The Independent Review of the Metropolitan Police Service's handling of
non-recent sexual offence investigations alleged against persons of
public prominence
Introduction to publication Friday 4 October 2019
WARNING – The report which follows this introduction contains graphic
descriptions of sexual abuse that people may find upsetting and disturbing
If anyone has been affected by the content of the report, support and advice is
available by contacting London Survivors Gateway on 0808 8010860 or Rape Crisis
national helpline on 0808 802 9999.
Introduction
In February 2016, the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Lord Hogan-Howe,
asked retired High Court Judge, Sir Richard Henriques, to carry out a review into the
Metropolitan Police Service’s (MPS) handling of a series of allegations made by Carl
Beech, known as Operation Midland. Lord Hogan-Howe also asked that Sir Richard
review other separate investigations into allegations of non-recent sexual offences so
that the MPS could learn any lessons from that review.
Sir Richard’s subsequent report examined eight MPS investigations. He outlined
serious failings in Operation Midland (Chapter 2 – allegations made by Carl Beech aka
‘Nick’) and Operation Vincente (Chapter 3 - an investigation into an allegation from a
different complainant alleging rape by Lord Brittan.)
The MPS has apologised for significant mistakes identified by Sir Richard. In
commissioning the review, the MPS sought to open its investigations to significant
scrutiny with the intention of learning any lessons from these types of cases involving
historical allegations against persons of public prominence.
The MPS is today publishing three chapters of Sir Richard Henriques' Independent
Review:




Chapter 1 entitled ‘Independent Review’ has previously been published in a
redacted form, and the publication today removes the vast majority of those
redactions.
Chapter 2 is specifically focused on Operation Midland (allegations from Carl
Beech) and the MPS is taking the highly unusual step of publishing significant
detail, including graphic, personal and sensitive information.
Chapter 3 is the investigation into Operation Vincente (an allegation of rape
against Lord Brittan) and as much as possible of that chapter is being published
today.

This exceptional level of information is being published to dispel rumour, to
demonstrate transparency and our commitment to learning from past mistakes and
help maintain public confidence.
1

 What redactions have been made have been kept to the absolute minimum and each
will be explained by a ‘gist’ in the published report.
Criticisms made of current and former officers in all three chapters have not
been redacted in any way and remain in the report.
We have carefully considered the remaining chapters and have sought legal advice.
Chapters 3 to 9 do not relate to the false allegations by Carl Beech. They are reviews
of investigations relating to separate complainants. The significant difference between
these cases and Operation Midland is that Carl Beech has been proven in court to
have fabricated the allegations he made. This means our duties to legally protect
information which apply to the other chapters do not apply to chapter 1 and chapter 2
– Operation Midland.
We do not intend to publish chapters 4 to 9 as minimal information has previously been
put into the public domain by the MPS on these investigations and these chapters
contain significant amounts of protected personal data about each complainant, and
those they make allegations against.
The complainants in chapters 3 to 9 provided information to the MPS for the purpose
of a criminal investigation and this should remain confidential. To breach this
confidence would not just have an effect on these specific complainants and those
who were investigated, but more widely could deter victims from reporting matters to
police or others from being as open and honest with police as they otherwise would
be.
Further, lifelong anonymity is afforded to the complainants under the Sexual Offences
(Amendment) Act 1992. This Act precludes the publication of information that might
lead to their identification.
We are publishing exceptional levels of detail today in response to the need to dispel
rumour, the strong public interest in showing transparency, to demonstrate the
decision-making and complexities involved in the investigations, and our commitment
to learn from past mistakes and help maintain public confidence. That, however,
cannot outweigh our duty of confidentiality to individual complainants, now or in the
future.
We have concluded that Chapter 3 (Operation Vincente) is also different to chapters
4 to 9 due to the level of information the MPS has published about Operation Vincente
previously. Whilst we are legally restricted from publishing personal information about
the complainant, for the reasons described above, we are publishing fully the content
of the chapter that relates to police action and criticism.
Sir Richard’s recommendations, which emanate from all of the nine chapters in his
report, are published in full.

2

 The other chapters of the report relate to:
Chapter 3 - Operation Vincente - an allegation of rape made by a woman against Lord
Brittan relating to an alleged incident in 1967.
Chapter 4 - Operation Bixley - an investigation that sat under the wider Operation
Fairbank inquiry into allegations of non-recent sexual abuse by politicians.
Chapter 5 - An investigation that sat under Operation Yewtree - the inquiry into
allegations of non-recent sexual abuse by celebrities.
Chapter 6 - An investigation that sat under Operation Yewtree - the inquiry into
allegations of non-recent sexual abuse by celebrities.
Chapter 7 - An investigation that sat under Operation Yewtree - the inquiry into
allegations of non-recent sexual abuse by celebrities.
Chapter 8 - An investigation that sat under Operation Yewtree - the inquiry into
allegations of non-recent sexual abuse by celebrities.
Chapter 9 – An investigation into allegations of non-recent sexual abuse by a celebrity
– not part of Operation Yewtree.

IOPC investigations
As a result of Sir Richard’s report the MPS made a voluntary referral to the then
Independent Police Complaints’ Commission (now IOPC – Independent Office for
Police Conduct) on 8th November 2016 relating to the conduct of five officers
investigating Operation Midland and Operation Vincente: Deputy Assistant
Commissioner (DAC) Rodhouse (in relation to Operations Midland & Vincente),
Detective Superintendent (DSu) McDonald, Detective Chief Inspector (DCI) Tudway,
Detective Inspector (DI) Hepworth and Detective Sergeant (DS) Sword (in relation to
Operation Midland alone).
The IOPC assessed that there was an indication that DCI Tudway, DI Hepworth and
DS Sword may have behaved in a manner that would justify disciplinary proceedings
in that they may have failed to accurately present all relevant information to a district
judge when applying for search warrants. At the same time, the IOPC determined that
there was no such indication in respect of allegations against DAC Rodhouse and DSu
McDonald. As a result, the investigation into them was discontinued.
At this stage the IOPC also discontinued its investigation into DAC Rodhouse, DSu
McDonald and DCI Tudway where it was alleged that they had failed to properly
investigate allegations made against a complainant, ‘Nick,’ (now referred to as Carl
Beech) which led to an extended investigation causing prolonged and undue stress to
those under suspicion. The IOPC found that there was no evidence of bad faith, malice
or dishonesty and no indication any of the officers may have behaved in a manner
which would justify disciplinary proceedings. The information available indicated the
investigation was extensive and carried out diligently with the majority of the decisions
made appropriately recorded.
3

 The MPS also referred the conduct of DAC Rodhouse, which related to allegations
that an investigation into Lord Brittan was extended without good reasons thereby
causing distress to Lord Brittan and his family (Chapter 3 - Operation Vincente). The
IOPC concluded that the evidence indicated a significant delay in making the decision
to take no further action in the case, but that this did not indicate that DAC Rodhouse
may have behaved in a manner which would justify disciplinary proceedings. As a
result the IOPC discontinued this part of the investigation.
The IOPC also discontinued investigating allegations that there were irregularities in
the seizure of exhibits during the subsequent searches. They found no evidence to
indicate that any of the officers involved had breached the standards of professional
behaviour.
The IOPC conducted an assessment of whether there were any criminal offences to
consider. No suspicion of criminality was identified. The investigation did not identify
any information to suggest that officers deliberately withheld evidence from the
applications with the intention of misleading the district judge.
On 22 July 2019 the Independent Office for Police Conduct announced that there was
‘no case to answer’ for any of the officers investigated.
We are awaiting the publication of the IOPC report and their recommendations and
will carefully consider their findings.
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS)
HMICFRS has been asked to undertake an inspection into how the MPS has learnt
the lessons from these investigations and embedded the recommendations – this is
not an investigation into individual officers. We look forward to the independent
assurance that this will bring and welcome their scrutiny. We have already
implemented all the recommendations from the Henriques Report that we have
accepted and we absolutely want to ensure all the lessons from these investigations
have been learnt.
Note:
The report has been published on the MPS website: www.met.police.uk/henriques

4

 An Independent Review of the Metropolitan Police
Service’s handling of non-recent sexual offence
investigations alleged against persons of public
prominence.

Sir Richard Henriques
31st October 2016

5

 Key

At the conclusion of my review, The DAC, DSU and DCI
were provided with three chapters of my report (‘The
Investigation’, ‘Interview with Operation Midland
Officers’ and ‘The Conclusions’) to enable them to
respond to the criticisms I have made of them. The DAC
also received a copy of the ‘Vincente’ chapter. I have
considered their responses and have included them in
my final report as follows:
__

Summary of comments provided by the DAC, DSU
and DCI in response to ‘findings’ made by Sir
Richard Henriques.

__

Sir Richard Henriques response to the comments
provided by the DAC, DSU and DCI.

__

Redaction or gist applied by MPS.

6

 Chapters
1. Independent Review
2. Operation Midland
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8

Wiltshire Interviews
‘Nick’s’ Blogs
‘Nick’s’ Interviews with the Metropolitan Police
The Investigation
The Reviews
Interviews
DAC’s Presentation
Conclusions

3. Operation Vincente
4. Operation Bixley
5. [Name]
6. [Name]
7. [Name]
8. [Name]
9. [Name]

7

 Chapter 1

Independent Review
Terms of Reference

1.1 The Independent Review will examine and report upon the actions of the
Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) in investigating allegations of non-recent
sexual offences said to have been committed by prominent public
individuals. The objective of the review will be to identify any lessons for the
Service and to make recommendations as to how the MPS conducts such
investigations in the future.

1.2 The Independent Review will examine, in particular, the following matters:
a. The way in which information about such investigations has been
released into the public domain;
b. The problems associated with investigations initially based on the
evidence of a single complainant and how far an investigation should
go in order to corroborate a complainant’s account;
c. The approach that has been adopted towards establishing the veracity
of complainants;
d. The length of time such investigations have taken;
e. What steps can be taken to protect the interests of complainants so as
to ensure that victims of crime can come forward with confidence;
f. Any other matters that the Independent Review considers relevant.

9

 1.3 The Independent Review will also make such recommendations it feels
appropriate in the light of the examination set out above, including, if
appropriate, recommendations about MPS policy and procedures for the
handling of such investigations.

1.4 The Independent Review will produce a report for the Commissioner of
Police for the Metropolis.

Background

1.5 In February of this year I was asked by the Metropolitan Commissioner of
Police, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe QPM, to conduct this review. We had never
previously met. I was selected from a panel of retired High Court Judges with
a background in the criminal law. I practiced in crime at the Junior Bar
between 1967 and 1986. I was Queen’s Counsel from 1986 to 2000. I sat as
a Deputy Circuit Judge from 1978 to 1980, as an Assistant Recorder from
1980 to 1983, and as a Recorder from 1983 to 2000. In 2000 I was appointed
to the High Court of Justice and spent the great majority of time in the
Criminal Courts. I remain authorised by the Lord Chief Justice to sit in the
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).

1.6 I visited Sir Bernard at New Scotland Yard and was told that, in the immediate
aftermath of the exposure of Jimmy Savile by ITV, Operation Yewtree had
been commenced. A very large number of sexual allegations had been
received within the Operation, some against Savile, some linked to Savile,
and others independent of Savile. At the same time a complaint had been
received by a person, with the pseudonym of 'Nick', in which grave
10

 allegations had been made against a number of very high profile individuals.
This allegation was hived off and became Operation Midland. Sir Bernard
wanted me to review Operation Yewtree and Operation Midland. My review
was to be wholly independent of the Metropolitan Police. He wished to
know what lessons could be learned. I would have unrestricted access to all
information some of which could not be placed in the public domain. He had
knowledge of a report which I had recently written for the Director of Public
Prosecutions in which I had criticised the police (another force) and, if there
was criticism to be made, he wanted to be made aware of it. He had already
confronted two regrettable errors, namely, a failure to inform the late Lord
Brittan, during his lifetime, that no further action would be taken against him
in relation to an allegation of rape made many years earlier and an error by
a senior officer in stating that allegations made by 'Nick' were credible and
true. He regretted both matters, had made his regrets known to the public,
was about to meet Lady Brittan and had already apologised to her. Sir
Bernard provided me with his mobile phone number and invited me to
contact him directly if I encountered any difficulties. Accompanying us was
Assistant Commissioner Martin Hewitt who would, together with his Staff
Officer, Chief Inspector Dionne Mitchell, provide the necessary point of
contact. In due course A/C Hewitt transferred to other duties and was
replaced by Assistant Commissioner Helen King. I have received every
assistance throughout. I must stress, however, that the actual conduct of this
review has been entirely independent of any member of the MPS.

1.7 I have been assisted throughout, administratively, by Louise Oakley of the
independent Bar. She has collated volumes of written material, arranged and
attended interviews, and liaised with the police and interviewees. I must
11

 stress that any conclusions or recommendations in this report are mine and
mine alone.

Scope of Review

1.8 I informed Sir Bernard that I could not re-investigate any matter and I did not
see that as my prospective function. I intended to examine the decision
making of the MPS at every stage of the investigations that I reviewed. I
would also consider the whole investigation process, including its speed and
fairness, both to the complainant and any suspect. I intended to examine all
guidance given to members of the MPS in the investigation of non-recent
sexual allegations. I would give particular attention to decisions to
investigate, interview, search, arrest, charge and to take no further action.
My review is very different from the IICSA Inquiry. I did meet very briefly with
Justice Goddard and, for a short time, with Ben Emmerson QC and his team
of lawyers to understand our respective functions. The task of that Inquiry is
considerably more extensive and ambitious than my own and I see no
conflict. Any onward transmission of my report is entirely a matter for the
Commissioner.

Guidance

1.9 I have considered with care two recent publications, namely Operation
Hydrant SIO Guidance, written by Chief Constable Simon Bailey, Norfolk
Constabulary, National Police Lead for Child Protection and Abuse
Investigation, dated November 2015, and the Report of the Independent
Review into the Investigation and Prosecution of Rape in London, chaired by
12

 the Rt. Hon Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC, which was commissioned by Sir
Bernard in June 2014. I have also considered the response to the
recommendations in Dame Elish's report by the MPS and CPS London. I have
received material from the College of Policing, the Code of Practice for
Victims, a joint MPS and NSPCC report into allegations of sexual abuse made
against Jimmy Savile entitled 'Giving Victims a Voice', CPS Guidelines on
Prosecuting Cases of Child Sexual Abuse, the Code for Crown Prosecutors,
and CPS Material on Child Sexual Abuse Review Panel. There is no shortage
of guidance.

1.10 I had considered developing a draft code for the investigation of non-recent
sexual allegations. The Operation Hydrant document is, however, specifically
directed towards abuse alleged to have been perpetrated by persons of
public prominence. It was drafted with the aim of 'improving the police
service response', 'providing operational co-ordination for all police forces'
and 'to identify or develop effective practice and produce national guidance'.
A further modified guide is unlikely to prove an asset. I had considered a
form of code specifically designed for cases involving prominent suspects but
the cardinal rule that all are equal before the law must prevail unmodified. I
do, however, have a number of recommendations to make.

‘Complainants’ or ‘Victims’

1.11 Throughout Dame Elish's Report she describes a person making a complaint
as a ‘complainant’. Operation Hydrant guidance describes the same person
as a ‘victim’. In the MPS and CPS joint response to Dame Elish's 46
recommendations, every recommendation is set out with the word
13

 ‘complainant’ used, whilst the response invariably uses the word ‘victim’.
This issue requires resolution. I have canvassed it at length with the authors
of the Hydrant guidance and with every party I have interviewed during this
review.

1.12 I have a clear and concluded view. All ‘complainants’ are not ‘victims’. Some
complaints are false and thus those ‘complainants’ are not ‘victims’.
Throughout the judicial process the word ‘complainant’ is deployed up to the
moment of conviction where after a ‘complainant’ is properly referred to as
a ‘victim’. Since the entire judicial process, up to that point, is engaged in
determining whether or not a ‘complainant’ is indeed a ‘victim’, such an
approach cannot be questioned. No Crown Court judge will permit a
‘complainant’ to be referred to as a ‘victim’ prior to conviction. Since the
investigative process is similarly engaged in ascertaining facts which will, if
proven, establish guilt, the use of the word ‘victim’ at the commencement of
an investigation is simply inaccurate and should cease.

1.13 The authors of the Hydrant guidance strongly oppose this view. Chief
Constable Simon Bailey writes:

'If we don't acknowledge a victim as such, it reinforces a system based on
distrust and disbelief. The police service is the conduit that links the victim to
the rest of the criminal justice system; there is a need to develop a
relationship and rapport with a victim (particularly in challenging and
complex cases) in order to achieve the best evidence possible. Police officers
and police staff investigators through their roles are required to deal with the
emotional turmoil often presented by a victim and to determine what is
14

 relevant to the complaint that has been made. The term “victim” features in
important legislation, statutory guidance, the policies of the police and
Crown Prosecution Service. To remove this and replace it with the word
‘complainant’ will have a significant detrimental effect on the trust victims
now have in the authorities and fundamentally damage the efforts of many
organisations re-built over the years'.

1.14 With respect, this is an attempt to justify inaccurate terminology. A criminal
justice system that deliberately describes those it serves inaccurately is a
flawed system and Chief Constable Bailey's argument ignores the
consequences of false terminology. Firstly, it gives the impression of prejudging a complaint. When a suspect is informed that the victim alleges that
he assaulted him/her, the suspect loses confidence in the neutrality of the
investigator. It may be said that an interviewer should not use the word
'victim' during an interview. That is impossible in practice, so ingrained in the
system is the word 'victim'. Every accused person that I interviewed
expressed the view that by describing his accuser as a victim, his guilt had
been assumed and thus pre-judged. Secondly, the use of the word is grossly
inapt in the case of false complaints. Mr. Bailey, in interview, countered this
argument by asserting that only 0.1% of all complaints were false and thus
any inaccuracy in the use of the word 'victim' is so minimal that it can be
disregarded. I take considerable issue with that estimate of false complaints
and will confront that assertion in due course. It should be sufficient to say,
at this stage, that since the whole of the investigative process is engaged in
the task of collating evidence to determine whether a complaint is true or
false, any device which seeks to ignore or minimise that possibility should be
put aside.
15

 1.15 The fact that the word 'victim' is used in legislation does not answer the
charge that its use is inaccurate and, thus, inappropriate. The Home Affairs
Committee of the House of Commons do not use the word 'victim' when the
word 'complainant' is available, e.g./ 19/03/2015:

'Suspects should have the same right to anonymity as 'complainants'.

'For years all complainants in sexual cases were referred to in the Crown
Court as victims until Senior Judiciary realised the injustice of the practice. In
every Crown Court there were signs directing complainants to Victim Support
rooms within the Court building. Those signs are now replaced with signs to
Witness Support rooms. Legislation is not always perfect’.

1.16 Mr. Bailey's argument, that removing the word ‘victim’ and replacing it with
'complainant' will have a significant detrimental effect on the trust victims
now have in the authorities, is necessarily speculative and, I believe, wrong.
I have interviewed as many complainants in my review as I have suspects,
and have canvassed with every one of them the use of the words 'victim' and
'complainant'. I have found no support amongst them for the use of the word
'victim'; indeed, quite the contrary. One victim found the description 'victim'
to be disempowering and inappropriate. Another said that she was focused
on not being perceived as a victim nor perceiving herself as a victim. A third,
who was trained as a journalist, said that her training taught her that the
word should not be used as it was 'unfair to a defendant'. Not one
complainant spoke in favour of the word 'victim'.

1.17 Mr. Bailey's suggestion, that changing a single inaccurate word will
16

 'fundamentally damage the efforts of many organisations re-built over the
years', underestimates the powers and high reputations of those
organisations with whom I have spent some time during this Review. I have
visited NSPCC Offices in Stratford and Camden and interviewed senior staff
members. They perfectly well understood the necessity for 'victims' to be
called 'complainants' in Court. I have no doubt that they would understand
the necessity for the word to be removed from the investigative process. I
have interviewed Peter Saunders, of NAPAC, who was, himself, abused in
childhood and describes himself as a survivor. My note of his evidence is this:

'To use the word 'victim' implies the crime has been committed. It is a tough
one and language is very important...I don't consider the use of the word
'complainant' before conviction is something that would cause an outcry.
Personally, I agree that the use of the word 'complainant' before conviction is
the fairest way of referring to an individual before a finding of guilty'.

This is important evidence from a man of the highest standing. I was most
impressed by the fairness of his approach and his manner singularly
countered Simon Bailey's rhetoric. The NSPCC habitually explain to their
clients that in Court they will be referred to as 'complainants' and they accept
it as they must. I have no doubt that they would accept a similar explanation
at the outset of the investigative process without 'any detrimental effect on
trust' spoken of by Simon Bailey.

1.18 It is my judgement, and that of the complainants that I interviewed, that
police officers gain the confidence of those who complain of sexual abuse
not by the use of false language but by the manner in which complainants
17

 are dealt with; namely, by the response to the initial phone call, by an early
appointment, by being given a choice of venue for the meeting, a choice of
male or female officer, by the manner in which a statement is taken, by
receiving regular information and being part of a highly organised
professional process that is fair to both complainant and suspect. The
complainants I interviewed did not expect to be instantly believed. They
wanted their complaints fully and professionally investigated and, only then,
to be believed. They expected the difficult questions and were ready to
answer them. Complainants expect to be asked why they did not complain
at the time, who saw their injuries, did they keep a diary, what has caused
them to complain now, and do not anticipate instant belief nor to be treated
as if the crime is proven before it is even investigated.

1.19 My recommendation that the word 'victim' should be excluded from the
investigative process is limited to that process. I was told in interview, by Mr.
Bailey's two colleagues, that any recommendation to substitute the word
'victim' with the word 'complainant' would be highly unpopular with the
several organisations, mostly charities, that represent victims. I have no
ambition to trespass on their territory. I understand that it is far easier to
raise money for ‘victims’ of crime than it would be for ‘complainants’. Those
charities are outside the criminal justice process. If they believe a
complainant is a victim, then they must so describe them. On receipt of a
complaint a police officer is in a very different position. A police officer has a
duty to investigate, as part of the criminal justice process, determining
whether or not a complainant is proved to be a victim. Mr. Bailey describes
the police service as the conduit that links the victim to the rest of the
criminal justice system. I prefer to consider the police service as a critical part
18

 of the criminal justice system under an absolute duty to use accurate
language.

1.20 It is not necessary to set out the dictionary definition of ‘victim’ to
demonstrate how very inappropriate the word is to describe many of those
who complain to the police of sexual abuse. Those who continue to contend
for the use of the word are seeking to gain an advantage for complainants at
the expense of those accused. The accurate use of language should be
fundamental in any criminal justice process.

RECOMMENDATION 1:

Throughout both the investigative and the judicial process those who make
complaints should be referred to as ‘complainants’ and not as ‘victims’ by
the MPS.

Belief

1.21 The stated policy of the College of Policing is:

'At the point when someone makes an allegation of crime, the police should
believe the account given and a crime report should be completed'.

The letter containing this policy is dated the 18th March 2016. The obligation
to believe a complainant has its origins in a police Special Notice, from 2002,
dealing with rape investigation which stated that:

19

 'It is the policy of the MPS to accept allegations made by the victim in the first
instance as being truthful. An allegation will only be considered as falling
short of a substantiated allegation after a full and through investigation.’

In 2014, a report on police crime reporting, by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of
Constabulary, recommended, that:

'The presumption that the victim should always be believed should be
institutionalised.’

Dame Elish questioned the approach of 'always believing' a complainant,
stating that 'it may prejudice the impartiality of the officer's role and lead to
their failing to recognise or give weight to other evidence inconsistent with
the complainant’s account'.

1.22 The College of Policing stresses a two stage approach. The first involves
believing the account given by the victim, whilst the second stage, entitled
'crime investigation', involves a thorough investigation of the facts and
allegation made.

1.23 The approach to 'belief' during Operation Yewtree and during Operation
Midland was that of believing the complainant during the course of the
complaint. One difficulty of this approach is that the complaint process may
last for a considerable period not least when a series of ABE interviews are
involved. ‘Nick's’ complaints were received by the MPS on 22/10/2014,
23/10/2014, 3/11/2014, 5/1/2015, and 27/4/2015. Was the obligation to
believe the complainant to continue over a six-month period?
20

 1.24 I spent some considerable time with Operation Hydrant officers discussing
this topic. I understand the strategic aim of improving the Police Service
response to complaints of sexual abuse and the aim to make it easier for
victims of sexual abuse to make a complaint to the police. The officers
steadfastly insist that the 'victim must be believed during the taking of the
statement'. I disagree. It is the duty of a police officer to investigate. Many
decisions in the criminal justice process have to be taken on paper. The police
officer taking a statement from a complainant has a unique opportunity to
assess the complainant’s veracity. The effect of requiring a police officer, in
such a position, to believe a complainant reverses the burden of proof. It also
restricts the officer's ability to test the complainant’s evidence.

1.25 The Irish Supreme Court Judge, Adrian Hardiman, wrote:

‘in sexual cases particularly, even very old ones, some people seem inclined
to think that there should be a different presumption to the presumption of
innocence; that the accuser is to be believed’.

It is, of course, fundamental in any respectable criminal justice system that
no erosion of the presumption of innocence is tolerated. In many allegations
of non-recent sexual abuse, the only pieces of evidence are the complaint
and the suspect's response. Is the investigating officer required to believe
the complainant and then suddenly become objective and impartial as he
interviews the suspect? Surely objectivity and impartiality should prevail
throughout the whole process. This was the view of several officers that I
interviewed, one making the point that 'unquestioning belief of a
complainant can result in problems further down the line'. A gentle inquiry
21

 at initial interview may result in a critical lead or obviate a possible defence.
It may also result in no further action being taken sooner rather than later.
There is plain evidence, in the cases that I have reviewed, that an instruction
to believe complainants has over ridden a duty to investigate cases
objectively and effectively. An instruction to remain objective and impartial
whilst interviewing a complainant will not detract from the obligation to
support complainants through the criminal justice process nor deprive any
complainant of rights under the Victims Charter. It is important that an
interviewing officer demonstrates no show of disbelief at any stage of the
interview and that the format of the questioning is non-confrontational. The
purpose of the interview is to permit a complainant to give as full and
detailed account as possible as part of an impartial fact finding exercise. At
present the public are told 'If you make a complaint you will be believed'. I
consider that they should be told 'If you make a complaint we will treat it
very seriously and investigate it thoroughly without fear or favour.'

1.26 Chief Constable Bailey and his team have argued, both face to face and on
paper, that the March 2016 guidance should remain the stated policy of
police forces nationally. Again, I take issue with him. Any policy involving
belief of one party necessarily involves disbelief of the other party. That
cannot be a fair system. Mr. Bailey seeks to bolster his argument by speaking
and writing of the bad old days when:

'For many years, victims of abuse had little trust in the police. They were not
confident in reporting some of the most horrendous crimes to the very
organisations established to protect them. This state of affairs was caused by
some officers operating within a culture of cynicism and disbelief that was
22

 systemic within the police service'.

Replacing an unsatisfactory state of affairs with a flawed system is no
solution.

1.27 Mr. Bailey stresses:

'It is important to highlight that whilst the starting point for the police service
is one of belief, this is not a 'blind' belief that has no regard for credible
evidence that suggests something contrary to that reported by a victim'.

In cases of sexual allegations, and in particular non-recent cases, there are
mostly only two versions of the facts; the complainant's and the suspect’s.
When a complainant gives a straightforward account of sexual misconduct,
with no variation or inconsistency, the present policy requires an officer to
believe it unless there is 'credible evidence to the contrary'. That is a simple
reversal of the burden of proof. Rupert Butler, Counsel of 3 Hare Court,
writes:

‘The assumption is one of guilt until the police have evidence to the contrary.
This involves an artificial and imposed suspension of forensic analysis which
creates three incremental and unacceptable consequences. Firstly, there is no
investigation that challenges the complainant; secondly, therefore, the
suspect is disbelieved; and, thirdly, and consequently, the burden of proof is
shifted onto the suspect’.

Any process that imposes an artificial state of mind upon an investigator is,
23

 necessarily, a flawed process. An investigator, in any reputable system of
justice, must be impartial. The imposed ‘obligation to believe’ removes that
impartiality.

1.28 Since a complainant may or may not be telling the truth, the present policy
causes those not telling the truth to be artificially believed and, thus, liars
and fantasists, and those genuinely mistaken, are given a free run both
unquestioned and unchallenged. The obligation to believe at the outset can
and does obstruct the asking of relevant and probing questions designed to
elicit the truth. The asking of such questions can be achieved in a
sympathetic, kindly and professional manner. Criminal investigation should
include the process of investigating from the outset and not waiting for some
evidence to the contrary to turn up. It was most encouraging to observe that
in the SCRG review in Operation Midland Recommendation 27 was:

'It is recommended that the MPS reviews the terminology 'believing victims'
to avoid any suggestion of prejudice to a suspect’.

1.29 In spite of my having spent some considerable time with officers
representing the National Police Chiefs' Council endeavouring to explain the
fallacy of the policy by letter dated 4th August 2016, they reaffirmed the
policy of March 2016 namely that 'when an allegation is received police
should believe this account'. That same circular, distributed to all chief
constables, police and crime commissioners and heads of public protection
units, contained these words:

'To start an investigation from a position of doubt is unlikely to encourage
24

 victims to come forward'.

The plain intended consequence of this policy is that, by believing allegations
when they are made, the investigation is started with no existing doubt.
Doubt or indecision at the start of an investigation is the hallmark of
impartiality. A starting point that eliminates doubt has the hallmark of bias.

1.30 The policy of 'believing victims' strikes at the very core of the criminal
justice process. It has and will generate miscarriages of justice on a
considerable scale. The recent successful appeal of David Bryant (CACD
20/07/2016) is but one example. The police force was not the MPS and the
Appellant was not a prominent person. The Complainant was, however, a
compulsive liar who invented a single allegation of buggery between 1976
and 1978. The Police believed his account. He solicited a friend to say that
the assault deprived him of a promising boxing career; an invention also
believed by the police. Mr. Bryant denied the allegation throughout. He was
asked in interview by the police why he thought the Complainant would
make up the incident. He had no idea and it was impossible to provide an
alibi over a 3-year period some 35 years ago. Mr. Bryant had nothing but his
word to gainsay the Complainant’s version. He was convicted by a majority.
Following the trial, the Complainant issued civil proceedings, claiming
damages against Mr. Bryant. He was obliged by the CPR to reveal his medical
history for lying for the purpose of psychiatric assessment of his damages, so
elevating the importance of the untruthful evidence relating to his boxing
career. His wife instructed a private investigator and, after exhaustive work,
the truth emerged. It is clear that the police believed Danny (he chose to
waive anonymity). So did the majority of the jury. Skilled liars are credible.
25

 Because the police believed him they did not investigate the boxing invention
and they did not seek his medical records. They may have assumed, by the
same processes as the Midland Officers, that the Complainant had no reason
to make this allegation up. The question put in interview would suggest that.
If so, they failed to investigate this case without fear or favour, having, I
suspect, been misdirected by the policy of 'believing victims'.

1.31 Lord Finkelstein, writing in The Times (May 18 2016), expressed his
concern thus:

'Our current, entirely justified concern about child abuse, carries with it
particular dangers. It is an extremely difficult area in which to establish guilt
and innocence and we are using very alarming techniques. First there is a
dangerous principle: the accuser must always be believed. This goes far
beyond the idea the accuser must be treated with respect and their
allegations taken seriously, which is correct. The new principle is dangerous
not just because it defies common sense. The real problem is that the police
don't seek the truth, they construct cases. Starting with a rock-solid
assumption that the victim is indeed a victim and the victim's story is correct,
the temptation is strong to fit the facts to the story rather than test the story
with the facts.’

1.32 I would go further than Lord Finkelstein. The instruction foisted upon
investigators to believe a 'victim' perverts our system of justice and attempts
to impose upon a thinking investigator an artificial and false state of mind. If
a judge were to direct a Jury to believe a complainant during evidence in
chief, and only to question credibility thereafter, it would constitute a most
26

 serious misdirection. It would be an instruction to the jury to assume the
guilt of the defendant whilst the complainant gave evidence; a ludicrous
approach to the task of decision making but no worse than the instruction
presently given to investigators nationwide.

1.33 Observing a complainant recalling details of an event for the first time to
a person in authority presents the best possible opportunity to assess
veracity and accuracy. An imposed, compulsory 'belief' negates that process
and inhibits the asking of relevant and necessary questions. Further, an
imposed 'belief' over a prolonged duration may prove difficult to put aside
in order to transfer into investigative mode. In Operation Midland the ABE
interviews lasted for 17hours. A plausible explanation for the prolonged, and
in my view unjustifiable, 'belief' in ‘Nick's’ 'complaint' is the imposition of a
false state of mind required by police directive nationwide. Requiring an
investigator to believe a complaint which may or may not be true is a recipe
for injustice.

1.34

The Commissioner has clearly appreciated the flaw. He wrote to Sir Tom

Winsor, HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary, on 22 February 2016 saying:

‘I do though have a real concern in this context that the term 'belief' itself is
not helpful. It does not connect to the investigative requirements which – as
I said in my Guardian article and on the Today programme – means that
those making serious allegations should be taken seriously and be shown
professional empathy. The idea of 'belief', however, in my view does not sit
easily with the essence of an investigation which needs above all to proceed
with an open mind. An effective investigation is not contingent on 'belief'.
27

 Nor does 'belief' appear to be compatible with the most basic principle of the
criminal justice system, that a person is innocent until proved guilty of an
offence beyond reasonable doubt.’

1.35 My experience during this review has been that 'belief' campaigners are
zealously opposed to any change asserting that an abandonment of 'belief'
would result in a return to the bad old days when victims of crime were
frightened to complain and, if they did so, their complaints were too readily
rejected. Unhappily, they fail to acknowledge the fundamental flaws in the
'belief' policy, not least the dreadful consequences of false complaints upon
the innocent. A genuine and truthful complainant has nothing to fear from a
directive that prioritises investigation ahead of 'belief'.

RECOMMENDATION 2:

The instruction to 'believe a 'victim’s' account' should cease. It should be
the duty of an officer interviewing a complainant to investigate the facts
objectively and impartially and with an open mind from the outset of the
investigation. At no stage must the officer show any form of disbelief and
every effort must be made to facilitate the giving of a detailed account in a
non-confrontational manner.

RECOMMENDATION 3:

In future, the public should be told that 'if you make a complaint we will
treat it very seriously and investigate it thoroughly without fear or favour'.

28

 False Complaints

1.36 I was concerned at the suggestion made by Chief Constable Bailey that
0.1% of all complaints may be false. That assessment, admittedly 'off the
cuff', bore no relation to my own experience over a lifetime in the Courts nor
to my assessment of several complaints during this review. In fact, nobody
knows, nor can ever know, the extent of false complaints. It is critical,
however, that those charged with the responsibility of investigating crime, or
instructing others in that process, have in mind the real, as opposed to the
remote, possibility that a complaint may be false.

1.37 Dame Elish, at pages 38 to 42 of her review, seeks to analyse the extent of
'false reporting of sexual violence'. An analysis of 299 cases identified 36
cases of false complaint (12%) using a broad definition or just 9 cases (3%)
using a narrow definition. From the perspective of an innocent suspect, the
definition is irrelevant. A false complaint equates to innocence. In a 17month period, in 2013-2014, 159 cases of false allegations of rape and/or
domestic violence were referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions for
charging decisions relating to false allegations nationwide. This was from a
total of some 117,000 prosecutions. The number of cases referred for a
charging decision will necessarily be very much smaller than the actual
number of false complaints. The only relevant conclusion is that false
complaints of sexual abuse are made and that investigators, and the
practices prescribed for them, must recognise that fact.

1.38 Dame Elish consulted focus groups and reported that a focus group of first
response officers believed there to be a high level of false allegations
29

 seemingly made by individuals for their own ends. Amongst the examples
given was reporting rape to cover up a one-night stand or an affair. Detective
Constables referred to 'regret sex', describing a situation where, following
consensual sex, one has regrets and makes a false report to create some form
of justification for the event. A focus group of Haven (a sexual assault referral
centre) staff accepted that people sometimes 'make up something to explain
things'. They identified an important category of complainant, distinct from
the deliberately untruthful, namely 'troubled people often have something
that happened in life, even if it's not what they've reported. It could be a flash
back or something that happened years ago'.

1.39 In the case of prominent people, it appears that they are more vulnerable
to false complaints than others. The cases I have reviewed involve
individuals, most of whom are household names. Their identities are known
to millions. They are vulnerable to compensation seekers, attention seekers,
and those with mental health problems. The internet provides the
information and detail to support a false allegation. Entertainers are
particularly vulnerable to false allegations meeting, as they do, literally
thousands of attention seeking fans who provoke a degree of familiarity
which may be exaggerated or misconstrued in their recollection many years
later. Deceased persons are particularly vulnerable as allegations cannot be
answered.

1.40 A further and significant category of false complainant is referred to, by
Paul Gambaccini, as a 'bandwagoner'; namely a person who learns that a
complaint has been made and decides to support the original complaint
(true or false) with a false complaint. It can be seen that, when an arrest or
30

 bail renewal is publicised involving a prominent person, further complaints
are frequently made. These may be, and often are, true complaints. There is,
however, within the cases I have reviewed, significant evidence of false
complaints immediately following upon publicity. In many cases those
complaints were withdrawn or the complainant simply disengaged, declining
to make a statement in support of the complaint.

1.41 I remain most concerned that the Hydrant team fail to appreciate the
danger of false complaints and that a cardinal principal of the criminal justice
process is that a complaint may be false. Arguments advanced in support of
retaining the word 'victim' and the culture of 'belief' appear to have been
based on the supposition that the level of false complaints is so small that it
can be disregarded. There is, of course, a significant difference between the
number of false complaints and the number of persons who make false
complaints. In Operation Yewtree one complainant, whilst residing in prison,
made complaints of the most serious nature against a total of in excess of 40
suspects involving several sexual allegations against many of the suspects.
He was interviewed over six days and the subsequent investigation was
thorough and proportionate. Officers concluded that 'his evidence is fatally
undermined and is not something that can be relied upon in Court'. I have
reviewed the investigation and it is above criticism. In Operation Fairbank
the SIO observed that the vast majority of 400 complaints were without
merit. I am satisfied, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the numerous
complaints by ‘Nick’, against five living persons and seven deceased, were
false. The allegation against Ken Clarke was unquestionably false, as were
several other complaints from the same source. I have encountered two very
clear cases of mistaken identity, both accepted as such, after very diligent
31

 investigation. There are cases where complainants, after many years, may
have, in the words of a highly respected District Judge, 'misremembered the
detail'. Whilst victims of sexual abuse are entitled to, and deserve,
compensation, it is simply wrong to turn a blind eye to the possibility that a
complaint may have been motivated by financial consideration. In short,
investigation should start at the outset and not part way through.

RECOMMENDATION 4:

Investigators should be informed that false complaints are made from time
to time and should not be regarded as a remote possibility. They may be
malicious, mistaken, designed to support others, financially motivated, or
inexplicable. When considering non-recent allegations against prominent
people they should give full consideration to all background information.

Non-Recent Complaints

1.42 In cases of non-recent complaints, that is complaints of criminal conduct
taking place several years ago, it is of critical importance that the
complainant is asked by the investigator to explain the reason for the delay
in making a complaint. The reason may add substance to the allegation, e.g./
my daughter is now the same age as me when I was assaulted. If this aspect
of the case is not confronted by the complainant when making a statement,
it surely will be during the trial process. It is essential to ascertain by
questioning what opportunity the complainant had to complain. Did they
have a close friend at the time? How did they get on with their parents or
family members? A complainant should also be asked whether a claim for
32

 compensation has been made and whether there has been any contact with
the press and, if so, the nature of the relationship. Page 25 of the Hydrant
guide sets out a number of critical matters for an investigator's
consideration. A check list of topics specifically crafted for non-recent
complaints against prominent individuals would assist in the statement
taking process. Failure to deal with critical topics can result in either a
barrage of questions from the defence shortly before the trial or the
complainant being taken by surprise in Court.

RECOMMENDATION 5:

A check list of critical topics to be covered in the complainant's statement
should be made available to all investigators designed specifically for nonrecent allegations against prominent people.

Confidentiality Agreements and Witness Contracts

1.43 It is inevitable that cases involving allegations against prominent people
will attract the media. The link that sometimes exists between a complainant
and the media can prove a hindrance to an investigation and frequently
causes a suspect to lose anonymity. The payment of money by the media to
complainants can prove fatal to a successful outcome. I applaud any attempt
to avoid any such interference. I cannot envisage that any confidentiality
agreement can be enforceable or attract any sanction for a breach. However,
if a complainant signs such a document, I agree that confidentiality is more
likely to be preserved. This is an initiative of Operation Hydrant and I wish it
well.
33

 RECOMMENDATION 6:

In cases involving prominent people, consideration should be given to
inviting complainants to sign confidentiality agreements and witnesses to
sign witness contracts.

First Response to Complainants

1.44 The considerable majority of complaints to the police are by telephone to
a uniformed officer known as the ‘first responder’. They will wish to know
what happened, when, who was responsible and whether the complainant
is in any immediate danger. In almost all non-recent cases there will be no
immediate risk and the responder will face two tasks, namely recording the
crime, unless there is credible evidence to the contrary, and arranging for an
officer to contact the complainant. In the immediate aftermath of the launch
of Yewtree following up complaints in timely manner presented problems
but this was achieved via a triage system being used. For example, on the
31st October 2012, 313 complainants had made contact. As at that date the
aim was for all the victims to be spoken to within the next ten days. The rate
of reporting offences has, of course, abated but the critical factor, from a
complainant's perspective, is when and how they will be contacted. The
availability of officers to make contact will necessarily vary dependent on
workload but the first responder should be in a position to inform the
complainant when contact will be made 'at the latest'.

34

 RECOMMENDATION 7:

First Responders should be able to inform complainants of the latest time
that contact will be made with them. Such time scale should be variable
and dependent on other commitments.

Contacting Complainants

1.45 The Hydrant Report states, at p15, that:

'the letter drop method of contact is a highly effective approach to tracing
potential witnesses of abuse.....However, it is important to remember that, a
letter drop is something that may not be suitable for many victims or
witnesses. Letters can be a shock for people if unexpected, or could be
intercepted by another person.'
In non-recent cases, complainants have almost always embarked on a new
way of life, having kept their allegation away from a partner or a family unit
which did not exist at the time of the alleged offence. Letters to witnesses
may fall into the wrong hands, particularly when allegations have been made
against prominent persons. It may be that discovery of the alleged event by
a partner is the complainant’s greatest fear. A letter drop runs the very real
risk, certainly in a non-recent case, of interception. My conclusion is that
letters should not be used. Particular care needs to be taken in complying
with the Code of Practice for Victims which entitles a victim to a written
acknowledgement that a crime has been reported, including the basic details
of the offence. This may be by email or text or, where there is a risk of harm,
it may be dispensed with. Again, care must be taken to ensure that no
35

 unfortunate interception occurs.

RECOMMENDATION 8:

Contacting a complainant, or potential complainant or witness, by letter, in
non-recent cases involving prominent persons, should only take place if a
constable is satisfied that there is no risk of interception by another
member of the same household.

MPS Media Policy / Anonymity for Suspects

1.46 Lord Justice Leveson's advice and MPS Policy are identical. The current
MPS policy is that people who have been arrested are not named by police
unless there are exceptional circumstances. In the eight cases I have
considered, the names of suspects were reported by the media at a very
early stage of the investigation. I have considered MPS policy and I have
interviewed

the

Director

of

DMC

(Directorate

of

Media

and

Communications) and the Head and Deputy Head of Media. I have also been
supplied with a 16-page document setting out the objectives of the MPS
Media Policy and responding to concerns I raised relating to Operations
Yewtree and Midland.

1.47 Prominent suspects necessarily pose far greater problems for those
seeking to preserve anonymity. The Press, the internet, bloggers,
complainants, witnesses, and leaks, are all candidates for causing or
contributing to identity being disclosed. I consider it vital, however, that the
MPS does not contribute to that process or facilitate it.
36

 1.48 Sir Bernard has expressed himself thus:

'We want a healthy and trusted relationship with journalists. Media can help
us detect crimes and to make sure the public are engaged when it comes to
fighting crime and holding the police to account. My message to my officers
is that I want them to have an open and professional relationship with
reporters'.

Fostering and preserving a good working relationship with the Press is plainly
important to the MPS and in the best interests of the public. Information
passes in both directions. Investigative journalists have contributed much to
the Criminal Justice system over the years. Policing can depend heavily, at
times, on the media to conduct appeals in major investigations. When high
profile, prominent people are under investigation the Media are thirsty for
knowledge. They can be persistent and demanding in their enquiries.

1.49 The genesis of Operation Yewtree was the investigation into the many
allegations made against Sir Jimmy Savile. Problems of preserving anonymity
did not arise as Savile had died. It soon became obvious that allegations were
also being made against living, prominent persons. A media strategy was set
by the SIO and approved by the Gold Group. The strategy included a
commitment to protect the confidentiality of complainants and suspects.
The overall strategy was to be pro-active in informing the media of
developments and, in particular, a decision was made that the MPS would
not wait for the media to find out about an arrest but would release the
information first. This, it is said, would not include sufficient information to
identify the suspect but would follow the normal practice of providing the
37

 gender, age (or age-range), broad location in which the suspect lived or was
arrested, and broad location of the police station in which they were
questioned.

1.50 The reasons advanced for this strategy included the public interest in
transparency around this high-profile investigation, the need to maintain
public confidence in the police investigation and, it is said, the likelihood that
information about arrests would quickly reach the media given the public
profile of the suspects. Further, the police have a formal responsibility, under
the Victim's Charter, to keep complainants informed of arrests, searches,
interviews etc., within five working days, or one working day in the most
serious of cases, and there is no legal obligation on the part of the
complainant to maintain confidentiality. Several complainants were
confiding in journalists or politicians with every possibility that the
complainant would divulge the identity of the suspect.

1.51 I am told that journalists frequently seek information from the MPS, either
as a result of their own researches or having received information from
complainants. There are two options, either to make no comment or to
confirm that an arrest/search/interview has taken place but without naming
the suspect. The problem of making no comment is that it gives rise to an
allegation of secret policing and has, quite understandably, been rejected. In
Operation Yewtree some 20 people would have been arrested with no
official comment having been made. A journalist will not obtain any
information without correctly identifying the nature of the offence, the
location and date of arrest. They must already know the key facts before the
MPS will confirm that operational activity has taken place. When they are so
38

 informed the suspect is not named, but when a journalist puts forward a
name it is not policy to confirm the name but it is policy to state the age of
the person arrested.

1.52 It follows that there are two routes by which the media receive
information, namely, proactive and reactive. In cases of non-prominent
suspects, the proactive publication that a fifty-year-old man in Brighton has
been arrested for an indecent assault, will deprive nobody of their
anonymity. In the case, however, of a celebrity, and an arrest as part of
Yewtree or Midland, the provision of the suspect's age and location of home
address is all but certain to result in a loss of anonymity. Further, in a reactive
situation where the press put forward the identity of a suspect and the DMC
respond with the age of the person arrested, it is all but inevitable that
anonymity will be lost. Once anonymity has been lost the repeated proactive
release of bail return dates, re-arrests (if they occur), further interviews (if
they occur), can have a corrosive effect upon a suspect’s standing,
particularly if the information is linked to other suspects by being
disseminated simultaneously.

1.53 With the resources and ability to ‘doorstep’ of the national press, the
likelihood of their deducing the identity of the man in his 60's from
Warwickshire arrested on the 1st November 2012, or the man in his 60's from
Bedfordshire arrested on the 15th November 2012, or the man in his 70's
from Cambridgeshire arrested on the 11th November 2012, or the man in his
80's from Berkshire arrested on the 29th of November 2012, was extremely
high as each was arrested as part of Operation Yewtree and each given a
Yewtree number.
39

 1.54 It is contended that this was a 'solid and defensible position' for the MPS
during Operation Yewtree. I readily accept that an arrest of a 50-year-old
man in London would have defeated the most resourceful of journalists and
my attention is drawn to the case of Rolf Harris where caution appears to
have delayed publication. I readily accept that journalists will frequently have
independent information of an arrest, but it is likely to be the confirmation
derived from the MPS of the date, the age, and geographical location that
gives the confidence to publish. I cannot say, in any particular case, that the
MPS caused publication because I do not have access to all the information
in the possession of the media. I can only comment on the likelihood of MPS
information contributing to the decision to publish.

1.55 As to Operation Midland, the decision to pro-actively release information
was made on the basis that the same principles that had been applied to
popular entertainers and media figures should also be applied to political
and establishment figures. The decision made was that arrests and
interviews under caution would be pro-actively released without identifying
the suspects. Since ‘Nick’ had already provided a number of names to the
media, of whom only four now remained alive, and they were of very
different ages living in different localities, any proactive information would
effectively identify the suspect. Concurrent searches took place at the homes
of Lord Bramall and Harvey Proctor and at the two homes of the late Lord
Brittan on 4th March 2015. Many officers were involved in those searches in
Farnham, Grantham, Pimlico, and Leyburn and an assumption can be made
that the media must have received at least some information. Exaro News,
indeed, informed the Press bureau that they were aware that the MPS went
to Belvoir Estate and carried out a number of searches. They wanted to know
40

 if any arrests had been made. The MPS disclosed:

'We can confirm that officers from Operation Midland are carrying out a
search of an address in Grantham in connection with their enquiries'.

On the 6th March enquiries were received from both the BBC and Exaro, the
latter making it clear that they knew of the other searches, giving full details
of the addresses. DMC responded by confirming details of the other three
searches, without identifying the properties or the individuals to whom they
belonged. There can be no doubt that the media had an independent source
or sources of the information derived, no doubt, from the scale of each
search.

1.56 When it came to interviews under caution, a statement was proactively
issued to media saying ‘A man in his 90’s from Farnham was today
interviewed under caution’ together with other details, including the fact
that he was not arrested and that the interview was conducted by Operation
Midland officers. Unsurprisingly, the BBC, Exaro, and the Press Association,
ran stories identifying Lord Bramall without making any further enquiries.

1.57 In Harvey Proctor's case, a similar situation prevailed on the 18th June. A
statement was issued that a man in his 60's from Grantham was interviewed
under caution together with other details, including the fact that he was not
arrested, and that the interview was conducted by Operation Midland
officers. A follow up call was made by Exaro asking if the man interviewed
was the same man whose house was searched earlier in the year. The MPS
said they would not comment on the identity. Unsurprisingly, on the 19th of
41

 June, Mr. Proctor was named as having been interviewed in a number of
newspapers.

1.58 On the 31st July Lord Bramall was again interviewed by Operation Midland
officers. His wife had recently died and the SIO, out of respect and kindness,
decided not to make a pro-active statement. There was no media enquiry
and no media coverage.

1.59 On the 24th August Mr. Proctor was again interviewed. In advance of the
interview, two newspapers reported that the interviews were about to take
place. After the interview a pro-active statement, in similar terms to the
earlier one, was released beginning 'A man in his 60's from Grantham…etc.'.
Again, the matter was fully reported.

1.60 On the following day, 25th August, Mr. Proctor made a substantial
statement to the invited media at the St Ermin's Hotel in Victoria asserting
his innocence and making a number of complaints about the manner in
which the MPS had conducted itself. On the topic presently under
consideration he said:

'Anonymity is given to anyone prepared to make untruthful accusations of
child sexual abuse whilst the alleged accused are routinely fingered publicly
without any credible evidence first being found'.

1.61 I have no doubt that the DMC Policy of pro-active information to include
an age range and a geographical clue is incompatible with MPS policy that
suspects should retain anonymity until they are charged. Whilst the
42

 information will rarely be sufficient, on its own, to identify a suspect, the
detail will frequently, in conjunction with other information, give the media
the confidence to publish. In Operation Midland, the statements released
may just as well have named the accused. There was only one candidate in
his 90's in the small village of Farnham and only one candidate in his 60's
from Grantham.

1.62 In their written submission the DMC seek to answer the question:

'Why not just say 'a man has been interviewed under caution by detectives
from Operation Midland?’.

They submit, firstly, that the MPS decided that their approach should be
consistent with the approach on Yewtree. They did not wish to appear to
afford greater protection to former politicians or senior establishment
figures than to celebrities and entertainers. Secondly, they submit that the
information put out by the MPS was insufficient to identify the individuals
without the journalists obtaining additional information from other sources.

1.63 That explanation is unconvincing. The fact that Lord Bramall and Mr.
Proctor were immediately identifiable as having been interviewed under
caution was attributable to the information published by the DMC. In
releasing the information, the DMC breached the stated policy of the MPS.
The same point can be made in relation to the searches at their homes and
at Lady Brittan's home. It is, with respect, no answer to say that the same
approach was taken as in Yewtree if the policy deployed therein was flawed.
Whilst journalists doubtless had other information in advance of the DMC
43

 information, or collated it afterwards, the fact is that the pro-active
information must have contributed to a material degree in the loss of
anonymity in numerous Yewtree cases.

1.64 I acknowledge the necessity for the MPS, in general, and the DMC, in
particular, to foster and maintain good relations with the media. I appreciate
also, from reading the MPS Press Bureau Log containing thousands of
requests from the media for information, just how assiduous and
competitive they are in their pursuit of information in this field. Compliance
with the media must not, however, be in breach of the MPS stated policy on
anonymity, nor must it be to the disadvantage of accused persons. Public
confidence in the MPS must remain a more substantial aim than assisting the
media in their hunt for information. There are indications that the wrong aim
has been taken. In March 2015 the Home Affairs Committee, in its report on
police bail, wrote:

'It is in the interests of the police, post Leveson, to demonstrate that they
understand the level of public distrust that has built up over the informal
relationship between the police and the media'.

That distrust reached its peak when a helicopter filmed the search of Cliff
Richard's home; an event unconnected with the MPS. The fact remains that
the reputation of the police service, as a whole, has been damaged and real
attention must be focused on the anonymity afforded to accused persons.

1.65 The Home Affairs Committee, in publishing its report on police bail,
concluded that suspects should have the same right to anonymity as the
44

 complainants in sexual offences, until the time they are charged. One
difficulty, at present, is that the police are obliged by statute to inform
complainants of arrests, interviews under caution, release without charge,
and release on bail within 5 working days, or one working day in the most
serious cases, pursuant to the Code of Practice for the Victims of Crime.
Complainants are frequently in contact, either directly or indirectly via the
internet, with media. Until anonymity is enforced by statute it is inevitable
that many accused will lose their anonymity at an early stage of an
investigation and well before charge.

1.66 One consequential factor in the loss of anonymity is the exposure of those
named as suspects to false complaints by those referred to as
‘bandwagoners'; that is those who make false allegations to support those
who have already complained. A careful examination of the cases I have
reviewed demonstrates, most graphically, the co-relation between publicity
and complaint. I readily acknowledge that publicity may also flush out
genuine and truthful complaints. A number of successful prosecutions
demonstrate this fact. In certain cases, it is necessary to appeal for witnesses,
but I am satisfied that such occasions should be controlled by application
either to a Court or to a Senior Officer. The real weakness in the present
system is that all subsequent complainants are exposed to the assertion that
they have been influenced to make their allegation by what they have read
in the press or in social media, or heard on the grapevine. A complaint in a
case where anonymity has prevailed is necessarily protected from that form
of attack and thus more likely to be believed.

1.67 I consider it most unlikely that a Government will protect the anonymity
45

 of suspects pre-charge. To do so would enrage the popular press whose
circulation would suffer. Present arrangements, however, have caused the
most dreadful unhappiness and distress to numerous suspects, their
families, friends and supporters. Those consequences were avoidable by
protecting anonymity. Nobody is safe from false accusation and damaging
exposure under present arrangements. A reputation built on a lifetime of
public service or popular entertainment can be extinguished in an instant. I
sincerely believe that statutory protection of anonymity pre-charge is
essential in a fair system. In every case I have reviewed in which there was
no charge, anonymity was lost. It is frequently impossible to trace the leak.
The more famous the suspect, the more difficult it is to preserve anonymity,
and the more damaging the consequential loss. I am aware that a number of
celebrities are engaged in advancing this argument in Westminster. I wish
them well. Their cause is a just one.

RECOMMENDATION 9:

DMC policy should be amended to avoid any details of age or geography
being released to the public in relation to an arrest, search, interview, or
bail of any suspect.

RECOMMENDATION 10:

A suspect should have the right to anonymity prior to arrest enforced by
statute and criminal sanctions.

46

 Loss of Anonymity in Exceptional Circumstances

1.68 Current MPS policy is that people who have been arrested but not charged
are not named by police unless there are exceptional circumstances. This is
in line with Lord Justice Leveson's advice. There are those who contend that
the identity of suspects should be confirmed or disclosed by the police to
encourage or allow other victims to come forward with allegations. There
are case studies which demonstrate that publicity in one case will result in
further allegations resulting in a successful prosecution. A counter argument
requires a charge to be brought in relation to the initial allegation which will
then trigger the loss of anonymity and further allegations if multiple offences
have been committed. This latter course is in accord with MPS policy but the
conditions in which exceptional circumstances will be judged to exist are
unclear.

1.69 The relevant policy document states:

'Exceptions to the policy of not naming those arrested would include
circumstances such as police having made a public warning about a wanted
individual who is then arrested. It could also be in the public interest to name
someone who could be responsible for many other crimes, in order to
encourage other victims to come forward. The naming of an arrested person
before they are charged should be authorised by an ACPO rank officer and
the reason for doing so logged with the Media Desk. The authorising officer
should also give consideration to consulting with the CPS about the release
of the name. The MPS continues to keep the circumstances under which it
may be appropriate to name someone arrested under review and further
47

 guidance may be issued in the future'.

1.70 I question whether, in cases of non-recent sexual allegations against
prominent individuals, there could ever be exceptional circumstances
justifying such an authorisation. If there is information amounting to a
sufficiency of evidence, then the suspect should be arrested and charged.
The mischief that must be avoided is the use of publicity as 'flypaper’, namely
releasing details of a suspect in the hope that others will come forward to
support an insubstantial initial allegation.

RECOMMENDATION 11:

The exceptional circumstances in which suspects will be named or
identified before charge should be clearly defined and included in MPS
policy documents. In most cases qualifying for removal of anonymity there
will be sufficient evidence to justify a charge.

Leaks

1.71 On the 20th March 2015 the Rt. Hon. Keith Vaz, then Chairman of the
Home Affairs committee, observed:

'Police use of the 'flypaper' practice of arresting someone, leaking the details,
then endlessly re-bailing them in the vague hope that other people come
forward is unacceptable and must come to an immediate end............The
police must advocate zero tolerance on leaking names of suspects to the
press before charge'.
48

 1.72 In the witness statement of Ed Stearns, MPS Head of Media, he stated:

'It is important to emphasise that in practical terms when looked at in
context, leaks of information actually held by the MPS are comparatively
small. If the public had any sense of the vast amount of highly confidential
information that is held by the MPS that is not leaked prior to prosecution or
is never publicly revealed because it would never be appropriate (for example
the identity of victims) it really would put the issue of information leaks in a
proper context. Of course unauthorised leaks do happen but the vast majority
of information remains properly and appropriately confidential until such
time as it should, if at all, be made public. And if a leak does occur it is taken
very seriously and considered very seriously by the MPS Professional
Standards teams. It is easy for unsubstantiated claims to be made that the
MPS and/or press officers leak information'.

1.73 Several suspects I have interviewed complain bitterly of deliberate leaks
of information from the MPS to the media. It is not possible to establish or
reject those complaints for a number of reasons. The Press, of course, never
reveal their sources of information. The complainants, or their associates or
the internet, may have provided the information. There is one exception,
namely in the case of [Subject of Chapter 5], which I will amplify when I
consider his case. Information found its way to a journalist concerning the
number of offences that [Subject of Chapter 5]was to be re-arrested for. The
journalist telephoned and then emailed [Subject of Chapter 5] with specific
information asking him to confirm it. The detail could only have been known
to very few persons and certainly not a complainant. A complaint was made
by [Subject of Chapter 5] of Misconduct in a Public Office to the MPS
49

 Professional Standards team. The complaint was upheld but, as the leak
remained unknown, no misconduct or gross misconduct was found in
respect of any officer. That is highly likely to be the outcome of any similar
complaint. As a result, there will be a continuing lack of public confidence in
the relationship between the police and the media. A statutory right to
anonymity until charge on similar terms to that of complainants, and
enforced by criminal sanctions, would go some considerable way towards
dissolving a suspicion which may exceed reality. In the meantime, there must
be a concern that leaks do occur and are apparently accepted as inevitable
in an organisation as large as MPS. A finding of the Select Committee was
that:

'if the police wish to release information on a suspect, for policing reasons,
then they should do so in a formal way'.

This does not obviate the risk of a deliberate leak whilst statutory anonymity
prior to charge would. In the meantime, every effort should be made to
counter leaks, not only by severe sanctions but also by examining present
systems and any weakness therein. I accept as inevitable the conclusion that
some leaks of information are inevitable albeit by officers of the law.

RECOMMENDATION 12:

Every effort should be made to minimise leaks of information by examining
current systems and increasing sanctions.

50

 Bail / Arrest

1.74 A reform of police bail is imminent and may well have taken place before
this report is complete. The granting of bail and its serial renewal, reported
at every stage, was the most repeated and convincing criticism of the
handling of the cases I have reviewed. Paul Gambaccini articulated the
criticism in powerful terms to the Home Affairs Committee. He was bailed on
the 29/10/2013, re-bailed on 12/12/2013, re-bailed on 08/01/2014, rebailed on 25/03/2014, re-bailed on 01/05/2014, re-bailed on 04/07/2014
and on 12/09/2014 his bail return date was varied to 13/10/2014. The
papers in the case had been passed to the CPS on the 10/02/2014 so that
the majority of the period was whilst the CPS were considering the papers.
The Rt. Hon. Keith Vaz commented:

'Paul Gambaccini was left in limbo for what he described as 'twelve months
of trauma', his life was put on hold, his employer stopped his contract and his
costs from lost earnings and legal fees totalled £200,000'.

This was, by no means, the only case of repeated re-bails causing
considerable trauma.

1.75 There are a number of adverse effects of persistent re-bailing. Firstly, the
suspect assumes that the return date represents the date on which a
decision will be made as to whether he is charged or not and, accordingly,
informs employers, friends and family to that effect. When he is simply rebailed his name is proactively supplied to the media time and again and his
name reappears repeatedly in connection with sexual allegations and linked
51

 to Operation Yewtree. In Mr Gambaccini's case reports of re-bail were on
several occasions linked to other Yewtree cases thereby attracting greater
publicity even though he had no link with such other cases or, indeed, with
Savile. Further, throughout the whole process, a suspect receives little or no
information as to the progress of the investigation. In the cases of several
suspects, they sustained severe mental anguish through not knowing what
was happening and when a decision would be made.

1.76 These matters were not lost on the Home Affairs Committee and it is now
anticipated that there will be a limit on the length of pre-charge bail at 28
days, with further extension only permitted in certain circumstances. I feel
bound to observe that 28 days is unrealistic to anticipate a completion of an
investigation in cases of sexual allegations against prominent persons. A
critical analysis of the pending legislation is, however, outside the
parameters of this review but with a view to learning lessons and improving
performance, it is important to consider the necessity of arrest.

1.77 The Revised Code G of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which
was implemented on 12th November 2012, provided that prior to arrest
alternatives must be considered:

‘1.3 - The use of the power must be fully justified and officers exercising the
power should consider if the necessary objectives can be met by other, less
intrusive means. Arrest must never be used simply because it can be used.
Absence of justification....may lead to challenges should the case proceed to
court...’

52

 If an SIO considers that a search, interview, taking of samples etc., can be
achieved without the necessity for an arrest, then an arrest will not be
appropriate. Those who cooperate will not be taken into custody. An
interview should be carried out on a voluntary basis unless voluntary
attendance is not considered a practicable alternative. In certain cases, an
arrest will, of course, be necessary. If the suspect appears to represent a
potential danger to the public, or is likely to abscond, or to destroy potential
evidence, or is a danger to himself, then an arrest will be appropriate.
Paragraph 2.9 of Code G provides a number of examples for guidance.

1.78 In a number of cases I have reviewed an arrest may have been avoided.
The majority of suspects were of good character, the offences were nonrecent, there was no suggestion that they were a danger to the public;
indeed, they were released from custody as soon as the interview process
was completed. Had they been asked, the indications are that they would
have agreed to be interviewed. Searches could have taken place pursuant to
warrant. Several of the traumatic effects of arrest would have been avoided
assuming that anonymity had been preserved. Those in the entertainment
world may have been able to continue working. Early morning arrests would
be avoided. Lengthy waits in police cells whilst solicitors attended would be
avoided. Re-bails would be avoided. There would be no re-arrests provided
cooperation continued. The obligation to carry out the investigation
expeditiously would remain but a suspect would have been spared much of
the anguish of which they complained.

1.79 I mention a conflicting view expressed by certain Yewtree officers. When
I suggested that many, if not all, prominent persons accused of non-recent
53

 sexual offences need not be arrested, I was told that the police may still need
to consider arrest as it provides many powers that go with it, such as search,
forensic examination, ID parades etc. In addition, bail has many benefits
including bail conditions for the protection of the complainant or to restrain
a suspect seeking to influence the investigation. It is their view that, more
often than not, an arrest will be necessary and that 28 days will rarely be
sufficient time to complete an investigation. In cases of downloading
pornography, it can take months to examine vast amounts of digital
equipment. In such cases several applications to Court may be necessary.
Problems will also arise where further allegations are received during an
investigation. The officers pointed out that a suspect not on bail would face
the same ordeal of waiting to hear if and when he would be charged or
NFA'd. It may well be that the forthcoming Bail provisions create as many
problems as they solve. I detected a degree of apprehension concerning the
number of applications that may have to be made for extensions.

RECOMMENDATION 13:

In non-recent cases particular consideration should be given to the
necessity to arrest or re-arrest in accord with Code G and the guidance
therein.

Informing the Suspect

1.80 A common complaint amongst suspects has been that after arrest and
release on bail they expect the investigation to be completed by the bail
return date but find themselves re-bailed with no explanation, either then
54

 or later, as to the progress of the investigation or how long they must wait
before a decision is made. This is in contrast to the complainant who is kept
fully informed pursuant to the Victim's Charter and will have ready access to
the investigating officer. In the case of suspects, no such code of practice
exists. This shortcoming has been recognised by the MPS and I have seen a
letter from A/C Gallan to the Rt. Hon. Keith Vaz, dated 26th January 2016, in
which her concluding sentence reads:
'We agree with the Committee that suspects should be regularly informed of
the progress of their case albeit it will rarely be possible to give them details
of what enquiries are being undertaken'.

1.81 This is a difficult area. There are problems in investigating officers
communicating on a regular basis with suspects. Prominent people,
however, invariably have solicitors and thus information as to progress can
be received by them. AC Gallan informed Mr. Vaz that:

'a regular review of the status of investigations is now undertaken when a
suspect remains under investigation but not on police bail. The rationale for
how frequently suspects are updated is clearly set out. Whilst this is
especially relevant for cases involving high profile suspects the principle is
also applicable in all other cases'.

1.82 This is a reassuring development. I invite consideration, however, of actual
time limits imposed by a supervising officer at an early stage of the
investigation, commensurate with its the size and complexity. Such time
limits would be disclosed to the suspect. The time limit could be extended in
the event of unforeseen circumstances and an explanation given to the
55

 suspect. Updates are of little assistance to a suspect without an end date. In
custody cases there is a custody time limit which has proved effective. The
CPS have recently imposed a time limit on charging decisions, which is also
proving effective.

1.83 The problem with fixing a time limit for completion of an investigation, in
cases of sexual allegations, is that further allegations are frequently received
thereafter. Such further allegations are most frequently made by those who
have learned of the earlier allegation. I see no problem in such cases. Either
an extension can be granted or the initial allegation can be the subject of a
charge or no further action. A new time limit can then be put in place.

RECOMMENDATION 14:

A protocol for keeping suspects, who are not in custody, informed of the
progress of the investigation should be published.

RECOMMENDATION 15:

At the commencement of an investigation a time limit should be fixed by a
supervising officer and communicated to a suspect. Such time limit can be
extended in appropriate circumstances.

Allegations not communicated to the suspect

1.84 In several cases allegations were made by complainants and never
communicated to suspects for a variety of reasons. Putting aside those which
56

 were not criminal offences, e.g./ he seduced me when I was nineteen or he
called me onto the stage and then made a fool of me, there may be a number
of reasons for not proceeding with the allegations. After investigation they
may not be judged to be credible, the allegation may be made and then
withdrawn, the allegation may be so vague and lacking in detail that it could
never pass the full code test, the allegation may be at odds with evidence of
a complaint, it may add little to existing complaints, or the allegation,
although criminal, is of little significance in the context of the case. Such noncommunicated allegations were never canvassed in interview and the
suspects remain entirely unaware that any allegation has been made other
than those they were interviewed about or charged with. I have concluded
that, when reviewing their cases in this report, it would be manifestly unfair
to disclose details of those allegations which have already been discarded by
the police and which the suspects have no method of answering. It is not
impossible that the IICSA take a different view having regard to their much
fuller terms of reference. Suffice it to say that the decision making in each
case not pursued appears to be fully justified. In some cases, the decision
was straightforward and, in others, a matter of judgement, but I saw no clear
error of judgement. I am assured by SIOs that MPS policy is not to inform
suspects of non-pursued allegations. I fully understand the reasoning. It can,
however, be argued that this is wrong in principle. If a charge is brought, a
suspect may wish to argue that he has been set up, or that false complaints
are so prevalent that none can be relied upon, and may have wished, had he
known of the several other complaints, to have adduced them in evidence.
Such cases may be rare but not unheard of. In all cases it may be said that a
citizen, in a transparent system of justice, is entitled to know if an allegation
has been made against him. He may wish to record events in case the
57

 allegation is revived at a later date. He may wish to avoid the complainant. It
may be considered unacceptable that a very serious allegation may be made
against another, and then withdrawn before interview, resulting in the
accused person never knowing that a grave allegation had been made, and
that a record of that allegation remained extant.

RECOMMENDATION 16:

Consideration should be given, at the highest level, to the question of
whether suspects should be informed of every allegation against them
when one or more of those allegations has not been pursued. On balance,
I agree with present arrangements having regard to the duty to disclose in
the event of a trial resulting.

No further action

1.85 In the cases I have reviewed there are a number of occasions where a
suspect was interviewed in connection with an allegation which the police
subsequently investigated having heard the suspects version. Having
investigated that allegation, they concluded that the allegation was either
incredible or would not pass the Full Code Test but decided to proceed with
other allegations. In the meantime, the suspect having been interviewed,
instructed an enquiry agent/investigator who proceeded to investigate every
allegation canvassed in interview. The agent spent considerable time and
effort, at the suspect’s expense, investigating the allegation that the police
had decided not to pursue. The first that the suspect knew of the police
decision not to pursue that allegation was when he was charged. This is far
58

 from satisfactory. It is essential that, when a decision is made by the police
not to proceed with an allegation, the suspect's solicitors are informed that
no further action will be taken on that particular allegation. This is
particularly important as a privately funded criminal litigant is now unable to
recover costs even when successful.

1.86 In rape cases, Dame Elish recommended that the basis for discontinuing
should always be articulated in exact terms and should specify whether the
reason related exclusively to the sufficiency of the evidence or to additional
issues of credibility and reliability. The joint MPS/CPS response indicated that
work was being undertaken to implement a system whereby a personal letter
is hand delivered to every victim of rape or serious sexual assault, whose
case has been subject to no further action by police, explaining the rationale
behind the decision. There is no mention, in either document, of the suspect
receiving formal notification of the ‘no further action’ decision. If such a
document is provided to the complainant, I can see no reason for not
supplying a similar formal document to the suspect additionally stating the
circumstances in which further action may be taken.

1.87 In one instance amongst the cases I have reviewed, the police notified the
solicitor of the suspect by email of the decision to take no further action.
Unfortunately, the media were notified before the solicitor logged on to her
emails resulting in the suspect reading in the press that no further action had
been taken against him. The email to the solicitor should require a response
confirming that the client has been notified before the information is
released to the press.

59

 RECOMMENDATION 17:

When a decision is made to take no further action on any complaint, but
the investigation continues on others, the suspect, or his solicitor, must be
informed at the earliest opportunity of any decision to discontinue in
relation to any allegation communicated to them.

RECOMMENDATION 18:

At the conclusion of an investigation, when no further action is to be taken
against a suspect, he should be supplied with a similar written document
to that provided to the complainant coupled with an explanation of the
circumstances in which an investigation may be re-opened.

RECOMMENDATION 19:

Before information is released to the media that no further action is to be
taken against a suspect, police must ensure that the suspect has received
the information.

Public statements after ‘no further action’

1.88 Statements are invariably made when a decision has been taken that there
will be no further action. It is, of course, in the interests of a former suspect
that the public should know that he is no longer under investigation and will
face no criminal charge. However, such statements are invariably made
either by the CPS or the MPS without consultation with the former suspect
60

 or his solicitor. On occasions these statements have caused controversy and
have been arguably unfair to the former suspects. One such statement, made
by the CPS, was in the case of Paul Gambaccini when details of allegations
which were not being pursued were made public.

1.89 Particular criticism has been made of the decision taken on numerous
occasions to state publicly that no further action is being taken 'due to an
insufficiency of evidence', when the complainant has been shown to be
lacking in credibility or totally discredited, or has withdrawn the allegation.
The problem with 'insufficiency of evidence' is that it implies that there is
some evidence. If I say there was insufficient water in my hotel room, it
suggests that there was some water but not enough. Aggrieved suspects
contend for 'no credible evidence' or 'no evidence'. Both the CPS and the
MPS are of a mind that they cannot grade every decision to take no further
action. Some cases come close to passing the evidential test, some nowhere
near. If grades were used, then numerous cases would result in controversy
as to an appropriate grade. I understand that argument. A possible
improvement on 'insufficiency of evidence' which I canvas is 'the allegation
failed to pass the evidential test'. Such wording does not imply that there
was some evidence.

1.90 Finally, I would add that in a case which has received very significant
publicity, as is the case with a number of allegation of sexual offences against
prominent people, it may be necessary, in the interests of justice, to depart
quite exceptionally from standard procedure and to give a reasoned decision
fully exculpating suspects where complainants have been shown to be
unreliable or untruthful. Suspects in such cases are the victims of crime and
61

 every step should be taken to rehabilitate their reputations. Early publication
of this report would greatly assist.

RECOMMENDATION 20:

When announcing publicly that no further action will be taken, rather than
stating that there was an insufficiency of evidence, an alternative, and
arguably preferable reason, is that 'the case failed to meet the evidential
test'.

RECOMMENDATION 21:

When announcing publicly that no further action will be taken, no details
of the allegations not already published should be disclosed.

RECOMMENDATION 22:

In exceptional cases, and very rarely, consideration should be given to
issuing a reasoned statement explaining why no further action has been
taken.

The Press

1.91 In two quite different respects the Press, in the form of investigative
journalists, have demonstrated an unwelcome intrusion. Firstly, during the
investigation, photographs were shown to ‘Nick’ of both suspects and
missing boys (hopelessly in breach of PACE), names were supplied to him and
62

 he was shown buildings that could have been significant. Had a prosecution
resulted from the investigation, very considerable difficulty would have
resulted in identification procedures sufficient to render convictions
impossible. It would no doubt be said, on behalf of the individuals
responsible, that they believed ‘Nick’ and were attempting to see that justice
was done. What is needed is some form of statutory control once a matter is
under police investigation.

1.92 Secondly, several of the complainants that I interviewed, and others,
complained that they were contacted at home by members of the Press.
Some of these approaches were pre-trial (one example is at M1236 in the
[Subject of Chapter 9] case) and some were after a complainant had given
evidence. The approaches caused the complainants a degree of anxiety and
also caused them to question the source of the information since they
thought that only the police would know their addresses.

RECOMMENDATION 23:

Consideration should be given at NPCC level to both of these concerns. It
may be that some form of statutory control is needed to prevent
investigative journalists intruding on investigations in circumstances such
as these. At certain times there appeared to be two teams of investigators
competing for ‘Nick's’ attention. Matters communicated to ‘Nick’, in
furtherance of perceived obligations under the Victim's Charter, were
divulged by ‘Nick’ to Exaro and thence to the public to the considerable
disadvantage of suspects. In an endeavour to encourage witnesses to come
forward and to give evidence in high profile cases some statutory control
63

 may be necessary to prevent ‘door stepping’ of witnesses.

Reviews

1.93 During this review I have had the pleasure of meeting Det. Supt. Robson,
the senior officer in the Specialist Crime Review Group (SCRG), which was
formed after the Lawrence enquiry and formed part of the MPS response to
McPherson. The SCRG performs a critical and essential role for the MPS and,
whilst they conducted a review in Operation Midland, this was not
commissioned until 12 months after the commencement of the
investigation. The nature of the review was a progress review asking what
further steps can be taken. Critically, and unusually, no review of any kind
had taken place at 24 hours, 7 days or 28 days and no review of any kind had
taken place before search warrants were applied for. A review did take place
conducted by a single experienced senior detective in March 2015 but that
was also a progress review. A thematic review by the SCRG, at an early stage
of Operation Midland, with terms of reference framed to examine the
credibility of ‘Nick’, and specifying methods of determining his credibility,
would have proved invaluable. I learned that reviews can be ‘progress’,
‘thematic’, ‘forensic’, or ‘concluding’. I also learned that bespoke reviews can
be arranged by negotiation with Det. Supt. Robson. From reading the Gold
Group minutes, it is clear that a number of perceived difficulties had arisen
in the investigation. I have no doubt that an earlier involvement with the
SCRG would have resolved those problems.

64

 RECOMMENDATION 24:

Senior Detectives should be reminded, or be made aware, of the full range
of reviews that are available from the SCRG and should be encouraged to
make use of them.

Innocent Suspects

1.94 As part of this process I have interviewed or corresponded with several
innocent persons accused of grave criminal offences. Harvey Proctor must
stand first in line; having been accused of the murder of three children, in
addition to a catalogue of the gravest sexual offences. He is, in my
judgement, an innocent man; as indeed are all the twelve men named by
‘Nick’. Several other men whose cases I have reviewed are also innocent of
allegations made against them. It is difficult, if not impossible, to articulate
the emotional turmoil and distress that those persons and their families have
had to endure. The allegations have had a profoundly damaging effect upon
the characters and reputations of those living and those deceased. In
differing ways those reputations have been hard won, over several decades,
and yet in Operation Midland they were shattered by the word of a single,
uncorroborated complainant whose allegations were riddled with
inconsistencies. Those accused remained isolated and uninformed of the
progress of these several investigations until finally being informed that
there was an insufficiency of evidence against them. In short, these men are
all victims of false allegations and yet they remain treated as men against
whom there was insufficient evidence to prosecute them. The presumption
of innocence appears to have been set aside.
65

 1.95 I have received a written submission on behalf of the Janner family, and
have read a similar submission by Mr. Proctor in the national press, inviting
me to recommend the prosecution of ‘Nick’ for ‘attempting to pervert the
course of justice’. Such a course is well outside my terms of reference and
might well be cited as a ground for staying any criminal proceedings against
‘Nick'. I have no doubt, however, that those whose duty and responsibility it
is to make such a decision will consider whether there is a sufficiency of
evidence to support not only an allegation of perverting the course of justice
but also an allegation of fraud.

1.96 It is impossible to depart this chapter without observing that ‘Nick’ has
received continuous support and liaison, whilst those falsely accused have
received no such consideration. The explanation for this may well be that the
decision making officers in this investigation decline to recognise the
innocence of those accused by ‘Nick’. I earnestly hope that once the reality
of the situation is appreciated that those accused and their families will
receive offers of similar support and a fulsome recognition of their, or their
relatives, innocence.

RECOMMENDATION 25:

In exceptional cases where suspects have been falsely accused of crime,
they, and their families, should be treated the same as 'victims of crime’
invariably are and should be offered support and liaison compatible with
the gravity of the allegations made.

66

 Chapter 2

67

Operation Midland
Wiltshire Interviews

2.1 On 3rd October 2012 ITV broadcast a documentary detailing numerous
allegations of sexual abuse perpetrated by Jimmy Savile. As a result of this
coverage a man, given the pseudonym 'Nick' by the police, contacted the
MPS Operation Yewtree and made allegations about being abused by Savile,
by his deceased stepfather 'Ray', and other unnamed men. 'Nick' is now 48
years of age, of good character, and employed by the NHS in a managerial
capacity. The case was referred to the Wiltshire Police as the alleged offences
originated in that County.

2.1.1 I have summarised the interviews conducted by DC Lewis on 6th December
2012.

Wiltshire - 06/12/12

TAPE ONE

‘I only have a couple of memories of moving into Oxfordshire. I don't
remember my mother she must have been there. I don't remember where
she was. I don't remember school either. My stepfather started hitting me,
then he started kissing me, and then he started kissing me on the mouth, and
then started to put his tongue in my mouth. I showed I didn't like it then I got
a beating for that. He took all my clothes off usually at bath time. It was just
touching me and it carried on from there. My mother and I moved to Bicester
68

 in early 1976. The misconduct started straight away. He touched my penis.
He pinned me to the sofa or bed and put his hands around my throat. I was
at the [NAME] Church of England Primary School and he used to take me out
of school and back to the house where there was just more kissing and
touching. It was quite a few times a month. I was then taken to meet this one
man and it was on a base, I don't know which one. He was wearing uniform.
I don't know how to describe him. He had brown hair. I don't know how tall
he was.’

TAPE TWO

‘I think he was a Lieutenant Colonel. He had a crown on his epaulets and like
a diamond underneath. My stepfather left me with him and he touched my
face and touched my hair and undid my trousers and then told me to get
dressed. We then left.’

‘When we got home my stepfather told me how well I had done and that he
was really pleased. Not long after I was taken to this house, the Wilton house
but it was bare. There were three or four men. None of them spoke. My
stepfather told me to take my clothes off.’

TAPE THREE

‘The Lieutenant Colonel was there. A guy was taking pictures. I remember the
flashes. The photos seemed to go on forever. I was then told to get dressed
and everyone except the man from the office left. He started touching my
hair again, then stood behind me, kissed my neck and [GIST: describes
69

 indecent assault]. He made me get onto the floor and I was lying face down
and he put [GIST: describes rape] his hand was over my mouth and the pain
was unbelievable. My stepfather came back in and was telling me to get
dressed and I couldn't move. I felt like I'd wet myself and I put my hand down
the back of my pants and it was covered in blood when I pulled it out. I didn't
tell anyone.’

‘That was my first introduction to the group. It was a different place every
time, just houses. I was coming up to nine, I'd have been nine. I was picked
up from school by a man in a black car.’

TAPE FOUR

‘I was taken through Bicester or sometimes the other way to Oxford. There
were about 20 in the group in total. Names were never used. They referred
to the guy from Wilton as an older chap who was at Wilton was referred to
as Pete. Another I didn't know for sure was Jimmy Savile It was just his voice.
He wasn't there that often three or four times. I remember his voice when he
was hurting me. 'I don't remember him doing anything, just general touching
or anything, but he would just penetrate. [GIST: describes rape] and he had
a long gold necklace. I was probably nine going on ten. It was in a house with
five or six present. I must have been ten. All the males were white except a
Middle Eastern person, but that was only in Kingston.’

‘We moved to Kingston in 1979. I went to Coombe Hill Junior School. I was
collected from there in the black car. The incidents with the group continued
until I was 15. From start to finish the only person I told was my dog.’
70

 ‘Q:- I mean this Lieutenant Colonel, possibly Lieutenant Colonel, have you
found out since who it might have been?
A:- No, No, No, the only, well as I say if my father was still alive and I tried to
ask my mum a few questions and she answered some of them.
Q:- So have you told your mum what's happened to you?
A:- Not in any detail no.’

‘Back in 1989 or 1990 I told her about him (stepfather) but not exactly what
he did and she made some flippant remark. Apart from earlier this year we've
never spoken about it since. I remember at Wilton she said she didn't know
anything was going on.’
‘I was taken by the man in the car to the group about once a week whilst we
were in Bicester. It was just during school time.’

TAPE FIVE

‘Sometimes they told me to play with myself, sometimes I'd have to
masturbate them. The rest would just watch or laugh. There would always
be somebody there recording everything on a video camera. I had to do as I
was told. If I didn't there were punishments, they didn't like it when I passed
out. They liked me to [GIST: describes oral rape and being sick]. The
punishments varied. They held me down and stabbed things in my feet, all
under my feet. They were just laughing.’

‘I was shown a couple of pictures by the guy from the first office. He said it
wasn't up to me to decide when I stopped. He showed the pictures to me in
Kingston one evening walking by the river in the pictures I didn't have any
71

 clothes on. I was aged about 10 in the pictures. He said he would show the
pictures to my friends and to my mum. I was about 12 when he showed me
the pictures. He knew where I went to school and where my mum worked. He
even knew where I'd just come from.’

‘When I started Senior School I just bunked off. I knew about the meetings
because they told me in advance. I was told to go and wait. They told me on
the way to school. They came to the house once. Most of the 20 men in the
group have put [GIST: describes rape]. Only a couple stand out, a Middle
Eastern guy and an American. He was American or Canadian with an
American accent.’

‘At Kingston it was in school holidays as well when my mother was working.
They took me to different hotels. I think the Hilton on Park Lane and one not
far from Oxford St. I was about 13. I was taken home in the Middle Eastern
guy's Rolls Royce, black I think. I was never paid any money.’

‘Q:- How come you've come forward now?
A:- I'm stupid I know Going back into counselling has helped me get rid of a
few ghosts, get rid of a few bad memories...I told my mum I was thinking of
reporting it. She just sent me a card saying I was to pull myself together and
look to the future. She wanted me to drop the whole thing. She's going to be
mortified. Over the years we've gradually got closer and closer and then since
earlier this year when I've asked her questions it's just fallen apart.’

‘When these incidents happened with the group, a lot of times I was the only
child present, but not always. About a quarter of the time another child
72

 would be present, just one other. His name was Aubrey. We became friends
from Bicester. He was the same age as me. I last saw him 30 years ago. I
don't know how he got involved. We never spoke about that. They made us
touch and kiss together. At one stage they wanted me to hit him but I
wouldn't.’

SIXTH TAPE

‘After the first incident there was a lot of blood. My hand was covered in
blood. My underwear was bright red. I had a bath when I got home. I didn't
have any medical treatment. Sometimes one of the group would see to my
injuries. I always assumed he was a doctor. I'm not sure I could describe him
just an ordinary guy. I don't know whether he saved my life once. I was held
under the water and it all went black. When they hurt my feet he sorted those
out.’

‘Q:- So other than you and Aubrey, were there any other children?
A:- There were some more but I don't know who they were. One of them I
saw just a couple of times, one I only saw once.
Q:- Were there any other people involved in this from start to the end really,
including the possible Lieutenant Colonel, have you names for any of them
that you've been able to identify years after the event?
A:- No. No. I've talked about it, my counsellor has asked me but, and it’s weird
because there is a big part of me that wants to know if they're still around
and who they were but actually there's a big part of me that doesn't. And a
few of them' if they were still around, that would worry me....for my own
son's safety I suppose.’
73

 ‘The Lieutenant Colonel had sexual contact with me lots of times. Virtually
every time he placed [GIST: describes rape].’

‘Q:- Did your stepfather put his penis in your bottom?
A:- Mm.
Q:- Was that regular?
A:- Yeah. It was after that first sort of meeting I suppose, couple of times a
week.’

‘The Lieutenant Colonel [GIST: describes oral rape and indecent assaults].
The Middle Eastern man penetrated my bottom five or six times. Aubrey was
not in London when I was there. The stuff with Aubrey was at Bicester.’

‘Q:- What would you like from a police point of view investigation wise, what
would you like us to do with the information you've told? If we can identify
one or more of these individuals?
A:- I think I was hoping that the information might be useful with all the
other information that Police get, that it might just add up somewhere or
somebody else might have spoken out. If people could be identified, then I
think that's something I'd want to know. My nervousness would be of the
couple of people in London then I would be very nervous and if I was the only
one to come forward’.

‘Q:- Do you know who these people are?
A:- I don't know exactly who they are because the cars I was picked up in were
diplomatic cars. I don’t know who these people were but they had their own
74

 guards.’

‘The chap from the first meeting was the ringleader. He would tell me to meet
at some point for these individuals. He would be in his 80's if he's still alive.’

‘Q:- The diplomatic cars, any particular Nation?
A:- Again I'm not 100% sure but the Middle Eastern chap was Saudi. And the
other was American.’

2.1.2 The following significant points arise from the Wiltshire interviews:

1) The first allegation of buggery by ‘Nick’ was against the Lieutenant
Colonel.
2) The occasion when he was allegedly caused to bleed was at the hands of
the Lieutenant Colonel.
3) Names were never used. The only name attributed to any alleged abuser
was that of Jimmy Savile.
4) He had not found out since who the Lieutenant Colonel might have been.
5) The group was about twenty in number and included one Middle Eastern
person, one American/Canadian and one man called Pete.
6) He was always picked up from school in a car.
7) Most of the time he was the only child present. The only other child ever
present was Aubrey (Tape 5) There were some more children but I don't
know who they were. (Tape 6).
8) Although there are allegations of violence and buggery against Ray there
is no allegation that he inflicted any visible injury.
2.1.3 'Nick's' mother was interviewed and gave a statement on 16th April 2013.
75

 She has held a senior management role in the NHS for many years. Around
1986 'Nick' had told her in a letter that her ex-husband had sexually abused
him. She had no idea at the time that he was being sexually abused and had
never suspected it. She never saw 'Ray' physically assault or chastise any of
the [No.] children during the marriage and never witnessed anything
remotely like that. She stated:

'I was never made aware by the school of 'Nick' taking any regular
unauthorised absences or of him being removed from any classes by anyone.
This would be true of any of the schools he attended during his primary and
secondary education and I believe his attendance has always been good. I
certainly would have remembered if I had been made aware of any repeated
absences or removals from class and would have asked the school for more
details if I had known'......''Nick' never made any disclosure to me at the time
that Raymond was hurting him or abusing him in any way and I do not
remember ever seeing any bloodstained underwear from 'Nick' or similar
signs of sexual abuse'.

When 'Nick' informed her that he had been sexually abused by 'Ray' he
never mentioned any other abuser.

2.1.4 The case was investigated by DC Lewis of the Wiltshire Police and, as there
was no living or identifiable suspect, he decided to 'return' the file to the
MPS with an accompanying letter in which he expressed certain doubts
about 'Nick's' credibility. ‘Nick’ had difficulty in remembering fine details
throughout most of his video interview, especially of the type that might
identify suspects (the offences were some 30 years old though). Oddest of
76

 all is that ‘Nick’ was unable to explain why he never told any of the staff at
his schools that he did not want to go with the man/men who came to collect
him and take him out of the school quite regularly. He describes being fearful
of the men and they knew exactly where to find him even though he and his
mother moved around a few times during his childhood. I do find it hard to
reasonably explain how 'Nick' was tracked down at various towns over a
seven-year period and simply 'removed from school' to be sexually abused
time and again by other members of the gang without someone in authority
getting suspicious enough to at least tell his mother. The logistics behind
members of the gang tracking him down across the country are difficult
enough to balance without the other odd elements added in. All relevant
documents were delivered by DC Lewis to Operation Yewtree on 9th May
2013. The matter was closed and clearly no other course could have been
taken. In an email to MPS, DC Lewis described ‘Nick's’ allegations as 'a little
bit odd' and 'it all sounds a bit 'Spooks'.

2.1.5 On the 26th September 2013 'Nick' lodged a claim with the Criminal Injuries
Compensation Authority (CICA) for compensation. He wrote:

'My step father started to physically and sexually abuse me at the age of 7
and then gave me to a group of men who continued to hurt me until the age
of 15. My stepfather only lived with my mother and I for approx. 6 months.
I did not report it through fear for my personal safety. It was initially
reported to the Met police, then transferred to Wiltshire as the leading force
because it covered numerous locations. I had blocked the abuse since
childhood. I initially disclosed that I had been abused to my mother in 1989,
and my current job at the time got me help in the form of counselling.
77

 However, I was only able to acknowledge that I had been abused and was
not able to say what happened because of fear for my own safety if I said
anything. Because of the effects it left me with, I put myself back into
counselling in January 2012 and reported it to the police later the same
year'.

2.1.6 Operation Midland first learned of this claim on 23/02/2015 when ‘Nick’
was visited at his home by the SIO and DC Chatfield. He told them he had
made a claim but there had been a delay in payment and the SIO and DC
Chatfield agreed that DC Chatfield should assist ‘Nick’ in obtaining payment,
which he did. Significantly, Operation Midland failed to obtain details of the
claim until November 2015. 'Nick' received a payment of £22,000 on the 1st
April 2015 in full and final settlement of his claim. He had obtained his crime
reference number from the Wiltshire Police.

2.1.7 Between September 2013 and October 2014 there was no contact
between 'Nick' and the Police.

2.1.8 He was receiving counselling from [GIST: COUNSELLOR], who has a
diploma in Person-Centred Counselling and Psychotherapy. According to
'Nick's' blog of 04/05/2014, he met with a few counsellors before engaging
with [GIST: COUNSELLOR] as a private patient. She has counselled him on
more or less a weekly basis since 2012. Unfortunately, she is not a specialist
in childhood abuse issues or trauma. ‘Nick’ was well aware of her
shortcomings having told officers on 23/02/2015 that he did not believe she
had experience of dealing with sexual abuse victims. ‘Nick’ was encouraged
to start blogging on a site entitled 'This Tangled Web'.
78

 2.1.9 On May 4, 2014 ‘Nick’ blogged under the title 'Why did I not speak out
sooner?'

‘How could I speak out when it was my fault? Could I tell my teacher? My
injuries were evident and my teacher did nothing.... Could the medical
profession help me? They saw the state of my injuries and no one tried to
intervene and stop it. So there I was, 7 years old, no one to turn to and no
one to help me'.

This was wholly inconsistent with ‘Nick's’ mother's statement. The blog went
on to state how he was taken out of school when they wanted him.
Punishments were severe and boys were tortured on a regular basis. There
was an inner ring to a paedophile ring who knew they were untouchable.
‘Nick’ said he was kept in check throughout his childhood and teenage years.
He stated:

'I can't put into words the sheer terror that filled my life as a child 24 hours a
day. I know if I had spoken out, I would not be here today'.

A summary of ‘Nick’s’ relevant blogs appears in the next chapter.

2.1.10 These blogs were read by an investigative freelance journalist working for
the Exaro News Agency who contacted ‘Nick’. They met for the first time in
London on 21st May 2014. Over the next few weeks ‘Nick’ spoke about his
abuse and provided a list of names, namely, Major Ray Beach, his stepfather,
General Gibbs, General Bramall, Jimmy Savile, Peter Hayman, Harvey Proctor,
79

 Leon Britton, Edward Heath, and a man named Michael, who was something
to do with the Intelligence Service, and a man by the name of Maurice, who
was also something to do with the Intelligence Service.

2.1.11 In July 2014 Mark Conrad showed ‘Nick’ 42 unnamed pictures of men.
Some of these men had been named by ‘Nick’, some were as a result of
research by Conrad and others were unknown images from the internet.
Conrad included pictures of Michael Hanley and Maurice Oldfield. Both
Harvey Proctor and Lord Bramall were identified using this technique. ‘Nick’
also handed to Conrad a pen-knife and a small jewellery box containing two
crown shaped lapel badges. He told Conrad that Harvey Proctor had given
him the knife and that he would soon explain, in more detail, how this came
about. The showing of the photographs in that manner did not conform with
conventional methods of identifying suspects

2.1.12 On 22nd July 2014 Conrad took ‘Nick’ on a walk around London in order to
identify scenes. This event is not described in any statement of Conrad, and
the route taken and premises observed are not available for consideration.
The source of this information is the 'Timeline of Accounts given by ‘Nick’'.

2.1.13 On 19th August 2014 Conrad showed ‘Nick’ an image of [No.] Ecclestone
Sq.; premises associated with a notorious paedophile ring active in the
1970’s and 1980’s. ‘Nick’ claimed that the premises were familiar and that
he had drawn a picture of them some time ago. After a short time, (not
specified by Conrad in his statement) ‘Nick’ sent a photograph to Conrad, I
assume by email, of his drawing of the premises in his journal, with the
numbers [No.] written on the pillars of the house. The drawing showed clear
80

 similarities with the picture obtained by Conrad from Google. ‘Nick’ asserted
that this was the address where he had arrived in a car and a young boy came
from the basement flat accompanied by a middle aged man. The boy got into
the vehicle with ‘Nick’. ‘Nick’ told Conrad that this boy was later murdered.

2.1.14 At this time it is clear that ‘Nick's’ blogs on 'This Tangled Web' were
attracting the attention of journalists and those liaising with them, with an
interest in exposing paedophiles. One such individual was Peter McKelvie, a
former worker in child protection who has assisted Tom Symonds, the BBC
Reporter, in coverage of child abuse stories. At this time Peter McKelvie was
providing a degree of support to ‘Nick’. I do not have any chronology of their
meetings nor details of information passing between them. There is a sound
inference, drawn in part from the forthcoming MPS interviews, that ‘Nick’
was extremely active on the internet.

2.1.15 On 9th October 2014 Conrad introduced ‘Nick’ to the Operation Fairbank
team, meeting with DS Townly and DC Lamkin. DS Townly had earlier
contacted Exaro due to a news article on their website regarding ‘Nick’. It was
obvious to DS Townly that the police wanted to speak to the person making
those allegations as part of their operation. It appears that the initiative for
this meeting came from the Police rather than Conrad. This meeting took
place out of London and was no more than an introductory meeting in which
‘Nick’ gave a broad outline of his allegations and was assured that they would
be taken seriously. He was reminded continuously that it was entirely up to
him what he wanted to do. ‘Nick’ indicated he had suffered no physical injury.

2.1.16 On 22nd and 23rd October 2014 ABE interviews were conducted.
81

 ‘Nick’s’ Blogs

04/05/2014

‘My experience with the Police.

My experience with the Metropolitan Police has been nothing but positive.
The Senior Officer that contacted me was lovely and explained the process if
I decided to continue. She gave me time to think about what I wanted to do
and once I confirmed I wanted to proceed she sorted it all out. My case linked
with several big national and ongoing cases and spanned a number of
different police force areas. The NSPCC encouraged me to report what
happened and put me in touch with the special operations centre at the
Metropolitan Police.

I think it was this totally caring approach that helped in my decision to go for
it. I contacted my liaison officer who seemed pleased and was and has been
very encouraging.

Overall it has been an extremely hard thing to do, but I can't thank the police
enough. Since I contacted them, they have been supportive, encouraging and
communicative.’

This was a curious Blog because ‘Nick’ had not, as yet, engaged with the
Metropolitan Police Service and did not do so until 09/10/2014.

82

 04/05/2014

‘It's hard to accept that you need help.

It's hard to accept that you need help for anything especially when you're a
man, and it's even harder when coming to terms with childhood trauma.
About six years after the abuse stopped, I was almost forced into counselling.
I was on the verge of a breakdown, but I still don't think I was really ready for
dealing with my past.

I kept things buried deep inside and tried to get on with my life. Trouble was
that the abuse had left its mark and I had lots of issues in adult life and
eventually helped to destroy my marriage. Trying to save the marriage, we
went to marriage guidance. 15 years after the abuse had stopped I was
telling the guidance counsellor and then my wife the reason behind my
intimacy issues. The only question she asked me was I raped. When I told her
I was, she lost all interest in me and a few years later walked out on me.
Another failed relationship and I put myself back into counselling.

I met a few counsellors before I settled on one that I felt comfortable with,
and this was so important. I was reliving my hell all over again, the
nightmares and flashbacks returned with vengeance and I hardly slept. The
more comfortable I felt the more I told her. I find it so hard, I wanted to cry,
but I can't cry with anyone in the room (another relic from my past, for fear
of punishment) and I would get through each session and collapse in tears
when in my car and out of sight. At times she cried at some of the things I
told her, but at every session she was listening, encouraging and supporting.’
83

 04/05/2015

‘Why did I not speak out sooner?

Well picture a young boy whose father would beat him black and blue for not
doing as he was told, when the abuse turned sexual, any resistance or
questioning was met with extreme violence. So he exercised his control on
me from the age of 7, but could I not have told anyone else? Well at 7 I did
not really know what was happening, part of me thought it's what fathers
did. My mother did not stop it (I assumed she knew) so again this reiterated
to that small boy that it was all normal. The blame was constantly being
levelled at me, so how could I speak out when it was my fault. Could I tell my
teacher? My injuries were evident and my teachers did nothing, so this again
reinforced to me that it was my fault and I deserved it. Could the medical
profession help me? They saw the state of my injuries and no one tried to
intervene and stop it If they did, they totally believed any explanation that
my father gave. So there I was, 7 years old, no one to turn to and no one to
help me. I knew it was my fault and I deserved what happened to me.

I was given to this group (a paedophile ring) who totally controlled my life for
the next 9 years. They said who could be my friend, they told me where to be
at certain times, they took me out of school when they wanted me. If you
broke their rules the punishments were severe, and depending on the mood
of the group at the time would lead to torture.
Then for me there was the inner group of the paedophile ring. They were
made up of very powerful people who were not afraid for you to know who
they were; they were not afraid of repercussions because they knew they
84

 were untouchable. Hiding anything from them was impossible, they could do
anything they liked, when they liked. This installed a new level of fear that
penetrated right through my soul.

My mother was the first person I disclosed to and she brushed it under the
carpet, so I kept quiet. It affected my marriage so I said a bit more, and that
too had negative consequences so I kept quiet again. Even recently I would
not speak about the inner circle.’

06/05/2014

‘A Paedophile Ring.

At certain times of the year the men would come together for big parties.
Two examples were Christmas (the biggest of the year) and Valentine’s day.
Other parties were held by some men, for example those men who were part
of the military would hold a special party for remembrance. One occasion we
were subjected to drink, drugs, sex, violence, humiliation, pain and much
worse.

There was an inner group to the main group. For the most part they kept
themselves separate and rarely mixed with the main group. They liked things
a little more exclusive and when they ordered you, their request took priority.
In my experience, the men that were part of the inner group were a lot kinder
and never used violence.’

85

 11/05/2014

‘Fear: Where did it come from?

Fear was ingrained in me from the age of 7. If I did not do as I was told the
consequences would be severe......Being left alone in a totally pitch black
room not knowing what was going to happen next, having sharp objects
stabbed into your feet, not really knowing what or why but experiencing the
excruciating pain that went with it. The group were always finding new ways
to increase the pain, increase the fear. Putting an animal into that black room
took the fear to a new level, and holding your head under water brought a
new pain and a new terror.

The sharp pain when something is stabbed into my foot, the short lived pain
of a wasp sting, the continuous pain of broken bones that turned into
continuous aches as they healed on their own, the burning of your insides as
you drown, deep penetrating pain that fills every part of your body from
electrocution so much you think you are just going to explode and of course
the indescribable pain of being raped over and over again. I was given lots of
pain killers to mask my injuries and I was sometimes doped up with drugs or
alcohol and that eased the pain for a little while, but it always returned.’

15/05/2014

‘Pain.
Myself and other boys saw what some of these men were capable of. They
took pleasure in seeing us in pain. They liked to think of new ways to hurt us
86

 and they would do anything to keep control. We knew that any of us could be
killed without any hesitation. For me this threat would have been a release.
However, the threat that you could simply disappear and no one could
question it reached right into my soul.’

21/05/2014

‘Forgiveness.

I have been trying to write some more blogs recently, but they are all so
jumbled in my mind. There is one I really want to post, but I don't feel I can
just yet......One question is whether I forgive my mother. Throughout my
childhood, I always assumed she knew what was happening, how could she
not know. How could my mother not see my injuries, how could she let me go
with these men? It's only since I reported some of what happened to the
police and they interviewed her that I was told she didn't know what was
going on. I now know the reason for this, but I still have trouble accepting it.
I no longer blame her, but I can't quite say that I forgive her just yet.

The people I have forgiven or rather show no animosity towards are the
professionals that in my eyes did nothing. The doctors, nurses and teachers
should have noticed, they should have done something, but to my knowledge
they didn't. I think though that I can feel this towards them because of the
lack of information on my part.’

87

 26/05/2014

‘Letter to my abusers.

Why did you choose me? Was I just in the wrong place at the wrong time?
What did I do to deserve such treatment and pain? Did it make you feel like
real men to hurt me so much? Did it make you feel proud to break my small
body? Did it make you feel proud to make me bleed and cry? Did you feel
powerful to have such control over me? How did you justify what you were
doing to me? Did you think I enjoyed being Kissed, touched, raped and
tortured? Did you think I wanted to be drugged and injured so badly? I didn't
think it was possible for anyone to feel pain, like the pain you put me through.
How could you as human beings treat another human in such a terrible way,
especially me, just a child.’

09/06/2014

‘Such mixed emotions - 70th Anniversary of D-Day.

Last year I was actually asked about 5 times from a soldier in uniform to buy
a poppy. In the end I had to leave the store before I broke down in tears. I
know they are a symbol of respect for those that have lost their lives during
wars, however for me they lost their meaning once the soldiers that hurt me
physically pinned them to my bare skin. I see poppies as a symbol of their
hatred towards me. As a sign of respect (they said) I had to wear a poppy, so
they would pin one directly to my chest and then hurt me badly. Once one
was done, the next would unpin the poppy and move it to another part of my
88

 chest and do the same. They would all take turns until they all had enough.
The pain from the pin was nothing compared to the other pain, but it added
to the humiliation.’

19/06/2014

‘Injuries.

I sometimes forget about the pain I have today and the constant reminder it
is of those terrible years as a child. I did do an exercise last year where I
documented all the injuries I had sustained as a child on a body map. Brown
was for bruises, black for fractures, blue for puncture wounds, green for
penetration injuries, purple for bites, and red for burns.

My father started it, using violence to exert his control on me. In a very short
space of time I suddenly had lots of bruises, cuts, grazes and was about to
come close to losing my life. The first time that he raped me he did it with
such force that he caused a lot of trauma down there. I lost a lot of blood and
because I tried to scream and struggle during the assault, when we got home
he beat me unconscious. I sustained a lot of injuries that day and the ironic
thing was I remember a member of staff, I think a nurse telling me that I was
lucky because if I had not lost so much blood I would have likely died from my
head injury. When I got home, despite having a plaster cast on my arm and
still recovering from my injuries, it did not stop my father from raping me
again as soon as I was home.

Things didn't get any better when I was brought into the group. They inflicted
89

 some nasty and lasting injuries on me.

Some of the old injuries give me constant pain even all these years later. It
has got to the stage now where I have been thinking about getting advice for
some of them. I feel the pain today; I look at the scars today. The pain has to
be bad before I will even take paracetamol. But even this stems from being
forced to take drugs during the abuse.’

24/06/2014

‘Ghosts from the past come to life.

For me these men are the ghosts. They are in my nightmares, my flashbacks,
my memories but I have no idea who they were. Then out of the blue, like
today, I read a story about an individual in the national press, included in the
story was a picture, and this picture leapt out of the page and hit me straight
between the eyes. I knew him, he was one of the ghosts. He was there in the
group. It took a while for the picture to sink in, and on the one hand I had a
name to go with the face, it was one less ghost that could still come back to
haunt me.

Momentum gathers for the national enquiry into organised child sexual
abuse. A lot of you may have seen the gathering momentum that was
originally started by 7 MPs and promoted by Exaro News in calling for a
national enquiry into organised child sexual abuse. My biggest fear about an
enquiry is that it would concentrate on children who had been in the local
authority care system. Organised abuse is so much wider than children in
90

 care. I can only speak about myself and the group that controlled me. There
were lots of boys that were being hurt alongside me and they were from all
walks of life.’

29/06/2014

‘A National Enquiry into Organised Child Abuse.

So why do I support a national enquiry as opposed to a police investigation?
Well I support both and feel there is a place for both. When perpetrators are
found they need to be brought before the courts and dealt with by our judicial
system. I am still fearful to report most of what happened to me directly to
the police, and this fear is present in a lot of survivors. I am in no way
criticising the police; in fact, I have nothing but praise for the ones I have
dealt with. However, I don't have confidence that they are able to get to the
truth. I and other survivors need an enquiry that has the power and indeed
the courage to go wherever the information leads. I therefore call on the
Home Secretary and other MPs who have not already shown support to hear
my voice.’

21/07/2014

‘My Voice is Growing.

I have been writing some blogs and tweeting now for a few months and I
have been constantly amazed at the almost daily increase in people following
me on twitter. I have also been truly humbled by the kind comments people
91

 have posted.

I know there is so much rumour and speculation out there as to who was
involved in abusing children, especially the so called VIPs and where these
acts took place. But to those of us that lived through this it’s all too real and
whilst it's great to see it finally coming out, it's also very scary. I know people
want confirmation on who the abusers were and the locations, but I hope
you can appreciate why myself and others cannot speak freely as yet.

So my call goes out to all those boys that were hurt alongside me. You may
have seen all the press coverage recently and I know it will have caused a
whole host of emotions that will be made worse depending on where you are
in your journey of recovery. We supported each other as boys, we can do so
again as men.’

24/07/2014

‘The Abuse: How it all started.

The first time I remember being hit was just after I turned 7. I wanted to tell
him something but in my excitement I knocked over his drink. The first punch
came so fast and out of nowhere. It caught me on the side of my head and
knocked me to the floor instantly. The punches came thick and fast to
whichever part of my body he could get to. The following morning, I was
shocked by what I saw in the mirror, the boy staring back at me was hurt,
dried blood on his face bruises and cuts – surely this was not me.

92

 The beatings grew and I was constantly told how I deserved it because I was
bad and not doing as I was told. I had to learn my lesson he used to say to
me. But this small boy, me, was punished for not getting home from school
quickly enough, or sometimes just walking into a room. Things quickly
progressed into sexual activity with him kissing and touching me and forcing
me to do things to him. Any resistance or hesitation was met with severe
violence.

I remember the first time I was raped like it was yesterday. The first time he
did it he used so much force that it caused a lot of trauma to my body in
addition to the indescribable pain that came with it. [GIST: describes injury]
even now I struggle to put words to how I felt. His hand was over my mouth,
so my screams could not be heard. He was so strong that my feeble attempts
to struggle free had absolutely no effect. On the way home I was numb, the
pain was intense and my bleeding had soaked my underwear and trousers.
My day was not over and I was beaten unconscious because I had dared to
scream and struggle.

It was my first experience of near death. He nearly killed me that night, but
despite my injuries the hospital released me back into his care and my fate
was sealed. He had broken me to give me to the group. He and they could do
anything they wanted. He had my compliance and he guaranteed my silence.
The fear I felt for him was so intense, and I had no comprehension of what
was to come, how worse things could get, how long it went on for and how
no one would step forward and protect me.

I was just 7 years old, my childhood had ended in an instant and my life
93

 changed for ever.’

28/07/2014

‘Going back and exercising (sic) some ghosts.

Last year my counsellor and I arranged a trip back so she would be there to
support me. We visited my old school and I saw the place they used to park
when picking me up. I could still retrace my walk home and could still find our
old houses. Because this went reasonably well I decided to go back to another
location. I was left to roam myself and went into a few buildings that as a
child had been the site of torture, terror, and pain. In one building there were
still the hooks on the wall where I had been tied and all I could do is stand
and stare at them and let the tears flow.

I had to move outside to get some air and gather my thoughts. It was a lovely
warm day, and there were people couples and families all enjoying a day out.
Some people had brought picnics and the children were playing. All I
remember was the darkness and the silence. The only screams that were
heard were mine as they pierced the night and they were not screams of
pleasure.

Sometime later I went to a meeting when I was asked if I would be prepared
to look at several possible addresses where I might have been taken as a child
to be hurt. I agreed and I was not told the actual address, we just went for a
walk. As we turned into one street I saw the name of the road and found it
quite ironic because it bore the same name as the town where the abuse first
94

 started. Apart from that the name meant nothing to me, but as we walked
into the street, my anxiety hit so unexpectedly. I had been here before and
such vivid pictures started coming into my head, the flashbacks were starting
again. My breathing increased dramatically and I found myself gripping my
hands so hard it was starting to take the skin off. I was fighting the
flashbacks, but not to stop them from happening, but to work with them and
try to remember my feelings and reactions. The tears were starting, but I had
someone with me so was trying desperately to hold them back. We stopped
the walk and headed to a coffee shop and gradually my anxiety reduced.
After a break we headed for the second address, but it meant nothing. It was
just a walk down a street, buildings, cars but no bad feelings. Finally, I was
asked to go to a third location that I already knew about and therefore
agreed.

As we approached the building, I recognised it instantly, but it looked wrong.
It was not what I remembered. Parts of the building were exactly the same,
but the entrance was not what I remembered. We walked around the
building and when we approached the opposite end, my anxieties again rose
dramatically. I could see myself getting out of the car, and being escorted
inside. My tears started again, but as soon as we rounded the next corner my
anxiety had reduced because there was a car right in front of me with a
registration of SAD and that just about summed it up.’

04/08/2014

‘Introduced to the group.

95

 I was taken into this office and there was another man there waiting. He
seemed to know my father. I remember they talked for a bit, but this other
man never stopped looking at me and I think it made me nervous. The man
came over and said hello and even shook my hand and he told my father to
leave. It was just me and him and I had to stand before him. He started
touching my hair and face and then all over my body. He kept saying how
beautiful I was and that I was a good boy. He started to undress me and then
do some of the things my father did. This man only kissed and touched me
and didn't hurt me like my father. When my father came back, they talked
again which is when I saw how happy he was. On the way back, he even told
me I had done really well.

It wasn't long after this first meeting that I was taken to this house. I was
ushered into the back room and that man was there again with two others.
He was pleased to see me again. My father left me there. I was told to
undress and do various things in front of them. One of them was taking
pictures. I didn't feel right to be standing there naked in front of these three
men, but they seemed pleased. The man the office (sic) told everyone to
leave. He started kissing and touching me again, but this time made me do
things to him as well. At the end he held me down on the carpet and raped
me. He was the same as my father but unlike him he was saying all these nice
things to me as he was hurting me. I still didn't understand what was
happening to me, except it was hurting and I didn't like it. My face was wet
with tears as I was pushed into the carpet.

He was not as rough as rough as my father, but it still took me a while to get
dressed. Just before my father came back, this man told me that I was going
96

 to make a lot of people happy.’

10/08/2014

‘Intimacy.

As a child the men constantly told me how gorgeous, beautiful and cute I was
and this was something I had to change as an adult. I piled on the weight so
that I was no longer attractive, and people would leave me alone. Eventually
I did meet this one woman, and over time I allowed her close enough to be
my friend and after a few years I ended up marrying her. Intimacy was a real
struggle for me for the whole of our relationship.’

10/08/2014

‘National Enquiry into organised child sexual abuse’.

In this blog ‘Nick’ discusses the IICSA announcement and a People's Tribunal.

18/08/2014

‘Meeting the Group.

When the group wanted me I had to be there. Whether it was a pre-planned
meeting in which case I would have to be ready to be picked up or it could be
unexpected and they would suddenly arrive to pick me up. It was usually in
the day or early evening and I could be gone from anywhere from a few hours
97

 to days. On this particular day it was unexpected and I just sat down in my
class, the register had been taken and suddenly my teacher called my name
as someone had called to pick me up. I don't remember the teacher asking
me where I was going, or whether I would be back, or even who was picking
me up. For me it was a regular thing and not something to either look
forward to or enjoy. I didn't want to go and I didn't leap from my chair with
excitement. I couldn't keep them waiting, that would just invite more
punishment, so I grab my bag, avoid eye contact with everyone and leave the
class.

The drivers (our minders) hardly ever talked to me. Sometimes they would
say hello, and I remember one asked me if I was alright when he was taking
me home. When it was over, I could be driven home or school like nothing
had ever happened. Sometimes they hurt me badly, the doctor would have
to attend to my injuries before being returned. Then it was time to transform
into my other life and try to get on with it as best as I could. During those nine
years, some weeks it was every day, sometimes it was just a few times a
week, but one thing was for certain it would happen.’

03/09/2014

‘59 Days since a National Enquiry was announced.

‘Nick’ expresses a lack of confidence in the enquiry.

'We don't yet know who the chair is or the panel for that matter and shouldn't
it be for survivors to judge the suitability of those appointed? I felt I had to
98

 believe in the national enquiry, I had to hope that it was going to be what we
wanted, what we deserved but as time goes by my hope and belief start to
disappear.’

08/09/2014

‘Day 60 We finally have another announcement.

Well 60 days after the Home Secretary announced the national enquiry, we
have an announcement of a new Chair and several panel members. I thought
I would be happy to hear this announcement but I am not.

The rumours are that the enquiry (if it ever gets going) will not actually hear
from survivors.....Do I go straight to the police, do I start to name people in
public or do I just revert to my normal and stay quiet?

The group was so powerful that I could not even hope to take them on alone.
I need just a few of the other boys that were also hurt to come forward and
stand with me, and so I can stand with them. These men have to answer for
what they did to us, and we all deserve justice.

29/09/2014

‘Child abuse – a male survivor’s perspective.

‘Nick’ speaks of the difficulty in males receiving appropriate counselling and
99

 therapy.

'Within a 35-mile radius from me, I have found 10 organisations that provide
help, support and sometimes therapy for survivors of childhood abuse.
However not one of them will help men. The only help available for men in
my area is a telephone help line. I am lucky I can afford (most of the time) to
pay privately for my counselling but most people can't.’

01/10/2014

‘Who is the real me?’

‘Nick’ speaks of attending the Southmead Project in Bristol and listening to
the key note speech from a male survivor, which he found strong and
passionate. After the speech he felt unable to speak to people, could not and
wondered why his face only fitted at work. He was glad he went but felt
frustrated with himself thereafter.

17/11/2014

‘I am the duck.

I am the duck, I give the impression of being calm on the outside but
underneath I am paddling like hell to deal with all the issues the abuse has
left me with. I have had two previous failed attempts at counselling, but my
latest counselling has been the most effective and has enabled me to talk
about what happened whilst maintaining my public face and carrying on with
100

 my job. It has given me coping strategies for dealing with flashbacks, it has
encouraged me with writing to get the bad stuff out of my head and it has
increased my confidence to deal with what happened to me and now to
speak out about it.’

24/11/2014

‘Sharing the Pain.

For me I didn't have anyone to talk to, so I had to find myself a counsellor.
Just being able to talk about what happened has been beneficial for me, it
didn't happen overnight, but took time for me to trust her enough to tell her
everything. But over time I told her a bit at a time and now she is one of only
a few people that knows what happened to me.

I write down my flashbacks, my triggers and how I react to them. I write
poems and more recently my blogs. It has been a release for me. When I wake
at 3am in a cold sweat, I can write down my thoughts, this helps get things
out of my head and allows me to get on with the day.’

26/11/2014

‘My idea and Your Feedback Wanted.

I want to create a visual exhibition to instantly show the scale of child abuse
in the UK over the last 50/60 years. To do this I thought of creating a
photographic exhibition in time for national child abuse awareness week.’
101

 ‘Nick’ asked for feedback.

23/12/2014

‘Christmas 2014.

I was contacted by the police to ask if I was prepared to talk to them. This
was a huge request and threw my anxieties into overload, but over the
following weeks I thought long and hard about it and considering the
national enquiry going nowhere, I decided to take the chance.

I met the officers and agreed to tell them what happened to me. I eventually
spent days giving my statements on video, and although it was extremely
hard, I was pleased I had done it. For the first time, I had named names,
something which I thought I would never do. But the officers seemed
dedicated and wanted to investigate despite who the abusers were.

I was prepared to tell the police everything, but there was one bit of my past
that I had kept to myself. I had not even really talked about it to my counsellor.
The police didn't push me, but on the third day I decided I would tell them
about the deaths of my friends. This was the hardest thing I have done; I had
never spoken in detail about the incidents before.

I had kept the deaths of my friends to myself for so long. I had buried my
feelings and although they were with me every single day, it was
manageable. I think I understand why the murder of three young boys is a
102

 media sensation. I know there are a lot of people that care deeply about
these issues, but I think the press in particular need to realise there might be
families out there of those boys reading those things. To me especially they
were not just three boys, they meant everything, they were my friends. We
shared a common bond (horrific as it was), we shared each other’s pain and
we know what each other was thinking when no words were.’

103

 ‘Nick’s’ Interviews with the Metropolitan Police Service

22/10/2014 – Y1A

‘I was born on 23/01/1968. I was introduced to you by Mark Conrad. In April
last year (2013) I felt I was ready to say what happened but I didn't feel ready
to go straight to the police. I didn't feel safe enough to go straight to the
police with especially the names of who was involved. I thought if there was
several of us it would be a bit safer. I found my voice via a website the tangled
web, a website for survivors. I had my flash backs and my thoughts and
memories as a way of getting it out of my head. I seemed to get positive
comments from it, I never named names. Mark emailed Kate who runs the
site and I got in touch with him. Before that I had been in touch with Simon
Danczuk and his researcher Matt Baker but when he asked if I was a willing
participant I didn't speak anymore. Peter McKelvie and Tom Watson then
formed a little group that supported me. They did a piece on Dolphin Sq. I
talked to Tom at some length. I asked Mark if others had come forward but
he would not tell me them. At my first meeting with Mark I told him about
one of my friends. I can't say which names I told him because we met so many
times. I identified some of the offenders from pictures he showed me. He
showed me a selection of pictures and I was asked to mark them if I
recognised them. We put a list together over the last 4, 5 months. I only
recognised Greville Janner 2 months ago when I saw his picture in the paper.
I only knew Michael and Maurice by their first names. Mark filled in their last
names. As for Hayman I only knew his last name. I didn't underline that one.
Some of the locations I know, some I still don't. I've got pictures of them.’
‘I was born in North Wales and after 2 months we moved to Dorset. I was 7
104

 when my mother and I moved in with Ray Beach. He had [No.] children of his
own. We moved into his house in Wilton I remember Ray coming out of the
kitchen with blood on him and my mother with a knife in her hand. His
children [SIBLING’S NAMES AND AGES] didn’t like me at all. [SIBLING’S
NAMES] put drawing pins around my bed.’

‘Ray started slapping me around as soon as I met him and he didn't hold back
with his punches. His violence was very severe. Things escalated very quickly,
to first of all kissing, touching, wanting me to do things to him and finally
within a few months, to him raping me. He was very forceful and he used a
lot of violence. The other names I mentioned are Lieutenant Beach, General
Gibbs, and General Bramall. We lived in a 3 or 4 bed roomed house. It started
when I was sitting on a sofa, and he asked me about my day at school and he
started kissing me on my head and my cheek, then my mouth and tried to put
his tongue in my mouth. I resisted but it was met with violence. I quickly
learned to do exactly what I was told to do. The violence doubled and trebled
and went up hugely when he had been drinking. I had bruises but nobody
ever raised it. I don't remember my mother ever questioning it. He started
touching me on my knee and legs and then it progressed from there to him
removing clothes. At bath times he would push my head under the water.
[GIST: describes indecent assaults and oral rape]. If he had been drinking,
he had problems getting aroused and used to blame me and again started
hitting me. I don't remember my mother at this time at all. I have only the
one memory. She was receiving a lot of domestic violence herself [MEDICAL
DETAIL].

‘The first incident of rape occurred on a day out when he and I went to a
105

 wildlife park at Burford. He took me into the public toilets and into one of the
cubicles and took my underwear down and pinned me up against the wall of
the cubicle. The pain was indescribable, so much pain. There was a lot of
blood and the pain lasted for quite a while. By the time we got home the
blood had soaked through my underwear to my trousers and I can just
remember putting my hand behind because it was all wet and sticky and my
hand covered in blood.’

See Wiltshire Tape 3 where this event was attributed to the Lieutenant
Colonel.

‘I got a beating when I got home, because I shouldn't have struggled or
screamed.’

‘Q:- How many times subsequently did it happen at the home before you
moved on?
A:- Not that often I don't think but I can't remember exactly but I don't think
that often, we weren't there that long.’

See Wiltshire Tape 6.

‘Q:- Did your stepfather put his penis in your bottom?
A:- Mm.
Q:- Was that regular?
A:- Yeah. It was after that first sort of meeting, I suppose, couple of times a
week.’
Interview Continues ……
106

 ‘We moved out from Wilton and probably my mother had enough. He
destroyed all of our possessions. We went to Bicester with nothing. I can't
remember if [SIBLING] came with us. I only have limited memory of that,
after a time he found out where we were and banged on the door to get in.
My mum took me into the bathroom at the back of the house. When I came
out he was being put in the back of a police car and that was that with him.
I'm pretty sure that was that with him. I'm pretty sure that he was present a
few times after that but I couldn't say with any certainty. That was the last
time I know that he was around for sure.’

‘When I was 11 we moved to Kingston. When we were in Bicester I don't
remember seeing Ray. I just remember the odd, when you can pick out a voice
and you think that's him.’

‘In Wilton I was taken to I think it was the Erskine Barracks and we went into
an office and I was introduced to General Bramall (SEE WILTSHIRE TAPE FOUR
- 'Names were never used') That was the first introduction to what were
known as the group. We went into an office there was a guy outside. He
saluted Ray and then we went into another office and I was introduced to
General Bramall. Ray didn't do much he had to leave the room. General
Bramall kept touching my head and saying how good I looked and he undid
my shirt and touched my chest and undid my trousers and touched my penis
and that was about it. There was nobody else there just him. Ray came back
in and was happy and smiling and on the way home said I'd done well. I had
no idea what General Bramall's first name was until Mark mentioned him. I
don't know whether it was Ray's office or General Bramall's office. It was like
a secretary's office.’
107

 ‘A day or a few days after the first meeting I was taken to a house similar to
the one we lived in. It was empty with no furniture. Several people were in
the room. General Bramall, Beach and Gibbs were there. I can't remember
being introduced. Ray was asked to leave again. Another person came in with
a video camera and I was asked to undress.’

See Wiltshire Tape 2: ‘My stepfather told me to take my clothes off’.

See Wiltshire Tape 3: ‘A guy was taking pictures. I remember the flashes. The
pictures seemed to go on forever’.

‘Everyone was asked to leave by Bramall and he kissed me and touched me
again. He didn't make me do anything to him, and then he raped me and
then it was just like nothing had happened then Ray was invited back in and
I was told to get dressed and that was it’.

See Wiltshire Tape 3: 'Hand over mouth, unbelievable pain. I couldn't move,
hand covered in blood' (In Wiltshire interview the first rape is perpetrated by
the Lieutenant Colonel and in the MPS interview by Ray his stepfather.) Ray
had been asked to go right at the start. I was told to undress, nobody
undressed me I was told to remove my clothes it was only after everyone had
left.’

Y1 B DISK 2 - Page 42

‘Bramall did the same as Ray really, kissed me, hands all over me. I was
completely naked, then I just have to get on the floor, and he penetrates me
108

 again just as Ray did.’

See Wiltshire Tape 3: ‘The first rape was by the Lieutenant Colonel not Ray. I
was just laid on my front.’

‘Q:- And how did it finish for him?
A:- Nothing really just finished and that was it. No mention of pain or blood’.

‘Ray came back into the room. Ray was pleased, he was happy. After that I
remember being taken to Imber, taken to these buildings. I don't remember
Ray being there at all. Bramall was there, Gibbs was there. I know there was
some other boys there, I don't know who they were. I hadn't seen them
before.’

See Wiltshire Tape 5: ‘These incidents happened with the group, a lot of times
I was the only child present, but not always. About a quarter of the time
another child would be present, just one other. His name was Aubrey’.

‘There were quite a few men there.’

‘I have been back to Bicester with [GIST: COUNSELLOR] my counsellor and I
decided to go back to Imber with my son to exorcise a few ghosts. I went into
a couple of the buildings. They're just empty shells, with no window frames
or doors. In one of the buildings they still had the rings where I was tied. They
were still there. I was 7 when I was taken there. I went there about 18 months
ago. It was only then that I found out that there was a website and that's
when they told you when it was open. At Imber there were boys there but no
109

 girls. I don't know who they were. I'd never seen them before. We were taken
to separate links. 4 or 5. There were a small number of men with each of us.
Bramall came and went. He wasn't in my group but he did come in. I didn't
recognize any of the 5 men in my group. They were all military, in uniform. I
remember being tied up, being stabbed in my feet and in my fingers and
having my feet burnt with a lighter. The pain was so bad even now I can still
feel it in my hands. I was tied to the wall at 7 years of age. Initially both hands
were tied together above my head. My feet were off the ground. I just
remember the pain in my feet. I don't remember anything at all after that. I
don't know whether or not I lost consciousness. I have no memories at all. I
have no idea if there was any sexual touching or abuse from the 4 or 5 men
that were in my group. Bramall didn't physically do anything. I think the
other boys were older. The only two men I recognized were Bramall and
Gibbs. I don't know what I was stabbed with but it was excruciating pain just
like a needle being put in between my toes and then burning with a lighter.
All I remember is the pain and everything went blank. I didn't go to the
doctors. I hate anyone touching my feet.’

‘I have no idea how these events fit in chronologically, but my friend has been
able to piece some of these together for me and that's useful but I'll tell you
that, because that's somebody else's recollection and not mine. This is the
person I touched on last week who was present through some of this, and I'm
still in touch with him.’

See Wiltshire Tape 5: 'His name was Aubrey'

‘And I have drawings. I can give you copies. I don't know how you want those.
110

 I wouldn't want them to go. You can have copies as long as I'm there. I don't
want them out of my sight. I have two crowns from one of the officers I don't
know who it was. You can have these if you want them.’

Y 1 C DISK 3 - Page 63

‘My last recollection of Ray my stepfather is of him being carted off in a police
vehicle and us going to Bicester for roughly 2 years. Contact with the group
continued during school term time. I was picked up from school by drivers
and taken to wherever it happened. I was called from class and returned
home or near to home. I was at [NAME] C of E School next to the Church. My
mum wasn't aware. The school never informed her. I have only two
recollections of my mother at that time. One when I missed a bus to Oxford
when I was meeting her and she was mega pissed off and the other when I
refused to have piano lessons. Apparently we went on holidays but I don't
remember those.’

‘I remember my friend who was there part of it.’

‘Q:- You don't have to refer to his real name can we refer to him as a name
just so we know who we're talking about. I am not going to be able to identify
him if ever, it’s just that if we're going to speak about him it maybe.
A:- Fred, I will probably mention his name I probably can't help it.’

Interview Continues ……

‘I don't remember where I first met him. I don't know it seems I've just known
111

 him forever.’

‘We were picked up outside the school and driven to wherever we were
required to be a lot of the places around Bicester. A couple of times was on
the barracks of Bicester and some of them were private houses. There was
no communication. They were just there to lure me and others to wherever
we were wanted. That was their job and to drive us back again. There would
be seven or eight of us roughly all the same age, perhaps a couple were
older.’

See Wiltshire Tape 5: ‘About a quarter of the time another child would be
present, just one other.’

‘There would be 10 plus, 15 men perhaps more. We would sit there in silence
until we were called through. You could be singled out and then you would
be selected for private time with one of them and if you were popular then
that might have to be more than one.’

‘Q:- Who do you remember being at the parties?
A:- Well I thought Ray was there a few times, but I couldn't swear to that.’

Interview Continues ……

‘Bramall wasn't at all of them, occasionally he was. There was a doctor, he
might have been called Henry....he patched us up if they went too far.’
‘And again he's dead, but so but in one of the, well three times but one time
the guest he wasn't part of the group was Savile, Jimmy Savile, and that's
112

 when I first met him but I only met him in Oxfordshire, he didn't feature
anywhere else it was just a few times. Savile, Jimmy Savile was particularly
nasty but again I only met him a couple of times.’

See Wiltshire Tape 4: 'It was just his voice. He wasn't there that often three
or four times. I remember his voice when he was hurting me. I don't
remember him doing anything, just general touching or anything, but he
would penetrate.'

‘Some things were really stupid dancing, singing and just stupid things.
Others were undressing, touching yourself, playing with yourself, having to
do things with another boy, sometimes a man would join in. You didn't have
a choice. The punishments were severe if you broke the rules. It could be just
violence, it could be anything from sticking things in you. I had to kill two
spiders, and was held down with no clothes on and spiders were tipped onto
you and I have got a fear of spiders. I couldn't scream or one would go in your
mouth.’

‘They were always trying to find new ways to inflict pain or terror e.g. holding
your head under water and electric shocks. They used electric at Imber when
I was brought back and that just added a new level of pain. Michael and
Maurice were party to the electric shocks. Whilst I lived at Bicester mutual
masturbation and oral was the main thing and sometimes an adult would
join in whilst others in the room were either giving instructions or clapping or
shouting out encouragement or pointing out what we were doing wrong, but
it always ended up with one or all wanting to penetrate depending how
popular you were. I was popular. At the Bicester incidents were Savile, but
113

 only a few times, Michael and Maurice, and Bramall. I don't recall Gibbs or
Beach.’

‘I always remember Michael and Maurice as separate from the others. They
encouraged others to do things but anything they did they liked to do it in
private. Once, at Imber, after the men had each done what they wanted to
do sexually, they had wires and they put the wires right in front of my face
and it sparked and then they put one of the wires on my knee and then put
the other wire on and the pain went instantly through my whole body and
they did that a few times. It felt like I was just going to explode. It filled every
part of my body. At these parties the boys were usually 7 or 8 some were
older but I don't remember any younger. I didn't know we were being filmed
but later on I had to watch them. Michael didn't do the electric shocks, he
just instigated them. Michael and Maurice were not violent but they did what
they wanted to do, touching and penetration. Michael said if I didn't follow
the rules I would just disappear and nobody would give a shit and he could
make that happen. That's the first time I found he was in intelligence. He
didn't say kill me just disappear and nobody would think anything of it.’

‘At Kingston they were all older in their late 40's, 50's perhaps even older than
that.’

‘At Bicester Bramall featured at the military place just outside Bicester, quite
a big site. There was a building in the woods. I can't remember any other
boys being there and Bramall was there and some other officers. I had to give
every one of them [GIST: describes oral rape and being sick] and Bramall
ordered me to eat my own vomit and they thought it funny. It was in a brick
114

 hut with no windows in the wood.’

‘Savile was one of those that liked to do it when your head was in the water.
Several people like to do that, to penetrate whilst they were holding your
head under the water. He liked pain, he liked to see you in pain, sadistic.’

‘Q:- Who do you remember from the Bicester period you said you had to sit
down and line up?
A:- My friend mainly.
Q:- Is this Fred?
A:- Hmm, yes.......we've been through a lot together I suppose he's the main
one from then, the others Aubrey from Bicester. The others they're more
London than Bicester.’

Interview Continues ……

‘I don't remember a lot about Aubrey apart from his name. Same age. My
height. Similar build. I don't remember his school and he didn’t have an
accent.’

Y1 D Disk 4 - Page 95

‘I didn't have any friends at school and I can't remember classmates or even
the teacher. I didn't want to leave Bicester. I was terrified of leaving because
of the threat of Michael or Maurice. I can't remember which. I was promised
my own dog if I agreed to leave and in reality I didn't have a choice, but I got
a dog out of it. I was aged 11 when we moved to Kingston to a Health
115

 Authority house. I had to get the train to Norbeton and walk up the hill to
school. We were there until I was 18 when we moved to Hertfordshire. When
I had counselling I was having a lot of flashbacks and a lot of very bad nights
where I wasn't sleeping because of the memories. My counsellor suggested I
started writing down my memories so we could discuss it. I have to write it
down and give it her before I can talk about it. There are things I don't want
to talk about at the moment. I have some drawings but they are not works
of art.’

23/10/2014

‘We moved to Kingston and I got my dog called Heron. Our house was in
Neville Road and I went to Coombe Hill Junior School and from there to
Rivermead School which became Tudor School when it was renamed. After a
short time, we moved from Neville Road to East Road, almost in the centre of
Kingston. Whilst at Kingston my mother had two relationships with people
from work but I wouldn't let it happen. I did everything I could to break up
the relationship. It wasn't something I was going to put up with.’

‘School was quite a challenge; I didn't react well to authority. I rarely did any
homework and rarely turned up for detention. How I wasn't expelled I don't
know. I left with minimal qualifications. I didn't socialise at school. It wasn't
tolerated by the group. They knew everything. They knew who my teachers
were, they knew my dog, where my mum worked. I forgot a meeting and they
took my dog as a punishment. My mum and aunt were in Bushy Park and the
dog went missing and was picked up from a police station five days later. She
was taken as a warning. I let somebody be a friend and they warned me to
116

 get rid of him and I didn't listen and yes because of that he lost his life. The
Group were responsible.’

‘In Kingston rather than being picked up at school I would meet them at
places that were prearranged. This started to encroach on the school
holidays which were my safe zone at Bicester. My stepfather was no longer
around. I don't have any recall of him from Kingston. Bramall and Beach were
still around, Savile only featured in Bicester. I was introduced to other people
in London. Some were kind, some were the worst very nasty people, and I
was protected by some of the inner circle because I was a favourite. It's
something [GIST: COUNSELLOR] and I haven't touched on yet. If I wasn't a
favourite I don't believe I would be here now. I have a lot of guilt that I'm here
now and others aren't.’

‘One particular person didn't like me. I got on the wrong side of him at a
meeting at Dolphin Sq. My friend Fred was there. This person threw a baton
and told me to pick it up and hit Fred with it. Fred was whispering just do it,
but I couldn't pick it up and I paid dearly for that. I was punished. I was held
down and I remember pain. I don't remember anything else after that. This
is from Fred. I was screaming and they were doing things with my feet and
then there was silence and Fred thought they had killed me. I was taken to a
bedroom and Fred tried to wake me up but couldn't. I was then taken back
into the room where they all raped me. I don't remember this Fred has told
me. This was the first time with this particular guy. He was sadistic and
enjoyed inflicting pain. He did it without hesitation. He had a little penknife
and wanted to cut my genitals and he was stopped by one of the others. The
person with the knife was Harvey Proctor and the person who stopped him
117

 was Edward Heath, who wouldn't let him do it. I knew I was on Harvey
Proctors hit list and whether I was going to be next. He didn't like me at all.’

‘I have kept the knife and you can take it. I did give it to Mark Conrad to
photograph it. I kept it in a box with two crowns from an earlier incident.
After the incident with the knife Harvey Procter said put it in your pocket and
something along the lines you won’t be so lucky next time. I was about 11 or
12 at the time.’

‘This is a picture of a property I drew about two years ago. It has the numbers
[No.] and [No.] on it. Mark showed me a picture of it. I didn't go in there but
somebody was picked up and it didn't end well. I am not prepared to talk
about it yet. I haven't talked about it with [GIST: COUNSELLOR].’

‘Harvey Proctor penetrated me and there were no niceties with him. He just
liked to hurt and give pain. [GIST: describes oral rape and strangulation] Oral
sex was a regular thing with him. Bramall was in the main group, but Harvey
did what he wanted to do. The only person he listened to was Edward Heath’.

‘I always found Edward Heath to be quite kind. He would never do anything
in front of anyone else. I would always see him alone, but on one occasion it
was with Harvey. I had to give Harvey oral with Edward there and the next
thing Harvey started laying into me and Edward stopped him and he didn't
like it. Edward told me he used to run the country. I don't think he was Prime
Minister at this point. The inner group at this stage was Edward, Maurice and
Michael and three or four others. I can't give you their names. I know who
they are and I knew at the time who they were. They were very open about
118

 who they were and where I was taken. They weren't British Nationals but I
am not prepared to divulge at the moment who they are because there's
nothing that can be done.’

DISK 2 - Page 24

‘Harvey Proctor was the worst of them all. He abused me at Dolphin Sq., the
Carlton Club, Edward's house in Wilton Street. Edward liked touching and
kissing, and liked me giving him oral and didn't always penetrate. He
reminded me of my grandfather. He commanded authority. He liked sailing
and talking about it. I met him 5 or 6 times. I went to his house. It was an
address I didn't know. I found it out walking around London with Mark. We
also went to Dolphin Square. I remember the gardens but not the dolphin
statue. Bramall was not part of that circle’.

‘I don't remember much about Maurice. I didn't see him often. He
disappeared totally at one point but that wasn't abnormal. I was aged about
11 or 12 at the time. Michael was a fairly constant attender’.

‘I met Leon Brittan at the Carlton Club. He was a mini Harvey. He didn't go as
far as Harvey but he was nasty but was controlled in a fairly sadistic way. He
liked to see pain but didn't inflict too much of it himself. He liked to hold your
head under water. He was present at a third incident I can't talk about
yet(P29). At the first meeting he didn't do anything. He was just one of the
group. Greville he was there and Edward he was there in a separate room. I
didn't know what the Carlton Club was then’.

119

 ‘The first time I met Leon Brittan I was just dropped off. The drivers would
never come in. I was taken through to a room at the back. Edward was in a
smaller room on his own, I was shown through to that room. This was the
first time I met Edward and Leon. On this occasion there was just touching
with Edward nothing more’.

‘Leon Brittan was sadistic. He liked to hold you over the bath and hold your
head whilst penetrating. He did that on his own, never with other people. He
encouraged others and liked to see you being hit, but wouldn't hit himself.
He encouraged violence towards me and others and there was no
tenderness. He just did what he wanted to do. Several times both at Dolphin
Sq. and at the town house he penetrated me then held my head under the
water several times. He was a strong man. He liked to watch boys being
beaten up, and encouraged it but I can't tell you about that yet. He came to
pool parties and one Christmas party. I was penetrated by him several times,
but not into double figures’.

‘Leon Brittan used to come to pool parties. Mark seemed to think it might be
at Dolphin Sq., but to me it was just another party. I couldn't swim which
made it even more fun for them to throw me off a diving board. It was a big
pool but I was quite little. It wasn't a big public pool. It had three diving
boards. The benches were fixed because they didn't move when you were
penetrated. They weren't allowed to penetrate in the pool and if we bled we
weren't allowed back in the pool. Bramall, Leon, and Harvey were all there
and others. Each man selected a boy who stayed with them until they
swapped. We then undressed and they wrestled with us in the water, put your
head under the water or take you to the diving boards and throw you off.
120

 Since I couldn't swim they weren't allowed to penetrate in the pool and some
did it on the side. I had to sit on them whilst they penetrated. I bled quite a
lot. There were a few pool parties. Leon Brittan didn't do anything sexually
as he wouldn't do it in front of other people. He probably would have touched
but not in front of other people’.

‘There are two incidents involving Procter that I am not going to touch upon.
The first concerns the numbers [Nos.] when someone was picked up. The
second I literally only just started writing about it now. I haven't been able to
do that yet. It involved both Procter and Brittan.’

‘At Remembrance Day parties Bramall and Gibbs were there. They were a
regular thing every year. They used to pin poppies to my naked chest. On that
particular one I was the only child there. One would get a bit of skin and put
a pin through and then another would take it out and pin it somewhere else.
It was nothing compared to everything else. It didn't hurt that much. It was
just humiliating more than anything. There were about ten men present and
I was the only child. It was normal to be penetrated and to give oral to all
who were present. I don't know where it was in London. I think it was military
because all the other remembrance parties were always on Military bases. I
don't know where it was. It was a celebration for Gibbs. Another
remembrance party was at Imber. When I was on my own I was 11 or 12. I
got the crown like pips at a remembrance party. I just saw them on the floor
and picked them up’.

‘Christmas parties were the worst as there were a lot of men there. We were
referred to as presents. They had to undress us, unwrap their presents and
121

 we'd be given drinks, whiskey and we had to drink it sharing it with whoever
had chosen us. All we were allowed to wear were those stupid little hats you
get in crackers. The present was [GIST: multiple oral rape]. Boys were
swapped about. I was chosen by lots of people. I was one of those that
everybody wanted. Edward was never there and I'm not sure about my
stepfather. It was usually the biggest party. Up to ten boys would attend
these parties. They were at the town house on a couple of occasions, at the
Carlton Club once, and once at Dolphin Sq.’

‘I remember going to the Carlton Club when I was living in Kingston. 3 or 4 of
us were there. Fred was there. I call him Fred now 'that is your fault' (referring
to DS Townly) Duncan was there and a third one. 4 of us had to undress each
other and then we had to kiss and then kneel on the floor on the sofa and we
were penetrated one by one’.

‘Edward Heath had a nice yacht. He wanted to take me out sailing. I didn't
want to go and I cried and couldn't stop crying. Any of the others would have
punished me severely. I just stayed on the yacht moored. Edward didn't
penetrate me he just cuddled me. I don't know where it was. I couldn't tell
whether it was a marina. I only went once’.

‘We were given instructions at short notice before being picked up. For
example, I was told to be at Kingston station next Tuesday or Wednesday at
one o'clock or five o'clock and you had to be there. Being brought back from
one I would be told where to be. I just walked out of Secondary School.
Sometimes they were glad I wasn't there. When it wasn't school time I used
to say I went to Heathrow a lot for plane spotting or to a gun club in Cobham.
122

 That was a regular excuse. Stables in Hampton Court was another excuse.
The older I got I didn't need to give excuses, I just said I'd been out. On one
occasion she nearly caught me because I was in the bathroom cleaning
myself up and she was always saying that I was wasting water. I had only just
got rid of the dirty blood stained water when she came in. She stood there
demanding to know what I had been doing. One appointment led to the next.
All the vehicles that collected us were dark and the drivers just drove to
wherever we were required to be. I never went to the Elm Guest House. It
was just a drop off point or pick up. I only went there two or three times
picking up or dropping off. Some of the boys were taken abroad. Fred and
Duncan were taken to Amsterdam. Fred won't talk about it’.

‘I was taken to Stowe School, Richmond Park, Heathrow, London Zoo, and
Queen’s Ice Rink. There was always someone there with either a camera or
a video. It was just part of what happened’.

03/11/2014

‘I was taken to Stowe School when I was living at Bicester. I was driven there.
I knew where it was because my mother and I had been there to walk the
dog. She never knew that I had been there before. I was about nine when I
went there. Nobody I have named was there. The men were just part of the
group’.

‘I was about 13 when Fred and Duncan were taken to Amsterdam. It's not
something we really talked about and it only came about because I had gone
elsewhere as well which is something I can't go into detail with. ...there's
123

 some things that we just aren't able to talk about and that's one of them.
Fred and Duncan were away for longer than I was, maybe three or four days
perhaps a week. We wouldn't have talked about it because if we had been
caught it would have been bad for us’.

‘When I bled from my anus I have no idea what happened to my underwear
and clothing in the early days. Later on I would do various things to prevent
it staining. Some of it I chucked away myself or put it in the bin. I have got no
recollection of what happened to it before that. I used later on to roll up toilet
paper and push it there so it would soak into that instead of my underwear.
It worked well. I don't ever remember going to the doctor about anything
with my mother.’

‘Turning to the occasion at the house (not the office) when Bramall, Beach
and Gibbs were there, and my stepfather was not, they had both video and
cameras. Some people would not permit photos. Edward didn't he wouldn't
be anywhere near a camera’.

‘As for picking up, at Bicester it was always from school. At Coombe Hill it
was always from school. They came to my home once at Kingston but when
I was at secondary school they'd pick you up but you'd be asked to wait or go
to other places. You'd be given your next appointment at the end of the last’.

‘The meetings just stopped. I turned up and waited and didn't dare go home
in case I'd got the wrong time. The meeting was at Kingston near the railway
station. This was about my sixteenth birthday. At 7/8 I was blond and happy.
Afterwards I became a loner and by sixteen I had put on weight intentionally
124

 to make myself as unattractive as possible’.
‘Dealing with the Wiltshire interviews, I didn't really want to do it, I didn't
want to name certain people. I wasn't forced into it. I'm better now at looking
after myself I didn't name anybody apart from my stepfather and it was
naivety I assumed that if I gave him up the police would be able to put two
and two together and find out the rest without me having to say anything. It
wasn't the right time. It was too soon. I didn't have the confidence to give
names I shouldn't have done it really probably wasted their time. The Middle
Eastern, and possibly Saudi and an American are the three I won't talk about’.

‘I haven't said who they were or what levels they held. He (The Wiltshire
officer) said he had spoken to the Diplomatic Protection Service and said it
depends on their level of seniority as to what would be done about it. It is
easier for me to live with that than it is knowing they will get away with it’.

‘The inner circle was Edward Heath, Maurice and Michael. Not Bramall. I was
introduced to General Gibbs and General Bramall. I just knew who Jimmy
Savile was and recognised his voice from TV. He was never formally
introduced. I just knew Peter Hayman as Hayman. Harvey Procter told me his
name. I didn't know Leon Brittan's name. I just saw him later on TV when I
was about 21. I saw Greville Janner’s picture in the paper two months prior
to interview. I didn't know who he was at the time. I can't tie him to a
particular location other than London but he was part of the group. He
wasn't the worst or one of the nice ones. Edward Heath told me who he was
and told me that he used to run the country. I knew Michael Hanley as
Michael and Maurice Oldfield as Maurice. Other people present I cannot
name but they include police officers and a bishop’.
125

 ‘Being taken through the pictures shown to me by Mark Conrad, I did put a
couple of question marks by Cyril Smith and on another I wrote something.
He is similar to somebody I won't talk about’.

‘I did walk around London with Mark. We met at Victoria Station and went
to Dolphin Sq. and Wilton St, and the Carlton Club. I knew the Hilton Hotel. I
went there with Michael. I knew the Erskine Barracks as it is near Wilton and
Larkhill. I found the location of Barracks by looking at Google maps’.

‘I started to blog, write notes and draw pictures because it helped get things
out of my head. This was my counsellor's suggestion. I have four notebooks,
three completed and one I'm writing now. Sometimes it's easier to write
things before I say things’.

03/11/2014 - Y1H

‘Everything discussed over the last ten or eleven hours has been written down
before I spoke about it. It's helped talking it through with [GIST:
COUNSELLOR]. I searched Google for the location of Imber. I looked a lot
online when the Jimmy Savile thing hit because it was all focused on women
and girls. A couple of people I won't talk about, I looked to see where they
are now. I'm aware two of them are still alive. If I find out a bit more about
them they would know exactly where I was and that might cause trouble for
me. I wake up in the middle of the night and grab a pad and write stuff down.
It makes it easier to get things out of my head. I threw myself into work. I also
listened to music and got a dog. [GIST: COUNSELLOR] has drilled me over the
126

 years to focus on the present rather than the past’.
‘The first person I told about my being a victim was my mum when I was 21
or 22, when I was halfway through counselling arranged through work. I
didn't tell her everything, only about Ray. She commented he was only
around for seven months so get over it. I'm sure she didn't mean it like that
but that's the way it came over. I also told my ex-wife and that ended badly
as well. I just told her the basics saying I was abused. I told a lady Claire I met
subsequently but just the basics, and also my current managers as I had to
take time out of the day for counselling. I went back to Bicester with [GIST:
COUNSELLOR] to enable me to work in the area. Kate (Tangled Web) knows
what is on the website in my blogs and Mark knows a lot more detail than
anybody else. I have also told my son but he doesn't know any details. Only
Mark and [GIST: COUNSELLOR] know the names’.

03/11/2014 – 1605 to 1825

‘I have decided to talk about three incidents I previously referred to without
going into detail:
INCIDENT ONE

The boy was called Scott. It was 1979 and we were both at Coombe Hill
School. I am not sure if we were in the same class but we were at the same
school. Scott wanted to be my friend. He was a normal boy and not connected
to the group. The group knew that Scott was my friend and warned me not
to be friends with him, but I didn't listen. I wanted a friend and I didn't
understand the consequences. It was May, June, or July in the summer term
and we were walking, when I heard a car engine. I turned round and saw that
127

 the car had hit him and he was thrown up in the air and everything stopped
and he just lay there. It was silent. I went over to him but he wouldn't wake
up and didn't move. There was a lot of blood. I had blood on my hands. I was
dragged away and put in the back of a car. I tried to get out. I tried to smash
the window and the next thing I felt was a pain in my arm. I don't remember
anything after that. It was if he didn't exist. Nobody talked about him.
Nobody mentioned him. It was if he didn't exist, but he died because I didn't
do as I was told, and I just wanted a friend. Nobody mentioned him at school.
He was nothing to do with it. He hadn't done anything apart from being my
friend’.

‘It was not long after I started at the school and he hadn't been there that
long. He was the same age and this was probably our last year at primary
school. I knew him for four or five months. He had light brown hair, quite fair
but not blond and about the same build and height as me. We were walking
away from school towards Kingston. Scott was thrown up in the air and
landed in the road. His leg was bent right back. He was not moving and not
breathing. There was blood on his head. They just picked me up and put me
in the car. After that nobody mentioned it. I didn't tell anyone what I'd seen.
I was 11 coming up 12. It was Michael that warned me several times not to
have friends. I have asked Mark to look into it’.

INCIDENT TWO

‘In 1980 when I was about 12, I was picked up and taken to London to the
house I've drawn a picture of with the numbers [Nos.]. We had not been
there before and I was told to stay in the car. This boy came out and the man
128

 had his hand on the boy's neck. I was told to move over and the boy got in
beside me. He was very scared and moved closer to me. He reached for my
hand and squeezed. After a short drive we reached another house and
Harvey opened the door. We were taken into a back room and another man
was there. I hadn't seen this man before. Harvey hit the boy a couple of times
and then tied him to the table. Both men took the boy's clothes off. The boy
wasn't struggling and was silent. Harvey had a knife to his throat. It was like
a kitchen knife but not huge. [GIST: describes stabbing of boy and reaction].
He was screaming but the other man had his hand over his mouth so the
screams were muffled. I pleaded with them to stop. Harvey came over to me
and holding the knife up told me I would be next. Harvey kept cutting him
and cutting him. The two men then left the room and I tried to untie him but
I couldn't. He just kept saying I'm sorry. The men came back but only to hurt
him some more. Harvey untied him lifted his legs up and raped him. There
was lots of blood everywhere. I pleaded with them to stop, but they wouldn't
listen, saying it would be me next. The other man then bent me over a table,
pulled down my trousers and underwear and raped me. Harvey then put his
hands round the boy's neck and strangled him, and the boy reached for my
hand. He gave up. He didn't struggle, and his grip lessened. I couldn't do
anything. He died. I can still feel his hand in my hand. I begged him to wake
up. He had cuts to his chest, legs, thighs and arms. Harvey and the man just
laughed. The boy was about my age possibly younger. Harvey was wearing a
suit. He was always smart. I felt I wasn't harmed that night because I was
protected by some members of the group because I was a favourite’.

INCIDENT THREE

129

 ‘The third incident also involves a death and Fred and Duncan and another
boy. Harvey, Leon, Michael and a few others were there. It was in London. It
was different from any of the other parties. All four of us were called in
together. We were told that one of us was going to die and we had to decide
which one’.

03/11/2014 - Y1J

‘Michael told us that we had to choose. Harvey was there and a few others I
don't know. Just one of us was going to die. It was petrifying. We all knew it
was serious. We didn't say anything. I just stood there and this made them
angry and each one of us was punched in the stomach. Some of the men left
and the boys were then paired up and told to do things to each other. I was
paired up with the unknown boy. He had to undress me and perform oral sex
on me and I had to do the same to him followed by the boy penetrating me.
The boys were allocated private time with each man and I was relieved that
I didn't get Harvey. I was paired with Michael who wanted to penetrate me
but it didn't get that far as there was a shout from one of the men and they
all left the room together. After a while they returned and announced that
the unknown boy was the one that was going to die. We were told to decide
how he was going to die. None of us spoke up and the punishment was [GIST:
describes boys each being raped by two men at once]. None of the four boys
could. Harvey and the unknown man tried it on me and it was very painful’.

‘Michael then said to the unknown boy that he could live if he chose one of
the other boys to die. The boy said nothing. Three of the men started to punch
the boy whilst Leon watched. Michael threw the first punch. The boy was like
130

 a rag doll. They just kept on hitting him Then they left and the three of us
went over to him. He was breathing and then he stopped. He didn't wake up.
The three of us sat on the floor and didn't know what to say. We were then
taken to another room, given our clothes and taken home as normal’.

05/01/2015 - Y1N

‘I had not done any research on the internet on missing children before
compiling the E-fits. No suggestion was given to me about any description. It
was from what's been in my head for the last many years. I have had
meetings with Tom Bateman and Tom Symonds of the BBC and Peter
McKelvie was also there. I've also had meetings with Mark Conrad who
contacted me through my blogs. Peter McKelvie was working with Mark at
that stage but is now doing a lot more with Tom Symonds and Tom Bateman.
I agreed to meet all three of them to help more people come forward. We
met at a hotel in the country and we chatted about how much I had told
Exaro and they wanted to meet Mark Conrad rather than Mark Watts his
boss. They seemed to be doing their own investigation into things. Tom
Symonds said can I show you two photographs and probably I should have
said no but I didn't. He had a mini iPad and there were two pictures and the
first he showed me was the lad that had been in the Press, the Asian child.
He was nothing to do with anything I was involved with. He then flipped the
screen onto the next picture and that caught me unaware. I wasn't expecting
to see something that familiar and I had to leave the room. When I got back
I didn't say anything I didn't confirm one way or another and they didn't press
it. They didn't show it me again. Where in the Press I'd seen the first picture
I don't know. I get the Sunday Times occasionally but I don't buy a weekday
131

 paper. My initial reaction to the second picture was that somebody reached
inside and pulled my heart out pretty much. It was the boy from incident two,
being murdered on the table by Harvey Proctor. I didn't say no I didn't say
yes, just didn't say anything’.

‘Subsequently I have asked if the picture they showed me was the person
mentioned in the Press, Martin Allen. He said I can't tell you that's up to the
police to do their Ids and things. I asked by email after Peter McKelvie sent
me an email saying Diane Tudway had been to see Martin Allen's family. I
have read the Sunday Times article because [GIST: COUNSELLOR] showed it
to me. She covered up the picture with a sticky note and let me read the
article. It said that Diane Tudway had visited Martin Allen's family. I nearly
did some research. I put his name into Google but then clicked the x instead
of the search because I knew I shouldn't be doing it. Before Peter McKelvie
sent me the name Martin Allen I hadn't heard of the name. I am fairly certain
the picture I saw was the victim of incident two. Peter McKelvie knows quite
a bit but he doesn't know as much as Mark Conrad’.

27/04/2015 - Y10

‘On Tuesday 13th January I went with DS Townly and DC Low to a number of
military premises and we were driven by [MILITARY OFFICER 1]. He talked
to the officers but not to me. I didn't want any reaction with him. We travelled
to Imber Village. I indicated a building and at the first house I recall being
tied on the north west wall and that was where I was abused. I pointed to
two other buildings where others were taken. I was taken into the small one.
I was held downstairs against the back wall. When I visited Imber on an open
132

 day I did not get that close to the house. There was a barrier preventing
access. I was tied to the right of the window. I then took a few minutes to be
alone’.

We then went to Lark Hill barracks and I asked the officers to stop at
[LOCATION] near the officers’ mess which I recognised as a place where Ray
my stepfather abused me. I recognised the [LOCATION] entrance. The abuse
is in my notebook’.

‘We then drove past Erskine Barracks and nothing looks familiar. I then asked
to visit our family home at Wilton and I wasn't sure whether it was 6 or 9. We
drove past them both twice’.

‘On Wednesday 28th January in the same company we visited Bicester Village
and to St David's Barracks but nothing looked familiar, but as we drove
around the Circular Rd we accessed a small track and I felt anxious. I then
went for a walk in the woods and I felt very uneasy. I observed that there
weren't any brick buildings in the woods. I was abused in a brick building and
these were wooden. We couldn't find any brick building in the woods. We
then returned to Bicester Village and [MILITARY OFFICER 1] left us. I was then
shown a picture of [TEACHER 1] class from 1978 at Coombe Hill Junior School
and was asked if I was on the photo and if Scott was on the photo, and if I
recognised anyone else. Scott and I were not in the photo but I vaguely
recognised one boy on the back row, third in from the right. I was ten shown
a photo of [TEACHER 2] class from1978 and again Scott and I were not in the
photo but one boy appeared familiar, second row down second from the left’.

133

 ‘On Tuesday 10th February again in the same company we drove to Lark Hill
and as we drove to the front of the Officer's Mess I became upset and started
crying. We entered and went up to the first floor. I stopped outside room 1.31,
became very quiet and I was crying. We went to the doors of the Congreave
room and I said I'd definitely been there before. I identified a medal on a
ribbon called the Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath. I believed I'd
seen it before but I wasn't sure it was exactly the same. We entered the
Congreave room and I remembered being in the room twice along with other
boys. I recalled meeting Army people there and having drinks with them. I
was not sexually abused in this room but boys would be selected and taken
upstairs to be abused. I then asked to go back upstairs and we went again to
the first floor and to the corridor marked central wing 1.25-1.52. As I walked
down the hallway I realised I was abused in one of the four rooms on the
right before the fire door at the end of the corridor. [MILITARY OFFICER 1]
got the keys to those four rooms and I saw they had been changed
significantly since I had been there. Two rooms had been knocked into one’.

‘On Tuesday 21st April I was driven round central London in company with DS
Townly and DC Low. I was told to ask them to stop if I saw any familiar
address. We passed [No.] Kensington Park Gardens and nothing was said,
[No.] Kensington Park Gardens and nothing was said, Linden Gardens,
Notting Hill Gate and nothing was said, [No.] Kensington Court Gardens and
nothing was said, [No.] Roberts Court, [No.] Barkston Gardens and nothing
was said, [No.] Albert Hall Mansions and nothing was said, [No.] Rutland
Gate Knightsbridge and nothing was said. We stopped in St James St outside
the Carlton Club which I see most times I come to London. Next we went to
[No.] Museum Mansions, [No.] Great Russell Street and nothing was said,
134

 [No.] Park Crescent and nothing was said, [VENUE] [No.] Pall Mall and
nothing was said, Pratts Park Place SW1A and nothing was said. I asked to
stop in Marshall St SW1and got out of the vehicle and walked under the
arches. I remember being driven through there but nothing more. I asked to
stop in Ponsonby Terrace between [Nos.] and the usual happened there, but
it is quite vague. Something though stuck out’.

‘[No.] Chandos Court, Caxton St., nothing was said. At Wilton St. I asked to
stop and paced outside [Nos.] and thought there was something familiar and
I associated the houses with Edward Heath and Harvey Proctor. I had been
there with Mark Conrad last year. I couldn't give a definite number. At
Eccleston Sq. I asked to stop opposite [Nos.] and started sobbing and asked
to leave. It was where the boy in the second incident was picked up from. We
stopped because my anxiety levels went high very quickly. I have depicted
that house in my pictures. At [No.] Alderney St. and nothing was said. I asked
to stop in Cambridge St. and pointed to [No.] and it was just the look of the
building. I can't pinpoint who was there, but the usual happened. At Hugh St.
nothing was said. I asked to return to Eccleston Sq. where I started crying. I
went outside [Nos.] and that's the venue where boy No. 2 was taken from.
We went to Dolphin Sq. and one of the flats was on a high floor where I could
see the river. I was always taken through the archway entrance to either
Drake or Rally House, turning left or right. We went to [No.] Park View Court,
Fulham High St. and nothing was said’.

‘I was asked which addresses I had sketched. I had drawn Eccleston Sq., Lark
Hill [LOCATION] and Imber sketches were in my notebook. They were all
started after I started counselling with [GIST: COUNSELLOR], mainly within
135

 the first six months’.
11/01/2016 - Y1P

‘I can't tell you any more about the pick-up of boy no. 2 than I've told you
already. I can't exactly remember where I was picked up from in Kingston. I
can't remember the car I was in or the driver. I had never been to [Nos.]
Eccleston Sq. before or since. I was alone with the driver. I can't describe the
man who brought the boy out except he was white. The driver told me to
move over. Boy 2 was about my height with dark hair and he always had
worry lines on his forehead, and the same build as me. I was 11 or 12. I was
at Tudor School at the time. I would have just turned 12. It was in winter
around January time. I was asked to describe his worry lines and became
upset. Boy 2 and I did speak a little. He had a soft voice. It was quite a short
journey. It was a town house. I can't describe the layout except the room we
were in. I can't describe the other male with Harvey Proctor’.

‘I can't describe boy 3 any further than I have done’.

‘I cannot describe Scott any further. I always assumed he went to the school
because he was in the playground’.

‘I have not conducted any research on the internet, media, or any other
archived material in relation to missing boys.

‘The abuse by Ray began virtually as soon as we moved in with him. Ray was
the first person to anally rape me. It was before the first meeting with
Bramall. I was bleeding a lot and he wasn't very happy when we got home
136

 so he went for the hammer and tongs. He hit me and kicked me and I woke
up in hospital. I don't know what treatment I received. I was in hospital for
quite a while. I couldn't tell you exactly how many days. I have no idea which
hospital. I had an injury to my head, to my arm, and to my chest. I don't know
what treatment I received. When I got home he hurt me again. He raped me
again. I had a plaster cast on my right arm’.

‘The last time I'm definitely sure that I saw Ray was in Bicester when he was
taken away by police and he was angry trying to get into the house. My mum
put me in the back and the police took him away. It was not long after we
moved to Bicester. We were in a flat or maisonette, before we moved into our
house. I did tell the police that he found me about a year later in Kingston. I
did say' I was just walking home one day and I knew someone was watching
me and I can't explain it, but I knew it was him. I tried to get away and he
was too strong. He continued where he left off. I had to meet him at various
times each month. Did what he wanted then just dump me to get home. It
went on for just over a year'. That wasn't Ray it was another member of the
group. I hadn't said everything to the counsellor at that stage. I was trying to
get it all out to her. It was easier to say Ray than another member of the
group. It took a while to share everything with her. I agree that in my early
interviews I am saying that Ray never really featured in Kingston but in my
correspondence to my counsellor I am saying that he found me in Kingston
and carried on abusing me for a year. It's embarrassing. It was easier just to
say it was him rather than others. I'm pretty sure that he was present at some
of the other sessions at Bicester, but I couldn't say for certain that the last
time I saw him was when he was being taken from the house’.

137

 ‘I did engage a private investigator to find out if Ray was alive or dead’.
‘Q:- What was your reason for that?
A:- 'Honestly don't know. I think I just wanted to see if he was still alive. I
don't know whether, whether, you know, if he was still alive what I would've
done I don't know. I think it was just to know one way or the other if he was
alive or dead.' I have researched Ray on the internet on Forces Reunited, but
I found nothing. It was years ago’.

Interview continues…

‘I was introduced to Lieutenant General Beach, General Gibbs and General
Bramall by Ray at Wilton. I'd seen Jimmy Savile on TV, both before and after.
Peter Hayman told me his name. Harvey Proctor and Leon Brittan weren't
afraid to say who they were. They told me their names. Greville Janner never
said who he was. He never said his name. I saw his picture in the paper 18
months ago. Edward Heath never said his name. It was only in my early
twenties that I realised who that was. I only knew Michael Hanley as Michael
and Maurice Oldfield by their first names. Mark Conrad provided their
surnames.

‘I did provide a person referred to as A to the Wiltshire Police. I wasn't
prepared to give names to Wiltshire. I thought they would find out all so I
didn't want to be the one to give the names. I wasn't prepared to give proper
names no way. I was scared of what might happen, the consequences. I had
just started my counselling. It wasn't the right time. I thought it would be
easier if they found that all out and I didn't have to say it. I didn't know
Greville Janner's name but the others I knew., either part of the name or all
138

 of the name. I changed my mind with the MPS because I could be selective in
what I said’.

‘On 15th July 2014 I was shown a folder of images by Mark Conrad and I was
asked to go through and mark any which I recognised as being part of the
abuse. Against Beach, Bramall and Gibbs I wrote Army and I meant by that
mainly the fact that they were in the Army. Bramall is the only one who
definitely abused me. The others were present. For Savile I gave an A and
Px3. I may have told Mark that 'A' meant 'Abuse' and 'P' meant' Parties', but
I don't know. P could mean physical’.

‘I wasn't prepared to give full details to Wiltshire and I knew that one of the
people that was there was a Lieutenant Colonel. He was just one of the
people that were there, but I don't know who that was. I don't know if the
person I referred to as A was the same reason that I later named as General
Bramall. I can't recall what I said in my Wiltshire interview. I just know that I
wouldn't have given specific details that would have identified somebody. I
have researched the ranks in the British Army because I wanted to know
where Ray sat with things as a Major. I don't know when I did that research’.

‘I vaguely recall the fact that Peter McKelvie sent an email to me and to Mark
Conrad which included the name (xxxxxxxxxx) [sic] Jnr and he forwarded this
information to James Townly. I queried whether James Townly had received
this information and James Townly then asked me to confirm the name, but
I am not going to talk about him. I'm not prepared to talk about him at all. I
am not prepared to talk about the Middle Eastern or Saudi male at all that I
mentioned to Wiltshire. I have given these names to Mark but it's not
139

 something I am prepared to talk about. I have provided the names of all three
to Mark, but I'm not talking about those people. I can't comment on the fact
I told my counsellor in correspondence that I saw these people last weekend
whilst watching the TV. I can't answer that. I'm not talking about that’.

140

 The Investigation

2.4.1 In order to create a chronology of this investigation, I have selected the
more significant log entries, minutes and other sources of information in
order to summarise events. It should not be thought that this resume
represents the totality of information available.

2.4.2 Before considering this investigation in detail it is important to have regard
to external events at that time. On the 3rd October 2012 the revelation of
what became the Jimmy Savile scandal took place. On the 24th October 2012
Tom Watson MP raised in Parliament suggestions that a paedophile ring was
operating in the heart of Westminster. In February 2013 the Permanent
Secretary at the Home Office commissioned an independent review into the
handling of the so called ‘Dicken’s Dossier’. On the 7th July 2014 the then
Home Secretary announced the IICSA and the Wanless / Whittam Review
into the ‘Dicken’s Dossier’. In July 2014 Operation Hydrant was launched by
the Police Service in order to coordinate the Services response to the
growing number of child abuse allegations. In November 2014, Tom Watson
passed hundreds of pieces of information to the MPS. Throughout this
period of time there was insistent and intense media reporting of child abuse
and alleged cover ups.

2.4.3 At this time a news agency, Exaro, purported to specialise in carrying out
in depth investigations into alleged sexual abuse by persons of public
prominence, with the journalistic creed 'Holding Power to Account'. Before
Operation Midland commenced Exaro had already established a relationship
with ‘Nick’ and was actively carrying out its own investigation into ‘Nick's’
141

 allegations. There can be no doubt that ‘Nick’ received information and
assistance from Exaro and other journalists that misled Midland Officers and
contributed to their concluding at an early stage that ‘Nick’ was credible. For
some time, parallel investigations were taking place. Exaro journalists first,
and subsequently Midland Officers, took ‘Nick’ on a tour of London with a
view to identifying premises where ‘Nick’ alleged abuse had occurred.
Photographs were shown to ‘Nick’ by investigative journalists and names
were supplied to ‘Nick’. This intrusive conduct caused difficulties for the
Midland Officers which I have not overlooked.

2.4.4 At the same time Tom Watson MP had called on the MPS to reopen a
closed criminal enquiry into previous allegations of a paedophile ring in
Westminster and had also been highly critical of the MPS investigation into
an historic allegation of rape made against Lord Brittan. (Operation Vincente
- see Chapter 3). Tom Watson had spent some time with ‘Nick’ and, according
to ‘Nick’, they had spoken about Dolphin Square where ‘Nick’ alleged he had
been abused.

2.4.5 In January 2015, The Independent reported:

'Labour MP Tom Watson said he had spoken to two people who claimed they
were abused by Lord Brittan including a witness known as ‘Nick’ who alleged
he had been attacked more than a dozen times as a boy and seen the
politician assault others'.

There can be no doubt that Tom Watson believed ‘Nick’ and it should be
stated that he had previously provided the MPS with information leading to
142

 convictions in other cases. His interest, however, in both Operation Midland
and Operation Vincente created further pressure upon MPS officers.

2.4.6 In March 2013, the DPP, Keir Starmer QC, as he then was, published a
paper headed 'The Criminal Justice Response to Child Sexual Abuse: Time for
a National Consensus'. Sir Kier made the point that 'if the yardstick
traditionally used by prosecutors for evaluating the credibility of a victim in
other cases were used without adaptation in cases of sexual exploitation, the
outcome would potentially be a category of vulnerable victims left
unprotected by the criminal law'. The message in that paper was that too
few cases were being prosecuted. In Savile's case the Surrey Police were not
telling each complainant that other complaints had been made. Sussex
Police told the complainant that corroboration would be needed. A CPS
prosecutor, when told by the police that the complainant did not support a
prosecution, did not probe this or seek to build a prosecution. Savile should
have been prosecuted. The decision not to prosecute Cyril Smith did not
withstand scrutiny. An over-cautious approach has, on occasions, been
adopted.

2.4.7 In November 2014, the HMIC recommended that: 'The presumption that
the victim should always be believed should be institutionalised'.
Considerable pressure had built up to bring prosecutions against prominent
persons accused of sexual abuse. There was a frenzy of newspaper
headlines. Daily Mail: 'Police launch probe into sensational new cover-up
claims’. Daily Mirror: ‘Cover-up is probed’. The Times: 'Paedophile Cover-Up
Paedophiles Protected'. Sunday Mirror: 'VIP Paedophile Networks Shut
Down'. Evening Standard: ‘Set Up Force to Probe Sex Abuse Ring'. It was in
143

 this policy environment that Operation Midland was conducted. At least
some of the shortcomings are attributable to this context. Had ‘Nick’ been
telling the truth a successful prosecution would have deflected at least some
of the media criticism.

11/11/2014

2.4.8 The decision was made to formally investigate Operation Midland. This
decision was made by the DAC and I have read D1458, the Operation
Midland Gold Decision Log. His rationale for believing that the matter must
be formally investigated was as follows: -

‘Nick’ has been interviewed by experienced officers with a
background of dealing with victims of historic abuse. In their view,
‘Nick’ is a credible witness.

‘Nick’ does not present with any obvious causes to doubt his
account. He is a mature, professional man.

‘Nick’ has been subject to counselling as a result of his trauma. His
counsellor has advised that he has been consistent in his account.

‘Nick’ names a number of individuals as being involved in violent and
sexual abuse. Several of those named are subject to other police
investigations of a similar nature. These include Leon Brittan,
Greville Janner and Jimmy Savile.

144

 ‘Nick’ has stated that he is still in contact with a friend who was also
subject to abuse at that time. This person, if identified, may be able
to offer corroboration of ‘Nick's’ account.

‘Nick’ details how he witnessed three boys apparently die following
abuse. Initial enquiries indicate a number of outstanding missing
reports for boys at that time. This requires further investigation.

In particular, ‘Nick’ has provided an e-fit of one of the boys that he
witnessed being abused and dying. Officers have noted a similarity
between this image and photographs of Martin Allen, a boy who
went missing in London in 1979 and has not been found.

The DAC recognised:

‘the importance of testing ‘Nick’s’ account and ensuring that the
investigation takes a balanced view of what allegations are made and that if
suspects are placed in the public domain it would cause significant damage
to their reputation and distress to them and their families.’

FINDING: SINCE THE DAC RECOGNISED THE IMPORTANCE OF TESTING
‘NICK’S’ ACCOUNT IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO
QUESTION ‘NICK’ ON THE NUMEROUS INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN HIS
WILTSHIRE INTERVIEWS, HIS BLOGS, AND HIS MPS INTERVIEWS, UNTIL
OCTOBER 2015, ALLOWING ‘NICK’ TO DELAY ANY SUCH QUESTIONING
UNTIL 11/01/2016.

145

 It is particularly unfortunate that ‘subjects were placed in the public domain’
before ‘Nick’s’ account was tested causing damage to occur.

2.4.9 The DAC subsequently wrote, on 18/12/2014:

‘Decision Number 6:

1. I will introduce a national media briefing and provide an update
on Op Fairbank and Op Midland. Det. Supt. McDonald will issue
an appeal for further witnesses in connection with Op Midland.

2. I anticipate that Kenny or I will be asked if we 'believe' ‘Nick’. This
is a significant issue and one with the potential to provide either
reassurance or concern to other witnesses. Any indication that we
will doubt the word of victims will undermine our efforts for them
to come forward and will damage our relationship with ‘Nick’.

3. Decision: ‘If asked we will confirm that we do believe ‘Nick’ but
that, as in any case, his evidence will need to be tested before it
can be out in a court.’

Comments on behalf of the DAC, DSU and SIO (The DI and the DS have been
invited to comment and answer certain questions but have declined to do
so).

Neither the DAC nor the DSU had met ‘Nick’ but had been briefed by other
experienced officers who had spent some time with 'Nick' and those officers
146

 did believe him. The DAC, DSU and SIO believed it was important to re-assure
other potential witnesses that they would be taken seriously by the police if
they came forward.

I find it an error for two very senior officers who have never met a witness
and, in the DAC’s case, not himself read either ‘Nick's’ interviews or blogs, to
announce to the Press and public that they believe the witness. The two
officers that had spent the most time with 'Nick', namely his interviewing
officers, had also not read 'Nick’s’ Wiltshire interviews or his blogs.

I learned for the first time during the Maxwellisation process that the DAC
had not, at this stage, read any of ‘Nick’s’ interviews or his blogs but relied
on other officers to inform him of their contents.

In the context of this case, I consider this to be a serious failure. The case, at
this stage, depended exclusively on ‘Nick’s’ evidence as did the obtaining of
the search warrants. The District Judge relied on the fact that a DAC had
considered the case when issuing the warrants.

A careful analysis of all the interviews and the blogs would have
demonstrated that ‘Nick’ was neither consistent nor credible.

2.4.10I have no doubt that the decision to state that 'we believe ‘Nick’' was in
error. On page 1 of the document the DAC wrote that a full investigation was
required to establish:

147

 'The credibility of ‘Nick’ as a witness, any corroboration of these offences,
what offences may have been committed and by whom, and whether there
is sufficient evidence to bring a criminal prosecution against any surviving
offenders'.

2.4.11Since the credibility of ‘Nick’ was not established, a decision to inform the
public via the media that 'we believe ‘Nick’' was a serious mistake. I
appreciate that a police officer may believe a witness whose credibility has
not been sufficiently established to rely upon it in a Court. On the present
facts, I cannot conceive that any fully informed officer could reasonably have
believed ‘Nick’.

2.4.12I say this for the following reasons:

A. ‘Nick's’ interviews with the MPS differed substantially from his
interviews with Wiltshire Police.

B. DC Lewis of the Wiltshire Police who interviewed ‘Nick’ on the
06/12/12 described his account as ‘it all sounds a bit “Spooks”’
and ‘it’s all a bit odd’.

C. ‘Nick's’ allegation that he was regularly removed from school by
unknown drivers without his mother’s knowledge and with the
school's concurrence is highly implausible.

D. ‘Nick's’ allegations that he was regularly injured, bled into both
his underpants and school pants, feet were stabbed and burned,
148

 poppies were pinned to his bare chest, and numerous bones
were broken (see Blog of 19/06/2014), is wholly inconsistent with
his mother's evidence to the Wiltshire Police and available at the
time of this decision.

E. ‘Nick's’ assertion that he 'could be gone from anywhere from a
few hours to a few days' (see Blog of 18/08/2014) is highly
implausible and inconsistent with his mother's evidence.

F. ‘Nick's’ assertion that he voluntarily continued to make himself
available for torture, violence and sexual abuse over an eightyear period is highly implausible.

G. The ability of his alleged abusers to trace ‘Nick’ from Wilton, to
Bicester, and thence to Kingston, is most implausible as Wiltshire
Police concluded.

H. The first alleged act of anal rape as described by ‘Nick’ to
Wiltshire Police was said to be the act of an unnamed Lieutenant
Colonel whereas the first act of anal rape described to MPS was
allegedly the act of his stepfather.

I. The likelihood of a former Prime Minister, a future Home
Secretary, former Heads of MI5 and MI6, a serving Field Marshal,
a future Field Marshal, a retired General, a Labour MP, a
Conservative MP and a disc jockey conspiring together to commit
rape and, in some cases, child murder is again highly implausible.
149

 J. The account of the first alleged child murder asserting that ‘Nick’
was abducted and stabbed immediately after the running down
with the matter never being mentioned again by anyone is highly
implausible.

2.4.13These factors, and other inconsistencies in ‘Nick's’ evidence, render a
decision to inform the public that 'We believe ‘Nick’' untenable. If, in fact,
the DAC did believe ‘Nick’ his judgement was at fault. If he did not believe
‘Nick’, he had decided to mislead the public. I have noted the DAC's comment
in his log:

'I am conscious that ‘Nick’ has named a number of notable individuals, most
of which have already been subject to some public speculation over their
involvement in abuse. I have considered that Nick may have fabricated some
or all of this allegation with this speculation in mind'.

2.4.14Since the DAC had formed the view that ‘Nick’ may have fabricated some
or all of this allegation, I am unable to see how he could properly formulate
a decision to inform the public that 'we believe ‘Nick’'.

FINDING: THE DECISION TO INFORM THE PUBLIC IN A NATIONAL MEDIA
BRIEFING THAT 'WE BELIEVE ‘NICK’' SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE. THE
CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS NO REASON TO DOUBT ‘NICK'S’ EVIDENCE
WAS WRONG.

All three officers accept that the word ‘belief’ was inappropriate and
150

 should not have been used. They contend that the differences in 'Nick’s'
accounts ‘are consistent with what the officers knew about victims of
traumatic sexual crime committed many years previously’ and 'Nick' had
described how he had not previously been sufficiently confident to disclose
these matters in great detail and believed that by making a complaint he
would have encouraged others to come forward.

These observations overlook the gross inconsistency in ‘Nick's’ several
accounts, i.e./ no injury (when interviewed by Wiltshire Officers
(6/12/12)), numerous broken bones (when writing his blogs (19/06/14)),
many wounds but no fractures (in his MPS interviews (22/23/10/14)), quite
apart from different crimes being alleged against different perpetrators.
See conclusions 2.8.2 onwards.

It is said that ‘it all sounds a bit “Spooks”’ were not the concluded view of
the Wiltshire Police but the view of a DC handing over case papers to the
MPS. The Officer in question interviewed 'Nick'; he also added ‘'Nick' has
given nothing that gives me an evidential reason to disprove his account’.
The closing report makes no specific adverse comment on 'Nick’s'
credibility.

Since 'Nick’s' stepfather was deceased and the Lieutenant Colonel could
not be identified, and was not named, it is not surprising that there was no
evidential basis to disprove 'Nick's' account. It should be noted that the
closing report (28/05/13) states that ‘he cannot though name or describe
another person to a degree that any suspect can be identified.’

151

 During the 18/12/14 press conference, the DAC did not tell the police that
he ‘believed’ 'Nick'. He spoke from a script and at no stage did he say he
believed 'Nick'. The DSU was asked ‘do you believe’ 'Nick'’ and replied ‘He's
been spoken to by officers from the murder command. They and I believe
that what ‘Nick’ is saying is to be (sic) credible and to be true and as such
with those with allegations we will investigate them….’

It may well be for others to determine whether the DAC shares the
responsibility for the DSU’s words. Since the DAC wrote:

‘I anticipate Kenny or I will be asked if we believe 'Nick' this is a significant
issue and one with potential to provide either re-assurance or concern to
other witnesses’ ‘Any indication that we will doubt the word of victims will
undermine our efforts for them to come forward and will damage our
relationship with 'Nick'. If asked we will confirm that we do believe Nick,'
it appears that the DSU spoke with the full approbation of the DAC’.

For my part I have no doubt that 'Nick’s' credibility was, at this time, very
much in issue as subsequent events demonstrate. The DAC knew in
advance what the DSU would say as to believing 'Nick'. The DAC was the
senior officer and any member of the press or public attending the
conference would, in my view, conclude that the DSU was advancing the
views of the investigation team and not his own personal views. The words
‘credible and true’ remained in the public domain uncorrected until the
21/09/15 to the considerable prejudice of those named by 'Nick' as his
abusers. Within weeks enquires were being made to investigate ‘Nick’s’
credibility. The error should have been corrected far sooner.
152

 The DSU regrets using the words ‘credible and true’ and accepts that they
were inappropriate. He believes the MPS special notice 11/2002 was
operating on his mind. It states:

‘it is policy of the MPS to accept allegations made by any victim in the first
instance as being truthful. An allegation will only be considered as falling
short of a substantiated allegation after a full and thorough investigation’.

My views on the special notice are set out in Chapter 1. I deprecate the
imposition of an artificial state of mind on an officer whose duty it is to
investigate. On the evidence available, no fully informed officer could
reasonably assert that he believed 'Nick' to be credible and true; if indeed
the DSU was merely stating MPS policy, he should have said so. I do accept
that the Policy is capable of leading officers into serious error to the
potential disadvantage of innocent suspects. I also accept that victims of
sexual abuse do not engage with the authorities because they worry that
they will be disbelieved or not taken seriously and that the DSU may well
have been motivated to encourage witnesses to come forth rather than to
prejudice suspects. It is clearly unacceptable practice to falsely state a
belief for the purpose of encouraging witnesses to come forward.

2.4.15I have considered whether a decision to formally investigate ‘Nick's’
allegations should have been made. On one view it would, in my judgement,
have been reasonable and proportionate to conclude at this early stage that
‘Nick’ was either a fantasist, or a liar, or both, and to take no further action.
Such a course would, however, fail to investigate three alleged child murders
and an alleged paedophile ring comprised of those entrusted with positions
153

 of the highest responsibility at some stage of their lives. It might also have
provoked considerable, albeit unjustified, criticism by those asserting coverups in cases of allegations against public figures. It would also have left Exaro
and other investigative journalists investigating three alleged child murders.
There was a clear duty to investigate and I endorse the decision to do so
without reservation.

2.4.16I have concluded that an investigation should have taken place on the
basis that ‘Nick's’ allegations may have been true in part, albeit greatly
exaggerated. The focus and speed of such an investigation should have been
very different to that deployed. The immediate focus of the investigation
should have been upon ‘Nick's’ credibility. I would suggest the following swift
and immediate steps should have been taken:

1. ‘Nick's’ mother should have been visited immediately. She had
already co-operated fully with the Wiltshire Police. Within days
she should have been asked if she had ever seen any injury upon
‘Nick’ or bloodstained clothing; how ‘Nick’ was taken to and
collected from school; whether he could ever have been taken
from school without her knowledge; whether he had ever
returned home unaccompanied and in a dishevelled state; had
‘Nick’ ever stayed out overnight; whether he had appeared the
worse for wear through drink or drugs; and, could she remember
Aubrey and Scott and assist in tracing them. These matters were
substantially dealt with in a statement obtained on 20th May
2015 over six months after this investigation commenced.
Aubrey was not traced and interviewed until October 2015.
154

 2. The qualifications and competence of ‘Nick's’ counsellor should
have been immediately ascertained.

3. Enquiries should have been made to establish whether a road
traffic accident had taken place outside, or close to, Coombe Hill
Primary School in 1978 or 1979.

4. Enquiries should have been made at Coombe Hill Primary School
to establish whether or not a boy with the first name Scott had
been killed or injured in a Road Traffic accident close to the
school in 1978 or 1979.

5. An enquiry should have been made to the CICA to ascertain
whether ‘Nick’ had made a claim for compensation. Such
enquiries are advised by Operation Hydrant, particularly in high
profile cases.

6. Attempts should have been made to trace Aubrey, Scott, Fred,
and Duncan.

7. ‘Nick's’ medical records should have been obtained.

8. ‘Nick’ should have been asked to consent to a medical
examination.

9. ‘Nick’ should have been asked for his mobile phone and
computer.
155

 In relation to the nine investigative actions set out above the officers wish to
comment:

1. They already had a statement from ‘Nick’s’ mother obtained by
Wiltshire Police;

2. They had details of 'Nick's' Counsellor's qualifications prior to
applying for search warrants.

3. These enquires were concluded by May 2015.

4. These enquiries were concluded by May 2015.

5. They learned of the CICA claim in Feb 2015.

6. Actions were raised to trace Aubrey, Scott, Fred and Duncan
between the 02 – 05/12/2014.

7. Medical records were obtained in May 2014.

8. A decision was made not to immediately ask 'Nick' to consent to a
medical examination…..‘the focus at the early stage was not
predominantly on 'Nick’s' credibility but on securing evidence of the
offending.’

9. The decision not to ask to examine ‘Nick’s’ computer and mobile
phone was a judgement call reached after anxious consideration.
156

 ‘Nick’s’ mother should have been visited within days of the commencement
of this investigation and a most careful assessment made of her. 'Nick's'
statements were wholly incompatible with his mother's Wiltshire statement
and she could, in all likelihood, assist in tracing Aubrey, Scott, Fred or Duncan,
if they existed. It has been conceded by the Officers that the delay in visiting
her was an error. The 6-month delay was inexcusable.

I regard the failure to ask 'Nick' to undergo a medical examination and the
failure to ask to inspect his computer and mobile telephone as further errors
of judgement. I am informed by Yewtree Officers that those requests are now
standard practice.

2.4.17These are all enquiries that could be made immediately and with an
expectation of a speedy result. Had this course been adopted this
investigation could and, in my judgement, would have been closed after a
comparatively short period. Once it was established that Aubrey was never
involved in any abuse and Scott had never been run down, and that ‘Nick’
had never been injured, a decision to take no further action would be fully
justified and accepted by the public.

FINDING: THE DECISION TO INVESTIGATE ‘NICK'S’ ALLEGATIONS WAS
CORRECT BUT IT SHOULD HAVE FOCUSED INITIALLY AND EXCLUSIVELY ON
‘NICK'S’ CREDIBILITY WITH ACTIONS 1 - 9 ABOVE BEING IDENTIFIED.

2.4.18I have considered the DAC's concern that:

'if the MPS makes no public statement concerning this story then it will be
157

 wrongly perceived that the MPS has only reluctantly agreed to investigate
the matter thereby causing potential witnesses to have reservations over
how they would be treated should they come forward to provide
information'.

2.4.19The starting point in all such considerations must be that the public must
not be misled. In the present case this was of cardinal importance since the
names of suspects were in the public domain and the family of Martin Allen
either knew of the allegations or were likely to find out in the very near
future. The decision to hold a national media briefing was, as the DAC
accurately predicted, almost certain to result in officers being asked 'Do you
believe ‘Nick’'. A press release indicating that the allegations were being
investigated thoroughly and that a number of enquiries were already under
way would, in my judgement, have been a more prudent way to proceed.
This would not preclude an appeal for witnesses to come forward.

FINDING: A NATIONAL MEDIA BRIEFING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD. A
PRESS

RELEASE

INDICATING

THAT

ALLEGATIONS

WERE

BEING

THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED AND A NUMBER OF ENQUIRIES WERE
UNDERWAY WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE COUPLED WITH AN APPEAL
FOR WITNESSES.

The judgement was that a media briefing, including film footage of the
investigating officers, gave the best opportunity to reassure witnesses
coming forward to do so and was taken with the full consultation of the
DMC.

158

 Since Officers were certain to be asked if they believed ‘Nick’, the names of
suspects were in the public domain and the DAC had considered ‘that ‘Nick’
may have fabricated some or all of this allegation’, I am satisfied that this
press conference should not have taken place in this format. When it did
take place the word ‘believe’ should not have been used. The officers now
accept that proposition.

2.4.20I have been assured by the SIO that before this investigation commenced,
or very shortly thereafter, she had read ‘Nick's’ Wiltshire interviews, ‘Nick's’
blogs, ‘Nick’s’ MPS interviews and ‘Nick's’ mother's statement to the
Wiltshire Police. With very great respect, I am unable to understand how it
is possible to positively believe ‘Nick’, having read that material. I note that
the DAC observed, as part of his rationale, that experienced officers
interviewed and believed ‘Nick’ and that ‘Nick’s’ Counsellor believed him.
Neither of the interviewing officers nor ‘Nick's’ counsellor had read the
Wiltshire interviews and the officers had not read the blogs. They had not
been instructed to do so. At no stage of the MPS interviews prior to
11/01/2016 was ‘Nick’ questioned about any conflict between his account to
Wiltshire and his account to MPS, nor at any time was he questioned about
any conflict between his blogs and his police interviews. This was no fault of
the interviewing officers. They had not been supplied with the Wiltshire
interviews or with ‘Nick's’ blogs. They started with a blank canvas and thus
could not know whether there were any inconsistencies or not. The
interviews of ‘Nick’ prior to 11/01/2016 were unusually indulgent of ‘Nick’,
partly by reason of his interviewer being unaware of earlier inconsistent
statements and no doubt in an endeavour to avoid ‘Nick’ disengaging from
the process. The final interview, which was less indulgent, exposed much of
159

 ‘Nick's’ implausibility. So far as his Counsellor is concerned, she did not have
access to the Wiltshire interviews and thus could provide only limited
assistance on the topic of credibility.

2.4.21Since the purpose of a decision log is to inform readers of the basis and
rationale for a decision, the author should include in the log all sources of
information and, if relying on the opinions of others, their sources of
information.

FINDING: IN COMPLETING A DECISION LOG THE AUTHOR SHOULD SPECIFY
THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION RELIED UPON AND, IF RELYING UPON THE
OPINIONS OF OTHERS, THEIR SOURCES OF INFORMATION, IF AT ALL
POSSIBLE. THE INTERVIEWING OFFICERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN FULLY
INFORMED OF ‘NICK'S’ WILTSHIRE INTERVIEWS AND HIS BLOGS.

19/11/2014

2.4.22At Decision Number 3 the DAC appointed the SIO on this inquiry. He
observed that her other inquiries were at such a position as to allow her to
focus the majority of her time on this investigation. I have no reason to doubt
her experience in criminal investigation. As at November 2014 her
investigative caseload comprised eleven other Operations. Six of these were
'now a conviction'. Of the remaining five, one was 'trial pending', four others
were

ongoing

investigations,

including

two

medical

negligence

manslaughters. Having interviewed both her and the DAC, I am satisfied that
the SIO was neither overburdened nor under-resourced, nor lacking
appropriate support. Neither has raised any such problem.
160

 2.4.23These were busy times but the SIO had sufficient capacity to focus the
majority of her time on Operation Midland.

18/11/2014 - GOLD GROUP MEETING

2.4.24The SIO indicated that her team currently had 14 other investigations and
were running at 33% vacancy rate. A request was made to bolster the team.
The Action Log reads:

'Forward details of officers due to be posted to MIT 9 to SR in order that they
can be bid for at the next postings panel'.

This appears to indicate that this team was over-committed and that
alternative arrangements should have been made having regard to the
importance of Operation Midland. However, I have seen no further
complaint about over-commitment in any future log and I assume that initial
problems were resolved.

2.4.25The SIO listed her investigative priorities:

1. Confirm the existence and identity of the three boys.

2. Proof of life enquiries.

3. Reviewing intelligence case and mapping the association
between victims/venues/witnesses.

161

 4. Creating time lines.

5. Forensic read of 'Nick's' ABE interview.

6. Consider partnership involvement to address safeguarding for
those still alive (DG will assist with this and provide contact
details of someone who can assist with covert enquiries.)

7. Tom Watson - review how we can engage with him.

2.4.26I note that there is no mention in these priorities of either ‘Nick's’
Wiltshire interviews or ‘Nick's’ blogs. It is imperative in the assessment of
credibility to review all relevant and admissible evidence. A forensic read of
‘Nick's’ ABE interview, with no analysis of his earlier utterances on the same
topic, is a futile exercise. I appreciate that the SIO had only recently been
appointed but confirming the existence and identity of the three boys was
entirely dependent on ‘Nick's’ credibility. She may well have been reliant on
the DAC's observation that '’Nick’ does not present with any obvious causes
to doubt his account'. However, it is of critical importance that an SIO
evaluates every piece of evidence and reaches his or her own conclusion
independently of any other view already expressed. Such conduct acts as a
safeguard against the replication of errors.

FINDING: THE SIO'S INVESTIGATIVE PRIORITIES OVERLOOKED THE
NECESSITY TO DETERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF ‘NICK’ BEFORE CARRYING
OUT SEVERAL TIME CONSUMING AND, POSSIBLY UNNECESSARY,
EXERCISES. IT WAS OF VITAL IMPORTANCE THAT THE WILTSHIRE
162

 INTERVIEWS AND ‘NICK'S’ BLOGS WERE ANALYSED AND CONTRASTED
WITH HIS MPS INTERVIEWS. THIS DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE TAKEN
PLACE AT THIS STAGE.

The SIO accepts that establishing ‘Nick’s’ credibility was a priority and that
it was reasonable to undertake enquires to identify whether ‘Nick’s’
allegations could have been true. In November 2014 she sought records of
missing boys, researched Martin Allen’s case, sought to establish if named
suspects had been posted to Wilton and, in February 2015, 'Nick' attended
Larkhill and St David’s Barracks, obtained a description of Lord Bramall's
office, and forensically examined articles given by 'Nick' to Officers.

If 'Nick’s' mother was telling the truth, then 'Nick's' allegations were false
and liable to cause untold damage to reputations and great distress. This
should have been the priority coupled with interviewing those who knew
'Nick' at the relevant time and those to whom he had allegedly complained,
namely his ex-wife.

27/10/2014. WEEKLY BRIEFING - DSU McDonald

2.4.27I note that on the day before this meeting, the SIO and two Family Liaison
Officers met ‘Nick’ and it was described as a very productive and excellent
meeting. ‘Nick’ asserted that he was still in contact with Fred. He contended
that Fred was upset with him at this stage and was reluctant to speak with
the police. I find it surprising that no officer present at this meeting raised
the possibility that Fred may be non-existent and a creation of ‘Nick’.

163

 The possibility that Fred may not exist and was a creation of ‘Nick’ was under
constant consideration by the Midland Officers even if it did not form part of
the specific discussion at this particular meeting.

I cannot, therefore, understand why ‘Nick’s’ mother was not visited and
asked about Fred; ‘Nick’ having said that he and Fred were close friends.

Further, and of even greater significance, I cannot understand how it can be
said that 'Nick’s' account has remained constant and he is felt to be a credible
witness who is telling the truth, if, on the 27/10/14, Midland Officers
suspected that 'Nick' had invented Fred; how then could he be telling the
truth?

13/11/2014

2.4.28One of the interviewing officers made the following 'Suspect Designation'
- ALIVE Major General Bramall (sic), General Beach (sic), Harvey Proctor, Leon
Brittan (sic), Greville Janner (sic) - DEAD Major Raymond Beach, General
Roland Gibbs (sic), Jimmy Saville (sic) Michael Hanley (sic), Maurice Oldfield,
Ted Heath (sic) and Peter Hayman. See Document D7.

FINDING: IT IS DIFFICULT TO KNOW WHAT OFFENCE OR OFFENCES SIR
HUGH BEACH OR LORD JANNER WERE SUSPECTED OF HAVING
COMMITTED. ON 11/06/2015 SIR HUGH CEASED TO BE DESIGNATED AS A
SUSPECT. THIS DECISION SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN VERY MUCH SOONER.
‘NICK’ SHOULD HAVE BEEN RE-INTERVIEWED AND FURTHER AND BETTER
PARTICULARS SOUGHT OF THE ALLEGED ROLE OF EACH PERSON.
164

 In relation to Lord Janner having been named by ‘Nick’, he was correctly
recorded as a suspect. The SIO made contact with Leicestershire Police in
January 2015 and was informed of an ongoing investigation (Operation
Enamel). Accordingly, the Midland Inquiry was ‘pended’ on the outcome of
that investigation. The MPS never publicly confirmed that allegations had
been made against Lord Janner by ‘Nick’.

No details of any crime alleged by ‘Nick’ against Lord Janner were ever
obtained. This is one of several matters that should have been dealt with in
a further interview shortly after 23/10/14.

It is accepted that General Sir Hugh Beach should have ceased to be a suspect
far sooner than he was.

04/12/2014. WEEKLY BRIEFING – DSU

2.4.29The Minutes report interest from the Commissioner's office generated by
media articles from the family of Martin Allen. Both brothers were spoken to
by the SIO and updated. The upset caused to that family is one of several
distressing aspects of this case. On 21/11/2014, ‘Nick’ had been shown a
photo of Martin Allen by Tom Symonds of the BBC in the company of
journalists Tom Bateman and Peter McKelvie. ‘Nick’ did not say anything but
it is said his reaction was marked and quite shocking. His expression changed
and his hands started to move nervously. He looked close to tears. He
remained silent for about a minute. ‘Nick’ kept looking at the image and
continued to move his hands nervously. After a time, the journalists offered
to leave the room but it was obvious to them that ‘Nick’ wanted to leave the
165

 room and he did so. When he returned some 10 minutes later, ‘Nick’ did not
feel able to talk about it. This photograph was one of two shown that day to
‘Nick’ by Tom Symonds. He chose the photographs due to the year and
locations they went missing.

2.4.30The question immediately arises as to whether ‘Nick’ could have seen
photographs or images of Martin Allen on the internet, both prior to this
event and prior to creating an e-fit which showed some similarity to the
photograph. An internet search should have been carried out at this stage to
determine if images of Martin Allen were available. Had such a search been
carried out, as Mr. Philip Fitzgerald points out in his review at paragraph 8.14:

'you will quickly see Martin Allen and also the photographs and Missing
Persons Posters that were used when he went missing. A fresh appeal was
made in 2009 when the details were again publicised'.

As Mr. Fitzgerald points out, the original photographs and the artist
impressions depicted Martin Allen and a man described by several witnesses
as holding the back of Martin Allen's neck, exactly the pose attributed to the
man holding the neck of ‘Boy 2’ by ‘Nick’.

2.4.31Describing incident two in his MPS interview, ‘Nick’ said:

'I was told to stay in the car. This boy came out and the man had his hand on
the boy's neck. I was told to move over...'

For my part, the description of a man holding ‘Boy 2’ by the neck has all the
166

 hallmarks of detail being extracted from the internet and being used to
bolster a false story. ‘Nick’ was a habitual user of the internet and whether
he saw three boys murdered, or whether he was lying about three boys being
murdered, it is reasonable to conclude that he would search the internet to
see details of boys who had, in fact gone, missing at the relevant time. In
interview, ‘Nick’ was asked whether he had done any research at all prior to
or since being shown the photograph and he replied 'nearly'. He described
putting Martin Allen's name into Google but then pressing ‘x’ instead of
search. This was a reference to a near search after being shown the
photograph. It is a matter of some concern that Mr. McKelvie supplied the
name of Martin Allen to ‘Nick’, as is the fact that ‘Nick’ was shown the two
photographs by Mr. Symonds. Had this case ever proceeded to trial, both
acts would have been highly detrimental to the Crown's case.

FINDING: THE STAGE HAD BEEN REACHED WHERE MESSRS. SYMONDS,
MCKELVIE, BATEMAN AND CONRAD NEEDED TO BE TOLD OF THE
POTENTIAL DAMAGE THEY WERE CAUSING TO THIS INVESTIGATION. IT
WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO INSTRUCT ED STEARNS OF DMC TO REQUEST
THAT ‘NICK’ BE LEFT ALONE. AN OFFICER OF HIGH RANK SHOULD HAVE
GIVEN

INSTRUCTIONS

TO

THOSE

RESPONSIBLE

NOT

TO

FEED

INFORMATION TO ‘NICK’, POINTING OUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF DOING
SO.

The showing of the picture of Martin Allen to ‘Nick’ by Tom Symonds of the
BBC was unhelpful to the integrity of the investigation. The Allen family
had a reasonable expectation that the information would be followed
robustly to a conclusion. There was a degree of support for the purported
167

 identification. Martin Allen’s father worked at the Australian High
Commission as a chauffeur. The Embassy had retained flats at Dolphin
Square. Martin Allen used to wash cars at Dolphin Square. Martin had been
found by police in May 1978 frequenting Piccadilly Circus, a location
popular with rent boys. Officers had spoken to chauffeurs at Dolphin
Square and received anecdotal evidence of collecting clients in company
with young boys and, in one case, a description of pool parties involving
young boys at Dolphin Square.

In his closing report the DAC identified some six factors undermining the
identification of Martin Allen as being ‘Boy 2’. The e-fit was made 35 years
after the event. ‘Nick’ made no mention of [GIST: ADDITIONAL PHYSICAL
DESCRIPTIVE DETAIL]. ‘Nick’ estimated ‘Boy 2’s’ age as 11-12, when Martin
Allen was 15. ‘Nick’ said the death of ‘Boy 2’ was in early 1980 whilst Martin
went missing in November 1979. The photographic identification by Tom
Symonds was fundamentally flawed and would not be admitted in a court.
'Nick' may be a suggestible victim and may have wanted to identify
someone in order to seek closure.

The DAC failed to identify the more rational explanation that, having
decided to invent three murders, it was necessary to search the internet to
find details of boys who had gone missing at, or close to, the relevant time.
As Tom Symonds had shown 'Nick' the photograph and Peter McKelvie had
supplied the name, and there was an abundance of information on the
internet, including photographs and artist impressions, there was a simple
explanation for the e-fit. At this point ‘Nick’ should have been asked if his
computer could be examined. Had he been found to have researched
168

 Martin Allen his credibility would have been seriously damaged.

2.4.32I note, from the minutes of 04/12/2014, that 'there are 199 pages of
transcript generated from the ABE interviews. They are being proof read for
accuracy and updated onto Holmes. This will take time and not be completed
before 15th December'. The interviews took place on 22/10/2014,
23/10/2014 and 03/11/2014. I find the delay in completing this task
unacceptable having regard to the importance of this case and the
significance of the interviews. This is a case in which a continuing knowledge
of the contents of all interviews was a necessity for all decision makers.
Whilst the transcripts were available on the S drive, they were not as yet
available on Holmes. This delay resulted in the SIO having to take the videos
home and having to watch the videos with no transcript available to her.

FINDING: THE DELAY IN UPDATING 199 PAGES OF TRANSCRIPT OF
INTERVIEWS ON TO HOLMES AND CREATING TRANSCRIPTS WAS
UNACCEPTABLE.

05/12/2014. MINUTES FROM OFFICE MEETING (DCI TUDWAY)

2.4.33‘The SIO indicated that ‘Nick’ had signed a form 172 consenting to his
medical records being obtained. Obtaining the records was actioned.
Consideration was given to having ‘Nick’ medically examined. Enquiries will
take place with ‘Nick's’ family to obtain their accounts. A note had been sent
via the press bureau to the press requesting that ‘Nick's’ privacy be
respected. ‘Nick’ will be meeting with Fred to ask him if he will come forward
as a witness. Two potential ‘Scotts’ have been identified having attended
169

 ‘Nick's’ primary school at the relevant time. Both will be traced. The house
numbered [Nos.] has been traced by journalist to a named convicted
paedophile. Research is actioned. The SIO has explained the nature of the
enquiry to members of the Allen family.

2.4.34This was an encouraging meeting. Meeting ‘Nick's’ family, tracing Scott
and Fred, and obtaining ‘Nick's’ medical records, were critical to this
investigation.’

11/12/2014. WEEKLY BRIEFING - DSU

2.4.35‘There was little to add since the last update. ‘Nick’ is planning to meet
Fred in the week before Christmas. The potential for Mark (sic) Allen being
'Boy 2' is being investigated. ‘Nick's’ two e-fits are being researched for
possible matches. A meeting has been arranged with Tom Symonds. All six
schools attended by ‘Nick’ are being contacted in order to identify children
named Scott with connections with ‘Nick’. Plans are underway to drive ‘Nick’
around to positively identify or eliminate locations but not before 15th
December. Occupants of Dolphin Square are to be identified. A forensic
scientist was allocated to examine the knife and crowns handed over by
‘Nick’. Full profiles of all living suspects are being completed. A chronology
of events and abuse is being prepared. Press and media have refrained from
contacting ‘Nick’. A proposed press appeal will take place on December 18th.

2.4.36I find it difficult to justify approaching all six schools attended by ‘Nick’.
‘Nick’ was clear that he and Scott were both at Coombe Primary Hill School.

170

 'He (Scott) was the same age and this was probably our last year at primary
school. I knew him for four or five months'.’

FINDING: IT WAS UNNECESSARY TO INVESTIGATE SCHOOLS, OTHER THAN
COOMBE HILL PRIMARY SCHOOL, IN ORDER TO TRACE SCOTT. ‘NICK’ WAS
CLEAR THAT ‘SCOTT’ WAS AT COOMBE HILL PRIMARY SCHOOL.

2.4.37‘I consider it premature to identify leaseholders for Dolphin Square at this
stage. ‘Nick's’ credibility was far from established and he was
uncorroborated. There are some 1,200 apartments in Dolphin Square and
many of them are let. Identifying occupants some 35 years ago is very time
intensive.’

FINDING: IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE AT THIS TIME TO INVESTIGATE THE
RESIDENTS OF DOLPHIN SQ. DURING INTERVIEW ‘NICK’ HAD SAID THAT
'PETER MCKELVIE AND TOM WATSON FORMED A LITTLE GROUP THAT
SUPPORTED ME. THEY DID A LITTLE PIECE ON DOLPHIN SQUARE'. IT WAS
BY NOW APPARENT THAT ‘NICK’ WAS USING INFORMATION THAT HE HAD
BEEN GIVEN BY OTHERS

When taken back to Dolphin Square by Midland Officers 'Nick' said that he
did not recall the Dolphin Statue. Further enquires revealed that the statue
was not in place until 1987.

Since, according to 'Nick', ‘Peter McKelvie and Tom Watson formed a little
group that supported me. They did a little piece on Dolphin Square,’, and
Peter McKelvie had supplied Martin Allen’s name to 'Nick', the possibility
171

 that ‘Nick’ had received information about Dolphin Square is difficult to
ignore. In any event, the existence or otherwise of a dolphin could not
conceivably provide corroboration or support for the grave allegations
made by ‘Nick’.

18/12/2014

2.4.38The DSU described ‘Nick's’ evidence as credible and true in a meeting with
the Media. His exact words were:

'They and I [detective officers] believe that what ‘Nick’ is saying to be credible
and true, hence we are investigating the allegations'.

These words should never have been spoken, nor indeed should such words
be spoken in a case where a complainant is credible and true. This
investigation was a long way from completion. ‘Nick's’ injuries, or lack of
them, had not been contrasted with his interviews or his mother's
statement. Aubrey, Scott, ‘Nick’ and Duncan were unresolved issues and the
implausibility of the suspects behaving as alleged had not been evaluated,
nor had the implausibility of drivers being able to remove a young child from
school, time and again, without parental authority.

2.4.39The Commissioner himself is fully aware of the context of this remark as
he chose to correct it in a subsequent radio interview explaining that the
words were spoken 'in making a quick recourse' and 'very quickly in the
interview'. The DSU went on to say:

172

 'Within the briefing I have just given, we know the abuse has taken place in
London, the Home Counties and within certain military establishments. But
the focus of the appeal today is Dolphin Square. I appeal to young men to
come forward. ‘Nick’ has shown great courage by coming forward. We need
others to come forward. You will be believed. You will be supported.'

I have little doubt that the origin of the error can be traced back to the
decision of the DAC earlier that day, namely Decision number 6: 'If asked we
will confirm that we do 'believe' ‘Nick’’.

2.4.40The mischief of this statement has been fully publicised. It is, of course,
highly prejudicial to any present or future suspect. In the present case, the
mischief was amplified by the fact that it implied that police officers were in
possession of information which either confirmed, validated or corroborated
‘Nick's’ evidence. No such independent evidence existed and ‘Nick's’
evidence itself, as I have already opined, should have given rise to
considerable doubt. The words spoken give a most misleading impression of
the evidence collated. I have little doubt, however, that the officers did
genuinely believe ‘Nick’. I can only assume that they were impressed by his
performance in his ABE interviews and his ability to support narrative with
detail. At this stage of the investigation the officers should have had an open
mind and should not have used words that overstated the evidence
available.

FINDING: THE USE OF THE WORDS ‘CREDIBLE AND TRUE’ AND THE
ACCOMPANYING TEXT WAS INAPPROPRIATE, PREJUDICIAL TO ANY
SUSPECT, AND MISLEADING TO THE PUBLIC.
173

 08/01/2015. WEEKLY BRIEFING - DSU

2.4.41'The Media coverage of 18/12/2014 was balanced. There was much
conjecture linking the disappearance of Martin Allen to the enquiry. There is
concern that publishing pictures in the press might damage identification
processes in the future. ‘Nick’ has been struggling over the festive season
with stress and pressure. He is being given some breathing space. There was
a further ABE interview on 05/01/2015 regarding Boy 2. ‘Nick’ is very shaken
and finding life very difficult. He met Fred before Christmas and Fred is very
near to speaking to the police. Two live Scotts have been identified from
Coombe Hill Primary. One is alive and well and the other has emigrated to
Australia. The relevant documentation is being sought. Work is continuing on
the assessment of Boy 2 being Martin Allen. Tom Symonds has stated that
‘Nick’ did not formally view the photograph of Martin Allen. Route plans for
the drive around continue to be prepared, Dolphin Square enquiries
continue and a chronology of abuse is being prepared. The media coverage
produced approximately 200 calls, the vast majority not relevant to Midland.
None identified any other victim'.

2.4.42The most significant development was the tracing of two live 'Scotts'. In
the event of the investigation accounting for all 'Scotts' at Coombe Hill with
no fatalities or major injuries the impact on ‘Nick's’ credibility will be
immense.

15/01/2015. WEEKLY BRIEFING - DSU

2.4.43‘On 13/01/2015 officers met ‘Nick’ concerning venue identification at
174

 Imber Village and Erskine Barracks. ‘Nick’ asked to stop at [LOCATION] near
Larkhill Officers Mess and indicated that he had been abused there. At
Erskine Barracks he said nothing looks familiar. The case is progressing well
and intelligence is being shared with other forces. A WADS viewing will be
conducted to identify victims adopting PACE procedures to identify suspects.
A considerable amount of enquiries have to be completed to ensure correct
pictures are used. Full profiles of all living suspects are being created which
will require considerable input from RMP'.

FINDING: THERE APPEARS TO BE INSUFFICIENT FOCUS ON ESTABLISHING
‘NICK'S’ CREDIBILITY. NO ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE TO TRACE AUBREY OR
VISIT ‘NICK'S’ FAMILY.

The draft report overlooks that ‘Nick’,

a. gave an accurate account of how Lord Bramall's office was accessed;
b. accurately recalled the layout of an accommodation corridor at Lark Hill;
c. accurately indicated the location of buildings no longer standing and
with no trace thereof;
d. demonstrated visible distress at certain sites.

For 6 months ‘Nick’s’ stepfather was able to take ‘Nick’ to these locations
and ‘Nick’s’ mother confirms that they visited Army barracks for Sunday
lunch. There are numerous explanations for these facts which, in
themselves, fall a long way short of providing corroboration or support for
‘Nick’s’ allegations. It is a fact that ‘Nick’s’ stepfather served under General
Bramall, as he then was, at Wilton Barracks and, as an officer, ‘Nick’s’
175

 stepfather would have ready access to the Officers’ Mess and senior
officers’ accommodation.

22/01/2015. GOLD GROUP MINUTES

2.4.44The SIO confirmed that all suspects were being investigated (whether
dead or alive) to ensure that no opportunity for corroboration from
witnesses or identifying further leads were missed. She had concerns for
‘Nick's’ emotional health and reaffirmed her commitment to a clear duty of
care for ‘Nick’. She contacted the College of Policing to identify the most
appropriate support for him. She wrote:

'There are no concerns regarding the veracity of ‘Nick's' account'.

The SIO outlined her investigative priorities, the first of which was further
investigation regarding Martin Allen and the circumstances in which ‘Nick’
was shown photos by Tom Symonds and the showing of photos by Mark
Conrad to ‘Nick’. A discussion followed concerning the number of missing
boys within this time frame. The SIO's second priority is around forensics and
identifying a military crown and a pen knife in ‘Nick's’ possession. Thirdly,
she is consulting the National Injuries Database to establish if any forensic
work can be done in relation to historic injuries which ‘Nick’ has, which may
be identified through body mapping or other forensic techniques, to
corroborate his account- there is nothing in his medical records thus far
which supports it. The investigation also now plans to visit ‘Nick's’ mother
and siblings. The pros and cons of a proactive approach to Fred were
discussed, including covert identification. It was decided it was not
176

 appropriate at this time. The negative impact on ‘Nick’ would be too great.
Any approach to Fred should start with a welfare/care plan before any
evidential account was sought.

FINDING: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO RECONCILE THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE
ARE NO CONCERNS REGARDING THE VERACITY OF ‘NICK'S’ ACCOUNT WITH
THE OBSERVATION THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN ‘NICK'S’ MEDICAL RECORDS
WHICH SUPPORTS HIS ACCOUNT. HE HAS, AT VARIOUS TIMES, ALLEGED
NUMEROUS INJURIES, INCLUDING SEVERAL BROKEN BONES. HIS MOTHER
HAD NEVER OBSERVED ANY INJURY. THIS MUST RAISE CONCERNS
REGARDING HIS VERACITY. ALL THREE OF THE SIO's PRIORITIES
INCORRECTLY ASSUME THAT ‘NICK’ HAS TOLD THE TRUTH. IT WAS A
REASONABLE DECISION TO DELAY ATTEMPTS TO IDENTIFY FRED. NO
CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO FRED BEING AN INVENTION OF
‘NICK’. THE DECISION TO VISIT ‘NICK'S’ MOTHER AND SIBLINGS WAS LONG
OVERDUE.

27/01/2015. MINUTES FROM OFFICE MEETING - DCI

2.4.45‘The SIO had regard to the responsibility of safeguarding victims and
witnesses and was putting in place a care plan for ‘Nick's’ mother and his
siblings. Enquiries have been made to establish details of all missing boys in
London, aged 6-16 missing and not by parental abduction. Martin Allen is
the only boy who falls within these parameters in 1979/1980. Another
search has taken place for missing boys within these parameters reported
missing but subsequently found, the theory being that these may be
surviving victims linked to Operation Midland. Results are awaited. A third
177

 search for body parts has been instituted. Results are awaited. Further
searches of databases of missing boys and with the Missing Person Charity
are to be carried out. All 7 'Scotts' form Coombe Hill Primary School have
been accounted for. None of them died as children. One of the 'Scotts' is in
Australia. A decision is pending re when to deal with him. Enquiries and
records have also been obtained regarding other schools ‘Nick’ attended.
There are no leads from local media releases re car accidents at the relevant
time. A number of actions were raised relating to photographs of Martin
Allen. An approach will be made to Martin Allen's family to discuss Operation
Midland. Further discussion concerned contacting Fred. The SIO would write
an open letter to him. ‘Nick's’ counselling records would be obtained. DS
Townly indicated that ‘Nick’ never went into great details of the allegations
with the counsellor.

2.4.46The SIO requested that an action be raised to consult the National Injuries
Database to discuss what type of injuries ‘Nick’ may have suffered and
whether further checks/examinations of him could be made to help to
corroborate his account.

2.4.47‘Nick’ has been asked by the BBC to do a further interview following the
death of Lord Brittan. He has been asked not to do so but the decision is his.
‘Nick’ will be taken to Bicester Barracks to identify any relevant buildings.
‘Nick's’ [No.] siblings are to be approached. Forensic examination of Imber
village will take place in early March. DS SWORD WILL CO-ORDINATE
OBTAINING SEARCH WARRANTS FOR RELEVANT ADDRESSES ATTRIBUTED TO
BRAMALL, BEACH, AND BRITTAN. The SIO gave an update re Harvey Proctor.
He may still be involved in sex parties. DSU McDonald will liaise with
178

 Leicestershire Police’.

FINDING: THE FULL SIGNIFICANCE OF ALL 7 ‘SCOTTS’ BEING ACCOUNTED
FOR, NONE OF THEM HAVING DIED IN CHILDHOOD, HAS NOT BEEN
APPRECIATED. A MEETING OF ALL SENIOR OFFICERS SHOULD HAVE
CONSIDERED THE EFFECT OF THIS DISCOVERY UPON THE INVESTIGATION
AND, IN PARTICULAR, ‘NICK'S’ CREDIBILITY. THE DECISION TO ENQUIRE AT
ALL OTHER SCHOOLS ATTENDED BY ‘NICK’ WAS NOT APPROPRIATE. THE
‘SCOTT’ IN ‘NICK'S’ NARRATIVE ATTENDED COOMBE HILL PRIMARY
SCHOOL. BEFORE INSTRUCTING DS SWORD TO CO-ORDINATE OBTAINING
SEARCH WARRANTS, CONSIDERATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE
STATUTORY CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE POLICE AND CRIMINAL
EVIDENCE ACT FOR OBTAINING SEARCH WARRANTS. THE INCLUSION OF
BEACH AND THE OMISSION OF PROCTOR IS UNEXPLAINED. I HAVE BEEN
TOLD THIS WAS SIMPLY AN ERROR. I DO NOT CONSIDER THAT THE
STATUTORY REQUIREMENT FOR THE SEARCH OF ANY PROPERTY EXISTED.

Lord Janner’s case had been pended by reason of a Leicestershire Police
investigation.

09/02/2015. WEEKLY BRIEFING - DSU

2.4.48'A letter to Fred is being drafted by the SIO in collaboration with a
psychologist who has experience in working with victims of non-recent
abuse. ‘Nick’ will pass the letter to Fred and thus preserve Fred's anonymity.
There are no positive forensic results from the pen knife or the crown.
Engagement with the NSPCC regarding interview strategy for ‘Nick's’ family
179

 members. Enquiries continue to secure counselling records. Work continues
to assess the identities of the three potential victims of homicide. Work
continues to prove whether Martin Allen can be directly linked. Forensic
examination is being planned at Imber Village in early March.'

16/02/2015. SIO Policy File

2.4.49A decision was made to apply/authorise for search warrants under s8
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I can find no evidence that S8 was
ever considered or that its prerequisites were ever analysed. S8 reads:

‘8 (1) If, on an application made by a constable, a justice of the peace is
satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing - (a) that an
indictable offence has been committed and that there is material on the
premises etc.’

2.4.50The question is a simple one, namely 'Were there reasonable grounds for
believing that an indictable offence had been committed?' For my part, I do
not consider that there were reasonable grounds to believe that ‘Nick’ had
told the truth. He was demonstrably inconsistent in his accounts to the
Wiltshire Police and the MPS. He was manifestly inconsistent as between his
blogs and his accounts to either Police Force. It is inconceivable that he was
abused in the manner he asserts without his mother having any knowledge
of it, as she has stated to the Wiltshire Police. It is inconceivable that a boy
aged between 7 and 11 could be taken from school, time and again, with the
concurrence of the school and without his parents’ knowledge. The MPS had
clear evidence that the alleged victim of one murder was, in fact, alive. There
180

 was no independent evidence that ‘Nick’ had ever been injured;
notwithstanding his assertion that several bones in his body had been
broken during the alleged abuse. In any event, the allegation against
numerous men of outstanding reputation was inherently unlikely. ‘Nick's’
evidence was uncorroborated; notwithstanding the fact that a public request
for information had been made on 18/12/2014 and had received extensive
coverage. If ‘Nick’ had told the truth there were at least 20, if not more, men
in their 40’s who had been grossly abused in similar circumstances whilst
children and yet none had come forward, nor had any driver nor employee
at Dolphin Sq. or the Carlton Club. There were no reported missing children
at the time of any of the alleged murders and no relevant unsolved
homicides.

2.4.51I have read the applications for search warrants. Each contains the
following passage:

'The victim in this matter has been interviewed at length by experienced
officers from the child abuse investigation team. His account has remained
consistent and he is felt to be a credible witness who is telling the truth'.

This is regrettable. Had the Magistrate been told that the Wiltshire Police
had expressed doubts about ‘Nick's’ veracity and had he been told that none
of those named in the applications had been blamed by ‘Nick’ when he made
his statement to Wiltshire, nor was it ever alleged that any murder had been
committed, it is inconceivable, in my judgment, that any application for a
warrant would have been granted. I note that the application commences:

181

 'The victim in this investigation contacted police in late 2014 detailing
allegations of serious sexual historical sexual assaults'.

The victim did not contact police in 2014. The MPS contacted ‘Nick’ having
seen his blogs. ‘Nick’ had contacted MPS in 2012. He was referred to
Wiltshire Police as the crimes alleged took place there. He was interviewed
in Wiltshire. The statements placed before the District Judge failed to
disclose the fact that the victim had been interviewed by the Wiltshire Police.

2.4.52The SIO decided not to arrest any suspect. The SIO had regard to Code G.
She concluded that it was not necessary to arrest any suspect having regard
to the date at which the offences had allegedly been committed and to the
circumstances of the suspects. However, there is a right of arrest where there
are reasonable grounds for suspicion that an arrestable offence has been
committed and, if the SIO did unreservedly believe that ‘Nick’ had told the
truth, I find it difficult to accept that she would not have arrested Mr. Proctor
who was allegedly a triple child killer and he was, in his occupation, in regular
contact with children. If she had sufficient confidence in ‘Nick's’ veracity to
instruct officers to apply for a search warrant, then I have no doubt that she
should and would have arrested Harvey Proctor since she would have had
reasonable grounds to suspect him of three child murders and innumerable
offences of buggery and serious assault.

2.4.53I note that she gave very intense consideration to the question of arrest
and Code G referring to a redacted advice from leading counsel in another
matter. Rather less consideration appears to have been given to the question
of the legality of any search procedures. The CPS were not consulted.
182

 Searching the premises of Lord Bramall, Lady Brittan, and Mr. Proctor was a
course which would inevitably involve massive public scrutiny and visit the
most intense anxiety upon two suspects and the grieving widow of a third
suspect. I am satisfied that the Senior Magistrate was misled. ‘Nick’ had not
been consistent throughout. As I have already stated, the Wiltshire
interviews were inconsistent. The District Judge could not know that the
Complainant had made statements to two different police forces. He was
correct in granting the Warrants having regard to the information placed
before him.

2.4.54On a more technical point, the warrant in respect of Lady Brittan's home
and Yorkshire property describes the two properties as Lord Brittan's
property. A deceased individual cannot own property. It vests in his executors
or personal representatives. In the context of this matter this may be of less
significance than the contents of the statement in support of the application.
However, in the context of s8(3) (a-d), it was practicable to communicate
with Lady Brittan DBE JP who was the person entitled to grant entry to the
premises.

FINDING: THE WARRANTS TO SEARCH THE PREMISES OF LORD BRAMALL,
LADY BRITTAN, AND MR PROCTOR WERE, IN MY JUDGMENT, OBTAINED
UNLAWFULLY. THE WRITTEN APPLICATIONS STATED THAT ‘NICK'S’
ACCOUNT HAD REMAINED CONSISTENT AND HE IS FELT TO BE A CREDIBLE
WITNESS WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH. ‘NICK'S’ ACCOUNT HAD NOT BEEN
CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT. FURTHER, THERE WERE, IN MY JUDGMENT,
NO REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE ‘NICK’ AND THE STATEMENT THAT
HE HAD TOLD THE TRUTH WAS NOT CONSISTENT WITH INFORMATION
183

 THEN AVAILABLE. THE MAGISTRATE WAS MISLED. HE WAS NOT TOLD OF
THE WILTSHIRE INTERVIEWS OR ‘NICK'S’ BLOGS. FURTHER, THE
APPLICATION STATED 'THE VICTIM IN THIS INVESTIGATION CONTACTED
POLICE IN LATE 2014' WHEN IN FACT ‘NICK’ FIRST CONTACTED MPS IN 2012
BEFORE BEING REFERRED TO WILTSHIRE POLICE WHERE HE WAS
INTERVIEWED AT LENGTH IN DECEMBER 2012. ‘NICK’ DID NOT CONTACT
THE POLICE IN LATE 2014. THE MPS CONTACTED HIM. THE WILTSHIRE
INTERVIEWS ALLEGED ANAL RAPE BY ‘NICK'S’ STEPFATHER AND AN
UNNAMED LIEUTENANT COLONEL. THE MPS INTERVIEWS ALLEGED ANAL
RAPE BY NUMEROUS NAMED INDIVIDUALS AND THREE ACTS OF CHILD
MURDER. THE WARRANT IN RELATION TO PREMISES OWNED BY LORD
BRITTAN DURING HIS LIFETIME INACCURATELY STATED 'PERSON WHOSE
PREMISES ARE AUTHORISED TO BE SEARCHED: LORD LEON BRITTAN’ (LORD
BRITTAN HAVING DIED). FURTHER NONE OF THE CONDITIONS IN S8(1) OF
THE POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1984 WERE SATISFIED. WITH
REFERENCE TO S8(1)(e) THE PERSON ENTITLED TO GRANT ENTRY TO BOTH
PREMISES WAS LADY BRITTAN DBE JP. IT WAS PRACTICABLE TO
COMMUNICATE WITH HER. THE CPS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSULTED
BEFORE SUCH A CRITICAL STEP WAS TAKEN.

The DS who made the application for search warrants honestly believed the
threshold of reasonable grounds was met for the following reasons:

1. The manner in which ‘Nick’ gave his account in interview;
2. ‘Nick’s’ Counsellor had said she believed him;
3. [GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 1] concluded that ‘Nick’s’ Counsellor was
well placed to judge ‘Nick’s’ truthfulness;
184

 4. ‘Nick’s’ ability to describe the access arrangements to Lord
Bramall’s office;
5. ‘Nick’s’ apparent trauma at returning to various parts of the military
establishment;
6. ‘Nick’s’ identification of Martin Allen;
7. The long standing nature of these allegations. First to a counsellor
in 2012, then Wiltshire police and now to the MPS.

This application may have been made by the DS and authorised by the DI. It
is to be noted that neither have contributed to the present explanations. The
application, however, was made on behalf of the MPS and the District Judge
wrote in his written decision: ‘this has been considered at DAC level’. I accept
that Neither the DSU nor the DAC would have approved the wording of the
statements in support of the warrants.

In the DAC’s presentation, see 2.7.17, the DAC wrote:

‘before applying for the warrants we fully recognised aspects of the
investigation were not born out by our investigations but we took the view
that they were outweighed by various elements where ‘Nick’ had provided
some knowledge of evidence that supported his assertions…. Accordingly, we
obtained search warrants on 02/03/15’.

I note that when a decision was being considered to apply for search
warrants the DAC wrote in the Gold decision log of 24/02/15 that ‘that Nick
had remained consistent and detailed in his accounts’.

185

 I have no doubt that the District Judge was misled. ‘Nick’ had not been
consistent. No mention is made in the application of either the Wiltshire
interviews or of ‘Nick’s’ blogs. Several undermining factors were omitted
from the application. These are set out in the DAC’s presentation at 2.7.17.
Namely:

1. No witnesses had come forward despite extensive media coverage;
2. Fred was either unwilling to engage or an invention of ‘Nick’;
3. There was no record of the accident involving ‘Boy 1’;
4. There was no identity for ‘Boy 3’;
5. ‘Nick’s’ mother does not recall signs of abuse or of ‘Nick’s’ absences.

In addition to those 5 points, all ‘Scotts’, allegedly murdered as ‘Boy 1’, had
been found alive.

All these undermining factors should have been brought to the attention of
the District Judge. None of them were. Further, it is stated in the application,
that ‘Nick’ contacted the police in 2014. In fact, he contacted the MPS in
2012 and was referred to the Wiltshire Police. In 2014, the MPS observed
‘Nick’s’ blogs and, through Exaro, invited ‘Nick’ to contact them, i.e. the
initiative for the 2014 meeting came from the MPS and not from ‘Nick’.

The senior officers should have concluded that reasonable grounds did not
exist and should not have permitted these applications to be made. I have
no doubt that the several undermining factors and numerous inconsistencies
would have been material relevant to the District Judge’s decision.

186

 There was no necessity to arrest Harvey Proctor since none of the conditions
in section 24 (5) of PACE 1984 applied (given the antiquity of the suspected
offences).

I do not suggest that Mr. Proctor should have been arrested, far from it. The
point is, that if there were reasonable grounds to believe ‘Nick’ for the
purposes of obtaining search warrants, then there were grounds to arrest
Mr. Proctor as a suspected serial child killer. His occupation put him in
contact with children; indeed, as a suspect, he felt obliged, with much regret,
to resign his post. Section 24(2) gives a constable power to arrest, without
warrant, if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has
been committed. He may arrest, without a warrant, anyone whom he has
reasonable grounds to suspect of being guilty of that offence. Section
24(5)(c) gives an officer the power to prevent the person in question causing
physical injury to himself or another person. A suspected serial child killer
clearly activates this subsection.

23/02/2015. CONTACT LOGS

2.4.55The SIO and DC Chatfield visited ‘Nick’ for two hours. ‘Nick’ was given an
update on the investigation and told that enquiries had been made re tracing
Scott with negative results. ‘Nick’ was told not to write comments on blogs
in order to protect the integrity of the investigation. ‘Nick’ mentioned that
he was happy with the support from his Counsellor although he did not
believe she had experience of dealing with victims of sexual abuse. He is
seeing her twice a week at present and is not providing any payment due to
financial constraints. He has previously applied to CICA (Criminal Injuries
187

 Compensation Authority) for support but this appears to have stalled. With
‘Nick's’ permission DC Chatfield agreed to contact the CICA to expedite the
payment. The arrangement had the full support of the SIO. Later that
evening ‘Nick’ sent his CICA reference number to DC Chatfield stating 'I
submitted my claim in October 2013. I have chased it a few times since then
just to be told it's with a reviewer. I eventually complained about the length
of time it was taking. They then wanted my medical records which was fine.
The latest I heard from them was at the beginning of February and they told
me they were still waiting for my records. I haven't chased it since'. ‘Nick’
received £22,000 on 01/04/2015.

FINDING: ASSISTING A CLAIMANT TO RECOVER COMPENSATION BEFORE
AN INVESTIGATION IS COMPLETE IS AN ACT WHICH PRE-JUDGES THE
OUTCOME OF THE INVESTIGATION AND SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED.
THE WILTSHIRE POLICE HAD QUESTIONED ‘NICK'S’ CREDIBILITY AND THE
MPS WERE IN POSSESSION OF STATEMENTS FROM ‘NICK’ THAT WERE
INCONSISTENT. THE SIO FAILED TO OBTAIN FROM THE CICA FULL DETAILS
OF THE CLAIM WHICH WOULD HAVE REVEALED THAT ‘NICK’ STATED HE
HAD SUFFERED NO INJURY. THE FACT OF HAVING ASSISTED ‘NICK’ TO
CLAIM COMPENSATION RENDERED IT MORE DIFFICULT TO DISCONTINUE
THIS INVESTIGATION. ‘NICK'S’ COMMENT, THAT HE DID NOT BELIEVE HIS
COUNSELLOR HAD EXPERIENCE OF DEALING WITH VICTIMS OF SEXUAL
ABUSE, RAISES THE QUESTION OF WHY HE CONTINUED TO CONSULT HER
AND TO PAY HER WHEN SIMILAR TREATMENT WAS AVAILABLE ON THE NHS.

Operation Midland did not assist ‘Nick’ with his CICA claim. DC Chatfield did
email the CICA on 24/02/15 saying that he was unsure how much detail
188

 ‘Nick’ had provided in his application and saying:

‘I am able to provide some details if appropriate. ‘Nick’ informed me he
applied for CICA funds in 2013 but is awaiting progress. With his permission
I just wanted to get in touch with you and ascertain, 1. If there is any update
regarding his application and 2. If I can assist in any way I hope you can
advise. Best Wishes’.

Since DC Chatfield agreed to contact the CICA to expedite payment and the
SIO agreed, that was, in my judgement, an agreement to assist ‘Nick’ to
recover compensation at time when Midland Officers were engaged in
deciding whether or not he was a victim of crime.

SEARCHES

24/02/2015. GOLD DECISION LOG

2.4.56The DSU and SIO informed the DAC that they wished to conduct s 8 PACE
search warrants at premises occupied or controlled by Harvey Proctor, Leon
Brittan and Edwin Bramall. The purpose of the search would be to locate and
secure any evidence to corroborate (or discredit) the allegations made by
‘Nick’. The DAC wrote:

'Despite the lack of corroboration the investigation has not revealed any
cause to disbelieve ‘Nick’. He has remained consistent and detailed in his
accounts'.

189

 The DAC also wrote:

‘I consider that it is possible that the execution of these warrants will become
known in the public domain......any such public knowledge of the searches
could cause public distress and embarrassment for the named subjects and
their families’.

The DAC asked for further information from the SIO before reaching a
decision principally concerning the qualifications and expertise of ‘Nick's’
Counsellor.

On 26/02/2015 the DAC wrote:

'I have reviewed the material supplied to me by the SIO and DSU. I am content
for them to make applications for s8 PACE warrants in support of the
proposed searches'.

04/03/2015

2.4.57On this date simultaneous searches took place at five properties, namely,
Lord Bramall's home in Farnham, at Lady Brittan's home in Westminster, at
her country home in Leyburn, at Mr. Proctor's home in Grantham and at his
office on the Belvoir Castle Estate. Approximately twenty officers attended
each venue.

190

 LORD BRAMALL'S PROPERTY

2.4.58At 08.45 the SIO and a DS knocked on the door of Lord Bramall's home.
They were welcomed in by a carer/housekeeper. At this date Lord Bramall
was 91 years of age. He was in the kitchen with Lady Bramall, who was
terminally ill at the time. The officers moved to the lounge at the rear of the
premises and explained to Lord Bramall, in the absence of his wife, that
someone had made allegations of sexual abuse against him and others that
were alleged to have occurred between 1975 and 1985. The SIO went on to
explain that they had obtained a search warrant from Westminster
Magistrates Court and that they wished to execute the warrant. Lord Bramall
was shown the warrant and told that the warrant was to search for material
relating to the abuse of children. The search was carried out by 22 officers
and lasted for over ten hours. Lord Bramall was anxious to know what
allegations had been made against him. He stated that he was based in Hong
Kong in the 70’s and later in Germany. He confirmed he was back in the UK
from time to time during the relevant period. He asked if the crime involved
buggery and the SIO responded that numerous different types of sexual
assaults had been alleged against him and others. He asked if it was a boy or
girl and the SIO told him it was a boy. Lord Bramall stated that the whole
thing was nonsense and [PERSONAL INFORMATION]. Throughout the whole
of the day Lord Bramall asked questions in an endeavour to ascertain the
nature of the allegations he faced. He wished to know what the Magistrate
had been told in order to grant the warrant but was not told. A number of
treasured belongings were taken and returned in due course, including his
late wife's Dinner Book, a party guest list, a visitors’ book, and numerous
draft speeches. Lord Bramall made it clear to the officers that he fully
191

 understood and appreciated that they had a job to do. He made it plain that
he wished to be interviewed as soon as possible. Nothing of significance was
found in the search.

2.4.59 I accept that a number of steps were taken to minimise the distress to
Lord Bramall and his wife and that the SIO did everything in her power to
minimize their discomfort and apprehension. The large number of officers
were utilised in order to minimize the time taken for the search.

LADY BRITTAN'S HOME IN WESTMINSTER

2.4.60At 08.20 officers attended at this house and the door was opened by Lady
Brittan. They explained that they were in possession of a search warrant to
search the premises and Lady Brittan co-operated fully. The officers indicated
that they would be as discreet as possible. I have visited the premises as part
of this review. The house is a town house positioned on the street. It would
be impossible to conduct a search with approximately twenty officers in a
sufficiently discreet manner to avoid attracting the attention of passers-by
and/or neighbours. At one stage Lady Brittan had to ask the police to close
the curtains as it was obvious what was taking place. She became
apprehensive and called her solicitor who attended and remained until the
conclusion of the search, which was not until 21:00.

2.4.61Lady Brittan found the search very distressing. There were a large number
of searchers and she was still grieving; Lord Brittan having died only weeks
earlier on 22nd January. She was deeply shocked by the search. A DCI present
was overheard making comments about Lady Brittan not having to conceal
192

 things. One particular event caused much distress. Officers searched through
the many letters of condolence that she had received. Further, there was no
indication on the warrant that the search was in relation to other people.
Lady Brittan was given no information as to the purpose of the search nor
was she informed of any rights she had in relation to the search. No list of
property removed was then provided. She was shown each item as it was
bagged. Nothing of significance was found in the search.

LADY BRITTAN'S HOME IN LEYBURN

2.4.62At 08.50 a team of officers attended at premises in North Yorkshire,
previously owned by Lord Brittan. Three of the officers were wearing
protective masks and double gloves. A search team from the North West
were also in attendance. [NAME], the housekeeper, admitted the officers.
The search lasted from 08.54 until 20.20 on 04/03/2015. One officer
remained on the premises overnight and the search continued the following
day until 20.00. There was insufficient room in the police vehicles to take all
the exhibits back to London. They were stored at Richmond Police Station.
On 10/03/2015 an MPS van travelled north to collect the remaining property.
During the search officers showed particular interest in the garden and
grassed areas conveying to [NAME] the impression that they suspected that
a body or body parts had been buried therein. Several pairs of the late Lord
Brittan's shoes were seized. They were used to extract his DNA. Swabs were
taken from possible blood stained surfaces. Nothing in the warrant
permitted such conduct. The warrant specified documents, journals, diaries,
records, still images, digital media products, computers and mobile phones.
The seizure of the footwear was, accordingly, also unlawful, regardless of
193

 whether or not the warrant had been obtained lawfully. A manuscript list of
property seized was provided but it falls short of being a full list, omitting, in
particular, the Home Secretary's Forward Engagements June 1984 - May
1985. Nothing of significance was found in the search.

Officers were not tasked or briefed to search for bodies or body parts nor did
they. Officers do recall visually inspecting the garden area as they walked
through.

Whatever their purpose, the impression conveyed to [NAME], as officers
crossed the lawn, line abreast, was that they were looking to see if ground
had been disturbed consistent with the disposal of bodies or body parts.
Nothing the officers were permitted to search for under the terms of the
search warrants could conceivably be kept under the lawn. I have not been
told what the officers were looking for.

HARVEY PROCTOR'S HOME

2.4.63At 08.05 officers entered the address through the porch door and shouted
police. After a short time two males presented themselves in dressing
gowns, identifying themselves as Harvey Proctor and his partner. They were
shown a copy of the warrant. Mr. Proctor made it clear that he was not, nor
ever had been, involved in sexual activity with children. Both men were
happy to co-operate with the police. Some 15 officers were involved in the
search. A large number of laptop computers, hard drives, DVDs, clothing and
other property was removed. The search lasted for some 15 hours being
completed at 22.30. According to Mr. Proctor the promised list of property
194

 seized was not forthcoming. It was said it would take too long. As the police
left Mr. Proctor was assured that he would not be identified by the press.

BELVOIR CASTLE ESTATE OFFICES

2.4.64At 10.00 officers visited Mr. Proctor's office on the Estate. They were met
by the Commercial Director and, because of the volume of files in Mr.
Proctor's office, it was agreed that they would return the next day. They were
present on the first day between 10.00 and 18.00 acquiring a number of
forensic images from electronic devices within Mr. Proctor's office. They
returned the following day and concluding the search at 14.00. A large
volume of digitally stored material and other property was seized. None of
any probative value in the investigation.

FINDING: THESE SEARCHES SHOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN PLACE. THE
WARRANTS WERE OBTAINED UNLAWFULLY. ‘NICK'S’ CREDIBILITY WAS
VERY MUCH IN QUESTION AND HE HAD NOT BEEN CONSISTENT. SHOES
WERE REMOVED AND SWABS TAKEN IN THE LEYBURN SEARCH, HAVING
NOT BEEN AUTHORISED IN THE WARRANT, AND AN APPARENT SEARCH OF
THE GARDEN FOR BURIED BODIES OR BODY PARTS ALSO TOOK PLACE.
LADY BRITTAN WAS NOT TOLD THAT THE INVESTIGATION WAS INTO THE
ALLEGED CRIMINALITY OF OTHERS.

PUBLICITY

2.4.65The searches of all three homes attracted considerable attention. Twentytwo officers in a small Hampshire village, with several attending the local
195

 pub, created much local interest. Events at Lady Brittan's townhouse were
most obvious to locals and, in Mr. Proctor's case, no sooner had the search
ended than he recovered an email from Exaro sent at 9.34pm. Mark Conrad
had sent the email asking Mr. Proctor to contact him to confirm that the
police were in the process of searching his home. Unsurprisingly, Mr. Proctor
was most upset and in his book, 'Credible and True' observes:

'So, the police had lied to me. Scotland Yard had issued a statement, not
revealing my name of course, but that a man in his sixties had his house
raided at an address near Grantham. In addition, they had already informed
'Nick' -the traducer- of the raid on my home’.

I have been given unlimited access to all contact sheets between officers and
‘Nick’ and what took place was this:

Early morning. 04/03/2015. ‘Nick's’ FLO contacted ‘Nick’ informing him of
the pending searches.

10.22. ‘Nick’ emailed his FLO: 'Thanks for your call this morning, very
emotional to hear, but I appreciate you letting me know ......Thanks.'

13.39. FLO to ‘Nick’: ‘Thanks for your email. Yes, I'll be busy over the next
couple of days with these searches.......’

19.42. ‘Mark Conrad contacted DMC stating that he was aware that the MPS
went to Belvoir Estate today and carried out a search of a number of
properties on the estate. He asked to confirm that we had attended the
196

 estate as well as asking if we had spoken to/questioned anyone
(formal/informal) and whether anyone had been arrested.’

20.01. DMC:

‘IF ASKED: Can confirm officers from Operation Midland are carrying out a
search of an address in Grantham in connection with their enquiries’.

20.12. ‘Mark Conrad asked DMC has Harvey Proctor been arrested or
interviewed in connection with the searches? Response: We do not conduct
searches based on names. Conrad: Has a 68-year-old man from Grantham,
Lincolnshire been spoken to/arrested in connection with the searches that
have taken place today. No response.’

23.16. Exaro News published a lengthy article headed 'Police raid Harvey
Proctor's home under 'Operation Midland'. 'Former Conservative MP faces
police investigation into allegations of child sex abuse'. By Mark Conrad.

05/03/15

09.33. BBC carried the same story.

12.10. DMC:

‘IF ASKED: Can confirm officers from Operation Midland continue to carry out
a search of an address in Grantham today, Thursday 5 March in connection
with their enquiries’.
197

 17.55. DMC:

‘IF ASKED: Can confirm that the police search of an address in Grantham has
now been concluded’.

06/03/2015

17.27. Mark Conrad again contacted DMC with full details of the searches
that had taken place at the homes of Lord Bramall, Lady Brittan, and Mr.
Proctor including the relevant ages. As a result, the DSU authorised the
following information: - IF ASKED: Can confirm officers from Operation
Midland, on Wednesday 4 March, conducted searches at an address in
Westminster, an address in Leyburn, an address in Farnham and an address
in Grantham in connection with their enquiries.

2.4.66The effect of this information circulating was that the National Media were
able to extensively report that searches had taken place at all three homes,
naming Lord Bramall, Lady Brittan and Harvey Proctor within some 48 hours
of the searches taking place. The information relating to Mr. Proctor was in
the public domain on the day of the search causing Mr. Proctor to go onto
Radio 4 after the 8am news the following morning to describe the allegations
as pure and utter fantasy and to state that he wished to be interviewed by
the police at the earliest opportunity.

2.4.67It was two days later that the searches at Lord Bramall's home and Lady
Brittan's home became public knowledge. There was an almost constant
release of information, not only that premises had been searched but also,
198

 in the case of the office, that the premises were being searched and later
that the search had been completed. This protracted release of information
gave rise to the suspicion that the media was being used to seek out further
'victims' and 'evidence ' to back up ‘Nick's’ allegations, at a time when the
MPS were continuing to appeal for witnesses to come forward.

2.4.68Since it remains MPS policy that all suspects should remain anonymous
prior to charge, there can be no clearer example of 'suspects' losing their
anonymity with the concurrence of the MPS. In the first instance, DC
Chatfield informed ‘Nick’ that searches were to take place. It was common
knowledge that ‘Nick’ was on close working terms with Exaro. He does not
appear to have been warned to keep the information to himself and, even if
he had been, it is unlikely that he would have done so. There was no
obligation to inform ‘Nick’ of the search under the Victims Charter which
specifies that victims are entitled to be informed of a suspect being arrested,
interviewed under caution, released without charge, released on police bail,
or if police bail conditions are changed or cancelled. No entitlement arises in
relation to a search. It was, in my judgment, an error to inform ‘Nick’ of the
searches as it was foreseeable that his links with Exaro would cause the
householders to be identified to the public. It was also, in my judgment,
unfortunate that DMC were prepared to virtually confirm the information
already in Exaro's possession. It is possible that Exaro would not have had
the courage or temerity to publish it without some degree of confirmation.

FINDING: HAVING REGARD TO MPS POLICY THAT SUSPECTS SHOULD
RETAIN THEIR ANONYMITY PRIOR TO CHARGE, IT WAS AN ERROR TO
INFORM ‘NICK’ THAT SEARCHES WERE ABOUT TO TAKE PLACE AS IT WAS
199

 ENTIRELY FORESEEABLE THAT HE WOULD INFORM EXARO WHO WOULD
THEN IDENTIFY THE HOUSEHOLDERS. ‘NICK’ HAD NO ENTITLEMENT TO THE
INFORMATION. SEE VICTIMS CHARTER PART A 1.5.

RECOMMENDATION: IN ORDER TO PRESERVE A SUSPECT’S ANONYMITY
PRE-CHARGE IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT PARLIAMENT CREATES A LEGAL
ENTITLEMENT TO ANONYMITY. ENTITLEMENT UNDER THE VICTIMS
CHARTER CREATES AN AVENUE OF INFORMATION VULNERABLE TO
EXPLOITATION.

FINDING: BY CONFIRMING THAT ADDRESSES WERE BEING SEARCHED, AND
HAD BEEN SEARCHED, THE DMC WERE POTENTIALLY CONTRIBUTING TO
THE RESULTING LOSS OF ANONYMITY.

It was recognised that informing ‘Nick’ of the searches could lead to him
informing the media. However, to lessen the risk, ‘Nick’ was told after the
searches began. This was a significant update and within the spirit of the
Victim’s Code. It would have been a serious blow to the Police relationship
with ‘Nick’ and the Allen family if they learned of the searches through
other means and concluded that the Police had withheld relevant updates.

It was, in my view, a virtual certainty that ‘Nick’ would inform Exaro having
regard to their continuing role. ‘Nick’ was informed, sometime before 10.22
am, in the very early stages of the searches. The consequences of the
searches becoming public knowledge was foreseen in the DAC’s rationale of
11/11/2014, specifically that ‘if the subjects were placed in the public domain
it would cause significant damage to their reputation and distress to them
200

 and their families’. This was a clear case of ‘Nick’s’ ‘feelings’ being protected
whilst exposing the suspects to the damage and distress so accurately
foreseen.

I note that Midland Officers support the statutory protection of anonymity
pre-charge.

2.4.69One matter which has caused me concern is the situation of a suspect who
is neither arrested nor interviewed but has his home searched. If innocent,
he will have no idea what is going on unless he has learned something from
the internet or some other source. In Lord Bramall's case it was obvious,
certainly at the outset, that he had not the slightest idea what had been
alleged against him and yet, for many hours, had to observe his home being
meticulously searched. Had he been interviewed he would, of course, have
received a disclosure document. In Lady Brittan's case, she could not possibly
know what was afoot and the occasion must have been traumatic. I
understand that in many cases it will prove counter-productive to give
information to suspects. That may also be the case pre-interview. In the
present case, it would have been possible to draft a document setting out
the basis of the allegation against each suspect. In Lady Brittan's case it
should certainly have been made clear that the police were seeking evidence
against other living persons. Such a limited disclosure document might also
assist the police. It was clear that the SIO was having to give information to
Lord Bramall as he asked and without warning.

RECOMMENDATION: IN CASES WHERE A SEARCH TAKES PLACE BUT NO
INTERVIEW IT MAY BE GOOD PRACTICE TO PREPARE A LIMITED
201

 DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT SETTING OUT THE BASIS OF THE ALLEGATION
AGAINST THE SUSPECT EXPLAINING THE PURPOSE OF THE SEARCH.

05/03/2015. SIO POLICY FILE

2.4.70The SIO faced an understandable dilemma concerning the timing of
interviews. A volume of material had been seized in the searches which
needed analysing. However, both suspects had expressed a desire to place
on record their response to the allegations at the earliest opportunity and to
place their denials on record. Lord Bramall's age made an early interview
even more desirable and police are under a duty to ascertain facts which
may, if known, disprove an allegation. It was foreseeable that Lord Bramall
or Mr. Proctor may have been able to disprove any allegation. There were
difficulties with the availability of a specialist interview adviser and a decision
was made to interview Lord Bramall and Mr. Proctor on 23rd and 24th March.
The SIO was undoubtedly correct to arrange the interviews at the earliest
opportunity.

10/03/2015

2.4.71The Commissioner spoke to AC Gallan expressing his concern 'about a
number of warrants that had been executed in relation to Operation
Midland'. The Commissioner had received a formal briefing some two
months earlier. He had very recently spoken to the DAC but told AC Gallan
that ‘he remained concerned re the warrants'. Accordingly, AC Gallan, who
was about to leave the country on leave, spoke to both the DAC and the
Commissioner on the telephone. As a result of that briefing 'the clarity was
202

 not sufficient to provide sufficient reassurance other than that there had
been judicial oversight by way of a Magistrate (Stipendiary Judge) granting
the Warrants'. She asked the DAC if it would seem prudent, with allegations
of such a historical nature, that she was briefed on her return from leave.
She specifically asked if it would hinder the investigation to delay the
interviews until that time and she was informed not. The DAC agreed to delay
the suspects interviews.

It is wrong to imply that the decision to cancel the interviews was a shared
one. AC Gallan made this one.

I agree that AC Gallan made this decision but apparently with the full
concurrence of the DAC.

2.4.72AC Gallan has explained to me her concerns at the time. The warrants
appeared to have been obtained on the basis of ‘Nick's’ evidence which was
without corroboration. It was a highly unusual case both in terms of the
suspects and three alleged homicides and, in two of them, there was no
deceased person and no unsolved homicide. AC Gallan told me that she had
been assured by the DAC that expert evidence had been obtained regarding
‘Nick's’ statements. She specifically asked whether anything would be lost by
delaying the interviews and was told not. At that stage she did not recall
being told about Lord Bramall's age. Both agreed that the interviews should
be delayed and the Commissioner was so informed.

FINDING: IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT THESE INTERVIEWS HAD TO BE
CANCELLED, HOWEVER, IT IS EXPLICABLE BY THE UNDERSTANDABLE AND
203

 JUSTIFIED

CONCERNS

OF

THE

COMMISSIONER

AND

ASSISTANT

COMMISSIONER.

18/03/2015. SIO POLICY FILE

2.4.73The SIO was advised by DSU McDonald 'that the interviews arranged for
Mr. Proctor and Lord Bramall are to be postponed to facilitate senior briefing
to AC Gallan which cannot take place prior to 23/03/2015 due to AC Gallan
being out of the UK'. Unfortunately, both Lord Bramall and Mr. Proctor had
been told that they would be interviewed on the 23rd/24th of March and
those interviews were cancelled. Whilst the SIO had no choice but to obey
orders from senior officers, this was an unfortunate intrusion, albeit fully
justified by an Assistant Commissioner plainly concerned at events as they
were unfolding. The delay added to pressures mounting for the suspects.
Lady Bramall was in very poor health. Lord Bramall believed that he was in a
position to establish his innocence when interviewed as did Mr. Proctor who
additionally was placed under great pressure from social services to resign
from his employment at Belvoir Castle 'as children visited the venue'. He did
indeed resign on 24th March with much sadness both on his part and that of
his employers. The interviews were cancelled but not, at this stage, rescheduled.

18/03/2015. SIO POLICY FILE

2.4.74The SIO had met with the regional SIO adviser, Paul Kemp, and requested
a peer review of Operation Midland and other relevant matters, including
experts. Mr. Kemp said he had access to a Psychologist by the name of [GIST:
204

 PSYCHOLOGIST 2] who had done some excellent work around adapting
interview approaches to offenders with mental health/personality disorders.
The SIO declined this offer for two reasons. Firstly, neither suspect
demonstrated those traits, and, secondly, she had previously been made
aware that [GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 2] had a strong opinion in relation to the
lack of credibility of ‘Nick’. Her concern was that [GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 2]
had not had sight of the ABE interviews, the transcripts, the analytical
products or any other information generated by the investigation. She
expressed the view that she had reservations about the judgment and
decision making that sits behind [GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 2] assertion. She felt
there was evidence of bias and 'that is not what I want for the investigation'.

2.4.75[GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 2] is well regarded and advises the NCA. He is a
Forensic Clinical Psychologist and lectures at Manchester University. He
heard ‘Nick’ on the television and was urging caution about relying on his
testimony without certain checks being carried out. I have read a document
prepared by [GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 2]. It is sound, well-reasoned and, in my
judgment, his views merited consideration. [GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 2] was
suggesting an independent review of the progress of attempts thus far to
corroborate ‘Nick's’ account and, further, was suggesting that consideration
be given to an independent review by a Forensic Clinical Psychologist, such
as [GIST: PROFESSOR 1], Emeritus Professor of Forensic Clinical Psychology,
who is regularly used by the CPS. I can see no justification for asserting bias
against [GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 2]. His suggestion was perfectly sound and was
adopted by DSU Sweeney at Recommendation 9 of his subsequent review.
Had [GIST: PROFESSOR 1], or indeed [GIST: PROFESSOR 2], been consulted
at this stage this investigation may well have been concluded at an earlier
205

 time.

FINDING: IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE TO CATEGORISE [GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 2]
AS BIASED. HE IS A WELL-REGARDED EXPERT WHOSE OPINION, WHILST
PARTLY UNINFORMED, WAS TENDERED IN GOOD FAITH AND PRESCIENT.
CONSIDERATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO CONSULTING [GIST:
PROFESSOR 1] AT THIS STAGE.

The SIO did not characterise [GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 2] as ‘biased’ but merely
made a decision not to commission him to support Operation Midland. This
was for two reasons:

a. his expertise was not in the field of assessing traumatized victims;

b. it had been decided not to seek any psychological assessment of ‘Nick’s’
ABE interviews.

The SIO specifically referred to ‘evidence of bias on the part of [GIST:
PSYCHOLOGIST 2]’.

[GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 1]

2.4.76Earlier in March 2015, the SIO had consulted [GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 1], a
Clinical Psychologist, Consultant to the Child Exploitation Online Protection
Centre (CEOP). I have interviewed her as part of this review. The SIO engaged
her services on the advice of [GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 3], also from CEOP, who
advised that [GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 1] had significant experience in relation
206

 to non-recent abuse. I have no reservations concerning the competence or
ability of [GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 1]. She was entirely cooperative when I
interviewed her and clearly extremely able. Her opinion had been sought on
the credibility of ‘Nick’. She wrote a report dated 25th May 2015.

2.4.77In that report, headed 'Brief assessment of the credibility of ‘Nick’, [GIST:
PSYCHOLOGIST 1] outlines the information provided to her; namely,
conversations with the SIO, a DI and an FLO and transcripts of two police
interviews with ‘Nick’, dated 22/10/2014 and 23/10/2014. [GIST:
PSYCHOLOGIST 1] was not provided with the Wiltshire interviews, ‘Nick's’
Blogs, his medical reports, his mother's statement to the Wiltshire police, or
his counsellor's notes.

2.4.78In her second paragraph, [GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 1] wrote:

'There are limits to this assessment. Firstly, given the length of interviews, I
have not had capacity to read all of the transcripts and I have not viewed the
interview videos which would enable sight of non-verbal clues to honesty and
deception. Additionally, I have not applied a standardised assessment of
credibility- such an assessment exists for judging children's allegations of
sexual abuse, but there is no equivalent for adults alleging historical sexual
abuse.'

She concluded that, on the evidence that she had seen, ‘Nick’ was credible.

2.4.79When I met [GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 1] she told me that she was first
approached through CEOP to consider Fred. Thereafter, she was asked to
207

 assess ‘Nick's’ credibility. She did not understand there to be any real
concerns about his credibility but there was such an intense media scrutiny
over the allegations that a need had arisen to consider the use of further
resources. She was not commissioned as an expert witness. It was part of
her consultancy with CEOP. This was to inform future decision making within
the police.

2.4.80She would have been assisted by watching the ABE interviews. They were
not provided to her. She thought she was aware of the Wiltshire interviews
but did not see them. The spirit of what she was asked to consider was 'are
there any red flags, is there a sufficient basis to continue investigating, i.e./
is there enough credibility to justify further resources being expended'. This
request is in stark contrast to the statement placed before the District Judge.

2.4.81Her view was that, regardless of what her conclusions were in terms of
credibility, she would always conclude that the best principle is to follow the
evidence. All she could say was that the account was consistent with a
truthful account rather than stating that it was a truthful account. She stated:

'I was not able to look at inconsistencies as I did not have the material at the
time'.

She was aware that ‘Nick’ had progressively disclosed his account. She
further stated:

'It is difficult to use increasing disclosure as undermining credibility or
supporting credibility'.
208

 She considered her report to be an interim report. She did this with her CEOP
hat on. None of this was with any cost to the MPS.

FINDING: FAILING TO SUPPLY [GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 1] WITH THE WILTSHIRE
INTERVIEWS, AND OTHER HIGHLY RELEVANT MATERIAL, RENDERED HER
OPINION AS TO ‘NICK'S’ CREDIBILITY VALUELESS. THE EXERCISE DELAYED
THE INSTRUCTION OF [GIST: PROFESSOR 2] AND DELAYED THE
CONCLUSION OF THIS INVESTIGATION.

[GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 1] was not commissioned to provide a comment on
‘Nick’s’ credibility. The report, dated the 25/05/2015, was commissioned
to provide an informed response to the comments made by [GIST:
PSYCHOLOGIST 2].

I find this comment puzzling. [GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 1] report is headed
‘brief assessment of the credibility of ‘Nick’’. The report commences:

‘In this report I provide a brief assessment and opinion on the credibility of
the witness ‘Nick’’.

As I have already observed, since [GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 1] was only
provided with a fraction of this MPS interviews and had not read all the
transcripts and had viewed none of the videos, had no blog and no
Wiltshire interviews, any opinion expressed by her as to ‘Nick’s’ credibility
was valueless.

I have seen her in interview and [GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 1] assured me that
209

 her task was to assess ‘Nick’s’ credibility.

FINDING: ‘NICK'S’ CREDIBILITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN FULLY INVESTIGATED
BEFORE ANY SEARCH TOOK PLACE. THE INSTRUCTION OF [GIST:
PSYCHOLOGIST 1] AND THE TERMS OF HER INSTRUCTIONS IS A CLEAR
INDICATION THAT DOUBTS EXISTED AS TO ‘NICK'S’ CREDIBILITY AS THE
TITLE OF HER REPORT CONFIRMS.

23/03/2015

2.4.82AC Gallan returned from leave and received a briefing from the DAC and
the DSU. She confirmed that ‘Nick’ remained uncorroborated. There was a
reluctance to track down Scott. There was a reluctance to speak to the SIO
on the Martin Allen case who might be able to assist in assessing ‘Nick's’
credibility and provide valuable background knowledge. The DSU indicated
that he was not sure what he would ask the retired SIO and that prompted
AC Gallan to ask what he would then be asking the suspects. She formed the
view, in the light of that comment, that the investigation may not be
sufficiently far advanced to carry out effective and useful interviews. The
involvement of the CPS was not clear. An early investigative advice would
assist the team and she noted that the investigation had been running for six
months and no review had taken place at 24 hours, 7 days, or 28 days.
Standard review processes had not taken place and, accordingly, she asked
Det. Supt. Sweeney to carry out a review.

There was no reluctance to track down Scott.

210

 This was AC Gallan’s conclusion.

The DSU did not say to AC Gallan that he did not know what questions he
would put to the original Martin Allen SIO.

I have seen AC Gallan in interview and I have read her email on this topic and
she has a clear recollection to the contrary.

Standard practice for a homicide review is for the review to take place after
28 days. This is only guidance. The DSU requested that no review take place
after 28 days as ‘officers were still engaged in assessing the case’. In March
2015, the SIO was in discussion with the regional SIO advisor to arrange a
national SIO peer review but events were overtaken by the MPS peer review
instructed by AC Gallan in April 2015.

If 28 days is the standard period for a homicide review, I find it rather
perplexing that in a triple child murder allegation some four months can
elapse without any review. A review should have taken place before any
application was made for search warrants.

24/03/2015

2.4.83The SIO received feedback from Paul Kemp that the National Interview
Advisor and another member of the cadre had said:

'We all agree that the rationale articulated in your policy document not to
arrest but to search under warrant is sound and couldn't add anything. We
211

 would agree with this decision'.

2.4.84This was no doubt of comfort to the SIO. However, it was not possible for
the National Interview Advisor to judge whether the statutory conditions for
a search under warrant had been fulfilled. The National Interview Advisor
and Paul Kemp had not read ‘Nick's’ Wiltshire interviews nor his blogs.

25/03/2015. GOLD GROUP MINUTES

2.4.85The SIO indicated that there was one Scott left to interview and he lived
in Australia. She would prefer that an investigator from within the team
interviewed him. She had met with Martin Allen's family. They felt let down
by the police. She explained that the boy, described as ‘Boy 2’, was said to be
11/12 and Martin Allen was 15 when he went missing in 1979, although he
looked younger. A letter composed by [GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 1] had been
sent to Fred via ‘Nick’. Fred was discussed at length, the DAC indicating that
Fred's evidence would be crucial in supporting ‘Nick’, if indeed he existed.
The SIO indicated that ‘Nick’ was frustrated that Fred would not engage.
Covert options were discussed. It was agreed that the approach by letter
should be continued.

2.4.86‘Nick's’ mother has already been spoken to and interviews with her and
‘Nick's’ siblings will take place. The SIO gave an update on a number of
forensic tests that were in hand.

2.4.87[GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 2] concerns regarding the veracity of ‘Nick’ were
discussed. The SIO indicated that she was working closely with CEOP to
212

 ensure that any opportunities to obtain independent oversight of the
investigation and specialist advice, where required, had been sought. She
was confident that she had the appropriate investigative advice and insight
which is relevant to this particular investigation.

FINDING: AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME, [GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 1] REPORT ON
‘NICK'S’ CREDIBILITY WAS AWAITED. IT WAS, HOWEVER, IMPOSSIBLE TO
OBTAIN APPROPRIATE INVESTIGATIVE ADVICE WITHOUT SUPPLYING THE
EXPERT WITH THE NECESSARY INFORMATION.

30/03/2015. MINUTES FROM OFFICE MEETING DCI

2.4.88The meeting discussed property recovered during searches and how the
examination of the property was progressing.

2.4.89‘Nick’ has stated that he has concerns regarding the police contacting his
mother. A DC will be making contact with the family to see if they will be
willing to make statements.

2.4.90Maps of the barracks and addresses for ‘Nick's’ drive around are being
prepared. The voters register for Dolphin Sq. is being obtained.

2.4.91Mr. Proctor will be interviewed on 13/04/2015 and Lord Bramall on
16/04/2015.

213

 01/04/2015

2.4.92‘Nick’ received a payment of £22,000 from CICA. Operation Midland were
not informed of this by either ‘Nick’ or the CICA. ‘Nick’ failed to thank his FLO
who had contacted the CICA on his behalf.

08/04/2015. SIO POLICY FILE

2.4.93'On the direction of AC Gallan, the interviews of the two suspects are to be
cancelled together with the disclosure briefing. I am mindful that this is the
second time this interview has been stopped. It remains my intent as the SIO
to treat the suspects fairly and without bias and that approach has assisted
in securing the co-operation of the suspects to be interviewed'.

2.4.94I have read a very lengthy email from the DAC to AC Gallan in which he is
clearly very anxious that the interviews should take place as soon as possible.
He gives a number of reasons for this. AC Gallan, for her part, is clearly very
anxious at the direction in which this investigation is going and
understandably so. No review of this Operation has thus far taken place and
she is anxious that one takes place before this Operation continues.

FINDING: IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT THESE INTERVIEWS WERE CANCELLED
AS BOTH SUSPECTS WISHED TO GIVE ACCOUNTS EXONERATING
THEMSELVES. THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM, HOWEVER, IS THAT NO
SEARCH SHOULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE AND LORD BRAMALL, LADY BRITTAN
AND MR. PROCTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE AWARE THAT ANY
INVESTIGATION WAS TAKING PLACE NOR SHOULD THE PUBLIC. AC
214

 GALLAN'S DECISION TO ORDER A REVIEW WAS BOTH REASONABLE AND
PROPORTIONATE. THE DELAY IN INTERVIEWING AT THIS STAGE WAS
LIMITED.

09/04/2015

2.4.95The DAC sent an email to AC Gallan indicating that a meeting had taken
place with [GIST: CPS 1] and [GIST: CPS 2] of the CPS in which:

'they had a productive discussion on the witness strategy and in
particular focused on the approach taken to secure best evidence
from ‘Nick’'....'The CPS were pleased that we had decided not to
seek an expert assessment of ‘Nick's’ ABE interviews in order to
evaluate the likely truthfulness of the allegation'

FINDING: ON 10/03/2015 THE DAC, SPEAKING TO AC GALLAN,
EMPHASISED THAT EXPERT PROFESSIONAL ADVICE HAD BEEN SOUGHT ON
THE

COMPETENCE

OF

‘NICK’S’

COUNSELLOR

TO

COMMENT

MEANINGFULLY ON ‘NICK’S’ CREDIBILITY AND TRUTHFULNESS. THIS
REPORT IS DATED 26/02/2015. ON 09/04/2015 THE CPS WERE PLEASED
‘THAT WE HAD DECIDED NOT TO SEEK AN EXPERT ASSESSMENT OF ‘NICK’S’
ABE INTERVIEWS’. THE ABILITY OF [GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 1] TO ACCURATELY
COMMENT ON ‘NICK’S’ COUNSELLOR’S ABILITY TO ASSESS ‘NICK’S’
CREDIBILITY AND TRUTHFULNESS, WHEN NEITHER HAD READ ‘NICK’S’
WILTSHIRE INTERVIEWS OR MPS INTERVIEWS IN FULL, IS HIGHLY
QUESTIONABLE.

2.4.96The DAC's email gave a lengthy and detailed account of the meeting with
215

 the CPS and made the point that, if interviews did not take place shortly,
there could be criticism. He stated Lord Bramall's age and his wife's poor
health and the fact that both suspects had asked to be interviewed at the
earliest opportunity.

2.4.97AC Gallan responded the same day stating that the email had provided a
lot of reassurance and stated that she hoped that the review that she had
commissioned would be viewed by all as supportive. Within four days she
had indicated that the interviews could go ahead; a decision endorsed by
Det. Supt. Sweeney.

FINDING: THE SIX WEEK DELAY IN INTERVIEWING WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO
THE JUSTIFIED CONCERN OF A SENIOR OFFICER AND WOULD NOT HAVE
OCCURRED BUT FOR THE SEARCHES HAVING TAKEN PLACE AT A TIME
WHEN ‘NICK'S’ CREDIBILITY HAD NOT BEEN SUFFICIENTLY ASSESSED AND
HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED.

13/04/2015. SIO POLICY FILE

2.4.98The DAC has confirmed with AC Gallan that the interviews can now go
ahead.

27/04/2015. DSU

2.4.99'’Nick’ is in Twitter contact with Martin Allen's family. It is the feeling within
the investigation team that ‘Nick’ is harbouring some guilt around what he
believes happened to Martin Allen and could he have done more to prevent
216

 it.'

2.4.100

'The drive around London took place on 21/04/2015 and ‘Nick’

identified 7 locations, including two new locations.'

2.4.101

'The investigation is progressing at a steady pace and the interviews

of Lord Bramall are scheduled for 30/04/2015. There will be no pro-active
briefing of the media around this interview taking place. The interview of Mr.
Proctor will not take place until he returns from a personal holiday.'

2.4.102

'Officers from the enquiry team have been authorised to travel to

Australia to meet and interview an individual, Scott, who could be a
significant witness for this investigation'.

2.4.103

'The identity of Fred is still not known. A new request for him to

engage has been forwarded via ‘Nick’.'

2.4.104

'’Nick's’ mother reiterates that ‘Nick's’ stepfather was an abusive

and violent individual. She has disclosed the names of two school friends who
were close to ‘Nick’ around the relevant time.'

FINDING: ALTHOUGH AUTHORISATION WAS GRANTED I CANNOT SEE THAT
IT WAS NECESSARY TO SEND OFFICERS TO AUSTRALIA TO INTERVIEW
SCOTT. HE WAS CLEARLY ALIVE AND IF, WHEN ASKED, HE SAID HE WAS
INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT OUTSIDE COOMBE HILL PRIMARY SCHOOL
OFFICERS COULD THEN TRAVEL OUT TO INTERVIEW HIM. A DETAILED
STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM ‘NICK'S’ MOTHER AT THIS
217

 TIME.

The decision to send officers to Australia did not prolong the investigation
and was encouraged by AC Gallan.

30/04/2015. FIRST INTERVIEW OF LORD BRAMALL

2.4.105

Lord Bramall was interviewed for 1 hour and 44 minutes at a local

police station in the presence of his solicitor. The interview was under
caution. He protested his innocence [PERSONAL INFORMATION]. The many
questions and answers elicited during the search of his home were put to
him and accepted. He was asked how he responded to the allegations and
said:

'Well, I'm absolutely astonished, amazed and bemused. I mean not only do I
deny absolutely any of these things but we will do that in more detail, but I
find it quite incredible that someone of my career, standing and integrity
should have been capable of any of these things, including things like torture
which are unbelievable'.

2.4.106

In the interview, Lord Bramall told the officers that he had an ADC

and a Military Assistant who sat in next door offices. When it was put to him
that he had touched a boy's penis, Lord Bramall replied:
'Absolute rubbish, absolute rubbish, I mean whether the Commander in Chief
of the British Army and all the land forces would have a child into the thing
and strip him down is absolute and complete, well in a land of fantasy. I mean
it’s nonsense, complete nonsense'.
218

 He told officers he had never been to Dolphin Sq. He had never met Jimmy
Savile or Harvey Proctor. He had only been to the Carlton Club twice as a
guest at lunchtime and had never been to a swimming pool party. He had
never met Michael Hanley and had never spoken to Leon Brittan, although
they had passed in the House of Lords. He was very good friends with Hugh
Beach and with Roland Gibbs. He had never heard of Ray Beach. He had no
social contact with Greville Janner. He had met Edward Heath when he was
Prime Minister. Lord and Lady Brittan once visited his home in Salisbury.

2.4.107

Having been taken through his well-researched career from an

ordinary soldier, a rifleman in 1942, landing on the Normandy beaches, being
awarded the Military Cross in 1945, serving as Staff Officer to Lord
Mountbatten OBE in 1965, in 1974 invested as Knight Commander, 1976
promoted to General, 1979 invested with the Knight Grand Cross, 1979 ADC
General to the Queen, 1982 Field Marshall, 1982-1985 Chief of the Defence
Staff, 1982 Head of the British Armed Forces, a Justice of the Peace, Baron
Bramall 1987, Knight of the Garter 1990, Lord Lieutenant of Greater London
1986-1998, Chairman of the Imperial War Museum, Past President of MCC
and now Honorary Life Vice President, to name some but not all of his
awards, Lord Bramall asked to make a short statement. He began by
completely accepting that the police were duty bound to investigate any
allegation in connection with Operation Midland. He accepted that in
searching his home officers were only doing their duty. He then continued:

'I would however ask you to understand and appreciate the real anger that I
feel that inadvertently your police action, and even more the often
misleading and inaccurate way as reported by some of the media both in
219

 papers and electronically on the Internet, should have caused my family and
me such acute embarrassment with an utterly unjustifiable public question
of my reputation, honour and integrity. I have, as you know, completely
rejected any of the allegations and most vehemently deny any wrongdoing
of any sort. I do not believe that in your fuller investigation you have any
obligation to accept ‘Nick's’ often uncorroborated word against mine, merely
because forty or so years later he came forward when encouraged to do so
and was apparently told he would be believed. After all, as an ex Lord
Lieutenant of Greater London for thirteen years and a Field Marshall of thirty
years standing, cleared for security of the highest level, I have an
unblemished and, indeed, ever unquestioned record for reliability and
integrity in the service of my country. I would ask that as soon as possible I
am removed from the investigation and a public statement made to that
effect. I can then get on with ensuring that my reputation and my honour is
publicly restated which is not only important to me and my family but to the
proud name and standing of the British Army as well and I would be very
grateful if you would ensure that your most senior managers are made
aware of that statement'.

03/05/2015. HARVEY PROCTOR'S ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT

2.4.108

Mr. Proctor began by complaining that the MPS had assured him, at

the conclusion of the search, that his identity would not be revealed and yet,
within eight hours of the police leaving his home, details of the raid were
leaked to the national media. Mark Conrad had emailed his office ninety
minutes before the police had left his home. At the conclusion of the search
he had volunteered to be interviewed and arrangements were made for an
220

 interview on 23/04/2015. That was cancelled 'due to circumstances beyond
(the officer's) control'. The interview was rearranged for 14/04/2015 and
again cancelled. The MPS had caused him to retire from his job of thirteen
years 'and ruined twenty-eight years of my life's rehabilitation since 1987'. At
that date, he pleaded guilty to four charges of gross indecency which,
because of changes in the law regarding the homosexual age of consent, are
no longer offences. He wrote of a number of unproven allegations without a
shred of evidence against a number of deceased former respected politicians
by 'attention seekers and nutters'. He continued:

'They are dead; they cannot defend themselves. I am alive; I can and I will.
Enough is enough. Someone has to stand up and say the emperor is wearing
no clothes. So let me be straight with you, the media, and through you, the
police. I have not murdered anyone. I have not been involved with the sexual
or other abuse of children or anyone else'.

He went on to deny every aspect of the allegations which were in the public
domain and went on to say:

'I have witnessed the growing paranoia among various police 'organisations'
with disbelief and disgust. I wish to place on record my admiration for the
work the uniformed bobby does and has done and which I have seen at first
hand in my old constituencies....The higher up the police command chain,
however, the less I see to admire. For example, I find it incredible that a senior
police officer has said on the media that a 'victim's' evidence is 'credible'
before an investigation has been completed or a prosecution launched. It
would not be acceptable on any other police investigation and is outright
221

 prejudicial from the very outset to any impending investigation....It's time with the spending on these inquiries approaching £100 million - to say to the
police and the Director of Public Prosecutions: Put up or shut up. Arrest me,
charge me, try me. If you have evidence against me bring it on!’.

06/05/2015. OFFICE MEETINGS MINUTES DCI

2.4.109

Lord Bramall's interview was summarised. The SIO said:

'Fred has made contact with us via his own email address. States his real
name is John and was known as J as a child. An email has been sent to him
asking him for a meeting but his response was 'I don't know'. Two officers are
in Australia to speak to Scott. ‘Nick’ has been driven round London. He
became very upset in Eccleston Sq. and stopped on Ponsonby Terrace and
indicated he had been there and the 'usual' happened'. He recognised Wilton
St. and associated it with Edward Heath and Harvey Proctor.'

DS Townly pointed out that 'there was a discrepancy in when ‘Nick’ first
viewed his class photo and when he recently viewed it in ABE. He initially
identified only 2 people that he recognised from his class. When asked to
confirm those 2 people, he identified 2 different people.' DI Hepworth said
that any discrepancy with ‘Nick's’ information would be dealt with together
at a later interview.

2.4.110

DC [NAME] had spoken to ‘Nick's’ mother on 08/04/2015 and

22/04/2015. ‘Nick’ had emailed after the first visit asking his mother what
she had said to the police. After the second meeting they met. His mother
222

 said that [FRIEND] was a good friend of ‘Nick's’ and they would see each
other weekly outside of school. They went to school together in Kingston.
No indication they knew each other before Kingston. ‘Nick's’ mother
remembers Aubrey. ‘Nick’ has, in recent years, stated that [IDENTITY] abused
‘Nick’ and Aubrey but he did not tell her this at the time. [PERSONAL
INFORMATION] ‘Nick's’ mother had no awareness of ‘Nick's’ absence from
school and stated he had a good attendance rate.

FINDING: THERE IS A CLEAR INDICATION OF ‘NICK'S’ POSSIBLE MENDACITY
WHICH WAS NOT FULLY APPRECIATED. ‘NICK’ KNEW THAT HIS MOTHER
WAS IN CONTACT WITH THE POLICE AND EITHER LEARNED OR GUESSED
THAT HIS MOTHER HAD TOLD THE POLICE THAT [FRIEND] WAS A GOOD
FRIEND AT SCHOOL IN KINGSTON. ‘NICK’, THEREFORE, TOLD THE POLICE
THAT [FRIEND] WAS, IN FACT, FRED. THIS, HOWEVER, CANNOT BE TRUE
BECAUSE FRED WAS INVOLVED IN SEVERAL ALLEGATIONS WHEN ‘NICK’
WAS AT BICESTER (SEE TAPE Y1C Page 94) AND [FRIEND] WAS A FRIEND AT
SCHOOL IN KINGSTON.

‘NICK'S’ CONDUCT IN IDENTIFYING TWO PERSONS FROM THE
PHOTOGRAPH, FOLLOWED BY AN INCONSISTENT AND DIFFERENT
IDENTIFICATION, SHOULD HAVE PROVOKED A DISCUSSION AS TO ‘NICK'S’
RELIABILITY.

A STATEMENT HAS STILL NOT BEEN TAKEN FROM ‘NICK'S’ MOTHER, WHO
IS ABLE TO DEAL WITH SEVERAL MATTERS WITH A VITAL BEARING ON
‘NICK'S’ CREDIBILITY, EVEN THOUGH SHE WAS VISITED ON 08/04/2015
AND 22/04/2015.
223

 It is suggested that Sir Richard has misunderstood the details of ‘Nick’s’
pseudonyms. ‘Nick’s’ account could feasibly be true if it accepted that he lied
over using Aubrey’s name, when in reality, he meant, for the most part, he
was referring to ‘John/J/Fred’. In particular, it is said that Sir Richard may
have concluded that [FRIEND] from [LOCATION] is John / J/ Fred whilst
officers believe that [FRIEND] and John are different individuals and John
originates from Bicester. It is said that Fred has made contact via his own
email address stating that his real name was John and he was known as J as
a child.

Any evaluation of ‘Nick’s’ use of names involves speculation. What is certain
is that:

1. ‘Nick’ lied when asserting that a boy named Aubrey, his
friend, was abused on numerous occasions at parties whilst
they lived at Bicester;
2. ‘Nick’ cut and pasted more than one email to prevent officers
discovering the email address of the person ‘Nick’ asserts to
be Fred;
3. A person purporting to be Fred has obtained an email
account in Switzerland, the specific purpose of which was to
conceal the identity of the sender and to render him
untraceable;
4. ‘Nick’ is either that person or knows that person well.

I regard the most likely explanation for those proven facts to be that ‘Nick’
has created the Swiss email address. He has visited Switzerland, has a motive
224

 to create a false account, has cut and pasted emails to disguise their sources
and has lied about the identity of alleged fellow victims.

13/05/2015. DSU

2.4.111

‘Nick’ has been contacted by the BBC and Exaro concerning a drive

around the Coombe Hill area. He was advised against this by us and refused
their request. ‘Nick’ continues to have a close relationship with both the BBC
and Exaro and a decision has been made by the SIO that ‘Nick’ will not be
briefed prior to any operational activity at this stage. Officers from the
enquiry visited an individual, 'Scott', which is negative in terms of being
involved in, or knowing about, this incident. He attended the school but has
never heard of 'Nick' (His true identity was revealed to Scott). All the
individuals with the name ‘Scott’ from Coombe Hill Primary School have now
been traced. We will now repeat the exercise with the Secondary School. The
identity of Fred is still not known. ‘Nick’ did allude to his true identity and
this may correlate with a statement received from ‘Nick's’ mother. Enquiries
around Fred are ongoing. ‘Nick's’ mother has disclosed the names of two
school friends who were close to ‘Nick’. The main lines of enquiry are to
complete the interviews of Bramall and Proctor, to review and analyse
military files, review and analyse hard drives and tapes seized, and to
continue engaging with Fred.

FINDING: ‘NICK’ WAS VERY CLEAR. THE FATAL ROAD TRAFFIC INCIDENT
WAS OUTSIDE COOMBE HILL PRIMARY SCHOOL. ACCOUNTING FOR ALL
‘SCOTTS’ SERIOUSLY IMPACTED ON ‘NICK'S’ CREDIBILITY. THERE WAS NO
JUSTIFICATION IN TARGETING HIS SECONDARY SCHOOLS.
225

 SERIOUS CONSIDERATION SHOULD AT THIS STAGE HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO
THE FUTURE OF THIS INVESTIGATION.

20/05/2015. GOLD GROUP MINUTES

2.4.112

The interview of Mr. Proctor will take place on 17-19th June.

Property seized from Mr. Procter's home was discussed. The DSU gave an
update on the interview of Scott repeating the previous entry. All lines of
enquiry at Coombe Hill School have been exhausted. They are scoping other
possible schools. A discussion took place concerning the effect on ‘Nick's’
credibility of the fact that 'we have not been able to trace Scott'. An update
on efforts to trace Fred was given. Covert opportunities to trace the email
address were discussed. However, the SIO would like to remain in contact
with Fred overtly to try to persuade him to engage. The DAC reiterated the
need to explore all options regarding Fred. ‘Nick's’ mother giving the police
a name could possibly be identification for Fred. DSU H stated that their
enquiries revealed that the email user appears to be from somebody who is
trying to conceal their identity due to the type of email account used. A
discussion took place considering whether intrusive covert methods might
be used to identify Fred. The group acknowledged that MPS policy was that
victims must be believed. DSU H stated that in order to corroborate ‘Nick's’
story more intrusive methods might be appropriate; particularly when
considering the rights of the persons accused of these offences. The DSU was
uncomfortable with this line of enquiry at present and will continue to
pursue other lines of enquiry. He updated the Gold Group on ‘Nick's’ drive
around when he picked out addresses at Dolphin Sq. and Eccleston Place
226

 associated with high profile individuals.
FINDING: THIS WAS A CLASSIC DEMONSTRATION OF THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN INVESTIGATING AND BELIEVING AN ALLEGATION. HERE WAS AN
EMAIL ADDRESS THAT WAS APPARENTLY FROM SOMEONE TRYING TO
CONCEAL THEIR IDENTITY. THE TEAM HAVE BEEN TRYING TO TRACE FRED
WITHOUT SUCCESS FOR SOME FIVE MONTHS. TWO SUSPECTS HAVE BEEN
EXPOSED TO PUBLIC SCRUTINY. I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT A DECISION
SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN AT THIS DATE TO IDENTIFY THE EMAIL ADDRESS
AND ITS USER. IF IT WAS ‘NICK’ THE INVESTIGATION WOULD BE ENDED.

Efforts began to covertly identify the true identity behind the email address
being used by Fred. The RIPA/ILOR application was submitted to the CPS on
the 28/10/2015. Other methods and avenues were commissioned in May
2015. [GIST: United Kingdom Intelligence Community] were unable to
assist. When this investigation was closed down the RIPA/ILOR application
was withdrawn on the advice of the CPS.

The ILOR application should have been made far sooner but this does not
appear to be the fault of Operation Midland officers. Those investigating
Martin Allen’s disappearance may wish to renew the ILOR application. If a
decision is made, by those responsible, to investigate ‘Nick’ for offences of
fraud and/or perverting the course of justice a similar ILOR application will
no doubt be considered.

20/05/2015. ‘NICK’S’ MOTHER’S STATEMENT

2.4.113

‘Nick’ was 7 when she married Ray. His children were [AGES]. The
227

 two elder ones were at boarding school. Ray would bath [SIBLING] and ‘Nick’.
‘Nick's’ mother considered it a fatherly activity and it did not give her any
reason to suspect that they were being sexually abused by him. She did not
remember seeing any blood in ‘Nick's’ laundry at any stage. When they lived
at Wilton she took ‘Nick’ to school and brought him home again. To her
knowledge ‘Nick’ was not taken out of school by Ray and there was never an
issue with his attendance. The school never contacted her to say he was
missing or to ask about arrangements with other people for him to be taken
out during the school day. On Sundays they would sometimes go to the
Barracks to have Sunday Lunch in the Mess. She did not remember ‘Nick’
ever going out on his own with Ray for the day or being taken to the Barracks
by him. She did not remember ‘Nick’ ever being taken on his own by Ray to
a wildlife park. Whilst at Wilton, she spent a lot of time with ‘Nick’. She was
not working and he was her precious little boy. She now believed that Ray
had the capacity to abuse ‘Nick’, mainly because she found him to be a cruel
and brutal man who lied very easily and tried to destroy her. Ray was
eventually sectioned. She had sustained broken ribs and thumbs. Ray
trashed the house and destroyed all their belongings.

2.4.114

She and ‘Nick’ fled to Oxfordshire but within weeks Ray had been

discharged from hospital and was banging on the door of their Bicester
home. She called the police and Ray was arrested. That was the last time she
saw him. He had no access to ‘Nick’ and she and ‘Nick’ never spoke about
him until ‘Nick’ was an adult. In Bicester ‘Nick’ went to [NAME] Primary
School. She took him to school herself and another child's mother would
drop him back home. ‘Nick’ had a friend called Aubrey and a while ago ‘Nick’
disclosed that [IDENTITY] had abused both Aubrey and himself. She had
228

 never noticed anything to indicate that was the case. After they moved to
Bicester ‘Nick’ had no further contact with Ray. She would not have
permitted it. She never heard of ‘Nick’ being taken out of school. She went
to parents’ meetings and there was no talk of it.

2.4.115

She had no impression that ‘Nick’ was unhappy or that anything was

wrong with him. She never remembered ever seeing ‘Nick’ inexplicably
dishevelled, dirty, or smelly. If ‘Nick’ had been taken away by men for any
period of time and abused and returned a matter of hours later she was
surprised that she would not have smelled it or sensed it on him.

2.4.116

In 1979, after two years at Bicester, they moved to Kingston and

‘Nick’ went to Coombe Hill Primary School. ‘Nick’ was adamant that he did
not want to leave Bicester and was very upset at leaving. His mother bribed
him with a dog. When he was at Coombe Hill Primary School his mother had
no recollection of any child being run over.

2.4.117

Aged 11, ‘Nick’ moved to Tudor School in Kingston. There he had a

close friend called [FRIEND] who was in the same class. His family lived only
a few streets away in Kingston. ‘Nick’ would go to the school chess club, a
nearby shooting club and ‘Nick’ and [FRIEND] played on the river in boats
and fishing. He and his mother would also go on long walks. ‘Nick’ had horse
riding lessons and he and his mother had regular skiing holidays in France,
Austria or Switzerland. It was not until 1989 that ‘Nick’ mentioned that he
was abused by Ray. He said that Ray used to hold his head under the water
when he bathed him. The first she heard of any abuse by a Westminster
paedophile ring was when she saw a profile of ‘Nick’ on television in
229

 November 2014. She rang him and he said he had been taken to parties as a
school boy and passed around a number of well-known establishment
figures. There were no further details. She would prefer not to know all the
details and to support him by looking forward. The only injury spoken of in
her statement was ‘Nick’ chipping a bone in his ankle whilst skiing.

26/05/2015. OFFICE MEETING MINUTES - DCI Tudway

2.4.118

CPS have been briefed on the job so far and they advised that two

disclosure officers be appointed. Also advised that ‘Nick's’ Blogs be
monitored and compared with counselling notes. [GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 2]
has recently made comments that, having seen ‘Nick's’ television and
newspaper interviews, he may not be genuine. SIO has referred [GIST:
PSYCHOLOGIST 2] comments to CEOP ([GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 1]) who
confirms that ‘Nick’ presents as other victims in line with this type of
investigation. Review of property seized in searches is continuing. ‘Nick’
continues to do a lot of Twitter and blog writing. He recently tweeted about
being abused on the mile-high club. SIO has received a reply from Fred. She
will send him another email to see if he has made a decision. SO13 are
researching the email address. We will search the electoral register for
Aubrey as ‘Nick's’ mother said Aubrey lived on the same street as them. She
possibly remembers Aubrey having a friend called Duncan (said to be present
at the murder of ‘Boy 3’). ‘Nick's’ mother's statement has now been finished.
SIO stated that the crux of the statement was that Ray Beach was capable of
abuse. SIO said that CEOP advise that it is not unusual for people to be in the
environment of abuse but not actually see it or aware of it happening.

230

 FINDING: ‘NICK'S’ MOTHER'S STATEMENT WAS LONG OVERDUE. I DO NOT
AGREE THAT THE CRUX OF HER STATEMENT WAS THAT RAY BEACH WAS
CAPABLE OF ABUSE. THE CRUX OF HER STATEMENT WAS THAT SHE HAD
NEVER SEEN ‘NICK’ INJURED. HE HAS COMPLAINED OF NUMEROUS ACTS
OF RAPE/BUGGERY ON OCCASIONS LEADING TO LARGE BLOOD LOSS,
BEATINGS CAUSING BRUISING TO VARIOUS PARTS OF THE BODY, CUTS AND
ABRASIONS TO VARIOUS PARTS OF HIS BODY CAUSED BY SHARP
IMPLEMENTS, FRACTURES TO THE HEAD, BOTH ARMS, RIGHT LEG, NOSE,
RIBS, AND FINGERS, BURNS TO HIS FEET, SNAKE BITES, WASP STINGS, AND
ELECTROCUTION. THESE INJURIES, ACCORDING TO ‘NICK’, WERE
SUSTAINED BETWEEN THE AGES OF 7 AND 15 WHILST HE AND HIS MOTHER
LIVED TOGETHER. THERE IS NO BASIS FOR QUESTIONING THE ACCURACY
OR INTEGRITY OF ‘NICK'S’ MOTHER'S STATEMENT. IT RENDERS MANY, IF
NOT ALL OF ‘NICK'S’ ALLEGATIONS, INCREDIBLE.

ATTEMPTS TO LOCATE AUBREY ARE ALSO LONG OVERDUE. HE WAS
POTENTIALLY A CRITICAL WITNESS AND POTENTIAL VICTIM.

IT APPEARS THAT WEIGHT IS BEING GIVEN TO THE VIEWS OF [GIST:
PSYCHOLOGIST 1] WHO WAS NOT GIVEN MUCH OF THE INFORMATION
CAPABLE OF UNDERMINING ‘NICK’, NOR HAD SHE READ MUCH OF THE
DOCUMENTATION SUPPLIED TO HER.

IMMEDIATE ATTEMPTS HOULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO TRACE [FRIEND].

URGENT CONSIDERATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN AT THIS STAGE TO
231

 THE FUTURE OF THIS INVESTIGATION.
11/06/2015. SIO POLICY FILE

2.4.119

The SIO decided that Sir Hugh Beach should no longer be

designated as a suspect. DS Townly having named him as a suspect on
13/11/2014. She did not feel she had sufficient information to infer joint
enterprise. The only mention in the ABE interviews is of his being present.
She believed it proportionate to interview him and tasked DS Sword to
progress that line of enquiry.

FINDING: THIS WAS A DECISION WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN
MONTHS EARLIER WHEN SIR HUGH SHOULD HAVE BEEN INTERVIEWED AS
A WITNESS. HE WAS THEN 91 YEARS OF AGE AND A FAILURE TO INTERVIEW
HIM IN TIMELY MANNER RISKED LOSING HIS EVIDENCE. THIS WAS
POTENTIALLY UNFAIR TO ANY PROSPECTIVE DEFENDANT. HE IS A MAN OF
THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE STANDING AND POTENTIALLY A CRITICAL WITNESS.

It would have been inappropriate to speak with Sir Hugh Beach before
interviewing Lord Bramall as they were close colleagues.

This is a possible view but not one I agree with. Had Sir Hugh died his
evidence would have been lost to the considerable detriment of the
suspects. There was, in any event, a significant delay between Lord Bramall’s
interview of 30/04/2015 and Sir Hugh’s interview on the 28/07/2014. The
urgency of interviewing Sir Hugh appears to have been lost upon the SIO.

2.4.120

The SIO decided to deliver a corporate message regarding the
232

 interview of Mr. Proctor to ‘Nick’ and Kevin Allen ahead of media outlets
being informed. She felt that it was important that victims are briefed as
much as possible and she hoped it would assist in demonstrating her
commitment to progressing the investigation. She was aware that
confidence might be broken and that it would be unhelpful if any information
was leaked. ‘It is important that the suspects and their legal teams have
confidence in our integrity'. Her intention was to brief ‘Nick’ and Kevin Allen
that Mr. Proctor was being questioned after his interview had started, the
time he attended and the general area. This decision was a mistake as the
SIO soon acknowledged. As Mr. Proctor was being interviewed Exaro
contacted DMC asking if they could confirm that Mr. Proctor had been
interviewed. The media lines were sent out at 7.19pm to allow Mr. Proctor
time to get home. At 7.35pm ‘Nick’ emailed his FLO to ask about 'that
person'. ‘Nick’ felt unable to talk to anyone and didn't tell him anything. It
was the view of the SIO that Kevin Allen may have contacted Exaro as she
knew he had strong links with Exaro. She did not think it appropriate to ask
him as she did not wish to intrude upon journalistic confidence. She decided
to stop providing notice of media releases to Kevin Allen. DMC published:

'A man in his 60’s [8] from Grantham, was interviewed under caution after
attending a local police station by appointment at 12.00hrs on Thursday 18
June. He was not arrested'.

FINDING: THE SIO ANTICIPATED THAT SUSPECTS AND THEIR LEGAL
ADVISERS MAY LOSE CONFIDENCE IN THE INTEGRITY OF THE
INVESTIGATION. JUST SO. MR. PROCTOR COMMENTED:

233

 'OF COURSE I WAS NOT NAMED IN THE STATEMENT. THE POLICE KNOW
THEY DO NOT HAVE TO NAME YOU TO ALLOW THE PRESS TO IDENTIFY YOU.
THE POLICE THINK THEY ARE BEING CLEVER IN THIS SUBTERFUGE. BUT
THEN THE MET WILL HAVE TOLD ‘NICK’ AND/OR EXARO AND MAYBE
OTHERS, SO IT LEAKS OUT AGAIN, TRIGGERING ANOTHER ROUND OF BAD
PUBLICITY ABOUT ME'.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE VICTIM'S CHARTER DOES NOT REQUIRE
COMPLAINANTS TO BE INFORMED OF INTERVIEWS IN ADVANCE OF THEIR
COMPLETION. THIS PUBLICITY CAUSED MR. PROCTOR TO DRAFT A
STATEMENT, AS HE COULD NOT STAY SILENT ANY LONGER, EVENTUALLY
DELIVERED ON 25/08/2015, WHICH WAS HIGHLY CRITICAL OF THE MPS. IT
WAS AN ERROR OF JUDGEMENT TO DISCLOSE THE FACT THAT MR.
PROCTOR WAS ABOUT TO BE INTERVIEWED AND EXCEEDED ‘NICK'S’
ENTITLEMENT UNDER THE VICTIM'S CHARTER.

‘NICK'S’ ALLEGATIONS AGAINST BOTH SIR HUGH BEACH AND LORD JANNER
WERE SIMILAR. NAMELY, THAT THEY HAD BEEN PRESENT AT PARTIES BUT
‘NICK’ MADE NO MENTION OF EITHER HAVING COMMITTED ANY SPECIFIC
ACT OF BUGGERY OR ASSAULT. AT THE VERY OUTSET OF THIS
INVESTIGATION

‘NICK’

SHOULD

HAVE

BEEN

RE-INTERVIEWED

CONCERNING THE ACTS, IF ANY, ALLEGED AGAINST EACH MAN AND, IN THE
ABSENCE OF ANY FURTHER EVIDENCE, BOTH MEN SHOULD HAVE CEASED
TO BE SUSPECTS.

18/06/2015

234

 2.4.121

Harvey Proctor was interviewed, under caution on a voluntary

basis, having days earlier been provided with a disclosure document setting
out in detail the essence of ‘Nick's’ allegations. At an early stage he told the
officers that they should have come to interview him before the search some
four and a half months earlier. He had been promised a speedy interview and
two earlier appointments had been cancelled at short notice. He recited his
career and earlier residences in detail before telling the officers that he was
a homosexual with a small circle of friends. He spoke of his time in Parliament
and told the officers that he declined to become a member of the Carlton
Club (mentioned in the disclosure) in 1979 when, as a new MP, he was
invited. His political views were close to those of Enoch Powell. He dealt with
his conviction for matters occurring in 1986 and 1987, namely four charges
of gross indecency to which he pleaded guilty, involving males he believed to
be over 21, when they were 19 and 17 and had lied about their ages. What
he had done then was now legal.

2.4.122

When the officers turned to ‘Nick's’ allegations he said:

'What this amounts to is a heinous calumny. These allegations are just about
the worst allegations you could throw at any other human being. When are
you going to prosecute ‘Nick’, if he exists, for making these false allegations?
At what stage do you wake up and find you are being taken for a ride?’

He pointed out that he was being accused of three murders and sexual abuse
and yet had not been arrested, whilst others are arrested for stealing sweets
from a shop. Throughout his political career he had supported the Police and
the Armed Forces and did not expect this sort of treatment from the Police.
235

 If they thought he was guilty of these offences they would not have waited
four and a half months to question him, on the contrary, they would have
arrested him. It was a game, a political and a press game.

2.4.123

The officers went through the several locations that ‘Nick’ had

mentioned when interviewed. Mr. Proctor most vehemently denied every
suggestion or allegation contending that every word of ‘Nick's’ statement
was a heinous calumny. He was not part of a group and had never been part
of a group.

2.4.124

There is little purpose in summarising the remainder of the

interview which amounted to the most strenuous and determined denial of
guilt that I have read during my time in the law.

2.4.125

At 19.15 DMC released a statement that a man in his 60’s from

Grantham was interviewed under caution after attending a local police
station by appointment. He was not arrested. He was interviewed by
Metropolitan Police Service Officers working on Operation Midland.

FINDING: BY RELEASING A STATEMENT THAT A MAN IN HIS 60’s FROM
GRANTHAM HAD BEEN INTERVIEWED IN CONNECTION WITH OPERATION
MIDLAND THE DMC MAY JUST AS WELL HAVE RELEASED HARVEY
PROCTOR’S FULL NAME. RELEASES SUCH AS THIS ARE INCONSISTENT WITH
MPS POLICY THAT SUSPECTS RETAIN THEIR ANONYMITY UNTIL CHARGED.

19/06/2015. SIO POLICY FILE

236

 2.4.126

A decision was taken to stop providing advance notice of media

releases to Kevin Allen. This was as a result of Exaro contacting DMC asking
if they would confirm that Mr. Proctor had been interviewed actually during
the interview. The SIO concluded that Kevin Allen had been the source of the
leak to Exaro because ‘Nick’ emailed DC Chatfield to say that Mark Conrad
rang to ask about 'that person' at 19.35 when the media lines had been sent
out at 19.15.

FINDING: THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE LIKELIHOOD THAT ‘NICK’ WAS
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LEAK AND THAT HIS PHONE CALL TO DC CHATFIELD
WAS DESIGNED TO DEFLECT SUSPICION FROM HIM.

07/07/2015. SIO POLICY FILE

2.4.127

A decision was taken to provide a corporate message to DC

Chatfield so that he may update ‘Nick’ regarding the progress of the
investigation. This information was to be provided to ‘Nick’ and was
extremely detailed. It involved disclosing details concerning the
identification of Martin Allen. ‘Nick’ was to be told that, in November 1979,
Martin Allen was 15 years old and was to be told that was in conflict with
‘Nick's’ description of ‘Boy 2’ being 11 or 12 years of age and being murdered
in the year 1980.

'I am now assessing the information we have been told about Martin to
establish whether or not there is no other conclusion that it is Martin. The
process to do that involves a workshop type meeting where I have sought the
support of an independent advisor to the police to check/challenge my
237

 thinking.'
2.4.128

‘Nick’ was to be informed that the police had been unable to trace

Scott, that they now have been in touch with J a number of times via email.
‘Nick’ was to be told that she was hoping to meet with ‘Nick’ and J. He was
to be told that further lines of enquiry involved speaking with National
Missing Persons, Met Missing Persons, National Crime Agency and the
Catchem database. ‘Nick’ was also to be informed of several matters that had
caused concern and also that the investigation was considering information
held in files that relate to investigations from the 1970’s and 1980’s which
involve sex offenders in Central London.

2.4.129

The rationale behind this was that since the update, after Harvey

Proctor was interviewed, ‘Nick’ has engaged less with his FLO and had asked
to be updated only with 'significant updates'. ‘Nick’ had said he was feeling
the strain and is not sure if he will be in a fit state to stand a trial.

FINDING: THE INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED TO ‘NICK’ FAR EXCEEDED HIS
ENTITLEMENT UNDER THE VICTIMS CHARTER AND, IN MY JUDGEMENT,
FAR MORE THAN WAS APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. IT WOULD
ENABLE HIM TO AMEND HIS ESTIMATE OF THE AGE OF ‘BOY 2’ AND
APPEARS TO INDICATE THAT THE SIO HAD CLOSED HER MIND TO THE
POSSIBILITY THAT THE ALLEGATIONS WERE FALSE.

‘NICK'S’ REDUCED ENGAGEMENT WITH HIS FLO’S, AND DOUBTS THAT HE
WOULD BE IN A FIT STATE TO STAND A TRIAL, WERE CONSISTENT WITH HIS
HAVING RECEIVED HIS £22,000 ON 01/04/2015.

238

 The information was already in the public domain and did not enable ‘Nick’
to amend his account.

By informing ‘Nick’ that Martin Allen was 15 when he went missing in
November 1979, ‘Nick’ might well have decided to say that he made a
mistake when saying that Martin Allen was 11/12 when he died in 1980. If
the facts were both in the public domain and known to ‘Nick’ there was little
purpose in giving him this information.

Whilst ‘Nick’ is being given a detailed account of this investigation every Gold
Group Meeting is discussing the likelihood of ‘Nick’s’ allegations being wholly
or partly false.

28/07/2015. SIR HUGH BEACH WAS INTERVIEWED AS A WITNESS

2.4.130

Sir Hugh described Lord Bramall as his immediate boss at Wilton

and as a great friend. He also knew Rolly Gibbs who was Commander in Chief
Land Forces for the first few months Sir Hugh was at Wilton. General Gibbs
conducted life with great flair and panache. The name Ray Beach meant
nothing to Sir Hugh. Of Lord Bramall he said:

'I cannot pick a man, a more upright man, a man I admire more for his moral
character'.

He had written in his published memoirs:

'I have never considered General Bramall as a rival or the man I had to beat
239

 because he was bound to win. He's a renaissance man, an excellent infantry
officer, painter and cricketer. He went on to achieve the Defence Staff during
the Falklands Campaign and is now a Member of the House of Lords and
Knight of the Garter. I owe him a great deal. He was always very flattering in
comments about me and gave a lovely benedictory speech when I left
Wilton.'

He described the allegation against Lord Bramall as a 'total fairy tale'. 'I can't
conceive that anything like that could ever have happened’. He said he had
never been to Dolphin Square or the Carlton Club. He had never met Maurice
Oldfield, Leon Brittan, Michael Hanley, or Greville Janner and had never
heard of Harvey Proctor. When he read that Police had raided Lord Bramall's
house he was horrified, but did not contact him because it was a difficult
thing to do and probably not very helpful.

FINDING: THIS INTERVIEW SHOULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE MONTHS EARLIER.
SIR HUGH WAS 92 YEARS OF AGE. HAD SIR HUGH DIED AND THIS EVIDENCE
NEVER BEEN TAKEN AND A TRIAL HAD FOLLOWED THE DEFENCE WOULD
HAVE BEEN SERIOUSLY DISADVANTAGED.

31/07/2015

2.4.131

Lord Bramall was interviewed for the second time. He was asked if

he knew Raymond Beach and was unable to recollect such person serving
under him saying:

'You will appreciate that in my 43 years’ service in the Army I have met an
240

 enormous number of people but I can't remember Raymond Beach.’
It was established that Raymond Beach arrived at Wilton in 1974 and Lord
Bramall arrived in 1976. For the first time it was put to Lord Bramall that
Raymond Beach introduced this child that they called ‘Nick’ to Lord Bramall
prior to the child being abused. Lord Bramall replied:

'I wonder what my Military Assistant and ADC and personal staff were doing
about this. Haven't you bothered to check with them. I mean he claimed he
was brought into my office I mean the security you couldn't have got in
without being signed in. I would never have seen a child in my office unless it
has been a child of one of the staff...A lot of my staff who were there at the
time would be able to say quite categorically that it never happened.’

Lord Bramall then agreed to supply details of his Military Assistant and his
ADC at the time. Lord Bramall indicated that he arrived at Wilton in the
middle of 1976. Lord Bramall pointed out that, as Commander in Chief at
Wilton at a time when the IRA threat was quite big, he had very little private
life, there was a certain amount of protection and every moment of the day
was arranged and monitored by his staff. He had never in his life molested a
child and it was not in his psyche to do so. His reputation was being damaged
on Google and it was not fair at his time of life. He asked that the matter be
cleared up as soon as possible and that he be taken out of the investigation.

31/07/2015. CONTACT LOG

2.4.132

'’Nick’ revealed some important information. He admitted when

referring to 'Aubrey' in his interviews quite often or primarily he was actually
241

 referring to the boy he later referred to as 'Fred' (John or J). He did state
Aubrey was abused by [IDENTITY] but is unsure if [IDENTITY] was part of the
'group'. He added he didn't know if Aubrey was ever part of the wider group,
but that he (‘Nick’) was 'made to do things' with him.'

FINDING: THIS WAS A SIGNIFICANT ADMISSION. ‘NICK’ HAD DELIBERATELY
LIED TO POLICE STATING THAT AUBREY WAS PRESENT AT BICESTER SEX
PARTIES. ‘NICK’ WAS NOW SAYING IT WAS FRED. THE REALITY IS THAT
‘NICK’ REALISED THAT THE POLICE, HAVING VISITED HIS MOTHER, WERE
LIKELY TO FIND AUBREY SHORTLY; AS THEY DID SHORTLY BEFORE
05/10/2015. AUBREY DENIED ANY INVOLVEMENT IN ANY ABUSE. ‘NICK’
WAS ANTICIPATING AUBREY'S EVIDENCE.

24/08/2015

2.4.133

Harvey Proctor was further interviewed. The name Ray Beach

meant nothing to him. He knew no such person. He did not recognise his
photograph. He was shown a pen knife given by ‘Nick’ to the police and
denied that it had ever been his. He questioned why he had not been asked
about the knife at the earlier interview. The proposition was put to Mr.
Proctor that he had threatened to cut ‘Nick's’ genitals with the knife and
Edward Heath intervened and told him “no”. The allegation was denied in
the strongest possible terms. Mr. Proctor told the officers that 'the fantasy
gets bigger by the minute'. He was then asked about Elm Guest House and
whether he had ever visited it. He denied ever visiting it and said that the list
on the internet of those who had visited was fraudulent. He told the officers
that they had been taken for a ride. He was shown an e-fit created by ‘Nick’
242

 of the boy Mr. Procter was alleged to have strangled and denied recognising
it. He was asked about Jimmy Savile and said that they both had connections
in Scarborough in Mr. Proctor's late teens and may have been at the same
garden party but they had never met in London or been to parties together.
Mr. Proctor pointed out that ‘Nick’ must know that Jimmy Savile was in the
firing line for paedophilia and thus included him in the allegation. Shortly
afterwards Mr. Proctor observed that it was a ridiculous interview. Nothing
of any relevance was achieved thereafter.

25/08/2015

2.4.134

Harvey Proctor held a press conference at the St Ermin's Hotel close

to New Scotland Yard. It was a most powerful declaration of his innocence
informing the press of the full contents of the disclosure documents
provided to him in advance of his interviews, in effect disclosing the totality
of the allegations by ‘Nick’. He went on to point out how unlikely it was that
he and Edward Heath would be involved in any joint activity. Each despised
the other. Heath despised Proctor for his views on limiting immigration from
New Commonwealth and Pakistan and Proctor despised Heath because he
sacked Proctor's political hero Enoch Powell. They were not on speaking
terms and ignored one another in the House of Commons.

2.4.135

He questioned how such a sex party could conceivably take place in

Edward Heath's home with CCTV, housekeeper, private secretary, chauffeur,
police and private detectives assigned to former Prime Ministers in the
security conscious days of the IRA's assault on London. He challenged anyone
who could place him at the home of Edward Heath or Leon Brittan to come
243

 forward. He pointed out that he was an ex-secondary modern schoolboy
from Yorkshire and was not part of the establishment and did not move in
the same circles as those accused with him. He pointed out that the
observation of DSU McDonald, 'I believe what ‘Nick’ is saying is credible and
true' was highly prejudicial to the police inquiry and its outcome. He made
the suggestion that he, Harvey Proctor, be arrested, charged and prosecuted
for three murders and numerous other offences so that he could start the
process of ridiculing the allegations, or, in the alternative, ‘Nick’ should be
stripped of his anonymity and prosecuted for wasting police time and for
attempting to pervert the course of justice. He had come to show his face as
an innocent man and to raise his voice as an aggrieved subject now deeply
concerned about the administration of justice.

11/09/2015. GOLD GROUP MINUTES

2.4.136

‘SIO has decided not to ask ‘Nick’ if they can examine his computer

to see if he has researched any of the information contained in his
allegations. She believes this will cause ‘Nick’ to disengage and does not want
to do this too early as it may damage our relationship. She wants to progress
lines of enquiry which can be tested before they reach the point that they
can 'test' ‘Nick's’ credibility. The SIO reported that, due to the media interest
and reporting, ‘Nick’ is thinking of walking away from this’.

FINDING: IF ‘NICK’ WAS GENUINE AND TRUTHFUL HE WOULD SURELY HAVE
NO OBJECTION TO HIS COMPUTER BEING EXAMINED. AN OBJECTIONABLE
AND INAPPROPRIATE IMBALANCE HAS PREVAILED. EVERY PIECE OF PAPER
IN THE HOMES OF THE SUSPECTS HAS BEEN PERUSED AND SEVERAL
244

 COMPUTERS SEIZED WHILST NO REQUEST HAS BEEN MADE TO EXAMINE
‘NICK'S’ COMPUTER HIS PHONE OR HIS JOURNALS.

2.4.137

At this stage of the investigation two potential witnesses, A and B,

were interviewed resulting in numerous enquiries being made. As there is
plainly no truth in the allegations of either I do not intend to repeat their
allegation in this review. As to witness A, a Senior Clinical Therapist reported
that A has admitted giving false information in the past about being
systematically sexually abused over a substantial period of time by a
paedophile ring. A manager of a clinic wrote to the Probation Service and
stated that A 'spent a long period of time giving misinformation and my
suspicion is that whether consciously or not he has a need to be mischievous.’
It was believed that A had done significant levels of internet research about
the matters that he had reported. Whilst being interviewed by another force,
A disclosed that he had spent 20 years 'hunting' for information on places
such as Dolphin Sq. and the Paedophile Information Exchange. A spoke about
trawling the internet to find out everything about a suspect in this case and
'still with that mentality that I'm going to fuck them all up' A has a significant
history of criminal offending, including sexual offences against children,
numerous fraud and theft offences. Very recently he had made a false claim
to the police concerning alleged threats. I have read the totality of the
investigation into this person’s evidence and it is manifestly worthless and
fraudulent.

2.4.138

B has convictions for theft fraud and violence. He has a brother in

the Church who states that B is a prolific liar who has told various untruths
about money and property that he has claimed to own. He had invented an
245

 allegation of being approached by a paedophile when, in fact, it had been his
other brother. B had alleged that he was abused by a priest at a named
cathedral when he, B, was 7 years old. When enquiries were made, the priest
did not move to that Cathedral until 7 years later. When Midland officers
showed an album of photos to B he was unable to identify any suspect, but
did select other photos chosen at random. I have studied his evidence with
care and it is plainly worthless. It is not suggested by any officer in the case
that either A or B could possibly be relied upon. Both deliberately lied.

2.4.139

I have included reference to A and B for two reasons. Firstly, their

allegations occupied considerable amounts of police time during this
investigation, and may well have prolonged it. Secondly, the danger of
continuously asking witnesses to come forward, and assuring them that they
will be believed, is that individuals of this character present themselves. I do
not intend to deal further with these individuals.

2.4.140

By failing to repeat the false accounts given by A and B I do not

intend to minimise the significance of their allegations. If their accounts had
withstood scrutiny it is highly likely that charges would have been brought
against the suspects. The evidence of A and B was detailed and lengthy and
was very properly investigated. The intervention of A and B unquestionably
prolonged this investigation.

23/09/2015. SIO POLICY FILE

2.4.141

A decision was made to apply for CIU comms data for the mobile

phone of ‘Nick’ in order to identify Fred. The SIO wrote:
246

 'Fred is the pseudonym of a man who is believed to have been a victim of
rape and physical abuse and also present at the alleged homicide of ‘Boy 3’.
The identity of Fred is known to ‘Nick’ but ‘Nick’ has given his word not to
reveal Fred's identity’.

05/10/2015 - OFFICE MEETINGS MINUTES - DCI

2.4.142

It was reported that ‘Nick’ does not want to continue with the

investigation because he feels that information has been leaked to the Press.
He has been ‘door stepped’ by the Sun and Panorama.

2.4.143

DS Sword reported that Aubrey had now been interviewed. He

stated that he may have known ‘Nick’ and remembers his mother owning a
sports car. He played down being his friend. He had not seen anything sexual
and had not been the victim of anything. ‘Nick’ has changed his account
about Aubrey. He originally stated that Aubrey was a victim with him and
then said that Aubrey was the name of a childhood friend that he had used
in place of the other victim's real name (known to the enquiry as Fred).

FINDING: ‘NICK’ HAS UNQUESTIONABLY LIED IN RELATION TO AUBREY,
JOHN, AND FRED. HE TOLD WILTSHIRE POLICE (TAPE 5) 'I WAS THE ONLY
CHILD PRESENT, BUT NOT ALWAYS. ABOUT A QUARTER OF THE TIME
ANOTHER CHILD WAS PRESENT, JUST ONE OTHER. HIS NAME WAS AUBREY.
WE BECAME FRIENDS FROM BICESTER'. IN MPS DISK 2 ‘NICK’ SAYS 'I
REMEMBER GOING TO THE CARLTON CLUB WHEN I WAS LIVING IN
KINGSTON, 3 OR 4 OF US WERE THERE. I CALL HIM FRED NOW 'THAT IS
247

 YOUR FAULT' (REFERRING TO THE INTERVIEWING OFFICER)'. FRED CANNOT
BE A PSEUDONYM FOR AUBREY BECAUSE AUBREY LIVED IN BICESTER NOT
KINGSTON. ON 06/05/2015 (OFFICERS MEETING NOTES) ‘NICK’ TOLD
POLICE THAT FRED WAS [FRIEND], HIS FRIEND FROM KINGSTON. FRED HAS
BECOME BOTH AUBREY FROM BICESTER AND [FRIEND] FROM KINGSTON
BUT THERE IS NO POSSIBLE REASON FOR AUBREY TO NEED A PSEUDONYM
AS HE WAS NEVER ABUSED. IN MY JUDGMENT, ‘NICK'S’ CREDIBILITY IS
GRAVELY AND FURTHER DAMAGED BY THESE INCONSISTENCIES. FURTHER,
IT HAD TAKEN FAR TOO LONG TO LOCATE AUBREY DUE TO THE DELAY IN
VISITING ‘NICK'S’ MOTHER.

2.4.144

It was reported that a comms data application for ‘Nick’ had been

considered and requested by the DAC. [GIST: QUEEN’S COUNSEL 1] had
advised that it is not a question of lawful necessity rather intrusion of privacy
and collateral intrusion. Ben Emmerson QC had a different view and thought
it a legitimate line of enquiry. The DCI thought the issue relating to ‘Nick's’
data was one of excessive collateral intrusion.

FINDING: I AGREE WITH WITH BEN EMMERSON. IT WAS NECESSARY TO
DISCOVER WHO ‘NICK’ WAS COMMUNICATING WITH. IT WAS EQUALLY
NECESSARY TO ASCERTAIN WHO ‘FRED’ WAS.

13/10/2015. OFFICE MEETING MINUTES - DCI

2.4.145

The SIO stated that enquiries to trace Fred are ongoing. Regarding

the e-mail address subscriber details for Fred (Proton) it would require an
international letter of request from the CPS for Switzerland. Switzerland
248

 would operate outside RIPA so a Court Order would be required. The SIO
stated that there had been no recent contact with Fred via email.

2.4.146

The Daily Mail had recently published an article in which details of

‘Nick’ had been published which may lead to the identification of ‘Nick’.
Officers were seeing ‘Nick’ today to obtain a statement with a view to
prosecuting the Daily Mail.

21/10/2015. EMAIL from ‘Nick’ to his FLO

2.4.147

‘Nick’ writes:

'I have been going through my diary and I am just not sure when I would be
in a position to do the ID and interview this side of Christmas. I have listed
the weeks below with possible dates, but that could change'.

‘Nick’ then listed the dates with the only free dates:

'might be able to do the 23rd November and that might change. Might be
able to do the 16th or 17th December'.

He continued:

'Things are very tight at work at the moment as you can see, I don't know
how long you would expect the interview or the IDs to last? Or how important
it is to do it quicker or whether it can wait.'

249

 2.4.148

In due course officers offered to carry out the IDs and the interview

on the 23rd November but ‘Nick’ wrote, on the 6th November, saying that the
23rd was no longer possible as he had a meeting booked and he had been
told he had to attend. His FLO had previously offered evenings or weekends
but ‘Nick’ had declined on 22/10/2015 saying 'You offered the
evening/weekend but this is my family time'.

22/10/2015. Operation Winterkey and Midland Meeting

2.4.149

The DAC stressed the need to expedite the enquiries into Operation

Midland.

'The file has gone to the CPS for an Early Investigative Advice concerning Lord
Bramall and we need to push for a timeline. It was agreed we would like the
Early Investigative Advice within two weeks'.

2.4.150

The ILOR had now been served and the CPS are of the view that a

Swiss Court will need to look at it.

2.4.151

The DAC indicated that a TIU application had been submitted in

respect of ‘Nick's’ phone around the time ‘Nick’ had allegedly met with Fred
in France. He has been informed that the application has been progressed.
The data was obtained lawfully 'but the question of whether or not we can
now use this data needs to be understood. We need to seek legal advice
concerning this’. There was a discussion concerning the pros and cons of
examining the billing data.

250

 FINDING: WHERE BILLING DATA IS OBTAINED LAWFULLY IT NECESSARILY
FOLLOWS THAT IT IS LAWFUL TO EXAMINE THE DATA. WHY ELSE WOULD
THE LAW PERMIT IT TO BE OBTAINED?

Leading Counsel had advised the SIO that an application would be unlikely
to be seen as necessary or proportionate. However, unknown to the SIO, an
Independent Authorising Officer had already authorized the application.
Accordingly, when the phone billing was received, the resulting data was not
analysed. The decision was endorsed by AC Gallan.

Since the information was, in fact, obtained lawfully I can see no reason why
the billing data was not examined. I accept that Midland Officers acted in
good faith in deciding not to examine it. I consider, however, that it would
have been lawful to examine the data and that it may be highly relevant in
any contemplated future proceedings.

2.4.152

One line of enquiry remaining was for ‘Nick’ to do a WADS (Witness

Album Display System). The DAC asked:

'Once WADS is done and we have taken the Fred line of enquiry as far as
possible what line of enquiry are left to progress?'

It was said that house to house enquiries remained to be done but the DAC
asked that consideration be given to what a proportionate amount of
resources is to achieve the aim. There was a discussion regarding what was
proportionate to do before a view could be taken on whether to continue
with the investigation.
251

 FINDING: THE USE OF ANY WADS EVIDENCE IN A TRIAL WOULD ALMOST
CERTAINLY BE EXCLUDED HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT ‘NICK’ HAD,
IN ADVANCE OF THIS INVESTIGATION, BEEN SHOWN IMAGES OF THE
SUSPECTS BY MARK CONRAD AND AN IMAGE OF MARTIN ALLEN BY TOM
BATEMAN, TOM SYMONDS AND PETER MCKELVIE. THIS IS THE FIRST
INDICATION AT ANY MEETING THAT THIS INVESTIGATION MAY HAVE TO BE
DISCONTINUED. I NOTE THAT THE SIO WAS NOT PRESENT.

27/10/2015

2.4.153

At the request of the CPS the DI prepared a list of consistencies and

inconsistencies in ‘Nick's’ evidence. She itemised a total of 12
inconsistencies, 8 of which were in existence at the commencement of this
investigation. The same DI had authorised the statements placed before the
District Judge on 02/03/2015 in support of the application for search
warrants. Those statements stated that ‘Nick’ had been consistent.

2.4.154

A second schedule of ‘Nick’s’ inconsistencies was prepared by an

analyst on the instructions of a senior officer and was in existence prior to
the review of Mr. Fitzgerald (commissioned by the DAC 24/11/15). Mr.
Fitzgerald commented that the analyst had ‘done a good job’. Again this
document is wholly inconsistent with the representations made to the
District Judge on the 02/03/15.

FINDING:

THE

DOCUMENT

DETAILING

‘NICK'S’

INCONSISTENCIES

SUBMITTED TO THE CPS, DATED 27/10/2015, IS INCONSISTENT AND
252

 IRRECONCILABLE WITH THE STATEMENTS AUTHORISED BY THE SAME
OFFICER ON 27/02/2015 AND PLACED BEFORE THE DISTRICT JUDGE ON
02/03/2015.

06/11/2015 - OFFICE MEETINGS MINUTES - DCI

2.4.155

The SIO outlined plans for House to House enquiries to commence

in Pimlico and Victoria to identify information on suspicious sexual activity
that took place at that location around the time of ‘Nick's’ allegations. A
'witness strategy is to be undertaken to identify people involved in the rent
boy community at the time of the offences, the objective being to identify the
blond haired male seen with Martin Allen....100's of potential nominals have
been identified. Actions have been raised and ready for allocation.' The SIO
suggested a timeline of one month for house to house enquiries but longer
for the rent boy scene. It was pointed out that there are 144 addresses
identified in London and 193 addresses outside London. The SIO pointed out
that there are concerns over Lord Bramall's age and concerns over reaching
a resolution whilst he is alive.

FINDING: THESE STEPS APPEAR TO BE BORDERING ON THE HYSTERICAL
AND DISPROPORTIONATE HAVING REGARD TO THE STATE OF ‘NICK'S’
CREDIBILITY. HE HAS MISLED OFFICERS CONCERNING AUBREY AND
[FRIEND]. NO ‘SCOTT’ WAS EVER KILLED OR SERIOUSLY INJURED AND
‘NICK'S’ EVIDENCE IS WHOLLY INCONSISTENT WITH HIS MOTHER'S AND
INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT.

It was deemed appropriate to conduct historic house to house enquires to
253

 identify residents from the relevant time period who could give evidence
about the disappearance of Martin Allen and any other concerns involving
child abuse. ‘Nick’ had drawn a picture of [Nos.] Ecclestone Square and that
property had been occupied at the time by persons with convictions for
paedophile offences. DSU Sweeney had suggested house to house enquires
in his review in April 2015.

The occupants of [Nos.] Ecclestone Square were part of a notorious gang of
paedophiles and ‘Nick’ had been taken for walks in that locality by his
journalist supporters. DSU Sweeney’s suggestion was made seven months
earlier and by now (06/11/2015) this investigation was on its last legs. House
to house enquires represented a very long shot given the 35-year time lapse.

17/11/2015. EMAIL ‘Nick’ to DC Chatfield

2.4.156

'I have been going through my diary and don't have any free time

this side of the New Year'....'I am also sorry for not letting you know about
the CICA. I assumed you knew as I hadn't raised it again'.

FINDING: THE MPS HAVE NOW LEARNED THAT ‘NICK’ HAS BEEN PAID OUT
BY THE CICA AND IT IS CLEAR THAT HE IS DOING ALL HE CAN TO AVOID
BEING FURTHER INTERVIEWED.

24/11/2015. OPERATION MIDLAND TIMELINE MEETING

2.4.157

‘Nick’ has agreed to a further interview and a WADS viewing in the

first week in December. DSU S has spoken to [GIST: PROFESSOR 2] and she
254

 has further questions regarding ‘Nick's’ ABE interviews. [GIST: PROFESSOR
2] has expressed concern regarding ‘Nick's’ Counsellor and her qualifications.
The Counsellor’s notes are poor. Nothing significant has been learned from
house to house enquiries. Once complete DSU Scott will make a judgment
call on whether or not to pursue further. Lord Bramall's Aide de Camp is to
be traced. The DAC believes his details are in Lord Bramall's interview.

FINDING: LORD BRAMALL WAS INTERVIEWED ON 31/07/2015 AND
ASSERTED THAT ‘NICK'S’ ALLEGATION WAS IMPOSSIBLE BY REASON OF THE
PRESENCE OF HIS ADC AND OTHER MILITARY PERSONEL. HE PROVIDED
DETAILS. THIS IS ALMOST FOUR MONTHS LATER AND ENQUIRIES WHICH
ARE CAPABLE OF ESTABLISHING LORD BRAMALL'S INNOCENCE HAVE STILL
NOT BEEN MADE. IN ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES THIS IS MOST REGRETTABLE.

It is accepted that the delay in speaking to [MILITARY OFFICER 2] was an
error.

01/12/2015. OPERATION MIDLAND MEETING

2.4.158

The SIO reported that ‘Nick’ had agreed to be interviewed on 30th

November but, shortly before, he cancelled on the grounds of work
commitments. Efforts were made to counter this but he is not prepared to
take more time off work. He is prepared to do the WADS on 5th December
but says he is too tired to do the interview. Attempts have been made to
persuade him but unsuccessfully. On being asked what it was hoped a further
interview might achieve the SIO stated that the interview plan was extensive
and included questions relating to his injuries, i.e. who saw them and who
255

 did he tell. In the past questions have been very open and more detailed
interviews needed to take place. His counselling notes have been reviewed.
The SIO believed [GIST: PROFESSOR 2] report was important and believed it
could 'influence our decision making’.

2.4.159

The DAC could not see how her report will strengthen the case in

terms of the evidence available and the existing problems with the
weaknesses of evidence (no corroborating injuries, no explanation of how he
could have been removed from school, no further witnesses, Fred, failure to
name Bramall immediately).

FINDING: I BELIEVE THAT, BUT FOR THE FALSE INFORMATION BEING
PEDALLED BY WITNESSES A AND B, THAT THE DAC WOULD HAVE
TERMINATED THE INVESTIGATION AT THIS STAGE. I UNRESERVEDLY ACCEPT
THAT THEIR INTERVENTION PROLONGED THE INVESTIGATION.

IT IS REGRETTABLE THAT ‘NICK’ WAS NOT ASKED, AT THE OUTSET OF THIS
INVESTIGATION, WHAT INJURIES HE SUFFERED, WHO SAW THEM, AND
WHETHER HE WAS PREPARED TO BE EXAMINED FOR SCARS, HEALED
FRACTURES, AND ANALLY. HIS ALLEGATIONS DID INCLUDE RAPE AND
INFLICTING GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM.

On 17/12/2015 the CPS advised that the absence of injuries would not
enable Operation Midland to conclude that buggery had not occurred.
Equally, if there was damage, then there was a range of other explanations.

In my judgement it was essential to ask ‘Nick’ if he was prepared to be
256

 examined. He had alleged, at various times, numerous injuries, including
several fractures and had alleged innumerable violent anal rapes with
considerable and frequent bleeding. Since a request was eventually made in
January 2016, Midland Officers presumably agree.

01/12/2015. SIO POLICY FILE

2.4.160

The SIO nominated an American Citizen as a POI (Person of

Interest). I will not name him for reasons which will become clear. Shortly
after the interviews of October 2014, Peter McKelvie emailed ‘Nick’
providing him with the name of an American who might have been one of
his abusers. ‘Nick’ did not respond.

2.4.161

This was yet another example of a freelance journalist providing

information to ‘Nick’ which he might utilise. There is not a jot of evidence
against the American and yet he finds himself now a POI in a case involving
the gravest of allegations. Had ‘Nick’ adopted the name he would necessarily
have become a suspect.

09/12/2015. OPERATION MIDLAND TIMELINE MEETING

2.4.162

The position with ‘Nick’ still had not changed. The team were trying

to get him to commit to a date in January. Enquiries with Lord Bramall's ADC
were now complete. He stated that the office was heavily secure in terms of
always having people around it. He said that it was unlikely that children had
ever been in there but could not be certain that this had never happened.

257

 2.4.163

The DAC was keen that ‘Nick’ be asked if he is willing to take part in

a medical examination. The SIO said she would seek NCA advice on the
matter and carry out a risk assessment using their guidelines for working
with vulnerable victims. The DAC did not agree and expressed a preference
for asking him if he would consent to being examined. 'Nick' needs to know
what is required from him to take this investigation forward and, in any
event, if a prosecution is forthcoming, a defence team would want these
enquiries carried out. The SIO was nervous about speaking to ‘Nick’ in
December about these issues as he has already been clear that December is
a difficult time for him and she is concerned that this will add to his trauma.
Enquiries are being made with CICA to establish on what basis the
compensation claim was paid out on.

FINDING: NO SUFFICIENT CONSIDERATION APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN
BY THE SIO TO THE PLIGHT OF THE SUSPECTS WHILST EVERY POSSIBLE
CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO ‘NICK’. I CAN SEE NO POSSIBLE
OBJECTION TO ASKING HIM IF HE WILL AGREE TO A MEDICAL
EXAMINATION.

ENQUIRIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN FEBRUARY OF THE CICA AS TO
THE BASIS OF ‘NICK'S’ CLAIM AND NOTIFYING THEM THAT THE
METROPOLITAN

POLICE

WERE

NOW

INVESTIGATING

‘NICK'S’

ALLEGATIONS. HAD ENQUIRIES BEEN MADE THEY WOULD HAVE REVEALED
THAT ‘NICK’ INFORMED THE CICA THAT HE HAD SUFFERED NO INJURIES.

17/12/2015. OPERATION MIDLAND TIMELINE MEETING

258

 2.4.164

The date for ‘Nick's’ WADS meeting and further interview has been

agreed for 17th January. This was the earliest date he would agree to. He has
cancelled appointments for 23rd and 30th November and 5th December. CPS
advised that an intrusive examination of ‘Nick’ would not take the
investigation further forward. The DAC challenged the view and asked if it
was backed by a medical opinion. It was said their view was based on other
cases and case law. They felt that an intimate examination was too intrusive
when balanced against the benefit of this from an evidential perspective.
Even if evidence of anal tearing was present, it is unlikely we would be able
to draw an inference of abuse from it nor would it indicate who was
responsible for the abuse. Equally the lack of such damage would not negate
the possibility that the offence occurred.

FINDING: EVERY CASE MUST BE CONSIDERED ON ITS OWN FACTS. ‘NICK’
ALLEGES THAT HE WAS BUGGERED NUMEROUS TIMES AND WITH GREAT
FORCE FROM THE AGE OF 7 TO 15 AND WAS FREQUENTLY CAUSED TO
BLEED. I CONSIDER IT HIGHLY LIKELY THAT IF HE HAD BEEN SO ABUSED THAT
THERE WOULD BE SOME INDICATION THEREOF. AN UNDAMAGED ANAL
CANAL WOULD (SUBJECT TO MEDICAL OPINION) TEND TO NEGATE HIS
ALLEGATIONS AND, ACCORDINGLY, IN CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION
WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOUR, ‘NICK’ SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED WHETHER
HE WOULD CONSENT TO SUCH AN EXAMINATION. IF HE HAS NEVER BEEN
DAMAGED HE WOULD IN ALL LIKELIHOOD DECLINE. DEFENCE LAWYERS
WOULD CERTAINLY ASK PRE-TRIAL WHETHER HE HAD BEEN GIVEN THE
OPPORTUNITY TO BE EXAMINED.

2.4.165

‘Nick’ was to be told that it is vital that the interview takes place on
259

 11th January and there can be no further delays. The SIO wants ‘Nick’ to do a
CT scan as it will be less intrusive. There was a discussion regarding the
seizing of ‘Nick's’ computers. The CPS view is that it would be a waste of
resources. We would be looking to prove that he did not do internet
research. This would only take us so far. It would not prove that he has not
conducted research on suspects and premises using another form of access
to the internet.

FINDING: THE CPS ARGUMENT MISSES THE POINT THAT THE POLICE HAVE
A DUTY TO INVESTIGATE WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOUR AND SEIZURE OF
‘NICK'S’ COMPUTER MAY PROVE THAT HE HAS BEEN RESEARCHING AND
MAY DISCLOSE THAT ‘NICK’ IS ‘FRED’. A LINE OF INVESTIGATION SHOULD
NOT BE AVOIDED MERELY BECAUSE IT CAN ONLY ASSIST A SUSPECT.

2.4.166

[GIST: PROFESSOR 2] report has now been received. The DAC asked

why this had not been commissioned earlier in the investigation. The SIO said
that the CPS had advised against it. [GIST: PROFESSOR 2] had concluded that
‘Nick's’ accounts contain numerous inconsistencies. She concluded that
there must be serious doubt about the reliability of his account.

FINDING: THE ADVICE OF THE CPS IS PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE. THE
EVIDENCE OF A PSYCHOLOGIST, HOWEVER EMINENT, CANNOT BE
DEPLOYED TO USURP THE FUNCTION OF A JURY. PSYCHIATRIC EVIDENCE
CANNOT BE CALLED TO PROVE THE PROBABILITY OF A WITNESS'S
VERACITY. IT IS FOR THE POLICE PRE-CHARGE TO ASSESS THE CREDIBILITY
OF A WITNESS AND TO ANALYSE INCONSISTENCIES IN A WITNESS'S
ACCOUNT. [GIST: PROFESSOR 2] WAS, TO A CONSIDERABLE DEGREE,
260

 REACHING A CONCLUSION ON ‘NICK'S’ INCONSISTENCIES WHICH WAS
AVAILABLE TO THE INVESTIGATION TEAM AND HAD BEEN FOR SOME TIME.

2.4.167

[GIST: PROFESSOR 2] was critical of the interviewing technique of

the interviewing officer stating that there appeared to be a number of
leading questions and that the general thrust of the questioning and the
interviews as a whole was to wholeheartedly endorse ‘Nick's’ account
without inviting him to critically consider the basis of his assertions (as was
also the case with his Counsellor). The DAC questioned whether this was
simply [GIST: PROFESSOR 2] opinion and if the interviews were compliant
with MPS standards.

FINDING: I HAVE SEEN THE OFFICER AND DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT FEW,
IF ANY, INCONSISTENCIES WERE PUT TO ‘NICK’ IN INTERVIEW. THERE IS A
GOOD EXPLANATION. HE HAD NEVER BEEN INFORMED OF THE CONTENTS
OF THE WILTSHIRE INTERVIEWS NOR THE CONTENTS OF ‘NICK'S’ BLOGS
THAT PRECEDED HIS INTERVIEWS. FURTHER, BETWEEN 23/10/2014, WHEN
THE EARLIER INTERVIEWS TOOK PLACE, AND HIS FURTHER INTERVIEW OF
27/04/2015, DS TOWNLY WAS NOT INVITED TO ATTEND ANY OF THE CASE
MANAGEMENT MEETINGS (GOLD GROUP, THE DSU's WEEKLY BRIEFING, OR
THE SIO's OFFICE MEETINGS). I FIND THIS FACT DIFFICULT TO
COMPREHEND. IN A CASE SUCH AS THIS, THE INTERVIEWER NEEDS TO
KNOW ALL RELEVANT FACTS. AS THE SIO OBSERVED AT THIS MEETING:

'THERE ARE A LOT OF DETAILS WHICH ‘NICK’ NEEDS TO BE CHALLENGED
ON'.

261

 MOST OF THOSE MATTERS DERIVE FROM INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN
INTERVIEWS AND BLOGS. THE INTERVIEWING OFFICER WAS NOT
INFORMED OF THEM AND THUS COULD NOT SEEK TO RESOLVE THEM IN
INTERVIEW.

2.4.168

DSU and the SIO reported on a meeting with the CPS that morning

when they were told that the CPS were very concerned about the impact of
[GIST: PROFESSOR 2] report on the case. They had indicated verbally that
'they were unlikely to bring any prosecution as a result of ‘Nick's’ allegations
as a result of [GIST: PROFESSOR 2] report'. They maintained that the decision
to NFA is one for the police. The DAC asked what the team hope to achieve
through the further interview with ‘Nick’. The SIO responded that there were
lots of details ‘Nick’ needed to be challenged on. The DAC initiated a
discussion regarding the proportionality of keeping Lord Bramall and Mr.
Proctor under investigation having considered the CPS advice relating to the
Psychologists report. No decision was taken to terminate the investigation.

FINDING: THE DAC WAS VERY OBVIOUSLY OF A MIND TO END THE
INVESTIGATION AND HAD IN MIND THE FAIRNESS OF KEEPING LORD
BRAMALL AND MR PROCTOR UNDER INVESTIGATION WHEN ALL LINES OF
INVESTIGATION HAD IN REALITY BEEN EXHAUSTED AND, IN ANY EVENT,
‘NICK'S’ CREDIBILITY WAS IRREPERABLY DAMAGED. I AM OF THE OPINION
THAT THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN TERMINATED ON THIS DATE
AT THE VERY LATEST. THERE WERE SEVERAL EARLIER OCCASIONS WHEN IT
WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE TO DO SO.

262

 06/01/2016

2.4.169

Officers continued to investigate allegations of A and B and house

to house enquiries had continued.

2.4.170

A discussion took place concerning the proposed interview with

‘Nick’. The DAC asked the SIO what the contingency plan was in the event
that ‘Nick’ decided not to complete the interview. It was said:

'We know that he is a vulnerable man and he has been reluctant to commit
to this interview and that this one will be more challenging than any previous
interviews'.

The SIO said she was satisfied that the interview had been arranged in
chronological order (which in her view made the most sense) and had been
properly planned by people with the requisite experience. The DAC was
concerned that the questions relating to Martin Allen were at the end of the
interview and that ‘Nick’ may disengage before dealing with that aspect of
the investigation. The SIO agreed that the order of questions should be
altered so that Martin Allen would be dealt with at the outset. The SIO
pointed out that there was a huge amount of material to be put to ‘Nick’.
She indicated that there were likely to be a number of enquiries that were
likely to be generated as a result of the interview.

11/01/2016. Final Interview of ‘Nick’. (Please see interview summaries)

263

 2.4.171

‘Nick’ did, as anticipated by the DAC, discontinue at a comparatively

early stage of the interview process. He pleaded illness. It is manifest from
the content of the interview that the problems facing ‘Nick’ were
insurmountable. He faced difficulties over his alleged hospitalisation after his
stepfather allegedly first raped him (unbeknown to his mother) and further
difficulties over his statement that his stepfather raped him several times in
Kingston, when he had earlier told the police that he last saw his stepfather
being taken off by police in Bicester, some two years earlier. He was asked
why he failed to mention Lord Bramall's name to the Wiltshire Police. He said
he thought they would find out and that he did not want to be the one that
gave the name. When the topic turned to Middle Eastern, Saudi and
American Diplomats ‘Nick’ said that he was ill. The SIO took the view that he
should be interviewed further at a later date. ‘Nick’ agreed to return on
14/01/2016 but cancelled the day before pleading work commitments.

14/01/2016. Conference Call Operation Midland

2.4.172

A decision was taken to discontinue against Lord Bramall but to

continue to investigate the case against Mr. Proctor. The material seized in
the search had not been fully examined and Witnesses A and B were to be
re-interviewed.

FINDING: I DISAGREE WITH THIS DECISION. THE CASE AGAINST BOTH
SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCONTINUED. IT HAD BECOME IMPOSSIBLE TO CALL
‘NICK’ AS A WITNESS AND, WITHOUT HIM, THERE WAS NO POSSIBLE
EVIDENCE OF ANY MURDER NOR ANY ACT OF ABUSE OF ‘NICK’.

264

 The Officers contend that it was a correct to discontinue against Lord Bramall
and to continue against Mr. Proctor.

Irrespective of any evidence that A and B might give, if ‘Nick’ was credible
against Mr. Proctor then he was credible against Lord Bramall. The CPS had
already advised that if he was incredible in the case of one he was incredible
in the case of the other. In my judgement, the time had long since passed
when both suspects should have been told that no further action would be
taken.

21/01/2016. OPERATION MIDLAND TIMELINE MEETING

2.4.173

‘Nick’ and solicitors for both Lord Bramall and Mr. Proctor were

informed of the decision of 14/01/2016. ‘Nick’ had been 'doorstepped' by
the Daily Mail following the MPS press release and has stated that he can no
longer cope. 'Welfare is in place and attempts are made daily to arrange a
visit'. Lord Bramall's solicitor has indicated three areas of concern. There was
no sufficient investigation into ‘Nick's’ veracity before the search, there was
insufficient evidence to justify a search, and it took far too long to remove
him from the investigation. The DS was liaising with Lord Bramall's solicitor
concerning property that needs to be restored. ‘Nick’ is refusing to provide
his journal in its entirety, only partially disclosed to the Operation Midland
team. He will not hand it over due to other names in the journal. ‘Nick’ has
received £22,000 in compensation from CICA.

FINDING: I AGREE WITH EACH ONE OF LORD BRAMALL'S SOLICITOR’S
CONCERNS. IN ADDITION, IT APPEARS THAT PROPERTY SEIZED FROM LORD
265

 BRAMALL SHOULD HAVE BEEN RETURNED VERY MUCH SOONER. NONE OF
IT HAD ANY CONCEIVABLE PROBATIVE VALUE AND ALL DOCUMENTATION
COULD IN ANY EVENT HAVE BEEN COPIED. SEE PACE 1984 s22(1) s22(2)(a)
and s22(4).

27/01/2016. OPERATION MIDLAND TIMELINE MEETING

2.4.174

'’Nick’ has been seen and his main concern is the harassment and

false reporting in the media. He has had enough, physically and emotionally.
No further request will be made for his consent to a medical examination or
interview. ‘Nick’ has confirmed that Fred is aware of the NFA against Lord
Bramall. ‘Nick’ will try and contact Fred. He has not heard from him since
September 2015. If ‘Nick’ does attempt any contact with Fred, then we will
send a supporting email from the Operation Midland team to request an
informal meeting'.

2.4.175

'CPS are dealing with the ILOR which is currently going through the

Swiss Courts. The CPS do not anticipate hearing anything until around March
2016. The DAC is concerned at the length of time the ILOR is taking and that
any decision to NFA may impact on the Swiss investigation'.

2.4.176

‘A discussion was had around ‘Nick's' phone data and if there is a

need to submit a new application which 'may help identify Fred's existence'.

2.4.177

Statements of A and B continue to be scrutinised.

266

 09/02/2016

2.4.178

‘There was a discussion regarding bringing Operation Midland to a

conclusion but the DAC stressed that this would not be brought forward
prematurely. The SIO takes a very firm view that we should not ask ‘Nick’ for
his computer. She believes this will set a dangerous precedent for victims and
we know that he is resolute in his decision not to compromise Fred. By giving
up his computer, he would potentially reveal the identity of Fred and he is
clear that this is not something he would be willing to do’.

2.4.179

The SIO does not see any evidential value in seizing the original

journals in their entirety as they contain certain information regarding other
suspects whose identity he is not willing to disclose. There was a discussion
regarding the value of seizing them and what action police would take if
‘Nick’ refused to hand over the journal. The SIO believed it was too late to
carry out this enquiry.

FINDING: I CAN SEE NO POSSIBLE DISADVANTAGE IN ASKING ‘NICK’ TO
ALLOW THE POLICE TO EXAMINE HIS COMPUTER AND HIS JOURNALS ON A
PURELY VOLUNTARY BASIS. I AM SURE THAT HE WOULD HAVE REFUSED
BUT

THE

POTENTIAL

ADVANTAGES

ARE

CONSIDERABLE

ALBEIT

SPECULATIVE. SEIZURE OF EITHER ARTICLE WOULD BE A BREACH OF
ARTICLE 8 ECHR UNLESS OFFICERS HAD REASONABLE GROUNDS TO
SUSPECT THAT ‘NICK’ HAD COMMITTED A CRIMINAL ACT. I BELIEVE THAT
THEY HAD BUT THE SIO DID NOT SO CONSIDER AND, ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS
NOT POSSIBLE TO SEIZE THE COMPUTER OR JOURNAL LAWFULLY.
267

 2.4.180

There was a brief discussion regarding the recent criticism in media

concerning the amount of time it took to trace Lord Bramall's staff. The SIO
stated that it took a long time to find out the information regarding who was
employed in Lord Bramall's office at the relevant times.

FINDING: A MAJOR CONTRIBUTING FACTOR WAS THAT THERE WAS NO
DISCLOSURE IN THE FIRST INTERVIEW (30/04/2015) OF THE FACT THAT IT
WAS ALLEGED THAT BUGGERY TOOK PLACE IN LORD BRAMALL'S OFFICE AT
WILTON BARRACKS. THIS WAS NOT DISCLOSED UNTIL THE SECOND
INTERVIEW (31/07/2015). IN CERTAIN CASES, PARTIAL DISCLOSURE CAN BE
JUSTIFIED BUT THIS WAS CERTAINLY NOT SUCH A CASE. THIS WAS
RESPONSIBLE FOR 3 MONTHS DELAY. HOWEVER, IT WAS NOT UNTIL
24/11/2015, THAT OPERATION MIDLAND TIMELINE MINUTES READ 'LORD
BRAMALL'S AIDE DE CAMP TO BE TRACED'. THIS FURTHER DELAY OF
ALMOST 4 MONTHS IS REPREHENSIBLE.

03/03/2016. OPERATION MIDLAND TIMELINE MEETING

2.4.181

Witnesses A and B continued to be considered. The SIO reported

that both had quite chaotic lifestyles and it is very difficult to arrange any
kind of meeting.

2.4.182

The DAC was frustrated by the lack of progress with the ILOR and

asked for an explanation for the delay. [GIST: CPS 3] of the CPS had said she
would provide an update by Easter but also expressed the view that if a
decision was taken to close down the Operation then the grounds to
268

 continue with the ILOR cease to exist. The DAC took the view that even if
Midland is closed down the ILOR remained a legitimate line of enquiry.

FINDING: I AGREE WITH THE DAC. THE ILOR IS OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE.
IF ‘NICK’ HAS PRETENDED TO BE FRED, THE MARTIN ALLEN FAMILY CAN BE
ASSURED THAT EVERY WORD SPOKEN BY ‘NICK’ IS UNTRUE AND THAT
‘NICK'S’ GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION OF MARTIN'S MURDER IS A FABRICATION.
I WAS INFORMED BY THE DAC THAT THE ILOR HAS NOW LAPSED AND NOT
BEEN RENEWED BY OFFICERS NOW INVESTIGATING THE DEATH OF MARTIN
ALLEN. I FAIL TO SEE THE LOGIC IN SUCH A DECISION.

10/03/2016. OPERATION MIDLAND AND WINTER KEY MEETING

2.4.183

The DAC indicated that he was likely to decide that no further action

should be taken against Mr. Proctor, but a number of matters remained
unresolved, including Fred, ‘Nick's’ journals and the Martin Allen case.

18/03/2016. OPERATION MIDLAND TIMELINE MEETING

2.4.184

'On Monday 21st March Harvey Proctor will be notified through his

solicitor that no further action will be taken in respect of the investigation
against him.

2.4.185

We will need to be clear that we have found no evidence of ‘Nick’

wilfully misleading the investigation team or anything which would amount
to an offence of perverting the course of justice. We have investigated a
number of allegations which we have been unable to prove or disprove.'
269

 FINDING: I FUNDAMENTALLY DISAGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT. ‘NICK’ HAD
MISLED THE INVESTIGATION AS OFFICERS I INTERVIEWED ACCEPTED. HE
FALSELY ASSERTED THAT AUBREY FROM BICESTER WAS ABUSED, AND THAT
[FRIEND] FROM KINGSTON WAS ABUSED. HE SAID THAT SCOTT WAS
KILLED. [GIST: PROFESSOR 2] HAD WRITTEN OF ‘NICK'S’ MANY
INCONSISTENCIES. THIS APPROACH WAS GROSSLY UNFAIR TO THOSE
ACCUSED BY ‘NICK’. THEY HAD BEEN UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR A
PROLONGED PERIOD AND THEY AND THEIR FAMILIES AND THE FAMILIES
OF OTHER SUSPECTS WERE ENTITLED TO BE TOLD THAT ‘NICK'S’ ACCOUNTS
WERE INCONSISTENT AND UNTRUTHFUL.

The MPS press statement on 21/03/16 stated:

‘In the course of the investigation, officers have not found evidence to prove
that they were knowingly misled by a complainant. The MPS does not
investigate complainants simply on the basis that their allegations have not
been corroborated.’

I disagree with the assertion that no evidence was found to prove that
officers were knowingly misled. It is common ground that ‘Nick’ lied about
Aubrey from Bicester having been sexually abused at several sex parties. It is
manifest that no ‘Scott’ was murdered outside Coombe Hill Primary School.
It is clear that ‘Nick’ has given conflicting version of events to two different
police forces. This closing statement was unfair to every one of those persons
named by ‘Nick’ as his abusers and especially unfair to Lord Bramall and
Harvey Proctor who have had to live through the ordeal of facing these
270

 shocking allegations over a prolonged period. Those named, their families,
Martin Allen's family, and the Public needed to be informed that ‘Nick’ had
given inconsistent versions to two different Police forces and that several
asserted facts had been found to be untrue.

271

 The Reviews
2.5.1 During Operation Midland two reviews were ordered. The first was
ordered by AC Gallan on 23rd March 2015. On 10th March she received a
call from the Commissioner who was concerned about a number of
warrants that had been executed in relation to Operation Midland. I have
recited her response to that concern and her meeting with the DAC and
Det. Supt. John Sweeney (DSU) on 23rd March in the resume of the
Investigation. She had a number of concerns, namely that ‘Nick’ was not
corroborated, there was a reluctance to track down ‘Nick’, there was a
reluctance to speak to the SIO who had investigated the Martin Allen case,
the involvement of the CPS was unclear, and standard review processes
had not taken place at 24 hours, 7 days or 28 days. AC Gallan asked DSU
Sweeney to carry out this review due to his experience of historical child
abuse cases. I interviewed Mr. Sweeney on 08/09/2016. The decision to
order a review at this stage was clearly correct and fully justified.

2.5.2 DSU Sweeney carried out this review on his own. The AC initially wanted
him to deal with the question of whether there should be voluntary
interviews with Lord Bramall and Harvey Proctor. He reported back on the
day he was first approached having concluded that the interviews should
go ahead as soon as they could be arranged. That decision was also clearly
right and I need not review the DSU's reasoning. Thereafter he turned his
attention to the Operation as a whole. He described his review to me as a
snapshot. His concern was ‘where is the investigation at this point'. The
DSU concluded that the investigation was not as far forward as he would
have wanted it to be. There were allegations of a single witness with no
272

 effective corroboration or support for ‘Nick's’ allegations. His concern was
that the investigation needed to focus on corroboration or support for
‘Nick's’ allegations.

2.5.3 The DSU had read all ‘Nick's’ interviews and some of the blogs. He had read
the analyst's notes. He had not read the blog setting out ‘Nick's’ body map
of his numerous alleged injuries. The DSU had his concerns about the blogs
and the comments ‘Nick’ made about receiving a good response from
them. There were issues. He said in his report that ‘anyone who had
knowledge of ‘Nick' growing up should be spoken to’. He stressed in his
review that enquiries should be made into ‘Nick's’ credibility, but it was
premature at this stage to determine his credibility as there were enquiries
outstanding. He was aware of differences or inconsistencies in ‘Nick's’
accounts and knew that ‘Nick's’ accounts were not the same as his
mother's. He did not specifically mention ‘Nick's’ mother in his review. He
did mention in his review a recommendation to speak to people who had
contact with ‘Nick’ when he was growing up.

2.5.4 The DSU was focused on ascertaining who ‘Fred’ was and did point out that
'if we cannot broker a meeting with ‘Fred’ we will have to explain to ‘Nick’
the vital importance of police being able to pursue all lines of enquiry,
whether it helps the prosecution or defence'. Covert intelligence gathering
was suggested.

2.5.5 The DSU provided the most useful guidance concerning Martin Allen,
namely that his photograph was readily available on the internet, together
with an artist’s impression of a man with his hand on the back of Martin
273

 Allen's neck. When ‘Nick’ described meeting 'Boy 2' he was being led to the
car by a man who had his hand on the back of 'Boy 2's’ neck. As the DSU
observed, the investigation needed to find out if these media appeals were
seen by ‘Nick’ as he conducted research.

2.5.6 The DSU did not specifically mention ‘Aubrey’ because he was considering
the murders and was considering where the investigation should go now.
He was very much focused on ‘Fred’ and ‘Duncan’. As to ‘Scott’ he did point
out that the elimination of all 'Scotts' affected ‘Nick's’ credibility. He did not
recommend a physical medical examination because he had not been
informed of ‘Nick's’ allegation that he had sustained multiple fractures. He
was not told during the review that ‘Nick’ had made a claim to the CICA.
He wanted the investigation to do what he recommended were ‘quick
wins’ (police jargon) meaning ‘a speedy result’. If they discovered that
‘Fred’ was in fact ‘Nick’ that would be the end of the investigation. Since
the case depended on ‘Nick's’ credibility.

2.5.7 In my opinion, ‘Nick’s’ computer, mobile phone and ‘Fred’ were the quick
wins. The question of whether ‘Nick’ should have been asked if his
computer and mobile telephone could be examined had to be confronted
at some time. Gold should have confronted it even if the investigation team
would not.

2.5.8 I have concluded that it would have been unreasonable at this stage for the
DSU to advise that this investigation be terminated. A number of matters
were outstanding, relating to ‘Fred’, Martin Allen, ‘Duncan’ and ‘Aubrey’
and ‘Nick's’ mother had not been interviewed. Further, the DSU had not
274

 been assisted by being informed of ‘Nick's’ most significant blog setting out
his injuries and fractures, nor had he been informed of the CICA claim.

2.5.9 I find no basis to criticise this review and, having received it, AC Gallan had
no basis for halting the investigation.

2.5.10The second review by the Specialist Crime Review Group (SCRG) was
commissioned by the DAC on 24/11/2015. It was conducted by Philip
Fitzgerald, a retired DCI, whom I interviewed on 08/09/2016. It was a
Progress Review of Operation Midland and Mr. Fitzgerald was conscious
that this was towards the end of the investigation. He had a team of seven
working with him and the review ended on 21/01/2016. He had read all
‘Nick's’ transcripts and looked at intelligence documents setting out
inconsistencies and discrepancies in ‘Nick’s’ transcripts. Mr. Fitzgerald told
me that ‘the intelligence analyst had done a good job’.

2.5.11The review was system based. He was not asked to determine whether
‘Nick’ was credible or was telling the truth. Since it was a progress review,
he was looking at what the investigators could do in the future. He was
asked to establish if there was any more work that could be done and to
determine whether things had been done properly in accordance with
systems. Commenting on ‘Nick's’ credibility was outside his terms of
reference, although Mr. Fitzgerald made it very clear that establishing
‘Nick's’ credibility was critical. Decision making was not within the scope of
the review. Mr. Fitzgerald was also very aware that ‘Nick's’ evidence was
uncorroborated and was especially concerned about Lord Bramall given his
age and family circumstances.
275

 2.5.12Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out to me that ‘there are professional pointers re
‘Nick's’ credibility in the review’ and that ‘It would have been better if a
review had been commissioned in March or April of 2015 with terms of
reference designed to assess ‘Nick's’ credibility.’ However, he stressed that
‘assessing ‘Nick’s’ credibility was not our task’. It was focused on 'are we
going in the right direction and are there any further lines of enquiry'. He
also told me that he was given 6-8 weeks in which to complete his review
although he said he ‘would have liked 12-14 weeks.’ As a result, extra
resources were allocated in to reduce the time scales in which the report
had to be completed. This was a huge piece of work.

2.5.13An example of work Mr. Fitzgerald’s team did was to discover that a school
tie from a Surrey school outfitter (the County of Coombe Hill Primary
School) and a school blazer, both seized in a search on 4th March, had not
been forensically examined or traced in the intervening eight months.
Whilst the blazer was a 44-inch chest, Mr. Fitzgerald observed that both
the blazer and tie should be forensically examined and other relevant
enquiries should be made. I understand this has now been done with a
negative result.

2.5.14Mr. Fitzgerald was particularly concerned about the evidence of ‘Nick's’
mother which was not consistent with ‘Nick's’ evidence. He discussed with
the SIO whether they might re-interview the mother and ask about ‘Nick's’
day to day routine, what time he went to school, after school activities, the
name of his GP, but the feeling of the investigation team was that ‘they had
gone as far as they could with the mother’. Accordingly, Mr. Fitzgerald
276

 concluded that the investigation had got all the evidence it could from
‘Nick's’ mother.

2.5.15Mr. Fitzgerald recommended that further investigations were conducted
and that members of staff, police officers and close protection officers
should have been spoken to with a view to ascertaining whether these
suspects associated with one another or had mutual connections.

2.5.16The investigation could have asked at any time for a review as to the
credibility of ‘Nick’. I was told that it is open to any senior officer to request
any ‘bespoke review or a thematic review.' The DAC could have gone to
Det. Supt. Robson, the senior officer I/C SCRG, and asked for a review and
he would arrange terms of reference. The team would then assess and
evaluate the evidence that the investigation had. They would, if asked,
have looked at the credibility of ‘Nick’ and given an opinion on whether the
Full Code Test was met.

2.5.17Mr. Fitzgerald told me that ‘at this time the MPS were under a lot of
criticism of how they had investigated historical allegations of sexual
abuse’ and that the ‘MPS were anxious to make sure that victims were
treated fairly and that victims must be believed.’ It is right to note that the
DCI made it clear that ‘the suspects had to be treated fairly’ as well.

2.5.18In my opinion, the examination of ‘Nick’s’ computer, mobile telephone
and the question of a medical examination should have been confronted
at the beginning of the investigation. Victims should know from the outset
that such investigations will need to take place and that they will be subject
277

 to a level of investigation in order to corroborate their allegations. The
boundaries needed to be set at the beginning with ‘Nick’ and his computer
and journals should have been examined. If he refused the investigation
team would have needed to consider where that left them. All
complainants should have it explained to them that these matters are part
of the investigative process and are standard procedure.

2.5.19I was impressed with Mr. Fitzgerald's approach to his task. He made a
number of recommendations relating to the recording of exhibits and
similar administrative matters, but, as he himself pointed out, a thematic
review related to ‘Nick's’ credibility, in advance of considering any
application for a search warrant, would have served the investigation far
better. Requests for medical examination, journals and computers had all
been put off when they should have been made at the outset. There was
little else left to do at this stage and the investigation was in terminal
decline.

2.5.20Neither review was concerned with assessing ‘Nick's’ credibility. Since the
team had informed the District Judge that ‘Nick’ had remained consistent
and that he is felt to be a credible witness who is telling the truth, it would
be problematic, thereafter, to commission a review designed to assess
‘Nick's’ credibility. The investigating team cannot rely upon either review
as validating their conduct of this investigation, since neither was required
to assess ‘Nick's’ credibility.

278

 Interviews with Operation Midland Police Officers

2.6.1 I spent all of 16/08/2016, and the morning of 17/08/2016, interviewing
the DAC, DSU, DCI, and two DSs. I had supplied a list of questions in advance
of the meeting. Proceedings commenced with a presentation by the DAC,
accompanied by some 53 slides. I have summarised that presentation in a
separate chapter. The officers sought to explain and justify their decision
making whilst I sought explanations for any perceived errors in the
investigative process. I have most helpfully been supplied by the DAC with
copies of the slides and some 58 pages of notes. He had prepared his
presentation with the greatest care and delivered it in a most digestible
manner.

2.6.2 The DAC began by placing this investigation in its correct context with
several media headlines displayed, including: The Times 'Paedophile Cover
up', London Evening Standard 'MP Told Police about VIP paedophile ring's
parties 26 years ago', and Metro '600 child sex cases in eight months'. This
was a prelude to the DAC justifying his decision of 11/11/2014 to formally
investigate Operation Midland. Since I agree that ‘Nick's’ allegation had to be
investigated, the DAC was, at this stage of his presentation, pushing at an
open door. I did not, however, share the same approach to the decision
making rationale. The DAC stressed the media headlines and the public
mood, namely that VIP paedophiles in Westminster were in the news on a
daily basis, the prevailing mood was that, historically, the police had failed to
pursue allegations involving people in authority, and, on a daily basis, the
media were running stories concerning the police mishandling of allegations
of abuse involving VIPs. I was given the impression, possibly mistakenly, that
279

 the decision to investigate was in response to media pressure and potential
public criticism; which is no basis for a decision to investigate. A decision to
investigate must be strictly evidence based. There was, here, an allegation
that three children had been murdered and that numerous other children
had been gravely abused. My concern was the quality of the available
evidence, namely the conflicting versions given by ‘Nick’ to Wiltshire and in
his blogs, and the manifestly implausible nature of many of the allegations.
It soon became clear that a major difference between my own view of this
investigation and the DAC, which is apparently shared by other officers,
centred on the inconsistencies in ‘Nick's’ accounts, dealt with in my
conclusions 2-13, which Midland officers do not accept. Every officer present
contended that ‘Nick’ had been consistent.

‘The media coverage did not change our investigative approach. We took the
investigation on merit.’

I readily accept this. It is correct that this investigation should be
contextualised and I have sought to do this elsewhere. I accept that the
decision to investigate was not a response to media pressure and potential
public criticism. The decision to investigate was correct and I agree with it.

Every officer present accepted that ‘Nick’ had been inconsistent. But also
noted that this is not in any way unusual for victims of sexual abuse.
Academic research points to inconsistencies on the part of victims not being
consistent whether underlying truth.

At the outset of our meeting in August every officer present advanced
280

 arguments in support of the contention that ‘Nick’ was 'consistent' or at least
not inconsistent. Upon being challenged in that assertion by me all three
senior officers acknowledged that there were inconsistencies in ‘Nick's’
account. I paid particular attention to the word ‘consistent’ since it was used
in the application for the search warrants wherein it was stated that ‘his
account has remained consistent and it is felt he is a credible witness who is
telling the truth.’ I have a note of the SIO’s words when she said ‘his account
was consistent. It was broadly consistent. They were consistent accounts
delivered in stages.’ I also note, that on 22/01/2015, the SIO told the Gold
Group that she had ‘no concerns regarding the veracity of ‘Nick’s’ account’.
I am minded to accept that the officers had persuaded themselves that ‘Nick’
had been consistent. An analysis of his interviews and blogs is very much to
the contrary. Miss Oakley's note is as follows:-

‘Did you believe that ‘Nick's’ statements were credible and true as at
18/12/2014?

The SIO replied:-

On the 18th December I believed he is telling the truth as he knows it. I
believed there may be problems of recall. I think credible and true was an
accurate view. I was still believing ‘Nick’.

On 22/01/2015 you told the Gold Group there are no concerns regarding the
veracity of ‘Nick's account and, at the same time observed that there is
nothing in ‘Nick's’ medical records which supports his account?

281

 I had no concerns about the veracity of his account. The broken bones etc. is
not a matter of veracity. It was a live inquiry and we were investigating.

Did you inspect the applications for a search warrant? Did you feel that ‘Nick’
was a credible witness who is telling the truth and who had been consistent?
If so, why was Harvey Proctor not arrested. Were you aware that only days
earlier the Commissioner had stated on the radio that DSU McDonald had
made a mistake in using the word true. You had information that Proctor may
still be holding sex parties.

The SIO said:-

I saw the application before they were made.

His account was consistent. It was broadly consistent.

The DAC said:-

They were consistent accounts delivered in stages. I didn’t see the warrants
before the applications were made. I was aware of the purpose and the
grounds of the warrant but I didn’t see them. I do say the accounts are
consistent. In Wiltshire he had said that there were parts he hadn’t told them
everything and so I was of the view that the account he gave to the Met was
the account he had not given to Wiltshire. There were differences but that
were accounted for in his account. There are were differences. We weren’t
trying to mislead the judge it was a development of an account.

282

 DS Townly said:-

We came out of every ABE thinking he was the real deal - genuine and
credible.

I never doubted him. I was his liaison officer and the drive around officer - I
am constantly questioning if someone is telling me the truth and thinking it
could be true.

At what stage, if any, did you begin to doubt ‘Nick's’ credibility?

I haven’t. I still consider him to be a victim.

The DSU said:-

I did think ‘Nick’ was credible and true. The Commissioner was that it was a
misspeak. I would have perhaps used different language. The Commissioner
said it was a ‘misspeak’’

In addition, the DAC stated in his Gold Decision Log of 24/02/2015, when
dealing with search strategy:

‘despite the lack of corroboration in the investigation it has not revealed any
cause to disbelieve ‘Nick’. He has remained consistent and detailed in his
accounts’.
Further, I have looked at the DAC’s presentation in which he wrote:

283

 ‘we considered ‘Nick’s’ credibility as witness …… he had no obvious
motivation to fabricate an allegation and had a consistent recall over a
period of time’.

2.6.3 The DAC dealt with the ABE interviews. He contended that, in order to get
the best evidence, it was correct for DS Townly not to review the Wiltshire
interviews in advance of the MPS interviews. I cannot subscribe to a theory
that places ignorance ahead of learning. Indeed, DC Young's interview plan
for the 11/01/2016 interview states:

'During the course of an investigation it can become necessary to seek an
explanation from the witness in relation to significant evidential
inconsistencies between information supplied during the interview procedure
and other material gathered during the course of the investigation. This
would include differences between accounts provided during the interviews
and what the witness has said during previous interviews as well as details
provided of injuries sustained by the victim'.

If an interviewer has no idea what was said in a previous interview he can
hardly seek an explanation for an inconsistency. Much of the training for ABE
interviews relates to child witnesses or those with mental disorder/illness.
‘Nick’ is an intelligent and articulate man in his 40’s. Many of the
inconsistencies that were to be put to ‘Nick’ in January 2016 could have been
resolved at the outset of this enquiry had a decision been made to inform
the interviewer of the earlier interviews and blogs.

The interviewing officer was following a well-established police practice that
284

 suggests, in the first instance, that the interviewer simply seeks the
interviewees account rather than challenge it. It is accepted that the follow
up challenges that were to be put on 11/01/16 should have come much more
quickly.

2.6.4 The DAC dealt with the issue of ‘Nick's’ credibility and set out the MPS
Policy Special Notice 11/02 which stated that:

'It is the policy of the MPS to accept allegations made by any victim in the
first instance as being truthful. An allegation will only be considered as falling
short of a substantial allegation after a full and thorough investigation'.

He went on to say that:

'Our starting point is to believe witnesses until we have reason to believe
otherwise'.

The difficulty in the present case was whether to believe ‘Nick's’ version of
facts as told either to the Wiltshire Police, or to the MPS, or in his blogs.

2.6.5 The DAC placed much emphasis on ‘Nick's’ e-fit of Martin Allen but failed
to sufficiently appreciate that Martin Allen's photograph was readily
available on the internet. If a person is minded to make a false allegation of
child murder at a particular date, it is an elementary precaution to look on
the internet to research which children have gone missing at that time. The
subsequent description by ‘Nick’, of the man with his hand on the back of
‘Boy 2’s’ neck, was surely the giveaway as that very image was available on
285

 the internet (see DSU Sweeney's review).

It cannot be said that simply because ‘Nick’s’ description of seeing ‘Boy 2’
being led from a flat by a man holding the back of his neck is similar to that
of the original witness seeing Martin Allen in a similar position is conclusive
evidence that ‘Nick’ has researched and fabricated his account. The DAC was
reluctant to jump to any conclusions.

2.6.6 The DAC dealt with the implausibility of a former Prime Minister, a future
Home Secretary, Heads of MI5 and MI6, Two Field Marshals, etc. He
observed:

'What is there to say that those suspects are any less likely to conspire to
commit offences than anyone else?'.

That observation overlooks the law's attitude to positive good character. The
considerable majority of the suspects, were they to become Defendants,
would rely on years of public service in the most responsible of positions and
would call character witnesses of the highest order. Both the law and
common sense dictate that Lord Bramall, for one, is less likely to have
offended, as alleged, than the man in the street who is of good character.
Further, it is the combination of suspects which adds to the implausibility.

This paragraph overlooks the fact that numerous high profile persons of
positive good character have committed serious crime, e.g./ the Bishop of
Gloucester, Jimmy Savile, Stuart Hall, Rolf Harris, Jonathan Aiken, Lord Archer
and many others.
286

 2.6.7 The DAC suggested, in relation to other implausibilities, that the extent of
injuries could well have been over-exaggerated by a small child and hence
not recognised by his mother. With respect, the evidence was not that of a
young child but that of an articulate man in his 40’s with a responsible job.
The DAC went on to suggest that homicides may not have taken place, they
may have been serious assaults. I am at a loss to comprehend how that
suggestion is consistent with statements to the public that we believe ‘Nick’,
or to the District Judge when applying for Search Warrants, or in interview
when accusing Harvey Proctor of murdering three children.

‘Nick’ was recounting events over 30 years earlier. Inconsistencies or errors
of recollection would be unremarkable in such a situation.

2.6.8 The DAC stated that ‘Nick's’ mother was not a wholly reliable witness. It
was noted that she incorrectly recalled ‘Nick's’ bed wetting and school
absences. She may well have had guilt in her role in introducing Ray Beach.
It should be said that, at one school, 22 half day absences were recorded
consistent with an illness or a holiday in term time. If it really was thought
that ‘Nick's’ mother was a significantly unreliable witness, or even possibly
so, then she should have been visited and assessed far earlier than
20/05/2015.
The DAC was entitled to observe that ‘Nick’s’ mother was not in all respects
reliable. She incorrectly remembered the age at which ‘Nick’ ceased bed
wetting and was inaccurate in her recollection of school absences.

‘Nick’s’ mother should have been visited within days of the start of the
investigation. She is an intelligent well educated lady with an impeccable
287

 history.

2.6.9 Since I agree that these allegations required investigation, I do not
propose to analyse the DAC's rationale for commencing this investigation. It
is significant to note that Lord Bramall himself accepted that these
allegations had to be investigated. Any complaint relates to the conduct of
the investigation.

2.6.10As to the media appeal of 18/12/2014, it is said that this was a witness
appeal and officers were very mindful of potential witnesses coming
forward. The DAC stated that:

'The credible and true statement is an opinion expressed by individual
officers. It does not convey a closed mind. There remains an intention to
investigate thoroughly, without fear or favour. Our starting point is to believe
witnesses until we have reason to believe otherwise'.

As I have explained elsewhere, credible and true indicates that there exists
other evidence, independent of ‘Nick’, that validates his evidence. When a
statement such as this is made publicly, by an officer of the rank of
Superintendent, the public are entitled to believe that he spoke on behalf of
the MPS and that it was not the opinion of an individual officer.

The DSU did not intend to inflict any harm upon the suspects by using the
words ‘credible and true’. He was encouraging other (hopefully genuine)
complainants to come forward and doing his best to gain their confidence.
He selected the wrong words in the heat of an interview and was influenced
288

 by the MPS Special Notice 11/2002 which was operating on his mind. Fear of
disbelief is a potent barrier to disclosure by victims.

I have dealt with this topic fully at 2.4.8. I accept that the DSU sincerely
regrets the words ‘credible and true’ and that he has learned a significant
lesson.

2.6.11As to ‘Nick's’ credibility as a witness, the DAC stated that within Midland
there was no credible evidence to suggest that ‘Nick’ had a malicious intent
to make a false allegation and, on a slide, the words 'no obvious motivation
to fabricate an allegation' appeared. Unfortunately, no enquiry of the CICA
was made at the outset of this Operation as is now advised by Hydrant. For
the greater part of this investigation ‘Nick’ was awaiting payment of a very
significant sum of money, albeit unbeknown to the team.

The guidance from Operation Hydrant was not published until November
2015. We challenge the conclusion that ‘Nick’s’ CICA claim necessarily
represented motive for fabrication.

I accept no guidance was available at the time. I have not concluded that a
CICA claim necessarily establishes a motive for fabrication. The existence of
a claim is an indication of a possible motive for fabrication.

2.6.12 The DAC explained what he would have to say if the investigation was
closed before all feasible lines of enquiry were followed:

i) What evidence shows that the offences alleged could not have
289

 taken place?

ii)Why should the witness in the case not be believed? On what
evidential basis did the SIO/Gold conclude that the factors
supporting the credibility of the allegation were outweighed by
evidence that the allegation was false?

iii)

Any such decision would need to be justifiable in the face of

intense public scrutiny.

2.6.13The first of these statements reverses the burden of proof. A decision
maker should ask what evidence there is to support an allegation. He should
not reverse the burden. There would have been an answer to the second had
enquiries been made. The final statement suggests that decision making is
being driven by potential public criticism and not by a rigorous analysis of
the facts.

2.6.14The DAC explained his investigative priorities and his decisions as to
resources. I am satisfied that this Operation was well resourced and that no
shortcoming was attributable to lack of resources or support.

2.6.15 In reviewing ‘Nick’ as a witness I note that the DAC wrote:

'Consistent recall of his allegation over a period of time'.

The DAC and I are in disagreement as to ‘Nick's’ consistent recall. It is also
significant in the Gold decision log of 24/02/2015 that the DAC wrote ‘that
290

 ‘Nick’ had remained consistent and detailed in his accounts’.

Warrants

2.6.16The whole team asserted that there were reasonable grounds to believe
that an indictable offence had been committed. The only basis for such belief
would be if there were reasonable grounds to believe that ‘Nick’ had told the
truth. The DAC wrote:

'Nick continued to relay his account consistently and was pushing for
progress'.

For the reasons contained in my conclusions, I do not agree. I am far from
satisfied that this team, as a whole fully believed ‘Nick’. Had they done so I
am sure that Mr. Proctor, as a suspected triple child murderer, as he would
have been, would have been arrested. It is said that Code G encourages nonarrests where there is no necessity to affect an interview, and that is so.
However, where a police force has reasonable grounds to believe that a child
killer is at large, the conventional response is to make an arrest. I have no
experience of a suspected triple child killer being permitted to remain at
large.

2.6.17The most concerning feature of the obtaining of the search warrants is the
content of the statements in support which begins:

'The victim in this investigation contacted police in late 2014.'

291

 And later states:

'His account has remained consistent and he is felt to be a credible witness
who is telling the truth'.

In fact, ‘Nick’ contacted MPS Operation Yewtree in October 2012 before the
matter was referred to the Wiltshire Police. It was inaccurate to state that
‘Nick’ contacted Police in late 2014. At that date the Police contacted ‘Nick’.
The statement also concealed the fact that another force had interviewed
‘Nick’ and had expressed doubts about his credibility. The statement that
‘Nick’ has remained consistent cannot be justified having regard to his
Wiltshire interviews and ‘Nick's’ blogs. This statement was not seen or
checked by the DAC. This is unfortunate because District Judge Riddle stated,
in terms, in his written reasons for granting the warrants that 'This has been
considered at DAC level'. I appreciate that he was referring to the overall
decision to apply for the warrants but good practice suggests that the written
application, certainly in a case as critical as this, should be validated by the
senior decision making officer.

2.6.18The SIO made the point that police spoke with Lord Bramall's housekeeper
at the start of the search and asked that if she saw any behaviour she was
unhappy with, or felt was not taking into account the needs of the occupants,
then she should speak with the police. In a subsequent email to the Police,
Lord Bramall's daughter commented that police had been 'very nice on the
day of the search'. The DCI said that Lady Bramall, who was far from well,
had been treated with the greatest care and consideration. No press agents
attended during the search.
292

 2.6.19 In Lady Brittan's case I was told that two plain clothes officers approached
Lady Brittan, in the first instance, to explain the rationale in relation to the
search warrant. No press agents attended the venue during the time of the
search. Lady Brittan's solicitor attended and made representations which
were acknowledged and are subject to review by MPS lawyers.
Representations were made that Pimlico should not be included in the media
publicity but Westminster was substituted to no effect.

2.6.20In Mr. Proctor's case the DAC made the point that the search was
concluded within one day to limit the disruption of the search.

2.6.21The DAC stressed that they decided to inform ‘Nick’ and the Allen family
about the search but only after the warrants had been executed. They did
not want them finding out from others. The police were concerned about a
breach of trust. It was not thought that ‘Nick’ leaked the information
concerning the searches taking place to Exaro. There were several other
possible explanations. He thought it unlikely to have been a Midland internal
leak. Reporters were previously aware of a likely search of premises and may
have made local enquiries. Both Lord Bramall and Lady Brittan disclosed the
searches to several people during the searches. Further police activity, at all
premises, may have prompted on-lookers to contact the media.

2.6.22 As to interviews, it had been the intention to swiftly follow the searches
with interviews but the AC decided that a peer review should take place
before the Operation continued. I have read the emails between the AC and
DAC and it is clear that he was most anxious to interview both Lord Bramall
and Mr. Proctor promptly as they had asked to be interviewed forthwith.
293

 2.6.23As to medical evidence, the view was taken that the absence of current
injuries, or medical notes documenting injuries from childhood, would not
fatally undermine the case and, as a result, the team did not regard a medical
examination of ‘Nick’ as a high priority. I regard this as an error of judgement.
‘Nick’ had alleged numerous broken bones, several cuts and injuries and
sustained violent buggery over an eight-year period. Not only was there no
medical record, his mother was unaware of any single injury apart from a
chipped bone in his body on a skiing holiday. The DAC sought to explain
matters by relying on the fact that his mother was subjected to serious
domestic violence by Ray Beach and, by her own admission, was so
traumatised by her own abuse that she may have failed to see that her son
was also being abused. I do not accept this explanation. ‘Nick's’ mother and
stepfather only cohabited for six months. ‘Nick's’ allegations against these
suspects continued over the next seven or eight years. His mother had a
most responsible job during a substantial part of that time. It is
inconceivable, in my view, that if ‘Nick’ was telling the truth that his mother
could not have been well aware of the injuries. The suggestion was made
that perhaps she may have been covering matters up. I reject that absolutely
as a credible explanation for these known facts. If that really was the
suspicion of the team, it renders the decision not to visit ‘Nick's’ mother for
almost six months all the more unfortunate. The team appear to have
overlooked the fact that ‘Nick's’ allegation involved several grave wounds
and multiple rape. In my judgment, a medical examination was an absolute
priority, as was a meeting with ‘Nick's’ mother.

2.6.24Both the SIO and the DAC emphasised the fact that medical notes
indicated bed wetting until the age of 13, whilst ‘Nick's’ mother had said that
294

 ‘Nick’ ceased bed wetting at a much younger age. This, it appears, caused
them to question ‘Nick's’ mother's reliability as a witness. I do not share that
view. If ‘Nick's’ statements were true his mother must have known full well
that her son, aged 7 to 15, was being brutalised and had sustained a grave
catalogue of injuries, as must the neighbours, and ‘Nick's’ teachers. The lack
of accurate memory by his mother as to bed wetting was not, in my
judgement, significant. Consent for a medical examination was not sought
until January 2016 when ‘Nick’ said he would think about it. He should have
been asked at the outset of this investigation and told that it is standard
practice in cases of wounding and rape.

It is accepted that an earlier full medical examination should have been
sought.

2.6.25As to ‘Nick's’ computer, the DAC stated that there was continual discussion
within the team as to whether a request should have been made to examine
‘Nick's’ computer and whether it should have been seized had he declined
the request. It is said that a request risked damaging ‘Nick's’ relationship with
the team. If he refused they could only seize the computer if they believed
‘Nick’ had committed an offence. It was during such a discussion, in a Gold
Group meeting on 20/05/2015, that it was recorded that 'The Group
acknowledged that MPS Policy was that victims must be believed'. I am told,
in this meeting, that every officer actually did believe ‘Nick’ and thus seizure
was out of the question. The time had come when ‘Nick’ was cutting and
pasting emails allegedly from Fred to ask to examine his computer. Had he
refused to permit an examination, I believe there were grounds to seize his
computer provided officers believed they had reasonable grounds to believe
295

 he had committed a criminal act. The DAC considered that the decision to
request an examination of the computer was a judgement call. I disagree.
The necessity to inspect the computer had become a necessity, not least
because it was capable of establishing the innocence of all suspects. It was
also capable of informing the Allen family of the state of ‘Nick's’ knowledge.

It is accepted that a request to examine ‘Nick’s’ computer should have been
made much earlier in the investigation.

2.6.26The SIO told me that he believed that [GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 1] had access
to all of ‘Nick's’ interviews. She most certainly did not. [GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST
1] states in her report that she only had interviews dated 22/10/2014 and
23/10/2014 and that she had not had time to complete her reading of them.
It appears that [GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 1] 'was engaged to advise on ‘Nick's’
counsellor's credibility to vouch for his truthfulness'. This should not have
happened. An expert cannot give evidence as to the credibility of another
expert. She could assist on the quality of her notes and her qualifications, as
[GIST: PROFESSOR 2] did in due course.

2.6.27As to the failure to enquire if ‘Nick’ had made a CICA claim at the outset
of this investigation, as advised by Hydrant, the DAC told me that if they had
known of his claim it would not have altered the course of the investigation.
One of the factors said to be supportive of ‘Nick's’ credibility was said to be
the fact that he had no reason to lie. Had the team known of the claim I
suggest they may have been more proactive in terms of asking for a medical
examination (‘Nick’ said he had no injuries in his CICA claim) and also been
more proactive in requesting to examine ‘Nick's’ computer. They may also
296

 have delayed or avoided an application for search warrants having been less
confident of ‘Nick's’ credibility. The CICA may not have parted with £22,000
of public money. In my judgement, ‘Nick’ continued with these allegations in
order to obtain his money from the CICA. His persistent unavailability after
receiving his money was in marked contrast to his earlier enthusiasm for
progress to be made.

2.6.28The DAC defended the asserted lack of timeliness by referring to the vast
number of entries on the Holmes account, the 202 House to House
enquiries, research, obtaining Military Records, analysis of property seized,
‘Nick's’ unavailability and false information received. I do not accept this
explanation. If priority had been given to establishing, if possible, ‘Nick's’
credibility, visiting ‘Nick's’ mother, tracing Aubrey and [FRIEND], and
eliminating 'Scott', this investigation would have been completed very much
sooner.

2.6.29I acknowledge the difficulty in using the expression 'insufficiency of
evidence'. Grading cases of no further action would create many difficulties.
I have suggested 'the case failed to meet the evidential test' as an alternative.

2.6.30The DAC has listed a number of unanswered questions, including what
was ‘Nick's’ motivation for making a false claim. Having made a claim, and
not having received payment by October 2014, ‘Nick’ was bound to continue
with his allegations when approached by the MPS if he wished to receive his
money. Had he declined to cooperate he could reasonably assume that the
CICA and the police would communicate and that his claim would be
rejected.
297

 2.6.31I canvassed a number of matters with the officers present. I discussed the
question of resources. I discussed the SIO's workload at the commencement
of this investigation and she stated that she 'had capacity to permit me
sufficient time to adequately conduct this investigation'. At no time during
our discussion of events did she plead inadequate resources. My views that
this Operation was properly resourced and supported were confirmed.

2.6.32I discussed the delay in visiting ‘Nick's’ mother with the SIO and she
pointed out that she had the statement taken by the Wiltshire Police and
that his mother had seen no sign of abuse and may have missed it. The SIO
did not question ‘Nick's’ mother's honesty. The SIO said that:

'Not everything can have equal priority. We were trying to trace missing
boys'.

2.6.33I asked if the SIO had read the Wiltshire interviews, the MPS interviews,
and ‘Nick's’ blogs before commencing this investigation. She told me that the
MPS interviews were not available for some time due to a delay in
transcription. She took the videos home one weekend and watched them.
She did not accept that there were material differences between the
Wiltshire accounts and the MPS accounts. We agree to differ (see my
conclusions). She had read DC Lewis’s email. She had compared the Wiltshire
account with the MPS account. She intended a further interview to deal with
inconsistencies but the media onslaught in summer 2015 made it impossible
to interview ‘Nick’ as he and his mother were being ‘door stepped’. She
concluded that his blogs contained emotional writing and so were not
reliable.
298

 2.6.34When asked why not establish ‘Nick's’ credibility first, she said it was a
chicken and egg situation.

2.6.35Asked about the participation of journalists Messrs Symonds, McKelvie,
Bateman, and Conrad, she said a lot of information was being fed to ‘Nick’
and it was really frustrating. The harm, she said, to the Allen family was
disappointing. Tom Symonds said he only got pictures of people available on
the internet. McKelvie fed an American name to ‘Nick’. That is why she had
a degree of caution with these people. The four of them together prejudiced
the investigation. She said that:

'I chose not to engage with them. Conrad and Symonds asked for an off the
record conversation but I refused. I can't overstate the frustration with this
type of behaviour. We referred it to the Attorney General and Press
Standards. We were unhappy with the impact they had on the investigation’.

2.6.36She agreed that the MPS interviews of 22/10/2014 and 23/10/2014
should have been transcribed before 15/12/2014. They lasted for 17 hours
and she listened to them over a weekend.

2.6.37 Asked why enquiries were made at every school that ‘Nick’ attended to
find a deceased or injured ‘Scott when ‘Nick’ stated he was a friend from
Coombe Hill Primary School and the accident was outside Coombe Hill
Primary School, she said she thought it the right thing to do in case ‘Nick’
had got the name of the school wrong.

2.6.38Asked why enquiries were being made to trace the occupants of 1,200
299

 flats at Dolphin Sq. before ‘Nick's’ credibility had been established, she said
it was going to take time so it was better to start enquiries at an early stage.

2.6.39She believed that '’Nick’ was ‘telling the truth as he knows it. I do believe
there may be problems of recall. I think credible and true as at 18/12/2014
was an accurate view. I am still believing of ‘Nick’’. All five officers present
agreed with her.

All five officers recognised there were significant issues surrounding ‘Nick’s’
credibility.

When I saw these three officers on 16-17 August 2016, they all advanced
arguments in support of the contention that ‘Nick’ was consistent or at least
not inconsistent. When I pointed out a number of significant inconsistencies,
as I perceived them to be, the three officers acknowledged that there were
inconsistencies in ‘Nick's’ account.

2.6.40On 22/01/201 the SIO agreed that she had told the Gold Group that she
had no concerns regarding the veracity of ‘Nick's’ account and, at the same
time, observed that there was nothing in ‘Nick's’ medical records that
supports his account. She confirmed that she did not doubt ‘Nick's’ veracity.
She said that:

'The absence of records re multiple broken bones was not a matter that
concerned me. It was a live enquiry and we were investigating what we had
been told'.

300

 2.6.41On 27/01/2015, when she wrote that search warrants would be obtained
for relevant addresses attributed to Bramall, Beach and Brittan, she had
included Beach in error and excluded Proctor in error.

2.6.42She agreed that Sir Hugh Beach should have been interviewed very much
sooner and should have been discontinued as a suspect in November 2014
and interviewed a long time before May 2015 as he was in his 90s and a man
of impeccable character who might have been an important witness.

2.6.43She had seen the written applications for search warrants. She said that:

'His account was consistent. It was broadly consistent. They were consistent
accounts delivered in stages'.

2.6.44The DAC said he did not see the applications but he stated:

'I do say the accounts are consistent. When ‘Nick’ was interviewed by
Wiltshire he told them that there were parts he had not told them and so I
was of the view that the account he gave to the MPS was the account he had
not given to Wiltshire. There were differences but that accounted for his
account. I accept there were differences. We were not trying to mislead the
judge. It was a development of an account’.

2.6.45The SIO confirmed that Lady Brittan was not told that the search was in
relation to material in respect of other people. She agreed that the taking of
shoes was not permitted by the warrant. She said that they were seized in
order to obtain DNA.
301

 2.6.46‘Nick’ was told that the searches were about to take place as soon as the
warrants were executed because she did not want him finding out from
another source and wanted to keep him onside because 'Keeping ‘Nick
engaged was very important'.

2.6.47The SIO agreed that when she learned that ‘Nick’ had made a claim to the
CICA she should have obtained from them the account given by ‘Nick’ when
making his claim.

2.6.48The SIO agreed that she had described [GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 2] as biased
in her minutes but she did have his views investigated by [GIST:
PSYCHOLOGIST 1] and did not accept [GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 2] views. She did
not seek an opinion on the credibility of ‘Nick’ from [GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST
1]. She asked her to look at [GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 2] concerns and provide
an analysis of what he said. She was never asked to provide an expert opinion
re Operation Midland. [GIST: CPS 2], of the CPS, was spoken to and she
advised that they should not consult a clinical psychologist.

2.6.49As to ‘Scott’, the DAC said that ‘Scott’ may not have died and may simply
have been injured.

'A child of ‘Nick's’ age couldn't say if someone had died'.

'We could not say the accident never happened'.

2.6.50The SIO thought it important that officers with knowledge of the case
302

 visited Australia to interview 'Scott'. She obtained authority for it from AC
Gallan.

2.6.51As to the email from Fred, the SIO agreed that ‘Nick’ had cut and pasted
Fred's email to him rather than redirect it to her so that Fred's email address
would not be disclosed to her. She thought this was done so that ‘Nick’ would
not reveal Fred's identity because they had an understanding between them
to that effect. She agreed that she had initially rejected proactive attempts
to discover Fred's identity. She did describe it as excessive collateral
intrusion. Eventually she agreed that an ILOR should be made.

2.6.52Both the SIO and the DAC accepted that if Fred was, in fact, ‘Nick’ the
investigation would be fatally undermined. The DAC did not, however, think
that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that ‘Nick’ was Fred. There
was a range of explanations.

'It was a judgment call as to whether we investigated Nick's laptops'.

The DAC did not say that there were not reasonable grounds to suspect that
‘Nick’ was Fred.

I disagree with this. Miss Oakley’s note is to the following effect:

‘I don’t think there were reasonable grounds to suspect that ‘Nick’ was Fred,
there was a range of explanations.’

2.6.53The DAC said he did not cancel the ILOR. In order for it to progress there
303

 had to be an ongoing investigation.

'Although the Martin Allen investigation continues my understanding is that
the ILOR is not a priority line of enquiry. I wanted to challenge the cancelation
of the ILOR as the Martin Allen investigation is continuing’.

2.6.54 I trust that every effort will be made to trace 'Fred' by means of an ILOR
or by other means. If Fred is a creation and illusion, then Martin Allen's family
will be assured that there never was a ‘Boy 2’.

304

 DAC’s Presentation
2.7.1 The investigation involved a series of fine judgement calls. There was no
right answer. Care and thought went into the investigation. We adhered to
national policy and guidance. We undertook an ethical, thorough and
proportionate investigation into the allegations made. We considered the
competing needs of the complainants, accused and potential witnesses. Our
approach was reasonable.

2.7.2 Our approach to Midland was skewed by external events. The prevailing
mood was historically that the police had failed to pursue allegations
involving people in authority. The media were running stories concerning the
mishandling of allegations of abuse involving VIPs.

2.7.3 In November 2014 Tom Watson MP passed hundreds of pieces of
information to the MPS. 3 investigations took place over the allegation that
the Home Office did not properly handle material provided by Geoffrey
Dickens to Leon Brittan in his capacity as Home Secretary. Daily media
reports appeared of witnesses who were aware of serious sexual abuse
being overlooked by the State. Allegations to the police were multiplying
and, by August 2015, the number of investigations related to Westminster
totalled 28 with 111 suspects. This was a febrile time to receive the allegation
and there was massive scrutiny of our response. There was clearly an issue
of public confidence and we were very aware that our conclusions would be
publicly challenged. This did not change our investigative approach. We took
the allegation on merit.

305

 2.7.4 ‘Nick's’ allegation was made in part to Wiltshire Police and more
information was provided by the time ‘Nick’ spoke to the MPS. Victims of
abuse may disclose their experiences in a phased manner. When speaking to
Wiltshire, ‘Nick’ alluded to the fact that his allegation was not complete. He
had also spoken to a counsellor and these disclosures were more detailed
than he told Wiltshire. Officers could not rule out that the Counsellor had
suggested anything. ‘Nick’ had also engaged with journalists and made full
disclosure to them and they were making their own enquiries. We had little
or no control over what was in the public domain. We were pressured into
media comments and there was massive scrutiny of our response. The media
were undertaking their own enquiries in a non-evidential manner. They were
showing pictures to ‘Nick’ and giving him names and, at an early stage, the
Martin Allen case was drawn into this by journalists, which raised the
expectations of the Allen family who had long considered that Martin's
disappearance was connected to a VIP paedophile conspiracy. The e-fit
created by ‘Nick’ shows a remarkable likeness to Martin Allen. Our task as
officers was made the more difficult because the original Martin Allen file
was missing. I accept that it is not normal practice to introduce an e-fit into
an investigation after so long a time lapse. Ideally we would have done so
within an ABE but ‘Nick’ did not wish to do so. ‘Nick’ had never mentioned
the name Martin Allen.

2.7.5 The DS conducting the ABE interviews is trained and experienced as an
ABE interviewer. He intentionally did not review the Wiltshire interviews
before interviewing ‘Nick’. Where the DS felt there was a need to probe for
more detail he did so, but it was not his intention to challenge any apparent
inconsistency. ABE policy states that inconsistencies should only be explored
306

 after the witness’s basic account has been probed. An inconsistency should
only be challenged in exceptional circumstances and, even then, only if it is
essential to do so. The SIO consulted with [GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 4] who
endorsed the interview strategy. He recognised that police may need to seek
clarification of ‘Nick's’ account. ABE policy is that it may be better, if a witness
seems reluctant or unable to clarify any point for the interviewer, to return
to it at a later point.

2.7.6 Having obtained ‘Nick's’ account our starting point was to believe the
witness until we have reason to believe otherwise. Our stance then is to
investigate without fear or favour in a thorough, professional and impartial
fashion. There then follows a number of judgment calls on what actions are
appropriate and proportionate. On receipt of the detailed allegation, an
initial proportionate assessment of credibility was undertaken. Any decision
to curtail the investigation without exploring all reasonable lines of enquiry
would need to clearly outline what evidence shows that the offences alleged
could not have taken place; why the witness should not be believed; on what
evidential basis did the SIO/Gold conclude that the factors supporting the
credibility of the allegation were outweighed by evidence that the allegation
was false; any such decision would need to be justifiable in the face of
intense public scrutiny. In a case such as this, lack of corroboration cannot be
taken as an indication that no offence has occurred (CPS Guidance Para 53).

2.7.7 Even though these circumstances were improbable sounding, they had to
be considered. The allegation cannot be disregarded unless there is
something to say that it could not have occurred. I was alive to the possibility
that this may be a false allegation. Martin Allen had gone missing from
307

 central London and we had an e-fit that matched even though the ID was
flawed. I was fully aware of all the elements of implausibility and considered
them but concluded that these allegations had to be investigated. I
considered the CVs of all the suspects but what is there to say that they are
any less likely to conspire to commit offences than anyone else? Men do
offend in groups with like-minded men. The extent of injuries could well have
been over exaggerated by a small child. Homicides may not have taken place
- they may have been serious assaults. ‘Nick's’ mother was clearly not a
wholly reliable witness. She incorrectly recalled the age of ‘Nick's’ bed
wetting and the number of school absences. She may have had feelings of
guilt over her role in introducing Ray Beach. Other factors indicate that
something has happened to ‘Nick’ and that he has been subjected to some
real trauma.

2.7.8 In deciding to investigate I had regard to group activity and the manner in
which ‘Nick’ alleged he had been abused. Child sexual exploitation goes
largely undetected. Oral sex and physical violence of the type alleged are
typical. Delayed disclosure is very common. At no time did officers take
investigative decisions based on a reliance on any direction to 'believe' a
victim.

2.7.9 On 18th December 2014 we were conducting a witness appeal and were
very mindful of the reticence of potential witnesses to come forward. NPCC
guidance stresses the importance of reassuring witnesses that they will be
believed if they come forward. I recorded at Decision 6 in my Policy Log:Significant element of the investigation strategy was to seek corroboration
in the form of other witnesses. Important to reassure those coming forward.
308

 I recognised that we would be asked to confirm that we believe ‘Nick’. I
agreed that we should confirm belief of ‘Nick’. The credible and true
statement is an opinion expressed by individual officers. It does not convey
a closed mind. We have an intention to investigate thoroughly without fear
or favour. Our starting point is to believe witnesses until we have reason to
believe otherwise.

2.7.10We considered ‘Nick's’ credibility as a witness. He had no previous
convictions or evidence of dishonesty, no diagnosis of mental disorder or
associated addictions, an educated, articulate man with a successful
professional career and responsibility for a young son. He had no obvious
motivation to fabricate an allegation and had a consistent recall over a period
of time. Early disclosure to a Counsellor is consistent with later allegations
and why would he get checkable facts wrong if he was fabricating evidence?
E.g./ Martin Allen's age, the date he disappeared [GIST: ADDITIONAL
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTIVE DETAIL].

2.7.11I also fully considered all available information relating to the suspects,
considering in each case whether they had any relevant antecedents, if there
was any relevant police intelligence, had the suspect received a child
abduction notice, is it likely that the suspect will have come into contact with
the victim through employment or the victim's lifestyle, has the suspect been
the subject of any other allegation of sexual abuse, are there any credible
third party accounts supporting the allegations, does the suspect associate
with others suspected of committing similar offences, and does the suspect
have indecent images of children. All these matters were fully considered.

309

 2.7.12My decision was to investigate and I was mindful of ascertaining what
evidence there was that the offences alleged could not have taken place; why
‘Nick’ should not be believed; whether factors supporting the credibility of
‘Nick’ were outweighed by evidence indicating that the allegation was false;
and, that any such decision would need to be justifiable in the face of intense
public scrutiny. Our approach was to do the right thing, regardless of the
background of the suspects and to operate without fear or favour.

2.7.13My investigative priorities were to test the credibility of ‘Nick’ as a witness,
to identify any corroboration of these offences, to establish what offences
may have been committed and by whom, and to establish whether there is
sufficient evidence to bring a criminal prosecution against any surviving
offender. The practical steps we took were:- Victimology of ‘Nick’; Reviewing
medical notes; Reviewed Wiltshire allegation and met with team; Analytical
comparison of the Wiltshire allegation and ‘Nick's’ MPS ABE interviews;
Worked with RMP to identify potential scenes of crimes; Forensically
examined military establishments; Intelligence research on named accused;
Controlled Drive Arounds to specific addresses in London, including Dolphin
Sq.; Detailed analysis of military postings of Bramall, Gibbs and Beach; Search
of Military files of Ray Beach; Review of Martin Allen case, including locating
papers; Engaged with Allen family; Review of outstanding missing boys at
relevant time; Sought formal records of Road Traffic Accidents linked to 'Boy
1'; Sought to identify 'Fred'; Appointed FLO to ‘Nick’; Interviews of ‘Nick's’
family.

2.7.14There was no information gleaned from these enquiries which indicated
that these offences could not have happened or that ‘Nick’ was misleading
310

 the investigation team. Since corroboration was always going to be
important I wrote off a whole MIT team, a practice which is almost unheard
of. I checked resourcing at every meeting and allocated supporting teams
when needed. Dedicated intelligence teams were deployed outside of MPS
policy. Operation Midland was allocated to a Murder Investigation Team of
1x DCI, 2x DI, 4 x Sgts and 20 Constables. They were supplemented with
additional officers when required and had additional specialist expertise
from Operation Fairbank, the Royal Military Police and Specialist intelligence
and analytical support.

2.7.15After 8-10 weeks of investigations I was approached by the SIO and DSU
to consider executing search warrants. I recognised that this would be
significant as the identity of the accused would, in all likelihood, become
public knowledge. This was an appropriate time to take stock. Nothing had
changed in order to undermine ‘Nick's’ character, motivations or reliability.
He continued to relay his account consistently and was pushing for progress.

2.7.16We reviewed the evidence relating to Martin Allen and established that
he and his father frequented Dolphin Sq. and a picture in ‘Nick's’ journal
matched [No.] Ecclestone Sq., a premises occupied by a known paedophile
at the time of these matters. A number of links were established between
known sex offenders and premises of interest to this investigation. In
conclusion, a known paedophile can be linked to Eccleston Sq. There was
information suggesting that another known paedophile may have supplied
boys to a suspect but there was no evidence of any relevant criminal conduct
by any suspect and no corroboration. As to military premises, the witnesses
interviewed did not recall a child having access to a General's office and it
311

 would have been very unusual but they could not rule it out. ‘Nick’ correctly
described the lay out and the presence of two people in an outer office.
‘Nick’ recognised Larkhill in a drive around and the old accommodation floor
layout. ‘Nick’s’ choice of accused would require intense research to establish
that they were all colleagues at the UKLF at the same time. As to 'Fred',
‘Nick's’ counselling notes showed that ‘Nick’ mentioned 'Fred' to his
Counsellor many months before coming to the MPS. If this was an invented
fantasy this was tremendous forethought and fantasy.

2.7.17Before applying for warrants we fully recognised that aspects of the
investigation were not borne out by our investigations but we took the view
that they were outweighed by the various elements where ‘Nick’ had
provided some knowledge or evidence that supported his assertions. None
of these undermining factors were, by themselves or collectively, viewed as
a justification to end the investigation and to not seek corroboration through
searches and interviews. Accordingly, we obtained search warrants on
02/03/2015. I did not draft the written application nor did I validate the
statement in support of the application. The undermining factors were that
no witnesses had come forward despite extensive media coverage. 'Fred'
was unwilling to engage. There was no record of the accident involving 'Boy
1'. There was no identity for 'Boy 3' and ‘Nick's’ mother does not recall signs
of abuse or 'Nick's’ absences.

2.7.18The decision to obtain warrants was not taken lightly. The decision is
supported by CPS guidance which recommends getting an early account. The
searches were necessary to determine if any evidence could be recovered
that may have shown involvement in child abuse. Failure to take action at
312

 this point could have led to accusations that the MPS failed to act without
fear or favour. Research shows that sexual offenders do like to keep trophies.
In the recent cases of Harris and Clifford, searches produced powerful
evidence. Our judgement at that time was that searches were needed in
order to progress the investigation in a timely fashion, mindful of Lord
Bramall's age and the need to give him an opportunity to give an account.
We also had a responsibility to safeguard children and were aware that Mr.
Proctor had a job involving children. We also wished to reduce the risk of
evidence being destroyed following media reporting. We had reasonable
grounds to believe that an indictable offence had been committed.

2.7.19I am advised that naming Lord Brittan as owner of the premises in Pimlico
and in Yorkshire did not invalidate the warrant because the warrant is a
specific premises warrant as defined by s8(1A)(a) of PACE and s8(1A)(b) of
PACE provides the definition of an all premises warrant as being any premises
occupied or controlled by a person specified in the application. The need to
gain entry without going through the laborious process of trying to ascertain
who holds title to the property following the death of the previous owner is
consistent with the purpose of s8(1)(e) and s8(3) of PACE, which provides
that the magistrate who grants the application must be satisfied that it is not
possible to communicate with the person entitled to grant entry, or that the
purpose of the search would be frustrated if access were not granted
immediately.

2.7.20The warrant application set out a brief explanation of the material sought
during the search which included documents, journals, digital and computer
equipment. The shoes of Lord Brittan were retained in the event that a DNA
313

 sample would be needed to compare to any relevant unknown forensic
profile recovered during ongoing searches.

2.7.21The search of Lord Bramall's home was timed to avoid a too early visit
together with an intention of completing the search within one day. Police
spoke with Lord Bramall's housekeeper and she was asked if she saw any
behaviour she was unhappy with or felt was not taking into account the
needs of the occupants, she should speak with the police. Every
consideration was given to Lady Bramall's comfort. No press agents attended
the venue during the search. 20 officers were deployed so that disruption
would be minimized.

2.7.22At Lady Brittan's home, two plain clothes officers approached her in the
first instance to explain the rationale in relation to the search warrant. No
press agents attended during the search. Representations by Lady Brittan's
solicitors were taken into account in the media strategy. 16 officers were
deployed to Pimlico and 13 officers to Yorkshire. Lady Brittan thanked
officers for their conduct during the search.

2.7.23At Mr. Proctor's home, the search was conducted within one day to limit
the disruption of the search. 18 officers attended and the same officers
attended the following day at Belvoir Castle.

2.7.24We did not proactively inform the media that these searches had taken
place. MPS policy was to only confirm Operation Midland policing activity
within a broad location if journalists were already aware of the detail of the
searches. ‘Nick’ and the Allen family were informed once the searches had
314

 started on 4th March. They were not told which premises were being
searched. Under the Victims Charter they have a right to be informed of
significant developments in the case within 1 day. We considered it would
undermine our relationship if they were to discover the activity through
other sources. We judged this outweighed the risk of them actually
publishing the searches.

2.7.25We think it unlikely that either ‘Nick’ or the Allen family notified the
media. Exaro News were only aware of the Proctor searches until 6th March.
There was no coverage of the Lord Bramall or Lady Brittan searches until 2
days after they had been completed. There was no media presence during
the searches. ‘Nick’ told us that Mark Conrad of Exaro told him that he was
informed by a worker at Belvoir Castle.

2.7.26We did comment once it was clear that the media were in possession of
the relevant facts. If the media know and we do not comment, then it leads
to allegations of secret policing. There is a legitimate public interest in
knowing that we are taking matters forward. If we say nothing we see
rumours and false stories circulating. There are several ways the media may
have learned of the searches other than through ‘Nick’ or the Allen family.
Reporters were previously aware of likely search premises and made local
enquiries. Both Lord Bramall and Lady Brittan disclosed the searches to
several people during the searches. Police activity may have prompted
onlookers to contact Exaro.

2.7.27The intention was to follow the searches with interviews. These were
postponed to allow a Peer Review to take place. I endorsed the SIO's decision
315

 not to arrest either suspect having regard to Code G and their preparedness
to be interviewed voluntarily. The decision was validated by the National
Interview Advisor. We made full disclosure in advance of the interviews and
were criticised by the NPCC lead who held the view we had disclosed too
much.

Medical Evidence

2.7.28We were aware that the presence of injuries consistent with ‘Nick's’
allegations had the potential to support the allegation. However, we
considered the value of this would be limited. The absence of injuries would
not have conclusively undermined the allegation. Absence of injury did not
mean that assaults did not take place.

Accordingly, we pended the

harvesting of medical evidence. As to ‘Nick's’ mother, she was the victim of
domestic violence and shown to have an unreliable memory of the period. It
cannot be discounted that she was either complicit or turned a blind eye.
She now believes that Ray Beach had the capacity to abuse her son. Medical
records are notoriously unreliable. ‘Nick’ speaks of a doctor who was
employed specifically to patch up abused children. We did ask ‘Nick’ for his
consent to a medical examination in January 2016 and he indicated that he
would think about it. We had his GP notes, obtained on 19th December 2014,
which did not reveal information in relation to physical injuries or scars from
his childhood. The CICA claim submitted by ‘Nick’ said that he had no injuries.

Computer Research

2.7.29The subject of the seizure and examination of ‘Nick's’ computer was the
316

 subject of continual discussion and review. There is no right or wrong answer.
‘Nick' had categorically denied carrying out research. We could only analyse
his devices with his consent or by the use of police powers of seizure which
could only be invoked if we believed ‘Nick’ had committed a criminal offence.
Consent was most unlikely to be given, and would be seized upon by the
defence as evidence that we had doubts about ‘Nick's’ truthfulness. There
was a risk that we would damage our relationship with ‘Nick’ and the CPS
commented that a physical examination and an examination of his computer
would not help to establish his credibility. Seizing and examining digital
devices would not have conclusively demonstrated that ‘Nick’ had not
undertaken research. Any research could have been undertaken on other
unknown devices. Failing to ask if we could examine his computer was a
judgment call.

Use of Psychologists

2.7.30Three psychologists were used during Operation Midland. [GIST:
PSYCHOLOGIST 4] (National Vulnerable Witness Adviser-National Crime
Agency) was consulted in relation to best practice and advice in relation to
vulnerable witnesses. [GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 1]

(Chartered Clinical

Psychologist and Consultant to CEOP Command of the NCA) was consulted
in relation to contact with a reluctant victim of non-recent child abuse. She
provided a commentary on the credibility of [GIST: COUNSELLOR],
Counsellor and Psychotherapist, assisted to compose a letter to 'Fred' to be
sent via ‘Nick’, provided a response to a briefing note from [GIST:
PSYCHOLOGIST 2], provided a report outlining a brief assessment of the
credibility of ‘Nick’, which advocated following the evidence, the dynamics
317

 of organised sexual abuse, the impact of sexual abuse, and the recovery
process, delivered a training session to Operation Midland and Operation
Hydrant Officers in relation to organised child sexual abuse and wrote a
report in relation to sensory details in memory trauma. Finally, [GIST:
PROFESSOR 2] was consulted following a recommendation by Det. Supt.
Sweeney to assess the reliability of memory recall over an extended period
of time without direct corroboration. We mistakenly believed that [GIST:
PSYCHOLOGIST 1] had access to all of ‘Nick's’ interviews.

MIR Processes

2.7.31The reason that all of the exhibits were not transferred onto Holmes is
that it is not an effective use of resources to both record the movement of
exhibits in exhibit books and to duplicate this by showing movement on the
Holmes package. Exhibits will be entered on the system to assist with
searching and trial preparation. The use of the exhibits excel spreadsheet
was intended to allow greater access by enquiry team officers to this
information. Access to the Holmes account can be limited due to the
availability of Holmes terminals, whereas the spreadsheet could be accessed
via any aware terminal. At the time of the review the process of updating the
Holmes account was underway and was completed to the satisfaction of the
reviewing team.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Award

2.7.32‘Nick’ submitted his application on 26/09/2013 with a Wiltshire
Constabulary reference number. On 23/02/2015 ‘Nick’ informed the SIO and
318

 his FLO that his claim was outstanding and he required payment to pay his
Counsellor, '[GIST: COUNSELLOR]', outstanding fees. Both officers agreed to
assist and on 24/02/2015 the FLO emailed the CICA advising them that he
was now acting as liaison officer and offering to assist with any information
they required. There was no response. On 25/03/2015 'Nick' advised his FLO
by email that he had received a letter from CICA. They advised him that the
matter was now with a senior reviewer. On 01/04/2015 ‘Nick’ was paid
£22,000 by the CICA. He did not inform either the SIO or the FLO of the
payment. On 04/11/2015 the MPS contacted the CICA asking for details of
‘Nick's’ application. On 17/11/2015 CICA provided a copy of the application
form, a signed consent form, and additional incident information form. The
application form indicated that ‘Nick’ had sustained no physical injuries.
Knowledge of the claim would not have altered the course of the
investigation. The CICA process is a legitimate process and ‘Nick’ is entitled
to make his application. The CICA assess claims on the balance of
probabilities. The CICA case was submitted prior to speaking to the MPS. The
MPS case was not required in order to support his claim.

Timeliness

2.7.33The Holmes account contains 1464 nominals, 369 statements, 443
messages, 1838 documents, 1698 actions were generated and it took 6
weeks to back record/convert the information from Operation Fairbank onto
Holmes. 2473 addresses were researched re House to House enquiries. 202
Houses were visited in the London area. A significant amount of research
took place in relation to suspects both dead and alive. Considerable time was
spent collating military records which were not computerised. Victim
319

 availability delayed the investigative process. ‘Nick’ asserted that he felt
harassed and traumatised by media intrusion and made him feel the need to
step away from the investigation. It took from 16th October 2015 until 11th
January 2016 to arrange the final interview of ‘Nick’.

A and B

2.7.34I understand that it is not the policy of Sir Richard to publish in his report
details of information which is considered to be untrue and false. It is,
however, important for me to make the point that the information given to
us was of a highly significant nature which, if true, would have significantly
altered the course of this investigation. I am satisfied that both A and B have
told deliberate lies and the rationale for my decision appears elsewhere in
Sir Richard's report. It was, however, essential that we investigated those
allegations thoroughly and in doing so this investigation was extended.

Full Code Test

2.7.35I understand that my conclusions in relation to the Full Code Test are not
the subject of any criticism. I used the words, in a letter to Lord Bramall's
solicitors, 'insufficient evidence' rather than 'no evidence' because the test
itself requires me to consider whether 'there is sufficient evidence to provide
a realistic prospect of conviction'. It should not be for the Police to give a
qualitative assessment on how close a case came to meeting the threshold.
It either did or did not! If we had established that this allegation was clearly
false, malicious or could not have been accurate then the letter would have
reflected that. There was some evidence. ‘Nick’ gave an evidential
320

 statement.

Impact of the Media

2.7.36The conduct of the media presented one of the greatest challenges of this
investigation. We were working under the media spotlight. The impact was
felt by complainant, potential witnesses, accused and investigators. The
media were aware of the identities of suspects from day one and, at that
time, ‘Nick’ was still cooperating with journalists that he trusted. Whilst we
were trying to build trust with potential victims and witnesses such as Fred,
it was hugely unhelpful for the media to be identifying ‘Nick’, harassing his
family, publishing his identity and breaching his confidentiality by describing
him as a fantasist. The Mail on Saturday have been fined £40,000 and have
been ordered to pay £2,000 compensation to ‘Nick’, and £5,450 Costs for
breaching the Sexual Offences Act by identifying ‘Nick’. The impact of the
Press intrusion, describing ‘Nick’ as a 'serial fantasist', ‘door stepping’ him
and visiting his mother had a most unfortunate impact on ‘Nick’. He became
untrusting of the investigation team. He was reticent about engaging with
us, causing us to have genuine concerns over his welfare and state of mind.
This resulted in delays to his final interview. The media focus became huge
once the media felt sufficiently confident to name Lord Bramall, Lord Brittan
and Mr. Proctor. It remains our view that accused should also have the right
of anonymity pre-charge.

Final Thoughts

2.7.37This investigation was in unique circumstances and context. The media
321

 involvement and external scrutiny created difficulties. Officers were working
under immense pressure to do the right thing and to keep an open mind. The
motivation was to find the truth. We suspect we have not been able to
achieve this. Charges, prosecutions and convictions cannot be the only
barometer of success. We cannot only investigate the obviously guilty. Our
decisions were brave and taken in good faith. Thorough investigations take
time, particularly as new relevant witnesses come forward. There is
undoubtedly learning to come from this. But which officers would want to
take on these investigations now? And why would a witness want to come
forward and report against a VIP offender?

322

 Operation Midland Conclusions
2.3.8.1

The decision to terminate the investigation was correct. It should have

been taken much earlier. ‘Nick's’ several statements are inconsistent and
could not be relied upon in a Court. Numerous errors were made in this
Operation.

‘Nick’s’ Inconsistencies

2.3.8.2

‘Nick’ was inconsistent in describing the injuries he allegedly

sustained. In his Wiltshire interviews the only injury he described was anal
bleeding. In his CICA claim he asserted that he had no injuries. In his blogs
and counselling notes he describes multiple broken bones. On 19/06/2014
he said:

'They inflicted some nasty and lasting injuries on me. Some of the injuries
give me constant pain even all these years later....I feel the pain today, I look
at the scars today.’

In his MPS interviews he made no mention of broken bones. He described
sharp implements being plunged into various parts of his body. His medical
notes disclosed no injuries. The only injury spoken of by ‘Nick's’ mother was
a chipped ankle on a skiing holiday.

2.3.8.3

‘Nick’ was inconsistent when speaking of the first occasion when he

was allegedly raped. The first act of rape described by him to the Wiltshire
Police was allegedly perpetrated by an unnamed Lieutenant Colonel. The
323

 first act of rape described by him to the MPS was allegedly perpetrated by
his stepfather.

2.3.8.4

‘Nick’ was inconsistent when describing the first alleged act of rape by

his stepfather. To Wiltshire Police he failed to mention a location. To MPS
Officers he alleged the act took place in public toilets at Burford Wildlife Park.

2.3.8.5

The description of the two alleged acts was suspiciously similar. As to

the alleged act of the Lieutenant Colonel:

'I didn't know what was happening; I felt something on my bottom and then
that, just pain like I've never felt before...I put my hand down the back of my
pants and it was covered in blood' (Wiltshire 06/12/2012).

As to the alleged act of his stepfather (MPS 22/10/2014):

‘I didn't know what it was at the time. The pain was indescribable, so much
pain. There was a lot of blood and the pain lasted for quite a while. By the
time we got home the blood had soaked through my underwear to my
trousers and I can just remember putting my hand behind because it was all
wet and sticky and my hand covered in blood'.

It appears that on both occasion he is describing a first act of rape.

2.3.8.6

‘Nick’ stated in his Wiltshire interviews that he was introduced to the

'group' a couple of months after he moved to Bicester. During his MPS
interviews he stated that he was introduced to the 'group' at Wilton.
324

 2.3.8.7

In ‘Nick's’ blog, 18/08/2014, he wrote:

'I would have to be ready to be picked up or it could be unexpected and they
would suddenly arrive to pick me up. It was usually in the day or early evening
and I could be gone from anywhere from a few hours to days'.

Nowhere in his Wiltshire interviews or MPS interviews does he mention
being away for days. His mother does not mention, in either statement, that
he was away for days.

2.3.8.8

In ‘Nick's’ blog, 06/05/2014, he mentioned the 'group' coming

together for big parties and mentioned Christmas and Valentine’s Day
parties. Nowhere in either Wiltshire interviews or MPS interviews did he
mention Valentine’s Day parties.

2.3.8.9

‘Nick’ was inconsistent in relation to the names of his alleged abusers.

To Wiltshire Officers ‘Nick’ stated that names were never used. To MPS
officers ‘Nick’ alleged that names were habitually used by almost all of his
abusers.

2.3.8.10 ‘Nick’ was inconsistent in naming the first Army Officer to abuse him.
To Wiltshire Officers he stated that he did not know the name of the first
Army Officer to rape him and that he was a Lieutenant Colonel. To MPS
Officers he named General Bramall as his first Army abuser. In his final MPS
interview (11/01/2016) ‘Nick’ stated that he knew, when being interviewed
in Wiltshire, who the Army Officer was who had raped him but deliberately
325

 chose not to name him because he thought the police would find out in due
course.

2.3.8.11 ‘Nick’ was inconsistent when speaking of the time when he was first
abused by his stepfather. The handwritten notes of the Wiltshire interview
state that the sexual abuse may have begun before ‘Nick’ and his mother
moved in with his stepfather; he stated:

'it began when we moved in and a bit before' (Wiltshire 06/12/2012).

To MPS Officers ‘Nick’ alleged that the abuse began after he and his mother
moved in with ‘Nick's’ stepfather.

2.3.8.12 ‘Nick’ was inconsistent giving details of the occasion when he alleged
he was first raped by his stepfather. To Wiltshire (06/12/2012), when asked
if his stepfather put his penis in his bottom, ‘Nick’ replied that it was:

‘regular, after that first sort of meeting I suppose, couple of times a week’.

Locations, pain, and blood shed were not mentioned. To MPS (22/10/2014)
he said the act was at Burford with excruciating pain and bloodshed. He got
a beating when he got home because he should not have struggled or
screamed. In a blog (19/06/2014) he said:

'The first time he raped me ...lots of trauma...lost a lot of blood...when we
got home...beat me unconscious...I remember a member of staff I remember
I think a nurse telling me I was lucky because if I had not lost so much blood
326

 I would have likely died from my head injury. When I got home despite having
a plaster cast on my arm...it did not stop my father from raping me again as
soon as I got home’.

Finally, in a blog of 24/07/2014, ‘Nick’ wrote that after being raped by his
stepfather he had his:

'first near death experience...nearly killed me...the hospital released me back
into his care'.

There was no mention of being raped again on his release from hospital.

2.3.8.13 ‘Nick’ was inconsistent when speaking of the last time he saw his
stepfather. To MPS 22/10/2014 (Y1C DISK 3 Page 63):

'My last recollection of Ray, my stepfather, is of him being carted off in a
police vehicle and us going to Bicester for roughly two years'.

And to MPS (11/01/2016 Y1P):

‘The last time I'm definitely sure that I saw Ray was in Bicester when he was
taken away’.

On 5th May 2012 he wrote to his Counsellor:

'I think I told you that the last time I saw him was when he was taken away
by the police. It wasn't. He found me about a year later in Kingston. I was just
327

 walking home one day and I knew someone was watching me, and I can't
explain it, but I knew it was him. I tried to get away, but he was too strong.
He continued where he left off and I had to meet him at various times each
month, and did what he wanted and then just dump me to get home. It went
on for just over a year'.

On 23/10/2014 he told MPS (Y1D):

'In Kingston my stepfather was no longer around. I don't have any recall of
him from Kingston, I have no sense that he was at anything in London or
anything’.

On 11/01/2016 he was asked about his statement that his stepfather had
found him in Kingston and abused him in Kingston on numerous occasions
for a period of over a year. ‘Nick’ said:

'That wasn't Ray it was another member of the group. I hadn't said
everything to the counsellor at that stage. I was trying to get it all out to her.
It was easier to say Ray than another member of the group'.

I find this explanation unimpressive.

2.3.8.14 ‘Nick’ was inconsistent when speaking of other children being present.
‘Nick’ told Wiltshire Police (Tape 5):

‘When these incidents happened with the group, a lot of times I was the only
child present, but not always. About a quarter of the time another child
328

 would be present, just one other. His name was Aubrey. We became friends
from Bicester. He was the same age as me. I last saw him 30 years ago. I don't
know how he got involved’.

2.3.8.15 In Tape 6 he was asked:

‘Q:- ‘Other than you and Aubrey were there any other children?’
A:- ‘There were some more but I don't know who they were. One of them I
saw just a couple of times, one I only saw once. He later said Aubrey was not
in London when I was there. The stuff with Aubrey was not in London’.

2.3.8.16 To MPS (Y1B) he said that, at Imber:

'There were some other boys there. I don't know who they were. I hadn't seen
them before’.

2.3.8.17 To MPS (Y1C):

‘Q:- ‘Who do you remember from Bicester period. You said you had to sit
down and line up?’
A:- ‘My friend mainly’.
Q:- ‘Is this Fred?
A:- ‘Hmm, yes...we've been through a lot together I suppose he's the main
one from then, the others Aubrey from Bicester. The others they're more
London than Bicester. I don't remember a lot about Aubrey apart from his
name. Same age. My height.'

329

 2.3.8.18 It is important to note that, at this point, Fred and Aubrey are separate
individuals.

2.3.8.19 To MPS (Y1D) at Dolphin Sq.:

‘My friend Fred was there’.

2.3.8.20 To MPS (Disk 2):

’At the Carlton Club Fred was there. I call him Fred now that is your fault
(referring to his interviewer) Duncan was there and a third one’.

2.3.8.21 To MPS (03/11/2014 - Incident 3):

‘Fred, Duncan and another boy were present’.

2.3.8.22 06/05/2015: ‘Nick’ told MPS officers that Fred was in fact [FRIEND].
This cannot be true because Fred was involved, according to ‘Nick’, at
Bicester and [FRIEND] was a friend from Kingston.

2.3.8.23 To MPS Officers, after Aubrey had been interviewed and denied being
involved in any abuse, ‘Nick’ told officers that he had used Aubrey's name in
place of the other victim's real name known as ‘Fred’. On any view, ‘Nick’
deliberately misled Midland Officers.

2.3.8.24 ‘Nick’ was inconsistent in the accusations he made. To Wiltshire
Officers he made no mention of murder but to MPS officers he alleged three
330

 murders.

2.3.8.25 ‘Nick’ was inconsistent in the offenders he accused:

To Wiltshire Officers, he accused his stepfather, a Lieutenant Colonel,
Jimmy Savile, a man named Pete and unnamed individuals from the
Middle East, Saudi Arabia and America;

To MPS Officers, he accused his stepfather, Field Marshal Lord Bramall,
Lord Brittan, Sir Edward Heath, Field Marshall Sir Roland Gibbs, Jimmy
Savile, Harvey Proctor, Sir Michael Hanley, Sir Maurice Oldfield and Sir
Peter Hayman. He also accused General Sir Hugh Beach and Lord Janner
of being present and witnessing various offences of sexual abuse.

2.3.8.26 ‘Nick’ was inconsistent in his allegations against his stepfather. To
Wiltshire Officers and to the MPS he alleged indecent assault, violence and
rape but there was no allegation that his stepfather inflicted any visible
physical injury. In his blogs, ‘Nick’ alleged that he was beaten black and blue
and had his arm fractured by his stepfather.

Incredible Assertions

2.3.8.27

I find it incredible that ‘Nick’ identified Jimmy Savile by his voice and

necklace. According to ‘Nick’, Jimmy Savile was present three or four times
(Wiltshire Account) or just a few times (MPS Account) and held ‘Nick's’ head
under the water and 'penetrated’ him. Had that version been true ‘Nick’
would have had every opportunity to identify Savile facially.
331

 2.3.8.28 I find it incredible that ‘Nick’ could have suffered the injuries alleged
by him without his mother being aware of them. ‘Nick’ alleges multiple
bruises, fractures, cuts, grazes etc. The only injury ‘Nick's’ mother recollects
is a chipped bone in ‘Nick's’ ankle sustained when he was skiing.

2.3.8.29 I find it incredible that ‘Nick’ could have bled profusely on several
occasions into his underpants and pants without his mother becoming aware
of such bleeding.

2.3.8.30 I find it incredible that there is no record of any injury in ‘Nick's’
medical records.

2.3.8.31 I find the suggestion made by the SIO incredible, namely that ‘Nick’s’
mother may have been so adversely abused herself by ‘Nick's’ stepfather's
cruelty to her, that her ability to intervene and/or report ‘Nick's’ injuries was
compromised. Reliance is placed by the SIO on the fact that ‘Nick's’ mother
was mistaken as to the date when ‘Nick’ ceased to wet his bed. There is
nothing to suggest that ‘Nick's mother is anything other than truthful, loving
and responsible. In her divorce petition, alleging unreasonable conduct
against ‘Nick's’ stepfather, there is no allegation of any misconduct towards
‘Nick’. She took and collected ‘Nick’ from school at Wilton and, at Bicester,
took ‘Nick’ to school and he was collected by another child's mother.

2.3.8.32 I find it incredible that ‘Nick’ could have been systematically removed
from a number of schools by unauthorised drivers on numerous occasions
over a number of years without teachers intervening or ‘Nick's’ mother being
informed.
332

 2.3.8.33 I find it incredible that ‘Nick’ could have been given drink and/or drugs,
injured, raped and returned to a location near his home on numerous
occasions without his mother’s suspicion or knowledge.

2.3.8.34 I find it incredible, if ‘Nick’ was injured and abused as he alleges, that
he continued to meet drivers to be taken to be similarly abused time and
again.

2.3.8.35 I find it incredible that ‘Nick’ could witness the murder of three friends
on separate occasions, having been told that it was his turn next, and yet
continue to meet with his alleged abusers.

2.3.8.36 I find it incredible that ‘Nick’ could have been treated as alleged and
have witnessed three murders without at least causing his mother some
concern. The evidence is that they went for long walks by the river, they went
for riding lessons and had several skiing holidays abroad. They were, for
much of this time, a two-person unit. According to ‘Nick's’ mother he was
her precious little boy.

2.3.8.37 I find the description of 'Scott’s' alleged murder incredible. It is
inconceivable, if such an event had occurred, that nobody would talk about
it afterwards and that nobody would mention him at school. It is also
incredible that there should be no record, memory or trace of such a grave
event had it occurred.

2.3.8.38 I find it incredible that a 'group' could trace ‘Nick’ from Wilton in
Dorset, to Bicester in Oxfordshire and thence to Kingston in Surrey.
333

 2.3.8.39 I find it incredible that, if ‘Nick’ was treated as he alleges in Bicester,
he would be so reluctant to move to Kingston, only being persuaded to do
so by his mother with the bribe of a dog.

Implausibility

2.3.8.40 I find it highly implausible that a former Prime Minister, a Home
Secretary, former Heads of MI5 and MI6, two Field Marshals, a Labour Peer,
a former Conservative MP and a television presenter would have conspired
together to inflict grievous bodily harm and to rape numerous young boys.

2.3.8.41 I find it highly implausible that Lord Bramall would have conspired with
Jimmy Savile to commit any criminal act.

2.3.8.42 I find it highly implausible that Sir Edward Heath, Lord Janner, and
Harvey Proctor would take part in any joint activity having regard to their
disparate political views.

2.3.8.43 I find it highly implausible that a young boy would be raped in the
office of a General having regard to the likely presence of other military
personnel.

2.3.8.44 I find it highly implausible that a party would take place at the home
of a former Prime Minister where several young boys were raped having
regard to security arrangements then in place.

334

 2.3.8.45 I find it highly implausible that similar parties would be held in the
swimming pool at Dolphin Sq. or in the Carlton Club.

2.3.8.46 I accept [GIST: PSYCHOLOGIST 2] opinion, based on the CATCHEM
dataset, that the chances of repeated stranger child sexual homicide at sex
parties in the United Kingdom would be a very low frequency event indeed
and, thus, highly implausible.

2.3.8.47 I find it highly implausible, indeed incredible, that Mr. Proctor would
arrange for one boy to be run down and killed, would strangle a second boy,
and beat a third boy to death, all three murders being witnessed by ‘Nick’.

2.3.8.48 I find it highly implausible that either 'Boy 1' or 'Boy 3' could have been
murdered with no missing person report and no unsolved homicide
investigation matching either 'death'.

Suspicions

2.3.8.49 I find it suspicious that ‘Nick’ employed an enquiry agent, paying him
to ascertain whether his stepfather was alive or dead before complaining to
the Wiltshire Police. Apart from seven months, when he was aged seven,
‘Nick’ had no contact with his stepfather and no conceivable affection for
him.

2.3.8.50 I find it suspicious that, in his complaint to the Wiltshire Police, ‘Nick’
named no living person who could dispute his allegations.

335

 2.3.8.51 I find it suspicious that, in his claim to the CICA, he named no living
person who could dispute his claim.

2.3.8.52 I find it suspicious that, from October 2014 until April 2015 and during
which time his claim was pending, ‘Nick’ cooperated fully with the MPS
investigation. Having received his compensation his attitude to the enquiry
changed. He became uncooperative, felt he could not continue, cancelled
appointments, and made it extremely difficult to arrange any further
interview. When an interview was arranged he stated after a short time that
he was ill and cancelled the adjourned process.

2.3.8.53 I find it suspicious that ‘Nick’ declined to hand over his journals to
police officers and that he chose not to mention the murders until he had
discussed them with his Counsellor.

2.3.8.54 I find it suspicious that ‘Nick’ continued to engage his Counsellor and
attended a total of 91 sessions whilst knowing that she had no experience of
counselling sex abuse victims.

2.3.8.55 These incredible, implausible and suspicious facts can only be
reconciled by the sure conclusion that ‘Nick’ has invented these allegations
in order to claim compensation. I am satisfied that every person named by
‘Nick’, including his stepfather, is innocent of the allegation made against
him.

336

 Principal Police Failings

2.3.8.56 Specifically:

i)

Believing ‘Nick’ at the outset of this investigation when the Wiltshire
Police had doubted ‘Nick's’ credibility describing it as 'all a bit odd' and
'it all sounds a bit “Spooks”’.

ii)

Causing ‘Nick’ to be interviewed by officers with no knowledge of
‘Nick's’ Wiltshire interviews or ‘Nick's’ blogs.

iii)

Failing to arrange a further interview, to deal with inconsistencies in
October 2014 interviews, until January 2016.

iv)

Delaying visiting ‘Nick's’ mother for approximately six months.

v)

Failing to trace Aubrey until October 2015.

vi)

Failing to enquire of the CICA whether ‘Nick’ had made a claim.

vii)

Having learned that ‘Nick’ had made a claim, failed to ask the CICA for
details of the claim.

viii)

Having learned that ‘Nick’ had made a claim, assisted ‘Nick’ to process
his claim during the currency of this investigation.

ix)

Having obtained ‘Nick's’ medical records in December 2014, failed to
337

 ask ‘Nick’ if he would consent to a full medical examination until January
2016.

x)

On 18/12/2014, making a public statement that:

'We believe that what ‘Nick’ is saying is credible and true’.

xi)

Failed to request a Review of this Operation at 24 hours, 7 days or 28
days and, thereafter, failed to request a thematic review by the
Specialist Crime Review Group to specifically assess ‘Nick's’ credibility
before applying for any search warrant.

xii)

Applying for search warrants when there were no reasonable grounds
to believe that an indictable offence had been committed.

xiii)

Inaccurately, on the face of the warrant, stated:

'Person whose premises are authorised to be searched: Lord Leon
Brittan' when, as a deceased person, Lord Brittan could not own
property.

xiv)

In the applications for the warrants, stating that:

'The victim in this investigation contacted Police in late 2014....'.

When, in fact, ‘Nick’ first contacted MPS in 2012 before being referred
to Wiltshire Police where he was interviewed at length in December
338

 2012. Further it was the MPS who contacted ‘Nick’ in 2014.

xv)

In the applications for the warrants, inaccurately stated that:

'’Nick's’ account had remained consistent and he is felt to be a credible
witness who is telling the truth'.

xvi)

Before the searches commenced, informing ‘Nick’, by his liaison
officer, that the searches were about to commence.

xvii) In the searches, property was seized which was not authorised by the
warrant.

xviii) Officers conducting a search in North Yorkshire conducted the search as
if looking for bodies or body parts.

xix)

Lady Brittan was given no sufficient assurance that the search of her
home was related to the suspected criminality of others.

xx)

Property seized in the searches was not copied and returned in timely
manner and other property was retained for excessive periods.

xxi)

By confirming the locality of the searches the MPS contributed to the
loss of anonymity of Lord Bramall, Lady Brittan and Harvey Proctor.

xxii) Conducted this investigation in such a manner that the Assistant
Commissioner felt obliged to postpone the interviews of Lord Bramall
339

 and Harvey Proctor on two occasions whilst a review took place.

xxiii) Instructed a Consultant Psychologist to carry out an assessment of
‘Nick's’ credibility and failed to provide her with ‘Nick's’ Wiltshire
interviews, his blogs or the videos of his MPS interviews.

xxiv) Rejected the concerns of a well-regarded Consultant Psychologist, who
had questioned ‘Nick's’ credibility, describing his views as biased.

xxv)

Relied on the advice of the instructed Psychologist when she had
advised that she had insufficient time to read all the MPS interviews.

xxvi) Placed reliance on the views of ‘Nick's’ Counsellor without sufficiently
evaluating her experience or qualifications.

xxvii) In Lord Bramall's first interview, failed to disclose the location of the
alleged crimes thus depriving him of the opportunity of specifying
potential witnesses to rebut the allegations.

xxviii) Having learned that every ‘Scott’ at Coombe Hill Primary School had
survived his schooling, and that no serious road traffic accident could be
traced to the locality, failed to sufficiently assess the impact of this
information on the investigation.

xxix) In Gold Group Minutes of 20/05/2015, it is recorded that:

'The Group acknowledged that MPS Policy was that victims must be
340

 believed and relied on this policy to justify not asking to inspect ‘Nick's’
computer.

xxx)

On receiving an email from ‘Fred’ via ‘Nick’, which was cut and pasted
to conceal ‘Fred's’ email address, failed to ask ‘Nick’ if he would consent
to his computer being examined.

xxxi) Having visited ‘Nick's’ mother failed to take immediate steps to trace
Aubrey and [FRIEND].

xxxii) Recorded General Sir Hugh Beach as a suspect from 13/11/2014 until
11/06/2015 and failed to interview him as a witness until 18/09/20155,
‘Nick’ having alleged that Sir Hugh was a witness to significant
criminality. He was 92 years of age when interviewed.

xxxiii) On 11/06/2015 informed ‘Nick’ that Harvey Proctor was to be
interviewed, thus ensuring further adverse publicity for Mr Proctor.

xxxiv) On 11/06/2015 caused DMC to publish that a man in his 60’s [8] from
Grantham was interviewed under caution, thus confirming information
that Exaro had already received, thereby causing further adverse
publicity for Mr Proctor.

xxxv) Caused two police officers to travel from England to Australia to
interview a 'Scott' who must necessarily have survived his childhood
when 'Scott' could have answered any questions by more economical
means.
341

 xxxvi) On 05/10/2015, when ‘Nick’ had asserted that both Aubrey and ‘Nick’
were ‘Fred’, declined to take pro-active steps to trace ‘Fred's’ email
address or to ask ‘Nick’ for his mobile phone or his computer.

xxxvii) Between March 2015 and December 2015, when a review was carried
out, failed to forensically examine a school tie and blazer recovered in
searches, notwithstanding the fact that the school tie bore a label of
school outfitters in Surrey which was the County of Coombe Hill Primary
School. Both tie and blazer have since been found to have no evidential
significance.

xxxviii)

Conducting several hundred house to house enquiries, in December

2015 and January 2016, at a time when ‘Nick's’ credibility was nonexistent thus making a poor use of resources.

xxxix) The decision to trace Lord Bramall's ADC, on 24/11/2015, was
unreasonably delayed. Lord Bramall having indicated that his ADC could
vouch for his innocence on 31/07/2015.

xl)

Upon receiving [GIST: PROFESSOR 2] report, and upon receiving
advice from the CPS, the investigation should have been terminated on
17/12/2015 and no further action brought against both suspects.

xli)

When a decision was taken to discontinue against Lord Bramall on
14/01/2016, the same decision should have been taken in Harvey
Proctors case. If ‘Nick’ could not be relied upon in the case of one
suspect, on these facts, he could not be relied upon in the case of the
342

 other.

xlii)

The decision to inform the public that…

'we have found no evidence of ‘Nick’ wilfully misleading the
investigation team or anything which would amount to an offence of
perverting the course of justice'

…cannot be justified on the facts of this case.

xliii)

Failing to interview ‘Nick’s’ ex-wife in connection with any disclosure
that ‘Nick’ allegedly made to her. On 03/11/2014 ‘Nick said, during
interview, that he had told his ex-wife. Police should have visited her at
an early stage of the investigation.

2.3.8.57

Having made these criticisms, I should also state that this was a well-

resourced investigation with every possible investigative tool and support
made available to the Midland team.

2.3.8.58

The principal cause of the many failures in this investigation was poor

judgement and a failure to accurately evaluate known facts and to react to
them. A major contributing factor was the culture that ‘victims’ must be
believed. Whilst the responsible Officers assert that they kept an open mind,
several failures can only be explained by an unwarranted and
disproportionate belief in ‘Nick's’ credibility.

343

 2.3.8.59 The most significant error in this investigation was the decision to
apply for search warrants coupled with formulating inaccurate statements
which were placed before the District Judge. But for that decision, this
investigation may well have been completed without the dreadful adverse
consequences I have described. As the three senior officers now appreciate,
‘Nick’ had been inconsistent in his accounts and yet the District Judge was
told that he was consistent. This, combined with other inaccuracies before
the District Judge, and the failure to disclose several undermining factors,
has caused me great concern. Two more junior officers made the statement
and authorised the application. It was made clear at the outset, to all
officers, that the purpose of this review was not to conduct disciplinary
proceedings under a different guise and that the Commissioner wished to
learn lessons with a view to improving investigative procedures in the future.
It is essential that any investigation, disciplinary or other, is carried out
according to law and with all appropriate safeguards being observed.

2.3.8.60

I wrote the paragraphs on 'Belief' in Chapter 1 some little time ago,

and observed 'that the policy of believing victims strikes at the very core of
the criminal justice process'. I have no doubt that the policy adversely
affected the judgement of officers in this case. The DSU specifically refers to
the policy affecting his judgement in relation to his 'credible and true'
statement. I believe it affected the decision to delay visiting ‘Nick's’ mother,
because they' believed' ‘Nick’, and it affected decisions in relation to ‘Nick's’
injuries, his computer, his phone, and his journals. Those who contend for
the policy will assert that the officers misapplied the policy. The problem
with enforcing an artificial belief in the truth of an allegation is that it
deprives the officer of the ability to make an independent decision as to the
344

 veracity of what they are hearing. The SIO spent 17 hours, under direction,
to 'believe' ‘Nick’ as she watched the ABE videos from beginning to end. If
one policy decision results from this review I trust that the instruction to
'believe' a victim's account will cease.

2.3.8.61

I have spent much time considering how it has been possible for five

experienced and highly regarded officers to have expressed the view that
‘Nick’ had been consistent, when he was so demonstrably not so, as they
now accept. One possibility, not advanced by any officer, but nevertheless in
my view a possibility, is that at the time the warrants were sought one or
more of these officers had not in fact read, or sufficiently read, the Wiltshire
interviews. I note that in the SIO's investigative priorities of 18/11/2014, at
number 5, she wrote: 'Forensic read of ‘Nick's' ABE interviews'. There was no
mention of the Wiltshire interviews, nor are the Wiltshire interviews
mentioned in any log or minutes of any meeting prior to the application for
warrants, and the analysis of the differences between the Wiltshire
interviews and the MPS interviews did not take place until 27/10/2015. If the
two officers making the statements and authorising them had no knowledge
of the Wiltshire interviews, it would explain the misleading content of those
statements, including the statement that ‘Nick’ was first interviewed in 2014
rather than 2012. I appreciate that if an officer overlooked or failed to read
the Wiltshire interviews it will be a difficult concession to make.

2.3.8.62

As matters stand I have no doubt that the District Judge was misled,

and, had he known the true position, he would not have granted the
applications. The gravity of a Judge being misled in such circumstances
cannot be overstated. A rigorous investigation into the decision to apply for
345

 the warrants and the formulation of the statements must take place and be
conducted by those with the appropriate investigative powers. Those
adversely affected by the issuing of those warrants may feel that I can
perform that function. Due process must be followed and I do not have, nor
could I be given, those powers. Such investigation should be conducted by
the IPCC. A number of questions remain unanswered in relation to the
application for the warrants but those must await the service of the
appropriate notices.

2.3.8.63

In ‘Nick's’ case, and in the cases of A and B, I do not have, nor could

I be given, the appropriate investigative powers and, again, due process must
be observed. I recommend that an investigation into possible offences of
fraud and perverting the course of justice should be undertaken in ‘Nick's’
case, and offences of attempting to pervert the course of justice be
considered in the cases of A and B. It would be appropriate for another police
force to carry out such investigations.

2.3.8.64

At the conclusion of my interview with the officers on 16-17 August

2016, I formed the view that, notwithstanding the many mistakes I have
enumerated above, the officers had conducted this investigation in a
conscientious manner and with propriety and honesty.

346

 Chapter 3

347

Operation Vincente
A summary of the complaint

3.1

The Complainant was 19 years of age in 1967 when this incident took

place. [GIST: Description of a historic allegation of rape by ‘Jane’ against Lord
Leon Brittan].

3.2

The following day the Suspect contacted the Complainant [GIST:

Description of account by ‘Jane’].

3.3

[GIST: Continued description of account by ‘Jane’] She stated that she

observed a [GIST: Document that named Leon Brittan and organisation] on the
[GIST: LOCATION] [GIST: Continued description of account by ‘Jane’].

3.4

[Continued description of account by ‘Jane’].

3.5

[Continued description of account by ‘Jane’].

3.6This is a summary of the facts which are set out in more detail in the MG3.
I have read both ABEs, [PERSON 1] statement, plus the statements of
[PERSON 2], [PERSON 3], [PERSON 4], [PERSON 5] and [GIST: Personal
information of ‘Jane’] together with the contents of three ring binders
provided for the purpose of this review.

348

 DCI Settle’s Initial review of the evidence

3.7

I have read DCI Settle's manuscript Decision Log Commenced 20/12/2012.

The offence had first been reported to South Yorkshire Police and was
transferred to the MPS on 30/12/2012. DCI Settle was satisfied, from the original
notes, that the initial investigation was sound. He reviewed the allegation and
observed that, in the aftermath of Savile, the matter had been reported to her
local force and that the investigation should now be conducted by this team as
part of the confidential enquiry. It made sense for Fairbank to investigate. He
tasked [DC 1], an experienced and suitably qualified officer, to speak to the
victim and to offer reassurance. He observed that 'this allegation ultimately may
centre on consent. Given that this is not a clear cut allegation I will liaise with a
colleague in 'Sapphire' with a view to his advising and, if need be, reviewing our
actions to date'. He decided the victim should be further interviewed.

3.8

On 08/01/2013, following the further ABE interview, DCI Settle observed

that the Complainant's account remained consistent.

'The fact remains that this was an incident involving 2 people in a private
dwelling some 40 years ago. It is hoped that the witnesses may offer some
corroboration of events which could strengthen the victim’s account'.

He advised that four potential witnesses be interviewed and that a fifth be
traced and interviewed.

3.9

On 15/02/2013 DCI Settle wrote that he had spoken to DCI Smith who had

agreed to look at the investigation to date. He added that:
349

 'I am concerned at this point that the facts as presented do not necessarily
constitute the offence of rape in that on the account provided I am unsure if
LB could have reasonably known or suspected that consent was an issue'.

3.10 On 07/06/2013 DCI Settle had read both ABE interviews and the
statements that I have read and reviewed the evidence before observing:

[GIST: Description of account by ‘Jane’ and personal information]

‘I am struggling to see, based on the evidence gathered, that a reasonable
person would have any idea that consent was an issue let alone that it had
been refused. That said I am by no means an expert in that field and therefore
I propose to seek advice from the CPS. At this stage I do not feel that the
arrest or interview of the suspect is a proportionate response. The matter is
over 40 years old, the offence is not clear cut, the additional witnesses do not
support LB's presence at the time. The victim is sure of the identification from
a [GIST: Document that named him] in his flat. But I am still not convinced
that the offence is made out. There is no right of anonymity for persons
arrested for sexual offences. Furthermore, there is considerable media
intrusion in other aspects of a parallel investigation, and to arrest now would
I feel jeopardise any other potential enquiries as this, given the evidence
would be seen as a baseless witch hunt.....Once this matter has been referred
to the CPS and advice received I will review and make a further decision'.

CPS Investigative Advice 19/08/2013

350

 3.11 This matter was considered in considerable detail by [CPS 4] a rape
specialist prosecutor. Having reviewed the evidence, [CPS 4] concluded:

[GIST: Detailed CPS review of content of allegation made by ‘Jane’]

‘I am of the view all of this evidence supports the fact that the suspect was
unaware that the victim was not consenting to the sexual intercourse
between them'.

'On the evidence that I have seen, I am of the view that there is insufficient
evidence to prove that the suspect would have been aware that the victim
was not consenting....Whether the suspect is arrested and interviewed is
purely an operational decision for the police'.

DCI Settle’s Application of the Full Code Test - 04/09/2013

3.12 Having read [CPS 4] advice, DCI Settle applied the Full Code Test and
decided that no further action would be taken, that there would be no arrest
and no interview. It would be disproportionate as there was insufficient evidence
to prove that the suspect would be aware the victim was not consenting. He
concluded:

'We would be totally reliant upon a suspect admitting the offence when the
disclosure would undermine that very notion. Given the impact that arrest
would have on the suspect and the subsequent media intrusion and legacy
when the offence to my mind is not made out, I believe that any executive
action against the subject would be grossly disproportionate to any realistic
351

 outcome. Following advice received from the CPS at the last Gold Group I will
apply the full code test'.

3.13 DCI Settle applied the test thus:

'Unfortunately this matter falls at the evidential stage.....There must be
sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. I do not
believe that the suspect would have been aware that consent was an issue
[GIST: Description of account by ‘Jane’ and personal information].

He instructed [DC 1] to communicate his decision to the Complainant and
offered to speak to her himself should the Complainant so wish.

Meeting on 17/02/2014 between DCI Settle, [DC 1], the Complainant and
[PERSON 1].

3.14 The Complainant did indeed wish to speak to DCI Settle. He had offered
to travel north to see her, but the Complainant preferred to wait until she visited
London and thus the meeting was delayed.

I have a very full note of the

meeting, compiled by the Complainant or [PERSON 1], which bears the words:

'no publication without explicit consent'.

3.15 It is not necessary for me to summarise that document save to say that
the meeting was extremely difficult, not least because the Complainant
indicated that she had been to Exaro News and they had printed something
about her that was not true and implied that a leak from Police was the cause of
352

 this getting into the Press. She implied that DCI Settle was looking after the
suspect. DCI Settle indicated that he had a very low opinion of Exaro News as
they had been overly intrusive with regard to an ongoing investigation. DCI Settle
explained the full code test, informing them that the decision was his and his
alone, but assuring them that he had consulted the CPS and that a specialist rape
prosecutor had considered all the papers. He told them that they could, if they
wished, complain to the IPCC. He repeated this in a letter of the same date. The
letter was sent recorded delivery but returned to the MPS unsigned for and thus
never received by the complainant.

DCI Settle is taken out of his role - 21/04/2014

3.16 An email from Commander M [sic] states:

'Re the issue with Paul Settle, we took him out of his role due to the pressure
he was under, particularly with [GIST: Personal information].

I have received a full explanation of the circumstances of DCI Settle’s removal
from his role and have concluded that it can be justified having regard to his
[GIST: Personal information], the location of their home in [COUNTY] and
the pressures of his role within Operation Fairbank. Due to DCI Settle’s [GIST:
Personal information] I have not canvassed these circumstances of his
removal from his role with him.

Letter from Tom Watson - 28/04/2014

3.17 This letter, written on House of Commons notepaper, was highly critical of
353

 what had thus far taken place. He wrote:

'Unusually, and contrary to current practice and the ACPO/CPS Guidance on
the Investigation and Prosecution of Rape Cases, the investigation into the
serious allegations in this case was dropped before the suspect was
interviewed'.

He described the decision as highly irregular and shocking in itself. This letter
was not sent to the MPS nor did they become aware of it until 02/06/2014
although it was published on the Exaro website on 17/05/2014. The DPP
replied, on 13/06/2014, saying that:

'any decision whether or not to investigate a case, is a matter for the police
and that she was therefore forwarding Mr. Watson's letter to the police
superintendent in charge of the case'.

Operation Fairbank Tactical Review Meeting - 28/04/2014

3.18 At this meeting it was decided that DSU G [sic] would establish the
rationale for not approaching Lord Brittan to put the allegation to him and that
DSU G would review the exact nature of the CPS advice and review the decision
not to speak to Lord Brittan.

3.19 Regard was had to paragraph 4.2 of the Code of Crown Prosecutors which
states:

‘in most cases prosecutors should only decide whether to prosecute after the
354

 investigation has been completed and all the available evidence has been
reviewed’.

3.20 Commander M took the view that, since Lord Brittan had not been
interviewed, the investigation had not been completed and all the available
evidence had not been reviewed.

3.21 He also had regard to para 4.3:

‘prosecutors should only take such a decision (whether or not to prosecute)
when they are satisfied that the broad extent of the criminality has been
determined and that they are able to make a fully informed assessment of
the public interest. If prosecutors do not have sufficient information to take
such a decision, the investigation should proceed and a decision taken later
in accordance with the full code test’.

3.22 I do not agree with the decision reached at this meeting for the very
reason enunciated by DCU Price when she wrote, on 19/05/2014:

‘even if statements are obtained, I feel they are unlikely to change the CPS
decision which incident, I believe was the correct one based on the evidence
they received’.

3.23 DCI Settle had anticipated the unfortunate chain of the events that would
follow from an interview with Lord Brittan, namely that, with Exaro involved,
media intrusion was a certainty as far as Lord Brittan was concerned.

355

 3.24 I am fully aware of the conclusion of the review undertaken by the Dorset
Constabulary that concluded:

‘The reviewer concludes that there were ample reasonable grounds to
conduct an interview of Lord Brittan and that the enquiry could not be
properly progressed without doing so. Such action was necessary,
proportionate and justified and far from unlawful as was contended by the
SIO on the basis that the ingredients of the offence were not made out due
to “consent”. Whilst he has sought to rationalise this in his decision log, the
reviewer believes that the only way to explore that consent was by
questioning the suspected person. Had other available lines of enquiry been
explored, these may well have unearthed information that negated the need
for an interview but for the SIO to base the decision entirely on his assessment
of the consent issue is difficult to justify.’

3.25 I find the last sentence difficult to understand as the issue at that stage
was clearly consent and nothing else. The Complainant had [GIST: Description
of account by ‘Jane’] and did nothing not to indicate a lack of consent. In my
judgment, the SIO was correct to ‘base the decision on the consent issue’.

3.26 Whilst I do not agree with the conclusions reached by the Dorset
Constabulary of Operation Vincente I do not regard the decision as wholly
unreasonable, or one that no competent senior officer could make. I fully
recognise that it was a potentially controversial decision to NFA a case against a
former Home Secretary and that it was and remains a legitimate concern of
senior officers in the MPS to maintain public confidence in the MPS. Whilst
ordering a review creates an appearance of careful oversight of the investigative
356

 process, the decision, as anticipated by DCI Settle, resulted in massive media
intrusion and great distress of an elderly and very sick man. I have no doubt that,
had the suspect been an ordinary member of the public with no reputation or
celebrity, no review would have taken place given identical facts. The outcome
of the review was easy to anticipate and, as foreseen by DCI Settle, it proved to
be a futile exercise.

Review of Operation Vincente by DCI Sam Price - 19/05/2014

3.27 DCI Price indicated that certain witnesses, who had not been traced,
should be further sought but commented:

'however, even if statements are obtained I feel they are unlikely to
significantly change the CPS decision, which, incidentally, I believe was the
correct one based on the evidence they received. The key line of enquiry I
believe should be progressed is the interview under caution of LB. I believe he
must be interviewed in order to question him regarding the victim's account
as well as obtain crucial background information, including his place of
residence in 1967/associates etc. Additionally, as per any named suspect, he
must be allowed the opportunity to respond to the allegation made’.

Interview at Mischon De Reya Solicitors - 30/05/2014

3.28 Lord Brittan denied ever having met the Complainant and denied ever
living in a [VENUE 1]. He told police officers that, in 1967, he lived in a [VENUE
2]. He named his landlady. He did not recall having had a [GIST: Document that
named him and organisation] and, if he had, he would not have exhibited it on
357

 a [GIST: LOCATION]. He gave a prepared statement and answered questions
under caution very positively denying the allegation and denying ever having
met the Complainant.

CPS Email - 03/06/2014

3.29 [CPS 1] of the CPS wrote to DSU G saying that [CPS 1] was confused and
understood that the case had been NFA'd by DCI Settle and the investigation had
finished. The CPS could only now become involved if the Officer in Charge of the
case confirmed that the investigation was complete, completed an MG3,
confirmed that the evidential threshold had been passed and then submitted a
full set of papers for a charging decision to be made. [CPS 1] went on, most
significantly, to write that:

'I think that any supervising officer may struggle to show that it meets the
threshold bearing the reasons given by Paul Settle for the NFA and the fact
that the only additional evidence is the interview which weakens the case’.

CPS Email - 05/06/2014

3.30 Earlier in the day DS Townly sent an email to [CPS 1] asking that a decision
be made as soon as possible.

'The decision has been reviewed by another ERO DS Andy May and there is
significant pressure from the senior management that a decision is made as
soon as possible, victim charter, public interest/perception, ill health of LB
and the political sensitivity around the subject. It is my view that a
358

 transparent review is carried out of this case (not by the police) so that there
can be no accusation of us 'covering things up’.

Within two hours [CPS 1] replied that [CPS 1] had already sent an email to
DSU G on the matter and reaffirmed that a DCI dealt with the original
decision and NFA'd the case on an evidential basis.

'LB has now been interviewed and has raised ID in issue and denied the
offences. In my view his interview weakened the case further'.

[CPS 1] then reiterated the several steps that would have to be taken,
certification of threshold passing, completion of MG3, and submission of full
file before the CPS would make a charging decision. [CPS 1] stressed that the
Director’s Guidance must be followed and that 'this case is not accepted by
the CPS to provide advice'.

Email from Lord Brittan’s Solicitors re [GIST: Document that named him] 23/06/2014

3.31 Solicitors acting for Lord Brittan wrote [GIST: Details enquiries contesting
existence of document that named him, at that point in time. MPS enquiries
also queried if document that named him was issued at that point in time].

It is not clear whether [GIST: Commentary about type of document that
named him].

The Complainants evidence was clear [GIST: Commentary about existence
359

 of document that names him, at that point in time] and the Defence had
indicated that they would call oral evidence to that effect in the event of any
resulting trial.

Lord Brittan was named in the press in connection with a rape of allegation in
1967 on or about 07/07/2014

The DAC was appointed Gold Commander Operation Vincente - 07/07/2014

3.32 [GIST: Comment about ‘Jane’s’ concern around media coverage].

Complainant taken for a drive around in attempt to locate the scene of crime 22/08/2014

3.33 The Complainant was taken for a drive around [VENUE 3] and shown
[VENUE 4] and [VENUE 3] tube stations, neither of which she could positively
identify. She had heard from Mark Conrad and he was trying to identify the
location. She was told to tell Conrad that if he found the location he should not
tell her but should inform the police.

Identification Procedure on 07/10/2014 (Via the WADS System)

3.34 Lord Brittan had declined to attend upon an identification procedure. This
is hardly surprising considering how frequently his photograph and images had
been in the public domain. Any legal advisor would advise him not to participate.
After asking to be shown two pictures a second time, the Complainant identified
the Suspect.
360

 Information re Mark Conrad - 14/10/2014

3.35 [GIST:

Comment about ‘Jane’ informing [DC 1] of media making

enquiries].

File resubmitted to CPS - 12/11/2014

3.36 The file was resubmitted and [CPS 1], returned the file and stated that it
was not accepted for pre-charge advice. [CPS 1] gave a full explanation. [CPS 1]
had read the endorsement of DSU G which read:

'The case has been difficult in the sense that it was closed on the basis of an
offence not being identified, however in my view there are some points of
case law to be considered, mainly in terms of the consent. I believe that she
held a genuine belief of fear and therefore was not in a position to say 'no'.
Case law appears to show that unless consent is obvious it is up to a jury to
decide whether any intercourse was lawful'.

The purpose of resubmitting the file was to seek the CPS expert advice in the
case in totality. The DAC viewed this investigation as a ’test case’

3.37 [CPS 1] set out the Director’s Guidance in full and, yet again, reminded
DSU G that cases should not be referred to the CPS unless the Full Code Test can
be met. [CPS 1] then wrote:

'Neither the endorsement by DSU G nor DS Townly satisfy the criteria set out
in the Director’s Guidance, in so far that they are satisfied the Full Code Test
361

 has been met. As the case has been previously NFA'd (no further action) by
the Police, as previously stated, we would additionally need the reasons why
the decision made by DCI Settle was wrong. The file is therefore returned and
not accepted for pre charge advice’.

Email from the DAC to DSU G questioning the CPS decision - 24/11/2014

3.38 The DAC expressed himself puzzled by the decision not to accept the file
stating that common sense would state that the CPS should be able to offer a
professional view on a set of case files where the decision not to proceed would
be of such huge public interest. He wrote:

'I am keen that we appeal this decision on the basis that we are seeking a
professional view on our judgement. These are unique circumstances where
the background context is one where the previous independence of the Police
to tackle sexual offending by VIPs has been publicly called into question'.

Email from DAC to Commander Spindler - 08/01/2015

3.39 The DAC wrote:

'How can we get the CPS to assess the evidence in cases of public interest
(even if our assessment is that the threshold test is not met)’.

Death of Lord Brittan 21/01/2015

3.40 Shortly after Lord Brittan died, Tom Watson MP described him in a blog as
362

 'close to evil as any human being could be'. At this time Lord Brittan (albeit now
deceased) was a suspect in Operation Midland, an investigation into allegations
of child murder by 'Nick'. A case in which Mr. Watson had taken a personal
interest having, according to ‘Nick’, spent some time with him at an early stage
of the investigation. The DAC in this investigation was also Gold Commander in
Operation Midland.

Email from the DAC to the CPS ([CPS 5]) - 23/01/2015

3.41 The DAC wrote:

'You may be aware that we did seek EIA (Early Investigative Advice) from [CPS
1] in this case and that we subsequently decided that there was insufficient
evidence to meet the Full Code Test. We then conducted further enquiries,
including an interview with Lord Brittan, and were keen to get CPS
endorsement of our informal professional view that the Full Code Test was
not met. [CPS 1] rightly refused to formally consider the case because the
Test was not met and we have had an impasse ever since! We now have to
manage the impact of his death with a number of media enquiries about the
status of our enquiry. Could you possibly consider the merits of a protocol
that would allow the CPS to review cases that in our view do not meet the
Full Code Test but where there is a public interest in you doing so'.

Meeting between the DAC, [CPS 5] and [CPS 6] - 12/02/2015

3.42 The DAC expanded on his proposal that the CPS should consider reviewing
cases where the Full Code Test had not been met. He stated that the case could
363

 be written up either way; either Full Code Test met or not met. [CPS 5] expressed
the view that the CPS should not give advice on the case of Lord Brittan because
it would involve departing from more than one piece of existing policy. It was
agreed that their respective organisations would consider the proposal.

Email from the DAC to [CPS 5] - 02/02/2015

3.43 The DAC, wrote:

‘many thanks for taking the time to look at this, I really appreciate your
efforts to find a way through this. I have had a look at the suggested lines
and would still hope there is potential to get us closer together on this. My
objective is to be able to demonstrate that there has been informed CPS
scrutiny of our investigation and that we have a shared view on the evidential
positon. This is challenging as the DPP guidance seems to preclude both of
our organisations taking a joint view on a case in circumstances where the
police believe that a case may not be chargeable but where there are issues
of both public confidence and consent. I am sure this is not intentional in a
case like this where I believe that there is a need for legal advice on the issue
of implied consent by the victim. This is central to the strength of this case.
At present, my only route to securing CPS consideration of the case is to
declare that we (DSU G) believes that the Full Code Test has been met. There
is some merit in this view but I suspect that it may only serve to engineer a
situation where you will be forced to declare that the CPS disagree with the
Police assessment of the case. Obviously, I genuinely want to avoid this. In
this particular case I would still ask for a CPS review of the current file, in
effect an update on the Early Investigative Advice given by [CPS 4] in August
364

 2013. Since that time a number of enquires have been conducted and it
would seem right that the updated file is reviewed. I am relaxed as to
whether we refer to this as Further Early Investigative Advice or Charging
Advice? Is there any scope for a CPS review of the current file of evidence
under the banner of EIA? Kind Regards Steve.’

This was a blatant attempt to bypass the Directors’ guidance to which the
DAC had been referred on many occasions by [CPS 1]. It should have been
abundantly clear to him that the time had come to apply the Full Code Test.
He knew if he did apply the Full Code Test the investigation would come to
an end. By acting as he did, in my judgement, he prolonged this investigation
and must have realised that he was doing so. He was attempting to modify
the Directors’ guidance. He was perfectly entitled to attempt do so without
unjustifiably prolonging the situation of any suspect. Had he discontinued
the present investigation, he could perfectly well have embarked upon
meetings with the CPS provided, of course, that he had the support of his
superiors.

It should be borne in mind that the DAC in Operation Vincente was, by now,
Gold Group Commander in Operation Midland and, in both operations, Lord
Brittan was a suspect. Whilst I do not assert that the DAC was deliberately
retaining Lord Brittan as a suspect in Operation Vincente to bolster Operation
Midland, by conducting himself as he did, he has exposed himself to such a
suspicion. It is a fact that, within one month of this letter, search warrants
had been applied for at two homes of the now deceased Lord Brittan. The
question plainly arises to why the DAC should be so concerned to prolong an
investigation into an allegation of sexual misconduct 48 years ago by a
365

 deceased man.

Letter from AC Gallan to DPP - 01/04/2015

3.44 AC Gallan wrote to the Director recording a recent meeting in which she
stated:

'we discussed the Director’s Guidance in relation to allowing the CPS to
review cases involving prominent figures when the Full Code Test has not
been met'.

She went on to ask whether the CPS would reconsider whether it should
review Lord Brittan's case. She wrote:

'This case does not, as I understand it, meet the evidential test'.

Letter from AC Gallan to DPP - 05/03/2015

3.45 AC Gallan wrote in similar terms stating:

'It is my opinion, that in the light of the numerous high profile and complex
investigations that the police are investigating, that we should consider the
need to create a mechanism where CPS advice can be provided when police
believe that insufficient evidence exist’.

366

 Letter in Response from the [CPS 6]

3.46 The [CPS 6] wrote:

'The decision making in this case has always been a matter for the police.
Investigative advice was given by the CPS, but the decision to take no action
was made by the police, without further consultation. Despite later
investigative work the police view remains that the evidential test for a Full
Code Test charging decision is not met. As that remains the police assessment
of the case I have concluded that we should not carry a separate review'.

[CPS 6] concluded by stating that the CPS continue to consider the wider
issue raised, namely, whether the guidance should be amended to provide
for discretionary submissions in truly exceptional cases.

Statement by the CPS - 24/06/2015

3.47 The CPS released a statement that the Police had taken the decision in
2013 to take no further action against Lord Brittan and that the Police's
subsequent enquiries had not elevated the strength of the evidence to the point
where the Police could conclude that there was sufficient evidence to refer the
matter to the CPS for a charging decision.

Letter from Lady Brittan’s Solicitors to the MPS - 11/09/2015

3.48 [PERSON 7], of Mischon de Reya, set out the history of this investigation,
including the CPS statement of 24/06/2014. [PERSON 7] went on to quote an
367

 MPS spokesman as confirming, in an article in the Independent on 28/06/2015,
that:

'police subsequently carried out a further review of the case which has now
concluded.'

As [PERSON 7] pointed out that the quote did not explain what the conclusion
of that further review was and thus the comments publicly attributed to the
Metropolitan Police did not go nearly far enough. [PERSON 7] penultimate
paragraph reads:

'It is a matter of considerable regret that at no stage have the Metropolitan
Police confirmed either at the time to Lord Brittan or subsequently to Lady
Brittan, the decision(s) reached following the further investigation
undertaken in 2014. Such a situation appears inexplicable against the
backdrop of the information that has nevertheless been released into the
public domain by those with conduct of this matter. We are, therefore,
writing to invite you to remedy that omission by providing our client with the
confirmation that she seeks and to which she is plainly entitled’.

Reply to Lady Brittan’s Solicitors by the DAC - 06/10/2015

3.49 The DAC set out the history indicating that, in July 2013, the CPS
concluded that there was insufficient evidence at that time. He continued:

'The MPS subsequently conducted a review of the investigation and identified
a number of other enquiries to be carried out, and decided to interview Lord
368

 Brittan. Once these enquiries were completed the MPS assessment of the
case was that the enquiries had not strengthened the available evidence.
However, in order to demonstrate transparency in such a high profile case,
we then asked the CPS to consider whether they were prepared to offer a
further view on the case. As was reflected in their statement the CPS declined
to do so. In light of the above, I am able to confirm that, unless further
evidence had become available no further action would have been taken in
respect of this allegation. I do recognise that this clarity should have been
provided at an earlier stage and I apologise for any distress that has caused
to Lady Brittan’.

An independent review was commissioned by the MPS on 12/10/2015
undertaken by the Dorset Police

Home Affairs Committee. Oral Evidence: Investigation into the late Lord Brittan
- 21/10/2015

3.50 DCI Settle, the DAC, AC Gallan, Tom Watson MP, and the DPP, gave
evidence. I have read the full transcripts and will have regard to them in my
conclusions.

The Final Dorset Report was handed to the MPS - 13/01/2016

3.51 The report conducted by the Deputy Chief Constable, James Vaughan, was
critical of DCI Settle indicating that he drew an early erroneous conclusion that
the offence of rape was not made out due to his perceived issues with consent.
The reviewer concluded that there were ample reasonable grounds to conduct
369

 an investigative interview of LB and that the enquiry could not properly be
progressed without doing so. The reviewer questioned the necessity for an
identification procedure. He concurred with the final decision in respect of the
Full Code Test.

3.52 The reviewer observed:

[GIST: Commentary by review officer regarding consideration of balancing
the issue of consent].

3.53 The reviewer concluded that the case was more likely to lead to acquittal
than conviction and, therefore, the Full Code Test was not quite met. The other
conclusions were as follows:

‘the reviewer concludes that there were ample reasonable grounds to
conduct an investigative interview with the Lord Brittan and that the inquiry
could not properly be progressed without doing so. Such action was
necessary, proportionate and justified and far from unlawful as was
contended by the SIO when he subsequently gave evidence before the Home
Office Affairs Select Committee’.
‘The Early Investigative Advice file lacked essential details and was
incomplete. The corresponding advice from the CPS did not fully fulfil the
requirements of the CPS “Guide to Investigating and Prosecuting Rape, 2010”
and, in essence, provided what seemed to amount to charging advice. The
prosecutor provides comprehensive analysis of the strengths and
weaknesses of the evidence but does not offer any investigative advice. No
direction or advice is offered surrounding the potential benefits of an
370

 investigative interview.’
‘It is surprising that a relatively junior member of staff made the decision to
close the case without auditable reference to senior command.’
‘the reviewer is sympathetic to the notion that an independent assessment
may have served the public interest. In cases surrounding very senior
members of the British establishment, particularly those engaged in home
affairs or law enforcement, an independent review would provide necessary
rigour and integrity in decision making.
‘The operational context in which investigators and senior command were
operating within the MPS during the period of time under review was
extraordinary by any standards and resources were understandably very
stretched. Commanders were operating multiple Gold Groups for very
complex and high risk cases, which included numerous non-recent
allegations against other prominent people. Operations Fairbank and
Yewtree are but two high profile examples of ongoing casework, which was
in addition to the usual high demand for specialist resources to deal with
homicide and rape.’
3.54 I do not agree with significant parts of the ‘Dorset Review’. For reasons I
have already stated, I do not consider that interviewing Lord Brittan could
conceivably have advanced the investigation.

3.55 I consider [CPS 4] advice to have been detailed and very clear. It was, in
reality, a charging advice and no other reasonable interpretation could be put
upon it. Whatever descriptive title is given to it, it was good sound legal advice.

371

 3.56 DCI Settle could not properly be described as ‘a relatively junior member
of staff’, a description accorded to him by Dorset Police.

3.57 I do not agree that an independent assessment prior to application for the
Full Code Test does serve the public interest. The Director’s Guidance is very
clear. It is for the police to apply the Full Code Test. If it is met, the case will be
accepted by the CPS. Police Officers must conduct investigations within a
prescribed regime. The contention that different rules should apply in Operation
Vincente is untenable.

3.58 On 16th February 2016 the Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, met
with Lady Brittan and formally apologised to her for not telling her at an earlier
stage about the fact that Lord Brittan, who by that stage had unfortunately died,
was not to be prosecuted as there was no chance of a successful prosecution.

Conclusions

3.59 Contrary to the views expressed in the Dorset Review, I consider DCI
Settle's conduct of this investigation to have been exemplary, as did the Home
Affairs Committee. He is a most experienced DCI and more than capable of
leading an investigation such as this. He acknowledged his inexperience in rape
investigations and sought specialist assistance from a colleague in Sapphire, DCI
Smith. He sought Early Investigative Advice from CPS and, in my judgement,
reached the correct decision in concluding that no further action should be taken
and his reasoning was in accord with the advice of the CPS.

3.60 As to consent, there was simply no evidence that the Complainant did not
372

 consent. Indeed [GIST: Detail of account from ‘Jane’.] It follows that there was
no evidence that the Suspect did not believe that the Complainant consented.
Indeed, on the facts, there was every indication that the Complainant was
consenting.

Sir Richard is analysing the matter through the prism of a criminal jury, not
the prospective analysis of an investigator. The two approaches are not
mutually exclusive since the application of the Full Code Test requires that
the investigator ‘must be satisfied that there is a sufficient to provide of
realistic prospect of conviction’. An investigator could, very properly, put
himself in the position of a reasonable juror.

3.61 DSU G raised the issue of fear, suggesting that the apparent consent may
not have been genuine [GIST: Detail of actual source of fear by ‘Jane’] as DCI
Settle observed, was unknown to the Suspect.
The Complainant may have been in fear due to the fact that [GIST: Comment
on content of ‘Jane’ allegation detail].

The reason given by the Complainant [GIST: Comment on content of ‘Jane’
allegation detail]. Since the DAC accepts that the Full Code Test has not been
met, it is unhelpful for him now to seek to re-open the allegation.

3.62 [GIST: Comment on content of ‘Jane’ allegation detail].

The fact that the Complainant [GIST: Content of ‘Jane’ allegation detail] is
with respect, irrelevant to her actions during the index event.

373

 I do not agree. The circumstances of [GIST: Content of ‘Jane’ allegation
detail] and this evidence would be admitted before a jury.

3.63 A specialist rape prosecutor had considered the facts with care and gave
a fully reasoned advice concluding that there was insufficient evidence to prove
that the Suspect was unaware that the Complainant was not consenting.

A charging advice was not being sought and the CPS did not offer any
meaningful early investigative advice.

This was legal advice from a specialist rape prosecutor. She had clearly
considered and analysed the facts in great detail. It was sound advice with
which I concur. It clearly assisted DCI settle to reach his decision.

3.64 The Suspect’s conduct, after the event, was wholly consistent with a belief
in her consent.

3.65 The Complainant’s conduct after the event and for the next twenty years
was also consistent with consent.

Whilst the Complainant’s conduct may have been consistent with consent it
is also consistent with remaining silent.

[GIST: Content of ‘Jane’ allegation detail] and said nothing for 20 years. It
appears that the DAC, who accepts that the case does not meet the Full Code
Test, continues to assert guilt.

374

 3.66 The Complainant's [GIST: Personal detail about ‘Jane’] would trouble a
jury, including, as it did, [GIST: Personal detail about ‘Jane’].

[GIST: Comment on personal detail about ‘Jane’] may be relevant to the
context of the alleged offence.

The Complainant’s [GIST: Comment on personal detail about ‘Jane’]

3.67 The decision not to interview Lord Brittan was, in my judgement, correct
and well-reasoned. It is inconceivable, on the facts of this case, that an interview
would advance the prosecution case. As DCI Settle put it:

'we would be totally reliant upon a suspect admitting the offence when the
disclosure would undermine that very notion'.

Contrary to Mr. Watson's assertion, a decision to interview and/or to arrest
is not governed by ASBO or CPS guidelines but by the Police and Criminal
Evidence Act 1984, code C10A, which provided that, in order to interview
Lord Brittan under caution, there had to be reasonable grounds for the
suspicion of rape or other allegation on known facts or information. For my
part, I do not consider that such grounds existed and, thus, I agree with DCI
Settle's decision not to interview Lord Brittan. Paragraph 4.4 of the Code for
Crown Prosecutors states:

'A case which does not pass the evidential stage must not proceed, no matter
how serious or sensitive it may be'.

375

 The DAC, Commander M, DCI Price and the Dorset review team believe that
the decision to interview Lord Brittan was correct.

I have dealt with this at 3.20.

3.68 DCI Settle also considered and rejected the possibility of an arrest. Again
there was, in my judgement, no reasonable grounds for the suspicion of rape or
any other arrestable offence and, in any event, Code G would militate against
any such course in the absence of necessity. The Suspect was in his 70’s, in very
poor health and of exemplary character. DCI Settle had regard to a further more
practical reason for deciding against either an interview or an arrest, namely the
fact that Lord Brittan would lose his anonymity. He considered:

'the impact that arrest would have on the suspect and the subsequent media
intrusion and legacy when the offence to my mind is not made out'.

He is to be commended on his perspicacity because that is just what occurred
in July 2014 after DMC put out a statement that a man in his 70’s had been
interviewed under caution in relation to a non-recent allegation of rape in
1967. Since the Complainant was in regular contact with Exaro, it is no
surprise that there was media intrusion; as had been anticipated by DCI
Settle.

3.69 A review of Operation Vincente was undertaken by DCI Price on
19/05/2014. I note that he agreed with the decision of DCI Settle and concluded
that:

376

 'even if statements are obtained I feel they are unlikely to significantly change
the CPS decision. I find it hard to see how he thought an interview of Lord
Brittan would strengthen any case that might exist’.

The interview had the unfortunate consequence anticipated by DCI Settle.
Lord Brittan was named in the Press and subsequently grossly insulted by
Tom Watson. Any prospect of his retaining his anonymity was illusory. No
thought appears to have been given to the MPS policy that a suspect should
retain his anonymity pre-charge.

Police Forces cannot allow speculation about likely media reporting to deter
their officers from undertaking a proper investigation.

3.70 There can be no doubt that the interview of Lord Brittan further weakened
any case that may have existed pre-interview. Identification was now in issue.
The Complainant was unable to identify the scene of the alleged crime and the
Suspect had identified his home in [VENUE 2] and named his landlady. Further,
on 03/06/2014, [CPS 1], of the CPS, informed the officers:

'that any supervising officer may struggle to show that it meets the threshold
bearing the reasons given by Paul Settle for the NFA and the fact that the
only additional evidence is the interview which weakens the case'.

The case, in my opinion, should have been NFA’d at this time at the very
latest. A possible inference is that the officers, then responsible, were in a
state of panic induced by Mr. Watson's letter; a suggestion raised by the
Home Affairs Committee.
377

 The MPS were not aware of Tom Watson’s letter when Commander M
commissioned the review.

3.71 It soon became evident that the case was further weakened by the fact
that [GIST: Document that named him] do not appear to have been issued by
[ORGANISATION] at this time. Officers enquired at [ORGANISATION] on
19/06/2014 and Defence Solicitors disclosed their evidence on the subject on
23/06/2014. This should have caused the supervising officer to NFA the case at
this time. The DAC did not consider that this fact weakened the case. I do not
agree.

This could have been a [GIST: Different type of document].

That was not the Complainant’s evidence. She stated in terms that it was a
[GIST: Document that named him].

3.72 A decision to hold an identification procedure was taken. This was a
mistake. Of course the Complainant could identify Lord Brittan. The process CPS
decision was not recorded as it should have been.

This was the SIO’s decision.

3.73 On three separate occasions the officers attempted to persuade the CPS
to give a pre-charge advice. On each occasion [CPS 1] explained, in detail, the
Director’s Guidance. The officers responsible were under a positive duty to make
a decision themselves and failed to do so. On all three occasions the case should
have been NFA’d (‘No further action’ taken). I have discussed these attempts
378

 with the DAC, who became Gold Commander on 07/07/2014. Whilst he
accepted that the Full Code Test had not been met, he believed that it was the
right ethical choice to seek some independence to the decision making process
to give the public confidence. He stated that there was a real issue of victims not
coming forward.

Since the allegations had already been reported, desire for CPS endorsement
or otherwise was not legitimate and proper.

The investigation was complete. The Full Code Test was not met. Lord Brittan
should have been informed that no further action will be taken.

3.74 Commencing on 24/11/2014, the DAC sought to persuade the CPS to
review cases involving prominent persons when the Full Code Test had not been
met. Since it was agreed by all that the Full Code Test had not been met in this
case, the case should have been discontinued forthwith and both parties
notified. The failure to do so was particularly unfortunate since not only was Lord
Brittan a very poorly man, having undergone a number of surgical procedures,
as the officers knew, he was also a suspect in Operation Midland. Since the DAC
and DSU G were significantly involved in Operation Midland, and Tom Watson
had spent some time with 'Nick', the complainant in that case, the officers were
exposing themselves to the possible criticism that they were retaining Lord
Brittan as a suspect in Operation Vincente in order to further Operation Midland.
Having interviewed the DAC, I do not believe that he was motivated by any such
oblique purpose.

The issue of independent oversight of decision making, where the suspect is
379

 a person of public prominence, was a legitimate concern recognised by
others and escalated by AC Gallan when the DAC’s came to nothing.

3.75 When Lord Brittan died, on 21/01/2015, an obvious opportunity arose for
a statement to be made that the Full Code Test had not been met in this case
and it was not intended to prosecute Lord Brittan had he lived. Again, failure to
do so exposed the officers in question to the possible allegation that they chose
to retain Lord Brittan as a suspect, with the attendant bad publicity, in order to
bolster Operation Midland. Again, I accept that was not their purpose. I have no
doubt, however, that steps should have been taken at this time to notify Lady
Brittan or her solicitors that there had been no intention to charge her late
husband.

When Lord Britain died the MPS and the CPS were still liaising around the
issue of advice in cases such as this; that is why Lady Brittan was not
informed.

3.76 The DAC continued in endeavouring to persuade the CPS to advise in cases
that involved prominent persons that did not meet the Full Code Test. On
02/02/2015, he wrote`:

'At present my only route to securing CPS consideration of the case is to
declare that we (DSU G) believes that the Full Code Test has been met'.

It seems that he was still engaged in seeking the CPS advice that had been
refused on three occasions and was advancing the untenable proposition
that an officer might declare that a Full Code Test has been met, when it
380

 clearly had not, in order to obtain an advice from the CPS. I fully accept that
the DAC had no intention of actually stating that the Full Code Test had been
met in this case. Indeed, in his email of 23/01/2015, he had specifically
informed [CPS 5] that he believed the Full Code Test had not been met.

3.77 On 06/10/2015 the DAC replied to Lady Brittan's solicitors saying:

'I am able to confirm that unless further evidence had become available no
further action would have been taken in respect of this allegation. I do
recognise that this clarity should have been provided at an earlier stage'.

I do not think this was a sufficient apology. There were numerous
opportunities to discontinue the matter during Lord Brittan's lifetime and
certainly as soon as it was appreciated, or should have been appreciated,
that his interview weakened the case further. There were clear mistakes
which merited a full apology. Lady Brittan should have been told that several
officers took the view that the facts did not meet the evidential test for
charging and it could and should have been made clear that a decision to
take no further action should have been taken during Lord Brittan's lifetime
and communicated to him. The DAC wished to receive advice from the CPS
in cases that did not meet the evidential test as a shield to protect the police
from adverse criticism from the media and the public.

The DAC does not accept that he wished to receive advice from the CPS as a
shield to protect the Police form adverse criticism. He wished to maximise
public confidence in the decision and to minimise conspiracy theories or
allegations of cover-up.
381

 3.78 As to the general merits of the DAC's endeavour to persuade the CPS to
advise in high profile cases that do not meet the Full Code Test, I do not agree
with it. An essential principle of the Criminal Law is that all stand equal before
the Law. The proposition that a different regime should be applied in the case of
prominent persons conflicts with that principle. I am quite sure that the DAC
sincerely believed that it was in the public interest for the CPS to advise in cases
that failed the Full Code Test in the estimation of the police. I accept that he
genuinely thought that, since the CPS can be consulted re early advice, they
ought also to be able to give later advice even in cases that did not meet the
evidential test. He was perfectly entitled to canvas that argument with the CPS.
What he was not entitled to do was to delay the termination of an investigation
in order to do so.

3.79 I have concluded that the errors in this investigation were largely
attributable to the fact that Lord Brittan was a prominent person and there was
a desire amongst senior officers to reassure the public that if they come forward
the police will investigate a complaint thoroughly no matter whom the allegation
is against. I have concluded also that investigating officers were fearful of media
criticism and public cynicism and sought protection from it by the CPS.

The MPS naturally wanted to reassure the public but it is not accepted that
the MPS were ‘fearful of media criticism and public cynicism’. The MPS is
legitimately concerned with the impact on public confidence in two respects:

A – the confidence of rape victims to report crimes to the police may be
undermined if they perceive, however wrongly, that the police will not
382

 conduct a proper investigation into their allegations: rape is notoriously
under reported.

B – the confidence of the public that allegations against prominent persons
would be investigated without fear or favour. Thus to obtain the CPS
‘endorsement’ of an NFA decision (if such an endorsement is appropriate in
this case) serves only to properly reduce improper media allegations of cover
up. It is regrettable that the Operation Vincente investigation took so long
and that this has had a negative impact on both Lord Brittan and his family
and the Complainant.

3.80 The prolonged extension of both this investigation and Operation Midland
was unjustifiable and most unfair to the Brittan family. Both investigations
should have been completed very much sooner. A distinguished former Home
Secretary died facing an allegation that did not pass the Full Code Test and had,
unbeknown to him, failed to pass the Full Code Test some 16 months earlier.
Several officers and the CPS were satisfied that the case did not pass the Full
Code Test. Lord Brittan should have been informed that no further action would
be taken against him during his lifetime. It is an inescapable and sad conclusion
that had Lord Brittan achieved nothing in life, no further action would have been
taken against him during his lifetime.

383

 Explanatory note outlining the Metropolitan Police Service’s response to the
recommendations made in the ‘Independent Review of the Metropolitan Police
Service’s handling of non-recent sexual offence investigations alleged against
persons of public prominence’ conducted by Sir Richard Henriques

Sir Richard Henriques was commissioned in February 2016, by the then
Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, to conduct an Independent Review of the
Metropolitan Police Service’s handling of non-recent sexual offence investigations
alleged against persons of public prominence. A total of eight cases were selected for
review by Sir Richard, with the most significant being Operation Midland, the much
publicised inquiry investigating allegations made by Carl Beech (under the pseudonym
as Nick) of murder, child sexual abuse and a paedophile ring linked to high profile
individuals. Beech was subsequently convicted of perverting the course of justice and
fraud following an investigation by Northumbria Police.
Sir Richard Henriques made twenty-five recommendations stemming from his review
in respect of how police should investigate allegations of non-recent sexual abuse.
Some of these recommendations also transverse in to other aspects of police
investigations, and therefore considerable discussion has been undertaken both
internally within the MPS, and more widely externally with National Police Chiefs
Council, the College of Policing, Operation Hydrant1 and the Crown Prosecution
Service.

RECOMMENDATION 1:
Throughout both the investigative and the judicial process those who make
complaints should be referred to as ‘complainants’ and not as ‘victims’ by the
MPS.
This recommendation was not accepted by the MPS as this is a commonly accepted
term across a wide range of guidance, policy and legislation. This issue has been
widely debated and differing views exist. The use of the word victim is not intrinsically
linked to the issue of belief. The Met police continues to support the use of the term
victim. This does not confer any judgement on the allegations they make which will
always be investigated impartially and with an open mind.
RECOMMENDATION 2:
The instruction to 'believe a victim’s' account' should cease. It should be the
1

Operation Hydrant is a coordination hub established in June 2014 to deliver the national policing response, oversight, and
coordination of non-recent child sexual abuse investigations concerning persons of public prominence, or in relation to those
offences which took place within institutional settings. Operation Hydrant is informed by individual forces of investigations meeting the
criteria, and then coordinates the information among forces to prevent duplication. It does not carry out individual investigations – this is
done by individual Forces.

384

 duty of an officer interviewing a complainant to investigate the facts objectively
and impartially and with an open mind from the outset of the investigation. At
no stage must the officer show any form of disbelief and every effort must be
made to facilitate the giving of a detailed account in a non-confrontational
manner.
This recommendation was fully accepted, and the MPS supports the view that
allegations should be investigated impartially and with an open mind. This is different
to the National Crime Recording Standards (NCRS) Guidance, which advises that if a
person believes a crime has been committed it is sufficient to record the crime: “Victim
Focused Recording: NCRS promotes a victim focused approach to crime recording.
The intention is that victims are believed and able to benefit from their statutory
entitlements under the Codes of Practice for Victims of Crime. This advice ensures
consistency of victim focus.” Please see paragraph 3.5 on link:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach
ment_data/file/833226/count-general-sep-2019.pdf
On receipt of the review in October 2016, the MPS issued a communication to all
officers and staff, which has recently been reissued to all crime managers, all senior
investigating officers and the Telephone Digital Investigation Unit, with the guidance
including:
 The investigation of any crime should be about the impartial search for evidence
that may support or undermine an allegation.
 Challenges to a victim’s account should be done in a professional and
supportive manner with an explanation given of the requirement to achieving
the best evidence available to support the criminal justice process.
 Investigators should treat all victims with compassion but will need to ask
challenging and difficult questions. The consequence of these questions can be
offset by preparing victims for the investigative process.
RECOMMENDATION 3:
In future, the public should be told that 'if you make a complaint we will treat it
very seriously and investigate it thoroughly without fear or favour'.
This recommendation was fully accepted. In addition to our activity outlined above to
recommendation 2 encompassing this issue, this topic is taught during basic crime
training for all officers within lessons on Home Office Counting Rules, Victims Code of
Practice and the investigation of initial complaints.
RECOMMENDATION 4:
Investigators should be informed that false complaints are made from time to
time and should not be regarded as a remote possibility. They may be malicious,
mistaken, designed to support others, financially motivated, or inexplicable.
When considering non-recent allegations against prominent people they should
give full consideration to all background information.
385

 This recommendation was fully accepted. This issue is taught as part of both false
allegations and of investigative hypothesis, through the MPS Senior Detective faculty.
The College of Policing currently has draft guidance out for consultation.
RECOMMENDATION 5:
A check list of critical topics to be covered in the complainant's statement
should be made available to all investigators designed specifically for nonrecent allegations against prominent people.
This recommendation was fully accepted. Formal guidance exists and senior
investigating officers have been reminded of this via an internal factsheet. The College
of Policing currently has draft guidance out for consultation.

RECOMMENDATION 6:
In cases involving prominent people, consideration should be given to inviting
complainants to sign confidentiality agreements and witnesses to sign witness
contracts.
This recommendation was not accepted as it would be difficult to enforce any breach.
The impending Operation Hydrant guidance covers issues such as media contact and
social media to assist investigators in advising complainants and victims. This topic is
referenced in the recent MPS fact sheet, however the risks associated with victims
and witnesses discussing allegations is already part of MPS current investigator
training.
RECOMMENDATION 7:
First responders should be able to inform complainants of the latest time that
contact will be made with them. Such time scale should be variable and
dependent on other commitments.
This recommendation was partially accepted and it is within current policy. Please
see link to the MPS Policy on Victims’ Code of Practice:
https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/wvs/victim-and-witnesssupport/
The relevant excerpt as to the timeliness of contact post initial investigation is: “Ensure
that, if you have been assigned a crime for further investigation, that you make contact
with the victim within 24 hours of being allocated the CRIS report. Inform them as to
the current progress of the investigation and, where appropriate, what investigative
actions will take place.”
RECOMMENDATION 8:
Contacting a complainant, or potential complainant or witness, by letter, in nonrecent cases involving prominent persons, should only take place if a constable
is satisfied that there is no risk of interception by another member of the same
household.
386

 This recommendation was accepted. This is covered in the Victims’ Codes of
Practice, please see link:
https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/wvs/victim-and-witnesssupport/ and again has been re-enforced in the MPS factsheet. The relevant excerpt
states: "be aware that specific crime types may include a victim living in the same
household as the suspect, therefore appropriate lines of communication should be
ascertained for further investigation stages. The victim may wish to receive no
communication to acknowledge the crime report".
RECOMMENDATION 9:
DMC (Directorate of Media and Communications) policy should be amended to
avoid any details of age or geography being released to the public in relation to
an arrest, search, interview, or bail of any suspect.
This recommendation was not accepted by the MPS who follow the College of
Policing Authorised Professional Practice (APP) on Media Relations which states that
in some cases, where they could lead to the identification of a suspect, details of age
or geography in relation to a suspect should not be released, however judgements
are made on a case by case basis. The MPS accepts that some of the information
released re suspects in Operation Midland, whilst not naming them, was too detailed.
Please see link:
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/engagement-andcommunication/media-relations/
RECOMMENDATION 10:
A suspect should have the right to anonymity prior to arrest enforced by statute
and criminal sanctions.
This recommendation could not be accepted by the MPS as it is not within our gift to
influence or make legislative change. There are also occasions where anonymity
might expose the public to harm such as an active hunt for a wanted offender.
RECOMMENDATION 11:
The exceptional circumstances in which suspects will be named or identified
before charge should be clearly defined and included in MPS policy documents.
In most cases qualifying for removal of anonymity there will be sufficient
evidence to justify a charge.
This recommendation was fully accepted and the MPS follows the College of Policing
Authorised Professional Practice (APP) on Media Relations. APP guidance allows
some flexibility on a case by case basis and our Directorate of Media Communications
work closely with officers when agreeing press lines, especially in high profile
investigations where media interest will be significant. Please see link:
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/engagement-andcommunication/media-relations/

387

 RECOMMENDATION 12:
Every effort should be made to minimise leaks of information by examining
current systems and increasing sanctions.
This recommendation was fully accepted and, whilst by its very nature it is often very
difficult to identify those who leak information, any allegation of such activity is
considered by our Directorate of Professional Standards.
RECOMMENDATION 13:
In non-recent cases particular consideration should be given to the necessity to
arrest or re-arrest in accord with Code G and the guidance therein.
This recommendation was fully accepted - it forms the basis of general Police and
Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) guidance training for detectives at all ranks. The
necessity test was introduce by PACE Code G. Full PACE guidance can be found on
the following link: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/police-and-criminal-evidence-act1984-pace-codes-of-practice
RECOMMENDATION 14:
A protocol for keeping suspects, who are not in custody, informed of the
progress of the investigation should be published.
This recommendation was partially accepted. Current teaching to detectives at all
ranks and MPS policy on Pre-Charge Investigative Bail outlines that officers should
“Update suspects released without bail, but still under investigation. If you have
released a suspect from custody, without bail but still under investigation, you must
update the suspect on the general status of the investigation at 3 monthly intervals.
These intervals start from 3 months after the date of arrest”. Further guidance can be
found at:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/bail
https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights/how-long-you-can-be-held-in-custody
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/criminal-courts-and-police-officers-bailand-refusal-of-bail
RECOMMENDATION 15:
At the commencement of an investigation a time limit should be fixed by a
supervising officer and communicated to a suspect. Such time limit can be
extended in appropriate circumstances.
This recommendation was not accepted as this is likely to vary according to the
allegation and needs to change according to circumstances. All investigations have
supervisor oversight.
RECOMMENDATION 16:
Consideration should be given, at the highest level, to the question of whether
suspects should be informed of every allegation against them when one or more
of those allegations has not been pursued. On balance, I agree with present
arrangements having regard to the duty to disclose in the event of a trial
388

 resulting.
This recommendation was fully accepted and is part of current training. The decisions
on what should and could be shared with a suspect must be made on a case by case
basis as part of the investigative strategy.
RECOMMENDATION 17:
When a decision is made to take no further action on any complaint, but the
investigation continues on others, the suspect, or his solicitor, must be
informed at the earliest opportunity of any decision to discontinue in relation to
any allegation communicated to them.
This recommendation was partially accepted. The decisions on what should and
could be shared with a suspect must be made on a case by case basis as part of the
investigative strategy, and full disclosure is not always a viable option. A policy is in
place and is part of current training.
RECOMMENDATION 18:
At the conclusion of an investigation, when no further action is to be taken
against a suspect, he should be supplied with a similar written document to that
provided to the complainant coupled with an explanation of the circumstances
in which an investigation may be re-opened.
This recommendation was not accepted as this information is already contained
within our updated notification of ‘No Further Action’ (NFA) forms provided to suspects
at the conclusion of an investigation along with the circumstances under which it may
be re-opened.
RECOMMENDATION 19:
Before information is released to the media that no further action is to be taken
against a suspect, police must ensure that the suspect has received the
information.
This recommendation was partially accepted. It is best practice, within guidance,
please see link:
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/engagement-andcommunication/media-relations/, to inform a person or their representative first,
however there may be circumstances where informing them in advance is not always
possible such as when multiple initial suspects are involved and prematurely notifying
one could adversely affect the investigation.
RECOMMENDATION 20:
When announcing publicly that no further action will be taken, rather than
stating that there was an insufficiency of evidence, an alternative, and arguably
preferable reason, is that 'the case failed to meet the evidential test'.
This recommendation was fully accepted and the wording of our forms informing
individuals that they face no further action has been amended. Instructions have been
389

 issued to press officers that the term “insufficiency of evidence” should no longer be
used.
Consultation was undertaken with the Attorney General, Director of Public
Prosecutions, CPS and those representing the interests of victims and the following
form of words was recommended:
 The evidence did not meet the evidential stage of the full code test set out in
the Code for Crown Prosecutors; or
 Further action is not in the public interest
RECOMMENDATION 21:
When announcing publicly that no further action will be taken, no details of the
allegations not already published should be disclosed.
This recommendation was relevant to and accepted by CPS (this related to a specific
case under review).
RECOMMENDATION 22:
In exceptional cases, and very rarely, consideration should be given to issuing
a reasoned statement explaining why no further action has been taken.
This recommendation was relevant to and accepted by CPS and is current practice.
RECOMMENDATION 23:
Consideration should be given at NPCC level to both of these concerns. It may
be that some form of statutory control is needed to prevent investigative
journalists intruding on investigations in circumstances such as these. At
certain times there appeared to be two teams of investigators competing for
‘Nick's’ attention. Matters communicated to ‘Nick’, in furtherance of perceived
obligations under the Victim's Charter, were divulged by ‘Nick’ to Exaro and
thence to the public to the considerable disadvantage of suspects. In an
endeavour to encourage witnesses to come forward and to give evidence in high
profile cases some statutory control may be necessary to prevent ‘door
stepping’ of witnesses.
This recommendation was partially accepted by policing nationally and Operation
Hydrant has issued guidance to forces however it is not within the gift of the MPS to
influence or make legislative change.
RECOMMENDATION 24:
Senior Detectives should be reminded, or be made aware, of the full range of
reviews that are available from the SCRG and should be encouraged to make
use of them.
This recommendation was fully accepted and Serious Case Review Group (SCRG)
subject matter experts provide input into both the Detective Inspector and the Senior
Investigative Officer training courses. Operation Hydrant now has a CADRE of officers
experienced in historical allegations of this nature and they are able to support/review
police forces in England and Wales.
390

 RECOMMENDATION 25:
In exceptional cases where suspects have been falsely accused of crime, they,
and their families, should be treated the same as 'victims of crime’ invariably are
and should be offered support and liaison compatible with the gravity of the
allegations made.
This recommendation was fully accepted and if/when there are reasonable grounds
to believe an allegation is false the ‘suspect’ would become a victim and will be
considered under the Victims Code of Practice, as outlined on link:
https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/wvs/victim-and-witnesssupport/

391