97. The DPM went further in his written representations and argued that, in view of the significant level of media reporting and the timing of the allegations in the Complaints, I should not treat the evidence of any witness as "cross-admissible" in relation to any other matter unless I was sure that the evidence was not in any way influenced–whether consciously or subconsciously–as a result of their exposure to or knowledge of allegations made by others. He submitted that I should exclude from consideration allegations which: resemble conduct reported in the press; were made after the relevant press reporting; and are not corroborated by other witnesses. The DPM made it clear that he did not suggest that there had been deliberate collusion to give false evidence.
98. It seems to me that these contentions go significantly further than necessary for the purpose of the conduct of a fair investigation of this kind. As I have said, the investigation was not a form of litigation procedure. I have not been required to apply and have not applied strict rules of evidence, still less the sort of rules which would be relevant in the context of a criminal trial (and in light of applicable statutory requirements[1]).
99. I accept that I should have in mind the potentially prejudicial effect of media reporting and should take into account the risk that allegations were prompted or embellished by exposure to such reporting or by unwitting influence arising from knowledge of another person's complaint. I have also considered whether and the extent to which the subject-matter of the Complaints was discussed by individuals making, participating in or supporting the Complaints. It may also be relevant for the Prime Minister to have in mind the extent to which allegations which were the subject of the Complaints have also been communicated directly to the media and the reason or reasons why that was done. I have addressed these matters, so far as possible and to the extent relevant, in the context of each of the Complaints.
(8) Allegations reported only in the media
100. If and to the extent that allegations have been reported in the media but have not been the subject of any evidence provided to me, I have excluded them entirely from consideration. All such allegations were made anonymously. It would be contrary to the essential requirement of fairness to take any such matter into account.
- ↑ For example, the rules on the admissibility of 'bad character' evidence in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Part 11, Chapter 1).
22
