PRIVATE EYE: A STAB IN THE BACK

April 27, 2017

corrupt_header_6

THE PRIME suspect in the unsolved Daniel Morgan murder has always enjoyed the support of powerful newspapers.

Five police investigations identified Jonathan Rees — boss of Southern Investigations, the No 1 Corrupt Detective Agency — as the only credible suspect in the brutal 1987 murder.

Also suspected of involvement in the killing was Rees’ close friend Sidney Fillery, a Scotland Yard detective who served on the initial murder investigation.

Despite their notoriety, Rees and Fillery enjoyed the confidence of the News of the World for a quarter of a century.

Even after Rees was gaoled for seven years for conspiring to ruin an innocent woman, the paper’s editor Andy Coulson stood by his man.

In 2008 Rees and Fillery were charged in connection with Daniel Morgan’s murder.

The prosecution — dogged by unreliable witnesses and documents not disclosed to the defence — finally collapsed in 2011.

Jonathan Rees has persuaded the Mail on Sunday to publish articles portraying him as an innocent man.

In August 2014 chief reporter Ian Gallagher and freelance journalist Sylvia Jones published a highly sanitized version of the case.

Press Gang complained to Mail editor-in-chief Paul Dacre — and no further articles have appeared.

Now Private Eye has published a series of articles — in its “In The Back” section — highly favourable to the pair.

REES_and_FILLERY_210

THE STORY SO FAR …
FOR THREE decades police believed private detective Jonathan Rees (left) was the prime mover in the murder.
They believe he recruited brother-in-law Glenn Vian to carry out the 1987 killing. Glenn’s brother, Garry, was the look-out man.
Detectives say Rees relied on close friend Sidney Fillery (right), a Scotland Yard detective, to frustrate the investigation.
Fillery was on the murder team for several days before his relationship with Rees emerged.
Fillery retired from the police shortly after the murder — and stepped into the dead man’s shoes at Southern Investigations.
For the events leading up to the murder, the early contaminated murder inquiry, the sensational inquest which saw Ree’s book-keeper accuse him of planning the murder, see Part One — An Axe To Grind.
The second — Rogue Journalists & Bent Coppers — reveals how Rees and his new partner Fillery became key players in the unlawful sale of confidential police information to national newspapers, especially the News of the World. Attempts by anti-corruption detectives to end this corrosive trade came to nothing.
The third police investigation failed to bring the killers of Daniel Morgan to book — but Rees was gaoled for seven years after he was caught conspiring with corrupt Scotland Yard detectives to plant drugs on a young mother. A search of Fillery’s computer found images of extreme child sex abuse — he was convicted and ordered to sign the Sex Offenders’ Register. The story is told in Porridge, the third instalment of The No 1 Corrupt Detective Agency.
In 2008 Rees and Fillery were finally charged in connection with Daniel Morgan’s murder but the case collapsed after key witnesses were found to be unreliable and boxes of evidence were not disclosed to the defence. An account of the trial can be found in the fourth instalment Getting Away With Murder.
Rees and Fillery then went on the attack — suing Scotland Yard for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office. Only Fillery was partly successful. The Press Gang article, The Business Of Murder, the fifth part of the series, is the longest published account of their civil action.
Photos: PA

Press Gang made several attempts to persuade editor Ian Hislop’s journalists to produce more balanced reports.

All were ignored.

It wasn’t until this article was about to go to press — and more than three months after we first contacted them — that Private Eye finally addressed our concerns.

Editor Ian Hislop sent us a three page letter and insisted we print it all …

♦♦♦

THE FOUR Private Eye articles were published in December last year and January, February and March of this year.

They were reports of the High Court action brought by Rees, Fillery and Glenn and Garry Vian against the Metropolitan Police.

The four men were claiming the criminal case which collapsed in 2011 was a “malicious prosecution” by Scotland Yard.

As a result, Rees and his former brother-in-law Glenn Vian spent 22 months in prison on remand.

Glenn Vian’s brother, Garry, was already serving a 14 year sentence for drug smuggling.

Fillery was detained for three months.

The four also claimed the senior investigating officer in the case, detective chief superintendent Dave Cook, was guilty of “misfeasance in public office.”

The criminal case against them collapsed partly because a key prosecution witness was found to be unreliable.

The judge in the case, which was abandoned in 2011, decided ex-DCS Cook had probably coached the witness to change his testimony.

The civil action was heard before Mr Justice Mitting at the High Court.

The four Private Eye articles appeared in the magazine’s “In The Back” section, supervised by reporter Heather Mills.

The first  — “Judge dread” — appeared in December last year.

dave_cook_200

EX-DCS DAVE COOK
THE EXPERIENCED murder detective was the senior investigating officer in the fourth and fifth attempts to bring Daniel Morgan’s murderers to book. Cook came in for serious criticism — accused of attempting to pervert the course of justice — during the pre-trial hearings in the criminal case which collapsed in 2011. For Private Eye he is a nothing more than a corrupt detective who should be in the dock. For many seasoned watchers of the saga, including Press Gang, no other police officer has done more to solve the case. He has paid a high price for his dedication — a painful divorce and the lasting enmity of the Metropolitan Police … 
Photo: PA

It reported that Judge Mitting was losing patience that ex-DCS Dave Cook had not given a statement in the case.

The judge gave counsel for the Metropolitan Police, the defendants in the action, ten days to provide a statement from ex-DCS Cook.

“I am thinking of putting a gun to your head with a bullet that will fire in a short period of time,” he said.

Cook had already produced a note from a doctor claiming he was depressed and that giving evidence would further damage his mental health.

Private Eye stated:

“The Met maintained that it would fight on even if no statement from Cook materialised by 9 December deadline.”

“But without him, it may have to settle the claim, which has already exceeded £1.5m in legal costs.”

This was followed by a second piece in January this year.

“Back in court” was even more critical of ex-DCS Cook:

“How ironic that the best chance of finding out why the murder of south London private investigator Daniel Morgan … remains unsolved after 30 years now lies with a claim of malicious prosecution and malfeasance in public office being brought against the Metropolitan police by the key suspects.’

It summarised Rees and Fillery’s case by quoting their QC, Nicholas Bowen:

“Between 2005 and 2006, he [ex-DCS Cook] coached and manipulated the two main witnesses, failed to investigate exculpatory lines of inquiry, suppressed documents, misled his colleagues and lied to the trial judge.”

The piece noted that the Metropolitan police would continue without Cook — there were “multiple accounts from various of the claimants’ associates” of the plaintiffs’ involvement in the murder.

“Cook feels the heat” — the third article, published in February — reported Mr Justice Mitting’s verdict, dismissing the claim for “malicious prosecution” in its entirety.

Mitting ruled that only Fillery had suffered as a result of DCS Cook’s misfeasance in public office — he will receive substantial damages.

The Eye was clearly not expecting this verdict — and called it “controversial.”

It said there would be an appeal.

SUSPECTS_400

PRIME SUSPECTS
 AN ARTIST’S impression of the five men charged in connection with the Daniel Morgan murder in 2008 — from left to right, Jonathan Rees, Glenn Vian, Sid Fillery, Garry Vian and James “Jimmy” Cook. After the case collapsed all but Cook sued the Metropolitan Police for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office. 
Illustration: Elizabeth Cook, PA

The magazine added:

“After the hearing, Daniel’s brother Alistair Morgan said it would be a ‘travesty of justice’ if Cook were to become the scapegoat for the ‘decades’ of police corruption at the centre of the unsolved murder.”

“And he is right — as Eye readers will be well aware, the case was fouled long before Cook.”

“But people are innocent until proven guilty no matter their criminal record or what the police believe.”

The final piece — “Cook’s stew” — appeared in March.

The Eye made it clear that DCS Cook should be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice:

” … the evidence and public interest test clearly having been met, with two trials and two adverse findings by two high court judges about Cook’s conduct.”

The magazine was irritated by parts of the High Court judgment.

“With judicial clairvoyance, Mitting decided that Cook only perverted the course of justice – by illicitly prompting a mentally unstable, renowned liar – because he ‘genuinely’ believed the four were guilty.”

The piece also noted “supporters of Cook say he is a fall guy for the Yard’s internal politics and its close relationship with the News of the World, which Rees and Fillery worked for as private contractors.”

But the Eye still believes Cook should be prosecuted:

“As the 30th anniversary of Morgan’s murder passes on 10 March, surely the most ‘appropriate’ action for new Met Commissioner Cressida Dick must be to support a fair prosecution of Cook.”

♦♦♦

THE PRIVATE EYE coverage was a propaganda coup for Rees and Fillery.

But it was only achieved by leaving out relevant information which readers needed to make an informed judgement.

The magazine

— failed to declare that the freelance journalist largely responsible for the coverage, Michael Gillard, has a personal axe to grind in this case

— failed to explain the history of ex-DCS Cook’s involvement in the case and how Fillery persuaded the News of the World to cynically — and criminally — target him and his wife

— failed to give a balanced view of Cook’s role in the case

— failed to tell its readers about the criminal past of Rees, in particular his breathtaking attempt to ruin an innocent woman by using corrupt police officers to plant drugs in her car

SID FILLERY

EX-DETECTIVE SERGEANT SIDNEY FILLERY
FOR SEVERAL days in 1987 Fillery was a key officer in the initial Morgan murder investigation. He claimed he left the investigation when it became clear that there was a conflict of interest. The senior investigating officer, however, said that he ordered him off the inquiry when he discovered he was a close friend of Rees. Fillery was arrested shortly afterwards but released without charge. In 2002 he was convicted of fifteen counts of making indecent images of children.
Photo: PA

— failed to tell readers that, during the fourth investigation into the murder, a search of Fillery’s computer revealed a cache of extreme images of child sexual abuse

— failed to tell readers that in 2011 Scotland Yard apologised to the Morgan family for the fact that Fillery’s corruption made a successful prosecution almost impossible.

— failed to tell readers that Alastair Morgan, the brother of the murdered detective, has believed almost from day one that Rees ordered the killing — and that Fillery covered up for him.

♦♦♦

THE DRIVING force behind the Eye articles is the widely respected journalist Michael Sean Gillard.

The son of Michael Gillard, who writes the magazine’s ‘Slicker’ column, he was voted Journalist of the Year in 2013 by the British Journalism Society.

The Society awarded him the prize for his long inquiry into the activities of East End crime boss David Hunt.

He remains in fear of retribution from underworld figures and maintains a low profile.

This Press Gang article does not include his photograph for that reason.

Gillard has also investigated police corruption for more than two decades.

In 2000 he clashed with Scotland Yard over his reporting.

At the time he was working for the Guardian along with another freelance journalist Laurie Flynn.

They were investigating the record of the Metropolitan Police anti-corruption team — the so-called Untouchables.

In 2000 Commander Andy Hayman, then in charge of the Untouchables, became concerned about the activities of Gillard and Flynn.

The third investigation into the Daniel Morgan murder was under way.

Police had bugged the offices of Southern Investigations and heard Jonathan Rees planning a criminal conspiracy with one of his clients.

The client, Simon James, was locked in a custody battle with his wife Kim over their son Daniel.

James went to Rees who cooked up a plan to plant cocaine in her car — and then arrange for a corrupt detective inform on her.

In 2000 Rees, James and the bent copper were arrested.

(All were later gaoled: Rees and James for seven years, the corrupt Scotland Yard detective for five).

Phone hacking claims

ANDY HAYMAN
IN 2000 the Scotland Yard Commander became concerned that Jonathan Rees might use Michael Gillard to undermine the prosecution case against him.
Photo: PA

Commander Hayman was worried Rees would use his relationship with Gillard and Flynn to plant stories that might compromise the prosecution.

In August 2000 Hayman wrote to then Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger.

“I have concerns,” he wrote, “that in their research your journalists may be at risk, perhaps unwittingly, of assisting Rees in unethically or unlawfully seeking his acquittal in the serious charges he will be required to answer to trial at the Central Criminal Court.”

The Untouchables had already expressed concern about Rees and Fillery.

A 1998 report stated:

“They are alert, cunning and devious individuals who have current knowledge of investigative methods and techniques which may be used against them …”

“Such is their level of access to individuals within the police, through professional and social contacts, that the threat of compromise to any conventional investigation against them is constant and very real.”

Gillard and Flynn insist they had no intention of writing about the Kim James case.

They believe Hayman’s letter led to the paper stopping their investigation into the Untouchables.

Gillard and Flynn withdrew from the paper and, in 2004, published their book Untouchables.

Untouchables is an important book and includes a rigorously fair account of the Daniel Morgan case.

The book’s thesis is that Scotland Yard’s anti-corruption campaign

” … is a phoney war, which by fostering the illusion of ruthless efficiency and success seeks to ensure that Scotland Yard continues to police itself and protect its darkest recesses from public scrutiny.”

Gillard and Flynn then add

“Since we began this journey into the dark side of the Yard, senior officers have done their best to prevent this investigation reaching you.”

“We have been threatened, assaulted, lied to, smeared by the organisation”.

“We also uncovered a plot by the Yard to derail our inquiries by making false allegations of criminal conduct in a letter to … Alan Rusbridger, which was kept from us.”

The Guardian rejected this criticism.

Alan Rusbridger told the trade magazine Press Gazette in 2001:

“The Guardian invested a large amount of time, money and the best legal resources we could find to back Laurie and Michael in their investigation into alleged police corruption.”

Guardian debate

ALAN RUSBRIDGER
THE GUARDIAN editor denied Michael Gillard’s claim that Scotland Yard had forced the newspaper to drop his investigation into police corruption.
Photo: PA

“Our unequivocal and unanimous legal advice at the end of the day was that we could not defend the allegations that they were seeking to make.”

Rusbridger says he never saw Hayman’s letter.

After finally reading it, he noted:

“It contained no serious allegations about Michael and Laurie and was in no sense an attempt to place the Guardian under any pressure.”

♦♦♦

IN HIS four Private Eye articles Gillard is silent about the background to ex-DCS Cook’s involvement in the Daniel Morgan murder.

An experienced murder squad detective, Cook was approached in 2002 to appear on the BBC Crimewatch programme.

He was married to policewoman Jacqui Hames, who was also a presenter on the programme.

He was asked to pretend he was the senior investigating officer in the third investigation into the Daniel Morgan murder.

In fact, the investigation was being handled by Scotland Yard’s anti-corruption team — although Cook later took the job for real.

In June 2002 Cook appeared on the programme to appeal for witnesses to the murder.

The next day, Cook was told by anti-corruption officers that Sid Fillery had been in touch with reporter Alex Marunchak at the News of the World the night before the broadcast.

(At the time, Rees was still in prison for the Kim James conspiracy.)

Fillery and Marunchak were overheard to agree that they would “sort out” the detective.

What followed was a full-scale “dark arts” operation against Cook and his wife.

A few days after the broadcast Cook was told by Surrey Police, where he worked from 1996 to 2001, that someone had rung asking for his address.

The caller said they were working for the Inland Revenue and wanted it to send Cook a tax refund.

It later became clear that Glen Mulcaire — the private eye gaoled in 2007 with News of the World royal correspondent Clive Goodman for hacking into royal mobiles — obtained Cook’s address, his internal Met payroll number and the amount he and his wife were paying on their mortgage.

Mulcaire also obtained the mobile number for Cook’s wife as well as the password she used.

Press regulation deal

JACQUI HAMES
THE CRIMEWATCH presenter was traumatised when Sid Fillery persuaded the News of the World to target her and her husband, DCS Dave Cook. “The stress that we endured over the subsequent years contributed to the eventual breakdown of my marriage.” She did not learn that her phone was also hacked until 2011 …
Photo: PA

In January 2003 Rebekah Brooks was at Scotland Yard on a social visit when she was asked to have a word with Dave Cook “to clear the air”.

When Cook took her through the events, she insisted Marunchak was a fine reporter.

The Met’s senior brass sided with the News of the World — and sidelined the concerns of Dave Cook and his wife.

The couple found themselves between a rock and a hard place — the News of the World and the indifference of the Met.

The surveillance operation — it came three years after Crimewatch presenter Jill Dando was shot dead outside her London home in 1999 — placed a strain on the couple.

Their marriage didn’t survive and they later divorced.

Michael Gillard says nothing about any of this in the four recent articles.

In  our email to Private Eye, we noted:

“Here we have a supposedly blameless ex-Scotland Yard detective, Fillery, presumably anxious to catch the killer of the man into whose shoes ‘somewhat surprisingly’ he stepped, alerting the News of the World … to what exactly?”

“That Cook was having an affair with his own wife?”

“Surely the whole exercise, from Fillery’s point of view, was a cynical attempt to put pressure on the fourth attempt to catch Daniel’s killers?”

In other words, Fillery was attempting to pervert the course of justice — the very charge the Eye levels against ex-DCS Cook.

Even more serious, while the Eye makes it clear the case has been dogged by police corruption it does not say that Fillery is the cause of that corruption

For several days he played a leading role in the investigation — carrying out the first official interview of Jonathan Rees — without telling senior officers he was a close personal friend.

At the end of March 2011, Scotland Yard issued a public apology to the Morgan family.

Disturbances across the UK

PUBLIC APOLOGY
ACTING METROPOLITAN POLICE Commissioner Tim Godwin formally apologised in March 2011 to the Morgan family for the force’s failure to convict Daniel’s killers. “You are entitled to an apology not only for this failure but also for the repeated failure [by Scotland Yard] … to accept that corruption had played such a part in failing to bring those responsible to justice.” Private Eye left out the fact that Rees’ friend Fillery was the primary source of that corruption … 
Photo: PA 

Acting Commissioner Tim Godwin said:

“I recognise how important it is to the family that the part played by corruption in the original investigation is acknowledged publicly.”

The source of that corruption was Sid Fillery who, as a detective sergeant on the first murder investigation, had fatally contaminated the inquiry …

♦♦♦

PRESS GANG tried on several occasions to persuade Private Eye to provide more balanced reporting.

In January, after the first article, we emailed the magazine saying we assumed this piece

” … was written by Mike Gillard and forms part of his assault on the Met for the use of supergrasses.”

“The trouble is, without giving some of the context (such as the fact that Rees was caught red-handed conspiring to plant cocaine on a woman so that she would lose custody of her child), the Eye gives the impression Rees is a wronged-character.”

The Eye ignored this email.

After the second piece, in January, we emailed again.

Again there was no response.

On April 13 we sent a long letter outlining this article.

A week later Heather Mills, the reporter responsible for “In The Back”, replied:

“You have obviously spent a lot of time putting together your letter and its allegations and are apparently intending to make some very serious aspersions.”

“I can see no reason why you should wish to impose an impossible deadline for responding, nor to rush to publish.”

We gave the Eye until last night to respond.

Editor Ian Hislop sent us a three page letter.

(The full letter is printed at the end of this article, in line with our Right of Reply policy.)

'Private Eye - The First 50 Years' Annual Signing - London

IAN HISLOP
THE EDITOR of Private Eye sent us a three-page letter — insisting Press Gang publish it in full … 
Photo: PA

“To be honest,” writes Hislop, “I’m afraid I find it extremely difficult to understand let alone respond to the, frankly, wild allegations you are making against Private Eye … ”

“Contrary to what you suggest these are a fair and accurate account of recent court proceedings and developments.”

He adds

“… you appear to be basing your many and confusing allegations on a suggested ‘lack of context’ in our coverage.”

“In so doing, you are operating on the false basis that we have ignored the aspects of the Morgan case about which you are now complaining.”

He then goes on to spell out what Private Eye has said about the murder in the past, including all the material cited in this article.

But that is not the point Press Gang is making — we say that some of this material should have been included in the four recent articles to present a balanced case.

Moreover, whatever Private Eye has said in the past is no longer available to the vast bulk of the readership.

The magazine provides no publicly available database and index of previous articles.

Hislop hits the nail on the head:

“… you seem intent on suggesting that there is a conspiracy between Michael Gillard and the Eye to embark on an ‘anti-Cook crusade’ that has given ‘succour to the prime suspects in the case.’ This really is nonsense.”

At least in this article, Press Gang presents as much of the material, from both sides, so readers can make up their own mind on the issue.

♦♦♦

REES AND FILLERY are now hoping Channel 4 will give them a platform.

The broadcaster confirmed this morning it had commissioned the independent production company Indefinite Films to work on a series about the murder.

There are concerns that this programme will also present a biased account of the case.

Alastair Morgan has declined to take part.

image1

PETER JUKES
THE PRODUCER of the award-winning podcast series Untold: The Daniel Morgan Murder tried to get Private Eye to publish a letter complaining about its coverage. The Eye refused to publish it … 
Photo: PA

Series producer Adam Wishart told us:

“Our aim is provide an authoritative and impartial account of the events leading up to and since Daniel Morgan’s death.”

“The production team will be adhering to the strict Ofcom guidelines around fairness, factual, accuracy and impartiality and their hope is to include interviews with witnesses, people associated with Daniel Morgan and his family.”

However, Press Gang has obtained a copy of an email from producer Jim Nally sent to police officers involved in the case.

Nally says

” … our investigation is very much following the police’s in terms of exposing who had the motive and the connections.”

“We really want to do justice to the Trojan efforts of police to solve this crime …”

But he then goes on to say

“ … we’ve got Sid Fillery on board, which is important, as accusations of police corruption have been so lazily bandied about by the Morgan campaign that we felt it was about time someone said ‘show me the evidence’, which is exactly Sid’s point which he delivered really well.”

PRESS GANG LOGO

THIS IS the sixth instalment of The No 1 Corrupt Detective Agency, a project that started six years ago and now runs to more than 22,000 words.
It’s one of the three major Press Gang inquiries — the others being the exposé of Mazher “Fake Sheik” Mahmood and the long series on Piers Morgan: “A Pretty Despicable Man”.
Press Gang is independent and carries no advertising. It runs at a loss and the only source of income is donations.
If you feel articles like A Stab In The Back should see the light of day, you can make donation …

Donate Button with Credit Cards

 

This is breathtaking stuff — it ignores the fact that, in 2011, Scotland Yard publicly apologised to the Morgan family for “the part played by corruption in the original investigation.”

The source of that corruption was Sid Fillery.

The retired police officer approached by Nally warned him:

“There was a wealth of evidence that [Fillery] acted inappropriately (to say the least) which was compounded by the fact that he retired and took the victim’s place in the private detective agency.”

“I would seriously warn against any officer contributing to a programme that appears to centre on this ex-officer.”

A spokeswoman for Channel 4 told us:

“Channel 4 has commissioned a multi-award winning production team at Indefinite Films to make an investigative factual series about the events surrounding and following the death of Daniel Morgan.”

“As with everything broadcast on Channel 4, we will retain editorial control and ensure everything is underpinned with robust journalism, presented fairly, accurately and impartially.”

“Daniel Morgan’s family, along with all the key witnesses involved in the story are being approached for this in-depth forensic series.”

♦♦♦
Published: 27 April 2017
© Press Gang
♦♦♦

CORRECTIONS

THIS ARTICLE was amended on 12 & 14 May and 13 June 2017.
Press Gang wrongly stated Michael Gillard “forced the Guardian to make public” the letter to the paper from Scotland Yard Commander Andy Hayman. We apologise for the error.
Michael Gillard also objects to our statement that Rees “persuaded” him and the Eye to publish “favourable” articles. Press Gang stands by its analysis of these articles as “favourable” but Rees didn’t need to persuade Gillard to write them — his critique of ex-DCS Cook dates from 2011. The piece has been amended to reflect this.

RIGHT OF REPLY

Private Eye editor Ian Hislop’s letter 

Dear Paddy French,

I promised you a response to your various communications, so here it is at some length after consultation with all those involved.

To be honest, I’m afraid it is extremely difficult to understand let alone respond to the, frankly, wild allegations you are making against Private Eye arising from  the latest articles in the magazine concerning the long-running  Daniel Morgan case. Contrary to what you suggest these are a fair and accurate account of recent court proceedings and developments.

So we are not going to try and address everything to which you refer; it also follows, just because we have not in this letter addressed a specific point or allegation that you make, that we accept it.

You agree that our reporting was ‘perfectly valid’ including the suggestion that DCS Dave Cook should be prosecuted for what two High Court judges concluded was perverting the course of justice.

However, you appear to be basing your many and confusing allegations on a suggested ‘lack of context’ in our coverage. In doing so, you are operating on the false basis that we have ignored the aspects of the Morgan case about which you are now complaining.

Since as long ago as 2004, we have written about corruption and incompetence by the police in relation to the murder and its investigation; the family’s struggle for the truth against the Met and Home Office stonewalling; and the shady pasts of the key suspects – including Rees’ conviction for planting drugs on an innocent woman and Fillery’s possession of indecent images of children. All of this we reported long before Cook’s conduct became an issue and he became the ‘story’.

Even the articles of which you complain mention that the case has always been mired in police corruption and allegations of media misconduct.

Indeed Issue 1438 (February 2017 following the Mitting judgement in favour of the Met, one of the four recent articles on which you focus)stated : “After the hearing Daniel’s brother Alastair Morgan said it would be a “travesty of justice” if Cook were to become the scapegoat for “decades” of police corruption at the centre of the   unsolved murder”. And he is right” (my emphasis).

The fact is, all sections of the Eye have covered different aspects of the Morgan case over the last thirteen years, often breaking new ground that has not been covered in the mainstream media.

Despite all this, you seem intent on suggesting that there is a conspiracy between Michael Gillard and the Eye to embark on ‘an anti-Cook crusade’ that has given ‘succour to the prime suspects in the murder.’ This really is nonsense.

You also make the baffling suggestion that we should have declared a supposed ‘conflict of interest’ because Michael Gillard is somehow in bed with the key suspects to undermine their prosecution because they are important sources of his. This is a serious allegation with no basis in fact and demonstrably false as you could have discovered from basic research.

Your letter shows you are already aware of Michael Gillard and Laurie Flynn’s book, Untouchables, published in 2004 and republished in 2012, which spells out the case against the key suspects and their connections to News International and other tabloid media.  A news article in the Eye the following year covers some of this ground – and this by the way was requested for use by publishers of Alastair Morgan’s and Peter Jukes’ forthcoming book. There are other articles Michael has written elsewhere on this case which you have also failed to take into account when composing your fantastical theory. The Hayman letter to the Guardian in 2000 was first exposed by Michael Gillard in the Press Gazette and other publications, and is again available in full on line. You might also want to look at DCS Bob Quick’s evidence to the Leveson inquiry, in which he admits that the Hayman letter was indeed an attempt to undermine Michael and Laurie’s investigations into the flawed anti-corruption squad (again on-line).

Although Laurie played no part in the Eye’s coverage, he has been passed your allegations, which he rejects entirely and shares our concerns about why you are intent on making them – despite evidence to the contrary.

You make the point that ‘the use of informants was the only possible mechanism (short of a confession) by which the Met could ever bring Rees & co to trial’. It was therefore vital that the handling of those witnesses should have been beyond reproach.

The simple truth is that the person who undermined the final investigation and those witnesses’ evidence against the key suspects – and wrecked the family’s final chance of justice – was Dave Cook, an officer they thought they could finally trust. He repeatedly breached a new law and police rules specifically designed to prevent prosecutions being undermined by police misconduct.

None of this could be explained or mitigated, as you are suggesting, by the fact that Cook and his then wife were put under surveillance by the News of the World – a point we explained in an article entitled Eaton Mess in August 2011.

It was always open to the couple to continue their civil claims against News International to get to the bottom of the surveillance matter rather than settle in private. In the same way that it was always open to Dave Cook to put forward any mitigation for his actions in the fifth murder investigation to us, which he declined, and at the recent high court hearing, which he refused to attend.

Indeed, we maintain there was a duty as a police officer for him to give evidence in the interests of justice and his own cause if he felt unsupported and left out to dry by his superiors – a possibility we have reported despite Cook’s unwillingness to engage with the Eye.

We  must therefore disagree with those who appear to want to defend Cook and mitigate his actions based on his treatment by News International and his subsequent arrest for leaking documents to selected journalists, including for a book he was intending to write with The Sun’s (also News International’s) crime reporter. Whatever effect the surveillance had on Cook and his then wife, and whatever the facts about who sparked that surveillance and why, none of this is a defence to the charge of perverting the course of justice.

We note that your letter also appears to see our ‘perfectly valid’ coverage as a reason to attack the Eye’s stance on Leveson. We will have to agree to disagree with you and those in the Hacked Off camp about the press regulation issue.

Finally, we can see no reason why we should supply you with a photograph of one of our journalists.

Given the seriousness of the allegations you appear intent on publishing we would also ask, in line with your stated policy of a ‘right to reply’, that you post this response in full at the same time on your website so that it appears immediately after your article.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Hislop
Editor

Notes
1
The letter from Commander Andy Hayman — though only the first page is publicly available — is dated 12 August 200 and is addressed to Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian, and marked “Strictly Confidential — Not For Publication”.
It is headed “Proposed article by Gillard and Flynn.”
“I am writing to advise you that the Internal Investigation Command of the Metropolitan Police Service (formerly CIB2/3) is currently investigating the archives [sic] of Jonathan Rees, partner of a private investigation agency known as Law and Commercial [the new name of Southern Investigations]. Rees awaits trial charged with Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Public Justice. It is alleged that he and others, including a serving police officer arranged for controlled drugs, namely cocaine, to be planted on an innocent woman and for her to be arrested and prosecuted, in order to discredit her prior to a child custody case where she intended to seek custody of her 18 month old baby. Further, it is alleged in this conspiracy in return for payment from the baby’s father who is also charged.”
“I am aware of proposals by your freelance journalist[s] connected to your newspaper namely Mt Gillard and Mr Flynn to publish an article about the work of the Metropolitan Police Anti-Corruption Squad (now Internal Investigations Command). We understand and support the need to report on the issued [sic] of Public Interest. I have concerns that in their research your journalist[s] may be at risk, perhaps unwittingly, of assisting Rees in unethically or unlawfully seeking his acquittal to the serious charges he will be required to answer to trial at the Central Criminal Court.”
2
This article is a development of  a series first published on the Rebecca Television website in September 2011.
Rees and Fillery were sent letters outlining the article and asking for their comments. 
Fillery never replied but Rees’ solicitor said:
“Mr Rees has not the spare time to reply to the many questions that have been raised, often on the basis of ill-informed or malicious allegations.”
“Defamation claims are being pursued … in respect of some past publications; and the police have been asked to investigate any use by journalists or others of confidential or forged material improperly released by police officers or others.” 
No legal action was taken against Rebecca Television.
3
There are six parts to The No 1 Corrupt Detective Agency:
An Axe To Grind
Rogue Journalists & Bent Coppers
Porridge

Getting Away With Murder
The Business Of Murder
Private Eye — A Stab In The Back.
See also the Daniel Morgan page.
4
The series draws on material provided by the Morgan family as well as published material by other journalists, notably Nick Davies of the Guardian. Former BBC reporter Graeme McLagan devoted a detailed chapter on the murder as early as 2003 in his book Bent Coppers: The Inside Story of Scotland Yard’s Battle Againats Police Corruption (Orion). It also featured in Laurie Flynn & Michael Gillard’s Untouchables: Dirty Cops, Bent Justice and Racism In Scotland Yard (Cutting Edge, 2004). Several books on the phone hacking scandal have highlighted the key role the murder plays in the saga: Nick Davies’ Hack Attack (Chatto & Windus, 2014) , Tom Watson MP & Martin Hickman’s Dial M For Murdoch (Allen Lane, 2012) and Peter Jukes’ The Fall Of The House Of Murdoch (Unbound, 2012). Peter Jukes has also produced a podcast series — listened to by more than 4 million people — Untold: The Daniel Morgan Murder. x
5
Press Gang editor Paddy French made several programmes on the murder while a current affairs producer at ITV Wales.
6
Since they’re not available online, Press Gang republishes the four Private Eye articles here in full:

Article 1
“Daniel Morgan Murder
Judge dread”
(Eye 1433
9 December 2016)

“I am thinking putting a gun to your head with a bullet that will fire in a short period of time,” an exasperated Mr Justice Mitting told the Metropolitan Police last week.

The judge was giving Knacker of the Yard 10 days to produce a signed statement from a crucial witness or risk losing a costly civil action for malicious prosecution over the 1987 axe murder of private investigator Daniel Morgan.

And who is the Met’s vital but reluctant witness? Step forward former detective chief superintendent Dave Cook, who led the fifth and final investigation into the murder.

Eye readers may recall how the resulting prosecution collapsed in 2011, in large part because of Cook’s repeated mishandling of key supergrass witnesses (Eye 1294). He had apparently ignored warnings from his boss, deputy assistant commissioner John Yates, to stop all documented contact with them.

The acquitted included Jonathan Rees, Morgan’s partner at Southern Investigations; Sidney Fillery, the detective who initially investigated the murder then somewhat surprisingly stepped into Morgan’s former job as a private investigator at Southern investigations; and Glen and Gary Vian, Rees’s brothers-in-law. In 2013 they decided to sue the Met for malicious prosecution and false prisonment.

The high court trial is supposed to start in January. But, unknown to the judge until last week, Cook has legged it to Scotland – and Knacker does not know where exactly. Mitting had been told in October that Cook did want to give evidence. But at last week’s hearing the Met produced a note from a doctor claiming Cook is depressed and that giving evidence would further damage his mental health.

Mitting described Knacker’s attempt to track down the key witness – a posted letter — as “pretty feeble.” He said: “I am becoming more confident than I was on the last occasion that you are being given the runaround by Mr Cook.”

Cook’s ongoing absence has made some seasoned Morgan watchers wonder whether the force really wants to see him and Yates cross-examined about what happened with the supergrasses Gary Eaton and James Ward, and why boxes of documents about their lies and criminal pasts were not disclosed to the defence

The Met maintained that it would fight on even if no statement from Cook materialised by the 9 December deadline. But without him, it may have to settle the claim, which has already exceeded £1.5m in legal costs. This is on top of the estimated £50m spent on no fewer than five failed police investigations, not to mention the undisclosed cost of the inquiry panel into the Morgan affair, set up by Theresa May in 2013, that is still looking into the whole fiasco.

Article 2
“Daniel Morgan Murder
Back in court”
(Eye 1436
27 January 2017)

How ironic that the best chance of finding out why the murder of south London private investigator Daniel Morgan … remains unsolved after 30 years now lies with a claim of malicious prosecution and malfeasance in public office being brought against the Metropolitan police by the key suspects.

The horrific axe murder has always been mired in allegations of police corruption, links to organised crime and Irish terrorism and, more recently, to tabloid newspaper corruption. Now the High Court is hearing claims that the fifth and final investigation was a “fit-up” led by former chief superintendent David Cook, who broke the rules to secure convictions at all costs.

The murder trial collapsed in 2011 after after the judge excluded some supergrass evidence and after it emerged that boxes of evidence had not been disclosed. By then, Morgan’s business partner Jonathan Rees, brothers Glenn and Garry Vian, James Cook and former policeman Sid Fillery had already served two years in jail on remand.

The actions of David Cook are central to the claim which opened last week. “Between 2005 and 2006, he coached and manipulated the two main witnesses, failed to investigate exculpatory lines of inquiry, suppressed documents, misled his colleagues and lied to the trial judge.” said Nicholas Bowen, QC for four of the men.

Eye readers will recall that Mr Justice Maddison had concluded Cook had “probably prompted” one of the key supergrass witnesses Gary Eaton, to incriminate at least two of the defendants and possibly others. The judge also highlighted an interview with another supergrass, James Ward, in which Cook had offered him a “head start” by giving him the names of three suspects.

Cook is in Scotland, refusing to appear as a witness and leaving it to his colleagues – not least assistant commissioner John Yates, who will have to account for his own apparent lack of oversight. In particular, how was it that after the supergrass scandals of 1998-2002, when Yates was one of the Met’s anti-corruption squad (the so-called Untouchables), the same illicit tactics to present career criminals as witnesses of truth was still being used years later.

But it is not enough to show serious misconduct by Cook or his colleagues to succeed in the claim. Rees and the other claimants (the Vians and Fillery) have to prove “malice” or “improper motive” on the part of the officers. Jeremy Johnson QC, for the Met, says that while it accepts Mr Justice Maddison’s finding about Cook, there remained a proper basis to arrest and prosecute each of the claimants, including “multiple accounts from various of the claimants’ associates” of the five’s involvement in the murder.

Daniel Morgan’s long-suffering family are also still hoping to learn more from the review panel that Theresa May set up in 2013 to look into the murky case – but the review is taking place behind closed doors. It’s not known who has given evidence (the panel won’t say whether Cook has appeared, for example) – and as Eye 1430 reported, chair Baroness (Nuala) O’Loan has links with the case. Former Met “Untouchable” Dave Wood, who ran the third failed investigation into Morgan’s death, was O’Loan’s chief investigator when she was the Northern Ireland police ombudsman.

Article 3
“Daniel Morgan Murder
Cook feels the heat”
(Eye 1438
24 February 2017)

Big questions arise from last week’s controversial ruling by Mr Justice Mitting that Det Chief Supt Dave Cook perverted the course of justice in the trial of four men accused of involvement in the unsolved 1987 axe murder of private detective Daniel Morgan.

Eye readers will recall that Morgan’s business partner, Jonathan Rees, brothers Glenn and Garry Vian and former detective Sid Fillery were suing the Metropolitan Police for malicious prosecution and misfeasance. They had spent up to two years on remand before their trial crumbled in March 2011 when the credibility of Cook and three supergrass witnesses was fatally undermined.

The trial judge back then, Mr Justice Maddison, and now Mr Justice Mitting both found that Cook had repeatedly made illicit contact with the main supergrass witness, Gary Eaton – a career criminal with mental health disorders making him prone to fantasy. Deliberately breaking new rules to prevent such “contamination”, Cook persuaded the suggestible Eaton to identify the Vians and encouraged him to say he was at the murder scene – a south London pub car park – to witness its aftermath, when he evidently wasn’t. Details of these illicit contacts were suppressed in reports to prosecutors.

Yet without hearing from Cook, who refused to appear, Mr Justice Mitting determined that the now retired detective perverted the course of justice only because he “genuinely” thought the men were guilty – not out of malice. The judge dismissed all claims from Rees and the Vians, saying there was still other evidence upon which charges could have been brought, even if it was later to unravel.

He did however award Fillery (who had been accused of perverting the course of justice) as yet undecided damages for Cook’s misfeasance. The only evidence against him came from Eaton, who claimed Fillery had threatened him to keep his mouth shut about the murder.

The big question is whether Cook will now be prosecuted and finally have to account publicly for what really happened inside what was the fifth and last investigation into the murder. The public interest test in favour of prosecution could not be higher – but the Crown Prosecution Service and Inspector Knacker might not want to Cook unpicking another controversial aspect of the ruling. The judge found that the Met could not be liable for any “malicious prosecution” because the CPS and Treasury counsel, despite being kept in the dark and misled by Cook over his dealings with Eaton, oversaw the case.

The Met refused to waive legal privilege, so no internal discussions could be disclosed and prosecutors did not have to give evidence, in particular on whether they would have brought a prosecution had they known the key officer and supergrass witness were so tainted.

The claimants are seeking leave to appeal, saying the ruling now made it almost impossible to bring a claim of malicious prosecution against the police and could “encourage” so-called “noble cause corruption”. They added that officers should not feel they cannot be held liable for “outrageous and unlawful” conduct and the law should restrain rather than encourage it.

After the hearing, Daniel’s brother Alistair Morgan said it would be a “travesty of justice” if Cook were to become the scapegoat for the decades of police corruption at the centre of the unsolved murder. And he is right– as Eye readers are well aware, the case was fouled along before Cook. But people are innocent until proven guilty — no matter their criminal record or what the police believe.

Article 4
“Daniel Morgan Murder
Cook’s stew”
(Eye 1439
10 March 2017)

Nearly three weeks after Mr Justice Mitting ruled that former Det Chief Supt Dave Cook had perverted the course of justice in the unsolved 1987 murder of private detective Daniel Morgan (see last Eye), Knacker of the Yard is still “considering the appropriate next step to take”.

Cook refused to give evidence in his own or Knacker’s defence at last month’s high court civil action for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in a public office, brought by Morgan’s business partner Jonathan Rees, brothers Glenn and Garry Vian and former policeman Sidney Fillery.

Only Fillery was awarded damages for Cook’s misfeasance. With judicial clairvoyance, Mitting decided that Cook only perverted the course of justice – by illicitly prompting a mentally unstable, renowned liar – because he “genuinely” believed the four were guilty.

When the men’s lawyers argued that the ruling could encourage “noble cause corruption” by the police, it was the Met’s own counsel, Jeremy Johnson QC, who countered that errant cops can be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice, thus providing a deterrent through criminal sanction.

As yet, however, no bulky file has been sent to the Crown Prosecution Service, despite the evidence and public interest test clearly having been met, with two trials and two adverse findings by two high court judges about Cook’s conduct

More cynical observers of the Morgan scandal might wonder if it suits the Met not to have Cook grip the rail and explain why a fifth and final murder investigation miserably disintegrated — and with it the hopes of Morgan’s family for justice.

Supporters of Cook say he is a fall guy for the Yard’s internal politics and its close relationship with the News of the World, which Rees and Fillery worked for as private contractors. As the 30th anniversary of Morgan’s murder passes on 10 March, surely the most “appropriate” action for new Met commissioner Cressida Dick must be to support a fair prosecution of Cook.
7
Press Gang made an error on Twitter over the Eye’s coverage. We said that there were mistakes in a Private Eye article. As soon as we realised our error, we deleted the tweets.

♦♦♦

COMING
SKY FALL?
THIS YEAR will see a major battle for control of Britain’s airwaves — Rupert Murdoch’s bid to take overall control of Sky TV. The mogul scuttled an earlier attempt in 2012 because of the public outcry over the phone hacking scandal. The battle for Sky will be a key battleground in 21st century British media because of the decline in newspapers. If Murdoch gets Sky, he will move to smash the powerful broadcasting watchdog Ofcom — and convert Sky News into a British version of his US Fox News channel. This is part of a plan to replace the fading populist power of the Sun with a new right-wing  TV version. All the signs are Theresa May’s government will give Rupert Murdoch what he wants. But all is not lost — the Murdochs are vulnerable to a charge that, despite claims to have cleaned up their criminal stable since the closure of the News of the World in 2012, some areas of their empire remain as corrupt as ever …

♦♦♦

DONATIONS Investigative stories like this one are expensive and time-consuming to produce. You can help by making a contribution to the coffers. Just click on the logo …

Donate Button with Credit Cards

CORRECTIONS Please let us know if there are any mistakes in this article — they’ll be corrected as soon as possible.

RIGHT OF REPLY If you have been mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let us have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory we’ll add it to the article.

Advertisements

REVIEW — UNTOLD: THE DANIEL MORGAN MURDER EXPOSED

June 26, 2017

final-book-jacket

♦♦♦

Untold: The Daniel Morgan Murder Exposed
Alastair Morgan and Peter Jukes
(Blink Publishing, hardback £14.99, ebook £9.99)
Reviewed by Paddy French

♦♦♦

THIS BOOK tells the story of two young men.

In March 1987 a Welsh private detective called Daniel Morgan was axed to death in south London.

The 37-year-old left behind a widow and two small children.

He also left behind an older brother, Alastair, who made a vow to bring his killers to book.

Alastair wasn’t to know that his pledge would mean he would have to devote the rest of his life to the cause.

It’s been, in effect, a life sentence — with the rest of his personal and professional life taking a back seat to the campaign.

For three decades he’s waged a battle to get police, media and the political establishment to take his brother’s brutal murder seriously.

But, despite five police investigations costing millions of pounds, no-one has ever been convicted of the murder …

♦♦♦

“UNTOLD” EXAMINES the scandal from two angles.

One is Alastair’s gruelling year-by-year account of his meetings with obstructive senior police officers and politicians.

Some of the story is told by his partner Kirsteen, a BBC journalist.

The other narrative is a dispassionate account of the case by the writer Peter Jukes.

DANIEL MORGAN

DANIEL MORGAN
FOR THIRTY years his family, led by older brother Alastair, has battled to bring the killers to book. One of the biggest obstacles was police corruption in the original investigation.
Photo: courtesy of the Morgan family

He came across the case while covering the hacking scandal.

He then produced the award-winning Untold podcast series about Daniel’s murder which attracted four million listeners across the world.

From that came this book.

At first sight, of course, the title is misleading.

The story is far from “untold” — it’s been reported extensively by some newspapers, especially the Guardian, and has featured in two important books.

There was a chapter on the murder in both former BBC reporter Graeme McLagan’s Bent Coppers (2002) and Untouchables by Laurie Flynn and Michael Gillard (2004).

The case has also featured on the BBC programme Crimewatch.

There have also been many regional TV documentaries.

I made several while I was a producer at ITV’s Wales This Week current affairs series — Daniel’s father was Welsh and Daniel and Alastair grew up in south Wales.

I also helped to persuade colleagues on the London Programme to cover the story in 2004.

Press Gang readers will also be aware of the long series The No 1 Corrupt Detective Agency.

♦♦♦

BUT IN A more fundamental sense, the title is right on the money.

The scandal has never received the attention it deserves.

To see why, you only have to compare it with the killing of the black teenager Stephen Lawrence in south London in April 1993.

Within five years of Stephen’s murder there was a full-scale public inquiry — headed by Sir William Macpherson — which branded the Metropolitan Police as institutionally racist.

It took the Morgan family 26 years to get the political establishment to pay any attention — and even then it was far from the public inquiry they wanted.

In 2013 Home Secretary Theresa May set up the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel.

THERESA MAY

THERESA MAY
IN 2013 — more than quarter of a century after the murder — Home Secretary Theresa May established the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel. Headed by Baroness O’Loan, the panel meets in secret and is moving at a snail’s pace. Its report will not be published until next year …
Photo: PA

Macpherson took less than two years to produce his report — the Daniel Morgan Panel, which carried out its investigations in private, is still writing theirs.

Stephen’s family also got the dramatic backing of the Daily Mail in 1997 when the paper famously branded the five main suspects as murderers.

In stark contrast, recent coverage by Daily Mail stablemate, the Mail on Sunday, has indulged in a smear campaign against Daniel Morgan.

The Macpherson Inquiry also led to the end of the ‘double jeopardy’ rule — that a person cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offence — which led to two of Stephen’s assailants being convicted in 2012.

In 2008 the five men suspected of involvement in Daniel’s murder were charged but the case, dogged by unreliable witnesses and missing documents, collapsed.

So why has the Daniel Morgan case not attracted the same level of attention as the Stephen Lawrence murder?

Untold comes up with two inter-locking reasons

— a substantial number of corrupt police detectives with connections to the London underwood and

— their connections with Fleet Street journalists, in particular those working for Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World.

The private detective agency Daniel Morgan worked for — Southern Investigations — became one of the key brokers between the two groups in the years following the murder.

At the root of it all is a failure of regulation.

Attempts to introduce proper regulation of the police — especially in relation to corruption — have failed.

The current regulator, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, is seen as generally ineffective.

At the same time, Scotland Yard has jealously guarded its right to investigate internal corruption.

It’s proved inadequate to the task.

The same is true of journalism.

The lack of ethics at Rupert Murdoch’s papers has seen its reporters sink ever deeper into corruption and criminality.

The News of the World, the Sun and the Sunday Times have all been tarnished by this descent.

Other papers, most notably the Daily Mirror under former Murdoch protegé Piers Morgan, were dragged into the mire.

The Daily Mail was also dabbling in the “dark arts” of unlawful news gathering.

This led to a reluctance by most papers to cover the Daniel Morgan case because it risked exposing their own wrong-doing.

157_ALASTAIR:ISOBEL

FLOWERS FOR DANIEL
DANIEL’S OLDER brother Alastair and his mother Isobel lay flowers on the spot in a south London pub carpark where Daniel was axed to death. 
Photo: PA

Only the Guardian resisted the tide — and, in Nick Davies, had the reporter who would eventually expose the sewer.

Unless there’s a fundamental overhaul of the way the police and the press are regulated, it’s inevitable there will be more scandals like Daniel Morgan. 

♦♦♦

“UNTOLD” IS an important book — but it could have been even better.

The first drawback is the authors’ decision to end their account in 2013 — four years ago.

Since then there has been a major development.

Four of the five men charged with the murder brought a civil action against the Metropolitan Police for malicious prosecution.

Earlier this year — as reported in the Pesss Gang article The Business Of Murder — Judge Mitting rejected the claim.

The judge did award substantial damages to one suspect, ex-Scotland Yard detective Sidney Fillery.

This dramatic case is briefly mentioned in the book’s Afterword but a full account could easily have been included.

The book would also benefit from a detailed timeline.

However, the most serious shortcoming is the lack of an index.

For a book destined to become a key textbook this is an essential tool.

The authors say they’ll put most of these matters right in a second edition when the report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel is published.

Despite these flaws, Untold remains one of the most important books ever written about the relationship between the media and the police.

As former Prime Minister Gordon Brown puts in his dedication at the beginning of the book:

“One story about the media has already been told — the tale of phone hacking.”

“Another equally sinister chapter — involving a raft of unanswered allegations about … interference with the process of justice — has yet to be told.”

“Alastair Morgan and Peter Jukes’ book is an important contribution to that story.”

♦♦♦

COMING
A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE
THE MAGAZINE Private Eye is continuing its lone campaign to have Dave Cook — the detective in charge of the failed prosecution of the prime suspects in the Daniel Morgan murder — prosecuted for perverting the course of justice. This is despite the family’s insistence that it would be “a travesty of justice” to make him a “scapegoat” for thirty years of failures by Scotland Yard. Press Gang examines the case against Cook …

♦♦♦

NOTES
1
Press Gang has reported the scandal for many years — see the Daniel Morgan page for a list of the articles published.
2
The sister website to Press Gang Rebeccahas also reviewed Untold from a Welsh perspective. Click here to read it.

♦♦♦

DONATIONS

If you want to make a contribution towards the work of Press Gang, just click on the DONATE button.

Donate Button with Credit Cards

CORRECTIONS

Please let us know if there are any mistakes in this article — they’ll be corrected as soon as possible.

RIGHT OF REPLY  
If you have been mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let us have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory we’ll add it to the article.

THERESA MAY — CEREAL KILLER

June 6, 2017

CONFLAKES MASTER

THE BUSINESS OF MURDER

April 3, 2017

corrupt_header_part_5

FEBRUARY 2017 was a bad month for one of the prime suspects in the unsolved murder of private eye Daniel Morgan.

Jonathan Rees — boss of the No 1 Corrupt Detective Agency — lost his High Court action against the Metropolitan Police for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office.

He brought the action after his criminal trial for the murder collapsed in 2011 — and after he’d spent 22 months in prison.

He’d been hoping to make a substantial killing in compensation.

Private Eye, which puts the total cost of the case at more than £1.5 million, says Rees will appeal.

If he fails, he faces a huge legal bill — on top of other mounting debts.

He may have to sell his £1 million house in Surrey …

PRESS GANG LOGO

THIS 5,000 word article is the fifth instalment of an investigation into Southern Investigations that started more than a decade ago.
For 30 years the Daniel Morgan murder was largely ignored by the UK newspapers and broadcasters.
In part, this was because the News of the World was in a commercial relationship with one of the prime suspects in the case.
Press Gang is independent and does not carry advertising. It runs at a loss and the only source of income is donations.
If you feel articles like The Business Of Murder should see the light of day, you can make either a one-off gift or make a commitment to a small monthly donation.

Donate Button with Credit Cards

 

♦♦♦

WHEN MR Justice Mitting dismissed Rees’ action on February 21, it was a major blow to the murder suspect.

He’d funded the action by doing a deal with his solicitors, Freedman Alexander of Ewell in Kent.

If he won, their costs would be paid by the Metropolitan Police.

If he failed, their fees would be secured by a mortgage on Rees’ four-bedroomed property in Weybridge, Surrey.

This charge was registered in November last year.

The amount is not known.

The Weybridge property is worth a million pounds but it already has two other mortgages .

Rees and his partner Margaret Harrison — a former lover of the murdered Daniel Morgan — bought the detached house in March 2006 for £440,000.

This was shortly after Rees had finished serving a seven year prison sentence for conspiring to plant cocaine on an innocent mother so she would lose custody of her child.

Rees and Harrison’s previous home in Thornton Heath, Croydon was sold for £290,000 in May 2005.

The couple took out a Bank of Scotland mortgage to pay for the new Weybridge property in 2006 and added a second — from Skye Loans Limited — shortly after.

Press Gang understands Rees was arrested in 2006 by  Scotland Yard’s Financial Crimes Unit in connection with a mortgage application on this house.

The Crown Prosecution Service decided not to charge him.

In addition to the three mortgages, there are also a series of court orders on the property.

In April 2008 the debt collection company Lowell Portfolio obtained judgment against Rees at Kingston County Court for an unspecified debt.

The same court granted Barclaycard a similar judgment against Rees in May 2008.

Again, the debt is not stated.

Another judgment was made against Rees at Cardiff County Court in favour of Link Financial Ltd for another debt.

REES_and_FILLERY_210

THE STORY SO FAR …
PRIVATE EYE Jonathan Rees (left) should have been an immediate suspect in the murder of his business partner Daniel Morgan in 1987 — the two men were love rivals and were arguing about a botched security operation. But Scotland Yard detective sergeant Sid Fillery (right) kept that crucial information — as well as his close friendship with Rees and his own involvement in the ill-fated security operation — from the murder squad for several vital days. For the events leading up to the murder, the early contaminated murder inquiry, the sensational inquest which saw Rees’s book-keeper accuse him of planning the murder, see Part One — An Axe To Grind. The second part of The No 1 Corrupt Detective Agency — Rogue Journalists & Bent Coppers — reveals how Rees and his new partner in the Southern Investigations detective agency, Sid Fillery, became key players in the unlawful sale of confidential police information to Rupert Murdoch’s empire, especially the News of the World. Attempts by anti-corruption detectives to end this corrosive trade came to nothing. Part three — Porridge — tells the story of how Jonathan Rees was gaoled for 7 years after he was caught conspiring to plant cocaine on an innocent mother. When indecent child abuse photos were found on Sid Fillery’s computer — he was ordered to sign the Sex Offenders Register — the detective agency collapsed. In 2008 Rees and Fillery were finally charged in connection with Daniel Morgan’s death: Rees with murder and Fillery with attempting to pervert the course of justice. Part four — Getting Away With Murder — tells the story of how the case dramatically collapsed …
Photos: PA

Finally, the Manchester branch of the law firm Pannone obtained judgment at Kingston County Court in February 2014.

This was for the recovery of £12,247 in legal costs.

Pannone would not comment on the case.

♦♦♦

REES’ ATTEMPT to make a financial killing from the Metropolitan Police reached its climax in the Royal Courts of Justice earlier this year.

The case opened on January 17.

The judge was the experienced Sir John Mitting.

Rees was joined by three other claimants.

Two of them — his former brothers-in-law Glenn and Garry Vian — had been also been accused of the murder of Daniel Morgan.

They were joined by former detective sergeant Sid Fillery, accused of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

SUSPECTS_400

SUSPECTS
AN ARTIST’S impression of the five men charged in connection with the Daniel Morgan murder in 2008 — from left to right, Jonathan Rees, Glenn Vian, Sid Fillery, Garry Vian and James “Jimmy” Cook. The prosecution case was that Jonathan Rees ordered the killing, Glenn Vian carried out the execution, his brother Garry was the look-out and Jimmy Cook was the getaway driver. Detective sergeant Fillery covered their tracks. The case finally collapsed in 2011 and all except Jimmy Cook sued the Metropolitan Police.
Illustration: Elizabeth Cook, PA

One of the five men originally charged in connection with the murder — James “Jimmy” Cook — did not take part in the civil action.

The remaining four claimed the prosecution against them was motivated by malice by Scotland Yard in general and in particular by the man who led the investigation — Detective Chief Superintendent (DCS) Dave Cook.

In addition, they claimed DCS Cook was guilty of misfeasance in a public office.

They sought compensation — in the case of Rees and the Vians, including the 22 months they spent on remand.

In the case of Sid Fillery, for the three months he spent in prison before he was released on bail.

♦♦♦

REES, FILLERY and the Vians based their claim on the way police handled two witnesses.

One was a professional drug dealer called James Ward.

The claimants argued that Ward had been coached in his evidence by DCS Cook.

They also claimed police deliberately suppressed material about Ward which was favourable to the defence.

Ward had a history of informing on other criminals to get reduced prison sentences.

David Whitehouse QC, for Glenn Vian, said Ward:

dave_cook_200

DCS DAVE COOK
THE EXPERIENCED murder detective was the senior investigating officer in the fourth and fifth attempts to bring Daniel Morgan’s murderers to book. When he left the Met in 2007 to join the Serious Organised Crime Agency he agreed to continue as the lead investigator in the Daniel Morgan case. He retired in 2013. 
Photo: PA

” … is a career criminal who has been able to remain active in crime by playing the informant — he has had relationships, including financial relationships, with police officers.”

He added he “has given information to the police, some of it true some of it not true.”

“The result is the police have been prepared to make representations to judges to seek lighter sentences when he is caught.”

In 1987 — the year Daniel Morgan was murdered — Ward was gaoled for two years instead of the expected seven because of the help he’d given police.

Ward knew Rees, Fillery and the Vians.

By the early 2000s he’d become a millionaire as part of a major drugs smuggling ring which also included Garry Vian.

In 2004 Ward and Garry Vian were caught during Scotland Yard’s Operation Bedingham and remanded in custody in August 2004.

At this point Ward decided to see if he could secure another reduced sentence by turning informant.

He chose the Daniel Morgan murder as his bargaining tool.

In February 2005 he met DCS Cook but made it clear he would not give evidence against Rees and the other suspects:

“That will resolve (sic) in someone’s death, my wife, son, grandchildren,” he said.

“Not worth it,” he concluded.

He was only prepared to give intelligence.

He told DCS Cook that the motive for the murder centred on a multi-million pound drug-dealing ring.

The following exchange took place:

Ward: “Where shall I start?”

DCS Cook:

“Tell me what you know. I’ll give you a head start. It was Glenn with the axe, Garry was there and Jimmy with the car.”

The claimants’ team argued this prompt meant Ward’s evidence had been “deliberately contaminated by [DCS] Cook”.

Judge Mitting rejected the claim.

At that stage, he noted:

“Cook was gathering intelligence not evidence.”

Ward later agreed to give evidence.

Once he was accepted as an “assisting offender” a “sterile corridor” was created between the detectives de-briefing him and the Daniel Morgan murder team.

This was to prevent murder squad detectives influencing witnesses.

The claimants team argued that DCS Cook also had the opportunity to prompt Ward by phone.

Again, Mitting was unimpressed:

John-Mitting

SIR JOHN MITTING
THE HIGH COURT judge heard the civil action brought by Jonathan Rees and the other claimants against the Metropolitan Police.

” … it overlooks the fact that Ward was in prison and so the opportunity for unrestricted and unrecorded phone calls either did not exist or was so diminished as to make the possibility highly unlikely.”

Mitting accepted that the de-brief of Ward was a “textbook” exercise.

♦♦♦

IN JULY 2005 Ward was given a 17 year sentence for the Bedingham offences — Garry Vian was sent down for 14 years.

But Ward’s willingness to give evidence in the Daniel Morgan case saw his sentence drastically reduced.

In March 2007 his 17 year sentence was reduced to five years as a direct consequence of his willingness to give evidence in the Daniel Morgan murder trial.

Part of his de-briefing included “cleansing” his reputation by admitting any criminal activity not known to the police.

He pleaded guilty to a further 13 drugs offences and asked for another nine to be taken into consideration.

For these crimes he was sentenced to a further three years in prison.

Investigators estimated that Ward had made £3.7 million from drugs smuggling.

A separate Proceeds of Crime investigation was also carried out.

Ward was eventually ordered to surrender £633,000.

There was also a money laundering investigation which involved Ward and his wife.

This investigation generated a substantial amount of information including 18 crates of documents which were made available to the murder investigation in 2007.

They were not examined by the murder team — and the prosecution did not disclose them to the defence.

These files included new and damaging evidence about Ward’s activities as an informant.

Then, in 2010, even more damaging documents turned up.

These showed Ward, who was supposed to have “cleansed” his reputation by revealing all his criminality, hadn’t told everything.

NEW SCOTLAND YARD

NEW SCOTLAND YARD
MORE THAN 750,000 pages of documents have been generated in the Daniel Morgan murder case. The failure to track down some of these papers proved to be a major liability in the trial of Jonathan Rees and the other suspects …

The documents included what appeared to be an admission that he ordered the murder of a drug dealer.

In the criminal case, the judge ruled that Ward could not give evidence.

In this year’s “malicious prosecution” action, the claimants’ legal team argued that police had deliberately suppressed this undisclosed material.

Judge Mitting accepted there were errors which displayed “a want of due diligence.”

But he added:

“I reject the suggestion that [detectives] deliberately suppressed material which they knew or believed might have undermined Ward’s evidence.”

♦♦♦

THE SECOND witness was another criminal, Gary Eaton.

The claimants in the “malicious prosecution” action argued that his evidence was also contaminated.

Eaton was a volatile, unstable character with a long history of mental problems.

He had an alcohol problem, a history of lying and often resorted to violence, both against himself and others.

When he met murder investigators in July 2006, he claimed he was offered £50,000 by James “Jimmy” Cook to carry out the murder.

Daniel Morgan was killed because he’d found out about a drugs and money laundering operation.

Sid Fillery “set it up,” Eaton claimed, and Jonathan Rees knew about it.

At this meeting it was clear Eaton either didn’t know about the Vians’ alleged involvement — or wasn’t prepared to say.

In the High Court action, counsel for the claimants pointed to a question from DCS Cook which they said showed him prompting Eaton.

DCS Cook said:

“Give me the names of the brothers.”

Eaton couldn’t identify them.

When Eaton was accepted as an “assisting offender” he was passed to other officers, not connected with the murder investigation, to carry out the debriefing.

As with Ward, there was supposed to be a “sterile corridor” between the de-briefers and the murder team.

In fact, there was constant mobile phone contact between Eaton and DCS Cook.

In September 2006 Eaton dramatically changed his testimony.

He now said that he had been at the Golden Lion at the time of the murder — he was in the pub when he was asked to go outside.

He said he saw Daniel Morgan’s body on the ground.

156_GOLDENLION

MURDER SCENE
THE PUB in Sydenham where the murder took place. Gary Eaton’s late admission that he had been there was not believed by the judge in the criminal case.
Photo: PA

He said Jimmy Cook was in a car which then drove away.

He also now remembered that Glenn Vian was involved — but still couldn’t remember the name of the other brother.

During this period, there were many phone calls between Eaton and DCS Cook  — in breach of the “sterile corridor”.

There were several reports from other officers expressing concern about these contacts.

In the pre-trial hearings in the criminal case, DCS Cook prepared a schedule of the phone calls as he could remember them.

The judge in that case, Sir David Maddison, stated:

“The telephone records now available … indicate direct communication between DCS Cook and Mr Eaton by text and / or phone call on 36 days during this period.”

“… the final version of DCS Cook’s schedule refers to only six days …”

The judge did not find Eaton’s version of events at the Golden Lion credible — and concluded he wasn’t there.

Judge Mitting, in the High Court action, was blunt:

“By prompting a potentially unreliable witness to implicate Glenn and Garry Vian in the Morgan murder and then to conceal the fact that he had done so from the CPS and prosecuting counsel, [DCS] Cook did an act which tended to pervert the course of justice.”

♦♦♦

DCS Cook has always denied coaching Eaton — he says all the calls concerned his welfare and his often turbulent personal life.

Eaton, it was argued, was not a typical witness.

Usually, assisting offenders were in prison, seeking to give evidence against other criminals in return for a reduced sentence.

Eaton was a free man who not only volunteered information about the Daniel Morgan murder but also confessed to a large number of criminal offences.

He also surrendered £80,000 which he said was the proceeds of his criminal activities.

JONATHAN REES


WATCHED … 
JONATHAN REES photographed in the late 1990s outside the offices of Southern Investigations in Thornton Heath. Rees did not realise the premises were bugged — detectives heard him planning to plant drugs on an innocent mother as part of a plot to prove she was an unfit mother. He was gaoled for seven years …
Photo: Metropolitan Police

(In April 2008 Eaton pleaded guilty to a raft of offences and was gaoled for three years.

The offences would normally have attracted a sentence of 28 years.)

Because he was not in prison, it was impossible to observe a sterile corridor — and it wasn’t just DCS Cook he was contacting.

Judge Mitting also noted, in another part of his judgment:

” … I am not persuaded that (DCS) Cook intended that Eaton should give false evidence.”

“I believe it to be inconceivable that Cook gave Eaton a detailed account of what he believed had happened knowing that Eaton had not witnessed it.”

“I strongly suspect that Eaton had said something to Cook which prompted him to believe that Eaton may have been there.”

“The danger in this was that it encouraged an unstable individual with severe personality and psychiatric problems to say what he thought Cook wanted him to say, whether or not it was true.”

Former DCS Cook, by now retired, did not give evidence in this year’s High Court case.

He declined to comment for this article.

♦♦♦

JONATHAN REES was confident he would win the High Court case for “malicious prosecution.” 

But it wasn’t a foregone conclusion.

When the murder trial collapsed in 2011, Judge Maddison made it clear the case was properly brought.

There were, he said:

” … ample grounds to justify the arrest and prosecution of the defendants.”

157_ALASTAIR:ISOBEL

FLOWERS FOR DANIEL
DANIEL’S OLDER brother Alastair and his mother Isobel lay flowers on the spot where Daniel died. It was only the family’s dogged determination that forced Scotland Yard to make a determined effort to catch Daniel’s killers …
Photo: PA

Mitting said that in order to prove they’d been the victims of a “malicious prosecution” the complainants had to prove three things:

— first, that it was the police who were responsible for the prosecution.

In other words, if the Crown Prosecution Service had known DCS Cook had prompted Eaton, the four would not have been charged.

— second, even if it was the police who were the driving force, the claimants also had to show that there was no “reasonable and probable cause” to charge them.

— finally, they had to show that DCS Cook’s actions were motivated by malice.

Judge Mitting found that the claimants case for “malicious prosecution” fell at the first hurdle.

It was not the police who took the decision to prosecute — it was the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

The only thing the CPS was not told about was the extent of the calls between DCS Cook and Gary Eaton.

But — even without Eaton — there was plenty of other grounds to prosecute.

Mitting pointed out that, as early as 2002, the opinion of a leading CPS barrister was clear.

The judge quoted a report, written by DCS Cook but accepted as accurate, which said the barrister:

” …  was satisfied that we now know the identity of those responsible for Daniel Morgan’s murder but that the evidence available did not meet the threshold to enable a prosecution to be commenced.”

Mitting ruled that the CPS brought the prosecution — and the “malicious prosecution” argument fell in the case of all four claimants.

♦♦♦

JUDGE MITTING went further.

He added that, even if he had found that it was the police who were responsible for the prosecution, the claimants still had to prove there was no “reasonable and probable cause” to bring the case.

There was, he concluded, “reasonable and probable cause” to charge Rees and the Vians.

He examined the evidence against each:

Jonathan Rees

“The undisputed starting point for the case against Rees,” Mitting noted, was the fact he arranged the fatal rendezvous with Daniel Morgan.

In addition, “inconsistencies” in his accounts of his movements and telephone calls on the night of the murder were evidence Rees had something to conceal.

Kevin Lennon, Rees’ book-keeper, said Rees had told him on several occasions he planned to have Daniel Morgan murdered.

The “key evidence” was that of Andrew Docherty, the former partner of Glenn and Garry Vian’s mother, Patricia.

He worked occasionally for Rees and Fillery and, on one occasion, saw Rees give Glenn Vian £8,000 in cash which Glenn told Docherty was part-payment for the murder.

Glenn Vian

James Ward said that in 1993 or 1994 Glenn Vian told him he had killed Morgan and Jimmy Cook was the getaway driver.

GLENN VIAN

AXEMAN?
GLENN VIAN was the man the prosecution claimed had murdered Daniel Morgan. His defence team argued that Scotland Yard had failed to follow up 40 other possible suspects …
Photo: PA

Glenn called it the “Golden Wonder murder” because Daniel was holding two packets of crisps when he was slaughtered.

Ward said that in 2001 or 2002 he was in Garry Vian’s kitchen when a violent incident took place.

Also pesent were Glenn and Garry Vian and Jonathan Rees.

There was an argument about Rees’ ex-wife who was the sister of the Vians.

Ward claimed that during the row Glenn Vian picked up a knife and cut Jonathan Rees across the face.

Ward said that Garry Vian then said to Glenn:

“That’s fucked that — I was going to ask him for some more money off the Morgan thing.”

There was supporting evidence in the form of a bugged conversation between Glenn Vian and his brother Garry in October 2002 about shooting someone.

Background noises suggested they had a shotgun in their possession.

Judge Mitting said:

“I have heard the relevant portion of the recording and do not accept that an innocent construction can be placed upon it.”

“This was admissible evidence of a propensity on the part of both to use lethal violence.”

Garry Vian

In addition to the evidence about the shotgun, another witness claimed Garry Vian told him he was present during the murder.

A man called Terry Jones, who knew the Vians, said Garry Vian had told him Daniel Morgan had been murdered because he was looking into the drug-dealing operation  — and knew too much.

Sid Fillery

Only in the case of the retired Scotland Yard detective did Judge Mitting conclude there was no “reasonable and probable cause” to charge him.

SID FILLERY

WINNER … 
SID FILLERY (pictured) is one the major financial beneficiaries of the Daniel Morgan murder. When police realised the detective sergeant had contaminated the original inquiry in 1987, they should have prosecuted him. Even if a jury had declined to convict him, the force had considerable disciplinary powers to punish him. He could have been dismissed from the force and stripped of his fully-funded police pension. Instead, he was allowed to resign on medical grounds. Now he will be awarded a substantial compensation package for the failed fifth investigation of the Daniel Morgan murder. He has not escaped scot free, however: he spent three months in prison on remand and his career as a private detective — as well as his personal reputation — was destroyed in 2002 when his computer was found to contain extreme images of the sexual abuse of children …
Photo: PA

Eaton was the only witness against him, and although DCS Cook did not prompt Eaton in relation to Fillery, Eaton was a tainted witness.

Mitting also examined the issue of personal malice on the part of DCS Cook — the third of the three elements the claimants had to prove .

Mitting said:

“I am satisfied that, even if Cook’s methods are open to criticism, his motive was not: it was to bring those he believed to have been complicit in the Morgan murder and in covering it up to justice.”

♦♦♦

JUDGE MITTING then moved to the claim that DCS Cook was guilty of “misfeasance in public office” in his dealings with Eaton.

He ruled that Rees and the Vians would have been charged even if Eaton had never come forward — so the misfeasance made no difference to the conduct of their case.

Only in the case of Fillery did he find “misfeasance in public office” had led to a prosecution, including a term of imprisonment on remand, which would not have happened without DCS Cook’s action.

He said:

“It follows that his claim for damages for misfeasance in public office succeeds in full.”

Filly will receive substantial damages.

♦♦♦

AFTER THE collapse of his criminal trial for murder in 2011, Jonathan Rees issued a statement.

“I want a judicial inquiry,” he said, “ideally a public inquiry.”

“When Daniel Morgan was killed it was an awful shock to me and to our business.”

“Whatever anyone may say on 10th March 1987 I lost a friend and business partner.”

In 2011 his lawyer told us:

“Mr Rees has not the spare time to reply to the many questions that have been raised, often on the basis of ill-informed or malicious allegations.”

“Defamation claims are being pursued … in respect of some past publications; and the police have been asked to investigate any use by journalists or others of confidential or forged material improperly released by police officers or others.”

For this article, we emailed the solicitor acting for Jonathan Rees, Sidney Fillery and Glenn Vian.

There was no reply by the time this article was published.

The lawyer acting for Garry Vian said:

“I am afraid that I cannot discuss the case with you.”

♦♦♦

ONE OF the arguments put forward by the claimants in the High Court action was that scores of possible suspects were not investigated because of Scotland Yard’s obsession with Rees and his co-accused.

However, no credible alternative suspect has ever been named.

This is despite the fact that Jonathan Rees and Sidney Fillery were experienced detectives with extensive contacts in both the Metropolitan Police and Fleet Street.

There’s no evidence they ever mounted a serious campaign to catch the killer.

This is in stark contrast to Alastair Morgan, the dead man’s brother, whose dogged campaigning led to four police investigations following the contaminated first inquiry.

He also shamed the government into setting up the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel, chaired by Baroness Nuala O’Loan, which is due to report later this year.

♦♦♦

SO WHY was Daniel Morgan killed?

There have always been three main theories.

The first is the rivalry between the dead man and Jonathan Rees over Margaret Harrison — the woman who had an affair with Daniel Morgan before becoming Rees’ long-term partner.

The second is the friction between the two men over the Belmont Car Auction “robbery’.

Rees organised security for the company but, when he claimed he’d been mugged and £18,000 stolen, the firm didn’t believe him — and sued for recovery of the money.

For nearly two decades these two motives were favoured by murder detectives.

DANIEL MORGAN

DANIEL MORGAN
IN ALL probability no-one will ever be convicted of killing the 37-year-old father of two. Was he axed to death because he was planning to sell a story about a major drugs racket — also involving Scotland Yard detectives — to a national newspaper?
Photo: Morgan family

But there are problems with both.

Although Daniel Morgan had an affair with Margaret Harrison there’s no evidence he was seriously interested in her.

Witnesses never saw any public arguments between Jonathan Rees and Daniel Morgan over Harrison.

The problem with the Belmont Car Auction theory is the discrepancy between the amount at risk — the £18,000 “stolen” from Rees — and the cost of the killing, apparently somewhere between £20-£25,000.

Surely it would have been cheaper — and safer — to simply return the £18,000?

The mounting friction between Rees and Morgan could have been settled by dissolving their partnership.

There’s always been a third theory — that Daniel Morgan had stumbled on a story involving police corruption and was trying to sell it to national newspapers.

The initial murder investigation didn’t credit the story because Daniel Morgan claimed he was going to get £40,000 for it — a sum so large that the theory seemed absurd.

But during the fifth murder investigation, murder detectives began to change their minds.

The key witness was James Ward — the criminal drug dealer turned supergrass — who was in business with Garry Vian, one of the accused.

Ward was discredited as a witness in the criminal trial but there’s no doubt about the scale of the enterprise he was engaged in.

Ward was just one of the gang — yet investigators estimated he made a fortune of nearly £4 million.

If Ward is correct in his claim that Daniel Morgan had stumbled on the gang and was planning to expose it, then a powerful motive to get rid of him emerges.

A £20-25,000 murder contract would be small beer to an enterprise generating millions of pounds worth of profits.

A sentence for killing him wouldn’t be much higher than a 20-30 year sentence for being a member of a major UK drugs dealing operation.

And if corrupt police officers were also involved, there would be another powerful incentive to get rid of the troublesome private eye …

♦♦♦
Published: 3 April 2017
© Press Gang
♦♦♦

Notes
1
Until this year’s High Court action, Garry Vian’s first name has always been spelt as “Gary”.
2
The judgment in Rees v Commissioner can be read, in full, here.
3
This article is based on a series first published on the Rebecca Television website in September 2011. The site is no longer available.
Rees and Fillery were sent letters outlining the article and asking for their comments.
Fillery never replied but Rees’ solicitor said (as reported above):
“Mr Rees has not the spare time to reply to the many questions that have been raised, often on the basis of ill-informed or malicious allegations.”
“Defamation claims are being pursued … in respect of some past publications; and the police have been asked to investigate any use by journalists or others of confidential or forged material improperly released by police officers or others.”
No legal action was taken against Rebecca Television.
4
There are currently six parts to The No 1 Corrupt Detective Agency:
An Axe To Grind
Rogue Journalists & Bent Coppers
Porridge
Getting Away With Murder
The Business Of Murder [this article]
Private Eye — A Stab In The Back
See also the Daniel Morgan page.
5
The series draws on material provided by the Morgan family as well as published material by other journalists, notably Nick Davies of the Guardian. Former BBC reporter Graeme McLagan devoted a detailed chapter on the murder as early as 2003 in his book Bent Coppers: The Inside Story of Scotland Yard’s Battle Against Police Corruption (Orion). It also featured in Laurie Flynn & Michael Gillard’s Untouchables: Dirty Cops, Bent Justice and Racism In Scotland Yard (Cutting Edge, 2004). Several books on the phone hacking scandal have highlighted the key role the murder plays in the saga: Nick Davies’ Hack Attack (Chatto & Windus, 2014) , Tom Watson MP & Martin Hickman’s Dial M For Murdoch (Allen Lane, 2012) and Peter Jukes’ The Fall Of The House Of Murdoch (Unbound, 2012). Peter Jukes has also produced a podcast series — listened to by more than 4 million people — Untold: The Daniel Morgan Murder. Since this article was published, Alastair Morgan and Peter Jukes have published the book Untold: The Daniel Morgan Murder Exposed. The Press Gang review can be read here.
6
Press Gang editor Paddy French made several programmes on the murder while a current affairs producer at ITV Wales.

♦♦♦

NEXT
PRIVATE EYE — A STAB IN THE BACK 
Press Gang examines how Private Eye reported the events covered in The Business Of Murder. We have serious concerns that four articles published in the Eye’s investigative section “In The Back” are so misleading they amount to rogue journalism. Read this piece here.

♦♦♦

DONATIONS Investigative stories are expensive and time-consuming to produce. You can help by making a contribution —either a one-off gift or a small regular monthly donation. Just click on the logo …

Donate Button with Credit Cards

CORRECTIONS Please let us know if there are any mistakes in this article — they’ll be corrected as soon as possible.

RIGHT OF REPLY If you have been mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let us have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory we’ll add it to the article. 

PRIVATE EYE: SHAMELESS

March 11, 2017

 

Private_Eye_head_a

FOR DECADES Private Eye has hammered Britain’s national press in its celebrated Street of Shame column.

The magazine has pilloried the hypocrisy that often passes for news in papers owned by Rupert Murdoch and Lord Rothermere.

But now Parliament plans to curb the power of media billionaires, the Eye is supporting them.

Editor Ian Hislop has joined the chorus of protest at the proposed introduction of a key component of the bid to make newspapers more accountable.

Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 makes publishers potentially liable for all costs in libel actions if they are not members of a regulator approved by the Press Recognition Panel (PRP).

The Panel was established by Royal Charter in 2013 following the Leveson Inquiry into press ethics.

The Royal Charter can only be amended by a two-thirds majority of both Houses of Parliament — and with the unanimous approval of the members of the Panel itself.

The Panel is not a regulator — its board only has the power recognise independent regulators who meet the conditions laid out in the Royal Charter.

This mechanism insulates regulators from the influence of politicians.

private-eye-logo

In October 2016 the Panel recognised the regulator Impress which is funded by charities controlled by the businessman Max Mosley.

Mosley plays no part in the running of the organisation.

The decision to recognise Impress makes it possible to introduce Section 40 and the government are now consulting on whether it should to do so.

Press Gang and its sister website Rebecca are both in the process of joining Impress.

No national publisher has signed up to Impress.

Instead, the Murdoch papers (Times, Sun and Sunday Times), the Daily MailTelegraphMirror and Express have created the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO).

This is a reworking of the old Press Complaints Commissions — heavily discredited in the hacking scandal.

IPSO has not applied to the Press Recognition Panel to become a recognised regulator.

A series of newspapers — the Financial TimesGuardianObserverIndependentEvening Standard — have decided not to join either IPSO or Impress.

They have their own in-house arrangements for  complaints.

Private Eye, which has traditionally refused to join any regulator, openly admits it has no code of conduct or written editorial guidelines.

It handles complaints internally and informally.

♦♦♦

IN THE week when IMPRESS was recognised Private Eye was celebrating a major victory.

Retired North Wales police superintendent Gordon Anglesea was gaoled in October 2016 on historic child abuse charges.

In the early 1990s the Eye, HTV, the Observer and the Independent on Sunday claimed Anglesea was a child abuser..

In 1994 Anglesea won a libel action and the four media companies paid him £375,000 in damages — and had to pay his legal costs as well as their own.

When Anglesea was gaoled, the Eye [28 October 2016) claimed Section 40 would make it “easier for any future Anglesea to sue publications like Private Eye with impunity.”

gordon-anglesea-custody-picture-confirmed-by-alan-norbury-8-9-16

GORDON ANGLESEA
IT IS deeply ironic Private Eye should use the case of Gordon Anglesea to bolster its case against Section 40. In fact, having had its fingers burnt in the libel action in 1994, the Eye largely turned its back on the North Wales child abuse scandal. It was left to Rebecca, the sister website of Press Gang, to carry the torch of investigative journalism into this dark corner of British history. In 2010 Rebecca began publishing the results of a decade’s research, exposing the failure of the £14 million North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal to find out what really happened. For more on this campaign, see here
Photo: National Crime Agency

This is, according to the Eye, because Section 40 states that if a publisher who is not a member of a recognised regulator “the court must award costs against the defendant.”

“In plain English,” the Eye continues, “even if we won the case, we would still have to pay all the bills.”

This is nonsense — and Eye editor Ian Hislop knows it.

Section 40 does indeed say “the court must award costs against the defendant” but it also immediately goes on to say:

“unless … it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case to award costs against the defendant.”

In other words, it depends on the circumstances and it is the judge who has the final say.

In a case where a newspaper or magazine wins a libel action against an alleged child abuser, it is inconceivable it would be forced to pay the paedophile’s legal bill.

The Eye’s biased portrayal of the act is the type of propaganda its “Street of Shame” column lampoons when it appears in the Daily MailTelegraph and the Sun ...

♦♦♦

PRIVATE EYE also subscribes to the view that Section 40 would stifle investigative journalism.

It has relaunched the £5,000 Paul Foot Award and describes it in these terms:

“In honour of Section 40 … Private Eye is once again awarding a prize for investigative or campaigning journalism in the memory of Paul Foot.”

In other words, the relaunching of the Paul Foot Award is also an attack on Section 40.

But Section 40 is not a threat to investigative journalism.

The part of Section 40 which the Eye misrepresented also has a similar clause protecting investigative journalists working for a recognised regulator.

PAUL FOOT AWARDA recognised regulator has to have a cheap and efficient arbitration service to try to settle complaints.

If a complainant could use the regulator’s arbitration service but chooses to go to court instead, then — even if he or she wins the case — the  judge has the power to make them pay their own costs.

This is why Press Gang is joining Impress.

For more than 30 years editor Paddy French has been an investigative reporter.

He founded Rebecca as a magazine in 1973 and its Corruption Supplement saw many of the councillors and businessmen it exposed go to prison.

Several Rebecca investigations were picked up by the Sunday Times when Harry Evans was editor, before Rupert Murdoch bought the title.

French also worked as an independent TV producer making investigative programmes for ITV and BBC.

In 1994 he produced, with the late Ray Fitzwalter, the Channel 4 Dispatches programme Privateers on Parade about the de-nationalisation of Britain’s utilities.

Independent broadcasting has always been subject to regulation by a body created by but independent of Parliament.

“Throughout my career in television,” says French, “I was subject to regulation, first by the Independent Broadcasting Authority and then, after 2002, by Ofcom.”

“These were demanding regulators policed by in-house legal teams.”

“Far from stifling investigations, the effect was to produce bullet-proof programmes — maintaining high standards is one of the reasons I have never been successfully sued.”

“What is being proposed for newspapers is similar to the regime for broadcasters.”

“Press regulation will liberate investigative journalism and curb the arbitrary of billionaire proprietors.”

“It’s very sad that Private Eye — an absolutely essential critic of the mainstream press — should now be getting into bed with the worst of them.”

♦♦♦

FOR SOME months the anti-Section 40 propaganda machine has dominated the national debate.

But this is beginning to change.

The powerful cross-party House of Commons Culture, Media & Sport Committee recently responded to the government’s consultation on Section 40.

It criticised the media campaign against it:

“some of the arguments put forward were, in our view, unconvincing and misleading …”

Attacking the Devil premiere - London

SIR HARRY EVANS
THE MANCHESTER-BORN journalist edited the Sunday Times between 1967 and 1981.The paper was recognised as one of the world’s leading campaigning and investigative newspapers, famous for its investigative “Insight” team and its relentless campaign to get justice for the victims of the thalidomide scandal. Evans calls on the Guardian and the Financial Times to join Impress.
Photo: PA

It, too, rejects the argument Section 40 will have a “chilling effect” on investigative journalism:

“… the high-profile press campaign has also not set out the benefits which commencement of Section 40 would have in protecting publishers, editors and journalists if they were part of [a recognised regulator] and therefore reducing the chilling effect of high court costs on investigative journalism”

At the beginning of March, former Sunday Times editor Sir Harry Evans became a patron of Impress.

Impress is a tremendous impetus and safeguard for investigative journalism,”he said.

Evans added:

“I support these proposals for a regulator that would be wholly independent of government or commercial interests, committed only to enhancing the standards of the British press.

“The dual purpose of discouraging abuses and resisting encroachments on an essential liberty is altogether necessary to restore public confidence.”

“It’s a necessary condition of the freedom of the press to act in the public interest.”

♦♦♦
Published: 11 March 2017
© Press Gang
♦♦♦

Note
See also the Private Eye page.

♦♦♦

COMING
A STAB IN THE BACK 
Press Gang examines the Private Eye coverage of the latest stage in the scandal of  the unsolved 1987 murder of the private detective Daniel Morgan. This month four of the prime suspects lost their High Court action against the Metropolitan Police for maliciously prosecuting them in connection with the murder. One of them, a retired Scotland Yard detective, will receive substantial damages for misfeasance in public office. Press Gang believes four articles in the Eye’s investigative section “In The Back” on this case are seriously misleading  …

♦♦♦

DONATIONS Investigative stories are expensive and time-consuming to produce. You can help by making a contribution. Just click on the logo 

Donate Button with Credit Cards

CORRECTIONS Please let us know if there are any mistakes in this article — they’ll be corrected as soon as possible.

RIGHT OF REPLY If you have been mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let us have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory we’ll add it to the article. 

GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER

February 25, 2017

corrupt_header_murder

WHEN JONATHAN Rees was released from prison in 2004 he was shunned by most of the media.

He’d just completed a seven year sentence for a conspiracy to plant cocaine on an innocent woman.

Even his former close contact, Gary Jones at the Daily Mirror, would have nothing to do with him.

But the News of the World, as ever, danced to a different tune.

REES_and_FILLERY_210

THE STORY SO FAR …
PRIVATE EYE Jonathan Rees (left) should have been a prime suspect in the murder of his partner Daniel Morgan in 1987 — the two men were love rivals and were arguing about a botched security operation. But Rees’ friend, Scotland Yard detective sergeant Sid Fillery (right), kept that crucial information — and his involvement  in the security operation — from the murder squad for several vital days. For the events leading up to the murder, the early contaminated murder inquiry, the sensational inquest which saw Rees’s book-keeper accuse him of planning the murder, see Part One — An Axe To Grind. The second part of The No 1 Corrupt Detective Agency — Rogue Journalists & Bent Coppers — reveals how Rees and his new partner Fillery became key players in the unlawful sale of confidential police information to Rupert Murdoch’s empire, especially the News of the World. Attempts by anti-corruption detectives to end this corrosive trade came to nothing. Part Three — Porridge — tells the story of how Jonathan Rees was gaoled for 7 years after he was caught conspiring to plant drugs on an innocent mother. When indecent child abuse photos were found on Sid Fillery’s computer — he was ordered to sign the Sex Offenders Register — the detective agency collapsed  But Scotland Yard hadn’t finished with the two men … 
Photos: PA

BBC journalist Robert Peston — who had close links to the Murdoch organisation — revealed that from October 2005 to September 2006 the paper paid Rees around £6,000.

The editor of the News of the World employing a convicted criminal was Andy Coulson.

The relationship came to an end with the conviction of the News of the World royal reporter Clive Goodman and private eye Glen Mulcaire in 2007.

PRESS GANG LOGO

THIS 3,000 word article is the fourth instalment of an investigation that started more than a decade ago.
For 30 years the Daniel Morgan murder was largely ignored by the UK newspapers and broadcasters.
In part, this was because the News of the World was in a commercial relationship with Southern Investigations.
Press Gang is independent and does not carry advertising. It runs at a loss and the only source of income is donations.
If you feel articles like Getting Away With Murder should see the light of day, you can make either a one-off gift or make a commitment to a small monthly donation.

Donate Button with Credit Cards

The News of the World position at the time was that Goodman was a single “rogue reporter”.

When Goodman was gaoled, Coulson resigned from the News of the World — and went on to become David Cameron’s controversial press secretary.

Coulson was given an 18 months prison sentence in July 2014 for his part in the hacking scandal.

♦♦♦

Just after Jonathan Rees came out of prison in 2004, two of ITV’s regional current affairs strands — the London Programme and Wales This Week — combined resources to make documentaries about the murder of Daniel Morgan.

At the time Press Gang editor Paddy French worked for ITV Wales as a producer on the Wales This Week programme.

He carried out a doorstep on Jonathan Rees at his south London home.

“It was one of the most disturbing doorsteps I’ve ever done,” said French.

“We were on station early in the morning outside the house in Thornton Heath where Rees lived, waiting for him to come out.”

“But right from the start we felt we were also being watched — the same car cruised past us several times.”

“Eventually, after moving our position several times, we saw Rees leaving — he must have thought the coast was clear. As soon as he saw us, however, he went back into the house.”

“We didn’t give up. We left the area for some time and then came back for a second attempt. As the cameraman and I were waiting, I turned round and saw a man watching us.”

MAN WATCHING 12

WATCHER
WHEN ITV Wales were staking out Jonathan Rees’ south London home in 2004, they were being watched by an associate of Rees. He’s never been identified …
Photo: ITV Wales

“That wasn’t the end of the tale.”

“That evening we had two phone calls from the Metropolitan Police warning us that if we went back to the house, we would be arrested for harassing Jonathan Rees.”

“I made it clear that we were doing no such thing — and their threats were an infringement of press freedom.”

“They insisted that if we returned to Rees’ home, they would arrest us.”

♦♦♦

FOUR YEARS after he was released from prison, Rees was back behind bars.

In April 2008 he was arrested and charged with the murder of Daniel Morgan.

Charged with him were his former brothers-in-law Glenn and Gary Vian and ex-Southern Investigations employee Jimmy Cook.

Gary Vian was already serving a long sentence for drug smuggling offences.

The others were to spend 22 months in prison on remand before they were allowed bail.

SUSPECTS_400

SUSPECTS
AN ARTIST’S impression of the five men in the dock charged in connection with the Daniel Morgan murder. From left to right, Jonathan Rees, Glenn Vian, Sid Fillery, Gary Vian and James “Jimmy” Cook.
Illustration: Elizabeth Cook, PA

Former detective sergeant Sid Fillery was charged with perverting the course of justice.

He spent just over three months in gaol on remand.

The charges were the result of the fifth attempt to bring Daniel Morgan’s murderers to book.

The man who headed the inquiry was Detective Chief Superintendent Dave Cook.

The prosecution case was largely based on evidence coming from criminal associates of the five men.

This was a high-risk strategy but no other avenue remained.

The prosecution said Jonathan Rees ordered the killing and Glenn Vian carried it out.

His brother Gary was the lookout and Jonathan Rees lured Daniel Morgan to the pub where the murder was to be carried out.

Jimmy Cook, who was employed by Southern Investigations at the time, was the driver of the getaway car.

As a serving officer, Sid Fillery warned one of the witnesses to keep quiet about the murder — or he would suffer a similar fate.

The defence argued that prosecution witnesses were unreliable and should not be allowed to give evidence.

They claimed police officers coached witness and deliberately with-held documents favourable to the defence.

The judge in the case, Sir David Maddison, agreed with many of these arguments.

GLENN VIAN

GLENN VIAN
THE MAN the prosecution claimed had axed Daniel Morgan to death. Vian, it was alleged, was paid by Jonathan Rees. His defence team claimed 40 other possible suspects were not investigated properly.
Photo: PA

One key witness, Gary Eaton, was a career criminal with convictions for drugs dealing, armed robbery, blackmail, firearms offences, violence against women and conspiracy to murder.

He claimed he’d been asked to commit the murder.

But, although he admitted more than 20 serious offences and voluntarily surrendered £80,000 of his criminal proceeds, much of his testimony was found to be unreliable.

He falsely claimed his father was dead and that he’d served in the Falklands.

He was not allowed to give evidence.

Since he was the only witness against Sid Fillery — he claimed the former police sergeant had told him to keep his mouth shut or what had happened to Daniel Morgan would happen to him — Fillery was released.

Judge Maddison criticised DCS Dave Cook for his handling of Eaton.

Once Eaton was accepted as an “assisting offender” under the 2005 Serious and Organised Crime and Policing Act, the rules required that he be dealt with by officers not involved in the murder investigation.

DCS Cook was not supposed to have any contact with him.

But there were phone calls and texts between Cook and Eaton, many of which were not disclosed.

Cook insisted the calls concerned Eaton’s welfare.

Another witness was Jimmy Cook’s former girlfriend.

She said he’d told her Rees organised the killing, using the Vians as the muscle and himself as the getaway driver.

But she also said she knew where the bodies of another 30 murder victims could be found.

Detectives were unable to find any evidence to support her claims.

She, too, was excluded — this led to the release of Jimmy Cook.

Finally, the credibility of another key witness, James Ward — a criminal associate of Gary Vian’s — was undermined when his claim that he’d never been a police informant turned out to be untrue.

Ward was already serving a 17 year prison sentence for drug smuggling.

Also gaoled in the same case was Gary Vian, who got 14 years.

Ward claimed Glenn Vian had told him he killed Morgan.

Ward said Vian called it the “Golden Wonder” murder because the dead man was holding two packets of crisps.

Ward said Glenn Vian said the price was  £20,000.

The defence accused DCS Cook of  prompting Ward in an early interview.

David Whitehouse QC, for Glenn Vian, said Ward

“is a career criminal who has been able to remain active in crime by playing the informant — he has had relationships, including financial relationships with police officers.”

He added he “has given information to the police, some of it true some of it not true.”

“The result is the police have been prepared to make representations to judge to seek lighter sentences when he is caught.”

Ward’s 17 year drugs sentence was reduced to three because of his assistance in the Daniel Morgan case.

When a large number of documents in the case were discovered which had not been disclosed to the defence, the CPS and the Metropolitan Police decided to throw in the towel.

In March 2011, Jonathan Rees and the Vian brother left the dock free men.

The case never went before a jury.

Scotland Yard had failed in its efforts to bring a conclusion to the Daniel Morgan murder.

The judge in the case, David Maddison, made it clear police

” … had ample grounds to justify the arrest and prosecution of the defendants.”

At the end of March 2011, Scotland Yard issued a public apology to the Morgan family.

Acting Commissioner Tim Godwin said:

“I recognise how important it is to the family that the part played by corruption in the original investigation is acknowledged publicly.”

The source of that corruption was Sid Fillery who, as a detective sergeant on the first murder investigation, had fatally contaminated the inquiry.

Godwin continued:

“You are entitled to an apology not only for this failure but also for the repeated failure [by Scotland Yard] … to accept that corruption had played such a part in failing to bring those responsible to justice.”

♦♦♦

IN MARCH 2011 the BBC Panorama programme carried out an investigation into one of Rees’ assignments for the News of the World after he came out of prison.

Rees had been asked to try to find information about a former British Army intelligence officer, Ian Hurst.

This was part of the paper’s attempts to uncover the identity of a key undercover intelligence officer — known as Stakeknife — who had infiltrated the IRA.

The programme alleged that Rees commissioned a former colleague of Hurst’s to hack into Hurst’s computer.

In July 2006 a fax was sent to Alex Marunchak, then the editor of the Irish edition of the News of the World, based in Dublin.

Panorama said the fax contained copies of emails that Hurst had sent from his computer in France.

This interception was illegal.

Ian Hurst arranged a meeting with his former colleague — who cannot be named for legal reasons — and recorded him admitting the offence.

He said that he had sent an email containing a ‘trojan’, a virus that allowed him to see the entire contents of Hurst’s computer.

Panorama doorstepped Rees about his activities outside the Old Bailey after the charges of murdering Daniel Morgan were dropped in March 2011.

Rees asked Panorama reporter Vivian White if the programme paid police officers for information:

“Are you denying you paid serving police officers? Because you’ve got information that could only have come from serving police officers.”

Vivian White said:

“Unlike Jonathan Rees, Panorama had not paid any police officers for information. We do know the police were fully aware that Rees had been involved in computer hacking. The question is — why didn’t the Metropolitan Police pursue this as well?”

Alex Marunchak gave an interview about the Panorama allegations to the UK Press Gazette.

He said the unnamed private detective who told the programme he had hacked into Ian Hurst’s computer was a “con-man”.

Of the fax sent to his Dublin office containing e-mails from Ian Hurst’s computer, he stated:

“It is absolutely untrue any unlawfully obtained material was ever received by me at the News of the World offices in Dublin.”

He insisted he never paid police officers:

“I deny ever facilitating the payment of any money to police officers.”

He denied commissioning work from Rees after his conviction:

“This is untrue. Information offered and brought in by sources of their own volition is not the same thing as being commissioned to obtain it in the first place.”

Marunchak said of Rees’ 2000 conviction for conspiring to plant cocaine on an innocent woman:

“The conviction and sentence to which you refer, as I understand it, is currently being examined by the Criminal Cases Review Commission  … to assess if convictions should be referred to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration on the grounds that the original conviction was unsafe.”

(For this article, Press Gang asked the Criminal Cases Review Commission for a statement.

A spokesman said:

“I can confirm that the CCRC received an application from Jonathan Rees in April 2007, in respect of his December 2000 conviction for conspiring to pervert the course of justice.”

“The CCRC review was concluded in August 2013 and the case was closed.”

“It was not referred to the Court of Appeal.”)

The Panorama allegation was investigated by Operation Tuleta, part of Scotland Yard’s phone-hacking operation.

No charges were ever brought.

♦♦♦

JONATHAN REES denies all the allegations made in this Press Gang article.

His solicitor gave us the following statement in 2011.

“Mr Rees has not the spare time to reply to the many questions that have been raised, often on the basis of ill-informed or malicious allegations.”

“Defamation claims are being pursued … in respect of some past publications; and the police have been asked to investigate any use by journalists or others of confidential or forged material improperly released by police officers or others.”

At the first session of Lord Leveson’s inquiry into press ethics Rees’ barrister, Richard Christie, argued that his client should be considered a “core participant” and be allowed legal representation at public expense.

Christie pointed out that if his client was to give out material from an unused prosecution case against him he was committing a criminal offence, with up to two years imprisonment.

If the media used exactly the same information, there was no penalty at all.

Lord Leveson refused the application.

♦♦♦

NEXT
PART FIVE: THE BUSINESS OF MURDER
AFTER THE collapse of the criminal case against him in 2011, Jonathan Rees went on the offensive. He, Sid Fillery and the Vian brothers brought a High Court action against Scotland Yard complaining of malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office. The four men were confident they would succeed — but in February 2017 Judge Mitting dismissed all the claims made by Rees and the Vians. Fillery succeeded in his action for misfeasance in public office and will receive substantial damages. The failure of the case means that Jonathan Rees’ debts — which have been mounting for several years — are now so great that he may have to sell his £1million house in Weybridge, Surrey …

♦♦♦
Re-published: 25 February 2017
© Press Gang
♦♦♦

Notes
1.
This article is based on a series of articles first published on the Rebecca Television website in September 2011.
Rees and Fillery were sent letters outlining the article and asking for their comments. 
Fillery never replied but Rees’ solicitor said (as reported above):
“Mr Rees has not the spare time to reply to the many questions that have been raised, often on the basis of ill-informed or malicious allegations.”
“Defamation claims are being pursued … in respect of some past publications; and the police have been asked to investigate any use by journalists or others of confidential or forged material improperly released by police officers or others.” 
No legal action was taken against Rebecca Television.
2.
There are five parts to The No 1 Corrupt Detective Agency:
An Axe To Grind
Rogue Journalists & Bent Coppers
Porridge
Getting Away With Murder
The Business Of Murder.
3.
The series draws on material provided by the Morgan family as well as published material by other journalists, notably Nick Davies of the Guardian. Former BBC reporter Graeme McLagan devoted a detailed chapter on the murder as early as 2003 in his book Bent Coppers: The Inside Story of Scotland Yard’s Battle Against Police Corruption (Orion). It also featured in Laurie Flynn & Michael Gillard’s Untouchables: Dirty Cops, Bent Justice and Racism In Scotland Yard (Cutting Edge, 2004). Several books on the phone hacking scandal have highlighted the key role the murder plays in the saga: Nick Davies’ Hack Attack (Chatto & Windus, 2014) , Tom Watson MP & Martin Hickman’s Dial M For Murdoch (Allen Lane, 2012) and Peter Jukes’ The Fall Of The House Of Murdoch (Unbound, 2012). Peter Jukes has also produced a podcast series — listened to by more than 4 million people — Untold: The Daniel Morgan Murder 
4.
Press Gang editor Paddy French made several programmes on the murder while a current affairs producer at ITV Wales. 

♦♦♦

COMING
SKY FALL?
THIS YEAR will see a major battle for control of Britain’s airwaves — Rupert Murdoch’s to take overall control of Sky TV. The mogul scuttled an earlier attempt in 2012 because of the public outcry over the phone hacking scandal. The battle for Sky will be a key battleground in 21st century British media because of the decline in newspapers. If Murdoch gets Sky, he will move to smash the powerful broadcasting watchdog, Ofcom, and convert Sky News into a British version of his US Fox News. This is part of a plan to replace the fading populist power of the Sun with a new right-wing  TV version. All the signs are Theresa May’s government will give Rupert Murdoch what he wants. But all is not lost — the Murdochs are vulnerable to a charge that, despite claims to have cleaned up their criminal stable since the closure of the News of the World in 2012, some areas of their empire remain as corrupt as ever …

♦♦♦

DONATIONS Investigative stories like this one are expensive and time-consuming to produce. You can help by making a contribution to the coffers. Just click on the logo …

Donate Button with Credit Cards

CORRECTIONS Please let us know if there are any mistakes in this article — they’ll be corrected as soon as possible.

RIGHT OF REPLY If you have been mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let us have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory we’ll add it to the article.

PORRIDGE

February 11, 2017

corrupt_header_porridge3

BY THE late 1990s Scotland Yard had made no progress in catching the men who butchered private detective Daniel Morgan in 1987.

Then in 1998 anti-corruption detectives — worried that bent policemen were selling sensitive information to the detective agency Southern Investigations  — installed a bug in the firm’s offices.

Southern’s owners — murder suspect Jonathan Rees and retired police sergeant Sid Fillery — had no idea they were under surveillance.

REES_and_FILLERY_210

THE STORY SO FAR …
PRIVATE EYE Jonathan Rees (left) should have been a prime suspect in the murder of his partner Daniel Morgan in 1987 — the two men were love rivals and were arguing about a botched security operation arranged by Rees. But Scotland Yard detective sergeant Sid Fillery (right) kept that crucial information from the murder squad for four days. For the events leading up to the murder, the early contaminated murder inquiry, the sensational inquest which saw Rees’s book-keeper accuse him of planning the murder, see Part One — An Axe To Grind. The second part of The No 1 Corrupt Detective Agency — Rogue Journalists & Bent Coppers — reveals how Rees and his new partner Fillery became key players in the unlawful sale of confidential police information to Rupert Murdoch’s empire, especially the News of the World. Attempts by anti-corruption detectives to end this corrosive trade came to nothing.
Photos: PA

Detectives listened as Rees hatched a conspiracy with serving Scotland Yard detectives to plant drugs on an innocent woman.

The plotters were caught red-handed and Rees was gaoled for 7 years.

But the bug picked up no clues about the murder.

Pressure from Daniel Morgan’s family finally forced the Met to open a new murder inquiry in 2002.

It started with a dramatic BBC Crimewatch reconstruction.

Instantly Rees — from prison — and Fillery started a campaign to subvert this new inquiry.

They targeted the family of the detective in charge — hacked his personal records and had him followed.

Scotland Yard hit back — they raided Southern Investigations and found extreme child pornography on Sid Fillery’s computer.

He was convicted and ordered to sign the Sex Offender’s Register.

PRESS GANG LOGO

THIS ARTICLE is the third instalment of an investigation that started more than a decade ago.
For 30 years the Daniel Morgan murder was largely ignored by the UK newspapers and broadcasters.
In part, this was because the News of the World was in a commercial relationship with Southern Investigations.
Press Gang is independent and does not carry advertising. It runs at a loss and the only source of income is donations.
If you feel articles like Porridge should see the light of day, you can make either a one-off gift or make a commitment to a small monthly donation.

Donate Button with Credit Cards

 

With Rees in prison and Fillery disgraced, Southern Investigations finally came to an  end.

But the Morgan family’s battle to bring Daniel’s killers to justice ploughed on …

♦♦♦

IN 1999 detectives listening to the bug planted in the offices of Southern Investigations began to hear a plot unfold. 

A London businessman, Simon Jones, came to see if the agency could help him win a custody battle with his wife.

James asked Jonathan Rees to see if there was any evidence that his wife was involved in drugs.

It would help him get sole custody of the couple’s little boy.

Rees could find no evidence that his wife Kim was dealing in drugs.

In a bugged conversation, he hinted that he might be able to do something:

Rees  “I just wondered…  We can do things.”

James  “I’m not being funny. I’d rather you talk to me straight.”

Rees  “I just wondered if it might be worthwhile, going in and planting some gear. Now, having said that it’s done, it’s available, but it costs.”

James  “I’m not averse to doing anything.”

Rees  “What we are doing is fraught … Me and you could end up doing porridge as well, if we get caught out.”

SIMON_JAMES_200

SIMON JAMES
A POLICE surveillance photograph taken while the self-employed jeweller was plotting to gain custody of his son by planting drugs on the mother. Jonathan Rees was prepared to send an innocent woman to prison to satisfy his client …
Photo: Press Association.

James  “Yeah, I mean, you’re professionals. That’s why I have come here…”

Rees  “All right, I’ll have a chat to our people today.”

Three days later, James returned to the office with £7,500 — some of which was used to buy cocaine.

As the plot to frame the innocent woman got underway, anti-corruption officers were watching every move.

They were about to catch the plotters red-handed.

A man called Jimmy Cook, who worked for Southern Investigations, broke into Kim James’ car and planted bags of cocaine.

Undercover officers were waiting and, as soon as Cook was out of the way, removed the cocaine and replaced it with packets of harmless powder.

Another contact, a corrupt detective constable called Austin Warnes, tipped off the police that Kim James was dealing in drugs.

She was raided and a suspicious package found in her car.

She was arrested.

The police pounced on the conspirators.

They arrested Rees, Simon James and Austin Warnes.

Austin Warnes was gaoled for five years for his part in the plot.

Rees got seven years — as did the businessman Simon James.

One of those acquitted in the case was Jimmy Cook, the Southern Investigations employee who would later be charged with being the getaway driver in the Daniel Morgan murder.

AUSTIN_WARNES_200

ANOTHER BENT COPPER
CORRUPT DETECTIVE Austin Warnes. He pretended he had intelligence that Simon James’ wife was dealing in drugs …
Photo: Press Association

♦♦♦

IN 2002 detective chief superintendent Dave Cook of Scotland Yard’s murder squad was approached by anti-corruption detectives.

They wanted him to do them a favour.

They had decided to try and break the stalemate in the Daniel Morgan murder investigation.

They wanted the BBC Crimewatch programme to highlight the murder with the Metropolitan Police offering a £50,000 reward for information.

Their problem was that they didn’t want Rees and Fillery to know that it was the anti-corruption team who were in charge.

Would Cook appear on the programme to give the impression that he was heading up the inquiry?

Cook was an ideal candidate because his wife, policewoman Jacqui Hames, acted as a presenter on the porgramme.

Cook agreed.

On 26 June 2002 he appeared on the programme to appeal for witnesses to the murder.

The next day, Cook was told by anti-corruption officers that Sid Fillery had been in touch with reporter Alex Marunchak at the News of the World asking him to “sort out” the detective.

(At the time, Rees was still in prison for the Simon James conspiracy, although he was still in touch with both Fillery and Marunchak).

Shortly afterwards Cook spotted a white van outside his house.

The next day there were two.

When Cook took his young son to nursery, the vans followed.

Cook later arranged for police to stop one of the vans on the grounds that a rear light was defective.

The driver turned out to be a photojournalist working for the News of the World.

Both vans were leased by the newspaper.

Cook’s wife, Jacqui Hames, told witness protection officers that she had been photographed outside the couple’s home.

The couple were later told that the Met’s media boss Dick Fedorcio contacted the News of the World.

Fedorcio was told that the paper had been tipped off that Cook was having an affair with the Crimewatch presenter.

dave_cook_200

DAVE COOK
THE EXPERIENCED murder squad detective was disturbed when he and his wife were placed under surveillance by the News of the World as soon as he appeared on the BBC Crimewatch programme. Murder suspect Jonathan Rees had asked his friends on the paper to target the chief superintendant … 
Photo: Press Association. 

This was an incredible answer.

Cook and Hames were married, had two children and had been featured as a couple in Hello! magazine.

The surveillance ceased.

A few days later Cook was told by Surrey Police, where he worked from 1996 to 2001, that someone had rung asking for his address.

The caller said they were working for the Inland Revenue and wanted it to send Cook a tax refund.

Surrey Police refused to give it.

Later in 2002, anti-corruption officers raided the offices of Southern Investigations.

At this point, Jonathan Rees was still in prison.

On Sid Fillery’s computer officers found indecent images of young children.

In October 2003 Bow Street Magistrates gave him a three year community rehabilitation order.

District Judge Caroline Tibbs said she’d taken into account his guilty plea and what his defence claimed was his previous good behaviour.

The court was told nothing about his role in the Daniel Morgan murder case.

After the conviction, the detective agency collapsed.

Fillery went to live on the Norfolk Broads, running a pub called the Lion at Thurne.

It later became clear that Glen Mulcaire — the private eye gaoled in 2007 with News of the World royal correspondent Clive Goodman for hacking into royal mobiles — obtained Cook’s address, his internal Met payroll number and the amount he and his wife were paying on their mortgage.

Phone hacking claims

REBEKAH BROOKS
THE EDITOR of the News of the World when the paper mounted a surveillance operation against Dave Cook, Rebekah Brooks was untroubled that the paper was allowing itself to be used to pervert the course of justice …
Photo: PA 

Mulcaire also obtained the mobile number for Cook’s wife as well as the password she used.

Mulcaire was apparently acting on the instructions of Greg Miskiw, the News of the World assistant editor at the time.

On 9 January 2003 Rebekah Brooks was at Scotland Yard on a social visit when she was asked to have a word with Dave Cook “to clear the air”.

Present at the meeting was the Yard’s media boss Dick Fedorcio.

By that time, Cook was in charge of the latest Daniel Morgan murder investigation.

At first Brooks claimed to know nothing about the surveillance of Cook and his wife.

When Cook took her through the events, she insisted Marunchak was a fine reporter.

She promised to look into the matter.

We asked Dave Cook [in September 2011] to be interviewed for this article.

He declined.

The Met Commissioner at the time of Cook’s meeting with Brooks was Sir John Stevens.

He’s known to have dined regularly with Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson.

After he left the Met he was commissioned by Coulson to write a column for the News of the World — called “The Chief”.

♦♦♦

EVER SINCE the phone hacking scandal destroyed the reputation of the News of the World, Alastair Morgan has been thinking about the surveillance operation the paper mounted against detective superintendent Dave Cook and his then wife in 2002.

He believes it was an attempt to intimidate the detective.

Morgan believes that a similar operation was mounted against him and his family in May 1998.

The family were campaigning for a public inquiry into the events surrounding Daniel’s death.

morgan_family_400

THE MORGAN FAMILY
HIS MOTHER Isobel, sister Jane and brother Alastair have been relentless in their campaign to bring Daniel’s killers to justice.
Photo: PA

“I was living in Glasgow,” Alastair Morgan explains, “and one night I noticed two men standing openly on the corner of the street where my flat was located.”

“The next day they were there again. I was sure they were watching me — they made absolutely no attempt to conceal themselves.”

“I rang my mother Isobel who lives in Wales and told her.”

“She then told me that she’d also had a strange encounter — she was just going into her house when a woman photographer walked up behind her and took a couple of photographs.”

“She didn’t say anything — just got into a car which drove off.”

“And when I told my sister Jane, who lives in Germany, she said that she’d seen a white van parked outside her home in the countryside.”

“A man was lying in a ditch with a telephoto lens pointed at her home.”

“All of these incidents were reported to the police — in Scotland, Wales and Germany. We were all worried.”

Alastair Morgan told us:

“I have written to James Murdoch at News International to ask him to tell us if it was the News of the World who were watching us. And, if they were, what exactly was the justification for the intrusion.”

He had not received a reply by the time this article went to press.

We asked News International for a response but the press office told us:

“NI declines to comment”.

♦♦♦

THE FINAL instalment of The No 1 Corrupt Detective Agency — Getting Away With Murder — will cover the events that followed Jonathan Rees’ release from prison in 2004.

His criminal record was no barrier to his continued working for the News of the World.

But police were closing in.

In 2008 he — and four others — were arrested and charged with involvement in the murder.

By 2011 the prosecution decided to offer no evidence.

The evidence of three supergrasses — “assisting offenders” is the official term — was discredited.

And police failed to disclose some of the 750,ooo pages of documents to the defence.

But the judge, David Maddison, made it clear police “had ample grounds to justify the arrest and prosecution of the defendants.”

That has not stopped four of them bringing a civil action for malicious prosecution and malfeasance in public office.

This is on-going.

At the same time a review of the scandal headed by Baroness Nuala O’Loan is preparing its report.

Set up in 2013 by then Home Secretary Theresa May, its hearings were held in secret.

♦♦♦
Re-published: 11 February 2017
© Press Gang
♦♦♦

Notes
1.
This article is part of a series first published on the Rebecca Television website in September 2011.
Rees and Fillery were sent letters outlining the article and asking for their comments. 
Fillery never replied but Rees’ solicitor said:
“Mr Rees has not the spare time to reply to the many questions that have been raised, often on the basis of ill-informed or malicious allegations.”
“Defamation claims are being pursued … in respect of some past publications; and the police have been asked to investigate any use by journalists or others of confidential or forged material improperly released by police officers or others.” 
No legal action was taken against Rebecca Television.
2.
There are four parts to The No 1 Corrupt Detective Agency: Click on the title to read.
An Axe To Grind
Rogue Journalists & Bent Coppers
Porridge
Getting Away With Murder.
3.
The series draws on material provided by the Morgan family as well as published material by other journalists, notably Nick Davies of the Guardian. Former BBC reporter Graeme McLagan devoted a detailed chapter on the murder as early as 2003 in his book Bent Coppers: The Inside Story of Scotland Yard’s Battle Againats Police Corruption (Orion). It also featured in Laurie Flynn & Michael Gillard’s Untouchables: Dirty Cops, Bent Justice and Racism In Scotland Yard (Cutting Edge, 2004). Several books on the phone hacking scandal have highlighted the key role the murder plays in the saga: Nick Davies’ Hack Attack (Chatto & Windus, 2014) , Tom Watson MP & Martin Hickman’s Dial M For Murdoch (Allen Lane, 2012) and Peter Jukes’ The Fall Of The House Of Murdoch (Unbound, 2012). Peter Jukes has also produced a podcast series — listened to by more than 4 million people — Untold: The Daniel Morgan Murder 
4.
Press Gang editor Paddy French made several programmes on the murder while a current affairs producer at ITV Wales. 

♦♦♦

COMING
SKY FALL?
THIS YEAR will see a major battle for control of Britain’s airwaves — Rupert Murdoch’s bid to take overall control of Sky TV. The mogul scuttled an earlier attempt in 2012 because of the public outcry over the phone hacking scandal. The battle for Sky will be a key battleground in 21st century British media because of the decline in newspapers. If Murdoch gets Sky, he will move to smash the powerful broadcasting watchdog, Ofcom, and convert Sky News into a British version of his US Fox News. This is part of a plan to replace the fading populist power of the Sun with a new right-wing  TV version. All the signs are Theresa May’s government will give Rupert Murdoch what he wants. But all is not lost — the Murdochs are vulnerable to a charge that, despite claims to have cleaned up their criminal stable since the closure of the News of the World in 2012, some areas of their empire remain as corrupt as ever …

♦♦♦

DONATIONS Investigative stories like this one are expensive and time-consuming to produce. You can help by making a contribution to the coffers. Just click on the logo …

Donate Button with Credit Cards

CORRECTIONS Please let us know if there are any mistakes in this article — they’ll be corrected as soon as possible.

RIGHT OF REPLY If you have been mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let us have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory we’ll add it to the article.

THE FALL OF MAZHER MAHMOOD

October 5, 2016

mahmood_head_with_words_06

TODAY A jury found Mazher Mahmood guilty of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

The verdict was unanimous.

The 53-year-old Mahmood and his former driver Alan Smith, 66, were convicted of plotting to doctor a statement in the Tulisa Contostavlos drugs trial in 2014.

[The two men were sentenced on October 21.

Mahmood was gaoled for  15 months — Smith received a 12 months suspended sentence.]

The verdict destroys Mazher Mahmood’s reputation.

Mahmood did not dare to give evidence because of the substantial body of evidence the prosecution would have marshalled against him.

Some of this comes from Press Gang:

— Mahmood lied to the Leveson Inquiry about the number of criminal convictions he as responsible for.

He claimed more than 250 but Press Gang could only find 70.

Mazher Mahmood court case

FALSEHOOD
MAZHER MAHMOOD arrives at the Old Bailey still determined to preserve his anonymity. The jury were told that there were 11 emails between Mahmood and his driver Alan Smith. When police inspected their computers they found they’d all been deleted …
Photo: PA

Our investigation forced him to go back to Leveson and admit that Murdoch lawyers had come up with just 94.

— in 2012 Press Gang warned Murdoch’s ethics watchdog (the Management and Standards Committee) that Mahmood was a serial perjurer.

eg3wf0naz323j5yhprao

SNAPPED
THE PICTURE taken by police after Mahmood was convicted  …

Over and over again, he’d gone into the dock and lied about his success in securing convictions.

These inflated claims made it more and more difficult for his victims to defend themselves.

Mazher Mahmood court case
ALAN SMITH
THERE WERE four phone calls between Smith and Mahmood at this time. Police wanted to examine Smith’s mobile phone but he told them it had been destroyed either after it was run over by a motor car or after a jacked-up vehicle had been dropped on it. He was given a suspended 12 months prison sentence.
Photo: PA

The Management and Standards Committee didn’t reply.

— Press Gang revealed that two years before the Tulisa exposé, Mahmood used an associate to prostitute herself to persuade a dentist to agree to carry out female genital mutilation.

This was for a front page exposé for the Sunday Times in 2012.

The case against the dentist collapsed when the journalist / prostitute refused to sign a statement.

(The story is told in Withering Heights.)

John Kelsey Fry QC at Lewes Crown Court
“FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED”
DEFENCE BARRISTER John Kelsey-Fry QC said the case against Mahmood was “fundamentally flawed and illogical and defies common sense.” His client “repeatedly insists he did not discuss Smith’s evidence with him and he repeatedly insists he could not discuss Smith’s evidence.”
Photo: PA

The most detailed account of how Tulisa turned the tables on Mahmood is the following Press Gang article published in August 2014.

It’s a shocking story …

 ♦♦♦

STING IN THE SINGER'S TALE

Originally published:
29 August 2014

♦♦♦

THE FULL story behind the dramatic collapse of the trial of singer Tulisa Contostavlos — and the unscrupulous role of Sun on Sunday reporter Mazher Mahmood — has not been told.

During the trial in July [2014] it became clear that one of Mahmood’s associates, a driver called Alan Smith, changed his witness statement after a discussion with the reporter.

Mahmood had claimed, at an earlier hearing, that he hadn’t spoken to him.

Press Gang can now reveal that Smith has a criminal record.

And it’s not the first time he’s played a devious role in one of the undercover reporter’s stories.

The judge in the Tulisa Contostavlos case concluded Mahmood deliberately lied to the court.

The case was dismissed.

Mahmood has now been suspended by The Sun and the Metropolitan Police are investigating the allegation that he committed perjury.

But the extraordinary sequence of events which led to the singer walking free has not been revealed — even though reporters were well aware of it.

The case also calls into question the willingness of Scotland Yard to base criminal cases on the work of a journalist with a long history of perjury allegations.

Long before Tulisa Contostavlos was charged, the editor of this website wrote to the Metropolitan Police asking them to investigate Mahmood for perjury.

We pointed out that Mahmood had not only lied to the Leveson Inquiry about the number of convictions he’d secured but may also have lied about the issue in several of the criminal prosecutions he generated.

The Met did not reply.

This article tells the inside story of how one of Rupert Murdoch’s favourite reporters fell from grace …

Tulisa Contostavlos court case
TULISA CONTOSTAVLOS
THE SINGER’S trial collapsed in July after the judge found that mazher Mahmood had lied under oath. Photo: PA THE SINGER walked free after Sun on Sunday undercover reporter Mazher Mahmood was caught lying in the witness-box …
Photo: PA

♦♦♦

ON MAY 10 last year a gang practiced in the arts of entrapment prepared for another session with one of their victims.

The group had rented a suite at the 5 star Metropolitan Hotel just off Park Lane in the centre of London.

The target was the singer Tulisa Contostavlos.

She’d enjoyed a successful career with the hip hop band N’Dubz and had been a judge in the TV series The X Factor for two years running.

The man after her scalp was Mazher Mahmood.

In a controversial career spanning more than three decades, Mahmood had chalked up a reputation as one of the most dangerous adversaries in Fleet Street.

As the “Fake Sheik” he’d humiliated the rich and the powerful — including Prince Edward’s wife, the former Sophie Rhys-Jones, and the Duchess of Kent.

But he’d also seen famous celebrities and sportsmen gaoled after his elaborate stings.

This time it was to be a battle between the experienced Mahmood and a young woman from a broken family in North London.

The odds were stacked against the singer.

Tulisa Contostavlos was just 25.

At 50, Mahmood was twice her age.

She was the only child of musician parents who broke up when she was young.

She lived with her mother who had a long history of mental health problems.

Mazher-Mahmood
STRAIGHT STALKING
MAZHER MAHMOOD targeted the singer because she held out the promise of a “gold standard” sting — a huge story with criminal convictions at the end of it. Tulisa was young, beautiful and had taken her career in a successful hip hop band to a new level when she became an X Factor judge. But Mahmood also thought she was likely to be a cocaine user — one of the million or so British people who regularly use the drug with a heavy concentration in the entertainment business. By early 2013 she’d made it plain she wanted a career in Hollywood — and was therefore ripe for a classic Mahmood sting … In her autobiography Honest (2012) she revealed she’d self-harmed as a teenager.
Photo: BBC

She joined the hip hop band N’Dubz — named after the London district NW1 where she grew up — when she was 12.

The band had its first chart success in May 2007.

In November of that year — when she was 18 — she appeared in the Channel 4 programme Dubplate Drama.

She played a cocaine addict.

In 2011 and 2012 she was one of the judges on Simon Cowell’s The X Factor series.

In May 2012 her solo single “Young” went to No 1.

But a few months earlier her ex-boyfriend Justin Edwards posted online a sex video of the couple.

She took him to court and won damages against him.

By early 2013, she was disillusioned with the music business in Britain.

“I wanted to get out. I wanted to go into acting and piss off to America,” she said later.

She went to Los Angeles to audition for parts.

That’s where Mazher Mahmood and his gang targeted her.

He created a sting based on her public comment that she was a big fan of the actor Leonardo DiCaprio..

He pretended to be a Bollywood producer called Samir Khan and offered her a £3.5 million role in a movie starring alongside DiCaprio.

He flew her to Las Vegas in March 2013 and gave her and her entourage two suites at one of the city’s top hotels, the Venetian.

During her stay, she was given bodyguards and the best tables at nightclubs.

By the time the Las Vegas trip was over, she was convinced she was in line for a major movie that would transform her life.

“I was like a lost puppy,” she later recalled, “because I wanted it so badly to be true.”

♦♦♦

WHEN TULISA and her team arrived at the Metropolitan on May 10, Mahmood and his gang were ready.

The reporter and his entourage were armed with hidden cameras and microphones.

But the singer proved a tough nut to crack.

Throughout the long, six-hour session — and the constant flow of alcohol — she kept a cool head.

She clearly didn’t take drugs.

Tulisa Contostavlos court case
TABLES TURNED
ON THE journey home from a six-hour session where she was plied with drink by Mazher Mahmood’s gang, the singer made it clear she disapproved of drugs. It was a statement that was to save her from a criminal conviction — and dramatically turn the tables on her accuser. Mahmood is now being investigated for perjury … a far more serious offence than the one she was charged with.
Photo: PA

She was also discreet.

She was careful not to badmouth the famous people she knew — like Simon Cowell, the man behind X Factor.

Mahmood had brought up the subject of “celebrity prostitution”.

When it was suggested that she go to Mahmood’s bedroom, she refused.

She was going to land the part on the basis of her acting ability alone.

But Mahmood had a trick up his sleeve.

He didn’t believe in formal auditions, he said.

He preferred “social auditioning” and urged her to demonstrate that she could play the character of a young London druggie in order to get the part.

She played the part, pretending to be a member of a drug gang in her past.

Mahmood said he was coming back to London later that month and planning a night out for his friends at a strip club.

Could she help set up the evening?

Still in character, she said it would be no problem.

At the end of the evening, Mahmood’s driver took the singer and her team home.

The driver was a long-standing associate of Mahmood’s called Alan Smith.

During the journey Tulisa and her associates talked about the evening.

The singer said that a member of her family had a drug problem — and that she personally disapproved of them.

At this point she was revealing her real views on drugs …

♦♦♦

ON MAY 21 Tulisa spoke to Mazher Mahmood on the phone about the proposed evening at the night club.

He challenged her to prove her street credentials by giving him the name of a cocaine dealer.

She didn’t know any — but thought that her rapper friend Michael Coombs might pretend to be one.

He’d acted alongside her in the Channel 4 programme “Dubplate Drama” back in 2007 — Coombs had played the dealer to her character.

She thought he’d be able to string the producer along.

On May 22 Mahmood rang Coombs who agreed to supply cocaine.

At a meeting at the Dorchester in the early hours of the next day, Coombs sold the reporter just under half an ounce — 13.9 grams — of cocaine for £820.

Tulisa Contostavlos court case
MICHAEL COOMBS
The 36-year-old rapper friend of Tulisa C, known as Mike GLC, pleaded guilty to selling Mazher Mahmood 13.9 grams of cocaine for £820. The case against him was also dropped when the judge realised that Mahmood had lied under oath.
Photo: PA

 The exchange was filmed.

On June 2 [2013] the Sun on Sunday “World Exclusive” front page proclaimed “Tulisa’s Cocaine Deal Shame”.

She was arrested two days later.

By the time the trial began on July 14 this year, the omens were not good for the singer.

Mike Coombs pleaded guilty to supplying the drug — and was likely to face a prison sentence.

The singer pleaded not guilty to being involved in the supply of cocaine.

Her defence team had earlier failed to have the case struck out.

Her barrister said that the offer of a £3.5 million role in a film alongside DiCaprio was an “exceptional inducement”.

He also argued that the evidence Mahmood supplied was invalid because it broke the Police and Criminal Evidence Act — it was tainted by the amounts of alcohol the singer had consumed.

Judge Alistair McCreath rejected both applications.

He also refused to allow the defence to introduce details of other criminal cases involving Mahmood which had collapsed.

And he would not allow the defence to bring evidence of Mahmood’s bad character.

The defence team were still confident that they had a strong defence.

But Tulisa later said she was 100 per cent certain she was going to be convicted:

“I was preparing for prison.”

♦♦♦

BUT A miracle was about to happen.

When Mahmood handed over the sting material to the police, there was nothing from the driver Alan Smith.

The defence had a hunch that his vehicle had been bugged on the night he took her home from the Metropolitan.

A few weeks before the trial, the defence insisted police take a statement from him.

On June 23 a detective constable rang Smith and took notes of the conversation.

Smith told the detective that the subject of drugs came up and Tulisa had been very negative about them.

The detective prepared a statement and rang Smith to check it.

He made sure that the driver understood his obligations as a potential witness.

Smith said he was happy with the statement and would sign it.

The detective emailed the statement.

The next day, Smith rang the detective.

He said he was no longer sure it was the singer who had made the comment — it might have been another woman in the car.

The statement was changed and Smith signed it.

The next day, June 25, both statements were provided to the defence.

Here, they thought, was a ray of hope.

Smith’s initial statement gave credibility to the singer’s story that she was only playing a part when she was talking to Mahmood.

On June 27 — three days after Smith signed his changed statement — Mazher Mahmood was giving evidence under oath at a pre-trial hearing.

He was questioned by Tulisa’s barrister Jeremy Dein, QC about Alan Smith’s comment.

First, he was asked if the conversation between Alan Smith and the singer had been recorded.

“No”, answered Mahmood.

“But did you subsequently ask or find out, discuss with Mr Smith anything that was said in the car?

The answer was again “No”.

“Because I just want to see whether you were aware of this.”

“Mr Smith made a statement to the police saying that in the car Ms Contostavlos was talking about drugs and saying that a member of her family had a drug problem and she disapproved of drugs.”

“All I want to know from you is whether you discussed that with Mr Smith at any stage?”

The answer from Mahmood was clear and emphatic:

“No.”

Mahmood’s answers intrigued the defence team.

Lawyers from Hickman Rose, who represented the singer, began to make inquiries about Alan Smith.

They quickly discovered he’d been a long-term member of Mahmood’s team.

And he had a criminal record.

He’s also been involved in some of the reporter’s stories.

In May 1997, while he was Investigations Editor at the News of the World, Mahmood published an exposé of  a centre in Hayes where the courts sent prisoners to do community service.

One of the people he exposed was an unemployed chauffeur called Alan Graham who was photographed sleeping in the back of a Rolls Royce Silver Spirit.

The caption read “Snooze a Naughty Boy?”

What Mahmood did not tell News of the World readers was that Graham was actually one of his drivers, Alan Smith.

Mahmood calls him “Smithy” and describes him as a “bald-headed burly” and said he was a “wide boy”.

The Rolls Royce had been hired by the paper.

Smith had been sentenced to 100 hours community service by Uxbridge magistrates for fraud.

Mahmood later said that Smith had been included in the article under an alias to disguise the fact that he was the informant for the story …

♦♦♦

THE WEEK before the trial opened, the defence asked the Crown Prosecution Service to bring Alan Smith to the court as a potential witness.

On July 16, the third day of the trial, Smith was interviewed by defence solicitors in the presence of a Metropolitan Police detective.

This took place while Mahmood was on the stand, giving evidence for the prosecution.

_DSC9278
BEN ROSE
THE LAWYER headed the legal team representing Tulisa Contostavlos. Solicitors suspected there was something fishy about the evidence given by Mazher Mahmood’s driver.
Photo: Hickman Rose

Smith confirmed that the original version of his statement stated that the subject of drugs had come up.

The singer had been very negative about them.

But he’d become unhappy about the statement.

He told the defence he’d sent a copy of the initial statement to Mahmood and then spoke to him about what he should do.

He said that Mahmood told him that, if he was unhappy with his statement, he should ring the police and change it.

The defence team were stunned.

Mahmood had said, on oath on June 27, that he hadn’t discussed anything with Smith.

Now the driver was saying the exact opposite.

One of the two men was lying…

♦♦♦

THE NEXT day, Thursday, was the fourth day of the trial.

It was to be a day of high drama.

Mazher Mahmood was back in the witness-box to be cross-examined by defence QC Jeremy Dein.

Overnight, Mahmood had learned what Smith had told the defence — and realised he now faced a serious dilemma.

Once again, Dein asked him if he’d discussed with Smith what was said in the car.

Mahmood now changed his story.

He admitted he had talked to the driver two weeks earlier.

He said that Smith had rung him and said he wasn’t happy with his statement.

Mahmood told the court Smith had emailed the statement and the two men then had a conversation about it.

Mahmood told him that he should ring the police and change it if he was not sure Tulisa had made the remark.

Dein put it to Mahmood that he had lied when he gave evidence at the earlier hearing.

“I disagree with you,” was Mahmood’s answer.

The barrister put it to him that it was he, Mahmood, who had persuaded Smith to change his statement.

“I did not,” replied Mahmood.

Mahmood added that the change made no difference.

Smith, he said, was sensitive about drugs because his son had recently died of a drugs overdose.

After Mahmood left the box, Judge Alistair McCreath sent the jury out.

He then addressed both the prosecution and the defence.

He made it clear that he felt Mahmood had told a “knowing lie” when he gave evidence on June 27.

And that he did so, in his opinion, to conceal “improper conduct”: he had interfered with evidence that would have been to Tulisa’s advantage.

In circumstances where a key witness was guilty of “gross misconduct”, he added, it would be an abuse for the state to rely on him.

It would also compromise judicial integrity — “it would be on the court’s conscience,” he said.

He then adjourned the court.

Throughout these proceedings, the press gallery was packed.

Reporters cannot report what’s said when the jury is out but the judge’s comments would have made it clear that Mahmood’s earlier dramatic climb-down was not only sensational — it now threatened the entire case.

Yet not a word of what had happened was reported by that evening’s radio and television news.

The next morning, the press were also silent.

The Daily Mail, for example, led with the story that one of Tulisa’s aides told Mahmood that he believed Simon Cowell was gay.

The defence team were disappointed.

They’d hoped press reports of the sensational developments might generate other material helpful to their case.

♦♦♦

FRIDAY WAS the fifth day of the trial.

By now it was clear that the judge was proposing to reopen the abuse application he had turned down the previous month.

The prosecution, though, were unable to get advice from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) about contesting it.

So the matter was left to the following Monday.

By then, the CPS had thrown in the towel and made no objection to the judge re-opening the defence application to stop the proceedings.

Judge McCreath not only halted the trial — he also dismissed the case against Michael Coombs, who had already pleaded guilty to supplying the cocaine.

He said that if he had thrown out the case earlier, Coombs would not have had to stand trial.

In his judgment, McCreath was scathing about Mahmood’s evidence about Alan Smith’s statements:

“When he gave evidence last week, he was asked questions on the same topic and gave answers which were entirely inconsistent with his earlier evidence.”

“And it certainly appears that the contact he had with Mr Smith was not unconnected with a fundamental change in the evidence which it was anticipated Mr Smith was going to give.”

“He was, as you will have understood, expected to be able to give evidence supportive of Ms Contostavlos — that she told him she disapproves of hard drugs.”

RUPERT MURDOCH - PICASA POSTERIZED
RUPERT MURDOCH
WHY DOES one of the world’s most powerful men continue to support the discredited Mahmood — a man accused by a judge of lying in the witness-box?
Photo: PA

“But after his conversation with Mr Mahmood, he had changed his mind.”

“It should not be forgotten that Mr Mahmood is

– the sole progenitor of this case

– the sole investigator

– the sole prosecution witness

– a man who has exercised his journalistic privilege to create a situation where the identities of others involved in the investigation are unknown to the defence (or the prosecution or even to me)

– someone who appears to have gone to considerable lengths to get Ms Contostavlos to agree to involve herself in criminal conduct, certainly to far greater lengths that would have been regarded as appropriate had he been a police investigator.”

He concluded:

“there are strong grounds for believing that Mr Mahmood told me lies when he gave evidence to me on June 27”.

And he added:

“there are also strong grounds for believing that the underlying purpose of these lies was to conceal the fact that he had been manipulating the evidence in this case by getting Mr Smith to change his account.”

He ended by saying, ominously for Mahmood:

“My view of the evidence cannot bind any other court which may (or may not) be called on to consider this matter in a different context.”

The fall-out from the collapse of the case was instant.

The Sun suspended Mahmood until an “immediate internal investigation” was complete.

The paper issued a statement:

“We are very disappointed with this outcome, but do believe the original investigation was conducted within the bounds of the law and the industry’s code.”

But it added:

The Sun, of course, takes the judge’s remarks very seriously.”

A spokesman for The Sun told us this week Mahmood remains suspended and that “the internal investigation is ongoing.”

“I will not divulge further details of an internal investigation.”

He added that Alan Smith “worked on an ad-hoc basis with Mr Mahmood.”

The Met said:

” … the Metropolitan Police Service have been able to consider the judgment issued by the trial Judge along with other material supplied by the Prosecution Counsel …”.

“As a consequence of the information supplied officers from Specialist Crime and Operations are now investigating whether any of the matters highlighted amount to the commission of any criminal offences.”

The CPS said it “has no investigative powers and therefore any criminal investigations following the conclusion of this case are a matter for the Metropolitan Police Service.”

On September 30 lawyers for Tulisa Contostavlos will be in court for a hearing to determine if the Sun on Sunday should pay her legal costs.

They have still not decided if she will sue the newspaper.

♦♦♦

THE COLLAPSE of the trial raises many questions.

There’s no doubt the Metropolitan Police had no choice but to investigate when presented with clear evidence that Michael Coombs had sold drugs to Mahmood.

But the force was well aware that Mahmood, throughout his career, has come in for sustained criticism about his methods, some of it from judges.

They should have subjected his evidence to a forensic investigation of their own.

It should have been the force that interviewed Alan Smith and not have left it to the defence to force them to do it.

If Smith had not been interviewed, it’s possible Tulisa Contostavlos would now have a criminal record.

NEW SCOTLAND YARD
NEW SCOTLAND YARD
IN 2012 Press Gang editor Paddy French wrote and asked the force to investigate allegations that Mazher Mahmood may have committed perjury in many of the cases where he gave evidence. There was no reply.
Photo: Rebecca

The force can’t say it wasn’t warned about the possibility of Mahmood committing perjury.

In November 2012 the editor of this website, Paddy French, wrote to Sue Akers, the Met’s deputy assistant commissioner, asking her to investigate allegations that Mahmood was a serial perjurer.

The letter cited the claim he made to the Leveson Inquiry, under oath, that he had more than 250 criminal convictions to his credit while he was Investigations Editor at the News of the World.

This was untrue.

Paddy French and researcher Chris Nichols had examined the News of the World throughout Mahmood’s career — and could find reports of only 70 convictions.

The full story is contained in the article Fake Convictions.

In the wake of this investigation, the Leveson Inquiry put the allegation to Mahmood.

What was then called News International called in the lawfirm Linklaters to carry out a proper audit.

In a subsequent statement to Leveson, Mahmood admitted that Linklaters could only find 94.

The letter also drew attention to the case against the London’s Burning actor John Alford who was gaoled in 1999 for supplying cocaine to Mahmood.

“In the September 2000 judgment refusing the actor known as John Alford leave to appeal against a nine month sentence for supplying cocaine to Mazher Mahmood’s undercover team in 1999, the court noted that Mahmood claimed 89 SCPs [successful criminal prosecutions]”.

At that point, Press Gang had found only 28.

The letter concluded by asking the Met “to examine Mr Mahmood’s testimony in all the court cases he gave evidence in to see if he has potentially committed perjury …”

A press officer told us Akers had retired and “the letter has been forwarded to deputy assistant commissioner Steve Kavanagh for consideration.”

“You will be contacted in due course.”

Kavanagh never replied.

♦♦♦
Published: 4 October 2016
© Press Gang
♦♦♦

NOTES
1
This the sixth article in the Press Gang series “The Life & Times Of A Serial Perjurer”. The previous articles and their links are:

Fake Convictions 
http://wp.me/p3kXx7-3
The Sting In The Singer’s Tale
http://wp.me/p3kXx7-12
Lying to Leveson
http://wp.me/p3kXx7-5O
Withering Heights 
No 10 Silent On “Fake Sheik” Intervention
2
The relevant statements about Mazher Mahmood’s claims about the convictions he secured to the Leveson Inquiry were made by Rebecca Television:
FIRST STATEMENT
http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-statement-of-Paddy-French-including-exhibits.pdf
SECOND STATEMENT
http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Second-witness-statement-of-Paddy-French2.pdf
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT – MAZHER MAHMOOD
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Witness-Statement-of-Mazher-Mahmood.pdf
FOURTH WITNESS STATEMENT – MAZHER MAHMOOD
http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Fourth-ws-of-Mazher-Mahmood.pdf

DONATIONS  If you would like to support the work of Press Gang, you can do so by clicking the Donate button.

Donate Button with Credit Cards

CORRECTIONS Please let us know if there are any mistakes in this article — they’ll be corrected as soon as possible.

RIGHT OF REPLY If you have been mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let us have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory we’ll add it to the article.

CITIZEN SMITH

September 7, 2016

 

Owen_Smith_head_citizen

ONE OF the most common criticisms of Jeremy Corbyn is that he’s unelectable.

Critics point to the poll ratings, with Labour currently trailing the Tories.

But little attention has been paid to challenger Owen Smith’s electoral record.

In the past decade he and his wife have stood in four elections — all in traditional Labour strongholds.

They’ve lost two of them.

Even when Owen Smith wins, he does so with a reduced majority.

Some voters are not impressed with his style: he was nicknamed “Oily” in one election and arrogant in another.

Is there something toxic about “brand Smith”?

♦♦♦

THREE YEARS ago Owen Smith was the driving force behind a political manifesto.

He co-edited a series of essays called One Nation: power, hope, community.

The Guardian said:

” … a group of the party’s rising stars call for it to end the lockout of local communities from power and to bury top-down statist solutions that have failed in the past.”

It was a time when Labour was searching for a way to appeal to the middle ground of British politics.

Labour Leader Ed Miliband summed it up in the preface:

“… a One Nation Labour Party is a party of the national interest, not one part of the country or any sectional interest.”

In the opening chapter Owen Smith was candid about the problems he faced in his own constituency, Pontypridd in south Wales.

“Membership and majorities are counted carefully now, when once they were weighed. Belief in our mission is dwindling.”

He was also clear about the solution:

“I believe the answer comes in two parts: we need both bottom-up participation and leadership from the top; to simultaneously cultivate our roots and command the heights.”

But he admits his attempt to regenerate Labour grass-roots in Pontypridd isn’t working:

“ … in the three years since I was elected the means to galvanise that engagement has proved elusive and frustrating.”

“This is undoubtedly partly a result of the many previous false dawns that have promised progress but failed to deliver: it’s hard to feel progressive when there seems so little sign of progress for you and yours.”

But he was still confident things could be turned around.

“Slowly but surely, Labour is re-engaging with dialogue in our communities, and developing new common objectives and solutions that will prove the real foundations for our rebuilding.”

Part of the strategy was a move to bring greater democracy to the party:

“Iain McNicol [Labour’s General Secretary] has been leading reforms in the party aimed at building a more open and inclusive movement.”

Labour leadership challenge
BACK TO THE FUTURE?  
THREE YEARS ago Owen Smith was praising Labour for “… leading reforms in the party aimed at building a more open and inclusive movement.” But it was not until Jeremy Corbyn stood for leader that membership began to rocket — from under 300,000 to more than 500,000. Ironically, the party’s National Executive Committee have now barred some 130,000 recently joined members — most of them believed to be Corbyn supporters — from voting in the leadership election.
Photo: Ben Birchall / PA

In Pontypridd Smith thought he’d found a way to galvanise the community:

“Pontypridd Citizens, which will bring together churches and parties, unions and residents, in order to determine local needs and empower local leaders, is launching this year, taking its cue and its form from similar schemes that are energising communities across Britain.”

“It will mark a new beginning in the politics of Pontypridd, and Labour will be at its heart.”

The organisation should be three years old by now.

But Press Gang could find no evidence of Pontypridd Citizens — and when we asked people in the constituency, no-one had never heard of it.

We asked Owen Smith for an explanation.

He didn’t reply.

♦♦♦

WHEN OWEN SMITH was chosen to be the Labour candidate for the 2006 Blaenau Gwent election, he had no experience of grass-roots politics. 

The seat had a troubled past but the party was expecting it to revert to being a Labour stronghold.

Owen Smith probably thought he had a safe seat for the rest of his political career.

In 2005 popular local politician Peter Law stood as an independent.

A former Labour member of the Welsh Assembly, he’d been barred from standing as a candidate for the general election because the party had imposed an all-woman short-list.

Labour nominated trade union leader Maggie Jones.

Many Labour voters deserted the official candidate and chose the independent.

But Law — already diagnosed with brain cancer — died the following year.

His agent, Dai Davies, decided to stand in the by-election that followed.

Labour strategists felt Law’s death had taken the sting out of the rebellion — and that the faithful would return to the fold.

In the early days of the campaign a poll gave Owen a massive 12 per cent lead.

Labour mounted a huge campaign to retake the seat — spending £56,000 to Davies’ £7,000.

But Smith’s organisation was cack-handed.

Telephone canvassers angered voters when they began calling within days of Law’s death.

Activists were bussed in from all over Britain but they knew nothing about Blaenau Gwent.

Smith himself acquired the nickname “Oily”.

Dai Davies was a well-known political figure who outgunned Smith on many fronts.

One of them was Nye Bevan, the political midwife of the NHS, whose old Tredegar constituency was now part of Blaenau Gwent

Smith claimed Nye Bevan as his hero.

But Dai Davies could trump that.

He was a trustee of the Bevan Foundation, a left-wing think tank formed in his memory.

Smith did not become a trustee of the Foundation until after the by-election.

The result was Dai Davies won a narrow victory — by just 2,488 just votes.

It was a bruising experience for Smith and he decided not to seek the nomination again.

Labour regained the seat in 2010.

♦♦♦

THE LIKELIHOOD is that plans were already afoot to shoehorn Owen Smith into the Pontypridd constituency.

Just before Christmas 2009 the sitting MP, Kim Howells, announced he was standing down as the MP.

Soon after, there were press reports that Owen Smith was ringing members of the constituency Labour Party to make his pitch to replace Howells.

Howells is, of course, an old friend of Owen Smith’s father, Dai Smith but Owen Smith denies that the Howells played any part in his selection.

Smith gained the nomination.

IMG_1090
NEPOTISM HOUSE?
OWEN SMITH’S home in his Pontypridd constituency has an intriguing past. Shortly after he was elected in 2010, the MP paid £285,000 for the north wing of the listed building in Llantrisant. It was previously owned by the sister of former BBC boss Menna Richards who bought the property shortly after she formed an independent production company. She won millions of pounds worth of contracts from the Corporation. It was under Menna Richards that Owen Smith made his breakthrough into television — as producer of the politics series Dragon’s Eye in 2000.
Photo: Press Gang

In Pontypridd Labour was united — but there were other problems.

The Lib Dems, led by Nick Clegg, were riding high in the polls — and they had a well-known local candidate in Mike Powell.

When Labour councillor Glynne Holmes had his picture taken with Powell as part of a campaign to save the Post Office in Llantrisant, he found himself the subject of a disciplinary hearing.

He was cleared but it was a sign of how anxious Labour officials were.

In the end, Smith won by just 2,791 votes.

The Western Mail noted:

“There were relieved faces as Labour held on to the Pontypridd seat.”

Smith polled 14,200 votes — a drop of more than 6,000 on Howells’ figure in 2005.

In the 2015 election, when Lib Dem support collapsed, Smith was able to clawback less than 1,400 of the lost votes.

In the ten years from 2005 to 2015, Labour has lost a quarter of its support in Pontypridd.

♦♦♦

EARLY THIS year Owen Smith’s wife, primary school teacher Liz, decided to stand for election to the Llantrisant town council.

There was a vacancy in the Llantrisant ward where she and Owen Smith had lived for five years.

The Labour Party ticket plus the fact that her husband was the MP were expected to secure her election.

But there was another candidate who was far more active in the town.

Louisa Mills, an independent, had started a local charity and was campaigning for a community garden.

She beat Liz Smith by 320 votes to 273.

Owen Smith may not have been as asset in the poll.

Some residents find him arrogant.

One said:

“He’s risen quickly … due to his PR skills and actually believes his own hype.”

“In my view he cares more about power than he does about using that power to help people.

All of this means Owen Smith and his wife have now contested four elections between them.

They’ve lost two.

In the two elections Owen Smith has won, he has presided over a decline in the Labour vote.

What will happen when the right-wing press goes to work on him?

♦♦♦
Published: 7 September 2016
© Press Gang
♦♦♦

Notes
1
The statistics for Owen Smith’s Pontypridd constituency make disturbing reading for Labour. These are are the number of votes cast for Owen Smith’s predecessor Kim Howells and the share of the poll:
1989   20,500   53%
1992   29,700   61%
1997   29,290   64%
2001   23,000   60%
2005   20,900   53%
From a peak of 64% of the vote in 1997 — the landslide year when Tony Blair became Prime Minister — it was down to 53% by 2005.
Owen Smith hasn’t arrested the decline. The result for the two elections he’s fought are:
2010   14,200   39%
2015   15,600   41%
In the face of a Lib Dem resurgence in 2010 he was lucky to hold on to the seat. And even with the collapse of the Lib Dems in 2015 he was able to retrieve only a small proportion of the Labour vote he’d lost in 2010.
2
This the fourth instalment of this investigation. The other articles are:
Owen Smith: Forged By Patronage and Nepotism?
Owen Smith: A Man For All Seasons
BBC Forced To Correct Owen Smith Profile.
Click on a title to read it.
3
Press Gang editor Paddy French declares personal interests in this story:
— in the 1980s he was the editor of Rebecca magazine which was in competition for a substantial Welsh Arts Council grant. One of the competitors was Arcade magazine and Dai Smith, Owen Smith’s father, was one of its supporters. The council’s literature committee chose Rebecca but the full council overturned the decision — and gave the grant to Arcade
— French is one of the thousands of traditional Labour voters who have joined the party following Jeremy Corbyn’s election as Leader. He will be voting for Corbyn in the Leadership election.
4
The Rebecca investigation into nepotism and patronage at BBC Wales is explored in the articles:
The Son Of The Man From Uncle
In The Name Of The Father?
5
The cover block pic is by Gareth Fuller / PA.

♦♦♦

DONATIONS
Investigative stories like this one are expensive and time-consuming to produce. You can help by making a contribution to the coffers. Just click on the logo …

Donate Button with Credit Cards

CORRECTIONS Please let us know if there are any mistakes in this article — they’ll be corrected as soon as possible.

RIGHT OF REPLY If you have been mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let us have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory we’ll add it to the article.

 

 

 

BBC FORCED TO CORRECT OWEN SMITH PROFILE

August 13, 2016

 

Owen_Smith_head_BBC

THE BBC has been forced to correct an inaccurate profile of Owen Smith following a complaint by Press Gang.

In July the Corporation published an online article which included details about Smith’s career at BBC Wales.

Press Gang complained to Director General Lord Hall.

We said the article gave the false impression that Owen Smith was already at the BBC before his father, the historian Dai Smith, became involved.

In fact, the evidence suggests it was Smith the father who introduced Smith the son to the Corporation.

Press Gang also cited several errors of fact — and criticised the fact that the BBC has not provided a detailed CV of Smith’s broadcasting career.

Yesterday the BBC corrected the article but didn’t admit the original errors.

The Corporation also acknowledged the complaint.

Smith has declined to provide a full CV of his career as a journalist, lobbyist and politician.

The Press Gang investigation continues.

We have now asked Smith:

if he’s ever been a member of the National Union of Journalists

if he’s been a member of the Labour Party continuously since he joined at the age of 16 and

if he will, as Jeremy Corbyn has done, make his tax returns public.

There was no reply by the time this article went to press.

♦♦♦

JUST TWO days after he became the sole challenger to Jeremy Corbyn for the Labour leadership, BBC online published an article called “Profile: The Owen Smith story”.

It contained the following statement about Owen Smith’s early career:

“After studying history and French at the University of Sussex, he joined BBC Wales as a radio producer. His father, Dai, was appointed editor of BBC Wales and head of programmes in the same year.”

Press Gang complained about this paragraph to BBC Director General Lord Hall.

First, we said it gave the impression that Owen Smith was at BBC Wales before his father.

Press Gang was concerned that the paragraph was a “red herring” designed to avoid the question of nepotism and patronage in Owen Smith’s career.

rhodri-talfan-davies
TAFFIA TELLY
RHODRI TALFAN DAVIES, BBC Wales Director, controls an organisation which has been dogged by allegations of nepotism and patronage for more than a quarter of a century. There was controversy when he was appointed in 2011 at the age of 40 because he’s the son of former BBC Wales boss, Geraint Talfan Davies. It was Geraint Talfan Davies who appointed Owen Smith’s father, Dai Smith, to the second most powerful post in BBC Wales in the 1990s …
Photo: BBC Wales

The evidence is that his father was already an established broadcaster at BBC Radio Wales and that it was he who introduced his son to a senior producer at the station.

Second, the paragraph is inaccurate: there’s no such role as editor of BBC Wales (the post is Editor, Radio Wales) and Dai Smith was not appointed head of programmes until much later.

Finally, Press Gang complained that BBC Wales is refusing to release a full CV of Owen Smith’s broadcasting career.

Yesterday, the BBC corrected the errors — but didn’t admit the original mistakes.

The BBC journalist who wrote the piece, Brian Wheeler, told Press Gang he talked to BBC Wales political journalists at Westminster before filing the article.

He said he wasn’t aware there were allegations of nepotism and patronage at BBC Wales.

The Director General’s office also acknowledged our complaint.

But the Corporation has still not provided Smith’s broadcasting CV.

Owen Smith denies that nepotism or patronage played any part in his broadcasting career.

We asked him for a full CV of his career as a journalist, a lobbyist and a politician.

So far, he’s not provided one …

♦♦♦

FOR EIGHT days we’ve been waiting for Owen Smith to answer questions about other aspects of his career.

On August 4 his press team apologised “for the delay in getting back to you — as you’ll be aware it’s an incredibly busy campaign and we have a lot of competing demands … … please do bear with us as we try to reply to everyone.”

One of the questions we put to him was his salary as a lobbyist for Pfizer.

In June 2014, when Smith was shadow Welsh Secretary, he told the Sunday Telegraph his salary was £80,000.

Press Gang found a Times article of 2006, when he was the candidate for the Blaenau Gwent by-election, which said he was a “… £200,000-a-year lobbyist for Pfizer.”

We asked him which figure was correct.

There was no reply by the time this article went to press.

We also asked him to expand on his statement:

“I want to be a force for good in the world. Therefore, you need to achieve power. Nye Bevan, my great hero, said it’s all about achieving and exercising power. I’ve devoted my life to that.”

We asked him for proof of this devotion.

The available evidence suggests that, until he was in his early thirties, his interest in politics was virtually nil.

We’ve now asked him if he’s been a Labour Party member continuously since he first joined at the age of 16.

He says Nye Bevan, one of the founders of the NHS, is his great hero.

A think tank in Bevan’s memory — the Bevan Foundation — was established in 2001.

Smith said he did not become a trustee until 2007 — after he was selected as Labour candidate for the Blaenau Gwent by-election in 2006.

Blaenau Gwent includes Tredegar which was Bevan’s constituency.

And Smith didn’t stay long  — he resigned in 2009.

Yesterday we asked him if he’d been involved in the Foundation before joining as a trustee in 2007.

We have also asked Smith if he was a member of the National Union of Journalists during his career as a broadcaster.

There’s no evidence in the public record of any membership.

Finally, we have also also asked him if he will make his tax returns public, as Jeremy Corbyn has done.

He did not answer any of these questions before this article went to press.

♦♦♦
Published: 13 August 2016
© Press Gang
♦♦♦

Notes

1. This the third instalment of this investigation:  the first, Owen Smith: Forged By Patronage and Nepotism?, was published on August 3. The second, Owen Smith: A Man For All Seasons, was published on August 8.  Click on a title to read it.
2. Press Gang editor Paddy French declares personal interests in this story.
— in the 1980s he was the editor of Rebecca magazine which was in competition for a substantial Welsh Arts Council grant. One of the competitors was Arcade magazine and Dai Smith was one of its supporters. The council’s literature committee chose Rebecca but the full council overturned the decision — and gave the grant to Arcade.
— he’s one of the thousands of traditional Labour voters who have joined the party following Jeremy Corbyn’s election as Leader. He will be voting for Corbyn in the Leadership election.
3. The Rebecca investigation into nepotism and patronage at BBC Wales is explored in the articles The Son Of The Man From Uncle and In The Name Of The Father?
4. The cover block pic is by Gareth Fuller / PA.

♦♦♦

DONATIONS Investigative stories like this one are expensive and time-consuming to produce. You can help by making a contribution to the coffers. Just click on the logo …

Donate Button with Credit Cards

CORRECTIONS Please let us know if there are any mistakes in this article — they’ll be corrected as soon as possible.

RIGHT OF REPLY If you have been mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let us have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory we’ll add it to the article.