Guidance on disclosing material to journalists
Daniel Morgan Panel · The Report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel · Issued 15 June 2021 · Addressed to: Metropolitan Police Service
Source — verbatim from the inquiry
●Inquiry recommendation, Volume 1
Guidance should be issued by the Metropolitan Police to enable officers to determine whether it is appropriate, necessary and lawful to disclose investigative material to journalists. That guidance should include a requirement to record by whom, to whom and when any such evidence was disclosed, who authorised the disclosure, the reasons for the disclosure of the material, and the express conditions upon which the information is disclosed.
Daniel Morgan Panel, The Report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel · 15 Jun 2021 Source PDF →
Response — verbatim from government
●Metropolitan Police Service
The College of Policing's counter-corruption APP already outlines categories of inappropriate associations that should be recorded and what notifiable association policies should look like for police forces. This includes that any associations with private investigators should be considered as potentially inappropriate relationships. HMICFRS also provided several recommendations in this area and stated that police officers and staff in the MPS did not have to disclose their association with journalists or extremist groups. The MPS reviewed and published a new declarable associations policy in February 2023, and this has now been rectified.
Metropolitan Police Service · 22 Jun 2023 Written response →
Evidence trail — what's actually happened since
- 28 Feb 2023 · Metropolitan Police Service / College of Policing The College of Policing counter-corruption APP outlines categories of inappropriate associations including with journalists. The MPS reviewed and published a new declarable associations policy in February 2023. However the recommendation was specifically about guidance for lawful disclosure of investigative material to journalists, not just association policies. Guidance on when disclosure is appropriate, necessary and lawful -- with recording requirements -- is addressed through existing media relations frameworks but not through the specific bespoke guidance the Panel envisioned. View source → Reasonable Progress
Each entry above links to a primary source — gov.uk written statement, consultation response document, or inspection report. The Index does not characterise government intent; it tracks what has been published.
How this page is built
Source and Response are verbatim from primary documents. The Evidence trail records published activity since — written statements, consultation outcomes, inspection findings, parliamentary references. The Index does not paraphrase or characterise intent; it tracks what has been published. Where the evidence is the absence of action (a missed deadline, a slipped timetable), that absence is documented from primary sources rather than inferred.
This recommendation's data is verified periodically against primary sources. The Index is monitored for staleness weekly.