Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Legal Reforms and Iraq/BBC.
Legal Reforms
Asked if it was still Downing Street’s view that the whole of the Criminal Justice Bill would be knocked down following the defeat in the Lords last night, the PMOS said that the Home Office had made clear their determination to reverse the defeat in the House of Commons. The important thing was not to focus on the process but on the reason why we believed the issue of judge-only trials was so important. We were not abandoning legal principles. We were simply recognising hard reality. People had to face up to the fact that organised criminals were trying to escape justice by intimidating jurors and attempting to bribe them in a small number of specific cases. The question was whether we should allow them to continue to do so or take action accordingly. Asked if the clause was the only part of the Bill we would save, the PMOS said no. We were also determined to see through the measures on fraud cases. Jurors should not need to write off a substantial amount of time from work and other matters to try highly complex cases.
Put to him that his colleague had appeared to indicate yesterday that a defeat in the Lords on these two matters would result in the entire Bill being knocked down, the PMOS said that he was not resiling from what his colleague had said. We were determined that we would win the argument on this matter. It was up to those who opposed the Bill to explain how reality, not theory, should be dealt with. The hard reality was that organised criminals were intimidating jurors and escaping justice. For example, there had been a case in Liverpool in August 2002 where a trial with six defendants accused of drug abuse had collapsed because of jury tampering. A similar thing had happened in the West Midlands in 1999 when four witnesses had been threatened, two had been stabbed and one had been threatened with a gun. Obviously this was something that needed to be addressed. It went without saying that the legal principle of trials would be maintained, but it was clear that we needed to adapt if we were to deal with the reality of the situation. Put to him that it was a simple matter to retry defendants if their trial collapsed, the PMOS pointed out that there was nothing to stop the new set of jurors being threatened and that jurors would bear that in mind when they were making their decision. That was not just our view. It was the view of Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and his Deputy, Sir Ian Blair. This was a real problem which demanded a real answer. Put to him that the way to address the problem was by dealing with the security issue, not by abandoning an old principle enshrined in the Magna Carta, the PMOS pointed out that he came from a jurisdiction with very similar sorts of problems and which had had Diplock courts for thirty years. While they had had many drawbacks, they had nevertheless operated on a successful basis and had ensured the continuation of justice. Put to him that not everyone would agree with him, the PMOS said that no one was pretending it was an ideal situation. However, the Met was currently spending £3.5 million a year - the equivalent of 26,000 officer days a year - protecting juries from intimidation. There was also a cost to allowing organised criminals escape justice. That could not be allowed to continue.
Put to him that Baroness Scotland had appeared to contradict what his colleague had said yesterday about the entire Bill being knocked down in the event of a Lords defeat on judge-only trials, the PMOS said that both we and the Home Office were determined that the defeat would be reversed in the Commons. We would also force those who opposed the measure to explain how they would address the problem. Put to him that the measure being proposed by the Government breached a fundamental principle of the legal system, the PMOS said he would disagree. The principle of a fair trial would remain. What we were proposing to do was adapt it in a small number of cases where justice was effectively being distorted because of the organised actions of a small number of people. Pressed as to whether the whole Bill would fall because of the defeat in the Lords, the PMOS said that he did not retract anything which his colleague had said yesterday. We were determined to reverse the defeat.
Asked to clarify how it would be decided that a jury was in danger of being nobbled, the PMOS said that where there was evidence of a jury being tampered with, threatened or intimated, or where there was evidence that a very real threat existed, we believed that, rather than abandoning the trial, it should be heard by a judge. Put to him that the Opposition appeared to be offering some sort of compromise on this matter, the PMOS said that it was not his job to comment on what the Opposition might or might not see as room for compromise. The Government was determined to get these elements of the Bill through, not least because of the very strong support from the police, as both Sir John Stevens and Sir Ian Blair had underlined. Put to him that jury-nobblers were just as likely to target judges as well as jurors and witnesses, the PMOS pointed out that judges were highly trained individuals who were used to the attempts of people to try to influence them. They were therefore experienced in dealing with these matters, whereas ordinary jurors were not.
Iraq/BBC
Asked if Downing Street now accepted that Dr David Kelly was not Andrew Gilligan’s source, the PMOS said that our position on this issue had not changed. Dr Kelly had come forward because he had been disturbed by the coincidence between his experience, Mr Gilligan’s report and the evidence Mr Gilligan had given to the FAC. Of particular concern was the mention of the 30% figure, the discussion of the September dossier, the mention of Alastair Campbell, the comment about the 45-minute claim and the fact that the meeting between him and Mr Gilligan had taken place on 22 May at a central London hotel. All these issues had raised in his mind the possibility that he might be considered to be the source. We still did not yet know whether he was or not, but it would be a very simple thing to resolve this matter. All the BBC had to do was confirm whether Dr Kelly was the source or not. We were not asking them to say who it was if it wasn’t him - although if it wasn’t, there were clearly questions relating to Mr Gilligan’s evidence to the FAC. Either way, it would be troubling if they continued to refuse to answer our question. Put to him that the BBC did not want their source to be identified through a process of elimination, the PMOS said that we had never suggested that anyone else might be the source. Dr Kelly had come forward voluntarily. He had been completely open about what he had done. All we were asking the BBC to do was tell us we were wrong. Usually the BBC was not shy to do so. There was a logical disconnect between the defence that they were protecting their source and the fact that the person concerned had come forward voluntarily to identify himself. Responding to the suggestion put forward by the Chairman of the Lobby that he appeared to be the only person in the room who thought there was any possibility that Dr Kelly was the source, and subsequent interventions by the Guardian and Sky correspondents who maintained that the Lobby Chairman was wrong, the PMOS repeated that there was a logical disconnect between the BBC’s determination to protect the identity of a source and the fact that someone who could be the source had come forward and identified himself voluntarily. He apologised for hammering the point home and acknowledged that everyone was bored with this story and wanted to move on - nobody more than us. However, there was a troubling question which would not go away until the BBC answered it.
Asked how much time had lapsed between the letter which Dr Kelly had written to his line manager and the MoD’s statement, the PMOS said that it was five days. As we had explained at the time, the MoD had wanted to speak to Dr Kelly and make sure that he was confident in his own recollection of events. The Department also wanted to make sure that things were done properly in accordance with its personnel procedures. We couldn’t be criticised on the one hand for being careful and taking time over this matter and on the other for putting Dr Kelly forward to the FAC. We had handled the matter properly in accordance with MoD procedures by notifying the FAC about a matter which we believed was relevant to their inquiry. Asked if Dr Kelly had been aware of the possibility that he could face disciplinary action at the time of his hearing and whether that would have affected the evidence he had given, the PMOS said that internal procedures at the MoD were a matter for the MoD. It would be wrong for him to comment on personnel issues.
delicious
digg
facebook
