Britannia Radio

EVENING STANDARD 3.12.08
Martin has failed in his duty and is not fit to hold office says top QC

Paul Waugh, Deputy Political Editor

Leading QC Geoffrey Robertson today said that the Commons Speaker had
to resign because he had failed in his legal duty to defend Parliament.

The lawyer said that Michael Martin's failure to resist the police's
approach last Wednesday night proved that he was not fit to hold the
office.

Mr Robertson, founder of Doughty Street chambers, said that the law
was clear that the police would require a warrant or the consent of
the Speaker to search any MP's office in the Commons.

He said that both Mr Martin and Serjeant at Arms Jill Pay should have
resisted the Metropolitan Police requests both on Wednesday and the
following day.

"I think it is an abject failure by a man who should now resign. The
Speaker is trying to shift the blame when it is part of his job, it
is his duty, to refuse the police approach as soon as he first heard
about it," Mr Robertson said.
"Sadly, the only people who resign these days are BBC executives. I
believe it was his duty to alert the Attorney General and consult the
Director of Public Prosecutions to check the position."

Mr Robertston said that the Speaker should have consulted Malcolm
Jack, the Clerk of the Commons and chief executive, to check the
legality of the police request.

Mr Jack is the legal authority for Parliament and should have been
consulted by Ms Pay too before she agreed to the Met's search.

Mr Roberston also ridiculed Mr Martin's claim that he and Ms Pay
should have been told by police that consent was needed for the
search to go ahead. "That's what every defendant says, blame the police.
=====================
TELEGRAPH - Law Reports 4.12.08
Was fourth warrant refused?
The police implied last week that they had a warrant to search Damian
Green's Commons office. We now know that was not true.

By Joshua Rozenberg

Last Thursday's statement by Scotland Yard implied that they had been
granted four search warrants. After saying that a 52-year-old man had
been arrested in connection with alleged offences of misconduct in
public office, the statement continued:

"Search warrants have been executed at a residential address in Kent;
a residential address in west London; a business premises in Kent; a
business premises in central London".

Those "business premises in central London" can only have been the
Houses of Parliament.

Today, though, Scotland Yard's Acting Commissioner at made it clear
at City Hall that only three warrants had been issued.

Sir Paul Stephenson said: "It was as a result of the initial
investigation and arrest that the decision was made by officers under
the command of Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick to arrest an MP and
to search three addresses connected with him under authority of
warrants."

He added that permission to search the MP's parliamentary office was
obtained from the Serjeant at Arms.

Later, the Commons Speaker, Michael Martin, confirmed that the police
did not have a warrant to search Damian Green's office at the Commons.

Why not? Either officers were advised that the District Judge who
granted the other three warrants had no power to permit a search of
the House of Commons. Or they applied for a fourth warrant and were
turned down by the court.

So they went in anyway. True, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act
1984 allows the police to search not only an arrested person but also
any premises where he was immediately before he was arrested, subject
to certain restrictions. So searching the Commons may have been lawful.

And I'm not very impressed by the Speaker's complaint that officers
didn't warn the Serjeant at Arms, Jill Pay, that she didn't have to
let the police in. As the Speaker rightly said, the Serjeant at Arms
should have taken legal advice before throwing open the doors.

But I am equally unimpressed with Scotland Yard's decision to proceed
with their search of the Commons when they knew they did not have a
warrant. As I suspected all along, it may help explain why they felt
they had to arrrest Mr Green; since his arrrest would have given them
their powers of search.

But the picture that has emerged is one of insensitive police
officers taking advantage of an inadequate Serjeant at Arms. No
wonder the Speaker sounded close to tears.
=====================
POLITICS HOME 3.12.08
Comments on Police Scandal
=========================
Channel 4 News at 19:30
Howard: Many questions remain to be asked over arrest

Michael Howard, Former Conservative Leader

Speaking after the Statement Mr Howard said that "many questions
remained to be asked" and that the arrest had been a "direct
obstruction and hindrance" for Damian Green to do his job.

"What I had said in my initial comment, was to defend Mr Green, I was
also concerned that we should be restricted in anyway in the debate
on monday.

"I'm not just criticising the police part in it, the whole process is
certainly an attack on Members of Parliament - MPs are meant to hold
the government to account.

"Of course no government welcomes leaks and of course every
government tries to stop leaks. There is a vast difference between
preventing leaks and arresting a Minister.

"We cannot have one law for when Gordon Brown is in opposition and a
different approach for ministers when Gordon Brown is Prime Minister."