It was not until 30th November 2011 that I appreciated the full extent to which private information on individual citizens had been obtained by illegal and corrupt means, and been sold on through a chain of individuals in which a number of national news print papers were involved in a substantial way. The full extent and details of who did what and when may never be known to the public and it will be a year or more before any criminal proceedings arising from a number of Police Inquiries have concluded and then the Leveson Inquiry will be able to commence its investigation which will again take time and where I would not be surprised if the Inquiry report and conclusions did not take three to five years from now.
The purpose of Module 1 of the first part of the Leveson Inquiry is to try and establish the full extent of illegal and other inappropriate practices and last Wednesday in addition to the 6000 names said to be included in 11000 pages of Mulcaire records and primarily believed to be used for the purpose of illegal interception of private phone messages by the News of the World, the man who had personally carried out the investigation into the work of Stephen Whittamore revealed that there were not only records over 17000 information requests but records detailing which Newspapers and which Journalists had been involved in specific information requests on specified days.
Mr Alexander Owens claimed that the reason why the office of the Information Commissioner had not commenced proceedings under the Data Protection Act against all those involved had been fear. The head of the service had been due to respond to his accusations on Thursday but declared himself sick and will be heard next Friday while the Deputy Commissioner is due to appear on Monday. The Leveson Protocol covers the issue of self incrimination and the inquiry is only concerned with scale.
The allegation on the table, so to speak, is that the very office set up by Parliament to protect the personal information of British Citizens not only failed to individually inform them of covert and illegal interventions but then hounded the man who had uncovered the information and has continued to do so recently.
What follows is the sequence of events according to the evidence of Alexander John Owens, former Chief Investigator with the Commission and I have framed my writing within the context of the submission made by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan Police,(with both bodies have had their previous conduct already questioned by the House of Commons Select Committee and extensively by certain sections of the media), and by the ruling of Lord Leveson on November 7th, available on the Inquiry site, which confirms that it is possible to discuss the evidence and asks appropriate questions without being in contempt of the Inquiry or current police investigations and any subsequent Criminal Proceedings.
Because I am not a lawyer and do not have immediate access to legal opinion I am using the attested statement and initial transcript of evidence as much as possible and presenting the information in as balanced a way from the information available to me. It is also the position that the written evidence submitted to Inquiry is being screened by the Legal officers for the Metropolitan Police to ensure it does not compromise the ongoing investigations.
Alexander John Owens was a police officer for 30 years rising to the rank of Detective Inspector with the Merseyside Police Force having experience of both uniform and Criminal Investigation work. In 1997 after retiring from his police career he was recruited by the then Data Protection Registrar’s Office on a two year contract as an Investigator. Prior to the Act which established the Office of the Information Commissioner he was appointed to a permanent contract in September 1999 and less than two months later he was appointed Senior Investigating officer with special responsibility for the investigation of high profile or complicated investigations relating to breaches of the new Act.
It therefore can be concluded that he was regarded as a competent individual and someone of the highest integrity.
On March 8th 2003 together with four other Investigation Officers they attended the home of Mr Whittamore found a vast quantity of information including four large record books which revealed that he was in the full time employment of numerous newspaper groups and journalists obtaining for them information from the Central Police Computer on personal criminal records an illegal action by those commissioning and supplying the information, information from the DVLA, Ex-directory phone numbers and Family and Friend lists from landlines and mobile phone numbers.
Whittamore declined to provide information about his media contacts and Mr Owens stated that he assumed this was from fear or because of the expectation he would be paid for his silence. (The previous day Mr McMullan, also declined on oath to provide information regarding newspapers other than the News of World because he was already virtually unemployable although he did record he had worked for the Sunday People and the Mirror previously. I will report separate settlements known to have been made to prevent individuals disclosing information).
Mr Owens then had a meeting with the Head of Investigations and the Commissioner and his Deputy and was able to show, using a few examples a direct link between identified journalists working for identified newspapers requesting “information” to be obtained from a private detective and who in turn used corrupt sources to obtain the information. There was proof in terms of numbered invoices and bills in relation to newspaper groups indicating how much money had been paid to Mr Whittamore.
The date was March 2003 when they reported their initial findings to their bosses.
“The Deputy Commissioner Frank Aldous is reported to have said we cannot take the press on they are too big for us and the Commissioner remained silent looking bemused.”
The significant aspect of this reported response is the reference to the newsprint media. There was no reference to National Interest in terms of national security and operational police practice in which it is likely that the execution of some legitimate warrants obtained under current and past legislation will have been undertaken by private investigators and with the assistance of the offices of newsprint and other media organisation.
Later in relation to the Mulcaire papers it was revealed to the Home Affairs Committee is that there was genuine concern about the impact of the release of information upon those who were already victims and in some instances already traumatised by their experiences. This should remain a consideration today.
Mr Owens with an associate then went through every piece of paper which they photographed and placed all the information on disk with one copy locked away and another used for working purposes. They concentrated on 25 to 30 individual cases with a view to bringing an overall prosecution under the Data Protection Act for conspiracy.
Mr Owens and his assistant were ordered by the then Information Commissioner not to speak to any of the Newspapers Involved or to any of the individual Journalists. While this is more an Inquiry Part 2 issue it will be interesting if the subject is raised with the former Commissioner and the former deputy when they appear before the Inquiry.
The information regarding Criminal record and DVLA searches were handed to the Metropolitan Police and which became operation Glade. MR Own and his team were told to concentrate on those involved in “blagging” information. Counsel was consulted on the methodology being used to bring about the conspiracy charge. Between 50 and 60 victims were interviewed and this refers to evidence of one of the witnesses to the Inquiry who said he had been interviewed by a police officer in relation to the Motorman Information.
The work was completed by February 2004 and handed over to the legal department for a Conspiracy to Breach Data Protection charge. They did not hear more until further information requested in December 2004 which took them until the New Year 2005 to complete. Whittamore appeared before a Court in April 2005 and was given a Conditional Discharge. He and his colleagues were not advised beforehand or called as witnesses and they received no information about action being taken with the Press Complaints Council which was what the Commissioner said he would be doing.
There was some indirect feedback of differences between their legal officers, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan Police. The views of the latter may be raised in Module 2 of Part and will certainly be a key issue in Part 2 of the Inquiry.
Mr Owens asked why was only Whittamore Prosecuted and for only a simple Data Protection offence and not for Conspiracy?
What action did the Commissioner and Deputy take in relation to the Press Media regarding the evidence against them?
Mr Owens then stated that following a series of disciplinary complaints brought against him he went on official sick leave for 14 months until resigning prior to bringing an action for constructive dismissal. The matter was resolved to his satisfaction without the need for a Tribunal Hearing.
In May 2006 he received a copy of the Report What Price Privacy with a note to referring to page 27. 6.8 the official explanation of why no journalist was interviewed. When later that year he read of the arrest of Glenn Mulcaire he did not associate this development with the information obtained as a result of Operation Motorman and it was only over the following years that he did so arising from the articles of Nick Davis. It became clear why the information and been acquired. His concern deepened learned that there had only been one journalist and one private investigator involved. It was evident to him that the same consideration that had led to the Operation Motorman information being covered up applied to the Mulcaire Papers. In August 2009 he had contacted Nick Davis.
In April 2011 he witnessed the Deputy Commissioner stating on Panorama that no journalist was ever prosecuted “because we didn’t have the evidence that those journalists knew beyond reasonable doubt that the information had been obtained illegally.” This I knew was not only inaccurate but misleading. The evidence had been gathered but they had been stopped from gathering further evidence in terms of seeking the assistance of the newspapers and interviewing journalists. It appears the Metropolitan Police did not do this either.
Mr Owens said that he had then re-examined the evidence in his possession having retained a working copy of the information on disk and he had also seen the second Report of the Commissioner which had included the League Table and which had become quoted including by Members of the Commons Culture and Media Committee. Instead of Journalists making 3757 enquiries the total was over 17000. The Information Commissioner has explained this by saying they did not include multiple inquires. The quoted one inquiry for the Sunday World inquiry masked that the journalist had made 24. The Daily and Sunday Sport newspaper quoted as making 77 requests should have been recorded as 220. The Sunday Times was reported as one reporter making 4 requests when the evidence shows 6 reporters making 100 requests. For the evening Standard one journalist made 280 requests and not 130 quoted. He accused the ICO of plucking their figures out of the air.
In his conclusion he stated “The decision not to pursue was based solely on fear, fear of the power, wealth and influence of the Press and fear of the backlash that could follow if the press turned against the ICO.
He argued that the ICO had only published their second report after the Mulcaire situation came to attention in order to try and protect their earlier position
In a supplementary statement Mr Owens stated that he was aware he was vulnerable to prosecution as a consequence of Section 59 of the Data Protection Act 1998. He had attempted to consulted four individuals, two Members of Parliament, one a solicitor and one a victim who knew the press well and following a lack of response had decided to go public and face the consequences. He made contact with Operation Weeting and Strathclyde Police and the Leveson Inquiry and with the Independent Newspaper.
At the Inquiry Mr Owens explained at the end of the questioning that he had his copy of the information ready to provide the Information Commission Office immediately after the Guardian article had appeared but no one had contact him until just before he was due to give evidence (18th November) when two officers from Cheshire police visited in home and took the master disk which prevented him submitting it to the Inquiry.
The significance of the evidence was also covered by the Independent Newspaper on September 14th. I am also quoting from their article at length. “Among the targets of these searches were the victims of some of the most notorious crimes and tragedies of the past 15 years. Many of the investigations were perfectly legal, but many others, it is clear, were well outside the law.”
“The Motorman files reveal that the Sunday Express used private investigators to obtain the private telephone number of the parents of Holly Wells, shortly after she was murdered in Soham by Ian Huntley. In a statement last night, Express Newspapers said it "has never instructed private investigators to obtain information illegally. We have always and will continue to uphold the highest level of journalistic standards".
The parents of the murdered schoolgirl Sarah Payne were targeted by the same investigator, who was hired by two national newspaper groups – News International and Trinity Mirror – and separately by a celebrity magazine, Best, which is owned by the National Magazine Company. The same agency was also used by the News of the World to target the parents of Milly Dowler, and by The People and NOTW to obtain private numbers for the family of Stuart Lubbock, whose body was found in Michael Barrymore's swimming pool. The People used similar tactics to target the families of children who were with them.”
“News International spent £193 and then a further £105, hiring Whittamore's company JJ Services to carry out investigations into "Sarah Payne", a few months after her murder in 2000. The People also paid for the ex-directory number of Sarah's family home in Surrey. Whittamore was engaged by Best magazine to obtain the same number. At the same time Best, which is now owned by Hearst Magazines UK, asked for three more ex-directory searches relating to Pam Warren, a survivor of the Paddington rail crash of 1999, who was so disfigured she had to wear a face mask. Hearst declined to comment. The families of Dunblane massacre victims Aimie Adam and Matthew Birnie also appear as subjects in the Motorman files, following requests for ex-directory numbers by The People.”
When a major tragedy occurred, Whittamore was often the first person that tabloid newsrooms would call. NOTW spent more than £200 using him to locate the parents and other relatives of the murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler, whose mobile phone was later hacked by Glenn Mulcaire. “The most alarming inquiries in the Motorman files – and those which would appear to be among the least justifiable in the public interest – are those which involve intrusions into the privacy of victims of serious crime. In 2003, following a drive-by murder in Birmingham, a reporter on The People employed Whittamore to carry out a series of ex-directory checks and other searches on the relatives and associates of the victims, Charlene Ellis and Letisha Shakespeare. He obtained an ex-directory number for the parents of Charlene and sent a total bill to the paper for £355.50.”
“Other tragedies were subjects of searches. When Stuart Lubbock was found drowned in the swimming pool of Michael Barrymore, NOTW paid Whittamore for the ex-directory number of Claire Wicks, his girlfriend and mother of their daughters. The People made similar inquiries for the private number of the dead man's father, Terry.”
“Blags were Whittamore's speciality. Charging £100 a time, he repeatedly posed as someone else to obtain information from organisations. Among the targets were the Guide Association, the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, the Bel Air Beverly Hills hotel and the investment bank Goldman Sachs.”
“Some subjects were political figures. Anji Hunter, former adviser to Tony Blair, came under close scrutiny following her break-up with the landscape gardener Nick Cornwall. The Daily Mail asked Whittamore to obtain the address of Hunter and Cornwall. It then asked for the "Family and Friends" numbers listed by the couple, through which Whittamore discovered the address of Cornwall's parents. The reporter then requested the "Family and Friends" numbers of the parents – 15 numbers, many of them in Liverpool – and did a similar exercise on one of those to produce a further 10 numbers. Whittamore and his network of associates typically obtained such numbers by blagging them from staff at BT. There is no evidence that the Daily Mail engaged in phone hacking, and no article actually appeared. Associated Newspapers, which owns the Daily Mail, said last night that it had banned the use of private investigators in 2006.”
“Much of the work in the files targets celebrities or appears to be salacious gossip that has no clear public interest justification. The files contain scores of invoices paid to JJ Services, and among those paid by News International are jobs which he records in his files under such descriptions as "Love Rat Mum", "Sex in Unusual Places", "Emma's Sexy Secrets" and "Bonking Tory". News International declined to comment.”
“A spokesman for Trinity Mirror said: "Since the publication of the Information Commissioner's What Price Privacy Now? report it has been widely known that a number of media organisations, including some of our titles, used the services of Steve Whittamore. We have not used Steve Whittamore since that report. We are engaging fully with the Leveson Inquiry as we will with any other inquiries from appropriate regulatory or legal authorities."
John Whittingdale, chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, said: "There was an absolute lack of any wish on the part of the police or the ICO or those looking into it to start delving into the prosecution of newspapers and journalists. [The ICO] took a list of hundreds and hundreds of journalists' names. Yes, there's a public interest defence but they didn't even bother to go and ask whether that was what they employed Whittamore for."
The Independent reported that the Press Complaints Council had not been given a copy of the Motorman file but had subsequently strengthened its Code of Practice.
“The Operation Motorman investigator, who has requested anonymity, has written to Lord Leveson asking to give evidence to his inquiry into media standards. The inquiry has expressed interest in him giving oral evidence or submitting a witness statement. He has also been interviewed by Strathclyde Police, which is investigating criminal activity by journalists in Scotland. The Whittamore files have also recently been requested by the Metropolitan Police's Operation Tuleta team, which is investigating the use of computer hacking by journalists.”
“In total, the Whittamore files reference 17,489 orders from media organisations. Some 1,028 are in the so-called "blue book", which was essentially dedicated to News International. The "red book" contained 6,774 jobs, most on behalf of Trinity Mirror titles. The "green book", which includes work from Associated Newspapers titles, Express Newspapers and some celebrity magazines, has 2,227 references. And the "yellow book", which is miscellaneous, has 7,460 orders.”
Christopher Graham, the Information Commissioner, said the ICO stood by its reports and that the placing of these documents before Parliament "was a far more effective method of raising awareness of the illegal trade in personal information" than attempting to prosecute journalists. "The ICO has always been clear that our decision not to pursue legal action against any of the journalists linked to the Operation Motorman investigation was based on a lack of evidence that the journalists who had received information from Mr Whittamore had directly asked him to obtain the information illegally. Without this evidence the ICO could not justify chasing every possible prosecution as this would have taken a disproportionate amount of time and resource and was unlikely to lead to any meaningful results."
“The ICO said the lower figure in its report was a result of grouping multiple requests by a journalist as a single transaction.”
“Only a tiny proportion of victims have been told they were targeted. The ICO investigator and his senior colleague interviewed a small sample, including Ian Hislop, Lenny Henry, Hugh Grant, Chris Tarrant and Charlotte Church.”
“There are around 400 named journalists in the files, from investigative reporters and newsdesk executives to showbiz hacks and diary writers. For some, Whittamore's services were not just a useful tool but almost an addiction. One reporter used him 422 times. Another carried out 191 transactions, requesting dozens of vehicle searches, more than a dozen criminal records checks, several blags and numerous Friends and Family inquiries. Yet the Motorman team were told not to speak to any journalist.”
The article did not disclose the name of Owens although as he said at the Leveson Inquiry it would have been evident to everyone that he was the source of the information. The newspaper then posed a series of question to help their readers.
“Were these methods illegal? The transactions which are contained in Stephen Whittamore's files range from area and occupancy searches to criminal records checks and inquiries into vehicle registrations.
Area and occupancy searches. Area and address occupancy searches may have been procured illicitly but would provide no prospect of a prosecution, even when there was no public interest defence in requesting the information. This is because the requester of the information could claim an expectation that the investigator would acquire the details through legitimate means, such as by consulting an electoral roll in a public library, for instance.
Ex-directory checks, phone 'conversions' and friends and family searches. This would be information obtained from a phone company and might be in breach of Section 55 of the Data Protection Act (which came into effect in March 2000 and carries a maximum fine of £5,000) unless Whittamore had obtained them from a friend or relative. These searches could be legally defended if the inquiry was in the public interest.
Searches of the police national computer or the DVLA database Serious. Not only would they be a breach of the Data Protection Act but in serious cases, where there was no public interest in the inquiry, the requester of the information might be charged with aiding and abetting misconduct in public office by the person supplying the information, which could carry a jail sentence.”
So is this the smoking gun information the Inquiry has been officially waiting to hear?
No comments:
Post a Comment