Morgan's Mobile Mystery

Former Government advisor Morgan McSweeney.

In October 2025, a few weeks after Peter Mandelson’s sacking as UK Ambassador to the United States, Morgan McSweeney reported his telephone stolen. I haven’t the time nor inclination to regurgitate the entire saga, suffice it to say Morgan was a close confidante of Mandelson’s - his telephone presumably contained messages of interest to detectives investigating the former ambassador for Misconduct in a Public Office.

Of course, journalists being journalists, it’s been alleged this is suspiciously convenient. A mobile telephone, full of potentially incriminating comms, goes missing? And the police, having logged the wrong location for the offence, did nothing? Unsurprisingly, the internet is abuzz with demands for a full investigation into the missing mobile. Surely, they ask, there’s a secret ops room at GCHQ, one capable of tracking any digital device at the touch of a button?

So today I thought I’d offer an investigator’s perspective on the case of Morgan’s Missing Mobile. You see, there is stuff the police could do to locate the mysterious handset. The question is will they, and is it worth the effort?

At 2230 hours, on an October evening in 2025, Morgan McSweeney (MM) went for dinner in Pimlico (in Westminster). Afterwards, he reported his iPhone stolen - a masked man on an e-bike grabbed it while MM was sending a message. This is a favoured MO of phone thieves, as the phone is already unlocked. A transcript of the call was released - MM mentioned it was a government device, but not his senior role.

Then, sadly, the police call handler incorrectly logged the incident to a location in east London. After a spot of typically cursory triage, they identified no investigative leads. Predictably, no further action was taken. Had they logged the correct location, on the other hand? They’d have identified Pimlico as adjacent to the GSZ - Government Security Zone - most heavily surveilled urban area in Europe. MM, it should be noted, correctly reported his location but didn’t correct the call handler when she mentioned ‘Stepney.’

MM’s phone was subsequently deactivated and he was issued a new one. His messages weren’t, reportedly, backed up. I am not aware of up-to-date Government comms protocols so won’t comment further except to say, perhaps, cloud storage was deactivated for security reasons.

A thought: MM is an astute person, fully immersed in Westminster’s security folderol. Would he really have made a false claim in such circumstances? Or am I giving the man too much credit? As an investigator, you have to approach problems with an open mind. This issue occurred to me immediately. Yes, false theft claims (usually for insurance purposes) are an issue. But in this instance? His call to police sounds legit, apart from his failure to disclose his identity and role.

A thought: police call handling isn’t very good, nor is initial crime investigation. Maybe Shabs’ policing reforms should concentrate on bread and butter issues rather than mega-forces?

We have MM’s word, but we also have the aforementioned Most Heavily Surveilled Urban Area in Europe. Here, I would suggest, is where things get interesting:

1. CCTV retention varies from organisation to organisation, from a month to a year. Some CCTV is private - doorbell cameras, for example, or belongs to small businesses. There will be footage, somewhere, that might easily prove or disprove MM’s account.

2. On the other hand, it needs to be trawled for. This would involve blood, sweat and tears on the behalf of the Metropolitan Police.

3. Which isn’t to say it isn’t do-able. SO15, the Met’s Counterterrorism Command is very, very good at post-incident CCTV retrieval, In fact, I’d go as far as to say they’re the best in the world. The methodology isn’t really important, except to say it involves boots on the ground, patience and overtime.

4. Which brings us to proportionality. Would it be worth sending three ‘pods’ of detectives onto the streets of Westminster, hunting for footage of a five-month old phone snatch? To simply prove whether it was reported in good faith or not?

5. There’s also potential investigative opportunities around comms tracking around the handset. It’s technical (and often sensitive) stuff. Like the CCTV angle, though, it’s do-able - albeit with similar proportionality issues.

I am going to assume someone will eventually make a formal allegation against MM, demanding a police investigation. This is where the SIO of the Mandelson investigation has my deepest sympathies. To SIO is to make decisions: do they request assets to follow this can of worms line of enquiry? The robbery, remember, will be assigned for local police to investigate - not the Mandelson team. Conversely, will the SIO, having reviewed all of the Cabinet Office material, satisfy him or herself they’ve already adequate evidence to put to the CPS? Would chasing a stolen phone be a distraction?

A thought: The SIO simply can’t win. Chase the phone and be accused of disproportionality, not to mention wasting police resources. Don’t chase the phone? You’ll be accused of being part of a deep state conspiracy. Personally, I’d ask the centre to support the local investigation into the phone robbery. It must be thorough, pegged to potential national security grounds (the remit of SO15, remember) yet remain proportionate. This isn’t a bombing. It’s a mobile telephone. Some half-decent detective work should unearth more without the need to mobilise detectives who should be chasing Iranian spies (etc).

Police should, quite properly, take MM’s word in good faith until proven otherwise. Which assumes someone stole his iPhone. This is in and of itself significant, as Apple devices are the most coveted by thieves - the phones are sold, stripped down and shipped abroad within days of being stolen.

Were a thief be identified and convicted, they’d receive a slap on the wrist - there are no prison spaces left. They might as well come clean, when you think about it, especially if there’s a back-hander involved. Are there enough old-school journos prepared to do the donkey work around Pimlico’s council estates (there’s a pretty big one to the west of Vauxhall Bridge) to identify the culprit? Conversely, I hope the SIO of the Mandelson investigation has asked every local source unit to task their informants to identify a suspect - or stolen phone dealer. This is potentially the fastest and cheapest intelligence tool available to police.

Assuming MM is telling the truth, then a successful investigation would put most of the speculation to bed (but of course, not all). And if he isn’t? Then he would be presumably treated similarly to his former cabinet colleague Louise Haigh, who was convicted of lying about a stolen mobile to police. The reputational stakes would be higher for MM, I suspect, but not the criminal sanction. This isn’t a BBC political thriller, it’s the real world. You want to hang a shadowy conspiracy charge on MM? Prove it.

And one last thing?

Whatever happens, I very much doubt anyone will ever find MM’s phone. It’s either been wiped and destroyed, or stripped for parts in a North African sweatshop.

I’m pretty sure that’s on the benighted SIO’s mind, too. Still, journos looking for the next Watergate will have fun on X for another week, until something juicier appears.

And the police will, inevitably, still be pointlessly reviewing CCTV.