Courts and bug product

[Ian Batten]

On 22 Feb 08, at 0832, Watkin Simon wrote:

>> On 22 Feb 2008 at 8:20 AM, David Hansen wrote:
>>
>>> According to the BBC, he visited the prison declaring himself as a
>>> friend and *not* as an MP.
>>
>> The BBC did state that he was recorded as being a friend by  
>> officials,
>> which is a different thing.
>
> Why not read the actual report, particularly paragraphs 20-24:
> http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm73/7336/7336.pdf

It's lovely to read the prose of a judge when it's not been through  
too much sub-editing.  Clear, lucid and given to a delicious sense of  
fun.

>  It seems unlikely that, in 2005 or 2006, the Wilson Doctrine was  
> the focus
> of much, if any, discussion in police canteens

> I wish that, during the last two weeks
> or so, I had had the spare time of another newspaper journalist  
> who, at the beginning of
> last week complained of the slow pace of my inquiry and tried  
> persistently, with inevitable
> lack of success because it was not so, to establish that I was on  
> holiday rather than pursuing
> this investigation!

> I have borne in mind, in relation to all of those from whom I have
> obtained information, the possibility that serving some interest of  
> their own might inspire
> a departure from candour and that none of them has been subject to  
> the rigour of cross-
> examination such as a trial process would provide.

>  It is pertinent to comment that the election of a person as a new  
> Member
> of Parliament, albeit of great interest to his or her family,  
> friends, political colleagues and
> constituents, is not necessarily noteworthy for the wider public,  
> particularly if that election
> occurs at a General Election rather than in the media spotlight  
> which often accompanies by-
> elections.


The summary the report gives seems to answer most of the issues:

> Summary of factual conclusions
>  The conversations between Mr Khan and Babar Ahmad on 21 May 2005  
> and 24 June 2006
> were monitored. The monitoring was carried out lawfully under the  
> legislation. It was properly
> authorised and fully documented. Mr Khan had been authorised to  
> visit Babar Ahmad as a
> friend, before he became a Member of Parliament. A person known to  
> be a Member of
> Parliament would have been exempt from the need for such  
> authorisation. After he became
> a Member of Parliament Mr Khan made no application for re- 
> categorisation or exemption
> nor did he inform the prison authorities that he had become a  
> Member of Parliament. He
> continued to be listed in prison records and surveillance  
> authorisations as a friend of Babar
> Ahmad and, like 20 or so others, he was liable to be monitored when  
> visiting. None of those
> who authorised the monitoring knew at the time that he was a Member  
> of Parliament. A
> considerable number of other prison and police offi cers would have  
> known that visitors to
> Babar Ahmad who were authorised and listed as friends would be  
> monitored. Two junior
> offi cers who applied for or reviewed authorisation and three who  
> were directly involved in
> the monitoring knew that Mr Khan was a Member of Parliament but  
> they had no reason to
> regard this as signifi cant.
>