|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
In the case of Mr Roberts, in the view of the Prison Service, the recording of his telephone conversations with his solicitor occurred because Mr Roberts failed to identify to staff at HMP Channings Wood the telephone number of Mr Creighton of Bhatt Murphy. This was established during the investigation commissioned by the then deputy director-general of HM Prison Service. When the PIN phone system was introduced at HMP Channings Wood in 2002, all prisoners were told that they needed to identify the telephone numbers of their legal representatives by completing a form, so that those numbers could be entered on to the confidential part of the PIN system with calls to those numbers not intercepted. Mr Roberts states that he did identify the relevant number, but there is no evidence that he did so. There is no documentary evidence that he underwent the training to familiarise prisoners with the PIN system on its introduction. However, the Prison Service has confirmed that Mr Roberts would not have received a PIN number or have been able to transfer funds to his PIN phone account had he not undergone the training. In June 2006, a notice was issued to prisoners at Channings Wood reminding them of their obligations under Prison Service Order 4400 to list their legal telephone numbers,
15 May 2008 : Column WS66
On 8 November 2005, for the purposes of a closed hearing of the Parole Board, my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for the Home Department was directed by the board to obtain recordings of telephone calls for the period 1 October to 8 November 2005 made by Mr Roberts while he was at HMP Channings Wood, to enable further detailed consideration of his level of risk to specific individuals. This request was for recordings in general. It did not refer to calls with his solicitor, nor was it intended to cover such calls. Mr Roberts was represented at the closed hearing by a specially appointed advocate (SAA).
The lifer section in the National Offender Management Service obtained the recordings without itself listening to, transcribing or reviewing them in any way and sent them to the Treasury Solicitor who was acting for the Secretary of State. Secretarial staff at the Treasury Solicitors then made transcripts of the recordings. Due to the pressure of time in preparing for the parole hearing and the concern of the SAA to have the material as soon as possible, Treasury Counsel and the Treasury Solicitor agreed with the SAA that the transcripts and tapes of the recordings should be provided to the SAA as they became available and before they were reviewed.
In January 2006, when counsel for the Secretary of State discovered one transcript of a telephone conversation between Mr Roberts and Mr Creighton, she alerted the Treasury Solicitor and the lifer section to the existence of the transcript and advised that the transcript should not be reviewed. On further examination of the transcripts, two other transcripts of telephone conversations between Mr Roberts and Mr Creighton were discovered. All three transcripts were then deleted from the transcripts that the Secretary of State provided to the Parole Board. However, as a result of an oversight, some copies of the transcripts were kept. The prison governor at Channings Wood was not made aware of the existence of this material.
At that time, the SAA was representing Mr Roberts in all matters relating to the closed proceedings and consequently there were no communications between the Treasury Solicitor and Mr Creighton about matters relating to the closed hearing. As a result, a decision was taken by the Treasury Solicitor not to tell Mr Creighton of the existence of the transcripts and tapes. However, the SAA was made aware of the existence of the transcripts; the SAA had the transcripts and tapes and would have been able to raise any concerns on Mr Robertss behalf, although he did not in fact do so.
On 8 January 2008, the Parole Board directed that the SAA send the papers to Mr Creighton for the purposes of a new parole hearing for Mr Roberts. As far as counsel and Treasury Solicitor for the Secretary of State were concerned, the transcripts had been deleted from the Parole Board dossier and so were not part of the evidence for the closed hearing of the
15 May 2008 : Column WS67
The Treasury Solicitor and Mr Creighton have exchanged correspondence about this matter. Mr Creighton wrote to the Treasury Solicitor on 29 January. The Treasury Solicitor replied on 28 February. Mr Creighton wrote a further letter on 4 March and the Treasury Solicitor replied on 25 March. Mr Creighton wrote a further letter on 1 April and the Treasury Solicitor replied on 14 May. Mr Creighton, on his clients behalf, disputes part of the account above. I am, therefore, with his agreement, placing the full correspondence in the Libraries of both Houses.
I would like to add for completeness that I learnt on 25 February that Derbyshire Constabulary also had in its possession a number of transcripts of legally privileged conversations between Mr Roberts and his legal advisers and that the chief constable had instigated an internal investigation. That investigation has now concluded. The recordings of telephone conversations obtained by Derbyshire Constabulary were as a result of four applications under the Prison Rules to HMP Channings Wood for recordings of Mr Robertss conversations, which together covered the period 19 August 2005 to 8 October 2006. The investigation revealed that Derbyshire Constabularys remit in this matter extended only to consideration of a possible risk that had arisen to sources of certain information that had been provided to the Parole Board and taking such action as was necessary and proportionate to mitigate that risk. The constabulary was not involved in any decision regarding Mr Robertss continued imprisonment. Derbyshire police were properly authorised to access Mr Robertss communications under the formal process agreed between HMPS and ACPO. Derbyshire polices requirements were managed by the police intelligence officer at Channings Wood.
The investigation also found that it was only officers at detective constable level in Derbyshire Constabulary who knew of the existence of the legally privileged material. Those officers then failed to inform or seek advice from their senior officers or the force solicitor. The officers involved have since received advice on legal professional privilege and systems within the constabulary have been tightened more generally.
The Chief Constable of Derbyshire has provided assurance that the transcripts held by his constabulary were never used as evidence or intelligence, nor were they disseminated to any senior officer or partner agency. Derbyshire Constabulary reacted promptly, comprehensively and openly once this issue was brought to its attention. Derbyshire Constabulary has given an undertaking not to destroy any material relating to Mr Roberts, but in particular the transcripts of his telephone conversations, including legal conversations without the prior agreement of Mr Creighton and NOMS.
The Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner for 2006 (HC 252) was laid before Parliament by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on 28 January 2008. NOMS continues to
15 May 2008 : Column WS68
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead): My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Crime Reduction (Mr Vernon Coaker) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
The annual report of the Serious Organised Crime Agency for 2007-08 is being published and laid before Parliament today. As required by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 the report includes an assessment of the extent to which the annual plan for 2007-08 has been carried out.
|Next Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|