‘Yates of the Yard’ should have listened to Huhne on ‘Hackgate’

Today’s Telegraph carries an interview with the Metropolitan Police’s Assistant Commissioner John Yates with a full mea culpa for his failure to get to grips with British journalism’s criminal free-for-all. As the paper notes:

Mr Yates had the opportunity to reopen the case in 2009 but chose not to do so after just eight hours’ consideration, including consultations with other senior detectives and Crown Prosecution lawyers. … In his interview, Mr Yates addresses last week’s revelation that Glenn Mulcaire, a private investigator working for the News of the World, had allegedly hacked into teenage murder victim Milly Dowler’s mobile phone and then deleted messages. … “My byword has always been you look after the victims and the job will always resolve itself. I always put the victim first but here I didn’t follow my principle and that is my greatest regret.”

In the interview itself, published here, he is even blunter:

“If I had known then what I know now of course we’d have widened it. I could have handed it over to the specialist crime directorate.” The decision, he admitted, “was a pretty crap one”.

Fair play to him for the admission, and hindsight is, of course, all too easy. Nonetheless, it’s not as if his decision at the time was uncontroversial. As I noted here — Huhne calls for independent inquiry into newspapers’ phone tapping — on Lib Dem Voice two years ago, following Nick Davies’s original Guardian revelations, the party’s then shadow home secretary wrote to Mr Yates’s boss, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson, to call for an independent inquiry into the allegations.

You can read Chris’s full letter at the link above, but here’s a section from it:

… I am concerned that [the Met’s specialist operations] department that may have failed in its duty to investigate some serious crimes is now being asked to investigate whether there has been any neglect of duty. After all, one of the clear issues here is whether the department merely dropped matters after prosecuting Clive Goodman because that had effectively ended the Royal connection, and its remit does not normally include many others who, if the reports are correct, were also bugged by newspapers or investigators working on their behalf. Why did prosecutions not take place? Why were the victims of bugging not informed? These are matters that the Metropolitan Police must answer.

Yes, they’re matters the Met must answer, and will now have to — but two years later than they should have.

Read more by or more about , , , or .
This entry was posted in News.

One Comment

  • Paul Holmes 10th Jul '11 - 2:20pm

    Absolutely correct, Chris was playing a blinder on this issue as on so many and I seem to recall Nick having a go too. But that was before the 2010 election -afterwards all went quite because of the ‘not a cigarette paper between us’ approach adopted in the first year of the Coalition with the disastrous electoral results we saw in May.

    Now I can understand that Cabinet Ministers would have to be restrained from publicly attacking Cameron’s spin doctor (Coulson), and Cameron’s mates at News International. But the attack lines/role could have been handed to others as is now belatedly happening (post May), on various issues via for example the Party President and Deputy Leader. We also have a lot of extremely able backbenchers who could be utilised far more but were kept out of the loop in Opposition let alone in Government.

    Before anyone points it out I of course know that Labour were even more rubbish on the issue both in Government for the years from when the story first broke in 2006 to 2010 and in opposition for the last year. Only very recently have they (thankfully) jumped on the opportunity to have the first proper crack at the abuse of power by a media that has dominated since the 1970’s.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • David Bertram
    Measure is fundamentally illiberal, will foster a black market and achieves nothing significant that a rise in age of purchase to 21 wouldn't. Making something ...
  • David Evans
    Peter (Martin), I think you are focusing too much on one aspect of fine detail in the report and assuming/implying that it is all that Sarah Olney is saying....
  • Chris Lewcock
    Does your Local Authority and local Police Force have the resources to police such a ban and/or what priority do you expect them to give it?...
  • Tristan Ward
    Can't agree that Lib Dems should support Sunack's proposals. 1. We look very silly also supporting the decriminalisation of cannabis etc Adults ultimate...
  • Peter Martin
    @ Mick Taylor, "I have absolutely no time for the politics of Angela Rayner........" Just what, exactly, would they be, Mick ? Which ones do yo...