DOCSLIB.ORG

The Report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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. The remit given to the Panel was to shine a light on the circumstances of the murder of Daniel Morgan, its background and the handling of the case over the period since 1987 and in so doing to address questions arising, in particular those relating to police involvement in Daniel Morgan’s murder; the role played by police corruption in protecting those responsible for the murder from being brought to justice and the failure to confront that corruption; and the incidence of connections between private investigators, police officers and journalists at the News of the World and other parts of the media, and alleged corruption involved in the linkages between them. The Panel has always acknowledged and respected the fact that, at the heart of its work, there is a bereaved family. The murder of Daniel Morgan on 10 March 1987 left a widow, Iris, and two young children, Sarah and Dan, without a father; it left bereft his mother, Isobel Hülsmann and his siblings, Alastair and Jane Morgan. Isobel Hülsmann sadly died in 2017 before the Panel’s Report could be published, which was a further cause of immense distress to her family. Nobody has been convicted in connection with the murder. The Report provides an account of the impact on the family of all that has happened since 10 March 1987. The Panel hopes this Report will help the family iii The Report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel members by providing a detailed and thorough examination of the investigations and key issues in the handling of the case since the murder occurred. The Daniel Morgan Independent Panel commenced work formally on 17 September 2013. The Terms of Reference stated that ‘It is envisaged that the Panel will aim to complete its work within 12 months of the documentation being made available.’ This created an expectation that the Panel’s work would be done within a year. There was, however, no anticipation of the very significant difficulties and delays which would be encountered in accessing and bringing order to the documentation, in all its forms, nor of the large volume of material (in excess of a million pages) which would have to be considered. Indeed, the final documents were not received from the Metropolitan Police until March 2021. The Panel has always been acutely aware of the distress caused to the family of Daniel Morgan by the length of time which has been necessary for the Panel to complete its Report. No statutory powers were conferred on the Panel and this resulted in ongoing problems. It is to be hoped that lessons will be learned from our experience, for the benefit of future inquiries and panels. The Panel has made a number of recommendations, as a consequence of what it has identified in the course of its work. They relate to important areas, where there continue to be serious shortcomings in current policy and practice in policing and the Criminal Justice System. They include ensuring that the necessary resources are allocated to the task of tackling corrupt behaviour among police officers, and the creation of a statutory duty of candour to be owed by all law enforcement agencies to those whom they serve, subject to the protection of national security and relevant data protection legislation. It is essential the recommendations are followed up and that action led by the Home Office is taken. The vast majority of police officers act honourably and do not break their rules or engage in corrupt activity, and they do very difficult and, at times, dangerous work. However, the Metropolitan Police owe the members of Daniel Morgan’s family, and the public, an apology for not confronting its systemic failings, for the failings of individual officers and for its lack of candour to the members of the family. In failing to acknowledge its many failings over the 34 years since the murder of Daniel Morgan, the Metropolitan Police placed the reputation of the organisation above the need for accountability and transparency. In so doing it compounded the suffering and trauma of the family. The Panel expects that its findings and recommendations will be treated with the utmost seriousness. Real change is necessary to enable effective efficient policing in which the public and police officers can have trust and confidence. Yours sincerely Baroness O’Loan DBE MRIA Chair, The Daniel Morgan Independent Panel iv Contents Volume 1 Letter to the Home Secretary iii Introduction 3 Chapter 1: The Morgan One Investigation 17 Chapter 2: The Inquest 267 Chapter 3: The Hampshire/Police Complaints Authority Investigation 301 Chapter 4: Operation Nigeria/Two Bridges 419 Volume 2 Chapter 5: The 2000 Murder Review: The Cold Case Review of the Investigation into Daniel Morgan’s Murder 443 Chapter 6: Abelard One/Morgan Two Investigation 475 Chapter 7: The 2006 Report from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service to the Metropolitan Police Authority (‘the 2006 Report’) 603 Chapter 8: The Abelard Two Investigation 647 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 the Report 1233 Annex B: Timeline of key events and investigations since the murder of Daniel Morgan 1245 Annex C: Glossary of Terms 1247 1 Introduction 1. The murder of Daniel Morgan on 10 March 1987 left his wife, Iris, without her husband, and their two young children, Sarah and Dan, without their father. It left bereft his mother, Isobel Hülsmann and his siblings, Alastair and Jane Morgan. Daniel Morgan’s mother, Isobel Hülsmann, very sadly died in 2017 during the preparation of this report. 2. For more than three decades the failure to prosecute those responsible for Daniel Morgan’s murder has caused great distress and concern to his family, generated a great deal of public disquiet, and affected the reputations of organisations and individuals. 3. The family of Daniel Morgan have told the Panel what a devastating impact these events have had and continue to have upon them. That impact has been compounded by the thought that police officers – the very people supposed to protect them – were involved in covering up the murder or in the murder itself. The love which his family had for Daniel Morgan and their desire for accountability has made them unwavering in seeking to bring his murderer(s) to justice. While they have not seen convictions, members of the family have kept the issue of the murder and the serious failures of the Metropolitan Police and others involved in his case in the public eye. 4. There was ongoing public concern about the allegations of police involvement in the murder and corrupt police activity during the investigations. In March 2011 after the acquittal of those accused in connection with the murder, the Metropolitan Police publicly acknowledged ‘the repeated failure of the Metropolitan Police to confront the role played by police corruption in protecting those responsible for the murder from being brought to justice’. In 2013 the Home Secretary, Theresa May MP, established the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel. The Terms of Reference for the Panel state that “The purpose and remit of the Independent Panel 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. In doing so, the Panel will seek to address the questions arising, including those relating to: • police involvement in the murder; • the role played by police corruption in protecting those responsible for the murder from being brought to justice and the failure to confront that corruption; and • the incidence of connections between private investigators, police officers and journalists at the News of the World and other parts of the media and alleged corruption involved in the linkages between them.” 5.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Met HQ Performance & Assurance Information Law & Security Group
    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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Britain Needs Leveson Part 2 by Dan Evans, the Man at the Centre of the Phone Hacking Scandal
    GRATIS April 2016 PODCASTING A MURDER Alastair Morgan and Peter Jukes tackle the most- investigated unsolved killing in British history Why Britain needs Leveson Part 2 By Dan Evans, the man at the centre of the phone hacking scandal JImmY SAVILE COULDN’T HAVE BULLIED THE PRESS UNDER LEVESON’S PROPOSALS Says former Sunday Times Insight team journalist, Joan Smith Also. Jeffrey Kofman, Jacqui Hames, Steve Bell, Juha Rekola, Kerry-Anne Medoza FREE & FEARLESS Your essential guide to new free speech protections And yet there is a growing sense misled the inquiry with evidence ormer Sunday Mirror and News that Leveson 2 is somehow Leveson later condemned as “wrong, not of the World reporter Dan Evans Too Far. Which invites a glaring just disingenuous” by Mr Justice F question - why bother with any of it in Mann in a devastating Mirror Group the first place? For an answer, look at hacking judgement. Since those knows better than most how sections the motivation behind setting it up. mealy-mouthed statements were given (under oath), police operations David Cameron, suffering the Weeting, Pinetree, Golding and of Fleet Street behaved above the law, laxative effects of getting caught Elveden, have uncovered huge out with a rogue Director of amounts of evidence to contradict appearing in the Old Bailey dock himself Communications on the books, them. And yet there is no timetable did what came instinctively – he for Leveson 2. after pleading guilty and as a witness of protected himself. As the (utterly shameful) Milly Dowler revelations What does that do for public faith truth in the Phone Hacking trials.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Turning a Good Newsroom Bad: White Collar Crime, Tort and Case Management Issues Arising from the UK Phone Hacking Scandal
    Turning a good newsroom bad: White collar crime, tort and case management issues arising from the UK phone hacking scandal Judge Gibson, President, Judiciary Working Group1, Union Internationale des Avocats 55th Congress 1 November, 2011 - Miami “Wrongdoers turned a good newsroom bad and this was not fully understood or adequately pursued.” James Murdoch, 7 July 20112. “A mighty, wealthy family-run organization that can effectively buy up politicians and police officers: we feel we have a word for that, and it originates in Sicily rather than Sydney.” Jonathan Freedland, “10 days that shook Britain”, The Guardian, 16 July 2011. “Do our media brethren really want to invite Congress and prosecutors to regulate how journalists gather the news?” Editorial, Wall Street Journal, 19 July 2011 Introduction Phone tapping, computer hacking and other illegal means of information gathering can intrude into the privacy of every person who has ever used a telephone or computer. Although the information illegally obtained may be sold for large sums, ruin rival businesses or reputations, or be used to commit crimes, criminal penalties have been derisory, particularly where the information gathered has related to the private life of persons in the news3.This discussion paper looks at how a lack of 1 This draft discussion paper (31 July 2011) is circulated for comment and corrections prior to the Judiciary Working Group session at the UIA Miami congress. An updated and amended copy of the paper, which reviews legal issues arising from the use (or abuse) of news-gathering technology and the “phone hacking scandal”, will be provided at the Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Breaking News
    BREAKING NEWS First published in Great Britain in 2018 by Canongate Books Ltd, 14 High Street, Edinburgh EH1 1TE canongate.co.uk This digital edition first published in 2018 by Canongate Books Copyright © Alan Rusbridger, 2018 The moral right of the author has been asserted British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available on request from the British Library ISBN 978 1 78689 093 1 Export ISBN 978 1 78689 094 8 eISBN 978 1 78689 095 5 To Lindsay and Georgina who, between them, shared most of this journey Contents Introduction 1. Not Bowling Alone 2. More Than a Business 3. The New World 4. Editor 5. Shedding Power 6. Guardian . Unlimited 7. The Conversation 8. Global 9. Format Wars 10. Dog, Meet Dog 11. The Future Is Mutual 12. The Money Question 13. Bee Information 14. Creaking at the Seams 15. Crash 16. Phone Hacking 17. Let Us Pay? 18. Open and Shut 19. The Gatekeepers 20. Members? 21. The Trophy Newspaper 22. Do You Love Your Country? 23. Whirlwinds of Change Epilogue Timeline Bibliography Acknowledgements Also by Alan Rusbridger Notes Index Introduction By early 2017 the world had woken up to a problem that, with a mixture of impotence, incomprehension and dread, journalists had seen coming for some time. News – the thing that helped people understand their world; that oiled the wheels of society; that pollinated communities; that kept the powerful honest – news was broken. The problem had many different names and diagnoses. Some thought we were drowning in too much news; others feared we were in danger of becoming newsless.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Memorandum Submitted by Amberhawk Training Ltd
    Memorandum submitted by Amberhawk Training Ltd Recommendation: The Committee (possibly with the assistance of the Interception of Communications Commissioner) needs to explore the consequences of the MPS legal advice (as mentioned in Q5 of Mr Yates' comments) in relation to a review of the protection afforded to individuals by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). If the arguments underpinning the MPS legal advice, then a change to RIPA might need to be urgently recommended. When Parliament provided public authorities with intercepting powers in 1999, Parliament had in mind the protection of all messages – not just the content of the unread ones. Argument I refer to the evidence given by Assistant Commissioner John Yates of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). Mr Yates’ answer to Q5 reveals that the MPS have obtained legal advice from a leading QC which, if applied in practice, has some strange consequences. For example, it could mean that unread spam messages receive a high level of privacy protection under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) whereas read private email messages of immense confidentiality do not receive any privacy protection from RIPA. In relation to the incidence of “voice mail hacking”, Mr Yates said the following (at Q5 - see references): Mr Yates: “.... hacking is defined in a very prescriptive way by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and it’s very, very prescriptive and it’s very difficult to prove.... There are very few offences that we are able to actually prove that have been hacked. That is, intercepting the voicemail prior to the owner of that voicemail intercepting it him or herself”.
    [Show full text]