Summary of review of Operation Aloft

Operation Aloft was started by Merseyside Police in 2019 and led to the first-ever publicly made arrest of an acting mayor of a major city on 4 December 2020. The decision to make this arrest in a publicly demonstrated way was a conscious step of Merseyside Police as they could make the arrest without publicity, as has been done by another police force with another mayor previously. Merseyside Police were aware of that example and the option to make the arrest without invoking the publicity of it but rejected this option. The arrest of Joe Anderson and the way of making it were initiated and decided by Detective Chief Inspector 1271 David Rooney (“DCI Rooney”) of Merseyside Police on or around 20 November 2020. As a result of DCI Rooney’s discretion, the publicly made arrest of Mr Anderson – Labour Party’s leader in North-West – terminated his political career and caused a major political crisis in Liverpool, triggering intervention by the central government, which continues until today, more than two years later.

AAAPPP’s review of the information received from different sources has demonstrated two significant failures of Merseyside Police to ensure the integrity and efficacy of Operation Aloft, which has interfered with the political landscape of the UK and caused a major scandal with the first-ever publicly made arrest of the acting mayor of a major city in the UK.

The first failure was that a regional political leader was arrested on the allegations of what inevitably was the political activity, masked for the purposes of the arrest as intimidation. The second – and overarching – failure was that Operation Aloft was handled from onset by the individuals of Merseyside Police’s Crime Economic Team who themselves were under active investigation for serious corruption in an unrelated to Operation Aloft case. Among other officers of the same department, the head of Operation Aloft – DCI Rooney – is under investigation between 17 April 2019 and the day of publishing this report (27 March 2023), i.e., almost 4 years. On 20 October 2020 – one month before the decision to arrest Liverpool’s mayor Joe Anderson, made by DCI Rooney on or around 20 November 2020 – the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) overturned the decision of Merseyside Police to vindicate DCI Rooney on allegations of serious corruption and ordered a new investigation of his conduct in an unrelated case. The allegations against DCI Rooney that were falling within the determination of serious corruption under the IOPC Guidance 2015, included perverting the course of justice, misconduct in public office and criminal offence of corrupt exercise of police powers under section 26 of Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. It follows, the arrest of the mayor of a major UK city was initiated by the police officer under active investigation for allegations of serious corruption (including dishonesty in operational decision making and perverting the course of justice by authorizing to submit to the courts false evidence). It also follows that the political landscape of the UK was interfered by someone whose own integrity was a subject of scrutiny as per the decision of the IOPC made one month before the arrest decision was made by him.

The purpose of the current report is to highlight the fact that a major politician was arrested in a public way (and consciously so, despite there being an alternative option of avoiding the publicity) on the allegations of his political activity having amounted to intimidation by discretion of the police officer, whose integrity was in a reasonable question as a result of the IOPC’s direction to re-investigate the complaints against him one month before the arrest decision was made. The allegations of a political activity having amounted to witness intimidation were made by Mr Anderson’s political rival Tony Reeves, who was the triumphant of the fall of Liverpool’s mayor but 19 months after the event himself got to resign from Liverpool City Council after his own work became a subject of the ongoing scrutiny by the central government.

The review of AAAPPP also aims to invite Merseyside Police to answer important questions about its handling of the issue of integrity of policing in the light of the revealed and published within the current review facts and its Service Confidence Policy. The current summary will be updated at the end of it upon receipt by AAAPPP of Merseyside Police’s comments (if any) on the conclusions of this anti-corruption report. Irrelevantly from these responses and in the face of the already available evidence, the conclusion of AAAPPP is that Merseyside Police must be recused from handling Operation Aloft, allowing another police force, who would not be prejudiced by its failures and lack of integrity, to deal with it and preserve the public interest. Merseyside Police’s failures have led to a major political crisis in North-West and it cannot be trusted anymore to handle the investigation of such importance as the failures are representing the ongoing risk to the efficacy of the investigation and its subsequent integrity / impartiality.

Disclaimer

Nothing in this report should be deemed as endorsement of any subject of investigation code-named Operation Aloft, including but not limited by Joe Anderson. Mr Anderson is unaware of AAAPPP’s work on this report, the plan to publish it and its conclusion. Neither has he any relation to AAAPPP. Our organisation considers the case of Mr Anderson, whose career has been recklessly and consciously destroyed overnight by those at Merseyside Police who themselves were, at all material times, under investigation for serious corruption, as instrumental in raising public awareness of the importance of the issue of the integrity of police service. That aim is pursued for the reason that there are apparent shortages in these awareness and understanding as of today both among members of public (as a matter of their rights) and among police forces themselves (as a matter of their obligations under their “Service Confidence” standard policies).

About AAAPPP UK

AAAPPP UK has been operating since February 2020 as an organisation aimed to assist those becoming victims of abuse of police powers. It is a non-profitable charity organisation. Since its inception, AAAPPP has assisted hundreds of individuals, through consulting and psychological support and is the only operative non-government organisation in the field of fighting abuse of police powers in the UK.

Sources

The current anti-corruption review of Operation Aloft is prepared on the basis of the publicly available information and information received from reliable and verified sources.

For enquiries

Any enquiries and whistleblowing notices concerning our report on Operation Aloft can be sent to aloft-review@aaappp.org.uk

Review of Operation Aloft

Legal background of arrest decisions

An arrest decision can be made on the basis of a suspicion. Suspicion is a very low-threshold test which means that an innocent person can be perfectly legally arrested as long as there are non-fanciful reasons to suspect a crime has been committed. This may include many accidentally occurring situations where a person is suspected on the basis of independently occurring from them circumstances.

Whilst the arrest decision, just like the status of suspect, is something that can be easily happened to any member of the public without any wrongdoing, there is apparent (and disproportionate) prejudice arising from the same, especially in careers where integrity matters very much. That disproportionate perception of someone getting the status of suspect or being arrested is caused by the artificially limited number of instances where police officers exercise these powers, despite them being widely available in a general case. However the starting point of that discretion to give the status of suspect or arrest a person is that it is exercised with the unquestioned integrity. That is where Operation Aloft has failed in every aspect and on each stage, as will be clear from the chronology below.

Legal background of political activity and human right of freedom of association

Article 11 of Human Rights Act 1998 provides that everyone should have freedom of association, protest and other political activities.

These freedoms are not unlimited when it comes to ‘proportionate’ to restrict these rights for preventing crime or protecting the rights and freedoms of other people.

It will be apparent that the key word here is ‘proportionate’ and what the decision maker in a police force considers it being so, when applying their discretion. The application of discretion also returns the issue to the issue of the integrity of the officer applying it, the same way how it is applicable to the issue of giving the status of suspect or arresting someone.

In Operation Aloft, all these issues, including the issue of considering it being proportionate to arrest a leading politician for political activity upon the invitation of his political enemy, have merged into dramatic and unprecedented in UK history turn.

Chronology and evidence

To benefit the public interest through a third-party confirmation of the chronological facts described below and relating to the complaints of serious corruption made against DCI Rooney in an unrelated to Operation Aloft case, AAAPPP has obtained a legal note of KC Chris Daw, the leading expert in police misconduct law. Mr Daw was instructed in those complaints and has been able to provide with a legal note outlining the relevant to the current review facts. Mr Daw’s legal note was prepared for a general purpose, not directly related to the current review. The legal note is available by the link.

Since April 2019 a number of officers of Merseyside Police’s Economic Crime Team (“MPECT”) became subjects of allegations of routine dishonesty to the courts in their ex parte applications when performing investigations. DCI 1271 David Rooney – the key officer of MPECT – was one of them. It was alleged that DCI Rooney had authorized that routine dishonesty to the courts by his silent enabling it and putting his authorizing signature on dishonest applications to the courts (legal note, para 1). These allegations were made in a case wholly irrelevant to Operation Aloft. AAAPPP is in the possession of the primary documents confirming that the complaints were made of, among others, perverting the course of justice and corrupt exercise of police powers under section 26 of Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. The latter criminal offence prescribes up to 14 years of imprisonment. The complaints were recorded by Merseyside Police’s Professional Standards Department (“MPPSD”).

In the summer of 2019, when already under allegations of serious corruption, MPECT started of Operation Aloft, an investigation into the dealings of Liverpool City Council and, in particular, Liverpool’s mayor Joe Anderson. It is understood by AAAPPP that, at all material times, including the onset of the investigation, DCI Rooney was the the head of Operation Aloft.

The materials available to AAAPPP and revealed below show that DCI Rooney was such, at the least, as of the moment of his initiating the arrest the acting mayor of Liverpool.

Instead of responding to the allegations of serious corruption in the unrelated to Operation Aloft complaints, DCI Rooney chose to state bare denial of the allegations and refuse to provide any further response to these allegations (legal note, para 2). The investigation report of MPPSD, which is available to AAAPPP, stated that “DCI Rooney said that [the complainant] is wrong in his assertions throughout the complaint and would not comment any further”. Despite this approach failing to deal with the merits of the serious allegations made against him, MPPSD considered the response of DCI Rooney as sufficient and, by its investigation report of 5 May 2020, fully vindicated him on all allegations. AAAPPP is in the possession of the investigation report confirming the same.

Meanwhile, within Operation Aloft, Mr Anderson was informed of its existence and offered his assistance to MPECT. He was not arrested and, instead, attended a voluntary interview. It should be noted that it is unusual for any person to be subsequently arrested after having attended a voluntary interview as the whole purpose of the arrest is in the element of surprise for the person that is being arrested.

That factor was circumvented by MPECT through obtaining, in August 2020, a fresh allegation against Mr Anderson, thanks to the police report from Mr Anderson’s political opponent, the then-Chief Executive of Liverpool’s City Council, Mr Tony Reeves. It is understood by AAAPPP, his report alleged that the political activity performed by Mr Anderson and his allies, including but not limited by “Save Our City” campaign, amounted to witness intimidation in that one of the purposes of that campaign was to invoke Mr Reeves’ resignation. Being aware that political activity is not a crime, MPECT approached the allegations from the angle that, because the invited resignation of Mr Reeves from the position of Chief Executive would lead to the loss of the financial remuneration by him, such activity falls within the perimeter of criminal offence of witness intimidation.It is understood by AAAPPP that, despite this political activity having been proved to exist and relate to Mr Anderson, nothing has happened with this allegation and the only its practical result was that an arrest could be made of him on the basis of it.

Meanwhile, in the parallel complaints’ proceedings, unrelated to Operation Aloft, on 20 October 2020, the IOPC upheld the appeal against the earlier decision of 5 May 2020 by MPPSD to vindicate DCI Vaughan (among other officers of MPECT) on allegations of serious corruption (legal note, para 3). The IOPC directed re-investigation of DCI Rooney and for him to provide responses to those on their merits. AAAPPP is in the possession of the primary documents confirming the same.

One month later, on or around 20 November 2020, DCI Rooney initiated the arrest of the then-acting mayor of Liverpool Joe Anderson. The official letter of MPECT, available to AAAPPP, stated:

As you are aware as a matter of law the decision to arrest was made by the arresting officer. He was briefed by the Senior Investigating Officer, who made the operational decision to request that your client be arrested.

That letter did not indicate who that ‘Senior Investigating Officer’ was. However, MPECT have mentioned that name within the High Court proceedings initiated by Mr Anderson, in which they stated:

5.2.9 On 4th December 2020 at 05:15 hours the arresting officer, Constable 6455 Merritt attended Wallasey Police Station and he and his team received a comprehensive briefing specifically from DCI Rooney (as he then was)

To further clear any doubts whether DCI Rooney – the officer, who, on 20 October 2020, was directed by the police watchdog IOPC to be investigated for allegations of serious corruption – was the Senior Investigating Officer of Operation Aloft, AAAPPP is in the possession of the signature from his email which mentions his role within that investigation:

It is understood by AAAPPP that the arrest of Mr Anderson was unique in two aspects:

• It was the first and the only publicly made arrest of an acting mayor of a major city in UK history;
• It was the first and the only arrest of a major politician on the allegations that his political rallying against a political opponent amounted to witness intimidation.

It is also apparent from the available to AAAPPP and explained above evidence that this truly unique arrest was initiated by the officer who was himself directed by the police watchdog to be investigated for allegations of serious corruption, including but not limited to operational dishonesty and perverting the course of justice, one month before such an unique arrest was initiated by him.

More than two years later, as of March 2023, DCI Rooney remains under investigation for serious corruption as a result of the allegations made against him since April 2019 in an unrelated case. In particular, the second attempt of MPPSD to vindicate him – again, without him providing any response, stating bare denial of the allegations for the second time in a row – by its decision of 17 June 2021 was overturned for the substantial number of allegations by the IOPC’s decision of 7 July 2022. As of today, DCI Rooney, the head of Operation Aloft since, it is understood by AAAPPP, its inception, remains under investigation for the allegations of perverting the course of justice and operational dishonesty.

Service Confidence Policy of Merseyside Police

Every police force is required to maintain a standard “Service Confidence” policy which ensures that critical or vulnerable roles are not assigned to the officers whose integrity is in a reasonable question. Merseyside Police’s Service Confidence Policy provides the same in paragraph:

1.6 The test of whether there are ‘Serious Concerns’ about an individual’s integrity will be based on an assessment of all the intelligence and evidence, including source sensitive material. The evidence must establish that it is more probable than not that the individual’s integrity is in question. Due regard will be paid to the principles of fairness as outlined above. This test is to be applied at all stages of the procedure.

It follows, Merseyside Police either failed to apply its Service Confidence Policy when allowing DCI Rooney to be the head of Operation Aloft, and to initiate the publicly made arrest of the acting mayor of Liverpool, or they considered that the IOPC’s direction that DCI Rooney is to be investigated for serious corruption was not demonstrating a reasonable ‘question’ of DCI Rooney’s integrity. The latter cannot be correct because when there is no question of integrity, there is nothing to investigate. The IOPC directed the investigation twice and DCI Rooney remains under investigation on allegations of serious corruption for almost 4 years (legal note, para 4) .

Conclusions of review of Operation Aloft

AAAPPP’s conclusion on Operation Aloft is that Merseyside Police has fatally failed in its duty to preserve the integrity of policing by ignoring the fact of DCI Rooney being under active investigation for serious corruption and allowing him to be the head of Operation Aloft and to then initiate the arrest decision of the acting mayor of Liverpool Joe Anderson. In doing so, it failed its own Service Confidence policy, which outlines the standard of unquestioned integrity, and the general practice of police forces that the officers whose integrity is in question are excluded from chain-of-evidence roles, let alone the roles of heading critical investigations.

The controversial circumstances of Mr Anderson’s arrest raise a further question whether his publicly made arrest was the result of the personal circumstances of DCI Rooney and his feeling of frustration in the face of the allegations made against him, or a desire to show his importance to the public interest in the face of the same.

AAAPPP is in the possession of evidence DCI Rooney was not the only key officer of MPECT who was subject of the same allegations and investigation for serious corruption and participated in Operation Aloft in key roles. It is of special note that the arrest of Mr Anderson was not the only arrest of an acting mayor in the UK. Yet, it was the only arrest that has been made publicly, which was a conscious decision by Merseyside Police, who were aware of another example of a similar arrest of a mayor having been made without publicity, for the obvious reasons that it would significantly interfere with the political landscape. It would have been, hence, acutely clear to Merseyside Police that their decision to arrest the mayor of a major city in a public way would terminate his political career overnight and cause a major political crisis. It is troubling the reasonable observer that such a decision was trusted to be initiated the police officer who himself was under investigation for serious corruption, and Operation Aloft to be headed by the same officer.

Given the crutiality of Merseyside Police’s failures, AAAPPP’s conclusion is that such a serious investigation cannot be further handled by the police force, whose motives in pursuing it can be reasonably concerned to represent the desire to cover up their own failures. AAAPPP’s conclusion is that Merseyside Police must recuse themselves from handling Operation Aloft and allow another police force to perform the investigation with integrity the public deserves to rely on, which has never been the case within Operation Aloft, headed by DCI Rooney.

Public questions to Merseyside Police

The following questions have been drafted by AAAPPP for Merseyside Police to assist the public in better understanding of how Operation Aloft was handled:

1. Was DCI Rooney at all material times between the summer of 2019 and the current moment the head of Operation Aloft?

2. Was DCI Rooney at all material times between the summer of 2019 and the current moment the subject of an active investigation of allegations of serious corruption?

3. Was DCI Rooney under active investigation for allegations of serious corruption as of the moment of his making the decision to arrest the acting mayor of Liverpool at the end of November 2020?

4. Were a number of other MPECT officers participating in Operation Aloft, including but not limited by DI Georgeson under active investigation of allegations of serious corruption whilst performing Operation Aloft between the summer of 2019 and the current moment?

5. Does timing of Operation Aloft coincide with the timing of those officers being under investigation for allegations of serious corruption, the latter having been started shortly before the start of Operation Aloft in the summer of 2019?

6. Is it correct that DCI Rooney’s only response to the allegations of serious corruption was bare denial of those?

7. Is it correct that the two attempts of Merseyside Police’s Professional Standard Department to vindicate various officers of Merseyside Police’s Economic Crime Team were overturned by the IOPC on 20 October 2020 and 7 July 2021?

The current page will be updated upon receipt of the responses from Merseyside Police on the questions above (if any). If this paragraph is available, that means no response has been received from Merseyside Police since 27th March 2023 – the date of the publication of this report.