I've just watched Michael Martin, Speaker of the House of Commons, make his statement to the House about the arrest last week of Damian Green MP. I think the most shocking aspect of his statement concerned the way in which the investigating police officers gained access to the Palace of Westminster and to Mr Green's office there.
It appears that the police did not have a warrant for that search, and did not inform the Serjeant at Arms that she was entitled to insist on one.
The Speaker's description of this episode creates a very shoddy impression: an impression of the police blagging their way into premises to conduct a search, when perhaps adherence to appropriate process would have raised legitimate objections to their proposed course of action. I wonder whether a police entry to an individual's home on the same basis would have resulted in the inadmissability of any evidence gathered as a result. It also, of course, raises the question of whether it is legally acceptable for one person (the Serjeant at Arms) to grant access not only to the Palace in general, but specifically to the office of an MP... or whether it would have been appropriate for the occupant of the office to have his consent sought.
That said, the Serjeant at Arms is responsible for security of the premises of the Palace of Westminster, and it reflects poorly on the execution of that role that its holder should not be aware of the rights she may exercise when granting or denying access.
![[RSS Newsfeed]](/themes/sotto/images/valid-rss.png)
![[This is a Roller site]](/themes/sotto/images/roller-logo.gif){kind=logo}