Did the police need a warrant to search Parliament?

Michael Martin has today made much of the fact that police entered Parliament without a warrant.

But was it legally necessary? Under Section 18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1983, police can search without a warrant the premises of an arrested person.

Clearly it is bad form for them not to get a warrant to enter Parliament. But was it strictly necessary, or is Martin creating a bit of a smokescreen?

Thanks to John B for his comment on the previous post alerting me to this

Comments

[Scott]

The Assistant Chief Constable this morning said that he had warrants for the other 3 addresses, and entered Parliament on the basis of a letter of authority. The Speaker said that letter was given on the understanding of a warrant that did not exist

[Andrew Spencer]

The act allows policemen to search people found on premises without a further warrant not the premises themselves; he must have a warrant to search the premises.

Search of persons
18. Where an officer of Revenue and Customs searches premises in reliance on a warrant under section 8 of, or paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to, the Act (power of justice of the peace to authorise entry and search of premises)(21), he may search any person found on the premises—

(a) where he has reasonable cause to believe that person to be in possession of material which is likely to be of substantial value (whether by itself or together with other material) to the investigation of the offence;
(b) but no person should be searched except by a person of the same sex.

[Alratan]

Or:

"18.
Entry and search after arrest.
— (1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, a constable may enter and search any premises occupied or controlled by a person who is under arrest for an arrestable offence, if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is on the premises evidence, other than items subject to legal privilege, that relates—
(a)
to that offence; or
(b)
to some other arrestable offence which is connected with or similar to that offence.
(2) A constable may seize and retain anything for which he may search under subsection (1) above.
(3) The power to search conferred by subsection (1) above is only a power to search to the extent that is reasonably required for the purpose of discovering such evidence.
(4) Subject to subsection (5) below, the powers conferred by this section may not be exercised unless an officer of the rank of inspector or above has authorised them in writing."

the relevant world is "controlled". Does Green, Parliament as a corporate body, the Speaker, or some other person control Damien Green's office.

[Simon C.]

It is my understanding that the position and responsibilities of the Sergeant-at-arms were scaled back at the time of Jill Pay’s appointment. So far as I understand matters, she is responsible for the security of the Commons’ chamber only. If that is correct, what right did she have to give permission for the searching of Damien Green’s parliamentary rooms? Surely, that was a matter for which only the Speaker could give permission?

[Frank Upton]

It must be far from clear that an office in Parliament is 'the premises of an arrested person'. It's Parliament's premises. not Mr Green's.

Memo to Ms Pay: NEVER SIGN ANYTHING YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND.

[MJP]

The relevant five words of section 18 of PACE that completely cuts the ground out from under the Police is "...items subject to legal privilege...".

That has to include Parliamentary Privilege.

[Jamie Gilmour]

If the police were searching under section 18 they would have said so, not asked for permission. This is a red herring.

However, Parliament needs to clarify the law once and for all. MPs communications must count as legally privileged.

[Sdemnips]

MJP - I see your line of logic regarding "legal privilege" but I fear you're wrong. The term is defined in section 10:

"10. Meaning of “items subject to legal privilege”.— (1) Subject to subsection (2) below, in this Act “items subject to legal privilege” means—
(a)communications between a professional legal adviser and his client or any person representing his client made in connection with the giving of legal advice to the client;
(b)communications between a professional legal adviser and his client or any person representing his client or between such an adviser or his client or any such representative and any other person made in connection with or in contemplation of legal proceedings and for the purposes of such proceedings; and
(c)items enclosed with or referred to in such communications and made—
(i) in connection with the giving of legal advice; or
(ii) in connection with or in contemplation of legal proceedings and for the purposes of such proceedings,
when they are in the possession of a person who is entitled to possession of them.
(2) Items held with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose are not items subject to legal privilege."

Thus, it seems confined to professional legal advice / court papers and not to leaked documents etc.

[Jimmy Sands]

The existence of three apparently unnecessary warrants has been bugging me. I think I have a possible explanation.

On the face of it the police have warrants for the three premises for which they were not required but no warrant for the site that (at least arguably) may have done. Makes no sense. Unless...

Green was never a target. Police wanted to search simply to bolster the case against Galley. With no intention to arrest Green they needed four warrants. The DJ gave them three but drew the line at Portcullis House. Only then did the police decide on the end run of arresting Green.

A little conspiratorial perhaps but can anyone think of a better explanation?

[Jimmy Sands]

The existence of three apparently unnecessary warrants has been bugging me. I think I have a possible explanation.

On the face of it the police have warrants for the three premises for which they were not required but no warrant for the site that (at least arguably) may have done. Makes no sense. Unless...

Green was never a target. Police wanted to search simply to bolster the case against Galley. With no intention to arrest Green they needed four warrants. The DJ gave them three but drew the line at Portcullis House. Only then did the police decide on the end run of arresting Green.

A little conspiratorial perhaps but can anyone think of a better explanation?

[Jimmy Sands]

The existence of three apparently unnecessary warrants has been bugging me. I think I have a possible explanation.

On the face of it the police have warrants for the three premises for which they were not required but no warrant for the site that (at least arguably) may have done. Makes no sense. Unless...

Green was never a target. Police wanted to search simply to bolster the case against Galley. With no intention to arrest Green they needed four warrants. The DJ gave them three but drew the line at Portcullis House. Only then did the police decide on the end run of arresting Green.

A little conspiratorial perhaps but can anyone think of a better explanation?

[Jimmy Sands]

The existence of three apparently unnecessary warrants has been bugging me. I think I have a possible explanation.

On the face of it the police have warrants for the three premises for which they were not required but no warrant for the site that (at least arguably) may have done. Makes no sense. Unless...

Green was never a target. Police wanted to search simply to bolster the case against Galley. With no intention to arrest Green they needed four warrants. The DJ gave them three but drew the line at Portcullis House. Only then did the police decide on the end run of arresting Green.

A little conspiratorial perhaps but can anyone think of a better explanation?

[John Gildea]

In a sense the MP has no propriety right over their rooms. The householder is the speaker/ sarjaent-at-arms. Imagine, the cops come to your mother's door and she consents to the house being searched. Your up in your bedroom. As its not your house, in a legal sense, its not really your room and your consent isnt needed.

However, I wonder if the position might be slightly different if it was a lodger that was up in the bedroom, as there would then be a legal relationship giving the occupant some, albeit limited propriety rights over the room.

As for a warning that consent is optional, as the speaker isnt a suspect, no warning is required (certainly in Scots Law). A warning is only required when the person from whom consent is required is a suspect upon whom suspicion has crystallised.

[Maria Gabrielczyk]

Jill Pay exceeded her authority by permitting the police to enter and search without a warrant.A person's desk and its contents are that person's space and cannot be violated without their consent or without a search warrant.
Can Sir Paul Stephenson (or any Chief Constable) authorise the search without warrant of the desk in a police station of one of his/her officers?

[david]

Maria Gabrielczyk said:

"Can Sir Paul Stephenson (or any Chief Constable) authorise the search without warrant of the desk in a police station of one of his/her officers?"

Yes, and it regularly happens in discipline enquiries. Wouldn't need the authority of the chief constable, either. It's a normal management thing - I'd be surprised if it wasn't the case in any organisation in the country... You don't own the desk, it's provided for you by the organisation to help you do your job...

[david]

Maria Gabrielczyk said:

"Can Sir Paul Stephenson (or any Chief Constable) authorise the search without warrant of the desk in a police station of one of his/her officers?"

Yes, and it regularly happens in discipline enquiries. Wouldn't need the authority of the chief constable, either. It's a normal management thing - I'd be surprised if it wasn't the case in any organisation in the country... You don't own the desk, it's provided for you by the organisation to help you do your job...

[George Sittingburns]

Why were they using anti-terrorist police? Surely this was purely to protect against an investigation into the search since they would claim anti-terrorist law protection.

Brown and Smith ordered this investigation and should be held to account and made to resign.

[Paul]

I would say George's question is the most relevant. Because it was only under provisions in the 'terrorist act' that they could make a case for 1) arresting Green 2) giving them the permission to search the premises.

The next question is who determined they should use such an act? The police or was that suggested by the labour party?

[Kevin Beach]

There is a much deeper issue than whether the police needed a warrant. In any tyranny the police tend to be used as an instrument of oppression. Despite the cynicism that has come to surround parliamentary activity in the past half century or so, the House of Commons is the centre of British democracy - the last bastion against despotism. All that is needed for a search warrant is the signature of one JP on the evidence of one police officer. Do we really want the police to have the right to invade our legislature on the strength of such a flimsy decision?

There should be special safeguards in relation to police investigation of MPs in their role as the people's representatives and particularly for the search of their offices in the Palace of Westminster. This is what the House of Commons should be considering urgently.

[machiavelli]

Yes, they would need a warrant to enter and search the parliamentary estate.

Mr Green's office in the House of Commons is the property of parliament and is controlled by the parliamentary authorities, not the property of or controlled by Mr Green.

[normal joe]

the use of anti terror police is easily explained. Special Branch would have undertaken investigations of this nature but they were amalgamated with the anti terrorist branch to make the counter terrorism command.

It is unfortunate that the new job title carries with it more sinister resonances than their previous title but has no link to terroroism legislation or providing extra protection of officers.

[two hoots]

There is a legal minefield here.Normally the business of state is confidential and the officers serving the state do not disclose,well not much.
Firstly the status of an mp ,He is an officer of a court and represents his constituents so any communication from a constituent would come within legal priviledge .This would not prevent his arrest for a criminal offence but we are aware that recieving information is not an offence.So the police were "winging it"
A case can now be brought for wrongful arrest .The police are not above the law.Recently the police have been extensively using antiterrorist legislation in east london to shut down parties ie the legislation is being thourghly abused.
If the disclosure of the information was in the public interest so Mr Gailey was properly acting as a whistleblower which may be the case we have echoes of the baby p matter
Here a junior member of staff brought concerns about the conduct of a department
to an MP .Who would now stand up and call this improper?
An incompetent executive must be brought to account .The proper place for this is a court of law .
Civil service departments have always leaked and one of the principal beneficiaries in the past was g brown ,The executive is subordinate to parliament .The executive may well want to conceal its misdoings
but mr green is a member of parliament
and has a right to know what is going on in the department he shadows ,What must be questionable is the executive's right to conceal it ,and clearly indefensible is the use of police investigation to prevent embarrassment.

[yosemite sam]

As Green was arrested, can we assume that his dna is now on the national database?.

[peter whitehead]

perhaps a magistrate was asked for 4 warrents, but was unhappy about issueing one for a parliamentary office? the police simply got round that by asking the s-o-a for aigature to give permission. a bit sneaky

[Bob M]

I also think all four searches (once Green had been arrested) would have been covered by a Section 18 PACE authority from an Inspector in the police custody suite where Green was held). However, to clarify the situation may I suggest the Times consults Prof. Michael Zander "the" authority on PACE and whose book on the act is the bible on the workings of its various powers and authorities.