Subject: RE: Material Witness PA¶
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 13:11:30 +0000¶
Okay, I can reach out to¶
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 9:10 AM¶
Subject: RE: Material Witness PA¶
Can you discuss with the attache whether that is a normal approach (refusing to proceed because lack of predication)? All we want to do is ask some questions – do they really refuse to permit that, in an interview that would be happening regardless? Also, before doing that, someone should go back to the team and confirm that there is nothing more to say. (I don’t have the specifics of what we’ve already said, so I can’t do it – but if you want me to handle let me know.)¶
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 9:02 AM¶
Subject: FW: Material Witness PA¶
See below on the MLAT. The only issue for you is the one I raised briefly earlier this week – the Home Office doesn’t think we’re predicated on , and unless we provide further specifics about Andrew’s knowledge of or involvement in criminal conduct in that case, they are not going to process that aspect of the MLAT. I take it from our conversation that there is no more info to provide. If so, can we tell them we are withdrawing our request as it pertains to and only asking them to proceed on Epstein?¶
Here is my email and the UKCA response. I also had a conversation with Dawn Browne about this to discuss the way forward.¶
Just as a reminder, they are waiting on any additional information you have on . If we have given them all we have, then we can just say this. They think the facts on that matter are pretty thin.¶
With regard to the voluntary interview issue, Dawn explained in more detail why they have been looking for us to exhaust all avenues for voluntary cooperation. They expect that once they approve the MLA and refer it to the police that the Blackfords will file a judicial review action. In that action, they believe Blackfords will claim that the Home Office failed to follow its internal guidelines on¶
EFTA00100726¶
reserving MLA assistance to those instances in which voluntary cooperation is not possible. Blackfords will argue that since they have offered voluntary cooperation as recently as early June, the Home Office failed to properly apply its internal guidelines, and the court should direct the Home Office to vacate its approval of the MLA request and send it back to the US to engage on a voluntary basis with the Prince’s team.¶
I pushed back quite hard on this, saying that while it might generally be Home Office practice and policy to provide assistance on police to police basis in the first instance, there is nothing in our MLA treaty which requires this. I also noted that the US routinely assists the UK via the MLA process with cooperative witnesses in the US – we do so by setting up witness testimony via video link, by obtaining witness statements of individuals who have never been approached by UK law enforcement, by seeking documents from individuals who may be fully cooperative, etc.¶
I indicated to Dawn that if there is now a requirement that we exhaust all informal avenues before sending an MLA request, that conflicts with our treaty and would affect many UK and US cases going forward. I also indicated that this would get raised up the US and UK chains very quickly.¶
She responded by saying that they were just preparing for what they anticipate will be inevitable judicial review litigation in this matter, and wanted to eliminate any argument, even if not compelling, that there remains an avenue for voluntary cooperation. The Prince’s team think this argument must have some purchase because they told the Home Office several months ago that they were willing to voluntarily assist, and then again sent a letter after learning of the MLA request.¶
One thing we talked about was the back and forth between Blackfords and you in June. I said we were somewhat concerned about sharing that correspondence with them because of the inevitable claim that Blackfords would say we again breached their confidence. How do you feel about sharing that correspondence with the UKCA and/or informing Blackfords that you are doing so?¶
Thx,¶
I appreciate you setting out the position regarding the merits of continuing down the non MLA route.¶
As you know there is further work required and Dawn will continue to liaise with the US prosecution team. The next mile stone appears to be settling the position on the second investigation. Hopefully that can be reached relatively quickly.¶
As the US Attorney General and the Home Secretary as keen to meet in person, we may yet see each other in person.¶
All the best¶