HASC: Evidence Given By DCI Paul Settle [21/10/15]

DCI Paul Settle’s evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee, 21st October 2015. Keith Vaz, Chair, directed that the evidence should be specifically related to the accusations by ‘jane’ against Lord Brittan.


Of importance in all of this is the reasons why DCI Paul Settle decided to close the case without interviewing Lord Brittan.

Victoria Atkins MP – Where did the evidence lead you in this case [Jane] ?

DCI Paul Settle – The evidence led me to the conclusion that on Jane’s account alone the actual points to prove for rape were not there. Therefore, despite the fact that Jane was insisting that she’d been raped, in law, she hadn’t.

Later in the HASC session;

DPP Alison Saunders – From the complainants account herself, we [CPS] didn’t think there was enough on that alone for it to go ahead and there would not be sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect [for conviction]

The CPS opinion has never been made public, but the IoS can reveal that concerns were expressed as to whether, assuming an encounter took place, “the suspect was unaware that the victim was not consenting to the sexual intercourse between them”. “On the victim’s evidence alone,” says the advice, “there is no evidence that the suspect had asked the victim for sex, that he had demanded sex, that he had forced the victim to [lie] on the bed, neither did he ask her to remove her clothing”.

Independent on Sunday


Filed under Abuse, HASC, News

3 responses to “HASC: Evidence Given By DCI Paul Settle [21/10/15]

  1. DPP Alison Saunders – From the complainants account herself, we [CPS] didn’t think there was enough on that alone for it to go ahead and there would not be sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect [for conviction]???????MAY I ASK ALISON SAUNDERS IF 4 COMPLAINTS REGARDING GROOMING IS SUFFICENT EVIDENCE TO PROCEED WITH ANY FORM OF INVESTIGATION???????

    • artmanjosephgrech

      The problem is that the police and the prosecution have to apply the law as it was then the alleged offence was committed . Seduction was then the order of the day and its only with the past two years that the term grooming has been applied in relation to minors Hence I have sympathy for the both the senior investigating officer and the subsequent 0fficer who had to deal with a different climate in which the Home Secretary and the Shadow Secretary repeatedly advised victims to come forward and be listened to and where the Home Office and the Police and commenced to have some understanding of the level of cover by the Police and the politicians and government agents who told then to drop investigations involving VIP’s especially after the 2002 Mullin Cameron Watson and Mr Winnick committee.

      What must be understood is that the Family of Lord Brittan, Jane and the Met were used as part of a party political strategy and tactics nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of the particular issued as advised by the HAC lawyers.I have written the following on the Blogs of Ian Pace and Cathy Fox
      I have no inside knowledge about why the Home Affairs Committee decided to hold a one off session in relation to how the case of Jane had been handled but I do now have the benefit of watching the what happened yesterday and listened to the future business session this morning.

      The attack on in Tom Watson by the Tory Party has nothing to do with Lord Brittan and his family but is part of the politically legitimate strategy to destabilise and divide the Labour Party by establishing in the public mind that the new Leader and Deputy Leader are unfit to run the UK. The evidence is that popular public opinion about a leader is established within a few months of their appointment and does not change. The Tory Party with help from certain newspapers and individual member of the PLP have proved very successful in damaging the new Leader and have now set their sights on Tom Watson The Home Affairs Committee is only the first shot in trying to damage Tom . The Commons Standards Committee is being establishment for this Parliament and this will be followed by the Privileges Committee and these committees will be used continue the assault on his integrity and standing. The attack was also launched by Michael Portillo on This Week last Thursday with Beatrix Campbell set up to argue to the general point unaware that the target was Tom and where past his sell buy date Andrew Neal aided and abetted..

      As is often the case in party politics the orchestrated campaign has a number of other purposes of which the main two are to prevent the Goddard Inquiry from holding a public hearing about Lord Brittan, Lord Janner and other VIPs if possible I had a brief exchange with the Human rights barrister Barbara Hewson who believes the approach of Justice Goddard is overkill (which I agree in terms of the proposed number of public hearings which I believe could prove negative and destructive in terms of public confidence in authority and government) and expressed surprise when I drew attention that the development of criminal proceedings re Lord Janner, did not mean that the Goddard would not investigate and possible hold a public hearing but as the Inquiry statement online makes clear, the inquiry will not comment about Lord Janner issues until due process has been completed.. You should not underestimate the alarm which Justice Goddard caused by her statement about the future work of the inquiry and it is disappointing that a number of campaigners and campaigning groups re not giving the inquiry full support.

      The current tactics is also intended to warn off other MP’s and campaigners from outing other politicians, especially if and when the Police reveal that they are not able to submit a case to the DPP for prosecution. The reversal of the DPP decision re Lord Janner also created alarm that she would be under great pressure in the future to approve the prosecution of politicians. The evidence of this was also evident at the HAC when the Met and the DPP disclosed they were having a discussion about the policy bring able to consult the DPP further in addition to the early advice notification which now exists.

      The other purpose of the Home Affairs Committee was to launch the attack being made against the Metropolitan Police in particular and the police In General for their continuing investigating into politicians and which was part of the reason for the urgent debate held on the Wilson doctrine this week. This was a fishing expedition to try and get the Home Secretary to disclose how many warrants she has issued for surveillance of existing politicians under police investigation at the present time. You will have seen the Exaro bulletin on the increased scale of the police operation bringing the number of new investigations involving politicians.

      I am suggesting therefore that the understandable and genuine anger of the family of Lord Brittan is being used and exploited as part of the bigger picture just as the politicians and lawyers rarely are able to give the time and attention and go into individual cases in any depth themselves but will rely on the ability of their staff and those they refer cases to those able to do so.

      The wheel came off yesterday afternoon in several ways because it was evident that from the words of the Chairman saying he would ensure the first witness was properly occupied without hearing from the Met that the man had not been as thorough given the circumstances as was subsequently considered to have been. The Home Affairs Committee proved again to be the most bullying of select committees and where its chairman clearly failed to control members or is unwilling to do so given the clear legal advice it was given beforehand not to stray beyond the case of Jane.

      What yesterday’s event also demonstrated echoing Toms voice that he wanted to make sure victims had a voice which would make the powers that me listen. If you and your family have wealth and power you get newspapers, politicians to further your interests whether right or wrong. Many of the new members of the House of Commons Home Affaires committee showed their ignorance of the recent past context let alone the damage which the Committee by Chris Mullin with Cameron Watson and Mr Winnick did by their 2002 report. I wonder how many members of the present Committee bothered to read the 2002 report, and the evidence submitted to it before straying into the subject beyond their remit. They would be wise to leave the matter to the Justice Goddard Inquiry. Given that in the statement explaining the loss of Peter Mckelvie from the advisory panel it is evident that the Goddard Inquiry will also examining how the inquiry came into being in its present format. The HAC is placing itself at the forefront of being called as witness in such an inquiry given is role and biased behaviour towards individual witnesses over the past 2 years. The hypocrisy of raising the issue of due process about Tom and the Met disappointed but did not surprise. My advice to Mr Vaz and the Committee Physician heal thyself.


  2. Pingback: Timeline For The Investigation Into The Late Lord Brittan | theneedleblog