This government is committed to seeking to find a practical way to allow the use of intercept evidence in court.
Now imagine him flanked by Messrs Campbell and Cameron announcing a privy council review on the use of intercept evidence and post-charge questioning.
For that reason, the government has sought to find a practical way to allow the use of intercept obtained under a warrant as evidence in criminal proceedings.
Human rights lawyers have argued that Conservative and Liberal Democrat support in opposition for lifting the ban on the use of intercept evidence underpinned their criticism of control orders and the use of secret evidence.
The review, chaired by Sir John Chilcot, was set up by the coalition government soon after coming to office, and was the eighth attempt to find a practical way to allow the use of intercept evidence in court since 1993.
Sadly and despite a gestation period of nearly two years, today's Home Office report into the use of intercept evidence provides no satisfactory answers to any of these questions.
Internal documents disclosed by Snowden show GCHQ worked closely with the Home Office in 2009 over its press strategy by "lining up talking heads" such as Carlile, before a key report concerning the use of intercept evidence in court proceedings.
The use of intercept evidence from the security services in terrorist and serious crime trials has been rejected after being found to be legally feasible but too costly, an official inquiry has concluded.
For supporters of the use of intercept evidence in criminal trials – that's to say real-time recordings of conspirators convicting themselves out of their own mouths – there is something surprising about some of the reaction to the data retention and investigatory powers bill (the unfortunately monikered Drip), before the House of Lords tomorrow.
The latest Chilcot report concludes that while it is feasible to design a legally compliant regime, the use of intercept evidence would not be consistent with previous operational requirements and would incur significant costs and risks for uncertain benefits in terms of increased numbers of successful prosecutions.
But it also showed the Tories narrowly leading on the issue of terrorism, suggesting that their reputation as the party of national security, as well as their support for alternatives to 42 days (such as post-charge questioning and the use of intercept evidence), shields them from taunts of weakness.
