Detective Arrested For 'Leaking Hacking Info'

Detective Arrested For 'Leaking Hacking Info'

news.sky.com

A Scotland Yard detective has been arrested for allegedly leaking information about the hacking inquiry to The Guardian.

He has been arrested on suspicion of misconduct in a public office relating to the "unauthorised disclosure of information", Scotland Yard said.

The 51-year-old was arrested at work on Thursday afternoon and has been bailed until September 29 pending further inquiries.

He was suspended from his job on Friday.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Now I don't know if he took payments from the Guardian for leaking this information, because it doesn't say, therefore I will assume he didn't.

It's staggering that the Met have put so much effort into finding this mole, but by their own admission, officers were taking payments from News International for information relating to stories they were investigaing. Back in July it was claimed that there were so many officers receiving back handers that it was probably impossible to catch them all. My guess is that they will not be making much of an effort to catch them either.

This week the commissioner and assitant commissioners involved in the 'Phone Hacking' scandal were all cleared of any wrong doing, and are free to go about their business despite receiving hospitality from News International. These were all involved in the initial and subsequent phone hacking investigations. They have managed to catch the mole and no doubt he will now experience the ramifications of his wrongdoing.

In my opinion this guy did the right thing. If it wasn't for him we probably would have never got to hear about half the victims of this scandal, as it would have very likely been swept under the carpet. Just like it was in the previous investigations.

I applaud this officer, who did a very public service, just as long as he didn't receive payment.



news.sky.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

It was my understanding, at least here in the states at least, that police officers or detectives leaked information all the time, but under the condition of anonymity. I am wondering if this person was supposed to have remained an anonymous source, and if not, why? Why would anyone take that risk, especially someone this experienced and with so much to lose? Money? It is a good motivator, so that would be my guess...Unless he simply told them thinking he would remain anonymous, in which case he may have done it for free.

reply to post by JiggyPotamus


I don't know if it was money motivated or if he did it out of moral duty.

The previous investigations were a shambles and there was evidence of wrong doing, but I think palms were greased and most of it brushed under the carpet, i.e never exposed.

The investigation was re-opened and evidence did come to light that the extent of hacking was so prevelant that it is apparent that officers on the original investigations must have known about it.

Accustaions are flying left right and centre and the Murdochs must have known about it but chose to lie about it at the recent commons enquiry.

I guess my main concern in all of this is the fact that time and resources were spent in finding who was leaking the information to the Guardian, yet all the detectives and senior officers involved in the original investigations apparently have nothing to answer to, despite the admission of payments being made by News International.

reply to post by JiggyPotamus


Leaking investigation info in the US can actually lead to a criminal offense, especially if it falls under hindering prosecution, witness / victim tampering, tampering with evidence, obstructing etc... Its also possible to contaminate the investigation so badly that the PA would be unable to file charges / make it impossible to prosecute.

At that point your also hitting civil rights violations.

Im not sure how the UK works, but since the US policing foundations as well as criminal prosecution came from them, I cant see it being to far off.

In the UK case I can see both sides of the story... The officer who came forward, at least in my opinion, would be a whistle blower to one extent, and criminally liable to the other.

In addition to the hacking cases, the Crown Prosecutor should investigate the police department for taking the money.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I too can see both sides of the story and imo if he did not receive payment for passing on the information, he should not have been arrested. It would be a terms of employment issue and therefore he should be suspended until an internal ivestigation is carried out. I would class him as a whistleblower at best. I would also go as far to say that he felt the current investigation would not result in any of this becoming public knowledge without undertaking the actions he followed.

I am just hilighting the fact that during the commons hearing, it has been admitted that corruption in the Metroplolitan Police is rife. If this is the case, I would suggest that an enquiry and full investigation is undertaken to find these officers and bring criminal charges accordingly.

I would also suggest that the courts treat these officers with just as mush disdain as the people who have been charged and found guilty of criminality during the recent looting in the U.K.

If you can imprison someone for 4 years for encouraging looting (even though no one showed up), then those officers caught and charged should face at least 10 years in prison. Somehow, I feel this will not happen.