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
|