Annex 13
E-mail from the Clerk of the House and
Chief Executive to Damian Green MP
Thank you for your e-mail which I am answering
in the same way so that you have a quick response.
I think the first point to make is that the preliminary
inspection has removed certain material which all parties have
agreed is protected by parliamentary privilege and therefore should
not form part of any further proceedings. You are aware of what
this material is, as it was communicated to you following the
inspection that took place on 22 January. In relation to further
material which might attract parliamentary privilege, Officers
of the House inspected hard copies of electronic material taken
from your office on Monday 30 March and will inspect the remaining
electronic material today. After this final inspection I will
consider the representations those Officers make to me, and write
to you identifying the material to which I have concluded that
privilege applies. Consistent with the practice previously adopted,
I understand that any privileged material will be returned to
you, so that you will be aware of its content.
In respect of matters you raise in your second
paragraph, I have taken advice from the Legal Services Office
which does not consider that you would be prevented from commenting
on material in a police interview because it might be privileged.
It is for you to raise in interview those facts that appear to
you to be relevant to the investigation. I cannot comment further
on this for the reason that the House is not a party to the investigation.
Further, I am advised that it is open to you
to make representations to the police in an interview to the effect
that you disagree with the initial assessment of privilege, as
part of your defence. This will be taken into account by the CPS
when assessing the admissibility of the evidence against you and
whether it meets the CPS charging test. If a prosecution is brought,
the question of admissibility of evidence would arise at the trial
stage and would be determined by the trial judge. You may like
to be aware that in Business Questions today, the Leader of the
House suggested that the Attorney General would act as amicus
curiae in such circumstances.
I am of course aware of the Motion before the
House seeking reference of the question of applicability to the
Committee on Standards and Privileges.
Malcolm Jack
2 April 2009
|