Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
300-319)
DR MALCOLM
JACK, MS
JACQY SHARPE,
MR MICHAEL
CARPENTER AND
MS VERONICA
DALY
9 NOVEMBER 2009
Q300 Ann Coffey: You must have had
subsequent conversations about this with the Serjeant because
obviously something went wrong. What opinion have you formed over
what exactly happened on that day, why the consent form was signed?
You say that it was unusual behaviour by the Serjeant. You must
have discussed this with her, you must have thought about it,
talked to other people about it. What are your thoughts on it?
You are saying what it is not. What do you think about it?
Dr Jack: Obviously I can only
give my own thoughts and you will no doubt ask the Serjeant these
questions.
Q301 Ann Coffey: Yes, of course.
Dr Jack: I think that she felt
constrained by this confidentiality because she thought that the
matter she was dealing with was something that really should not
be discussed with anyone and therefore she did not discuss it
with anyone. That is why she felt that constraint.
Q302 Ann Coffey: I do not quite understand
the management responsibility. You are not the Serjeant's manager.
Dr Jack: No. Her immediate line
manager is the Clerk Assistant.
Q303 Chairman: Whom she first approached
on this occasion.
Dr Jack: Yes, indeed; that is
correct.
Q304 Chairman: Did he refer her to
you?
Dr Jack: Yes, he did.
Q305 Ann Coffey: It is kind of difficult
to understand, is it not? It is very difficult for me to understand.
It was something which was obviously troubling her; it was a very
troubling thing to be involved in. She saw it as a confidential
matter between her and her immediate line manager even though
it had great implications and the Clerk Assistant may have taken
it up with you. If relationships are good—and you say that
the structure works but relationships are the things that actually
make it work—it is very difficult to understand why she
did not consult you about it.
Dr Jack: I think you will have
to ask her that question. I did not notice anything in her demeanour
that was particularly troubled on that occasion.
Q306 Chairman: I think we might move
on to ask you a number of questions about the conduct of the police.
Before I do, perhaps I could come back to the issue which I referred
to at the very outset. You will be aware from the transcript of
the evidence given by Lord Martin of Springburn that at the meeting
on 2 December he asked the Serjeant why she had conducted herself
in a particular way. According to Lord Martin of Springburn's
evidence you then intervened to the effect that Chief Superintendent
Bateman, again using the language used, had "bamboozled"
the Serjeant and had "tricked" her into keeping the
matter from her immediate superiors and that you then went on
to say that while Chief Superintendent Bateman was a Metropolitan
Police officer, he also had a duty towards the House. Did you
intervene on that occasion and did you use that language?
Dr Jack: Yes, I did intervene
on that occasion. I have no recollection of using that language.
Q307 Chairman: Is it the sort of
language you might be accustomed to use?
Dr Jack: It is not.
Q308 Chairman: In particular, apart
from "bamboozling" and "tricking" did you
say anything to the effect that while Chief Superintendent Bateman
was a Metropolitan Police officer he also had a duty towards the
House.
Dr Jack: Yes, I did. My recollection
of the situation is that we were discussing—Speaker's Counsel
might explain the matter a bit more technically—the PACE
code and the need for the police to tell someone who was signing
a consent form that they need not sign that consent form. In that
context and in the context of stressing the confidentiality of
the matter and the seriousness of the matter, I intervened to
say that I felt that the police had put unfair pressure on the
Serjeant as a combination of those three things and that Chief
Superintendent Bateman, who I understood of course is a police
officer but has responsibilities to the House, might have supported
her better.
Q309 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: When you
said that, or words to that effect, were you intending to suggest
that the police, in doing so, had done so deliberately, that they
had withheld the information that she need not sign the consent
form deliberately?
Dr Jack: No, I was not saying
that; no.
Q310 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: What were
you trying to say?
Dr Jack: That they had put unfair
pressure on her.
Q311 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: In what
way was the pressure unfair?
Dr Jack: In not reciting the PACE
provision that she need not sign the consent form.
Q312 Sir Malcolm Rifkind: Surely
to say that was unfair pressure implies that that is what they
chose to do and therefore did it deliberately.
Dr Jack: Not necessarily; they
may not have done it for reasons of competence of incompetence.
Q313 Chairman: It is a very serious
charge to make.
Dr Jack: Yes, it is.
Q314 Chairman: I take it that you
did not make that charge at the meeting which included the Speaker
and other officials unless you were satisfied that it was justified
to do so.
Dr Jack: Yes; that is correct.
Mr Carpenter: May I again intervene
to try to help the Committee? The question of whether PACE Code
B was followed or not followed was a matter which I raised at
that meeting on my own initiative.
Q315 Chairman: Before or after this
part of the exchange.
Mr Carpenter: Before the intervention.
That was as a result of my talking to the Serjeant. As you will
appreciate, one of my jobs was to find out what on earth had gone
wrong here. From my conversation with the Serjeant, it was clear
to me that she had not been clearly informed that she was not
obliged to consent. If I read PACE Code B, 5.2 is the relevant
paragraph, there are some prefatory words about the purpose of
the search and I accept that was done, then it goes on to say
that "The person concerned must be clearly informed they
are not obliged to consent and anything seized may be produced
in evidence". As a result of my interview with the Serjeant,
I formed the view that she had not been clearly informed, that
there was no officer in charge of the search saying to her "You
do realise you are not obliged to sign this form".
Q316 Chairman: If that be the case,
do you regard that as a serious omission on the part of the police?
Mr Carpenter: I did. I would not
regard it as deception or anything of that sort. I would regard
it as an omission that that is what should have been done, that
is what the code provides for.
Q317 Chairman: But its seriousness
surely would be underlined by the fact that this was an attempt
to obtain access to the office of a Member of Parliament in respect
of whom difficult issues of privilege might well arise.
Mr Carpenter: Yes, but I was concentrating
immediately on the question of whether PACE Code procedure was
followed.
Q318 Chairman: Of course, but if
that was not done—let us assume charitably it was for reasons
of lack of competence—then it is all the more serious because
this was not a purported search of a house or a shop, this was
the purported search of the office of a Member of Parliament in
respect of whom important issues of privilege might well arise.
Mr Carpenter: I agree, although
I would say I would regard it as of equal seriousness if it were
an ordinary household.
Q319 Chairman: I quite understand
that.
Mr Carpenter: With a little bit
of hindsight I feel I was confirmed in my view because when the
police wrote to the Home Secretary—and I believe this is
in evidence in the Home Affairs Committee report—they said,
on the issue of consent that officers "were satisfied that
the Serjeant at Arms understood that police had no power to search
in the absence of a warrant and therefore could only do so with
her written consent". I think there is a difference between
officers satisfying themselves that a person understands they
need not consent and actually saying it to them.
| 
