The Sergeant-at-Arms can't have ever watched Juliet Bravo

Anyone who has ever watched a TV cops drama knows that you ask the police for a warrant when they turn up to search your premises.  It is totally unacceptable for the Sergeant-at-Arms not to have asked that basic question.

Comments

[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?

[Jennifer Wells]

Quite.

[David Bean]

Precisely.

Negligence.

Resign.

[HF]

The Speaker was consulted by his inadequate Serjeant and he failed to give the proper guidance.

[Mark Fulford]

It is almost beyond belief that the officials didn't ask these questions. Had it been their homes being searched, I'm sure they'd have put up a better fight.

[Sally Roberts]

Precisely! I don't suppose he's ever watched The Bill either!

[Norm Brainer]

It is unacceptable, but as Peter says above, it's also unacceptable for the Speaker not to have asked and just assumed that they had one.
I don't think we should let the Speaker palm this off on his Sergeant, which is a pretty vile thing to do.

[adrian]

Both should go

[Man in a Shed]

The speaker statement starts by making the Labour points that have been repeated by its politicians since Sunday.

That in itself shows he is not of sufficient independent mind to continue the job.

Clearly the Sergeant at Arms should resign or be sacked.

[Hawkeye]

You would think that if nothing else he would direct the Sergeant-At-Arms to speak to the Clerk and be advised on the legalities of the situation.

TBH, I do not think that the police had any duty to inform her that she could refuse them without a warrant - she should know her job and who to consult. My opinion is that the Speaker is as culpable as she is. He could have directed the police to his office and demanded an explanation with the Clerk and SAA in attendance.

[Sammy Finn]

Juliet Bravo?

That's a bit 1980s Tim!

[Patsy Sergeant]

What the Speaker's explanation seems to indicate, I think, is that even his OWN colleagues have little respect for his ability to comprehend, fully the intricacies of Parliamentary procedure. They probably thought it would be OK to 'fill him in' later!!

[Dontmakemelaugh]

I would not take the blustering speaker's assessment as gospel, in his haste to offload blame, that in this case police needed a warrant. It may well be that under the PACE Act 1984 & CJA that they did not need one. Never mind that, but how about this?

THE 64,000 DOLLAR QUESTION:

We have been informed that the civil servant had known Green since 2006 (nearly 3 years) and had made a bid to be a Conservative candidate.
He is now accused (I believe he has admitted it) of passing on information, in connection with his employment, to Green.

Much is being made of the right of such a civil servant to pass on and leak the information that it is believed should be in the public domain because of a serious threat to our security. Why pick on Green to leak to? (Have a guess). Why not leak straight to the SUN newspaper (Kavanagh would have been delighted with the info)? Why not indeed? Why has Green not brought his information to the attention of Parliament? (AS far as I am aware he has not). Why not indeed?

Are we to believe that if the boot was on the other foot that the Conservatives would be supporting this behaviour?

But I say again, the intrigue and duplicity does not bother me either way (we expect it); what bothers me are those that continually claim that we are living in a police state and an excess of Parliamentary Privilege putting them above the law (which is precisely where they want to be, never mind the denials) - absolute hypocritical rubbish.

[Steve Tierney]

Good god. I didn't think I could think any less of labour and then the Speaker throws the hapless Serjeant to the wolves. It's bad enough that they are so inept and deceitful. But they don't even have the decency to treat each other with honour!

If I were the Serjeant right now, I'd be hopping mad at being made the scapegoat. This can hardly be her fault and her fault alone, can it? After all, it was the Speaker who downgraded the position's powers and responsibilities.

[meli]

Am I missing something here?

"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?"

The night before? Thought it was an hour before? So Martin did not contact the Home Office either? Sorry not sure what procedures are followed but I would have thought that seeing as he had a whole nights warning they all would have made sure that it was done properly.
Cudos to him though for at least showing some regret over the situation.

[meli]

P.S. Even I, a lowly housewife, know that the police need a search warrant. A clear indication that I watch entirely too much tv.

[Norm Brainer]

Cudos to him though for at least showing some regret over the situation.

He showed minimal regret before attempting to pass the blame to his own staff so any kudos grated was quickly negated.

He has to go, and it looks like he will have to be pushed as he will play dirty to stay where he is.

[Jack Stone]

It seems to me that the party`s view on this is that Members of Parliament should be above the law. As someone who believes that no one whoever they are is above the law I couldn`t disagree more strongly.
If Damien Green is found guilty of any wrong doing on this matter not only will the party look foolish they will also look very elitist.

[a-tracy]

Jack isn't the point that no-one is above the law including the police and if they needed a warrant they should have got one.

[Walaa]

OK people lets not put all of it on the Sargent-at-Arms. It was dump not to ask for a warrant, but hay mistakes happen. Besides some people go their whole life without meeting a real policeman (and probably never watch TV or go to the movies, or heard even of DVDs....)

My question is? What is the police doing searching an elected Member of Parliament's offices and homes without a warrant in the first place?
Could it be deliberate? Now, if that is the case, then who wants to shake things up a little !!? And who will benefit from the shake up !!? I see a certain some-one's fingerprints all over this mess. This is just the beginning.

[Norm Brainer]

if they needed a warrant they should have got one.

If someone signs a consent form then I'm sure they don't need a warrant, and if the Speaker had not told her to not sign it or ask for a warrant then you can't really blame the police for not doing their job right.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Jack why are you a Conservative?

[Dontmakemelaugh]

And there was more:

Sam Coates blog in the Times:

Did the police need a warrant to search Parliament?
Michael Martin has today made much of the fact that police entered Parliament without a warrant.

But was it legally necessary? Under Section 18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1983, police can search without a warrant the premises of an arrested person".

Is Martin a desperate, floundering, drowning
man?

[Shaun Bennett]

Surely if Tory MPs made it clear to the speaker that he no longer maintains their respect or confidence, Martin would realise that he would have to resign. The question is whether Tory MPs have the guts to do it?

Clearly the Speaker is not even able to muddy the waters around his failings to make it less clear whether he was to blame. He's never been a good speaker, but there was always the possibility that he could get better over time. Today we have the final straw, he MUST now go!

I wonder how long before his friends in the Labour start reminding us about his Glasgow heritage as a defence for his incompitance???

[Andrew Lilico]

Dontmakemelaugh,

I, for one, am certainly not suggesting that MPs are above the law. And I am also not suggesting that just any old claim of "public interest" should absolve a civil servant from betraying his employer and (as the case may be) violating the official secrets act.

But you seem to assume that just because the civil servant concerned is (or might be) disreputable or illegal, it is therefore disreputable or illegal for Green to have accepted and disseminated material the civil servant gave him. I don't see why that is or should be illegal at all. Indeed, I go further: if it turns out that that *is* illegal (if it *is* illegal for an MP to spread (non-security-threatening) leaks), I consider it an affront to democracy.

[Jack Stone]

Malcom. One of the reasons I am a Conservative is that I don`t believe MP`s should be treated any differently to any one else. If the Police think Damien Green as broken the law than he should be investigated. I didn`t hear anyone on this site complaining about the treatment of Lord Levy when he was arrested and taken off to the Police station. Let`s have a bit of consistency please.

[Deborah]

There is an interesting blog on Telegraph (Gerald Martin):

"Has everybody forgotten the controversy that overshadowed Pay's appointment earlier this year and caused the Queen to refuse her the private audience traditionally granted to an incoming Sergeant at Arms? The Queen was furious, not so much because Gorbals Mick had failed to accord her the courtesy of consulting her about what is a royal appointment, but because he had arbitrarily downgraded the office of Sergeant at Arms by depriving it of responsibility for security throughout the whole Palace of Westminster, a feature of the post since 1451, and restricting it to the Commons chamber.

So Pay, thanks to Martin's high-handed behaviour, had no authority to allow anybody to enter the Palace of Westminster or Damian Green's office. Only Martin can be held responsible for admission to any part of the Palace outside the Commons chamber."

Interesting.

[Deborah]

Oops - should have been Gerald Warner

[SuperBlue]

For anyone who remembers Fawlty Towers:

"I'm terry sorry, he's from Glasgow".

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Dontmakemelaugh

But you seem to assume that just because the civil servant concerned is (or might be) disreputable or illegal, it is therefore disreputable or illegal for Green to have accepted and disseminated material the civil servant gave him. I don't see why that is or should be illegal at all. Indeed, I go further: if it turns out that that *is* illegal (if it *is* illegal for an MP to spread (non-security-threatening) leaks), I consider it an affront to democracy.

Posted by: Andrew Lilico | December 03, 2008 at 19:39

Andrew: I would suggest that the right place for Green to divulge "leaks" is Parliament and not creeping around Wapping and given information to his pals in the press and thus laying himself open to furthering his own career; in Parliament his privilege applies he would be possibly be protected. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps I am wrong and Green has not been creeping around distributing leaks, if so accept my apologies. Perhaps he has just kept the information for him to read at bedtime with a cup of cocoa and as an aid to sleep.

I am not really interested in Green, my interest is in those that have an agenda, such as David Davis, in order to further their careers fostering the idea that we are living in police state governed by another Mugabe and those that label the police the "Stasi". They are foolishly undermining those responsible for law enforcement. The probability is that the Police And Criminal Evidence Act of 1983/4 (passed under the Tories), which enables police to search an arrested persons premises without a warrant, also applies to Green and the parliamentary buildings.

Personally, I believe the Speaker, in his rush to absolve himself and dump on the Serjeant, is talking out of the back of his neck. We shall have to wait to hear from the Met Police. I would be surprised if the police approached Green half cocked.

The Speaker says it will never happen again, police will have to obtain a warrant. Then I suggest Parliament passes such a law (different from the law in PACE 1984) and does not make it up as it goes along.

If more and more regard Parliament and politicians with contempt it is because they (politicians) also regard Parliament (and the public) with contempt.

Blame the police, I say - if not blame Bush (but be quick the Massiah is nigh).

[Mark Williams]

If the police had no warrant, what business is it of the Speaker or the Serjeant at Arms to consent to access an MP's office?

The consent should come from the MP. The Speaker or the Serjeant at Arms might then have something to say about the police's present in the Palace of Westminster, but with neither a warrant nor the consent of the office tenant the police shouldn't even be in the building.

[Dave J]

"The probability is that the Police And Criminal Evidence Act of 1983/4 (passed under the Tories), which enables police to search an arrested persons premises without a warrant, also applies to Green and the parliamentary buildings."

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the applicable case law is that statutes do not apply to the precincts of Parliament unless they actually say that they do. If that is the case, section 18 of PACE does not by its own terms apply here, and a warrant would have still been required in the absence of consent. That, of course, still does not answer who in these circumstances had the authority to consent: the Serjeant at Arms, the Speaker, or Green himself.

[Onthejob]

Has anyone else noticed the theme that has run through this government since the day they were elected.

Whenever they cock it up it is never there fault.

for the first 7 years it was "18 years of conservative rule"

When they were caught lying about the iraq dossier it was "a vicious media campaign."

When Gordon brown first took the job it was because he was "new at it" (god knows what he had been doing for the last 11 years)

and now they have arrested an oppostion spokesmen it is "the Seargent at arms fault".
When is anyone goign to take some responsibilty for their own failings.

So i have a new proposal for them lose the next election go back to oppostion safein the knowledge that a conservative government will not have you arrested for leaking embarrsing faliures and much as i hate to admit there will be, stay there for a good 25- 50 years andby then you may be grown up enough to govern the country again. Whilst your doing that the profissionals can et on with running the country!

[TomTom]

When will we hear from Mrs Pays ? It seems strange that the adage "Audi Partem Alteram" is ignored.

I somehow think there is more to this than is being revealed, and that she should expose the full backstory

[Mrs Campbell]

PACE only applies to the premises of the arrested individual. Green's Parliamentary Office did not, in law, constitute his premises but were part of the Palace of Westminster. Therefore a warrant had to be obtained but was not. This is strange because a warrant was, apparently, obtained from a district judge to search Green's constituency office which also did not constitute his premises for the purposes of PACE

The Speaker said that he had been warned by the Sergeant at Arms on Wednesday that the police were going to arrest an unidentified MP but gave no information as to what he himself did or said about that warning. He behaved in a most peculiar manner in refusing to answer the question about the Clerk of the House

The whole point about the fuss which is being made about due process in the Green case is that the press and the Government and the Police must pay attention and must answer the questions. The clarity which will, we hope, eventually be achieved will benefit not just MPs in knowing what they can and cannot do in respect of Civil Service leaks but also, and more importantly, journalists and, even more importantly, citizens generally when they face police action of a similar kind. When should the police be involved and what are the police allowed to do? This is the broader public issue. This is the opportunity to deal with these very serious questions about the relationship of the police to the government, to the legislature and to citizens. The Conservative Party knows this

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"PACE only applies to the premises of the arrested individual. Green's Parliamentary Office did not, in law, constitute his premises but were part of the Palace of Westminster. Therefore a warrant had to be obtained but was not. This is strange because a warrant was, apparently, obtained from a district judge to search Green's constituency office which also did not constitute his premises for the purposes of PACE". Mrs Campbell 1201

Police were not wishing to search the whole
of Westminster Palace, just the office occupied by Green. If an arrested suspect rents a flat in a block of flats, must the police then obtain a warrant to search that flat? I don't think so. There is nothing that I can see that omits parliamentary buildings from the ramifications of PACE. Neither can I see that police have to inform anyone (I could be wrong), in the circumstances of Green's arrest that "If you prefer it guv, we will go away and get a warrant".

If there was a requirement to do so in all cases then by the time police returned with a warrant evidence could have gone missing. Not that I am for one moment suggesting that anyone would have removed anything considered possible evidence from Green's office. But I know MP's would not want to be treated differently to the rest of public because they keep telling us so.

[The Bishop Swine]

Nobody could accuse Green of obstruction; he went along with the arrest like any good citizen should. I am hearted to hear today that it’s against the law for the police to hang onto a DNA sample of an innocent person. So we can expect a fully vindicated Green to have his DNA removed promptly from the DNA database?

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Re The Bishop Swine | December 04, 2008 at 18:21

I doubt that DNA and F/Ps were taken because Green was not charged but bailed.

Interestingly this morning on BBC radio 5 I understood a Chief Constable (I forget from which Force - sorry, I mean - Service) who was being interviewed on the decision of our rulers in Brussels on the retention of DNA.
I believe I heard the CC right when he said that DNA evidence was used in 8000 arrests, involving 14000 offences and in convicting 162 murderers.
Unfortunately many British citizens appear to have a dodgy past and are terrified of having their DNA held in a database or on Damian Green’s computer.
A shame that so many have so much to hide, but the criminal fraternity will definitely vote to stay in the EU.
I know what it is: you don'ttrust police.
Have you seen the full letter sent by A/C Bob Quick to the Home Sec? Now whom do you trust? Police or the judgement of politicians baying for Police to be called to the bar?

[Jill, London]

Comrade Brown has broken his silence – finally – on Gorbals Mick with what could be interpreted as a backhanded compliment [to use a cliché] – he was doing his job "to the best of his ability". Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7765160.stm

The key word “ability” is not one normally associated with Gorbals Mick!!

And to those posters who keep insisting MPs – such as Damian Green – aren’t “above the law” – how come Comrade Brown didn’t have his ‘collar felt’ when he was the recipient of a ‘leaked’ copy of the Major Government’s 1996 Budget? Moreover, according to Paul Waugh, in the Evening Standard: “It turns out that Government whip Helen Goodman was a former Treasury civil servant who was - wait for it - once a prime suspect in a leak inquiry.” Link: http://waugh.standard.co.uk/2008/12/did-gordon-prom.html

[confused and concerned]

I've never posted on here but have been "lurking" for a while. I wonder if anybody can answer my question.

In the Telegraph http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1091944/The-middle-ranking-civil-servant-snubbed-Queen.html it says,"The job has traditionally gone to senior police or military figures but Mrs Pay's background is that of a middle-ranking civil servant. The role was also downgraded with the appointment of a professional security coordinator for Parliament."

If this is correct, does anybody know who this "security coordinator for Parliament" is, and their role in this tawdry business, if any?

[pp]

Dontmakemelaugh at 22:21

Individual politicians are a bit irrelevant - however parliament is sovereign compared to which the police are nothing.

Within parliament MPs represent their constituents.

The police only have any business with criminals - to the bulk of the population the should be invisible.

The only time my kids have seen firearms on the street is when the police have been waving them around during labour party conferences - while the rest of the force stop us at random "without due cause" under anti-terrist legislation. Mean time ACPO become a private company and exclude themselves from FoI requests - what are top police men doing having an interest in a 'private company'? ACPO needs to be disbanded alongside the BBC.