Newspaper which published ambassador's memos may have breached Official Secrets Act, former minister claims
Sir Michael Fallon backed a police called for editors to hand over leaked material
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The newspaper which published leaked messages from the UK’s ambassador in Washington may have breached the Official Secrets Act, a former cabinet minister has suggested.
Sir Michael Fallon said it was “logical” that police should tell journalists to hand back any leaked official documents which have come into their possession and warned that further publication may break the law.
The Mail on Sunday’s publication of excerpts from “diptels” - diplomatic telegrams - by Sir Kim Darroch has sparked a furious trans-Atlantic row and led to the ambassador’s resignation earlier this week.
The Metropolitan Police confirmed on Friday that it has launched a criminal investigation led by detectives from the Counter Terrorism Command, who take responsibility for looking into alleged breaches of the Official Secrets Act.
Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu has faced criticism for warning editors to hand back any leaked material, amid widespread speculation that further revelations may be released on Sunday.
In a statement, Mr Basu said: “The publication of leaked communications, knowing the damage they have caused or are likely to cause, may also be a criminal matter.
“I would advise all owners, editors and publishers of social and mainstream media not to publish leaked government documents that may already be in their possession, or which may be offered to them, and to turn them over to the police or give them back to their rightful owner, Her Majesty’s government.”
Ex-culture secretary John Whittingdale said: “The idea of prosecuting journalists is completely wrong.
“I am horrified these communications were made public. But there is no point shooting the messenger."
But Sir Michael, a former defence secretary, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that the police warning was “quite logical”.
“If they are receiving stolen material they should give it back to its rightful owner and they should also be aware of the huge damage that’s already been done and the potentially even greater damage that could be done by further breaches of the Official Secrets Act,” said the Conservative MP. “That’s the law of the land.
“We have press freedom, we prize press freedom in this country. But equally we also have laws. We have the Official Secrets Act and it’s very, very important that that law is upheld.
“The Mail on Sunday must make its decision if it’s proposing to publish more material.”
When reminded that the newspaper had already published some of Sir Kim’s leaked messages, Sir Michael said: “It has indeed and that looks like prima facie a breach of the Official Secrets Act. What I’m suggesting is the police are right to get cracking and find out who did this and make sure it isn’t repeated. This is a breach of the Official Secrets Act, clearly.”
Today presenter John Humphrys challenged Sir Michael’s claim, pointing out that – unlike public servants – journalists are not required to sign the Act.
The former minister replied: “I don’t think any of us can entirely absolve ourselves of the need to avoid damage to this country.
“There was clearly enormous political damage and diplomatic damage to our relationship with our strongest ally, the United States, and I think the government and the police are fully entitled to find out who was involved in that and, if they can, prevent it happening again.”
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments