Memorandum by Jill Pay, Serjeant at Arms
1. On Thursday 20 November 2008 Chief Superintendent
Ed Bateman (CS Bateman), Head of the Metropolitan Police on the
Parliamentary Estate, asked to see me on a basis he described
as very confidential. He said that papers concerning a Member
of Parliament had been sent to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
for consideration. He said that, depending on the CPS advice,
either there would be sufficient evidence for the police to make
an arrest or there would not be and nothing would happen. He did
not say that anything would occur in the precincts, but he did
say that if the MP was arrested this would be a very significant
event. I asked CS Bateman what it was about and he said he could
not tell me anything more at that time. There was no mention of
searching a Member's office during this conversation. Nor was
the question of consent to search a Member's office raised.
2. On Monday 24 November I met CS Bateman to talk
about a different matter and I asked him if there was any more
news about the subject we had discussed the previous Thursday.
CS Bateman said there was not and that he would let me know as
soon as he heard anything.
3. On Tuesday 25 November, at about 4.30 pm,
CS Bateman asked to see me and told me that the CPS considered
there was sufficient evidence to support the allegation and that
the Member was going to be arrested. He said he could not tell
me the identity of the Member or what the allegation was at this
stage. CS Bateman told me that the suspect was a very senior Member
of the Conservative Party and that the allegation was to do with
the recently publicised Home Office leaks. He said that police
officers from the MPS Counter Terrorism Command would arrest the
Member, possibly the following afternoon, and that they would
want to search all of his premises. I asked what he meant by "premises"
and CS Bateman listed them: the Member's Westminster office, the
constituency office and the two home addresses, in London and
the constituency. I asked what the MP was going to be charged
with and CS Bateman said that he could not tell me then, but he
would bring the investigating police officers from the Counter
Terrorism Command to meet me the next day and they would give
me more information.
4. At this stage the possible search of the
Westminster Office had been raised with me, but nothing was said
abut the mechanics of the search.
5. CS Bateman again told me on this occasion
that all this was very confidential and that I could not tell
anyone. I insisted that I had to tell the Speaker to which CS
Bateman said "okay, but as long as it is only the Speaker
you are telling". CS Bateman made it clear that this whole
case was being kept very confidential and that the more people
who knew about it from outside the police the greater the risk
of prejudicing the criminal investigation.
6. On Wednesday 26 November I telephoned Angus
Sinclair (the Speaker's Secretary) at around 9.30 am and said
that I needed to speak to the Speaker as soon as possible on a
very confidential subject. Angus Sinclair suggested I wait to
see the Speaker before the daily Speaker's conference and when
the Speaker arrived Angus Sinclair told him that I needed to speak
to him urgently about a very confidential matter. The Speaker
and I went to an area where we could speak in private. I told
the Speaker that the police had informed me that officers from
the Counter Terrorism Command were going to arrest a senior Member
of Parliament, a Conservative, possibly that afternoon, and that
they would want to search his Westminster Office, his constituency
office and his two home addresses immediately after the arrest.
I had no more information at that time, but I told the Speaker
that I would telephone him later that afternoon when I had more
details. The Speaker asked me to call him on his mobile because
he would not be in the Palace and he said he would keep the information
confidential.
7. At 3.30 pm on Wednesday 26 November four
police officers came to meet with me in my office: Detective Chief
Inspector Jim Stockley (senior investigating officer), Detective
Inspector Piers Dingmans and Detective Sergeant Steve Walker,
all from the Counter Terrorism Command, and Chief Superintendent
Ed Bateman. DI Dingmans lead the introductory part of the meeting.
I asked him who the Member was, but DI Dingmans said that they
could not tell me. He said the fewer people who knew his identity
the better and that it was essential to maintain confidentiality.
8. DCI Stockley told me that the arrest would
not happen that afternoon, but he did tell me that the allegation
against the Member was "Aiding and abetting misconduct in
a public office" and that the police thought there was evidence
in the Member's Westminster office to support the allegation.
I asked what kind of evidence and DI Dingmans replied, "Evidence
that the Member encouraged leaks, that is, that he was pulling
leaks rather than receiving them". This conversation led
on to the issue of what he described as lawful consent to search.
9. DI Dingmans stated that for the other three
premises the police had obtained search warrants from a District
Judge. He explained that for premises occupied by an individual
a warrant was necessary, but it was different when an organisation's
premises were being searched because then the police would need
to ask the person who has authority for the premises to consent
to the search. He said this was known as lawful consent.
10. The officer explained that because this
was not one of the Member's homes or the constituency office they
would need my consent to search his Westminster office. He said
that the police needed lawful consent to search, which I, as Serjeant
at Arms, was entitled to give. It was not put to me that I could
refuse my consent. At no time did the police officers say that
I could insist on a warrant. The police officers convinced me
that my lawful consent was what was required instead of a warrant.
11. I knew that the CPS was satisfied that there
was a case to be answered because CS Bateman had told me on Tuesday
25 November that the CPS considered there was sufficient evidence
to support the allegation against the Member. I also knew that
warrants had been given by a District Judge for the other premises,
which the police had told me earlier in the meeting. I asked if
it was a civil or a criminal offence and DCI Stockley said it
was a serious criminal offence. I had already been told during
the meeting that the allegation was "Aiding and abetting
misconduct in a public office". I then asked if there would
be a criminal investigation and he said there would be. I asked
how serious a criminal offence it was and I was told that the
Member could receive a sentence of 20 to 25 years for the offence.
12. From this information I concluded that something
very serious had happened and that if I didn't give my consent
to search the Member's office I would be obstructing a criminal
investigation. I felt under considerable pressure at this stage.
13. I adjourned the meeting with the police
at approximately 4.00 pm to seek advice. DCI Stockley asked who
I was going to speak to and I said I would speak to the Clerk
of the House if he was available.
14. I looked for the nearest possible source
of advice and visited Douglas Millar, the Clerk Assistant and
my line manager. I said to him that I needed advice about whether
I had the authority to give consent to a search by the police.
Douglas Millar said that I should go to the Clerk of the House
(Malcolm Jack) who was the expert in that area. I felt very constrained
by the confidentiality imposed on me by the investigating officers.
15. I went to see Malcolm Jack to ask him if
I had the authority to consent to the search of an office on the
Parliamentary Estate as part of a criminal investigation. Malcolm
Jack said that I had the authority to consent to a search, but
that if a search concerned a Member's office I must consult the
Speaker.
16. I went back to the meeting with the police
officers at approximately 4.15 pm and informed them that I had
authority to consent to the search. But I did not give consent
at that point because I still did not know which Member was being
arrested. I asked the officers what form my consent would take.
The officers said that when they met me next time they would have
a consent form with them for me to sign. They did not give me
any more details about the case but they arranged to meet me the
following morning at 6.45 am to give me more information and to
seek my formal consent.
17. The police convinced me that a warrant was
not necessary because what they described as lawful consent could
be given instead of a warrant, due to the Palace being an organisation's
premises rather than an individual's premises.
18. After the police had explained to me the
method by which I would give formal consent (signing a form) I
told them that I would also provide a letter because I thought
it would add gravitas to the proceedings. The police replied that
I could do that if I wanted to, but that it wasn't necessary.
19. DS Walker said that the police wanted to
see me very early the next day (Thursday 27) because they wanted
to make the arrest that morning. Due to the early hour I proposed
that the police come to my official residence the next day in
view of the confidentiality surrounding the whole matter. I thought
this would be more appropriate and discreet as I thought employees
of the House might be suspicious if I was seen with a group of
police at that time in the Palace. It did not occur to me at the
time that I would be unable to speak to anyone to obtain advice
at such an early hour.
20. DCI Stockley again emphasised to me the
confidentiality of the situation, but I again stressed that I
was going to keep the Speaker informed.
21. I rang Mr Speaker on his mobile at about
4.20 pm and I told him that the arrest was not taking place that
afternoon, but was likely to happen the next morning. I told Mr
Speaker that I now knew the allegation against the Member and
I read it to him, "Aiding and abetting misconduct in a public
office". The Speaker repeated the words and I confirmed the
allegation. I then said that the subsequent searches would happen
the next morning immediately following the arrest. I had not been
told the identity of the Member concerned, and was therefore unable
to inform the Speaker of this fact.
22. I told the Speaker that the police had arranged
to meet me at 6.45 am the next morning but I did not think he
would want me to telephone him at that time. The Speaker said
that I could call him in his private apartments at 7.30 am because
he would be getting ready to leave for Glasgow.
23. On Thursday 27 November at 7am the police
arrived at my official residence: Detective Sergeant Steve Walker
and Detective Constable Graham Bannatyne from the Counter Terrorism
Command, with Chief Superintendent Ed Bateman and Police Constable
Doreen Davis (plain clothes) from the Parliamentary police. DS
Walker gave me the full background to the matter and identified
the Member as Damian Green. He underlined the determination of
the police to keep the whole matter confidential. For the sake
of accuracy, I went through with the police what I planned to
say to the Speaker. I telephoned the Speaker at 7.30 am as arranged
and told him that the Member was Damian Green, that he was going
to be arrested that morning, I confirmed the allegation as "Aiding
and abetting misconduct in a public office" and I said that
his offices at Westminster and elsewhere were going to be searched
following his arrest. I told the Speaker that the police were
with me in my residence and that I had received a formal request
from the police to consent to the search of Damian Green's Westminster
office which I proposed to give.
24. The Speaker thanked me for the call and
I told the Speaker that I would get in touch with him if the situation
changed.
25. After talking to the Speaker, I signed the
consent form. At no time was I informed that I did not have to
give my consent, or that I could insist on a warrant, or that
I could withdraw my consent at any time. The police then left
my house, but the search team remained on the Estate waiting to
hear when the arrest had taken place so that they could begin
the search.
26. At 1.50 pm DS Walker called me to inform
me that Damian Green had been arrested and that the search was
going to commence. I was already in Damian Green's office because
his staff were worried and had asked to speak to me. The search
commenced at 2.08pm. I did not contact the Speaker again after
the conversation on Thursday morning because the situation was
as I had explained to him.
27. I nominated PC Doreen Davis to be my representative
during periods when I could not be present at the search.
28. I left Damian Green's office shortly after
the search commenced and went to see Malcolm Jack at about 2.20
pm. I took with me the first draft of my letter to DS Walker and
the copy of the consent form I had signed. Malcolm Jack asked
to see the warrant and I told him the police had convinced me
that the consent form I had signed was lawful consent and was
instead of a warrant. I told Malcolm Jack that I had consulted
the Speaker on three occasions, the last time at 7.30 that morning.
29. At the time I thought that I did not need
to ask the Speaker to give his consent to the search as I believed
I had the authority to give consent to the search myself.
30. Malcolm Jack said that the letter to DS
Walker must include the alleged charge because it had not appeared
on the consent form. We agreed the content of the letter and to
whom it was to be copied: Damian Green MP, Malcolm Jack, Angus
Sinclair, Ed Bateman and Michael Carpenter. [See letter at Annexe
A]
31. I visited Damian Green's office several
times during the search and I was notified by PC Doreen Davis
at 8.42 pm that the search had been completed at 8.35 pm.
32. On Friday 28 November I spoke to Damian
Green by telephone just after 9.00 am and we agreed that I would
go to his office at 9.30. I gave him the copy of my letter to
DS Walker. Damian Green was furious that I had given consent for
his office to be searched, but we agreed that our conversation
at that time must be about how he could continue his work as a
Member of Parliament. After our meeting, I arranged for PICT to
provide computers, a printer and a fax machine to enable Damian
Green and his staff to work. I contacted DS Walker and arranged
for Damian Green's diary and Filofax to be photocopied and these
photocopies were delivered to his staff later on Friday, along
with a photocopy of the Exhibits Book that contained details of
all the items removed during the search of his office and from
where in the office they were removed.
33. During Friday morning, I had asked Chief
Superintendent Bateman for a definitive statement about the difference
between seeking a signed consent form and a search warrant. Assistant
Commissioner Bob Quick telephoned on Friday afternoon to explain
this to me and CS Bateman sent me a confirmatory e-mail on the
following Monday, which was the briefing note used during the
telephone conversation. This read:
"The MPS had reasonable grounds to arrest
an MP for conspiracy/aiding and abetting misconduct in a public
office. In order to secure evidence for this investigation they
have identified four addresses linked to him which they need to
search. Search warrants have been issued for three of those addresses
under section 8 of PACE. In order for them to be issued a District
Judge has agreed with the information supplied by police and has
issued the relevant authority for their execution.
The fourth address is the MP's private office
and a warrant for this address can't be issued if permission can
be granted by the person in control of it or who has authority
for the premises. Consequently permission was asked from the Serjeant
at Arms to search the premises and was duly granted."
1 December 2009
|