Michael Martin: Police entered Commons without warrant, Sergeant-at-Arms rather than Speaker consented to search

Highlights, not verbatim:

2.30pm: I did not want to make comment about "grave" matters surrounding arrest of the Member for Ashford, Damian Green to anyone other than the House.

Today I do not intend to comment on the allegations facing Mr Green.

Parliamentary privilege has never prevented the operation of the criminal law.

The precincts of the House cannot and should not be a haven from the law.

The Metropolitan Police informed the Sergeant-at-Arms that an arrest of a Damian Green was possible last week.

I was not told that the police did not have a warrant.  The police did not tell the Sergeant that there was a right to object.

I regret that a consent form was then signed by the Sergeant without alerting the Clerk.

I never personally authorised the search of the office.

In future a warrant will always be required for a search and my personal approval will be required.

A new protocol will be released formalising this.

I am establishing a committee of seven senior MPs to investigate this matter and there will be a debate in the Commons next Monday.

2.40pm: Michael Howard rises to make a point of order - calling the arrest of Damian Green an "attack" on parliament - and calls for freedom in next Monday's debate to question Government Ministers and House authorities.

2.42pm: Ming Campbell rises to ask if the new Speaker's committee will examine the behaviour of the police as well as the House authorities.

2.45pm: John Reid rises to say that the Speaker's inquiry must also ensure that MPs are not protected from proper police enquiries.

2.46pm: Damian Green rises to say that an MP who exposes government failings should not be treated the same as an MP who endangers national security.

2.47pm: Iain Duncan Smith expresses concerns that the Government should not be able to draft a motion next Monday that prejudices the terms of the debate.

2.50pm: Douglas Hogg says it is a "scandal" and "deplorable" that Commons authorities had a right to refuse request to search Commons office.

5.30pm VIDEO of Michael Martin's statement.

Comments

[Adam in London]

The police did not have a warrant, and the Sergeant at Arms needs to be told they she has a right to object?!?!?

Good grief...

[Sally Roberts]

It seems that Damian Green will not get his computer back until Monday! I wonder what sensitive information will have been removed from it before then - and I also wonder how the now-unrepresented residents of Ashford must now be feeling!

[Ian]

The Sergeant signed a consent form without consulting the speaker or the clerk she obviously has to go and go now. Why hasn't she resigned I wonder?

[GB£.com]

"I wonder what sensitive information will have been removed from it before"

Forunately his Word docs folder named 'Tory Policy' was empty anyway.. ;-)

[Tom FD]

That was a fiery comment by David Winnick.

[David_at_Home]

The Sergeant at Arms, whose confirmation in the appointment was not sought from the Queen as it should have been, is clearly not up to the job and should resign.

A more traditional retired general/admiral Sergeant at Arms would have had the confidence to keep the police out unless they could produce a cast iron reason for raiding an MP's office.

[Sally Roberts]

Yes and did you clock the look given to Winnick by Brown! He's toast.....

[Norm Brainer]

So he's blaming it all on the Sergeant-on-Arms?
"It wasn't me, guv"

How can she be in that place and not realise this is something that she should probably tell someone before signing anything.
So either she did say and he's making it up to save his skin, or she didn't say and she isn't up to the job that the Speaker has placed her in - Either way he should resign.

[Ian Bennett]

Sally
1. You DONT need a warrant to arrest someone
2. You can search a property/Office with the consent of those concerned WITHOUT a warrant
3. It is HIGHLY UNLIKELY as a person being investigated for an offence that DG (OR INDEED ANYONE ELSE) will "get their computer back on Monday" - I know of people,innocent people,merely part of an investigation against someone else,who have had computers impounded for years!
4. To suggest that the Metropolitan Police will do anything other than look after the data in the compter - is frankly stupid and nonsensical!
5.The Speaker acknowledges one error was made,and has immediately taken steps to rectify it,and has apologised for it!
6. The Speaker has rightly arranged a full debate and formed a group of 7 to look at future issues again we should applaud this!

I do detect a groundswell amongst the general public - not politicians or political bloggers - but the 95% not interested like we are in politics along the lines of - An MP gets arrested,he "may" have done something wrong = No MP is above the law and should'nt be...

Mandy and Co will spin this line to death for the next few weeks WE MUST NOT FALL IN TO THE TRAP!

If DG has done nothing wrong,he will be exonerated - then the retribution can begin - if he HAS done something wrong - then frankly we should not condone it - and may already have gone too far in the eyes of the public in condoning it!

PRAGMATICALLY - this is VERY VERY dangerous political ground for us as well as Labour - I fear the Cameroons have become too vitriolic - thank god DC has seen the sense of utilising the skills of Howard and Clarke - a day or so too late maybe,but welcome nonetheless!

[David_at_Home]

It's always a relief to see an MP defying the party establishment since it confirms that we do still have a democracy of sorts after all.

Full marks to David Winnick!

[J. Trudgill]

"I was not told that the police did not have a warrant." So is he saying that he was otherwise told? She said that she could not contact him. Who's lying?

"The consent form was signed (by the Sergeant)without alerting the Clerk." She said that she did contact the Clerk. Who's lying?

She had added, about the Clerk, that he was satisfied because she told him the Police had been authorised by the DPP. Who's lying?

If I were the Sergeant, and had told the truth, I might feel that I was being stitched up.

[Peter Watson]

These are your new masters now, or wanabe ones - be warned. You have seen nothing yet.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=UXk4nLIv5jo

[Sally Roberts]

"The Speaker acknowledges one error was made,and has immediately taken steps to rectify it,and has apologised for it!"

Oh, so that's all right then!

"To suggest that the Metropolitan Police will do anything other than look after the data in the compter - is frankly stupid and nonsensical!"

Certainly not - I think with respect you are being a little naive!

"I do detect a groundswell amongst the general public - not politicians or political bloggers - but the 95% not interested like we are in politics along the lines of - An MP gets arrested,he "may" have done something wrong = No MP is above the law and should'nt be..."

It has been made very clear by several speakers - including by Damian Green himself - that no one is stating that Members of Parliament are above the law - nor should Ministers and the agents of the law themselves be above the law! What must be preserved is the freedom of a Member of Parliament to go about his business without harassment or arrest so that he can firstly carry out his duty as a member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and secondly serve his constituents - those who voted for him and those who did not. This Mr Green is currently being prevented from doing.

No one who has spoken so far has been "vitriolic" - on the contrary, the contributions from Michael Howard and IDS (both former Leaders of the Opposition) have been measured and sensible.

[Norm Brainer]

If DG has done nothing wrong,he will be exonerated - then the retribution can begin - if he HAS done something wrong - then frankly we should not condone it - and may already have gone too far in the eyes of the public in condoning it!

Don't fall into the trap of labour thinking that if it was against the law it was therefore wrong.

What we know he has done may be illegal for all I know, but also we know of no wrong done.

[pp]

He chose the sgt at arms (deliberately downgrading the role) - I would have thought the buck stops with him...

[james]

What did Winnick say? Some of us are at work and can't watch it!

[Peter O]

pp is absolutely right. The Serjeant at Arms should have known that the police required a search warrant. If she didn't know such a basic as that then she isn't up to the job and should immediately resign. However, if she consulted with her superiors and they told her to permit the search then they should resign.

If the Speaker appointed a Serjeant who wasn't capable of doing the job then he MUST take responsibility and resign.

Either way, SOMEONE in the hierarchy of the Commons admin is responsible.

[Terry Buckman]

What a spectacle of self-important, self-obsessed lick-spittles. What a pity our elected representatives don't pack the Chamber for matters that really concern their constituents. The Damian Green affair, whilst of concern, has been blown out of all proportion. Surely there enough highly paid officials, Members and other hangers on to sort this out without all this grandstanding and hysteria.

[Jennifer Wells]

It is clear that the Speaker does not have the team to defend the Commons.

[Sally Roberts]

"What a spectacle of self-important, self-obsessed lick-spittles."

They are protecting YOUR Freedoms...Yours and mine! Be grateful someone is standing up for democracy.

[Anonymous Eurocrat]

James: Winnick demanded that the Police be called to the Bar of the House (this happened to John Junor in the 1950s) for contempt of Parliament, among other things.

The truly astounding thing is that nether the Serjeant nor the Speaker seem to have consulted the Clerk. This is stupidity beyond belief, and suggests that all they were thinking of was getting home for the break.

[David_at_Home]

"They are protecting YOUR Freedoms...Yours and mine! "

Hear hear!

[Votedave]

The frankly unrepentent, shameful attitude of the Government in general, and Jacqui Smith in particular towards the Damian Green case has been utterly outrageous.

[Sally Roberts]

Contrast the behaviour of our dishonest, buck-passing, dishonourable Ministers with that of the Indian Government where Ministers accepted immediate accountability for the Mumbai attacks and resigned forthwith!

[Iain]

"He chose the sgt at arms (deliberately downgrading the role) - I would have thought the buck stops with him..."

pp agreed, in addition, Martin was warned that an arrest may take place, so he was given prior warning something was going to happen, as such he was given time to take legal advice and warn his underlings of their legal duties. He failed to do that!

[Dominic]

Simple Facts:
- The Speaker was told that Damien Green's office might be searched.
- The Speaker took no action to prevent this. He could have said no straight away. He could have consulted a lawyer. He could have made it clear that he would have the final say. He's partisan, incompetent and arrogant.
- A reasonable person might assume that in fact he effectively did agree to the search.

Trying to blame this on the Serjeant is frankly pathetic.

[Peter O]

OK, I'm reading Martin's speech and I think he is betraying his shoddy handling of the affair:

"The Serjeant at Arms called me, told me the name of the Member, and said a search might take place in his office. I was not told that the police did not have a warrant."

Notice, he doesn't say "I asked whether a warrant had been issued". Is there a good reason why he didn't ask whether a warrant had been issued? If we're going to blame the Serjeant for not demanding a warrant, can't we ask the same of the Speaker.

Secondly, this following sentence:

"I regret that a consent form was then signed by the Serjeant at Arms without consulting the Clerk of the House."

Given that the Serjeant had already (the night before) told the Speaker that an arrest was likely, surely the Speaker should have consulted with the Clerk of the House on the possible ramifications? Surely they should have agreed that all three of them would consult immediately in the event of any developments? How can the Speaker claim ignorance and uninvolvement in the response to any development UNLESS he had specifically engineered a chain of command which protected him from involvement in any decisioning?

[Peter O]

OK, I'm reading Martin's speech and I think he is betraying his shoddy handling of the affair:

"The Serjeant at Arms called me, told me the name of the Member, and said a search might take place in his office. I was not told that the police did not have a warrant."

Notice, he doesn't say "I asked whether a warrant had been issued". Is there a good reason why he didn't ask whether a warrant had been issued? If we're going to blame the Serjeant for not demanding a warrant, can't we ask the same of the Speaker.

Secondly, this following sentence:

"I regret that a consent form was then signed by the Serjeant at Arms without consulting the Clerk of the House."

Given that the Serjeant had already (the night before) told the Speaker that an arrest was likely, surely the Speaker should have consulted with the Clerk of the House on the possible ramifications? Surely they should have agreed that all three of them would consult immediately in the event of any developments? How can the Speaker claim ignorance and uninvolvement in the response to any development UNLESS he had specifically engineered a chain of command which protected him from involvement in any decisioning?

[steve]

The McSpeaker should be sacked and the search should begin in Scotland to find his replacement.

[Walter West]

In all honesty this seems to have been a systemic cock-up on the part of the House Authorities, if one is being kind, and a serious misjudgement on the part of the Metropolitan Police.
I don't think either come out of this with any glory and were it down to me i'd suggest that a member of the House Authorities probably needs to resign, though at this stage I would be somewhat loath to suggest who that should be.

[The Bishop Swine]

"It seems that Damian Green will not get his computer back until Monday! I wonder what sensitive information will have been removed from it before then - and I also wonder how the now-unrepresented residents of Ashford must now be feeling!"

One really good thing about this arrest is that it highlights just how damaging and dangerous our current laws are. Does the party have an independently witnessed verbatim copy of the computer drives that have been taken? Does the Party have the services of computer security experts who can certify that the drives returned are in exactly the same state as when they left the building? I would recommend that any returned drives should be considered compromised and should not be connected to the rest of the system. We need procedures for all such future removals, this should include forensic copies of all such drives. No computers should be released without such copies being made. Please don’t let this drop and do pass it up-line as they say. Be aware of the very real dangers we currently face if the law is not amended and with some urgency. We have an open door to the worse sort of abuse.

[The Bishop Swine]

"It seems that Damian Green will not get his computer back until Monday! I wonder what sensitive information will have been removed from it before then - and I also wonder how the now-unrepresented residents of Ashford must now be feeling!"

One really good thing about this arrest is that it highlights just how damaging and dangerous our current laws are. Does the party have an independently witnessed verbatim copy of the computer drives that have been taken? Does the Party have the services of computer security experts who can certify that the drives returned are in exactly the same state as when they left the building? I would recommend that any returned drives should be considered compromised and should not be connected to the rest of the system. We need procedures for all such future removals, this should include forensic copies of all such drives. No computers should be released without such copies being made. Please don’t let this drop and do pass it up-line as they say. Be aware of the very real dangers we currently face if the law is not amended and with some urgency. We have an open door to the worse sort of abuse.

[Mark Fulford]

It seems that Damian Green will not get his computer back until Monday!

The police should come to me and, for less than £50, I'll sell them disk imaging software that will allow them to make an exact copy of the hard disks in Damien Green's computer. They can then keep original but let Damien Green restore to a new PC and get on with his work.

[pp]

Also rather poor that jacqui's anti-terror police can't follow the proper proceedure on something so straight forward as informing someone of their rights prior to a search.

If they can get that wrong, what else do they get wrong that noone ever hears about?

Shocking.

[Mark Fulford]

It seems that Damian Green will not get his computer back until Monday!

The police should come to me and, for less than £50, I'll sell them disk imaging software that will allow them to make an exact copy of the hard disks in Damien Green's computer. They can then keep original but let Damien Green restore to a new PC and get on with his work.

[james]

>Anonymous Eurocrat @ 1515

Thanks.

[Martin Wright]

The should be no surprise that the police had no search warrant. They were operating under the long-established "arrest and search" procedure. This does not require prior approval/vetting by magistrates. The police can decide who they want to question about an alleged offence, arrest them, and that gives them carte blanche to search all their premises etc.

Lesson one is to bring back the typical retired general as Serjeant at Arms. That type would have had no compunction in telling the police to b***er off. For heaven's sake, the Queen in Parliament is the highest court in the land. The police have no right to raid court premises.

When this whole sorry saga is over, I hope that one by-product will be for a future Conservative government to look at policing powers in practice. Labour has aggravated the situation in recent years by making any offence arrestable - one ludicrous recent press report was of a man arrested and locked up overnight for throwing an apple core out of a van. In theory the police can now arrest any of us for the most trivial of items and then search our homes, offices etc. This is a very heavy power that needs to be restricted to serious offences -as it was until recent times .

Perhaps even more important is a need to look at the exercise of judgement by the police in this matter. While we don't want the police to be politically influenced (either by ministers ordering investigations or opposition politicians e.g. Boris trying to step in), we do expect senior officers to show high levels of judgement. Surely alarm bells should have been ringing. It is the senior officer's role to advise and if necessary restrain the young zealots under his command. What seems to have happened here is that more junior officers got carried away by the excitement of their own personal crusades with using any commonsense and without thinking of the constitutional implications. That's what Commisioners and Assistant Commisioners are there for!

[Norm Brainer]

for less than £50, I'll sell them disk imaging software

Well, if labour seem to think the police are above the law, why don't they just used cracked software - do it for free.

Then again... why hadn't Green done a backup to somewhere secure and then just got a new PC and restored?

I wouldn't want to use seized equipment again - who knows what bugs and other monitoring things they will have installed now.

[David Bean]

PeterO makes a hugely important point: "I was not told that the police did not have a warrant" is tantamount to an admission that he failed to ask the question, considering that if he had asked and been lied to, he would obviously have said as much.

That alone, never mind his obvious lack of command of the team of which he is supposed to be the leader and the behaviour of whose members he is accountable for, and his failure to provide any direction to his Serjeant-at-Arms in the highly predictable event that a request for a search were made, is gross negligence. It should be clear to anyone: his position is untenable, he must resign and, should he fail to do so, it's the duty of all Members of Parliament to have him removed.

[Norm Brainer]

for less than £50, I'll sell them disk imaging software

Well, if labour seem to think the police are above the law, why don't they just used cracked software - do it for free.

Then again... why hadn't Green done a backup to somewhere secure and then just got a new PC and restored?

I wouldn't want to use seized equipment again - who knows what bugs and other monitoring things they will have installed now.

[Owen Meredith]

I'm sorry but this argument doesn't wash. Heads need to roll - either the Speaker or the Sergeant at Arms.

To use the excuse they "didn't know they could refuse the request without a warrant" is pathetic!

Everyone is the country knows they can refuse entry to police without a warrant, a right exercise by many on a daily basis!

[The Bishop Swine]

I do wonder about the validity of the claims of the £50.00 copyists. Not that I do not want to believe, but rigging a backdoor into a windows system is all to easy. We should have our own national OS its the only way we can be certain what we are running. The traces a windows system leave on a disc are quite different one installation to the next.
Of course most of the time these changes are seemingly completely hidden but with the right tools they can be revealed. I believe that the police have access to the very latest and best computer forensic equipment. It is likely therefore that they can reconstruct vast swaths of seemingly hidden data. It is only a little matter to remove the current magnetic signature by feedback to reveal what happened at that posistion last time it was written to there will be enough of a ghost of the change to reveal the state before the last write , so it will be possible to infer if we are looking at a 0 or 1. Once we have that we can extract all the previous writes. How far back is a matter for the scientists to determine with current computing power that could effectively mean all reads all writes.

[Man in a Shed]

Is that the John Reid who had cannabis found at his home, but no persecution ?

[David_at_Home]

"....and his failure to provide any direction to his Serjeant-at-Arms"

This is true but a good sergeant (and so quite certainly a retired general) would say to his superior officer "Sir, we have this problem which is potentially embarrassing/difficult/dangerous and so I have this possible solution, the advantages of which are X and the potential pitfalls Y; alternatively, we might proceed with the following course of action......

A good superior officer (Speaker in this case), if not presented with acceptable options, would convene a meeting of his staff, listen to their advice and come to a considered decision. It may be, of course, that neither the speaker nor the Serjeant-at-Arms understood the gravity of the situation.

So, whatever the details were, both the Speaker and the Serjeant-at-Arms have been found wanting and should go. If they do not, Her Majesty’s Opposition should boycott the HofC until they both resign.

[John Moss]

Whose office is it?

Is it right that the House Authorities can order/allow a search of a Member's office, without that Member's consent?

What are the terms of the occupation of the office? If they are not "private offices", then why would any MP keep any information there, remotely sensitive or otherwise?

Serjeant at Arms is clearly thick or a Labour stooge.

[Treacle]

"Serjeant at Arms is clearly thick or a Labour stooge."

Both?

[Sally Roberts]

Absolutely right David_at_Home! Exactly the reason why Serjeants-at-Arms until the current appointment were always drawn from the military!

[David_at_Home]

Sally, We agree but I bet your old Granny (the one who was a nurse in the Great War and went on to be a Matron) would have been quite up to the job, and much more besides!

[Deborah]

"I was not told that the police did not have a warrant"

Yes it is tantamount to an admission that he failed to ask the question. But was the failure accidental?

Of course, Jacqui Smith "was not told" things too.

[David Belchamber]

"2.50pm: Douglas Hogg says it is a "scandal" and "deplorable" that Commons authorities had a right to refuse request to search Commons office".

I don't think he said that at all - quite the opposite, wasn't it?

By the way, did the police have warrants to search DG's house and constituency office?

[m wood]

Mark Fulford - "the police should come to me .. I'll sell them disk imaging software that will allow them to make an exact copy of the hard disks"

I suspect they are not only interested in files currently on the disk but will try and recover delected files as well,to see what they can dig up.

[Ben]

I think it is almost universally or at least widely acknowledged that the police have acted in appropriately in this case. It is however, only one small part of Labours dismantling of our democracy. The commons must re-assert its supremacy over the executive and over the police (effectively a branch of the executive).

This may be controversial but i seem to remember that Nick Clegg proposed something called the Freedom Act a couple of years ago, this being the only idea of his that endorse is i think worthy of consideration (http://web.archive.org/web/20070528081022/http://www.libdems.org.uk/campaigns/the-freedom-bill.html), but on a much broader and wideranging scale. The Opposition Partys should unanimously agree such a bill and pledge it to be the first law to make statute in a new administration. I fear that the present government will never satisfy its insatiable lust for power, power must be reclaimed by parliament and the people who they represent.

[Norm Brainer]

I suspect they are not only interested in files currently on the disk but will try and recover delected files as well,to see what they can dig up.

Imaging software can take an exact copy of the disc and so will get all the not-safely-deleted files too.

They could easily keep the original and let him have the image file if they wanted.

The only reason they must want to keep it longer is to deny him access.

[snegchui]

Is Damian Green able to carry out his duties to the best of his ability at this moment in time? Or is the retention of papers and equipment hindering his ability to do his duties?
This is a shoddy, chaotic display by the Govt. Nobody seems to accept any responsibility for what has been done, and all seem to have distanced themselves from prior knowledge.
Looking briefly at the Queen's speech today, Labour are pursuing the policy of extending the reach of executive Govt as far as they possibly can. And that is why I am a Conservative, - there is a need for Govt, laissez-faire is just anarchy and chaos, but I would trust the principle of Conservatism to be to extend the powers of Govt to the minimum required to achieve an aim of freedom from.
By God, I want this lot out and a reversal of principle though their kak-handed legislation of the last 11 years of enslavement of the populace to their will by cash-showers to all and any interest group that was not prepared to be questioning.
Where is that Lord Butler and his damning critique of sofa Govt and why did the Tories not make more of it at the time?

[Sam Chapman]

It all sounds a bit familiar to me - Genesis 3 vv 11-14

"And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:"

[Dave J]

"2. You can search a property/Office with the consent of those concerned WITHOUT a warrant."

I wouldn't say that in such self-assured certainty. I may be an American, but I practice criminal law on a daily basis: my understanding of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act is that while it authorizes warrantless searches of arrested person, case law of long standing holds that statutes do not apply to the Parliamentary Estate unless they specify so expressly, and PACE does not. Therefore, a warrant is still required for the police to effect a search without consent. The question's never actually been answered: welcome to the test case.

A question raised elsewhere that intrigues is me is this: how do we know that the Met hadn't already applied for a warrant and been refused? What magistrate is going to assume they have the authority to issue a search warrant for the precincts of a higher court, namely the High Court of Parliament?

[si wilson]

Why on earth did Andrew Mackay not ask to see a warrant when he spoke to them as they started their search?

[B.Garvie]

It looks like the Cabinet Office along with the Home Secretary apparently misled the police into thinking security leaks could had happened and this was therefore a criminal investigation in which the police had to investigate.The Cabinet Office panicked and is therefore guilty of wasting police time so as to stop political leaks embarrassing this dysfunctional Government.

The Police were apparently manipulated into starting this process by a Labour Home Secretary not worthy of such high office.

This dysfunctional Government is starting to collapse like a house of cards.

[The Bishop Swine]

It appears that the Sergeant at arms, is being set up to take the heat for this appalling incident. Of course she should have insisted on a proper warrant being produced before allowing the Police into a private members office. I was under the impression that the speaker had as one of his most important duties, the protection of the members of the house. Jacqui Smith’s tried her best to worm out of responsibility for the whole ghastly affair. Her performance was a classic of the type of bluff and bluster, that female Labour women seem to excel at. No apologies where forthcoming and precious little humility from the home secretary. “"I have been absolutely clear that I did not know until after the arrest of Damian Green that he - or any other Member of Parliament - was being investigated by the police or was to be arrested." She insisted, but that is simply not good enough. Either Smith is incompetent, or worse she is misleading the house.
We will have to see how this affair unfolds, and I hope that the Conservative front bench will pile the pressure on. I would be unhappy to see the resignation of the Sergeant at arms over this, and think we have an opportunity to force the resignation of the speaker at the very least. Hopefully this will be the last time the police gain access to private offices in the House without a warrant being lawfully issued.

[The Bishop Swine]

"Why on earth did Andrew Mackay not ask to see a warrant when he spoke to them as they started their search?"

Most likely it never crossed his mind that the police might have bluffed their way in past the sgt at arms. Most law-abiding people assume that the police go about their business in a professional manner at all times. He is not in the wrong, it is always right to cooperate with the police when they have the correct paper work. This is a very unusual situation, and one which we must make a very big song and dance about.

[thesonofenoch]

I am seriously worried we have been lured in to a trap here!

I work for a major Midlands evening newspaper.

I am told that charges MAY be levied at Boris on the grounds of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

The explanation is that as he (a) called DG and offered support and (b) made a comment saying the case would not go to trial - he could be deemed as head of the met pol police authority have been deemed to be interfeering with justice.

Please tell me we have'nt fallen in to a massive trap?

[snegchui]

SoneofEnoch:
At first glance, this is wicked mischief making. I would say it is more of an attempt by Labour to get a clear run at appointing their new Met Commissioner of choice by tying Boris up in knots.
First, since when is talking to somebody who has not been charged an offence? Damian Green has not been charged, he is not guilty of anything. Boris is perfectly free to talk to him if he wishes. If anybody wishes to state that an arrest = guilty = must be shunned by law, I would like to see their supporting arguments.
As for not going to trial, it very likely won't and Boris is not alone in saying this. The question here is what influence does Boris have over operational policing, and the answer is none. The Police and that (U)(*() Ian Blair proved that when Blair arrogantly told the MPA they could shove it when they talked about him resigning - Blair correctly said they did not have that power over him, or any other power. So if Boris has now power, how can his words effectively alter the course of justice.
Mealy mouthing by Labour.

[Mark Williams]

Interesting article on the BBC website containing the full text of a letter from Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick to the Home Secretary. According to AC Quick the S-a-A took legal advice, so the statement by the Speaker about not being informed by the police of the right to refuse is somewhat disingenuous.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7765081.stm

[Sally Roberts]

"Sally, We agree but I bet your old Granny (the one who was a nurse in the Great War and went on to be a Matron) would have been quite up to the job, and much more besides!"

She would, David - she'd have frightened the socks off them!!!

[Sally Roberts]

"And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:""

And the serpent did go and kick the cat!

[The Bishop Swine]

"Is that the John Reid who had cannabis found at his home, but no persecution ?"

That little lump of hash was so old, it would not have spaced out anyone. I hear that it was Lebanese red, now you work out the date for yourself.

[johnC]

The letter to the Home Secretary from Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick on the BBC website (link above) contains 2 totally contradictory statements:

1. 'Was a warrant needed to search the Parliamentary office?

No.

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.'

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

In the first bit he says that the police did not need a warrant if they were satisfied that entry would be granted by consent, and in the second he says that the police had no power to search in the absence of a warrant - and they made sure the Serjeant at Arms was aware of this (which raises the question of why they continued with the search in the absence of a warrant if they believed they had no power to do so).

Either they needed a warrant or they didn't. If the Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police is so hopelessly unsure of the law he is trying to enforce, no wonder everyone involved in the whole sorry episode from the Home Secretary downwards appears totally clueless.

[The Bishop Swine]

"I suspect they are not only interested in files currently on the disk but will try and recover delected files as well,to see what they can dig up."

Exactly! Did you know that it’s possible to see (in some cases) what was written on a disk before the latest information, even when it’s over written? This kind of data extraction is becoming more and more sophisticated. Even when a disk has been over written multiple times it may be or become possible in some case’s to extract data. That’s just what they might find, what if the decide to plant something. How could you argue your case? Also what is to stop MI5/6 SIS putting a back door into a PC they have had in their possession. I really don’t like the current state of the law, its way open to abuse. Nobody should be free to just take away a PC and do what he or she pleases with it.

[The Bishop Swine]

"Either they needed a warrant or they didn't"

No, if they have permission to enter, then they do not need one. The question here is did they have the right permission from the right person? I suspect that they did not.

[Norm Brainer]

so the statement by the Speaker about not being informed by the police of the right to refuse is somewhat disingenuous.

If they told her she couldn't refuse then they have done wrong, but surely anyone would consider they have a right to refuse to sign something, unless told otherwise - it's basic common sense, and if she doesn't have that then she ought not be in that position, and neither should the Speaker (and especially he needs to go after trying to blame others and make such feeble excuses)

[johnC]

It is more than disingenuous, it is completely at odds with the Assistant Commissioner's statement that:

'The officers ... were satisfied that the Serjeant at Arms understood that police had no power to search in the absence of a warrant '

Compare this with the Speaker's statement that:

'The police did not tell the Sergeant that there was a right to object.'

So if they did not tell her this, how could they be satisifed that she understood this ? By telepathy ?

[pp]

Lib Dems are boycotting the speakers commitee...

I hear the lib dems are refusing to support martins comittee, because of the seven MPs, four of them (the majority) are labour...

What is cameron going to do??