Daniel Morgan murder - 'hurdles placed in the path of the Panel' by Cressida Dick

J Roberts made this Freedom of Information request to Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Automatic anti-spam measures are in place for this older request. Please let us know if a further response is expected or if you are having trouble responding.

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) did not have the information requested.

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Paragraph 243 (page 1060) of The Report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel states:

'The Metropolitan Police’s lack of candour manifested itself in the hurdles placed in the path of the Panel, such as AC Cressida Dick’s initial refusal to recognise the necessity for the Panel to have access to HOLMES (the data system which provides safeguards for the integrity of investigations and also enables independent scrutiny to identify failures), as well as limiting access to the most sensitive information (which was not provided at the Panel’s secure premises and was only accessible at a location involving considerable travel time and precluding daily reference and crosschecking; see Chapter 11, for details). It can also be seen in the Metropolitan Police responses to the Panel’s ‘fairness process’ in December 2020.'


1. Please provide all information you hold related to the rationale behind Cressida Dick's initial refusal to recognise the necessity for the Panel to have access to HOLMES.

Yours faithfully,

J Roberts

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Thank you for your email to the Metropolitan Police Service Data Office.


Please note the Data Office Triage Team operate Monday to Friday only,
this department is closed during bank holidays.

A response will follow in due course.


We do receive a very high volume of requests and although we endeavour to
respond to all of them as quickly as possible, there may, at times, be a
few days turnaround time, should that be the case with regards to
responding to your email, we do respectfully ask you to bear with us while
we clear all the emails we received prior to yours.


The following applications are currently processed through the Data Office
Triage Team mailbox:


• Right of Access Requests (Formerly Subject Access Requests)


• Freedom of Information Act Requests


• Association of British Insurers/NPCC Memorandum of Understanding


• Right to Erasure and Right to Rectification Requests


• Requests under the Environmental Information Regulations 2000 (EIR)



Please visit www.met.police.uk for enquiries relating to:


I.            Road Traffic Collisions,

II.           Sarah’s Law – Registered sex offender data

III.          Clare’s Law – Domestic violence offender data

IV.         Disclosures for family court proceedings

V.           Publication Scheme and statistics

NOTICE - This email and any attachments are solely for the intended
recipient and may be confidential. If you have received this email in
error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Do not
use, copy or disclose the information contained in this email or in any
attachment without the permission of the sender. Metropolitan Police
Service (MPS) communication systems are monitored to the extent permitted
by law and any email and/or attachments may be read by monitoring staff.
Only specified personnel are authorised to conclude binding agreements on
behalf of the MPS by email and no responsibility is accepted for
unauthorised agreements reached with other personnel. While reasonable
precautions have been taken to ensure no viruses are present in this
email, its security and that of any attachments cannot be guaranteed.

J Roberts left an annotation ()

J Roberts left an annotation ()

David Allen Green interrogates the concept of 'institutional corruption' identified in the report concerning the murder of Daniel Morgan:

'The independent panel report on Daniel Morgan found that the Metropolitan police was – and is – institutionally corrupt.'


Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

1 Attachment

Good morning,
With reference to your below request.

Please see our attached letter in response.

Yours sincerely

Data Office Triage Team

Information Rights Unit
PO Box 313
DA15 0HH

show quoted sections

J Roberts left an annotation ()

'Rose v The Chief Constable of the GMP [2021] EWHC 875 (Admin)' concerns how allegations of police corruption should be handled:


J Roberts left an annotation ()

Here is a Request entitled 'GMP corruption' some may be interested in:

hhttps://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/g... to search for the information you want.

The Request refers to this case:

Appeal No. UKEAT/0304/19/RN


'10. DI Aston’s team discovered that before arriving at Ashton-Under-Lyne police station on 19 September 2014 the arresting officer, PC Bullough, had been contacted and told not to take PS Pendlebury into the custody suite but to park outside and contact Inspector Donaldson. He did as he was instructed and waited in the police vehicle with PS Pendlebury outside the station. A little while later Inspector Donaldson arrived in the car park with a custody sergeant from Ashton-Under-Lyne police station. The custody sergeant informed PC Bullough that he was not authorising PS Pendlebury’s detention in custody and Inspector Donaldson told him that the matter was ‘best dealt with by way of summons’ and instructed him to de-arrest PS Pendlebury'. (page 4)

A police officer can resign if the misconduct charge they face is less than 'gross':

'18. The disciplinary proceedings fizzled out. CS Bruckshaw promptly resigned when the charges were downgraded (under the police rules an officer is not permitted to resign pending unresolved gross misconduct proceedings, but may do so when facing a lesser misconduct charge) which ended the disciplinary proceedings against him. Inspector Donaldson went off sick with stress and the proceedings were permanently stayed. CI Williams’ behaviour was found to be misconduct for which she was given ‘management advice.’ ‘Management action’ was taken in respect of ACC Shewan for not disciplining CS Bruckshaw over his email to the CPS about the prosecution of PS Pendlebury.' (page 7)

Cyclops on behalf of Alyson Parker, Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

2 Attachments




Information Rights Unit
PO Box 313
DA15 0HH


Email: [1][the Met request email]




Your ref: 
Our ref: 01/FOI/21/020021


Date: 18/08/2021





Dear Mr Roberts


Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 01/FOI/21/020021


Please see the attached in respect of your Freedom of Information request
referenced above.


Yours sincerely



Alyson Parker

Information Manager





Visible links
1. mailto:[the Met request email]
2. http://www.met.police.uk/

J Roberts left an annotation ()

'To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted with the Inquiry and Review Support Command (IRSC). 

All documents held in relation to the Daniel Morgan Independent Inquiry that mentioned ‘HOLMES’ were located and reviewed and no information of relevance to your question 1 was located. 

Outside of the Act; please be advised that we do not believe there was “an initial refusal to recognise the necessity for the panel to access HOLMES”, and a review of the documents provided supports this.'