Morning:
13°c
A catalogue of blunders involving police and Whitehall officials over the arrest of Tory MP Damian Green was revealed today.
Two reports into the Scotland Yard inquiry outlined a series of errors over the investigation into the MP and leaks from the Home Office.
The studies showed that:
* The Cabinet Office falsely claimed leaks endangered national security.
* Police should have spoken to Damian Green by appointment rather than arresting him.
* Senior police officers should have halted the inquiry when it became clear issues of national security were not involved.
Mr Green, the Tory spokesman on immigration, was arrested last November by police investigating 31 Home Office leaks. Officers from Scotland Yard's specialist operations wing searched his Commons office and his home and constituency address.
A week before his arrest Home Office researcher Chris Galley was also held and questioned about the leaks.
Today a study by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary concluded police should only investigate the most serious government leaks.
HMIC Inspector Denis O'Connor said police needed a protocol to allow them to break off from politically sensitive inquiries if it became clear they were no longer in the public interest.
He criticised the Cabinet Office letter to Scotland Yard which said there had been “considerable damage to national security” and said senior officers should have been challenged the claim.
In the second report former British Transport Chief Constable Ian Johnston concludes the manner of Mr Green's arrest was “not proportionate” as he could have been brought it for questioning by appointment.
He described four leaks for which Mr Galley was responsible as no more than “embarrassing” for the Government.
Mr Johnston said the arrest of both men was lawful and the searches were justified. Mr Green was interviewed for 32 minutes and made no comment.
Reader views (14)
This guy alos said that the arrest was legal. From what I recall of my law studies at University, it cannot be a discretion excerised disproportionated is an illegal exercise of that discretion, hence unlawful arrest. I hope Green sues over this.
Echoing a post of mine elsewhere, why has no one at the cabinet office been charged with wasting police time? Oh of coure,they're employed by the state so the law of the land doesn't apply to them.
- Comrade Mugabe, London
Senior officers in the met police think they are an arm of the Labour Party so they feel justified in putting the boot into the Conseratives when they can. They should pull back and try to be neutural.
- Mike, Maidenhead
Lets not get too heavy on criticising the MET in general following the publication of the inquiries by HMICs Denis O'Connor and CC Ian Johnston. I know that the vast majority of rank and file police officers, and a similarly large number of very senior officers, were absolutely aghast at the actions of fat Bob Quick and his bunch of Stasi like henchmen. But, under the Soviet style leadership of that political waster, Ian Blair, no one was allowed to speak out publicly against Quicks flawed operation, even though it was being condemned in private by police officers of all ranks. Yes, certain decisions made by specific officers were both legally and operationally indefensible, but the MET in it's entirety should not be publicly flogged as a result. Fat Bob's gone, Blair has gone and number of Blair/Smith acolyte appointees have also quietly resigned or been moved from sensitive departments. The MET is, and must always remain, beyond the reach of politically motivated senior officers and politicians when it comes to day to day operational policing decisions.
- Paddy, Croydon Uk
The Met. clearly have not covered themselves in glory in this affair, but what about the senior Civil Servants who actively misled the police: are they going to be charged with wasting police time, or attempting to pervert the course of justice by framing innocent people? Or is the real truth that politicians made the decisions and are again evading responsibility? I understand that much of the report was censored - why precisely? We should know the truth. This affair smells even more now than before.
- James Elliott, Eastborne UK
David, London. Are you nuts - Damian Green MP was doing exactly what we pay and expect oppositions in a democracy to do. John, Aberdeen - there were no laws broken and therefore no evidence to find. An opposition MP is supported by the law if he is disclosing Government information that does not damage the country. This info was government poor performance not National defence.
- Bill, London
Commonsense has gone walkabout. There is a small word, "necessary," in the Police and Criminial Evidence Act that needs to be applied as the test before any arrest is made. Because the police preceive it as adminstratively easier to arrest everyone, we now have
very young children arrested as a matter of course often
for minor offences, instead of being taken home and interviewed in front of thier parents. We also have the spectre of senior police officers, who love the limelight and like nothing more than the cameras to be with them when they carry out a "dawn" raid or when they
do a US style pontification about their latest conviction
on the steps of the court. Arrest has it place; but bfore anyones liberty is taken away from them the question should be asked can the same result be achieved with a more commonsense approach. You don`t always need to bang people up, for little or no reason. The trouble is like everything in this country we now over react to everything in our daily lives.
- B Gare, Norfolk Gorleston
@John, Aberdeen Read the article it was only politically embarrassing information that was involved, and it was his duty as an elected member of the opposition to show that the government was at best misleading the House of Commons.
@David, London He was not even appearing on television waving the details around (as one G. Brown did in the early 1990's).
Do you both think that there is one rule for the current government and another for the rest of us (including previous and future governments)?
This was one of those cases that shows the arrogance of ZaNu-Liebore to the fullest extent and makes a mockery of the pronouncements by the ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) that they are apolitical.
- Jim, London
The Met's bad judgement? You bet!
Shouldn't have got into bed with the NuLab scum in the first place, should they?
- Chuck Unsworth, London
What about the Cabinet Office that made the false claims. Blatant LIARS shouln't they be named and shamed and sacked or is the PM himself involved?
- Tojo, Hythe, Kent
It certainly was not proportionate however Mr Green was hardly behaving himself!
- David, London
Make an appointment? So he could destroy the evidence? Is it any wonder it is so dangerous to ride on a train these days when the transport police must clearly send out letters to people telling the drunks when they will be on the trains and when they won't if we follow this ludicrous logic through. If this had been you or I they would have come to your work and dragged you out, I've seen it done with a work colleague and just what is so different about MPs except they surely have no excuse for not knowing the laws as they enact them. In another time he would have been hung for treason and if we had these times now would this not be a far better country to live in? One in which MPs actually obeyed the laws of the land, ALL of the laws of the land, not just those they happen to agree with.
- John, Aberdeen, UK
It's all relative: I'd say it was perfectly acceptable behaviour for a Banana Republic.
- Roz, France
It's not fair.
The east german Stasi never had to answer for behaving like this, why should the Nu Labour Metroploitan Police?
- Stephen, London
And the Charades go on?
God bless Monty Python and the British Political System.
As Frank Carson would say; it's the way I tell-em.
- Mickinlondon, london
