Leveson gagged me over police smears

  • 2 Replies
  • 1660 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4103
  • +75/-0
Leveson gagged me over police smears
« on: July 26, 2013, 10:23:47 PM »
Leveson gagged me over police smears: Whistleblower tried to expose Met dirty tricks but was stopped by Press inquiry

Peter Tickner wanted to give evidence to the Leveson Inquiry over tricks used by officers to smear each other in the media

The former anti-fraud investigator says that he was gagged from doing so
He claims senior figures within Met Police prevented him from speaking
The controversy follows claims of double standards at the inquiry


By Robert Verkaik

PUBLISHED: 22:00, 29 June 2013  | UPDATED: 22:52, 29 June 2013 


 
 
 
 
  276  shares

46

View
 comments
 

Whistleblower: Peter Tickner, a former anti-fraud investigator, said he wanted to reveal dirty tricks campaigns within Scotland Yard to the Leveson Inquiry into media ethics last year ? but was gagged from doing so
Whistleblower: Peter Tickner said he wanted to reveal Scotland Yard's dirty tricks to the Leveson Inquiry but was gagged from doing so

Lord Justice Leveson has been plunged into new controversy after a police whistleblower revealed he was prevented from exposing how senior officers used the media to smear each other.

Peter Tickner, a former anti-fraud investigator, said he wanted to reveal dirty tricks campaigns within Scotland Yard to the Leveson Inquiry into media ethics last year ? but was gagged from doing so.


Speaking publicly for the first time, the official claims senior figures within the Met Police prevented him from ?speaking a truth that no one wanted to hear?.

Mr Tickner says he told Lord Justice Leveson that he wanted to reveal how senior officers leaked information to the media to discredit rivals and promote their own careers.


But days before he was due to give his evidence he was told by a member of the inquiry team he would be denied the chance to do so.


The judge made his ruling after objections by the Metropolitan Police.

The controversy follows recent claims of double standards at the inquiry, launched in response to phone hacking by Rupert Murdoch?s News International newspapers.


But in recent weeks, it has emerged that phone hacking is commonly used by other non-media businesses, including law and insurance firms, yet was largely ignored by Leveson, with only a passing reference in his final report.

The judge has also has been criticised for refusing to investigate claims of a conflict of interest over the love affair between Carine Patry Hoskins, a barrister at the inquiry, and David Sherborne, who represented hacking victim Hugh Grant.



 


More...
Three officers face misconduct charges after pregnant woman 'assaulted in police cell'
Watchdog says BBC is too generous with boss payoffs after shelling out ?450,000 to chief who quit in wake of Savile scandal


Last night, Tory MP Rob Wilson said: ?It is a matter of great concern that the Leveson inquiry ruled out potentially significant evidence about the conduct of the police.

?It is increasingly clear that it focused on the press, while going soft on wrongdoing by others. It raises concerns as to whether Leveson gave a balanced account.


This is very worrying given recent disturbing revelations about police conduct. Mr Tickner?s evidence must be properly looked at.?


Information: Mr Tickner says he told Lord Justice Leveson that he wanted to reveal how senior officers leaked information to the media to discredit rivals and promote their own careers
Information: Mr Tickner says he told Lord Justice Leveson that he wanted to reveal how senior officers leaked information to the media to discredit rivals and promote their own careers

Mr Tickner was the former director of internal audits at Scotland Yard investigating the misuse of funds, but left the Met in 2009.

He signed a confidentiality agreement before he left, which prevented him from going public about his concerns, so says the Leveson Inquiry was the only forum which granted him protection from speaking out.


THE POLICE WHISTLEBLOWER: PETER TICKNER



Peter Tickner spent 14 years investigating misuse of police funds and corruption.


Within 12 months of his appointment Mr Tickner ? whose official job was head of internal audits ? was given authority to set up a separate investigative branch to probe contractor and staff fraud.


At its peak he was responsible for 60 to 70 internal inquiries a year.


And over the course of a decade his highly successful unit was able to save ?24 million of tax-payers? money.


Mr Tickner took early retirement in 2009 to set up his own investigative and audit business.
.
In a draft statement to Leveson, he told of three high-profile cases in which he believed senior officers used their access to confidential material to leak information to newspapers in a bid to destroy internal rivals.

The leaks apparently related to a bungled raid by counter-terrorism police in Forest Gate, East London in which a suspect was mistakenly shot; the expenses of former head of counter-terrorism, Andy Hayman; and former Commissioner Sir Ian Blair?s links to a friend who won ?3 million police contract.

Mr Tickner says he wanted to speak out at the inquiry after police chiefs rejected his pleas to track down officers responsible for smears.

He told The Mail on Sunday: ?I told the police I wanted to be an official witness to the inquiry about relations between the police and the press.


'When they ignored me, the only way I could raise the issue was by going directly to the Leveson team. The effect was to gag me from speaking.?

Lord Justice Leveson said in his two-page judgment that he couldn?t hear Mr Tickner?s evidence because he didn?t have the resources, the time to investigate the claims fully, and that it was partly irrelevant.

But Mr Tickner says this decision kept his ?highly relevant? claims secret. ?Lord Justice Leveson denied me a public platform where I could have spoken without fear of any legal action against me for speaking a truth no one wanted to hear.?



At helm: Bernard Hogan-Howe headed the force during the inquiry run by Lord Leveson
At helm: Bernard Hogan-Howe headed the force during the inquiry run by Lord Leveson

Metropolitan Police lawyers told Leveson it would be ?unfair? to senior officers, including Sir Ian Blair and Sir Paul Stephenson, his deputy and later successor, if Mr Tickner was allowed to give evidence.


The Met?s QC told the inquiry that the evidence was aimed at ?settling old scores?.

Mr Tickner said: ?Whoever suggested that clearly doesn?t know me. All I cared about was whether officers had behaved stupidly or badly with public funds.

?Senior police officers should be acting in the public interest, not running personal agendas at the taxpayer?s expense.


'The public needs to know that the behaviour of some senior officers was not acceptable. They should be accountable for their actions but in my experience rarely were.?



Carine Patry Hoskins 

David Sherborne


Affair: Leveson has also has been criticised for refusing to investigate claims of a conflict of interest over the love affair between Carine Patry Hoskins, left, a barrister at the inquiry, and David Sherborne, right


?I saw it as my duty to give evidence about unacceptable relations between senior officers and the press.?

Mr Tickner said he suspected senior officers of leaking information to the media during the counter terrorism operation in Forest Gate in 2006, when a Muslim man was mistakenly shot, leading to much adverse press coverage. 


THE MET IN THE DOCK



THE FOREST GATE SHOOTING

Two brothers were targeted in a dawn raid by 250 anti-terrorism and firearms officers, with one of the Muslim suspects, Mohammed Abdulkahar, 23, shot in the drama.


He was seized with Abul Koyair, 20, in June 2006 following fears of a chemical weapon at their home in Forest Gate, East London.


When no evidence was found and the men were released without charge, there were briefings that MI5 was to blame for incorrect intelligence that led to the raid.

THE EXPENSES INQUIRY

Andy Hayman was Britain?s top anti-terrorist policeman in charge of the bungled operation that led to the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes and the Forest Gate raid.

While Scotland Yard was in turmoil in 2007, newspapers were leaked details of an investigation into Mr Hayman about spending ?19,000 on ?reckless? hotel expenses.


In late 2007 he retired early. Supporters said he had fallen victim to a ?dirty tricks? campaign by Scotland Yard.


Stepped down: Andy Hayman was Britain's top anti-terror policeman



THE ?3MILLION CONTRACTS ROW

Stories critical of Met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair continued after Mr Hayman?s departure.


In July 2008, it was revealed he would be questioned about contracts worth ?3million that were awarded to his friend Andrew Miller.


Although Sir Ian had declared his friendship with Mr Miller before the deal, within a few months he had resigned.


The police watchdog, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, later found ?absolutely no evidence of dishonesty? over Sir Ian?s handling of the contracts.


.
Andy Hayman, the officer in charge of the operation, asked for a leak inquiry. Mr Tickner  carried it out and said he was convinced a senior officer was to blame, but he claimed the Metropolitan Police Authority, which is responsible for such investigations, banned him from naming the culprits.

Mr Hayman was in charge of the initial inquiry into phone hacking by the News of the World, and gave evidence to Leveson over that role; but he was not quizzed over the alleged leaks about his expenses.

Mr Tickner also wanted to show how information about a ?3million Metropolitan Police contract with former Commissioner Ian Blair?s skiing friend Andrew Miller and his business, Impact Plus, had been leaked by a senior officer to the media.


Sir Ian Blair later resigned, partly blaming stories about his relationship with Miller for his departure, but the police watchdog, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, later found ?absolutely no evidence of dishonesty? on his part.

Mr Tickner said: ?In my opinion damaging stories about Ian Blair?s relationship with Andy Miller were being leaked to the press by someone senior at the centre of the Metropolitan Police Service. 

?The motive was to discredit Ian.  It was obvious that most of the material in the press had come from papers only held at one of the top offices in the Met.?

His claims also raised concerns of how allegations about Andy Hayman?s ?19,000 expenses had been leaked to a Sunday newspaper by Hayman?s enemies in the Met in 2007. Shortly after the story appeared, Mr Hayman resigned.

Mr Tickner says confidential conversations he had with senior officers found their way into the press.

He said: ?Andy Hayman?s resignation was in part driven by the timing of an article that appeared on a newspaper front page about, among other things, my fact-finding inquiries into his expenses.


'That article contained information that I had discussed with two senior police officers in private.

?I knew I hadn?t leaked it and the only other two people present were my boss and a lawyer, neither of whom had any press contacts.


'It was another instance of someone trying to get a rival removed from his job by a senior colleague via the press.?

A spokesman for Lord Leveson last night said the judge had given a ?comprehensive explanation? of why Mr Tickner was not called to give evidence to the inquiry.


He added: ?The ruling could have been challenged at the time and was not.?

However, Mr Tickner said he could not afford any legal representation to make such a challenge.

Sir Paul Stephenson said: ?I certainly did not brief the media against any officers. I would not have dreamt of doing such a thing.?

Lord Blair declined to comment.



Sir Paul Stephenson 

Lord Blair 


Former chiefs: Sir Paul Stephenson, left, said he did not brief the media against any officers, while Lord Blair, right, declined to comment


 

Blocking such vital information about toxic Met makes a mockery of this inquiry
By BRIAN PADDICK, former Deputy Assistant Commissioner at the Met


Comment: Brian Paddick says that blocking vital information makes a mockery of the Leveson inquiry
Comment: Brian Paddick says that blocking vital information makes a mockery of the Leveson inquiry

As I know from my time in the highest ranks of the Metropolitan Police, the atmosphere inside Scotland Yard can be toxic.

It was characterised then by hostility and suspicion and, in my opinion, it hampered the operational effectiveness of the Met at the time ? risking the safety of Londoners.

There was such a massive briefing campaign against Sir Ian Blair when he became Commissioner, it felt as if the whole force was against him.

The situation had become so bad by a few months into his term, in 2005, that I made a joke about it in the senior officers? canteen at Scotland Yard.

I asked the head of public affairs in the Met how much he was being paid by the previous Commissioner to get all this bad publicity for Ian Blair. It was tongue-in-cheek but he didn?t think it was very funny.

One of the mechanisms that senior officers used to further their own causes was to give briefings to the press.

The Leveson Inquiry was supposed to be the definitive investigation into the media and the police ? and was meant to lay bare the relationship between them.

Yet vital information about leaks by the most senior officers at Scotland Yard was withheld, making a mockery of the inquiry process.

Witnesses were prevented from speaking out by lawyers employed by the Metropolitan Police, because the Met didn?t want its internal concerns  in the public domain.

In his role as head of investigations into the misuse of Met cash, Peter Tickner was asked to look into who had leaked confidential information about credit card spending.


Let off: Brian Paddick says that Lord Leveson let the police off the hook in his inquiry
Let off: Brian Paddick says that Lord Leveson let the police off the hook in his inquiry

His conclusion was that it could only have been one or more of a number of senior officers at Scotland Yard, which would have been extremely important evidence for Leveson to hear.

Mr Tickner wanted to reveal the information before the inquiry because he believed there was a clear public interest, but he was gagged first by the Met and then refused by Leveson himself.


I am also aware that he is not the only person in policing who was prevented from naming names.

What is the point of having public inquiries such as Leveson if people with information are unable to release it?

Leveson knew, or at least Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, knew what evidence these people wanted to give, and yet they granted the Met lawyers? request in order to prevent it being revealed.

Yet even if the Met?s lawyers managed to edit the statements, Jay and Leveson could still have really probed the witnesses during the inquiry ? and there would have been nothing the Met could have done about it.

But damning evidence heard by the inquiry, for example that the identities of people on the Witness Protection Scheme were found in private detectives? notebooks, was hardly referred to in the report.

Leveson let the police off the hook.





Share or comment on this article.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2351654/Leveson-gagged-police-smears-Whistleblower-tried-expose-Met-dirty-tricks-stopped-Press-inquiry.html#ixzz2aBl8nvpP
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

« Last Edit: July 26, 2013, 10:41:48 PM by the leveller »

*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4103
  • +75/-0
Re: Leveson gagged me over police smears
« Reply #1 on: July 26, 2013, 10:39:32 PM »
UK Spy Warns of Iraq War Disclosures


July 25, 2013


Exclusive: For more than a decade since the Iraq invasion, President Bush, Prime Minister Blair and their senior aides have stuck to the story of innocent intelligence mistakes and evaded accountability. But the code of silence may crack if top British spy Richard Dearlove tells his story, says ex-UK intelligence officer Annie Machon.



By Annie Machon

In a surprising statement last weekend, the former head of Great Britain?s foreign intelligence-gathering agency, MI6, suggested that he might break the code of omerta around the fraudulent intelligence case ? including the so-called ?dodgy dossier? ? that was used as the pretext for the Iraq War in 2003.

Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6 and current Master of Pembroke College, Cambridge, contacted the UK?s Mail on Sundaynewspaper to state that he had written his account of the intelligence controversy in the run-up to the U.S./UK invasion of Iraq and indicated that he might release it in the near future.


Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of Great Britain?s MI-6 intelligence agency.

With the much-delayed official Chilcot Enquiry into the case for war about to be published, Dearlove is obviously aware that he might be blamed for ?sexing up? the intelligence and former Prime Minister Tony Blair might once again evade all responsibility.

In the months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the British government produced a couple of reports ?making a case for war,? as Major General Michael Laurie said in his evidence to the enquiry in 2011: ?We knew at the time that the purpose of the [September] dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence, and that to make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence the wording was developed with care.?

The first such report, the September Dossier (2002), is the one most remembered, as this did indeed ?sex up? the case for war as the late Iraqi weapons inspector David Kelly revealed. It also included the fraudulent intelligence about Saddam Hussein trying to acquire uranium from Niger, a bogus claim that President George W. Bush and other U.S. officials cited with great effect.

Most memorably in the UK, the dossier led to the ?Brits 45 minutes from Doom? front-page headline in Rupert Murdoch?s The Sun newspaper, no less, on the eve of the crucial war vote in Parliament. The claim was that Iraq?s Saddam Hussein could deliver deadly germ warfare against British troops and tourists in Cyrus in only 45 minutes.

Also, just six weeks before the attack on Iraq, the so-called ?dodgy dossier? was presented by British spies and politicians as an ominous warning of the Iraqi threat, although it was later revealed that the report was based largely on a 12-year-old PhD thesis culled from the Internet, but containing nuggets of raw MI6 intelligence.

Interestingly from a British legal position, it appears that Prime Minister Blair and his spin doctor Alastair Campbell released this report without the prior written permission of the head of MI6, which means that they appear to be in breach of the UK?s draconian secrecy law, the Official Secrets Act (1989).

Thus was made the dubious case for war with Iraq, lies leading to countless Iraq deaths (with some estimates over a million) and many more wounded, maimed, and displaced, yet no one held to account.

Downing Street Memo

Subsequently, there was also the leak of the notorious Downing Street Memo in which Sir Richard Dearlove was reported as saying that the intelligence and facts were being ?fixed? around a predetermined war policy.

On July 23, 2002, at a meeting at 10 Downing Street, Dearlove briefed Prime Minister Blair and other senior officials on his talks with his American counterpart, CIA Director George Tenet, in Washington three days before. In the draft minutes of that briefing, which were leaked to the London Times and published on May 1, 2005, Dearlove explained that President Bush had decided to attack Iraq and the war was to be ?justified by the conjunction of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.?

While then-Foreign Secretary Jack Straw pointed out that the case was ?thin,? Dearlove explained matter-of-factly, ?The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy.?

There is no sign in the minutes that anyone hiccupped ? much less demurred ? at ?making a case for war? in this dishonest fashion, let alone objected that Blair and Bush were preparing to launch a ?war of aggression? outlawed by the post-World War II Nuremberg Tribunal and the UN Charter.

The evidence showed that the UK?s top spies aided their political masters by disseminating to the public raw intelligence and forged documents, with disastrous consequences for the people of Iraq and the world.

Yet Dearlove long has remained unrepentant. Even as recently as 2011, after his retirement and his receipt of many official honors, he continued to deny culpability. When questioned about the Downing Street Memo during an address to the prestigious Cambridge Union Society by the fearless and fearsomely bright student, Silkie Carlo, Dearlove tried grandiloquently to brush her aside with the excuse that his remarks were taken out of context..

But were the remarks in the Memo really taken out of context? The context of the Memo ? and the larger historical context of what the world now knows about the fraudulent case for war with Iraq ? would suggest that the comments were entirely in context, that the intelligence was being ?fixed? around a preexisting decision to invade.

So Dearlove could potentially have saved many lives across the Middle East if he had gone public then, rather than waiting until the belated Chilcot report might sully his reputation. Would it not be far preferable if these servants of the Crown would actually take a stand while they are in a position to influence world events and prevent disasters like the invasion of Iraq?

Doing so now, purely to preserve his reputation after failing to act earlier to preserve the lives of innocent Iraqis, is even more ?ethically flexible? than you would normally expect of an average MI6 intelligence officer. Perhaps that is why Dearlove floated to the top of the organization.

But Dearlove is right to be worried about how history and Chilcot will judge him. These intelligence failures and lies have been picked over and speculated about for years. They are now an open secret. However, finally threatening to spill the beans if he is harshly criticized smacks of desperation.

Dearlove is quoted as saying that he has no plans to breach the Official Secrets Act by publishing his memoirs. But by publishing an account of the run-up to the Iraq War, he would be equally guilty of a breach of the Official Secrets Act. It has been established under UK law that any unauthorized disclosure crosses the ?clear bright line? of the law.

And Dearlove seems well aware of this ? his original plan was for his account to be made available after his death. I can see why he would plan it that way. First, he would escape prosecution, and second, he could protect his reputation for posterity. But an earlier disclosure by Dearlove could put Blair and Bush back in the spotlight.

The official motto of the UK spies is ?Regnum Defende? ? defense of the realm. Serving intelligence officers mordantly alter this to ?Rectum Defende? ? politely translated as watch your back. Dearlove seems to be living up to the motto. He must be one very frightened old man to be contemplating such premature publication.

Annie Machon is a former intelligence officer in the UK?s MI5 Security Service (the U.S. counterpart is the FBI).


Share this Article:
Print
Digg
StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
Facebook
Yahoo! Buzz
Twitter
Google Bookmarks
NewsVine
Technorati
email

Tags: Annie Machon, George W. Bush, Iraq War, Richard Dearlove, Tony Blair
http://www.care2.com/news/member/973320318/3616301

« Last Edit: July 26, 2013, 10:43:24 PM by the leveller »

*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4103
  • +75/-0
Re: Leveson gagged me over police smears
« Reply #2 on: July 26, 2013, 11:21:17 PM »
 



street of shame

 Knacker and the Silent Witness 
 
Leveson update, Issue 1344
 
 
 
lord leveson.jpg
A TREMENDOUS scoop filled the Mail on Sunday front page on 30 June, plus two more pages inside, ?revealing? that a Scotland Yard whistleblower, Peter Tickner, was prevented from giving ?vital evidence? to the Leveson inquiry that would have exposed how senior officers used the press to smear their colleagues.
Sounds familiar? Exactly the same revelation appeared in these pages as long ago as March 2012, in Eye 1310. Over the past two years we have run no fewer than four stories about Tickner, who was director of internal audit for the Metropolitan Police between 1995 and 2009, but the national press showed no interest. Still, better late than never.

When the Independent reported last month that Lord Justice Leveson had ignored a report from the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (Soca) showing that phone-hacking was rife among law firms and big corporations, Leveson defended himself by saying the Soca report fell outside his terms of reference, which were confined to ?the culture, practices and ethics of the press?. No such justification is possible for his silencing of Tickner: the terms of reference also obliged Leveson to ?inquire into? contacts and the relationship between the press and the police? ? precisely what the former auditor wished to illuminate.

 Knacker off the hook
 Eager to hear anything to the discredit of Lunchtime O?Booze, the judge seemed equally eager to let Inspector Knacker off the hook. Tickner was listed on the official Leveson website as one of the witnesses due to testify on 15 March 2012. His appearance was cancelled following a last-minute plea from the Met?s QC that his witness statement had arrived too late for the Yard to prepare a response to his allegations about the former commissioner Lord (Ian) Blair.

In fact Blair had only a small cameo in the statement, when Tickner recalled his discovery that between 2001 and 2008 the Met had awarded ?3m of contracts to a company run by Andy Miller, an old friend and skiing companion of Blair. It was absurd of the Yard to pretend that this took it unawares: Blair had written about the deal in his autobiography, published in 2009. (Subsequently Miller won ?65,000 damages from the Mail for its false suggestion that he may have been a willing beneficiary of improper conduct at the Met). All Tickner said in his witness statement was that the story had leaked to the Mail before he could complete his investigation ? no more than what Blair said in his book.

Why was the Yard so keen to stop its former auditor from testifying? As we first reported in 2011 (Eye 1294), Tickner was a diligent sleuth ? and thus loathed by senior Knackers. He often challenged them about their extravagant use of corporate credit cards and their habit of buying champagne for hacks on expenses. He suspected that relations between certain officers and the Crime Reporters? Association were far too cosy. Time and again his investigations were sabotaged by strategic leaks.

 Gagging clause
 Tickner took early retirement in 2009, weary of the constant attempts to obstruct his work. As part of his severance deal, he had to sign a gagging clause to stop him becoming a whistleblower. If he had testified to Leveson, however, that clause would have been overridden by his duty to tell the truth to a judge-led inquiry. Hence the panic among senior officers when they saw him listed as a witness. Despite acknowledging ?the considerable assistance that Mr Tickner has given, and the work that has gone into the preparation of his witness statement?, Leveson ruled that ?the interests of my inquiry would not be sufficiently advanced? by hearing his evidence.

Shome mishtake, shurely? One passage in his statement that shed light on ?the relationship between the press and the police? concerned Tickner?s 2007 investigation into the lavish expenses claimed by assistant commissioner Andy ?Dodgy Geezer? Hayman. Tickner had sent Hayman a list of questions, but answer came there none. He then took it up with deputy commissioner Paul Stephenson, who promised Hayman would respond. But, as the months went by, still no answers emerged. Eventually Tickner told Stephenson and assistant commissioner John Yates that he was sending his dossier on Hayman to the professional standards committee of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA).

Belatedly realising that the auditor wouldn?t be fobbed off, someone at the Yard decided to sacrifice Hayman ? and in the process undermine Commissioner Blair. A front-page story was planted in the Sunday Times in which ?senior sources? complained of Blair?s ?decision to tolerate Hayman?s spending?, which showed a ?lack of control? by the commissioner. Hayman resigned two weeks later, and within a few months Blair had also gone ? to be succeeded by Stephenson.

In his witness statement to Leveson, Tickner pointed to details in the Sunday Times article that could only have come from his confidential discussions with senior Knackers. By cancelling his invitation, however, Leveson also prevented publication of the witness statement.

 Cheesley sandwiched
 Another of Tickner?s stories that was thereby suppressed dealt with a leak to the Sunday Telegraph about the Forest Gate shooting in 2006, when an anti-terrorist raid went disastrously wrong. Shortly before the piece appeared, Andy Hayman had given an off-the-record briefing to the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) and then enjoyed a ?social lunch? with the Crime Reporters? Association, accompanied by a senior press officer called Sarah Cheesley. Tickner, as the MPA?s chief bloodhound, was asked to investigate the leak. He concluded that it had come from someone at Scotland Yard rather than the MPA.

When Cheesley herself gave evidence to Leveson on 13 March last year ? two days before Tickner was due on the witness stand ? she was asked if her department leaked to the press. ?I don?t know.? Did she remember the inquiry into the Forest Gate leak? ?I can?t recall, no.? What about the lunch she and Hayman attended with hacks just before the Sunday Telegraph story appeared? ?I can?t remember??

Faulty memory
 David Barr, a counsel to the inquiry, persisted. ?I think it might be suggested,? he said, referring to Tickner?s witness statement, ?that at that lunch someone was indiscreet. Do you think that?s right?? Back came the reply: ?I can?t remember.? Since Tickner interviewed Cheesley twice during the leak inquiry which she now claimed to have forgotten, he could have enlightened Leveson on this point ? had he been allowed to speak.

?The Forest Gate leak issue is undoubtedly controversial,? Leveson noted when ruling that Tickner should not be called. But since Tickner?s official conclusions about the source were ?not accepted? by Scotland Yard, ?any examination of their substance would entail the sort of intricate fact-finding exercise which I cannot usefully and proportionately undertake?.

Unholy alliance
 In short, even though Leveson admitted that Tickner?s claims ?clearly fall within the terms of reference? of his inquiry, he decided not to bother with ?any examination of their substance? because it might contradict what Knacker had said on oath. Trebles all round at Scotland Yard!

Health ministers recently claimed to be horrified to learn that NHS whistleblowers were silenced by making their severance payments conditional on signing a gagging clause. This is what also happened to Tickner ? and on the one occasion when he could have spoken without fear of legal retribution, the unholy alliance of Lord Justice Leveson and Scotland Yard shut him up. Can we expect similar expressions of horror from Theresa May and Boris Johnson, to whom the Met is supposedly accountable?
 
 
 
More top stories in the latest issue:

REALLY HACKED OFF?
The Sunday Times wins an epic libel action against a gangland boss ? despite the efforts of his lawyer, Hugh Tomlinson QC, chair of Hacked Off, that champion of responsible journalism.

 BAD CASE OF SUN STROKE
 Sun associate editor Trevor Kavanagh suffers serious memory loss attacking the police over Hillsborough and for investigating their own misdemeanours.

 PORN QUACKERS
 It?s nipples, cleavage and stockings a go-go online as the Mirror and Mail papers continue their stern moralising about the availability of smut.

 LOADED QUESTION
 Hack Martin Daubney, who recanted his soft-porn past as the editor of Loaded? suddenly speaks up for Page 3 now that he?s writing for the Sun.
 
 

 
 
 


 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 

 

   
 
 
 
 
To read all these stories in full, you can buy the latest edition of Private Eye - or subscribe here and have the magazine delivered to your home every fortnight.

Next issue on sale:
6th August 2013. 

gnitty

 
 
 


 


 
Share this topic...
In a forum
(BBCode)
In a site/blog
(HTML)


SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk