Annex 9
Letter from Kingsley Napley Solicitors
to Ms Naz Saleh, Directorate of Legal Services, Metropolitan Police
We refer to your letter dated 25 March 2009.
We are astonished that you have decided to unseal
the material which we have claimed parliamentary privilege over
without final determination by the House of Commons. In your letter
you say that "no action has been taken by you or your client
to make any application, take any proceedings or otherwise to
resolve the outstanding disputes about parliamentary privilege."
We refer to Veronica Daly's letter to Michael Caplan QC dated
15 January 2009 in which she stated "The (Standards and Privileges)
Committee is not presently seized of the issue because it must
be referred to it and no such reference has been made. If there
is any continuing dispute over the status of the documents, following
the Clerk's consideration of them as described above it will be
a matter for the House to determine at the request of your client
Mr Green MP."
Contrary to your assertion, and as set out by
Ms Daly as the correct procedure, our client has made numerous
attempts to have this issue referred to the Standards and Privileges
Committee for determination on behalf of the House:
(i) On 8 December 2008 we wrote to the Speaker
formally putting the House of Commons on notice that the material
seized attracts Parliamentary privilege.
(ii) On 15 December 2008 we wrote again to the
Speaker asking for the issue of Parliamentary privilege to be
determined by Parliament as soon as possible.
(iii) On 3 February 2009 our client wrote to
the Speaker asking for the material to be referred to the Standards
and Privileges Committee.
(iv) On 5 February 2009 our client made a point
of order on the floor of the House of Commons in relation to this
issue but was cut off by the Deputy Speaker.
(v) On 9 February 2009 our client wrote to the
Speaker asking again for the material to be referred to the Standards
and Privileges Committee, this letter also enclosed a copy of
the advice obtained from Professor Anthony Bradley, one of the
foremost experts on constitutional law, clearly stating that it
was for Parliament to determine its own privileges.
(vi) On 12 February 2009 our client wrote again
to the Speaker about the issue of Parliamentary privilege.
(vii) Our client has been made aware that a number
of other Members of Parliament have asked the Speaker to refer
the material to the Standards and Privileges Committee for a decision.
It is our understanding that this process is
ongoing within Parliament.
It is clear from the above that, contrary to
your assertion, our client has taken numerous steps to have the
issue of Parliamentary privilege determined. Perhaps now that
you are aware of this you will write by return withdrawing your
assertion.
Furthermore we refer to the letter from the
Director of Public Prosecutions ("DPP") to the Speaker
dated 4 March 2009 in which he accepts the inspection by Parliamentary
Counsel as being the "preliminary stage". The DPP goes
on to ask the Speaker for a timetable "within which whether
you or the House will be in a position to resolve the question
of whether privilege attaches to the remaining documents which
remain the subject of debate definitively." Given this clear
acceptance that the issue has not been determined we are puzzled
as to why leading Counsel has advised the course of action that
you propose and which the DPP has endorsed. To assist us in moving
this matter forward we would be grateful if you could provide
us with a copy of Leading Counsel's advice as referred to in your
letter.
Finally for the avoidance of doubt we put you
on notice that if the material seized by the Metropolitan Police
and which we have claimed Parliamentary privilege over is unsealed
and inspected by the Metropolitan Police, Crown Prosecution Service
or any other person, then we will consider this to be a clear
breach of the protocol as signed personally by Jennifer Leonard
on 10 December 2008 on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Director
of Legal Services.
As will be clear from the contents of this letter
we reserve our client's position in relation to the issue of Parliamentary
privilege.
For your information we are sending a copy of
this letter to the DPP.
25 March 2009
| 
