Jonathan Aitken was also smeared by VIP child sex fantasist – so why did police never even tell him? Ex-Tory minister joins chorus of protest over Operation Midland

• Jonathan Aitken was wrongly implicated in Scotland Yard’s VIP sex abuse inquiry
• The former Tory Cabinet minister was never notified he was under investigation 
• Aitken’s accuser, a paedophile, told lies about alleged abuse by the now vicar

Former Tory Cabinet minister Jonathan Aitken, studying the evidence before him in the sitting room of his London home, makes a brave decision.

So shocking is the information we have presented to him, he feels he must make a public stand, despite the attention and controversy it may bring.

For today we can reveal that Aitken — now an Anglican vicar — was wrongly implicated in Scotland Yard’s shambolic VIP sex abuse inquiry, after detectives secretly investigated him over monstrous claims of sexual misconduct.

Jonathan Aitken, pictured in his London home, now an Anglican vicar, was wrongly implicated in Scotland Yard’s shambolic VIP sex abuse inquiry

Aitken’s accuser, a paedophile with an appalling criminal record, told a tissue of lies about alleged abuse by him and others, including former Home Secretary Leon Brittan, former PM Sir Edward Heath and former Tory MP Harvey Proctor.

Yet Aitken was never notified that he, too, had been under investigation by police, nor told that personal items stolen from his home had been used by his accuser to support his lies.

He only learnt the truth when the Mail presented him with our findings as part of a wide-ranging investigation into failings by the Metropolitan Police’s VIP abuse inquiry, codenamed Operation Midland.

The claims against Aitken were contained in a confidential police document leaked to the Mail, which lays bare how a serial liar, known only as Witness A, came forward to back up the story of Carl ‘Nick’ Beech, the fantasist whose wild claims lay at the heart of Operation Midland.

The police report, which the Met has kept secret for six years, reveals for the first time how Aitken, too, was implicated in the case.

It also discloses how the former politician’s accuser was caught in possession of stolen items — believed to have been taken in a burglary at Aitken’s house in the 1990s.

Yet unlike Carl Beech, who was jailed for 18 years, Witness A has not been prosecuted for perverting the course of justice. The Met refused to say why they failed to take action.

Having seen our evidence, Mr Aitken today accuses Cressida Dick’s force of an ‘institutional cover-up’ over the case.

Demanding a full inquiry into the scandal, he said: ‘This has been one of the most disgraceful episodes in the history of modern policing. I am appalled to learn that the Met’s cover-up is still continuing.’

The man known as Witness A, who said he was a school-age ‘rent boy’ when, in 1979 or 1980, he went to a ‘gay party’ that was hosted by a ‘well-known musician’ attended by politicians

The claims against Aitken are contained in a bombshell Scotland Yard internal report called Document 1794, which has been seen by the Mail.

The document was written on the closure of Operation Midland by then Deputy Assistant Commissioner Steve Rodhouse, the officer in overall command, who has since been promoted to deputy head of the National Crime Agency, Britain’s FBI.

Among the many revelations contained in the 28 pages of Document 1794 is a section headed ‘Allegations against Jonathan Aitken’.

They state: ‘It is alleged by Witness A that Aitken took part in group sex/rape with Harvey Proctor and Leon Brittan in London and Essex.

‘He also stated in interview that on one occasion, while at a country house outside London and after having sex with Jonathan Aitken, he stole a passport belonging to Aitken’s father.’

It goes on to say that Witness A hid the passport for years but handed it police in 2015, claiming it was among several items of property he had stolen from those who had abused him. He also gave police a ring he claimed to have stolen from the MP Harvey Proctor.

The claims against Aitken are contained in a bombshell Scotland Yard internal report called Document 1794, written on the closure of Operation Midland by then Deputy Assistant Commissioner Steve Rodhouse (second left)

The document states: ‘Officers have sought to establish the background of these items, as clearly they have the potential to demonstrate that Witness A had contact with Proctor and Aitken.’

Forensic tests failed to link the ring to Proctor but the passport was proved to have been issued to Aitken’s father.

Separately, City of London Police had stopped Witness A in 2005 and officers found him to be in possession of a driving licence in Jonathan Aitken’s name, his AA membership card, a cathedral pass and some jewellery.

Scotland Yard declined to answer six questions from the Mail about the false allegations made against Mr Aitken, its failure to investigate A and B, and the role of Met chief Dame Cressida Dick (pictured) in the affair

According to Document 1794, Midland officers later ‘failed to establish what inquiries were conducted in relation to this property’.

The sections of the investigation that related to Aitken concluded with the baffling line: ‘To date, officers from Op Midland have not approached the Aitken family to pursue this line of inquiry.’

In view of what the Mail saw in Document 1794, we contacted Witness A directly and he agreed to meet us in person to share his allegations.

He was able to confirm that he had once been in possession of the passport by showing an image of the document on his phone.

But his testimony to us contradicted the story he had told Operation Midland detectives in a number of important details.

The claims against Aitken were contained in a confidential police document leaked to the Mail, which lays bare how Witness A came forward to back up the story of Carl ‘Nick’ Beech (pictured)

You might wonder why there were such discrepancies.

Witness A said he was a school-age ‘rent boy’ when, in 1979 or 1980, he went to a ‘gay party’ in Hampstead that was hosted by a ‘well-known musician’ and attended by politicians.

He said he met Aitken there, and that he and another rent boy went back to Aitken’s home ‘and done the deed’ [had sex].

He claimed it was the habit of rent boys to steal property from clients ‘in order to blackmail [them] at a later date. . .in those days, being gay and a politician was not seen as that desirable’.

Witness A claimed he kept the stolen Aitken items for more than two decades. 

‘Eventually, I decided to give them up. The age of homosexual consent had come down. Society had moved on. I had moved on from what I did before.

Aitken’s accuser told lies about alleged abuse by him and others, including former Tory MP Harvey Proctor

‘In the summer of 2005, I arranged to meet [Aitken] in Parliament Square to hand over what I had stolen.’

Witness A then told the Mail that, before being able to hand the stolen items back to Aitken, he was detained by police in London for using abusive language after being caught cycling on the pavement.

While he was being searched, the items belonging to Aitken were found. He claimed they included passes for the Houses of Commons and Lords, a diamond necklace and earrings.

Witness A claimed he told police he had just found them and was intending to hand them in.

He said: ‘They released me after an hour. I reckoned they phoned someone and thought “f*** this”. That surprised me.

‘Then, ten years later, they came knocking on my door. So they hadn’t forgotten it.’

Witness A added that, in 2015, officers from a provincial force who were monitoring him as a sex offender told him that Operation Midland wanted to interview him about the Aitken items.

The Midland officers asked him what other evidence he had. He showed them Mr Aitken’s father’s passport.

Aitken’s accuser also made allegation against former PM Sir Edward Heath (pictured)

Speaking of the significance of his possession of the stolen items, Witness A said: ‘Carl Beech lied. I did not lie and I had proof.

‘When that report came out about whether they were going to prosecute me for perverting the course of justice, a very senior police officer contacted me and said, “If they come to arrest you, call me, because I know you had proof” [that you were telling the truth].’

But was it really ‘proof’ of anything other than theft?

Our checks show the ‘well-known musician’ at whose Hampstead house he claims he met Aitken did not move to that area of North London until several years later.

Having been told about Document 1794 and shown the photo of his father’s passport that Witness A had on his phone, Mr Aitken strenuously denied the allegations made against him.

He said he had never knowingly met or had any contact with Witness A, and was only aware of his existence through media reports about Operation Midland.

How, then, to explain the items in Witness A’s possession?

Aitken, 79, told the Mail: ‘This is very intriguing and it has begun to ring a bell. I used to have a beautiful house in Sandwich, Kent, in my old constituency.

‘I became Minister of State for Defence in 1992 and the Ministry of Defence became concerned about my domestic security arrangements.

‘They insisted that my home had a big upgrade in protective equipment, such as CCTV cameras.

‘The irony of this was that within weeks of the work being completed, the house was burgled. I was away on government business in Oman.

‘There was a big flap at the MoD because they thought there might have been a massive security breach — secret state papers taken etcetera.

‘It was an embarrassment and I recall the security services became involved.’

As it was, Aitken recalled, the thieves didn’t get away with much — just ‘a few items’ such as a silver inkstand that had belonged to his great-grandfather, a coat and chequebooks. A woman was later caught trying to use one of the cheques in Canterbury.

Asked about the items in Witness A’s possession, he says: ‘There was a drawer in my study desk in which I kept Aitken family papers and other documents. It’s quite possible that is where and when these items were taken.’

He said he could not recall the police returning any of these items in 2005, when they were found on Witness A.

Nor was he approached by Operation Midland officers after Witness A handed over his father’s passport in 2015.

‘I cannot explain why they didn’t do that,’ said Aitken.

He added: ‘I knew Leon Brittan and his wife Diana very well and I have followed Operation Midland closely. It is one of the biggest disasters and disgraces in modern policing.

‘I saw Leon shortly before he died and I could see what being under such suspicion had done to him in his final days.

‘Why on earth the police took [the accusers] seriously enough to destroy the reputations of these public figures, I do not know. The police clearly wanted them [the VIPs] to be guilty.

‘And the man in charge [DAC Rodhouse] kept getting promoted! Unbelievable!’

Aitken said he had nothing to hide and encouraged the Mail to name him to show how flawed Operation Midland was.

He has also drafted a devastating statement: ‘I congratulate the Mail on publishing its new and deeply disturbing revelations on Operation Midland.

‘This has been one of the most disgraceful episodes in the history of modern policing. I am appalled to learn that the Met’s cover-up is still continuing.

‘I now know, thanks to the Mail’s discoveries, that I was also targeted by the fantasist and sex offender whose identity is protected.

Former British Cabinet minister Lord Leon Brittan, who Aitken’s accuser also made allegations about

‘He is known only as “A”. Along with another protected fantasist and offender known as “B”, they have been encouraged by senior Met officers to follow in the footsteps of Carl Beech, whose baseless fantasies were used to persecute innocent public figures such as my great friend Leon Brittan, Field Marshal Lord Bramall, Harvey Proctor and others.

‘But here we go again. Messrs “A” and “B” have made serious false allegations [of murder, rape, child abuse] against public figures. I am amazed the police have not contacted me about A’s ludicrous allegations.

‘Nor have they disclosed that “A” handed them items of property such as my late father’s passport, a cathedral pass and other materials which I believe were stolen in a burglary from my house some years ago.

‘Why on earth have the police withheld this information?

‘Today, I echo Judge Richard Henriques’s bewilderment that these two fantasists, “A” and “B”, have not been prosecuted like Beech.

‘Above all, they, too, have made serious false allegations of murder, rape and child abuse against public figures.

‘The entire Operation Midland still reeks of institutional cover-up by the Met.

‘I fully support Judge Henriques’s latest demand that another police force should be called in to conduct a full inquiry into this continuing scandal.’

Many people share Mr Aitken’s profound concerns. Yet, asked to comment, Scotland Yard declined to answer six questions from the Mail about the false allegations made against Mr Aitken, its failure to investigate A and B, and Met chief Dame Cressida Dick’s role in the affair.

As the scandal deepens, one can only wonder why.

Additional reporting: Simon Trump 

Source: Read Full Article