STF NA MÍDIA

The statement put out by the
Met announcing its retreat
left open the possibility that
the production order could be
applied for again, but the
Guardian"s lawyers have
been told that the police have
dropped the application. A
senior Yard source said: "It"s
off the agenda."
The police application was
formally being made under
the Police and Criminal Evidence
Act, but with an assertion
that Hill had committed
an offence under the Official
Secrets Act by inciting an
officer from Operation Weeting
– the Met"s investigation
into phone hacking – to reveal
information.
The Yard source said: "There
will be some hard reflection.
This was a decision made in
good faith, but with no appreciation
for the wider consequences.
Obviously, the
last thing we want to do is to
get into a big fight with the
media. We do not want to
interfere with journalists. In
hindsight the view is that
certain things that should
have been done were not
done, and that is regrettable."
The Guardian"s editor-inchief,
Alan Rusbridger, said:
"We greatly welcome the
Met"s decision to withdraw
this ill-judged order. Threatening
reporters with the Official
Secrets Act was a sinister
new device to get round
the protection of journalists"
confidential sources. We
would have fought this assault
on public interest journalism
all the way. We"re
happy that good sense has
prevailed."
Many lawyers had expressed
astonishment at the police
resorting to the Official Secret
Act. Their surprise was
reinforced on Monday when
the director of public prosecutions,
Keir Starmer QC,
revealed that the Crown Prosecution
Service had not been
contacted by officers before
the application was made.
Neil O"May, the Guardian"s
solicitor, said: "This was
always a misconceived application
for source material.
Journalists" sources are protected
in law. For the Metropolitan
police to turn on the
very newspaper which exposed
the failings of the previous
police inquiries and reported
on hacking by the
News of the World was always
doomed to failure. The
Metropolitan police need to
control the officers who are
involved in these sensitive
areas."
In a statement , the CPS said:
"[On] Monday the Metropolitan
police asked the CPS
for advice in relation to seeking
a production order against
Guardian Newspapers.
"The CPS has asked that more
information be provided to
its lawyers and has said that
more time will be needed
fully to consider the matter.
As a result, the scheduled
court hearing will not go
ahead on Friday. [The Metropolitan
Police] will consider
what application, if any,
it will make in due course,
once it has received advice
from the CPS."
The Met said in a statement:
"The Metropolitan police"s
directorate of professional
standards consulted the
Crown Prosecution Service
about the alleged leaking of
information by a police officer
from Operation Weeting.
"The CPS has today asked
that more information be
provided to its lawyers and
for appropriate time to consider
the matter. In addition the
MPS has taken further legal
advice this afternoon and as a
result has decided not to pursue,
at this time, the application
for production orders
scheduled for hearing on
Friday 23 September. We
have agreed with the CPS
that we will work jointly
with them in considering the
next steps.
"This decision does not mean
that the investigation has
been concluded. This investigation,
led by the DPS, not
Operation Weeting, has always
been about establishing
whether a police officer has
leaked information, and gathering
any evidence that
proves or disproves that.
Despite recent media reports,
there was no intention to
target journalists or disregard
journalists" obligations to
protect their sources.
"It is not acceptable for police
officers to leak information
about any investigation,
let alone one as sensitive and
high profile as Operation
Weeting.
S T F N A M Í D I A • 2 2 d e s e t e m b r o d e 2 0 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P Á G I N A 2 4 7