Green leak detective could be prosecuted

The retired detective who leaked sensitive private information from the Damian Green inquiry could face prosecution, it emerged last night

The retired detective who leaked sensitive private information from the Damian Green inquiry could face prosecution, it emerged last night.

Neil Lewis, 48, is at the centre of an urgent Scotland Yard anti-corruption probe after accusing Theresa May’s deputy of lying.

Mr Lewis sparked a storm of controversy last week after disclosing confidential information gathered during an investigation nine years ago into Mr Green.

He said he found thousands of thumbnail pornographic images on computers in Mr Green’s Commons office in 2008 and accused him of being responsible for downloading them, which the First Secretary of State strongly denies.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has repeatedly said police officers and staff must never abuse their access to highly sensitive personal information.

Last night, one legal expert said she would be very surprised if a criminal case cannot be brought against Mr Lewis, adding that he may have committed offences under data protection, computer misuse and even theft legislation.

And police watchdog Sir Tom Winsor, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, has accused Mr Lewis of actions which ‘flagrantly violate’ the trust ordinary people put in officers investigating sensitive crimes.

Sir Tom said the public must be reassured that when sensitive information comes into police hands its ‘private nature will be respected in perpetuity’.

He said that if trust between police and public is damaged it may lead to ‘great harm’ to ‘public safety and justice’.

Neil Lewis (pictured), 48, is at the centre of an urgent Scotland Yard anti-corruption probe after accusing Theresa May’s deputy of lying

Neil Lewis (pictured), 48, is at the centre of an urgent Scotland Yard anti-corruption probe after accusing Theresa May’s deputy of lying

‘That trust requires every police officer to respect and keep confidential information which they obtain in the course of their duties and which is irrelevant to their inquiries and discloses no criminal conduct,’ he said.

‘If a police officer broke that trust whilst serving as a police officer, he or she would face disciplinary action and could be dismissed. In certain circumstances, such action could also constitute a criminal offence.

‘The obligation of confidentiality, and the duty not to break trust, is an enduring one. It does not end when a police officer retires.’

He added: ‘Almost all police officers – serving and retired – would deprecate actions which flagrantly violate the trust which every citizen should have in the police.’

Dozens of police officers have been prosecuted in recent years for breaching the Data Protection Act and other offences by illicitly accessing private information.

Mr Lewis levelled a series of allegations at Mr Green during an extended interview with the BBC.

Police watchdog Sir Tom Winsor, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, has accused Mr Lewis of actions which ‘flagrantly violate’ the trust ordinary people put in officers

Police watchdog Sir Tom Winsor, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, has accused Mr Lewis of actions which ‘flagrantly violate’ the trust ordinary people put in officers

The former detective constable was responsible for seizing and analysing the then shadow immigration minister’s computers during a 2008 inquiry which culminated in a raid on his Parliamentary office.

Mr Lewis admitted it was impossible to say who was sitting at the computer as it was used. And he did not bother reporting his concerns to senior officers at the time as they were ‘irrelevant’ to the wider inquiry into Home Office leaks.

He also confessed to holding on to his police notebook and evidence bags from the inquiry, despite the fact they remained police property. 

And he confirmed that he retained a cloned copy of Mr Green’s computer hard drive knowing that the pornography data could be recovered, despite being ordered to destroy it. His actions sent shockwaves through policing amid fears they could undermine the public’s confidence in police.

Yesterday former Home Secretary Lord Howard said he supported others who have condemned the leaking of information. 

Bob Quick is the former senior officer who oversaw the ill-fated 2008 leak inquiry. Mr Quick is accused of harbouring a grudge against Mr Green and other senior Conservatives

Bob Quick is the former senior officer who oversaw the ill-fated 2008 leak inquiry. Mr Quick is accused of harbouring a grudge against Mr Green and other senior Conservatives

‘I think that is a very serious matter indeed,’ he told the BBC’s Sunday Politics show. ‘Policing in this country is based on trust between the police and the public.

‘If we have retired police officers leaking confidential information of this kind it will be very damaging to that trust.’ 

Tory MP Dominic Grieve, a former attorney general, lashed out at Mr Lewis and Bob Quick, the former senior officer who oversaw the ill-fated 2008 leak inquiry. Mr Quick is accused of harbouring a grudge against Mr Green and other senior Conservatives. 

Mr Grieve said if either man believed they had relevant information they should have gone to Scotland Yard or the Cabinet Office. 

Retired top officer Tim Brain, a former Gloucestershire chief constable, said he had no problem with Mr Lewis’s actions and he too had retained police paperwork.

The Data Protection Act makes it an offence, punishable by an unlimited fine, to improperly disclose personal information held on police systems.

Last night, the Information Commissioner’s Office said its officials are ready to advise colleagues at the Metropolitan Police as their inquiry progresses. He said: ‘We are not currently looking into this matter but will consider any complaint or referral if we receive one.’

The rules every officer swears to obey

Here, Chief Crime Correspondent CHRIS GREENWOOD explains the rules and regulations covering police officers’ conduct as sworn servants of the Crown.

Attestation

When police constables take office they swear an oath known as an ‘attestation’, pledging to uphold the highest standards. It sets out how they will behave with ‘fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality’ while ‘upholding fundamental human rights’.

All police officers know they must do nothing that could jeopardise the special trust the public places in them.

Police misconduct

Every police officer is bound by rigorous rules of conduct that can lead to dismissal if breached. Hundreds have been sacked for improperly disclosing information obtained from police systems to friends, acquaintances or on social media.

Any suspected breach is considered by professional standards colleagues who examine issues including the motive behind the disclosure and the impact on the victim.

Only serving officers are subject to misconduct rules. Retired officers can be investigated but not forced to attend a disciplinary panel.

Code of Ethics

The College of Policing issued a code of ethics for police officers in 2014 . It says: ‘I will treat information with respect, and access or disclose it only in the proper course of my duties.’ Officers are told they must ‘maintain confidentiality’ and ‘not disclose information, on or off duty, to unauthorised recipients’.

Official Secrets Act

Police officers do not sign the Official Secrets Act 1989 but are bound by it when handling the most sensitive information. It makes it an offence for a Crown servant to disclose information that could damage national security and intelligence, defence or international relations.

The maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment but it is unlikely the information in Mr Green’s case qualifies.

Data Protection Act

Improperly disclosing personal information, including that held on police systems, could be an offence under section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998.

Dozens of police officers, serving and retired, and other public servants have been charged with offences under this legislation. The maximum penalty is an unlimited fine. There are several defences, including public interest.

Other laws

A gross breach of privacy using sensitive police information could break any number of laws, not least the common law offence of breach of confidence.

The act of retaining data when told to destroy it or manipulating that information could be seen as misconduct in a public office. This common law offence, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, applies to public officials only and their actions while in office.

Crown Prosecution Service guidelines say it must involve a ‘serious departure from acceptable standards’ and there must be ‘no reasonable excuse’. The unauthorised access of computer material could be an offence under the Computer Misuse Act 1990. With a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment, it is designed to protect computer users against attacks and theft of their information.

Officials could also examine whether any disclosure involves offences under the Theft Act if documents, evidence or computer material was taken without authority.

Europe

From March, all organisations will face a tougher regime on private information. The UK will adopt European legislation that includes a broader interpretation of what personal data is and bigger fines. Personal breaches must be reported if there is a risk to ‘rights and freedoms’. This will supersede the Data Protection Act.

 



Read more at DailyMail.co.uk