By Gabriel Princewill-
The Independent police watchdog is facing questions over its choice chose not to independently investigate allegations that sensitive information connected to Nigel Farage’s financial affairs was leaked to the press by a National Crime Agency officer.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) confirmed that it received a voluntary complaint referral from the National Crime Agency (NCA) on 20 July. The referral concerned allegations by two individuals that information reported in the press about their financial dealings had been leaked by an unknown NCA officer.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
The allegations relate to information concerning Nigel Farage and an undeclared donation or gift, making the question of how confidential information reached the media a matter of considerable public interest.
And there are separate questions about whether the officer who leaked the information about Farage’s undeclared donation gift, may actually have been acting in the pubic interest in leaking the information to the press.
This question does not currently feature in the reason for the IOPC swerving its responsibility to investigate an important matter referred to it.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
But rather than take the referral forward itself, the IOPC decided that the NCA Professional Standards should investigate its own case. That decision raises a basic question of independence, because if the allegation is that an NCA officer may have leaked confidential information, a pertinent question is whether the NCA should really be investigating whether one of its own officers was responsible for an alleged misconduct.
An inherent conflict of interest is often glaring when internal professional standards are allowed to investigate alleged misdemeanours, but the system does place some faith in such procedures.
The IOPC says it will retain oversight of the investigation. An IOPC spokesperson told The Eye Of Media.Com in a statement: “We assessed the referral and decided that the allegations should be investigated by the NCA, however we will monitor the matter to ensure we have oversight and continue to liaise with the NCA around the investigative steps it is taking and any indication of potential misconduct matters.”
That response is likely to prompt further questions rather than settle them. Oversight is not the same as conducting an independent investigation. The IOPC will be watching what the NCA does, but the initial fact-finding remains with the organisation whose officer is alleged to have been responsible.
The central issue is not whether the NCA is capable of investigating the allegation. It plainly has the expertise to establish who had access to information, what information was held, who accessed it, and whether there was an unauthorised disclosure.
The issue is whether it is sufficiently independent to investigate an allegation concerning one of its own employees. That distinction matters particularly because the allegation concerns an unidentified officer.
At this stage, there is no named individual for the IOPC to investigate. But that is precisely what an investigation is supposed to establish.The IOPC has indicated that it would reconsider its involvement if the NCA identifies a specific individual and uncovers potential misconduct.
The spokesperson said the IOPC had advised the NCA that “should its investigation identify misconduct matters for specific individuals, then a further referral should be made so that the IOPC can decide whether to take over or manage the investigation.” This creates an unusual sequence.
The expectation is that the NCA first investigates an allegation that an NCA officer may have leaked information. If that investigation establishes that a particular officer may have committed misconduct, the NCA can then refer the matter back to the independent watchdog, which can decide whether to take over.
But what happens if the initial investigation fails to identify an officer?What happens if crucial evidence is not found, potential lines of inquiry are not pursued or the conclusion is that there is insufficient evidence to establish misconduct?
Those questions go directly to the argument for independent scrutiny at the outset. There is no suggestion from the IOPC that the NCA investigation will be improper, nor is there evidence in the information provided that an NCA officer did leak the information. The allegation remains an allegation.
But the public interest lies in more than the eventual outcome. It also lies in whether the process used to reach that outcome is sufficiently independent to command confidence.
The circumstances make that question especially pertinent because the information allegedly leaked was subsequently reported by the press and concerns financial dealings involving a high-profile political figure.
If confidential information held by a law-enforcement agency was disclosed improperly, the public deserves to know how it happened, who had access to it ,and whether any rules or safeguards were breached.
The IOPC’s decision not to investigate the matter itself, therefore deserves examination. The watchdog was given the opportunity to assess the referral independently. Instead, it determined that the NCA should investigate while promising to monitor the process.
That may satisfy the formal requirements of its remit, but independence is not simply about having the power to intervene later. It is also about determining whether the organisation at the centre of an allegation should be investigating itself in the first place.
The unanswered question is therefore a simple one. When an allegation concerns a possible leak by an unknown NCA officer, why should the NCA be the body establishing the facts before the IOPC decides whether there is anything for it to investigate?
Those concerned about institutional accountability will consider this the immediate issue hanging over the investigation. Because when the allegation is that information may have leaked from inside an organisation, allowing that same organisation to investigate the source may inevitably invite the accusation that it is being asked to mark its own homework.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar