Trying to bring Rebekah Brooks to book in 2003
Robert Henderson | 27.06.2014 11:42 | Policing | London
In 2003 Rebekah Wade (now Brooks) admitted before the CMS select committee that she had paid police officers for information. I referred the matter both to the Met Police and the PCC but both refused to investigate despite having cast iron evidence of the offence
Below is the correspondence I had with the Metropolitan Police and the PCC in 2003 concerning the then Rebekah Wade's admission of paying police officers for information. Neither the police nor the PCC would act despite the fact that her admission was made before the CMS select committee and was consequently recorded.
Members of the committee failed to reform the matter to the police and, as you will see from the correspondence, no politician would act over the refusal of the police and the PCC to take up the matter.
The sad truth is that we have a corrupt elite which unashamedly protects its own no matter how strong the evidence of criminality and immoral behaviour is, and Rebekah Wade's admission in public is just about as strong as you can get.
Robert Henderson
http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/the-refusal-of-the-police-to-investigate-rebekah-wade/
The refusal of the police to investigate Rebekah Wade
Robert Henderson
On 11 March 2003, the then editor of the Sun newspaper, Rebekah Wade (now Rebekah Brookes), admitted before the Culture, Media and Sport Commons Select Committee that while she has been an editor with News International she had paid police officers for information. I was there and heard the admission. As a consequence I made an official complaint to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Sir John Stevens. My two letters to him are below. The police refused to investigate, despite the fact that Wade’s admission was unambiguous and formed part of the public record of Parliament.
The ongoing saga of the News of the World’s phone hacking habits which are the subject of both a criminal investigation and civil legal action has brought the general question of illegally gained information by the press into play. That in turn has resulted in Wade’s 2003 admission coming under further police scrutiny. Whether it will result in a prosecution remains to be seen, but the fact that they are taking any notice of the matter now shows clearly the laissez-faire attitude of the police when it comes to starting an investigation. They refused to countenance my complaint which was made very soon after her admission, yet now eight years after the event, they are looking at the matter. The evidence is at best no stronger now than it was when I made my complaint and at worse far weaker because of the time which has passed which gives opportunities for people to die, records to be destroyed and memories to fail or be claimed to have failed. There is no legitimate reason for the police having refused my 2003 complaint while accepting that there is a case to answer now. The most plausible illegitimate reason is that they did not want to investigate a powerful media figure and are only doing so now because while they could ignore me because I had no access to the mainstream media they cannot ignore the matter at present because it is now in the public fold.
Why would the police not wish to investigate someone like Wade? Could it be that many police sell information to the media? Here is Matt Born writing an article just after the Wade admission: ‘The relationship between the media and the police has long been a close and mutually profitable one. Payments by journalists to police officers have a long history. One long-retired crime correspondent recalls having a list of officers to whom he would regularly send a £5 note “wrapped in a plain WH Smith envelope”. I’d never use office stationary and I’d use a different typewriter each week so it couldn’t be traced,” he said.’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1424573/Paying-the-police-newspapers-have-a-lot-of-form.html
Born goes on ‘In 1999, an anti-corruption investigation by the Metropolitan Police exposed a private detective agency run by a former officer that was acting as an intermediary between the police and reporters. Jonathan Rees, the owner of Southern Investigations, was recorded claiming he was owed £12,000 by one tabloid. “Rees and (others) have for a number of years been involved in the long-term penetration of police intelligence sources,” the investigation reported. “They have ensured that they have live sources within the Metropolitan Police service and have sought to recruit sources within other forces. This thirst for knowledge is driven by profit to be accrued from the media.”‘
How are things now? Born cites an unnamed source as saying “A few years ago, the papers would deal directly with the cops,” he said. “But more and more now they use paid intermediaries - usually retired or ex-officers who have plenty of contacts who keep them abreast of what’s going on.’
If this is true, then there is a deep and ongoing breaking of the law by large numbers of police through the provision of information to the media and the media paying for it and the further possible criminal behaviour of the police refusing to investigate honestly or at all members of the media because of their collusion in criminal practices involving the media. That would constitute a perversion of the course of justice.
——————————————
My letters to Sir John Stevens
16-March 2003
To:
Sir John Stevens
Commissioner
Metropolitan Police
New Scotland Yard
10 The Broadway
London SW1
cc Rt Hon Gerald Kaufman MP
Frank Doran MP
John Thurso MP
Rosemary McKenna MP
Alan Keen MP
Derek Wyatt MP
Debra Shipley MP
Chris Bryant MP
Julie Kirkbride MP
Michael Fabricant MP
Adrian Flook MP
Rebekah Wade
Presswise
Dear Sir John,
The payment of money to police for information
I ask you to investigate a prima facie case of the corruption of police officers. On 11 March 2003, the editor of the Sun newspaper, Rebekah Wade, admitted before the Culture, Media and Sport Commons Select Committee that while she has been an editor with News International she had paid police officers for information. The information was given in answer to a direct question from the Labour MP, Chris Bryant. I enclose a Daily Telegraph report dated 14 March 2003 which contains details of Miss Wade’s admission. I was also there in person when she made the admission.
By paying police officers for information, not only does the police officer commit a criminal offence under the Public Bodies Corruption Act 1889 (as amended by the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1916) in receiving the money or other material inducement, so does the person paying the bribe. Any one of normal intelligence will realise that bribing police officers is illegal.
In addition, all police officers sign the Official Secrets Act (OSA). They commit a criminal act by supplying information covered by the OSA. Any information relating to police work will be covered. Similarly, a person receiving information where they know the supplier is in breach of the OSA by supplying it, commits an offence by receiving the information. Both formal training courses for journalists and the various books designed to instruct journalists in the relevant areas of the law cover the OSA’s implications for journalists. Journalists will consequently know that police officers have signed the OSA and be aware of the implications for themselves of receiving information from police officers. Even if no money changes hands, the journalist still breaks the law if he knows he is receiving information from someone who has signed the OSA. I also enclose a letter from the Mirror editor Piers Morgan to the Press Complaints Commission dated 16 Oct 1997. This contains an admission of the Mirror receiving information illegitimately from the police. I made a complaint about this some time ago and it was “investigated” by Det Supt Jeff Curtis. I put the investigated in quotes because Mr Curtis conducted his investigation without interviewing either Piers Morgan or the author of the story, Jeff Edwards. In fact, he did not go near the Mirror. Doubtless the Met’s investigatory methods have changed in recent years and they now include questioning suspects. Consequently, I ask that you re-open the investigation of Mr Morgan and Mr Edwards and actually interview them.
In view of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee’s interest, I am sure that you will wish to begin a most thorough investigation immediately of these matters and to give them all priority.
Copies of this letter have been sent to every member of the select committee.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
——————————————
14 April 2003
Sir John Stevens
Commissioner
Metropolitan Police
New Scotland Yard
10 The Broadway
London SW1
cc Rt Hon Gerald Kaufman MP
Frank Doran MP
John Thurso MP
Rosemary McKenna MP
Alan Keen MP
Derek Wyatt MP
Debra Shipley MP
Chris Bryant MP
Julie Kirkbride MP
Michael Fabricant MP
Adrian Flook MP
Rebekah Wade
Presswise
Dear Sir John,
The payment of money to police for information
It is now 4 weeks (16 March) since I wrote to you with complaints against the Sun editor, Rebekah Wade, and the Mirror editor, Piers Morgan. My letter was sent by first class recorded delivery, as this one has been.
To date I have not had as much as an acknowledgement. I would remind you that you have a duty to investigate any complaint of criminal behaviour and that failure to do so is an unambiguous perversion of the course of justice. In your own interests you should begin an investigation ASAP.
This is not your first failure to act on a complaint of mine. I would remind you that your staff officer, Supt Simon Foy, is currently the subject of an investigation by the head of internal investigations in the Met’s Department of Professional Standards, DCS Tony Dawson, who will in due course submit a report to the PCA.That investigation arose simply because Mr Foy failed to act on a complaint concerning serious threats to me and incitements to violence against me made in the largest British political newsgroups. Fail to investigate this complaint and I will put in a formal complaint against you to the DPS.
You could not have an easier pair of investigations to begin. Rebekah Wade made her admission at a select committee public hearing and the hearing is consequently recorded, while Piers Morgan has admitted the offence in his letter to the PCC, a copy of which you have.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
——————————————
13-March 2003
Chris Bryant MP
House of Commons
London SW1
Dear Mr Bryant,
You raised the question of paying the police with Rebekah Wade and Alan Rusbridger (11 March) and in both cases there was a great deal of shuffling of mental and emotional feet.
There was a good reason for their concern. By paying police officers for information, not only does the police officer commit an offence under the Public Bodies Corruption Act 1889 (as amended by the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1916) in receiving the money or other material inducement, so does the person paying the bribe. Moreover, all police officers sign the Official Secrets Act. They breach that by supplying confidential information. Similarly, a person receiving information where they know the supplier is in breach of the Official Secrets Act commits an offence by receiving it. Both formal training courses for journalists and the various books designed to instruct journalists in the relevant areas of the law, cover the Act’s implications for journalists. Journalists will consequently know that police officers have signed the Act and the implications for themselves of receiving information from them.
The letter from Piers Morgan to the PCC which I enclose, contains an admission of the Mirror receiving information illegitimately from the police. If you want to take the matter further you will not get a better chance than a case built on an editor’s written admission.
The police are notoriously unwilling to investigate such cases. There is no good legal reason for this. Wherever a newspaper has information which is supposedly confidential to the police, the police have reasonable grounds for believing a crime has been committed and can, therefore, insist on interviewing the editor and those of his staff involved in the story.
As to gathering the evidence, even if the mediafolk refuse to say anything, there is a very good chance of finding records of the payments in the companies records. (I write as an ex-Revenue investigator. Petty cash and cash book records are favourite).
If you wish to take the matter further, arrange to meet me privately.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
———————————
27 August 2003
Chris Bryant MP
House of Commons
London SW1
Dear Mr Bryant,
I am writing to you privately because you were the CMS member who raised the question of press bribery of the police.
You will find enclosed copies of the correspondence which shows the police, including John Stevens and his staff, are deliberately refusing to investigate Rebekah Wade’s admission for no legitimate reason.
Do you really want to see a situation where the police simply ignore cast iron complaints?
Bribing the police is a particularly serious crime because any copper who takes the money becomes vulnerable to blackmail. The fact that officer has taken the money also means he is of a corrupt turn of mind and might well take money for anything.
Bribing a copper is an arrestable offence. In other words the police can simply arrest a suspect and bring them in for questioning. They have absolutely no obstacle to investigating Wade who has admitted her crime on videotape before a Commons Committee. Open and shut case.
Take this up and you can make a name for yourself.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/the-pccs-refusal-in-2003-to-investigate-rebekah-wade-for-paying-police-bribes/
The PCC’s refusal in 2003 to investigate Rebekah Wade for paying police bribes
16-March 2003
Prof Robert Pinker
Acting Chairman
Press Complaints Commission
1 Salisbury Square
London EC4Y 8AE
cc Rt Hon Gerald Kaufman MP, Frank Doran MP, John Thurso MP , Rosemary McKenna MP, Alan Keen MP, Derek Wyatt MP, Debra Shipley MP, Chris Bryant MP, Julie Kirkbride MP, Michael Fabricant MP, Adrian Flook MP, Presswise
Dear Professor Pinker,
The payment of money to police for information
On 11 March 2003, the editor of the Sun newspaper, Rebekah Wade, admitted before the Culture, Media and Sport Commons Select Committee that while she had been an editor with News International she had paid police officers for information. The information was given in answer to a direct question from the Labour MP, Chris Bryant. I enclose a Daily Telegraph report dated 14 March 2003 which contains details of Miss Wade’s admission. I was there in person when she made the admission.
By paying police officers for information, not only does the police officer commit a criminal offence under the Public Bodies Corruption Act 1889 (as amended by the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1916) in receiving the money or other material inducement, so does the person paying the bribe. Anyone of normal intelligence will realise that bribing police officers is illegal.
In addition, all police officers sign the Official Secrets Act (OSA). They commit a criminal act by supplying information covered by the OSA. Any information relating to police work will be covered. Similarly, a person receiving information where they know the supplier is in breach of the OSA by supplying it commits an offence by receiving the information. Both formal training courses for journalists and the various books designed to instruct journalists in the relevant areas of the law cover the OSA’s implications for journalists. Journalists will consequently know that police officers have signed the OSA and be aware of the implications for themselves of receiving information from police officers. Even if no money changes hands, the journalist still breaks the law if he knows he is receiving information from someone who has signed the OSA.
The PCC’s Code of Practice states in its preamble that “All members of the press have a duty to maintain the highest professional and ethical standards…” Clearly bribing police officers and receiving illicit information from them does not come under the heading of “the highest professional and ethical standards…” No public interest defence is contained within the Code for this general duty.
The PCC Code article 7.1 states Journalists should not generally obtain or seek to obtain information or pictures through misrepresentation or subterfuge.” Clearly the bribing of police officers comes under the heading of subterfuge. There is a public interest defence to the use of subterfuge, but clearly corrupting police officers and committing serious criminal offences can never come under that heading.
The PCC Code article 9 states “Payment or offers of payment for articles, pictures or information should not be made directly or through agents to witnesses or potential witnesses in current or criminal proceedings or to people engaged in crimeor their associates– which includes family, friends, neighbours and colleagues — except where the material concerned ought to be published in the public interest and the payment is necessary for this to be done.”
Clearly, any police officer is likely to be a potential witness if he or she has access to readily saleable confidential material, because otherwise they would not have easy access to it. That applies particularly to documents or computer files. Hence, the public interest is unlikely to be served by accepting any information from a police officer because the chances are that it will compromise a criminal investigation.
I ask you to investigate Miss Wade’s admission of criminal behaviour under the various heads described above, namely, the general ethical imperative and articles 7 and 9.
I also enclose a letter from the Mirror editor Piers Morgan to the PCC dated 16 Oct 1997. This contains an admission of the Mirror receiving information illegitimately from the police. The PCC has previously refused to investigate this admission. I ask you to do so now. Doubtless, you will be happy to supply me with an explanation for the original refusal which I can pass onto the select committee.
In view of the Culture, Media Select Committee’s interest, I am sure that you will wish to begin a most thorough investigation immediately and to give the matter all priority.
Copies of this letter have been sent to every member of the select committee.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
—————————————————————————-
Press Complaints Commission
From the Deputy Director
31 March 2003
Robert Henderson Esq
Dear Mr Henderson,
Thank you for your letter of 16th March.
Much of it seems to be concerned with allegations which, if true, would be criminal matters. The PCC is not charged with investigating alleged breaches of the law. That is a matter for the police.
Regarding your other point about the Daily Mirror, you do not seem to provide any grounds for the PCC to re-open its file on this matter, which is now of course several years old and which has in any case already been put to the Commission for a decision on whether or not to investigate it.
Yours sincerely
Tim Toulmin
1 Salisbury Square London EC4Y 8JB Telephone 020 7353 1248 Facsimile 020 7353 8355
—————————————————————————-
2 April 2003
Prof Robert Pinker
Acting Chairman
Press Complaints Commission
1 Salisbury Square
London EC4Y 8AE
cc Rt Hon Gerald Kaufman MP, Frank Doran MP, John Thurso MP, Rosemary McKenna MP, Alan Keen MP, Derek Wyatt MP, Debra Shipley MP, Chris Bryant MP, Julie Kirkbride MP, Michael Fabricant MP, Adrian Flook MP, Presswise, Sir Harry Roche (Pressbof)
Dear Professor Pinker,
The payment of money to police for information
Nick Toulmin has replied on your behalf to my letter of 16 March. I am afraid Mr Toulmin’s reasons for failing to act in the cases of Rebekah Wade and Piers Morgan literally make no sense.
Mr Toulmin rejects the idea of investigating allegations which would criminal offences if true on the ground that they are ” a matter for the police”. This repeats the position taken by the PCC before the Media, Culture and Sport select committee (CMS) on 25 March, evidence which I witnessed.
During that evidence, Mr Black claimed that the PCC could not act where the complaint involved criminal issues. This is untrue. My complaints to the PCC in both 1995 and 1997 involved illegal behaviour, including criminal libel, incitement to violence against me, incitement to racial hatred against me and assault. At no point did the PCC say they could not act on my complaints because of the criminal actions.
More fundamentally the PCC Code of Practice itself makes it clear that matters which are potentially criminal acts can be adjudicated by the PCC. Clauses 1, 7, raise the possibility of criminal libel. Clauses 4, 8, 10 and 12 concern behaviour which could be the subject of a complaint under the Harassment Act, a complaint of criminal trespass or action for a breach of the peace. Clause 5 forbids the interception of private telephone calls, ie phone tapping, which is illegal under any circumstances when committed by a private individual. Clause 13 complaints could concern breaches of the sub judice rules or be a contempt of court. Clause 15 could concern breaches of the various Race Relations legislation. Clause 16 could involve a series of offences ranging from fraud to obtaining money by false pretences.
All this being so, I ask the PCC to proceed with an investigation of Rebekah Wade’s admission of paying policemen for information.
As for Piers Morgan, the fact that my original complaint was not acted upon by the PCC says everything about the PCC and nothing about the strength of the complaint. You have a letter from Morgan (addressed to the PCC) in which he admits receiving information illegitimately from the police. I ask you to both investigate the complaint now and explain why it was not investigated originally.
Civil redress
Mr Black also claimed during his evidence to the CMS that the PCC would not act where civil action was a possibility to gain redress for the complainant. Again, in both my complaints in 1995 and 1997 and in my further complaint in 2000 against the Observer journalist Nick Cohen of obtaining valuable information by subterfuge, there were clear legal options had I had the money to take them.
In both 1995 and 1997 there were gross libels of me. For example, the 13 March 1997 Mirror story (see folio 15) completely fabricated this quote which they attributed to me: “If he [Blair] gets elected he’ll let in all the blacks and Asians”, – see folio 15 – and falsely claimed that my letters to the Blairs were “…full of racist filth” In addition, I had the option of actions for malicious falsehood and the obtaining of valuable documents by false pretences. It was never suggested that my complaints would be disallowed because of I had these theoretical options.
As with criminal matters, the PCC Code undermines the claim that cases cannot be accepted. Clauses 1,3 and 7 will probably involve defamation – clause 2 also has a bearing if no opportunity for reply is given. Clauses 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 could all be the subject of tort actions and/or applications for injunctions.
Please explain to me why Mr Black was allowed to make his obviously false claims to the CMS without contradiction from the other PCC representatives.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
—————————————————————————-
28 April 2003
Prof Robert Pinker
Acting Chairman
Press Complaints Commission
1 Salisbury Square
London EC4Y 8AE
cc Rt Hon Gerald Kaufman MP, Frank Doran MP, John Thurso MP , Rosemary McKenna MP, Alan Keen MP, Derek Wyatt MP, Debra Shipley MP, Chris Bryant MP, Julie Kirkbride MP, Michael Fabricant MP, Adrian Flook MP, Presswise, Sir Harry Roche (Pressbof)
Dear Professor Pinker,
I am still waiting for a reply to your letter of 2nd April. Please reply by return
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
—————————————————————————-
12 May 2003
Sir Christopher Meyer
Chairman
Press Complaints Commission
1 Salisbury Square
London EC4Y 8AE
cc Rt Hon Gerald Kaufman MP, Frank Doran MP, John Thurso MP , Rosemary McKenna MP, Alan Keen MP, Derek Wyatt MP, Debra Shipley MP, Chris Bryant MP, Julie Kirkbride MP, Michael Fabricant MP, Adrian Flook MP, Presswise, Sir Harry Roche (Pressbof)
Dear Sir Christopher,
You will find two letters enclosed which are addressed to Prof Pinker and dated 2nd and 28 April. They have gone unanswered.
The letters concern (1) evidence given by Guy Black before the Culture Media and Sport Commons select committee and (2) the question of information obtained by the press by illegitimate means from the police with particular reference to admissions of such behaviour by Rebekah Wade and Piers Morgan.
This stupidly arrogant failure to address matters which are both serious and of general public interest is all of a part with the general PCC behaviour when confronted with difficult issues. It is one of the prime reasons why the PCC is held in contempt by most people who have ever used it – I write as a three time user.
As the incoming chairman you have the very great luxury of a fresh start. I urge you to use that luxury to signal a new ethos for the PCC by acting upon my letters by answering the points I raise about Mr Black’s evidence before the committee and by instigating investigations of Wade and Morgan.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
—————————————————————————-
From the Deputy Director
12 May 2003
Robert Henderson Esq
Dear Mr Henderson,
Thank you for your letter of 28th April to the former Acting Chairman.
Professor Pinker left the post on 30th March.
The position regarding yqur complaint against the Daily Mirror remains the same as far as I can tell. You have provided no reasons why the Commission should look again at a matter that is several years old and that the Commission has already decided not to pursue.
It also remains the case that the matter of payments to police officers is something for the police themselves to investigate. It is not something that is covered by the Code at the moment. There may be areas of the Code where there is a theoretical overlap with the law – although in general the Code imposes standards on editors over and above legal requirements – but the Commission will not of course, for very obvious reasons, investigate a matter that is the subject of a legal inquiry.
Neither will it investigate complaints where it is more appropriate, in the Commission’s opinion, for the complainant to pursue an alternative legal remedy. This certainly does not mean that it turns down every case where there is a theoretical alternative remedy, and in fact does so in relatively few. Those cases, such as your own, where it does conclude that it is not appropriate to proceed are considered individually by the Commission and on their merits.
l do hope this is helpful.
Yours sincerely
Tim Toulmin
1 Salisbury Square London EC4Y 8JB Telephone 020 7353 1248 Facsimile 020 7353 8355
—————————————————————————-
16 May 2003
Sir Christopher Meyer
Chairman
Press Complaints Commission
1 Salisbury Square
London EC4Y 8AE
cc Rt Hon Gerald Kaufman MP, Frank Doran MP, John Thurso MP , Rosemary McKenna MP, Alan Keen MP, Derek Wyatt MP, Debra Shipley MP, Chris Bryant MP, Julie Kirkbride MP, Michael Fabricant MP, Adrian Flook MP, Presswise, Sir Harry Roche (Pressbof)
Dear Sir Christopher,
I have just received a letter from your deputy director, Tim Toulmin, in reply to my letters of 2 and 28 April.
I suspect that my letter to you of the 12 May was the catalyst for Mr Toulmin’s letter. Useful as any response is from the PCC, as much for what is not said as for what is said, I would ask you to reply personally to this letter and my letter to you of 12 May and to send a copy of your reply to the CMS committee.
Mr Toulmin states in his letter that cases refused because a legal alternative exists will be relatively few”. This is a considerable movement from the statement of your director uy Black before the CMS committee that it was the norm to refuse such cases.
As I pointed out in my letters to Prof Pinker, Mr Black must have known this was untrue when he made his statement to the CMS committee. You may wish to consider whether a man who deliberately attempts to mislead a Parliamentary committee is the type of character you wish to have as your chief administrator.
The position for all complaints to the PCC should be this. Any complaint should be considered provided (1) no criminal investigation is being undertaken or(2) no writ for a civil action has been issued. That is an objective test. Anything else is merely a subjective decision made at the whim of the PCC administrators.
As for Mr Toulmin’s response to my complaints against Rebekah Wade and Piers Morgan, Mr Toulmin’s claim that the PCC Code does not cover it is manifestly absurd. The Code preamble begins “All members of the press have a duty to maintain the highest professional and ethical standards…” Bribing the police clearly breaches that, while clause 7.iii) states “Subterfuge can be justified only in the public interest and only when material cannot be obtained by any other means.”
Clearly bribing the police can never be in the public interest. Finally, clause 9 runs “Payment for articles offers of payment for articles, pictures or information should not be made directly or through agents to witnesses or potential witnesses in current or criminal proceedings…” Clearly many of the police passing on information are potential witnesses.
Finally, Mr Toulmin’s refusal to re-open my past complaints is based on the fact that I provide no new information is irrelevant. The point is that the complaints in 1995, 1997 and 1998 were simply not honestly investigated or adjudicated. They were simply refused for no good reason. I ask you to review these complaints personally. I also seek a personal interview with you to discuss the behaviourof PCC staff in dealing with my complaints which were all serious and well documented and described.
You are appearing before the CMS committee on the 21 May. I suggest you address the general question of refusing complaints for reasons of potential legal opportunity and the PCC’s failure to address complaints against Wade and Morgan for the clearest breaches of the Code by receiving information illicitly from the police.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
—————————————————————————-
19 June 2003
Sir Christopher Meyer
Chairman
Press Complaints Commission
1 Salisbury Square
London EC4Y 8AE
cc Rt Hon Gerald Kaufman MP, Frank Doran MP, John Thurso MP , Rosemary McKenna MP, Alan Keen MP, Derek Wyatt MP, Debra Shipley MP, Chris Bryant MP, Julie Kirkbride MP, Michael Fabricant MP, Adrian Flook MP, Presswise, Sir Harry Roche (Pressbof)
Dear Sir Christopher,
I am still awaiting a reply to my letter of 16 May. Were you merely a private individual you would of course have the right to refuse to reply. But I am not writing to you in your capacity as a private individual but as the head of a quasi-public body. In that position, you should reply to correspondence as a matter of course. Please do so by return.
With regard to Rebekah Wade and Piers Morgan obtaining information illicitly, I refer you to proposal 31 in the Culture Media and Sport select committee’s report on media intrusion:
31. We cannot see how the matter of illegal payments to policemen can fail to fall within the criteria set out by the PCC for taking the initiative, or how the issue is different to the example of illegal telephone-tapping highlighted by the Commission itself. We believe the PCC must investigate. This may be best accomplished in cooperation with the Information Commissioner and the Police Complaints Authority and, if necessary, rsult in an addition to the Code (such asoccurred on intercepting telephone calls). (Paragraph 95)
I expect your early reply assuring me that Wade and Morgan will be investigated.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
—————————————————————————-
I received no further response from the PCC – Robert Henderson 8 July 2011
Members of the committee failed to reform the matter to the police and, as you will see from the correspondence, no politician would act over the refusal of the police and the PCC to take up the matter.
The sad truth is that we have a corrupt elite which unashamedly protects its own no matter how strong the evidence of criminality and immoral behaviour is, and Rebekah Wade's admission in public is just about as strong as you can get.
Robert Henderson
http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/the-refusal-of-the-police-to-investigate-rebekah-wade/ The refusal of the police to investigate Rebekah Wade
Robert Henderson
On 11 March 2003, the then editor of the Sun newspaper, Rebekah Wade (now Rebekah Brookes), admitted before the Culture, Media and Sport Commons Select Committee that while she has been an editor with News International she had paid police officers for information. I was there and heard the admission. As a consequence I made an official complaint to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Sir John Stevens. My two letters to him are below. The police refused to investigate, despite the fact that Wade’s admission was unambiguous and formed part of the public record of Parliament.
The ongoing saga of the News of the World’s phone hacking habits which are the subject of both a criminal investigation and civil legal action has brought the general question of illegally gained information by the press into play. That in turn has resulted in Wade’s 2003 admission coming under further police scrutiny. Whether it will result in a prosecution remains to be seen, but the fact that they are taking any notice of the matter now shows clearly the laissez-faire attitude of the police when it comes to starting an investigation. They refused to countenance my complaint which was made very soon after her admission, yet now eight years after the event, they are looking at the matter. The evidence is at best no stronger now than it was when I made my complaint and at worse far weaker because of the time which has passed which gives opportunities for people to die, records to be destroyed and memories to fail or be claimed to have failed. There is no legitimate reason for the police having refused my 2003 complaint while accepting that there is a case to answer now. The most plausible illegitimate reason is that they did not want to investigate a powerful media figure and are only doing so now because while they could ignore me because I had no access to the mainstream media they cannot ignore the matter at present because it is now in the public fold.
Why would the police not wish to investigate someone like Wade? Could it be that many police sell information to the media? Here is Matt Born writing an article just after the Wade admission: ‘The relationship between the media and the police has long been a close and mutually profitable one. Payments by journalists to police officers have a long history. One long-retired crime correspondent recalls having a list of officers to whom he would regularly send a £5 note “wrapped in a plain WH Smith envelope”. I’d never use office stationary and I’d use a different typewriter each week so it couldn’t be traced,” he said.’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1424573/Paying-the-police-newspapers-have-a-lot-of-form.html Born goes on ‘In 1999, an anti-corruption investigation by the Metropolitan Police exposed a private detective agency run by a former officer that was acting as an intermediary between the police and reporters. Jonathan Rees, the owner of Southern Investigations, was recorded claiming he was owed £12,000 by one tabloid. “Rees and (others) have for a number of years been involved in the long-term penetration of police intelligence sources,” the investigation reported. “They have ensured that they have live sources within the Metropolitan Police service and have sought to recruit sources within other forces. This thirst for knowledge is driven by profit to be accrued from the media.”‘
How are things now? Born cites an unnamed source as saying “A few years ago, the papers would deal directly with the cops,” he said. “But more and more now they use paid intermediaries - usually retired or ex-officers who have plenty of contacts who keep them abreast of what’s going on.’
If this is true, then there is a deep and ongoing breaking of the law by large numbers of police through the provision of information to the media and the media paying for it and the further possible criminal behaviour of the police refusing to investigate honestly or at all members of the media because of their collusion in criminal practices involving the media. That would constitute a perversion of the course of justice.
——————————————
My letters to Sir John Stevens
16-March 2003
To:
Sir John Stevens
Commissioner
Metropolitan Police
New Scotland Yard
10 The Broadway
London SW1
cc Rt Hon Gerald Kaufman MP
Frank Doran MP
John Thurso MP
Rosemary McKenna MP
Alan Keen MP
Derek Wyatt MP
Debra Shipley MP
Chris Bryant MP
Julie Kirkbride MP
Michael Fabricant MP
Adrian Flook MP
Rebekah Wade
Presswise
Dear Sir John,
The payment of money to police for information
I ask you to investigate a prima facie case of the corruption of police officers. On 11 March 2003, the editor of the Sun newspaper, Rebekah Wade, admitted before the Culture, Media and Sport Commons Select Committee that while she has been an editor with News International she had paid police officers for information. The information was given in answer to a direct question from the Labour MP, Chris Bryant. I enclose a Daily Telegraph report dated 14 March 2003 which contains details of Miss Wade’s admission. I was also there in person when she made the admission.
By paying police officers for information, not only does the police officer commit a criminal offence under the Public Bodies Corruption Act 1889 (as amended by the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1916) in receiving the money or other material inducement, so does the person paying the bribe. Any one of normal intelligence will realise that bribing police officers is illegal.
In addition, all police officers sign the Official Secrets Act (OSA). They commit a criminal act by supplying information covered by the OSA. Any information relating to police work will be covered. Similarly, a person receiving information where they know the supplier is in breach of the OSA by supplying it, commits an offence by receiving the information. Both formal training courses for journalists and the various books designed to instruct journalists in the relevant areas of the law cover the OSA’s implications for journalists. Journalists will consequently know that police officers have signed the OSA and be aware of the implications for themselves of receiving information from police officers. Even if no money changes hands, the journalist still breaks the law if he knows he is receiving information from someone who has signed the OSA. I also enclose a letter from the Mirror editor Piers Morgan to the Press Complaints Commission dated 16 Oct 1997. This contains an admission of the Mirror receiving information illegitimately from the police. I made a complaint about this some time ago and it was “investigated” by Det Supt Jeff Curtis. I put the investigated in quotes because Mr Curtis conducted his investigation without interviewing either Piers Morgan or the author of the story, Jeff Edwards. In fact, he did not go near the Mirror. Doubtless the Met’s investigatory methods have changed in recent years and they now include questioning suspects. Consequently, I ask that you re-open the investigation of Mr Morgan and Mr Edwards and actually interview them.
In view of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee’s interest, I am sure that you will wish to begin a most thorough investigation immediately of these matters and to give them all priority.
Copies of this letter have been sent to every member of the select committee.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
——————————————
14 April 2003
Sir John Stevens
Commissioner
Metropolitan Police
New Scotland Yard
10 The Broadway
London SW1
cc Rt Hon Gerald Kaufman MP
Frank Doran MP
John Thurso MP
Rosemary McKenna MP
Alan Keen MP
Derek Wyatt MP
Debra Shipley MP
Chris Bryant MP
Julie Kirkbride MP
Michael Fabricant MP
Adrian Flook MP
Rebekah Wade
Presswise
Dear Sir John,
The payment of money to police for information
It is now 4 weeks (16 March) since I wrote to you with complaints against the Sun editor, Rebekah Wade, and the Mirror editor, Piers Morgan. My letter was sent by first class recorded delivery, as this one has been.
To date I have not had as much as an acknowledgement. I would remind you that you have a duty to investigate any complaint of criminal behaviour and that failure to do so is an unambiguous perversion of the course of justice. In your own interests you should begin an investigation ASAP.
This is not your first failure to act on a complaint of mine. I would remind you that your staff officer, Supt Simon Foy, is currently the subject of an investigation by the head of internal investigations in the Met’s Department of Professional Standards, DCS Tony Dawson, who will in due course submit a report to the PCA.That investigation arose simply because Mr Foy failed to act on a complaint concerning serious threats to me and incitements to violence against me made in the largest British political newsgroups. Fail to investigate this complaint and I will put in a formal complaint against you to the DPS.
You could not have an easier pair of investigations to begin. Rebekah Wade made her admission at a select committee public hearing and the hearing is consequently recorded, while Piers Morgan has admitted the offence in his letter to the PCC, a copy of which you have.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
——————————————
13-March 2003
Chris Bryant MP
House of Commons
London SW1
Dear Mr Bryant,
You raised the question of paying the police with Rebekah Wade and Alan Rusbridger (11 March) and in both cases there was a great deal of shuffling of mental and emotional feet.
There was a good reason for their concern. By paying police officers for information, not only does the police officer commit an offence under the Public Bodies Corruption Act 1889 (as amended by the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1916) in receiving the money or other material inducement, so does the person paying the bribe. Moreover, all police officers sign the Official Secrets Act. They breach that by supplying confidential information. Similarly, a person receiving information where they know the supplier is in breach of the Official Secrets Act commits an offence by receiving it. Both formal training courses for journalists and the various books designed to instruct journalists in the relevant areas of the law, cover the Act’s implications for journalists. Journalists will consequently know that police officers have signed the Act and the implications for themselves of receiving information from them.
The letter from Piers Morgan to the PCC which I enclose, contains an admission of the Mirror receiving information illegitimately from the police. If you want to take the matter further you will not get a better chance than a case built on an editor’s written admission.
The police are notoriously unwilling to investigate such cases. There is no good legal reason for this. Wherever a newspaper has information which is supposedly confidential to the police, the police have reasonable grounds for believing a crime has been committed and can, therefore, insist on interviewing the editor and those of his staff involved in the story.
As to gathering the evidence, even if the mediafolk refuse to say anything, there is a very good chance of finding records of the payments in the companies records. (I write as an ex-Revenue investigator. Petty cash and cash book records are favourite).
If you wish to take the matter further, arrange to meet me privately.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
———————————
27 August 2003
Chris Bryant MP
House of Commons
London SW1
Dear Mr Bryant,
I am writing to you privately because you were the CMS member who raised the question of press bribery of the police.
You will find enclosed copies of the correspondence which shows the police, including John Stevens and his staff, are deliberately refusing to investigate Rebekah Wade’s admission for no legitimate reason.
Do you really want to see a situation where the police simply ignore cast iron complaints?
Bribing the police is a particularly serious crime because any copper who takes the money becomes vulnerable to blackmail. The fact that officer has taken the money also means he is of a corrupt turn of mind and might well take money for anything.
Bribing a copper is an arrestable offence. In other words the police can simply arrest a suspect and bring them in for questioning. They have absolutely no obstacle to investigating Wade who has admitted her crime on videotape before a Commons Committee. Open and shut case.
Take this up and you can make a name for yourself.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/the-pccs-refusal-in-2003-to-investigate-rebekah-wade-for-paying-police-bribes/ The PCC’s refusal in 2003 to investigate Rebekah Wade for paying police bribes
16-March 2003
Prof Robert Pinker
Acting Chairman
Press Complaints Commission
1 Salisbury Square
London EC4Y 8AE
cc Rt Hon Gerald Kaufman MP, Frank Doran MP, John Thurso MP , Rosemary McKenna MP, Alan Keen MP, Derek Wyatt MP, Debra Shipley MP, Chris Bryant MP, Julie Kirkbride MP, Michael Fabricant MP, Adrian Flook MP, Presswise
Dear Professor Pinker,
The payment of money to police for information
On 11 March 2003, the editor of the Sun newspaper, Rebekah Wade, admitted before the Culture, Media and Sport Commons Select Committee that while she had been an editor with News International she had paid police officers for information. The information was given in answer to a direct question from the Labour MP, Chris Bryant. I enclose a Daily Telegraph report dated 14 March 2003 which contains details of Miss Wade’s admission. I was there in person when she made the admission.
By paying police officers for information, not only does the police officer commit a criminal offence under the Public Bodies Corruption Act 1889 (as amended by the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1916) in receiving the money or other material inducement, so does the person paying the bribe. Anyone of normal intelligence will realise that bribing police officers is illegal.
In addition, all police officers sign the Official Secrets Act (OSA). They commit a criminal act by supplying information covered by the OSA. Any information relating to police work will be covered. Similarly, a person receiving information where they know the supplier is in breach of the OSA by supplying it commits an offence by receiving the information. Both formal training courses for journalists and the various books designed to instruct journalists in the relevant areas of the law cover the OSA’s implications for journalists. Journalists will consequently know that police officers have signed the OSA and be aware of the implications for themselves of receiving information from police officers. Even if no money changes hands, the journalist still breaks the law if he knows he is receiving information from someone who has signed the OSA.
The PCC’s Code of Practice states in its preamble that “All members of the press have a duty to maintain the highest professional and ethical standards…” Clearly bribing police officers and receiving illicit information from them does not come under the heading of “the highest professional and ethical standards…” No public interest defence is contained within the Code for this general duty.
The PCC Code article 7.1 states Journalists should not generally obtain or seek to obtain information or pictures through misrepresentation or subterfuge.” Clearly the bribing of police officers comes under the heading of subterfuge. There is a public interest defence to the use of subterfuge, but clearly corrupting police officers and committing serious criminal offences can never come under that heading.
The PCC Code article 9 states “Payment or offers of payment for articles, pictures or information should not be made directly or through agents to witnesses or potential witnesses in current or criminal proceedings or to people engaged in crimeor their associates– which includes family, friends, neighbours and colleagues — except where the material concerned ought to be published in the public interest and the payment is necessary for this to be done.”
Clearly, any police officer is likely to be a potential witness if he or she has access to readily saleable confidential material, because otherwise they would not have easy access to it. That applies particularly to documents or computer files. Hence, the public interest is unlikely to be served by accepting any information from a police officer because the chances are that it will compromise a criminal investigation.
I ask you to investigate Miss Wade’s admission of criminal behaviour under the various heads described above, namely, the general ethical imperative and articles 7 and 9.
I also enclose a letter from the Mirror editor Piers Morgan to the PCC dated 16 Oct 1997. This contains an admission of the Mirror receiving information illegitimately from the police. The PCC has previously refused to investigate this admission. I ask you to do so now. Doubtless, you will be happy to supply me with an explanation for the original refusal which I can pass onto the select committee.
In view of the Culture, Media Select Committee’s interest, I am sure that you will wish to begin a most thorough investigation immediately and to give the matter all priority.
Copies of this letter have been sent to every member of the select committee.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
—————————————————————————-
Press Complaints Commission
From the Deputy Director
31 March 2003
Robert Henderson Esq
Dear Mr Henderson,
Thank you for your letter of 16th March.
Much of it seems to be concerned with allegations which, if true, would be criminal matters. The PCC is not charged with investigating alleged breaches of the law. That is a matter for the police.
Regarding your other point about the Daily Mirror, you do not seem to provide any grounds for the PCC to re-open its file on this matter, which is now of course several years old and which has in any case already been put to the Commission for a decision on whether or not to investigate it.
Yours sincerely
Tim Toulmin
1 Salisbury Square London EC4Y 8JB Telephone 020 7353 1248 Facsimile 020 7353 8355
—————————————————————————-
2 April 2003
Prof Robert Pinker
Acting Chairman
Press Complaints Commission
1 Salisbury Square
London EC4Y 8AE
cc Rt Hon Gerald Kaufman MP, Frank Doran MP, John Thurso MP, Rosemary McKenna MP, Alan Keen MP, Derek Wyatt MP, Debra Shipley MP, Chris Bryant MP, Julie Kirkbride MP, Michael Fabricant MP, Adrian Flook MP, Presswise, Sir Harry Roche (Pressbof)
Dear Professor Pinker,
The payment of money to police for information
Nick Toulmin has replied on your behalf to my letter of 16 March. I am afraid Mr Toulmin’s reasons for failing to act in the cases of Rebekah Wade and Piers Morgan literally make no sense.
Mr Toulmin rejects the idea of investigating allegations which would criminal offences if true on the ground that they are ” a matter for the police”. This repeats the position taken by the PCC before the Media, Culture and Sport select committee (CMS) on 25 March, evidence which I witnessed.
During that evidence, Mr Black claimed that the PCC could not act where the complaint involved criminal issues. This is untrue. My complaints to the PCC in both 1995 and 1997 involved illegal behaviour, including criminal libel, incitement to violence against me, incitement to racial hatred against me and assault. At no point did the PCC say they could not act on my complaints because of the criminal actions.
More fundamentally the PCC Code of Practice itself makes it clear that matters which are potentially criminal acts can be adjudicated by the PCC. Clauses 1, 7, raise the possibility of criminal libel. Clauses 4, 8, 10 and 12 concern behaviour which could be the subject of a complaint under the Harassment Act, a complaint of criminal trespass or action for a breach of the peace. Clause 5 forbids the interception of private telephone calls, ie phone tapping, which is illegal under any circumstances when committed by a private individual. Clause 13 complaints could concern breaches of the sub judice rules or be a contempt of court. Clause 15 could concern breaches of the various Race Relations legislation. Clause 16 could involve a series of offences ranging from fraud to obtaining money by false pretences.
All this being so, I ask the PCC to proceed with an investigation of Rebekah Wade’s admission of paying policemen for information.
As for Piers Morgan, the fact that my original complaint was not acted upon by the PCC says everything about the PCC and nothing about the strength of the complaint. You have a letter from Morgan (addressed to the PCC) in which he admits receiving information illegitimately from the police. I ask you to both investigate the complaint now and explain why it was not investigated originally.
Civil redress
Mr Black also claimed during his evidence to the CMS that the PCC would not act where civil action was a possibility to gain redress for the complainant. Again, in both my complaints in 1995 and 1997 and in my further complaint in 2000 against the Observer journalist Nick Cohen of obtaining valuable information by subterfuge, there were clear legal options had I had the money to take them.
In both 1995 and 1997 there were gross libels of me. For example, the 13 March 1997 Mirror story (see folio 15) completely fabricated this quote which they attributed to me: “If he [Blair] gets elected he’ll let in all the blacks and Asians”, – see folio 15 – and falsely claimed that my letters to the Blairs were “…full of racist filth” In addition, I had the option of actions for malicious falsehood and the obtaining of valuable documents by false pretences. It was never suggested that my complaints would be disallowed because of I had these theoretical options.
As with criminal matters, the PCC Code undermines the claim that cases cannot be accepted. Clauses 1,3 and 7 will probably involve defamation – clause 2 also has a bearing if no opportunity for reply is given. Clauses 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 could all be the subject of tort actions and/or applications for injunctions.
Please explain to me why Mr Black was allowed to make his obviously false claims to the CMS without contradiction from the other PCC representatives.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
—————————————————————————-
28 April 2003
Prof Robert Pinker
Acting Chairman
Press Complaints Commission
1 Salisbury Square
London EC4Y 8AE
cc Rt Hon Gerald Kaufman MP, Frank Doran MP, John Thurso MP , Rosemary McKenna MP, Alan Keen MP, Derek Wyatt MP, Debra Shipley MP, Chris Bryant MP, Julie Kirkbride MP, Michael Fabricant MP, Adrian Flook MP, Presswise, Sir Harry Roche (Pressbof)
Dear Professor Pinker,
I am still waiting for a reply to your letter of 2nd April. Please reply by return
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
—————————————————————————-
12 May 2003
Sir Christopher Meyer
Chairman
Press Complaints Commission
1 Salisbury Square
London EC4Y 8AE
cc Rt Hon Gerald Kaufman MP, Frank Doran MP, John Thurso MP , Rosemary McKenna MP, Alan Keen MP, Derek Wyatt MP, Debra Shipley MP, Chris Bryant MP, Julie Kirkbride MP, Michael Fabricant MP, Adrian Flook MP, Presswise, Sir Harry Roche (Pressbof)
Dear Sir Christopher,
You will find two letters enclosed which are addressed to Prof Pinker and dated 2nd and 28 April. They have gone unanswered.
The letters concern (1) evidence given by Guy Black before the Culture Media and Sport Commons select committee and (2) the question of information obtained by the press by illegitimate means from the police with particular reference to admissions of such behaviour by Rebekah Wade and Piers Morgan.
This stupidly arrogant failure to address matters which are both serious and of general public interest is all of a part with the general PCC behaviour when confronted with difficult issues. It is one of the prime reasons why the PCC is held in contempt by most people who have ever used it – I write as a three time user.
As the incoming chairman you have the very great luxury of a fresh start. I urge you to use that luxury to signal a new ethos for the PCC by acting upon my letters by answering the points I raise about Mr Black’s evidence before the committee and by instigating investigations of Wade and Morgan.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
—————————————————————————-
From the Deputy Director
12 May 2003
Robert Henderson Esq
Dear Mr Henderson,
Thank you for your letter of 28th April to the former Acting Chairman.
Professor Pinker left the post on 30th March.
The position regarding yqur complaint against the Daily Mirror remains the same as far as I can tell. You have provided no reasons why the Commission should look again at a matter that is several years old and that the Commission has already decided not to pursue.
It also remains the case that the matter of payments to police officers is something for the police themselves to investigate. It is not something that is covered by the Code at the moment. There may be areas of the Code where there is a theoretical overlap with the law – although in general the Code imposes standards on editors over and above legal requirements – but the Commission will not of course, for very obvious reasons, investigate a matter that is the subject of a legal inquiry.
Neither will it investigate complaints where it is more appropriate, in the Commission’s opinion, for the complainant to pursue an alternative legal remedy. This certainly does not mean that it turns down every case where there is a theoretical alternative remedy, and in fact does so in relatively few. Those cases, such as your own, where it does conclude that it is not appropriate to proceed are considered individually by the Commission and on their merits.
l do hope this is helpful.
Yours sincerely
Tim Toulmin
1 Salisbury Square London EC4Y 8JB Telephone 020 7353 1248 Facsimile 020 7353 8355
—————————————————————————-
16 May 2003
Sir Christopher Meyer
Chairman
Press Complaints Commission
1 Salisbury Square
London EC4Y 8AE
cc Rt Hon Gerald Kaufman MP, Frank Doran MP, John Thurso MP , Rosemary McKenna MP, Alan Keen MP, Derek Wyatt MP, Debra Shipley MP, Chris Bryant MP, Julie Kirkbride MP, Michael Fabricant MP, Adrian Flook MP, Presswise, Sir Harry Roche (Pressbof)
Dear Sir Christopher,
I have just received a letter from your deputy director, Tim Toulmin, in reply to my letters of 2 and 28 April.
I suspect that my letter to you of the 12 May was the catalyst for Mr Toulmin’s letter. Useful as any response is from the PCC, as much for what is not said as for what is said, I would ask you to reply personally to this letter and my letter to you of 12 May and to send a copy of your reply to the CMS committee.
Mr Toulmin states in his letter that cases refused because a legal alternative exists will be relatively few”. This is a considerable movement from the statement of your director uy Black before the CMS committee that it was the norm to refuse such cases.
As I pointed out in my letters to Prof Pinker, Mr Black must have known this was untrue when he made his statement to the CMS committee. You may wish to consider whether a man who deliberately attempts to mislead a Parliamentary committee is the type of character you wish to have as your chief administrator.
The position for all complaints to the PCC should be this. Any complaint should be considered provided (1) no criminal investigation is being undertaken or(2) no writ for a civil action has been issued. That is an objective test. Anything else is merely a subjective decision made at the whim of the PCC administrators.
As for Mr Toulmin’s response to my complaints against Rebekah Wade and Piers Morgan, Mr Toulmin’s claim that the PCC Code does not cover it is manifestly absurd. The Code preamble begins “All members of the press have a duty to maintain the highest professional and ethical standards…” Bribing the police clearly breaches that, while clause 7.iii) states “Subterfuge can be justified only in the public interest and only when material cannot be obtained by any other means.”
Clearly bribing the police can never be in the public interest. Finally, clause 9 runs “Payment for articles offers of payment for articles, pictures or information should not be made directly or through agents to witnesses or potential witnesses in current or criminal proceedings…” Clearly many of the police passing on information are potential witnesses.
Finally, Mr Toulmin’s refusal to re-open my past complaints is based on the fact that I provide no new information is irrelevant. The point is that the complaints in 1995, 1997 and 1998 were simply not honestly investigated or adjudicated. They were simply refused for no good reason. I ask you to review these complaints personally. I also seek a personal interview with you to discuss the behaviourof PCC staff in dealing with my complaints which were all serious and well documented and described.
You are appearing before the CMS committee on the 21 May. I suggest you address the general question of refusing complaints for reasons of potential legal opportunity and the PCC’s failure to address complaints against Wade and Morgan for the clearest breaches of the Code by receiving information illicitly from the police.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
—————————————————————————-
19 June 2003
Sir Christopher Meyer
Chairman
Press Complaints Commission
1 Salisbury Square
London EC4Y 8AE
cc Rt Hon Gerald Kaufman MP, Frank Doran MP, John Thurso MP , Rosemary McKenna MP, Alan Keen MP, Derek Wyatt MP, Debra Shipley MP, Chris Bryant MP, Julie Kirkbride MP, Michael Fabricant MP, Adrian Flook MP, Presswise, Sir Harry Roche (Pressbof)
Dear Sir Christopher,
I am still awaiting a reply to my letter of 16 May. Were you merely a private individual you would of course have the right to refuse to reply. But I am not writing to you in your capacity as a private individual but as the head of a quasi-public body. In that position, you should reply to correspondence as a matter of course. Please do so by return.
With regard to Rebekah Wade and Piers Morgan obtaining information illicitly, I refer you to proposal 31 in the Culture Media and Sport select committee’s report on media intrusion:
31. We cannot see how the matter of illegal payments to policemen can fail to fall within the criteria set out by the PCC for taking the initiative, or how the issue is different to the example of illegal telephone-tapping highlighted by the Commission itself. We believe the PCC must investigate. This may be best accomplished in cooperation with the Information Commissioner and the Police Complaints Authority and, if necessary, rsult in an addition to the Code (such asoccurred on intercepting telephone calls). (Paragraph 95)
I expect your early reply assuring me that Wade and Morgan will be investigated.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
—————————————————————————-
I received no further response from the PCC – Robert Henderson 8 July 2011
Robert Henderson
e-mail:
anywhere156@yaghoo.co.uk
Homepage:
http://www.livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/
