Fewer than 24 hours after a ban on intelligence sharing with US security agencies, UK police have resumed bilateral cooperation. The ban, largely seen as a message to US law enforcement officials, came into force following a series of leaks, by US officials to local newspapers, relating to the Manchester Arena bomb attack. The decision which was made independently by Greater Manchester police earlier this week, came a day after British officials made it known how infuriated they were over the leaking of sensitive information (including the name of the attacker) and photographs from the scene of the attack. The leaked photographs, in a report published by the New York Times, show shrapnel fragments and other forensic evidence from the bloodstained crime scene. The author of the report went on to speculate the details surrounding both the construction and the activation of the bomb, which in itself could scupper active investigations into the bombing and the possible network the attacker may have belonged to. The disclosure of such information was something British officials had wanted to avoid, due to its efforts to avoid tipping off the attacker’s associates.

In the hours following the reversal of the ban, Mark Rowley, the UK’s most senior counter-terrorism officer stated that the UK’s law enforcement officials had “received fresh assurances” from US counterparts regarding the leaks. Taken globally, this resumption in normal relations points to the integral role both countries play in the global fight against terror, of which the security pact known as Five Eyes is seen as playing a crucial role. Five Eyes, whose member states are the US, the UK, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada, is primarily dedicated to cooperation in the areas of surveillance, intelligence gathering and analysis. Much of this cooperation is dependent on the availability of the US’s vast resources. A longer ban on sharing would in effect hinder the UK’s ability to call on those resources, especially at a time when investigative efforts are in full force.        

It is all worth mentioning that the unauthorized leaking of evidence, especially in cases linked to terror, is quite common. Leaks on the scale of the ones witnessed this week though are unprecedented. And the angry reaction borne out of this is quite understandable, although past behaviour is usually a predictor of future behaviour, a point made by the former Metropolitan police commissioner, Ian Blair. As suggested by Mr. Blair, despite being troubled by this week’s leaks, similar leaking of unauthorized material took place during the investigations into the London underground bombing in 2005.

The short-lived “spat” between both countries’ security agencies comes at a time when developments into the investigation are coming in thick and fast, with some of the information putting the spotlight firmly on MI5. Based on emerging details regarding the bomber, Salman Abedi, it appears that MI5 failed to adequately monitor him in spite of his alleged radicalization over the years. In the face of such criticism, it can be argued that although security agencies are said to engage in wide-spanning surveillance operations, there’s only so much money and manpower available for such operations. In fact, considering the varying threat levels posed by individual suspects and targets, agencies such as MI5 are forced to prioritize some targets over others. With efforts currently geared towards identifying and neutralizing possible accomplices, embarrassing (and possibly harmful) leaking of evidence is the last thing investigators need. With the added possibility of an imminent terror attack, as suggested by the British government’s decision to raise the threat level, the need to maintain a veil of secrecy as it pertains to active investigations, is crucial.

Also equally important, but somewhat ignored is the human aspect at the heart of this week’s events, the grieving families and how they’ve been affected by the leaked stories which have done much to shake the confidence and faith of a society which is only just coming to terms with what happened. As tends to be the case when a terrorist attack takes place, information surrounding the events leading to, during. and after, an attack are slowly revealed as investigative work is carried out. What’s at issue here is not the fact that information was disclosed, but rather, the manner in which it was revealed and the potential it has to compromise the work of those individuals and agencies tasked with guaranteeing the safety of the general public. As pointed out by British law enforcement.

As more arrests are made over the coming days, 13 have been made so far, it remains to be seen whether or not this embarrassing episode turns out to be nothing more than a mere “spat” between two of the world’s leading partners in the fight against terror.