I’m distinctly unimpressed by the Speaker’s statement on Greengate-Galleygate, as are Iain Dale, Guido Fawkes and Fraser Nelson.
The question of warrants is a red herring. The only issue is whether the arrest was lawful under section 18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. The relevant PACE Code of Practice is here – see page 37, paras. 4.3 and 5.
Assuming the search was lawful (and nothing the Speaker said suggested otherwise) then the Serjeant-at-Arms was right to allow the police to search Parliamentary premises. Parliamentary privilege does not prevent arrests for crimes, and it would be quite wrong not to admit the police to exercise their lawful powers. Speaker Martin clearly didn’t think a search warrant was necessary last week – why should he have? it’s not – but now that all this has blown up he is trying to put the Serjeant-at-Arms in the frame. Weak, pathetic and deeply unimpressive, this: if there were any sense in this idea that a warrant should be insisted on (there’s not: it’s merely a procedural hurdle that’s being put forward now, as a sop) then he should have insisted on one last week, rather than bringing it up after the fact, as a way of blaming his staff. Jill Pay has done nothing wrong, and should not resign. If anyone in Parliament has failed, it is the Speaker personally.
I’m also unimpressed that the debate on all this will only take place on Monday – it should have been this week.
Why is so much being made (a) of the fact that the police did not appear to have a warrant and (b) the suggestion that the police should have told Jill Pay S-at-Arms, that she was not obliged to consent?
No-one seemed inclined to put the boot into the Speaker who does appear to have played this particular game of constitutional and political chess by using the little known ‘Jellyish defence’.
The story is not over yet. We have Jacqui Smith’s peroration and perambulation yet to come. I’m not overly impressed with Brown or Smith in this farago.
It puzzles me, too – I think lots of MPs must assume a search is only lawful with a warrant and that they’ve been told the search was unlawful – which of course they haven’t.
I think this has a lot of legs, too. I think the Speaker is obviously trying to stitch his staff up – but is his position really sustainable? He was clearly kept in the loop and did not insist on a warrant. He should have taken the line that a warrant wasn’t needed and the S-at-A acted properly; but he was afraid of that and wanted to offer something to MPs.
As well as ministers, we’ve more to hear from the police, I think – they may dispute the accusation that they failed to give the full information.
This from the BBC website tonight… “When asked about this, a Scotland Yard spokesman said there had been “no deliberate attempt to mislead”.
A separate police source added that if the official who signed the consent from for the raid – Sergeant at Arms Jill Pay – had not known police could be refused permission to enter, it would be “surprising”.
It is a bit worrying when neither the Police nor the people who actually made the goddam laws know what the law is…. wonderfully British.
More to come… ?
Debate Monday…. one can almost hear the muffled sound of dissimulation.
Maybe my new diet of only one meal a day + a bottle is getting to me – but what is Jacqui Smith going to say in her statement. She says she did not know in advance…
I would like to know why she was out of the loop when others were told. She probably does not know the answer to that very simple question – and will say that the Police must pursue their enquiries and go where the evidence leads them.
It appears that the police are doing a bit of back tracking… and Acting Met Commissioner must be extremely pissed off as he sees the top job disappearing over the horizon?
Anyway… at least no-one was shot dead…
I cannot accept your comment that parliamentary priviledge does not extend to criminal matters! If those criminal matters touch in any way the freedom of speech or procedures within parliament, then the 1689 BOR would still protect. Let us say for example that an mp was reported to the police for an offence of incitement to racial hatred over a speech made in the house, then surely The rights of the house would still take precedence!
Fair enough, Anon – you have a point, and I’m not sure what the position would be if the police were to try to arrest an Mp in the circumstances you oultine.
I’m talking about the freedom from arrest, though, rather than freedom of speech – they’re two separate aspects of privilege and of course no action is being taken against Green for anything he’s said.
An MP is not protected by privilege from arrest for a crime; so I think it’s right to say, as I said in the original post, that Parliamentary privilege does not prevent arrests for crimes.
but my point is that it would be very easy for an MP to commit a crime in the process of parliamentary proceedings or parliamentary free speech,
I would put it forward that that argument applies to the green case, if he stated that the information was being sought for use ONLY in parliament, not for release to the press! that the information was required for parliamentary research or to formulate written questions for example, then the constitutional law would surely provide an absolute protection as it would fall under the proceedings in parliament clause of the BOR
I don’t think so, Anon. If he had conspired with Chris Galley, he did that out of Parliament. I’m afraid the obsession many commentators have with Parliamentary privilege re: Damian Green is wholly irrelevant.
The Speaker is reported as saying :
“…Erskine May makes it clear that Parliamentary privilege has never prevented the operation of the criminal law the precincts of the House should not be “a haven from the law”.
Having determined that they were able to search under the terms of s18, could the police have still sought a warrant, just to be sure?
Let’s face it, how often do the cops raid MP’s offices – in or out of Parliament? It’s plain that Ministers would have been informed.
Indeed this whole exercise was – we are told – started in the Cabinet Office, so did no one think it politic to talk to the Minister well before the guano started flying? In any event, Normington did not get to his exalted position by taking risks with his own backside. My view is that many of these people were in the loop but that they’re all trying desperately to avoid any form of responsibility and/or blame.
It’s just the sheer bleeding incompetence that gets me. If you’re going to stitch up your opponents just do it properly, eh? Is this really the best conspiracy that Mandelson can come up with? It really is a third-rate effort. No finesse at all.
Charon, that may have been Erskine May’s opinion, however the 1999 parliamentary commission on it seems to suggest its FAR more complex, and that the position of exactly what constitutes parliamentary proceedings is less than settled:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/jt199899/jtselect/jtpriv/43/4306.htm
I agree it was lawful under s.18. Too many red herrings are being smoked to cause confusion. Both the Labour and Tories are lying in this affair. What happened to truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Turns out that it was section 8, subsection 3(c) that was used.
Thanks, Anonymous!
Members of Parliament are not protected from arrest in criminal matters. That was the view of Parliament itself in their 1999 report on privilege. Charon QC is right on this.