In a week where the government has taken utter delight in the (justifiable) scrutiny that the BBC is facing so that it can rain down further on the state broadcaster, ministers seem to be doing everything in their power to eliminate any sort of independence in all areas of public life.

Theoretically we should have already seen a report into the death of Private Investigator Daniel Morgan in 1987 but this has been delayed because the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, wishes to vet the report before it is published. On this point she has said:

“I have yet to receive this report and I think it’s right that I receive the report and read it before laying it in parliament. That is standard practice when it comes to reports of this nature and that is absolutely the right process to follow.”

The problem is that this is not the full truth and she knows that. It is true that the government minister will receive the report from an independent inquiry a day or so in advance but that does not include the right to make redactions.

Ostensibly this is necessary for human rights or national security considerations but that claim rings hollow given that the Home Office has not been able to name any precedent whatsoever for such an approach.

Why is the government so desperate to intervene that it is willing to postpone some sort of resolution to a family that is still suffering more than 30 years later?

To get an answer we need to follow a rather acrid trail of corruption.

Morgan was killed in 1987 after he was attacked with an axe. A half-hearted attempt by the killer to make it look like a robbery fooled nobody as the private investigator was left with his wallet. Instead eyes eventually turned to the private investigation company itself and the investigating officer, Detective Sergeant Sid Fillery, who (in a clear conflict of interest) did not reveal that he also unofficially worked for the very same company.

Tampering with evidence and interfering with witnesses was only the start though as the case touched on an obscene level of corruption within the Metropolitan Police that persisted for many years afterwards.

The murder also continues to have relevance because of Morgan’s former partner in the private investigation firm, Jonathan Rees. In 2011 it was found that Rees was paid £150,000 per year to provide illegally obtained information about various celebrities to the now defunct newspaper, the News of the World. Unsurprisingly at this point, the Metropolitan Police failed to investigate this properly despite many of Rees’ key sources coming from within the force.

Anyway to bring the whole thing full circle: the News of the World was owned by Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch got married in 2016 and guess which close friend was at the wedding? Yep, Priti Patel.

Now ask yourself again why the Home Secretary might be keen to redact certain parts of this report before it is released to the public.

The control and pressure that the government is trying to exert over this inquiry is symptomatic of a party that has been in power for way too long. We have already seen the government try to clamp down on judicial review and if you think the inquiry into the handling of the COVID pandemic will be any more free of intervention then you will be sorely mistaken. Independence is not to be tolerated because it might get in the way of systemic cronyism.

Traditionally those in high political office are the safeguard against attacks on independent scrutiny. The truth sometimes hurts but pressure on a government from the media, the public and Parliament (alongside a genuine desire to do the ‘right thing’) would ensure that the wheels of democracy continue to turn. However in a political period that is defined by populism and a denial of all responsibility this has fallen by the wayside and the pillars of our institutions continue to crumble.