Phone hacking scandal deepens

[Jan Klimkowski]

The senior barrister, who was "gatekeeper" to the inquiry and had a huge influence over what evidence was made public, wanted to "make clear" that he and Lord Justice Leveson were "never shown" the intelligence report until "well after" it could have been used.
He added: "The Met is claiming public interest immunity in relation to any police intelligence report, the contents of which are neither confirmed nor denied.
"I also owe continuing obligations of confidence to the Met and others in relation to information I received during the course of the inquiry. These factors have at all stages limited what I am able to place in the public domain, and continue to do so."

This completely, fatally, undermines the Leveson inquiry.

On what basis can evidence that a very senior police officer sold information to a newspaper be withheld on the basis of PUBLIC INTEREST IMMUNITY, and POLICE INTELLIGENCE?

It looks as if police intelligence established that a police officer was corrupt but this evidence could not be shared with a public inquiry because this was not in the public interest and was police intelligence....

:pinkelephant: :flypig:

Since the inquiry effectively exonerated Scotland Yard, police across the country have launched a crackdown on the media.

Dozens of journalists have been arrested, as have police officers and other public servants accused of leaking information, even when no money changed hands.

Bob Quick, Scotland Yard's former head of counter-terrorism operations, said he was 'surprised' the report was not examined during the inquiry.

He told the Evening Standard: 'The contents of this intelligence report, if true, are disturbing.

'When it was discovered, it was swiftly and properly handed over to the Met prior to the Leveson hearings and I am surprised its content was not subject of some examination during the inquiry.'

A Met spokesman said: 'The intelligence report referred to dates from 2006. It did not identify an individual as the source of information allegedly being disclosed from the Met management board and it was not considered that it warranted further action.

'Intelligence reports may contain sensitive information and this document was therefore shared with the inquiry on a confidential basis.

'The Met will neither confirm nor deny whether Public Interest Immunity was sought in relation to any material provided to the inquiry. It was not for the Met to determine what was or was not put to any witnesses or used as evidence.'