Theresa May has answered an urgent question in parliament made by Tom Watson MP.
Metropolitan Police investigation
The Home Secretary said: ‘In December 2005 the Metropolitan Police began an investigation focussing on alleged security breaches within telephone networks after concerns were raised by members of the Royal Household at Clarence House.
‘That investigation resulted in the prosecution and conviction of the News of the World’s Royal Editor, Clive Goodman, in 2007 for unlawfully intercepting the phone messages of staff in the Royal Household. A private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, was also convicted and jailed for intercepting the phones of five people.
‘That investigation has already been reviewed by the Metropolitan Police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service who all concluded that the investigation was proper and appropriate.
‘The Culture Media and Sport Select Committee of this house also previously examined the scope and nature of the investigation. The previous government updated the house on these matters in July 2009 and took no further action.
Allegations in New York Times
‘Honourable members will be aware that there have recently been allegations connected to this investigation in the New York Times newspaper.
‘Any police investigation is an operational matter in which ministers have no role. I understand that the original investigation was complex and was informed by high level legal advice. As a result of that investigation as I have just said, of course, two individuals were successfully prosecuted.
‘The police have made clear that during the investigation there was early and regular consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service, so that the lines of inquiry followed were likely to produce the best evidence. The CPS had full access to all the evidence gathered and the final indictment appropriately represented the criminality uncovered.
‘The Metropolitan Police have indicated that if there is further evidence they will look at it. That is the right course of action and it is right for the government to await the outcome.’