AddThis SmartLayers

Weekly reporter gets judicial review over harassment warning

Gareth-Davies1-e1426510044323A weekly newspaper journalist has been granted a judicial review over the police watchdog’s decision to uphold a harassment warning given against him.

As previously reported on HTFP, the Croydon Advertiser’s Gareth Davies, left, was served with the warning by the Metropolitan Police after door-stepping and sending emails to convicted fraudster Neelam Desai.

The Met then rejected a complaint by Gareth about his treatment and the Independent Police Complaints Commission upheld the force’s decision.

But after now considering submissions from Gareth, backed by Advertiser publisher Local World, Mr Justice Picken, of the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, has ruled the claim is arguable.

The IPCC and the Met, an interested party for the defendant, must now provide a detailed response to the court by March 2 – within 35 days of the order being issued. A date for the judicial review has not yet been set.

Gareth was originally issued with the Police Information Notice (PIN) – or harassment warning – on 31 March last year while investigating Desai and her alleged involvement in a series of dating website scams.

The Met rejected Gareth’s original complaint saying his attempts to question Desai, who was previously convicted of frauds totalling £230,000, “went beyond what was reasonable”.

The reporter said he had visited Desai’s home once and sent her two emails detailing the allegations against her and requesting a comment.

Gareth and Local World argued that this did not amount to harassment, and that the issuing of harassment warnings to journalists is contrary to Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, the right to freedom of expression.

4 comments

You can follow all replies to this entry through the comments feed.
  • February 12, 2016 at 9:31 am
    Permalink

    Good, although in legalspeak saying something is “arguable” is a long way from saying it is winnable. There is still time for the big boot of the establishment to come crashing down again. All credit to the reporter, the paper and the newspaper group for sticking at it.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(9)
  • February 12, 2016 at 12:04 pm
    Permalink

    Well done. One door step and two emails hardly amounts to bothering anybody, as long as they are professionally done. All the convicted fraudster needed to do was reply with “I’d rather not comment” and the reporter would have left them alone after the first point of contact.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(1)
  • February 12, 2016 at 2:44 pm
    Permalink

    Quite right. One visit and two emails is not harassment. It’s simply being thorough – just as we would like police investigations to be.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(1)
  • February 16, 2016 at 10:32 am
    Permalink

    And Bernard Hogan-Howe wants to know why he is getting such a rough time in the Press.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)