Gavin Williamson, the former UK defence secretary, has accused Theresa May of conducting a “summary execution” after she sacked him over leaks from the National Security Council. But his hopes that a police inquiry would clear his name have been dashed.
Mark Sedwill, cabinet secretary, has concluded Mr Williamson did not commit a crime under the Official Secrets Act and there is no case for referring the leak — of discussions in Britain’s National Security Council — to the police. Mrs May has said she considers the matter “closed”.
Mr Williamson was dismissed by Mrs May on Wednesday; she claimed there was “compelling” evidence that he leaked details of the NSC’s discussions on a future role for China’s Huawei in developing Britain’s 5G network.
The former defence secretary denies he leaked the information to the Daily Telegraph and claims he was the victim of a “witch hunt”.
Mr Williamson said he wanted the police to investigate the case “because I would have been cleared”, but such an inquiry is highly unlikely, in spite of demands from MPs that the ousted minister should have a chance to clear his name.
Cressida Dick, Metropolitan Police commissioner, said a criminal probe would only take place if there was a referral of the case from the government; that has been ruled out by Number 10.
This has only increased the fury of Mr Williamson, who claims the leak inquiry ordered by Mrs May had found “the wrong man”.
He was confronted by officials carrying out the leak inquiry last Friday. Mr Williamson confirmed he had spoken to Steven Swinford, a Daily Telegraph reporter, for 11 minutes, but insisted the conversation was about political gossip and European elections, not the NSC.
His friends say the two-hour interrogation was “inept” and that the officials, who grilled Mr Williamson for two hours, did not have notebooks or tape recorders. “By Monday it was clear they were out to get him,” said one person close to the former minister.
The ex-cabinet minister will now become a dangerous enemy of the prime minister on the backbenches.
Downing Street argued that Mr Williamson had been sacked because he had lost the trust of Mrs May, not because of the specific information leaked from the NSC — which related to the political row over Huawei’s role in Britain’s new data network.
“This investigation was not about what was leaked but where it was leaked from . . . It was about the importance of maintaining the trust and integrity of the NSC,” Mrs May’s spokesman said.
“Ministers serve for as long as they have the trust of the prime minister. Following the inquiry and his conduct around the inquiry, the defence secretary no longer had the confidence of the prime minister.”
But Downing Street said that Mrs May would not recommend that Mr Williamson be removed from the privy council, the formal body that advises the monarch.
Whitehall officials say the leaked information did not carry the “level of classification” that would suggest a possible breach of the Official Secrets Act. Leaking information from the NSC, which gathers together the leading ministers and officials responsible for security, was not in itself a breach of the act.
Mr Williamson’s friends argue the real reason Sir Mark is refusing to refer the matter to the police is because there is no evidence. The former defence minister has sworn on the life of his children that he is not the leaker.
Mr Williamson, a former chief whip, is now expected to deploy his parliamentary knowledge in the Tory leadership campaign. He has not yet declared his support for any candidate, but is said to be torn between backing Michael Gove, Jeremy Hunt or Boris Johnson.
Opposition parties have stepped up their demands for a criminal investigation into Mr Williamson.
“Where is the justice?” asked deputy Labour leader Tom Watson, after lodging an urgent question in the Commons on the issue. “In what world is it acceptable that the prime minister should be the arbiter of whether a politician she believes guilty of criminal conduct in office should face a criminal investigation?”
Mr Williamson won support from Tory MPs. Backbencher Desmond Swayne said: “Natural justice requires that the evidence is produced so that his reputation can be salvaged or utterly destroyed.”
Peter Bone, Tory MP for Wellingborough, said: “This seems to have been a kangaroo court reaching a decision in secret which we have no evidence to base any decision on.”
