How much did the Met pay Carter-Ruck 2005-2011. THEY WON'T SAY

by **Tony Bennett** 24.08.11 22:26

The key passge of this correspondence is near the end of this fascinating run of correspondence between Richard Wilson and the Met (thanks to an MF member for drawing this to my attention):

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/payments_to_carter_ruc_k#incoming-204369

by aiyoyo 25.08.11 2:39

extract

The MPS have admitted paying Carter Ruck to make legal threats to
the media over criticism of a senior police officer, John Yates,
but refuse to disclose the sums involved, claiming this is
"personal" information.

It is hard to see how details of payments to a lawyer constitute
personal information. Nowhere in my request did I ask for the legal
advice itself. I would therefore ask that this response by reviewed
with a view to providing a fuller response with any personal
information redacted.

That is spot on b/c it was MET who paid CR, and not John Yates out of his own personal pocket, then it is public money and the Public have a right to know.

eta: it is scandalous - every dodgy character using CR as their libel lawyers.

by Gillyspot 25.08.11 19:23

Looks like your member has contacted the Guardian (or someone else has got the same response as he did).

The Metropolitan Police authority agreed that Scotland Yard should pay the bill for former assistant commissioner John Yates to hire the high-profile libel firm Carter Ruck to threaten legal action against various media outlets including the Guardian, an FOI request has shown.

In response to an FOI on the issue, the Metropolitan Police Service said on Wednesday: "We can confirm that the Metropolitan Police Authority authorised funding in order that the MPS could seek legal advice from Carter Ruck following an article in the Guardian newspaper concerning assistant commissioner John Yates.

The Met refused to disclose how much had been paid to the law firm, and the details of the services for which the payments and costs were made, on the grounds that the data were personal and their release would breach the data protection act.

A spokeswoman for the MPA said: "The initial request for funding was turned down. Subsequent advice from the MPS was to the effect that the organisation's reputation was compromised and this led the authority to approve capped expenditure for legal advice. The authority was not sighted or consulted on which legal advisers would be engaged."

In todays Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/25/met-yates-legal-bills