DOCSLIB.ORG

Met HQ Performance & Assurance Information Law & Security Group

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Met HQ Performance & Assurance Information Law & Security Group

Information Rights Unit PO Box 57192 London SW6 1TR

Telephone: 0207 161 3500 Facsimile: 0207 161 3503

Email: [email protected] www.met.police.uk

Your ref: Our ref: 2015110000456

22 February 2016
Dear P John Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2015110000456 I write in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 09/11/2015. Your request was as follows:

I would be most grateful if you would elaborate the following items; 1) Disclose what action you have taken (if any) in consequence of the statements made by Greg Miskiw, reported in the article entitled "Miskiw Confirms: News of the World subverted Murder Inquiry on behalf of Murder Suspects" (since that would appear to suggest a criminal offence has occurred) 2) Confirm or deny that in late summer of 2002, the Morgan murder inquiry team requested that the anti-corruption command led DAC Andy Hayman undertake a financial inquiry into in Alex Marunchak's dealings with Southern Investigations, and if so disclose that request, and indicate what action was subsequently taken. 3) Confirm or deny that DCS David Cook remains suspended and under investigation, and if so for what reason, and if not when that case was discontinued and for what reason 4) Confirm or deny the existence of an ongoing investigation into the Daniel Morgan case.

Absent a positive answer to item 4 above, the axe murdering psychopath who killed Daniel Morgan is still at large, and it remains difficult to conceive the level of offending that would shame your officers into upholding the rights of the victim and the letter of the law. DECISION

Questions 1, 2 & 3 In relation to question 3, I can confirm that former Detective Chief Superintendent David Cook has retired from the MPS and is therefore not currently suspended by the MPS.

In relation to the remainder of questions 1-3, the MPS is not required to confirm or deny whether the information requested is held subject to the following provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000:

 Section 17(1) - Refusal of Request  Section 22(2) - Information intended for future publication  Section 23(5) - Information supplied by or relating to security bodies  Section 30(3) - Investigations and proceedings  Section 40(5)(b)(i) - Personal Data

To the extent that information within the scope of your request would, if held, be held with a view to publication via the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel, section 22(2) would be applicable.

Section 23(5) is a class-based and absolute exemption. Therefore, there is no obligation to provide evidence of harm or conduct a public interest test.

Any information relating to your request, if held, would be held for the purpose of investigations and proceedings that the MPS have a duty to conduct.

A statement confirming or denying whether information is held in relation to your request and similar requests for information would potentially undermine investigations and proceedings and/or unfairly disclose or infer personal data.

Question 4 The MPS does not permanently close unsolved murder cases and they remain under review. In 2013, the MPS indicated that there was no likelihood of any successful prosecutions for the murder of Daniel Morgan being brought in the foreseeable future. On 10/05/2013, the Home Secretary announced the creation of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel. The MPS is fully supporting the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel whose purpose and remit is to shine a light on the circumstances of Daniel Morgan’s murder, its background and the handling of the case over the whole period since March 1987. The independent panel may identify and recommend further lines of inquiry.

REASON FOR DECISION

Please see the legal annex for the sections of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 that are referred to in this letter and Appendix A for further information regarding the duty to confirm or deny.

Section 22(2) (Information intended for future publication)

Section 22(1) of the Freedom of Information Act states:

‘(1) Information is exempt information if— (a) the information is held by the public authority with a view to its publication, by the authority or any other person, at some future date (whether determined or not),

(b) the information was already held with a view to such publication at the time when the request for information was made, and

(c) it is reasonable in all the circumstances that the information should be withheld from disclosure until the date referred to in paragraph (a).’

Under section 22(2), the MPS is not required to confirm or deny whether information is held if this would involve the disclosure of any information (whether or not already recorded) which falls within section 22(1).

Section 22 is a qualified exemption. Therefore, I am required to consider the public interest.

Public Interest Test – Section 22(1) Section 22 - Public interest considerations favouring confirmation or denial

Transparency

 The date for publication is yet to be determined
Section 22 - Public interest considerations against confirmation or denial

The efficient and effective conduct of the service

 Consideration of the information/circumstances is required prior to its public release.
 The spending of additional time and public funds may be wasteful  Publication is dependent upon the progress of an ongoing criminal investigation and public inquiry

Balance Test The terms of reference for the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel1 state:

‘5. The principles of the Independent Panel’s work will be:

1 https://www.danielmorganpanel.independent.gov.uk/panels-remit/panels-term-reference/

(a) full, genuine and effective participation of the family at all stages of the Panel’s work including genuine and full consultation and briefing throughout the process and payment of legal costs incurred on behalf of the family to this end; (b) “the family first” in terms of the release of the Panel’s findings and its report; (c) exceptional and full disclosure to the Panel of all relevant documentation including that held by all relevant Government departments and agencies and by the police and other investigative and prosecuting authorities; (d) maximum possible disclosure of documentation and information by the Panel to the family.

6. The Independent Panel will present its final Report to the Home Secretary who will make arrangements for its publication to Parliament.

7. It is envisaged that the Panel will aim to complete its work within 12 months of the documentation being made available. In the meanwhile, it is also envisaged that the Panel will brief the family incrementally, both on the progress of its work and on its emerging findings. The Panel will finalise these and other aspects of its work after three months when it has been able to assess the scope of its work and the desirability and practicalities of incremental disclosure.’

The Daniel Morgan Independent Panel Review’s protocol on disclosure of information2 sets out the arrangements for disclosure to the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel and states:

‘Provision of documents

4. In   this Protocol, 'document' means anything in which information of any description is recorded. The Independent Panel's request for documents is broad-ranging. It may (depending on context) include copies of statements, pocket notebooks, policy statements, audio recordings, video footage, information stored electronically on computer systems, meeting notes and minutes, manuscript notes, memoranda, correspondence (post and/or fax) and internal and external email communications. The Independent Panel may also request physical evidence and where it does, references in this Protocol to 'documents' should be taken to include physical evidence…

12. (a) Requests for disclosure of material falling within the Terms of Reference by the Independent Panel create a continuing obligation.

(b) The providing organisations will need to establish procedures to ensure that the existence of any new documents (i.e. those documents newly created and/or newly discovered and those newly acquired) which might fall within the Terms of Reference is identified and drawn to the attention of the Independent Panel so it may decide whether to request these.   The disclosure obligation ceases once the Independent Panel has produced its Report and satisfied its terms of reference…

2 https://www.danielmorganpanel.independent.gov.uk/procedures/information-disclosure-protocol/

Onward disclosure of documents by the Independent Panel

15.It is expected that the Independent Panel will wish to draw on information contained in documents provided pursuant to this Protocol when producing its Final (and any provisional) Report. It may also wish to evidence that Report by referencing and publishing the source documentation on which it is based.

16.Before publishing any Report which has annexed to it any document or part of a document supplied by the providing organisations, the Independent Panel will:

(a) supply the providing organisation concerned with a list of the documents or parts of documents in question; (b) permit the providing organisation to make representations concerning any redactions which may be necessary prior to publication (for example for reasons of data protection, to protect covert policing methodology, to remove information which is sensitive but irrelevant etc); (c) give careful consideration to any such representations; (d) seek to agree all redactions by consent; and (e) only publish documents and/or parts of documents disclosed to it with the express written consent of the providing organisation which supplied the particular document in question. The providing organisations will not unreasonably withhold consent. If the Panel considers that consent has been withheld unreasonably then it will not publish the material in issue, but it may publish the fact that it considers that consent has been withheld unreasonably.

Public disclosure process

17.The Independent Panel's Terms of Reference include the 'family first' principle in terms of release of its findings and Report. Accordingly, the Independent Panel will ensure that the Morgan family are provided with access on a confidential basis to its completed Report and any associated documentation prior to its publication in accordance with arrangements made by the Home Secretary in Parliament.

18.The Independent Panel will ensure that its final report is in compliance with all its legal obligations and does not breach any security requirements including, in particular, the provision of information that might give rise to a risk to life or a risk to prejudice of future criminal proceedings. It will agree a mechanism with providing organisations for doing this which respects the `familyfirst' principle set out in the Independent Panel's Terms of Reference.’

The independent panel’s freedom of information policy3 states:

‘4. Because of the nature of the Panel’s work, as set out in its terms of reference, much of the information supplied to it as evidence, by other organisations, will be supplied in confidence and the Panel will have no discretion to overturn such duties of confidence. However, to the extent that such evidence is relevant to the Panel’s findings, that evidence will be published alongside the Panel’s report. If redactions to documents have to be made for publication, those redactions will

3 https://www.danielmorganpanel.independent.gov.uk/procedures/freedom-information/

be justified by reference to the appropriate section of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.’

The independent Panel’s website has published answers to Frequently Asked Questions relating to its work. This includes the following questions and answers:

‘Q: How long will the Panel take to complete its work?

The Panel’s terms of reference anticipate it will take about 12 months from the start of substantive work on the papers to it being in a position to submit its report to the Home Secretary. The position will be kept under review and this may change, given the large amount of material gathered over the past 27 years that has to be carefully scrutinised.’

‘Q: How will the Panel carry out its work?

There are three principal stages to the work of the Panel: o Firstly it will be necessary identify relevant documentation and other sources of information; o Secondly the Panel will conduct a rigorous, evidence-based analysis of the information; and o The third and final stage will be writing its report which will be presented to the members of Daniel Morgan’s family and the Home Secretary.’

‘Q: Does the Panel have any idea how much material they will be considering?

It is estimated there may be up to 1.5 million pages of documentation and other material.’

The above demonstrates that:
 The MPS have a continuing obligation to ensure that the existence of any new documents (i.e. those documents newly created and/or newly discovered and those newly acquired) which might fall within the Terms of Reference is identified and drawn to the attention of the Independent Panel so it may decide whether to request these.
 The Panel will conduct a rigorous, evidence-based analysis of the information it obtains
 An estimated 1.5 million pages of documentation are being considered by the
Independent Panel
 The Independent Panel may wish to evidence their final report by referencing and publishing the source documentation on which it is based
 Any redactions will be justified by reference to the appropriate section(s) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
 The Independent Panel will adopt a ‘family first’ approach in relation to the the release of its findings and report
 The Independent Panel will ensure that its final report is in compliance with all its legal obligations.
 Although the date for publication has yet to be determined, the Independent
Panel have outlined the timescales within which it is anticipated that it will complete its reports and indicated that this will be kept under review.
The control of information held for the purpose of an investigation is also important to the effective conduct of an investigation. The College of Policing website contains specific information relating to investigations and communications strategies and states:

‘The way in which investigators manage communications will have a significant effect on the investigation they are conducting. The main purpose of this strategy is to communicate or receive information which assists investigators to progress their enquiries. This can be achieved through internal communications by using colleagues and partners within the criminal justice system and through external communications by using partner agencies and community networks.’4

Furthermore, there are inherent sensitivities regarding information relating to a murder investigation and related offences or conduct. This places restrictions, legal or otherwise, upon the movement, handling and disclosure of relevant material that may be interrelated and/or provide important context.

It is also pertinent to note that police evidence may be circumstantial. The value of circumstantial evidence is cumulative. In relation to circumstantial evidence, Wikipedia states5:

‘On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.’

A 2012 review by the CPS and MPS in reference to investigations and proceedings relating to the murder of Daniel Morgan stated that:

‘This was a truly exceptional case in terms of a combination of factors namely its age; the size and the number of linked operations; the enormous volume of material generated…’

An estimated 1.5 million pages of documentation are current being assessed by the Independent Panel. Many of these documents have previously been considered by the MPS and/or are likely to be considered by the MPS in the future. The relationship between information that may constitute evidence in relation to a criminal investigation would need to be established in order to fully consider the harm in confirming or denying whether the requested information is held. As noted earlier, the Independent Panel will conduct a rigorous, evidence-based analysis of the information it obtains.

It is also pertinent to note that information of this nature could have significant consequences such as potentially undermining police investigations, future legal proceedings or the work of the Independent Panel. It is also pertinent to note that the panel has adopted a ‘family first’ approach in which the legitimate public interest is served by updating the family of Daniel Morgan of significant information before the wider public.

4 http://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/investigative-strategies/communications-strategy 5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

Disclosure (e.g. a confirmation or denial statement) prior to establishing the related circumstances may also have the effect of distorting public debate and/or increasing speculation which may be unfair to any individuals concerned and/or impair investigations and proceedings.

To disclose information held with a view to publication on an ad-hoc basis, one document at a time, multiple times, whilst related circumstances may be subject to change due to enquiries by different organisations would require duplication of time, energy and effort. This would be time consuming and may divert resources away from core policing tasks. Each disclosure may generate further queries and/or have an exponential impact.

There is a strong public interest in enabling the MPS to investigate fully, and without any hindrance to the process, when considering its position in relation to potentially criminal conduct. The Independent Panel has a broad remit outlined in the Terms of Reference published on their website and their work is supported by the MPS. The Independent Panel has indicated that they ‘would like to hear from anyone who believes they may have information that is relevant to their functions’. The independent panel will make any recommendations which the Panel concludes should be made as a result of its work, including recommendations for any further investigation or inquiry.

After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the disclosure of the above information would not be in the public interest. The decisive factor in this instance is the timing of the disclosure in the context of the scope, duration, complexity and sensitivity of a high profile, unsolved murder case. In the context of various investigations, proceedings and previous disclosures relating to the murder of Daniel Morgan, the spending of additional time and public funds may be inefficient. The legitimate public interest in disclosure is currently being served via other means.

Therefore, it would be reasonable in all the circumstances that further information (e.g. a confirmation or denial statement) should be withheld until such time that disclosure would not prejudice the conduct of investigations and proceedings.

Section 30(3) - Investigations and proceedings Purpose of section 30 & the public interest test

Section 30 (Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities) of the Freedom of Information Act 20006 in part states:

‘(1) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it has at any time been held by the authority for the purposes of— (a) any investigation which the public authority has a duty to conduct with a view to it being ascertained— (i) whether a person should be charged with an offence…

(3)The duty to confirm or deny does not arise in relation to information which is (or if it were held by the public authority would be) exempt information by virtue of subsection (1)...’

6 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/30

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) guidance titled ‘Investigations and proceedings (section 30)’7 states:

‘In broad terms, the section 30 exemptions exist to ensure the effective investigation and prosecution of offences and the protection of confidential sources. They recognise the need to prevent disclosures that would prejudice either a particular investigation or set of proceedings, or the investigatory and prosecution processes generally, including any prejudice to future investigations and proceedings…’

Recommended publications
  • The Report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel

    The Report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel

    The Report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel The Report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel June 2021 Volume 1 HC 11-I Return to an Address of the Honourable the House of Commons dated 15th June 2021 for The Report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel Volume 1 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 15th June 2021 HC 11-I © Crown copyright 2021 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/official-documents. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected]. ISBN 978-1-5286-2479-4 Volume 1 of 3 CCS0220047602 06/21 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Daniel Morgan Independent Panel Daniel Morgan Independent Panel Home Office 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Rt Hon Priti Patel MP Home Secretary Home Office 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF May 2021 Dear Home Secretary On behalf of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel, I am pleased to present you with our Report for publication in Parliament. The establishment of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel was announced by the Home Secretary, the Rt Hon Theresa May MP, on 10 May 2013 in a written statement to the House of Commons.
  • Private Investigators

    Private Investigators

    House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Private Investigators Fourth Report of Session 2012–13 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Additional written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/homeaffairscom Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 2 July 2012 HC 100 [Incorporating HC 1800, Session 2010-12] Published on 6 July 2012 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £17.50 The Home Affairs Committee The Home Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Home Office and its associated public bodies. Current membership Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP (Labour, Leicester East) (Chair) Nicola Blackwood MP (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon) James Clappison MP (Conservative, Hertsmere) Michael Ellis MP (Conservative, Northampton North) Lorraine Fullbrook MP (Conservative, South Ribble) Dr Julian Huppert MP (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge) Steve McCabe MP (Labour, Birmingham Selly Oak) Rt Hon Alun Michael MP (Labour & Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth) Bridget Phillipson MP (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South) Mark Reckless MP (Conservative, Rochester and Strood) Mr David Winnick MP (Labour, Walsall North) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/homeaffairscom.
  • Trial by Media1 Judiciary Working Group Session 1 November 2012

    Trial by Media1 Judiciary Working Group Session 1 November 2012

    Union Internationale des Avocats: 56th Annual Congress, Dresden Judges, tabloids and trial by media1 Judiciary Working Group Session 1 November 2012 Illustration: Front page of the Sun, 23 March 2011, criticizing judges for being soft on crime. One of their main targets was Lord Justice Leveson; the Sun complained that Leveson LJ “introduced proposals to let 4,000 assault convicts [sic] a year go free rather than face jail”. Introduction Winning in the court of public opinion can be as important as winning in court. This gives the media, especially tabloids, power not only to write about court proceedings, but to influence them. Editorials complaining about “soft” sentencing, recommendations for law reform and accounts of criminal trials form a significant part of the newsgathering process. However, some trials seem to grip the public imagination, and the resultant blizzard of media stories may provoke concerns that the trial process is being overtaken by “trial by media”. Most journalists and media academics consider there is already a satisfactory balance between protection of the judicial process and freedom of expression; all that is needed is a responsive self-regulatory body2 for those cases where there is misconduct. What sort of regulation (if any) 1 Judge J C Gibson, District Court of NSW, Australia; President, Judiciary Working Group. 2 See the proposed models for a revised PCC discussed by Damian Carney, “Media Accountability After the Phone Hacking Inquiry”, Meejalaw 30 August 2012. For media commentary, see “Self-regulation of the press is flawed, but reform is no easy matter”, the Guardian, 20 July 2011.
  • Whole Day Download the Hansard

    Whole Day Download the Hansard

    Monday Volume 696 24 May 2021 No. 8 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Monday 24 May 2021 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2021 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT MEMBERS OF THE CABINET (FORMED BY THE RT HON. BORIS JOHNSON, MP, DECEMBER 2019) PRIME MINISTER,FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY,MINISTER FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE AND MINISTER FOR THE UNION— The Rt Hon. Boris Johnson, MP CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER—The Rt Hon. Rishi Sunak, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN,COMMONWEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT AFFAIRS AND FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE— The Rt Hon. Dominic Raab, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT—The Rt Hon. Priti Patel, MP CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER AND MINISTER FOR THE CABINET OFFICE—The Rt Hon. Michael Gove, MP LORD CHANCELLOR AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE—The Rt Hon. Robert Buckland, QC, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE—The Rt Hon. Ben Wallace, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE—The Rt Hon. Matt Hancock, MP COP26 PRESIDENT—The Rt Hon. Alok Sharma, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR BUSINESS,ENERGY AND INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY—The Rt Hon. Kwasi Kwarteng, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE, AND MINISTER FOR WOMEN AND EQUALITIES—The Rt Hon. Elizabeth Truss, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS—The Rt Hon. Dr Thérèse Coffey, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION—The Rt Hon.
  • Daily Report Thursday, 24 June 2021 CONTENTS

    Daily Report Thursday, 24 June 2021 CONTENTS

    Daily Report Thursday, 24 June 2021 This report shows written answers and statements provided on 24 June 2021 and the information is correct at the time of publication (06:29 P.M., 24 June 2021). For the latest information on written questions and answers, ministerial corrections, and written statements, please visit: http://www.parliament.uk/writtenanswers/ CONTENTS ANSWERS 6 Armed Forces: Housing 14 BUSINESS, ENERGY AND AWE 14 INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY 6 Mali: Peacekeeping Amazon: Competition 6 Operations 15 Business Premises: Rents 6 Navy: Shipping 15 Copyright 7 Type 26 Frigates: Iron and Medicine: Research 7 Steel 16 Merchant Shipping: Pensions 8 DIGITAL, CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT 17 Post Office: ICT 8 Broadband: Finance 17 Travel Agents: Coronavirus 9 Buses: Coronavirus 17 CABINET OFFICE 9 Choirs: Coronavirus 18 Civil Service Agencies: Re- employment 9 Gambling Commission: Reform 18 Coronavirus: Vaccination 10 Gambling: Internet 19 Government Property Agency: Mitie 10 Social Security Benefits: Voluntary Work 19 Ministers: ICT 11 Youth Investment Fund 20 Weddings: Coronavirus 12 Youth Services 20 CHURCH COMMISSIONERS 12 EDUCATION 21 Collective Worship: Coronavirus 12 Academies: Inspections 21 DEFENCE 13 Bletchley Park: Anniversaries 22 [Subject Heading to be Children: Coronavirus 22 Assigned] 13 Day Care: Children 23 Aircraft Carriers 14 Extracurricular Activities: Armed Forces: Coronavirus 14 Coronavirus 23 Newton Rigg College: Sales 25 Oman: Economic Situation 39 Newton Rigg College: Palestinians: Textbooks 39 University of Cumbria 25
  • The Murder of Daniel Morgan

    The Murder of Daniel Morgan

    www.spiesatwork.org.uk Corruption in the Metropolitan Police -The neverending story that gives, and keeps on giving The Murder of Daniel Morgan 1 'Negation of the rule of law' that it might be of interest because it - The case against Sir John Mitting involved allegations of corruption in the Met from, a period smack bang in the middle of Priti Patel, on May 18 delayed the publication the period of Interest to the Mitting Inquiry of an independent Home Office panel review into spycops. I thought there may be Police of the murder of a Croydon private involved who were part of the story of the investigator Daniel Morgan. 34 years ago in special demonstration squad, which there 1987. Like the Pitchford/Mitting inquiry the are. But I hadn’t realised the role the Sir John panel inquiry had been ordered by Teresa Mitting played in the story, was central to the May when she was Home Secretary, and it story, and that that role draws attention to a his hard not to think that, like that and other breathing bias in favour of the Metropolitan enquiries she ordered, it reflected the Police’s secrecy and dishonesty in in the way significant exasperation from the home it goes abut its business that it calls into secretary the Metropolitan Police not only question whether he is a fit and proper could get it is own corrupt and incompetent person to lead the Inquiry that bears his house in order and that after thirty years of name, trying MPS didn’t seem to know what the problem was, and even if did know it To get to that point there is more than there certainly was not going to tell the home is thirty years of conspiracy, deception secretary.
  • Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)

    Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)

    Wednesday Volume 530 6 July 2011 No. 183 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Wednesday 6 July 2011 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2011 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through The National Archives website at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/parliamentary-licence-information.htm Enquiries to The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] 1491 6 JULY 2011 1492 However, I would put out a public appeal to all those House of Commons who are considering expressing their views over the next few days. They, too, should show restraint. I remind Wednesday 6 July 2011 them that the rule of law will prevail, and that this week, significant prosecutions have resulted from charges The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock against those who broke the law a year ago. PRAYERS Jake Berry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that close co-operation between the PSNI, the Garda, and Ministers here, in Belfast and in Dublin, is essential in R PEAKER in the Chair [M S ] combating the ongoing terrorist threat? Will he join me in congratulating the Garda on its recent discovery of Oral Answers to Questions an arms cache and arrests in County Louth? Mr Paterson: It is almost impossible to stress how closely we are now working. Last week, I met Eamon NORTHERN IRELAND Gilmore, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, and I had several discussions in the last week The Secretary of State was asked— with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence.
  • The Stephen Lawrence Independent Review

    The Stephen Lawrence Independent Review

    Appendix 11: Additional material relating to Neil Putnam How Neil Putnam came to be debriefed in 1998 1. Neil Putnam is a former Detective Constable of the South East Regional Crime Squad (SERCS). He worked alongside John Davidson in 1994. 2. In the main report we have considered the corruption problem that faced the Metropolitan Police in the 1990s, and led to the formation of Operation Othona. In December 1997, as the terms and scope of the Public Inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence were being finalised, the former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service, Sir (now Lord) Paul Condon, appeared before the Home Affairs Committee and described a significant existing corruption problem. 3. This public comment coincided with the investigation of corruption within the Metropolitan Police being investigated more overtly. CIB3 emerged in January 1998. 4. One of its first investigations was named ‘Operation Russia’. A convicted drug dealer, Evelyn Fleckney, began to give information about her dealings with a number of corrupt officers based in SERCS at East Dulwich. Fleckney was debriefed by a team within CIB3, and her allegations were investigated. The investigation led officers to search the home address of Neil Putnam, who was then a Detective Constable in SERCS, on 6 July 1998. Putnam was not arrested but he was told that he was under investigation for corrupt activities and he was suspended from duty. 5. On 13 July 1998, Neil Putnam contacted officers from CIB3 and confessed to two acts of corruption, which he said had involved other SERCS officers. He was charged with the offences and remanded into custody.
  • 2017070000569 I Write in Connection with Your Request

    2017070000569 I Write in Connection with Your Request

    Met HQ Strategy & Governance Information Rights Unit PO Box 57192 London SW6 1TR Telephone: 0207 161 3500 Facsimile: 0207 161 3503 Email: [email protected] www.met.police.uk Your ref: Our ref: 2017070000569 27 September 2017 Dear Mr Hastings Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2017070000569 I write in connection with your requests for information that were received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 15/07/2017 and have been aggregated together. I note you seek access to the following information: REQUEST 1: I wish to the full report into ' Operation Russia;. An investigation into corruption within the metropolitan police. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/19/met-police-detectives-cleared-retrial REQUEST 2: I wish to the full report into 'Operation Tuleta'. Operation Tuleta an investigation by the Metropolitan Police Service into allegations of computer hacking, related to the News International phone hacking scandal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tuleta REQUEST 3: I wish to the full report into ' Operation Abelard Two'. An investigation into corruption within the metropolitan police and the murder of private investigator Daniel Morgan. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12716399 REQUEST 4: I wish to see the full and unredacted (albeit with some reactions made to protect sources and witnesses) Operation Tiberius report into police corruption. Page 1 of 16 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/exclusive-scotland-yard-s-rotten- core-police-failed-to-address-endemic-corruption-9050224.html REQUEST 5: I wish to see a full copy of Operation Othona report. Operation Othona was a covert operation, gathering intelligence on corruption within the Metropolitan Police Service, set up in 1993.
  • Kate Blackwell QC

    Kate Blackwell QC

    Kate Blackwell QC “A silk truly at the top of her game.” Legal 500 2020 Tier 1 Leading Silk Crime Year of Call: 1992 QC: 2012 020 7353 5324 Kate is one of the UK’s leading silks specialising in criminal law and public inquiries. She is sought after for high- profile cases and is instructed by leading firms of solicitors nationwide. Kate has a formidable reputation as a first- class silk due to her skill, judgement and outstanding performance in serious and complex cases. The professional guides rank Kate as a “Tier 1” advocate. Kate is recognised as a public inquiry expert. She has been instructed to represent NHS England in the Manchester Arena Inquiry into the 2017 Manchester Arena Terror Attack. manchesterarenainquiry.org.uk She has been appointed by the Home Secretary as Leading Counsel to the Jermaine Baker Inquiry – an independent public inquiry into the shooting of Jermaine Baker during a Metropolitan Police Service operation. www.gov.uk/government/publications/jermaine-baker-inquiry-terms-of-reference She is currently Counsel to the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel, set up to address questions relating to police involvement in the murder of Daniel Morgan, the role played by police corruption and the incidence of corrupt connections between private investigators, police officers and journalists at the News of the World. danielmorganpanel.independant.gov.uk Kate also accepts a high proportion of privately-funded instructions on behalf of individuals facing criminal offences. She has an outstanding success rate in having cases dismissed and winning jury trials. Following success in a recent case the client said, “Kate was absolutely fantastic.
  • DANIEL MORGAN/PHONE HACKING Afternoon Read Through 18/8/11

    DANIEL MORGAN/PHONE HACKING Afternoon Read Through 18/8/11

    Please note that this is BBC copyright and may not be reproduced or copied for any other purpose. RADIO 4 CURRENT AFFAIRS THE REPORT Hacking Scandal TRANSCRIPT OF A RECORDED DOCUMENTARY Presenter: Adrian Goldberg Producer: Daniel Tetlow Editor: Innes Bowen BBC White City 201 Wood Lane London W12 7TS 020 8752 7303 Broadcast Date: 18.08.11 2000-2030 Duration: 27’43” 1 MORGAN: This is the pub here, the Golden Lion, where Daniel came for a drink with his partner, Jonathan Rees, on the night he was killed. I couldn’t see when I came on the night, I kind of knew instinctively that it was going to be somewhere in this dark place in the car park GOLDBERG: So it was the perfect secluded spot MORGAN: Yeah, there was no crime scene cordon, there was nothing. And there was a big patch of blood on the tarmac just about there I would say. GOLDBERG: Alastair Morgan reflecting on the murder 24 years ago of his brother Daniel Morgan, a private detective… Tonight on The Report, Tom Watson - the MP who exposed the News of the World phone hacking scandal – reveals that he’s written to the Prime Minster demanding that the murder be re-investigated as part of Lord Leveson’s public inquiry into press and police corruption. Our story goes all the way back to 1987, and examines the role of newspaper executives, private detectives and the police. MUSIC I’m Adrian Goldberg and having steeped myself in this story over the last few weeks, I can see it’s full of labyrinthine twists and turns – not to mention a few blind alleyways.
  • The Report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel

    The Report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel

    The Report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel The Report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel June 2021 Volume 3 HC 11-III Return to an Address of the Honourable the House of Commons dated 15th June 2021 for The Report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel Volume 3 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 15th June 2021 HC 11-III © Crown copyright 2021 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/official-documents. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected]. ISBN 978-1-5286-2479-4 Volume 3 of 3 CCS0220047602 06/21 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Contents Volume 3 Chapter 9: Post-Abelard Two: Events after the acquittal of the Defendants in March 2011 855 Chapter 10: Corruption: Venality to lack of candour 1015 Chapter 11: The challenges of securing cooperation and lessons for future Panels 1117 Chapter 12: The Treatment of the Family 1141 Chapter 13: The Morgan Family’s Experience: A selection of personal perspectives from the family of Daniel Morgan 1223 Annex A: Methodology: The Panel’s approach to preparing