Dear Boris
I appreciate that you have only been Mayor of London since 2008 and therefore the greater responsibility for the way the Metropolitan police was organised and managed rests with Ken Livingston and the previous Police Commissioner. I noted Ken appears to want the present deputy Commissioner to hold the reigns until after the Judicial inquiry rather than bring in someone from outside who will undertake the root and branch change that is evidently required.
It is unfortunate that you made such a gaff in 2009 in ridiculing the Guardian investigation as left wing propaganda otherwise you would be in a good position to lambaste Ken for the appointment of Andy Hayman in charge of counter terrorism and the decision of the then Chief Constable to effectively put Andy in charge of the inquiry into the illegal invasion of the privacy of the Royal Household, tantamount to treason, and then not to question the ludicrous judgement of his deputy to effectively bury for over half a decade the widespread criminality of some of his colleagues and of journalists and their managers at News International.
I hope you are pleased that the conduct of Police Commissioner Stephenson, Assistant Commissioners Hayman and Yates and deputy Assistant Commissioner Clarke has now been referred by the Standards Committee of the London Police Authority to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, who I hope will do a better job that the Press Complaints Commission under the discredited Lady Buscombe who is another who has not the decency to resign.
I hope you are spending the early summer studying the 300 page report and pubic testimony evidence of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee on “Unauthorised tapping into or hacking of mobile communications“, and then deciding on how you should lead the next Commissioner and the Metropolitan Police Authority to create a service which can be trusted.
What I shall attempt to do is to sort out the key findings and issues which you and your colleagues on the Police Committee will need to address. I do not underestimate the challenge as you are accountable for one of the largest police forces in the world and at the end of February 2010, the force employed 52,111 personnel. This included 33,258 sworn police officers, 4,226 Special Constables, 14,332 civilian police staff, and 4,520 non-sworn Police Community Support Officers.
The report, the thirteenth Report of Session 2010-12, was printed and published on the Internet in full on 20th July 2011, having been ordered by the House of Commons on the previous day. The Home Affairs Committee is chaired by Keith Vaz Labour and has five Conservative Members, one Liberal Democrat and four other Labour Members ( including someone with whom I used to be in communication over forty years ago David Winnick who like me holds a diploma in public administration and who for a time was the Member of Parliament for Croydon where I was born.)
The Report provides an excellent chronological background noting that in January 2003 Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson gave evidence to the Culture and Media Committee in which the admission of paying the police for information was made with Coulson intervening to add that payments would have been made within the law, although any form of payment is illegal. (My comment: It is alarming that these admissions were not pursued at the time indicating the power which Rupert Murdoch had come to exercise politically in the UK.)
In November 2005 the News of the World published the story about Prince William having a knee injury and led to a complaint about voicemails being intercepted. The matter was investigated by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke (Anti Terrorism) with his immediate superior Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman, supervising.
In 2006 the information Commissioner published the first of two Reports, What Price Privacy, followed by What Price Privacy Now based on an investigation conducted with the Metropolitan police on the widespread and organised undercover market in personal information and in one investigation Operation Motorman in which 305 journalists from a range of newspapers had used a number of private investigators to acquire information some of which could only have been acquired illegally. No police investigation appears to have taken place regarding the allegations of illegal activities, although it is understood that the information has been made available to Operation Weeting, originally established to reinvestigate the Mulcaire papers.
In August 2006 Mr Glenn Mulcaire, a private investigator, hired by News of the World, together with Clive Goodman the Royal Correspondent of the News of the World were arrested followed by their conviction and imprisonment in January 2007 for conspiring to intercept in relation to the Royal Household. (My comment: All the other offences were effectively covered up by the Metropolitan Police).
In March 2007 Les Hinton, lifelong friend and employee of Rupert Murdoch tells Culture, Media and Sport committee that an internal investigation found no evidence of widespread hacking at News of the World. (My comment: He clearly lied or those upon whom he relied for the investigation lied to him. Their actions perverted the course of justice and they should be prosecuted and imprisoned).
May 2007 The Press Complaints Commission chaired by Lady Buscombe publishes a report saying it found no evidence of wrong doing at the News of the World.(my comment she now says she was lied to but the evidence is she was proactive in defence of News International and she should resign)
Harbottle and Lewis appointed by News International in relation to internal communications between Mr Coulson and executives state no evidence they were aware of Goodman’s actions. (My comment is that this firm need to explain themselves and be assessed for apparent complicity)
In 2009 the media became aware, and through the media Parliament and the Public became aware, that Gordon Taylor of the Professional Footballer’s Association had succeeded in gaining a huge financial settlement from the News International, agreeing to a confidentiality clause and to the judge sealing the documents.
The Guardian Newspaper, through its reporter Nick Davies published an article on July 9th which argued that the convicted private investigator, Mulcaire had been involved in the provision of information to News International on a large scale.
The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police asked John Yates, Assistant Commissioner to look into the case and he took one day to conclude that the article raised nothing meriting further work.
The Crown Prosecution Service announced an urgent review of material provided the police in 2006.
Colin Myler and Any Coulson give evidence to Culture and Media Committee.
In November 2009 the Press Complaint’s Commission publishes a second report saying there was no evidence that anyone others that Goodman and Mulcaire was involved in phone hacking. (This is extraordinary)
In February 2010 Culture Media and Sport Committee publish their report stating it was inconceivable senior management were unaware of widespread hacking.
In September 2010 The New York Times publishes article claiming Andy Coulson was aware that his staff were illegally hacking voicemail. The article questioned the validity of the original investigation by the Metropolitan Police and called for a new Inquiry.
Also in September 2010 the Home Affaires Committee of the House of Commons decides to consider the legal and other aspects of phone hacking and voice mail intercept
In December 2010 after interviewing former News of the World reporter, the recently deceased Sean Hoare the Metropolitan Police passed a file to the Crown Prosecution Service but decided there was no admissible evidence to bring charges.
The House of Commons Home Affaires Committee broadens its investigation to include the 2005 -2006 police investigation, the relationship between police and the media and the role of the telephone companies.
On January 5th 2011 the News of the World suspended its assistant Editor News following allegations he was implicated in the hacking of the phone of Sienna Miller after lawyers acting for her found notes among documents released by the police which indicated that Mr Mulcaire may have hacked into her phone on instructions from Mr Edmondson.
The Metropolitan Police then commenced a new Inquiry under Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers codename Operation Weeting and requested cooperation from the News of the World.
On April 5th Mr Edmonson and Mr Neville Thirwell, News of the World Chief Reporter were arrested on suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications and unlawful Interception of voicemail. There were released without charge on police bail until September 2011.
In June 2011 300 emails were passed by News International to the Metropolitan Police after they had been retrieved from solicitors Harbottle and Lewis where they had been kept for four years
.
In July 2011 the Metropolitan Police announce the setting up of Operation Elvden to look at payments made to the police by News International as a sub investigation to Operation Weeting (my comment one witness has claimed on TV that he had a budget of £3.1 million to corrupt the police and obtain information illegally as well as by legitimate means).
The change in public and political opinion occurred with the allegation that Mulcaire had hacked into the voice mail of the Murdered 13 year old Millie Dowler before her body was located followed by other revelations, some following notification by the Metropolitan Police that their names and personal details had been found among the Mulcaire papers. This in turn led to the Prime Minister announcing two public inquiries under one Judge and the same team of team of panel members, the second to commence to interview witnesses after all prosecutions had concluded.
The present Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner John Yates resign. They and former Assistant Commissioner Hayman and Assistant Commissioner Clarke have their conduct referred to the Police Complaints Commission. Operation Weeting announce a number of new arrests including of Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson. There are also resignations from News Corps including Less Hinton.
.
The Report then covers the legal aspects of the hacking activity because during his September 2010 testimony to the Committee Mr Yates said the police had difficulty in knowing if the 91 to 120 people whose pin numbers had been found in the Mulcaire papers involved the commission of a crime. He said there was only evidence involving 10 to 12 people. His views were based on the advice of the former Director of Public Prosecutions. The Reports notes the dispute which arose between Mr Yates Chris Bryant MP and the present Director of Public Prosecutions over aspects of the legal issue. The Report underlines its frustration at the confusion caused by the advice given to both Commons Committees by the Crown Prosecution Services and highlights that only on their last day of testimony was it revealed that there had been a significant conversation between the DPP and Mr Yates and the then view of the DPP that there was insufficient basis for reopening the investigation. The Report makes the point that this “does not in anyway exonerate the police from their actions during the inquiry.” In respect to the legal aspects the Committee considered the role of Information Commissioner and noted the lack of his regulatory authority. They make several recommendations and express concern that several witnesses had not been made aware of the Commissioner’s 2006 report.
The Home Affairs Committee makes the point that it is inappropriate from them to comment on the ongoing police investigation but then covers the previous police investigations. Mr Clarke who Mr Hayman effectively delegated policy and operational aspects, stated that he had restricted the inquiry to the Royal Household allegations and to whether anyone other than Goodman and Mulcaire had been involved in the one case.
Mr Clarke gave the following explanation for not investigating other individuals “the much wider range of people who we were learning were becoming victims of this activity would continue to be victimised while the investigation took its course. This would probably go on for many months and to my mind this would be unacceptable.” The other reason is that he believed that the investigation would be compromised and evidence lost.” (My comment: The former is incredible and the latter may become painfully true if the DPP advises that the court’s will not entertain prosecutions because of the time lapse and the publicity)
In relation to News International Mr Clarke was adamant that while he was convinced that News International were covering up, saying they were cooperating without doing so, the police was prevented from taking further action because in the absence of evidence of a cover up they were advised any attempt to require disclosure of documents would be treated as fishing expedition.
This provides the Committee with the opportunity to concur with the view of Mr Clarke that News International corporately deliberately tried to thwart the criminal investigation. The committee are astounded at the length of time it has taken for News International to cooperate with the police, but they are also critical of the police for not undertaking a more robust investigation given the basic assumption that most criminal will not cooperate with any police investigation. (My comment: The incredulity of the committee at the police evidence in this respect was palpable)
The report underlines that the police should have identified the other perpetrators of crime and their victims available in the Mulcaire papers. (I add that this surely would have then led the police of have the justification to demand full disclosure of documents]. I then discover that this obvious point was covered by the Committee. Mr Clarke took the view the inquiry could not have been passed to anyone else and stated that he had raised the situation with Mr Hayman and his other anti Terrorist colleagues.
The report examines the police defence argument that their priority as the anti Terrorist branch was anti terrorism. (I would make the obvious point that if they had undertaken more than the restricted investigation they would have understood the true nature of the information available and the extent of the criminality and passed the investigation to the ordinary criminal investigation branch). The Committee concluded that it cannot overlook the fact that the decision taken not to properly investigate led to serious wrongdoing which the Commissioner himself now accepts was disreputable. The report notes “that is revealing about the management structure within the Metropolitan Police Service that this issue does not appear to have been escalated to the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, or even the Assistant Commissioner as an issue which they ought to be aware and to which a solution needed to be found.”
The Committee is critical of Mr Haymen who according to his testimony delegated every aspect of the inquiry to Mr Clarke while admitting that he was managerially responsible and accountable and had oversight. They comment on his lack of understanding of the public outrage at the role of the police and express concern at his lackadaisical attitude towards contacts with those under investigation. “Even if all his social contacts with News International personnel were entirely above board, no information was exchanged and no obligations considered to have been incurred, it seems to us extraordinary that he did not realise what the public perception of such contact would be - or if he did realise, he did not care that confidence in the impartiality of the police could be seriously undermined.”
Asked about the extent of his social contact and free dinners with News International he claimed that the Director of Communications always accompanied him, a claim denied by the Director who said he could only recollect one instance about three months before the first police inquiry into the hacking. The Committee states it does not accuse Mr Hayman of lying in his evidence, “but it is difficult to escape the suspicion that he deliberately prevaricated in order to mislead us. This is very serious.”
They concluded that his conduct during the evidence session was unprofessional and inappropriate. They are concerned that such an individual was placed in charge of anti terrorist policing in the first place. They deplore the fact that he took a job with News International within two months of his resignation and less than two years after he was purportedly responsible for an investigation into employees of that company. “It has been suggested that police officers should not be able to take employment with a company that they have been investigating, at least for a period of time. We recommend that Lord Justice Leveson explore this in his inquiry.”
I have some sympathy for Mr Hayman who although appears his worst enemy may have created prejudice by his natural manner and way of speaking.
I have even more sympathy for former Assistant Commissioner Yates who admitted that in the event he wished he had approached the Commissioner’s request to consider if the Guardian article raised anything new in a different way. I imagine what happened as the Police Commissioner set off to a meeting of the Association of Chief Police Constables. Mr Hayman also had a different day planned and decided to try and respond to the media interest the article aroused within the day although he had not been set a time limit. He approached the request in a systematic manner taking account of eight principles which he explained to the committee. The problem with the Commissioners request and his approach is that in effect they knew the answer before making the inquiries there was nothing new as such because the information we was there all the time in bin bags at the Yard and in the files of the News of the World and the Solicitors employed by the News Corporation and this included the information in relation to Millie Dowler.
The problem Mr Yates now faces is the relationship he had with News International, and in particular his role in the employment of the former deputy News of the World Editor to Andy Coulson, a social friend of several years, to a £1000 a day advisory post to the Metropolitan Police and then his passing on the request from the former deputy editor for his daughter to be provided a job with the Metropolitan Police. I will now look at what the Home Affairs Committee concluded.
The first point noted is that My Yates decided that the volume of information should be listed on a database so that should new questions or evidence arise it would be possible to check with the database to establish if further work was necessary. Because the information was in bin bags he relied on communicating with those who had undertaken the original investigation rather than ask for new officers to take a sample look at what was in the bin bags.
The second crucial point is that although Mr Yates looked at the legal advice from the DPP this was the original advice which concentrated on the specific case and not the wider issues. The Crown Prosecution service conducted its own investigation separately from that of the Commissioner and they discussed with the police the Guardian reference to Neville, Chief Report Neville Thurlbeck which appeared to indicate that News of the World management had known of what was going on but decided that the article reference was not sufficient to interview the journalist manager. The DPP decided that the article had not raised the need to reopen the case against Mulcaire and Goodman or revisit the decisions taken in the course of the investigation and prosecution. In its conclusions the Committee while appreciating that the Commissioner had made the unprepared public statement prior to attending the ACPO conference he and Mr Yates gave the public the impression that something more substantial was being undertaken in 2009 than it was and that as Mr Yates admits with hindsight that his consideration was poor. The Committee agreed and said that his decision not to have delved more deeply into the information collated at the time of the original was a serious misjudgement.
Turning to the decision to use Mr Neil Wallis, the Committee are appalled about how the £1000 a day contract was given and they are shocked by the approach of the head of the Communications at the Met Mr Fedorcio, his failure to carry out basic diligence and to rely on the knowledge of Mr Yates and his friendship with Mr Wallis
The Home Affairs Committee then turned their attention to the ongoing police investigation which they explain as confirmed by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Akers arose because of the request by lawyers acting in civil action for information from News International. Three emails came to light which implicated another News International employee in the illegal acquisition of information and this was reported to the police.
DAC Akers reported that in the six months since her inquiry started there had been eight arrests and her team of 45 officers were still compiling lists of all the material collated in 2006 as the database established by Mr Yates had not worked properly. She said it had taken two months to establish a protocol with News International Lawyers who used journalistic privilege. After a meeting with the News International Executives relations had markedly improved.
Because of the public, political and media interest the decision had been taken to contact everyone individually who names or telephone number was contained in the data. There were some 3870 core individuals with 4000 5000 landlines and 4000 mobile numbers. Only 170 had been advised todate with another 70 or including 70 who were included in the 500 individuals who had contacted the unit to enquire if they were on the list. (I noted one report that it would take at least 5 years at the present rate for everyone on the list to be contact and their situation investigated as whether a criminal offence had been committed against them).
The Committee point out that from the viewpoint of those on the lists, the victims, the approach being taken was a good one but the inquiry needed to focus on those where there is likelihood of a provable offence being committed, mainly the 18 month period during which there is evidence that 400 unique voicemail numbers were by Mulcaire or from News of the World hub phones. Unfortunately only this phone data still exists and therefore the total number of people where a crime may be established is likely to be only a small proportion of those listed, unless Mr Mulcaire is able to be specific. The Committee expressed approval and support for the DAC heading the Specialist Crime Directorate which has been enlarged with officers borrowed from throughout the Met. They express alarm at the time it will take for everyone mentioned to be contact and urge the allocation of more resources (The Prime Minister announced another 15 officers had been allocated in his statement the following day),
The Committee then turn the allegations of payments in cash or kind to the police or promises of promotion and urge priority in establishing extent during the period December 2005 to January 2011.
The next concern is the social interaction between the police and executives of News International (I note the narrowness of their concern in this respect as there have been several references in the media that whether for payment or not, a significant number of officers, including civilian officers appear to advise the media whenever an incident involving a celebrity occurs or major crime occurs. A similar accusation has been levelled at the emergency services such as ambulance and fire brigade)
The latter part of the report concerns the role of mobile phone companies and their failure to advise customers when there is evidence of hacking into their phones and accounts.
The committee published as and Appendix the information contained in What Price Privacy now. This identified that
58 Journalists from the Daily Mail had 952 transactions with private investigations
Sunday Mirror 50 and 802
Daily Mirror 45 and 681
Mail on Sunday 33 and 261
News of the World 19 and 182
Sunday Mirror 25 and 143
Best Magazine 20 and 134
Evening Standard 1 and 130
The Observer 4 and 103
The Guardian 0 and 0
It should be noted that the News of World was only one of several papers who used private extensively and where the use would have been known and sanction by the newspaper management and business senior executives.
The Committee heard evidence from Chris Bryant on 29th March 2011 and John Yates followed by The Director of Public Prosecutions on April 5th and the Information Commissioner on 26th April. The phone companies were represented on 14th June and 12th July Mr Yates returned with Mr Clarke, Mr Hayman and Sue Akers. On July 19th the Police Commissioner appeared followed by the Director of Public Affairs, Mr Yates again, the present and former Directors of Public Prosecutions and Mark Lewis the Solicitor who acts for the family of Millie Dowler, the Hacked Off campaign and other victims.
One of the most important documents published by the Committee to date is the memorandum from Nick Davies especially his reference to the memo sent by Clive Goodman to chief reporter Neville Thurlbeck providing the transcripts of 35 phone messages on the phone of Gordon Taylor one of eight victims listed in the original indictment against Goodman and Mulcaire. The police presented no evidence at the trial of Goodman and Mulcaire in relation to the name other victims or requested that the evidence be left of file. It was in effect covered up and only emerged when those named took civil action and their legal teams were able to get hold of documentation. The Metropolitan refused to disclose how many victims were notified during the original inquiry through to the appointment of Sue Akers in January 2011. Another memorandum already published is that from Mark Lewis although his second is still to be published. These two documents indicate the incompetence of the Police and includes inferences that relationships were inappropriate and also their potential for the media attempting to blackmail them because of the information obtained on their private lives and inappropriate relationships.
I appreciate that you have only been Mayor of London since 2008 and therefore the greater responsibility for the way the Metropolitan police was organised and managed rests with Ken Livingston and the previous Police Commissioner. I noted Ken appears to want the present deputy Commissioner to hold the reigns until after the Judicial inquiry rather than bring in someone from outside who will undertake the root and branch change that is evidently required.
It is unfortunate that you made such a gaff in 2009 in ridiculing the Guardian investigation as left wing propaganda otherwise you would be in a good position to lambaste Ken for the appointment of Andy Hayman in charge of counter terrorism and the decision of the then Chief Constable to effectively put Andy in charge of the inquiry into the illegal invasion of the privacy of the Royal Household, tantamount to treason, and then not to question the ludicrous judgement of his deputy to effectively bury for over half a decade the widespread criminality of some of his colleagues and of journalists and their managers at News International.
I hope you are pleased that the conduct of Police Commissioner Stephenson, Assistant Commissioners Hayman and Yates and deputy Assistant Commissioner Clarke has now been referred by the Standards Committee of the London Police Authority to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, who I hope will do a better job that the Press Complaints Commission under the discredited Lady Buscombe who is another who has not the decency to resign.
I hope you are spending the early summer studying the 300 page report and pubic testimony evidence of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee on “Unauthorised tapping into or hacking of mobile communications“, and then deciding on how you should lead the next Commissioner and the Metropolitan Police Authority to create a service which can be trusted.
What I shall attempt to do is to sort out the key findings and issues which you and your colleagues on the Police Committee will need to address. I do not underestimate the challenge as you are accountable for one of the largest police forces in the world and at the end of February 2010, the force employed 52,111 personnel. This included 33,258 sworn police officers, 4,226 Special Constables, 14,332 civilian police staff, and 4,520 non-sworn Police Community Support Officers.
The report, the thirteenth Report of Session 2010-12, was printed and published on the Internet in full on 20th July 2011, having been ordered by the House of Commons on the previous day. The Home Affairs Committee is chaired by Keith Vaz Labour and has five Conservative Members, one Liberal Democrat and four other Labour Members ( including someone with whom I used to be in communication over forty years ago David Winnick who like me holds a diploma in public administration and who for a time was the Member of Parliament for Croydon where I was born.)
The Report provides an excellent chronological background noting that in January 2003 Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson gave evidence to the Culture and Media Committee in which the admission of paying the police for information was made with Coulson intervening to add that payments would have been made within the law, although any form of payment is illegal. (My comment: It is alarming that these admissions were not pursued at the time indicating the power which Rupert Murdoch had come to exercise politically in the UK.)
In November 2005 the News of the World published the story about Prince William having a knee injury and led to a complaint about voicemails being intercepted. The matter was investigated by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke (Anti Terrorism) with his immediate superior Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman, supervising.
In 2006 the information Commissioner published the first of two Reports, What Price Privacy, followed by What Price Privacy Now based on an investigation conducted with the Metropolitan police on the widespread and organised undercover market in personal information and in one investigation Operation Motorman in which 305 journalists from a range of newspapers had used a number of private investigators to acquire information some of which could only have been acquired illegally. No police investigation appears to have taken place regarding the allegations of illegal activities, although it is understood that the information has been made available to Operation Weeting, originally established to reinvestigate the Mulcaire papers.
In August 2006 Mr Glenn Mulcaire, a private investigator, hired by News of the World, together with Clive Goodman the Royal Correspondent of the News of the World were arrested followed by their conviction and imprisonment in January 2007 for conspiring to intercept in relation to the Royal Household. (My comment: All the other offences were effectively covered up by the Metropolitan Police).
In March 2007 Les Hinton, lifelong friend and employee of Rupert Murdoch tells Culture, Media and Sport committee that an internal investigation found no evidence of widespread hacking at News of the World. (My comment: He clearly lied or those upon whom he relied for the investigation lied to him. Their actions perverted the course of justice and they should be prosecuted and imprisoned).
May 2007 The Press Complaints Commission chaired by Lady Buscombe publishes a report saying it found no evidence of wrong doing at the News of the World.(my comment she now says she was lied to but the evidence is she was proactive in defence of News International and she should resign)
Harbottle and Lewis appointed by News International in relation to internal communications between Mr Coulson and executives state no evidence they were aware of Goodman’s actions. (My comment is that this firm need to explain themselves and be assessed for apparent complicity)
In 2009 the media became aware, and through the media Parliament and the Public became aware, that Gordon Taylor of the Professional Footballer’s Association had succeeded in gaining a huge financial settlement from the News International, agreeing to a confidentiality clause and to the judge sealing the documents.
The Guardian Newspaper, through its reporter Nick Davies published an article on July 9th which argued that the convicted private investigator, Mulcaire had been involved in the provision of information to News International on a large scale.
The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police asked John Yates, Assistant Commissioner to look into the case and he took one day to conclude that the article raised nothing meriting further work.
The Crown Prosecution Service announced an urgent review of material provided the police in 2006.
Colin Myler and Any Coulson give evidence to Culture and Media Committee.
In November 2009 the Press Complaint’s Commission publishes a second report saying there was no evidence that anyone others that Goodman and Mulcaire was involved in phone hacking. (This is extraordinary)
In February 2010 Culture Media and Sport Committee publish their report stating it was inconceivable senior management were unaware of widespread hacking.
In September 2010 The New York Times publishes article claiming Andy Coulson was aware that his staff were illegally hacking voicemail. The article questioned the validity of the original investigation by the Metropolitan Police and called for a new Inquiry.
Also in September 2010 the Home Affaires Committee of the House of Commons decides to consider the legal and other aspects of phone hacking and voice mail intercept
In December 2010 after interviewing former News of the World reporter, the recently deceased Sean Hoare the Metropolitan Police passed a file to the Crown Prosecution Service but decided there was no admissible evidence to bring charges.
The House of Commons Home Affaires Committee broadens its investigation to include the 2005 -2006 police investigation, the relationship between police and the media and the role of the telephone companies.
On January 5th 2011 the News of the World suspended its assistant Editor News following allegations he was implicated in the hacking of the phone of Sienna Miller after lawyers acting for her found notes among documents released by the police which indicated that Mr Mulcaire may have hacked into her phone on instructions from Mr Edmondson.
The Metropolitan Police then commenced a new Inquiry under Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers codename Operation Weeting and requested cooperation from the News of the World.
On April 5th Mr Edmonson and Mr Neville Thirwell, News of the World Chief Reporter were arrested on suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications and unlawful Interception of voicemail. There were released without charge on police bail until September 2011.
In June 2011 300 emails were passed by News International to the Metropolitan Police after they had been retrieved from solicitors Harbottle and Lewis where they had been kept for four years
.
In July 2011 the Metropolitan Police announce the setting up of Operation Elvden to look at payments made to the police by News International as a sub investigation to Operation Weeting (my comment one witness has claimed on TV that he had a budget of £3.1 million to corrupt the police and obtain information illegally as well as by legitimate means).
The change in public and political opinion occurred with the allegation that Mulcaire had hacked into the voice mail of the Murdered 13 year old Millie Dowler before her body was located followed by other revelations, some following notification by the Metropolitan Police that their names and personal details had been found among the Mulcaire papers. This in turn led to the Prime Minister announcing two public inquiries under one Judge and the same team of team of panel members, the second to commence to interview witnesses after all prosecutions had concluded.
The present Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner John Yates resign. They and former Assistant Commissioner Hayman and Assistant Commissioner Clarke have their conduct referred to the Police Complaints Commission. Operation Weeting announce a number of new arrests including of Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson. There are also resignations from News Corps including Less Hinton.
.
The Report then covers the legal aspects of the hacking activity because during his September 2010 testimony to the Committee Mr Yates said the police had difficulty in knowing if the 91 to 120 people whose pin numbers had been found in the Mulcaire papers involved the commission of a crime. He said there was only evidence involving 10 to 12 people. His views were based on the advice of the former Director of Public Prosecutions. The Reports notes the dispute which arose between Mr Yates Chris Bryant MP and the present Director of Public Prosecutions over aspects of the legal issue. The Report underlines its frustration at the confusion caused by the advice given to both Commons Committees by the Crown Prosecution Services and highlights that only on their last day of testimony was it revealed that there had been a significant conversation between the DPP and Mr Yates and the then view of the DPP that there was insufficient basis for reopening the investigation. The Report makes the point that this “does not in anyway exonerate the police from their actions during the inquiry.” In respect to the legal aspects the Committee considered the role of Information Commissioner and noted the lack of his regulatory authority. They make several recommendations and express concern that several witnesses had not been made aware of the Commissioner’s 2006 report.
The Home Affairs Committee makes the point that it is inappropriate from them to comment on the ongoing police investigation but then covers the previous police investigations. Mr Clarke who Mr Hayman effectively delegated policy and operational aspects, stated that he had restricted the inquiry to the Royal Household allegations and to whether anyone other than Goodman and Mulcaire had been involved in the one case.
Mr Clarke gave the following explanation for not investigating other individuals “the much wider range of people who we were learning were becoming victims of this activity would continue to be victimised while the investigation took its course. This would probably go on for many months and to my mind this would be unacceptable.” The other reason is that he believed that the investigation would be compromised and evidence lost.” (My comment: The former is incredible and the latter may become painfully true if the DPP advises that the court’s will not entertain prosecutions because of the time lapse and the publicity)
In relation to News International Mr Clarke was adamant that while he was convinced that News International were covering up, saying they were cooperating without doing so, the police was prevented from taking further action because in the absence of evidence of a cover up they were advised any attempt to require disclosure of documents would be treated as fishing expedition.
This provides the Committee with the opportunity to concur with the view of Mr Clarke that News International corporately deliberately tried to thwart the criminal investigation. The committee are astounded at the length of time it has taken for News International to cooperate with the police, but they are also critical of the police for not undertaking a more robust investigation given the basic assumption that most criminal will not cooperate with any police investigation. (My comment: The incredulity of the committee at the police evidence in this respect was palpable)
The report underlines that the police should have identified the other perpetrators of crime and their victims available in the Mulcaire papers. (I add that this surely would have then led the police of have the justification to demand full disclosure of documents]. I then discover that this obvious point was covered by the Committee. Mr Clarke took the view the inquiry could not have been passed to anyone else and stated that he had raised the situation with Mr Hayman and his other anti Terrorist colleagues.
The report examines the police defence argument that their priority as the anti Terrorist branch was anti terrorism. (I would make the obvious point that if they had undertaken more than the restricted investigation they would have understood the true nature of the information available and the extent of the criminality and passed the investigation to the ordinary criminal investigation branch). The Committee concluded that it cannot overlook the fact that the decision taken not to properly investigate led to serious wrongdoing which the Commissioner himself now accepts was disreputable. The report notes “that is revealing about the management structure within the Metropolitan Police Service that this issue does not appear to have been escalated to the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, or even the Assistant Commissioner as an issue which they ought to be aware and to which a solution needed to be found.”
The Committee is critical of Mr Haymen who according to his testimony delegated every aspect of the inquiry to Mr Clarke while admitting that he was managerially responsible and accountable and had oversight. They comment on his lack of understanding of the public outrage at the role of the police and express concern at his lackadaisical attitude towards contacts with those under investigation. “Even if all his social contacts with News International personnel were entirely above board, no information was exchanged and no obligations considered to have been incurred, it seems to us extraordinary that he did not realise what the public perception of such contact would be - or if he did realise, he did not care that confidence in the impartiality of the police could be seriously undermined.”
Asked about the extent of his social contact and free dinners with News International he claimed that the Director of Communications always accompanied him, a claim denied by the Director who said he could only recollect one instance about three months before the first police inquiry into the hacking. The Committee states it does not accuse Mr Hayman of lying in his evidence, “but it is difficult to escape the suspicion that he deliberately prevaricated in order to mislead us. This is very serious.”
They concluded that his conduct during the evidence session was unprofessional and inappropriate. They are concerned that such an individual was placed in charge of anti terrorist policing in the first place. They deplore the fact that he took a job with News International within two months of his resignation and less than two years after he was purportedly responsible for an investigation into employees of that company. “It has been suggested that police officers should not be able to take employment with a company that they have been investigating, at least for a period of time. We recommend that Lord Justice Leveson explore this in his inquiry.”
I have some sympathy for Mr Hayman who although appears his worst enemy may have created prejudice by his natural manner and way of speaking.
I have even more sympathy for former Assistant Commissioner Yates who admitted that in the event he wished he had approached the Commissioner’s request to consider if the Guardian article raised anything new in a different way. I imagine what happened as the Police Commissioner set off to a meeting of the Association of Chief Police Constables. Mr Hayman also had a different day planned and decided to try and respond to the media interest the article aroused within the day although he had not been set a time limit. He approached the request in a systematic manner taking account of eight principles which he explained to the committee. The problem with the Commissioners request and his approach is that in effect they knew the answer before making the inquiries there was nothing new as such because the information we was there all the time in bin bags at the Yard and in the files of the News of the World and the Solicitors employed by the News Corporation and this included the information in relation to Millie Dowler.
The problem Mr Yates now faces is the relationship he had with News International, and in particular his role in the employment of the former deputy News of the World Editor to Andy Coulson, a social friend of several years, to a £1000 a day advisory post to the Metropolitan Police and then his passing on the request from the former deputy editor for his daughter to be provided a job with the Metropolitan Police. I will now look at what the Home Affairs Committee concluded.
The first point noted is that My Yates decided that the volume of information should be listed on a database so that should new questions or evidence arise it would be possible to check with the database to establish if further work was necessary. Because the information was in bin bags he relied on communicating with those who had undertaken the original investigation rather than ask for new officers to take a sample look at what was in the bin bags.
The second crucial point is that although Mr Yates looked at the legal advice from the DPP this was the original advice which concentrated on the specific case and not the wider issues. The Crown Prosecution service conducted its own investigation separately from that of the Commissioner and they discussed with the police the Guardian reference to Neville, Chief Report Neville Thurlbeck which appeared to indicate that News of the World management had known of what was going on but decided that the article reference was not sufficient to interview the journalist manager. The DPP decided that the article had not raised the need to reopen the case against Mulcaire and Goodman or revisit the decisions taken in the course of the investigation and prosecution. In its conclusions the Committee while appreciating that the Commissioner had made the unprepared public statement prior to attending the ACPO conference he and Mr Yates gave the public the impression that something more substantial was being undertaken in 2009 than it was and that as Mr Yates admits with hindsight that his consideration was poor. The Committee agreed and said that his decision not to have delved more deeply into the information collated at the time of the original was a serious misjudgement.
Turning to the decision to use Mr Neil Wallis, the Committee are appalled about how the £1000 a day contract was given and they are shocked by the approach of the head of the Communications at the Met Mr Fedorcio, his failure to carry out basic diligence and to rely on the knowledge of Mr Yates and his friendship with Mr Wallis
The Home Affairs Committee then turned their attention to the ongoing police investigation which they explain as confirmed by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Akers arose because of the request by lawyers acting in civil action for information from News International. Three emails came to light which implicated another News International employee in the illegal acquisition of information and this was reported to the police.
DAC Akers reported that in the six months since her inquiry started there had been eight arrests and her team of 45 officers were still compiling lists of all the material collated in 2006 as the database established by Mr Yates had not worked properly. She said it had taken two months to establish a protocol with News International Lawyers who used journalistic privilege. After a meeting with the News International Executives relations had markedly improved.
Because of the public, political and media interest the decision had been taken to contact everyone individually who names or telephone number was contained in the data. There were some 3870 core individuals with 4000 5000 landlines and 4000 mobile numbers. Only 170 had been advised todate with another 70 or including 70 who were included in the 500 individuals who had contacted the unit to enquire if they were on the list. (I noted one report that it would take at least 5 years at the present rate for everyone on the list to be contact and their situation investigated as whether a criminal offence had been committed against them).
The Committee point out that from the viewpoint of those on the lists, the victims, the approach being taken was a good one but the inquiry needed to focus on those where there is likelihood of a provable offence being committed, mainly the 18 month period during which there is evidence that 400 unique voicemail numbers were by Mulcaire or from News of the World hub phones. Unfortunately only this phone data still exists and therefore the total number of people where a crime may be established is likely to be only a small proportion of those listed, unless Mr Mulcaire is able to be specific. The Committee expressed approval and support for the DAC heading the Specialist Crime Directorate which has been enlarged with officers borrowed from throughout the Met. They express alarm at the time it will take for everyone mentioned to be contact and urge the allocation of more resources (The Prime Minister announced another 15 officers had been allocated in his statement the following day),
The Committee then turn the allegations of payments in cash or kind to the police or promises of promotion and urge priority in establishing extent during the period December 2005 to January 2011.
The next concern is the social interaction between the police and executives of News International (I note the narrowness of their concern in this respect as there have been several references in the media that whether for payment or not, a significant number of officers, including civilian officers appear to advise the media whenever an incident involving a celebrity occurs or major crime occurs. A similar accusation has been levelled at the emergency services such as ambulance and fire brigade)
The latter part of the report concerns the role of mobile phone companies and their failure to advise customers when there is evidence of hacking into their phones and accounts.
The committee published as and Appendix the information contained in What Price Privacy now. This identified that
58 Journalists from the Daily Mail had 952 transactions with private investigations
Sunday Mirror 50 and 802
Daily Mirror 45 and 681
Mail on Sunday 33 and 261
News of the World 19 and 182
Sunday Mirror 25 and 143
Best Magazine 20 and 134
Evening Standard 1 and 130
The Observer 4 and 103
The Guardian 0 and 0
It should be noted that the News of World was only one of several papers who used private extensively and where the use would have been known and sanction by the newspaper management and business senior executives.
The Committee heard evidence from Chris Bryant on 29th March 2011 and John Yates followed by The Director of Public Prosecutions on April 5th and the Information Commissioner on 26th April. The phone companies were represented on 14th June and 12th July Mr Yates returned with Mr Clarke, Mr Hayman and Sue Akers. On July 19th the Police Commissioner appeared followed by the Director of Public Affairs, Mr Yates again, the present and former Directors of Public Prosecutions and Mark Lewis the Solicitor who acts for the family of Millie Dowler, the Hacked Off campaign and other victims.
One of the most important documents published by the Committee to date is the memorandum from Nick Davies especially his reference to the memo sent by Clive Goodman to chief reporter Neville Thurlbeck providing the transcripts of 35 phone messages on the phone of Gordon Taylor one of eight victims listed in the original indictment against Goodman and Mulcaire. The police presented no evidence at the trial of Goodman and Mulcaire in relation to the name other victims or requested that the evidence be left of file. It was in effect covered up and only emerged when those named took civil action and their legal teams were able to get hold of documentation. The Metropolitan refused to disclose how many victims were notified during the original inquiry through to the appointment of Sue Akers in January 2011. Another memorandum already published is that from Mark Lewis although his second is still to be published. These two documents indicate the incompetence of the Police and includes inferences that relationships were inappropriate and also their potential for the media attempting to blackmail them because of the information obtained on their private lives and inappropriate relationships.
No comments:
Post a Comment