Asking questions of Rebekah

What can and cannot be said.

Rebekah Brooks is expected to attend the DCMS Select Committee tomorrow, fresh from her arrest and lengthy questioning by the Metropolitan Police. As she sits there, there will be nothing which can stop her being asked any question by any MP on the committee, however prejudicial or incriminating the question is in its assumptions. There will also be nothing to stop any MP making any aside about her conduct, however defamatory or - indeed - inaccurate. She will just have to sit and take it. There is nothing legally she would be able to do to stop them.

More interesting is what she can say in reply. On one hand, there is the contention that whatever she says will be protected absolutely by privilege. She can say whatever she likes, and be safe from suit or prosecution in respect of those words. As with a great deal of our "constitutional law" the limits of such a supposed right are not exactly marked; but it is likely she can speak with legal safety should she really want to do so. Indeed, it may well be that she decides to answer the questions fully, presumably repeating anything and everything she has also said to the Metropolitan Police.

 

However, it may not be in her interests to say things which would otherwise be prejudicial to any defence which she may wish to use in the event of prosecution. She certainly may not want to incriminate herself. For, although there may be a formal barrier of privilege to prevent the use of those words as part of any prosecution or civil claim, any such words could well inform practical litigation decisions and she will be challenged to repeat those words outside of Parliament. Any attempt to rely on privilege will quickly become artificial.

That is why we should not be surprised if, at least for many questions, Rebekah Brooks does not assist parliamentarians with their enquiries. Like anyone arrested and bailed, she is entitled to due process. There is no reason why her general rights in this regard should be circumvented just because she has been summoned by a select committee. The issue would then be what Parliament could do with any refusal to answer certain questions? One hopes that they would do nothing, whatever the heady talk of contempt of Parliament and imprisoning her in the Tower. The rights and liberties of the subject are always important, even when that subject is Rebekah Brooks.

Addendum

According to reports, the lawyer for Rebekah Brooks has now said:

The position of Rebekah Brooks can be simply stated. She is not guilty of any criminal offence. The position of the Metropolitan Police is less easy to understand. Despite arresting her yesterday and conducting an interview process lasting 9 hours, they put no allegations to her, and showed her no documents connecting her with any crime. They will in due course have to give an account of their actions, and in particular their decision to arrest her, with the enormous reputational damage that this has involved.

In the meantime, Mrs Brooks has an appointment with the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee tomorrow. She remains willing to attend and to answer questions. It is a matter for Parliament to decide what issues to put to her and whether her appointment should place at a later date.

Second addendum

The PR company Bell Pottinger has confirmed that Rebekah Brooks has instructed veteran white-collar defence lawyer Stephen Parkinson of Kingsley Napley. Parkinson's profile details his extensive work as a prosecutor and as a defence solicitor in many high-profile cases. The combination of Bell Pottinger and the highly regarded Kingsley Napley means that Brooks has a strong (and expensive) joint litigation and PR strategy in place.

Bell Pottinger also confirmed that the express reference to her suffering "enormous reputational damage" was deliberate. It remains to be seen if this admission has any adverse effect in limiting her ability to (threaten to) sue anyone other than the police for libel, as it may provide a so-called "Jameel" abuse of process defence (where a claim can be struck out because the claimed damage does not go substantially further than the reputation which can otherwise be shown or is admitted).

Third addendum

The House of Commons publishes a guide for those giving evidence to select committees (pdf). In this guide the House states that the absolute privilege exists in respect of evidence given to a select committee "provided that it is formally accepted as such by the Committee".

There is also this House of Commons paper (pdf) on what constitutes "contempt of Parliament". In essence, any refusal to answer questions would probably have to be referred to the Standards and Privileges committee (or the whole House) before "contempt of Parliament" proceedings could commence: if so, the DCMS select committee cannot compel answers there and then at the hearing.

 

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman.

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman and author of the Jack of Kent blog.

His legal journalism has included popularising the Simon Singh libel case and discrediting the Julian Assange myths about his extradition case.  His uncovering of the Nightjack email hack by the Times was described as "masterly analysis" by Lord Justice Leveson.

David is also a solicitor and was successful in the "Twitterjoketrial" appeal at the High Court.

(Nothing on this blog constitutes legal advice.)

Show Hide image

Appreciate the full horror of Nigel Farage's pro-Trump speech

The former Ukip leader has appeared at a Donald Trump rally. It went exactly as you would expect.

It is with a heavy heart that I must announce Nigel Farage is at it again.

The on-again, off-again Ukip leader and current Member of the European Parliament has appeared at a Donald Trump rally to lend his support to the presidential candidate.

It was, predictably, distressing.

Farage started by telling his American audience why they, like he, should be positive.

"I come to you from the United Kingdom"

Okay, good start. Undeniably true.

"– with a message of hope –

Again, probably quite true.

Image: Clearly hopeful (Wikipedia Screenshot)

– and optimism.”

Ah.

Image: Nigel Farage in front of a poster showing immigrants who are definitely not European (Getty)

He continues: “If the little people, if the real people–”

Wait, what?

Why is Trump nodding sagely at this?

The little people?

Image: It's a plane with the name Trump on it (Wikimedia Commons)

THE LITTLE PEOPLE?

Image: It's the word Trump on the side of a skyscraper I can't cope with this (Pixel)

THE ONLY LITTLE PERSON CLOSE TO TRUMP IS RIDING A MASSIVE STUFFED LION

Image: I don't even know what to tell you. It's Trump and his wife and a child riding a stuffed lion. 

IN A PENTHOUSE

A PENTHOUSE WHICH LOOKS LIKE LIBERACE WAS LET LOOSE WITH THE GILT ON DAY FIVE OF A PARTICULARLY BAD BENDER

Image: So much gold. Just gold, everywhere.

HIS WIFE HAS SO MANY BAGS SHE HAS TO EMPLOY A BAG MAN TO CARRY THEM

Image: I did not even know there were so many styles of Louis Vuitton, and my dentists has a lot of old copies of Vogue.

Anyway. Back to Farage, who is telling the little people that they can win "against the forces of global corporatism".

 

Image: Aaaaarggghhhh (Wikipedia Screenshot)

Ugh. Okay. What next? Oh god, he's telling them they can have a Brexit moment.

“... you can beat Washington...”

“... if enough decent people...”

“...are prepared to stand up against the establishment”

Image: A screenshot from Donald Trump's Wikipedia page.

I think I need a lie down.

Watch the full clip here:

Stephanie Boland is digital assistant at the New Statesman. She tweets at @stephanieboland