Written evidence to be reported to the House
Counter-Terrorism Bill
4:00 pm
Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)
It would have screwed up my questions completely if it was the other way round, so thank you for clarifying that.
Sir Ken, you gave very helpful evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry into intercept evidence, if I may remind you of it. In our report, we said:
“We found the DPP’s clarification of the problems surrounding disclosure very helpful: if the Crown Prosecution Service has already rowed back from a misinterpretation of the extent of disclosure required under 1996 legislation, then it should be possible to cope with the amount of transcription that the defence could legally require.”
The obstacles that the police appear to be putting in the way of, or the arguments that they are advancing against, the use of intercept evidence appear to be twofold: first, the potential disclosure of intelligence sources and, secondly, the bureaucracy involved in transcription. You clarified that for the Home Affairs Committee, and it would be very helpful to us if you could clarify your view about why that transcription is logistically possible and, indeed, how it works to the advantage of your counterparts in other jurisdictions.