MPs summon Met police to explain bid to force Guardian to reveal sources (Re: Phone Hacking Scandal)

[Turborama]

Source: The Guardian

Deputy assistant commissioner to be called before Commons committee that investigated phone hacking

Owen Bowcott, Vikram Dodd and Lizzy Davies | Wednesday 21 September 2011 12.09 BST

The Commons home affairs committee has decided to summon the Metropolitan police to explain its actions, after its bid – and subsequent climbdown – to make Guardian reporters disclose their sources for articles relating to the phone hacking of the murder victim Milly Dowler.

The powerful committee of MPs has already investigated phone hacking and lambasted the Met for its failings.

The deputy assistant commissioner, Mark Simmons, will be called before the committee to answer questions this Friday – the same day his officers had intended to take the Guardian to court.

Keith Vaz MP, chair of the home affairs committee said: "I have asked the Metropolitan police to give the committee a full explanation of why they took this action and to provide us with a timeline as to exactly who was consulted...

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/21/met-officer-force-guardian-sources

[dipsydoodle]

1. The police don't bring charges here

without authorisation by the Crown Prosecution Service. In this case , for whatever reason , the CPS told the police not to proceed.

It doesn't really matter. When the police officer currently under suspension for leaking information to the Guardian is brought to trial all that is necessary is for the Guardian's reporters to be called as witnesses. If as witnesses they refuse to answer questions they'll be banged up for contempt - so, it will be their choice.

I'm not sure why the police chose to attempt to accelerate the issue at this point.

[pennylane100]

2. However, the Guardian could appeal to the European Human Rights Court

which have previously upheld the right of journalists to protect their sources. This may stop the crown from calling the Guardian reporters at trial as they have to abide by the precedent that has already been set.

[dipsydoodle]

3. You will find that in previous cases

it wasn't where they were called as witnesses - the reporter was on trial.

Witness rules differ. Without going into the background I know that for a fact.

Other than that the precedent would need to be for refusing to appear as a witness.

[pennylane100]

4. I have a feeling that you know a lot more than me about this subject

so I am hesitant to disagree with you. However, in the case I read about, the police wanted the reporters notes about a street racing case where the police did not bother to take down the car license numbers and thought they would rely on the information gathered by the reporters. This happened in Holland and the reporters, who lost their case in court, took their case to the European court. The European overturned the verdict of the Dutch court.

That along with the case of the British journalist that you mentioned, who eventually won his case, would seem likely to discourage the crown from pursuing this line of discovery.

[dipsydoodle]

5. Different countries have different laws.

so I cannot comment on the Dutch case.

There are some general details here on the associated subject of self incrimination here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination Looks as though in the UK they would have the right to silence.

Non attendance, if called, could cause a case to collapse. I doubt they'd get away with non attendance here given that some / most of the trials will be interdependent on each other. That is even to the extent they've already said there will be a complete media lock down on court evidence at the trials when they do start, expected to be in a block during the spring of 2013 , publication of which could be subjudice with respect to another trial.

The Guardian was caught out in one specific incident for which they may have been set up - they published the name of someone arrested before the information had been released and a Met police officer was arrested almost immediately. All of our newspapers knew that the Guardian had had someone "inside" since at least February this year that being the only explanation for their scoops.

We'll have to wait and see. If the police officer incriminates the reporters they're screwn anyway.