The Metropolitan Police have issued the following statement regarding the production order they are seeking against the Guardian.
The last two paragraphs are the stuff of parody...
"The MPS has applied for a production order against the Guardian and one of its reporters in order to seek evidence of offences connected to potential breaches relating to Misconduct in Public Office and the Official Secrets Act.
"The application is about the MPS seeking to identify evidence of potential offences resulting from unauthorised leaking of information.
"Operation Weeting is one of the MPS's most high profile and sensitive investigations so of course we should take concerns of leaks seriously to ensure that public interest is protected by ensuring there is no further potential compromise. The production order is sought in that context.
"The MPS can't respond to the significant public and political concern regarding leaks from the police to any part of the media if we aren't more robust in our investigations and make all attempts to obtain best evidence of the leaks.
"We pay tribute to the Guardian's unwavering determination to expose the hacking scandal and their challenge around the initial police response. We also recognise the important public interest of whistle blowing and investigative reporting, however neither is apparent in this case. This is an investigation into the alleged gratuitous release of information that is not in the public interest.
"The MPS does not seek to use legislation to undermine Article 10 of anyone's Human Rights and is not seeking to prevent whistle blowing or investigative journalism that is in the public interest, including the Guardian's involvement in the exposure of phone hacking".
Friday, 16 September 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
Am I right in assuming that the last two para's are, effectively, "Nice job Grauniad (not really). Now stop hitting our boots with your face"?
Just asking.
The very public and indeed worldwide disgust generated by the information about the Milly Dowler case goes some way towards making the case of public interest in my opinion. I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
"The last two paragraphs are the stuff of parody"
Sums it all up.
Looks to my like that particular type of spin where they say "we care about your rights..." in a hamfisted attempt to draw attention away from the fact that no, they don't actually give a tiny poop about your rights.
This is beyond parody! Not in the public interest? There has been whistle blowing here which is definitely in the public interest. The police had the information but did nothing with it. The Guardian needs to be congratulated that they continued to pursue the issue even though they were attacked for doing so.
Something doesn't smell quite right about this. I expect something else is going to come to light. The Met can't possibly hope to win on the Official Secrets Act nonsense surely?
If anything was designed to prevent future whistle-blowing this is the kind of action that could deter people from bringing crucial information into the public domain.
"We also recognise the important public interest of whistle blowing and investigative reporting, however neither is apparent in this case."
That is an extraordinary thing for the police to say. If that statement came from the CPS, it would be disturbing. From the police? Wow.
" The MPS does not seek to use legislation to undermine Article 10 of anyone's Human Rights"
That's awfully good of the MPS.
There's something about the way the sentence is constructed that makes me think it was tacked on at the end after someone said "hang on, someone's bound to read this an bang on about human rights"
1. If WE (note the Royal plural) decide something is not in the public interest, we'll ignore any and all indications of criminal behaviour.
2. However, if WE decide something is not in the public interest, we'll prosecute any and all persons who have forced us to admit that para. 1 has been applied.
The police came in for immense critcism at the beginning of summer, quite rightly, when we found out (through Select Committee questioning of Andy Hayman et al) that they had retreated rather weakly in the face of News International's stonewalling of their Hackgate enquiries (for example http://bit.ly/roOack).
Now the Guardian wants to prevent the police pursuing enquiries into leaks. And still they get critised. So what's changed?
Is it a case of "News of the World bad, Guardian good"? Why? Because NotW hacked and the Guardian (like us) is anti-hacker? OK, but what if the the police have a reasonable suspicion that the Guardian did something illegal in support of its anti-hacking stance - like NotW behaved illegally in support of its anti-paedophile stance? Can we be sure that the Guardian has behaved appropriately and the police have got it wrong (again)?
Operation Weeting is, belatedly, on the case of the hackers (very belatedly). Can we be sure that the Guardian's exposure of police activity helped Weeting and didn't hinder it? What gives us that confidence?
I, for one, am waiting to see how this plays out before jumping to conclusions. Probably very naive of me, but maybe, just maybe, ...
The MPS's reaction to leaks from their current enquiry begs many interesting questions.
However, given the many ways in which the Guardian might delay any view expressed by any UK court that undermines the well-established if not always convenient convention that reporters' sources enjoy some degree of legal protection, what can the MPS hope to gain in the short term (assuming this goes all the way to the European Court of Human Rights, which should keep the MPS at bay for two/three, maybe four years)?
I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the MPS tactic is designed more to warn those within the MPS of the potential risk to them (particularly to the uncovering of their identity) were they to discuss cases under investigation with members of the press, than to chill responsible press investigations, whether or not these lead eventually to publication.
This might make some sense of the strangely positioned encomium to the Guardian?
An alternative explanation might suggest serious problems with the MPS investigation itself.
What if lines of enquiry within News Corp. are being frustrated by journalists refusing to give the names of their sources?
A favourable judgement in the present case, one that sets out when the authorities can make a legitimate demand that sources be identified, might inter alia give the police improved leverage in their dealings with News Corp. staff, without exposing details of those lines of enquiry by bring actions directly against particular members, or former members of News Corp.
Probably fanciful?
This would be laughable were it not so sodding serious.
The plain fact this that their investigation wouldn't exist were it not for the Guardian's persistence in the face of much criticism...
Any leak might well not have been in the police's interest, but is almost certain to have been in the public interest.
I'm curious about how many police officers have been arrested so far for taking illegal payments from NoTW? I can't find this information anywhere, despite Ms Brooks saying in Parliament that it did happen?
Post a Comment