The Official Secrets Act

[El Cid]

The home secretary said she would not expect such an officer to be charged.

 

"Meaning of "official information"

3.1 This means any information, document or article which a Crown servant or a

Government contractor has, or has had, in his or her possession by virtue of his or her position as such."

 

Why has the home secretary and the prime minster not given a cast iron statement saying that things related to child abuse are NOT covered by The Official Secrets Act?

[Anna B]

He has said in todays Prime Ministers Questions that people should come forward and will not be prosecuted for breaking the Official Secrets Act. Trouble is, in some cases, I think prosecution is the least of their troubles.

 

The secret service has more than one way to get its message across... and prosecution has nothing to do with it. Ask the father of murdered child Vishal Mehrotra.

[El Cid]

He has said in todays Prime Ministers Questions that people should come forward and will not be prosecuted for breaking the Official Secrets Act. Trouble is, in some cases, I think prosecution is the least of their troubles.

 

 

The wording used in Parliament today was

would not expect

, which is very different.

[L00b]

Why has the home secretary and the prime minster not given a cast iron statement saying that things related to child abuse are NOT covered by The Official Secrets Act?

Because, as usual, legal issues can never be assessed summarily in binary right/wrong or black/white terms, now or for the foreseeable future.

 

Example: it may well be that an officer performing covert surveillance of a foreign agent, looking for evidence of spying about Trident capacities, witness that foreign agent engaging in child abuse. The damage caused by a breach of the OSA by the officer (blabbing to the public about the child abuse) would be the fact that, after the spy is burned for child offense, the investigation into Trident leaks and unveiling a mole have to be restarted (not to mention finding out who the next foreign agent is, etc.)

 

There is such a thing as national security, and in certain circumstances it can trump prosecuting child molesting. Incontrovertible fact of life, as unpalatable as it may be/you may find it. I'm not saying that was the case in the present circumstances, that said (i.e. that the Met should have kept schtum about MPs and others abusing kids in the name of the OSA: if there was no 'bigger' picture justifiably answering to 'national interest' criteria, then the Met absolutely should have acted on the info/investigation).

 

There is a ready defence in Section 1(5) of the OSA for the officer in question anyway:

S1(3) A person who is or has been a Crown servant or government contractor is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he makes a damaging disclosure of any information, document or other article relating to security or intelligence which is or has been in his possession by virtue of his position as such but otherwise than as mentioned in subsection (1) above.

 

S1(5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that at the time of the alleged offence he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to believe, that the information, document or article in question related to security or intelligence or, in the case of an offence under subsection (3), that the disclosure would be damaging within the meaning of that subsection.

Considering the historical character of the issue and the long-time passing away of the more important persons involved, I believe that defence would be successful.

 

It would in any case always boil down to an assessment by the judicial power of what "damage" to the national interest an unauthorised disclosure has caused.

Edited March 18, 2015 by L00b

[Eater Sundae]

If an MP or someone else in a position of power / decision making within the government is committing an illegal act, then it is essential that the information is made public. Failure to do so means that he/she is at risk of being blackmailed into acting against the country's interest. The very idea that the Official Secrets Acts could ever be used to protect an individual from being outed as a criminal must be totally wrong. The law should be flipped on its head and made such that people have a duty to advise the police, their superior etc if they know of such people committing a crime, especially a serious one.

[L00b]

If an MP or someone else in a position of power / decision making within the government is committing an illegal act, then it is essential that the information is made public.

Why?

 

Neither the Police nor the CPS release any information to the public before investigations (into non-OSA related issues, e.g. your garden variety petty and not-so-petty crimes) are completed, so why should the disclosure standard for matters of national security be much lower?

The very idea that the Official Secrets Acts could ever be used to protect an individual from being outed as a criminal must be totally wrong.

It is, and that's why its relevance is subjected to the central notion and appraisal of 'damage', and why Cameron and May have clarified that (ex-)officers need not feel concerned by it as regards historical child molesting offences (because the Gvt must believe that outing such information to the Police today, would not be damaging within the meaning of the OSA).

[Eater Sundae]

Why?

 

Neither the Police nor the CPS release any information to the public before investigations (into non-OSA related issues, e.g. your garden variety petty and not-so-petty crimes) are completed, so why should the disclosure standard for matters of national security be much lower?

It is, and that's why its relevance is subjected to the central notion and appraisal of 'damage', and why Cameron and May have clarified that (ex-)officers need not feel concerned by it as regards historical child molesting offences (because the Gvt must believe that outing such information to the Police today, would not be damaging within the meaning of the OSA).

 

What I'm saying is that it would be damaging to NOT bring it into the open. It does not have to be public as such, but if the authorities fail to act and bring the criminal to book (which would then become public), there is always the possibility that the MP (or equivalent) is at risk of being blackmailed if someone else finds out about their crime. The risk is then that he/she could be forced to act in the interests of a foreign power. That is my point. Once the crime is in the open, then they are no longer a risk to national security. While ever it is hidden, then they might be.

 

Edit. I'm talking more about now, not the historical situation. Protecting someone who is in a position of power is a potential risk to national security that would not be there if they were not being protected.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Eater Sundae

[L00b]

What I'm saying is that it would be damaging to NOT bring it into the open.

It's only damaging if and once blackmail actually does happen (you're casting back to Profumo, right?). Until then, it's not (or, alternatively, it is, but in the form of an enduring denial of justice, which is the situation at hand with these alleged high-powered child molesters).

Once the crime is in the open, then they are no longer a risk to national security. While ever it is hidden, then they might be.

Depending on the facts of the case (-as usual), it may well be MORE damaging IF it comes in the open at all. A very likely circumstance where matters of national security are concerned.

 

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that where "the authorities fail to act and bring the criminal to book", the effects of OSA should be explicitly mitigated if the whistleblower breaches it as a last resort for the public/common interest (rather than implicitly or 'semi-explicitly on a case by case basis', which is what Cameron and May have effectively just done). An update of the OSA could fix that.

Edited March 18, 2015 by L00b

[WeedNoMore]

The home secretary said she would not expect such an officer to be charged.

 

"Meaning of "official information"

3.1 This means any information, document or article which a Crown servant or a

Government contractor has, or has had, in his or her possession by virtue of his or her position as such."

 

Why has the home secretary and the prime minster not given a cast iron statement saying that things related to child abuse are NOT covered by The Official Secrets Act?

I guess they have friends in tight places. People they dont want to see charged with anything for fear of themselves been implicated either in the actual crime or by association?

[Fogey]

The problem with all this is that it is still the case that a public sector employee blowing the whistle for the good of the public is well aware that they may be kissing any future of their own goodbye along with anybody who is a dependant.

 

Apart from facing legal ramifications under contractual obligations, heavy handed pressure from above and possible prosecutions under the law if they misjudged it, future employers will view them as an absolute no no that can't be trusted to keep quiet about confidential matters and the public won't be interested in looking after them for doing the right thing.

 

And thats without the usual problem that if you discover a problem, its your problem, your fault and your responsibility.