CROSS POSTED ON BYLINE.COM
What I suspected was a flawed finding by the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee into the Met Police’s investigation of the allegations by ” Jane” that she had been raped as a teenager by Leon Brittan has now been proved correct.
An independent review by Dorset Police of Met Police’s investigation into the case – slipped out in an appendix to a report from the committee – has upheld that the investigation was “necessary, proportionate and fully justified despite the significant passage of time.”
This contradicts the critical findings of MPs who preferred to rely on the evidence given by Det Chief Inspector Paul Settle rather than senior Met officers. Their description of Paul Settle’s conduct as ” exemplary ” now looks a trifle hollow.
His decision not to interview the late Lord Brittan despite this being standard procedure in the case of rape allegations is unsurprisingly not described as ” exemplary conduct” by Dorset Police.
Instead They say: “The initial SIO was, by his own admission, inexperienced in rape investigation and whilst he appropriately sought specialist assistance and referred the case for Early Investigative Advice, he drew an early erroneous conclusion that the offence of rape was not made out, due to his perceived issues with consent.
” The reviewer concludes that there were ample reasonable grounds to conduct an investigative interview of LB and that the enquiry could not be properly progressed without doing so. Such action was necessary, proportionate and justified and far from unlawful (their emphasis) as was contended by the SIO when he subsequently gave evidence before the Home Affairs Select Committee.”
“The Early Investigative Advice file lacked essential detail and was incomplete. It is surprising that a relatively junior member of staff made the decision to close this case without auditable reference to senior command.”
Their views about ” Jane” are also significant.
They say:”The complainant provides a fairly compelling account of events. She is a competent witness,who displays no malice in her motivation.
Her accounts of her situation in 1967 are corroborated and it is plausible that she was moving in similar social circles to LB. The early disclosures in later years provide some consistency in her account and she appears to have little to gain from making a false allegation.There is some ambiguity surrounding the issue of consent, which would prove difficult before a properly directed jury.”
Her case was superbly reported by Mark Conrad for Exaro. I met her and her husband and would agree with Dorset police’s assessment.
There were mistakes notably taking a broken tape recorder to interview Leon Brittan when it was eventually done – but it does not deserve the highly biased report in the Mail on Sunday on the findings.
Keith Vaz has opportunity to make amends. Perhaps he could either apologise or clarify his position on this investigation when the Met Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan Howe appears before him on February 23.
The behaviour of most (all?) of the mainstream press on this whole subject is shameful. Headlines simply not supported by the content, that content unattributed and unsupported nonsense.
It actually scares me that they can be so dishonest. Not one journalist at the Times or Mail, the main culprits, has had the courage to stand up to what must be Editorial dictats.
Rather to paraphrase one of them they have become “Nonceprotector General”.
It makes me think that the truth has to be truly destructive to the entire establishment.
It is worth watching the archived recording of the Home Affairs committee at which Settle gave evidence, and listen to the exchange between him, and the Chair, ending with: ‘What are you doing at the moment?’ Answer: ‘Not a great deal’. Chair: ‘We’ll try and make sure you’re put to good use’.