How police and MI5 ‘swapped information on a Post-It note in the Rhubarb Triangle pub’

A FORMER detective accused of copying material belonging to a specialist firm which extracts data from mobile phones said a member of the security services gave him information on a Post-it note during a counter-terrorism operation, a High Court judge was told.

The note given to ex-detective constable Stephen Hirst, who worked for West Yorkshire Police’s high tech crime unit five years ago while Operation Praline was going on, had “since been thrown away”, Mr Justice Arnold heard.

At around the same time Mr Hirst said “MI5 had been up in their office” during a meeting at a pub called the Rhubarb Triangle in Wakefield, West Yorkshire, the judge heard during a hearing at the High Court in London.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Specialist firm Forensic Telecommunication Services (FTS), based in Sevenoaks, Kent, claims that West Yorkshire Police - and Mr Hirst - “infringed its copyright” by appropriating data.

West Yorkshire Police and Mr Hirst deny copying.

Anna Edwards-Stuart, for FTS, said in written documents given to the judge, that there was a “strong prima facie case of copyright infringement”.

She said lists of information belonging to West Yorkshire Police were “near identical copies” of FTS material.

The similarities were such that copying could be inferred, said Miss Edwards-Stuart.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

She told the judge that FTS was “in the business of extracting and analysing data ... from devices such as mobile phones”.

She said the data was often relied on in criminal prosecutions and had been “particularly important in the ongoing battle against terrorism”.

She said the security services were licensed users of FTS software.

Miss Edwards-Stuart said in November 2006 a member of FTS staff was informed by a senior officer at West Yorkshire Police that “his department had received credible information to the effect that (the force) had ‘stolen’ (an) FTS application”.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Discussions between FTS and the force had been held but the matter could not be settled and FTS had sued, she said.

“On June 9 2006 various members of the security services arrived at (West Yorkshire Police’s) high tech crime unit to embark on a counter-terrorism operation code-named Operation Praline,” said Miss Edwards-Stuart.

“Dozens of mobile phones were seized as part of Operation Praline and the security services were there to analyse those phones as part of that operation. The security service carried out this work using FTS proprietary software.”

She added: “Mr Hirst has admitted that during the course of Operation Praline he was given ‘three or four ... numbers on a Post-it note’ by one of the officers from the security services. Mr Hirst says the officer did not say where the numbers had come from... the original Post-it note has since been thrown away.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Miss Edwards-Stuart also referred to a meeting at a pub called the Rhubarb Triangle in Wakefield in about August 2006 where Mr Hirst said that MI5 had been up in their office and been using a programme developed by FTS.

She said there were “extensive similarities” between West Yorkshire Police material and FTS material.

“It is overwhelmingly likely that Mr Hirst had access to more than a Post-it note,” said Miss Edwards-Stuart.

“FTS contend that, with or without the consent of the security service officer, Mr Hirst had access to (an) entire FTS ... list and copied it (or at least a substantial part of it) creating (a West Yorkshire Police) list.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Jonathan Hill, for West Yorkshire Police and Mr Hirst, said in written arguments given to the judge that FTS had made allegations based on “speculation and hearsay”.

He said: “The defendants deny copying and aver that the data that they have themselves used was compiled collaboratively by workers in the field of mobile phone forensics (including themselves).”

Mr Hill said the judge should “dismiss FTS’s claims”.

He said the force conceded that a “member of the security service” had provided Mr Hirst with “three or four pairs of addresses written on a Post-it note” and it was possible that the information came from FTS manuals.

Mr Hill said police had “never knowingly taken anything” but it was theoretically possible that they had unwittingly infringed.