The Metropolitan Police has apologised to Sir Lindsay Hoyle after custody paperwork linked him to a tip that prompted Lord Mandelson's arrest; Hoyle says he acted in good faith after receiving information while abroad
The Metropolitan Police have apologised to Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle after internal records erroneously implied he was the source of information that led to the arrest of Lord Peter Mandelson. The force has acknowledged the entry was a procedural mistake and met the Speaker in person to express regret.
Sir Lindsay has told MPs he passed on material he believed to be relevant after receiving it while abroad; police inquiries are now tracing exactly how that tip was handled.
The controversy centres on a custody record circulated during the investigation, which included wording suggesting the Speaker had warned officers that the peer might be a flight risk.
Senior Met figures described that entry as an inadvertent disclosure and a serious lapse. The error has drawn intense media scrutiny and prompted legal interest as investigators map the chain of custody for the referral.
Accounts differ over how the information reached the Met.
Sir Lindsay insists he acted in good faith, believing the material had bearing on public safety. The police say they received a referral raising concerns that a senior political figure might leave the country; press coverage subsequently identified Lord Mandelson as the individual named.
Lord Mandelson’s lawyers have strongly denied the allegation and demanded to see any material the force relied on. Defence teams have formally requested disclosure, and prosecutors or independent reviewers may be asked to assess whether correct procedures were followed when the referral was made. Investigators are combing records and communications to pinpoint who provided the tip, how it was recorded and whether officers followed established protocols.
The Met has apologised publicly and confirmed officers explained the mistake to the Speaker. A force spokesperson said the Met regretted the inadvertent revelation during inquiries into alleged misconduct in public office. A 72‑year‑old man was arrested on suspicion of that offence and later released on bail while enquiries continue; the force has declined to comment in detail while investigations are ongoing.
This episode sits within a wider set of inquiries. In a separate but related development, Andrew Mountbatten‑Windsor was detained last week over similar concerns and spent roughly 11 hours in custody. Police say these matters form part of a broader probe into alleged passing of sensitive information to a convicted offender.
Some of the exchanges now under scrutiny date back to the late 2000s and involve old correspondence and emails about policy and financial issues. Those historic records have sharpened public interest in how sensitive documents were stored and shared at the time.
Beyond the immediate questions of individual conduct, the case raises bigger issues about record‑keeping and the quality of ministerial advice. Sparse or unclear paperwork makes accountability harder to establish and invites closer scrutiny. Investigators are likely to examine civil service practices, internal oversight and safeguards designed to prevent improper disclosure. Possible outcomes could include clearer guidance on document retention and tighter rules on information-sharing between ministers, advisers and outside parties, while lawyers for those involved continue to press for access to the evidence that prompted arrests.
