Report’s verdict on four key questions? No case to answer!
THE IOPC report exonerating five police officers involved in the VIP child sex abuse probe has been branded a whitewash. A previous inquiry by former judge Sir Richard Henriques suggested detectives broke the law. But the watchdog found no case to answer after examining four key points:
ALLEGATION 1: Detectives failed to diligently investigate claims by ‘Nick’ – real name Carl Beech – that he had been raped and tortured by distinguished Establishment figures, including Field Marshal Lord Bramall.
WHAT SIR RICHARD FOUND: No attempt was made to question Beech on numerous inconsistencies between claims initially made to Wiltshire Police and the increasingly fantastical allegations made in his blogs and Met Police interviews. Officers did not even examine his computer – because it might have spooked him.
IOPC CONCLUSION: The officers ‘went to great lengths’ to investigate Beech. Indeed, it said ‘decisions were brave and taken in good faith’. Inconsistencies in accounts could reflect not just untruthfulness but ‘the passage of time, human frailty, trauma, confusion and other similar factors’.
VERDICT: No misconduct.
ALLEGATION 2: Then Deputy Assistant Commissioner Steve Rodhouse and Detective Superintendent Kenny McDonald made misleading statements at a now notorious press conference when they described Beech’s declarations as ‘credible and true’.
WHAT SIR RICHARD FOUND: It was a ‘serious failure’ for two senior officers who had never met Beech and, in one
case, never read his testimony, to announce to the Press and public that they believed the witness. That was ‘ inappropriate, prejudicial... and misleading’.
IOPC CONCLUSION: The provision of information to the media was ‘a judgment call made with good faith’. It was influenced by the Met’s culture and police guidance of ‘believing victims’.
VERDICT: No misconduct.
ALLEGATION 3: Officers failed to present all relevant information, especially about Beech, to a senior judge when applying for search warrants for properties owned by Lord Bramall, Lord Brittan and Harvey Proctor.
WHAT SIR RICHARD FOUND: False documentation had been placed before the judge on oath – meaning the warrants were obtained illegally. Despite officers telling the court Beech was ‘consistent and credible’, they knew his story was riddled with at least seven flaws.
IOPC CONCLUSION: The decision to apply for search warrants was ‘not taken lightly’. There was no evidence to ‘suggest that the officers’ doubted ‘Nick’s credibility at this point’. Similarly, there was ‘no evidence’ officers believed there were inconsistencies in Beech’s story.
VERDICT: No misconduct.
ALLEGATION 4: In 2014, Mr Rodhouse reopened an investigation into outlandish claims that Lord Brittan, by now terminally ill, had raped a woman in the 1960s. The officer had ‘no new grounds to do so’.
WHAT SIR RICHARD SAID: Mr Rodhouse deliberately kept Lord Brittan as a suspect on one probe to prop up the other. He questioned why the officer prolonged the investigation even after Lord Brittan’s death.
IOPC CONCLUSION: It acknowledged the ‘very damaging impact’ of the decision on Lord Brittan and his family. The inquiry was ‘launched in good faith, against a credible account... and was undertaken with integrity’. But ‘mistakes were made and some of the judgments in hindsight can possibly be challenged today’.
VERDICT: No misconduct.