Parliamentary Cluedo

David

As ever, Melanie is informative, incisive, provoking (of thoughts) AND witty.

George Steiner

Mr. David
It is all true. But also inefective.

Simon

"it’s a bit odd that they hadn’t taken the precaution of getting that fourth warrant just in case consent was refused."

Isnt that why they tried to get consent because they couldnt get a warrant? And therefore its not odd. It is an interesting fact that the Serjeant had been thinking about this for a day and contradicts the previous statment made. Surely this can verified?

Robert

"Well, maybe. But since by Quick’s account the police had already obtained the other three warrants before approaching the Serjeant, it’s a bit odd that they hadn’t taken the precaution of getting that fourth warrant just in case consent was refused. It also doesn’t explain the discrepancy with their earlier statement which listed four warrants that had been obtained".

I am afraid, Melanie that you have missed a very important proviso in the granting of a search warrant. See below

"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".

A JP cannot issue a warrant in these circumstances unless it is first ascertained that consent will not be given and that I suggest is what police set out find out prior to the day of arrest. It would appear that consent would be given and indeed it was and signed to that effect: thus there was not the need to apply for a warrant.

In the three cases where warrants had to be obtained whilst I do not know the full circumstances I would suggest that either consent was not given or someone else either owned those properties or had a legal right to be there

Bob Quick was not, in my opinion the murderer, but he left a clue in the HoC library

David Raynes

"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".
*************
Relying on "consent" in serious crime is almost unheard of ( I am not saying it was serious they are). I worked in and around serious crime for 30 plus years, often, even usually, with the Police, I sat as a guest on two Heads of CID committees, I never heard such nonsense as relying on "consent" in circumstances like this. It is in fact plain silly. Consent given can be withdrawn as the code makes clear and MetPol had no idea what they were going to find in that office that the HoC Officials might not have access to. A locked (private) briefcase, locked cupboard (not HoC property). A safe maybe. "It was considered", come on Mr Quick you will have to do better than that. I think there is something deeply suspicious about MetPol not getting a warrant for that office. Did they tell the person who granted the three warrants that the person concerned was an MP? WHY were so many Officers at the private house. Restricting the number of Officers is quite common in sensitive civil or criminal investigations. Nobody is coming out of this case with any glory. It is a shambles of handling from government, MetPol and opposition. The one source of possible information we do not seem to have heard from is the person who signed off the warrants. Exactly what was the "information" provided by MetPol. Was it true? Did it embroider? Did it leave out certain matters that most people would consider relevant? I think we should be told as Private Eye would say.

Frank P

Whatever the ducking and diving and weaving and bobbing, the police have allowed themselves to be used as political pawns yet again. No good will come of it; Parliament is devalued to a lower level than it had alredy sunk - and it was already near its nadir; the Queen's Speech was made to look like a Women's Institute pantomime as a sideshow, and we move inexorably towards the implementation of Republican agenda: whether by design or stupidity is irrelevant really, as either possibility is equally depressing. Any police officer involved in this debacle should be struck off the list of contenders for the vacant office of Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis. In fact I doubt that any serving senior police officer in the land is worthy of serving HM in that role. For the first time in my life I feel that a respected recent retiree from the armed services should be appointed to sort the Job out. The last two decades have been a absolute disgrace as the independence of the police as the enforcement arm of the Criminal Justice system has been frittered away pro rata with the ceding of the nation's sovereignty to Brussels. A coincidence? Not on your nellie! Once again , Gramsci is giggling in his grave.

john east

Sorry Melanie, but you obviously have not read the letter to Jacqui Smith from Assistant Commissioner Quick. A full copy of the letter was posted on Guido Fawkes' blog yesterday (www.order-order.com/)

The relevent quotation from this letter is as follows:

"The officers explained the nature of the investigation and the purpose of the search and were satisfied that the Serjeant At Arms understood that the police had no power to search in the absence of a warrant....."

Please take careful note of the weasel words - "The officers....were satisfied that the Serjeant At Arms understood..."

What exactly does this mean? It certainly does not state that the officers told the Serjeant At Arms that they had no warrant, it only says that they understood that she knew a warrant was needed.

Ask yourself, why these words were used in the letter. Why didn't Quick just say outright that the Serjeant At Arms was informed they needed a warrant?

Because Quick is trying to pull the wool over our eyes maybe?