Brash email saga continues on

Roarprawn has posted some documents last night. They are very illuminating yet deeply disturbing at the same time.

On page three of the Ombudsman’s letter of 28 November (see doc on roarprawn called brash 2):

In the face of … uncertainty, I consider it prudent to err on the side of caution as I am conscious of the fact that each serious or high-profile criminal investigation that remains unsolved can have a discernable effect on public confidence in the maintenance of law and order.

I have carefully weighed up all the relevant factors in this case (such as the length of time since the file was “active” and the stage the investigation had reached) and I am persuaded that the dissemination of the information at issue would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of the law by compromising the criminal investigation.  I am limited in the extent to which I can elaborate further on my reasoning for reaching this view.

Beverley A Wakem

Chief Ombudsman

28 November 2008

Hooton replies to the Chief Obbudsman (see doc called brash 1 on roarprawn) pointing out that there is no doubt at all the Chief Ombudsman is wrong in law. 

Therefore the questions are:

Why was the Chief Ombudsman willing to reach even a provisional position which is so obviously wrong in law, when the Office of the Ombudsman usually gets the law right?

Why is the Office of the Ombudsmen keeping secrets about the Police keeping secrets about the secret email stealer?