The Information Commission and the Leveson Inquiry
tharg at gmx.net
Tue Dec 13 01:57:03 GMT 2011
>Behalf Of Ian Batten
The gist of Thomas' evidence
orning-Hearing-9-December-2011.pdf> to Leveson Inquiry was that it was all
their external counsel
<http://www.no5.com/areas-of-expertise/crime/bernard-thorogood> 's fault
that the ICO investigated no journos. The barrister said the cases would
have been too expensive for the ICO to pursue. The Inquiry's counsel was
harshly incredulous that this judgement was within the competence of an
external adviser - it must have been a response to instructions.
Thomas could not recall the meeting at which their former investigator says
he was warned off pursuing journos, that there was no policy on whether or
not to do so, and he hadn't seen the legal advice until unearthed last week
by ICO. He said the reason ICO later definitely dropped any idea of
prosecuting journos was because a sample prosecution of an private
investigator was bungled by the CPS unbeknownst to them, and only got a
suspended sentence. Leveson asked (amusingly) whether Thomas knew that in
the ICO's own Legal Note of the trial the judge asked why there weren't any
journos in the dock. Thomas said he had not seen that at the time either,
and also was only unearthed by the ICO last week.
Leveson welcome's to Thomas at the beginning of his evidence commented on
the "obvious care that you've taken in .(six) statements which form the
basis of your account of these events"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ukcrypto