The wording is the disclosure has to be "damaging", as described below
For the purposes of subsection (3) above a disclosure is damaging if—
(a)it causes damage to the work of, or of any part of, the security and intelligence services; or
(b)it is of information or a document or other article which is such that its unauthorised disclosure would be likely to cause such damage or which falls within a class or description of information, documents or articles the unauthorised disclosure of which would be likely to have that effect.
How delightfully broad! Would I therefore be right in thinking that "any part of" would seemingly include things like reputational damage? I also wonder how broad/vague the definition of "damage" might be interpreted as being.
Co-incidentally, I just tried to access the Parliamentary page on the Official Secrets Act (
It's also interesting to see what the media have reported regarding Cressida d**k's comments on the matter of prosecutions of the officers involved. Time will tell, I suppose!
I'm not quite sure what they would prosecute them under.
If he were serving a police officer then I could imagine there would be things that they could charge them with.
As a retired officer, I'm not sure what legislation they would use
"and which is or has been in his possession by virtue of his position as such."
Surely this means that the information leaked has to be true? How can you be in possession of material that did not exist?
So any charges brought under this act would clearly imply that the leak was actually correct in its claim?
Also, it should be noted that Green has been very specific in discussing what he did rather than make specific claims re the actual PC. Thus leaving available the "shared password defence" IF it is established that this material was on the PC..
Ironically, the initial raid was concerning leaks from his office so the possibility that passwords were shared (if thats true) within his office is of direct concern?
All interesting stuff.
What should surely we all agree on is how to deal with notes taken when reviewing cases once a member of the team retires?
Ha! No one takes notes during case work.