Oral evidence: Investigation into the late Lord Brittan, HC 534Wednesday 21 October 2015
Oral evidence, 21 October 2015.
Witness
DCI Paul Settle, gave evidence.
Chair
Could I call the Committee to order and welcome DCI Settle? Thank you very much for coming in, DCI Settle, at such very short notice. We are most grateful. Could I refer everyone present to the Register of Members’ Interests where the interests of members of this Committee are noted? Are there any additional declarations relevant to this witness?
James Berry
In addition to my declaration that I am a practising barrister, prior to my election I was involved in a number of cases on behalf of the Metropolitan Police as an independent barrister.
Chair
Thank you. We are concerned today, DCI Settle, with the issues of process only. We are not interested in ongoing police investigations into any other issues apart from the process relating to the allegations made by the witness Jane about the late Lord Brittan, so that is where we will confine our questions and I would be grateful if you could do the same. You obviously have a lot of experience in these matters but that is what we want to talk about to you today. Can you describe the role that you had in relation to this?
DCI Settle
I was senior investigating officer for Operation Fairbank, and associated operations, from November 2012 when it started. That meant that I was the detective chief inspector who was basically responsible in running the cases.
Chair
Were you also involved in the Operation Vincente, which—
DCI Settle
I was, sir. I commenced the Operation Vincente on 20 December 2012.
Chair
Did that relate specifically to the allegation of the witness Jane concerning the late Lord Brittan?
DCI Settle
It related solely to that allegation. It was set up in isolation because it was an allegation made by an adult female of rape. I was aware of the sensitivities right from the outset, so it was set up as a stand-alone operation and conducted in isolation from anything else that was happening.
Chair
Much of what you had to deal with that you thought would be confidential is now already in the public domain.
DCI Settle
That is right, yes.
Chair
That is obviously a matter of great regret, because it has clearly caused a great deal of distress to the family of the late Lord Brittan, and presumably to him at the time. You have very kindly provided the Committee with a paper setting out all the circumstances, some of which we will put into the public domain, but not all of it because not all of it is relevant. In particular, I want to take you to the decision time. You made a decision on 4 September about the allegation and about the evidence that you had. What was the decision that you took about the allegation made by the witness Jane?
DCI Settle
On 4 September 2013, following the advice I received from the Crown Prosecution Service and in conjunction with further advice from the Crown Prosecution Service regarding the police applying what is known as the code test, I decided that the investigation should not proceed any further. My reason for that was that I concluded that any action against Lord Brittan would be grossly disproportionate and would not have a legal basis as, in order to interview him, we would have to have had reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence had been committed. The investigation had shown that, while an allegation had been made, the offence had not been made out in law and, as such, those reasonable grounds had ceased.
Chair
You found that there were no reasonable grounds at all and you went to the CPS?
DCI Settle
Yes.
Chair
This will become an issue in relation to other witnesses? Did you have any difficulty in getting advice from the CPS?
DCI Settle
Absolutely not. I reviewed all the evidence that we had against Lord Brittan on 7 June. It is a long time since I was at detective school but I looked at the evidence and I thought, “I am not quite sure about this”, so I sought what is known as early investigative advice from the Crown Prosecution Service. The report that I sent up was completely anonymised. There was no mention of Lord Brittan whatsoever in there so that we would get a completely objective, unbiased view. The report came back and that concurred with my thoughts that the offence of rape had not been made out, and that was specifically on the account that the victim Jane had given us. That is before we spoke to anybody else, which we had done, but on the victim’s account alone it was unreasonable to suspect that anybody would have known that consent was an issue.
Chair
In your view, there was no reason to either interview him or to cause any further investigations to take place?
DCI Settle
Absolutely not. I made an entry basically saying that I did not feel the arrest of Lord Brittan was a proportionate response. The matter was over 40 years old. The offence was not clear-cut. The additional witnesses that we had traced, despite it being 40 years old, did not support Lord Brittan’s presence. Jane had only identified him from a certificate she had allegedly seen and I was not convinced the necessary points for the offence had been proved. In addition, something I was also conscious of, there was no right of anonymity for persons arrested and there had been significant media intrusion around arrestees. To put that into perspective, it was at the same time that Yewtree was running.
Chair
You met the complainant and you explained this to the complainant, did you?
DCI Settle
I met with the complainant on 17 February and I explained it in full and at that meeting she asked for me to provide a written response as to why I had ceased the operation.
Chair
You did not inform the late Lord Brittan or his solicitors, presumably because this was not in the public domain at that stage?
DCI Settle
It was not in the public domain and, to use a very well-worn quote, I did not want to give it the oxygen of publicity. At that stage there was no reason for me to inform Lord Brittan. I regret that I didn’t, purely because had I informed him that there was formally no further action on an allegation that had been made then maybe it would have been slightly difficult to revisit it.
Chair
Shortly after you made your decision you met with Tom Watson.
DCI Settle
That is correct.
Chair
According to your statement, at a hotel. Why did you meet with him in particular?
DCI Settle
Mr Watson had been—
Chair
Sorry, on 10 February 2014.
DCI Settle
Yes, on 10 February, which is one week before I met with Jane. I had met with Mr Watson periodically to keep him abreast of details with the investigation because Mr Watson had been an intermediary for an awful lot of the complainants and was aware of their personal cases. The purpose of my meeting with him and keeping him abreast was to try to deconflict and reassure him what we were doing, and why we were doing it so he retained confidence in the investigation.
Chair
What was his view about your decision?
DCI Settle
To be perfectly honest, at the time he did not express any concerns whatsoever. I explained in full the reason for my decision and why. It was a highly unusual decision, in that I am aware there are guidelines that say we always interview the suspect. But those grounds to interview the suspect had ceased because it was a highly unusual set of circumstances where, on the victim’s account alone, the actual offence was not made out. I explained that to him. I also explained to him regarding two other matters that he was aware of where people had made allegations against the late Lord Brittan. I explained to him where we were with those.
Chair
Were you surprised then when this was reopened as a result of Mr Watson’s letter?
DCI Settle
If I am being frank, I am extremely disappointed because I would have thought that, before doing that, I had the type of relationship with him where he could have phoned me to seek clarity and, had I not assured him of that clarity, then he was perfectly within his rights to write that letter. But I was rather shocked.
Chair
Did you see it as a criticism of you, a criticism of the investigation?
DCI Settle
I saw it as a betrayal, to be perfectly honest, because I thought that I had been frank and honest with him and transparent from the outset. We had him visit our office. We had him meet our team so that he could gain confidence in what we were doing and understand that we would take the investigation where the evidence led us. We were not there with an agenda. We were there to do a job. It was as simple as that and I saw it as a very low blow, to be perfectly honest.
Chair
In the newspapers it is quoted as maybe not you but those close to you suggesting that you felt that what he had done undermined your investigation. Is that the case?
DCI Settle
Yes. I felt that it undermined our investigation because, put bluntly, at that time we had Operation Yewtree running with a lot of officers and a lot of resources, and my investigative team consisted of six people and me. We had a full diary for the forthcoming two weeks and any distractions that we had took us away from the job that we were there to do.
Chair
What happened after that? The matter was reopened?
DCI Settle
The matter was reviewed by another senior officer who did not look at all the documents and, in particular, did not look at my decision log. My decision log is a contemporaneous note of decisions made at the time and the rationale why I have made those decisions. It is an intrinsic and fundamental part of all major investigations. That was not examined. A review was done on limited documentation and that, in my opinion, wrongly concluded that the obvious line of inquiry was to interview Lord Brittan.
Chair
Why do you think that was done? What drove the Metropolitan Police into continuing with this, after you had reviewed all the evidence and had CPS advice? Why do you think this was done?
DCI Settle
I think the dates speak for themselves. On 17 May it was revealed that Mr Watson had written a letter. On 18 May there was a newspaper article. On 19 May a hurried review was carried out.
Chair
That was because of his letter?
DCI Settle
I think it was a direct result of that. I am aware that the review may well have been ordered two weeks before. I wasn’t aware of that at the time. What I do know is 17 May was a Saturday, 18 May a Sunday and the 19th a Monday. That is, the first day back in the office after the weekend newspapers.
Chair
It is fairly unusual, is it not, for an officer conducting an operational matter to be keeping a Member of Parliament informed of the developments that you were telling Mr Watson about?
DCI Settle
It is unusual but it was unusual circumstances. We had never encountered anything like this. The internet was awash with allegations, anecdotes, rumours and facts, and we were in a position where we were trying to sift through those. In fairness, I had a measure of sympathy for Mr Watson because, after he had asked his question, he was deluged with people coming forward and making allegations to him.
Chair
After he had asked which question? After he spoke in the House?
DCI Settle
After he spoke in the House he was deluged with people coming forward and making allegations and was not in the best position to—well, how do you prepare for that when it is—
Chair
Do you regret giving so much information to him?
DCI Settle
I don’t because it kept him abreast of the investigation and prevented speculation, because there has been an awful lot of media intrusion into this right from the outset and an awful lot of speculation and, I would say, inaccurate reporting regarding this. I don’t regret keeping him informed because I am a firm believer that, once you have a stakeholder in an investigation, it is key—you do more harm to ostracise him than it would have done good.
Chair
It was not just one case. He was involved in quite a lot of cases, wasn’t he?
DCI Settle
There were many, many cases and, in fairness, we have had I think three successful prosecutions to date as a result of the information that Mr Watson passed to us.
Chair
You must feel quite vindicated at the end because senior officers have now taken over this. They have gone to the CPS. The CPS have said that they do not want to be involved in this because the evidential test had not been met and, finally, we have a letter from Mr Rodhouse—who we will be hearing from later—apologising to Lady Brittan about this matter. That must be a complete vindication of the position that you had taken in February 2014?
DCI Settle
It may well be but I take no pleasure from it. Quite frankly, it distracted us from doing our job.
Chair
But it took a year and a half for the family to be informed.
DCI Settle
Yes.
Chair
Do you think it would have been the right thing to do to have told Lord Brittan while he was still alive?
DCI Settle
It is my opinion that had we been in a position where his name came out into the public domain then he should have been told as soon as possible.
Mr Burrowes
Your decision that you say did not go any further in terms of review, is that the usual practice?
DCI Settle
If I was conducting a review, no. In my decision log I have an entry where I have reviewed the evidence to date on, I think, 7 July. I have listed all the documentation and all the evidence I looked at when I was reviewing it, so that people are aware of what I have looked at. The review that was conducted looked at about three documents.
Mr Burrowes
So where did your decision log go?
DCI Settle
It was kept in the office at Empress State Building in west London.
Mr Burrowes
Do you have your decision log on you there?
DCI Settle
I don’t. I have a copy of it that I took.
Mr Burrowes
Referring to the copy of your decision log, how do you describe in your log the option of either arresting or interviewing Mr Brittan or both?
DCI Settle
Bear with me a second. It is rather unprofessional to shuffle through. “At this stage I do not feel that the arrest or interview of Lord Brittan is a proportionate response. The matter is over 40 years old. The offence is not clear-cut. The additional witnesses do not support Lord Brittan’s presence at the time. The victim is sure of the identification from a certificate in this flat but I am still not convinced that the offence is made out. There is no right of anonymity for persons arrested for sexual offences. Furthermore, there is considerable media intrusion regarding arrestees. At the moment Lord Brittan is of interest in other aspects of a parallel investigation and to arrest or interview now would, I feel, jeopardise any potential inquiries as this would be nothing more than a baseless witch hunt.”
Mr Burrowes
Right. We then had an interview under caution of Lord Brittan. In your professional opinion, which is significant, would you then say that what we had was a baseless witch hunt?
DCI Settle
I think the interview was without grounds and I think that the interview, consequently, was not within the confines of PACE and unlawful.
Mr Burrowes
What you are referring to, as I understand, is code C 10A of PACE?
DCI Settle
I will take your word for that.
Mr Burrowes
Which I can say to you says, “In order to interview Lord Brittan under caution, were there reasonable objective grounds for the suspicion of rape or other allegations based on known facts or information?” At the time of your investigation, were there reasonable objective grounds for that suspicion?
DCI Settle
There weren’t. They had ceased. From the outset when we had the allegation we are duty bound to investigate it, which we had, the difficulty being that as we investigated it those grounds ceased.
Mr Burrowes
Over the passage of time, are you aware of any further pieces of evidence that provided reasonable objective grounds based on known facts or information?
DCI Settle
Nothing.
Mr Burrowes
When it was grossly disproportionate and would not have a legal basis, effectively what you are saying to us is that the subsequent interview under caution of Lord Brittan, in your opinion, was unlawful?
DCI Settle
That is correct, sir, yes.
Mr David Burrowes
We have this letter from Mr Watson, dated 28 April, that says these words, “It further troubles me that the senior police officer”—no doubt referring to you—“who dropped the case revealed to the victim he apparently took a series of worthless stereotypes and other irrelevant points into consideration. He did this after apparently consulting with an unnamed CPS official. Most of these stereotypes have been blown out of the water in recent months, or so I thought.” What are your comments on that?
DCI Settle
The meeting that I had with Jane was heated. I was on the receiving end of what can best be described as a heated exchange. I am paid to do that. I am paid to sit and listen and not to respond. Regarding my using stereotypes and, furthermore, regarding I think somewhere in there it alleges that I slammed my papers on the table and stuff like that, anybody that knows me knows that is simply not me. It is not true. I was put in a position where she was understandably upset about my decision, and so was her husband, and they challenged me on it.
Mr Burrowes
The first paragraph of Mr Watson’s letter is that there was practice that was contrary to ACPO and CPS guidance on investigation and prosecution of rape cases. Is that true?
DCI Settle
It is not because, while it is always advisable to interview the suspect, we followed the guidance in that what I did was—conscious of who Lord Brittan was, conscious of the impact it would have and conscious of the media intrusion we would get—I sought to obtain the strongest possible case that we could have against him. The difficulty being, in trying to obtain that strongest possible case it actually undermined the whole prosecution and the grounds for us to interview him ceased to exist.
Mr Burrowes
Why was there a delay between September 2013 and February 2014 in informing Mr Watson or the alleged victim?
DCI Settle
Regarding Mr Watson, that was purely because that was the next time I met with him. I hadn’t met with him previously. Regarding Jane, I had said to my officer who was her point of contact, who was going to see her and inform her in person, that if she wanted to see me—the lady lives in the north of the country quite a considerable distance away—I would be more than happy to go and see her in person and explain my decision. She wanted that to happen initially. That was arranged and then she changed her mind and decided she was coming to London, and the earliest she could come to London was 17 February.
Mr Burrowes
Prior to the interview of Lord Brittan, were the solicitors in disclosure informed about the decision to take no further action?
DCI Settle
I don’t know, sir. It was not conducted by me. I was told to have nothing more with the investigation.
Mr Burrowes
In terms of the impact following the letter of 28 April to the DPP—you no doubt talked to officers around this whole issue—how would you describe the level of impact on the Met Police of the letter from Tom Watson?
DCI Settle
It has confused matters considerably because, as I said, we had limited resources and we were there to do a job. This distracted us and it shook confidence within the team because it has kind of undermined us.
Mr Burrowes
What was the immediate reaction that you were aware of from that letter hitting the CPS correspondence unit inbox on 1 May 2014?
DCI Settle
I would suggest one of panic among some people and one of shock among others.
Mr Burrowes
Finally, have you been involved in any other cases where Members of Parliament have acted as intermediaries?
DCI Settle
No.
Mr Winnick
I am going to ask you a few questions, Mr Settle, like other colleagues, and nothing I say should be seen as detrimental regarding the late Lord Brittan. The meeting that you had on 17 February 2014 with Tom Watson, as you said it was a perfectly calm meeting. You gave your views or the result of the investigation, I should say, so far, and Mr Watson discussed the matter with you. So you had no quarrel about that meeting?
DCI Settle
Absolutely none whatsoever, sir. The meeting was actually on 10 February. He was given an update on how the investigation writ large, which had many different strands and aspects to it, was proceeding and where we were and at no point were any concerns raised whatsoever.
Mr Winnick
Would you say it is the duty of a citizen, not necessarily by any means a Member of Parliament, who has received information that an offence took place, however many years ago, to bring that to the attention as quickly as possible of the police?
DCI Settle
Yes, I would like to think that people would do because that is ultimately what we are here for.
Mr Winnick
So there is no feeling that Mr Watson was wrong to bring the information to the police?
DCI Settle
No, far from it. He was used as a conduit by many people who—I have to be frank—for whatever reason, have a distrust in the police and would not normally have approached us.
Mr Winnick
You said, Mr Settle, and I was impressed by your evidence, Mr Watson had provided evidence—and I am pretty certain I got it correctly—to the police that resulted in three successful prosecutions.
DCI Settle
That is correct.
Mr Winnick
So here is a person, politician or otherwise, who has sought to ensure that those who were the subject of various forms of sexual abuse are brought to justice.
DCI Settle
That is correct, sir.
Mr Winnick
To put it frankly—and I hesitate to use terms that could be misinterpreted—we are not talking about someone who lives in a fantasy world, who does not have the slightest idea what is happening and, out of nowhere, goes to the police and wastes police time. Am I right?
DCI Settle
Sorry, in respect of—
Mr Winnick
Sorry, I have put it in a long way, but we are not dealing with a fantasist, are we?
DCI Settle
In Mr Watson or—
Mr Winnick
Mr Watson, yes.
DCI Settle
No, we are not. No, sir.
Mr Winnick
In no way?
DCI Settle
No, sir.
Mr Winnick
You accept that he carried out a public duty?
DCI Settle
Absolutely.
Mr Winnick
Thank you very much. Would I not be right to say that all this occurred where there was a climate—in my view, a justified climate—arising from the Savile case, the late Smith, who were never brought to justice and there was a strong feeling, am I right, Mr Settle, in Parliament and no doubt in the police as well?
DCI Settle
There was a very strong feeling. There was a feeling that we had let people down, historically, and that we were there to bring perpetrators to justice at the earliest opportunity.
Mr Winnick
It could be, could it not, that Mr Watson felt that there had been an injustice, that Jane was telling the truth, or at least the police should probe more deeply into the allegations, and that his motive was above board?
DCI Settle
It could be. However, at the meeting I had with him on 10 February I explained, very simply and thoroughly, why we had made that decision. As I have said, had he taken the view that he subsequently did, I would have expected him to contact me and clarify the issue before he made representations. We have kind of gone from a 1 on the scale to a 10 on the scale with no justification.
Mr Winnick
Yes. Mr Settle, I can understand that you had this meeting. He seemed satisfied and then later on he wasn’t, but that is your dispute, isn’t it, to a large extent, that instead of Mr Watson coming back to you he acted otherwise?
DCI Settle
Yes, but—
Mr Winnick
Yes. Thank you very much indeed. It has been very useful.
Chair
You wanted to finish your sentence?
DCI Settle
No, I am fine. Thank you, sir.
Nusrat Ghani
You mentioned in your written statement, and also earlier on, that you met with Mr Tom Watson on 10 February 2014.
DCI Settle
Yes.
Nusrat Ghani
You met Mr Tom Watson at the hotel next to the Unite head office, “I updated him on all aspects of the investigation to date, as he had acted as an intermediary for a significant number of complainants”. Was it unusual for you to have this sort of relationship with other parliamentarians in these cases?
DCI Settle
As I said, it was unusual but it was unusual circumstances.
Nusrat Ghani
Did it help you proceed with your work or was it hindering you doing your work?
DCI Settle
To be brutally frank, we had several people come forward who would not normally have come forward and recently a guy by the name of Richard Alston has just been found guilty and sentenced, and that was a direct result of Mr Watson’s intervention and facilitating the victim through to us.
Nusrat Ghani
Do you think it is acceptable for parliamentarians to have this sort of relationship with police officers like yourself?
DCI Settle
I think that if there is a case where it is bringing people to justice then, yes, it is.
Nusrat Ghani
You mention that you also felt undermined in your position. How did you get—
DCI Settle
Did I?
Nusrat Ghani
You felt undermined by the letter.
DCI Settle
I think that was in the media.
Nusrat Ghani
Yes, you mentioned it as well today. You mentioned it today. How did you allow yourself to be undermined by Mr Watson? How did you get yourself into that position?
DCI Settle
By doing my job and by the—
Nusrat Ghani
So you felt that you were unable to do your job because of Mr Watson’s intervention?
DCI Settle
Yes, as a direct result of the correspondence. When I made representations regarding my position on the matter I was told to have nothing more to do with it.
Nusrat Ghani
Thank you.
Chair
Who told you not to have anything more to do with it?
DCI Settle
My line manager, Detective Superintendent Gray.
Chair
How far up the Metropolitan Police chain do you think this went, that people knew that this was going to be opened up again after you had reached your conclusion?
DCI Settle
I am pretty sure that it was at commander level.
Chair
At commander level?
DCI Settle
Yes, at that time that is who was chairing the Strategic Overview Group, the Gold Group, into the matter.
Victoria Atkins
Officer, in your statement that you provided to us, you refer to the fact that Jane was interviewed by a suitably trained and specialised officer.
DCI Settle
That is correct.
Victoria Atkins
Could you give us a bit of help with this? What do you mean by that?
DCI Settle
We have officers who are specifically trained. It is called SOIT, sexual offences investigation techniques, and there are officers that are particularly trained. It is a very intensive course to deal with victims of sexual abuse, to understand their specific needs rather than a routine plod turning up.
Victoria Atkins
Obviously we are dealing potentially with very vulnerable people who complain of terrible crimes committed against them, and that requires sensitivity but it also requires you to do your job to make sure that you achieve best evidence?
DCI Settle
Absolutely and, to a certain degree, I am reliant upon my officers and their competency and ability to do that. My job, once they have achieved that evidence, is then to review that evidence and make operational decisions based upon what they have obtained.
Victoria Atkins
What are the potential consequences if things go wrong at that stage with the complainant?
DCI Settle
For the complainant there could be many: their confidence in the police, their confidence in the justice system would be rocked if not shattered. In other cases they have taken action themselves because it has become too much for them. It is one area where we do go above and beyond what we need to do to reassure that person and to achieve the best evidence but, most importantly, not at the victim’s expenses.
Victoria Atkins
Looking forward, if a decision is made to charge and then it ends up in court, what potential consequences can any mishandling at an early stage in the investigation have on the success of a prosecution?
DCI Settle
It can have absolutely massive consequences. Everything is disclosable within the law and what we have done is held to account, and quite rightly so. Our actions are all scrutinised, often with 20/20 hindsight many months later.
Victoria Atkins
Summing up your role as a police officer, you have talked about you have a job to do, you have no agenda. A theme that police officers often follow is: we go where the evidence leads us.
DCI Settle
It is a well-worn quote but it is quite accurate.
Victoria Atkins
Where did the evidence lead you in this case?
DCI Settle
The evidence led me to the conclusion that, on Jane’s account alone, the actual points to prove for rape were not there. Therefore, despite the fact that Jane was insisting she had been raped, in law she hadn’t.
Victoria Atkins
We have heard mention of Mr Watson’s letter. It was a letter to the Director of Public Prosecutions but it was later publicised on 17 May on a website called Exaro. Is that correct?
DCI Settle
That is correct, ma’am.
Victoria Atkins
So that information was then in the public domain?
DCI Settle
Yes.
Victoria Atkins
Thank you. Again, this is in the context as you have described of Mr Watson bringing many complaints to you as investigating officers, and also the media context of campaigning.
DCI Settle
Absolutely. Unfortunately, we—I say fortunately we have a free press, but we have a free press and Jane saw fit to speak to the media, the difficulty being when she spoke to the media her account varied slightly.
Victoria Atkins
It was precisely because Mr Watson had brought these cases to your attention that you met with him and explained this particular case, out of all the other cases you explained it to him?
DCI Settle
I explained this and the other strands that were live at the time.
Chair
How long did you have this unit?
DCI Settle
From November 2012 when we first started investigation until May 2013.
Chair
How many allegations as opposed to convictions? You talked about convictions; how many allegations did you look at?
DCI Settle
We had in the region of 400 bits of information from allegations at the beginning.
Chair
400?
DCI Settle
Yes.
Chair
How many people have been successfully convicted?
DCI Settle
We have three convictions to date. Please appreciate that an awful lot of the information came from the internet. It was nothing more than rumour and anecdote.
Chair
Did you have to look into all those allegations?
DCI Settle
We had to look into all of them to establish whether there was any truth to them.
James Berry
Mr Settle, you described how you were keeping Mr Watson abreast of a number of cases, in fact a significant number of complainants. Without going into the details of any of these cases, were all of these people Mr Watson’s constituents?
DCI Settle
I don’t believe any of them were.
James Berry
You don’t believe any of them were. Were you keeping in touch with those individuals’ Members of Parliament?
DCI Settle
The only other Member of Parliament I had contact with—and, please forgive me, the poor gentleman has died and I cannot remember his name. He was the MP up in Manchester who made representations on behalf of one of his constituents.
Chair
Was it Jim Dobbin?
DCI Settle
No, Paul—
Chair
Anyway, let us not speculate as to who it was.
DCI Settle
He was the only other Member that I had contact with.
James Berry
Are you aware of the convention in Parliament that we only act on behalf of our own constituents?
DCI Settle
Absolutely not. I am a policeman.
James Berry
You expect the MP, perhaps, to tell you that?
DCI Settle
Possibly, yes.
James Berry
You describe Mr Watson as a stakeholder. Were you keeping any other stakeholders abreast of developments, charities, NSPCC and so on?
DCI Settle
Within the strategic overview meeting and the Gold Group we had various other stakeholders, such as the NSPCC who have been of great assistance to us, and then other law enforcement agencies, such as SOCA as it was then, the National Crime Agency as it is now.
James Berry
You have explained how in the meeting you set out the situation. Mr Watson did not raise much of an objection then. Did he allege at that meeting that you failed to follow the guidelines?
DCI Settle
Absolutely not. It was a very, very convivial meeting.
James Berry
So he did not raise this with your senior officers; he went straight to the DPP with a complaint?
DCI Settle
He had absolutely no reason whatsoever to raise it with any of my colleagues or any of my senior officers. It was a very, very convivial meeting.
James Berry
Your position is that you did follow the guidance. Whereas you say it wasn’t proportionate to interview Lord Brittan, I think that what your evidence actually is that it did not even reach the evidential threshold to interview him under the section of PACE that Mr Burrowes mentioned?
DCI Settle
Absolutely. It fell at the first hurdle. What we set out to do was to strengthen the case as much as we possibly could and, in making those inquiries, it actually undermined the case. As soon as the evidential test was applied it fell at the first hurdle.
James Berry
You did not even get on to the issue of proportionality. It is more that the evidence on your assessment wasn’t there?
DCI Settle
Yes. When I talk about proportionality that is before I sent the advice up to the CPS where I was saying, “I am not taking any action now because I don’t believe it is proportionate because I am going to speak to the CPS”.
James Berry
Finally, as I understand it, it is your view that in a case where a suspect has not been identified in public or has not been informed of an allegation against them, when that information does come out into the public domain, by whatever means, the police ought to inform that individual that an allegation has been made against them?
DCI Settle
I think that once it is out there we have a duty to inform them exactly what is going on at the earliest opportunity.
James Berry
Unless there are operational reasons not to?
DCI Settle
I would struggle to find an operational reason not to.
James Berry
Very good. Thank you.
Tim Loughton
Mr Settle, I think we have all agreed that MPs and others in public office have a role—indeed a duty—in handing on information where they think it is of use to the police and representing victims, particularly if they are their constituents. How many times did you meet Mr Watson?
DCI Settle
I would say three or four.
Tim Loughton
What sort of thing did you discuss with Mr Watson?
DCI Settle
I will put things into perspective. The first meeting I had with Mr Watson was in the presence of a man who was making a series of allegations and a journalist who was there because the guy would not speak to us unless the journalist was present as he wanted what he was saying recorded. At that first meeting that we met with him he gave us a series of allegations. We then had a subsequent meeting immediately after with Mr Watson where he said, “By the way, we have all of these” and handed over a load more allegations that were given to us. As a result of that, I met with him periodically. He came over to the office and saw the work of the team and what our other jobs were within the paedophile unit. He came over to see us and I updated him periodically on the progress of those allegations he was aware of.
Tim Loughton
When you say “updated him periodically”, was he open to privileged information effectively?
DCI Settle
No, because these people had come through him, so if anything he possessed the privileged information before we did.
Tim Loughton
But presumably your investigations on the initial information that he gave you might have yielded further information, which were operational matters about the way you were handling it, what further witnesses it might have taken you to that he would not have been in receipt of. Did you share that sort of information or not?
DCI Settle
No, absolutely not.
Tim Loughton
So he did not have any privileged information?
DCI Settle
No.
Tim Loughton
Did he try to direct you as to how you might do your job differently?
DCI Settle
No.
Tim Loughton
So you felt he wasn’t being involved in operational matters at that stage?
DCI Settle
I felt he was being very supportive and we had a very strong relationship with him up until that letter arriving.
Tim Loughton
What grounds do you think he could have had for then sending a letter? If he had taken issue with you and then not come to you to complain that he disagreed with your decision, would you have expected him to have gone to perhaps your line manager or a senior officer?
DCI Settle
Yes. Nobody was more surprised than me when the letter arrived.
Tim Loughton
It was disproportionate, perhaps, to take it to the DPP rather than to take it further within the police themselves and then allow that complaint to become part of the public domain?
DCI Settle
Yes.
Tim Loughton
What qualifications do you think Mr Watson has to judge the way police carry out their investigations?
DCI Settle
None that I am aware of.
Tim Loughton
You said that the way this case has panned out, the adverse publicity that it has had on the activities of the police and the relationship with Mr Watson and others, had undermined your investigation and that it had the capacity to undermine parallel investigations going on. Do you think this has had a more deep-seated influence on the way the police will continue to look at similar allegations in the future?
DCI Settle
Yes, I do.
Tim Loughton
In what respect?
DCI Settle
We are stuck between a rock and a hard place. We are there to investigate things and some of the people we are dealing with are very vulnerable and susceptible to exaggeration. We are there to sift through things but we are also working within a climate where we have finite resources, and when those resources need to be directed towards something that is more life threatening or immediate, unfortunately, I can see a position being taken where things are not necessarily looked at because of this.
Tim Loughton
Do you think that the way various details have been put into the public domain—not by the police—is going to have a detrimental impact on the ability or willingness of victims to come forward with further historical allegations in the future?
DCI Settle
Absolutely, because we are in a position where this has been played out in the media and where quite often victims’ accounts have been played out in the media. If we are now not seen to follow through on what has become accepted as fact because it has been in the media, then we are all part of the problem and we are all part of the conspiracy. The difficulty is that if the evidence is not there, from a purely objective evidential point of view, then we struggle to proceed with it.
Tim Loughton
Finally, you would agree that the way this case has panned out, the way that certain individuals have put it in the public domain, could be deeply damaging to the pursuit of historic child sexual exploitation cases, both for the ability and capability and willingness of the police to pursue them and, more importantly, for the effectiveness of victims coming forward and having their allegations properly looked at, taken seriously and pursued?
DCI Settle
I think it has an impact, yes.
Chair
Thank you, Mr Loughton. Mr McDonald, we are due to have a vote shortly, just to let you know.
Stuart C. McDonald
I will be as quick as I can. Mr Settle, you described the advice you had with the CPS and you described the advice they gave you as helpful. I don't think anyone here would challenge the fact that you came to a perfectly reasonable conclusion about how the case should stop. Having said that, the advice that you got from the CPS did not actually say that you should not arrest or you should not interview Lord Brittan. It left that matter to you. Is that correct?
DCI Settle
The advice I was given said that the arrest or interview of Lord Brittan was an operational decision for the police.
Stuart C. McDonald
Sure. In your statement you have said that one of the reasons you took advice from the CPS was that you are not an expert in sexual offences.
DCI Settle
That is correct.
Stuart C. McDonald
Thank you. Also, in your statement you describe the offence as not clear-cut. Is that a fair description?
DCI Settle
Yes.
Stuart C. McDonald
What I am saying is that I perfectly understand the conclusion that you came to but, in light of those comments, would you not say that another reasonable police officer might have taken a different approach and might have decided to interview Lord Brittan?
DCI Settle
I do not, if the full facts are looked at, because the pivotal issue becomes reasonable grounds to suspect an offence has been committed and those reasonable grounds have ceased.
Stuart C. McDonald
You do not think if any officer came in and said to the Committee that they, in the same circumstances, would have interviewed Lord Brittan, you would say that would have been unreasonable?
DCI Settle
I would struggle to see how any officer that had read my 30-plus notes of the decision log could rationally argue against the decision I made.
Stuart C. McDonald
In a case that is not clear-cut what are the dangers of interviewing an accused person?
DCI Settle
The issue for me at that time was one of anonymity, and one of Lord Brittan’s name being put out into the press and the associated issues that would come with that. As I have said, there were parallel investigations running at the same time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I will stop you there. To clarify then, the prospect of media coverage was a factor in the decision?
DCI Settle
First and foremost, the evidence was a factor in the decision. The prospect of adverse media coverage was a factor in not arresting him or interviewing him until we had clarified the position with the CPS.
Stuart C. McDonald
Finally, you spoke about your dismay at the review that took place regarding the decision made and you indicated that you thought the letter from Mr Watson was related to that, but then you also said that your understanding was a review had been ordered two weeks before that.
DCI Settle
I have heard that that is the case but I wasn’t at the meeting so—
Stuart C. McDonald
Who did you hear that from?
DCI Settle
I could not honestly tell you.
Stuart C. McDonald
Was it somebody within the Met?
DCI Settle
Someone within the organisation, absolutely.
Stuart C. McDonald
But how could a letter that had not yet been written cause a review to take place?
DCI Settle
A good point, well presented.
Chair
DCI Settle, thank you for coming here to give evidence to us today. I am still puzzled how you managed to get the CPS to give you advice, whereas Mr Rodhouse, with his several letters, and senior management were unable to get the CPS to give them any advice whatsoever, but we will explore that with them. You have talked about a baseless witch hunt and betrayal and the undermining of your investigation, but I go back to what I said to you before. Two years later, after this had started and you had come to a conclusion, the same conclusion was that there should not have been any charges.
DCI Settle
Yes, sir.
Chair
So, even though you take no joy at this, you were in fact vindicated in your original judgment.
DCI Settle
Yes, I take no joy from it whatsoever but, yes.
Chair
The distress that has been caused to the family of the late Lord Brittan must be immense.
DCI Settle
I can only apologise and ask that, in retrospect, if there was anything that I could have done that could have prevented that, I would quite happily have done it because it is completely uncalled for.
Chair
Why did you stand aside as the head of this unit?
DCI Settle
I was told to have nothing more to do with the investigation.
Chair
Any investigation or this one?
DCI Settle
The whole Operation Fairbank.
Chair
Do you think that is because you had taken a stand? You must not feel fettered in any way in talking to this Committee; no one is going to do anything to you as a result of what you say, otherwise it would be a contempt of the House. Do you think it is because you stood your ground and said you did not think this should have been taken further?
DCI Settle
Yes, sir.
Chair
That is a very serious reflection on those who made this decision. So what are you doing at the moment, DCI Settle?
DCI Settle
Not a great deal.
Chair
I see. Well, we will try to make sure you are put to good use because I think that the Commissioner has made it very clear he needs as many officers as he can in the force. Thank you very much for giving us evidence today.
DCI Settle
Thank you, sir.
Chair
Thank you. Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses
Assistant Commissioner Patricia Gallan, Metropolitan Police, and Deputy Assistant Commissioner Steve Rodhouse, Metropolitan Police, gave evidence.
Chair
When you were last here you had not been promoted. On behalf of this Committee, may I congratulate you on your promotion to your new senior position in the Metropolitan Police?
Assistant Commissioner Gallan
Thank you, Chair.
Chair
We had hoped to have the Commissioner here but I gather that he is abroad.
Assistant Commissioner Gallan
That is correct. He is abroad on operational matters.
Chair
Yes, of course. He has asked that you come but we will see him at a later stage about the vexed question of police funding, which I know is—
Assistant Commissioner Gallan
That is correct. He has offered to come and see you about all matters.
Chair
Indeed. Can I say at the start that you sent out a letter to us last week and you issued a statement? The Committee has looked at some of the comments that have been made and we are glad that it reflects the feelings of this Committee in three respects. First of all, the Commissioner has requested that another police force should look at the investigation to make sure it is thorough and properly conducted and that it identifies good practice. We think that that is a good idea but we hope that there is a timetable because, if we are going to get good practice, we need the good practice fed through as quickly as possible. Secondly, the Commissioner said that he believes that there is an imbalance in the current legislation, allowing suspects to be publicly named before charge while those bringing allegations remain anonymous and he feels this needs to be addressed. We believe that that is correct and our predecessor Committee in our inquiry into police bail, which featured the case of Paul Gambaccini, accepted that. Thirdly, he has invited legislators to consider pre-charge publicity for suspects where additional legal safeguards are required. We agree that this is an important area and we will be looking at that as well. So three easy wins with us today at the Select Committee. However, how would you describe the way in which the Metropolitan Police has handled the situation regarding the late Lord Brittan?
Assistant Commissioner Gallan
It might be helpful if Steve just outlines the actual process it went through in the background, because I think a very short synopsis might help.
Chair
I think we would prefer you to answer our questions and then if you can supplement that later that will helpful. I am asking for an overall view. I think we know the substance of it. How do you think it has been handled?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Rodhouse
I think it has been a very difficult and unusual set of circumstances. The rationale behind actions that have been taken I think has been absolutely in good faith. The investigation was a search for the truth. That is my summary of it having reviewed all the papers. It was clearly a difficult set of circumstances but—
Chair
You have said that twice. That is not what I asked you. I asked you how do you think this has been handled, not that it was difficult. Of course it was difficult, otherwise you would not be sitting here today. How do you think, as the Gold Commander, this has been handled when a letter of apology goes to the widow of someone who has not been charged with any offence, on the day that the BBC decides to broadcast a programme? How do you think it has been handled?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Rodhouse
I think these matters have been handled as well as could be in the circumstances but I absolutely understand the distress caused to Lady Brittan. I absolutely recognise, I apologise, and for good reason, because, at the point that Lord Brittan died, I was in negotiations, discussions with the CPS, to obtain a view of the evidence in the case, and I am sure we will come to that. But latterly—that was in January 2014.
Chair
You would like to apologise to Lady Brittan?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Rodhouse
Absolutely. I have apologised through her legal team. I would absolutely be happy to do that in person.
Chair
What are you apologising for, if you think it was handled okay?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Rodhouse
I do recognise that at the time the complainant in this case, Jane, was updated that there was no prospect of the CPS reviewing the case; after Lord Brittan died—and that was in April 2014—I recognised that Lady Brittan and her legal team should have been updated at that time and I regret that. That is a failing and I apologise for that.
Chair
That would have been after he had died?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Rodhouse
That is right, yes.
Chair
The whole of 2014 appears to be you writing to the CPS asking them to back up your decision. You were playing a bit of ping-pong with them.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Rodhouse
These are complex circumstances. But the truth of the matter is the investigation was not completed and the full file of complete evidence arising from that complete inquiry was not submitted to the CPS until 12 November 2014. It was only on 22 November 2014 did I receive a note indicating that the CPS were not prepared to consider that file. It was at that point that I appealed and was in the course of appealing that decision, because I felt this was absolutely a case where public confidence was best served for a full and independent review of the circumstances.
Chair
You did not say that in your letter. You did not mention public confidence. You said you thought this was susceptible to media pressure and public cynicism. It wasn’t public confidence; actually, what the Metropolitan Police was doing was protecting its back.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Rodhouse
We don’t mind difficult headlines in relation to this issue but what I do mind is—
Chair
So why did you say it was media pressure and public cynicism that got you to take so long to make this decision?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Rodhouse
What concerns me was the impact that this case would have on people considering coming forward to report serious allegations such as rape. So, difficult headlines for the Metropolitan Police, so be it, but what I did not want is for people to be put off because they had fears that allegations against prominent people would not properly be considered and—
Chair
You did not say that in your letter, though, did you? What you said in your letter was that you would be susceptible to media pressure and a great deal of public cynicism. Therefore, you wanted the CPS to make a decision that you could not make, which DCI Settle was able to make in the previous year. This was just kept on and on while the late Lord Brittan was very ill and dying, so he died without being told what you and everyone else in the Metropolitan Police and the CPS already knew.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Rodhouse
As we have heard, the investigation was reopened in April 2014. We have heard from DCI Settle the reasons why, but thereafter—
Chair
What were the reasons in your view? Was it because of Mr Watson’s letter?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Rodhouse
No, I don’t believe it was.
Chair
So what do you think it was for? Why was it reopened then?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Rodhouse
My understanding is that a colleague of mine who was the Gold Commander at that time in relation to this—
Chair
Who is that?