I have so much to write about that the Leveson Inquiry should take its place in a long queue. But if I do not allocate a few hours today it could be New Year before the there will is there again to do so.
The past week has provided important insights into the minds and outlooks of those professionally engaged in the commercially successful mass circulation British newsprint and I have chosen a subject which the Inquiry explored with forensic persistence.
I begin with the role of Derek Webb, an experienced former Police Detective from Hertfordshire who became a Member of the National Union of Journalists in order to get round the ban on using Private Investigators at the News of the World after the convictions of Goodman and Mulcaire, the departure of Coulson and the arrival of Colin Myler as Editor, the first Editor to be interviewed at the Inquiry. Mr Webb was asked to keep surveillance on two lawyers representing victims of phone hacking.
Mr Webb described himself as an expert in human surveillance having been trained and attached to special units for half his 30 years of his police service. He was recruited to the News of the World by Neville Thurlbeck who has become infamous being the recipient of the For Neville email which exploded the myth that phone hacking was restricted to one individual at the paper.
Mr Thurlbeck was appointed Crime Reporter and then Senior Crime Reporter at the News of the World, then Investigations News Editor and News Editor and from 2003 to 2011 he was the Chief Reporter.
Mr Webb explained that before retirement he was asked to execute a warrant in relation to a firearm’s offence following intelligence received from Mr Thurlbeck of the News of World who had worked undercover. This confirms an issue not yet covered in the Inquiry so far but which will no doubt feature more in the next Module with concerns relationships between the police and the media/press. It also touches on the evidence of Mazher Mahmood the extraordinary and at times notorious undercover journalist whose work has led to some 300 convictions who also disclosed that immediately he had come across an alleged terrorist plot he had contacted the appropriate authorities and worked with them consequently. There is therefore a two way interaction between the police and the news press which has proved to be in the national/public interest over many decades and is therefore not to be set aside without due consideration.
As with the official security services and the police and their agents there is often a grey area with relationships crossing ethical and legal boundaries. Previously I reported on the case of the undercover police officer who established a long term relationship with a target involved in environmental activism and where he had become a leading figure in the European wide movement, breaking the law as a consequence but also assisting several governments with intelligence. Only this week it was announced that a class action against the Metropolitan police by female activists because of the false relationships they had with eight undercover officers each lasting several years. At the same time it was also announced that a former Crime Editor at the News of World has been arrested on suspicion of corrupting a police officer(s) and who is married to a Scotland Yard detective. These are issues which will be dealt with in the second Module of Part one of the Inquiry scheduled to commence in the New Year.
In the instance of Derek Webb his position was clear from the outset. He was and remained a specialist in human surveillance and had contemplated establishing a formal business on retirement until it quickly became evident he was needed by the News of the World on a full time basis. From the outset it was established that his role was not to enter private property but to observe and report the movements of people using a secret video camera. Accordingly he was given assignment by over 25 journalists most he was able to name and included Mahmood (The Fake Sheik) who has not been arrested by Operation Weeting, and Clive Goodman, Ian Edmondson, James Weatherup, James Besborough as well as Neville Thurlbeck who all have together with Lucy Panton the former Crime Editor. Mr Webb confirmed that he had never been instructed directly by Ms Brooks, Mr Coulson who have not given evidence yet or Colin Myler, the last Editor of the Newspaper who has. He was also instructed via the internal travel company when on missions outside greater London.
Mr Webb confirmed that he was employed between 2003 and January 2007 when Andy Coulson was the Editor and Ms Brooks the Senior Executive. Mr Myler was brought in in January 2007 “to clean up the act” following the resignation of Coulson and the imprisonment of Goodman and Mulcaire for their role in phone hacking of members of the Royal family and where five other celebrities were included in the charges but were not made public and which revealed that others had been involved in commissioning work from Mulcaire and others.
Mr Webb continued as before until November of that year when he was formally suspended because of involvement as a suspect in criminal proceedings. He was advised by Thurlbeck that if the charges were dropped or he was found not guilty he could return and that his suspension did not prevent him doing work for other newspapers. Mr Webb was not questioned about what he did during the 18 month period when he was on police bail but he did allow his licence as a private detective to lapse.
When the case against him was dropped he was reemployed by the News of the World in March 2009. He was told by Thurlbeck that he had to end his private detective licence and become a member of the National Union of Journalists. Colin Myler said he later approved of this device.
The inquiry went through in great detail that Mr Webb had never written articles or undertaken work normally associated with journalism. His application had been sponsored by a journalist who did not work for the News of the World and he filled in the forms as best he could because he had no journalist or writing experience but he got his NUJ card through the post as a researcher. Lord Justice Leveson clearly found the ease extraordinary.
He said “Hang on. Did you have to provide any details of qualification to get an NUJ card? “Nothing I went through the details on the form as a police former police officer” was the reply The Lord Justice enquired: What sort of details? He was asked about his experience of various matters and he could not say any. But it was accepted. Lord Leveson: “Because you hadn’t?” Answer “I hadn’t.”
Ms Patsy Hoskins for the Inquiry then questioned him closely about his subsequent role and the confirmed that nothing changed from his previous role how he was commissioned, what he had to do or the payment system, except he had to abandon his former company name and used his own name. Her had written no articles and his name never appeared in the paper. He was not given a copy of the old or new PCC Code of Practice. No one discussed with him whether what he did was in the Public Interest.
Mr Thurlbeck disclosed that he had been offered potential immunity from prosecution by Scotland Yard in return for giving evidence for the Crown but declined on the basis that he believes the police investigation will exonerate him. Mr Thurlbeck states in writing that he was willing to answer any questions about phone jacking but he did respond at length about the Max Moseley case and the employment of Derek Webb. He confirmed that Mr Webb was commissioned through the Newsdesk and that immediately he was able to confirm the commissioned interest a journalist was despatched to work alongside him to write the story. Mr Thurlbeck however denied he had any knowledge about the decision to use Mr Webb to keep surveillance on the lawyers Charlotte Webb and Mark Lewis who were acting for claimant victims against the News of the World. So who did and why?
Julian Pike is a partner in the firm of Farrer and Co, a firm which had acted for News International for 25 years. He heads the firms contentious media law practice as well as providing pre publication/broadcast advice and he also provide reputation advice to those who find themselves the subject of media attention and the firm has occasionally advise News International when it is being sued in relation to contentious media law. In his second written statement Mr Pike disclosed that “for a number of reasons, by the early part of 2010 I had concerns which had accumulated over the previous months that Miss Harris and Mr Lewis may be exchanging highly confidential information gained from acting for claimants (and Mr Taylor in particular) in cases against the NGN in order to assist other clients in bringing further actions against NGN.”
“I shared these concerns with NGN and in March 2010 I suggested that we should consider again whether Miss Harris and Mr Lewis were in a position to continue acting. I also mentioned surveillance. I was instructed by NGN on May 5th 2010 to engage private investigators to conduct a review. This was the only investigation on behalf of NGN regarding this matter. The investigation was limited to a search of publicly available documentation. By that time I was aware that NGN had put Miss Harris and Mr Lewis under surveillance. I was not informed the nature of that surveillance.” The next section is redacted.
On May 11th 2010 the private investigators reported on these public record searches. In my initial instructions I had suggested that we may need to move carrying out some discreet observations, but given the information reported by (redacted) I did not instruct him to carry out any such observations. Also in May 2010 I did sought specialist leading Counsel Advice as to the question whether Miss Harris and/or Mr Lewis were properly able to represent other claimants. I never instructed Derek Webb on any matter whether for NGN or any other client. I have never had any dealings with him and nor has any member of my team.
Mr Pike was asked further question before giving oral testimony about the matter and the use of private investigators which he replied in writing. He disclosed that “as regards NGN I did not have knowledge of it using private investigators, save for the surveillance discussed in key second witness statement (re Harris and Lewis). I have of course also become aware that NGN instructed Mr Mulcaire, Me Webb and Mr Whittamore, but I was not aware at the time that they had been instructed.
Under questions on 13th December Mr Pike stated that he had expressed his concerns about Miss Harris and Mr Lewis by email on March 26th to Tom Crone the Legal Manager at the News of the World since 1991. Mr Crone’s responsibilities covered pre and post publication. The focus of his role was the Sun and News of the World Papers although his role covered all publications. He argued in his statement that he had responsibility for compliance in terms of the law which sides stepped the issue of compliance to the Press Complaints Commission standards or journalist ethical standards in general. In his view compliance in these respects was the responsibility of the Managing Editor
He was provided with no training or guidance or issued policy statements in relation to his role on advising on the legality of information gathering methods and standards.
Lord Justice Leveson commented: Wouldn’t you have been somewhat concerned about that Mr Pike, to make sure they (the investigators hired by NGN on his advice) didn’t overstep the bounds of what you considered appropriate? Mr Pike answered that he had assumed the work would have been conducted in an appropriate matter. He regarded the surveillance as straightforward.
Mr Jay for the Inquiry asked if it was not unusual for two lawyers to be placed under surveillance. Mr Pike agreed. Mr Jay persisted suggesting that the form of surveillance based on the commission to establish if the two were having an intimate relationship would require skill; given that proof was not of itself establish that the two had exchanged confidential information. Mr Pike did not agree that the work required an expert having previously indicated it was work which could have been carried out by a journalist. Mr Pike said he would have used a professional private investigator if he had organised this part of the surveillance but it could have been a journalist. Justice Leveson suggested they were dancing on the head of a pin.
Mr Pike was then asked for the authorship of a report which Mr Lewis had attached to his supplemental witness statement (not disclosed to the public). Mr Pike did not know and said he had only become aware of the document, Mr Jay read from it
“The motivation of and association between the key civil lawyers opposing News International is becoming clear. Specifically, the main protagonists are politically motivated with a number being strong Labour Party supporters, their cases helping to promote their professional advancement. The News of the World is planning to use these tensions and motivations as a way to force compromise and settlement.” Mr Pike was asked if this did represent NGN strategy and replied that he had no knowledge. He was also asked to comment on the section “The News of the World is aware of these facts and is planning to put pressure back on the solicitors by revealing these facts and by linking their political affiliations and career benefits from the cases. They plan to do this publicly and through discreet lobbying” Mr Pike said this was also unknown to him.
He was then asked to confirm his memorandum to Mr Crone of March 26th where he stated that “I think we should look again at preventing JMW (Ms Harris’s firm) and Stripes (from acting). They will both continue to be deeply untrustworthy, continuous leaks to the Guardian, and the potential cost saving of JMV acting did not exactly materialise in Clifford. I think we should go and get an expert view on the question of conflict” You suggested going to leading Counsel and then said “I’ve not mentioned to Taylor’s lawyers that Lewis has appeared acting for Philips, but I strongly suspect Taylor may have want to hand this to the SRA complaint he’s made against Lewis. Mr Jay asked Mr Pike to confirm that he was aware that Mr Taylor had made a complaint against Mr Lewis to the Solicitor’s Regulation Authority and that he wanted to contribute to the action? Mr Pike explained that Taylor’s lawyers had contacted because he needed to be released from his confidentiality agreement in order to both instruct Brabners and take his complaint forward. So they contacted us in that context and clearly we were able to assist them to some extent.
“I have had a brief word with (names redacted) but we need to put some surveillance onto them. Mr Pike agreed this surveillance on Mr Lewis and Ms Harris. Mr Pike again made the point that this would have been done by Private Investigators through his office but by Investigators or journalists at the News of the World. In a further exchange Mr Pike revealed that a third lawyer had been placed under surveillance. He confirmed that instructions had been given to the firm Tectrix. This related to a letter from Farrer to Linklaters.
“Julian Pike’s email dated 20th April 2010 refers to the paper renewing their surveillance and he believes he must have been told something about the surveillance of Lewis and Harris but he does not recall whether this was by Ian Edmondson or Tom Crone. Mr Pike said he had no memory of what he had been told but accepted that he may have had a conversation between his March email and that in May.
Mr Jay asked if Mr Crone had told him the surveillance had not yielded anything of interest but Mr Pike could not remember. After further questioning Mr Jay asked about the approach to Leading Counsel on May 13th 2010 and if requested advice on the propriety of what they were doing. There was no suggestion what they were doing was wrong (adding) as it wasn’t.
He was then asked if he was aware of any other situations where lawyers for one side had put the lawyers for the other side under surveillance. Mr Pike explained that they had been faced with significant breaches of confidentiality over a significant period of time. And they wanted to get to the bottom of the situation by digging around and putting together a jigsaw of what was going on. The surveillance of the lawyers was a legitimate exercise.
He could not condone the surveillance of the family of Mr Lewis because it served no purpose. He added that what was requested was not a highly intrusive exercise if done properly.
Mr Jay drew attention to the serious implication of article 8( not explained but I assume relates to the conduct of lawyers).Mr Pike said that Article 8 was not an absolute right and that he faced with a similar situation today he would have no trouble in doing the same again. He was asked why he had not checked on the way the surveillance was being carried out. He replied “that was easily said now.”
So I will sum up. Mr Pike admitted what he was doing was unusual if not unique but he had not bothered to set down how and who should do the surveillance or to find out what happened afterwards. It should have been straightforward and was justified/
There was then an interesting exchange between Mr Pike and the lawyer representing the victims about the attendance note made by his firm and to the names of the subject matter: Sky Andrew was a claim brought by the agent of Sol Campbell against News Group Newspapers. A claim for unlawful interception of voicemail. Vanessa Peroncel a claim against NGN re privacy which did not involve phones. Nicola Phillips about voicemail interception. Andy Gray, David Davies, George Galloway. Kelly Hoppen. Mr Pike agreed the names were correct.
In relation to Sienna Miller Mr Sherborne introduced his exorcet. She has also issued proceedings against News Group as well as well (That‘s right). And Farrer‘s were involved for News Group as well.
Mr Sherbornel then asked if Mr Pike was aware that the Metropolitan Police had made an application to see the related documents on June 1st 2010. Mr Pike said he had not at the time but since. Mr Sherborne said that the application was made anonymously and in private three weeks after the meeting. Mr Pike was told that that there was no public mention that that Sienna Miller had made a complaint was on September 6th four months later. So how on May 13th was it possible for his firm to know to know about a claim from Siena Miller before it had been officially made? Lord Leveson told Mr Pike to find out and Mr Pike said that with permission of Linklaters he would.
Mr Sherborne made the point that the only people who knew Sienna Miller was making a claim were her solicitors and the Police. Mr Pike did not know the answer (with the implication that either the police had leaked the information or information had been illegally obtained from the Solicitors or conversations between Ms Miller and the Solicitors). Lord Justice Leveson said “we’ll have to see, won’t we? Let’s find out the answer. For News International Mr Davies said he did not think there would be privilege. Lord Leveson said right. You’re not very far away Mr Pike in Lincoln’s Inn Fields. I would be grateful if you could do that. Mr Pike then contested evidence from Ms Harris. It was pointed out she had already withdrawn the contested allegation. It is not known if Mr Pike has provided Lord Leveson with the requested information.
It was then time for Mr Crone. Mr Crone commenced by agreeing with the evidence of Mr Lewis that when they had met at a restaurant in London Mr Pike was not present but a third party. I am not covering Mr Crones knowledge of Operation Motorman and then Mulcaire Goodman but that in relation to Mr Webb Mr Lewis and Ms Harris. He was asked if it was correct that private detectives on instruction from Colin Myler the new Editor were not used after 2007. Mr Crone said at the outset that he understood Mr Webb to be a free lance journalist employed by the Newsdesk.
Mr Crone in his second written statement detailed the reason why he agreed to the surveillance of Mr Lewis and Ms Harris who he noted had worked together at George Davis. He believed Mr Lewis was the source of information going to the Guardian and also came the view that Ms Harris might also be a source of information. He said that it was never the intention to look at the families of the two lawyers and that he understood that Mr Webb was an accredited freelance journalist and not a private investigator.
Given what that we know Mr Crone had a long standing senior position through the period when everyone at the Newsdesk, that is 30 odd individuals had commissioned Mr him knowing he was he was an ex policeman surveillance specialist licensed private detective and this was supported by Mr Thurlbeck and Mr Myler Mr Crone’s statement merits incredulity.
Three weeks later Mr Crone was shown a photograph taken by Mr Webb which were not of Mr Lewis or Ms Harris but included an unknown woman shopping at a garden centre. He phoned the news desk and said it appeared this was a case of mistaken identity. He told the news desk executive not to bother to send Mr Webb back. He said he played no part and was not aware of the surveillance of lawyers, Committee Members, claimants or anyone else connected to phone hacking cases or inquiries.
In questioning he said he had approached Mr Edmondson of the Newsdesk to arrange for the surveillance of Mr Lewis and Ms Harris. He maintained the stance that he thought Mr Webb was a free lance journalist who worked regularly for the paper. He did not know the work had been limited to surveillance, He admitted he was aware that Mr Webb had not been employed for a period of over a year. He did not remember that in 2007 he with Stuart Kuttner had drawn up a confidentiality agreement for Mr Webb to sign for his period of suspension because of the arrest. He had no knowledge of telling Thurlbeck to tell Webb to give up his detective licence and join the Journalist Union. He knew the man had a press card but not how he had got it. He was told he was an accredited journalist. Mr Crone challenged the suggestion that Mr Webb had been used on fishing expeditions.
Lord Justice Leveson said- that if you employ an ex policeman week after week, month after month on surveillance activities, but you have arranged that he obtain a card from the National Union of Journalists, you are absolutely fairly to say that you don’t employ investigators, you only employ journalists. Mr Crone then argued that if all he did was surveillance this did not mean he was not a journalist a reporter gathering information for use in stories. Lord Justice repeated his question statement to which Mr Crone said he thought the question was loaded. He admitted Mr Webb was not working on a story in the instance but for the legal department. Mr Crone was repeatedly questioned and twice said he had not been enthusiastic about the idea which came from Mr Pike My Jay reminded that Mr Pike was involved with information gathered by Tectrix and had left the human surveillance to Mr Crone to arrange. Mr Crone went on to say that he did not see the point in bringing a professional misconduct complaint unless there was evidence of information sharing. There was also the issue that if the two were taken of cases the claimants would go to another firm at higher rates which the company would end up paying and this did not make sense at all.
Mr Sherborne then indicated that he wanted to use a confidential document which Mr Crone should see and where the information had to remain confidential. Lord Leveson said he was anxious to protect the Article 8 right of the two lawyers. He then rose so that the issues could be considered further. Mr Sherborne said that given Mr Crone had admitted the decision to keep the two lawyers under surveillance was regrettable and that Counsel for the Newspaper group declared the action entirely inappropriate he had two question on the activities of Mr Webb. Mr Sherborne referred to a the letter sent by Linklaters (News International solicitors) to the Metropolitan Police on 16th September 2011. The advised the Metropolitan Police of the folder on the use of private detectives by the News of the World. Mr Sherborne referred to the review of emails between Tom Crone and Colin Myler on the use of Private Detectives. The particular email was from Stuart Kuttner to Paul Nicholas an assistant or deputy managing editor and copies to a number of senior Executives including that of Mr Crone. This states that the Derek Webb file was being passed over described as Silent Shadow (the name of his business as a private detective) Mr Crone accepted that the email plus file had been sent to him but he had no recollection of seeing it. The other files sent were about the Guardian phone interceptions allegations against the News of the World, the subsequent Commons Select Committee hearings and the Goodman/Mulcaire cash payments. The fourth is the Webb file. Mr Crone said he thought this was an email saying that Mr Nicholas was off on holiday and had left various files with people. Mr Crone persisted he had not seen or noted that Mr Webb was called the Silent Shadow.
He then asked about the covering letter from Linklaters to the Police re private detectives. A memory stick containing copy footage recorded on video tape located in Tom Crone’s office. He was asked about the covering note from the private detective to Mr Edmonson who had been filming a target of the News of the World and was found in your office in the memory stick with the footage. Mr Crone said this did not mean that Mr Webb was not a journalist. Mr Crone said he had never used a memory stick and therefore did not see the contents of the memory stick. Lord Justice Leveson again clarified Mr Crone’s definition of a journalist.
Colin Myler the last Newspaper Editor said his understanding was that Mr Webb was a private investigator. He had become aware of Mr Webb when he had been arrested and charged related to a Thames Valley journalist. When the case against Mr Webb collapse the News Editor approached Mr Myler and said he was expert in surveillance former police officer who had done excellent work and could be reemployed if he became an NUJ member to get round the objection to using private detectives.
Lord Justice Leveson That did not make him a journalist. No said Mr Myler of course not but it made him more aware of his responsibilities for working for the News of the World. My Jay asked why it did that. Mr Myler said this was because of the Code they operated which he would have been aware of anyway (In evidence he said he was never given a copy of the Code or made aware of it), Mt Myler then said he was only aware of the one job Mr Webb had worked on, that when he was arrested and Mr Myler had said he could not continue to work for the paper. His name was not mentioned to him again after his reemployment. Mr Myler defended the past use of Private Investigators adding that banks, insurance companies used private investigators.
Mr Webb was the last of the group to give evidence on the subject. He explained that in the first intance he had been asked to follow a solcitor to see if the individual met up with the other. He was taken off a job in Surrey to go to Manchester. He was told to find out if the two people were having an affair. He was given the name of a man who was not Mark Lewis so the name was not mentioned at the Inquiry. He had followed a woman from the address all day and taken a video footage to establish the idenity which was collected from the hotel he was staying that same evening. Mr Webb confirmed he had sent a note to Ian Edmondson which was previously raised by Mr Sherbornne with Mr Crone. He was then told to stand down as the woman was not that commissioned.
He was then told to return to Manchester and given two photos which he printed out. One of Ms Harris and the other was of a man-not Mr Lewis). He was told to decide which of the Solicitors offices he was observe to see if one individual went to meet the other. He did not see either and therefore obtained no video footage and was told to stand down as they were both in London. Mr Sherborne then had two question for Mr Webb, the first was if he been asked to undertake surveillance on Senna Miller and Jude Law. Mr Webb said on one day but he had been immediately called off.
Mr Webb then said he was unable to confirm that the person he had filmed at the garden centre was the 14 year old daughter of Mr Lewis because he had not seen the video footage and therefore he had nothing to say to Mr Lewis was at the Inquiry. So the question remains. Was 14 year old girl mistake as a woman and followed over a day? If not who took the video which was shown to Mr Lewis by the Police?
I decided to present this situation rather than the evidence in relation to the Mosley case or the extent if any that Rupert Murdoch knew about the widespread hacking or some of the other issues covered over the week because I believe the Webb case and the surveillance of Mr Lewis and Ms Harris together with response of the Journalists and the lawyers reveals more clearly what had been going and the brave face attempted to put on the sordid unethical and thoroughly disreputable practices going on and which were summed up nicely by Counsel for the Inquiry who said it was deliciously ironic that the paper had demanded to see the whole video taken by a TV programme denouncing their tactics because it impuned the integrity of one of their journalists. He could have justifiable called the bunch hypocrites.
The past week has provided important insights into the minds and outlooks of those professionally engaged in the commercially successful mass circulation British newsprint and I have chosen a subject which the Inquiry explored with forensic persistence.
I begin with the role of Derek Webb, an experienced former Police Detective from Hertfordshire who became a Member of the National Union of Journalists in order to get round the ban on using Private Investigators at the News of the World after the convictions of Goodman and Mulcaire, the departure of Coulson and the arrival of Colin Myler as Editor, the first Editor to be interviewed at the Inquiry. Mr Webb was asked to keep surveillance on two lawyers representing victims of phone hacking.
Mr Webb described himself as an expert in human surveillance having been trained and attached to special units for half his 30 years of his police service. He was recruited to the News of the World by Neville Thurlbeck who has become infamous being the recipient of the For Neville email which exploded the myth that phone hacking was restricted to one individual at the paper.
Mr Thurlbeck was appointed Crime Reporter and then Senior Crime Reporter at the News of the World, then Investigations News Editor and News Editor and from 2003 to 2011 he was the Chief Reporter.
Mr Webb explained that before retirement he was asked to execute a warrant in relation to a firearm’s offence following intelligence received from Mr Thurlbeck of the News of World who had worked undercover. This confirms an issue not yet covered in the Inquiry so far but which will no doubt feature more in the next Module with concerns relationships between the police and the media/press. It also touches on the evidence of Mazher Mahmood the extraordinary and at times notorious undercover journalist whose work has led to some 300 convictions who also disclosed that immediately he had come across an alleged terrorist plot he had contacted the appropriate authorities and worked with them consequently. There is therefore a two way interaction between the police and the news press which has proved to be in the national/public interest over many decades and is therefore not to be set aside without due consideration.
As with the official security services and the police and their agents there is often a grey area with relationships crossing ethical and legal boundaries. Previously I reported on the case of the undercover police officer who established a long term relationship with a target involved in environmental activism and where he had become a leading figure in the European wide movement, breaking the law as a consequence but also assisting several governments with intelligence. Only this week it was announced that a class action against the Metropolitan police by female activists because of the false relationships they had with eight undercover officers each lasting several years. At the same time it was also announced that a former Crime Editor at the News of World has been arrested on suspicion of corrupting a police officer(s) and who is married to a Scotland Yard detective. These are issues which will be dealt with in the second Module of Part one of the Inquiry scheduled to commence in the New Year.
In the instance of Derek Webb his position was clear from the outset. He was and remained a specialist in human surveillance and had contemplated establishing a formal business on retirement until it quickly became evident he was needed by the News of the World on a full time basis. From the outset it was established that his role was not to enter private property but to observe and report the movements of people using a secret video camera. Accordingly he was given assignment by over 25 journalists most he was able to name and included Mahmood (The Fake Sheik) who has not been arrested by Operation Weeting, and Clive Goodman, Ian Edmondson, James Weatherup, James Besborough as well as Neville Thurlbeck who all have together with Lucy Panton the former Crime Editor. Mr Webb confirmed that he had never been instructed directly by Ms Brooks, Mr Coulson who have not given evidence yet or Colin Myler, the last Editor of the Newspaper who has. He was also instructed via the internal travel company when on missions outside greater London.
Mr Webb confirmed that he was employed between 2003 and January 2007 when Andy Coulson was the Editor and Ms Brooks the Senior Executive. Mr Myler was brought in in January 2007 “to clean up the act” following the resignation of Coulson and the imprisonment of Goodman and Mulcaire for their role in phone hacking of members of the Royal family and where five other celebrities were included in the charges but were not made public and which revealed that others had been involved in commissioning work from Mulcaire and others.
Mr Webb continued as before until November of that year when he was formally suspended because of involvement as a suspect in criminal proceedings. He was advised by Thurlbeck that if the charges were dropped or he was found not guilty he could return and that his suspension did not prevent him doing work for other newspapers. Mr Webb was not questioned about what he did during the 18 month period when he was on police bail but he did allow his licence as a private detective to lapse.
When the case against him was dropped he was reemployed by the News of the World in March 2009. He was told by Thurlbeck that he had to end his private detective licence and become a member of the National Union of Journalists. Colin Myler said he later approved of this device.
The inquiry went through in great detail that Mr Webb had never written articles or undertaken work normally associated with journalism. His application had been sponsored by a journalist who did not work for the News of the World and he filled in the forms as best he could because he had no journalist or writing experience but he got his NUJ card through the post as a researcher. Lord Justice Leveson clearly found the ease extraordinary.
He said “Hang on. Did you have to provide any details of qualification to get an NUJ card? “Nothing I went through the details on the form as a police former police officer” was the reply The Lord Justice enquired: What sort of details? He was asked about his experience of various matters and he could not say any. But it was accepted. Lord Leveson: “Because you hadn’t?” Answer “I hadn’t.”
Ms Patsy Hoskins for the Inquiry then questioned him closely about his subsequent role and the confirmed that nothing changed from his previous role how he was commissioned, what he had to do or the payment system, except he had to abandon his former company name and used his own name. Her had written no articles and his name never appeared in the paper. He was not given a copy of the old or new PCC Code of Practice. No one discussed with him whether what he did was in the Public Interest.
Mr Thurlbeck disclosed that he had been offered potential immunity from prosecution by Scotland Yard in return for giving evidence for the Crown but declined on the basis that he believes the police investigation will exonerate him. Mr Thurlbeck states in writing that he was willing to answer any questions about phone jacking but he did respond at length about the Max Moseley case and the employment of Derek Webb. He confirmed that Mr Webb was commissioned through the Newsdesk and that immediately he was able to confirm the commissioned interest a journalist was despatched to work alongside him to write the story. Mr Thurlbeck however denied he had any knowledge about the decision to use Mr Webb to keep surveillance on the lawyers Charlotte Webb and Mark Lewis who were acting for claimant victims against the News of the World. So who did and why?
Julian Pike is a partner in the firm of Farrer and Co, a firm which had acted for News International for 25 years. He heads the firms contentious media law practice as well as providing pre publication/broadcast advice and he also provide reputation advice to those who find themselves the subject of media attention and the firm has occasionally advise News International when it is being sued in relation to contentious media law. In his second written statement Mr Pike disclosed that “for a number of reasons, by the early part of 2010 I had concerns which had accumulated over the previous months that Miss Harris and Mr Lewis may be exchanging highly confidential information gained from acting for claimants (and Mr Taylor in particular) in cases against the NGN in order to assist other clients in bringing further actions against NGN.”
“I shared these concerns with NGN and in March 2010 I suggested that we should consider again whether Miss Harris and Mr Lewis were in a position to continue acting. I also mentioned surveillance. I was instructed by NGN on May 5th 2010 to engage private investigators to conduct a review. This was the only investigation on behalf of NGN regarding this matter. The investigation was limited to a search of publicly available documentation. By that time I was aware that NGN had put Miss Harris and Mr Lewis under surveillance. I was not informed the nature of that surveillance.” The next section is redacted.
On May 11th 2010 the private investigators reported on these public record searches. In my initial instructions I had suggested that we may need to move carrying out some discreet observations, but given the information reported by (redacted) I did not instruct him to carry out any such observations. Also in May 2010 I did sought specialist leading Counsel Advice as to the question whether Miss Harris and/or Mr Lewis were properly able to represent other claimants. I never instructed Derek Webb on any matter whether for NGN or any other client. I have never had any dealings with him and nor has any member of my team.
Mr Pike was asked further question before giving oral testimony about the matter and the use of private investigators which he replied in writing. He disclosed that “as regards NGN I did not have knowledge of it using private investigators, save for the surveillance discussed in key second witness statement (re Harris and Lewis). I have of course also become aware that NGN instructed Mr Mulcaire, Me Webb and Mr Whittamore, but I was not aware at the time that they had been instructed.
Under questions on 13th December Mr Pike stated that he had expressed his concerns about Miss Harris and Mr Lewis by email on March 26th to Tom Crone the Legal Manager at the News of the World since 1991. Mr Crone’s responsibilities covered pre and post publication. The focus of his role was the Sun and News of the World Papers although his role covered all publications. He argued in his statement that he had responsibility for compliance in terms of the law which sides stepped the issue of compliance to the Press Complaints Commission standards or journalist ethical standards in general. In his view compliance in these respects was the responsibility of the Managing Editor
He was provided with no training or guidance or issued policy statements in relation to his role on advising on the legality of information gathering methods and standards.
Lord Justice Leveson commented: Wouldn’t you have been somewhat concerned about that Mr Pike, to make sure they (the investigators hired by NGN on his advice) didn’t overstep the bounds of what you considered appropriate? Mr Pike answered that he had assumed the work would have been conducted in an appropriate matter. He regarded the surveillance as straightforward.
Mr Jay for the Inquiry asked if it was not unusual for two lawyers to be placed under surveillance. Mr Pike agreed. Mr Jay persisted suggesting that the form of surveillance based on the commission to establish if the two were having an intimate relationship would require skill; given that proof was not of itself establish that the two had exchanged confidential information. Mr Pike did not agree that the work required an expert having previously indicated it was work which could have been carried out by a journalist. Mr Pike said he would have used a professional private investigator if he had organised this part of the surveillance but it could have been a journalist. Justice Leveson suggested they were dancing on the head of a pin.
Mr Pike was then asked for the authorship of a report which Mr Lewis had attached to his supplemental witness statement (not disclosed to the public). Mr Pike did not know and said he had only become aware of the document, Mr Jay read from it
“The motivation of and association between the key civil lawyers opposing News International is becoming clear. Specifically, the main protagonists are politically motivated with a number being strong Labour Party supporters, their cases helping to promote their professional advancement. The News of the World is planning to use these tensions and motivations as a way to force compromise and settlement.” Mr Pike was asked if this did represent NGN strategy and replied that he had no knowledge. He was also asked to comment on the section “The News of the World is aware of these facts and is planning to put pressure back on the solicitors by revealing these facts and by linking their political affiliations and career benefits from the cases. They plan to do this publicly and through discreet lobbying” Mr Pike said this was also unknown to him.
He was then asked to confirm his memorandum to Mr Crone of March 26th where he stated that “I think we should look again at preventing JMW (Ms Harris’s firm) and Stripes (from acting). They will both continue to be deeply untrustworthy, continuous leaks to the Guardian, and the potential cost saving of JMV acting did not exactly materialise in Clifford. I think we should go and get an expert view on the question of conflict” You suggested going to leading Counsel and then said “I’ve not mentioned to Taylor’s lawyers that Lewis has appeared acting for Philips, but I strongly suspect Taylor may have want to hand this to the SRA complaint he’s made against Lewis. Mr Jay asked Mr Pike to confirm that he was aware that Mr Taylor had made a complaint against Mr Lewis to the Solicitor’s Regulation Authority and that he wanted to contribute to the action? Mr Pike explained that Taylor’s lawyers had contacted because he needed to be released from his confidentiality agreement in order to both instruct Brabners and take his complaint forward. So they contacted us in that context and clearly we were able to assist them to some extent.
“I have had a brief word with (names redacted) but we need to put some surveillance onto them. Mr Pike agreed this surveillance on Mr Lewis and Ms Harris. Mr Pike again made the point that this would have been done by Private Investigators through his office but by Investigators or journalists at the News of the World. In a further exchange Mr Pike revealed that a third lawyer had been placed under surveillance. He confirmed that instructions had been given to the firm Tectrix. This related to a letter from Farrer to Linklaters.
“Julian Pike’s email dated 20th April 2010 refers to the paper renewing their surveillance and he believes he must have been told something about the surveillance of Lewis and Harris but he does not recall whether this was by Ian Edmondson or Tom Crone. Mr Pike said he had no memory of what he had been told but accepted that he may have had a conversation between his March email and that in May.
Mr Jay asked if Mr Crone had told him the surveillance had not yielded anything of interest but Mr Pike could not remember. After further questioning Mr Jay asked about the approach to Leading Counsel on May 13th 2010 and if requested advice on the propriety of what they were doing. There was no suggestion what they were doing was wrong (adding) as it wasn’t.
He was then asked if he was aware of any other situations where lawyers for one side had put the lawyers for the other side under surveillance. Mr Pike explained that they had been faced with significant breaches of confidentiality over a significant period of time. And they wanted to get to the bottom of the situation by digging around and putting together a jigsaw of what was going on. The surveillance of the lawyers was a legitimate exercise.
He could not condone the surveillance of the family of Mr Lewis because it served no purpose. He added that what was requested was not a highly intrusive exercise if done properly.
Mr Jay drew attention to the serious implication of article 8( not explained but I assume relates to the conduct of lawyers).Mr Pike said that Article 8 was not an absolute right and that he faced with a similar situation today he would have no trouble in doing the same again. He was asked why he had not checked on the way the surveillance was being carried out. He replied “that was easily said now.”
So I will sum up. Mr Pike admitted what he was doing was unusual if not unique but he had not bothered to set down how and who should do the surveillance or to find out what happened afterwards. It should have been straightforward and was justified/
There was then an interesting exchange between Mr Pike and the lawyer representing the victims about the attendance note made by his firm and to the names of the subject matter: Sky Andrew was a claim brought by the agent of Sol Campbell against News Group Newspapers. A claim for unlawful interception of voicemail. Vanessa Peroncel a claim against NGN re privacy which did not involve phones. Nicola Phillips about voicemail interception. Andy Gray, David Davies, George Galloway. Kelly Hoppen. Mr Pike agreed the names were correct.
In relation to Sienna Miller Mr Sherborne introduced his exorcet. She has also issued proceedings against News Group as well as well (That‘s right). And Farrer‘s were involved for News Group as well.
Mr Sherbornel then asked if Mr Pike was aware that the Metropolitan Police had made an application to see the related documents on June 1st 2010. Mr Pike said he had not at the time but since. Mr Sherborne said that the application was made anonymously and in private three weeks after the meeting. Mr Pike was told that that there was no public mention that that Sienna Miller had made a complaint was on September 6th four months later. So how on May 13th was it possible for his firm to know to know about a claim from Siena Miller before it had been officially made? Lord Leveson told Mr Pike to find out and Mr Pike said that with permission of Linklaters he would.
Mr Sherborne made the point that the only people who knew Sienna Miller was making a claim were her solicitors and the Police. Mr Pike did not know the answer (with the implication that either the police had leaked the information or information had been illegally obtained from the Solicitors or conversations between Ms Miller and the Solicitors). Lord Justice Leveson said “we’ll have to see, won’t we? Let’s find out the answer. For News International Mr Davies said he did not think there would be privilege. Lord Leveson said right. You’re not very far away Mr Pike in Lincoln’s Inn Fields. I would be grateful if you could do that. Mr Pike then contested evidence from Ms Harris. It was pointed out she had already withdrawn the contested allegation. It is not known if Mr Pike has provided Lord Leveson with the requested information.
It was then time for Mr Crone. Mr Crone commenced by agreeing with the evidence of Mr Lewis that when they had met at a restaurant in London Mr Pike was not present but a third party. I am not covering Mr Crones knowledge of Operation Motorman and then Mulcaire Goodman but that in relation to Mr Webb Mr Lewis and Ms Harris. He was asked if it was correct that private detectives on instruction from Colin Myler the new Editor were not used after 2007. Mr Crone said at the outset that he understood Mr Webb to be a free lance journalist employed by the Newsdesk.
Mr Crone in his second written statement detailed the reason why he agreed to the surveillance of Mr Lewis and Ms Harris who he noted had worked together at George Davis. He believed Mr Lewis was the source of information going to the Guardian and also came the view that Ms Harris might also be a source of information. He said that it was never the intention to look at the families of the two lawyers and that he understood that Mr Webb was an accredited freelance journalist and not a private investigator.
Given what that we know Mr Crone had a long standing senior position through the period when everyone at the Newsdesk, that is 30 odd individuals had commissioned Mr him knowing he was he was an ex policeman surveillance specialist licensed private detective and this was supported by Mr Thurlbeck and Mr Myler Mr Crone’s statement merits incredulity.
Three weeks later Mr Crone was shown a photograph taken by Mr Webb which were not of Mr Lewis or Ms Harris but included an unknown woman shopping at a garden centre. He phoned the news desk and said it appeared this was a case of mistaken identity. He told the news desk executive not to bother to send Mr Webb back. He said he played no part and was not aware of the surveillance of lawyers, Committee Members, claimants or anyone else connected to phone hacking cases or inquiries.
In questioning he said he had approached Mr Edmondson of the Newsdesk to arrange for the surveillance of Mr Lewis and Ms Harris. He maintained the stance that he thought Mr Webb was a free lance journalist who worked regularly for the paper. He did not know the work had been limited to surveillance, He admitted he was aware that Mr Webb had not been employed for a period of over a year. He did not remember that in 2007 he with Stuart Kuttner had drawn up a confidentiality agreement for Mr Webb to sign for his period of suspension because of the arrest. He had no knowledge of telling Thurlbeck to tell Webb to give up his detective licence and join the Journalist Union. He knew the man had a press card but not how he had got it. He was told he was an accredited journalist. Mr Crone challenged the suggestion that Mr Webb had been used on fishing expeditions.
Lord Justice Leveson said- that if you employ an ex policeman week after week, month after month on surveillance activities, but you have arranged that he obtain a card from the National Union of Journalists, you are absolutely fairly to say that you don’t employ investigators, you only employ journalists. Mr Crone then argued that if all he did was surveillance this did not mean he was not a journalist a reporter gathering information for use in stories. Lord Justice repeated his question statement to which Mr Crone said he thought the question was loaded. He admitted Mr Webb was not working on a story in the instance but for the legal department. Mr Crone was repeatedly questioned and twice said he had not been enthusiastic about the idea which came from Mr Pike My Jay reminded that Mr Pike was involved with information gathered by Tectrix and had left the human surveillance to Mr Crone to arrange. Mr Crone went on to say that he did not see the point in bringing a professional misconduct complaint unless there was evidence of information sharing. There was also the issue that if the two were taken of cases the claimants would go to another firm at higher rates which the company would end up paying and this did not make sense at all.
Mr Sherborne then indicated that he wanted to use a confidential document which Mr Crone should see and where the information had to remain confidential. Lord Leveson said he was anxious to protect the Article 8 right of the two lawyers. He then rose so that the issues could be considered further. Mr Sherborne said that given Mr Crone had admitted the decision to keep the two lawyers under surveillance was regrettable and that Counsel for the Newspaper group declared the action entirely inappropriate he had two question on the activities of Mr Webb. Mr Sherborne referred to a the letter sent by Linklaters (News International solicitors) to the Metropolitan Police on 16th September 2011. The advised the Metropolitan Police of the folder on the use of private detectives by the News of the World. Mr Sherborne referred to the review of emails between Tom Crone and Colin Myler on the use of Private Detectives. The particular email was from Stuart Kuttner to Paul Nicholas an assistant or deputy managing editor and copies to a number of senior Executives including that of Mr Crone. This states that the Derek Webb file was being passed over described as Silent Shadow (the name of his business as a private detective) Mr Crone accepted that the email plus file had been sent to him but he had no recollection of seeing it. The other files sent were about the Guardian phone interceptions allegations against the News of the World, the subsequent Commons Select Committee hearings and the Goodman/Mulcaire cash payments. The fourth is the Webb file. Mr Crone said he thought this was an email saying that Mr Nicholas was off on holiday and had left various files with people. Mr Crone persisted he had not seen or noted that Mr Webb was called the Silent Shadow.
He then asked about the covering letter from Linklaters to the Police re private detectives. A memory stick containing copy footage recorded on video tape located in Tom Crone’s office. He was asked about the covering note from the private detective to Mr Edmonson who had been filming a target of the News of the World and was found in your office in the memory stick with the footage. Mr Crone said this did not mean that Mr Webb was not a journalist. Mr Crone said he had never used a memory stick and therefore did not see the contents of the memory stick. Lord Justice Leveson again clarified Mr Crone’s definition of a journalist.
Colin Myler the last Newspaper Editor said his understanding was that Mr Webb was a private investigator. He had become aware of Mr Webb when he had been arrested and charged related to a Thames Valley journalist. When the case against Mr Webb collapse the News Editor approached Mr Myler and said he was expert in surveillance former police officer who had done excellent work and could be reemployed if he became an NUJ member to get round the objection to using private detectives.
Lord Justice Leveson That did not make him a journalist. No said Mr Myler of course not but it made him more aware of his responsibilities for working for the News of the World. My Jay asked why it did that. Mr Myler said this was because of the Code they operated which he would have been aware of anyway (In evidence he said he was never given a copy of the Code or made aware of it), Mt Myler then said he was only aware of the one job Mr Webb had worked on, that when he was arrested and Mr Myler had said he could not continue to work for the paper. His name was not mentioned to him again after his reemployment. Mr Myler defended the past use of Private Investigators adding that banks, insurance companies used private investigators.
Mr Webb was the last of the group to give evidence on the subject. He explained that in the first intance he had been asked to follow a solcitor to see if the individual met up with the other. He was taken off a job in Surrey to go to Manchester. He was told to find out if the two people were having an affair. He was given the name of a man who was not Mark Lewis so the name was not mentioned at the Inquiry. He had followed a woman from the address all day and taken a video footage to establish the idenity which was collected from the hotel he was staying that same evening. Mr Webb confirmed he had sent a note to Ian Edmondson which was previously raised by Mr Sherbornne with Mr Crone. He was then told to stand down as the woman was not that commissioned.
He was then told to return to Manchester and given two photos which he printed out. One of Ms Harris and the other was of a man-not Mr Lewis). He was told to decide which of the Solicitors offices he was observe to see if one individual went to meet the other. He did not see either and therefore obtained no video footage and was told to stand down as they were both in London. Mr Sherborne then had two question for Mr Webb, the first was if he been asked to undertake surveillance on Senna Miller and Jude Law. Mr Webb said on one day but he had been immediately called off.
Mr Webb then said he was unable to confirm that the person he had filmed at the garden centre was the 14 year old daughter of Mr Lewis because he had not seen the video footage and therefore he had nothing to say to Mr Lewis was at the Inquiry. So the question remains. Was 14 year old girl mistake as a woman and followed over a day? If not who took the video which was shown to Mr Lewis by the Police?
I decided to present this situation rather than the evidence in relation to the Mosley case or the extent if any that Rupert Murdoch knew about the widespread hacking or some of the other issues covered over the week because I believe the Webb case and the surveillance of Mr Lewis and Ms Harris together with response of the Journalists and the lawyers reveals more clearly what had been going and the brave face attempted to put on the sordid unethical and thoroughly disreputable practices going on and which were summed up nicely by Counsel for the Inquiry who said it was deliciously ironic that the paper had demanded to see the whole video taken by a TV programme denouncing their tactics because it impuned the integrity of one of their journalists. He could have justifiable called the bunch hypocrites.
No comments:
Post a Comment