In all this week’s discussion of Trafigura, relatively little attention has been paid to other legal stories – but HMIC’s review of the lessons learned from the Greengate-Galleygate affair deserves closer attention, I think, than it’s had. And Jacqui Smith has managed to escape without close enough scrutiny of her conduct in the affair.
One of the key findings, at para. 8.3.7 of the review, is that the police were right to search Damian Green’s office in the way they did – and specifically that they were right in law not to seek a search warrant in the first instance but to ask first for consent from the House authorities, which of course they were granted. That finding ought to lay finally to rest the nonsense talked by MPs at the time of the supposedly scandalous “failure” to obtain a search warrant.
The other key finding, at para. 8.1.10, is that
the use of police resources in this case, although well intentioned was, to say the least, debatable
This is the most important point in the whole case: the government never should have involved the police at all in the investigation of leaks that embarrassed government, rather than risking serious harm, for example to national security.
The wording of the review unfortunately reinforces the common perception, a perception very convenient for ministers, that the Cabinet Office letter (see para. 8.1.5) requesting police involvement means officials called the police in. The truth, as I’ve written before, is that Jacqui Smith made this decision by agreeing to police involvement. To be fair to her, she’s never denied that, although the evidence she and her Permanent Secretary gave to the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee can be read as implying it was a “joint” decision, or else that it was his decision “agreed” by her. Actually neither of those interpretations can be right, as anyone with any knowledge of government must know. Without her agreement, the police could not have been called in: officials may well have wanted to write, but would not have done so had Jacqui Smith not given them the go-ahead. She is responsible.
A good job she’s already gone, really.
Carl Gardner2009-10-15T13:07:07+00:00
No it’s not a good job that she’s already gone. The game is, as you know, for Ministers to make ‘mistakes’ (to be charitable), but to move on before they are called to account. It has been the history of this government in virtually every Ministry. I cannot recall a single Minister, with one notable exception – Brown – who has stayed in post for even three years.
… and she got away very lightly when she made her recent “apology” over the small matter of her expenses. As for the Damian Green matter, it was all a very extremely heavy-handed approach aimed at deterring even MPs from criticising Ministers. It must have had the sanction of the Home Secretary.
Interestingly, I read somewhere that Green had his DNA sample removed from the National DNA Database. It is not easy to achieve that and the matter lies entirely at the “discretion” of Chief Constables. The government’s response to Marper seems to be to try to get away with a minimalistic “make it look like we have compled” response.
It certainly did, Peter – she admits it, too. Chuck, that’s a good point – she has got away with it, and in fact the timing of the expenses story in the same week as this worked to her advantage. The press had little time to cover simultaneous Jacquigates in full.
Peter, we’re not at one on DNA and Marper I’m afraid. I’m absolutely in favour of a “minimalist” approach, and may write about that soon. I’ll prepare for robust debate with you!