It has been an important week for the Leveson Inquiry when together with the contributions since the Inquiry restarted after the recess, a full and balanced understanding of the national and regional media press has been obtained, together the views of such magazines such as OK. Hullo and Heat magazines was presented.
The main event was however outside the Inquiry, but in the same set of buildings, as Associated Newspapers challenged the ruling of Lord Leveson on the question of some witnesses being allowed to give their testimony anonymously. In addition to Counsel for Lord Leveson, the National Union of Journalists were represented, together with the Core Participants and the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police. Not only was the application for Judicial review rejected but Associated Newspapers were told not to waste time and money again!
The 19 page document sets out the Law under the Inquiries Act 2005 and explained the ruling which the Chairman had made on the issue and this is summarised in detail, if not in full. The Judgement then reminded of that had been said by the National Union of Journalists about the importance of hearing from some journalists anonymously because of the likelihood of reprisals and for the Inquiry to be given the full story. The opening statement of Mr Rusbridger was also mentioned on how in fact the Guardian had been able to get the story.
Then the position of claimant was put by Mr Caplan to the inquiry was covered as stated on 17th. He conceded that there was a problem regarding retribution in the workplace in terms of loss of prevention or loss of job now or in the future but he argued there was another solution to the problem making reference to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. Lord Justice Leveson had then made a supplementary ruling which is reported in detail.
The Claimant argued that that to allow anonymous evidence would be unfair and contravene the principal of natural justice (The hypocrisy of this given the behaviour of some press and some journalists is noteworthy); that the decision fails to give effect to open justice (again pathetic and laughable) given that the press is not open when it suits them such as failing to report in their papers any critical comments made by others at the Inquiry); that the ruling infringed the rights of the claimant (there is also the rights of everyone else which is far greater including those of the victims of media persecution and misrepresentation) and finally that the decision failed to justify the public interest( which is again rich given that the papers have repeatedly failed to make the case for the public interest in their stories which interest the public!)
The judgement explained that the primary responsibility of the Chairman was to be fair in the context in which the inquiry was set up and its terms of reference. The Judgement explained that the critical challenge was the issue of fairness and covered the point made by the applicants that in the Northern Ireland Inquiry the House of Lords had held that anonymity should not be given to police officers who feared for their futures. The claimant argued that the ruling had been premature whereas for the Inquiry it was argued the application was premature because the ruling had been a protocol for the approach to be taken rather than the position in relation to all or any individual request for anonymity. In the discussion of the case the judgement explained that evidence had been presented by some twenty victims and the newspapers had been given opportunity to present their viewpoint providing oral and written testimony. There had been submission from Nick Davies and Mr Rusbridger which referred to off the record and confidential statements. Direct evidence from these journalists remains the missing piece in the jigsaw. The Northern Ireland situation was different because the police witnesses were known in advance and had been compelled to attend where as in this situation the witnesses were not known and therefore not compelled in advance. They are willing to come forward if anonymity is provided.
The judgement placed emphasis that it was for the Chairman to conduct the Inquiry as he considered appropriate and that the only grounds for intervention would be if it was satisfied that the chairman was wrong in his understanding of what was fair in the particular circumstances of the Inquiry. Appropriate consideration was given to the authority of previous judgements and attached important weight that the public needed to satisfied that it had been thorough and balanced in every respect. Although it can be said that newspapers are in the Dock in a metaphorical sense, the Inquiry is an Inquiry and not a criminal trial.
I think this is the best point made by the applicant in that I have been pleasantly surprised by the tone and approach taken by the Inquiry given the nature of the first part and when I had anticipated that much of what has taken place would only occur at the conclusion of the police investigation and of any legal proceedings. These should help to remedy the failures under Motorman and at the time of the Goodman Mulcaire trials and the subsequent cover ups and which I hope the Inquiry will cover in similar fashion as it has to date when it comes to dealing with the police and politicians in its next phases.
The judgement made the point that throughout the inquiry to date the chairman has been concerned about the interests of the public who do not have access to media lawyers. This point was made to emphasise that the issues being investigated by the inquiry affect the public as a whole.
The judgement accepted that the ruling could result in damage to the claimant and other newspaper proprietors in a general sense but as Lord Leveson had made it clear any evidence given anonymously would not be used by him when assessing a finding against a particular organisation
The Commissioner for the Metropolitan police has expressed concern that the Chairman should only grant protective measures to an applicant whose evidence is exculpatory of any individual or company in exceptional circumstances and only after having invited representation on the matter from the core participants. The Chairman had rejected this because the chairman would only grant protective measures to an applicant whose evidence is exculpatory of individual to be low and that he would approach any request with the expressed concerns in mind.
The point was made that judicial review is a means of correcting unlawfulness. It is not for the court to micromanage the conduct of the Inquiry by the Chairman, least of all in relation to hypothetical situations the likelihood of which appears to the chairman to be remote. Such matters are properly for the Chairman. I would refuse the application for judicial review. For the future how the Chairman deals with individual anonymity in the context of the general ruling and protocol will be matters of detailed consideration by him which should not foreseeable give rise to further requests for judicial interference which is a political and judicial way of saying do not waste time and money coming again.
There were no earth shattering revelations as such in the inquiry but was able to place the contributions from individuals such as Kelvin McKenzie, Piers Morgan and Paul Desmond in perspective. The missing ingredient is Paul Dacre. Bring him on although I expect he will prove an anticlimax of reasonableness.
There are only three laps to go of this first section of part one, a mixed bag next week which includes the BBC, ITN and CNN News but not SKY who have submitted a written statement, Google and Facebook. Mazher Mahmood is to return along with Jack of Kent! Together with various groups such as Violence against women, PEN, Index on censorship, followed by the anonymous ones and then the retrospective overview summing up so to speak of the core participants and anything which presumably Counsel for the Inquiry and Lord Justice Leveson has to say. We then move to the Police and then to the politicians.
On Monday 16th January 2012 The Trinity Mirror Group of national and regional newspapers and magazines presented its evidence to Inquiry. The main tittles are the Daily and Sunday Mirror and the People Sunday newspapers in England where all three current editors gave written and oral evidence. (They manage two nationals in Scotland.
The main event was the admission by the present editor of the Daily Mirror Richard Wallace that although he was the Entertainment Editor of the Daily Mirror at a time when a witness (James Hipwell) confidently said that phone hacking was a daily occurrence; he had no direct knowledge but accepted it may have gone on without his knowledge.
His deputy at the time (Deputy Entertainment Editor) Kevin Christopher O’Sullivan also provided a witness statement as the present the TV critic for the Sunday Mirror restricting his evidence to the present rather that to his past experience past the Daily Mirror or his overall 33 years of professional experience in journalist. Given what else has happened it is assumed that there are good reasons why he was not pressed to make a comprehensive statement about the past time or was asked to give oral evidence. The evidence of Mr Wallace follows.
The second event on Monday was the appearance of the Sly Bailey, the Chief of Executive of the Group from the time that the Motorman evidence was reported by the Information Commissioner. She is regarded as one of the top 50 successful, powerful, and influential business women outside of the USA. She was extraordinary with an exceptional command of her subject, except when it came to explaining why under her leadership she had taken the decision not to investigate the evidence presented by the information commissioner despite two of her papers, the Mirror and the Sunday Mirror appearing high on the lists of those using Whittamore and of those where the Commissioner found there was evidence of illegal activity.
She said she took the decision on the grounds that the Commissioner had taken the lead to look forward rather than back and that although three Mirror staff had been interviewed by the police no charges had been brought. She and her colleagues claimed that there had been strict adherence to the code since that time although her editors admitted that mistakes had been made, some of a very serious nature and in my view of the same order which led to the departure of Piers Morgan
It will be interesting to read what Lord Leveson and his team has to say about the position of the Trinity Mirror Group but for my own part I am clear that that they have failed to rebut the case that phone hacking was widespread over a decade ago at the Daily Mirror during the tenure of Piers Morgan as its editor. The issue of the credibility of his memoirs and his memory was raised on the argument that the diaries had not been written contemporaneously. Presumably it is up to Mr Morgan Murdoch to rebut these claims as did former Prime Minister Mr Brown over the Morgan/Murdoch allegation that at the Labour Party Conference of September 2009- “That night a furious Brown called Murdoch and in Rupert’s words, roared at me for 20 minutes. “
When asked for the source of the story Mr McKenzie replied. “It was Mr Murdoch: His evidence was that “At The end Brown Said, You’re trying to destroy me and my party, I will destroy you and my company.”
Lawyers for the former Prime Minister stated that the story is completely untrue; Mr Brown has no such conversation with Mr Murdoch at any time during the conference. The letter added that he had a clear recollection of his calls to Mr Murdoch when Prime Minister. The statement does not categorically deny that Mr Brown has not said words to the same effect to others when he was Prime Minister or subsequently. It is surprising that the lawyers did not make this point clearly.
I will begin with the star of hearings on Monday, Mrs Sly Sylvia Bailey and over the weekend I hope to write about the star of Tuesday morning, and of the week Ian Hislop of Private Eye and on Wednesday, the editors of Hullo, Heat and OK Magazines.
Mrs Bailey went to school in Dulwich and her father was a freelance financial journalist. She commenced her career as a make-up artist for Revlon. In 1984 she joined the Guardian newspaper working in advertising sales and then became advertising manager at The Independent newspaper in 1987. Before joining Trinity Mirror as chief executive in 2003, she was chief executive of AOL Time Warner's IPC Media group, the UK's leading consumer magazine publishing group.
She was elected to the board of IPC at the age of 31, and she was subsequently named chief executive at the age of 37. In October 2001, at the age of 39, she successfully led the £1.15 billion sale of the IPC to Time Inc, the publishing division of AOL Time Warner.
Her success at Trinity Mirror has brought her and her company financial and personal success through what some would describe as a ruthless approach to balance sheet and shareholder contentment. In 2006 one report states that the group had 11000 staff whereas at present she stated the number is in the 6000‘s and still reducing, The annual revenue budget is over £1 billion with pre tax gross profits of the order of £190 millions. The group which has traded as high at 550 pence a share in recent times was recently reported to be under 50p. In her statement to the Inquiry dated October 13th of last year the Group had 165 titles and 6350 staff but at the hearing she explained that the number of titles had to be reduced to 145 titles because of the dramatic loss of revenue from job advertising which has fallen from £150 million to less than £20 million. Here is the North East the group own the Evening Chronicle which used to have a joint website with the Journal which the company also owned together with the regional Sunday paper, called the Sunday sun. The Journal now as a separate website.
I cannot resist making the comment that given this company’s market and financial decline it is understandable that the group decided not to turn the spotlight on past behaviour but have concentrated on the future. The fundamental question which I touched on in the last Leveson report and something which Lord Leveson has repeatedly said is that OK everyone is behaving themselves now in terms of setting standards and their monitoring but experience indicates that in all fields, not just the media those involved become more relaxed, significant problems occur again unless there is a framework which everyone signs up or is persuaded to sign up to, and is then put into practice and monitored.
(Vijay Lakman Vaghela is the Group Finance Director working as an external auditor after qualification and joining the Mirror group in 1994 presented written evidence. He since has become Executive Finance Director on the Board of the group and his statement indicated his accountability to the Chief Executive. He made a point which others have also mentioned that expensive promotional activity whether because of exclusive or special stories, gifts, reduce price initiatives may increase circulation volume but then fall back when the promotion ends. He provided the framework of various control, including payment to agencies and employee expenses).
Richard David Wallace is the present Editor of the Daily Mirror. He has spent 21 of his thirty years in journalism; He introduced his written evidence by reminding that the Daily Mirror has a 110-year tradition. It was launched in 1903 as a paper for women, edited by women. It then became a picture-led publication aimed at the middle classes before evolving, during the 1930s, “into the paper we would recognise today.”
“It positioned itself as a paper that stands up for ordinary working men and women while holding lawmakers and the privileged to account, a stance it still maintains to this day. During World War II it came under threat of closure for questioning the government over its execution of the war effort. It came out for Labour in the 1945 General Election and has backed Labour ever since. (This is also the position of the Sunday Mirror but since the present editor of the People took over he has switched the paper from Labour to neutral, a position which the Chief Executive described in positive terms).
The Daily Mirror sells around 1.2 million copies a day, and is read by nearly three million each day. Content on mirror.co.uk is read by 800,000 unique users, seven days a week. The average age of our newspaper readers is 50. Thirty per cent are retired. Fifteen per cent are from ethnic minorities, the highest percentage in the tabloid / midmarket sector. A number of national and regional editors made the point that the advent of the Internet and more recently Tablets and smart phone has meant that the number of people reading their titles has increased but the problem is that while readership of the paying titles is falling, the technology readers wish to read their information free. The challenge is how to attract the on line readership and get them to pay. The present and on going economic situation is having major impact with the dramatic reduction in revenue loss from job advertising mentioned by all those questioned on the subject.
Mr Wallace stated that the core values of the group were “fairness, justice and compassion. But we also provide entertainment and fun for our readers, which is critical in the popular newspaper sector. We, like most papers in the popular market, provide a vigorous and exciting gateway to the news agenda. We deliver everything from celebrity news to hardcore economic stories in a vibrant, digestible manner that engages and informs the reader. Media and privacy law silk Hugh Tomlinson QC said at a Law Society public debate "Privacy, Free Press and the Public Interest" held in September 2011: tabloid that can explain complex issues in a comprehensible form is a good democratic resource". I agree with that comment.”
He confirmed that after the jailing of Goodman and Mulcaire the Chief Executive and Legal Secretary circulated an email explaining the zero tolerance policy which was then relayed to all staff insisting strict adherence to the Code and to Data Protection Law. Thus confirming my view which appears to be shared by Lord Leveson that the national media won’t obey, monitor and enforce unless they are required to. Mr Wallace agreed that it would be difficult to argue that all the 641 instances when Whittamore provided information was on the basis of lawful pubic interest.
Mr Wallace confirmed that he had periodic meetings with Prime Ministers and other politicians, with the police including one Metropolitan Commissioner and that it was custom and practice for the Group to meet the bill of any breakfasts, lunches or dinners provided. He had attended a private lunch arranged by the present Prime Minister with the Chief Executive and other editors in the Group and the Milibands, Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper had attended his 50th birthday party in a pub.
Mr Wallace was required to submit a second statement on the position of the Daily Mirror in relation to Christopher Jefferies. He referred to one of the journalists involved Ryan Parry whose statement has not so far been taken which I presumes means he will be called in relation to the section of evidence concerned with the police. The nub of the evidence is that when the police arrested Mr Jefferies on December 30th they briefed the media that they were confident Mr Jefferies was the murderer and this governed his decisions. Lord Justice Leveson intervened expressing concern that this was so given that the investigation was ongoing and that no charges had been brought. Mr Wallace expressed continuing regret about the approach taken by the Daily Mirror and said that it was a black mark on his career.
Tina Lorraine Weaver is the Editor of the Sunday Mirror with 20 years experience working for the Daily Mirror and the Sunday People; She has been in her present post since 2001. There are 68 full time editorial and seven part time staff with production journalists who only work on Saturday. The executive team covers news, features, pictures and the magazine.
Lorraine disclosed something which had been revealed over the previous week that since the ban on the use of private investigators imposed by most of nation newsprint the titles have used “search agents” This was explained later. She also disclosed having been invited to Chequers by Gordon Brown and having meetings and lunches with Tony Blair. She provided seven examples where decisions had been taken on matters covering private lives of public figures/subterfuge investigations (Rio Ferdinand; Lord Strahclyde(Conservative); David Cameron’s (Conservative Office re a luxury holiday in Turkey; Hammersmith Housing official Nazi Role playing on website bully boy bailiff tactics; surveillance cameras to show theft of clothes from charity drop off banks; CCTV footage published of Nathan Dyer stealing from handbags of two female night club employees.
She provided a second memorandum dealing with the Chris Atkins film Starsuckers in which he used subterfuge to get Mirror news desk journalist to say the paper would pay £3000 per story which covered the medical records of personalities. The editor said that they had noy been contacted by the film maker but by the Guardian that the story was being published. She justified the journalist agreeing to have a meeting as it was their role to establish the authenticity of information offers, and she said did not think it was inappropriate for the meeting to take place. She made the point that the decision to publish would have been hers so the journalist saying that they would be able to get away with re a personality even if there was no public interest. Any material obtained would not have got part the newsdesk editors. There was a clear attempt to put Mr Owens part in the conversation in the best light but she concluded that the journalist did not act wisely. There is no evidence the reporter asked for or commissioned the getting of a medical document. He was reprimanded but no other disciplinary action was taken.
Early on in her oral evidence she confirmed that she had written the story of the pregnancy of the wife of the Prime Minister on information she obtained from Piers Morgan, then Editor, who had purchased the story from Max Clifford. The Inquiry then quickly moved to the fact that she has been a member of the PCC since 2008. She wanted to see the Commission kept in its present form accepting that the composition needed to be changed and that they had a an effective regulation arms which she referred to as standards, greater teeth with perhaps financial penalties for publishers who consistently breach the code. She had never seen the issue of commercial rivalry affecting judgements. She went as far to regard the suggested arbitration function as having to be mandatory, that is, set up by Parliament within a legal framework to ensure that everyone used the system as a first step. Everyone has accepted that one cannot rule out someone still wanting to put their case to the courts but they would have to demonstrate why the PCC stage ruling should be set aside. Otherwise while the new system would apply to most people those with great wealth would still go to the courts with a view to bringing a particular title down ( which from my viewpoint would be no bad thing if a court felt the circumstances were of merit).
I now turn to what has become a feature of the Trinity Mirror Evidence, that although significant accusations have been made, the Group either corporately or the individual editors have not investigated allegations. In this instance the allegation by the BBC Newsnight team phone hacking was a regular event in the Sunday Times Newsroom, a claim made 23 July 2011. The allegations were anonymous in that individual journalists and particular stories are not mentioned. No complaint had been made to the BBC! The editor said she did not believe the allegations were true. However because there had been no internal investigation she could not categorically say that any specific allegation regarding an individual was not true. She had no knowledge or spoken with Piers Morgan regarding what he had said about listening to a recorded message of Sir Paul McCartney. She could not comment on the People which was regarded as a completely separate paper although part of the Trinity Mirror group.
She was then asked about Operation Motorman where there was reference to 143 transactions from 25 Journalists. She said she believed that they had not used Mr Whittamore for about two years before his arrest (She was not asked if she knew why he had then not been used but she accepted that without detailed investigation it was impossible to assert that all the information had been obtained within the law.
Her paper had followed the move of some other national titles to place their corrections/apologies page on Page 2 which as someone else commented appeared to becoming an industry standard which if accepted everyone would follow. Others had stated this was a good page because it was looked at by most readers for the weather forecast and the response from everyone else is that if this is agreed as the industry standard it would followed although some of these preferred the letters pages. There was agreement about having one standard page to avoid long negotiations about where in the paper the apology/correction should be set.
She explained she did not use kiss and tell but stories about a relationship in which there is legitimate public interest. She said this was a straight face. She also said “We do no advertise to reveal infidelities. We do ask people to come forward if they have stories we might like to publish.” She was away from the office when the paper published a small story about Mr Jefferies for which it was censured. She was reminded that the story was lengthier than she had remembered. She explained the complaint was about a small section of the story. She was questioned in detail about the Starsuckers disclosures but continued to maintain a different interpretation of what have been recorded was possible.
Mr Andrew William Penman writes the Penman abs Sommerland column in the Daily Mirror, this the highly regarded consumer investigations into wrong doing which has won prizes as well as being short listed for awards. He argued that prior notification would be a problem in his area of journalism given the ability of crooks to avoid discovery and identification.
He gave the example of land banking where there were three operators selling worthless parts of fields to investors claiming that the value would rocket when land gets planning permission for housing. He found that three directors of two of the companies had been put into compulsory liquidation in the High Court in the public interest in various part of the UK. They had personalised car number plates. There was a director of a fourth many that had ripped the public off £20 million. The liquidator’s figures after the sole director had done a bunk to Cyprus a neutral territory. Under prior notification he was able to write about the first three directors but he would not about the second who he did not know where he was.
One regular and major source of complaint is from readers who buy from web based businesses where they have not received the goods or cannot get a refund. While there is a contact us form there is no name address telephone but you send in your details but hear nothing, He believed there was a public interest right for him to undertake effective inquiries. Lord Justice Leveson said it was not the intention to stifle the media in disclosing acts of moral obloquy or criminality.
Lloyd William Emberly is the Editor of the Sunday People, a rival to the Sunday Mirror but owned by the same Group. He as appointed acting Editor in 2007 and Editor in 2008 having been deputy Editor for four and half years. His experience was in regional journalism before joining the Daily Mirror in 1994 holding various positions including that of night Editor. The People sells 800000 copies with a readership of 1.8 million and an average age of 52. Others have commented similarly but that the on line readership is younger.
He provided information on various successful campaigns and to the decision to become politically independent after its previous position as supporting the Labour Party and movement. He explained the decision to print a story about Coalition Cabinet Minister Chris Hulne and a relationship with one of his aides despite pressure from the Party that this was a private matter. He explained the Alfie Patten case in which a 13 year old was claimed to be the father of a child. The DNA test proved he was not the father.
There is reference to the children learning to Pole dance story where the faces of the children had been pixielated or blacked out. Paragraph 67 of his written submission has been removed from general distribution. He confirmed that the paper used recognised search agencies for birth, death and divorce records and such public available information.
He admitted that they had to apologise over the Charlotte Church story which had been based on a single source, a former Daly Mirror chief reporter. This was a mistake. It cost £100000 in damages. The Motorman disclosures where before his time and he had no knowledge of phone hacking
An important issue raised and which is one other editors are taking up is the protection provided if they keep records of ethical and legal problems as hey arise including and audit trail
The second statement referred to the Starsuckers programme and that a member of the staff of the People Sarah Jellema said the People would consider paying for medical record information. As with the Sunday Mirror the story was brought to the attention of the Editor by the Guardian. Mr Atkins had first spoken to Tom Carling on the Newsdesk who is recorded as saying that the paper was definitely interested in purchasing confidential medical records. For Mr Carling the written response is that the he had indicated an interest in these kind of stories, Mr Carling had not been disciplined for reason stated in the statement. The Editor said he had not been provided with a transcript of the conversations. Sarah Jellema has provided a witness (not disclosed) in which she is said to explain that she had pursued the inquiry because it could have led to exposing the individual prepared to disclose medical records for payment. He did agree that her comments about the PCC did not reflect the views of the newspaper as a whole. (She is reported to have said that the most that could happen is slap on the wrist and no fines). The Editor then explained that even if the matter had proceeded as suggested by the programme the news desk, deputy editor or himself would have sanction payments or approved publication.
Vincent Peter Moss Political Editor at the Sunday Mirror since 2006 has 16 years of experience working at the House of Commons and provide the Committee with examples where he had uncovered questionable behaviour/ practices by politicians of all parties including that of the present Culture Secretary when he held the position in opposition. (Wider issue of political involvements (Statement Read and not interviewed
Paul Andres Vickers is the Executive Director of the Group as Secretary and Legal Director and among the matters covered in his statement are Business ethics and anti bribery policies, data protection, fraud policy, Dignity at Work at Work and Equal Opportunities, Whistleblowers/Charter, Disciplinary policy and policies in relation to sources of information for stories. And this included use and payment of external sources. In the third part of the statement he made reference to the establishment of a new IT editorial system of content watch group in July 2011 and a review of editorial controls and procedures.
The review found that Trinity Mirror’s controls and procedures had developed since the post-Hutton review and that, in general, controls are robust. The review identified a number of areas in which controls could be strengthened and practices and procedures updated to reflect best practice in the current environment. The review made a number of recommendations for specific areas.
These include that editorial executives will be reminded that it is their responsibility to understand the provenance of material and to satisfy themselves that it has been appropriately obtained. This authority may need to be delegated where it is impractical for one person to have oversight, however, it will be made clear that story provenance is ultimately the responsibility of the Editor.
The Editor should take any issues over provenance (particularly the identity of sources) into account when making their judgement on whether to publish, ask pertinent questions, and seek legal advice if necessary. The review recommended editorial departments in all the Group’s National and Regional newspapers should implement best practice whereby an editor holds a weekly review of any legal issues with their team. A training plan should be developed to ensure all journalistic staff are fully aware of the need to verify sources and of the relevant legal, regulatory and compliance issues which may affect the approach to obtaining a story. In addition, a formal guidance note will be issued to all editorial staff setting out working practices when considering the public interest, in particular establishing a protocol for the Editor signing off in on a public interest defence. In respect of contract agencies and third parties, recommendations were made to ensure that Trinity Mirror’s requirements in respect of compliance with the PCC Code and the law are understood and adhered to.
The review’s recommendations were accepted and adopted by the Board on 28th September 2011 and now form Group policy. There are several ways of looking at this information. The first is that the previous situation was deficient and would not have changed but for the public and political interest which led to the setting up of the Inquiry. Another is that the senior management want to protect themselves in the future by insisting on a belt and braces standards and system so if individuals do not implement any part management can dismiss and claim the actions were of individuals and not the Group or its standards and systems.
The main event was however outside the Inquiry, but in the same set of buildings, as Associated Newspapers challenged the ruling of Lord Leveson on the question of some witnesses being allowed to give their testimony anonymously. In addition to Counsel for Lord Leveson, the National Union of Journalists were represented, together with the Core Participants and the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police. Not only was the application for Judicial review rejected but Associated Newspapers were told not to waste time and money again!
The 19 page document sets out the Law under the Inquiries Act 2005 and explained the ruling which the Chairman had made on the issue and this is summarised in detail, if not in full. The Judgement then reminded of that had been said by the National Union of Journalists about the importance of hearing from some journalists anonymously because of the likelihood of reprisals and for the Inquiry to be given the full story. The opening statement of Mr Rusbridger was also mentioned on how in fact the Guardian had been able to get the story.
Then the position of claimant was put by Mr Caplan to the inquiry was covered as stated on 17th. He conceded that there was a problem regarding retribution in the workplace in terms of loss of prevention or loss of job now or in the future but he argued there was another solution to the problem making reference to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. Lord Justice Leveson had then made a supplementary ruling which is reported in detail.
The Claimant argued that that to allow anonymous evidence would be unfair and contravene the principal of natural justice (The hypocrisy of this given the behaviour of some press and some journalists is noteworthy); that the decision fails to give effect to open justice (again pathetic and laughable) given that the press is not open when it suits them such as failing to report in their papers any critical comments made by others at the Inquiry); that the ruling infringed the rights of the claimant (there is also the rights of everyone else which is far greater including those of the victims of media persecution and misrepresentation) and finally that the decision failed to justify the public interest( which is again rich given that the papers have repeatedly failed to make the case for the public interest in their stories which interest the public!)
The judgement explained that the primary responsibility of the Chairman was to be fair in the context in which the inquiry was set up and its terms of reference. The Judgement explained that the critical challenge was the issue of fairness and covered the point made by the applicants that in the Northern Ireland Inquiry the House of Lords had held that anonymity should not be given to police officers who feared for their futures. The claimant argued that the ruling had been premature whereas for the Inquiry it was argued the application was premature because the ruling had been a protocol for the approach to be taken rather than the position in relation to all or any individual request for anonymity. In the discussion of the case the judgement explained that evidence had been presented by some twenty victims and the newspapers had been given opportunity to present their viewpoint providing oral and written testimony. There had been submission from Nick Davies and Mr Rusbridger which referred to off the record and confidential statements. Direct evidence from these journalists remains the missing piece in the jigsaw. The Northern Ireland situation was different because the police witnesses were known in advance and had been compelled to attend where as in this situation the witnesses were not known and therefore not compelled in advance. They are willing to come forward if anonymity is provided.
The judgement placed emphasis that it was for the Chairman to conduct the Inquiry as he considered appropriate and that the only grounds for intervention would be if it was satisfied that the chairman was wrong in his understanding of what was fair in the particular circumstances of the Inquiry. Appropriate consideration was given to the authority of previous judgements and attached important weight that the public needed to satisfied that it had been thorough and balanced in every respect. Although it can be said that newspapers are in the Dock in a metaphorical sense, the Inquiry is an Inquiry and not a criminal trial.
I think this is the best point made by the applicant in that I have been pleasantly surprised by the tone and approach taken by the Inquiry given the nature of the first part and when I had anticipated that much of what has taken place would only occur at the conclusion of the police investigation and of any legal proceedings. These should help to remedy the failures under Motorman and at the time of the Goodman Mulcaire trials and the subsequent cover ups and which I hope the Inquiry will cover in similar fashion as it has to date when it comes to dealing with the police and politicians in its next phases.
The judgement made the point that throughout the inquiry to date the chairman has been concerned about the interests of the public who do not have access to media lawyers. This point was made to emphasise that the issues being investigated by the inquiry affect the public as a whole.
The judgement accepted that the ruling could result in damage to the claimant and other newspaper proprietors in a general sense but as Lord Leveson had made it clear any evidence given anonymously would not be used by him when assessing a finding against a particular organisation
The Commissioner for the Metropolitan police has expressed concern that the Chairman should only grant protective measures to an applicant whose evidence is exculpatory of any individual or company in exceptional circumstances and only after having invited representation on the matter from the core participants. The Chairman had rejected this because the chairman would only grant protective measures to an applicant whose evidence is exculpatory of individual to be low and that he would approach any request with the expressed concerns in mind.
The point was made that judicial review is a means of correcting unlawfulness. It is not for the court to micromanage the conduct of the Inquiry by the Chairman, least of all in relation to hypothetical situations the likelihood of which appears to the chairman to be remote. Such matters are properly for the Chairman. I would refuse the application for judicial review. For the future how the Chairman deals with individual anonymity in the context of the general ruling and protocol will be matters of detailed consideration by him which should not foreseeable give rise to further requests for judicial interference which is a political and judicial way of saying do not waste time and money coming again.
There were no earth shattering revelations as such in the inquiry but was able to place the contributions from individuals such as Kelvin McKenzie, Piers Morgan and Paul Desmond in perspective. The missing ingredient is Paul Dacre. Bring him on although I expect he will prove an anticlimax of reasonableness.
There are only three laps to go of this first section of part one, a mixed bag next week which includes the BBC, ITN and CNN News but not SKY who have submitted a written statement, Google and Facebook. Mazher Mahmood is to return along with Jack of Kent! Together with various groups such as Violence against women, PEN, Index on censorship, followed by the anonymous ones and then the retrospective overview summing up so to speak of the core participants and anything which presumably Counsel for the Inquiry and Lord Justice Leveson has to say. We then move to the Police and then to the politicians.
On Monday 16th January 2012 The Trinity Mirror Group of national and regional newspapers and magazines presented its evidence to Inquiry. The main tittles are the Daily and Sunday Mirror and the People Sunday newspapers in England where all three current editors gave written and oral evidence. (They manage two nationals in Scotland.
The main event was the admission by the present editor of the Daily Mirror Richard Wallace that although he was the Entertainment Editor of the Daily Mirror at a time when a witness (James Hipwell) confidently said that phone hacking was a daily occurrence; he had no direct knowledge but accepted it may have gone on without his knowledge.
His deputy at the time (Deputy Entertainment Editor) Kevin Christopher O’Sullivan also provided a witness statement as the present the TV critic for the Sunday Mirror restricting his evidence to the present rather that to his past experience past the Daily Mirror or his overall 33 years of professional experience in journalist. Given what else has happened it is assumed that there are good reasons why he was not pressed to make a comprehensive statement about the past time or was asked to give oral evidence. The evidence of Mr Wallace follows.
The second event on Monday was the appearance of the Sly Bailey, the Chief of Executive of the Group from the time that the Motorman evidence was reported by the Information Commissioner. She is regarded as one of the top 50 successful, powerful, and influential business women outside of the USA. She was extraordinary with an exceptional command of her subject, except when it came to explaining why under her leadership she had taken the decision not to investigate the evidence presented by the information commissioner despite two of her papers, the Mirror and the Sunday Mirror appearing high on the lists of those using Whittamore and of those where the Commissioner found there was evidence of illegal activity.
She said she took the decision on the grounds that the Commissioner had taken the lead to look forward rather than back and that although three Mirror staff had been interviewed by the police no charges had been brought. She and her colleagues claimed that there had been strict adherence to the code since that time although her editors admitted that mistakes had been made, some of a very serious nature and in my view of the same order which led to the departure of Piers Morgan
It will be interesting to read what Lord Leveson and his team has to say about the position of the Trinity Mirror Group but for my own part I am clear that that they have failed to rebut the case that phone hacking was widespread over a decade ago at the Daily Mirror during the tenure of Piers Morgan as its editor. The issue of the credibility of his memoirs and his memory was raised on the argument that the diaries had not been written contemporaneously. Presumably it is up to Mr Morgan Murdoch to rebut these claims as did former Prime Minister Mr Brown over the Morgan/Murdoch allegation that at the Labour Party Conference of September 2009- “That night a furious Brown called Murdoch and in Rupert’s words, roared at me for 20 minutes. “
When asked for the source of the story Mr McKenzie replied. “It was Mr Murdoch: His evidence was that “At The end Brown Said, You’re trying to destroy me and my party, I will destroy you and my company.”
Lawyers for the former Prime Minister stated that the story is completely untrue; Mr Brown has no such conversation with Mr Murdoch at any time during the conference. The letter added that he had a clear recollection of his calls to Mr Murdoch when Prime Minister. The statement does not categorically deny that Mr Brown has not said words to the same effect to others when he was Prime Minister or subsequently. It is surprising that the lawyers did not make this point clearly.
I will begin with the star of hearings on Monday, Mrs Sly Sylvia Bailey and over the weekend I hope to write about the star of Tuesday morning, and of the week Ian Hislop of Private Eye and on Wednesday, the editors of Hullo, Heat and OK Magazines.
Mrs Bailey went to school in Dulwich and her father was a freelance financial journalist. She commenced her career as a make-up artist for Revlon. In 1984 she joined the Guardian newspaper working in advertising sales and then became advertising manager at The Independent newspaper in 1987. Before joining Trinity Mirror as chief executive in 2003, she was chief executive of AOL Time Warner's IPC Media group, the UK's leading consumer magazine publishing group.
She was elected to the board of IPC at the age of 31, and she was subsequently named chief executive at the age of 37. In October 2001, at the age of 39, she successfully led the £1.15 billion sale of the IPC to Time Inc, the publishing division of AOL Time Warner.
Her success at Trinity Mirror has brought her and her company financial and personal success through what some would describe as a ruthless approach to balance sheet and shareholder contentment. In 2006 one report states that the group had 11000 staff whereas at present she stated the number is in the 6000‘s and still reducing, The annual revenue budget is over £1 billion with pre tax gross profits of the order of £190 millions. The group which has traded as high at 550 pence a share in recent times was recently reported to be under 50p. In her statement to the Inquiry dated October 13th of last year the Group had 165 titles and 6350 staff but at the hearing she explained that the number of titles had to be reduced to 145 titles because of the dramatic loss of revenue from job advertising which has fallen from £150 million to less than £20 million. Here is the North East the group own the Evening Chronicle which used to have a joint website with the Journal which the company also owned together with the regional Sunday paper, called the Sunday sun. The Journal now as a separate website.
I cannot resist making the comment that given this company’s market and financial decline it is understandable that the group decided not to turn the spotlight on past behaviour but have concentrated on the future. The fundamental question which I touched on in the last Leveson report and something which Lord Leveson has repeatedly said is that OK everyone is behaving themselves now in terms of setting standards and their monitoring but experience indicates that in all fields, not just the media those involved become more relaxed, significant problems occur again unless there is a framework which everyone signs up or is persuaded to sign up to, and is then put into practice and monitored.
(Vijay Lakman Vaghela is the Group Finance Director working as an external auditor after qualification and joining the Mirror group in 1994 presented written evidence. He since has become Executive Finance Director on the Board of the group and his statement indicated his accountability to the Chief Executive. He made a point which others have also mentioned that expensive promotional activity whether because of exclusive or special stories, gifts, reduce price initiatives may increase circulation volume but then fall back when the promotion ends. He provided the framework of various control, including payment to agencies and employee expenses).
Richard David Wallace is the present Editor of the Daily Mirror. He has spent 21 of his thirty years in journalism; He introduced his written evidence by reminding that the Daily Mirror has a 110-year tradition. It was launched in 1903 as a paper for women, edited by women. It then became a picture-led publication aimed at the middle classes before evolving, during the 1930s, “into the paper we would recognise today.”
“It positioned itself as a paper that stands up for ordinary working men and women while holding lawmakers and the privileged to account, a stance it still maintains to this day. During World War II it came under threat of closure for questioning the government over its execution of the war effort. It came out for Labour in the 1945 General Election and has backed Labour ever since. (This is also the position of the Sunday Mirror but since the present editor of the People took over he has switched the paper from Labour to neutral, a position which the Chief Executive described in positive terms).
The Daily Mirror sells around 1.2 million copies a day, and is read by nearly three million each day. Content on mirror.co.uk is read by 800,000 unique users, seven days a week. The average age of our newspaper readers is 50. Thirty per cent are retired. Fifteen per cent are from ethnic minorities, the highest percentage in the tabloid / midmarket sector. A number of national and regional editors made the point that the advent of the Internet and more recently Tablets and smart phone has meant that the number of people reading their titles has increased but the problem is that while readership of the paying titles is falling, the technology readers wish to read their information free. The challenge is how to attract the on line readership and get them to pay. The present and on going economic situation is having major impact with the dramatic reduction in revenue loss from job advertising mentioned by all those questioned on the subject.
Mr Wallace stated that the core values of the group were “fairness, justice and compassion. But we also provide entertainment and fun for our readers, which is critical in the popular newspaper sector. We, like most papers in the popular market, provide a vigorous and exciting gateway to the news agenda. We deliver everything from celebrity news to hardcore economic stories in a vibrant, digestible manner that engages and informs the reader. Media and privacy law silk Hugh Tomlinson QC said at a Law Society public debate "Privacy, Free Press and the Public Interest" held in September 2011: tabloid that can explain complex issues in a comprehensible form is a good democratic resource". I agree with that comment.”
He confirmed that after the jailing of Goodman and Mulcaire the Chief Executive and Legal Secretary circulated an email explaining the zero tolerance policy which was then relayed to all staff insisting strict adherence to the Code and to Data Protection Law. Thus confirming my view which appears to be shared by Lord Leveson that the national media won’t obey, monitor and enforce unless they are required to. Mr Wallace agreed that it would be difficult to argue that all the 641 instances when Whittamore provided information was on the basis of lawful pubic interest.
Mr Wallace confirmed that he had periodic meetings with Prime Ministers and other politicians, with the police including one Metropolitan Commissioner and that it was custom and practice for the Group to meet the bill of any breakfasts, lunches or dinners provided. He had attended a private lunch arranged by the present Prime Minister with the Chief Executive and other editors in the Group and the Milibands, Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper had attended his 50th birthday party in a pub.
Mr Wallace was required to submit a second statement on the position of the Daily Mirror in relation to Christopher Jefferies. He referred to one of the journalists involved Ryan Parry whose statement has not so far been taken which I presumes means he will be called in relation to the section of evidence concerned with the police. The nub of the evidence is that when the police arrested Mr Jefferies on December 30th they briefed the media that they were confident Mr Jefferies was the murderer and this governed his decisions. Lord Justice Leveson intervened expressing concern that this was so given that the investigation was ongoing and that no charges had been brought. Mr Wallace expressed continuing regret about the approach taken by the Daily Mirror and said that it was a black mark on his career.
Tina Lorraine Weaver is the Editor of the Sunday Mirror with 20 years experience working for the Daily Mirror and the Sunday People; She has been in her present post since 2001. There are 68 full time editorial and seven part time staff with production journalists who only work on Saturday. The executive team covers news, features, pictures and the magazine.
Lorraine disclosed something which had been revealed over the previous week that since the ban on the use of private investigators imposed by most of nation newsprint the titles have used “search agents” This was explained later. She also disclosed having been invited to Chequers by Gordon Brown and having meetings and lunches with Tony Blair. She provided seven examples where decisions had been taken on matters covering private lives of public figures/subterfuge investigations (Rio Ferdinand; Lord Strahclyde(Conservative); David Cameron’s (Conservative Office re a luxury holiday in Turkey; Hammersmith Housing official Nazi Role playing on website bully boy bailiff tactics; surveillance cameras to show theft of clothes from charity drop off banks; CCTV footage published of Nathan Dyer stealing from handbags of two female night club employees.
She provided a second memorandum dealing with the Chris Atkins film Starsuckers in which he used subterfuge to get Mirror news desk journalist to say the paper would pay £3000 per story which covered the medical records of personalities. The editor said that they had noy been contacted by the film maker but by the Guardian that the story was being published. She justified the journalist agreeing to have a meeting as it was their role to establish the authenticity of information offers, and she said did not think it was inappropriate for the meeting to take place. She made the point that the decision to publish would have been hers so the journalist saying that they would be able to get away with re a personality even if there was no public interest. Any material obtained would not have got part the newsdesk editors. There was a clear attempt to put Mr Owens part in the conversation in the best light but she concluded that the journalist did not act wisely. There is no evidence the reporter asked for or commissioned the getting of a medical document. He was reprimanded but no other disciplinary action was taken.
Early on in her oral evidence she confirmed that she had written the story of the pregnancy of the wife of the Prime Minister on information she obtained from Piers Morgan, then Editor, who had purchased the story from Max Clifford. The Inquiry then quickly moved to the fact that she has been a member of the PCC since 2008. She wanted to see the Commission kept in its present form accepting that the composition needed to be changed and that they had a an effective regulation arms which she referred to as standards, greater teeth with perhaps financial penalties for publishers who consistently breach the code. She had never seen the issue of commercial rivalry affecting judgements. She went as far to regard the suggested arbitration function as having to be mandatory, that is, set up by Parliament within a legal framework to ensure that everyone used the system as a first step. Everyone has accepted that one cannot rule out someone still wanting to put their case to the courts but they would have to demonstrate why the PCC stage ruling should be set aside. Otherwise while the new system would apply to most people those with great wealth would still go to the courts with a view to bringing a particular title down ( which from my viewpoint would be no bad thing if a court felt the circumstances were of merit).
I now turn to what has become a feature of the Trinity Mirror Evidence, that although significant accusations have been made, the Group either corporately or the individual editors have not investigated allegations. In this instance the allegation by the BBC Newsnight team phone hacking was a regular event in the Sunday Times Newsroom, a claim made 23 July 2011. The allegations were anonymous in that individual journalists and particular stories are not mentioned. No complaint had been made to the BBC! The editor said she did not believe the allegations were true. However because there had been no internal investigation she could not categorically say that any specific allegation regarding an individual was not true. She had no knowledge or spoken with Piers Morgan regarding what he had said about listening to a recorded message of Sir Paul McCartney. She could not comment on the People which was regarded as a completely separate paper although part of the Trinity Mirror group.
She was then asked about Operation Motorman where there was reference to 143 transactions from 25 Journalists. She said she believed that they had not used Mr Whittamore for about two years before his arrest (She was not asked if she knew why he had then not been used but she accepted that without detailed investigation it was impossible to assert that all the information had been obtained within the law.
Her paper had followed the move of some other national titles to place their corrections/apologies page on Page 2 which as someone else commented appeared to becoming an industry standard which if accepted everyone would follow. Others had stated this was a good page because it was looked at by most readers for the weather forecast and the response from everyone else is that if this is agreed as the industry standard it would followed although some of these preferred the letters pages. There was agreement about having one standard page to avoid long negotiations about where in the paper the apology/correction should be set.
She explained she did not use kiss and tell but stories about a relationship in which there is legitimate public interest. She said this was a straight face. She also said “We do no advertise to reveal infidelities. We do ask people to come forward if they have stories we might like to publish.” She was away from the office when the paper published a small story about Mr Jefferies for which it was censured. She was reminded that the story was lengthier than she had remembered. She explained the complaint was about a small section of the story. She was questioned in detail about the Starsuckers disclosures but continued to maintain a different interpretation of what have been recorded was possible.
Mr Andrew William Penman writes the Penman abs Sommerland column in the Daily Mirror, this the highly regarded consumer investigations into wrong doing which has won prizes as well as being short listed for awards. He argued that prior notification would be a problem in his area of journalism given the ability of crooks to avoid discovery and identification.
He gave the example of land banking where there were three operators selling worthless parts of fields to investors claiming that the value would rocket when land gets planning permission for housing. He found that three directors of two of the companies had been put into compulsory liquidation in the High Court in the public interest in various part of the UK. They had personalised car number plates. There was a director of a fourth many that had ripped the public off £20 million. The liquidator’s figures after the sole director had done a bunk to Cyprus a neutral territory. Under prior notification he was able to write about the first three directors but he would not about the second who he did not know where he was.
One regular and major source of complaint is from readers who buy from web based businesses where they have not received the goods or cannot get a refund. While there is a contact us form there is no name address telephone but you send in your details but hear nothing, He believed there was a public interest right for him to undertake effective inquiries. Lord Justice Leveson said it was not the intention to stifle the media in disclosing acts of moral obloquy or criminality.
Lloyd William Emberly is the Editor of the Sunday People, a rival to the Sunday Mirror but owned by the same Group. He as appointed acting Editor in 2007 and Editor in 2008 having been deputy Editor for four and half years. His experience was in regional journalism before joining the Daily Mirror in 1994 holding various positions including that of night Editor. The People sells 800000 copies with a readership of 1.8 million and an average age of 52. Others have commented similarly but that the on line readership is younger.
He provided information on various successful campaigns and to the decision to become politically independent after its previous position as supporting the Labour Party and movement. He explained the decision to print a story about Coalition Cabinet Minister Chris Hulne and a relationship with one of his aides despite pressure from the Party that this was a private matter. He explained the Alfie Patten case in which a 13 year old was claimed to be the father of a child. The DNA test proved he was not the father.
There is reference to the children learning to Pole dance story where the faces of the children had been pixielated or blacked out. Paragraph 67 of his written submission has been removed from general distribution. He confirmed that the paper used recognised search agencies for birth, death and divorce records and such public available information.
He admitted that they had to apologise over the Charlotte Church story which had been based on a single source, a former Daly Mirror chief reporter. This was a mistake. It cost £100000 in damages. The Motorman disclosures where before his time and he had no knowledge of phone hacking
An important issue raised and which is one other editors are taking up is the protection provided if they keep records of ethical and legal problems as hey arise including and audit trail
The second statement referred to the Starsuckers programme and that a member of the staff of the People Sarah Jellema said the People would consider paying for medical record information. As with the Sunday Mirror the story was brought to the attention of the Editor by the Guardian. Mr Atkins had first spoken to Tom Carling on the Newsdesk who is recorded as saying that the paper was definitely interested in purchasing confidential medical records. For Mr Carling the written response is that the he had indicated an interest in these kind of stories, Mr Carling had not been disciplined for reason stated in the statement. The Editor said he had not been provided with a transcript of the conversations. Sarah Jellema has provided a witness (not disclosed) in which she is said to explain that she had pursued the inquiry because it could have led to exposing the individual prepared to disclose medical records for payment. He did agree that her comments about the PCC did not reflect the views of the newspaper as a whole. (She is reported to have said that the most that could happen is slap on the wrist and no fines). The Editor then explained that even if the matter had proceeded as suggested by the programme the news desk, deputy editor or himself would have sanction payments or approved publication.
Vincent Peter Moss Political Editor at the Sunday Mirror since 2006 has 16 years of experience working at the House of Commons and provide the Committee with examples where he had uncovered questionable behaviour/ practices by politicians of all parties including that of the present Culture Secretary when he held the position in opposition. (Wider issue of political involvements (Statement Read and not interviewed
Paul Andres Vickers is the Executive Director of the Group as Secretary and Legal Director and among the matters covered in his statement are Business ethics and anti bribery policies, data protection, fraud policy, Dignity at Work at Work and Equal Opportunities, Whistleblowers/Charter, Disciplinary policy and policies in relation to sources of information for stories. And this included use and payment of external sources. In the third part of the statement he made reference to the establishment of a new IT editorial system of content watch group in July 2011 and a review of editorial controls and procedures.
The review found that Trinity Mirror’s controls and procedures had developed since the post-Hutton review and that, in general, controls are robust. The review identified a number of areas in which controls could be strengthened and practices and procedures updated to reflect best practice in the current environment. The review made a number of recommendations for specific areas.
These include that editorial executives will be reminded that it is their responsibility to understand the provenance of material and to satisfy themselves that it has been appropriately obtained. This authority may need to be delegated where it is impractical for one person to have oversight, however, it will be made clear that story provenance is ultimately the responsibility of the Editor.
The Editor should take any issues over provenance (particularly the identity of sources) into account when making their judgement on whether to publish, ask pertinent questions, and seek legal advice if necessary. The review recommended editorial departments in all the Group’s National and Regional newspapers should implement best practice whereby an editor holds a weekly review of any legal issues with their team. A training plan should be developed to ensure all journalistic staff are fully aware of the need to verify sources and of the relevant legal, regulatory and compliance issues which may affect the approach to obtaining a story. In addition, a formal guidance note will be issued to all editorial staff setting out working practices when considering the public interest, in particular establishing a protocol for the Editor signing off in on a public interest defence. In respect of contract agencies and third parties, recommendations were made to ensure that Trinity Mirror’s requirements in respect of compliance with the PCC Code and the law are understood and adhered to.
The review’s recommendations were accepted and adopted by the Board on 28th September 2011 and now form Group policy. There are several ways of looking at this information. The first is that the previous situation was deficient and would not have changed but for the public and political interest which led to the setting up of the Inquiry. Another is that the senior management want to protect themselves in the future by insisting on a belt and braces standards and system so if individuals do not implement any part management can dismiss and claim the actions were of individuals and not the Group or its standards and systems.
No comments:
Post a Comment