But maybe this cop, who should not have been in possession of illicitly-copied stuff anyway, is best characterised as a whistleblower. Maybe he sees Green as an insufferable hypocrite who needed to be exposed in the public interest.
Whistle-blowers normally speak out about problems within their own business. If he were to be considered a whistle-blower isn't it strange to hold on to the evidence for ten years. What other misuses could there be in that timescale that he has allowed to happen (if his evidence can be trusted)?
Also, if he's only just identified him as a hypocrite, why steal that evidence ten years ago?
Whatever else happens I can't see this ex-cop coming out of this smelling of roses.