How lives of three police chiefs who allegedly leaked to tabloids are still in limbo (unlike Operation Weeting detective who leaked to Guardian).

IN August 2011, Detective Constable Peter Cripps, a member of the Metropolitan Police team investigating phone hacking by members of the Press, was arrested at his desk.

 His downfall came on the same day that the Guardian newspaper ran its latest exclusive story about a Weeting-linked arrest of a journalist. On this occasion the detained reporter in question was one James Desborough, formerly the U.S. editor of the News of the World.

 This latest story had explained: ‘The allegations are believed to relate to events before Desborough was promoted to be the NoW’s Los Angeles-based U.S. editor in April 2009.

 ‘His move to the U.S. makes his arrest, the 13th made by Operation Weeting [the phone hacking investigation], particularly significant. If Desborough was involved in hacking while in Britain, it raises the question of whether he practised those techniques in the U.S. - and if so, whether he was the first and only News of the World journalist in the U.S. to do so.’

 Significant indeed.

 But most significant of all perhaps was that the by-line was that of Guardian reporter Amelia Hill, and that Desborough was still in police custody when her story appeared online. It should be noted here that the allegations against Desborough turned out to be false and he was completely exonerated.

 After Cripps was arrested by anti-corruption detectives conducting an internal inquiry into leaks at New Scotland Yard, they found there had been more than 500 phone calls between the then 53-year-old officer and Ms Hill during the height of the hacking affair. It was a wonder that Cripps was able to pursue his day job.

 Ms Hill was interviewed under caution about her dealings with Cripps. Understandably, there was a huge row about the development.

 Then, in May 2012, the Crown Prosecution Service announced – to the surprise of many - that Cripps should not be charged with any criminal offences. Ms Hill was also told she would not face trial.

 Explaining the decision, Alison Levitt QC, then Principal Legal Advisor to the Director of Public Prosecutions, said: ‘Between 4 April 2011 and 18 August 2011, Ms. Hill wrote ten articles which were published in The Guardian. I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to establish that  these articles contained confidential information derived from Operation Weeting, including  the names of those who had been arrested.

 'I am also satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to establish that the police officer disclosed that information to Ms Hill.’

 But she concluded that there was ‘insufficient evidence against either suspect to provide a realistic prospect of conviction for the common law offence of misconduct in a public office or conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office’.

 ‘In this case, there is no evidence that the police officer was paid any money for the information he provided.

 ‘Moreover, the information disclosed by the police officer, although confidential, was not highly sensitive. It did not expose anyone to a risk of injury or death.  It did not compromise the investigation. And the information in question would probably have made it into the public domain by some other means, albeit at some later stage.’

 So Ms Hill was, quite rightly, free to continue her journalism career. Good luck to her.

 Cripps (pictured since his retirement below) faced a less certain future. For a while at least.

 

 He remained suspended on full pay for another nine months until the Met (motto: ‘integrity is not negotiable’) announced that Cripps had been allowed to retire before he had faced disciplinary proceedings for gross misconduct. This meant that he would be able to draw his full police pension immediately.

 Now contrast his treatment with three other, more senior police officers, who have been arrested for allegedly leaking to the media – like Cripps, not for money.

 In January 2012, former Met chief supt Dave Cook was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in a public office, namely the unauthorised disclosure of confidential information to a red-top journalist. At the time of his arrest, Mr Cook was a senior investigator at the Serious and Organised Crime Agency.

 My understanding is that Mr Cook (pictured below) has not been interviewed since being arrested and bailed nearly three years ago and is still waiting to find out whether he will be charged. He is not suspected of taking money for information.

 

 The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) says a report on his case has been signed off and a decision is due to be taken on whether it should be sent to the Crown Prosecution Service for a charging decision.

 In February 2013, serving Met chief supt Andy Rowell – commander of a west London police borough - was arrested at his home in Wiltshire on suspicion of misconduct in a public office.

 My understanding is that he is alleged to have leaked confidential information to a red top journalist.

 In a police statement at the time of his arrest, it was made clear Mr Rowell was not alleged to have received any money in return for information and the CPS has since decided there was insufficient evidence to charge him with any criminal offences.

 But unlike in the case of Cripps, the Metropolitan Police won’t allow Mr Rowell (pictured below) to retire – as he probably hoped to do after 30 years’ service  -  and he is expected to face a gross misconduct hearing next year. Should he be sacked, there could be consequences for his pension.

 

Now consider the case of former City of London Police Assistant Commissioner Frank Armstrong, who in March 2013 was arrested in a dawn raid on suspicion of misconduct in a public office – namely leaking information to a red top journalist.

 Again it was made clear at the time that it was not alleged that money had exchanged hands between Mr Armstrong [pictured below) and the reporter.

 

 Some 19 months later, the former £130,000 a year officer is still waiting to hear his fate. A file on his case was recently sent to the Crown Prosecution Service, whose lawyers will decide whether he should face trial.

 The point of this blog is not to campaign on behalf of Mr Cook, Mr Rowell or Mr Armstrong. 

 Nor is to criticise the Guardian, whose role in exposing the hacking scandal must be applauded.

 It is to expose the double standards of the police.   

 Just remember this.

 A detective who leaked secrets from the most sensitive police investigation in modern times to a ‘serious newspaper’ escapes criminal charges and misconduct proceedings, and is allowed to retire (with a bumper pension) after spending 19 months suspended on full pay.

 Three other officers, suspected of leaking to red top journalists, are still waiting to learn their fates after spending between 19 months and nearly three years under investigation.

 Was Cripps treated with kid gloves because he was leaking the names of journalists to the newspaper that was driving the phone hacking investigation and which embarrassed the Met? Would things have been different if he’d been passing information to the News of the World?

  In the week when Home Secretary Theresa May has asked questions about the length of time suspects are being kept on police bail, there are mounting concerns about the police disciplinary process.

  It is simply not right that there is apparently one rule for an officer who leaked to the Guardian, and colleagues who allegedly leaked to so-called downmarket newspapers.

 

 

 

 

Why 20 years after the West case, memories of the appalling sexual abuse, torture and murder in Cromwell Street don't fade

Twenty years ago this week, I was sitting in the cramped offices of the 'Hawkins of Gloucester' news agency - filing a story for the Daily Mail - when another Fleet Street journalist asked: 'Is it the 'Garden of Death' or 'House of Horrors'?

'Most definitely, the 'House of Horrors',' replied a rival hack who was in Gloucester to report on the awful story unfolding at 25, Cromwell Street.

The 'House of Horrors' phrase, previously used to describe the home of serial killer Dennis Nilsen, was later adopted by all sections of the media when referring to Fred and Rose West's property.

Cliches are an unfortunate feature of popular journalism, especially when a particularly ghastly crime happens, but to describe the Wests' home in such terms does not begin to tell the story of what happened in one of Britain's most notorious murder cases.

It was exactly 20 years ago today, on February 26 1994, that officers led by Det Supt John Bennett found the butchered remains of the Wests' missing 16 year old daughter Heather in the garden of 25, Cromwell Street.

Her body was the first to be discovered at the house, and over the following days and weeks, the remains of a further eight girls and young women were found there.

Later, the bodies of another three females who perished at the hands of Fred or Rose West were discovered at other locations.

Over the past two decades, my job covering crime for the Mail has given me a close up view of some of the worst acts of human depravity.

The carnage in New York after 9/11, the mass murder perpetrated by Harold Shipman, the senseless killings of Jill Dando and Rachel Nickell, the Soham case - not to mention the racist lynching of Stephen Lawrence. 

I will never forget interviewing a woman gang raped by eight schoolboys and thrown naked into a canal, nor the raw emotion of a woman who twice survived attempts to murder her by Jamaican Yardies.

But there is something about the West case which puts it into its own category of evil.

What many people may not realise is that significant parts of the prosecution case against Rose West were not put before the jury, because they were simply too terrifying.

Brian Leveson QC, who led for the Crown, was concerned that jurors might find the case too distressing.

I sat through every minute of West's trial in 1995, and found myself censoring parts of the prosecution case which were presented to the jury, because it would have been too disturbing to publish in the Mail.

Occasionally, I am asked what I am referring to.

If pushed, my reply is that 'if I asked you to imagine the worst way you could abuse your own own child, you would not be able to think of what the Wests did to their offspring'. 

Journalists reporting on the West trial were offered counselling.

I did not take up the offer but today I am glad my two teenage daughters had not been born when I covered the trial, which included horrifying details of the sexual abuse, torture and murder in the Wests' cellar. 

Recently, I drove down Cromwell Street while researching a piece on the 20th anniversary of the West case.

I stopped for five minutes outside the site of the Wests' home (which was demolished in the mid 1990s) and reflected on the truly awful things that happened there - as well as the suffering of the victims' families, many of whom I interviewed 20 years ago.

On the advice of a former lawyer in the case, I then read a book by Marian Partington, whose university student sister Lucy, 21, was abducted and murdered by the Wests in 1973 and whose remains were found at their home in 1994.

Two years ago, Ms Partington revealed that after much soul searching she had written to Rose in prison and offered her forgiveness.

Details of the letter are contained in her harrowing book, called ‘If You Sit Very Still’, which was published in 2012.

The letter was written in 2004 but Ms Partington waited four years to post it.

She told West: ‘Please note that I do not feel any hostility towards you, just a sadness, a deep sadness, that all this has happened, and that your heart could not feel a truth that I wish you could know.’

A few weeks later, she received a letter written on behalf of West from prison, pointedly not accepting her forgiveness.

Furthermore, West - who is serving a life sentence for ten murders - asked her to ‘cease all correspondence’ as she did not wish to receive any further letters from her.

Just a few days ago, I learned that shortly before his death in 2010, Mr Justice Mantell, the judge who presided over her trial at Winchester Crown Court, confided to a retired senior police officer that the Cromwell Street case was the only one he ever had nightmares about.

Yes, it really was that bad - and I will never forget that.

All in a day's work. How ACPO chief interrupted Xmas drinks to nick a thief - and didn't try to milk the story.

It is fair to say that the Home Secretary is not the biggest fan of Sir Hugh Orde - the straight-talking president of the Association of Chief Police Officers.

After all, Theresa May controversially over-ruled the Metropolitan Police Authority's recommendation that Sir Hugh be appointed Commissioner in 2011, and gave the job to Bernard Hogan-Howe instead.

It is claimed the uber-ambitious politician is not taken by Sir Hugh's tendency to speak out on behalf of the police service.

No wonder that for many officers, she is about as popular as bird flu.

But it would be churlish of even Mrs May not to be pleased - or even smile - after news of an amusing tale involving Sir Hugh and a prolific bag thief came through from London's Southwark Crown Court last week. 

Details of the court case made a few paragraphs in the Daily Mail on Saturday but I thought I'd blog a longer version of it - not only because it is highly entertaining, but also because it raises a number of serious points. 

About a week before Christmas, a thief targeting drinkers in London’s West End got a big  shock when he tried to snatch Sir Hugh's bag.

After Andrew Jones, 49, targeted Sir Hugh, former Chief Constable of Northern Ireland, he was chased around Soho by ‘a posse of some of the most well-known and distinguished police officers’, the court was told on Friday.

 Sir Hugh, 55, was having after work Christmas drinks with fellow senior officers and officials, when he spotted the crook tampering with his rucksack.

 The officer immediately introduced himself, before arresting Jones, who has 79 previous convictions for theft.

 But Jones, a drug user, broke free from Sir Hugh’s grasp and made off down Newman Street, Soho.

 Keen marathon runner Sir Hugh chased after him - as did his colleague, Assistant Chief Constable Stuart Williams, who re-arrested Jones some 100 yards down the road.

 Sir Hugh is said to have ‘sat’ on the thief as he and Mr Williams waited for police reinforcements to arrive on the evening of December 18.

 Prosecutor Peter Zinner said: ‘The defendant, who is a prolific thief, with some 79 previous convictions for theft, went to what is known as the Nordic Bar at 25 Newman Street in London’s West End.

  ‘Whilst in the public house, the defendant was seen to take hold of a black, hold-all type bag, and move it towards him, with a view to stealing either the bag or some of the contents’, Mr Zinner continued.

 ‘Unfortunately for Mr Jones, it took place in the midst of 15 or so of Britain’s most senior police officers and staff, who were in the public house following a meeting.

 ‘The bag itself belonged to Sir Hugh Orde, the Chief Constable and ACPO head.’

 

Sir Hugh (pictured) noticed Jones, and approached with the words, ‘My name is Hugh Orde. I am a police officer. Why did you move my bag?’.

 ‘Mr Jones replied, ‘I didn’t touch it. You are doing this because I’m black!’.

 ‘Sir Hugh then arrested Mr Jones and cautioned him for attempted theft.’

 ‘It’s the first arrest he’s made for years!’, Judge Alistair McCreath joked.

 ‘It seems that Mr Jones then broke free and ran down the street’, Mr Zinner continued.

 ‘What follows is a chase - one of London’s most prolific thieves was being chased down the street by a posse of some of the most well-known and distinguished police officers.'

 Jones has ‘a massive record’, the judge commented, boasting 101 convictions in total.

 William Paynter, defending, said his client ‘has been living on the streets, surviving day to day’.

 ‘Because of his record, he finds it very difficult to secure hostel accommodation’, Mr Paynter said.

 The thief, bald and wearing a blue t-shirt and tracksuit bottoms, remained cheerful in the dock as he was given eight months.

 After Jones was taken down, Sir Hugh said: ‘This case proves that we are all constables, regardless of rank, and our main focus is enforcing the law.'

Sir Hugh is absolutely right. But I would hazard a guess that some of Britain's more well-nourished chief constables - according to legend, one former very senior Met officer used to devour six sausages each morning in the canteen at New Scotland Yard -might have struggled to chase after Jones.

And there is the issue of how the story came out.

For if a news agency had not - by chance - been at Southwark Crown Court on Friday, the drama involving Sir Hugh may never have reached a wider audience.

It is my understanding that Sir Hugh did not want details of the incident released to the media ahead of the court case. For him, nicking someone is all in a day's work.

Somehow, I suspect that if an image-conscious senior politician who has responsiblity for law and order had apprehended Jones, it would have been a different story.

Not naming names, of course.

 

 

After Luton Airport on New Year's Day, what next for shameless publicity-seeker Keith Vaz?

 

     IS there anything more nauseating than the sight of a publicity-seeking politician on manoeuvres?

 Some may be asking that question after Keith Vaz, chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, turned up at Luton Airport on New Year’s Day to ‘greet’ Romanians arriving in Britain to find work.

 Mr Vaz, the Labour MP for Leicester East, had announced his intention to be at the airport before Christmas.

 So it was no surprise, then, that an abundance of photographers were in attendance as he met Romanians seeking to take advantage of new immigration laws which give them unrestricted access to the UK labour market.

     Mr Vaz, 57, has a keen eye for headlines. But only when it suits him (more later).

     His ‘previous’ includes threatening to print a list of rogue private investigators who worked for blue chip companies and calling comedian Russell Brand to give evidence before his committee on the issue of drugs.

   A little over a year ago, he was at the centre of a media scrum after somehow becoming ‘spokesman’ for the family of the tragic nurse at the centre of the Kate Middleton phone hoax scandal.

 After he paraded her grieving relatives in front of TV cameras outside the Houses of Parliament, my colleague Richard Littlejohn noted that even if they had approached him, ‘his intervention helped turn a private tragedy into a very public circus’. 

 

Even by the standards of your average politician, Mr Vaz remains a man of enormous contradictions.

When he gleefully interrogated the phone-hacking police chiefs about their ethics and professional judgment in the summer of 2011, you could be forgiven for thinking he is a man of impeccable credentials.

 But his own career has been dogged by sleaze allegations and career-threatening controversy, making him – in many people’s eyes - an unsuitable candidate to lecture anyone on morals and standards in public life.

So in the interests of balance and free speech, here’s a little reminder of elements of Mr Vaz’s career he is not so keen to publicise.

Thirteen years ago, he was caught up in the Hinduja passport affair.

The Hinduja brothers are the Indian magnates who were implicated in an arms scandal back home and whose attempts to get British passports led to the resignation in 2001 of then Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Mandelson. He had been accused of lobbying for those passports in return for donations towards the cost of the Millennium Dome.

Mr Vaz was then a foreign office minister. His wife's firm was employed by the Hindujas.

While most of the complaints against Mr Vaz were not upheld, parliamentary standards commissioner Elizabeth Filkin criticised the 'collusion' between husband and wife, whose answers she described as 'misleading' and 'disingenuous'. She recommended that Mr Vaz be suspended from the House.

On 11 June 2001 left his post as Europe Minister. The Prime Minister's office said that the politician had written to Tony Blair stating his wish to stand down for health reasons

 But in 2007, Mr Vaz was elected chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee.

 The following year, he faced demands for a sleaze inquiry after the Daily Mail revealed he had iintervened in a court case on behalf of a close friend and party donor. 

Bent solicitor Shahrokh Mireskandari was on the brink of losing a long-running legal costs battle with an airline when Mr Vaz intervened.

At a critical point in the case, Mr Vaz wrote to the High Court asking the presiding judge to adjourn proceedings pending the outcome of complaints by Mireskandari about how the case had been previously handled, involving hotly contested allegations of racism and bias.

The judge was furious at what he perceived to be 'political interference'.

It also emerged that, without declaring his friendship with the corrupt lawyer, Mr Vaz tried to intervene in a legal watchdog’s investigation into Mireskandari, who was later suspended from the legal profession.

An investigation by the parliamentary sleaze watchdog controversially cleared Mr Vaz of any wrongdoing after the MP insisted he had not benefited financially or materially from his relationship with Mireskandari, who has now been struck off by the legal watchdog and has moved to the US.

When Mr Vaz’s friend, the bent ex Met Commander Ali Dizaei, was first jailed for police corruption, I asked a colleague to seek a comment from him after he had chaired a meeting of the Home Affairs Select Committee.

Mr Vaz declined to speak about Dizaei. How puzzling for a man who has demonstrated a zero tolerance of alleged police malpractice in the hacking and Plebgate scandals.

On many occasions over the last few years, I have wondered how Mr Vaz would fare if he had to interrogate himself over the Hinduja affair and his links to the bogus lawyer Miresandari.

 Mr Vaz’s committee has every right to want to examine the issue of immigration but was it really necessary for him to be at a provincial airport – milking publicity in full view of the media - on New Year’s Day?

 With no let-up in sight in the ‘Keith Vaz show’, there is talk behind the scenes that he could land a Government post if Labour win the next General Election.

 My hunch is that after 27 years in parliament, a far more controversial appointment could be looming. Arise Lord Vaz of Leicester?

 After Luton Airport, anything’s possible…

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jimmy 'the Prince of Darkness' Nicholson: a truly legendary crime reporter.

 While covering the Rose West trial in Winchester 18 years ago, a diminutive, elderly man – who was wearing a distinctive black leather jacket/cape – introduced himself to me outside the court building.

 We had been speaking for about two minutes when he looked at his watch and suddenly declared he had to leave because he had been booked for a ‘live interview – by satellite – with CNN in Atlanta’.

 CNN wanted him to compare the West case with the Moors murders, which he had covered in the 60s, he told me.

 His name was Jimmy ‘the Prince of Darkness’ Nicholson, a truly legendary figure in the world of crime reporting.

 Jimmy had long since retired after a distinguished career in Fleet Street, but he had not lost his passion for the big occasion and there was no bigger court case in the 1990s than that of serial killer West.

 Memories of my first meeting with ‘The Prince’ came back this week after I learned Jimmy - who I believe to be in his mid-80s – is now poorly and in need of constant care.

 Until a few years ago, he could still be found around the Old Bailey and near New Scotland Yard, regaling us with his stories from the ‘good old days’ in Fleet Street where he worked for the Daily Express and Daily Star, amongst others.

 One of his favourite anecdotes was how he had fooled fellow hacks covering the crimes of Ian Brady and Myra Hindley into believing that MI5 agents had gone undercover on the Moors, dressed as sheep.

 His news desk rang him furiously after the first editions had dropped, asking him why he had not filed the story.

 Word of the ailing health of ‘The Prince’ is a matter of deep sadness for dozens of hacks, past and present, who remember Jimmy – a mainstay of the Crime Reporters Association - as one of the great, great characters of Fleet Street.

 Among those I corresponded with over the last few days was my distinguished former Daily Mail colleague, John Edwards, who recalled the night Jimmy was christened the ‘Prince of Darkness’.

 John told me: ‘It was during the Spaghetti House siege in Knightsbridge in 1975. One of the hacks had got himself a suite at the Hyde Park Hotel with a balcony more or less overlooking the restaurant.

 ‘Gallons of drink was being consumed. It was maybe 3am one morning. Jimmy, as you know, didn't wear overcoats. He wore capes. He walked out onto the balcony and lifted the cape and it was silhouetted against the neon lights of Knightsbridge. 

 ‘I looked at him and told Keith Graves, of the BBC, he looked like Dracula the Prince of Darkness. The name stuck. Jimmy always thanked me for it.’

 John, who described ‘The Prince’ as a ‘dear friend’, went on: ‘Jimmy is way up in the top ten of all-time Fleet Street characters. No one who ever met him even for five minutes ever forgot him. He could back it up by being a bloody good reporter.

 ‘During the Black Panther case, the police put out an impression of the suspect in a balaclava and carrying a sawed off shotgun. I covered the trial of the killer
Dennis Neilson in Oxford in 1976, as did Jimmy. I said to him that the picture had always struck me as looking like him.

 ‘Jimmy smiled: 'it was me!’

 ‘And it was true. It genuinely was him. He posed for it.’

 According to legend, a detective had identified ‘Jimmy Nick’ – as he was also known – as being roughly the same height and build as Dennis Neilson, and persuaded him to pose on the condition of strict anonymity.

Another of Jimmy's close friends, Tim Miles – former crime hack at the Mail – sent me photographs of ‘The Prince’ at a leaving do in the Harrow, a popular watering hole near Fleet Street, in 1987.

Among those pictured with him is Justin Davenport – Crime Editor of the Evening Standard – who doesn’t appear to have aged in 26 years.

Tim said: ‘The Prince's legendary sayings were drawn from the vernacular of 1950s Hollywood film noir.

 ‘One of my personal favourites was when we landed together in Sardinia chasing down the story of London businessman Rolf Schild, kidnapped for ransom with his wife and daughter.  All but one of the hotels were shut.

 ‘Jimmy cast a jaundiced eye over the rain-swept, bleak, out-of season island and remarked: 'Hey baby, let's round up these bandidos and head home for Christmas.'

 Tim added: ‘Of all the crime reporters, Jimmy was arguably the best connected to the major villains of his era. He had a hot line to the likes of Freddie Foreman, Frankie Fraser and the Great Train Robbers when they were active criminals, long before they became feted regulars on the celebrity party circuit.

 'And when the career gangsters found themselves inevitably back behind bars, Jimmy would spend time visiting them in far flung Cat A jails on the Isle of White and Durham.

‘They repaid him with big exclusives.’

 

 A few years ago, I was at a Scotland Yard CID dinner where Jimmy was on the top table with various police VIPs.

With perfect timing, ex Met commander Roy Ramm described to diners how Jimmy had once been a rather unsuccessful defence witness for Charlie Kray. In other words, Kray was later convicted. Jimmy chuckled.

 Recalling stories of Jimmy’s extraordinary career reminds us of a time when crime reporters could mix freely with senior officers, whose trust he always enjoyed.

 That he could also enjoy the confidence of senior prosecutors, judges and the most notorious criminals of his day is a tribute to his true journalistic skills.

 If he was still working, I can’t imagine Jimmy relying on Freedom of Information requests for his stories – nor putting up with the wall of silence erected by police press offices in the post hacking scandal era.

  Tim Miles said: ‘It is sad to hear of Jimmy’s present condition. But I hear he's still working his cheeky charm on the nursing staff in the home where he is staying.’

 Good on you, Jim. We all wish you and your family well.

 

 

 

A year on from the Leveson Report, and the chill remains in police/press relations.

I can't recall whether he had knobbly knees, but I can testify he was a gritty, hard-working footballer true to his Sheffield roots.

Met boss Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe was renowned for his strong tackles during the annual Crime Reporters' Association (CRA) versus 'Scotland Yard Select 11' charity football match.

He was not alone.

Andy Trotter, chief constable of British Transport Police, was not afraid to get stuck in as was the late Met anti-terror Commander, John McDowall, who broke my ankle in the game which was played in 2006. I was taken to hospital in agony, having also suffered torn ligaments and severe bone bruising. He rang me the next day to apologise and although I didn't fully recover for more than six months, there were no hard feelings.

Even then Met chief Sir Ian Blair, who it is fair to say is not my biggest fan, sent me a letter 'regretting' the incident. It is in my downstairs loo at home.

In the same game, Sky News Crime Correspondent Martin Brunt suffered a back injury after Sir Bernard - then chief of Merseyside Police - fell on him. Brunty was helped off the pitch and was in pain for the rest of the week. Sir Bernard rang him to apologise the next day.

Veteran Sunday Times home affairs man David Leppard was also injured, I recall, and a couple of other CRA players had to be substituted (probably because of old age and/or fatigue).

Good healthy fun, I would say, and a demonstration of the strong professional relationship which existed at the time between crime reporters and senior police officers.

The police team was put together by the media-friendly ex Met Commander Andy Baker, who in one fixture famously lobbed the Sun's Mike 'the Cat' Sullivan in goal from long distance. To this day, I am certain Andy, an able footballer despite his advancing years, was trying to clear his lines when he somehow scored from the centre circle. He had a different version of events. Pure Beckham.

Until a few years ago, this highly entertaining but bruising match was played every May at the Met's sports ground in South West London.

We would raise a few hundred pounds for charity, have a couple of beers and go home. Our families would attend. How could even Elizabeth Filkin argue with that?

But the game is no longer played and in the post Leveson chill which still affects police/press relations, I doubt it will ever return.

Another casualty of Leveson, I discovered to my dismay this week, is the CRA's annual Christmas drinks party near Scotland Yard.

Every year, until 2012, dozens of senior officers and press officers from the Met - and some provincial forces - would join crime hacks for a festive drink on licensed premises in Victoria.

But last year, on the instructions of some very senior officers, there was a mass boycott.

One very senior detective received a text message while en route to the party, saying he should not attend - and that was an order. Dozens of other Met police officers and staff who would normally have turned up were absent.

In the event, just two soon to retire Met detectives were present. Senior Yard press officers Martin Fewell and Ed Stearns made a fleeting appearance before making their excuses and leaving.

To his credit Andy Trotter, who chairs ACPO's media committee, had the decency to show up but it was a far from festive atmosphere.

The reason given for the snub was the imminent publication of the Leveson Report.

How can police officers and staff celebrating Christmas, in an open and transparent way, with crime reporters be deemed unacceptable?

To think that just eight years ago, the CRA had a special Christmas party to honour the brilliant work done by Met press officers during the July 2005 terror attacks. Again, all open and transparent.

John Twomey, chairman of the CRA, says: 'Sadly, folllowing the mass snub of our Christmas Party last year, we will not be holding one this festive season.

'It really is an indictment of the current state of police/press relations that so many people boycotted it last year.

'One can only hope that one day soon, someone will see sense at the Yard.'

For that, one must hope that Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, who places great importance on leading by example, takes the initiative.

Under his regime, people do what they are told - and rightly so in a disciplined organisation.

But until he shows the way and encourages an adult relationship with crime reporters, there is no chance things will improve significantly any time soon.

PS: for those interested in the result of the particurlarly bloody CRA vs Scotland Yard match described above, I will adopt the Met's stock answer to all difficult questions: 'Not prepared to discuss'.

 

 

 

Could police chief who oversaw Jean Charles de Menezes shooting make history and become first female boss of Met?

Last week, I attended what until several years ago was a 'man-only' event - the annual dinner of the Association of Ex-CID Officers of the Metropolitan Police.

Male members of the Association still outnumber women by a considerable margin, but it is a sign of the very real progress it has made (in terms of modernising) that next year it will have its first female president. 

On the top table this year was current Met Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, who was afforded a polite welcome.

As someone who has spent the vast majority of his career in the provinces, he will always be viewed by a number of current and former key figures in Britain's biggest force as an outsider - rather than a dyed-in-the-wool Met man.

His management style is not to everyone's liking, as has been his preference for recruiting senior officers from outside London for some of the Met's top jobs. Critics have questioned his handling of the 'Plebgate' affair. In my professional dealings with him, he has been perfectly reasonable.

Sitting further along the top table, was a diminutive colleague of Sir Bernard's who was afforded a louder cheer when she was introduced to the hundreds of former and serving officers gathered for dinner.

Her name is Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick, currently Britain's most senior counter-terrorism officer. She, unlike Sir Bernard, has spent the vast majority of her career at Scotland Yard.

A roar went up when an Association official said: 'Next time you come back here Cressida, we hope you don't have the word 'Assistant' on your title.'

She leaned back and smiled, slightly nervously. It would have been unwise of her to show any more emotion, with her boss so near.

In senior police circles, Miss Dick is now seen as a very serious candidate to be the next head of Scotland Yard.

Should she throw her hat in the ring, she will have no shortage of backers. 

My firm understanding is that unless he is forced out prematurely, Sir Bernard will leave in September 2016, when he will have served five years. Contrary to some reports, he is highly unlikely to stay in post for seven years.

Never before has the Metropolitan Police had a female Commissioner. Many would argue it is long over-due.

We have already had two female Home Secretaries, two female heads of MI5 and a female Attorney General.

Later this week, Alison Saunders will become the second woman to take charge of the Crown Prosecution Service when she succeeds Keir Starmer as Director of Public Prosecutions.

Miss Dick is well respected in the security services, Whitehall, and crucially by lower and middle ranking officers, who appreciate her quiet authority and personable manner.

She knows full well that the road to the top is a long and rocky one - and that you need mental toughness to get you through the difficult times.

She was, afterall, the 'Gold Commander' who oversaw the ill-fated operation which resulted in Met officers shooting dead Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes in mistake for a suicide bomber in July 2005.

Since then, she has been promoted twice, received a Queen's Police Medal and led the successful reinvestigation of the Stephen Lawrence case, which resulted in two men being jailed for his murder last year.

When Sir Paul Stephenson stepped down as Met chief in the summer of 2011, there was strong speculation that the chief constable of Thames Valley Police, Sara Thornton, would succeed him.

This was not surprising given that one prominent MP on her patch - David Cameron - said publicly: 'I love Sara Thornton'.

A very senior officer told me at the time 'The job is Sara's, if she wants it'. For whatever reason, she didn't and, according to senior colleagues, will not apply next time around, either.

Other leading contenders to be the first female Met Commissioner include Lynne Owens, currently chief constable of Surrey, and Colette Paul, who recently took charge of Bedfordshire Police.

Rising star Mrs Owens is the daughter of Sir Ted Crewe, former chief constable of West Midlands Police, while Ms Paul is a former staff officer of ex Met chief Sir John Stevens, who held her in high regard. Stevens was always a tough boss to work for, but also a shrewd judge of character and talent.

Other women who could be in the running for the job in the long term include Met Deputy Assistant Commissioners Helen Ball (respected counter terrorism chief liked) and Pat Gallan (a workaholic, no-nonsense type in the mould of Sir Bernard).

Whoever is appointed Met Deputy Commissioner in two years' time, when the present incumbent Craig Mackey is due to step down, will be in pole position to be the next head of Scotland Yard.

Sir John (now Lord) Stevens used to say you 'need copper-bottomed pants' to be Commissioner.

After the resilience she showed after the de Menezes case, there can be no doubt Miss Dick ticks that box.

May the best woman, or man, win.

 

 

 

 

Crime Pays! Ex Special Branch chief’s new career as acclaimed thriller writer

Back in the so-called ‘good old days’ at New Scotland Yard, before officers were micro-managed by targets-obsessed, risk-adverse chiefs who never smile, there was a room popular with certain employees who enjoyed a tipple at the end of their working day.

In one corner of ‘The Tank’, a window-less licensed bar, you might find Flying Squad officers talking about how they had smashed a robbery gang. In another corner, murder squad detectives could be found swapping grisly details about the latest homicides in the capital.

But there was also another, much more mysterious bunch of officers who enjoyed visits to the Yard’s very own pub.

They had a penchant for whispering and looking over their shoulders during conversations, just in case someone was eavesdropping.

They were Special Branch (SB) officers, necessarily amongst the most secretive and discrete of all Scotland Yard staff.

My late former colleague Peter ‘whispering’ Rose could easily have passed off as a member of ‘The Branch’ during his days as a distinguished crime journalist in the 1980s and 1990s.

So imagine my shock when I recently interviewed former Met commander Roger Pearce, who spent the vast majority of his 30 year police career in SB.

To say he hardly fits the stereotypical image of one its officers would be an understatement.

A Durham University graduate who originally trained to be an Anglican priest, he was a popular, larger than life character at the Yard who – according to former colleagues - led by example.

It came as no surprise to them that Pearce, 63, put up a passionate, but dignified defence of the work of Special Branch when a former officer called Peter Francis claimed (very controversially) earlier this year that there had been a Met plot to smear the family of Stephen Lawrence in the 1990s.

Pearce’s knowledge of national security was vital in the critical period after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, something which helped him land a job as a counter terrorism advisor at the Foreign Office after he retired from the police in 2003.

Two years later he landed a big security post in private industry.

Now, drawing on his vast experience in the police, he has what he calls ‘my fourth career’ – as a novelist.

The ex-Commander – who during his time in the Met was responsible for surveillance and undercover operations against terrorists and extremists – has recently signed a TV ‘option’ for his first two books, ‘Agent of the State’ and ‘The Extremist’ which draw upon his knowledge and first-hand experience in the Branch.

Another book is in the pipeline and the future looks bright for the personable married father of three.

‘I am absolutely thrilled,’ he said of his new occupation. ‘This is my fourth career. I spent most of my career in Special Branch, which I absolutely loved. Now I am engrossed in my writing.’

So how did he end up in covert policing?

‘While studying theology at Durham, I did a placement at a local prison and thought I’d rather join the job (jargon for the police) and go into the more secret side of policing, which was Special Branch,’ he said.

‘What intrigued me was the very varied and interesting people who joined it. They came from all walks of like. Double honours graduates to guys who left school at 16. And everything in between. They joined because they really enjoyed the work, not because they wanted to climb the greasy pole.

‘And the other side of it was that the work was so very interesting…cases involving national security.

‘I really liked the idea of the secrecy and covert nature of the work. Most of us guys who worked in the Branch found our home there.

‘The important thing was that SB officers could keep secrets. They had very high security vetting and total integrity. Generally speaking, very little leaked from the Branch.’

Deciding to become an author was a gradual process.

‘The more I did in SB, the more interesting work I was involved in, the situations and characters I was exposed to, the more I realised it would lend itself to great fiction,’ he told me.

‘Having worked in every rank in the job,  I can see through the eyes of all my characters. Whether it is the commander politicking or the constable or sergeant on the frontline doing the operational side.’

A Daily Mail review praised his first thriller, Agent of the State, featuring a work-hard, play hard fictional character called Detective Chief Inspector John Kerr from Special Branch who is up against a jihadist who comes to Britain on a bombing mission.

‘The Extremist’, which also features Kerr, concerns a series of murderous bomb attacks in the UK which could be the work of anarchists or a foreign power. It has also been warmly received by critics.

Pearce is keeping his cards close to his chest about his third thriller.

He says: ‘It will still be stressing the importance of human intelligence. I really believe that every terrorist, extremist or criminal is a potential agent, and human is everything in the days of encryption.

‘If you get a good undercover officer, who gathers information and can assess it for you to give you a true picture,  it is worth its weight in gold. I am a true champion of undercover work. ‘

Maybe if that proposed TV deal comes off, Pearce might wish to celebrate with a good bottle of red – the preferred tipple of many a Special Branch officer.

It’s just shame that he wouldn’t be able make a nostalgic trip back to The Tank, which was controversially turned in a gymn nearly 20 years ago, to enjoy it.

But my sources from yesteryear at the Met suggest Pearce might just know of a few alternative watering holes in the vicinity of New Scotland Yard.

The Extremist by Roger Pearce is published by Coronet, £18.99.

 

 

The series of headline-making royal security scandals and why one Commander has escaped the cull

 It is widely acknowledged to be the worst security breach at Buckingham Palace since Michael Fagan confronted the Queen in her bedroom in 1982.

Few doubt last week’s shocking break-in at the most famous royal residence in the world is a matter of enormous public interest.

But for ‘operational reasons’, senior officers in the Metropolitan Police deemed it was unnecessary to offer out details of the incident to the media.

Their justification, I am told, is that they wanted to ‘establish the facts’ before revealing an intruder had been caught in a supposedly ultra-secure area of the palace.

Clearly these inquiries were very demanding because the force kept silent over the break-in for four days, when they were forced into issuing a statement after a tip-off to the Sun newspaper.

A number of crime reporters believe the Met’s clumsy handling of the case is further evidence of the force’s post-Leveson Inquiry obsession with controlling information – or worse still, covering up the truth.

Some police stories, as I told the Inquiry from the witness box last year, are so big that they will always get out.

It a matter of when, not if, they get into the public domain.

So why the reticence last week?

Since taking over as Scotland Yard chief two years ago, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe has been ruthless in restructuring the force.

Some senior officers have been shifted to non-jobs or told they have no future in the force.

But one Commander has escaped the cull.

His name is Commander (Lord) Peter Loughborough, aka the 7th Earl of Rosslyn.

Commander Loughborough, 55, has been head of royalty protection for more than ten years.

Under his watch, there have been a series of headline-making royal security scandals.

In 2003, an intruder dressed as Osama bin Laden gate-crashed Prince William's 21st birthday party at Windsor Castle.

Later that year, undercover reporter Ryan Parry exposed flaws in royal security by gaining a job as a footman at Buckingham Palace by using a false reference.

Parry, who then worked for the Daily Mirror, worked for two months at the Palace despite unprecedented security for the forthcoming visit of US President George Bush.

The following year, a conman tricked his way into Windsor Castle by pretending to be a well-known senior police officer.

That year, a Fathers 4 Justice campaigner dressed as Batman breached security to stage a protest on a Buckingham Palace balcony. Then Met boss Sir John Stevens described the security breach as "unacceptable".

In 2005, Sir John’s successor Sir Ian Blair ordered an inquiry into claims journalists drove a van carrying a fake bomb into Windsor Castle's grounds in the run-up to the wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles.

The Sun said the van passed St George's Chapel, where their marriage was due to be blessed. The "apparent security breach" raised serious concern, Scotland Yard said.

In 2009, Buckingham Palace suspended a chauffeur after undercover News of the World reporters gained access to highly sensitive areas of the building.

 

Two journalists, who were posing as Middle Eastern businessmen, are said to have been waved inside at a police checkpoint, without security checks, and one of them even sat in the Queen's state Bentley car.

Then three years ago there was a potentially fatal royal security bungle when Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall were attacked by a baying mob during the student riots in central London.

Weeks after the incident, it emerged that royalty protection officers were warned by a police colleague not to drive down Regent Street 15 minutes before the couple were ambushed.

Camilla was jabbed in the ribs by one protestor and their car vandalised during the terrifying incident.

Yet incredibly, no police officer was disciplined over the incident.

And royal security lapses continue to dog Commander Loughborough’s reign.

Last year the furore over leaked pictures of Prince Harry naked in Las Vegas raised questions about two police protection officers who were in charge of him at the time of his ‘Men Behaving Badly’ trip.

Critics claim that had they been on full alert, the Duchess of Cambridge’s protection officers could possibly have prevented topless pictures of her being taken in France.

Now, in the aftermath of last week’s break-in and the farcical incident involving armed officers challenging the Duke of York in the grounds of Buckingham Palace, there is renewed scrutiny of royalty protection.

But will it cost Commander Loughborough his job?

I hold no grudge against the Eton-educated officer. I am told he is a charming, personable man and he has a tough job.

However, after more than ten years in his post, observers are entitled to ask whether it is time for a change.

He has served 33 years in the police and is eligible to retire on a full police pension. He would appear ripe to be forced out of the results-orientated Met.

But is there a key difference when it comes to Commander Loughborough, which might explain why he remains in post?

Although he has overseen a number of appalling security lapses, he is a favourite of the Queen.

As one former very senior Met officer once told me, ‘Peter speaks her language’.  

In other words, if there is a major security cock-up involving a senior royal, does the smooth-talking aristocrat prevent it becoming a resigning issue for the Commissioner?

How re-assuring for Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, who is certainly no fool.

Could the Met’s reticence about last week’s Buckingham Palace bungles have as much to do with saving Teflon-coated Commander Loughborough from fresh embarrassment, as any perceived war on the media?

It is a theory which cannot be ignored.

Is the career of Britain's most senior police officer really in danger?

A frequently-used phrase by Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe since he became head of Scotland Yard 21 months ago is ‘the importance of perception’.

In the course of their duties, he says, his officers must always be conscious of how people might perceive their conduct.

They must always guard against giving a damaging impression of how they handle their professional affairs.

How ironic it is that there is a growing feeling that Sir Bernard has made a complete mess of the ‘Plebgate’ scandal.

It follows his extraordinary revelation that he broke his own force’s rules by failing to keep a record of private conversations on Plebgate with a number of Fleet Street journalists.

In a letter to a senior Home Office official, Sir Bernard admitted he had conversations with reporters about the Met’s inquiry into Plebgate, which led to the resignation of Tory chief whip Andrew Mitchell.

He confessed that these discussions took place a few days before articles surfaced in the media claiming that the Met had found ‘no evidence’ that officers stationed in Downing Street had been verbally abused by Mr Mitchell.

Astonishingly, Sir Bernard – who since becoming Met boss has had a zero tolerance of unofficial leaks by his officers – said he could not provide a record of what was said at these informal briefings with journalists because no notes had been taken.

It is an embarrassing admission – one which will hand officers accused of leaking to the media a credible defence during any criminal or disciplinary proceedings.

But is the career of Britain’s most senior police officer really, as some claim, in danger?

To answer that question, it is necessary to consider what happened to Sir Bernard’s two predecessors, Sir Ian Blair and Sir Paul Stephenson.

Through his rose-tinted spectacles, Sir Ian claims that he tendered his resignation in the Autumn of 2008.

In reality, he was sacked after London Mayor Boris Johnson signalled he could not work with Sir Ian, whose three-and-a-half-year reign as Yard chief was blighted by a series of appalling gaffes.

Sir Paul Stephenson was seen as a safe pair of hands, a man of good judgement, when he succeeded Blair early in 2009 but he sensationally resigned during the height of the hacking scandal two years ago, after it emerged he had enjoyed a £12,000 freebie at a health farm.

Sir Hugh Orde, the towering president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, was – overwhelmingly - the Metropolitan Police Authority’s preferred candidate to take the helm.

But its interview panel was over-ruled by the Home Secretary, Theresa May – no great fan of Sir Hugh after his outspoken remarks on the Government policing policy – and she controversially appointed Sir Bernard instead.

And this is the critical issue when it comes to assessing Sir Bernard’s prospects of keeping his job.

Ultra-ambitious Mrs May has staked her reputation on him being a success and will do all she can to ensure he stays in post. If he fails, she fails.

She, let alone the Establishment, cannot afford to see another Met chief leave prematurely.

After all, who would replace him? Or more to the point, who would want to?

Sir Bernard’s deputy Craig Mackey is well liked by junior officers but lacks big city policing experience and the necessary leadership credentials to take over.

There are no outstanding candidates in provincial forces and I cannot imagine for one minute Mrs May eating humble pie and asking Sir Hugh Orde to ride to the rescue of the Met, the force he loves so dearly.

Sir Bernard is damaged by the Plebgate affair.

His authority is weakened, but not – despite the best efforts of Andrew Mitchell’s supporters - fatally so.

The hottest seat in senior policing will remain occupied for a good while longer.

The Met is a fantastic institution but it would be severely damaged by losing a third chief in five years.

That is why there will be no high-level political will for Sir Bernard to go over Plebgate.

That is not a perception, it is a reality.