Unmesh Desai recalls feeling righteous frustration as he sat opposite the head of the Metropolitan police on Tuesday morning. For months Cressida Dick’s force had refused to investigate what appeared to be unambiguous breaches of Covid regulations at Downing Street. “The perception is that you’re covering for those in power,” Desai told the commissioner.
Arms folded, Dick leant towards those assembled for the Greater London authority police and crime committee meeting in Southwark and responded: “We police without fear or favour.”
Moments later, at 10:08am, Dick dropped the bombshell that sent shock waves thundering a mile west to Downing Street and nearby parliament. Desai felt the room go quiet, with others clearly sharing his “total surprise,” at the commissioner’s revelation.
Ditching the Met’s long-stated position of waiting for Sue Gray’s report on Downing Street’s lockdown parties, Dick announced a criminal inquiry into “serious and flagrant” breaches of lockdown rules.
Five days on, however, some believe the commissioner’s lofty reference to “fear and favour” appears increasingly questionable.
From refusing to investigate Downing Street’s lockdown parties, the Met’s intervention has effectively neutered the most eagerly awaited report in recent political history, an inquiry whose findings seemed likely to dictate the future of Boris Johnson.
And after appearing content on Tuesday for Gray to publish her report in full, on Friday, without warning, the Met requested that the civil servant make “minimal reference” to the events it was investigating.
The abrupt U-turn has left Desai and committee members believing they were duped by Dick. “Why were we not told this during the meeting? Dick has still not explained directly and publicly the rationale for this request?” Desai told the Observer.
For some, the Met’s change of tack has seen talk of incompetence turn to conspiracy.
Nazir Afzal, former chief prosecutor for north-west England, said the last-minute request for Gray to water down her report was troubling. “It gives the perception of collusion, the perception that they’re not acting without fear or favour.”
What it means for the prime minister remains similarly open to interpretation. Some argue that it offers a reprieve, a chance for Johnson to steady the ship. Others say the Met has intensified the pressure on Gray to shoot the silver bullet.
“The issue now is if the report doesn’t point the finger at Johnson, people are going to say it’s a stitch-up,” said a senior prosecution source. “At the same time Gray is under pressure to publish something and if it’s anodyne because of the Met’s request, from a government perspective that’s brilliant.”
Another prosecution source, also requesting anonymity, said that the Met’s trajectory from seemingly not wanting to get involved to blundering into constitutional matters was tantamount to a “perversion of public business”.
They added: “The optics look poor, from doing nothing to investigating parties in the heart of government to watering down a report that effectively may save the prime minister.”
Former director of public prosecutions, Ken Macdonald, was more circumspect but could see no justifiable reason for diluting Gray’s report over what appears to be a series of fixed-penalty notices. “It seems completely disproportionate to hold up the publication of a report that’s going to shed light on what may be a public scandal,” he said.
For some observers, the saga is symbolised by the Met’s use of the word “prejudice” to explain why it told Gray not to publish key passages. The term suggested that the force was investigating more serious offences than fixed-penalty notices (FPNs), offences that could be tried before a jury. Macdonald was among those who felt that the Met’s legal team must have signed off the term in its criminal law context. Yet that was not the case. Yesterday police sources insisted that the investigation was solely in “FPN territory”.
“Using the word [prejudice] meant that for a crucial bit of the debate the rationale was that Sue Gray had found people systematically deleting emails or something, it was very odd,” said a senior prosecuting source.
Yet an innocent explanation may well be likely. The senior prosecution source said that it was highly possible that the Met had sought legal counsel on Thursday from a cautious barrister who advised that Gray’s report couldn’t be published in full: “This is not a conspiracy and Cressida Dick is not corrupt. She’s independent and robust, and neither would No 10 take the risk [of meddling].”
For others with intimate knowledge of the Met, the damaging episode should never have been allowed to happen.
Dal Babu, former chief superintendent, said that the Downing Street lockdown parties should have been dealt with when details began to emerge months ago. “They should have spoken to the individuals, issued fixed-penalty notices, and that would have been that. From a policing point of view I cannot understand why it wasn’t pursued. Instead, you’ve ended up with this absolute mess,” said Babu.
“Not doing anything, and suddenly doing too much, shows the police haven’t understood the political situation. There appears a level of naivety in not understanding the implications.”
However, Gray, according to Babu, is not entirely blameless. He believes that the moment she found evidence of criminality she should have handed responsibility to the Met. “That hasn’t happened here for whatever reason. Despite clear evidence of criminality, it continued to be reviewed by a civilian,” he said.
That civilian is expected to deliver her report on No 10 parties to the PM imminently without waiting for the police inquiry to conclude.
Regardless of what Gray finds, the events of the past week may have further eroded trust in police and the government.
“What’s happened has shaken public confidence in the institutions. The sooner we get light [from Gray] shed on this, the better,” said Macdonald.
Afzal added that the perception that those who make the rules can bend the rules had been reinforced. “This entire issue is about integrity at the heart of public life. All this does is feed the narrative that there’s one law for some …”
