Posts Tagged ‘Daniel Morgan’

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.

Advertisements

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 the trial.
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 final 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 the pair 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”.a

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.

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 with 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
Private Eye — A Stab In The Back (in preparation)
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.
6
Press Gang editor Paddy French made several programmes on the murder while a current affairs producer at ITV Wales.

♦♦♦

COMING
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  …

♦♦♦

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. 

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.

DIAL M FOR MORGAN

June 29, 2015

PIERS_MORGAN_part_4

FOR THE last four years Piers Morgan has been desperately trying to distance himself from the phone hacking scandal.

Twice he’s been interviewed under caution by detectives investigating phone hacking at the Daily Mirror when he was editor from 1995 to 2004.

Between 2001 and 2009 he made a series of incriminating statements widely interpreted as evidence he knew all about the practice.

Two of his protégés — Andy Coulson and Rebekah Brooks — have appeared in the dock at the Old Bailey.

Coulson went to gaol: Brooks was acquitted.

Morgan now insists he knew nothing:

“For the record … I have never hacked a phone, told anyone to hack a phone, or published any stories based on the hacking of a phone.”

But a Press Gang investigation reveals 

— as early as 1997, the Daily Mirror was paying for “confidential enquiries” about telephone numbers

— in 1998 the paper was openly hacking the mobile phones of senior politicians

— a year later it spent nearly £6,000 on illegally obtained print-outs of calls made on individual phones 

The evidence suggests the “dark arts” of illegal news-gathering — including phone hacking — were at the heart of Daily Mirror editorial policy when Morgan was editor. 

♦♦♦

WHEN HE appeared on Desert Island Discs in 2009, Piers Morgan was challenged about phone hacking.

Presenter Kirsty Young asked him about dealing with people who listened to phone messages.

“People who tap people’s phones … how did you feel about that?”

Morgan didn’t deny the allegation:

“I’m quite happy … to have to sit here defending all these things I used to get up to …”

“I make no pretence about the stuff we used to do.”

But after the revelation in July 2011 that Rupert Murdoch’s journalists had hacked murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler’s mobile phone, he changed his tune.

BUGGERS PIERS MORGAN and his friends Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson at the height of their power in 2004. Morgan edited the Mirror, Brooks The Sun and Coulson the News of the World. All three tabloids were hacking phones at that stage. Coulson and Brooks — long-term on-off lovers — were tried at the Old Bailey in 2014. Brooks was acquitted but Coulson was gaoled for 18 months. Picture: Richard Young / REX

BUGGERS
PIERS MORGAN and his friends Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson at the height of their power in the early 2000s. Morgan edited the Mirror, Brooks the Sun and Coulson the News of the World. All three tabloids were hacking phones at that stage. Coulson and Brooks — long-term on-off lovers — were tried at the Old Bailey in 2014; Brooks was acquitted but Coulson was gaoled for 18 months. Piers Morgan was by far the most experienced of the three: he had been Coulson’s boss at the Sun’s show business column in the early 1990s and gave Rebekah Brooks her first big promotion while he was editor of the News of the World
Picture: Richard Young / REX

When the American Daily Beast website resurrected his Desert Island Discs comments in 2011, Morgan insisted:

“For the record … I have never hacked a phone, told anyone to hack a phone, or published any stories based on the hacking of a phone.”

But, in fact, the Daily Mirror had printed an article based on phone hacking more than a decade earlier.

It was just as mobile phones were taking off — and Piers Morgan had been Daily Mirror editor for more than two years.

Early in 1998 one of the paper’s journalists in Dublin realised it was possible to access messages left on the mobile phones of senior Irish politicians.

Reporter Karl Brophy — based at the Irish Parliament — proceeded to listen to messages left on the phone of the Irish leader, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern.

He also successfully listened to messages left on the phones of other Cabinet ministers.

Brophy’s article — published as an “Exclusive” on Saturday, 18 April 1998 — went into great detail about how phone messages could be hacked:

“The phone tap can be operated by anyone who knows the number of the mobile phone they wish to listen in to.”

The article explained that mobile phones were sold with a standard password for stored messages that most people never changed.

“That means that anyone can listen in to another person’s messages by simply phoning into their electronic mailbox and dialling the digits 0000.”

CAPTION THE FRONT page story proving the Daily Mirror knew how to hack phones as early as April 1998. Reporter Karl Brophy provided a blueprint on how to listen to messages left on mobile phones. The article did not appear in mainland editions of the paper …

SMOKING GUN
THE FRONT page story proving Piers Morgan’s Daily Mirror knew how to hack phones as early as April 1998. Reporter Karl Brophy provided a blueprint on how to listen to messages left on mobile phones. The article did not appear in mainland editions of the paper …

“Once they have done this the hacker has unlimited access to all the messages.”

The article was accompanied by an editorial.

This stated:

“If Richard Nixon had lived in Dublin he would have had no need for Watergate.”

“Instead of teams of bungling burglars all he would have needed was a mobile phone to tap into the thoughts of his political rivals.”

The piece continued:

“The Irish Mirror discovered this amazing security breach and chose not to keep it under wraps.”

“It is to be hoped the gap has been plugged before some unscrupulous eavesdropper has used it for sinister [purposes].”

There was to be no phone hacking scandal in Ireland. 

♦♦♦

NOT A word of the story appeared in the mainland editions of the Daily Mirror.

This was despite the fact that several million people of Irish descent live in Britain — thousands of them Daily Mirror readers.

And the implications of the story for the British political establishment were obvious.

If British mobile phones were anything like their Irish counterparts, there was a potential security problem.

There were also strong connections between the Irish edition and the paper’s headquarters in London’s Canary Wharf.

DOMINIC MOHAN THE SUN editor told Lord Leveson about the Irish Mirror phone hacking story in 2012. But the Inquiry team did not enter the article into evidence — and Piers Morgan was never questioned about it.

SNITCH
SUN EDITOR Dominic Mohan told Lord Leveson about the Irish Mirror story in 2012. But the Inquiry team failed to understand its significance and didn’t enter the article as evidence — Piers Morgan was never questioned about it.  Back in May 2002 Mohan was editor of the Sun’s “Bizarre” column when he sarcastically thanked Vodaphone’s lack of security for the success of Piers Morgan’s show business coverage in the Mirror Photo: PA

The man in charge of the Irish Mirror was Craig Mackenzie, brother of Kelvin Mackenzie, Mirror Group deputy chief executive.

Kelvin Mackenzie was editor of the Sun when Piers Morgan started on the paper in the late 1980s.

Both Mackenzie brothers were friends of Morgan’s. 

Press Gang spoke to Karl Brophy last week.

He said he wrote the story at a time when mobile phones were taking off.  

“When you got your phone in those days it clearly … told you to change your PIN immediately,” he said.

“The thing was that most older people didn’t bother.”

“So, one day, I just started phoning mobiles of politicians and seeing if they had changed their PINs.”  

“A lot hadn’t so I changed all the PINs of the ones who hadn’t to a single four digit number so nobody else could listen in.”

“I thought the fact that voice messages … of government ministers and advisers could be so easily accessed was rather serious – especially considering where we were in 1998 with the Peace Process …”

In fact, the historic Good Friday agreement had been signed a week earlier.

All the ministers Brophy hacked immediately changed their PIN numbers after he told the government what he’d done. 

♦♦♦

FIFTEEN MONTHS later the Daily Mirror in London were told about security problems with mobile phones.

Welsh sales manager Steven Nott rang the paper in August 1999 about a flaw in Vodaphone’s system.

He talked to Mirror special projects editor Oonagh Blackman. 

He told her that if people did not change the standard Vodaphone 3333 PIN number, anyone could dial in and listen to messages. 

Nott claims that, initially, Blackman was enthusiastic but after 12 days told him the paper wasn’t interested.

The paper later sent him a £100 cheque with a statement saying it was in relation to “mobile phone scandal.” 

Nott later told the Leveson Inquiry:

“I accused the Daily Mirror of keeping the phone hacking method for their own purposes.”

But, in addition to the Irish Mirror story, there’s evidence the paper’s journalists were already deeply involved in the “dark arts” of illegal news-gathering, including phone hacking.

♦♦♦

CENTRAL TO this operation was senior reporter Gary Jones and his dealings with a corrupt firm of private detectives.

Jones had been News of the World crime reporter when Piers Morgan edited the Sunday tabloid in 1994-1995. 

Jones won the Press Gazette Reporter of the Year award in 1995 for his scoops.

One of the most dramatic was a story about anonymous calls being made by Princess Diana.

This was also one of the key stories in Piers Morgan’s career — it impressed Rupert Murdoch who liked big, international controversies.

Especially if it also involved an attack on the British establishment he despised.

GARY “DARK ARTS” JONES THE SENIOR Daily Mirror journalist was the paper’s mastermind when it came to illegal news-gathering. He’d been the News of the World’s crime reporter when Piers Morgan edited the Sunday paper in 1994-1995. Jones — who has featured in many Press Gang articles —  does not answer our emails.  

GARY “DARK ARTS” JONES
A KEY LIEUTENANT throughout Piers Morgan’s editorship, Jones was the Mirror mastermind when it came to illegal news-gathering. He’d been the News of the World crime reporter when Piers Morgan edited the Sunday paper in 1994-1995. Jones — who has featured in many Press Gang articles —  does not answer our emails.

This worldwide exclusive was based on a leaked investigation report from Scotland Yard.

Press Gang — in the article Whodunnit? — revealed Piers Morgan almost certainly authorised an enormous payment to a recently retired senior police officer for access to the report.

The sum is believed to have been in the hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Piers Morgan was appointed Daily Mirror editor in 1995 and Gary Jones joined him the following year.

Documentary evidence shows that by October 1997 Gary Jones was responsible for organising much of the paper’s clandestine operations.

Jones was using the controversial detective agency Southern Investigations to illegally access information. 

The agency had also been working for the News of the World from the late 1980s — including the period Piers Morgan was editor.

The firm was run by private eye Jonathan Rees.

Rees had been a suspect in the murder of his partner Daniel Morgan in 1987.

JONATHAN REES THE PRIVATE eye who provided the Daily Mirror with a hoard of confidential information. He stood trial for the murder of his partner Daniel Morgan but the trial collapsed in 2011.  A fuller account of his activities can be found in the Press Gang series The No 1 Corrupt Detective Agency.  Photo: PA 

CORRUPT DETECTIVE
THE PRIVATE eye Jonathan Rees who provided the Daily Mirror with a hoard of confidential information, much of it obtained from bent police officers. He later stood trial for the murder of his partner Daniel Morgan but the case collapsed in 2011.  A fuller account of his activities can be found in the Press Gang series The No 1 Corrupt Detective Agency
Photo: PA

Daniel Morgan’s place as Rees’ partner was taken by former Scotland Yard detective sergeant Sid Fillery. 

Fillery had been part of the homicide team investigating the murder until his superiors realised he was a friend of Rees.

Southern Investigations provided Gary Jones and the Mirror with one scoop after another.

The evidence comes from a secret operation — Two Bridges — mounted by anti-corruption detectives at Scotland Yard.

They bugged the offices of Southern Investigations and, in September 1999, raided the firm and many of its network of informants. 

From the files generated by this operation, Press Gang has already shown that 

— in September 1998 phone hacking may have played a part in an exclusive about news presenter Kirsty Young’s new relationship with millionaire businessman Nick Young. In our story Down In The Gutter we showed that Southern Investigations followed Young over several days. The paper’s reluctance to publish the story straight away suggests the original source of the story may have come from phone hacking ,,,

KIRSTY YOUNG WHEN THE presenter interviewed Piers Morgan in 2009, he appeared to admit the Daily Mirror had been involved in phone hacking. What Young didn’t know is that she had been a target of the Daily Mirror in 1998 when she began a new relationship. The story may have resulted from phone hacking …  Photo: PA

KIRSTY YOUNG
WHEN THE Desert Island Discs presenter interviewed Piers Morgan in 2009, he appeared to admit the Daily Mirror had been involved in phone hacking. What Young didn’t know is that she’d been a target of Piers Morgan’s paper in 1998 when she began a new relationship. The story may have resulted from phone hacking … 
Photo: PA

— in October 1998 Gary Jones and Oonagh Blackman published an article revealing the confidential mortgage details of members of the committee which set interest rates. In our article Assault On The Bank Of England we showed that Southern Investigations had illegally “blagged” the information from banks and building societies. The firm sent one set of doctored invoices to the Daily Mirror accounts department but Press Gang obtained a confidential statement sent to Gary Jones marked “For Your Information Only” which reveals the true nature of the operation.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Invoices generated by Southern Investigations were usually heavily disguised.

“Confidential enquiries” was the phrase used to cover up illegal activity ordered by Gary Jones on behalf of the Mirror.

Four of these invoices include parts of telephone numbers.

The first was in October 1997 — long before the Irish Mirror published its piece.

Southern Investigations was billing Jones for “confidential enquiries” relating to a telephone number showing just the dialling code 01480 (Huntingdon). 

In 1998 there were three more invoices — again with only part of the number given.

The sums involved — around £300 each — suggest these “confidential enquiries” involved print-outs of calls made from the numbers.

Southern Investigations had people inside phone companies who made copies of itemised phone calls.

Just how corrupt the relationship between Gary Jones and Jonathan Rees actually was is shown by a dramatic row which took place in July 1999. 

♦♦♦

IT’S TUESDAY, 6 July 1999 at the offices of Southern Investigations in Thornton Heath, South London.

Jonathan Rees is busy.

Some of his work is legitimate routine bread and butter stuff like serving writs and tracing people.

But increasingly his time is taken up with obtaining confidential information and selling it to newspapers like the News of the World and the Mirror Group. 

Unknown to him, every word he says today will be recorded.

A bug has been planted in the building by anti-corruption detectives from Scotland Yard as part of Operation Two Bridges.

Two Bridges has two aims.

One is to generate information about the murder of Daniel Morgan in 1987.

The second is part of an attempt to prevent Southern Investigations from corrupting police officers.

An internal Scotland Yard document — later leaked to the BBC Home Affairs correspondent Graeme McLagan — spelt out the concerns.

Rees — and his partner, ex Metropolitan Police detective Sid Fillery:

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

SID FILLERY THE FORMER Scotland Yard detective — charged with perverting the course of justice in connection with the murder of Daniel —  was discharged in 2010. By then, though, Fillery already had a criminal record — he was convicted of making and possessing indecent images of children in 2003. He now helps run the Lion public house in the village of Thurne in the Norfolk Broads. Photo: PA 

“CUNNING AND DEVIOUS”
A CHARGE against former Scotland Yard detective Sid Fillery — perverting the course of justice in connection with the murder of Daniel Morgan— was dropped in 2010. By then, though, Fillery already had a criminal record — he was convicted of making and possessing indecent images of children in 2003. He now helps run the Lion public house in the village of Thurne in the Norfolk Broads.
Photo: PA

“They use some of the techniques in their own daily activities.”

“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.”  

But on that Tuesday — 6 July 1999 — Rees is oblivious to the fact that his office is bugged.

When he rings Gary Jones at the Daily Mirror to discuss invoices, he believes the conversation is private.

Rees says he’s faxing through a full list of invoices for the work done for the Mirror Group (including the MirrorPeople and the Sunday Mirror) that year.

The total is £16,991 for the five months. 

The list includes nearly £6,000 for the illegal supply of itemised print-outs of calls made from phones. 

Rees says

“… when it comes through you’ll see the invoice, with lots of stars next to them, and roughly billed at about £300 odd — which is print-outs.“

Rees tells Jones there are 19 of these print-outs with the initials of the reporters who ordered them, with “G.J. being you.”

Later that day Rees and Jones have another discussion about the lack of detail on the invoices relating to these print-outs.

Jones is under pressure from the paper’s accounts department to provide more information on the Southern Investigations invoices.

Rees loses his temper:

“Well they are printouts …”

“ … this is tiresome, fucking tiresome …”

“ … we are not going to put the numbers in there because what we are doing is illegal …”

“ … I don’t want people coming in and nicking us for criminal offence, you know.”

When this conversation takes place, Gary Jones is sitting at his desk in the Daily Mirror newsroom on the 22nd floor of the skyscraper at Canary Wharf.

A few yards away is the editor’s corner office.

Can Piers Morgan have known absolutely nothing about Gary Jones’ illegal activities?

♦♦♦

OPERATION TWO BRIDGES comes to an abrupt end in September 1999.

The bug in Southern Investigations reveals Rees has a client fighting his estranged wife for custody of their child.

Rees agrees to organise a conspiracy with a corrupt police officer to plant cocaine in the wife’s car.

The plan is to saddle her with a drugs conviction — so proving her to be an unfit mother.

The police pounce on the conspirators.

Rees and the client are given seven year prison sentences.

The corrupt police officer is gaoled for five.

Sid Fillery is not involved. 

SURVEILLANCE OPERATION TWO BRIDGES officers photographed Jonathan Rees outside the offices of Southern Investigations in south London. Detectives were watching the building while others listened in on the bug secretly placed inside …  Photo: PA 

SURVEILLANCE OPERATION
TWO BRIDGES officers photographed Jonathan Rees outside the offices of Southern Investigations in south London. Detectives were watching the building while others listened in on the bug secretly placed inside … 
Photo: PA

When police closed in on the conspiracy, they also arrested many of those suspected of being involved in illegal news-gathering.

One of them was Doug Kempster, a reporter with the People, part of the Mirror group.

An internal police report shows some senior police officers wanted a conviction:

“It is likely that journalists and private investigators who actively corrupt serving officers would receive a long custodial sentence if convicted.”

“There will be a high level of media interest in this particular investigation, especially when involving journalists.”

“The Metropolitan Police will undoubtedly benefit if a journalist is convicted of corrupting serving police officers.”

“This will send a clear message to members of the media to consider their own ethical and illegal involvement with employees of the Met in the future.”

Police submitted a file to the Crown Prosecution Service which decided not to charge the reporter.  

Kempster’s arrest sent shock waves around senior management at the Mirror Group.

But it did not stop illegal news-gathering at Piers Morgan’s Daily Mirror.

With Jonathan Rees in gaol, the paper turned to another private eye — Steve Whittamore.

By the time he was arrested for breaches of the Data Protection Act in 2003, the paper had spent at least £92,000 with the private eye.

In our article Whodunnit? we exclusively revealed that one of the Mirror reporters who apparently commissioned work from Whittamore was Tom Newton Dunn.

TOM NEWTON DUNN THE CURRENT political editor of The Sun, Tom Newton Dunn was a young Mirror reporter when he ordered an unlawful criminal record check. Photo: PA

TOM NEWTON DUNN
THE CURRENT political editor of The Sun, Tom Newton Dunn was a young Mirror reporter when he allegedly ordered an unlawful criminal record check.
Photo: PA

Today, he’s the political editor of The Sun.

In the early 2000s Dunn’s name was recorded by Whittamore as the Mirror contact for a criminal record check of a parliamentary candidate. 

This was Adrian Flook, who later became Tory MP for Taunton.

Newton Dunn does not answer our emails.

♦♦♦

IS IT possible Piers Morgan didn’t know what was going on at the Mirror when he was editor? 

During the Leveson Inquiry journalist James Hipwell gave evidence about phone hacking when he worked at the paper between 1998 and 2000.

Hipwell was a financial journalist and worked close to the paper’s showbiz reporters.

He said they hacked openly and frequently.

Hacking was “a bog-standard journalistic tool for gathering information.” 

He had no direct evidence Piers Morgan was involved but added: 

“I would say that it is very unlikely that he didn’t know it was going on …”

“The newspaper was built around the cult of Piers.”  

“He was the newspaper.”

‘Nothing happened at the newspaper without him knowing.”

When he gave evidence, Morgan was contemptuous of Hipwell.

Hipwell had been gaoled for six months for insider dealing in 2000 while working for the paper’s City Slickers column.

He bought shares in a company owned by Alan Sugar before they were tipped by the column.

JAMES HIPWELL A FORMER Daily Mirror financial reporter in the late 1990s, Hipwell says phone hacking was “bog-standard” among the paper’s show-business journalists. Piers Morgan claims Hipwell was not a credible witness because he had a grudge against him — but several judges preferred Hipwell’s testimony to Morgan’s …   Photo: PA

JAMES HIPWELL
A FORMER Daily Mirror financial reporter in the late 1990s, Hipwell says phone hacking was “bog-standard” among the paper’s show-business journalists. Piers Morgan claims Hipwell was not a credible witness because he had a grudge against him — but several judges preferred Hipwell’s testimony to Morgan’s …  
Photo: PA

The shares rocketed in value the next day.

Piers Morgan also bought shares but always insisted he didn’t know they were going to be the subject of a Mirror article.

In a statement to Leveson, Morgan wrote:

“I note that Mr Hipwell is a convicted criminal who changed his story on a number of occasions during the City Slickers investigation, in part to wrongfully implicate me.”

“I believe any testimony he gives to be inherently unreliable.”

Leveson, though, found Hipwell a credible witness:

“… the Inquiry does conclude that the practice of phone hacking may well have taken place at the Mirror titles at the time Mr Hipwell was working there …”

Leveson also questioned Piers Morgan about his comment after the 2007 gaoling of News of the World royal correspondent Clive Goodman for hacking royal phones.

Morgan had been Goodman’s editor at the News of the World in 1994-1995.

“… I feel a lot of sympathy for a man who has been the convenient fall guy for an investigative practice that everyone knows was going on at every paper in Fleet Street for years.” 

Morgan told Leveson he was talking about the “rumour mill” at the time — and that phone hacking wasn’t happening at the Daily Mirror.

Leveson was caustic:

“This was not, in any sense at all, a convincing answer.”

“Overall, Mr Morgan’s attempt to push back from his own bullish statement to the Press Gazette was utterly unpersuasive.”

♦♦♦

MORE AND more evidence is emerging about the “dark arts” at the Daily Mirror.

So far Operation Golding, the Scotland Yard operation into phone hacking at the Mirror Group, has seen 15 journalists — including Piers Morgan — questioned under caution. 

The investigation continues.

Scores of civil claims are also generating large amounts of information.

In May Mr Justice Mann ordered the Mirror group to pay eight victims a massive £1.2 million in damages.

MIRROR, MIRROR THERE ARE two Piers Morgans. Photo: PA

MIRROR, MIRROR
THERE ARE two Piers Morgans. There’s the brash tabloid editor with the big mouth who’s made a large number of comments making it clear he knew all about the “dark arts” when he was the paper’s editor. And then there’s the innocent journalist who claims he’s been misunderstood — he’s actually a high-minded, ethical editor. If these terrible things happened on his watch, he certainly didn’t authorise them …
Photo: PA / Graphic: Terry Evans, Wheelbarrow Studios

Six were victims of the Daily Mirror during Piers Morgan’s tenure — including the actress Sadie Frost and the footballer Paul Gascoigne.

The judgment also revealed that the Mirror papers:

“admitted paying over £2.25 million (in over 13,000 invoices) to certain named private eyes in the years from 2000 to 2007.”

Mr Justice Mann noted that the Mirror’s legal team acknowledged:

“that ‘an unquantifiable but substantial’ number of the inquiries made of the agents is likely to have been to obtain private information that could not be obtained lawfully.”

♦♦♦

© Press Gang
Published: 29 June 2015

♦♦♦

NOTES

1  Many of the examples where Piers Morgan is alleged to have made statements indicating he knew about phone hacking have been left out of this article. They are all well known and including them would have made the piece too long.

2  There are reporting restrictions in the recent civil case against the Mirror group. Mr Justice Mann ordered the names of several journalists should be redacted — apparently because they are the subject of active police inquiries.

3  A more detailed analysis of Mr Justice Mann’s decision will be included in a planned article — The Mirror: Crack’d From Side To Side — about the group’s disastrous management of the scandal.

4  Since the Mann judgment opens the way to everyone targeted by the Daily Mirror, a full list of all those whose names are included in the Southern Investigations invoices will be added to this post later. They include, for example, the environmental activist Daniel “Swampy” Hooper as well as scores of ordinary people …

♦♦♦

COMING UP 
A SLICKER FULL OF LIES
THE STORY of Piers Morgan’s involvement in the “Slickergate Affair” of 2000 makes sobering reading. There is evidence that Morgan sacrificed two of his journalists to save his own skin — and that senior Mirror Group managers were in on the plot. The attempt to spin the truth of what happened even involved lying to Lord Leveson …  Part five of A Pretty Despicable Man tells the story of a deliberate corporate cover-up  … 

 ♦♦♦

JOIN THE GANGBUSTERS …
THERE’S A need for a trustworthy website to expose rogue reporters. Press Gang is that outlet — fearless and fair. Join us by becoming a gangbuster and help pay some of our expenses. Just hit the 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.

DOWN IN THE GUTTER

June 7, 2015

PIERS_MORGAN_part_3

 ON MAY 21 Mr Justice Mann delivered a damning verdict on the Mirror group. 

He found that its newspapers — the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and the People — had engaged in phone hacking and other illegal news-gathering on a massive scale.

In a test case at the High Court, he ordered the company to pay £1.2 million in damages to just eight victims.  

Six of these — including the footballer Paul Gascoigne, BBC executive Alan Yentob and the actress Sadie Frost — were also hacked by reporters working for Piers Morgan during his 1995-2004 tenure as Daily Mirror editor.

Many more cases are in the pipeline.

Morgan himself has been interviewed under caution by detectives as part of Operation Golding, the Scotland Yard inquiry into phone hacking at the group.

Press Gang continues its investigation of the former tabloid editor with a revealing tale of the Daily Mirror’s intrusion into the private life of television newsreader Kirsty Young.

♦♦♦

IN 2009 Piers Morgan was put on the spot about his knowledge of the “dark arts” — including phone hacking — at the Mirror.

He was a guest on the BBC Desert Island Discs programme in June that year.

Presenter Kirsty Young asked him:

“And what about this nice middle-class boy who would have to be dealing with, I mean, essentially people who rake through people’s bins for a living?

KIRSTY YOUNG  THE SCOTTISH journalist's interview with Piers Morgan on Desert Island Discs in 2009 has proved to be a serious embarrassment for the former Mirror editor. Photo: PA

KIRSTY YOUNG
THE SCOTTISH journalist’s interview with Piers Morgan on Desert Island Discs in 2009 has proved a serious embarrassment for the former Daily Mirror editor.
Photo: PA

“People who tap people’s phones, people who take secret photographs… who do all that very nasty down-in-the-gutter stuff — how did you feel about that?”

Morgan was clear:

“Well, let’s put that into perspective …”

“Not a lot of that went on …”

“A lot of it was done by third parties, rather than the staff themselves …”

“That’s not to defend it, because obviously you were running the results of their work.”

“I’m quite happy … to have to sit here defending all these things I used to get up to …”

“I make no pretence about the stuff we used to do.”

“I simply say the net of people doing it was very wide …”

These comments echoed his views when News of the World royal correspondent Clive Goodman was gaoled for hacking royal phones in 2007.

Morgan — who had been Goodman’s editor at the News of the World in 1995 — told trade journal Press Gazette he had a lot of sympathy for Goodman:

“… a man who has been the convenient fall guy for an investigative practice that everyone knows was going on at almost every paper in Fleet Street for years.” 

But he suddenly changed his tune after the revelation, in July 2011, that murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler’s phone had been hacked. 

When the U.S. Daily Beast website resurrected his Desert Island Discs comments, Morgan was emphatic.

He told the Beast:

REVISIONISM AS SOON as it became clear that the phone hacking scandal was going to see journalists gaoled , Piers Morgan has been trying desperately to distance himself from earlier statements which suggested he knew all about the practice ...  Photo: PA

REVISIONISM
AS SOON as it became clear that the phone hacking scandal was going to see journalists gaoled, Piers Morgan has been struggling to distance himself from earlier statements suggesting he knew all about the practice.
Photo: PA

“For the record … I have never hacked a phone, told anyone to hack a phone, or published any stories based on the hacking of a phone.”

By the time Morgan appeared before Lord Leveson in December 2011 he was claiming there’d been a misunderstanding during the Desert Island Discs recording:

“I didn’t hear her say phone-tapping.”

“She rattles off a list of stuff, and if you listen to it in real time I think you would see that.”

(Readers can judge for themselves: here’s the link to that edition of Desert Island Discs.)

But when Piers Morgan appeared on the programme, there was one thing he didn’t tell Kirsty Young.

And when he gave evidence to the Leveson Inquiry, he didn’t mention it either … 

It was that Young herself been the target of “down-in-the-gutter” tactics by Piers Morgan’s Mirror.

The story is also pregnant with the possibility it started as a result of phone-hacking … 

♦♦♦

THE TALE begins in September 1998.

On the 5th, the Mirror exclusively revealed the presenter had split up with Scottish rugby star Kenny Logan.

A week later, the Mirror found out that Young had spent the night with Nick Jones, the millionaire owner of the Soho House club.

At the time Jones had just separated from his wife.

But, for reasons that have never been explained, the paper did not splash the story at that point.

NICK JONES                                                   THE ENTREPRENEUR who founded the Soho House group, Nick Jones had just separated from his wife Tania when he met Kirsty Young. The new couple — who are now married — were targeted by Piers Morgan's Daily Mirror when their relationship began in 1998.  Photo: PA

NICK JONES
THE ENTREPRENEUR who founded the Soho House group, Jones had just separated from his wife Tania when he met Kirsty Young. The new couple — who are now married — were targeted by Piers Morgan’s Daily Mirror when their relationship began in 1998.
Photo: PA

Instead, senior Mirror journalist Gary Jones asked a private eye to organise a surveillance operation.

This was Jonathan Rees, a partner in the Southern Investigations detective agency.

Rees had been a suspect in the murder of his former partner Daniel Morgan in 1987.

(See The No 1 Corrupt Detective Agency for more details.)

On September 16, one of Rees’ “agents” used a motorbike to keep tabs on her movements.

He spent three hours and travelled 35 miles.

The next day, it was for just under three hours, clocking up 25 miles.

On September 18, it was exactly the same.

Rees charged the paper £260.25.

Again, the Mirror didn’t publish.

Again, the reasons why it hesitated have never been made clear. 

On September 22 Young was once again under observation — but not by Rees and his team.

JONATHAN REES THE CONTROVERSIAL private eye was an important cog in the Daily Mirror's illegal news-gathering operation. Rees had been a suspect in the 1987 murder of his partner Daniel Morgan and was convicted of conspiracy to plant cocaine on an innocent woman. He was given a seven year prison sentence.   Photo: PA

JONATHAN REES
THE CONTROVERSIAL private eye was an important cog in the Daily Mirror’s illegal news-gathering operation. Rees had been a suspect in the 1987 murder of his partner Daniel Morgan and was later convicted of conspiracy to plant cocaine on an innocent woman. He was given a seven year prison sentence.
Photo: PA

It seems the paper’s own reporters, convinced Young and Jones were an item, were now mounting their own surveillance operation.

On September 22 Young was followed from the studios where she’d just finished presenting the Channel 5 News.

She left the building at 7pm and was tailed to her flat in Kensington.

Nick Jones turned up and, an hour later, the pair were photographed at a local restuarant. 

They were still being watched the next morning when they had breakfast in a cafe.

The couple then travelled to Somerset to stay in the Babbington House country club near Frome, also owned by Jones’ company. 

After an overnight stay, Young caught the London train in time to read that evening’s Channel 5 News.

But it took another week before the Daily Mirror exclusively revealed — in a double page spread  on September 30 — that the couple were an item.

The piece was written by Lucy Rock and Oonagh Blackman. 

“DARK ARTS” MASTER
GARY JONES — today he’s executive editor of the Sunday Mirror — was one of the key figures in the illegal news-gathering activities at the Daily Mirror. A former crime reporter on the News of the World when Piers Morgan was editor in 1994-199, he moved to the Mirror in 1996.

So why did it take the Mirror so long to make its dramatic revelation?

The paper sat on the information for at least a week — and possibly a fortnight.

The story was tabloid dynamite and every day the Mirror risked being scooped by one of its rivals. 

Surveillance has never been illegal and — at that time — listening to phone messages was not unlawful.

But paying someone to blag confidential details of phone numbers and PIN codes was a criminal offence.

Was this the original source of the story — and the paper was desperate to find alternative sources for the story?

Former Daily Mirror reporter James Hipwell claims that, by mid-1999, phone hacking was “rife” and “endemic” at the paper, especially on its showbiz desk.

Even though Hipwell was gaoled for insider dealing at the paper in 2000, his testimony was considered reliable by Lord Leveson — and by Mr Justice Mann in last month’s civil case. 

♦♦♦

WE ASKED all those involved in the Kirsty Young story to comment. 

Gary Jones, the senior journalist who asked Jonathan Rees to carry out the surveillance operation, didn’t reply.

He’s been named in several Press Gang articles but doesn’t answer our emails. 

JAMES HIPWELL THE FORMER Mirror financial reporter claims that phone hacking started at the Daily Mirror in mid-1999. Although he was gaoled for insider dealing at the Daily Mirror, judges — including Lord Leveson and Mr Justice Mann, have believed his testimony. Photo: PA

JAMES HIPWELL
THE FORMER Daily Mirror financial reporter claims that phone hacking started at the paper in mid-1999. Although he was gaoled for insider dealing at the Daily Mirror, judges — including Lord Leveson and Mr Justice Mann — have believed his testimony.
Photo: PA

We have not been able to contact Oonagh Blackman, one of the reporters who wrote the exposé of Kirsty Young and Nick Jones’ relationship.

We emailed the other by-lined journalist, Lucy Rock — now news editor at The Observer.

She told us:

“I was asked by the newsdesk to ‘doorstep’ those involved.” 

“I don’t know where the tip came from, but there was never any suggestion of phone hacking.”

“Indeed, I heard no mention of this practice during my time at The Mirror.”  

We were unable to reach Piers Morgan.

He’s never answered any of our emails. 

We left a message with Nick Jones, Kirsty Young’s husband, at Soho House.

He didn’t come back to us.

♦♦♦

IN 2005 Piers Morgan published his best-selling memoirs, The Insider.

It’s an account of his years as editor of the News of the World (1994-1995) and Daily Mirror (1995-2004).

There’s not a word about the “dark arts” practiced at the Daily Mirror

In the late 1990s anti-corruption detectives at Scotland Yard launched Operation Two Bridges against Jonathan Rees and his Southern Investigations private detective agency.

They wanted information about Rees’ attempts to corrupt serving police officers — and about his alleged involvement in the 1987 murder of his partner Daniel Morgan.

Invoices seized from Southern Investigations during Operation Two Bridges show the firm was a key element in Piers Morgan’s editorial strategy.

INSIDER SECRETS PIERS MORGAN published his memoirs — The Insider — but there's no mention of the

INSIDER SECRETS
PIERS MORGAN published his memoirs — The Insider — in 2005 but there’s no mention of the “dark arts” used at the Daily Mirror
Photo; PA

In August 2011 BBC economics editor Robert Peston obtained a set of these invoices.

He revealed that, between October 1997 and September 1999, the Mirror group used Jonathan Rees on 230 occasions.

Peston calculated that the Daily and Sunday Mirror paid Rees just under £67,000.

Many of these were simple “fishing expeditions” — finding out about famous people’s financial affairs.

Often the information was not newsworthy — and nothing appeared in the Daily Mirror.

Press Gang has also obtained a set of these invoices.

Here are some of the entries that could have gone into Piers Morgan’s diaries — if he’d decided to tell the truth about what the Daily Mirror was really up to …

20 May 1998  The Mirror’s Gary Jones ordered “confidential enquiries” on “Emma Noble”, then girlfriend of former Prime Minister John Major’s son. No private information appeared in the paper. Cost: £282.

13 July 1998  In another fishing expedition, Gary Jones asked Jonathan Rees to obtain “bankers details” on No 10 advisor Roger Liddle and lobbyist Derek Draper. The two men were suspected of selling access to Labour ministers. The cost — £662.47.

21 Sept 1998  Arthur Scargill’s wife, Dr Margaret Scargill, was the target. Gary Jones spent £403.37 on “bankers details”. Nothing appeared in the paper. 

THE FORMer English rugby srar, hacked by the Mirror.

WILL CARLING
THE FORMER captain of the England rugby team, Carling was blagged by the Daily Mirror in 1998. The paper published details of his bank account and mortgage.
Photo: PA

6 Oct 1998  The paper paid Jonathan Rees £677.97 to dig out personal information on Will Carling. The former England rugby international was in the news because he’d left his wife. Gary Jones ordered the search for “Financial / Company Information” which was extracted from “RBS, Abbey National”. The bill was £677.97. 
    This time personal information was published. In a long piece written by Gary Jones, Colin Price and Oonagh Blackman on October 7, two quotes stand out. One says: “Last month Carling took £5,000 in salary from the business to pay his mortgage.” One of his companies — Inspirational Horizons — “has just £1,500 in its account”. This could have come from his RBS bank account. 
    The second states: “The star, who has a £400,000 mortgage on the five bedroom property, needs to find more than £2,800 a month in repayments.” Did this come from his Abbey National mortgage? Will Carling told us
 he did not want to comment. 

19 Oct 1998  Jonathan Rees sent Gary Jones two bills relating to an investigation of the business affairs of TV presenter Anthea Turner’s then boyfriend Grant Bovey. Turner had left her husband the previous January and moved in with Bovey. The first invoice, for £500, was for “confidential enquiries” about Bovey and his wife. The second — “undertaking detailed financial searches” into Bovey — was worth £569. The total was £1,069.
A double page spread had appeared on Bovey’s affairs four days earlier. The piece — written by Gary Jones, Matthew Wright and Oonagh Blackman— stated Bovey’s bankers were “calling for crisis talks to discuss his personal problems.” “They have told him to stop issuing cheques after running up an overdraft of nearly £16,000.” This information could have been blagged from Bovey’s bank.

PETER MANDELSON   THE LABOUR minister was another victim of the Daily Mirror. He resigned as Trade Secretary in December 1998 after it was revealed he'd failed to declare a £378,000 personal loan from fellow minister Geoffrey Robinson. The day before his resignation the Mirror's Gary Jones asked Jonathan Rees to blag details of the Trade Minister's bank and mortgage accounts. The Mirror revealed Mandelson had £50,000 in a Coutts account — and that his £150,000 mortgage with the Britannia Building Society cost £1,000 a month. According to the BBC's Robert Peston, the Mandelson operation cost the Mirror £1,116.  Photo: PA

PETER MANDELSON
THE LABOUR minister was another victim of the Daily Mirror. He resigned as Trade Secretary in December 1998 after it was revealed he’d failed to declare a £378,000 personal loan from fellow minister Geoffrey Robinson. The day before his resignation the Mirror’s Gary Jones asked Jonathan Rees to blag details of the Trade Minister’s bank and mortgage accounts. The Mirror revealed Mandelson had £50,000 in a Coutts account — and that his £150,000 mortgage with the Britannia Building Society cost £1,000 a month. According to the BBC’s Robert Peston, the Mandelson operation cost the Mirror £1,116.
Photo: PA

4 Jan 1999  Gary Jones paid Jonathan Rees £499.37 to find information about Alistair Campbell, Prime Minister Tony Blair’s press secretary. No personal financial details appeared in the Mirror. The cost was £499.37.

15 Mar 1999   The Mirror pays £264.37 for information about Mick Jagger — no confidential material appeared in the paper.

♦♦♦

ALL OF these individuals have grounds for suing the Daily Mirror.

Their chances of success have been strengthened by last month’s verdict in the eight “sample” cases heard by Mr Justice Mann.

The judge ruled that, even for those whose confidential details were never published in the newspaper, damages can be awarded.

His judgment also reveals the extraordinary scale of illegal newsgathering —  the “dark arts” — at the Mirror and its stablemates.

CROCODILE CONTRITION  THE MIRROR'S limited apology published in February this year — more than a decade after the paper began phone hacking. In the civil case last month, Mr Justice Mann considered this to be a

CROCODILE CONTRITION
THE MIRROR’S limited apology published in February this year — more than 15 years after the paper began phone hacking. In the civil case last month, Mr Justice Mann considered this to be motivated by “tactical” legal reasons rather than genuine “contrition” …

Up to now, for example, Press Gang has only been aware of two private eyes who were used by the papers.

They are Jonathan Rees of Southern Investigations in the years up to 1999 and Steve Whittamore in the early 2000s.

The BBC revealed that the Daily and Sunday Mirror spent £67,000 with Southern Investigations between 1997 and 1999. 

An analysis by ITV News showed that the Daily Mirror paid Steve Whittamore at least £92,000 up until his arrest in March 2003.

That makes a total of £159,000.

But the Mann verdict reveals this was just the tip of the iceberg.

Judge Mann noted that the Mirror papers:

“admitted paying over £2.25 million (in over 13,000 invoices) to certain named private eyes in the years from 2000 to 2007.”  

“The total covers a lot of agents, and some of their work may have been legitimate.”

But the judge added that the Mirror’s legal team:

“has admitted that ‘an unquantifiable but substantial’ number of the inquiries made of the agents is likely to have been to obtain private information that could not be obtained lawfully.” 

In other words, illegal news-gathering — including but not limited to phone hacking — was taking place on a colossal scale at the group.

♦♦♦

Published: 7 June 2015
© Press Gang 

♦♦♦

NOTES

1  There are reporting restrictions in the recent civil case against the Mirror group. Mr Justice Mann has ordered the names of several journalists should be redacted — apparently because they are the subject of active police inquiries.

2  A more detailed analysis of Mr Justice Mann’s decision will be included in a planned article — The Mirror: Crack’d From Side To Side — about the group’s disastrous management of the scandal.

3  Since the Mann judgment opens the way to everyone targeted by the Daily Mirror, a full list of all those whose names are included in the Southern Investigations invoices will be added to this post later. They include, for example, the environmental activist Daniel “Swampy” Hooper as well as scores of ordinary people …

♦♦♦

COMING UP 
DIAL M FOR MORGAN
THE JUDGE in last month’s civil case against the Mirror group accepted that phone hacking became a key feature of the papers in mid-1999. In part four of A Pretty Despicable Man Press Gang presents cast-iron evidence Daily Mirror reporters were hacking the phones of senior politicians a year earlier…

 ♦♦♦

JOIN THE GANGBUSTERS …
THERE’S A need for a trustworthy website to expose rogue reporters. Press Gang is that outlet — fearless and fair. Join us by becoming a gangbuster and help pay some of our expenses. Just hit the 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.