The Henry report on phone records

The way the Henry report dealt with phone records is curious. It states that various phone records were obtained, but that private calls were not considered (a major omission of the inquiry).

But the report provided no details of phone evidence – it concentrated solely on email records…

82. l remain of the view that I need to have full access to all eighty-six emails.

Without Mr Dunne’s permission I cannot take the matter any further.

…and strongly implied Dunne’s guilt with no evidence. And didn’t mention phone record evidence. Bizarre.

Back to the phone record part of the investigation.

The Inquiry was also unable – for technical reasons – to retrieve landline call logs made between parliamentary complex extensions.

And

Calls made between parliamentary complex extensions are not logged.

However it is now known that Henry obtained Peter Dunne’s phone records and yesterday it was admitted that landline records of Andrea Vance were given to Henry, who has claimed that they weren’t used. So these statements appears to contradict what is now known.

Last night Henry said this in a statement:

With regard to the media reports of Mr Dunne’s comments today, I believe that Mr Dunne is mistaken, as  I did not request nor was I seeking the phone log records of Ms Vance.

Dunne maintains that

When I met Mr Henry on the 31st of May, he asked for access to my landline records for the period 27 March to 9 April because he wanted to compare those with Andrea Vance’s records.

And

Despite Henry’s denial tonight, I stand 100% by my comments.

Dunne’s claims have been consistent over the past month.

The story about what phone records were asked for by or provided to Henry has changed dramatically. On Friday the Speaker said Henry requested Vance’s phone logs but was refused them, yesterday it had flip flopped to Henry saying he didn’t ask for them but was given them.

Details concerning phone records:

58. 0fficial telephone billing records (land lines and mobiles) relating to the same people were also obtained for the crucial period although inevitably some calls outside that exact period appeared in those billing records. The telephone bills identified the call made, the number called and the duration. Calls made between parliamentary complex extensions are not logged. Building access records were also examined where necessary.

We know that phone data was sought and provided.

59. For completeness I record that I had no access, nor did I seek any access, to private email providers or private telephones.

The possibility that the leaker had contact with Vance outside the parliamentary communication systems is totally ignored.

60. The records obtained were then analysed and contacts of interest identified for further analysis. After extensive checks the only contacts that required further explanation were those with the reporter.

Contacts with the Dominion Post reporter

61 .The analysis identified three people who:
c. had been in contact with the reporter through official telephone or email systems during the period 22 March to 9 April.

76. Mr Dunne has advised me that he has frequent contact with the reporter including communications by telephone, text, email and in person. That contact has continued during the period 27 March to 9 April.

Email and phone contact between Dunne and Vance has never been disputed.

Appendix Three: Processes used in the Inquiry

What records were requested?

For every person of interest to the lnquiry, the records requested consisted of logs showing print, photocopy, scan activity, and logs showing emails sent and received from their work email addresses, outgoing mobile calls from work mobile phones, and landline calls to specific numbers of interest.

What records were received?

7 The Inquiry received nearly every record it requested. There were some exceptions. Logs showing photocopying activity are not captured by DPMC or Ministerial Services; DPl\/IC staff must ‘swipe’ to use a photocopying machine, but photocopying activity is not logged. Ministers’ offices do not ‘swipe‘ to use printing devices, and so no attributable record is made when a document is photocopied.

8. The Inquiry was also unable – for technical reasons – to retrieve landline call logs made between parliamentary complex extensions. We were able to identify calls made from the parliamentary complex to external landlines and mobiles.

Phase two: Analysis and elimination

9. The Inquiry used the records, along with the information gained from interviews, to narrow the list of individuals that we intended to look at in more detail. We identified those individuals who:

c. Had been in contact with the reporter through official telephone or email systems during the period 22 March to 9 April.

Phase three: Follow-up interviews and the collection of more detailed records

12. Subsequent to the analysis and elimination, the Inquiry focussed on three individuals of interest. Additional records were requested in order to build a better picture of individuals’ contacts with the reporter. These records included the content of specific emails, and in some cases building access records. These access records show a person’s entry and exit into the Parliamentary complex, including Bowen House.

The last point says “Additional records were requested” but does not mention phone records. However it is now known that Peter Dunne’s landline and mobile phone records were obtained.

It is now also known that Andrea Vance’s phone records were given to Henry – but after saying they were requested last week Henry now says he didn’t request them, but Dunne believes that Henry implied he did.

In fairness to Henry what appears to have happened is last week Parliamentary Services advised the Speaker Vance’s phone records had been requested but not provided, and after that henry contacted Henry to say he hadn’t requested the records but had received them.

But it would appear to be Parliamentary Services and Dunne versus Henry on this. For now.

And bizarrely, the Henry report did not detail phone records nor claim they proved anything. They could not prove anything at all, they were simply a record of contact, not a record of what was said.

Like the emails that Henry used to condemn Dunne – a record of contact only, no proof of anything.

The report seems to have been shoddy, a travesty of justice – and getting murkier by the revelation.

Leave a comment

3 Comments

  1. Keith

     /  31st July 2013

    Henry is increasingly looking incompetent, either naturally or under instruction. He still hasn’t justified ignoring 70+ others and their staff who had access to the report or Parliamentary staff such as IT or whoever printed it.

    Reply
  2. graham

     /  31st July 2013

    “Back to the phone record part of the investigation.

    The Inquiry was also unable – for technical reasons – to retrieve landline call logs made between parliamentary complex extensions.

    And

    Calls made between parliamentary complex extensions are not logged.

    However it is now known that Henry obtained Peter Dunne’s phone records and yesterday it was admitted that landline records of Andrea Vance were given to Henry, who has claimed that they weren’t used. So these statements appears to contradict what is now known.”

    I don’t believe there is a contradiction. On one hand, it is stated that call logs between “parliamentary complex extensions” cannot be retrieved or are not logged. On the other hand, landline records are mentioned. The phrase “landline records” would tend to imply calls made on the PSTN to ordinary telephones, whereas “parliamentary complex extensions” may well be on a secure internal network, or may be VOIP lines (again possibly on a secure internal data network), or may be otherwise secured on a PABX.

    Reply
  3. insider

     /  31st July 2013

    This is what you get when you appoint an ext tax inspector to run an inquiry. He though he was on the job again and I suspect he would have civil servants running around for him just on the threat that he was running a Prime ministerial inquiry. As a tax inspector I’m sure he convicted plenty of people for not having a receipt even if the payment was legit.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s