Met says it is under no obligation to release findings into whether it improperly deleted data about Jenny Jones

Police have refused to release the confidential report of an investigation into allegations that they improperly destroyed documents compiled on a Green party peer.

The allegations have been made by a police whistleblower who said officers destroyed documents recording the political activities of Jenny Jones to prevent her from obtaining them, in what he called a “highly irregular” cover-up.

Sgt David Williams wrote to Lady Jones outlining the allegations, in a letter that was disclosed in the Guardian in January. The peer asked the Metropolitan police to give her a copy of a report on the outcome of the investigation.

The force, which denies the allegations, said it was under no obligation to release the report to her. The force said reports from its directorate of professional standards (DPS) were not routinely disclosed to complainants or outsiders.

Officer claims Met police improperly destroyed files on Green party peer Read more

“The reason for this is that the investigator must be in a position to cover all issues openly and comprehensively in their report. Such reports often include sensitive operational or personal information which, if disclosed could jeopardise future investigation techniques or compromise operational security and the safety and privacy of individuals involved in the investigation.”

Jones said: ”Publishing the report would be like cleaning a wound to allow it to heal. I’m not giving up until I know exactly what happened.”

The Green party peer is also the deputy chair of the official committee that scrutinises the Metropolitan police, and served on the Metropolitan Police Authority for many years.

Williams, a serving Metropolitan police officer who has worked for five years in the clandestine “domestic extremism” unit that keeps track of protesters, disclosed details of the alleged incident in a personal four-page letter to Jones.



He said he had written the letter as a last resort as he had exhausted the police’s internal avenues for raising wrongdoing. His allegations had been investigated by its internal directorate charged with looking at alleged misconduct. Williams has said he does not believe that his allegations were investigated properly.

The DPS started an investigation after Williams alleged that in June 2014 he witnessed five officers shredding or deleting police records that he believed related to Jones. He told her that this behaviour caused him great concern “as I believed this was a cover-up to ensure you could not get any access to police records relating to you through a freedom of information request”.

He added that he feared that blowing the whistle may lead to a “series of escalating actions against me designed to discredit me or lead to my suspension from duty or my dismissal”.

Why did the police have files on my ‘domestic extremism’ in the first place? | Jenny Jones Read more

The Green party peer knew nothing about the allegations until Williams blew the whistle. After she demanded an explanation, Craig Mackey, the Met’s deputy commissioner, told her there was evidence that documents had been destroyed on the day alleged by Williams, but the Met could not establish that they related to her.

Mackey said that following concerns that the “domestic extremism” unit was holding too much data, it had been encouraged “to remove data which is either too old, inappropriate or irrelevant on a regular basis”.



He said: “The regular removal of data from the database is encouraged, and in line with policy.”



The unit maintains a database recording the political activities of thousands of political activists, and has been accused of overstepping the mark and collecting information about campaigners who have engaged in peaceful protest.

The final report of the investigation was sent last year to senior Met officers. The Met said details of witnesses and their accounts formed part of investigation reports and were “provided under a legitimate expectation of confidentiality and we have a duty to respect this”.