DPS Appeals Unit,
Metropolitan Police Service,
22nd Floor ESB,
Rt Hon Theresa May MP (Home Secretary)
Rt Hon Dominic Grieve MP (Attorney-General)
Alison Saunders (DPP)
G McGill (CPS Head of Organised Crime Division)
Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe (Commissioner)
Commander Neil Basu (Head of Operation Elveden)
Detective Inspector Daniel Smith (Operation Elveden)
John Whittingdale MP
George Eustice MP
Sir Gerald Howarth MP
6 April 2014
This is a formal appeal against the refusal of the Metropolitan Police to investigate Piers Morgan and Jeff Edwards for the illegal receipt of information from the police and perjury before the Leveson Inquiry and Det Supt Jeff Curtis (now retired) for a failure to investigate Morgan and Edwards when the complaint was first submitted to the Met.
You will find below the following correspondence in this order:
My correspondence with Operation Elveden (Elveden)
My correspondence with the Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS).
The two batches of correspondence are clearly delineated. Each set of emails runs from the earliest to the latest in that order, that is , the latest email will be the last one in the set.
The matter looks complicated simply because of the volume of correspondence. This is entirely due to Elveden and the DPS prevaricating. You will see from the correspondence that I made the complaint in January 2013 and I did not receive a conclusive answer from the DPS until March 2014 and only then after I had written to the Home Secretary to complain.
Stripped of the volume of correspondence the business is very simple. I have provided Elevden with a letter sent by Piers Morgan to the Press Complaints Commission when he was editor of the Daily Mirror in which Morgan admits that he received information from a Metropolitan police officer in circumstances which can only have been illegal. A facsimile copy of Morgan’s letter is attached.
Edwards was the Mirror’s chief crime reporter who wrote the story based on the information obtained illegally from the police. Even without Morgan’s letter it is clear from the Mirror story that information had been illegally obtained because of the nature of the information in the story. I supplied Elveden with a photostat copy of the story
For the perjury complaint I supplied Elveden with the relevant extracts from Leveson stating that they have never obtained information illegally.
As for Det Supt Curtis, not only did he fail to question anyone at the Mirror or examine their records for evidence of payment for information, he did so after promising me that he would be doing both things. I provided Operation Elevden with a tape recording of Curtis making those promises.
The fact that I made the complaints against Curtis 14 years ago and the PCA rejected them is neither here nor there because of the peculiar circumstances which obtained at the time. Tony and Cherie Blair attempted to have me prosecuted and failed in the most humiliating fashion during the 1997 General Election campaign (the CPS sent the papers back to the police within hours of receiving them with NO CRIME emblazoned across them) . The Mirror story concerned the Blairs’ failure to have me prosecuted. After that failure the Blairs set Special Branch and MI5 on to me (I used the Data Protection Act to force both to admit they held files of me) and I consequently suffered ten years of harassment (for Blair’s entire premiership) which the Tory MP Sir Richard Body made public in the following Early Day Motion:
CONDUCT OF THE RIGHT HONOURABLE MEMBER FOR SEDGEFIELD 10:11:99
Sir Richard Body
That this House regrets that the Right honourable Member for Sedgefield [Tony Blair] attempted to persuade the Metropolitan Police to bring criminal charges against Robert Henderson, concerning the Right honourable Member’s complaints to the police of an offence against the person, malicious letters and racial insult arising from letters Robert Henderson had written to the Right honourable Member complaining about various instances of publicly-reported racism involving the Labour Party; and that, after the Crown Prosecution Service rejected the complaints of the Right honourable Member and the Right honourable Member failed to take any civil action against Robert Henderson, Special Branch were employed to spy upon Robert Henderson, notwithstanding that Robert Henderson had been officially cleared of any illegal action.
This motion is now part of the official House of Commons record – see http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=16305&SESSION=702
The reason I could not get the police and the PCA to act is horribly simple: they were not willing to act because Blair was Prime Minister, that is they refused to apply the law for illicit reasons to protect the most powerful politician in the land. This was truly a who shall guard the guards situation. To reject my complaint on the grounds that it is out of time would be perverse in these circumstances. At the least, those at the PCA who refused my complaint should be charged with misconduct in a public office.
As this matter has already been reviewed by the DPS, I presume that they have the full documentation and other items such as the tape recording of Curtis. Should anything be missing let me know and I will supply duplicates. If the DPS do not have the complete papers and other supporting artefacts, the DCI Neligan’s review of the case is by definition a sham.
My grounds for appeal are as follows:
1. I have not been adequately informed about the findings of the investigation or any proposals resulting from the report
As I have already pointed out, the handling of my complaints has been a dismal catalogue of prevarication. In addition, despite my repeated requests to be interviewed byElveden and give a formal statement and to be interviewed by the DPS, astonishingly I have been denied any face to face contact with any member of Elevden or the DPS and consequently have not been able to make a formal statement. This behaviour strongly suggests that both Elevden and the DPS know very well that I have provided cast-iron evidence and are desperate not to be subjected to questioning as to why no investigation has occurred because they know that it is impossible to give a rational reason for why they have not acted on Morgan’s incriminating letter.
- I disagree with the findings of the investigation including whether a person has a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct
The findings are absurd because of the Morgan letter alone, but the Mirror story and Curtis’ failure to investigate Morgan, Edwards and the Mirror generally make them doubly ridiculous.
All that both Elevden and the DPS have done is say we do not choose to investigate. They have not meaningfully justified their refusasl. For example, take DCI Neligan’s dismissal of the complaints against Morgan and Edwards,viz:
As Appropriate Authority, I am required to consider the findings and conclusions of complaint investigations to determine:
- whether the report should be referred to the Director of Prosecutions (CPS);
- whether or not any person to whose conduct the investigation relates to has a case to answer in respect of misconduct, gross misconduct or no case to answer;
- whether or not any such person’s performance is unsatisfactory;
- what action, if any, we will take in respect of the matters dealt with in the report; and
- what other action (if any) we will take in respect of these matters.
After considering these points I am satisfied the outcome does not need to be referred to the CPS.
I can also inform you that it has been determined there has not been a breach of the professional standards by any officer. Furthermore, I have conducted review of the officers’ performance, which I found to be satisfactory. This means that no further action will be taken in respect of your complaint.
Absolutely no explanation of why the complaints were refused is provided , merely the grounds on which they have been considered. That is shamefully inadequate. Worse, there is good reason to believe DCI Neligan cobbled together this judgement after I had panicked him into doing something by writing to the Home Secretary and copying the email to the type of distribution list that is attached to this email. I very much doubt whether he has even read most of the correspondence which arose from the case before it came to his desk.
The evidence is cast-iron and a failure to investigate is clear evidence of misconduct in public office and an attempt to pervert the course of justice by every officer who has handled my original complaint and the referral to the DPS.
3. I disagree with the police proposals for action – or lack of them – in light of the report
I disagree with them for the reasons given in 2, that is the evidence is cast-iron and a failure to investigate is clear evidence of misconduct in public office and an attempt to pervert the course of justice by every officer who has handled my original complaint and the referral to the DPS. Please take this as a formal complaint against all these officers. You have their names in the supporting correspondence.
4. I disagree with the decision not to refer the report to the CPS.
I disagree for exactly the same reasons I have given under 3.
The hard facts which are being ignored are these:
a. The Piers Morgan letter to the PCC is enough to convict Morgan of receiving information illegally from a police officer, conspiracy to breach the Official Secrets Act and conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office and breaches of the Data Protection Act. All that applies whether or not it can ;proved that money or any other material inducement was given to the police officer.
b. Morgan’s letter plus the Mirror story which used the illicit information is enough to convict Edwards of receiving information illegally from a police officer, conspiracy to breach the Official Secrets Act and conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office and breaches of the Data Protection Act.
c. The evidence given by Morgan and Edwards under oath provides strong grounds for investigating them for perjury. If it could be shown that the police officer received money – which was almost certainly the case – they would be open and shut cases of perjury. At the least Morgan and Edwards should be investigated to see whether money did change hands.
d. The Morgan letter, the Mirror story and the tape recording of Curtis promising to investigate Morgan, Edwards and the Mirror generally is enough to convict Curtis or misconduct in a public office and of perverting the course of justice.
I suggest you print out the attached Piers Morgan letter and sit and look at it for a while and ask yourself how on earth a failure to investigate such evidence could be explained in a court or before TV cameras.
Finally, I repeat the request to meet with whoever is going to deal with this case at the DPS and to give a formal statement.
From: robert henderson [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: 09 April 2014 17:20
To: DPS Mailbox – Appeals
Subject: Appeal against failure of Operation Elveden to investigate Piers Morgan and others – please acknowledge
Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS)
Appeals Unit,Metropolitan Police Service,
22nd Floor ESB,Lillie Road,
9 April 2014
I sent the appeal reproduced below to you on 6th April. I have not received an acknowledgement. Please acknowledge receipt of the original email by return.
- Today [11 April 2014] at 10:51 AM
Thank you for your appeal regarding your recent complaint against police, reference PC/0455/14. This was received in this office on 6th April 2014.
I regret to inform you it is taking approximately sixteen (16) weeks to consider new appeals. Therefore, you ought to expect not to hear anything in the intervening period. However, we are constantly reviewing cases and that timescale may be reduced. If not, we will write or email you again in 16 weeks time with an update, providing a realistic timescale of when you can expect your appeal assessment to be completed.
Directorate of Professional Standards