in which you were
living. You subsequently withdrew that statement and offered an
unreserved apology. There have been calls for you to step aside
in view of the comments you made about the Conservative Party.
Do you believe that you can credibly continue to investigate this
matter bearing in mind the comments you made about the Conservative
Party?
Mr Quick: I certainly regret making
comments at a very difficult time for my family. I will not bore
this Committee with the ordeal that my family has been through,
but the very next morning I made an apology. The remarks were
made during various attempts to intrude into my home by phone
calls and various people appearing at my home address. I have
apologised for them.
Q329 Chairman: But you do not believe
in any way that this was done by the Conservative Party?
Mr Quick: I would make no comment
on that. I have made my apology. I think it was very clear. It
was retracted. I apologised and meant no offence or allegation.
I think that was what I said.
Q330 Mr Clappison: I have an additional
request. I believe Mr Quick has agreed to write to us setting
out details of the contacts he had with the Cabinet Office in
the progress of the investigation including the period after the
investigation of Damian Green was launched. I am referring to
what contacts there were between the police and the Cabinet Office.
Mr Quick: Yes.
Q331 Mr Clappison: We all feel sorry
for people whose families become involved in media events. Notwithstanding
that, standing apart and looking at it objectively do you believe
that a member of the public would think you were being completely
objective and exercising impartial judgment in this matter in
view of the comments which have just been quoted?
Mr Quick: I was very objective
in my decision-making throughout this investigation. There are
many checks and balances on my decision-making which is open to
public scrutiny, as indeed this process reveals. My involvement
in the case has been very limited. My principal decision upon
being alerted to the potential for an arrest of an MP was to consider
it very carefully, and we did consider it carefully over a number
of days and took various forms of advice.
Q332 Mr Clappison: The question is:
in your judgment how do you think it now appears to members of
the public? Do you think that having said what you said it will
appear to them that you are impartial and objective?
Mr Quick: I do not know how it
appears to members of the public and I have not asked them.
Q333 Martin Salter: You are reported
as saying that the Tory machinery and their press friends were
opposing the investigation into Mr Green in a wholly corrupt way,
that it was a very spiteful act, possibly to intimidate you in
your investigation of Mr Green, and that you felt it put your
family at risk. You subsequently withdrew your comments regarding
corruption. That is the extent of the clarification of your remarks;
that is the extent of your withdrawal?
Mr Quick: That which was reported
in the media on the Sunday I retracted unequivocally the following
morning in a statement, and I apologised for it.
Q334 Chairman: The point you make
is that you still have concerns but you do not wish to make any
comment?
Mr Quick: I do not have concerns.
I think I have made it very clear that I have retracted those
remarks reported in the media and apologised for them unequivocally.
Q335 Bob Russell: You are a very
experienced police officer. Can you think of any other examples
where use of the common law offence of conspiring to commit misconduct
in public office has arisen hitherto?
Mr Quick: I am aware of many examples
of that offence and of malfeasance, misfeasance and misconduct
in public office. In my 30 years' experience I am aware of many
occasions when regrettably police officers and officials connected
with local authorities have been arrested for such offences. Anyone
who has a public office and duty could potentially fall under
suspicion.
Q336 Mr Winnick: The investigation
at the request of the Home Office of legitimate concerns about
a leak has turned into almost a major crime inquiry. On reflection
do you not think that it could have been dealt with somewhat differently
and perhaps the culprit, if there was one, could have been brought
to justice much more effectively?
Mr Quick: The intention was to
undertake this investigation and operation in the most discreet
way.
Q337 Mr Winnick: But the very opposite
happened?
Mr Quick: Yes. I would not like
to speculate on what the outcome would have been had we done it
differently.
Q338 Mr Winnick: You would not go
through all of this again, would you? Am I right that with hindsight
you would have dealt with it very differently?
Mr Quick: I think our options
are limited given the way the law is currently structured.
Q339 Mr Brake: To go back to the
original terms of reference of the inquiry, has anything been
added to or removed from them?
Mr Quick: No, nothing.
| 
