Director of public prosecutions directly challenges account senior officer repeatedly gave MPs about scope of investigation
The senior police officer at the centre of the phone-hacking affair is under intense pressure, with a House of Commons select committee hearing new evidence suggesting he may have repeatedly misled parliament.
In a special session of the House of Commons home affairs committee, the previous evidence of the Metropolitan police's acting deputy assistant commissioner, John Yates, was directly challenged by the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer.
The chairman of the committee, Keith Vaz, said the DPP's evidence was "astonishing", that it clearly contradicted earlier evidence Yates had given, and that he would be writing to Yates to ask for an explanation.
Chris Bryant said the DPP had vindicated the position he took in the House of Commons last month when he accused Yates of misleading parliament. Bryant said Yates should now "consider his position'' at Scotland Yard.
Tom Watson, a member of the culture, media and sport committee, which has twice investigated the hacking affair, said Yates had "some big questions to answer".
Yates has claimed repeatedly that police found only 10 or 12 people whose voicemail had been intercepted by the News of the World. Evidence has since emerged, however, that police knew of "a vast number" of victims.
Yates has told parliament on four occasions that he quoted the lower figure because prosecutors had told police they needed to prove not only that voicemail had been intercepted but also that this had been done before the messages had been heard by the intended recipient.
In written evidence, Starmer listed a series of claims that directly contradict Yates's account of the legal advice the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) gave to police during their original inquiry, in 2006. Starmer said that:
• Police had been advised that phone hacking was an offence under the 1990 Computer Misuse Act regardless of whether messages had or had not been heard by their intended recipient.
• In the early stages of the inquiry, an in-house lawyer at the CPS had raised the possibility that under the 2000 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) it might be necessary to show that messages had not been heard by the intended recipient; but an email sent by the CPS to police in April 2006 had warned that this view was "very much untested and further consideration will need to be given to this".
• This early, provisional advice had then been set aside by David Perry QC, who was appointed as prosecuting counsel in July 2006. He had advised that they should take no position on the issue unless the defence raised it – "He is clear that he did not at any stage give a definitive view that the narrow interpretation was the only possible interpretation."
• The charges that were eventually brought against the NoW journalist Clive Goodman and the private investigator Glenn Mulcaire included counts where there was no evidence about whether messages had already been heard.
In evidence to the home affairs committee and to the culture, media and sport committee, Yates last month cited the early advice from the CPS in-house lawyer. In contrast to the DPP, he claimed this was "unequivocal", and he made no reference to any advice provided by Perry when he took over, nor to the Computer Misuse Act, which was clearer on the issue.
Vaz asked the DPP whether he accepted Yates's claim that a narrow interpretation of Ripa had restricted the scope of the police investigation. Starmer said: "They were not given advice that limited the scope of their investigation."
Vaz told him his evidence had been "very open and clear and transparent", and his written evidence had been "astonishing". He said: "It does, in our view, contradict what was told to this committee by Mr Yates last week."
Dr Julian Huppert described Starmer's evidence as "one of the most compelling pieces of legal literature I have ever read", and suggested that Yates's previous account to the committee "was clearly not what happened".
Starmer said he had given Yates an advance draft of his evidence and invited him to correct any factual inaccuracies, and that while Yates had sent him some comments, he had not wanted to correct the facts.
Questioned by MPs, Starmer said police had certainly been aware that Ripa was not the only law available to them. They had been told that a conspiracy charge or a charge under the Computer Misuse Act would raise no question about whether voicemail had been heard: "They were aware of, advised of and proceeded on the basis that other offences were available," he said.
He repeated that Goodman and Mulcaire had been charged with offences where there was no evidence whether intercepted messages had been heard: "The way that the charges were set out in the final indictment demonstrates that no definitive view had ever been taken that the narrow interpretation was the only interpretation."
Tom Watson said the framing of the indictment was a "killer point". In a blog post, he wrote: "The police must have known in 2006 that prosecutors were not working with the narrow version of the law ... Had the police thought at the time that the only messages which counted were those which had not been listened to, they would certainly have queried the indictment as soon as they saw it. The indictment is clear, contemporaneous evidence of the state of mind of the police and counsel at the time of the prosecution, namely that before/after did not matter."
In a statement, Chris Bryant said: "His evidence makes it abundantly clear that, contrary to the evidence given by John Yates, there was absolutely no legal reason why the Metropolitan police should have restricted their investigation in 2006."
In a special session of the House of Commons home affairs committee, the previous evidence of the Metropolitan police's acting deputy assistant commissioner, John Yates, was directly challenged by the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer.
The chairman of the committee, Keith Vaz, said the DPP's evidence was "astonishing", that it clearly contradicted earlier evidence Yates had given, and that he would be writing to Yates to ask for an explanation.
Chris Bryant said the DPP had vindicated the position he took in the House of Commons last month when he accused Yates of misleading parliament. Bryant said Yates should now "consider his position'' at Scotland Yard.
Tom Watson, a member of the culture, media and sport committee, which has twice investigated the hacking affair, said Yates had "some big questions to answer".
Yates has claimed repeatedly that police found only 10 or 12 people whose voicemail had been intercepted by the News of the World. Evidence has since emerged, however, that police knew of "a vast number" of victims.
Yates has told parliament on four occasions that he quoted the lower figure because prosecutors had told police they needed to prove not only that voicemail had been intercepted but also that this had been done before the messages had been heard by the intended recipient.
In written evidence, Starmer listed a series of claims that directly contradict Yates's account of the legal advice the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) gave to police during their original inquiry, in 2006. Starmer said that:
• Police had been advised that phone hacking was an offence under the 1990 Computer Misuse Act regardless of whether messages had or had not been heard by their intended recipient.
• In the early stages of the inquiry, an in-house lawyer at the CPS had raised the possibility that under the 2000 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) it might be necessary to show that messages had not been heard by the intended recipient; but an email sent by the CPS to police in April 2006 had warned that this view was "very much untested and further consideration will need to be given to this".
• This early, provisional advice had then been set aside by David Perry QC, who was appointed as prosecuting counsel in July 2006. He had advised that they should take no position on the issue unless the defence raised it – "He is clear that he did not at any stage give a definitive view that the narrow interpretation was the only possible interpretation."
• The charges that were eventually brought against the NoW journalist Clive Goodman and the private investigator Glenn Mulcaire included counts where there was no evidence about whether messages had already been heard.
In evidence to the home affairs committee and to the culture, media and sport committee, Yates last month cited the early advice from the CPS in-house lawyer. In contrast to the DPP, he claimed this was "unequivocal", and he made no reference to any advice provided by Perry when he took over, nor to the Computer Misuse Act, which was clearer on the issue.
Vaz asked the DPP whether he accepted Yates's claim that a narrow interpretation of Ripa had restricted the scope of the police investigation. Starmer said: "They were not given advice that limited the scope of their investigation."
Vaz told him his evidence had been "very open and clear and transparent", and his written evidence had been "astonishing". He said: "It does, in our view, contradict what was told to this committee by Mr Yates last week."
Dr Julian Huppert described Starmer's evidence as "one of the most compelling pieces of legal literature I have ever read", and suggested that Yates's previous account to the committee "was clearly not what happened".
Starmer said he had given Yates an advance draft of his evidence and invited him to correct any factual inaccuracies, and that while Yates had sent him some comments, he had not wanted to correct the facts.
Questioned by MPs, Starmer said police had certainly been aware that Ripa was not the only law available to them. They had been told that a conspiracy charge or a charge under the Computer Misuse Act would raise no question about whether voicemail had been heard: "They were aware of, advised of and proceeded on the basis that other offences were available," he said.
He repeated that Goodman and Mulcaire had been charged with offences where there was no evidence whether intercepted messages had been heard: "The way that the charges were set out in the final indictment demonstrates that no definitive view had ever been taken that the narrow interpretation was the only interpretation."
Tom Watson said the framing of the indictment was a "killer point". In a blog post, he wrote: "The police must have known in 2006 that prosecutors were not working with the narrow version of the law ... Had the police thought at the time that the only messages which counted were those which had not been listened to, they would certainly have queried the indictment as soon as they saw it. The indictment is clear, contemporaneous evidence of the state of mind of the police and counsel at the time of the prosecution, namely that before/after did not matter."
In a statement, Chris Bryant said: "His evidence makes it abundantly clear that, contrary to the evidence given by John Yates, there was absolutely no legal reason why the Metropolitan police should have restricted their investigation in 2006."
http://www.anhourago.co.uk/show.aspx?l=8355890&d=501
