
The Met's defence 'mole': Ex-detective Derek Haslam is alleged to have infiltrated the detective agency run by Rees on behalf of the secret CIB3 police unit. There, he had access evidence prepared by defence lawyers

Police have been accused of paying an undercover mole to spy on private legal meetings before court cases – and in at least one instance allegedly changed key evidence to ensure an unfairly obtained conviction.

A former detective was paid £21,000 to pass on confidential details of defendants’ legal cases while secretly working for the Metropolitan Police, an official inquiry into undercover policing has been told.

At least one conviction is being reviewed as a potential miscarriage of justice over claims the alleged spying undermined the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

The bombshell claim has been made in written submissions to Lord Justice Pitchford, chairman of the undercover policing inquiry set up by Home Secretary Theresa May and due to begin next year.

If proved to be true, the revelations could lead to more criminals coming forward and potentially seeing their convictions overturned.

Lawyers told Lord Justice Pitchford that Derek Haslam, a former Met detective, became a ‘covert human intelligence source’ while employed at a private detective agency.

Haslam – who mostly carried out work on behalf of defendants in court cases – was given access to legally privileged material such as witness statements and transcripts, and is believed to have given his Scotland Yard handlers copies of the sensitive material ahead of several criminal trials.

As well as breaching the legal protocol that private correspondence and meetings between defendants and their lawyers should remain confidential, in one case – a drugs prosecution – it is claimed his information ‘enabled the police changing their evidence’ when it came to court.

The defendant in that case, John Elliott, was jailed for 14 years for possession of 60,000 ecstasy tablets with intent to supply. He denied the offences and has always insisted he was set up.

His case is due to be investigated by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which deals with potential miscarriages of justice.

Lawyers in another case said Haslam’s involvement was ‘a fundamental abuse of the process of the court’.

For nearly nine years, from 1998 to 2006 – when his cover was blown – Haslam was working for the Met’s covert anti-corruption unit, known as CIB3.

His handlers had given him the task of infiltrating a South London detective agency with alleged links to corrupt detectives.

It was run by Jonathan Rees, then a suspect in the notorious 1987 murder of his business partner, Daniel Morgan, in South London, whose body was discovered with an axe in the back of his head. The crime has never been solved.

Haslam, an old friend of Rees, joined the firm to try to gather evidence against him.

Bugs were planted in Rees’s offices which resulted in the private detective being jailed for unrelated offences of conspiring to plant drugs on a client’s wife in 2000.

At a preliminary hearing last week, Rees, who was cleared of involvement in Morgan’s murder in 2011, told Lord Justice Pitchford that Haslam explained to him that he wanted ‘to come back into the fold and join my company’.

Rees’s work involved assisting solicitors and barristers with defence work and it was decided his expertise would prove useful.

The whistle blower: Jonathan Rees, a former private detective, claims that undercover mole Haslam fed police secret details ‘about everything we were doing’

Although he didn’t name Haslam in court, Rees told the hearing: ‘Through that work, he [Haslam] would become involved in clients’ cases and, obviously, in that position he would be privy to their confidential legal privileged information.’

Nigel Shepherd, a solicitor representing Elliott and Rees, made the allegations about Haslam – which he vehemently denies – in a letter to the inquiry. In it, he formally requested ‘core participant status’ for several clients, allowing them to cross examine witnesses.

Elliott, a publican, has outlined Haslam’s role in his case in a written statement to the CCRC. A CCRC spokesman said last night it expected to begin a ‘substantive review of his case’ soon.

The inquiry judge: Lord Justice Pitchford, who is heading the three-year inquiry into undercover policing. Lawyers for Rees alerted him to allegations of spying by the Met (see below)

Elliott said he was asked in early 1999 by an acquaintance to collect a Vauxhall Cavalier from a hotel next to Brands Hatch racetrack in Kent.

Soon after picking it up, he was stopped and arrested. Police found 7,448g of ecstasy in the boot, which Elliott insists he didn’t know was there. Later, his solicitors were assisted in preparing his defence by Rees, his colleague, former Met detective Sid Fillery, and Haslam.

They examined evidence from officers ‘present at Brands Hatch as a result of information received’, and claim they crucially undermined it.

In a statement, the officers specified the number of the room in which they said they watched Elliott load the Cavalier with drugs.

But when Rees and his team visited the hotel – The Thistle at Brands Hatch – they found Room 223 didn’t overlook the car park but was on a different side of the hotel.

‘There were other things we found out that took the case apart and the legal team was delighted,’ said Rees.

But when the case came to court he said the mistakes had been omitted from the prosecution evidence.

And earlier, according to Elliott, he was warned by Haslam – ostensibly working on his defence case – not to repeat his belief in court that he had been framed as ‘juries did not like such allegations’.

Mr Shepherd said: ‘In about March 1999, Haslam was involved in enquiries... on behalf of a Mr John Elliott, and is believed to have passed to the police information about the defence in his case which enabled the police changing their evidence.’

In particular, Rees recalled that when the case came to court, the prosecution said the surveillance officer had been mistaken about seeing Elliott from Room 223.

Elliott says in his statement: ‘I cannot show police tailored their evidence because they were aware my lawyers had discovered it was not possible to see much from Room 223... but I am advised if my meetings... were covered by legal professional privilege then any participation in them by a police agent should have been disclosed.’

One of the other cases Haslam worked on involved suspected corrupt policemen, Tom Kingston, Tom Reynolds and Terry O’Connell, who were convicted of a conspiracy to supply £7,500 worth of amphetamine sulphate in 2000.

Lawyers for the men claimed that during their appeal – which they lost – the Met used Mr Haslam as a ‘spy in the defence camp’ that amounted to a ‘fundamental abuse of the process of the court’.

Karen Todner, a solicitor, representing the three former officers said yesterday that they also wish to take part in the inquiry.

‘We have made an application for them to be core witnesses,’ she said. ‘They felt the other side was one step ahead of them in the appeal and they could never understand it.’

The Pitchford inquiry was set up by the Home Office following disclosures Scotland Yard spied on the family of Stephen Lawrence after his 1993 murder.

There have also been concerns over undercover officers having sexual relationships with women involved in campaign groups, and the use of dead infants’ names to create fake identities.

Last night Mr Haslam said he had no knowledge of John Elliott’s case and denied claims he passed on privileged information to his handlers.

He added: ‘When I was doing that [undercover role] I signed the Official Secrets Act. I was well aware of the legality of everything and the one thing I was aware of was client confidentiality.

‘In one case, I did some work because if I had refused... it would have shown me out to Rees and blown what I was trying to do on behalf of the MPS. I explained it to my handlers fully.

‘We had a meeting and it was agreed that yes, I could carry on with [assisting a defence case] providing I didn’t pass any information to them and they didn’t ask me anything. I have never ever passed any client details.’