So Why Weren't Peter Kilfoyle And Tony Clark Prosecuted? *UPDATED*
Note: The following post has been corrected due to an error on my part regarding the date of the article in question which came up in a recent Google alert. Apologies for any confusion.
It's worth revisiting some of the details related to the leaking of the al Jazeera memo we covered in January last year because this article in The Guardian from the same time which popped up in a Google alert this morning seems to confirm that Peter Kilfoyle (with Tony Clark) did breach the Official Secrets Act and this raises some old questions, mainly: how come David Keogh and Leo O'Connor were prosecuted but not Peter Kilfoyle and Tony Clark? Also, who passed on the memo to The Daily Mirror? After David Keogh leaked the document to Leo O'Connor...
The information was then acquired by Mr Clarke, who in turn consulted his parliamentary colleague, Peter Kilfoyle. The two politicians decided to pass on the information to a contact in the US.
Mr Kilfoyle, MP for Liverpool Walton and a former defence minister, said last night: "It's very odd we haven't been prosecuted. My colleague Tony Clarke is guilty of discussing it with me and I have discussed it with all and sundry."
Asked if he had broken the act in the same alleged way as Mr Clarke's aide who is facing charges, he said: "I don't know. But I'd be very pleased if Her Majesty's finest approached me about it."
The two MPs decided in October 2004 to reveal the contents of the transcript of the Blair-Bush meeting to John Latham, a Democrat supporter living in San Diego, California. They hoped to influence the impending 2004 US election, Mr Kilfoyle said.
So that's a pretty clear admission of breaking the Official Secrets Act but is 'revealing contents' the same as passing on a document? That isn't made clear. Re-reading the timeline of events shows that the attempts to leak the memo in the US and to the Daily Mirror happened shortly after Leo O'Connor was arrested (in September 2004) and that couldn't have happened until Tony Clark got cold feet or "did the right thing" and returned the document. So when Peter Kilfoyle says he "discussed it with all and sundry", perhaps he's right.
Um - that article *is* from
Um - that article *is* from 9 January 2006's Grauniad, Davide.
Oh God, so it is!! It came
Oh God, so it is!! It came up in in a Google alert that I've had going for months so I didn't check the date. I guess I've got some editing to do.
Corrected now. Sorry for any
Corrected now. Sorry for any confusion.