
News
Share
Published 11:05 28 Jan 2022 GMT
Updated 11:07 28 Jan 2022 GMT

In a statement, the Met said it wanted to "avoid any prejudice to our investigation" - but leading lawyers aren't convinced this is a certifiable excuse.
Former Chief Prosecutor Nazir Afzal described the decision as "absolute nonsense", arguing a "purely factual report by Sue Gray cannot possibly prejudice a police investigation".In December, the Met refused to investigate alleged parties held at Downing Street because its policy was not to undertake retrospective investigations of lockdown breaches.
Forced to u-turn on their original pledge, the Met is now refusing publication of a report that could have "laid bare" covid rule-breaking "under the noses of the copper in Downing Street", Barber wrote on Twitter. Barber asks "Am I missing something?". https://twitter.com/lionelbarber/status/1486989283709927426?s=20&t=yoyCBcyAQMhcGGVdrM17vQ The Sunday Times' Whitehall editor, Gabriel Pogrund, summed up why the Met's decision had potentially deflated the impact of Gray's report. https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1486981716677992451 On Friday morning, Chris Philp, the digital minister, said that Gray’s report still had not been received by Number 10. Speaking on Sky News, he said: “I spoke to someone in Downing Street about half an hour ago and they certainly didn’t indicate it had been received - I don’t know a lot more than you do but I’ve certainly got no information as of right now that it’s been received.” It's unclear when Gray's report, redacted or not, will be published. Related LinksExplore more on these topics: