There are good reasons why the Met may want a redacted version of the Gray report | parm sandhu

TOsa former senior police officer, when considering the Met’s investigation of alleged parties at No 10 I imagine a scene at the start of the shift for the Downing Street beat. I hear the sergeant giving out the orders: “PC Angel, there’s a job here for you from the deputy assistant commissioner, you lucky thing! Nip down to No 10 and issue this bunch of fixed penalty notices. You might want to take PC Butterman with you, and for heaven’s sake make sure you look good for the cameras and turn your body-worn video on.”

While this would clearly give the officers a story to dine on for many years, it is unlikely to be a job to savor. This is the position the Met finds itself in, after the latest twists and turns of the past week.

The Met had resisted historical inquiries into allegations of breaches of the coronavirus regulations; however, as the evidence being presented seems to suggest the claims are well founded, the police have a duty to act. “Policing without fear or favour” does need to be applied to all, and that’s the demand of the British public. The question facing the police is whether government guidelines or laws were broken – in the latter case, they could proceed with a criminal investigation.

The problem now is that the Met is in the invidious position of playing catch-up when an internal inquiry by the civil service has already collected evidence. In a clumsy attempt to ensure best evidence, it has been asked for a copy of the Sue Gray report and for a redacted version to be published.

This investigation is similar to others that have run in parallel with other processes. The most obvious example is Hillsborough, which took two inquiries and 23 years to be referred for a criminal investigation.

In regards to the Sue Gray report, if the police are investigating criminal matters, the evidence produced would not have been gathered using the rules for investigations, which means it is inadmissible in a court. Instead, she would have followed civil service guidelines. There is also the issue that she would not have been able to compel individuals to be available for statements to be taken.

Every individual who is interviewed by police as a suspect would need to be told three things to make these statements admissible: they are not under arrest; they can avail themselves of free legal advice; and they must all be cautioned.

Police access to emails, phone messages and CCTV images are subject to regulations that an employer may not have had to comply with. For example, employers can monitor use of work computers and phones. Police would need to redo this work adhering to legislation and making sure it can be used in criminal proceedings.

The Met may have asked the report to be redacted to reduce the opportunities for collusion among suspects or to prevent prejudice to other investigations. One theory is that other “new” criminal offenses may be discovered that could end up in court with a jury. These “new” offenses could be compromised if they had already been publicly reported, as this would influence judgment by 12 good people on that jury. This is being denied by the Met, which states it is only looking at Covid breaches, but will it be able to ignore “new” offenses that could be discovered when trawling through emails, CCTV photographs and statements? The next step will be a review of the evidence, identifying further lines of inquiry and evidence disclosure to suspects.

If criminal proceedings go ahead, the matter must be proven beyond reasonable doubt for each named individual. Using the gathered evidence, the Crown Prosecution Service would consider using tests of sufficiency of evidence and public interest in determining whether to prosecute. The process on the whole is held to a much more robust standard than the publishing of a report, and could go some way to explaining the Met’s requests.

Back in my imagined scenario, a sergeant asks for an update. “Well, Sarge, we asked lots of people what happened (took months, what with diaries, getting legal advice, etc). The big chap with the blond hair used loads of baffling words (ancient Greek to me). A lady called Sue provided a report she had written. Seemed to clarify everything but I can’t use it at court. Shame they couldn’t all act sensibly and let us get on with dealing with real crime.” Would you want to be either one of the PCs?