Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
440-459)
DEPUTY ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER JOHN
MCDOWALL
MBE AND CHIEF
SUPERINTENDENT ED
BATEMAN
23 NOVEMBER 2009
Q440 Sir Alan Beith: But this was
not a leak that you attributed to Mr Galley?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner McDowall:
At that stage no, Sir.
Q441 Sir Alan Beith: At any stage?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner McDowall:
No, Sir.
Q442 Mr Howard: If you had not received
the letter from Mr Wright which referred to a danger to national
security, would the police have got involved?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner McDowall:
It depends on the phraseology and the potential seriousness of
the offence. It is conceivable that we may not have got involved.
At that stage we were being asked to investigate what appeared
to be a string of leaks that dated back over a period of time.
Our initial scoping investigation tended to take us towards an
individual who may be responsible for four, five, maybe more,
of those leaks. Clearly the language contained in the letter gave
us a view as to how seriously this was being regarded by senior
people in government departments.
Q443 Mr Howard: But the police do
not act at the behest of government departments.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner McDowall:
No, Sir.
Q444 Mr Howard: Was that description
in the original letter from Mr Wright ever challenged by the police?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner McDowall:
It was not challenged by me. Whether it was challenged by others,
I do not know. I did not conduct the initial scoping investigation.
I think the language used clearly gave an impression that there
was a very serious matter to be investigated.
Q445 Mr Howard: I wonder if you can
help me on one aspect of all this which is puzzling me. In Mr
Johnston's report he refers to the letter from Mr Wright, he says
dated 8 September but I think we now know it was 8 October, the
original letter which we have just been discussing.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner McDowall:
I believe that is correct, yes, Sir.
Q446 Mr Howard: He says: "In
a letter dated 29 October 2008, Chris Wright wrote to DAC Cressida
Dick agreeing that a scoping exercise would be undertaken by the
MPS in the first instance" and that the MPS would, if appropriate,
do a number of things. That implies there had been at least some
contact between Mr Wright and the MPS between 8 and 29 October.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner McDowall:
Yes.
Q447 Mr Howard: Can you shed any
light on that?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner McDowall:
I am afraid I cannot. I would assume that contact was between
Mr Wright and now Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick, or her
staff, with a view to how that scoping exercise may be taken forward.
Q448 Mr Howard: What was your responsibility
in respect of this investigation?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner McDowall:
Initially the allegations were received by the Assistant Commissioner,
I believe. The then Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Cressida Dick,
was asked to conduct a scoping exercise to try and ascertain whether
it looked as though offences had been committed and the seriousness
potentially of those offences. It was later in November, I believe,
that I was actually briefed. The course of these sorts of investigations
generally is that there is a very tight inclusion list of those
who are made aware of what is actually taking place, I think for
obvious reasons, that there are potential sensitivities attached
and, therefore, the wideness of those who are briefed tends to
be minimised. At some point, I think it was in November, Cressida
formally handed over the responsibility for that part of the investigation
from herself to me and at that point I was then made aware of
what the investigation was all about and where it was heading
at that particular time.
Q449 Mr Howard: So at that point
you assumed overall responsibility for the investigation?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner McDowall:
I did, although clearly up until that point I had not had any
idea of the scope of it or the scale of it, it was very much a
case of that was done by Cressida and then I took over that responsibility
from her.
Q450 Mr Howard: But at that point
in time, did you not ask what had happened up until then?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner McDowall:
Yes.
Q451 Mr Howard: Did you not ask what
had happened between the original letter from Mr Wright and the
time that you assumed responsibility?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner McDowall:
I asked where the investigation was heading and obviously I was
then briefed by the investigating officer as to what was likely
to take place and what had been discovered up until that point.
I was very much, as it were, handed an investigation to continue
as I then saw fit, obviously with the agreement of my line command
as well.
Q452 Mr Howard: Did you not ask how
it had arisen?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner McDowall:
I was told that it had arisen as the result of an allegation being
made by letter from Mr Wright and that then officers had gone
to see Mr Wright and had negotiated the scope of the investigation.
That was what I was made aware of, Sir.
Q453 Mr Howard: I just want to make
sure I have understood that properly. Officers had gone to see
Mr Wright and had negotiated the scope of the investigation?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner McDowall:
They had agreed that there would appear to be on the face of what
they were told some validity in the allegation and the MPS was
to conduct an investigation and that it would look to, I think,
narrow the focus of the investigation from the 32 in the initial
number to a number that could be concentrated on for the effectiveness
of the investigation.
Q454 Mr Howard: Do you think it is
appropriate for the Metropolitan Police Service to negotiate with
the Government the scope of an investigation?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner McDowall:
I think it is correct for the Metropolitan Police Service to indicate
the scale of resource and the scope of a particular investigation
which is realistic in all the circumstances.
Q455 Mr Howard: Would the Metropolitan
Police do that to any other victim of crime?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner McDowall:
The Metropolitan Police Service will always seek to follow the
evidence.
Q456 Mr Howard: Exactly. What I would
have expected in these circumstances was that once the evidence
had been provided, the Metropolitan Police Service would then
have decided what was appropriate, not negotiated what was appropriate
with a government official.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner McDowall:
Perhaps I have not made myself entirely clear, Sir. The nature
of the way in which we conducted this investigation was to look
at what looked as though would provide us the most investigative
benefit, if you like. We started out with a rather wider field
of some 32 allegations over a period of years. It would appear
from that scoping that there were four or five that looked to
be the most obvious points to go and investigate further. I am
not saying that if further evidence had not been available or
had been adduced in the course of that investigation then clearly
we would have followed that as well but, as I am sure you will
appreciate, there has to be a start point in any investigation.
Q457 Mr Howard: I do not think that
is my point, Mr McDowall. The start point—correct me if
I am wrong—was Mr Wright's letter and the number of leaks
which the police were told about. Would not the appropriate course
of action then have been for the police to follow the evidence?
That is right, is it not?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner McDowall:
That is correct, Sir, yes.
Q458 Mr Howard: Rather than to hold
discussions with a government civil servant and, to use your original
term, negotiate with him the scope of the investigation and then
receive a letter from him agreeing that a scoping exercise would
be undertaken and detailing the actions which the Metropolitan
Police Service would then take. I am suggesting to you that it
is wholly improper for the Metropolitan Police Service to act
in that way in respect of an investigation.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner McDowall:
I do not think that "negotiate" is perhaps the best
word. Certainly we discussed where we would start the investigation
and I think that was the point at which we narrowed it to say,
"This is the point to break into this particular series of
leaks". I do not for a minute suggest that if evidence had
then been obtained that took us elsewhere that we would not have
gone there. It is our common practice to follow the evidence as
it unfolds before us, Sir.
Q459 Mr Howard: Whose decision was
it to discuss with Mr Wright the scope of the inquiry?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner McDowall:
That I do not know, Sir.
| 
