Public Office (Accountability) Bill — Written evidence submitted by Hacked Off (POAB15)
Parliament bill publication: Written evidence. Commons.
Hacked Off Submission to Public Office (Accountability) Bill Committee call for evidence November 2025 Executive summary 1. In its long title, The Public Office (Accountability) Bill promises to “ require public authorities to
promote
and
take
steps
to
maintain
ethical
conduct
within
all
parts
of
the
authority
”.
Yet
it
fails
to
address
one
of
the
most
persistent
and
deep-rooted
sources
of
public
authority
impropriety:
officials’
improper,
corrupt
and
sometimes
unlawful
relations
with
the
media.
2. As a member of the Hillsborough Now Coalition, Hacked Off welcomes the Bill in principle and
endorses
the
coalition’s
submission.
However,
the
absence
of
action
to
tackle
relations
between
public
officials
and
the
media
is
a
critical
omission
which
must
be
addressed.
3. We recommend the Bill is amended in the following two ways: 3.1. To include a provision requiring the Government to establish an inquiry under the
Inquiries
Act
2005,
to
deliver
fully
on
its
promise
to
secure
candour
and
accountability
in
public
life.
This
inquiry
should
deal
with
evidence
of
unethical
conduct
in
respect
of
relations
between
public
authorities,
officials
and
news
publishers,
and
make
recommendations
for
appropriate
reforms
to
protect
the
public
in
the
future.
3.2. The exemption for journalism under Section 11 of the Bill, ‘Offence of misleading the
public’,
should
be
removed
to
prevent
a
carve-out
for
public
officials
seeking
to
perpetrate
dishonesty
or
mislead
the
public
through
media
publications.
Public officials & the mediabasis for a public inquiry
4. This Bill’s purposes and objectives (as set out in the long title) promise accountability and candour
from
public
officials,
yet
the
Bill
does
not
engage
with
the
relationships
through
which
some
of
the
most
prominent
and
severe
cases
of
impropriety
arise.
In
particular,
it
omits
any
reference
to
the
well-established
need
for
a
public
inquiry
into
relationships
between
public
officials
and
the
media.
Evidence
of
profound,
systemic
and
persistent
impropriety
between
public
officials
and
the
media
is
evident
in
a
series
of
events
over
the
last
few
decades:
4.1. The impropriety of South Yorkshire Police (SYP) and its relations with the media following the
Battle
of
Orgreave.
4.2. The improper relations between SYP & The Sun following Hillsborough; many of the families
have
subsequently
called
for
a
public
inquiry
into
this
aspect,
as
referred
to
in
the
Rt
Reverend
James
Jones’
report.
4.3. Relations between News UK (formerly News International) and the Metropolitan Police
Service
(MPS)
in
respect
of
the
investigations
into
the
murder
of
Daniel
Morgan;
Daniel’s
brother
Alastair
has
called
for
a
public
inquiry
into
this
aspect,
saying,
"There are still critically important unanswered questions about Daniel's death, and
corruption
between
the
police
and
the
media
is
at
the
heart
of
it.
These
organisations
close
ranks
every
time
they
are
challenged,
and
we
need
a
public
inquiry
to
find
the
truth.”
1
4.4. Successive failures by the MPS to fully investigate allegations of widespread illegality at
News
UK
throughout
the
00s
in
relation
to
the
phone
hacking
scandal,
at
the
same
time
as
News
UK
editors
&
senior
MPS
officers
enjoyed
close
relationships.
4.5. The Information Commissioner’s failure to investigate evidence of phone hacking committed
on
behalf
of
newspapers
in
the
2000s,
following
the
ICO’s
Operation
Motorman
investigation.
4.6. The failure by Surrey Police to act on information relating to News UK’s hacking of the
voicemails
of
Milly
Dowler
in
2002.
4.7. Relations between News UK and the MPS in respect of information published surrounding
the
assault
of
Jenny
Evans;
she
has
called
for
a
public
inquiry,
saying,
“That the police took the details of what I had lived through and passed them to a
newspaper
was
a
profound
betrayal.
It
caused
real
pain.
We
need
a
public
inquiry
so
that
what
happened
to
me
—
and
to
others
—
is
properly
understood
and
never
repeated.”
4.8. The reliance of the MPS on the evidence of Mazher Mahmood throughout the 1990s, 2000s
and
early
2010s;
the
close
relationship
between
Mahmood,
News
UK
and
the
MPS,
which
is
alleged
to
have
shielded
Mahmood
from
exposure
or
even
prosecution.
Journalist
&
Mahmood
expert
Paddy
French
has
said,
“The Metropolitan Police Force’s attitude and relationship to Mahmood was deeply
disturbing.
There
is
an
overwhelming
case
for
a
public
inquiry
into
the
relations
between
police
officers
of
that
force,
Mr
Mahmood,
and
News
UK
more
broadly.”
More detailed evidence of UK press and media contributing to public officials’
impropriety
is
set
out
at
length
from
page
5
below.
5. The Bill’s long title specifically promises that the Bill will “ require public authorities to promote and
take
steps
to
maintain
ethical
conduct
within
all
parts
of
the
authority
.”
That
objective
cannot
be
achieved
without
a
review
of
relations
between
public
officials
and
the
media,
which
has
been
repeatedly
recommended
by
various
investigations,
inquiries
and
experts
for
several
decades.
6. The Bill as it stands otherwise fails to address public official impropriety in respect of relations with
the
media;
dealing
only
with
officials’
direct
and
public
statements.
The
only
provision
it
contains
which
makes
any
meaningful
attempt
to
grapple
with
improper
public
official
and
media
relations
is
the
clause
9
ethical
code
requirement.
Yet,
in
many
of
the
cases
described
above
and
from
page
5
below,
the
conduct
alleged
is
already
unlawful
or
at
least
widely
known
to
be
unethical.
The
introduction
of
a
code
is
likely
to
have
absolutely
no
impact
whatsoever
on
these
covert
and
improper
relations.
7. The Minister has argued that the media landscape has changed and things have moved on. As
detailed
below,
this
is
false.
More
people
read
content
published
by
newspapers
today
than
ever
before,
and
the
power
of
the
press
is
even
more
concentrated.
But
in
any
case,
it
is
irrelevant
to
the
question
of
relations
between
the
press,
the
police
and
other
public
authorities;
there
is
no
reason
or
evidence
to
show
that
police/press
relations
have
been
materially
altered
by
the
rise
of
the
internet
or
other
changes
in
the
news
“landscape”
(whatever
that
is
taken
to
mean).
Journalism exemption from the Offence of Misleading the Public
8. Clause 11 creates the “Offence of Misleading the Public”. Subclause (1) sets this out: 2
A public authority or public official commits an offence if, in their capacity as such an
authority
or
official—
(a) they act with the intention of misleading the public or are reckless as to whether their act
will
do
so,
and
(b) they know, or ought to know, that their act is seriously improper.
However, subclause (4) states:
(4) Nothing in this section applies to an act done—
…
(b) for the purposes of journalism.
9. The purpose of this exemption in 11(4)(b) is unclear. The explanatory notes refer to the BBC, and
imply
that
it
is
to
protect
BBC
employees
from
the
impact
of
the
Bill.
But
the
language
of
the
Bill
and
the
lack
of
definition
of
the
“purposes
of
journalism”,
seem
to
go
much
wider,
potentially
covering
politicians’
and
police
officers’
articles
in
newspapers.
10. In any case, the threshold for committing the offence is so high as to render this exemption
unnecessary
for
the
purposes
of
freedom
of
expression.
There
are
six
tests
which
must
all
be
satisfied
to
warrant
prosecution.
In
particular,
the
individual
must
have,
a. “departed significantly” from the expectations of their role, and b. “caused harm” to someone, and c. been responsible for “significant or repeated” dishonesty, and d. that dishonesty was related to matters of “significant concern” to the public, and e. a reasonable person would consider their actions “seriously improper”, and f. they know or ought to know their act was “seriously improper”.
11. This sets an extremely high threshold. There is no conceivable conduct which would satisfy these
tests,
and
would
yet
be
a
legitimate
journalistic
activity.
12. Furthermore, there is a risk that police officers or politicians will use the platform of the media to
spread
lies
and
falsehoods,
as
is
precisely
what
happened
after
Hillsborough.
This
is
a
loophole
which
should
be
addressed
by
removing
this
exemption.
Position of the Government 13. In her closing remarks during the Second Reading of the Bill, the Minister argued that reinstating
Part
2
of
the
Leveson
Inquiry
-
inquiring
into
unlawful
conduct
at
newspapers
and
corrupt
relationships
between
the
press,
the
police
and
other
public
authorities
-
is
“out
of
scope”
for
the
Bill.
But
we
propose
a
public
inquiry,
which
specifically
targets
public
officials’
relations
in
the
media,
is
manifestly
in
scope.
Indeed,
given
the
short
and
long
titles
of
the
Bill,
its
absence
is
an
oversight
which
must
be
rectified.
14. The British media – and national newspaper publishers especially - have operated hand in hand with
public
authorities
to
evade
accountability
for
impropriety
and
misconduct.
National
newspapers
have
perpetrated
falsehoods
that
presented
victims
of
wrongdoing
as
the
perpetrators,
while
press
coverage
of
major
scandals
has
laundered
and
legitimised
the
deceptions
and
dishonesty
of
public
officials.
Across
almost
every
case
of
public
misconduct
and
corruption,
victims
have
made
it
clear
that
the
actions
of
the
press
significantly
compounded
the
harm
and
abuse
they
had
experienced.
3
As the Right Reverend Jones’ 2017 report for the House of Commons found in reference to The Sun
newspaper,
press
coverage
which
came
about
as
a
result
of
improper
relations
between
public
officials
and
the
media
became
“a
barrier
to
truth
and
justice”
for
the
victims
of
the
Hillsborough
disaster
.
1
15. We also refute the Minister’s claim that “the media landscape has drastically and dramatically
moved
on”.
New
media
technologies
and
audience
habits
have
changed
considerably
in
recent
years,
with
social
media
and
digital
platforms
having
a
dominant
role
in
how
news
and
information
is
found
and
shared.
However,
the
UK
press
and
national
newspaper
publishers’
extent
of
influence
and
power
is
unchanged.
16. Despite consistently declining print circulation since the 1980s, the overall reach of newspaper
content
has
never
been
higher
-
newspapers
and
content
published
on
their
websites
reaches
a
combined
monthly
UK
audience
of
46.2
million
people.
2
The
three
largest
newspaper
publishers
-
DMG
Media,
News
UK
and
Reach
-
together
account
for
two-fifths
of
the
combined
online
reach
of
the
UK’s
top
50
news
websites.
National
newspapers
comprise
nine
of
the
top
15
‘newsbrands’
in
the
UK
news
market,
and
are
amongst
some
of
the
most-followed
accounts
on
social
media.
3
Despite
being
effectively
unregulated
as
members
of
IPSO
-
the
complaints
handler
owned
and
controlled
by
the
newspaper
industry
-
national
newspapers
receive
undue
prominence
from
news
aggregators
which
unaccountably
label
these
titles
as
‘trusted’
sources.
In
any
case
this
has
little
relevance,
if
any,
to
the
question
of
the
ethics
and
legality
of
police
and
press
relations.
About Hacked Off 17. Hacked Off campaigns for media freedom and press accountability, and was formed in response to
the
phone
hacking
scandal,
which
revealed
industrial-scale
criminality
at
News
International
(now
News
UK),
Reach
PLC
and
other
national
news
publishers.
The
resulting
Leveson
Inquiry
further
exposed
a
widespread
culture
across
the
British
newspaper
industry
of
corruption,
cover-ups
and
unethical
behaviour
involving
the
police
and
other
public
authorities.
Following
the
Government’s
cancellation
of
the
second
part
of
the
Leveson
Inquiry
(‘Leveson
2’)
in
2018,
the
full
extent
of
this
corrupt
culture
–
including
unlawful
interactions
between
the
press,
the
police
and
other
public
authorities
–
remains
unknown
and
uninvestigated.
3
Media Reform Coalition, Who Owns The UK Media? 2025 Report
.
2
PaMCO industry data 2024, reported by Press Gazette
.
1
House of Commons & The Right Reverend James Jones KBE (2017) A report to ensure the pain and suffering of the
Hillsborough
families
is
not
repeated, pg. 22.
4
Evidence of historic and ongoing impropriety in relations between public officials and the media Deceptive press and BBC coverage of police violence at Orgreave 18. False and sensationalised media coverage played a pivotal role in falsely justifying police violence
and
mass
arrests
against
striking
miners
at
Orgreave
in
1984.
Photography
from
the
scene
that
documented
excessive
use
of
force
by
the
police
was
ignored
or
dismissed
as
“anti-police
propaganda”
in
press
coverage,
which
was
frequently
accompanied
by
favourable
quotes
from
the
Police
Federation.
4
The
BBC
also
notoriously
flipped
the
order
of
footage
it
broadcast
from
the
clashes,
appearing
to
show
miners
attacking
police
prior
to
a
mounted
response
when
in
reality
the
police
charged
first.
A
2015
review
by
the
Independent
Police
Complaints
Commission
confirmed
officially,
despite
the
truth
being
apparent
for
decades,
that
the
BBC
had
reversed
the
order
of
footage
-
a
deception
the
BBC
continues
to
deny
and
for
which
it
has
never
apologised.
5
Investigations into the murder of Daniel Morgan Press & corrupt police interference in investigations 19. The Report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel detailed how journalists working for the News
Of
The
World
newspaper
surveilled,
intruded
on
and
attempted
to
blag
private
information
about
the
senior
investigating
officer
(SIO)
in
charge
of
re-investigating
the
1987
murder
of
Daniel
Morgan.
The
Report
found
that
“the
circumstantial
evidence
suggests
very
strongly”
that
this
was
arranged,
in
part,
by
Sidney
Fillery,
the
former
police
officer
who
had
been
first
assigned
to
investigate
Daniel’s
murder
in
1987.
20. The Independent Panel established that there was a “longstanding” relationship between News UK
and
a
private
detective
firm
at
the
centre
of
police
investigations,
Southern
Investigations
(Morgan’s
former
employer).
These
were
linked
to
the
MPS
directly,
through
Fillery,
who
had
been
hired
by
Southern
Investigations
prior
to
Daniel’s
murder
to
pass
on
information,
and
circumstantially,
through
the
finding
that
a
number
of
Fillery’s
and
Southern
Investigation’s
associates
in
the
police
force
had
been
convicted
of
various
offences
which
implied
corruption
and/or
impropriety.
Southern
Investigations
derived
“a
substantial
portion”
of
its
income
from
providing
information
to
the
press,
including
“the
passing
of
sensitive
and
confidential
information
to
the
media
for
the
private
gain”.
This
was
“derived
from
police
sources”,
i.e.
serving
police
officers.
6
21. The Independent Panel outlined in particular how News UK reporter Alex Marunchak and Fillery,
“were
exploring
ways
of
discrediting
the
investigation”
into
the
Daniel
Morgan
murder.
7
Staff
and
photojournalists
working
for
News
UK
subsequently
placed
the
SIO
and
his
wife
(Jacqui
Hames)
under
surveillance,
using
vehicles
identified
as
leased
to
News
UK
to
surveil
and
intrude
on
their
private
residence.
During
this
period,
the
SIO
also
reported
tampering
with
his
private
and
receiving
suspicious
phone
calls,
indicative
of
the
‘blagging’
conducted
by
private
detectives
and
journalists
to
acquire
private
information
-
as
subsequently
revealed
by
the
Leveson
Inquiry.
The
Independent
Panel
concluded
that
the
evidence
available
to
it
“suggests
very
strongly
that
the
intrusive
activity”
organised
by
News
UK
staff
in
concert
with
private
detectives
and
former
police
officers
was
arranged
to
discredit
and
intimidate
Police
investigators
“and
thus
disrupt”
the
investigations.
8
8
ibid.,
pg.
517
7
ibid.,
pg.
509
6
The Report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel
,
June
2021,
Pg.
510
5
IPCC review of matters relating to the policing of events at Orgreave coking plant in 1984
,
pg.
12.
4
Petley and Bailey, ‘The Making of an Icon - and How the British Press Tried to Destroy It’, Campaign for Press and
Broadcasting
Freedom.
5
Daniel Morgan investigationsImproper relationships between the police and the press 22. The Report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel further explored the ‘linkages’ between the
police
and
the
press.
It
criticised
the
trend
of
senior
police
officials
‘cultivating’
relationships
with
media
organisations
that
were
known
to
be
facing
serious
allegations
of
unlawfully
acquiring
information
from
serving
and
former
police
officers.
The
Independent
Panel
further
criticised
former
senior
police
officials
who
had
“compromised
the
integrity
of
the
police”
by
downplaying
reports
of
phone
hacking
while
employed
by
News
Of
The
World
.
9
23. Daniel Morgan’s brother Alastair said,
"There are still critically important unanswered questions about Daniel's death, and
corruption
between
the
police
and
the
media
is
at
the
heart
of
it.
These
organisations
close
ranks
every
time
they
are
challenged,
and
we
need
a
public
inquiry
to
find
the
truth.”
Hillsborough disaster & Cover-up 24. After the Hillsborough disaster disinformation was rapidly spread by representatives of South
Yorkshire
Police.
In
addition
to
remarks
made
in
the
immediate
aftermath
of
the
disaster
by
David
Duckenfield,
which
falsely
alleged
hooliganism,
police
officers
went
on
to
brief
a
news
agency
that
fans
had
not
only
caused
the
disaster,
but
had
abused
and
stolen
from
the
dead.
This
subsequently
provided
the
basis
for
the
infamous
“The
Truth”
story
in
The
Sun
.
25. The impropriety of public officials who conspired with the press to present a false and misleading
narrative
at
what
happened
at
Hillsborough
had
devastating
consequences.
Bishop
James
Jones’
report
quotes:
“I tried hard not to speak about Hillsborough but it was everywhere but I managed to develop
what
I
would
call
a
“guarded
watchfulness”.
If
I
ever
sensed
that
Hillsborough,
Liverpool
or
football
supporters
were
going
to
be
discussed
I
would
get
myself
out
of
the
situation.
For
example,
there
were
times
I
can
remember
when
clients
would
start
talking
about
Hillsborough,
unaware
that
I
was
from
Liverpool,
and
I
would
start
to
panic.
I
wanted
to
stand
up
for
all
the
fans
but
felt
vulnerable
and
weak,
knowing
I
would
break
22
down
in
tears.
I
wanted
to
be
professional
and
good
at
my
job,
but
felt
constantly
angry
that
judgements
were
being
made
by
the
media,
press
and
the
general
public.”
10
26. Bishop James Jones finds that the cover-up, a product of the impropriety of police officers & the
media,
slowed
down
the
pursuit
of
justice.
He
said
it
“acted
itself
as
a
barrier
to
truth
and
justice,
in
that
it
affected
people’s
willingness
to
engage
with
the
families’
campaign.”
He
also
quotes
Guardian
journalist
David
Conn,
who
echoed
this
sentiment:
“The
inaccurate
media
coverage,
failure
to
check
stories
and
perpetuation
of
prejudice
against
the
victims
did
terrible
damage
to
the
families
and
survivors,
and
also
contributed
to
the
injustice
and
failure
to
hold
it
to
account.”
27. The Sun ’s political editor Trevor Kavanagh also claims that he was briefed by an advisor to Margaret
Thatcher,
the
Prime
Minister,
with
the
same
allegations.
So
too,
involved
in
the
sequence
of
events,
is
Irvine
Patnick,
the
local
MP
(and
member
of
the
governing
party),
who
repeated
and
amplified
the
police’s
(false)
version
of
events.
10
Dorothy
Griffiths,
sister
of
Vincent
Fitzsimmons,
quoted
in
Rt
Rv
Jones
Report,
pgs.
21-22.
9
ibid., pg. 1096
6
28. Over time, and through the limited investigations which have occurred, some of these networks and
individuals
implicated
have
been
identified.
However,
the
identities
of
many
of
those
involved
in
the
chain
of
communications
which
supported
the
cover-up
remain
a
secret,
while
some
of
these
exchanges
are
disputed.
Of
perhaps
even
greater
concern
is
that
there
has
been
no
full
and
detailed
investigation,
with
appropriate
powers,
into
these
networks
and
associations
themselves.
29. As a result, we still do not know the truth about precisely how this cover-up was perpetrated. It is
possible
that
individuals
involved
continue
to
serve
in
public
office;
it
is
very
likely
that
the
improper
networks
and
associations
between
police
services,
newspapers
and
other
public
authorities
continue
to
operate.
30. Furthermore, a number of families reported their belief that private information was provided to the
press
by
police
officers:
“In the aftermath of the disaster I could not understand how the press got hold of my name. I
thought
that
the
only
way
this
could
have
happened
was
either
through
the
hospital
admission
records
or
from
the
police.
I
had
no
direct
contact
with
the
press.
After
the
disaster
I
went
to
live
with
Arthur’s
widow,
Susan,
spending
most
of
my
time
with
her
on
the
Wirrall.
Little
did
I
know
that
the
press
were
also
camped
out
at
my
place
in
Bootle.
How
did
they
get
my
address?”
11
31. A number of other families also reported their suspicions that police officers were supplying the
press
with
personal
information,
several
more
of
them
quoted
in
Bishop
James
Jones’
report.
This
is
a
practice
likely
to
persist
to
this
day.
Indeed,
there
is
a
pattern
of
individuals
affected
by
major
disasters
reporting
that
the
press
has
discovered
their
address
or
other
personal
details;
often,
it
is
alleged,
via
the
police.
32. Groups representing the families affected by Hillsborough have repeatedly called for a public inquiry
into
the
relations
between
the
police,
the
press
and
politicians,
and
related
matters.
Failures to investigate news publishers in respect of allegations of voicemail interception (“phone
hacking”)
and
other
illegality
1999: Operation Nigeria
33. Jonathan Rees, who ran the investigations firm which supplied unlawfully obtained information to
News
UK,
Southern
Investigations,
was
bugged
in
1999
and
subsequently
arrested.
34. Evidence associated with that investigation ought to have alerted the police to the fact that News UK
were
paying
for
stolen
information.
Rees
openly
boasted
about
his
network
of
corrupt
police
officers
helping
to
supply
information,
and
he
was
in
receipt
of
£150k/year
from
News
of
the
World
alone.
Yet
the
police
took
no
action
against
News
UK.
2003: Operation Glade
35. In 2003 and 2004, Metropolitan Police Service Operation Glade found evidence that illegally
obtained
information
had
been
passed
from
police
officers
to
private
investigators,
and
had
ultimately
been
sold
to
news
publishers.
36. Several reporters in receipt of stolen information were interviewed, but the police declined to search
them
or
investigate
further.
It
is
alleged
that
improper
relations
between
police
officers
and
the
press
11
Dave Golding, nephew of Arthur Horrocks, quoted in Rt Rv Jones Report, pg. 11. 7
may have informed this decision. The MPS Commissioner during this period (2000-2005) went on to
write
for
News
UK
(News
International,
as
it
was).
2006: Operation Caryatid
37. In 2006, in the course of their investigations into voicemail interception (hacking) committed against
the
Royal
household,
the
MPS
seized
the
notebooks
of
investigator
Glenn
Mulcaire,
which
contained
evidence
of
industrial-scale
phone
hacking
committed
on
behalf
of
the
press
against
thousands
of
private
individuals.
38. Yet beyond NOTW reporter Clive Goodman (and Mulcaire), who was charged and convicted for the
timeshacking
of
members
of
the
Royal
household,
the
police
failed
to
investigate
the
evidence
they
now
had
of
hacking
on
a
much
wider
scale.
For
years,
they
did
not
even
inform
the
victims.
39. This operation was initially overseen by the Assistant Commissioner. He was later employed by
News
UK
for
whom,
in
his
column
for
The
Times
,
he
wrote
that
the
2006
operation
had
been
so
thorough
as
to
have
left
“no
stone
unturned”.
As
confirmed
by
later
revelations
and,
in
particular,
Operation
Weeting
in
2011,
this
was
evidently
not
the
case.
40. In 2009, when further allegations of phone hacking arose, the police refused to reopen the 2006
investigation.
The
Commissioner
at
the
time
was
Sir
Paul
Stephenson,
a
close
friend
of
News
UK
Executive
Editor
Neil
Wallis.
Stephenson
employed
Wallis
on
behalf
of
the
MPS
in
a
consultancy
role,
and
Stephenson
received
a
complimentary
stay
at
a
spa
facility
which
employed
Wallis.
The
pair
had
at
least
eight
dinners
together
between
2006
and
2011.
41. Sir Paul directed Assistant Commissioner John Yates to look at the new allegations, “establish the
facts”,
and
consider
the
basis
for
a
review
of
the
2006
operation.
Yates,
also
a
close
friend
of
News
UK’s
Neil
Wallis,
did
not
recommend
a
review
and
the
scandal
remained
covered-up
until
further
stories
emerged
in
2011.
2003: The Information Commissioner (ICO)
42. The ICO, another public authority, too faces allegations of impropriety in relation to the media. In
2003
the
ICO
launched
Operation
Motorman,
which
uncovered
evidence
that
private
investigators
were
receiving
hundreds
of
requests
for
stolen
information
commissioned
by
national
newspapers.
However,
the
ICO
failed
to
take
any
action
against
the
media.
The
former
ICO
officer,
the
late
Alec
Owens,
was
extremely
critical
of
the
ICO’s
failures,
and
attributed
them
to
a
“fear”
of
the
press,
which
significantly
damaged
the
interests
of
the
victims.
2002: Surrey Police, Operation Baronet
43. Operation Baronet found that in 2002, police officers at Surrey Police became aware that Milly
Dowler’s
phone
was
hacked.
No
action
against
News
UK
appears
to
have
been
taken,
and
the
public
nor
the
Dowler
family
were
made
aware
of
what
had
happened
until
almost
ten
years
later.
44. In respect of the phone hacking scandal, public authorities demonstrated a persistent refusal to take
proportionate
action
against
the
press,
in
the
face
of
overwhelming
evidence
of
wrongdoing.
While
this
was
going
on,
senior
public
officials
enjoyed
close
(and
sometimes
paid)
relationships
with
the
media.
The
victims
have
called
for
a
public
inquiry
into
the
closeness
of
these
public
officials
and
News
UK,
calling
the
ongoing
failure
to
launch
one
a
“tacit
endorsement”
of
corruption
and
impropriety.
Mazher Mahmood & the MPS 8
45. Mazher Mahmood was known as “the Fake Sheikh”. In 2016 he was convicted of perverting the
course
of
justice
after
tampering
with
evidence
in
the
trial
of
Tulisa
Contostavlos;
the
case
against
her
brought
about
by
a
Mahmood
sting.
He
conducted
dozens
of
sting
operations
on
behalf
of
News
UK
throughout
the
1990s,
2000s
and
early
2010s.
During
this
period
his
stings
provided
evidence
used
to
secure
an
estimated
94
convictions,
despite
allegations
that
his
methods
were
unethical
or
even
illegal.
He
formed
close
relationships
with
the
MPS
that,
it
is
alleged,
protected
him
from
prosecution
during
this
period.
46. As early as 1994, merely one year into his career at News UK, a story provided by Mahmood formed
the
basis
of
a
prosecution
against
men
charged
with
defrauding
the
Department
of
Social
Services.
At
trial,
Mahmood’s
evidence
in
the
case
was
directly
contradicted
by
police
and
the
case
collapsed.
Despite
Mahmood’s
evidenced
unreliability,
the
MPS
continued
to
rely
on
his
evidence
for
further
convictions.
47. In 2003 Mahmood's collusion with the police reached a peak, as he reported an alleged plot to
kidnap
Victoria
Beckham.
In
fact,
this
was
a
sting
coordinated
by
Mahmood.
It
later
emerged
at
trial
that
the
entire
case
rested
on
an
unreliable
witness
who
had
been
paid
by
News
UK.
The
trial
itself
descended
into
farce,
as
it
became
apparent
that
Mahmood’s
witness,
Florim
Gashi,
had
planted
the
idea
of
kidnapping
Beckham
among
the
suspects,
and
that
they
had
never
taken
the
idea
seriously.
Despite
this
further
evidence
that
Mahmood’s
methods
and
conduct
were
unreliable,
the
MPS
continued
to
rely
on
his
evidence
for
convictions,
and
more
people
-
many
of
whom
claim
innocence
to
this
day
-
went
on
to
be
arrested
or
lose
their
livelihoods
after
being
targeted
by
him.
48. In the course of exchanges between Mahmood and the MPS subsequent to the failed Victoria
Beckham
case,
Mahmood
told
the
police,
“I’ve
got
bent
police
officers
that
are
witnesses,
that
are
informants.”
Despite
this
alarming
disclosure,
the
police
declined
to
investigate
News
UK
further.
49. More cases were affected by Mahmood’s untrustworthiness over subsequent years. Yet the MPS
never
stopped
relying
on
his
evidence,
right
up
until
the
Contostavlos
case
in
2014.
Paddy
French,
an
authority
on
Mahmood
and
one
author
of
“Rogue:
The
Rise
and
Fall
of
Mazher
“Fake
Sheikh”
Mahmood”,
said,
“The Metropolitan Police Force’s attitude and relationship to Mahmood was deeply
disturbing.
There
is
an
overwhelming
case
for
a
public
inquiry
into
the
relations
between
police
officers
of
that
force,
Mr
Mahmood,
and
News
UK
more
broadly.”
Further cases of impropriety between public officials and the press
Coverage of the assault of Jenny Evans
50. Ms Evans was the victim of a sexual assault committed by a well-known person. She reported the
crime
to
the
police
and
was
interviewed
by
officers.
Details
of
her
assault
then
appeared
in
a
national
newspaper
the
following
day.
She
subsequently
discovered
that
police
officers
sold
details
of
her
ordeal
to
reporters.
Ms
Evans
has
said,
“That the police took the details of what I had lived through and passed them to a newspaper
was
a
profound
betrayal.
It
caused
real
pain.
We
need
a
public
inquiry
so
that
what
happened
to
me
—
and
to
others
—
is
properly
understood
and
never
repeated.”
Caroline Flack
9
51. There are allegations of impropriety in the relations between police officers and the press in
connection
with
the
pursuit
and
death
of
presenter
Caroline
Flack.
Caroline’s
mother
Christine,
in
particular,
believes
that
information
was
privately
exchanged
between
the
police
and
the
media.
10