Why the Met Police suddenly changed its mind on redacting the Sue Gray report

What a difference four days make. 

On Tuesday, when Dame Cressida Dick, the Metropolitan Police commissioner, announced that Scotland Yard would be investigating lockdown parties at Downing Street, there was no suggestion that the criminal inquiry could in any way derail Sue Gray’s report.

Nothing much changed in the police position over the next two days. 

Wednesday and Thursday came and went with no sign of the Gray report - but with police still insisting behind the scenes that there was nothing to worry about, nothing to look at here.

Then Friday came the bombshell. 

Police issued a statement saying Ms Gray’s inquiry can be published but only if it holds back anything but "minimal" mention of alleged criminal events.

In other words, if an event did not break the rules, the Met is happy for the public to read about it. 

But if the gathering was potentially law-breaking - obviously the interesting stuff - then it will be cut from anything placed in the public domain until criminal investigations are complete.

When asked how long that might be, a senior police source replied: "How long is a piece of string?”

Pressed on the timeframe, the source added: "You don't know how deep the hole is until you start digging."

The question now is why the extraordinary volte face; why the about turn that kicks into the long grass the tricky matter, for example, of a birthday party for the Prime Minister that was allegedly organised by his young wife? 

In its statement released on Friday morning, the Metropolitan Police would only say: "For the events the Met is investigating, we asked for minimal reference to be made in the Cabinet Office report."

It went on: "The Met did not ask for any limitations on other events in the report, or for the report to be delayed, but we have had ongoing contact with the Cabinet Office, including on the content of the report, to avoid any prejudice to our investigation."

Lawyers are sceptical that a crime that merits a fixed penalty notice could possibly be prejudiced by the publication of Ms Gray’s report into Downing Street gatherings or events during lockdown.

No jury can be influenced by report

There is no jury that might be influenced by Gray’s findings, even if they are, as suggested, scathing of Number 10’s partying culture.

Even if the notices are contested, cases will end up in a magistrates’ court. Any suggestion a magistrate could be influenced by the Cabinet Office inquiry is fanciful.

"This is absolute nonsense from the Met Police,” said Nazir Afzal, a former chief Crown prosecutor for the North West.

“A purely factual report by Sue Gray cannot possibly prejudice a police investigation. They just have to follow the evidence, of which the report will be a part."

Adam Wagner, a human rights barrister expert on interpreting complex Covid-19 laws, said: "How would a factual civil service report about events the police are investigating 'prejudice' their investigation?"

The Secret Barrister, an anonymous lawyer and author of a best-selling book, added: "I am a criminal lawyer, and I too must be missing something, because there is no reason I can see as to why an independent police criminal investigation would in any way be influenced by, or would seek to influence, a civil service report."

The Crown Prosecution Service said the suggestion that any future proceedings could be prejudiced was a matter only for the Met. Prosecutors had not been involved in giving advice.

It is unclear why the police has changed its mind but there will inevitably be suspicions of meddling at the highest level.

When Tony Blair was under investigation over cash for honours, senior civil servants and aides made it clear to the police back in 2006 and 2007, that should the sitting prime minister be interviewed under caution, it would force his resignation.

After some deliberation, detectives agreed to interview Mr Blair as a witness. Nobody was ever prosecuted. The offences surrounding "partygate" are less serious but more emotively charged and probably more damaging for Boris Johnson.

The criminal investigation is much simpler too but could nevertheless drag on for an age, given the number of alleged parties being investigated and the large number of individuals involved including senior civil servants and advisers.

Lord Paddick, a former deputy assistant commissioner at the Met and now a Liberal Democrat peer, said: “If the evidence Sue Gray has presented to the police is not sufficient to serve people with fixed penalty notices then the police will have to investigate further including interviewing suspects who were said to be present. This could take months.”

Time is a precious commodity for a prime minister in trouble. Kicking Sue Gray’s report into the long grass - when many Conservative MPs had been waiting for its findings before any possible vote of no confidence - ought to suit the PM.

It is possible that Dame Cressida and her minions had taken Downing Street on its word when it said it saw no reason why the report would not be published in full.

On Tuesday, sources within Scotland Yard appeared genuinely taken aback at any suggestion that the Gray report would now not see the light of day until the conclusion of their investigation. "We have not said they cannot publish their report," insisted one senior Met source at the start of the week.

But the Met conceded there were parts of the Gray report that would be better kept out of the public domain while detectives were going about their work.

What was certainly not suggested by the Met however was the idea that all reference to the events under investigation should be left out.

"It would seem prudent that some information is left out and discussions are ongoing," was the relatively relaxed response.

By Wednesday afternoon, with rumours swirling that the report could be about to be released, the Met's position remained seemingly unmoved.

There was no sense of panic within the Yard that information was about to be made public that would scupper its criminal probe.

But late on Thursday night that position appeared to have altered. There appeared to be wrangling over disclosing details of illegality while a criminal inquiry was only just being launched.

For many weeks, Dame Cressida had refused to investigate. By Thursday night, her investigation was scuppering the Cabinet Office report. Scotland Yard realised it needed to end all the uncertainty and the result was Friday's statement, greeted with cries of "stitch up" and "cover up".

Mindful of the blistering criticism, Scotland Yard released a fuller explanation.

The force had now received “the material” it had requested from the Cabinet Office - in other words the evidence that backs up the facts laid out in Sue Gray’s report - and was now in a position “to establish whether individuals attending the events in question may have breached the regulations”.

Commander Catherine Roper, who leads the Met’s Specialist Crime Command, said her detectives would “do so without fear or favour”. But she added that “in order to protect the integrity of the police investigation, as is appropriate in any case, and to be as fair as possible to those who are subject to it, the Met has asked for minimal reference to be made in the Cabinet Office report to the relevant events”.

Police inquiries would be completed “promptly, fairly and proportionately” and fixed penalty notices issued where there is “sufficient evidence” of a breach of regulations “without reasonable excuse”.

Recipients, she said, could try to provide a "reasonable excuse", or pay the penalty and “the matter will be considered closed” or dispute it and the case could end up in the magistrates’ court. It is unclear if the Gray report can be published in full, if disputed cases are still pending at court.

Crucially, the word "prejudice" did not appear in this new statement. Sources said it had been an unfortunate use of words, and that it would have been better to have said "hinder".

Infuriation grows among MPs

Anger meanwhile was growing across the political spectrum.

"The Sue Gray report must be published in full and undoctored without further delay,” said SNP Westminster Leader Ian Blackford.

“This UK Government farce has gone on long enough. People are understandably concerned that this increasingly looks like a cover up”, he said.

Sir Roger Gale, a veteran Tory MP who has called for Mr Johnson's resignation, said: "This has all the hallmarks of a Whitehall farce written in Scotland Yard. A while back the Met Police were saying they weren't going to investigate, then they said they would investigate and the sigh of relief from Downing Street could be heard in the Palace of Westminster as the can was kicked down the road.

"Then they said it would be OK for Sue Gray to publish her report and now this morning they're saying it's not OK, or it is OK but she can't publish anything that anybody is likely to be interested in - which is ridiculous."

Sir Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat leader, said: "A stitch-up between the Met leadership and No 10 will damage our politics for generations, and it looks like it is happening right in front of our eyes."

Lord Macdonald, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, suggested Ms Gray might have uncovered “more serious offending” that had warranted a stay on the Gray report.

He told the BBC: "If we're talking about fixed penalty notices - like parking tickets, essentially - if we're talking about that kind of resolution, then to take the rather grave step to delay a report that is going to shed public light on the subject matter of what may be a major public scandal, I think that is undesirable and I think it may be a misjudgment.”

On Tuesday, however, Dame Cressida had been insistent there were “summary only offences”, adding: “The people who commit them get a fixed penalty notice.”

On Friday, police let it be known that Covid breaches remained the limit of its inquiries. The yard might have thought it was clarifying the position. It simply served to further muddy the murky waters that has prevented the publication of an investigation by a senior civil servant.

Boris Johnson will be tempted to bake a cake in celebration.