It is possible that at the end of the first four day week of evidence to the Leveson Inquiry in Module 2 on the role of the Police to come to several conclusions.
The Metropolitan Police was in 2006 and 2007 justified in not embarking on the level of investigation presently being undertaken because of the Terrorist threat which the UK faced at that time but was not justified in restricting the prosecution to one Journalist when it had evidence that several others were involved and indeed notified Rebekah Wade and the Managing Editor of the Mail on Sunday of the position one in a recorded phone conversation and the other by email.
The Metropolitan Police was negligent in not notifying their original list of 418 victims compiled six days of the raid that their phones may have been hacked, taking account that the Police recorded in their official action log that this should be done.
The Metropolitan Police corporately misled the Metropolitan Police Authority, the House of Commons and the General Public about the extent of their knowledge for reasons which presently remain unclear. In particular the Metropolitan Police knew that News International and News Corporately repeatedly lied to Parliament and the General Public that one Journalist was involved when they knew this was not so and the Metropolitan Police protected that position for reasons which remain unclear.
There was an inappropriate relationship between individual senior officers of the Metropolitan Police and the News of the World, News International and News Corporation in particular.
The evidence confirmed that Senior News of the World and News International staff have lied about the nature and extent of their knowledge of illegal activity.
I remain uncertain whether there was deliberate cover up by the Metropolitan Police in 2009 and 2010 or the force was corporately incompetent and negligent.
Counsel for the Inquiry summarised the case as follows: Public concern may be expressed in just one sentence. The relationship between the Police and News International in particular, was at best inappropriately close and if not actually corrupt, very close to it; furthermore the nature of this relationship may explain why the Police did not properly investigate phone hacking in 2006 and subsequently in 2009 and 2010, preferring to finesse the issue on those mater occasions by less than frank public statements.
Lord Blair, the former Commissioner has submitted a statement in which he says, “I believe that where the problem may have become significant is that a very small number of relatively senior officers increasingly became too close to journalists, not I believe for financial gain but for the enhancement of their reputations and for the sheer enjoyment of being in a position to share and divulge confidences. It is a siren song. I also believe that they based their behaviour on how they saw politicians behave and that they lost sight of their professional obligations. The Metropolitan police did not have adequate defences against this behaviour and in previous decades would not have needed it.”
Counsel spelt out the risks and problems associated with this closeness:
“The acceptance of and conferring of inappropriate hospitality. The risks here are self evident.”
“The giving and receiving of off the record briefings. Again, the risks here are pretty much self explanatory, but apart from the obvious lack of transparency the person doing the briefing will often have an agenda and each party will be hoping for, if not expecting, future favours;”
“The problem of leaks putting to one side genuine whistle blowing;”
“The attribution of police sources to a story which is redolent of impropriety, or at least carries with it the possibility of inappropriate behaviour, either because the police officer has indulged in gossip or leaks, or because the term is in truth a cipher or fig leaf for an invented story because the source does not in fact exist;”
Sir Paul Stephenson makes explicitly in his statement that the so called police sources may not be a police officer but someone associated with the Police but from outside the Metropolitan Police.
“The last issue is the media turning up at an incident or at newsworthy occasions, because they have been tipped off by a police officer. Again, this is indicative of an unhealthy relationship existing between individual police officers and individual members of the press. Even if the ideal here is only the “sheer enjoyment” which Lord Blair refers to, and of course it might be more than that, we are talking about an inappropriate transaction.”
In the light of what Deputy Assistant Commissioner Ackers was to say, Mr Jay also pointed out that it would also be naive to ignore more sinister possibilities. “Corruption can of course occur in different ways,” he said.
There is the relatively straightforward case of a journalist paying a police officer whether or not using the of police source for the information which ought to be kept confidential and would not have been freely provided. Some commentators have observed that paying a police officer is not necessarily unlawful, for example, the consideration night be regarded as the reimbursement of expenses- but the breadth of the term any inducement or reward in the Prevention of Corruption Act and similar terminology in the Bribery Act would lead anyone minded to test the boundaries of the law to think again.
There is the less straightforward situation of police officers being employed by press organisations after leaving the force. This may be entirely above board but one can at least visualize the possibility that past favours are being called in.
Finally and perhaps the most sinister and certainly the most difficult to prove, is the suggestion that police turn a blind eye to known criminality on account of the unhealthy, over cosy relationship I have already mentioned. (There are two recent reports covering these issues and the Inquiry will hear from their authors).
Before the statement of Deputy Assistant Commissioner Ackers last Monday, Senior Counsel for the Inquiry presented an overview of Module 2 for Lord Justice Leveson, He explained that consideration needed to be given to the bigger picture and what should be the relationship between the Police and Media in democracy to which the present Commissioner has said in his statement that “Keeping the media properly informed about policing and criminal matters is critical to the functioning of the Metropolitan Police.”
First through the media, the organisation is able to communicate its key messages regarding prevention and detection of crime. Second, a healthy relationship with the media can serve to increase the public understanding of how the Metropolitan Police goes about its work in London. Third it provides an important means by which the Metropolitan Police can seek the assistance of the public in its work; maintaining a regular and professional dialogue with the media greatly assists in providing information to the public concerning crime appeals. Fourth contact with the media, properly handled, serves to increase public confidence in the police and to promote a greater understanding of the policies and initiatives and fifthly it provides the means by which the public can scrutinise police actions and policies. It also allows police to test the persuasiveness of their strategies, policies and tactics. It is important to keep the broad picture always in mind.
Counsel also explained as consequence of the Judicial Review brought by Brian Paddick John Prescott, the former Deputy Prime Minister, Chris Bryant the MP and others, a mass of relevant material was disclosed by the Metropolitan Police which has not been made available to the Inquiry and throws light on the contemporary thinking of the Metropolitan Police thinking and decision taking in relation to the original Goodman/Mulcaire prosecution and its aftermath.
I begin as did the Inquiry with Mr Paddick who was in several respects the ideal policeman which the Metropolitan Police wanted within its ranks. He joined in 1976 at 18 years working for four years in the Holloway area of London as a police Constable and then as a Sergeant and Inspector he was an operational officer in London. He then obtained a Police scholarship at an Oxford College gaining an honours degree and later obtained a Diploma in Applied Criminology and Policing at Cambridge University and a Master in Business Administration degree.
He was appointed as the Commander of the London Borough of Brixton with its proportionately high black population. He became a Deputy Assistant Commissioner and for time was an acting Assistant Commissioner and retired in 2007 with 30 years of service becoming the Mayoral Candidate for the Liberal Democrats in 2008 and is again standing for election this May with I would think an enhanced personal standing of doing better than before.
(It is because of the need to also call the previous and present Mayors because of their role accountable for Policing in London outside the City square mile and other politicians that the role of Politicians is being left until mid May after the local government Elections, the State opening of Parliament and the loyal addresses to mark the 60 years reign of Queen Elizabeth. There will then also be the 60th national celebrations in June and the Olympic games after which it is anticipated “all hell” will be let lose with the Publication of Iraq Inquiry as well as the Leveson Report 1, the prosecutions of arrested individuals can be expected to begin as well as the results of the Independent Police Commissions investigation into the Tottenham shooting and the elections for the new elected Police Commissioners and where in London the appointment will now be separate from that of the officer of the Mayor.)
Mr Paddick disclosed and was questioned about the extent of the hospitality he received. He lunched with a Sun Crime Reporter once and with the Crime reporter from the Financial Times and Guardian and attended one of the Guardian’s Editorial Lunches and a similar event held by the Daily Mirror. He explained how he came to establish a good relationship with the Times Crime Reporter because of a particular case and there was amusement over his lunch with Piers Morgan who guest included two Weather girls, and which he said consisted of listening to what Piers had to say for the greater part of the time on various matters. He thought this was a thank you for cooperating with Piers after a Sunday paper had printed a kiss and tell story about his private life.
Mr Paddick said that between 2002 and 2007 he had been subjected to a whole series of damaging articles, largely false, involving gross intrusion into his personal life but also attacking his professional reputation as a police officer. He said the failure of the Metropolitan Police to counter the false allegation against him demonstrated their lack of willingness to stand up to the media because of their closeness and wish to keep in their good books. He argued that there had developed the mentality of putting a positive spin on what the police did, covering up mistakes or matters which might bring criticism, including the differences of view and personal positioning within the force. This had arisen because of the development of investigate journalism and the public not accepting what the police said just because they were the police.
He said that several Police Commissioners had initiated charm offensives and when questioned he said that Sir John Stephens had been successful because he claimed according to a freelance journalist who he named that the Commissioner had wined and dined the media at a number of dinners, whereas Lord Blair had been the subject of adverse publicity because of his effort to change the culture in a way which did not go well with his senior colleagues and with a lot of right wing newspapers.
He claimed that Dick Fedorcio then head of the Metropolitan Police Press and Publication relations Department had campaign against Blair becoming the Commissioner on behalf of senior colleagues. There had been a lot of political in fighting between he senior officers at the Metropolitan Police which made Fedoricio’s position difficult as he was being pressed to brief against senior officers by others. Iain Blair had identified a culture of bullying by senior officers which he had been determined to put to an end, Mr Paddick disclosed that he had helped Ian Blair with his application to become the Commissioner and that following his successful appointment he had lunch with him at which he was invited to indicate what role he would like into new structure (presumably because of the help he had given)
Mr Paddick then gave a detailed account how a report which he had been asked by Ian Blair to prepare on how the Met handled rape cases was watered down, statistical information changed and that a police press officer had told him that Mr Fedorcio had told her that as far as practical the report should receive no publicity. Before his appointment Lord Blair had written a critical book of the way the Met handled rape cases and after his appointment he had arranged for a review with Professor Betsy Stanko of the police support team and she and Brian had identified worrying statistics and made strong recommendations. This evidence demonstrated the way information which showed the Met in a bad light could be covered up under the direction of top officers.
The next example given by Mr Paddick concerned the shooting of Mr Charles De Menzes when Mr Paddick explained that despite claims that those advising the Commissioner that they did not know the wrong man had been shot for 24 hours, they did. Mr Paddick said that he advised the Commissioner personally than those advising him did know and that as he had told the Independent Police Complaints Committee and an Assistant Commissioner what he had told the IPC and that after he had told the Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur the man had dismissed his press officer from a briefing with a BBC journalist for an hour, the following day and that it was Mr Ghaffur who leaked the information and not himself.
Mr Paddick said that arising from the leak he was the subject of discipline investigation and that Sue Akers had undertaken the investigation as head of Internal Investigations and she had told him there was nothing inappropriate in what he had done, but nevertheless Mr Yates had referred the matter to the Metropolitan Police Authority which was disproportionate as the MPA then undertook a formal investigation and this has changed his attitude towards continuing with the force.
Mr Paddick explained that he felt the De Menzies situation was history repeating itself going back to the Brixton situation when a police officer shot an innocent black man killing him during a peaceful protest which degenerated into a riot.
He explained what happened when officers under his command had examine Closed Circuit Television coverage and a detective chief Inspector brought to him footage and after viewing he had made three phone calls. The first was to Andy Hayman who was then head of Internal Affairs, the second to his boss and the third to the Chairperson of the community consultative police liaison group. He said that with the Chairman he met other members who would not be witnesses and said he intended to identify and prosecute the officers who had been involved in the particular incident. He said that he was told the Commissioner was furious for not waiting until after the prosecution, but he felt this would have been counter productive and the community had only found out at the time of the prosecution and he had not told them it would have undermined his credibility with them. His boss had relayed the view of the Commissioner John Stephens to him something which surprised him given his knowledge of Mr Blair.
The Inquiry then considered what had happened to Mr Paddick and his efforts to establish his position in relation to the activities of Mr Mulcaire. .
Mr Paddick explained that he had no dealings with the Anti Terrorist Bran and their investigation and had limited contact with Mr Hayman and like everyone else had assumed that the Prosecution of Mulcaire and Goodman had dealt with all the evidence available. It was not until the Guardian article in 2009 that he commenced to change his view and it is this context Mr Paddick submitted an article written by Mr Hayman about the Phone Hacking scandal which he was thanked for and said the issues raised would be taken up with Mr Hayman. The article stated that Mr Prescott and others were said to be a victim of phone hacking without any clear evidence that their phones were in fact hacked.
It November 2009 he wrote to his solicitors, Bindman’s and asked them to establish from the Metropolitan Police if there was any evidence that had been the subject of investigative activities by the News of the World and Mr Mulcaire. The letter was sent personally to Mr Yates. It was not until February 2010 that a reply was sent by the Met Legal Department which stated that there was no documentation to suggest “your client was subject to unlawful monitoring or interception.” He and his solicitor thought this was an odd form of words as he had asked if he was mentioned not whether the activity was illegal. It was revealed that his name and occupation as Police Commander had appeared in the records. (There had been a blatant attempt by the Metropolitan Police to mislead Mr Paddick).
In view of the police failure with others he had joined in a request for a Judicial review. The response of the Metropolitan Police to this action was also misleading in that it was again claimed there was no evidence that with he or Chris Bryant had been targets relying on the statements made by Yates.
In their formal defence of the action the Metropolitan Police claimed that the presence of a name and mobile phone number in the documents was not sufficient to indicate voicemail interception had taken place that the phone companies had agreed to warn those that had been listed. The Metropolitan Police claimed that they had provided the full extent of the information in their possession which Mr Paddick said was now known to have been with untrue(that is deliberately lie) or completely misleading.
It was not until 26 January 2011 that officers from Operation Weeting showed him the documents that also contained his mobile telephone number, home address and the home telephone number and details of his former partner. His name and details had been entered on the Mulcaire computer as a project.
Mr Paddick then covered the history of the police action arising from documents obtained as part of the Judicial review Documents Disclosure. A Case Review document dated April 2006 made by Detective Superintended Philip Williams sates that it was highly unlikely the illegal activity was limited to Goodman and was probably widespread among those who would be interested in such access- a much wider security issue with the UK and potentially world wide. The document said such an investigation would be resource intensive and possibly outside the remit of counter terrorism department.
In May 2006 it was discovered that another individual had been working with Mr Goodman and the discovery was listed in the Witness Statement of a Police case officer. In view of the information the Senior Investigating officer said it was matter for another Department and Mr Paddick argued that he does not still understand why the was not then passed to the Specialist Crime Directorate.
In July 2006 the Investigation was ready to make an arrest and this had become more urgent because it was established that the voicemail of Cabinet Minister Tessa Jowell had been hacked. Mulcaire and Goodman were arrested on 8th August 2006 and the 11000 pages of documentation obtained.
Mr Paddick then explained that acting on the advice of CPS the police had obtained only a limited warrant for the News of the World but even in this respect they were met with opposition from two in house lawyers and Julian Pike Solicitor and Managing editor Stuart Kutner and the search was then limited to Goodman’s desk and the account’s department. Goodman’s computer and safe were never handed over to the investigation.
In September the MPS wrote to News International requesting information the computer and the safe, submitting a draft Production Order in the event of failure to cooperate on a voluntary basis. News International responded with only a limited amount of additional information and Mr Paddick states the obvious question of in these circumstances did the MPS not seek the Production order which they had threatened. Who took the decision and why?
Earlier on August 10th the decision Log at the Met, a Log used to record important decisions and developments recorded that the investigation of the Mulcaire documents revealed that hundred of individuals including Royals, Members of Parliament, sports stars, military, police, celebrities and journalists. Within six days of the arrests 418 people had been identified in a list. This contradicts statements made by the Metropolitan Police including to the Judicial review that the documents seized by the police were not analysed. (It would be later explained at the Inquiry that they had not be analysed in terms of gaining evidence for other prosecutions).
Sue Akers has confirmed that there are 800 confirmed victims so far. The log also records the decision to that all the victims should be warned that they had been targeted by Mulcaire. The action to be taken was to be in two parts first (Royal Household, Military, Police and Politicians for because of the security concerns. The others would be told individually as with the first list or by the phone companies. Only a fraction were told with the rest mislead by police statements. The Metropolitan Police have admitted that the failure to do this was a breach of its legal obligations to the victims and apologised.
Mulcaire had created a list of 320 projects and this includes Mr Paddick. New International repeatedly lied that only one Journalist was involved and the Police had information which contradicted such statements and did nothing to counter the repeated lying. (This was disgraceful).
We then come to what many will regard as the most important disclosure made to Inquiry this it was set up.
On 15th September 2006 Tom Crone the now infamous Legal Affairs Manager send an email to the now infamous Andy Coulson that recorded a conversation between the now infamous Rebekah Wade and the now infamous Metropolitan police..
The Metropolitan police provided the infamous Wade with details of the information in their possession, the progress of the investigation and the strategy for the future. She was told that the Inquiry was not being widened to include other News of the World People but would do so if they received further evidence. The Metropolitan Police were attempting to obtain information voluntary and not through the issuing of warrants.
Mr Paddick makes the point that Wade was then Editor of the Sun at that time although she had been Editor of the News of World. (She was not the Chairman of News International or its Chief Executive. She was not the General Manager of the News of the World or its then Editor(Andy Coulson) nor was she the lawyers for the News of the World, News International or News Corporation so what the hell were the Metropolitan Police doing, who was responsible and why?) Mr Paddick asked these questions in the way former policemen will do!
In October 2006 the then Managing editor of the Mail was sent an email by the Metropolitan Police on Sunday that the names of a number of his journalists had been found in the Mulcaire notebooks! Victims were still not being notified.
Under the Freedom of Information Act Mr Paddick has seen the list of meetings between Senior Police Officers and News International Executives throughout 2006 when the investigation was taking place. Those involved the Deputy Commissioner, Andy Hayman and Dick Fedorcio and Neil Wallis the then deputy Editor of the News of the World.
The briefing note prepared by Yates after the 2009 Guardian article states that the victims had been notified when it was discovered this was not done the Metropolitan Police now blames the telephone companies.
It is evident that having identified the list of probably victims within six days the officer of the Metropolitan Police would have also identified a similar list of journalists. Those involved were never interviewed.
One of the investigating officers also identified a number of people in the Mulcaire Project list who were in the Witness Protection programmes as defendants and witnesses. Mulcaire and possibility the News of World knew of people who had been given new identities for their protection. No action appears to have been taken and nothing made public until now. The whole thing was covered up. One of those convicted of the murder of James Bulger was told in the summer of 2011 that his voice mail had been intercepted.
Mr Paddick then submitted his concluding observations and his recommendations.
I was interested to see how the Metropolitan Police would attempt to talk its way out of the case made by of its former most senior police officers with 30 years experience at all levels. Before then we heard from Lord Prescott and the former Crime Watch presenter.
The Metropolitan Police was in 2006 and 2007 justified in not embarking on the level of investigation presently being undertaken because of the Terrorist threat which the UK faced at that time but was not justified in restricting the prosecution to one Journalist when it had evidence that several others were involved and indeed notified Rebekah Wade and the Managing Editor of the Mail on Sunday of the position one in a recorded phone conversation and the other by email.
The Metropolitan Police was negligent in not notifying their original list of 418 victims compiled six days of the raid that their phones may have been hacked, taking account that the Police recorded in their official action log that this should be done.
The Metropolitan Police corporately misled the Metropolitan Police Authority, the House of Commons and the General Public about the extent of their knowledge for reasons which presently remain unclear. In particular the Metropolitan Police knew that News International and News Corporately repeatedly lied to Parliament and the General Public that one Journalist was involved when they knew this was not so and the Metropolitan Police protected that position for reasons which remain unclear.
There was an inappropriate relationship between individual senior officers of the Metropolitan Police and the News of the World, News International and News Corporation in particular.
The evidence confirmed that Senior News of the World and News International staff have lied about the nature and extent of their knowledge of illegal activity.
I remain uncertain whether there was deliberate cover up by the Metropolitan Police in 2009 and 2010 or the force was corporately incompetent and negligent.
Counsel for the Inquiry summarised the case as follows: Public concern may be expressed in just one sentence. The relationship between the Police and News International in particular, was at best inappropriately close and if not actually corrupt, very close to it; furthermore the nature of this relationship may explain why the Police did not properly investigate phone hacking in 2006 and subsequently in 2009 and 2010, preferring to finesse the issue on those mater occasions by less than frank public statements.
Lord Blair, the former Commissioner has submitted a statement in which he says, “I believe that where the problem may have become significant is that a very small number of relatively senior officers increasingly became too close to journalists, not I believe for financial gain but for the enhancement of their reputations and for the sheer enjoyment of being in a position to share and divulge confidences. It is a siren song. I also believe that they based their behaviour on how they saw politicians behave and that they lost sight of their professional obligations. The Metropolitan police did not have adequate defences against this behaviour and in previous decades would not have needed it.”
Counsel spelt out the risks and problems associated with this closeness:
“The acceptance of and conferring of inappropriate hospitality. The risks here are self evident.”
“The giving and receiving of off the record briefings. Again, the risks here are pretty much self explanatory, but apart from the obvious lack of transparency the person doing the briefing will often have an agenda and each party will be hoping for, if not expecting, future favours;”
“The problem of leaks putting to one side genuine whistle blowing;”
“The attribution of police sources to a story which is redolent of impropriety, or at least carries with it the possibility of inappropriate behaviour, either because the police officer has indulged in gossip or leaks, or because the term is in truth a cipher or fig leaf for an invented story because the source does not in fact exist;”
Sir Paul Stephenson makes explicitly in his statement that the so called police sources may not be a police officer but someone associated with the Police but from outside the Metropolitan Police.
“The last issue is the media turning up at an incident or at newsworthy occasions, because they have been tipped off by a police officer. Again, this is indicative of an unhealthy relationship existing between individual police officers and individual members of the press. Even if the ideal here is only the “sheer enjoyment” which Lord Blair refers to, and of course it might be more than that, we are talking about an inappropriate transaction.”
In the light of what Deputy Assistant Commissioner Ackers was to say, Mr Jay also pointed out that it would also be naive to ignore more sinister possibilities. “Corruption can of course occur in different ways,” he said.
There is the relatively straightforward case of a journalist paying a police officer whether or not using the of police source for the information which ought to be kept confidential and would not have been freely provided. Some commentators have observed that paying a police officer is not necessarily unlawful, for example, the consideration night be regarded as the reimbursement of expenses- but the breadth of the term any inducement or reward in the Prevention of Corruption Act and similar terminology in the Bribery Act would lead anyone minded to test the boundaries of the law to think again.
There is the less straightforward situation of police officers being employed by press organisations after leaving the force. This may be entirely above board but one can at least visualize the possibility that past favours are being called in.
Finally and perhaps the most sinister and certainly the most difficult to prove, is the suggestion that police turn a blind eye to known criminality on account of the unhealthy, over cosy relationship I have already mentioned. (There are two recent reports covering these issues and the Inquiry will hear from their authors).
Before the statement of Deputy Assistant Commissioner Ackers last Monday, Senior Counsel for the Inquiry presented an overview of Module 2 for Lord Justice Leveson, He explained that consideration needed to be given to the bigger picture and what should be the relationship between the Police and Media in democracy to which the present Commissioner has said in his statement that “Keeping the media properly informed about policing and criminal matters is critical to the functioning of the Metropolitan Police.”
First through the media, the organisation is able to communicate its key messages regarding prevention and detection of crime. Second, a healthy relationship with the media can serve to increase the public understanding of how the Metropolitan Police goes about its work in London. Third it provides an important means by which the Metropolitan Police can seek the assistance of the public in its work; maintaining a regular and professional dialogue with the media greatly assists in providing information to the public concerning crime appeals. Fourth contact with the media, properly handled, serves to increase public confidence in the police and to promote a greater understanding of the policies and initiatives and fifthly it provides the means by which the public can scrutinise police actions and policies. It also allows police to test the persuasiveness of their strategies, policies and tactics. It is important to keep the broad picture always in mind.
Counsel also explained as consequence of the Judicial Review brought by Brian Paddick John Prescott, the former Deputy Prime Minister, Chris Bryant the MP and others, a mass of relevant material was disclosed by the Metropolitan Police which has not been made available to the Inquiry and throws light on the contemporary thinking of the Metropolitan Police thinking and decision taking in relation to the original Goodman/Mulcaire prosecution and its aftermath.
I begin as did the Inquiry with Mr Paddick who was in several respects the ideal policeman which the Metropolitan Police wanted within its ranks. He joined in 1976 at 18 years working for four years in the Holloway area of London as a police Constable and then as a Sergeant and Inspector he was an operational officer in London. He then obtained a Police scholarship at an Oxford College gaining an honours degree and later obtained a Diploma in Applied Criminology and Policing at Cambridge University and a Master in Business Administration degree.
He was appointed as the Commander of the London Borough of Brixton with its proportionately high black population. He became a Deputy Assistant Commissioner and for time was an acting Assistant Commissioner and retired in 2007 with 30 years of service becoming the Mayoral Candidate for the Liberal Democrats in 2008 and is again standing for election this May with I would think an enhanced personal standing of doing better than before.
(It is because of the need to also call the previous and present Mayors because of their role accountable for Policing in London outside the City square mile and other politicians that the role of Politicians is being left until mid May after the local government Elections, the State opening of Parliament and the loyal addresses to mark the 60 years reign of Queen Elizabeth. There will then also be the 60th national celebrations in June and the Olympic games after which it is anticipated “all hell” will be let lose with the Publication of Iraq Inquiry as well as the Leveson Report 1, the prosecutions of arrested individuals can be expected to begin as well as the results of the Independent Police Commissions investigation into the Tottenham shooting and the elections for the new elected Police Commissioners and where in London the appointment will now be separate from that of the officer of the Mayor.)
Mr Paddick disclosed and was questioned about the extent of the hospitality he received. He lunched with a Sun Crime Reporter once and with the Crime reporter from the Financial Times and Guardian and attended one of the Guardian’s Editorial Lunches and a similar event held by the Daily Mirror. He explained how he came to establish a good relationship with the Times Crime Reporter because of a particular case and there was amusement over his lunch with Piers Morgan who guest included two Weather girls, and which he said consisted of listening to what Piers had to say for the greater part of the time on various matters. He thought this was a thank you for cooperating with Piers after a Sunday paper had printed a kiss and tell story about his private life.
Mr Paddick said that between 2002 and 2007 he had been subjected to a whole series of damaging articles, largely false, involving gross intrusion into his personal life but also attacking his professional reputation as a police officer. He said the failure of the Metropolitan Police to counter the false allegation against him demonstrated their lack of willingness to stand up to the media because of their closeness and wish to keep in their good books. He argued that there had developed the mentality of putting a positive spin on what the police did, covering up mistakes or matters which might bring criticism, including the differences of view and personal positioning within the force. This had arisen because of the development of investigate journalism and the public not accepting what the police said just because they were the police.
He said that several Police Commissioners had initiated charm offensives and when questioned he said that Sir John Stephens had been successful because he claimed according to a freelance journalist who he named that the Commissioner had wined and dined the media at a number of dinners, whereas Lord Blair had been the subject of adverse publicity because of his effort to change the culture in a way which did not go well with his senior colleagues and with a lot of right wing newspapers.
He claimed that Dick Fedorcio then head of the Metropolitan Police Press and Publication relations Department had campaign against Blair becoming the Commissioner on behalf of senior colleagues. There had been a lot of political in fighting between he senior officers at the Metropolitan Police which made Fedoricio’s position difficult as he was being pressed to brief against senior officers by others. Iain Blair had identified a culture of bullying by senior officers which he had been determined to put to an end, Mr Paddick disclosed that he had helped Ian Blair with his application to become the Commissioner and that following his successful appointment he had lunch with him at which he was invited to indicate what role he would like into new structure (presumably because of the help he had given)
Mr Paddick then gave a detailed account how a report which he had been asked by Ian Blair to prepare on how the Met handled rape cases was watered down, statistical information changed and that a police press officer had told him that Mr Fedorcio had told her that as far as practical the report should receive no publicity. Before his appointment Lord Blair had written a critical book of the way the Met handled rape cases and after his appointment he had arranged for a review with Professor Betsy Stanko of the police support team and she and Brian had identified worrying statistics and made strong recommendations. This evidence demonstrated the way information which showed the Met in a bad light could be covered up under the direction of top officers.
The next example given by Mr Paddick concerned the shooting of Mr Charles De Menzes when Mr Paddick explained that despite claims that those advising the Commissioner that they did not know the wrong man had been shot for 24 hours, they did. Mr Paddick said that he advised the Commissioner personally than those advising him did know and that as he had told the Independent Police Complaints Committee and an Assistant Commissioner what he had told the IPC and that after he had told the Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur the man had dismissed his press officer from a briefing with a BBC journalist for an hour, the following day and that it was Mr Ghaffur who leaked the information and not himself.
Mr Paddick said that arising from the leak he was the subject of discipline investigation and that Sue Akers had undertaken the investigation as head of Internal Investigations and she had told him there was nothing inappropriate in what he had done, but nevertheless Mr Yates had referred the matter to the Metropolitan Police Authority which was disproportionate as the MPA then undertook a formal investigation and this has changed his attitude towards continuing with the force.
Mr Paddick explained that he felt the De Menzies situation was history repeating itself going back to the Brixton situation when a police officer shot an innocent black man killing him during a peaceful protest which degenerated into a riot.
He explained what happened when officers under his command had examine Closed Circuit Television coverage and a detective chief Inspector brought to him footage and after viewing he had made three phone calls. The first was to Andy Hayman who was then head of Internal Affairs, the second to his boss and the third to the Chairperson of the community consultative police liaison group. He said that with the Chairman he met other members who would not be witnesses and said he intended to identify and prosecute the officers who had been involved in the particular incident. He said that he was told the Commissioner was furious for not waiting until after the prosecution, but he felt this would have been counter productive and the community had only found out at the time of the prosecution and he had not told them it would have undermined his credibility with them. His boss had relayed the view of the Commissioner John Stephens to him something which surprised him given his knowledge of Mr Blair.
The Inquiry then considered what had happened to Mr Paddick and his efforts to establish his position in relation to the activities of Mr Mulcaire. .
Mr Paddick explained that he had no dealings with the Anti Terrorist Bran and their investigation and had limited contact with Mr Hayman and like everyone else had assumed that the Prosecution of Mulcaire and Goodman had dealt with all the evidence available. It was not until the Guardian article in 2009 that he commenced to change his view and it is this context Mr Paddick submitted an article written by Mr Hayman about the Phone Hacking scandal which he was thanked for and said the issues raised would be taken up with Mr Hayman. The article stated that Mr Prescott and others were said to be a victim of phone hacking without any clear evidence that their phones were in fact hacked.
It November 2009 he wrote to his solicitors, Bindman’s and asked them to establish from the Metropolitan Police if there was any evidence that had been the subject of investigative activities by the News of the World and Mr Mulcaire. The letter was sent personally to Mr Yates. It was not until February 2010 that a reply was sent by the Met Legal Department which stated that there was no documentation to suggest “your client was subject to unlawful monitoring or interception.” He and his solicitor thought this was an odd form of words as he had asked if he was mentioned not whether the activity was illegal. It was revealed that his name and occupation as Police Commander had appeared in the records. (There had been a blatant attempt by the Metropolitan Police to mislead Mr Paddick).
In view of the police failure with others he had joined in a request for a Judicial review. The response of the Metropolitan Police to this action was also misleading in that it was again claimed there was no evidence that with he or Chris Bryant had been targets relying on the statements made by Yates.
In their formal defence of the action the Metropolitan Police claimed that the presence of a name and mobile phone number in the documents was not sufficient to indicate voicemail interception had taken place that the phone companies had agreed to warn those that had been listed. The Metropolitan Police claimed that they had provided the full extent of the information in their possession which Mr Paddick said was now known to have been with untrue(that is deliberately lie) or completely misleading.
It was not until 26 January 2011 that officers from Operation Weeting showed him the documents that also contained his mobile telephone number, home address and the home telephone number and details of his former partner. His name and details had been entered on the Mulcaire computer as a project.
Mr Paddick then covered the history of the police action arising from documents obtained as part of the Judicial review Documents Disclosure. A Case Review document dated April 2006 made by Detective Superintended Philip Williams sates that it was highly unlikely the illegal activity was limited to Goodman and was probably widespread among those who would be interested in such access- a much wider security issue with the UK and potentially world wide. The document said such an investigation would be resource intensive and possibly outside the remit of counter terrorism department.
In May 2006 it was discovered that another individual had been working with Mr Goodman and the discovery was listed in the Witness Statement of a Police case officer. In view of the information the Senior Investigating officer said it was matter for another Department and Mr Paddick argued that he does not still understand why the was not then passed to the Specialist Crime Directorate.
In July 2006 the Investigation was ready to make an arrest and this had become more urgent because it was established that the voicemail of Cabinet Minister Tessa Jowell had been hacked. Mulcaire and Goodman were arrested on 8th August 2006 and the 11000 pages of documentation obtained.
Mr Paddick then explained that acting on the advice of CPS the police had obtained only a limited warrant for the News of the World but even in this respect they were met with opposition from two in house lawyers and Julian Pike Solicitor and Managing editor Stuart Kutner and the search was then limited to Goodman’s desk and the account’s department. Goodman’s computer and safe were never handed over to the investigation.
In September the MPS wrote to News International requesting information the computer and the safe, submitting a draft Production Order in the event of failure to cooperate on a voluntary basis. News International responded with only a limited amount of additional information and Mr Paddick states the obvious question of in these circumstances did the MPS not seek the Production order which they had threatened. Who took the decision and why?
Earlier on August 10th the decision Log at the Met, a Log used to record important decisions and developments recorded that the investigation of the Mulcaire documents revealed that hundred of individuals including Royals, Members of Parliament, sports stars, military, police, celebrities and journalists. Within six days of the arrests 418 people had been identified in a list. This contradicts statements made by the Metropolitan Police including to the Judicial review that the documents seized by the police were not analysed. (It would be later explained at the Inquiry that they had not be analysed in terms of gaining evidence for other prosecutions).
Sue Akers has confirmed that there are 800 confirmed victims so far. The log also records the decision to that all the victims should be warned that they had been targeted by Mulcaire. The action to be taken was to be in two parts first (Royal Household, Military, Police and Politicians for because of the security concerns. The others would be told individually as with the first list or by the phone companies. Only a fraction were told with the rest mislead by police statements. The Metropolitan Police have admitted that the failure to do this was a breach of its legal obligations to the victims and apologised.
Mulcaire had created a list of 320 projects and this includes Mr Paddick. New International repeatedly lied that only one Journalist was involved and the Police had information which contradicted such statements and did nothing to counter the repeated lying. (This was disgraceful).
We then come to what many will regard as the most important disclosure made to Inquiry this it was set up.
On 15th September 2006 Tom Crone the now infamous Legal Affairs Manager send an email to the now infamous Andy Coulson that recorded a conversation between the now infamous Rebekah Wade and the now infamous Metropolitan police..
The Metropolitan police provided the infamous Wade with details of the information in their possession, the progress of the investigation and the strategy for the future. She was told that the Inquiry was not being widened to include other News of the World People but would do so if they received further evidence. The Metropolitan Police were attempting to obtain information voluntary and not through the issuing of warrants.
Mr Paddick makes the point that Wade was then Editor of the Sun at that time although she had been Editor of the News of World. (She was not the Chairman of News International or its Chief Executive. She was not the General Manager of the News of the World or its then Editor(Andy Coulson) nor was she the lawyers for the News of the World, News International or News Corporation so what the hell were the Metropolitan Police doing, who was responsible and why?) Mr Paddick asked these questions in the way former policemen will do!
In October 2006 the then Managing editor of the Mail was sent an email by the Metropolitan Police on Sunday that the names of a number of his journalists had been found in the Mulcaire notebooks! Victims were still not being notified.
Under the Freedom of Information Act Mr Paddick has seen the list of meetings between Senior Police Officers and News International Executives throughout 2006 when the investigation was taking place. Those involved the Deputy Commissioner, Andy Hayman and Dick Fedorcio and Neil Wallis the then deputy Editor of the News of the World.
The briefing note prepared by Yates after the 2009 Guardian article states that the victims had been notified when it was discovered this was not done the Metropolitan Police now blames the telephone companies.
It is evident that having identified the list of probably victims within six days the officer of the Metropolitan Police would have also identified a similar list of journalists. Those involved were never interviewed.
One of the investigating officers also identified a number of people in the Mulcaire Project list who were in the Witness Protection programmes as defendants and witnesses. Mulcaire and possibility the News of World knew of people who had been given new identities for their protection. No action appears to have been taken and nothing made public until now. The whole thing was covered up. One of those convicted of the murder of James Bulger was told in the summer of 2011 that his voice mail had been intercepted.
Mr Paddick then submitted his concluding observations and his recommendations.
I was interested to see how the Metropolitan Police would attempt to talk its way out of the case made by of its former most senior police officers with 30 years experience at all levels. Before then we heard from Lord Prescott and the former Crime Watch presenter.
No comments:
Post a Comment