UK Anti-Terror Powers Abused To Hunt Down Whistleblower Who Revealed Secret Government Tax Deal

from the shocked-to-the-bones dept

Wed, Mar 26th 2014 5:38am — Glyn Moody

The UK government continues to claim that its spying activities are lawful, without specifying exactly why. However, it's pretty clear that the main law it is depending on is the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). As Techdirt reported in January, there are serious doubts about whether GCHQ's surveillance activities are indeed covered by RIPA, but that's not the only problem here: the following story from The Guardian shows how RIPA is being abused -- not to find terrorists trying to bring down the state, but to winkle out whistleblowers selflessly trying to help it:

MPs have criticised Britain's leading tax official after HM Revenue & Customs [HMRC -- the UK tax authority] used powers meant to catch terrorists to hunt down an employee who exposed a secret multimillion-pound "sweetheart" deal with Goldman Sachs.

Lin Homer, the chief executive of HMRC, had told the public accounts committee that phone records had been obtained using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) to unearth information about Osita Mba, an in-house lawyer.

In 2011, Mba had written in confidence to various government bodies, saying that the then head of UK tax, Dave Hartnett, had "let off" Goldman Sachs from paying at least £10m in interest. But instead of being grateful for this information, the tax authorities seemed more interested in hounding him: When HMRC discovered Mba's intervention, his belongings, emails, internet search records and phone calls and the phone records of his then wife, Claudia, were examined by investigators.

At the committee meeting, Hodge also asked whether it was appropriate to pass Mba's wife's address, mobile number and office number to HMRC staff to investigate.
HMRC's abuse of RIPA extended to investigating Mba's communications with a Guardian journalist: Margaret Hodge, the chair of the [Parliamentary] committee, said that HMRC's use of the powers, ostensibly to track down whether Mba had been talking to the Guardian's then investigations editor, David Leigh, had "shocked her to her bones".
Hodge went on to ask for assurances that HMRC would never again use RIPA powers on a whistleblower: [Tax chief] Homer declined to offer Hodge the desired reassurance, responding: "You know that we cannot offer carte blanche assurances for evermore that we won't use these -- I have other duties of care to parliament and other individuals."
That refusal underlines why the UK's RIPA needs serious revision -- both to stop this kind of abuse, and to bring some much-needed scrutiny to the legal basis for GCHQ's massive surveillance activities.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: osita mba, ripa, tax deal, terrorism, uk, whistleblower

14 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2014 @ 5:54am

"You know that we cannot offer carte blanche assurances for evermore that we won't use these -- I have other duties of care to parliament and other individuals."

Other individuals is the key phrase, What he actually means Is his corporate masters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Trails (profile), 26 Mar 2014 @ 6:20am
  
  Re:
  I would suspect he's more beholden to covering his own ass than anything else.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2014 @ 8:15am
    
    Re: Re:
    By covering the people he has made suspicious deals with, he is essentially covering his own ass. Promoting "secrecy as a responsibility" will give him a right to avoid giving up proof that would otherwise compromise him.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2014 @ 5:59am

i.e. 'we have much more shit to hide, and we will want to go after the people that might expose that'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TheOtherDude, 26 Mar 2014 @ 6:27am

This was terrorism
This person was weakening the position of those in power, this is terrorism and the state has an army and police and laws specifically to protect those in power and keep everyone else in line. I dont get why this is a surprise or outrage, its SOP?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2014 @ 6:30am
  
  Re: This was terrorism
  indeed, it does appear that nobody knows the definition of the word terrorism anymore.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2014 @ 6:39am
    
    Re: Re: This was terrorism
    And as infamously demonstrated by right wing media no one knows the definition of communist or socialist either. Disturbingly history is repeating itself.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2014 @ 7:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re: This was terrorism
      Well... that is not exactly true... Everyone does know!
      
      That's why that keep getting used even when out of context because of the negative impressions they give.
      
      Some of every ideology has good points, but all you have to do is match up 10% of something and apply a negative name.
      
      Are you now going to ask for people to be responsible? Chances are, that just is not happening because for every person in power, there is an agenda. Most them bad!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2014 @ 6:58am
    
    Re: Re: This was terrorism
    A terrorist is someone whose opinions differ from the government.
    
    E.g. If the government says there are five lights and you only see four, you're a terrorist.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Howard (profile), 26 Mar 2014 @ 7:08am

Fun question
How much jail time did Dave Hartnett served for his crime?

/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2014 @ 7:23am
  
  Re: Fun question
  None. Which is the true extent of the rampant criminality of the �lites.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2014 @ 7:48am

>MPs have criticised Britain's leading tax official after HM Revenue & Customs [HMRC -- the UK tax authority] used powers meant to catch terrorists

Hello, pot?

This is kettle...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2014 @ 11:53am
  
  Re:
  I'm think more along the lines of, "HELLO? YES THIS IS DOG!" when it comes to the UK government.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kronomex, 26 Mar 2014 @ 3:43pm

How dare someone in the government have scruples and a conscience! He should be sent off to Room 101 for reprogramming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]