Jack the Ripper: The Secret Police Files (42 page)

Prior to the commencement of the hearing I made an application to the judge that all police witnesses should remain outside the hearing prior to them giving evidence. This is not normal practice for these types of hearing however, under the circumstances I felt it right to make the request having regard for the fact that some of my questions would be directed at all of the witnesses individually and felt that if they knew what questions were coming and how other witnesses had answered it might prejudice my case. Despite objections from the two barristers representing the police and the information commissioners the judge allowed my request.

Eventually the hearing got under way. The first witness called by the police was Yvette Arnold. She was in charge of the maintenance, management and retention of Special Branch files and more up to date files of SO 15, which is the new name for Special Branch (Counter terrorism). She had also been called as a witness in the previous Butterworth hearing.

Her main testimony related to the internal Special Branch memos going back to 2003 which I have previously referred to and other correspondence attached to those memos. These showed she had been involved in the proposed change of the police policy regarding not retaining the identities of informants forever.

In evidence she stated that she was not aware of the existence of the register and the ledgers until 2003 when Clutterbuck drew her attention to them. She stated that to that very day she did not know where they had come from. She firmly stated that in any event Clutterbuck would not have had any permission to access these records or to publish anything from within them without special permission.

Furthermore, she stated that following her being made aware of the existence of these records she did not have any conversation with Clutterbuck or any further conversation with any other Special Branch personnel with regards to their contents or the content of Clutterbuck’s thesis.

She stated that she knew of the existence of the policy relating to the non-disclosure of the identities of informants, but reiterated that although there were discussions regarding the change to that policy as far as she was concerned that policy was never changed and still remains the same today.

She agreed that the ledgers and register were offered to The National Archives in 2004, and stated that they were examined by their client manager from The National Archives with a view for possible future preservation of them. At this point she went to great lengths to suggest that had The National Archives agreed to take these documents they would have been redacted prior to them being released to them for public viewing. I personally have not seen any documentation confirming that either from the police or from The National Archives.

It became apparent that Ms. Arnold in my opinion was less than economical with the truth. This was borne out by further questions I put to her during further cross-examination of her in relation to the privileged access facility referred to by her in some of the correspondence. She stated that this privileged access facility was withdrawn in 2005. Clearly that is not the case as Butterworth in 2008 was offered this facility but declined to sign the undertaking.

In another document which Ms. Arnold was responsible for writing there is mention of a parliamentary question being lodged in parliament relating to the Phoenix Park murders of 1883, the then Home Secretary in 2003 forwarded this question to Special Branch for them to answer. In the aforementioned document although not specifically detailing the question it was obvious that the question related to informants used in connection with that investigation.

When questioned initially about this parliamentary question Ms. Arnold stated that the question related to what was the oldest file Special Branch still held. Clearly again that was not correct because as previously stated the question is specifically related to the Phoenix Park murders.

The next witness was Detective Superintendent Julian McKinney from a SO 15 (Counter terrorism command of the Metropolitan Police). Superintendent McKinney is head of covert functions of that department, which involves the recruitment of and the management and retention of modern-day informants known as covert human intelligence sources.

Supt. McKinney I felt was without a doubt the driving force behind the police case to withhold the ledgers and register. In his evidence he stated he had seen the register and the ledgers and accepted that the ledgers only made occasional references to payments to informants. He stated he was unable to confirm the accuracy of the entries or their connection to any living relatives. He accepted that it may not be possible to track down any living relatives of informants by using public records, but went to great lengths to suggest they could still be identified with local or family knowledge.

Supt. McKinney in his cross-examination by me stuck rigidly to his principles throughout, and never missed an opportunity to put to the tribunal his fears and concerns regarding the release of the contents of the register and the ledgers. He had also given the same evidence in the Butterworth tribunal hearing in exactly the same fashion.

But of course was that evidence he gave sufficient to prove that all the police concerns and objections were fully justified? He mentioned that there was in existence a policy of non-disclosure of the identities of informants, which extended to above and beyond their lifetime. He also stated that extended to families and descendants. He was however not able to provide any documentary evidence to show the existence of such a policy either past or present. He also said that from his time in the police since 1985 he is not aware of any policy change and knew nothing about the proposed policy changes proposed by Clutterbuck in 2003.

I then asked him to look at the police document, which is in current use in relation to modern-day informants (Picture 17). In principal he accepted that it was an informant policy document, and also accepted that it mentioned nothing about protecting an informant’s identity above and beyond their lifetime, nor did it mention anything about families or descendants.

As I have already mentioned it is an important document. It clearly casts a doubt about some of the informant issues the police were seeking to rely on. Superintendent McKinney would not be drawn by the suggestion I put to him regarding this new document, that the forever policy which was in existence in 2003 was in fact changed following the suggestion by Clutterbuck and the endorsements and agreement by both Commanders Pearce and Black and this new document is testament to that.

In my cross-examination I went to great lengths to expand on the late additional statement he had provided in relation to his conversations with an “unnamed” person or persons from an “unnamed” other security agency. Superintendent McKinney could give no plausible explanation as to why no formal written statement had been taken from anybody from that agency nor could he give any plausible explanation as to why any person from that agency had not been called to give direct evidence before the tribunal. He agreed that that would have strengthened the police case even more.

In the latter part of my cross-examination of him, I put to him the Royal Irish Constabulary Informants register, and The Named and Paid informants file. He could give no details of his informant recruitment or management programme being affected by the release of these important documents into the public domain. Furthermore, he could give no details from the current Royal Ulster Constabulary now known as The Police Service for Northern Ireland or The Garda Siochana to suggest that the release of the documents had in any way affected their current informants programme.

In continuing with this line of questioning Supt. McKinney could not give any details of any harm befalling any relatives or descendants of any late Victorian police informants by any modern-day Irish terrorist group or groups. Nor could he give any details of the fact that any of these modern-day groups were actively seeking out relatives or descendants from that time period.

As to the suggestion that Clutterbuck had acted without authority the Supt. stated that he could find no written records to suggest he was given permission. He however accepts that both internal and criminal prosecutions could have been taken against Clutterbuck, but offered no explanation as to why that never happened.

The next police witness was Roger Pearce who was a retired Metropolitan Police Commander. He retired in 2003 when head of Special Branch and Director of Intelligence. Mr. Pearce had also previously given evidence in the Butterworth tribunal hearing. Most of Mr. Pearce’s evidence was in line with the previous witness in enforcing the police concerns over the release of the register and ledgers.

In part of his evidence in chief he stated that despite being involved in correspondence in 2003 regarding the ledgers and register he had never ever seen them. A statement I found strange to say the least.

When questioned about his involvement in the memos Mr. Pearce was now suggesting that there was a clear case of misinterpretation regarding the memos he actually signed. He was now stating that he had not signed them agreeing for the “Forever Policy” to be changed, he was simply signing them with a view to the possibility of exploring the issue of change. Without a doubt Mr. Pearce was in my opinion desperately trying to dig himself out of a big hole.

Prior to the final witness giving evidence the police indicated they wanted the witness to remain anonymous and to be allowed to give his evidence behind a screen. He was to be known as DI D. Now as to him remaining anonymous it was somewhat farcical as Mr. Blay the solicitor who had been acting for the police throughout this appeal had already given me his full name in a list of witnesses in an earlier email. As previously stated it was the intentions of the police to have the officer give all of his evidence in closed session but decided better of it at the very last moment.

The officer was a detective inspector who in his statement stated that during his service since joining in 1990 he had worked in various specialised police departments. He now worked in the department overseen by Supt. McKinney as a controller of police informant handlers and stated he is involved in the day-to-day management of informants.

He kept in line with the previous witnesses by reiterating all the fears, concerns and all the paranoia that informants now had, all of which the other police witnesses who had gone before him had raised. In cross-examination he did however accept that informants do have a choice, that being they are fully aware of the dangers there are by becoming an informant and do not have to become an informant, or having become an informant they are free to opt out at any time.

The inspector also conceded that there are many other jobs in the public domain which also have a fear factor and paranoia attached by persons carrying out such dangerous jobs such as a coal miner or a steeplejack. The inspector did not agree with Simon Woods’ statement about the difficulty in tracing persons back from 1888. Of course I reminded him that the police had not produced any evidence to challenge this statement.

This officer like all the other police witnesses before him in my opinion over exaggerated the fears and concerns of the police and this was confirmed by this witness who gave an example of tracing persons back and harm subsequently befalling living descendants. He raised the issue of Judas Iscariot from the Bible stating that if anyone could trace his bloodline back then any living relatives may come to harm. By making this ridiculous statement I hoped by this point it would now become clear to the tribunal that the police were totally over exaggerating their concerns in what I saw was a deliberate attempt to mislead them.

I should mention that this officer was the first witness on the final day and it soon became apparent during my cross-examination of him that overnight he may well have spoken to Supt. McKinney about what questions I had asked him in cross-examination. At times when I put specific questions to this officer, he was coming back with not only the answer to that question but adding to his answer by referring to other matters which I had not yet questioned him about, matters he could only have ascertained from Supt. McKinney’s testimony.

On the morning of May 12th all of the witness testimony concluded and the afternoon was taken up with all parties making their final submissions to the tribunal. Following this the judge announced that the decision of the tribunal would be formally announced within two-three weeks.

I left the hearing still quietly confident that I had presented a strong enough case to persuade the tribunal to rule in my favour and allow my appeal, but time would tell, it would be a long three weeks. I have to say that when I left the court for a time it felt like a big weight had been lifted from me. I had spent the past three years putting this case together. Without a doubt the biggest challenge I have ever had to endure. The last few months had been a mental and physical strain on me.

CHAPTER 14

THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION

The three weeks waiting for the tribunal’s decision stretched to six weeks and then the day of reckoning came on July 4
^th
. I received the decision notice which indicated I had lost the appeal, this was a bitter pill to swallow, the tribunal had accepted the police evidence that:

The entries in both the register and the ledgers could not be distinguished from those that related to informants and those that did not.

The entries relating to informants if released could likely cause harm to come to any living relatives or descendant of those named.

Although disappointed I knew that all had not been in vain as I now had the names of new suspects who had never before come to notice. In addition to the police file showing the extra police patrols in Whitechapel long after the Kelly murder, which was thought to have been the last.

Over the next weeks I went over the decision notice looking to find an error in law to which I could appeal. I did find what I believed to be one, which revolved around Section 30 (2) (a)(b). I then sought further advice from a leading expert on the Freedom of Information legislation, Maurice Frankel who heads an organisation called “
The Campaign for Freedom of Information”
. He also believed that there was an error in law by the tribunal in arriving at their decision. This specific section and subsection from the Act states: