The words elbow, arse, from, not and knowing come to mind. But not necessarily in that order.12.21pm Damian Green (Ashford) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I invite the Home Secretary to correct a factual inaccuracy in her statement. She said that I was arrested “on suspicion of conspiring to commit misconduct in a public office and aiding and abetting, counselling or procuring misconduct in a public office.” I have a copy of my arrest warrant here, and the phrase “counselling or procuring misconduct in a public office” does not occur. I was not arrested for counselling or procuring misconduct in a public office. She will understand the seriousness of her mistake, and I invite her to withdraw those words immediately.
Mr. Speaker: I ask the Home Secretary to reply.
Jacqui Smith: I would certainly be prepared to take that up with the Metropolitan police—[HON. MEMBERS: “Oh!”]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should allow the Home Secretary to answer in the way that she wants to answer. It is not for me to tell the Home Secretary—or any other hon. Member—how she should answer. Home Secretary, have you anything to add?
Jacqui Smith: I was quoting from a public statement made by the Metropolitan police on 28 November.*
* From Hansard, 4 December
30 comments:
Watching Smith, the police and Martin is like watching the French three quarter line on a wet day - daring and scintillating until someone drops the ball. Yesterday Martin, today Smith.
And this woman hold one of the great offices of state?
How much lower can Brown bring the reputation of Parliament with his ludicrous appointments?
Good heavens a typo.
She's on the ropes now.
"May I have your attention please? We are now loading the Resignation Tumbrel, which which will leave shortly. Will the following passengers please make their way to the door of the Palace of Westminster:
Jill Pay, Serjeant of Arms and patsy
The legal advisor that Jill Pay consulted (name TBA)
Michael Martin, Speaker and know nothing
Jacqui Smith, Home (nothing to do with me) Secretary.
Your driver will be Harriet Harman."
That's incredible. I think there are Third World banana republics where the elected ministers aren't quite as incompetent...
"How much lower can Brown bring the reputation of Parliament..."
Going on the Bills mentioned in the Queen's Speech, there's a fair way to go yet!
Whilst Damian Green is right to challenge Jacqui Smith for the inaccuracy of her statement in relation to the reason why the police arrested Damian Green, he should not have abused his position in the House to accuse the police of arresting him for only doing his job, and forward a defence for his arrest.
I'm more interested in your thoughts on the way forward on the DNA database.
To cap it all, Tom Harris, beloved of Iain Dale et al, has posted a puff for his local patch, but disallowed comments. I sense a palpable quantity of insecurity in the Labour ranks.
Wonderful to watch !
Who is next ?
Well done Dave - just keep on watching and controlling - and keep your powder dry!
Let them hang themselves and dig their own graves.
As a matter of interest, Will Grieve's long list of questions ever get answered.
Good old Jacuqi, making up offences based on rumours and leaks from the police.
If anyone thinks all this will result in any resignations or sackings - think again.
This shoddy labour administration does not do honour!
This labour administration does not do truth!
This shoddy labour administration does not have a conscience!
This labour party hates, absolutely hates, anyone belonging to any party other than labour!
Brown may write about courage but he has no idea whatsoever what real courage is!
This will just drift away and the Tories will be labelled as troublemakers.
Some, on Guido, are suggesting that there is a new opinion poll out later which puts labour 2% above the tories. I suppose if you ask everyone in a run down estate up t'north, then you may well get such a result.
I could not stomach another five years of this incompetent crowd. By the end of that parliament england will either be no more, just regions of the EU and we shall all have euro's in our pockets!
OR this country will be in the midst of a bloody civil war.
strapworld
Share your contempt.
If I hadn't, I would emigrate.
Jailhouselawyer - your posts have been somewhat wide of the mark. It seems your understanding of the law in this area is limited. But then yesterday you did say you'd discussed the case with an Employment Tribunal judge. Some clues.
1. There is no such beast as an Employment Tribunal judge. A panel consists of 2 lay members and the chairman. The chairman will be a lawyer and, although this isn't specified in the relevant Statutory Instrument, their expertise will include employment law. They are not necessarily expert in criminal law. They are not judges, nor are they entitled to use that title.
2. Regarding the police's failure to tell the Commons officials that they were entitled to refuse the search, PACE Code B para 5.2 states, inter alia, "The person concerned must be clearly informed they are not obliged to consent and anything seized may be produced in evidence." This has nothing to do with Miranda rights or their equivalent in this country. It is unlikely that the courts would reject evidence collected because of this ommission, but that doesn't make it right. The police are potentially leaving themselves open for a civil action by ignoring this requirement.
3. I am confident that Green did not commit an offence. He can only be guilty if Galley is guilty. It is not a crime to conspire to do something that is legal, nor is aiding and abetting legal actions a crime. And I believe the courts would rule that what Galley did is perfectly legal. When we interpret the law, we try to determine the will of Parliament. In this case, up to 1989 Galley's actions would have been an offence under the Official Secrets Act. He would, however, have been able to mount a defence that his actions were in the public interest which would probably have succeeded. In 1989 Parliament introduced in new Official Secrets Act. This removed the public interest defence but also severely restricted the scope of the Act so it now only applies to fairly limited classes of information. That is why the police are using the older offence of "procuring misconduct in public office". However, I think the only sensible interpretation of Parliament's actions in 1989 is that they intended to decriminalise this kind of conduct, not simply change it into a different criminal offence. That is certainly what I would argue if I were defending Galley. I think it highly likely that the courts would agree. In that case, Galley has no case to answer.
4. There is certainly an argument that the Metropolitan Police are guilty of Contempt of Parliament.
Unless there is some significant extra evidence of wrongdoing (and the leaks from the police indicate that there isn't), Galley is not guilty of any criminal offence. He should have been dealt with under internal disciplinary procedures. If Galley is not guilty of any criminal offence, neither is Green.
Of course, this changes if it becomes apparent that information covered by the Official Secrets Act was passed or that Green tried to get Galley to give him such information, but there does not currently seem to be any suggestion that this was the case.
Tom Harris posted that Green was accused of "groomimg"
I naturally asked could he confirm that was on teh charge sheet or arrest warrant.
Surprisingly he has not replied.
I have asked why not and am waiting for that post to appear.
Doubt it will be.
He is obviously desperate to ingratiate himself after his demotion... and it shows..
It was noticeable the number of lawyers on the conservative benches. The problem was that most of them tried to fit in about 3 questions as it was their only chance to speak. The questions that really caught her out were when only one direct question was posed in the "did you know or did't you" vein. She had no answer for these but just twittered hopelessly and then repeated the lines that she has been coached in re "operational independence" blah, blah, blah.
Iain Martin has just blogged over on the Telegraph that there is a rumour flying around that "a minister with good police contacts" did know before the arrest and is keeping "uncharacteristically quiet"
Peter Harrison: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse".
Read slowly and carefully what follows...
"From 1 December 2007, chairmen and chairwomen of employment tribunals may be referred to as 'employment judge'".
Source: My friend the judge, who referred me to this...
schedule 8 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
Peter,
Excellent post. A couple of quibbles:
1. A little harsh on JHL. The terminolgy was incorrect but you knew what he meant.
2. I can't see a civil action here. The issue of the other warrants suggests that a refusal by the S@A would not have prevented the search.
3. I think you make a good argument here as to the current legal position (I'm less sure I agree with you on the pre-89 position). I do regard the behaviour alleged against both as sneaky and reprehensible and of no real benefit to the public although I suspect you're right that there is little prospect of a conviction.
4. As I understand it, contempt could only arise if the House was sitting.
Jimmy: Yes, you are right, Peter was a little harsh on me. However, my terminology was actually correct, had it not changed, you would have been right and Peter would have known what I meant. Prior to the change, I used to refer to my friend as "The Chair". I think it is better to refer to a title than a piece of wood, plastic or metal which someone sits on.
Peter: In relation to your second point, I agree with the police position which is:
"1. Was a warrant needed to search the Parliamentary office?
No.
Section 8 (1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act as amended permits a Justice of the Peace to issue a warrant authorising a constable to enter and search premises where satisfied on application by a constable that there are reasonable grounds for believing:
a) That an indictable offence has been committed and;
b) There is material on the premises mentioned in subsection (1a) which is likely to be of substantial value of the investigation of the offence and;
c) The material is likely to be relevant evidence and;
d) It does not consist of or include items subject to legal privilege, excluded material or special procedure material and;
e) That any of the conditions specified in sub section 3 applies in relation to each set of premises specified.
Section 8 (1a)
The premises referred to in subsection (1b) above are:
a) One or more sets of premises specified in the application or
b) Any premises occupied or controlled by the person specified in the application
Section 8 (2)
Provides that a constable may seize and retain anything for which a search has been authorised under subsection (1) above.
Section 8 (3)
Identifies the conditions mentioned in subsection 1(e) above and are
a) That it is not practicable to communicate with any person entitled to grant entry to the premises.
b) That it is practicable to communicate with a person entitled to grant entry to the premises but it is not practicable to communicate with any person entitled to grant access to the evidence.
c) That entry to the premises will not be granted unless a warrant is produced.
d) That the purpose of the search is frustrated or seriously prejudiced unless a constable arriving at the premises can secure immediate entry to them.
The effect of the condition in subsection 3 (c) is that a Justice of the Peace may not issue a search warrant under section 8 if he/she believes entry to the premises will be granted without a warrant (ie by consent). As there was no basis for submitting to a JP that it was believed that consent would be refused, it was considered that it was not open to a constable to make an application".
Full text: Police letter on MP warrant
Jailhouse lawyer - Wake Up.
No crime has been committed. No 'indictable offence'. In all probability a judge (a real one as opposed to a mickey mouse one) would not have issued an arrest or search warrant as no prima facie case had been made for a crime having been committed.
The whole issue is BOGUS from day one - from the moment when the Sir Humphrey in the Home Office was pushed into calling in the police (probably according to my suspicion when the leaker was already known internally).
It is not a crime to leak information embarrassing to the govt of the day. It is an employment law internal disciplinary matter which could well lead to dismissal.
Smith should have apologised immediately if she wasn't sure of her facts ( which its clear she wasn't ).
Harman has refered to Green as "the defendant" in a radio interview I heard. Getting a bit ahead of her self there.
Listen girls, everything Lord Mandymort tells you isn't 100% the truth. Would have thought you'd have learnt that by now !
I should add that the letter you quoted earlier Iain on people being unable to prove innocence applies here.
Something that doesn't seem to ring true to me is the Home Secretaries insistence that she knew nothing about an MP being the subject of the Police enquiries.
When she heard that a member of her staff had been arrested, did she ask the obvious questions (which so far she has not admitted to):
1) How much information have they leaked?
2) What was that information?
3) Who has it been leaked to?
4) Has National Security been endangered?
A Home Secretary, at a time of heightened security, who did not ask such question, and satisfy themselves to the fullness of the response, would certainly have acted recklessly.
But we are led to believe that she was unaware that there was an investigation into an MP.
If she asked those questions she will be aware as to whether National Security was at risk - and if it was not, why the further police action, why was it not at that stage bought in house and dealt with as a staff discipline matter? Furthermore, why does the Government keep repeating the suggestion that National Security was at risk?
If National Security was considered to be at risk, why did she not keep on top of the matter, and how could it be that she was unaware of the investigations that led to Damien Greens arrest?
So we are all shocked and astounded by their behaviour yet again. But what's going to happen now?
Is someone going to lose their job?
Or do we just move on to the next scandal?
"1) How much information have they leaked?
2) What was that information?
3) Who has it been leaked to?
4) Has National Security been endangered?"
Only two people know the answer to that, and they're hardly likely to tell her.
@ Jimmy
"Only two people know the answer to that"
Hilarious! And even funnier, I guess you actually might believe that.
Jimmy said...
"Only two people know the answer to that, and they're hardly likely to tell her."
If true there is no basis on which to keep claiming that there was systematic leaking.
Just spin, to try and justify the heavy handedness.
But the fact remains - there was either a risk to National Security - in which case why did she not keep fully briefed, or there wasn't a risk, in which case why continue to use the police?
trevorsden: Sometimes I dream blogging in my sleep. Sad. However, it is not me who is asleep through this whole affair.
1. The police arrest Christopher Galley.
2. Acting upon information received, the police arrest Damian Green.
Before moving on Damian Green, the police seek the legal advice from the Crown Prosecution Service. If it was a non-starter, he would not have been arrested as it lays them open to a claim of false arrest and false imprisonment.
There are two official versions
1. Christopher Galley was caught internally then the police called.
2. The police were called and then they discovered it was Christopher Galley.
I would like it established which version is correct.
Whilst my friend the employment judge agrees that there aspects of employment law in this case, it is not the everything. I expected him to argue with me when I jumped down off the fence on the side of the police. He didn't. When I told him that some on the blogs are claiming that this is just an employment matter, he laughed. He disagrees. I am with him on this one.
Peter Harrison said...
at last ... someone who actually does know what they are talking about.
Maybe legal procedure was not covered in Home Economics.
It is easy for Jaiquacky to mistake them, for her head is so far up her own butt that her elbows are only just showing.
Post a Comment