Curiouser and curiouser

David Raynes

It is very nice to have Joshua on the team. He is again spot on. I have concluded Mr Quick is being rather less than frank. There is something really really odd about the way the Police dealt with all this. Why when they discovered national security was not involved did they not refer the issue back to the Home Office for disiplinary or other measures. Has there been a behind the scenes discussion between the Home Office or Cabinet Office and MetPol, saying (in terms) they wanted "the book" thrown at these leakers? Is all the stuff about not interfering with the Police and them having operational independence- just so much hot air? The common sense way of dealing with leaks like this is to use private sector investigators, in that way the complainant be it business or government keeps their options open. THEY control events. Once you give things like this to the Police, investigation by numbers takes over. That kind of investigation has its place. this was not such a case.

Frank P

If they were there at the behest of the Home Office why would they need a warrant, knowing that 'staff' in question at the P o W are aympathetic to the government's interests, would have had their cards marked already and would let them in. They certainly needed warrants for the other drums as that was the territory of 'the enemy'.

It's the sheer bumbledom of it all that is so pathetic. The couldn't organise a proverbial at a brewery without falling in a vat.

Colin Mcquade

Has anyone asked Mr. Quick?

Also, is it me, or is he a dead ringer for bob crow?

Andy Leeds

Well done for highlighting this, and full marks to Joshua. The Police have made a complete balls of this whole business. Resignation time me thinks.

Windsor (worried)

All the legalistic obfuscation about warrants may also be there to camouflage the possibility that there had been a prior verbal agreement between the police and Serjeant's office that a search could go ahead (as in prior to the meeting described by Assistant Commissioner Quick - who may, incidentally, be responsible for anti-terrorist security as Westminster according to the Met's PR whan he was appointed).

Herbert Thornton

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

I think there is some confusion here.

I've read section 8(3)(c) and one of the conditions for issuing a warrant is that a Justice of the Peace must be reasonably satisfied (among other things) that entry to the premises will not be granted unless a warrant is produced.

In light of that I can't see how the police could get a warrant 'just in case" entry was refused. To get a warrant, they must satisfy the JP that entry is at least likely to be refused.

Another & entirely separate point that nobody seems to have mentioned is that the JP must also be satisfied that the material the police want is not subject to legal privilege - see Section 8(21)(d). Are not M.P.s papers subject to legal privilege? I don't know the answer, but I should have thought it quite likely that they are, or should be.

For anybody who's curious about it all, here are what seem to be the relevant bits of Section 8 -

(1) If on an application made by a constable a justice of the peace is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing--
(a) that a serious arrestable offence has been committed; and
(b) that there is material on premises mentioned in sub section (1A) below which is likely to be of substantial value (whether by itself or together with other material) to the investigation of the offence; and
(c) that the material is likely to be relevant; and
(d) that 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 subsection (3) below applies in relation to each set of premises specified in the application,

he may issue a warrant authorising a constable to enter and search the premises.

(3) The conditions mentioned in subsection (1)(e) above 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) (not relevant here)

If Joshua has any comments it would be interesting hear them.

Herbert Thornton

P.S. - Melanie - are you sure you are quoting Joshua accurately? Did he really say that "belief that there will be consent to a search is not a ground for refusing a warrant."?

As I read Section 8, belief that there will be consent must prevent the issue of a warrant, since one of the conditions for a JP's issuing issuing it is belief in the JP's mind, that consent will be refused.

hadrian

Well done, Mr Rosenberg! I should put nothing past these nincompoops.
Andrew Neil Diane Abbot and Michael Portillo all clearly felt, along with Dr Starkey last night that a hugely significant threat has emerged to our parliamentary freedoms in this fracas. Oh how we must concur wholeheartedly!!

marksany

Andrew McKinley's take on it, in the house yesterday:

Can the Leader of the House help to clarify one point that has troubled me overnight. [Interruption.] No, it is a serious point. A certificate was signed by the Serjeant at Arms waiving the need for a warrant. Surely the only person who could have done that is Damian Green. If somebody wanted to search the flat that I rent, my managing agent could not authorise that. Only I could, surely. Can we have some clarification of whether the only the person who can say, "Yes, you can come into my flat or my office," and authorise that is that person himself or herself? Is that not the case?

Leo McKinstry

Great stuff as always. One other point occured to me about Bob Quick's strangely unconvincing letter. Perhaps I am being idiotic but on Question 4 - relating to when he wrote to the Speaker about the arrest of Damien Green - Quick says that he wrote "on Monday 1st December." That was four days after the arrest of Green and five days, apparently, after he approached the Commons authorities. Why this long delay? Had he forgotten his legal duty? Or was he hoping to get away with it until the media furore erupted over the weekend?

Frank P

David Raynes.

There used to be a Senior Police officer of at least Commander rank attached to the Home Office on secondment. Isn't this still the case? He/she could have dealt with this type of thing internally in conjunction with senior management using disciplinary procedures, as you correctly point out. All they had to do was plug the leak. The government must have known the full SP before they sent in the SB. A good investigator never asks a suspect a question unless he knows the true facts beforehand.

How can anyone have any doubt that everyone from the senior staff at the Home Office, the Home Secretary, the director of the CPS, probably most members of the Cabinet and the Prime Minister were in the loop before the bust took place? Or doubt that the Speaker and his female 'janitor' with the mace were told to facilitate the bust? It wasn't a fishing expedition, it was a political missile that was fired - and the political police pushed the button. Now it has exploded in their faces and they are all in the faeces. I suspect that Ian Johnston (one of the current lesser-spotted Bramshill 'butterflies' - ex-Met included on his CV, currently i/c trains - has probably been despatched to clear the Met of any wrongdoing.

The whole pantomime is political, contemptible and risible, particularly on the part of the police (I expect no better from our arrogant and ignorant politicos, particularly Jacqui Smith). And the intervention also of Boris Johnson was the usual buffoonery; he should have kept his head down. He has muddied the waters. Green handled both the snitch and the info badly, too. As Terry Thomas would say, "What a shaaaar, what an absolute shaaaar!"

A plague on all their houses, their baneful behaviour has struck another blow to the supremacy of Parliament, already a mere satellite of the Brussels bureaucracy. And tripartite governance by the Home Office, the London Mayor and the MPA over the Met Commissioner (who traditionally was once only answerable to HM Queen, through the Home Sec.) is once again proven to be a toxic mix. Independent police investigation? My arse!

Tancred

"In the letter, Quick suggested that the police made no attempt to obtain a warrant to search Damian Green’s Parliamentary office because the law provided no basis for doing so, since it was assumed that consent for this search would be forthcoming. "

Another interpretation is that the Police had been given the nod and a wink beforehand by someone "high up" that access would be granted.

Personally, I believe that Jacquie Smith is lying through her teeth and that the role in all of this by Gus O'Donnell (Browns favourite Civil Servant) needs to be researched.

EC

Frank P: "It's the sheer bumbledom of it all that is so pathetic. The couldn't organise a proverbial at a brewery without falling in a vat."

Is this supporting evidence of the cock up theory of history or was it really an attempt to breach the buttocks of our democracy? If so by who?

We have reached that point in the NuLab circus where the clowns have entered the ring, they're tripping over their feet and the wheels are falling off their car. Gordo is sitting in the driving seat clutching a steering wheel that is no longer attached. Apparent disarray, but from the sidelines the Circus Master, EU Mandy Mandate, is giving directions. But which set of leavers is Mandy operating?
And should we be looking out for small members of the family phocoenidae - "common poipose" as they might pronounce in NYC.

EC

Frank P.: "The whole pantomime is political, contemptible and risible.."

..as is the gerrymandered charade that our democracy has become.

Very shortly Gordo et al will have "achieved" parity with the Euro. At which point Mandy step in and plead with the EUSSR for rescue by way of letting the UK adopt the Euro. Rescue = No referendum required!

The price of such altruism being to kiss goodbye to the last vestiges of national sovereignty as well as the Pound.

Watch out Gordo, HE'S BEHIND YOU!

David Raynes

Frank P.
I do not believe this was a case that should have ever got near the Police unless national security (ie Official Secrets Act materiel) was proven to be involved. Since no one has mention Official Secrets we must presume they are not involved. The Home Office were quite right to find the leaker (probably quite an easy task)and will be right to dismiss him, but the methodology has been flawed. I think it has been mishandled by everyone from the Home Secretary down, through the Permanent Secretary, the Cabinet Office and on into NSY. A further twist today is a report in the Telegraph that Quick & Stephenson allegedly had words, a disagreement, about the policy of arresting Green. Exactly who is in charge here? Quick does not appear to know the law on search yet aspires to be Britain's top cop, Stephenson allegedly disagrees with a policy being undertaken in his command but seemingly & allegedly, lacks the wit or authority to stop it. Quick getting the rules on search wrong (see Rozenburg) is inexcusable, yes things go wrong in the heat of battle but wrong in a considered letter he knew would be published? It is quite quite staggering. Are the Police going to pull a rabbit out of hat and show that Green was involved in a leak of Official Secrets? I doubt it. What exactly did they put in their written "information" to get their 3 warrants. Was it truthful? Did they leave out key points? Was a fourth warrant refused? Did the Police get (or did they think they got) a political signal to "rid me of this turbulent leaker"? Was Gus O'Donnell involved in that signalling? What a mess.

Frank P

EC

Cue Stephen Sondheim!

Don't bother, they're here ...

"Phocoenidae" .... Ha! Great pun, I wish I'd said that ...

(Just teeing up Whistler for you ... and you (and he) would be right).

"Is this supporting evidence of the cock up theory of history or was it really an attempt to breach the buttocks of our democracy? If so by who?"

Well, I get a pain between my buttocks every time I see any of the current cabinet members on my TV screen. As for Lord Meddlesome of Primrose Hill I have a silver cross to hold up whenever he appears. What's more if ever I see him again in person, not only will my cross be firmly held at arms length, but my back will be quickly pressed back against the nearest wall, preferably made of three ply brick, which would, of course, tend to detract against the cock-up theory - and prevent an even worse PITA. On the other hand, he's probably concave, rather than convex.

EC

The Damian Green affair is a piece of misdirection. The question is, what have the 'tards really been up to whilst your attention has been diverted?

Frank P

David Raynes

"Did the Police get (or did they think they got) a political signal to "rid me of this turbulent leaker"?"

I guess we know, post facto, who is saying,"Who will rid me of this turbulent Speaker?"

About 90 percent of those who dragged him him into the Chair on 20th October 2000, probably. Well - now's their chance!

Frank P

Is this a case of the Quick and the Dead?

Frank P

On a point of order Mr Moderator: in some posts on this blog, since the commentary box was relocated the margins and spacing are all over the shop. As nobody else has mentioned it, I wonder whether it's my software and not yours that is at fault. Anyone else experiencing the fault?

logdon

Far from being this, "But the central question, whether this was a politically motivated hounding of an opposition MP who was simply doing his job or a justifiable police investigation into a possible serious offence, remains as yet unanswered." from two blogs back. This ties in quite alarmingly with Peter Oborne's book I'm just reading, 'The Rise of the Political Class' which posits that Parliament runs a poor second to Party allegiance and Government. Richard Starkey was right on the nail on Thursday night in his estimation that this is a major tipping point in our constitutional history and that a form of political crime is emerging. No official secrets were divulged so why the sitting on fence, Melanie? I smell the hand of Mandelson in all of this as he returns to the old tricks for which the arch manipulator is famous. The boy just can't help it but as we've already seen, he is not as good as he thinks, already 'nicked' on two occasions. Blair at least did the right thing but if Ol' Snake Oil's hubris trips him up again will the 'grand bottler' do the same? How do you get rid of a Lord?

Ken

"How do you get rid of a Lord?"
Try defenestration

costard

Suddenly you're taking this seriously, having been way off the mark earlier in the week. Thank goodness for Joshua! Keep going, we may get to the bottom of this appalling episode sooner.

logdon

"How do you get rid of a Lord?"
Try defenestration.

Better still, decapitation in the grand tradition. The image of a bare chested, partially toothed and leather clad butch executioner together with a pleading, frilly shirted Mandy would be quite hilarious. However if defenestration is all we've got it would have to be a very high window or in true form he'd bounce back. Maybe he should have tried a second career as Wily Coyote?

Andy Leeds

I'll pay for the block.

Frank P

costard

"Thank goodness for Joshua!"

In the context you raise it, that's an invidious and dangerous remark. Could cause a breach of the peace on this blog, never mind in Chez Rosenberg. In fact in the current climate don't be surprised if you get a knock at the door. If so - remember to ask for a warrant and be Quick about it.

Logdon

As destruction of the culture is what the Long March is all about, isn't it all par for the course? For Mandelson it's a win-win scenario every time, regardless. He has severely damaged the sexual, political and financial mores of the country; not to mention his role in the damage to the sovereigny while in Yurrup; only the currency is still intact (sorta) and frankly, I'm prepared to believe that much of what obtains in this current collapse, was engineered to bring us in line with the Euro. The EUSSR looms large, but all under the shadow of the creeping clouds of Islamism, which for some reason the culture warriors of the looney left are seeding. If that isn't the measure of their madness, what is? I just wish I could be sure that the somewhat tenuous possibility that Brown will be ousted by Cameroon that it will be followed by an "About Turn!" to the Long Marchers. I fear an "As you were!"

Frank P

Andy

I'm already in possession of the wooden stake for afters.

Andy Leeds

Excellent. So who will pay for the axe ?? Perhaps it should be by subscription.

EC

Frank P: "I just wish I could be sure that the somewhat tenuous possibility that Brown will be ousted by Cameroon that it will be followed by an "About Turn!" to the Long Marchers. I fear an "As you were!""

You are not alone there!

"In fact in the current climate don't be surprised if you get a knock at the door."

Despite assertions from the Dear Leader and the Wicker Man that we are not living in a police state, the mission creep of the town hall Stasi to establish a bureaucratic gulag proceeds apace. Courtesy of RIPA. More news in today's Torygraph

Better nip out and check your wheelie bin is closed properly!

Shaun Pilkington

Excellent work. That said, Having seen the Home Sec do an interview where she neither confirmed nor denied having tapped the phone of Green, I wonder if this whole search thing is misdirection. We've seen Labour 'bury bad news' before, the do have Mandy back so definitely have the skill set on site to do this kind of thing! I wonder if, instead, we should be asking who had and has their phone tapped by our security apparatchiks?

doityourselfweather com

I'm discounting this entire article based on ...

"the 47 per cent of the people of that country who did not vote for Obama " ...

It's not that 47% of the country did not vote for Obama only that 47% of the votes cast did not vote for Obama!

EC

In Germany the State and Federal courts have been arguing about the legalities of deploying Bundestrojaner to remotely and covertly search personal computers and all other manner of modern gizmos. The advantage of these cyber police over their regular trigger happy clodhoppers being a smaller body count when searching premises. American agencies have been using this technology for the last decade - Magic Lantern and its successors.

In the UK the police seem to be stuck in the era of Whitehall Farces, but today it isn't Brian Rix who has his trousers round his ankles.

Frank P

EC

Brian Rix - ah yes! I remember when he caused a major scandal for the police over a traffic incident, don't you? It triggered the Royal Commission on the Police 1960 which itself led to the Police Act of 1964 and all that has flowed from that.

http://books.google.com/books?id=UZAE1okMH6oC&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170&dq=Brian+Rix+and+police+incident&source=web&ots=1KTwzQRNVh&sig=suhSuaLEymmCo7nOOYbAIBalcg0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result

Heavy handedness is not new in the lexicon of police interface with the public, but a least the Home Secretary didn't kick off that particular Brian Rix farce, unlike this Green gala of goofery. On that occasion it was a very un-PC PC called Buster something or other whose surname now escapes me.

At that time the Home Secretary was RAB Butler and Joe Simpson was Commissioner; would that a public figure of that stature was at the Home Office today, rather than someone who looks, speaks and acts like an officious bus conductress on the tatty end of the No.25 route - circa 1954. Ding, ding! "Any more farces, please? No standing on top!"

As for the head of NSY - it was Joe Simpson then. I won't even begin to make comparisons with the puny incumbent/s of this last PMs unelected stint, as I don't wish to insult the memory of Sir Joe.

mcmrjp

Let us disabuse the idea that a JP would be asked to sign a warrant for the Palace of Westminster. If one was asked for it would be from a District Judge at City of Westminster Mags. I would find it extremely strange if he/she was prepared to grant that warrant. There seems to be mich made of the phrase "MP's are not above the law" but they miss the point - no one is saying they are (least of all Mr Greene) what is at stake is the way this was done and especially at the Palace of Westminster. I believe Melanie is wrong on this and that we should all be worried about the actions of the police/government in this matter. Our civil liberties are a t stake here.

JohnAnt

Which reasonably sane JP or judge might take the view that entry to an MP's office and papers in the Palace of Westminster would be likely to be granted by the Speaker, Serjeant-at-Arms or anyone else at the P of W? Particularly given the privileged nature of many of the papers and computer files 'included' in the search.
Sorry, top cop, it won't hold up.

Frank P

Another indication of just how politicised the police has become is the rank of coppers effecting arrests or leaving their offices to interrogate suspects these days. Since when is it necessary for an Assistant Commissioner to feel a collar or ask the few questions that can be asked under PACE before arrest? They are there to make sure everyone else does Job properly. And then to discipline them if they don't. This is silly grandstanding and should be beneath their dignity. Mind you - if you're vying for the vacant position of Commissioner and you do the Home Secretary a favour by nicking an Opposition shadow Minister, I suppose it enhances your CV. Unless of course you cock it up and drop the government in the Brown stuff... in which case no doubt your ambitions will be Brown bread.

EyeSee

I think that when the person pushing the police to do the search and to arrest opposition MP's is in fact the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister, I think they will also have said that a warrant would not be necessary. So why would the police even think of seeking one? Makes me laugh to hear the police officer saying 'it is not appropriate you should be here' to the Tory enquiring about the raid, when in fact the very opposite was the case.