Tom Watson told to make written apology over Lord Brittan comments
|
Version 0 of 1. Tom Watson should make a written apology to Lord Brittan’s family, and the police were wrong to be influenced by fear of “media criticism and public cynicism” in its handling of a 40-year-old rape allegation against the peer, MPs have said. The criticism of Watson – Labour’s deputy leader, who referred to Leon Brittan as “evil” in the press after the Conservative peer died in January – and the Metropolitan police service (MPS) came in a report from the home affairs select committee. It concluded that it was inappropriate for Watson to have made the comments about Brittan in the Daily Mirror. In writing the article, said MPs, Watson “could not have hoped to achieve anything other than to further impugn the name of (the by then) deceased Lord Brittan”. The allegation that Brittan raped a 19-year-old woman in 1967 came to light after the alleged victim, known as Jane, approached Watson in 2012. Police determined in September 2013 that the case should not be pursued, but the investigation was reopened and Brittan was questioned in May last year while suffering from terminal cancer. Despite the police not naming Brittan, Watson named him in the press. In an appearance before the committee last month, Watson apologised to Brittan’s widow for causing distress. But he defended his actions in going over the heads of senior detectives by writing to the director of public prosecutions (DPP) after discovering that Brittan had not been interviewed by the Met about the allegation. The committee, however, pressed Watson to go beyond his “qualified apology”. “We consider that it would have been more appropriate for Mr Watson to have written to Lady Brittan to apologise, and we recommend that he now does so,” said the report. Watson said he would follow the committee’s advice. “I apologised on national television for repeating the words of an alleged abuse survivor,” he said in a statement. “I made it clear that I was sincerely sorry for the distress caused to Lady Brittan and her family. I didn’t write to her because I wasn’t sure that a letter from me would be well received. But if committee members consider that to be the correct course of action, I will certainly heed their advice and write to Lady Brittan.” More generally, the committee urged MPs to avoid being drawn into improper involvement in criminal investigations, adding that the safest course of action would be to pass on information to the responsible agencies without comment, including in the media. As for the Met, the committee criticised the police for not informing Brittan about the status of its investigation by the time he died in January. Keith Vaz, the committee chair, said: “The only reason for the delay was the MPS’s errors of judgment and insistence on appealing the Crown Prosecution Service decision that the evidence file did not meet the necessary threshold. Although the MPS’s late apology to Lady Brittan is welcome, she has had the anguish of seeing her husband die without him knowing that he had been cleared.” The committee faulted the Met for wanting to proceed with the Brittan case on public interest grounds, although the evidence was borderline. It said: “The Metropolitan police has asked the DPP to consider changing the director’s guidance to allow ‘significant public interest’ to be taken into account when coming to decisions about whether a case should be referred to the CPS, where the evidential threshold is not satisfied or the case is borderline. The committee does not agree with this proposal and supports the DPP’s position that the requirement to meet the evidence threshold should remain the first criterion for coming to a decision … For the police to be seen to be influenced by ‘media criticism and public cynicism’ risks undermining the whole basis of its investigations.” The committee saw “disturbing similarities between Brittan’s case and that of Paul Gambaccini. The broadcaster was arrested in October 2013 on allegations of historical sex abuse only to be told a year later that there was no case against him. MPs said: “The CPS and MPs must set out the steps they plan to take to improve their handling of these cases, particularly in relation to avoiding delays in the investigation process ... False allegations made against any individual has devastating reputational consequences.” The Met was also criticised for sidelining DCI Paul Settle, who was removed from the Brittan case in May 2014. He told the committee he had been removed because he stood by his view that no further action should be taken. MPs said his removal and extended leave from May 2014 was a waste of public resources and welcomed the fact he had been redeployed. Watson was praised by the Met’s deputy assistant commissioner, Steve Rodhouse, during the committee hearing for helping to bring about the successful prosecution of three paedophiles. The Conservative-dominated committee declined a request from a Labour member, David Winnick, to also invite Zac Goldsmith to appear before the committee. The London mayoral candidate has been accused by Brittan’s brother, Sir Samuel Brittain, in the Guardian of smearing the former home secretary as a paedophile in a parliamentary speech. A spokesperson for Goldsmith said in response at the time: “In his speech to parliament, Zac rightly pointed out that allegations of historic[al] child sex abuse should be taken seriously and investigated appropriately – this is why he welcomes and supports the Goddard inquiry.” Justice Lowell Goddard is leading an independent inquiry examining how public bodies handled their duty of care to protect children from historical abuse in England and Wales. Allegations against Brittan are still being investigated as part of two separate inquiries into so-called VIP paedophile rings. |