Opinion

Jack Shafer

Cop-out in London

By Jack Shafer
September 20, 2011

By Jack Shafer
The views expressed are his own.

What were the London police thinking when they invoked the Official Secrets Act last week to compel Guardian reporters Amelia Hill and Nick Davies to disclose the confidential source for their July 4 Milly Dowler phone-hacking story? Did they think the Guardian would roll over when they arrived in court on Friday to contest the order? That Hill and Davies would submit? That free-speech advocates, members of Parliament, and journalists around the world would pay no mind to the prosecutorial over-reach?

Whatever the Metropolitan Police thought, they’ve rethought it today, announcing that they’re dropping for the time-being their request for a court order that the Guardian give up its sources.

With the perfect vision that comes with hindsight, it now appears that the court order was a bluff. As the Guardian reported yesterday, the Met did not consult the director of public prosecutions before wielding the Official Secrets Act, as the 1989 law requires. He was only consulted on Monday. In other words, the London police went rogue. If that’s the case, perhaps the goal of the cops was to give the Guardian and its journalists a fright and deter other reporters from investigating the pile-up of journalistic malfeasance, crimes by private detectives, corporate malfeasance at Rupert Murdoch’s News Corps., and, of course, bribe-taking by the Metropolitan Police.

But as all game theory enthusiasts know, a bluff—even an empty bluff such as the Met’s—can disturb the existing equilibrium and leave one’s opponent unsettled. The police may have calculated that the psychological damage done to journalists by requesting a court order would be worth the black eye the police might suffer for making it. But that’s giving the police too much credit for thinking ahead. If they had the skill to think ahead they would have prosecuted the phone-hacking cases back in 2007 when the evidence was fresh.

The Metropolitan police’s targeting of the press—like Rupert Murdoch’s decision to pay out $4.7 million in News Corp. guilt money to Dowler’s family and charity—indicates a frantic turn in the phone-hacking story. The police are now conceding they don’t really understand the law. And Murdoch is conceding that his now-dead newspaper, News of the World, committed the very crimes at the center of the scandal.

******

If you’ve got a spare $4.7 million, send it in bitcoins to Shafer.Reuters@gmail.com. For confirmation of delivery, see my Twitter feed. (This RSS feed rings every time a new Shafer column goes live. This hand-built one rings every time a correction is filed.)

Comments
2 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

It’s also possible that moderates in the Met acted preemptively to destroy that route as an option for hard-liners. If you’re really interested in theory of games you might try reading some of the excellent books on the subject.

Posted by ARJTurgot2 | Report as abusive
 

If you knoew the first thing about the British police you would know….

1) They call themselves ‘the law’ because they think they ARE the law.
2) If ever you challenge any police employee’s authority, they will pursue you until they stick something on you, true or false
3)The metropolitan police had just got themselves a new boss, keen to ‘stamp’ his authority on his own people (who leaked to the guardian) and on the unruly press

Anyone who knows the basic facts above is not surprised by the actions of the metropolitan police, but by the the exclamations of surprise from the metropolitan elite.

Posted by Dafydd | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •