Lamentable. Inadequate. Inexcusable.
In July this judge made the bombshell claim that detectives broke the law while probing false claims of VIP sex abuse. Today, he blasts the police watchdog who ruled not ONE officer should be punished over the scandal
THE tardy publication of the Independent Office for Police Conduct report exonerating all five officers involved in the application for search warrants at the homes of Lord Bramall, Lady Brittan and Harvey Proctor should give rise to the most serious public disquiet.
Whilst all five, absent any proper investigation, must be presumed innocent, the responsibility of the IOPC was to carry out a high quality investigation in a timely manner. The delay in reaching their findings of almost three years is gross and inexcusable and goes some way to inhibiting any further investigation.
The investigative process itself was minimal, unprofessional and the decision-making was flawed. The complaint was referred by the then Met commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, at my request, to the police watchdog, then named the IPCC, in November 2016. I had concluded the search warrants had been obtained unlawfully and I called for a vigorous investigation into the decision to apply for them.
No such vigorous investigation has taken place. Neither Deputy Assistant Commissioner Steve Rodhouse nor Detective Superintendent Kenny McDonald have been asked a single question in interview as ‘subjects’ (potential suspects) – written answers having been accepted without questioning.
Both were exonerated within four months and were later interviewed as potential witnesses against the more junior officers.
A decision was taken to investigate all five officers for misconduct as opposed to gross misconduct or criminal conduct, notwithstanding the fact that false documentation had been placed before a district judge on oath, in order to obtain the warrants. Their source, Carl Beech, was described as having remained consistent ‘and he is felt to be a credible witness who is telling the truth’.
But he had not remained consistent and officers failed to disclose seven factors that undermined his credibility.
The investigation of the three more junior officers proceeded so slowly that all of them had retired by the time any decision was reached. Had disciplinary measures been ordered they could no longer have been imposed. Both Detective Inspector Alison Hepworth and Detective Sergeant Eric Sword submitted written answers to questions which were accepted with no cross examination.
The only officer to be questioned face to face was Detective Chief Inspector Diane Tudway who by reason of the passage of time ‘was unable to recollect what information was available at what time’. No attempt was made to establish what material was available to each officer. This could have been simply achieved by reference to available logs and other documentation. It follows that no effective interrogation of any officer was carried out.
HAVING agreed with Sir Bernard on October 31, 2016, that this matter should be investigated by the IPCC, I anticipated contact from a senior watchdog official in the early stages of its inquiry, to question me in detail about my concerns over the officers’ conduct.
I was not contacted until July 2018 – 20 months later – when the ‘lead investigator’ asked me to make a statement by telephone.
She informed me she had no legal training, was not fully aware of the process for obtaining warrants and initial attempts to create a statement failed. I agreed to write my own statement and submitted it electronically.
I was shocked to learn that the two most senior officers in Operation Midland – DAC Rodhouse and DSU McDonald – had been exonerated more than a year earlier and that ‘ mere misconduct’ was being investigated in preference to gross misconduct or criminal misconduct.
In the final paragraph of my report on Operation Midland I wrote: ‘At the conclusion of my interview with the officers on 16/17 August 2016, I formed the view that notwithstanding the many mistakes I have enumerated above (43), the officers had conducted the investigation in a conscientious manner and with propriety and honesty.’
It appears that the IOPC used these words to justify their findings exculpating all five officers.
In the preceding paragraphs I had called for a vigorous investigation to be conducted by those with appropriate investigative powers. Prior to any such investigation the officers were presumed to be innocent. Such presumption may or may not have survived a full and proper investigation.
No ‘subject’ is to be tried for misconduct or criminal conduct without proper investigation. My concluding observation should not have been used as a basis for failing to carry out a high quality and timely investigation. I did not have the authority to carry out any disciplinary investigation myself. Written responses from four of the officers should have been tested by cross examination. All five officers should have been interviewed and cross examined. Junior officers should have been interviewed before the senior officers were exonerated.
There is no justification for the officer in charge of Operation Midland, DAC Rodhouse, to have been exonerated after four months, more than two years before the junior officers were cleared.
Other Midland officers should have been interviewed. Emails between officers should have been examined. DAC Rodhouse’s immediate superiors, then Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick and her successor Patricia Gallan, should have been interviewed about their roles in the investigation, the briefings they received and their responses. DAC Rodhouse and DCI Tudway in particular had numerous difficult questions to answer. In the context of these facts it is crucial to observe the presumption of innocence.
It is possible that senior officers delegated the drafting, reviewing and presentation of the search warrant applications to fully informed junior officers who were responsible for the errors.
It is also possible the senior officers knew full well that no judge would grant the applications if they were accurately drafted setting out the undermining factors – and that junior officers with incomplete knowledge of the operation were deployed to make the applications.
C LOSE examination of logs, minutes from office meetings, policy files, weekly briefings, ‘ Gold Group’ minutes, and emails would have resolved such issues and still could. I readily conclude that one or more of the five officers may not have committed misconduct in the application for warrants.
However I find it difficult to conceive that no misconduct or criminality was involved by at least one officer. Beech was not consistent. There were numerous undermining facts omitted from the applications. A rigorous and timely investigation – headed by a serving or retired chief constable from an outside force – would have detected the misconduct or criminality.
This has been my first contact with either the IPCC or the IOPC.
Whilst I have been treated with the utmost courtesy, I have been alarmed by the lack of knowledge of relevant criminal procedure. The ‘lead investigator’ readily conceded her lack of relevant education, training and experience. She should not have been tasked with this highly-sensitive case.
She must not be made a scapegoat for failings in the IOPC under its director-general Michael Lockwood, an accountant with many years in local government.
It is a matter of profound regret that one of the most unsatisfactory and error-ridden criminal operations in history should be followed by such a lamentably slow and inadequate process.
Maintenance of law and order depends upon the effective oversight of those invested with power. Who guards the guards themselves? A malfunctioning police force has not received the necessary oversight. Those acting for people shamefully and adversely affected by this chain of events need no assistance from me. The Home Secretary will wish to address these shocking failures.