Date of publication
19 January 2025
Reading Time
2 minutes 20 seconds
Christmas is invariably a period for governments to bury bad news. While everyone is focussed on festivities and winding down from work, ‘the grid’ takes advantage of these distractions to slip out uncomfortable truths. By the time anyone notices, the news cycle and political attention moves on. It’s almost a competition to see how much one can hide behind Santa’s sack. And December 2025 was no different.
On the 23rd, without much fanfare, the Government of Gibraltar published the findings of a long-awaited public inquiry into the retirement of The Rock’s former police chief, Ian McGrail. For those eagle-eyed to spot it, and enough time to read this hefty tome of 700+ pages, they’d understand why "Number 6" (Gibraltar’s equivalent of 10 Downing Street) didn’t want to draw much attention.
Following weeks of public hearings and mountains of evidence from all sides, retired High Court judge, Sir Peter Openshaw, found that the Gibraltar’s Chief Minister, Fabian Picardo, had made several ‘grossly improper’ attempts to interfere in an active criminal investigation into his close friend and associate, James Levy. Not only this, but he had also made ‘grossly improper disclosure of confidential material’ to Mr Levy that might help him fight any subsequent prosecution. These are astonishing revelations that, were they to be made of a UK minister, would surely be a resignation matter.
Confusingly, Mr Picardo has claimed that the report vindicates him, but that he is also considering legal action against the inquiry for unspecified wrongs. This logical incoherence has form – his government had changed the inquiry’s statutory footing halfway through proceedings without a cogent rationale. But Sir Peter Openshaw’s findings are clear as light and day: the man running Gibraltar had tried several times to hobble a police investigation into matters relating to national security, which was grossly improper. His analysis is comprehensive, fair and demonstrates a rigour you would expect from someone of his stature and experience. This is neither a hatchet job driven by bias, nor a botched job through ignorance or incompetence.
The only reservation one might have is about how his list of reasonable recommendations might get implemented. Currently, many of Sir Peter’s proposals require action from the Government of Gibraltar, whose leader the inquiry has found to be part of the problem. In this context, it would be incredibly risky, maybe even reckless, to leave delivery to Mr Picardo. This is where the UK Government must step in.
The Governor of Gibraltar, appointed by the King, has a constitutional role relating to security. The inquiry report demonstrates in painful detail how a breakdown in governance can impact on this brief. It is incumbent on them to ensure that Sir Peter’s recommendations are implemented openly, properly, and in a timely manner. This should involve regular progress reports to Parliament, and at the very least, no involvement from Mr Picardo himself.