 |
|
|
 |
||
Latest News
Acting Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson statement
Acting Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson statement to the GLA: I would like to take this opportunity to address certain issues concerning our on-going inquiry into the alleged leaking of information from the Home Office. Clearly, this is a case that has generated a great deal of public attention and important debate. Amidst all of this our priority is to conduct a thorough and lawful investigation. As with all police operations, we go where the evidence takes us. The police work within the rules, regulations and laws as laid down by Parliament, as you would expect us to do. This is an on-going investigation and everyone involved must tread carefully and with caution when speaking about the details and I include myself within that. However, there is a large amount of comment and speculation in the public domain, and I think it is right and proper for me to present facts surrounding this investigation, which lie at the heart of how the MPS operates. It has already been widely reported that the MPS was called in by the Cabinet Office at the beginning of October to investigate suspected criminal offences in relation to a substantial series of leaks from the Home Office potentially involving national security and the impeding of the efficient and effective conduct of government. After the initial inquiries the Crown Prosecution Service were consulted. The police officers involved were satisfied that they had reasonable grounds to make an arrest [of] a junior civil servant working in the Home Office. I must make this clear, the decision to make the arrest was made by police officers. On November 19th a 26-year-old-man, whose name is now in the public domain was arrested at his home address, interviewed at a police station and bailed to return early next year. During a search of his address a number of items were seized. On the 21st November the same man voluntarily attended a police station where he was arrested and interviewed again before being re-bailed. Later the same day a second consultation was held with the CPS where potential offences were discussed further. As I said before, it is our duty to follow the evidence, wherever that takes us. It was as a result of our initial investigations and arrest that a decision was taken by officers under the command of AC Bob Quick to arrest an MP - whose name is now in the public domain - and to search three addresses connected to him under authority of Warrants - and his offices at the Palace of Westminster. So that is four addresses, three under warrant and one under separate procedure at the Palace of Westminster. The written authority to conduct a consensual search of those offices was obtained from the Serjeant at Arms at the Palace of Westminster. Officers have an obligation to locate and secure evidence to avoid any circumstances where potential evidence could be lost. With this in mind, the decision was taken to arrest and search the relevant addresses in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. The arrest and searches were carried out on 27th November and, following interview, the MP, whose name is now in the public domain, was released on bail to return in February next year. An initial report and evidence has been given to the Crown Prosecution Service for consultation on the next steps of this inquiry. The public interest in this case means that there has been inevitable and large amounts of speculation and comment around certain aspects of our actions. I would like to deal with that now. Firstly, it has been questioned why counter terrorism officers were involved and suggested that counter terrorism laws used to make the arrest. Let me make it quite clear, the arrest and searches were carried out under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Clearly this inquiry is not terrorist-related. In 2006 the Special Branch amalgamated with the Anti-Terrorist Branch to become the Counter Terrorism Command. Investigations of this nature, which previously were always carried out by Special Branch are now within the CTC remit even though they are not related to terrorism. It has also been suggested that the MPS used the civil servant in an attempt to entrap Mr Green. This is not true and indeed the civil servant's own legal representatives have confirmed this was not the case. Speculation that MPS officers used electronic listening devices is also untrue. Clearly, this was always going to be a sensitive investigation and it is right that we should be held to account at the appropriate time. The decisions taken by officers within the MPS will be judged through the criminal justice system, and any other mechanisms that the appropriate authorities consider to be necessary. It is right that we are held to proper account in this way. Yesterday I asked Chief Constable Ian Johnston, who is chair of the Association of Chief Police Officers [ACPO] Crime Business Area, to review the operation to date. In my opinion, this is the appropriate professional action to take and is considered good practice in major police investigations. I have requested that he provide an interim report in seven days and any final report in two weeks. At issue in this investigation - and indeed in the work of the service as a whole - is our ability to maintain operational independence. The police must be able to act without fear or favour on any investigation whomsoever may be involved when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that they may have committed an offence. And let me deal finally with the suggestions of any political or Ministerial influence on this or any other police operation, under my command. I would strongly refute that I or any senior officer under my command have or would allow any improper influence of our operational judgment and actions for political purposes. That is not what we do.
|
||||||