The process of the Leveson Inquiry is not something which I expect many people outside the core participants will have an interest in but a reading of the available documentation provides insight into the position being taken by some interests before the public hearings commenced. The Inquiry has published the series of letters written on behalf of Associated Newspapers which publishes the Mail on Sunday, the Daily Mail and the Mail on line.
I understand the fear the proprietors have that as a consequence of the inquiry they will be restricted in such ways to make continuation of particular papers questionable. I understand their concerns but I have to say that whatever happens is of their own making as they have collectively failed to put their own house in order. I also have to say that the letters amount to a blatant attempt to knobble the Inquiry by attempting to restrict the role of the Assessors. The letters did not threaten judicial review but were a test of the Independence of Lord Leveson and his Assessors.
One concern was the role of the Government appointed assessors with the letter seeking assurance that they would not be treated as panel members and be seated alongside the Chairman and able to participate in the questioning of witnesses. The response came in the last letter published that the Assessors had been advised that there was no legal prohibition or restriction on their involvement in any of the proceedings of the Inquiry.
In other words get stuffed.
There was also a request that additional assessors should be appointed with more up to-date experience with comments expressing concern that the three individuals with the experience of the Newspaper Industry lacked appropriate experience. Associated Newspapers accused Sir David Bell of being potentially biased because of his known position as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Media Standard Trust and suggested that someone from the sector who standards he criticised should also be appointed. I will refer separately to the speech of the former editor of the Sun Kelvin MacKensie as it is worth noting in its entirety. I suspect a number of scared and worried proprietors and their legal representatives winced at the impact of his words on most people.
Associated Newspapers then complained that George Jones and Elinor Goodman had only been political editors and they suggested that because they lacked general editing experience or had specialist experience in areas of crime reporting, investigative journalism, business, consumer affairs, entertainment or show business, the Inquiry Team would lack appropriate contextual knowledge. After consulting the appropriate Secretary of State, the Inquiry replied that the appointment of additional assessors was not considered necessary and all views and interests could be expressed through submission and witness testimonies.
This letter made the point that how Lord Leveson used the appointed assessors was for him personally to determine and that he was giving them a central role in the inquiry, up to and including the preparation of the report which he intended would subject to their unanimous agreement.
Get stuffed Associated Newspapers.
This led to a long letter of four pages dated September 20th in which they pressed for the assessors to stick to an advisory role and only participate when matters of their expertise are addressed. In a second letter of the same date they request the ability to comment on the suitability of those selected to lead the proposed teaching sessions. They also wanted to make suggestions for those to address the seminars and also did not all the assessors to be able to attend all the teaching and seminar sessions. A third letter was written on 22 September objecting to the information that assessors would chair and lead two of the proposed Seminars. They requested being able to make representations by leading Counsel mentioned that he had a prior commitment for 2 weeks in Hong Kong. They write again on 23rd September pressing for a response saying that Leading Counsel had left voice mail messages. They wrote what is listed as a third letter on 23 September giving 11 reasons why Associated Newspapers found decisions announced unacceptable.
They were sent a letter on that day saying that Counsel would consider and reply in writing prior to the scheduled meeting on October 4th.
In a separate communication the Inquiry explained that the first teaching session was held in private with the appropriate exclusion order made because its purpose was to explain the technical aspects of phone and Internet hacking for obvious reason this information was restricted although a summary of the briefing would be placed on the official website.
This has been done with Charles Brookson of Zeata Security providing the briefing. He explained that it was possible to gain access to email communications by guessing passwords, malware-viruses or Trojans that can be planted on the email by opening an email, opening an attachment or visiting a website and then provide details of access to the email account. Information can be obtained from third parties by deceit, persuasion or bribery. He spoke of more sophisticated variations and how they might be used and how easy it was to adopt them.
He said the ability to directly dial to hear someone’s voicemail was still available. Companies needed to keep the facility to enable clients to retrieve messages when visiting foreign countries. Users needed to keep changing their pincodes.
He spoke of other ways data could be intercepted from mobile phones. It was no longer possible to clone SIM cards of phones bought in the UK. Data can be obtained from lost, stolen or sold phones even if they have even wiped. The point was made that possession of equipment to do these things was not illegal but use was an offence under the Data Protection Act. For public Interest Reasons this does not cover all matters discussed with the expert by the team.
The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has been investigating Spyware and Malware and has published some interesting and relevant information from all there relevant parties including the Police E Crime Unit and which has 104 officers with plans to create three regional hubs for the North West, Yorkshire and East Midlands during 2012. In the published transcript of evidence taken in two sessions in November the scale of change was dramatically explained with thousands of targeted new programmes which are then altered as detection increases from 40 to 70 or 80% where as in the 1980’s the detection and prevention rate was as high as 100%.
There is also an Inquiry note, now online, of the briefing given by Mark Warby QC the second teacher where Associated Newspapers expressed concerns. The note covers the legal and regulatory structure, The Human Rights Act, Criminal Law, Civil Law, Regulation, Interactions, overlaps and gaps, Current issues and Proposals. There were extracts from various pieces of legislation which included the new Bribery Act 2010 and RIPA the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
The third briefing session on existing Regulatory systems comprised a number of specialists who also provided briefing papers which are available on line together with the transcript and Index. The subjects included the Office of the Information Commissioner, The Press Complaints Commission, Ofcom, the Financial Ombudsman as well as International examples together with an overview of his concept from a legal viewpoint.
In responding to the concerns of Associated Newspapers the Inquiry drew attention that if after considering the published information and transcripts they wished to add information or provided a different perspective or viewpoint their submission would be welcome.
In relation to the seminar these were advanced in their arrangements and the Assessors would take an active part in chairing sessions and introducing subjects! They were welcome to nominate people to attend the seminars and places were available for this purpose. Shami Chakrabati of Liberty chaired the afternoon session on supporting a free press and high standards which included What Redress should be available for breach of standards? and Defending Freedom of Expression, which included the observations of MacKensie. I will resist the temptation to stoop to his level of invective.
Associated Newspapers wasted a lot of money in showing their true colours at such an early stage and confirmed if anyone outside the circle of Proprietors and Editors needed convincing that they should be stripped of any direct involvement in ruling on complaints made against their papers and with significant penalties if complaints are upheld.
I understand the fear the proprietors have that as a consequence of the inquiry they will be restricted in such ways to make continuation of particular papers questionable. I understand their concerns but I have to say that whatever happens is of their own making as they have collectively failed to put their own house in order. I also have to say that the letters amount to a blatant attempt to knobble the Inquiry by attempting to restrict the role of the Assessors. The letters did not threaten judicial review but were a test of the Independence of Lord Leveson and his Assessors.
One concern was the role of the Government appointed assessors with the letter seeking assurance that they would not be treated as panel members and be seated alongside the Chairman and able to participate in the questioning of witnesses. The response came in the last letter published that the Assessors had been advised that there was no legal prohibition or restriction on their involvement in any of the proceedings of the Inquiry.
In other words get stuffed.
There was also a request that additional assessors should be appointed with more up to-date experience with comments expressing concern that the three individuals with the experience of the Newspaper Industry lacked appropriate experience. Associated Newspapers accused Sir David Bell of being potentially biased because of his known position as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Media Standard Trust and suggested that someone from the sector who standards he criticised should also be appointed. I will refer separately to the speech of the former editor of the Sun Kelvin MacKensie as it is worth noting in its entirety. I suspect a number of scared and worried proprietors and their legal representatives winced at the impact of his words on most people.
Associated Newspapers then complained that George Jones and Elinor Goodman had only been political editors and they suggested that because they lacked general editing experience or had specialist experience in areas of crime reporting, investigative journalism, business, consumer affairs, entertainment or show business, the Inquiry Team would lack appropriate contextual knowledge. After consulting the appropriate Secretary of State, the Inquiry replied that the appointment of additional assessors was not considered necessary and all views and interests could be expressed through submission and witness testimonies.
This letter made the point that how Lord Leveson used the appointed assessors was for him personally to determine and that he was giving them a central role in the inquiry, up to and including the preparation of the report which he intended would subject to their unanimous agreement.
Get stuffed Associated Newspapers.
This led to a long letter of four pages dated September 20th in which they pressed for the assessors to stick to an advisory role and only participate when matters of their expertise are addressed. In a second letter of the same date they request the ability to comment on the suitability of those selected to lead the proposed teaching sessions. They also wanted to make suggestions for those to address the seminars and also did not all the assessors to be able to attend all the teaching and seminar sessions. A third letter was written on 22 September objecting to the information that assessors would chair and lead two of the proposed Seminars. They requested being able to make representations by leading Counsel mentioned that he had a prior commitment for 2 weeks in Hong Kong. They write again on 23rd September pressing for a response saying that Leading Counsel had left voice mail messages. They wrote what is listed as a third letter on 23 September giving 11 reasons why Associated Newspapers found decisions announced unacceptable.
They were sent a letter on that day saying that Counsel would consider and reply in writing prior to the scheduled meeting on October 4th.
In a separate communication the Inquiry explained that the first teaching session was held in private with the appropriate exclusion order made because its purpose was to explain the technical aspects of phone and Internet hacking for obvious reason this information was restricted although a summary of the briefing would be placed on the official website.
This has been done with Charles Brookson of Zeata Security providing the briefing. He explained that it was possible to gain access to email communications by guessing passwords, malware-viruses or Trojans that can be planted on the email by opening an email, opening an attachment or visiting a website and then provide details of access to the email account. Information can be obtained from third parties by deceit, persuasion or bribery. He spoke of more sophisticated variations and how they might be used and how easy it was to adopt them.
He said the ability to directly dial to hear someone’s voicemail was still available. Companies needed to keep the facility to enable clients to retrieve messages when visiting foreign countries. Users needed to keep changing their pincodes.
He spoke of other ways data could be intercepted from mobile phones. It was no longer possible to clone SIM cards of phones bought in the UK. Data can be obtained from lost, stolen or sold phones even if they have even wiped. The point was made that possession of equipment to do these things was not illegal but use was an offence under the Data Protection Act. For public Interest Reasons this does not cover all matters discussed with the expert by the team.
The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has been investigating Spyware and Malware and has published some interesting and relevant information from all there relevant parties including the Police E Crime Unit and which has 104 officers with plans to create three regional hubs for the North West, Yorkshire and East Midlands during 2012. In the published transcript of evidence taken in two sessions in November the scale of change was dramatically explained with thousands of targeted new programmes which are then altered as detection increases from 40 to 70 or 80% where as in the 1980’s the detection and prevention rate was as high as 100%.
There is also an Inquiry note, now online, of the briefing given by Mark Warby QC the second teacher where Associated Newspapers expressed concerns. The note covers the legal and regulatory structure, The Human Rights Act, Criminal Law, Civil Law, Regulation, Interactions, overlaps and gaps, Current issues and Proposals. There were extracts from various pieces of legislation which included the new Bribery Act 2010 and RIPA the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
The third briefing session on existing Regulatory systems comprised a number of specialists who also provided briefing papers which are available on line together with the transcript and Index. The subjects included the Office of the Information Commissioner, The Press Complaints Commission, Ofcom, the Financial Ombudsman as well as International examples together with an overview of his concept from a legal viewpoint.
In responding to the concerns of Associated Newspapers the Inquiry drew attention that if after considering the published information and transcripts they wished to add information or provided a different perspective or viewpoint their submission would be welcome.
In relation to the seminar these were advanced in their arrangements and the Assessors would take an active part in chairing sessions and introducing subjects! They were welcome to nominate people to attend the seminars and places were available for this purpose. Shami Chakrabati of Liberty chaired the afternoon session on supporting a free press and high standards which included What Redress should be available for breach of standards? and Defending Freedom of Expression, which included the observations of MacKensie. I will resist the temptation to stoop to his level of invective.
Associated Newspapers wasted a lot of money in showing their true colours at such an early stage and confirmed if anyone outside the circle of Proprietors and Editors needed convincing that they should be stripped of any direct involvement in ruling on complaints made against their papers and with significant penalties if complaints are upheld.
No comments:
Post a Comment