There was a failure at all levels to ensure that requests for documents made to departments and agencies were suitable to encompass not simply the prosecution case but also the lines of expected defence G9.1355. Kenneth Baker’s Public Interest Immunity Certificates would, unless the judge ruled otherwise, have barred the Matrix Churchill director Paul Henderson from giving evidence describing the assistance he had given to the intelligence agencies G11.1356. Mr Baker’s certificate would have barred the prosecution from providing evidence dealing with Mr Henderson’s communications with the intelligence agencies G11.1357. I do not agree with the former Foreign Office Minister Tristan Garel- Jones G13.3258. His suggestion that the references in his PII Certificate would be understood to cover damage that was “unquantifiably small” is risible G13.3259.

It is surprising that Mr Garel-Jones did not appear to have made any attempt to ascertain the basis of Michael Heseltine’s view that non- disclosure of documents would be “unjust” G13.3560. I find it astonishing that a letter to Sir Nicholas Lyell from Michael Heseltine, then President of the Board of Trade, dealing with a subject of difficulty [his signing of the PIICs] should have been left unread for a period of between three and seven weeks G13.7061. I do not accept that Sir Nicholas Lyell was not personally at fault G13.12562. I would have expected Sir Nicholas Lyell to recognise that important constitutional and legal issues were raised by Mr Heseltine’s stand G13.12563. I would have expected him to ensure that the prosecution was adequately instructed G13.12564. There was no good reason why the preparation of the PII Certificates should have been left uncompleted for so long G18.3865. There was no reason why the defence should not have been given details and numbers of the documents covered by the certificates G18.3866.

There was no good reason why the schedule of documents should have been omitted from the PII Certificate of Peter Lilley, the former Trade Secretary G18.3867. There was no good reason why the defence should not have been informed of the position regarding the 16 documents extracted from the Cabinet Office files G18.3868. Sir Nicholas Lyell, who advised Mr Heseltine it was his duty to make the PII class claims, did not read the documents G18.4969. Apart from Mr Heseltine, the Ministers who signed the PII Certificates in the Matrix Churchill case did not take into account that the documents were relevant to a pending criminal case G18.6570.

Claims that ministers were under a duty to sign PIICs were based on a fundamental misconception of law G18.6671. The Government’s view of the law on which the making of the PII class claims in the Matrix Churchill case was made was unsound G18.9472. The claims that ministers were under a duty to sign had no sound legal foundation G18.10473. Ministers’ PIIs ought to have had no place in a criminal trial G18.10474.