Statement from Home Office "mole"

A lawyer has made a brief statement on behalf of Christopher Galley, the (currently suspended) Home Office civil servant at the centre of the inquiry into leaks to Damian Green.

This is what he had to say (not verbatim):

Galley and Green first met in 2006 at the Commons and stayed in contact over two years.

Galley gave Green information that was important for the public to know in an open democratic and parliamentary system.

Green received it in that spirit and used it in the course of his parliamentary duties.

He believed it would be used in a responsible manner in the public interest.

Galley was arrested in dawn raid by anti-terror police on 19th November, held for 17 hours and released after exhaustive questioning, throughout which he cooperated.

Those who sanctioned that style of arrest should decide if it was necessary and proportionate.

"If there was ever a case of don't shoot the messenger this is it."

He has been bailed to return to the police in January.

Given that he is under active police investigation, he cannot answer questions or make any further statement.

Comments

[Peter O]

So we're very clear - Galley says there was no entrapment and no conspiracy. He simply passed on extremely low level documentation with absolutely no national security implications whatsoever. I presume we can assume this is the same line he gave the police when interviewed under arrest, so either the police have evidence to prove that he was lying, OR they arrested Green purely on the presumption that that arrest might just turn up some evidence in favour of their case for a conspiracy, a case which Galley's testimony above denies.

[griswold]

This statement,brief though it is, does not imply coercion.
If this is the case, upon further investigation, there will be red faces and resignations.

[Sally Roberts]

I agree with the comments above. Unless the Police are going to resort to torture I think this is probably as far as they are going to get! Let us hope that there are indeed some red faces and that some ministerial heads may roll!

[m dowding]

This outrageous action smacks of the Labour dirty tricks department even more. What information will the police forward to Labour that they gain from DG's work and papers. Despicable in the extreme.

[Peter Buss]

There must be a very grey line where "conspiracy" is crossed. I reckon that if the Brown leaks were investigated one could make out a case that he was involved in a conspiracy as well.I thought the most significant point the Lawyer made was that this whole thing didn't need a Police Inquiry in the first place - i.e it should have been dealt with internally especially as on Jacqui Smiths own admission today no issues of national security were involved.

[Steve Tierney]

I do hope we offer the "mole" a job when all this is done. He sounds like a decent guy and he's clearly stood by the right thing to do in fairly frightening circumstances. Its doubtful he'll get his job back in the Civil Service, so a job with the Conservatives seems the least we can do.

[David (One of many)]

So, in essence, the stories of both Green and Galley match? Nobody is accusing the other of paying/grooming/forcing or anything like that, nor are any more leaks admitted to. This can only be a good thing, because at the moment the only crumbs left for the Met/Labour are that Green somehow paid Galley to do this, or that top secret stuff - under the OSA - was also leaked. Both those now look to be fading away, if they even existed in the first place.

[rugfish]

Anyone would think he worked for the 'enemy' in handing out information to his own people about his own government. How does that work except if the government is in fact the enemy of the people then ?

I won't ask why the government itself did not release this information of course because obviously you're not allowed to ask questions in a police state.

[David Parker]

I am still not clear upon what grounds, and under what legislation these investigations and arrests were initiated.
The words " anti terrorist police" have been freely used, but is this correct, and were the investigations and arrests carried out as a result of any perceived realistic threat to the realm, or were they carried out as an investigation into a suspected breach of other statutory laws?

If the former case is true (regardless of the standing of the subjects under investigation) was the evidence serious and immediate enough to justify such a high profile police response, if the latter, the police may have considerable difficulty in justifying that their response was proportionate and justified, unless, of course, they claim that they acted under political pressure.

Unfortunately, under the present Government, we can no longer rely upon the impartiality of a public enquiry which, even if granted, would be delayed until crucial documents could be mislaid and the findings only disclosed when they could be buried under other bad news.

This is not, however, to say that Damian Green will necessarily emerge from this as a blameless martyr, especially if it eventually transpires that he was merely adopting the duplicitous NuLab behaviour of leaks, of which Cameron claims to abhor.

[Eveleigh Moore-Dutton]

In the Soviet Union he would simply have been sent to a psychiatric hospital!

[ChrisD]

As was discussed on This Week last Thursday by the cross party pundits, what happened last Thursday was all down to a fishing expedition.

What a mess! And the questions will keep on coming!
The fact that the two Senior Police officers involved have both now applied for Blair's job makes the timing of this look even worse.
Am I right in thinking that the Senior Civil Servant who instigated this investigation will be involved in the selection process for Blair's replacement?

And as for the Speaker and the Sergeant at Arms, words fail me!

If only someone had heeded Boris Johnston's warnings, and done further butt protecting before embarking on an assault on the democracy of our Parliament.

Why were the counter terrorist police used, with the implications for the news headlines if this was not a terrorist related matter?

[pp]

Anti-Terror police again? Isn't this the national police force controlled directly by the home office?

Anyhow - haven't 20 'leaked documents' been referred to - but only 4 stories (so far) published?

What are the other 16?

[sjm]

I know the 'anti-terror police' line plays well, but to be fair, it appears that anti-terrorism investigation is one of the duties handed over to Special Branch, which carried out the MP's arrest - Green was not arrested under Terrorism legislation, nor have any such allegations been made against him.

[Dorian the Deliciously Nickable for Saying Stuff]

Are we using the right language here? The BBC and C4's (isn't that an explosive?) Jonny Boy Snow like to style terrorists as 'assailants' so why are we calling whistle-blowers moles? That description implies Spetsnaz sleeper agents rather than brave individuals defending the basis of accountable democracy.

Christopher Galley is a freedom fighter. We are the party of freedom exposing duplicity and corruption in a government that believes government to be an end in itself rather than being the servant of the people. Christopher Galley is a public servant, serving the public and he has done his duty.

Have the Met? Why are those instrumental in this 'misconceived' sequence of operational decisions applying for the position of Commissioner? I would suggest, gentlemen, that you have blown it. A busted flush Home Sec. and Boris spitting feathers doth not an interview make.

[David Sergeant]

Just a tangental thought. When leakers surfaced in the Conservative governments they usually turned up publically supported and repesented by a trade union representative. Galley has had to go to the expense of hiring a solicitor. I suggest the implications are worth thinking about.

[David (One of many)]

"Galley has had to go to the expense of hiring a solicitor."

Could well be getting it pro bono; in fact, I gather he's being represented by a respected human rights firm.

[MG]

The more I hear the more I don't like this at all. From this statement it seems that Galley was acting in the public interest. He was questioned by police for 17 hours. Held in a "safe" house since. What the hell is going on? Whoever is in Govt this and the treatment of Green is all wrong. I hope the best lawyers throw the book at the Govt. I'm sure a national whip round will provide plenty of cash to ensure this happens!

[Patsy Sergeant]

Good! David(One of Many) - 19.14

[pp]

The only logical argument for Greens treatment is if SB thought he had sensitive documents that he would rather destroy than admit to.

Could it be that they have found the wrong mole?

Just suppose some very sensitive material disappeared from the home office and they are searching for it... And the first mole they found was the wrong one...

The missing material must be very important, important enought that they thought the raid on a shadow cabinet minister would not be seen as excessive...

So what have the home office lost this time? and who has really got it?

[LocalYokel]

This is part of a monarcharial Labour attitude that equates the interestes of the Labour Party with those of Britain. Over on Labourhome Labour NEC member Peter Kenyon argues that the Conservatives are guilty of Treason for saying the debt levels are too high so pushing down the value of the pound. Crazy but scary that they think that way. For the first time I do wonder if there will be another election.

http://www.labourhome.org/story/2008/12/1/73541/1276

[Sandy Jamieson]

I know when we take over at the next General Election, some very difficult (and at times unpopular) decisions will have be made. I am absolutely certain that some civil servants will leak confidential documents to the Labour Party.

So be it. S*** happens. All we need to do is to advise the person/s concerned that their contract of employment has been breached and that their services are no longer required. Unless real National Security is compromised, we should not reach for the Official Secrets Act nor should we look to Acts of Parliament from either the Common Law on something devised in the late 19th Century to deal with the situation in Ireland.

[pp]

Leaking documents should be a very serious offence, because every document that doesn't damage national security should automatically be published for the public to see...

Tories should start government with a total commitment to openness.

Yes it will be difficult at first, but the public will soon get the hang of it, and realise that mistakes do get made, but that it is generally better to know about them and tollerate them than to have them kept secret.

[Cleethorpes Rock]

Why don't we ask why the information was not made public officially? Surely, if the Minister had come clean and been honest with the public, a civil servant wouldn't have had to have blown the whistle?

At worst, it gives us another chance to rehash the shambles at the Home Office in the media and totally discredit Jacqboot Smith's department further.

[Cleethorpes Rock]

*delete "totally" or "further" as you like. This sloppy English is catching!

[Adam in London]

It is becoming clear, if you read between the lines, what is happening.

The Home Office has been subjected to a number of embarressing leaks. The civil servants are worried. The leaks appear systematic and they fret that sooner or later something serious will leak (e.g. national security). Besides serial leaks require a leak inquiry.

The Cabinet Office decide to bring in the police. Ministers are kept informed but are essentially disinterested.

The police poke around and uncover Mr Gally. However, viewing a leak as an illegal thing they are keen to find out who received the 'stolen goods' as it were. They do not appreciate that it is essentially impossible for an MP to commit the crime of leaking - if an MP does it, it is not a crime (as established by Churchill and Sandys over national defence in 1930s and Tam Dalyell over Belgrano in the 1980s). The police mentality though is that this is akin to a businessmen receiving stolen goods, and Parliament is akin to an office. Therefore, dawn raids, seizure of computers, and arrests are what's required. That's why the police are so taken aback - they think it's just like any other investigation.

What's the grooming about? Well, as there are no actual secrets as covered by the Official Secrets Act involved yet (otherwise the OSA would have been invoked by now) the police are left with the common law offence of misconduct in a public office. This isn't as obscure as some might think - it gets used in police corruption trials (e.g. officers passing intelligence to criminal bosses). But association with corruption - policeman making illicit profit from his position - means that the police need to pin more than the leaking on Galley. He needs to profit from the leaks - i.e. they need to show Green paying him for the leaks. Thereby Green would also be tainted, grooming (by payment) for leaks, would bring him into conspiracy of misconduct in public office.

So there we have it. Ministers couldn't care less about an investigation we are told involved national security, and the police have no appreciation of Parliamentary privelege whatsoever.

[Gnosis]

Whilst i am outraged by the bungled way the police arrested mr green i am also outraged that it takes david davis to make the running on this story when i thought our shs was dominic grieve,we need more like davis who speak good honest english and less like grieve who sounds like a pedantic lawer which to give him his credit is very effective in the house but just sounds like mandarin to the average working man.

[The Rebel MC]

What this omits is that Gally is a Tory party member, Gally applied for a job with Green, Green didn't give Gally a job, Gally leaks information to Green

Next step?

Gally gets fired from Home Office?

Green gets job with Tory Party?

[The Bishop Swi9ne]

The Civil servant was doing a good job and was acting in the best interest of the people.
As long as the facts prove this to be the case, it’s a matter that can be closed. I do not Blame Dave for not making the running on this, although it appears that Green has done no wrong he has not exactly been vindicated yet. I am far more personally bothered about the arrest itself, the forcing of DNA samples, and the removal of his computers. We need to seriously consider the current woeful state of our laws in this respect. At the moment the police could be trawling through Mr Greens private correspondence, and reconstructing data that had been deleted. Does the Party have a full verbatim copy of his drives which can be used as evidence of tampering. We should have drives that a court has sealed. If we do not then we really should be kicking up a fuss by now. As it is Labours evil laws may have caught us off guard.Do you know how to secure you PC? Are you certain of that? We need strong laws to protect us not weak one that entrap us. Labour intrud into all of our lives but when they intrud into your privacy they go to far.