Allegations of perversion of the course of justice by Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey and Deputy Assistant Commissioner Helen Ball

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe is quoted in today's Evening Standard as indicating that he will set about restoring trust in the Metropolitan Police.

Of course, Sir Bernard conveniently omits to mention that he is personally subject to allegations of perverting the course of justice.

Below is the meat of a letter I sent to Deputy Assistant Commissioner Patricia Gallan on 22nd February with respect to allegations of perverting the course of justice by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Helen Ball, Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey and Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe.

22^nd February 2014

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Patricia Gallan

New Scotland Yard

London

SW1H 0BG

Dear Ms Gallan,

Perversion of the course of justice by

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Helen Ball

Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey

Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe

I write to report to you as Head of Professional Standards in the Metropolitan Police Service what I believe to be “recordable conduct matters” with respect to the actions of Deputy Assistant Commissioner Helen Ball, Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey and Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe.

In my view each of these three officers has acted so as to pervert the course of justice or otherwise commit “serious corruption” in the definition of such in the IPCC Statutory Guidance.

Given that the matters I raise with you are “recordable conduct matters” which relate to a “relevant offence” I believe you are required by Law to record this matter and to refer it without delay to the Independent Police Complaints Commission for investigation.

The background

On 25^th May 2013 I wrote to the Serious Misconduct Investigation Unit of the Metropolitan Police Service alleging that Deputy Assistant Commissioner Helen Ball had, in concert with others, perverted the course of justice.

I received an acknowledgement dated 31^st May 2013 from Detective Chief Superintendent Alaric Bonthron. No reference number was provided.

I later received a letter dated 7^th June 2013 from Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey

Deputy Commissioner Mackey refused to record my concerns regarding DAC Ball and further refused to refer the matter to the IPCC for investigation.

In both respects Deputy Commissioner Mackey acted contrary to the applicable Law as I understand it.

In light of that serious misconduct by Deputy Commissioner Mackey I wrote to Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe on 9^th July 2003.

Sir Bernard replied in a letter dated 8^th August 2013. The Reference Number QU/01430/13 was given.

Sir Bernard refused to record the “conduct matters” enumerated in my letter of 9^th July 2013.

In refusing to record these conduct matters, Sir Bernard acted contrary to the applicable Law, as I understand it.

Your own conduct

In my letter to Sir Bernard of 9^th July 2013 I raised the question of whether or not you had been party to the process that led to Deputy Commissioner Mackey refusing to comply with the applicable Law and record a conduct matter with respect to DAC Ball.

Sir Bernard indicated that he refused to record a “complaint” regarding your conduct.

The issue was not, in my estimation at least, a “complaint” but was a “conduct matter” of such a nature that Sir Bernard was required by Law to record the matter and refer it to the IPCC.

I ask you to consider whether the Law requires your own conduct in this matter to be recorded as a possible “conduct matter” and referred to the IPCC.

Actions requested of you

I ask for prompt acknowledgment of this letter.

The applicable Law, as I understand it, is set out in my letter to Sir Bernard of 9^th July 2013. It requires recording and referral to the IPCC “without delay”.

If you believe that my understanding is materially incorrect please inform me of such.

However, if the matters raised with respect to the conduct of DAC Ball, Deputy Commissioner Mackey and Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe are “conduct matters” in Law which require to be recorded and referred “without delay” to the IPCC I ask you to act in accordance with the requirements of the Law.

With respect to Sir Bernard’s misconduct, should you feel that the Law precludes you from recording and referring the matter I ask that you forward this letter to the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, indicating whether or not what I believe to be a “conduct matter” with respect to Sir Bernard is such and the implications in Law as to the course of action which, by Law, must be followed.

Yours sincerely

(Dr) Andrew Watt