I confess to being mildly surprised that the Murdochs have agreed to go before the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee next Tuesday.

It will be an occasion to remember.

But those hoping for fireworks may be disappointed. At worst, it could be a very damp squib.

The lawyers are already much in evidence. The Murdochs and Rebekah Brooks have already made reference to police and other inquiries that they would not wish to prejudice. Their statements to the Committee are likely to be highly guarded.

Seems to me the Select Committee will be on firm ground if it focusses on evidence previously given to the committee by News International people which is now known to be false.

The Committee can also expose the internal wiring of News International. It will be fascinating to hear more about formal and informal reporting lines and who has authority to do what.

Like many others, I simply refuse to believe that very large sums of money could be paid over to private investigators without the editor (let’s call him Andy Coulson) being aware of this.

As for the money given to corrupt police officers, surely this had to be authorised too? Or maybe not. Perhaps these bungs were seen as “expenses” like lunch.

We have seen nine arrests so far but no criminal charges have as yet been made. But they are expected.

With this in mind, the Committee will have to tip-toe through a legal and procedural minefield.

In the last Parliament, when the Public Administration Select Committee embarked on its “Cash for Honours” Inquiry, Assistant Commissioner John Yates wrote to my old friend Tony Wright, warning us to tread carefully.

Letter to the Chairman from Assistant Commissioner John Yates, dated 27 March 2006

Re: Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925

I refer to our telephone conversation of Friday evening concerning the above. For the record, in that conversation I registered my concerns in relation to the proposed Public Administration Select Committee meeting commencing on Tuesday 28 March 2006. I indicated to you that many of the individuals that you wished to hear evidence from may be the very people that could be central to our criminal inquiry, either as witnesses or suspects.

My concerns were that your scrutiny could be viewed as an abuse of process in terms of fairness in any future potential criminal trial. I have consulted closely with senior lawyers from the Crown Prosecution Service about this matter. They share my concerns and are happy for them to be articulated in this letter.

I do, of course, recognise that our enquiries are at a very early stage and that charges are not imminent. I therefore concede that these matters cannot be considered sub-judice at this stage. I also recognise the authority of Parliament to consider and scrutinise these matters under Article 9 of the 1689 Bill of Rights…

At the end of the day, after an interminable investigation by Yates and his ten strong team, no-one was prosecuted.

Maybe Yates and his colleagues at Scotland Yard (all 50 of them) will have more luck this time.

Attachments:

JRM-to-WhittingdaleJ4-20110714.pdf	[James Murdoch's letter to John Whittingdale MP]	2681 Kb
Propriety and Peerages.pdf	[Propriety and Peerages Inquiry]	1164 Kb