Terry, your wishful interpretation of "Civil Servant" is just not so. Check with a contitutional law textbook.

And as for theft - who did the paper belong to?

But you are ignoring the main issue. There is a difference between a politician who receives a leak (or two) and capitalises on them, on the one hand, and one on the other hand who over a period of time suborns (or perhaps suborns) a servant into stealing from his master and betraying his master's secrets (whether for payment or otherwise).