Police Searches on the Parliamentary Estate - Committee on the Issue of Privilege Contents


Note to Committee from Damian Green MP

  I believe that the best way I can help the committee is to detail what happened in relation to my Parliamentary office and material during the period of my arrest and afterwards. This will allow the committee to consider the actions of the Parliamentary authorities. I hope this will lead to recommendations which lead to a more satisfactory process in any future similar case.

To deal with the arguments over privilege, I attach the Opinion of Professor Anthony Bradley, a leading constitutional lawyer, obtained for me by my solicitors. The Committee will see that Professor Bradley's opinion makes a number of points about the actions of the House authorities which are central to the deliberations of this Committee. A copy of that opinion was passed to the Speaker.

  What follows is a short account of the relevant parts of the process from the time the police first approached the Commons authorities in November 2008 and, the decision of the DPP in April 2009 that there was to be no prosecution. In the light of the material disclosed in the Johnston report it is difficult to understand why this decision took so long.

  The Johnston report reveals that the police approached the Serjeant at Arms on 20 November asking in general terms about the search of a Member's office. The Johnston report concludes that the police did not comply with the requirements on search under the Codes of Practice brought in by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. On 26 November, again according to the Johnston report, "she went to consult the Clerk to the House of Commons at the Palace of Westminster and ... she intended to consult the Speaker." The following day she gave the police permission to search my room. The effect of this permission was that the police did not need to apply to the Magistrates Court for a search warrant. This account from the Serjeant at Arms seems to contradict the Speaker's statement to the House on 3 December "I was not told that the police did not have a warrant ... I regret that a consent form was then signed by the Serjeant at Arms, without consulting the Clerk of the House ...".

  The day after my arrest I had a short meeting in my room with the Serjeant, protesting not only about the intrusion but also that the authorities had agreed to close my parliamentary email account. Those who tried to email me were told the account was closed for "security reason". The account was restored later that day. On Saturday I phoned the Speaker, who told me that I should know that he had not authorised the raid on my room, but had been told that he had to allow it.

  The Committee will be aware of the various proceedings on the floor of the House in the subsequent days. What they may not have been aware of is the extensive attempts I and my legal advisers made to have the issue of privilege determined by the House.

  I enclose a number of documents showing the full extent of my attempts to have the issue determined by the Standards and Privileges Committee and the full House. These are summarised in my solicitor's letter of 25 March. In practice what happened is that the Clerk made a decision, even though I would suggest he had no authority from Parliament to do so as he could only make recommendations, which the police took as final (letter of 10 February). On the basis of this, the police looked at all the remaining material, without Parliament ever being given the chance to decide whether any of it was privileged. This also meant that the police may well have looked through emails and other electronic material which included sensitive constituency correspondence without any Parliamentary check.

  Throughout this process the House authorities were entirely unprepared to co-operate with me. This reached a nadir when the DPP and the Speaker were engaged in correspondence about the timetable for resolving the privilege issue. The DPP copied his correspondence to my solicitors, as would be normal and transparent in this kind of matter. The Speaker, despite my request, refused to do the same (correspondence enclosed). I found it ironic that a Member of Parliament under criminal investigation found the prosecuting authorities more willing to be open with him than the House of Commons authorities.

  On 5 February I attempted to make a Point of Order (enclosed) about the refusal of the Speaker to refer the matter to the Standards and Privileges Committee. This was cut off by the Deputy Speaker on the advice of the Clerk.

  The conclusion I have reached is that the controversy surrounding my arrest and the fact that the House had allowed the police in without a warrant, on the basis of legal advice which I assume came from the Clerk, meant that the Commons authorities felt unable to fulfil a properly neutral function from then on. I hope the Committee can consider whether this is a systemic problem, or one which could and should have been avoided.

14 October 2009



 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 22 March 2010