Final Report of the Morris Inquiry: The Case for Change

THE CASE FOR CHANGE
with little regard to the welfare of a serving police officer who had not been found
guilty of any misconduct:
“On 18th January 2001 I was asked to attend [redacted]’s office … and I was suspended.
It was only then I was told of operation Helios and informed that my house, my car and
premises belonging to my friends and family were being searched. My phone and warrant card
was taken off me and I was told to get out. Rather than providing any support or welfare for
me as a human being let alone a fellow colleague after a clear shock and trauma my colleagues
decided to place me under further surveillance and tap the surrounding phone boxes …
I called home to be told by my terrified children that they could not go to school because
there were 30 reporters standing outside my house since 7 am (I was suspended at 0900) …
The initial allegations and the way they were given to the press before they were even served
on me was a carefully prepared strategy.” (Submission of Superintendent Dizaei.)
10.60 The MPS emphatically denies that this was the case or that there was any
strategy designed to inform the media of the existence of the investigation before
Superintendent Dizaei was himself aware of it.
10.61 The NBPA commented on the MPS’ press strategy during Superintendent
Dizaei’s trial: “One member of the DPA sat in court throughout the entire trial talking to
and reassuring members of the press. Even before the jury had reached a verdict [redacted],
who had booked a golfing holiday in Alacanti [sic], could not wait and with the assistance and
support of the DPA held a press conference at the Yard expressing their distaste for Mr Dizaei.
Selected journalist [sic] were invited and asked to sign confidentially clauses, after which they
were given a detailed briefing during a ‘live’ trial”.
10.62 The MPS confirmed that the briefing took place but commented that this
was in line with MPS and ACPO guidelines and that those who attended were not
specially selected by the MPS.
10.63 We understand the vital role of the media in relation to the MPS’ work and
do not seek to criticise the organisation for needing to take a proactive stance in
relation to its dealings with the media in appropriate cases. However, we would
question any strategy where statements are made to the media before the
individual concerned is aware of what is being said and particularly when the
officer concerned has not yet been made aware that an investigation is even
taking place.
10.64 In this case, it seems likely that the media were alerted to the investigation
into Superintendent Dizaei before he was aware of the investigation himself. The
likely source for such information is someone in the MPS.
10.65 Whether official or unofficial, such contact with the media can only serve to
cause unnecessary distress to those involved, including family and friends. If
unofficial, the MPS needs to find ways of preventing similar leaks in the future.
248