10 questions this officer must answer
EX-YARD Deputy Assistant Commissioner Steve Rodhouse was in charge of the disastrous sex abuse probe sparked by fantasist Carl Beech, also known as ‘Nick’. Today he has a top job at the National
Crime Agency after he was cleared in four months by police watchdogs without even being interviewed. Here are the questions ex-judge Sir Richard Henriques says he Should have been asked...
1 Why did you not read either Carl Beech’s police interviews or his blogs, and how was it possible to accurately assess his credibility without considering them?
2 Why did you agree with Det Supt Kenny McDonald in saying that ‘If asked we will say that we do believe Nick (Beech)’ when neither of you had met Beech or read his interviews and blogs?
3 Why on that same day did you write in a log that a full investigation was required to establish Beech’s credibility?
4 Having concluded that it was inappropriate for Mr McDonald to have used the words ‘credible and true’ to publicly describe Beech’s allegations, what steps did you take either immediately or thereafter to correct his error?
5 Did you consult or communicate with your immediate superior at the time, Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick, concerning Mr McDonald’s error and possible means of correcting it?
6 Why did the error remain uncorrected and in the public domain from December 1 , 2014, until corrected on September 21, 2015?
7 Was it appropriate for you to authorise the applications for search warrants for the homes of Lord Bramall, Harvey Proctor and the late Lord Brittan having not read any police interview with Beech or his blogs?
8 Why did you not review the applications before they were presented to court?
9 The district judge relied on the fact that the applications had been considered at deputy assistant commissioner level. Having read no interview, no blog and no application, was your oversight sufficient and responsible?
10 Why, when Operation Midland ended, did you state ‘we have found no evidence of Nick (Beech) wilfully misleading the investigation team or perverting the course of justice’? This is singularly inaccurate as Beech’s subsequent convictions demonstrate.