Note: The most likely explanation for this absurd email from Marion Kent is that Elveden are well aware of the toxic (for them) nature of the case and they are paralysed by the knowledge. Robert Henderson
From: “Marion.Kent@met.police.uk” <Marion.Kent@met.police.uk>
Sent: Friday, 27 September 2013, 15:12
Subject: Re: Operation Elveden and their refusal to investigate Piers Morgan et al
Sent on behalf of Det Chief Superintendent Gordon Briggs
Dear Mr Henderson,
I have been asked to respond to you on behalf of Commander Basu in his absence.
I am aware that DI Smith has now passed onto you, as you requested, the contact details of Detective Chief Superintendent Bonthron, the OCU Commander of the Department of Professional Standards. DCS Bonthron is over seeing the review into your original complaint, a review which I asked him to undertake to assess whether there may be any new lines of enquiry which can be progressed. DI Smith wrote to you on 29.07.2013 to notify you of this. Your complaint concerning Mr. Piers Morgan sits outside of Operation Elveden’s terms of reference and it was for this reason that DPS have been asked to take the lead and review your case.
DCS Bonthron has recently informed me that you have made a formal complaint about Operation Elveden’s decision not to re-investigate your allegations and whilst that matter too is being investigated it is more appropriate for you to liaise with him so that he can update you on the progress of both issues.
Yours sincerely
Detective Chief Superintendent Gordon Briggs
Operations Weeting, Elveden and Tuleta.
————————————————————————————————————————————-
To
Detective Chief Superintendent Gordon Briggs
Operations Weeting, Elveden and Tuleta.
CC Det Chief Superintendant Alaric Bonthron
Head of the Metropolitan Police’s Directorate of Professional Standards
Keir Starmer (DPP)
Alison Saunders Chief Crown Prosecutor (London)
G McGill (CPS Head of Organised Crime Division)
Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe (Met Commissioner)
Commander Neil Basu (Head of Operation Elveden)
Detective Inspector Daniel Smith (Operation Elveden)
John Whittingdale MP
George Eustice MP
Sir Gerald Howarth MP
mark.lewis@thlaw.co.uk
29 Sept 2013
Dear DCS Briggs,
Thank you for your email of 27 Sept. You write “Your complaint concerning Mr. Piers Morgan sits outside of Operation Elveden’s terms of reference and it was for this reason that DPS have been asked to take the lead and review your case.”
This is frankly bewildering. Operation Elveden’s remit is to investigate the illicit supply of information by police officers to the media. I have supplied you with a letter in which Piers Morgan admits receiving information in circumstances which can only have been illegal. Please explain to me by return how that part of my complaint against Morgan is not within Operation Elveden’s remit.
To aid you let me remind you of what AC Cressida Dick told the Home Affairs Committee:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmhaff/67/67we18.htm
Home Affairs Committee
Written evidence submitted by AC Cressida Dick, Metropolitan Police [LSP 40]
Question 3—Your policy regarding leaks by police officers to the press where no payments have been made
Operation Elveden’s terms of reference are “to investigate alleged criminal offences that police officers or public officials have accepted money for supplying information to journalists”. The terms of reference have not been changed, however when suspected criminal wrongdoing that does not include payment comes to light it cannot be ignored.
Of the 64 arrests made on Operation Elveden, only one has been where payment is not a feature of the investigation. It is difficult to comment further on this issue without potentially prejudicing future prosecutions.”
And
“LETTER FROM AC CRESSIDA DICK TO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE SOCIETY OF EDITORS, 26 MARCH 2013
I am writing to you concerning the Metropolitan Police investigation into allegations of inappropriate payments to police and public officials (Operation Elveden) which is running in conjunction with the Operation Weeting phone-hacking inquiry.
In the light of some recent reporting and commentary about Operation Elveden I thought it would be helpful to reassure editors on a number of points. I am sure you will understand that for legal reasons I will not refer to current active cases. I believe it is important to remember that we are not investigating victimless crimes nor has the remit of Operation Elveden been extended to any police officer who has simply spoken with a journalist, as has been suggested. The investigation is about police officers and public officials who we have reasonable grounds to suspect have abused their positions in return for corrupt payments. However when suspected criminal wrongdoing that does not involve payment comes to light it cannot be ignored.”
That is of particular interest because it commits Elveden to pursuing investigations even where no payment to the police can be proved. Of course, it is odds on that the Mirror did pay the police officer concerned, but whether or not that can be proved after this period of time Morgan and Edwards can be readily pursued for this part of my complaints against them. In fact, Morgan’s letter hands you their prosecutions on a plate.
I would further remind you that the information received illegally by the Mirror caused me considerable damage so it definitely was not “a victimless crime”. You might care to tuck away in your memory the fact that I had a heart attack 11 months after the Mirror story appeared, an attack almost certainly down to the stress generated by the story and its aftermath.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Henderson
Living In A Madhouse 