Supplementary written evidence from Keir
Starmer QC, Director of Public Prosecutions
Thank you for your letter of 20 October, in
which you have asked, on behalf of the Culture, Media and Sport
Committee, for a number of specific pieces of information. I will
deal with them in the same order as your letter.
1. The prosecution document bundle given
to Mr Justice Gross: The prosecution bundle contained a document
entitled "Observations on Sentence" and authorities
relevant to sentence. I attach a copy of the "Observations
on Sentence" document.[112]
2. The defence bundles: I am sure
you will understand when I say that it would not be appropriate
for the prosecution to provide these. The solicitors representing
Mr Goodman and Mr Mulcaire are Henri Brandman & Co, and Russell
Jones and Walker, respectively. Requests for defence bundles should
be addressed to them.
3. David Perry QC's opinion to the CPS:
There was no written legal opinion relating to the interpretation
of section 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
(RIPA). Counsel's advice on the ambit of section 1 of RIPA was
given to the CPS orally in conference. Advices given to the CPS
by Counsel are not usually disclosed. Having said that, it may
be helpful for you to know that the advice was based on: section
1(1) of RIPA, which requires the communication to be intercepted
"in the course of its transmission"; section 2(7) of
the same Act, an interpretive provision, which gives an extended
meaning to the times when a communication is to be taken as being
in transmission; and the observations of Lord Woolf CJ in R (on
the application of NTL) v Ipswich Crown Court [2002] EWHC
1585 (Admin); [2002] 3 WLR 1173; [2002] QB 131, at paragraphs
18-19, in relation to the effect of section 2(7): "Subsection
(7) has the effect of extending the time of communication until
the intended recipient has collected it". The CPS view was
that the observations of Lord Woolf were correct, and accorded
with the rationale of the prohibition in section 1 (1). Moreover,
it was also our view that in this case there was nothing to be
gained from seeking to contend for a wider interpretation of section
2 (7) than that contemplated by Lord Woolf.
4. Shortening of the charge period:
The period of the conspiracy was shortened because, whilst it
was possible to prove interceptions from February 2005, on the
available evidence it was not possible to prove that these took
place in pursuance of a conspiracy until the November date. However,
although the pre-November interceptions were not part of the charge,
they were opened as part of the prosecution case and, forming
as they did part of the context of the conspiracy, they remained
matters which the judge was entitled to take into account in the
sentencing exercise when determining the seriousness of the offence
and the level of culpability.
5. Helen Asprey's voicemails
I am informed that in relation to Helen Asprey,
in common with each of the victims, expert evidence was gathered
relating to: (a) how voicemail messages were left, stored and
accessed; and (b) how and when they were in fact accessed in this
case.
I hope this is of help.
November 2009
112 Not printed. Back
| 
