The Secret Special Branch Ledgers

[Phil H]

Two things:

1) We seem on here (understandably perhaps because this is Casebook) to assume that the SB registers are sensitive because of JtR. I doubt that that is much in the mind of the authorities, frankly. They may have concerns in that direction because the FOI case is being pursued by a "Ripper" author and enthusiast, but I am certain in my own mind that their principal interests will be in precedent (impact on future confidentiality) and risks (of harm to others) because these are SPECIAL BRANCH registers, mention informers and will be perceived in that light by at least some areas of the public.

2) In my experience (37 years odd as a Crown servant) public authorities including the security ones are pretty law-abiding. I don't doubt that the words Mr Evans cites were spoken - they may well indicate the views of individual officers or officials, but history shows that few documents and records, even sensitive or embarrassing ones are actually destroyed. That is why they turn up when there are public inquiries into things like the Iraq dossier - all sorts of embarrassing material was released then, and could readily have been destroyed (BUT WASN'T!). I could also cite material released (eventually) on rendition and in other parts of Government on newspapers hacking into phones and cash for peerages. People say things, and no doubt those who are in the business of security etc will act menacingly, but history seems to show that they act differently.

I also think that destroying these registers NOW would be very hard. They are known to exist, there is public interest in their release, senior "independent" figures such as the Information Commissioner and those on the Information Tribunal are engaged and aware, extracts have been released albeit in a redacted form. Thus destruction would be a BLATANT act, not only illegal but sending messages of a different sort to the wider authorities and the public and with ramifications for the whole security world in terms of what Parliament might do in response (shackling them as the US Congress did the CIA in the 70s) and for public opinion in terms of believing services which have to be increasingly open in their dealings with the world/the public.

So I hear what is said, I acknowledge that I may be wrong, but my professional judgement as a long-serving civil servant is that while the registers may not be released they will not cease to exist.

To end on what (I hope) is a more humourous note, in the 30s one of Queen Victoria's daughters (Beatrice I think) asked King George VI if she could borrow from the Royal archive her mother's diaries of her sex life with Albert (these were separate from the main diaries which had been edited and destroyed decades before). Later she told the king, "...after reading them I thought they were not suitable to be read by others, so destroyed them!"

George VI replied: "I thought you might do that, so I had a copy made before giving them to you!"

Phil

[mariab]

But it is difficult to reconcile such a Piranha Brothers approach with an, "Everything is all right here--no conspiracy afoot" attitude. Those ledgers must be bloody well important to evoke that kind of reaction.

To me it sounds more like a “It's OUR bloody ledgers, hands-off“ 'ttitude. Mainly territorial.
And I really don't think that there's such a thing as “an impossible task“. In my humble experience, these ones are the most fun and worth attempting.

[Phil H]

There was a piece in The Times this morning - in connection with the Queen's current State Visit to Ireland - which made, I thought, a relevant point.

It was discussing the views of those who oppose the visit and included remarks to the effect that the Queen was not welcome as she was head of the armed services that had opporessed the irish people. The remarks, which may well represent the views of only a small minority of Irish people (10% I have seen quoted) nevertheless show that the past is very much alive in certain quarters, very real and that the anger remains.

Italso said, I recall, that some Irish citizens are trying to extract names from the security services. If they are fighting to keep confidential more recent records, they may well see the historic equivalents against that background and there could even be legal advice that to release the registers now might wweaken any position in law in regard to newer records.

Postscript: I found the following quote in the Irish Times website: Mr Kenny repeated to both leaders that he had raised and would raise the issue of the publication of the files with British prime minister David Cameron. He also pointed out that there were many issues and atrocities “about which we do not have the full facts”. This is close to what i recall reading in the Times.



Just supposition, I know, but soundly based I believe.

Phil

[Chris]

Italso said, I recall, that some Irish citizens are trying to extract names from the security services. If they are fighting to keep confidential more recent records, they may well see the historic equivalents against that background and there could even be legal advice that to release the registers now might wweaken any position in law in regard to newer records.

Postscript: I found the following quote in the Irish Times website: Mr Kenny repeated to both leaders that he had raised and would raise the issue of the publication of the files with British prime minister David Cameron. He also pointed out that there were many issues and atrocities “about which we do not have the full facts”. This is close to what i recall reading in the Times.

That apparently relates to files on bombings in Dublin and Monaghan in 1974. I don't see any reference there to "[extracting] names from the security services."

[Chris]

I don't think this material is going to be made public for a very long time, if ever.

Having looked at the Information Commissioner's latest decision, I tend to agree. But on the other hand it appears that Trevor Marriott has now been given access to the entries that explicitly refer to the Whitechapel Murders.

While there may be other relevant references that could be dug out of the full records with effort, I should think these entries will allow us to judge whether there is crucial new information there - when Mr Marriott publishes them.

[Phil H]

... it appears that Trevor Marriott has now been given access to the entries that explicitly refer to the Whitechapel Murders.

If the material has been released - or access granted - under FOI rules (rather than on a personal, exceptional basis) then it should be available to any member of the public.

Phil

[Chris]

If the material has been released - or access granted - under FOI rules (rather than on a personal, exceptional basis) then it should be available to any member of the public.

Yes, and I assume the same is true of the redacted version of the whole ledger.

[belinda]

Interesting developement

[Phil H]

A simple letter, mentioning FOI to Scotland yard and detailing the Special Branch registers in as much detail as possible should do the trick.

Cite the fact that the material has apparently been released to Mr Marriott and ask for a copy of the same information.

The have a legal responsibility to reply within 20 days with the information. given that the information has already been released under FOI it should take less time than that!

If access has been allowed under some other arrangement that would be different. But if access has been allowed that should be the basis for an appeal under FOI.

Phil

[Chris]

To be fair to Trevor Marriott, he is presumably preparing this material for publication somewhere, and that's not something I would want to pre-empt myself (though the situation does have its ironies). I wouldn't be surprised if curiosity got the better of some people, though.

[lynn cates]

proportionality

Hello Belinda.

"the reaction is out of proportion if we are only talking about a lone killer acting out his rage on destitute women."

Indeed!

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

violence (to ledgers) and sex

Hello Phil.

"In my experience (37 years odd as a Crown servant) public authorities including the security ones are pretty law-abiding. I don't doubt that the words Mr Evans cites were spoken - they may well indicate the views of individual officers or officials, but history shows that few documents and records, even sensitive or embarrassing ones are actually destroyed."

I tend to agree. I don't think anyone would have the, uh, temerity (nice word) to destroy the ledgers. Of course, they were SUPPOSED to have been pulped years ago.

George VI was a wise chap--even though reading of HM sex life might have the effect of a night time sleep aid.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

There must be something that goes way beyond the Ripper indeed, the reaction is out of proportion if we are only talking about a lone kiiller acting out his rage on destitute women.

But that is the point surely>

Any JtR relevance of these registers - while paramount to us maybe - is of small account to the authorities.

They will (I would have thought) be considering the release of these records in the context of their intended purpose, a record of informers and payments. I assume similar things are carried on today and records kept - for accounting purposes if nothing else - and thus from the perspective of those within Special Branch/the Yard the questions are:

a) how might this information be used by those who have access, could there be any risk?;

b) is there a precedent or legal concern that might impact on safeguarding more recent records through FOI or in court?;

c) could there be an impact on those who entrust information to the police or Government on an "in confidence" basis, because that trust is eroded and they fear revelation of their involvement?

I doubt whether JtR comes into the thought process at all. Goverbnnment servants tend to be pre-occupied by the present, not the past on a day-to-day basis.

Phil

[Chris]

They will (I would have thought) be considering the release of these records in the context of their intended purpose, a record of informers and payments.

I think it's important to be clear about the various documents involved and what they contain.

It's the three ledgers labelled "Special Account" that are records of payments to informants, covering 1888-1912 and containing around 6,000 entries by Clutterbuck's reckoning.

There is also a volume of staff service records covering 1886-1917.

But the volume of most interest in relation to the Whitechapel Murders is the much larger Chief Constable's Register, covering 1888-c. 1892 and containing an estimated 30,000 entries. This is an index to correspondence, reports by officers and their subject matter. Obviously it's not primarily concerned with informants, and there's no reason to assume anyone mentioned in it was an informant, unless there's some indication of it.

Three out of the four requests made by Trevor Marriott and considered by the Information Commissioner concerned only the Chief Constable's Register. (In August 2009 he made a final request for access to all the documents concerned in unredacted form.)

[Trevor Marriott]

Having read the various postings in the past few days, I feel it is right and proper for me to issue a statement clarifying my position in this and a number of issues raised by casebook members.

For those who are not aware my first request to access these records goes back to 2008. At that time I was aware of the concerns the police had regarding the release of informant’s names. In view of this I tried to come to a compromise with them not to publicly disclose any details of informants. However they would not compromise. It should be noted that during the past 3 years I have on several other occasions offered them the same compromise, and even during the hearing I was still prepared to offer them an olive branch, again they dismissed any compromise outright. In view of that I had no option other than to proceed with my appeal to gain full and unrestricted access to the full contents on the registers and the ledgers which included the names of informants.

Over the past 3 years I have worked tirelessly with a small team gathering evidence and preparing a case which it was felt was strong enough to win the appeal. This case preparation has involved many long hours work over the past 3 years, not to mention the personal cost to me which has accumulated into a considerable amount.

The police case for refusing access is based on the following issues.

The police say they have a duty to protect the names of informants above and beyond their lifetime. This also extends to the protection of any living family members or descendants.

They say the release of the documents will deter modern day informants from coming forward, and force current ones in their employ to immediately withdraw their services. They cite current National security issues to support their concerns. They have provide no proof to support these claims.

All of the above I have challenged.

The legislation they seek to rely on is S24 and S30 (2) of The FOIA. I argue that in this appeal neither section is engaged.

I also argued the fact that 123 years has passed since the registers and the ledgers were produced and therefore that is a sufficient time period for all the information contained in them to safely be released into the public domain having regard to the fact that various other law enforcement agencies, both National and International have in the past and still do disclose similar informant information which appears to be based on a 100 year rule.

The public interest factor favours the disclosure of the ledgers and the registers in relation to firstly the historical interest and secondly regarding the Whitechapel murders and Jack the Ripper. I say this interest far outweighs the reasons given by the police and the commissioners in their arguments against the disclosure of this material.

It is a fact that some of the names of the informants from the registers have already been in the public domain for several years now and I argued that there is little point in continuing to withhold the registers and the ledgers in their entirety from the public domain for the reasons the police and the commissioners suggest.

The vast majority of the informants names contained in the documents are made up of surnames only or pseudonyms and therefore cannot be positively identified.

It should also be noted that this hearing lasted 3 full days and was taken up with over 700 pages of written and documentary evidence not taking into account the oral evidence given by seven witnesses and lengthy cross examinations of witness testimony.

I notice one member raises the issue of proprietary rights with regards to these documents. I did not set out with any intention of having sole proprietary rights. Nor do I have another book waiting in the wings. What will happen is that if I am successful with the appeal, as the appellant I will have access to them first. If that situation does prevail then I will release any relevant information from them into the public domain as soon as is practical to do so.

As far as the information from the registers already afforded to me by the police is concerned that is still being assessed and evaluated. I will fully disclose all of that information when the tribunal decision is announced which I anticipate will be within the next three weeks.

In the meantime I thank those casebook members who have supported me. I will not be issuing any further statements or commenting on the case until the final decision is announced. I also thank you all for your patience and understanding in this matter.

I am happy for this statement to be posted on JTR Forums if anyone cares to do so.