Courts and bug product

[Nicholas Bohm]

David Hansen wrote:
> On 22 Feb 2008 at 18:00, Ian Batten wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I'm rather more interested in whether, like the original Mr Hutton, 
> what he is saying is mince or not. The language in which the mince is 
> expressed is a minor consideration.

[mince analysis omitted]

The tone of Sir Christopher Rose's report is not without interest in its 
own right, I suggest.

In para 12 the author records Mr Khan's certainty that at the time of 
his visits in May 2005 and June 2006 it must have been known to the 
authorities that he was an MP.  The author observes:

"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."

While no doubt true, in its context this comes across to me as a sneer; 
nor do I think it is wise for a judge to appear to comment on the 
self-importance of members of parliament.

Para 21 begins as follows:

"On 18 January 2005 Mr Khan applied, under the Approved Visitors Scheme 
for Category A prisoners, to be an approved visitor to Babar Ahmad. This 
necessitated enquiries being made in accordance with the detailed, 
written procedures laid down for the Prison Service, prisoners and those 
wishing to become visitors. The Scheme expressly exempts from its 
operation a number of categories of people, including legal advisers and 
members of either House of Parliament. Members of Parliament and others 
in the exempted categories would usually be permitted to visit prisoners 
in the part of the premises where there was no surveillance equipment."

It would be easy to assume from this that the Scheme expressly provides 
for visits by lawyers and MPs to be free from surveillance, although 
this is not in fact what the author is saying.

He then records that Mr Khan was on 14 March 2005 added to the list of 
Babar Ahmad’s approved visitors as a friend.  He goes on (para 23):

"Mr Khan was elected a Member of Parliament at the General Election on 5 
May 2005. At no time thereafter did he seek to have his relationship as 
a visitor to Babar Ahmad re-categorised to reflect his new status. He 
remained listed in the prison records as a friend and there is nothing 
in Mr Khan’s statement or in the other material before me to suggest 
that, on visiting the prison or otherwise, he alerted the prison 
authorities to the fact that he was now an MP."

Now if one thought that that the Scheme was a public document and that 
it laid down an exemption from surveillance for MPs, one might think Mr 
Khan could be blamed for having failed to take the trouble to get 
himself exempted.  My initial reading left me with rather that 
impression, and I suspect the author of having intended that result.

But even if the Scheme is public, or available to MPs, I very much doubt 
that it exempts them from surveillance or even mentions it.  It is 
merely the usual practice that they are not monitored or recorded.  In 
that case, since Mr Khan new nothing of the surveillance or the 
opportunity to be free of it, why should he have wanted to get himself 
reclassified?

The report notes at para 25 the times when and circumstances in which a 
number of officers knew or became aware that Mr Khan was in fact an MP. 
  None of them thought this of any significance, although in fact it 
was; but the author makes no comment on this.  Indeed, he makes it the 
subject of a rather elderly joke:

"It seems unlikely that, in 2005 or 2006, the Wilson Doctrine was the 
focus of much, if any, discussion in police canteens and, even if it had 
been, there would be no reason for these officers to believe it was 
applicable to the surveillance on which they were engaged."

This of course avoids the question of whether, in canteens or elsewhere, 
the practice of not monitoring MPs was or ought to have been known to 
the relevant officers.

In a report which makes a point of the urgency with which it was 
produced (para 6), but which is notably polished in presentation, the 
author finds time to grumble about the activities of journalists (para 
15), as well as implying that two of them were less helpful to him than 
they might have been (para 13).

I found the report smug and dismissive.  It did not fill me with 
confidence in the Chief Surveillance Commissioner.  Of course, there are 
those on this list who have never had any such confidence anyway; but at 
least now we have some evidence to go on.

Nicholas
-- 
Salkyns, Great Canfield, Takeley,
Bishop's Stortford CM22 6SX, UK

Phone  01279 870285    (+44 1279 870285)
Mobile  07715 419728    (+44 7715 419728)

PGP public key ID: 0x899DD7FF.  Fingerprint:
5248 1320 B42E 84FC 1E8B  A9E6 0912 AE66 899D D7FF