Tonight:
4°c
Yard broke Commons rules over search of MP's office Commons
Joe Murphy, Political Editor4 Dec 2008
Scotland Yard today faces embarrassment for breaching guidelines when it obtained consent to search the Commons office of Damian Green.
Home Office officials believe the police broke the rules because they failed to tell Serjeant at Arms Jill Pay that she could simply have refused permission.
The finding is a setback for assistant commissioner Bob Quick, the head of the Yard investigation into Whitehall leaks and a contender for the job of Metropolitan Police Commissioner.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith ordered officials to get to the bottom of the matter after Speaker Michael Martin used his dramatic statement to the Commons yesterday to criticise the police.
In response, Mr Quick is understood to have written a letter to Ms Smith that says his officers did not make it clear to the Serjeant that consent was optional. The Home Secretary is likely to refer to his letter when she makes a statement to the Commons today and may even publish it.
A source said: "The letter is not explicit but our reading of it is that the Speaker was correct in his statement. It is not disastrous for the police but it is certainly unfortunate if they cannot show they followed procedure to the letter in such a high-profile case."
The Speaker sharply criticised the police yesterday, saying that permission to search the Commons should not have been given. "I have been told that the police did not explain, as they are required to do, that the Serjeant was not obliged to consent or that a warrant could have been insisted on," he told MPs. Officers took away computer equipment containing confidential files from Mr Green's office. The Speaker has demanded that the equipment be returned to the MP before Monday.
Police sources admit that technically they failed to inform officials of their right to refuse the search and should have done so.
But they also say that they were told that Ms Pay was taking legal advice about the search. The source said : "She did seek legal advice and one would have hoped that the advice would have come back and told them of their right to refuse the search."
Scotland Yard insists its search of Mr Green's Commons office was lawful. Officers say that under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act they do not need a warrant to search a premises if the person responsible gives their consent.
There has been controversy over whether the person responsible for MPs' offices is the Speaker or the Serjeant at Arms. Officers say they sought permission from Ms Pay because she is directly responsible for the protection and security of the House of Commons.
There is also the issue of whether the Serjeant at Arms should have informed the speaker but police say that it is a matter for Commons officials.
Mr Martin revealed yesterday that the Serjeant signed a consent form for the search Thursday without consulting him or the Clerk of the Commons Malcolm Jack. He said a warrant and the express permission of the Speaker would be required for future searches.
John Silverman, professor of criminal justice at Bedfordshire University, insisted that the raid broke the law.
Reader views (13)
What does one expect, particularly when the dark shadow of Mandy is there on anything the Labour Gov does!!!
- Richard, Limoges France, 04/12/2008 14:44
Report abuse
The clue is in the question. "Can we have your CONSENT to search the premises". I think even a five year old could work out what it means.
- Paul, Brent, London, 04/12/2008 14:35
Report abuse
Scotland Yard are correct in what they say, 'That they do not need a warrant to search premises if the person responsible gives consent'. However, I would have thought the person responsible was the person arrested, not the muppet employed by the Govt. I can't give the police permission to search my neighbours house. Therefore, surely an employee can't give permission to search through another persons property.
- Alan, carlisle uk, 04/12/2008 14:33
Report abuse
I don't believe that Mrs. Pay was unaware of her power to refuse the Yard entry. It is facetious to blame them for not telling her how she can do her job. If she really has no idea of her powers and rights this is a sad reflection on her boss ( who should have instructed her) and herself.
- Peter, Pirot, Serbia, 04/12/2008 14:07
Report abuse
Albert: Speakers are always (unless an independent, of which there are very few) going to come from one party or another, but can set aside party interests in taking on this role. It is wrong to say the Speaker "is bound to show bias".
Karen: Your imagination is getting the better of you. To say "He was probably too busy chuckling to himself ..." is just plain silly. If you think he is biased, well go on and make your case, set out your evidence.
- Graeme, Tyne and Wear, 04/12/2008 13:50
Report abuse
The Speaker has clearly tried to place the blame on the Police and the Sergeant at Arms. No surprises there then - if Gordon and Alistair blames the current economic situation totally on the problems in the USA & won't accept any blame at all for the parlous state of the UK's finances then why should anyone else n New Labour (and don't forget Martin is a Labour MP)take responsibility for anything (unless it's good news of course.
But examine the facts, Speaker Martin says Ms Pays didn't ask if a warrent had been issues. Apparently Martin was told about the impending arrest of a Conservative MP 7 hours before the actual arrest. Did he at any time ask if a warrant had been obtained? If not, why not? On such a sensitive issue, surely it was HIS responsibility (as well as Ms Pays) to aske that question - particulalry as he had 7 hours prior wearning.
Finally, Home Secretary Smith & Gordon say they weren't advised of the arrest until AFTER it happened. We know that the Leader of the Opposition AND the London Mayer were called by Scotland Yard just BEFORE the arrest. Are we really to believe that Cameron & Johnstone were told but NOT any officer of the government. Just don't believe it!!
- Malcolm, London, 04/12/2008 13:43
Report abuse
Ignorance and incompetence; sums up the Labour lackeys.
- Frank, Home Counties, England, 04/12/2008 13:14
Report abuse
Let's not be diverted by whether Mick the Muppet or Jill Pay are responsible for letting the Police abuse 400 years of parliamentary history; lets focus on the real question 'who would have the anger audacity and sheer contempt for the law to set the police on an opposition MP?' He's not giving anything away, but if you look at the way he sat back and smirked yesterday when confronted with his own history of leaking confidential information you might be forgiven for thinking that he found it a huge joke that he had caused so much trouble and discomfort
- Jeremiah, London, 04/12/2008 12:44
Report abuse
Another female (Ms Pay) shoehorned into a job for which she appears eminently unsuitable. Was she trained for the job? Did she understudy? Most importantly, she did not know the 'rules'. She fills the diversification quota and thats' enough for Labour.
Watching Ms Harman on Newsnight was uncomfortable. Another female out of her depth. Even Paxo had to remind her that she was a lawyer and should know the rules involving search.
- Michael Murphy, brightlingsea england, 04/12/2008 12:43
Report abuse
Member of Parliament are elected representatives and they should have privileges which should be gaurded by the speaker of the house. Nobody is above the law but MP's should have different rules as they are involved in running the country.
- Nayeshrao Pitla, London, 04/12/2008 12:15
Report abuse
The whole job of the Speaker and Sergeant at Arms is to see that the rules governing the House are adhered to: they showed astonishing naivity and a rather muddled idea of what democracy is for either of them not to check what the protocol should be. The Speaker cannot pass the buck to his subordinate for responding exactly the same way that he did himself.
But at the end of the day, how can you have 9 specialist Terror Police assigned to arresting a leading member of the Shadow Cabinet without consulting with the Home Secretary? And why was he held for 9 hours and then released without charge? Clearly they were hoping to find evidence whilst searching his home and office which would give them grounds to charge him, but then failed to do so. In otherwords: Police acting on State business, apparently accountable to no-one, arrested a man with no grounds for suspicion and then failed to concoct a case against him.
Thank goodness for the Human Rights Act: everyone in the UK who is 'bricking it' about Europe is having the wool pulled over their eyes.
- Roz, Chamonix, France, 04/12/2008 12:11
Report abuse
Let's face it, this is a huge mess up, but the police broke no rules.
There are plenty of people in the Houses of Parliament who know the legal and constitutional situation with regards to police entering and searching an MP's office. If the police asked for permission and were given it, the only people to blame are those who knew about it and didn't block them (the Speaker and the Serjeant at Arms).
Don't forget that Michael Martin is not impartial; as a long-serving Labour politician he was probably too busy chuckling to himself about a Tory getting into trouble with the Law to think about the fact that it would ride roughshod over Constitutional Law.
- Karen, Barnet, 04/12/2008 11:17
Report abuse
What did we expect from a Labour selected Speaker? He is bound to show bias in favour of his friends and would seize upon any opportunity to embarrass the opposition. So much for impartiality.
- Albert Swift, Aberdeen, Scotland, 04/12/2008 10:39
Report abuse
