Top cyber crime cop lied under oath, says judge The head of the national police unit set up to tackle internet crime told lies under oath about her involvement in a plot to damage the career of a junior detective, a judge has said. Detective Superintendent Charlie McMurdie, of the Met's high-profile Police Central e-Crime Unit (PCeU), falsely claimed that conversations she …
Any job that is incentivised stands the risk of exaggerated reports by the performer of the task.
The police are supposed to be an uninterested enforcer of statutes, to report accurately, and without lies or enhancement, the truth to a court.
If these particular Plods can't even be trusted to behave fairly between themselves, keeping in mind the maxim "honour amongst thieves", how can any court trust their sworn evidence which is even more degraded by their reprehensible failure even to answer questions honestly?
Why do they still hold their jobs, their rank or their pensions? In any self-respecting organisation the offenders would have been given the Order of the Boot.
There again, we're discussing Plod, so those criteria don't apply.
In other news, bears observed defecating in forested area.
The news here is that someone challenged it. Thank you for publicising it, shame the honest guy lost, but that's the way it still is in the Met.
Where's Sir Robert Mark? We need him back, though it wouldn't be popular.
Whilst I'm not at all shocked that the brass at the met is as bent as a two bob note, I'm also not suprised that once again they walk off scott free, and I'm not suprised by the lack of media coverage... wait no I'm not shocked by anything in this case.
The shit floats to the top, and "British justice" is an oxymoron.
So in summary then, we have a rather candid tribunal that has found serious wrongdoing and corruption and negligence, blatantly pointed out that fact, and the Met are entitled to simply say "well, we already investigated that and it's all fine, honestly"?!
If she's been found to have lied under oath, there should be serious consequences.
Christ almighty. What a catalogue of corruption. Justice is a funny thing when it comes to putting coppers in the dock.
Never... Quite... Seems...To... Work.
I can think of another high-profile 'cyber crime cop' due to (possibly) face the courts quite soon. Quite depressing, really. I'm not too optimistic justice will be any better served there, either.
Judges and prosecutors depend on police to protect them from the enemies they make doing their jobs. So there is a conflict of interest.
Put a cop on trial, and his or her "brother officers" show up in the audience and stare.
The message, you want us to come when you call, you let our buddy off.
Certainly no intelligent juror in their right mind will trust the testimony of a police officer from a police force that openly tolerates perjury and evidence tampering.
So it is legally proven that a mans life work is systematically and deliberately ruined by those that should really set a better example and he doesn't even get his legal costs paid? And to add insult to injury, the perpertrators are currently off scott free.
Scandalous.
"The award of £38,000 does not cover his legal bill."
Somehow that just makes me want to cry. Not so much because of lawyer-hate, but just the idea that he successfully charged them for screwing him, and yet still ends up even more screwed. He's right; they have won and he has lost.
I wonder what the judge was thinking. It doesn't sound from the quotes that she had any illusions about what went on. Even if perjury charges are never brought, why issue a judgment that acknowledges the gravity of the original offense, but leaves the victim still in the hole for even attempting to have it compensated?
(I also wonder if McMurdie's willingness to both cover up the initial cheating and screw the whistleblower stems from some specific connection between her and Williams, or just a general hostility to whistleblowers)
As we all know, the Police are above the law, and for some, they are the law. It is good to see they have given the public another very good reason to trust the, tying on oath to add to Section 41, Section 44 amongst others.
I believe if a civilian, ie non-mason (Senior Met officer) had perjured themselves,, then the full force of the law would be applied.
AC because you never know who's watching.
This.. CCTV.. speed cameras.... the abuse of fixed penalties to curtail public liberty... is it any wonder trust in the Police is at such a low ebb?
I agree we need another Mark.. with a brief to put every single police unit in theUK under the microscope... Just think of the savings to the public purse if we dumped all the bad officers... It would likely thin the ranks down quite a chunk.
What we have now seem to be largely arrogant ego-maniacs who address the public with a total lack of respect, while eagerly displaying a level of power over the citizen that has grown out of proportion and is starting to look like it is out of control.
Time the bad guys got a short sharp shock and bounced out of any position of authority and onto the dole queue
Looks like our boys in blue have watched the US lads and started to see the selfish, personal benefits of being a Copper in a 1st world nation!
We've already had our own Rodney King episode, with that poor Brazilian lad being killed in public by mistake and the Coppers simply being told "Don't do it again!" and sent back to work.
We can be truly proud of what Robert Peel created....
The post is required, and must contain letters.
The fact that their integrity is in doubt *should* mean instant suspension, I feel truly sorry for any honest plod out there, because now they know it's not even possible to blow the whistle on wrongdoing...
Fuckers, I was quite happy today, now I would like to feed those unworthy twats slowly feet first into a meltog pulvermatic... I'm mildly pissed off..
Integrity is an essential requirement to be a police officer, or it would be if we had a fair and reasonable justice system.
Perjury, tampering with evidence, should make a person totally unemployable as a police officer or security guard.
Every one is guilty so nobody is guilty ... that is such a lame over generalization, routinely used by crooks to justify their crookedness as being the social norm.
Some politicians claim fake expenses, some bankers get big bonus payments, and some coppers are crooked.
The crooked ones should go to jail.
And for cops, when a cop makes that argument they are arguing that we can do without police forces, thus: If cops tolerate crooked cops, then cops can tolerate crooked civilians, and we can dispense with police forces, prosecutors and courts entirely.
This sets a grand example of corruption for lower eschelon officers to follow.
Bravo corruption. Let's make an internet film about this and make sure it says 'based on real events' at the beginning and show it off at Cannes to the rest of Europe how good it is to be a senior copper in the UK.
Fucking bent coppers make my teeth itch, my skin crawl and my stomach knot in rage all at once.
Once again I'm impressed by the the Beeb's news reporting:
cat in a bin = headlines;
corrupt coppers colluding = silence.
Maybe the Beeb regards the coppers' actions as normal/acceptable - wouldn't surprise me.
Hey El Reg, from what was reported, how come Shaw was awarded so little?
The tribunal awarded damages for hurt feelings, and aggravated damages. Awards for both these types of damages are limited. Shaw asked for exemplary damages, which are unlimited, but was denied.
Employment tribunals can award costs up to £10,000, only where the other side has caused delays or acted un reasonably. In this case the tribunal found there was a short delay while the Met looked for certain documents.
This sort of thing happens in all sorts of places so I'm not surprised. What worries me, however, is that no action has been taken against McMurdie and Williams. Futhermore nobody seems to be interested in finding out how Williams obtained the questions in advance of the interview.
How can anybody trust an officer in charge of fraud cases if she is willing to carry on like this. Even if perjury charges aren't brought she should be sacked. And no, not one of those "sackings" that come with full pension rights and good references.
once you get high enough into an organisation, you rely on crony-ism, intimidation and "doing people over" in order to stay where you are and even to gain advancement. Once you reach so high, any failure of yours will reflect on those who annointed you, so they do their best to maintain their own clean slate by association.
In theory the only thing these two did wrong was get caught. Cynical I know, but have seen this time and again in the military and public service, and been in this guys situation as well.
AC cos you never know whos watching.
Is it any surprise that an apparently corruptly led police e-crime unit seems to find it so difficult to get off its backside and do something about covert interception of internet communications, whether at News of the World, BT/Phorm, or TalkTalk? Or that the Home Office simply doesn't want to discuss such matters? Or that police stations around the country haven't a clue about RIPA legislation? Or that ISP CEO's can be so arrogant in wrongdoing and cavalier about privacy?
Get some honest coppers at the helm of the ecrime unit, and lets see some action against the REAL cyber criminals - the well paid ones in the suits that leak our private data and intercept our internet communications time and time again, and keep gettng away with it.
You hit the nail on the head. If News Corp reports evidence tampering and perjury by senior Met officers, senior Met officers will carry out their duty and do a proper job of investigating News Corp for wiretapping, and interferring with computer systems and computer communications.
He might be inclined to betray for money, but I'm sure GCHQ are now aware of how he got the job, so will keep an eye on him. They may prefer him for the role because he is damaged goods and occupies the moral low-ground - therefore he will have to be compliant with their wishes rather than the other way around.
"The tiny minority of actual honest cops"
Please get over yourself - Every single copper I have ever met has been honest and upstanding and willing to put themselfs at risk to protect the public, that's not to say that there aren't a very few corrupt coppers but, guess what: In a massive company there will always be a tiny minority of corrupt or self serving employees. This does not mean that they are in anything like the majority.
Oh, and remember: The Police don't decide who to prosecute, it's the Crown Prosecution Service, specifically to avoid corrupt prosecution or non-prosecution of crime.
(Now bring on the downvotes from the groupthinkers.)
This simply does not hold up. Only one cop killed Ian Tomlinson. But it was not one cop, or a tiny minority of them, that decided that no charges were to be brought. That must have been decided at a very high level and agreed among a large number of people.
They knew perfectly well that there would be an outcry. They knew exactly what they were doing. And they went ahead anyway. They didn't give a damn for public opinion. They didn't give a damn for justice. They only cared about protecting one of their own.
That is not a tiny minority. That is systemic
In the same way, only one or two cops injected the lead into de Menenzes.
Commander Cressida Dick (Operation Trident) got her promotion to Deputy Assistant Commissioner (Special Operations) on the back of her successful performance as Gold Commander on 22 July 2005. She has subsequently been promoted to Assistant Commissioner in charge of Specialist Crime.
> Oh, and remember: The Police don't decide who to prosecute, it's the Crown Prosecution
> Service, specifically to avoid corrupt prosecution or non-prosecution of crime.
No it's not. They decide who to prosecute based on what is presented to them by the police. The police have discretion in which cases are passed on to the CPS in England and Wales and the Crown Office in Scotland.
And yes, most of them are complete scum.
....as I have seen it time and time again. The Met are an excellent force ,arent they ?. I remember a few years ago when a Police Officer complained to the Bar Council that he had heard a QC Barrister, now a High Court Judge, suggest to a Met Officer that he lie to the Court . Of course the Bar Council found against the Police Officer's complaint because he was only a 30 year serving officer with an exemplary record .
No siree ,there is absolutely no doubt that the Met is a great poilice force. (ouch my arm is breaking)
"In recent years Charlie has been the senior investigation officer on several high profile investigations including serial murder enquiries and international internet and money laundering investigations. Charlie is responsible for the Economic crime portfolio within the Metropolitan police which includes the Fraud squads, Cheque and Plastic Card Unit a"
So if you're an alleged creditcard fraudster/identity thief or serial killer it looks like you can get a fairly sympathetic hearing off Ms McMurdie for a reasonable consideration.
You can bet her behavior will *not* be forgotten by defense barristers and solicitors.
Any one in London, Old Theatre, old LSE building WC2A 2AE Kick off (metaphorically) at 1830Hrs?
is that the cops are too ashamed to put top coppers in the dock and say they are shits as it' makes the judgement of those who put them there look flawed. If they got rid of these two for this then they'd have to get rid of all the others every time they did something wrong.
Conclusion - they can do wtf they want!
I know a few coppers and they ain't all wankers but I also know one who retired about 20 odd years ago from the sweeney and immediately managed to buy up a few high earning businesses, all staff paid cash, etc, and is now living it up down in the Costa Del Crime with all the other old London Gangsters. He was a cight runt too. You don't get the sort of money he had being an honest copper.
At the same time, having nightmares cos someone searched your desk and escorted you out of the building? What would he have done if he'd come up against any proper ( non-Met ) villains? So he was gonna give it all to charity? Course you were son. And I promise not to arrive in your mouth.
because you wouldn't give it to charity he wouldn't either? He had already shown he had standards by blowing the whistle in the first place.
You are in no place to comment on how it affected him, the point is he has been screwed over, the "superiors" who did it have got away with it and he is left holding the bill.
I suppose when coming up against real criminals at least he'd know from the start that they were trying to screw him.
In what world is any of that fair?
A: One will do anything to ruin other people's lives by lying, killing, stealing, beating up the defenseless and the other is a criminal.
or...
A: A Police Officer wears a uniform.
Mine's the one with the IPCC leaflet in the pocket. And a fat lot of good they are. The IPCC, that is.
Im not sure what Global Warming has got to do with this, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change aint gonna be much use.
then again they aint much use at predicting climate change either. Global warming my @rse, I had to scrape ice of my car this morning!
Oh...you meant the other other IPCC.. I wonder do they use a hockey stick graph as well?
...im on my way...
When I did jury service I saw plenty of cops lying under oath. They were proved to be liars ... but not surprisingly they simply walked away. The drug dealer was the most most honest witness to take the stand that day.
I was stunned that perjury only seemed to apply when the police decided it did.
Not only were the police liars but they were thick. Claiming a statement is yours only for the lawyer to point out in court that it had another officers name at the top of page 3 is just sloppy. School boy error. If you are going to copy someone else's statement at least change the name at the top of the pages.
"The award of £38,000 does not cover his legal bill"
I can not see how they have come to this amount if it does not cover his legal bill. damages is just that, the cost of dmage to you because of the actions of others.
is the reporter who was at the hearing sure they did not hear "£38,000 plus costs"?
""The tiny minority of actual honest cops"
Please get over yourself - Every single copper I have ever met has been honest and upstanding and willing to put themselfs at risk to protect the public, that's not to say that there aren't a very few corrupt coppers but, guess what: In a massive company there will always be a tiny minority of corrupt or self serving employees. This does not mean that they are in anything like the majority."
-- But you must admit they do seem to be pretty dishonest 'when it matters'. Such as the de Menezes case, The innocent guy killed at G20, the guy who was shot by police for carrying a wooden table leg in a bag etc etc -- not one copper brought to justice when it really mattered...
So you've got three examples over what, thirty years there? So yes, I admit it, all police are totally corrupt. </sarcasm>
The fact that these cases stand out as much as they do is a tribute to the general professionalism with which the police operate.
Oh, by the way where is Ali Desai now?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Dizaei
Some people learn from other's experiences; some have to piss on the electrified fence.
What do you think other coppers will have learned from Shaw's experiences - report corruption or keep quiet?
Will this lead to more or less corruption in the higher ranks - you know, the ones quickest to get on board with increasing politicisation of the police?
IMO most people do support the police when they go after criminals (yay Gene Hunt), but some of us feel the police are largely moving away from the public's concerns and into an us-and-them behaviour where the police are in one corner and the criminals and public are shoved together in another corner.
From this viewpoint all that has happened is that Shaw got shoved out of the police corner by the police because he stuck by the standards the public hopes the police have.
""the cops are too ashamed to put top coppers in the dock ""
This would seem to be generally true, but there do seem to be exceptions. One recent one that springs to mind was the Metropolitan Police commander who on 8 February 2010 at Southwark Crown Court was convicted on charges of perverting the course of justice and of misconduct in a public office, and jailed for four years.
One could hope that it was the start of something big in terms of a clear-out of dishonesty and corruption in the Met, but it seems more likely there were special circumstances in this case.
.... I feel a "UK Coppers who lied in court" Facebook dedicated page coming on, complete with photographs and home addresses (If it's in the electoral register, it's public info).
Seriously, never before in our history has the general public had the power to destroy figures of authority.
Please reflect reality. Sir Paul Stephenson is the most senior officer of the police force for the EU Region of London (England). He is therefore ex officio a full member of ACPO Ltd.
As a member of ACPO Ltd, he is in fact accountable to Chief Constable Sir Hugh Orde QPM who was elected as president by fellow members of ACPO in April 2009.
The nation's most senior police officer is in fact the President of ACPO Ltd, a role that has by law the rank of Chief Constable.
It' nearest equivalent would be if there were no FBI but the police for Washington DC ran some specialist units which covered the whole US and were run not by a police authority or some other kind of local government but by the Secretary of the Justice dept.
Put that way the British system does sound a bit screwed up.
Do you get your mods. from the jobcentre, or (Defunct) Woollies nowadays???
WHF is wrong with this?? (Unless the Mod's also a Freemason. Or Brazilian, which might explain a bit....)
Andus McCoatover
Have another go, moderator. You'll get it. Given time.
* Submitted at Sunday 24th October 2010 21:16 GMT
* Rejected by moderator at Monday 25th October 2010 09:41 GMT
@AC "Im not sure what the poster was trying to say."
* Submitted at Saturday 23rd October 2010 16:38 GMT
* Rejected by moderator at Saturday 23rd October 2010 20:11 GMT
Sir Paul Stephenson would probably be a fully-paid-up member of the Secret Handshake Society, A.K.A th...(sounds of Glock bullets going into brain...)
"Did you get the bastard?"
"Yes, Chief"
"OK, now fuc*k off and have your do'nut break. The other brigade'll clean up"
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
