The NS calls on David Miliband or Gordon Brown to launch an inquiry into the failed prosecution of a Foreign Office official, Derek Pasquill, to establish if politicians or officials played a role in perverting the course of justice
At 10.45am on Wednesday 9 January, justice was done in a British court. Derek Pasquill, a 48-year-old Foreign Office official, had been accused of leaking a number of documents to the New Statesman and the Observer, that were said to have done damage to UK foreign policy. Written by Martin Bright, the resulting articles included an exposé of British acquiescence in the secret and illegal "rendition" of terrorist suspects by the US, and a number of disclosures about government policy towards radical Islam.
However, on the first day of committal proceedings at the Old Bailey, the case collapsed after lawyers for the Crown Prosecution Service admitted that the Foreign Office accepted that the disclosures had not caused damage.
This is an enormous victory for Mr Pasquill and the NS and for the kind of journalism we pursue. His terrible ordeal began when he was arrested in January 2006; for two years his life was made a misery. He was immediately suspended from his job but charged only in September 2007. All the while, cabinet ministers were ready to admit, privately, that they shared the very concerns Mr Pasquill had raised, and to point out that government policy was changing largely as a result.
It was apparent to us from the outset that charging Mr Pasquill under the Official Secrets Act was nothing less than an abuse of state power, designed merely to spare the embarrassment of some ministers.
The articles won plaudits for the NS, including Exclusive of the Year for Bright at the Magazine Journalism Awards of 2006. But far more importantly, the pieces gave rise to a number of questions in parliament, leading to cross-party support and significant shifts in government policy.
"Extraordinary rendition" (better described as state-sanctioned kidnapping) had become a matter of deep shame for the British government. After the NS reported that ministers knew such actions would be illegal, this indefensible policy of tacit support for the US was quietly dropped.
The government's policy towards radical Islam - the other cause of concern for Mr Pasquill - had been formulated under Jack Straw, first as home secretary and then as foreign secretary. Straw put the Muslim Council of Britain at the heart of consultation, almost to the exclusion of more moderate groups. The move caused disquiet across Whitehall, as did Britain's policy of covert engagement with the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
As the policies changed during 2006 and 2007, senior ministers acknowledged the role of the NS articles in highlighting the problems; several requested briefings about issues raised by the disclosures. And yet the prosecution of Mr Pasquill continued.
So why did the authorities then continue to hound him? The tactics appear designed to intimidate anyone in the civil service who has reservations about dangerous policy, and who might be minded to expose it in the public interest.
This case has exposed the malice and hypocrisy at the heart of Whitehall's approach to whistleblowers. The public interest is best served by promoting this kind of debate, rather than by seeking to criminalise individuals who have acted to expose dangerous policy.
The NS accepts there are some circumstances where official secrecy is necessary to protect national security. But security was never an issue in this instance. Ministers, including David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, had misgivings throughout, and were increasingly frustrated at the actions of their officials.
This case calls into question the very future of the OSA, now that the prosecution has all but admitted that a public-interest defence can be used.
We would like to put on record our debt to Neil O'May, a partner in criminal law at Bindman & Partners, for his dogged defence of Mr Pasquill.
We now call upon Miliband and Gordon Brown to order an inquiry into this prosecution to see if any politicians or civil servants have played any role in perverting the course of justice.
It is they, rather than Mr Pasquill, who should be appearing in the dock.
Read the original Martin Bright articles
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
