Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Forest Gate, Unduly Lenient Sentences and Football
Forest Gate
Asked if the Prime Minister still backed the Police 101% after the statements today of the individuals arrested in Forest Gate, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that that the Prime Minister’s view had not changed. As he had said yesterday, if the police and the security agencies had failed to act on the intelligence they had received then people would have, quite rightly, been critical. The Prime Minister recognised that there were always difficult judgements to be made in cases like this. We supported the police and the security agencies in making those difficult judgements. People should keep in mind that those difficult judgements were against a backdrop of what continued to be a very real threat to this city and this country.
Put to him that there was a suggestion that the police had made their move 48 hours late due to a disagreement with MI5, the PMOS said that he didn’t comment on operational matters, furthermore there was an IPCC investigation on going which he wouldn’t pre-empt in any case. Asked if we were considering having a review of operational protocol in light of this, the PMOS said that, as people were aware, there was an ongoing process of review on all such matters. That process should not be an excuse for people to simplify, get back from, or in anyway devalue the difficult decisions that had to be taken when credible intelligence was presented. Put to him that there had been a shortage of people to assess the intelligence that was coming in, the PMOS said that he couldn’t comment on these matters and he didn’t know if it was possible for any person to comment openly on such matters.
Asked to comment on disagreements between the police and the security services, the PMOS said that, as he said yesterday, reports about these disagreements were simply wrong. He went on to say that some people might want to approach this from the perspective that in some way the Government would not support one aspect of the police or the security services, that was 101% wrong. We recognised the reality that there were difficult decisions that always had to be taken and we were in no way going to back away from supporting those who had to take those difficult decisions. We would not succeed in meeting the very real threat this country faced if we were more focussed on trying to divide the security services and police then on the threat itself. We had to be united as a country against the threat.
Asked if the Government and authorities were acknowledging that in retrospect this intelligence had not been accurate, the PMOS said that the bottom line in all of this was a recognition that intelligence was an art-form where you could not be 100% right all the time. The threat we faced was not one which openly advertised its activities. The authorities had to act on credible intelligence and that involved difficult decisions. What we had to do was support those who had to take those difficult decisions.
Asked if it was right that we were considering bringing forward tomorrow the power of detaining people for up to 28 days without arrest and if we were concerned about the message this sent out to some members of the Muslim community, the PMOS said that he was not sure the proposal to bring the powers forward would be laid tomorrow, but they would be through shortly. In terms of the need to hold people for 28 days, our view remained that it needed to be longer for the reasons we set out when the bill had been going through Parliament. Asked if we were concerned about the impact of the recent events on the Muslim community, the PMOS said that, as he had said yesterday, we should all be very wary of caricaturing opinion in one section of the community as being entirely in one place. We had heard Muslim opinion which was strongly supportive of the Police and the need to take action on the basis of credible intelligence.
Asked if we were considering putting some sort of compensation procedure in place in recognition of likelihood that there would be further false alarms even if those false alarms were with good intent, the PMOS said the most important thing was that the Police and Government had quite explicitly set out why we believed that action in such cases was necessary and we had done that. Andy Hayman had set out last week the reasons the police believed they had had to act. Therefore communities could be in no doubt as to what our intention was and therefore communities had to decide whether they expressed their support for action designed solely meet the terrorist threat, or not. Asked if it wouldn’t be economically cheaper to put more resources into the police so that we wouldn’t be late in the future and have to pay compensation, the PMOS replied (with thunder rolling ominously in the background) that that question had inbuilt assumptions which he had already said were incorrect, therefore he would not answer such a question.
Unduly Lenient Sentences
Asked if the Prime Minister was upset with the Attorney General for expressing his concerns about John Reid’s comments yesterday concerning sentencing, the PMOS said absolutely not. There were different roles within government and it was important not to confuse those roles. As he had said this morning, there was an independent judicial process within this country. That was something which we should not only recognise but also be very proud of. We had a judiciary which was not subject to political pressure or any other kind of pressure, which was something to value, treasure and be proud of. However whenever judicial decisions were taken that in some way seemed to be out of kilter with the public’s notions of what was right or wring then there were grounds for legitimate concern to be expressed. It was entirely appropriate that the Home Secretary articulated that concern. Equally however, it was a fact, and should remain a fact, that the Home Secretary was not personally involved in the judicial process which decided the outcomes of cases.
Asked therefore if it was right for the Attorney General to express concern about the Home Secretary’s remarks, the PMOS said that the Attorney General was right to repeat that the process, whereby he decided whether or not to refer cases to the Court of Appeal had to be an independent process based on legal argument and that was separate from the Home Secretary’s legitimate expression of concern whenever he believed that some decision had been out of kilter with common sense. Asked to confirm that there was no inference that the Prime Minister was displeased with the Attorney General, the PMOS said no. The Prime Minister believed that the Home Secretary and the Attorney General were both fulfilling their separate roles within government.
Asked to reconcile the desire to have the judiciary free from pressure with the pressure of the Home Secretary criticising their judgements, the PMOS said that the Home Secretary was not putting any pressure on the judiciary, he was articulating a concern about a disconnect between the public’s common sense view of right and wrong, and what it saw as judgements which were at variance with that. That did not translate into a role for the Home Secretary in reaching individual decisions. It was, first and foremost, for the Attorney General to decide to refer cases to the Court of Appeal, as he had done in the list of cases published last weekend under freedom of information. It was then for the Court of Appeal to reach decisions on each individual case.
Put to him that he was making the judiciary out to be completely immune to external pressure, the PMOS said that the entire point of an independent judiciary was that it could reach judgements without interference. Equally those judgements should be informed by a framework in which it reflected an overall sense of right and wrong. That was the way in which our judicial system worked. Put to him that John Reid was trying to influence the judiciary, the PMOS said no. The important point was that a judicial system should have the respect of the public at large. There shouldn’t be a disconnect between the judiciary and the public in terms of what they believed to be the appropriate punishment for individual offences. Different parts of the system would articulate their view on sentences, but the important thing was that there should be a consensus. Inevitably there would be differences of view but that was why we had the system we had.
Football
Asked if the Prime Minister would take part in the European Council group photo on Thursday evening if it clashed with the England Football team’s game against Trinidad & Tobago, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister would be doing all he could to support England on Thursday whilst playing a full part in the discussions at the summit. Asked if he might have to miss dinner, the PMOS said that he would not miss dinner. Asked if he meant that the Prime Minister would be having takeaway food, the PMOS said this had been the subject of much scrutiny but if you examined the schedule for the summit you would find that takeaway food wouldn’t be necessary. Asked if the Prime Minister agreed with the substitution of Michael Owen last Saturday, the PMOS said that as the Prime Minister had said yesterday, there were certain decisions that thankfully weren’t his to make.
delicious
digg
facebook
