Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
540-559)
DEPUTY ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER JOHN
MCDOWALL
MBE AND CHIEF
SUPERINTENDENT ED
BATEMAN
23 NOVEMBER 2009
Q540 Ann Coffey: The Speaker when
he came to talk to us was quite clear that he believed there must
have been a warrant for such a search to occur.
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
I do not know where that could have come from because, having
been part of listening to the conversation with the Serjeant at
Arms, I do not understand where that came from.
Q541 Ann Coffey: Because he just
assumed that nobody would search a Member of Parliament's office
without a warrant. That was his assumption.
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
I cannot have a view on that because I was listening to one part
of the conversation. Jill Pay had consented, there is documentary
evidence to show that she consented, and again, in the meeting
she was very much—and this is very much Jill—in control.
In fact, every time the police had an audience with Jill during
that week, or the two times, she was very much in control of that
meeting.
Q542 Chairman: Is that so? This is
one individual representing the whole of the House of Commons
in an unusual set of circumstances with three senior officers
of police. You say she was in control of the meeting in those
circumstances?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
She is a formidable lady, sir.
Q543 Chairman: I do not doubt that
for one moment.
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
She is incredibly professional. I took the officers into her environment.
She was very much in control. She was very forensic about the
questions she asked us and we were left, quite rightly, in no
... We knew that Jill Pay was in charge of that meeting, and she
asked some very searching questions. I understand what you are
saying sir, but no, Jill Pay was in control, and certainly in
her own apartments on the Thursday morning, again, very much in
control, sir.
Q544 Chairman: In your view, she
could not be intimidated by these meetings?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
Clearly, it is a question for Jill Pay. She did not appear intimidated
in any form, sir.
Q545 Ann Coffey: She did not ask
questions about not having a warrant or why you were asking her
to consent to a search and not applying for a warrant? How much
discussion went on about that?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
A lot of discussion. When I introduced the police officers to
Jill Pay on the Wednesday afternoon, that was the discussion,
because the police officers needed best evidence. There was no
way the police officers would risk losing the evidence because
they had gone down the wrong route of not getting a warrant, so
it was very important to the police officers to ensure that they
had got proper consent and that Jill Pay had the right to give
consent.
Q546 Ann Coffey: That is one area
of discussion, clearly, because it shows in your memorandum that
a lot of trouble went to confirm that she had ...
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
Yes.
Q547 Ann Coffey: I was not talking
so much about that. I was talking about discussion about why you
were going down the consent route rather than the application
for a warrant.
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
I think perhaps because I had already had those conversations
with the Serjeant at Arms before the Wednesday and rehearsed that
with the officers in the case. I do not recall that being too
much of a conversation on the Wednesday, no, because in some ways
those were already cul-de-sacs that had been cut off.
Q548 Ann Coffey: There was no discussion
about applying for a warrant at all?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
Looking at my memorandum, the officers re-explained to the Serjeant
at Arms why they could not seek a warrant, because a magistrate
or a judge would not give us a warrant because clearly they believed
Parliament would surely agree.
Q549 Ann Coffey: Then we come back
to the bit that was missing, in which she could have refused.
If she had refused consent, then you could have gone for a warrant.
That is the bit that is missing, is it not? She did not have it
spelled out to her.
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
You are correct. At no time did I or in my presence any other
officer explain to Jill Pay, "Serjeant at Arms, you do not
need to consent." It was my understanding from my many conversations
with Jill Pay during the week that she understood that.
Q550 Mr Howard: If she had not consented,
you or the investigating officer would have had to justify to
a district judge the need for a warrant.
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
Yes, and we would have asked for a letter from the Serjeant at
Arms and taken the letter with us, and I think it is probably
more a question for Mr McDowall on the investigation, but normally
we would then go to the magistrate or the judge, show the letter
from the House of Commons and then act accordingly.
Q551 Ann Coffey: Did she know that
you would require from her a letter if she refused consent?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
It is not a discussion I had with Jill Pay.
Q552 Ann Coffey: It is not a discussion
you had?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
No.
Q553 Mr Howard: The meeting which
you have just been asked about extensively, Mr Bateman, was an
important meeting, was it not?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
There was a meeting on the Wednesday afternoon, sir, and there
was a meeting again on the Thursday morning.
Q554 Mr Howard: Both of them, come
to that, were important meetings.
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
I think they were very significant, and we knew they were significant
at the time.
Q555 Mr Howard: Why did you wait
a week before writing up your notes of what were, as you have
just told us, very significant meetings?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
With hindsight, I wish I had written them earlier. I wrote a timeline
about four or five days later. I was aware that Sir Ian Johnston
had been invited to look at the circumstances and my initial timeline
was for the benefit of his inquiry, to show from my view where
we were. Again, because I was the intermediary, the person bringing
together, I would not normally write a note because normally I
withdraw. So it is unusual for me to remain close to the circumstances,
but with hindsight, sir, yes, I wish I had written a note sooner.
Q556 Chairman: If I can just come
back to a point about which Mr Howard asked some searching questions,
you agree with me that, as the memorandum says, you proceeded
on a presumption in relation to the level of knowledge of the
Serjeant at Arms?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
That is correct, sir.
Q557 Chairman: There is nothing in
PACE, or indeed the Code attached to it, which suggests that a
presumption can be regarded as equivalent to an express indication
that the individual need not consent.
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
I have followed the evidence, I have gone back to the Codes of
Practice, and I believe you are right, sir. It is a considerable
time since I have used the Codes because I have not had an operational
role.
Q558 Chairman: I understand that.
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
Like other senior colleagues, we have gone back, and Mr Howard
is correct.
Q559 Ann Coffey: It was easier for
you, was it not, to get consent from the Serjeant rather than
apply for a warrant to search a Member of Parliament's office
in the House of Commons?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
I think that is probably a question for the investigation. That
is not my area.
| 
