Phone hacking scandal deepens

[Jan Klimkowski]

More.

It is very hard to conceive of a legitimate reason for the Serious & Organised Crime Agency to suppress this material and Leveson to decide "not to consider it".

The dossier was finally handed to the Home Affairs Select Committee on Tuesday evening.

But, to the fury of MPs, Soca is insisting that it must be kept locked in a safe and elected representatives will not be allowed to discuss its contents.

Soca's explanation for not publishing the list of private firms and individuals it knew to be embroiled with private investigators is that it could cause them commercial damage and breach their human rights.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

How banks and drug giants 'hired rogue detectives': Blue chip firms among 102 named in crime agency dossier

Banks and pharmaceutical companies included on the Soca dossier
The list was suppressed by Soca and not considered at Leveson Inquiry
Dossier fuels concern that actions of businesses haven't been investigated

By James Slack and Jack Doyle

PUBLISHED: 01:55, 25 July 2013 | UPDATED: 01:55, 25 July 2013

Daily Mail

Banks and pharmaceutical companies are included on an explosive list of blue-chip businesses that employed private detectives who acted unlawfully.

They feature prominently in the dossier of 102 private firms and individuals, which was compiled by the UK's leading crime fighting agency as long ago as 2008.

The document was suppressed by the Serious Organised Crime Agency and not considered as evidence by the Leveson Inquiry into Press standards and practice, which looked at phone hacking.

Hidden: The dossier was kept under wraps by SOCA and not considered as evidence by the Leveson Inquiry into phone hacking

The revelation will fuel concerns that law enforcement agencies failed to investigate big business properly as well as law firms while turning savagely on the Press.

Banking and pharmaceuticals are two of the largest sectors of the UK economy. Last night Keith Vaz, chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, which has finally been handed the list by Soca on condition of secrecy, said: This affects all manner of organisations.'

It comes as ministers, unimpressed by Soca's handling of the secret' hacking scandal, prepare to ban the shady private detectives who have been unlawfully supplying businesses with sensitive personal information.

The Mail can reveal that ministers will shortly unveil the first ever statutory licensing regime for private detectives.

PROBE INTO SOCA BOSS
Sir Ian Andrews - Chair (Non-Executive of SOCA)

The head of the Serious Organised Crime Agency faces an investigation into an alleged conflict of interest over his wife's role in a private security firm, it emerged last night.

Sir Ian Andrews, the chairman of Soca, has refused to publish a list of private firms and individuals who hired corrupt private investigators.

On Tuesday it emerged that his wife Moira is a senior figure at the Good Governance Group (G3) a global security and investigations firm.

The matter had been referred by Home Secretary Theresa May to her most senior mandarin, who is responsible for issues of propriety and ethics' within the department.

Sir Ian failed to disclose his wife's job when giving evidence about private investigators to a MPs last month.

Soca said he did not consider there to be a conflict of interest'.

At present, there is nothing in law to distinguish companies that pursue legitimate business activities from corrupt operatives'.

The new regime is being hammered out by officials, and will be unveiled by ministers shortly.

But anybody wishing to carry out detective work is expected to be forced to pass a fit and proper' test. Those with criminal convictions would be screened out.

Investigators would also have to prove they had the skills to do the job properly, and understood the law.

Private investigators will be subject to a strict code of conduct. Anybody breaching data protection laws would be struck off.

Law firms and insurers would then have no excuse for using an investigator who was not licensed.

The law will be written to exclude legitimate investigative work by journalists from the new rules. The revelations come amid mounting anger at Westminster over the way Soca has dealt with its dossier.

Senior officials failed to pass the details of the widespread malpractice on to ministers deciding the terms of the Leveson Inquiry.

Yesterday Damian Green, the policing minister, revealed he had still not seen the confidential report despite it being compiled by Soca in 2008.

Officials later confirmed no serving minister had seen the report.

The dossier was finally handed to the Home Affairs Select Committee on Tuesday evening.

But, to the fury of MPs, Soca is insisting that it must be kept locked in a safe and elected representatives will not be allowed to discuss its contents.

Soca's explanation for not publishing the list of private firms and individuals it knew to be embroiled with private investigators is that it could cause them commercial damage and breach their human rights.

Investigators say the firms would not necessarily have known that the private eyes were going to break the law on their behalf.

But this has sparked incredulity among some MPs. They say that law firms, in particular, should have questioned where the information they were receiving was coming from.

Concern: Last night Keith Vaz, chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, which has finally been handed the list by Soca on condition of secrecy, said: ¿This affects all manner of organisations'

Mark Lewis, the lawyer who represents the family of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler, whose phone was hacked by News of the World journalists, said: Consistency demands that the same rules apply to all, whether you run a newspaper, a pharmaceutical company or a law firm.

As soon as you depart from the equal applicability of law to all, then the law really does become an ass.'

Tory MP James Clappison, who sits on the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: This vast intrusion into peoples' lives is unacceptable.

'It appears to be worse than the phone-hacking scandal, yet nothing has been done about it.

If the police and Soca aren't going to pursue the matter, the committee should ensure openness and transparency and make this information available to the public.'