It was my intention to write a number of short pieces covering the weekend of TV sport watching, the Rock Festival concerts on the Isle of Wight and Hackney and recent political developments together with my usual updates on food, shopping, sleep apnoea and anything else of interest. Because the political development required much consideration I set aside and then similarly the music festivals as I wanted watch the recordings on the BBC of the Hackney free ticket event. I decided to do a piece on Royal Ascot when it ended and this has been published. This morning I started to write on politics following the appearance of an aged, haggard yet ebullient former Prime Minister Tony Blair on the Andrew Marr Show, and just on 10 decided to switch on Sky for the Leveson Inquiry to see if he had anything to say after the break of another week, only find that he was speaking on the main Sky Channel, breaking into the pre arranged news headlines.
This is what he said
Lord Justice Leveson:
I wish to take the opportunity to deal with concerns that have been expressed in the press about my approach to aspects of the Inquiry and, in particular, to concerns that I have sought to prevent debate on its subject matter.
1. Shortly after 4.00 pm on Friday 15 June, Brendan Carlin of the Mail on Sunday contacted the Inquiry outlining in broad terms a story that ‘an excellent source’ had provided. It was made clear that the story would run (by implication irrespective of any response) but a number of questions were put. These were:
“• Can you confirm that following comments made by Michael Gove on February 21 regarding the ‘chilling effect’ on press freedom of the Leveson Inquiry, Lord Leveson [sic] contacted Downing Street?
• Can you confirm that he spoke to Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood?
• Can you confirm that Lord Leveson expressed his concerns at the comments?
• Can you confirm that he said that if ministers continued to comment publicly in this fashion, he might have to consider his position?
• Can you confirm that subsequent to Mr Gove’s comments, he asked the Education Secretary to give evidence to his inquiry?”
2. I addressed the approach to these questions the next day (Saturday) and I authorised the following statement which I recognise was faithfully repeated in the subsequent article:
“Lord Justice Leveson is conducting a judicial inquiry and, in that capacity, will not comment on prospective press stories outside the formal proceedings of the Inquiry.”
3. On 17 June 2012, under the very substantial front page headline “LEVESON’S ‘THREAT TO QUIT’ OVER MEDDLING MINISTER” and the sub headline “Fury of press probe judge after Education Secretary blames inquiry for ‘chilling’ effects on free speech”, the Mail on Sunday asserts that, because of a speech made by The Rt. Hon. Michael Gove M.P. to the House of Commons Press Gallery as long ago as 21 February 2012, I made “an angry call to the Cabinet Secretary”, “demanded that the Education Secretary should be gagged” and said that “if Ministers were not silenced”, the inquiry “would be rendered worthless”. It went on to say that I “summoned Mr Gove to give evidence to the inquiry to explain himself”.
4. The story was picked up and repeated in other papers. It was further amplified in the Daily Mail for 18 June 2012 under the headline “Now MPs say that Leveson is stifling free speech” which repeated the thrust of the previous article and noted that Mr Gove had been “defended” by the Prime Minister on the day after his remarks. It also quoted two MPs, first, Mr Philip Davies MP as commenting that the intervention raised questions over my attitude to free speech and that if I was sensitive about criticism I ought to move aside for someone else and, second, Mr Douglas Carswell MP as saying that my intervention “raises questions about the integrity of the inquiry”.
5. At the heart of this story are two allegations, first, that I sought to prevent Mr Gove from exercising his right to free speech including by making a threat to resign and, secondly, that I misused the process of the Inquiry to summon Mr Gove in order that I could challenge his behaviour.
6. In the light of the story and the follow up, I felt it appropriate to raise the matter in the Inquiry and, had I been sitting on 18 June 2012, I would have done so then. In the event, I was not sitting that week and I was conscious that s 17(3) of the Inquiries Act 2005 requires me when making any decision as to the procedure or conduct of the inquiry, to have regard (among other things) “to the need to avoid any unnecessary cost (whether to public funds or to witnesses or others)”. In the circumstances, I decided to refer all core participants (who are entitled to raise any issues which concern them as and
when they wish) to these articles and to invite submissions within 48 hours.
7. It has been suggested (in rather more colourful language) that my intention is to challenge the Mail on Sunday. In fact, my intention is and always was very different. The papers had, after all, felt it appropriate to make very serious allegations expressly and inferentially to the effect that I had behaved improperly, challenging my position in the Inquiry. Usually, applications about the conduct of a judge in the exercise of his or her judicial functions (which, in view of their seriousness, are rare) are made in public to the tribunal against whom the allegation is made and backed by evidence; any decision can then be challenged on appeal. My purpose was simply to give Associated Newspapers Ltd the opportunity to pursue the allegations they made on the front page of their newspaper before me; this obviously had to be done quickly and I should certainly have preferred it to have been sooner than the week that has passed
8. In the event, to my surprise in view of the allegations that they had made, Associated Newspapers Ltd, by their solicitors, asked for an indication of the specific issues upon which I would welcome assistance and any written submissions. It was indicated that core participants were offered the opportunity (without obligation) to offer any observations they had. Associated Newspapers Ltd made no submission of any sort, and, more specifically, no application. Given the prominence that they had afforded this story, at the very least, I find that equally as surprising as their apparent failure to understand why I might have sought observations or submissions from them.
9. Unlike others who have been approached by the press in this way, I have the advantage of being able to deal with these allegations in my own time and in a way that does not allow for confusion. Given the open and transparent nature of the way in which I have conducted this Inquiry, that is what I shall now do.
10. When Mr Gove addressed the House of Commons Press Gallery, his remarks were widely reported and I asked for a transcript which was later made available. I do not need to set out what he said in detail but it is important to underline that he went further than emphasising the importance of freedom of expression and gave as his opinion that there is a chilling atmosphere which emanates from the debate around the Inquiry. He spoke of the danger of the cure that is worse than the original disease and the danger that ‘judges, celebrities and the establishment, all of whom have an interest in taking over as arbiters of what a free press should be, imposing either soft or hard regulation’ and that, effectively, it is sufficient if we vigorously uphold the laws and principles that are already in place while encouraging ‘the maximum of freedom of expression’.
11. On many occasions throughout the hearings, I have consistently and repeatedly emphasised the fundamental importance of free speech and a free press. Further, I have recognised that everyone is entitled to an opinion on a topic such as this which is of widespread public interest and the subject of vigorous public debate. All are entitled to express personal views that they hold in whatever way and whatever circumstances they consider fit and Mr Gove is no exception. It is worth pointing out that many others have spoken about the Inquiry and about me both inside and outside the formal proceedings and I remain entirely supportive of their right to do so.
12. Mr Gove, however, also occupies a position which has a critical further dimension. As he is a senior member of the Cabinet, a question arose in my mind at the time as to whether, in speaking as he did, he was speaking for the Government or reflecting the view (or the perception) of the Government that the very inquiry that it had established was no longer to be supported in its work. That concern was underlined when, the very next day 22 February 2012, during the course of Prime Minister’s Questions, there was the following exchange:“
Q5. [95251] Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab): On Tuesday the Education Secretary said that the Prime Minister’s decision to set up the Leveson inquiry was having a “chilling” effect upon freedom of expression. Does the Education Secretary speak for the Government?
The Prime Minister: The point I would make is this. It was right to set up the Leveson inquiry, and that is a decision fully supported by the entire Government, but I think my right hon. Friend is making an important point, which is this: even as this inquiry goes on, we want to have a vibrant press that feels it can call the powerful to account, and we do not want to see it chilled—and although sometimes one may feel some advantage in having it chilled, that is not what we want.”
13. It seemed to me at the time (as, indeed, the Daily Mail of 18 June has now sought to suggest by saying that the Prime Minister was ‘defending’ Mr Gove) that the Prime Minister’s response was open to the interpretation that he was, indeed, agreeing with Mr Gove’s views. I also recognised that it was open to the interpretation that the Prime Minister was not saying that free speech was being chilled but only that ‘we do not want to see it chilled’. Of greater concern to me was the question whether what he had said was or had become the Government’s position in relation not just to the effects of the Inquiry, intended or otherwise, but also that that there was a danger that I (as a judge) had an interest in taking over as arbiter of what a free press should be, imposing either soft or hard regulation and that it was sufficient vigorously to uphold the laws and principles that are already in place while encouraging ‘the maximum of freedom of expression’. What I did not appreciate at the time (but have been referred to in a submission by a core participant in response to these articles) is that Dr Martin Moore and Professor Brian Cathcart had similar concerns. In an open letter to the Prime Minister (published on the Hacked Off website at the time) referring to Mr Gove’s comments and Prime Minister’s Questions, they sought an assurance from him that the Government was still ‘fully committed to the Inquiry and its validity and need’.
14. From my perspective, the issue was straightforward. Had the Government reached a settled view along the lines that Mr Gove had identified, it would clearly have raised questions about the value of the work that the Inquiry was undertaking (at substantial cost). I recognised that the Prime Minister had said that it was right to set up the Inquiry, but I wanted to find out whether Mr Gove was speaking for the Government, whether it was thought that the very existence of the Inquiry was having a chilling effect on healthy vibrant journalism and whether the Government had effectively reached a settled view on any potential recommendations. Put shortly, I was concerned about the perception that the Inquiry was being undermined while it was taking place.
15. Following Prime Minister’s Questions, I therefore considered it both necessary and appropriate to make an enquiry to that effect of Sir Jeremy Heywood, the Cabinet Secretary. I received the assurance that no fixed view had been formed and that it was wrong to infer from the Prime Minister's observations any concerns or collective view. I fully accepted that assurance and made my position clear in a session of the Inquiry, when I said (27 February 2012, AM, page 4, l. 9-17):
“For the avoidance of all doubt, let me make it clear that I have no wish to be the arbiter of what a free press should be or should look like, and I have no interest in doing so. Publicly to express concern effectively about the existence of the Inquiry, when it is doing no more than following its mandated terms of reference, is itself somewhat troubling. For my part, given the background, I do not believe that the Inquiry was or is premature, and I intend to continue to do neither more nor less than was required of me. ”
16. I turn to the decision to call Mr Gove to give evidence. The background is very simple. There was a considerable body of evidence to the effect that Mr Rupert Murdoch had expressed an active interest in education in this country and had involved himself in discussions about Academy schools with a view, potentially, to providing financial support for one or more such schools. To that end, he had engaged with the Secretary of State for Education. The extent to which he was offering support and the place of such support in his relationship with politicians was, in the judgment of the Inquiry, highly relevant to the Terms of Reference. The fact that for many years Mr Gove had been a journalist employed at The Times, and therefore was able to look at the relationship between politicians and the press from both perspectives, further added to his interest as a witness. The decision that Mr Gove should be asked to give evidence was made before his speech to the Press Lobby but there was obviously an opportunity, after he had made it, to invite him to say more about these views as well if he chose to, as indeed he did.
17. One great value of the way in which the Inquiry is being streamed on the website means that everyone can see the extent to which I have consistently and repeatedly emphasised the critical significance of free speech and, in that very important context, can watch the exchanges that I have with witnesses and reach their own conclusions.
18. It is absolutely correct that the press should be able to hold this Inquiry, in general, and me, in particular, to account; the Mail on Sunday, the Daily Mail and those other newspapers that published the story are and were entitled to do so with whatever comment they considered appropriate. Having said that, however, it is at least arguable that what has happened is an example of an approach which seeks to convert any attempt to question the conduct of the press as an attack on free speech. For my part, I will not be deterred from seeking to fulfil the Terms of Reference that have been set for me.
19. I add only this. I understand only too well the natural anxieties of editors, journalists and others of the dangers of a knee-jerk response to the events of last July. Whilst I continue to state my belief in a free press at every possible opportunity (and not a single witness has sought to suggest that healthy and vibrant journalism is not essential to our society) I also understand that on every day of the Inquiry, every exchange I have with a witness will be analysed and considered in order to reveal a hidden agenda. There is none. No recommendations have been formulated or written; no conclusions have yet been reached. Testing propositions is not any equivalent to the expression of views concluded or otherwise.
Lord Leveson also mentioned that it had been suggested that he had decided to require Mail On Sunday Political Editor Simon Walter to attend to answer questions about the June 17th Article. This is what he said to an uncomfortable, defensive and hostile looking Mr Walters.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Mr Walters, contrary to everybody's expectation over the last week, I have no intention of asking you any questions about the article in the Mail on Sunday of 17 June, but there is some nonsense I would like to deal with, if you don't mind. It is a suggestion that I specifically called you to ask about the article. That has been said by many people. Would you agree that must be absolute rubbish? A. That is not the case, sir.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Because, just so we have elaborated
it, you received a section 21 notice, I think on 11 5 April. On 23 April, you provided a response in a statement which, as you have just confirmed, is dated
l
A. (Witness nods)
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Then on 29 May, your solicitors were
informed by email that the Inquiry wanted you to give oral evidence today. A. That's correct.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: And on 31 May, you agreed to do that. A. That's correct, sir.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: And that is all before 13 June. A. Yes.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: And anybody wanting to research the article that they wish to write about how I was going to call you specifically to deal with this article could easily have found those facts out by asking you, couldn't they?
A. They could have done.
Which means to say that the piece that was written was pernicious and mendacious and intended to do damage I use the words to link with what the excellent respected Jon Snow had to say in his evidence to Leveson sandwiched between the early morning statement and the one way exchange with Mr Walters. I openly declare my prejudices in favour of the world and UK perspective on news provided by Channel Four News at 7 each evening with John Snow as its presenter a post held since 1989 produced under contract with ITN which he joined as a reporter in 1976.
Mr Snow closed his comments with the following passionate condemnation of the approach of Associated Newspapers which publishes the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. Seeming to imply that its approach was top down led by Mr Dacre. Mr Snow said
“I believe one of the problems about the environment in which this inquiry is set is that there has been enormous emphasis on the Murdoch papers, on News International, and possibly not enough on other areas of the press. I would say that Associated Newspapers are at least, if not more pernicious than anything you see in the News International stable. They are vying with each other, perhaps, but there is something more insidious about Associated Newspapers and very possibly they will go after me for saying so. But I believe they have an agenda for trying to undermine or wreck the careers of individual people in public life, and I think that is unhealthy. I think people should stand or fall by what they achieve or fail to achieve in the job they are employed to do. It is of no interest that they have -- unless it is in some way in conflict with their actual responsibility. But if it was found that an Archbishop of Canterbury was -- and God rest our souls that he would never be found here, but just supposing he was frequenting Soho or something. That would obviously have some clear public interest. But I'm afraid to say this goes way beyond anything like that, where people who have a quite modest, perhaps, role in public life are undermined. It is part of the fare, it is part of the staple diet, and I don't think it is a diet actually that people really need even.
It is not a question of suppressing press freedom; it's just: why don't we deal with the important things in life? And, you know, it is not -- it is, as I say, pernicious and I think at times mendacious. I don't -- I try to analyse it a lot. I try to see what it is that makes this worthwhile.
Where does it come from? What role does the editor at Associated Newspapers have in this? You have heard the atmosphere there can be quite difficult and I know -- and it is something I really want to say to you, is that Fleet Street, as we still call it, even though it is nowhere near Fleet Street, is populated by really decent, good, wonderful journalists. No question. Every single paper I have ever had any contact with on Fleet Street has superb people working for it. But somehow this culture sweeps through and is allowed to prevail, irrespective of the quality of the people who try to work there. And it doesn't happen in broadcasting, and it is not just because we are regulated. It is because we don't see it as any part of our news function. For example, in the chitty chatty days before Diana's demise, we took it as sort of almost self-denying ordnance. We said, "Look, who she is dating, what she is doing is not really our business. If some news development occurs, there is some mêlée or something and she is in danger, then we will report it, but fundamentally her private life is not an issue for this programme."
Then, of course, she died, and she became a massive interest and we had to talk about people we had never talked about before, somebody called Dodi Al Fayed, et cetera. These people had to be resurrected. But in my view, this is the great need, is for this area either to be divorced from our understanding of news and placed somewhere else, maybe in a brown paper bag under the shelf, but for it to appear as being mainstream news is incredibly destructive. I think people get a distorted a view of the world in which we all function. After all, Britain is made up mainly by people who live by the law, do their best -- politicians, workers, and people in the health service. These are the people who make this country work and simply demonising them, exposing them for some human frailty, is, I think, very destructive.
It may be suggested that Mr Snow was out for revenge given a previous experience which he mentioned, although did not identify Associated Newspapers as the offending news agency.
He said in answer : When it comes to apology, I mean, obviously on the basis of gravity of offence, apologies should be commensurate with the scale of what was got wrong in the first place, and I think that that would be a fantastic pressure on editors to get things right. If you knew you were in fact possibly going to have to run a front page in which the typeface was going to be as bold as the original assertion, you would think twice about whether you were going to risk it, because you are just going to look an idiot.
Q. So by prominence, you mean located in the place and
given the same --
A. If the offence is bad enough, yes. I mean, I think there is no problem with that at all. I am not saying that would happen every time but there would be varying degrees of it. But as somebody who has been apologised to by a tabloid, the original offence spread over five pages. The confession was that it was completely untrue and they accepted it was untrue and they retracted it and apologised. The apology was 1.5 inches by a column, and then the wrestling was over whether there should be a photograph of me above it. They didn't want the photograph because that would draw attention to the apology. Actually, in the end, we got the photograph, but I mean, this is pathetic. Wrestling over 1.5 inches when you have had five pages of something which the paper itself deems untrue? That is not the way forward.
The way forward has to be that people -- that a newspaper suffers when it gets things wrong. We suffer when we get things wrong. We have to correct them. We have no choice but to correct it if it is wrong. We will often, if we can, apologise in the programme. I am afraid I have had to make far more apologies than I care to admit, but they tend to come at the end of the programme: "I'm very sorry to have to say that when we reported X at 7.10 tonight, actually we had a mistake there, and it was X, Y, Z", whatever. You know, it is standard practice and right. What is so shameful about being wrong? We are all human beings. Let's admit it. There is no exceptional about an editor. Editors are human beings. They can apologise.
Q. How important is this idea of a photograph -- I understand that your main view would be if there has to be an apology, it should be given the same prominence as the article which led to the apology. In the alternative, what is in this idea of a photograph to draw attention to a particular --
A. The whole idea of apology is to hide it, is to keep it as low key as possible. In my case, it was on page 2. I didn't know, but page 2 of a tabloid is the least read page. There will be people here who will confirm that that's not true, but I think it is true. Page 3 is the one you look at, not because Murdoch has made it a sort of nude job but because that is where your eye falls, and so if you can get the apology out on page 2 and little and preferably without anything which defines it as anything more than just a couple of columns of boring print, you are in business. So in case, right up to publication moment, the issue is: would we allow a less than passport photograph of me to go at the top of the column or not? And they said no and we said yes, and in the end, they caved in and this vast concession was made to put a photograph at the top of the apology, which, as I say, extended for 1.5 inches. That is the process we have at the moment. That is justice; that is the way any reader who -- or any person offended by a paper who has something wrong gets redress.
Mr Snow signalled that his direct and committed style did lead him into make comments which other might hesitate when asked about the relationship between Number Ten and newspaper owners and Editors he said
A. I mean, we can be very clear that we were very well aware of Rupert Murdoch's movements, either at the back of the premises or the front. They tended to veer from one to the other. Not always, but sometimes. And that should have raised a little bit of an alarm bell.
Q. What is it about what you have heard that has astonished you about the access or level of access?
A. Well, I mean some of it is allegation, isn't it? So one has to be careful.
Q. Yes.
A. I am shocked that there is the strong allegation that there was an attempt to change legislation affecting the commercial interests of a broadcaster -- that would seem to me to be amazing -- in reward for -- in return for support for a particular election campaign. Those sort of things. You know, we used to laugh up our sleeves and say that is what the Italians did. Now we've discovered we do it. It is amazing. I am astonished.
One can be cynical as a journalist and say they are at it all the time, but actually I never did think they were at it. I didn't think we were a particularly corrupt society. I have always worked on the basis that there was something a bit better.
The statements speak for themselves but the position and role of Mr Gove who was sitting, and looking best buddies, with Mr Hunt last Wednesday PMQ’s merits further attention and will be covered in the separate piece on recent political developments. Tomorrow Mr David Mellor gives evidence in the afternoon and I look forward with interest what he will have say.
This is what he said
Lord Justice Leveson:
I wish to take the opportunity to deal with concerns that have been expressed in the press about my approach to aspects of the Inquiry and, in particular, to concerns that I have sought to prevent debate on its subject matter.
1. Shortly after 4.00 pm on Friday 15 June, Brendan Carlin of the Mail on Sunday contacted the Inquiry outlining in broad terms a story that ‘an excellent source’ had provided. It was made clear that the story would run (by implication irrespective of any response) but a number of questions were put. These were:
“• Can you confirm that following comments made by Michael Gove on February 21 regarding the ‘chilling effect’ on press freedom of the Leveson Inquiry, Lord Leveson [sic] contacted Downing Street?
• Can you confirm that he spoke to Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood?
• Can you confirm that Lord Leveson expressed his concerns at the comments?
• Can you confirm that he said that if ministers continued to comment publicly in this fashion, he might have to consider his position?
• Can you confirm that subsequent to Mr Gove’s comments, he asked the Education Secretary to give evidence to his inquiry?”
2. I addressed the approach to these questions the next day (Saturday) and I authorised the following statement which I recognise was faithfully repeated in the subsequent article:
“Lord Justice Leveson is conducting a judicial inquiry and, in that capacity, will not comment on prospective press stories outside the formal proceedings of the Inquiry.”
3. On 17 June 2012, under the very substantial front page headline “LEVESON’S ‘THREAT TO QUIT’ OVER MEDDLING MINISTER” and the sub headline “Fury of press probe judge after Education Secretary blames inquiry for ‘chilling’ effects on free speech”, the Mail on Sunday asserts that, because of a speech made by The Rt. Hon. Michael Gove M.P. to the House of Commons Press Gallery as long ago as 21 February 2012, I made “an angry call to the Cabinet Secretary”, “demanded that the Education Secretary should be gagged” and said that “if Ministers were not silenced”, the inquiry “would be rendered worthless”. It went on to say that I “summoned Mr Gove to give evidence to the inquiry to explain himself”.
4. The story was picked up and repeated in other papers. It was further amplified in the Daily Mail for 18 June 2012 under the headline “Now MPs say that Leveson is stifling free speech” which repeated the thrust of the previous article and noted that Mr Gove had been “defended” by the Prime Minister on the day after his remarks. It also quoted two MPs, first, Mr Philip Davies MP as commenting that the intervention raised questions over my attitude to free speech and that if I was sensitive about criticism I ought to move aside for someone else and, second, Mr Douglas Carswell MP as saying that my intervention “raises questions about the integrity of the inquiry”.
5. At the heart of this story are two allegations, first, that I sought to prevent Mr Gove from exercising his right to free speech including by making a threat to resign and, secondly, that I misused the process of the Inquiry to summon Mr Gove in order that I could challenge his behaviour.
6. In the light of the story and the follow up, I felt it appropriate to raise the matter in the Inquiry and, had I been sitting on 18 June 2012, I would have done so then. In the event, I was not sitting that week and I was conscious that s 17(3) of the Inquiries Act 2005 requires me when making any decision as to the procedure or conduct of the inquiry, to have regard (among other things) “to the need to avoid any unnecessary cost (whether to public funds or to witnesses or others)”. In the circumstances, I decided to refer all core participants (who are entitled to raise any issues which concern them as and
when they wish) to these articles and to invite submissions within 48 hours.
7. It has been suggested (in rather more colourful language) that my intention is to challenge the Mail on Sunday. In fact, my intention is and always was very different. The papers had, after all, felt it appropriate to make very serious allegations expressly and inferentially to the effect that I had behaved improperly, challenging my position in the Inquiry. Usually, applications about the conduct of a judge in the exercise of his or her judicial functions (which, in view of their seriousness, are rare) are made in public to the tribunal against whom the allegation is made and backed by evidence; any decision can then be challenged on appeal. My purpose was simply to give Associated Newspapers Ltd the opportunity to pursue the allegations they made on the front page of their newspaper before me; this obviously had to be done quickly and I should certainly have preferred it to have been sooner than the week that has passed
8. In the event, to my surprise in view of the allegations that they had made, Associated Newspapers Ltd, by their solicitors, asked for an indication of the specific issues upon which I would welcome assistance and any written submissions. It was indicated that core participants were offered the opportunity (without obligation) to offer any observations they had. Associated Newspapers Ltd made no submission of any sort, and, more specifically, no application. Given the prominence that they had afforded this story, at the very least, I find that equally as surprising as their apparent failure to understand why I might have sought observations or submissions from them.
9. Unlike others who have been approached by the press in this way, I have the advantage of being able to deal with these allegations in my own time and in a way that does not allow for confusion. Given the open and transparent nature of the way in which I have conducted this Inquiry, that is what I shall now do.
10. When Mr Gove addressed the House of Commons Press Gallery, his remarks were widely reported and I asked for a transcript which was later made available. I do not need to set out what he said in detail but it is important to underline that he went further than emphasising the importance of freedom of expression and gave as his opinion that there is a chilling atmosphere which emanates from the debate around the Inquiry. He spoke of the danger of the cure that is worse than the original disease and the danger that ‘judges, celebrities and the establishment, all of whom have an interest in taking over as arbiters of what a free press should be, imposing either soft or hard regulation’ and that, effectively, it is sufficient if we vigorously uphold the laws and principles that are already in place while encouraging ‘the maximum of freedom of expression’.
11. On many occasions throughout the hearings, I have consistently and repeatedly emphasised the fundamental importance of free speech and a free press. Further, I have recognised that everyone is entitled to an opinion on a topic such as this which is of widespread public interest and the subject of vigorous public debate. All are entitled to express personal views that they hold in whatever way and whatever circumstances they consider fit and Mr Gove is no exception. It is worth pointing out that many others have spoken about the Inquiry and about me both inside and outside the formal proceedings and I remain entirely supportive of their right to do so.
12. Mr Gove, however, also occupies a position which has a critical further dimension. As he is a senior member of the Cabinet, a question arose in my mind at the time as to whether, in speaking as he did, he was speaking for the Government or reflecting the view (or the perception) of the Government that the very inquiry that it had established was no longer to be supported in its work. That concern was underlined when, the very next day 22 February 2012, during the course of Prime Minister’s Questions, there was the following exchange:“
Q5. [95251] Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab): On Tuesday the Education Secretary said that the Prime Minister’s decision to set up the Leveson inquiry was having a “chilling” effect upon freedom of expression. Does the Education Secretary speak for the Government?
The Prime Minister: The point I would make is this. It was right to set up the Leveson inquiry, and that is a decision fully supported by the entire Government, but I think my right hon. Friend is making an important point, which is this: even as this inquiry goes on, we want to have a vibrant press that feels it can call the powerful to account, and we do not want to see it chilled—and although sometimes one may feel some advantage in having it chilled, that is not what we want.”
13. It seemed to me at the time (as, indeed, the Daily Mail of 18 June has now sought to suggest by saying that the Prime Minister was ‘defending’ Mr Gove) that the Prime Minister’s response was open to the interpretation that he was, indeed, agreeing with Mr Gove’s views. I also recognised that it was open to the interpretation that the Prime Minister was not saying that free speech was being chilled but only that ‘we do not want to see it chilled’. Of greater concern to me was the question whether what he had said was or had become the Government’s position in relation not just to the effects of the Inquiry, intended or otherwise, but also that that there was a danger that I (as a judge) had an interest in taking over as arbiter of what a free press should be, imposing either soft or hard regulation and that it was sufficient vigorously to uphold the laws and principles that are already in place while encouraging ‘the maximum of freedom of expression’. What I did not appreciate at the time (but have been referred to in a submission by a core participant in response to these articles) is that Dr Martin Moore and Professor Brian Cathcart had similar concerns. In an open letter to the Prime Minister (published on the Hacked Off website at the time) referring to Mr Gove’s comments and Prime Minister’s Questions, they sought an assurance from him that the Government was still ‘fully committed to the Inquiry and its validity and need’.
14. From my perspective, the issue was straightforward. Had the Government reached a settled view along the lines that Mr Gove had identified, it would clearly have raised questions about the value of the work that the Inquiry was undertaking (at substantial cost). I recognised that the Prime Minister had said that it was right to set up the Inquiry, but I wanted to find out whether Mr Gove was speaking for the Government, whether it was thought that the very existence of the Inquiry was having a chilling effect on healthy vibrant journalism and whether the Government had effectively reached a settled view on any potential recommendations. Put shortly, I was concerned about the perception that the Inquiry was being undermined while it was taking place.
15. Following Prime Minister’s Questions, I therefore considered it both necessary and appropriate to make an enquiry to that effect of Sir Jeremy Heywood, the Cabinet Secretary. I received the assurance that no fixed view had been formed and that it was wrong to infer from the Prime Minister's observations any concerns or collective view. I fully accepted that assurance and made my position clear in a session of the Inquiry, when I said (27 February 2012, AM, page 4, l. 9-17):
“For the avoidance of all doubt, let me make it clear that I have no wish to be the arbiter of what a free press should be or should look like, and I have no interest in doing so. Publicly to express concern effectively about the existence of the Inquiry, when it is doing no more than following its mandated terms of reference, is itself somewhat troubling. For my part, given the background, I do not believe that the Inquiry was or is premature, and I intend to continue to do neither more nor less than was required of me. ”
16. I turn to the decision to call Mr Gove to give evidence. The background is very simple. There was a considerable body of evidence to the effect that Mr Rupert Murdoch had expressed an active interest in education in this country and had involved himself in discussions about Academy schools with a view, potentially, to providing financial support for one or more such schools. To that end, he had engaged with the Secretary of State for Education. The extent to which he was offering support and the place of such support in his relationship with politicians was, in the judgment of the Inquiry, highly relevant to the Terms of Reference. The fact that for many years Mr Gove had been a journalist employed at The Times, and therefore was able to look at the relationship between politicians and the press from both perspectives, further added to his interest as a witness. The decision that Mr Gove should be asked to give evidence was made before his speech to the Press Lobby but there was obviously an opportunity, after he had made it, to invite him to say more about these views as well if he chose to, as indeed he did.
17. One great value of the way in which the Inquiry is being streamed on the website means that everyone can see the extent to which I have consistently and repeatedly emphasised the critical significance of free speech and, in that very important context, can watch the exchanges that I have with witnesses and reach their own conclusions.
18. It is absolutely correct that the press should be able to hold this Inquiry, in general, and me, in particular, to account; the Mail on Sunday, the Daily Mail and those other newspapers that published the story are and were entitled to do so with whatever comment they considered appropriate. Having said that, however, it is at least arguable that what has happened is an example of an approach which seeks to convert any attempt to question the conduct of the press as an attack on free speech. For my part, I will not be deterred from seeking to fulfil the Terms of Reference that have been set for me.
19. I add only this. I understand only too well the natural anxieties of editors, journalists and others of the dangers of a knee-jerk response to the events of last July. Whilst I continue to state my belief in a free press at every possible opportunity (and not a single witness has sought to suggest that healthy and vibrant journalism is not essential to our society) I also understand that on every day of the Inquiry, every exchange I have with a witness will be analysed and considered in order to reveal a hidden agenda. There is none. No recommendations have been formulated or written; no conclusions have yet been reached. Testing propositions is not any equivalent to the expression of views concluded or otherwise.
Lord Leveson also mentioned that it had been suggested that he had decided to require Mail On Sunday Political Editor Simon Walter to attend to answer questions about the June 17th Article. This is what he said to an uncomfortable, defensive and hostile looking Mr Walters.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Mr Walters, contrary to everybody's expectation over the last week, I have no intention of asking you any questions about the article in the Mail on Sunday of 17 June, but there is some nonsense I would like to deal with, if you don't mind. It is a suggestion that I specifically called you to ask about the article. That has been said by many people. Would you agree that must be absolute rubbish? A. That is not the case, sir.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Because, just so we have elaborated
it, you received a section 21 notice, I think on 11 5 April. On 23 April, you provided a response in a statement which, as you have just confirmed, is dated
l
A. (Witness nods)
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Then on 29 May, your solicitors were
informed by email that the Inquiry wanted you to give oral evidence today. A. That's correct.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: And on 31 May, you agreed to do that. A. That's correct, sir.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: And that is all before 13 June. A. Yes.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: And anybody wanting to research the article that they wish to write about how I was going to call you specifically to deal with this article could easily have found those facts out by asking you, couldn't they?
A. They could have done.
Which means to say that the piece that was written was pernicious and mendacious and intended to do damage I use the words to link with what the excellent respected Jon Snow had to say in his evidence to Leveson sandwiched between the early morning statement and the one way exchange with Mr Walters. I openly declare my prejudices in favour of the world and UK perspective on news provided by Channel Four News at 7 each evening with John Snow as its presenter a post held since 1989 produced under contract with ITN which he joined as a reporter in 1976.
Mr Snow closed his comments with the following passionate condemnation of the approach of Associated Newspapers which publishes the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. Seeming to imply that its approach was top down led by Mr Dacre. Mr Snow said
“I believe one of the problems about the environment in which this inquiry is set is that there has been enormous emphasis on the Murdoch papers, on News International, and possibly not enough on other areas of the press. I would say that Associated Newspapers are at least, if not more pernicious than anything you see in the News International stable. They are vying with each other, perhaps, but there is something more insidious about Associated Newspapers and very possibly they will go after me for saying so. But I believe they have an agenda for trying to undermine or wreck the careers of individual people in public life, and I think that is unhealthy. I think people should stand or fall by what they achieve or fail to achieve in the job they are employed to do. It is of no interest that they have -- unless it is in some way in conflict with their actual responsibility. But if it was found that an Archbishop of Canterbury was -- and God rest our souls that he would never be found here, but just supposing he was frequenting Soho or something. That would obviously have some clear public interest. But I'm afraid to say this goes way beyond anything like that, where people who have a quite modest, perhaps, role in public life are undermined. It is part of the fare, it is part of the staple diet, and I don't think it is a diet actually that people really need even.
It is not a question of suppressing press freedom; it's just: why don't we deal with the important things in life? And, you know, it is not -- it is, as I say, pernicious and I think at times mendacious. I don't -- I try to analyse it a lot. I try to see what it is that makes this worthwhile.
Where does it come from? What role does the editor at Associated Newspapers have in this? You have heard the atmosphere there can be quite difficult and I know -- and it is something I really want to say to you, is that Fleet Street, as we still call it, even though it is nowhere near Fleet Street, is populated by really decent, good, wonderful journalists. No question. Every single paper I have ever had any contact with on Fleet Street has superb people working for it. But somehow this culture sweeps through and is allowed to prevail, irrespective of the quality of the people who try to work there. And it doesn't happen in broadcasting, and it is not just because we are regulated. It is because we don't see it as any part of our news function. For example, in the chitty chatty days before Diana's demise, we took it as sort of almost self-denying ordnance. We said, "Look, who she is dating, what she is doing is not really our business. If some news development occurs, there is some mêlée or something and she is in danger, then we will report it, but fundamentally her private life is not an issue for this programme."
Then, of course, she died, and she became a massive interest and we had to talk about people we had never talked about before, somebody called Dodi Al Fayed, et cetera. These people had to be resurrected. But in my view, this is the great need, is for this area either to be divorced from our understanding of news and placed somewhere else, maybe in a brown paper bag under the shelf, but for it to appear as being mainstream news is incredibly destructive. I think people get a distorted a view of the world in which we all function. After all, Britain is made up mainly by people who live by the law, do their best -- politicians, workers, and people in the health service. These are the people who make this country work and simply demonising them, exposing them for some human frailty, is, I think, very destructive.
It may be suggested that Mr Snow was out for revenge given a previous experience which he mentioned, although did not identify Associated Newspapers as the offending news agency.
He said in answer : When it comes to apology, I mean, obviously on the basis of gravity of offence, apologies should be commensurate with the scale of what was got wrong in the first place, and I think that that would be a fantastic pressure on editors to get things right. If you knew you were in fact possibly going to have to run a front page in which the typeface was going to be as bold as the original assertion, you would think twice about whether you were going to risk it, because you are just going to look an idiot.
Q. So by prominence, you mean located in the place and
given the same --
A. If the offence is bad enough, yes. I mean, I think there is no problem with that at all. I am not saying that would happen every time but there would be varying degrees of it. But as somebody who has been apologised to by a tabloid, the original offence spread over five pages. The confession was that it was completely untrue and they accepted it was untrue and they retracted it and apologised. The apology was 1.5 inches by a column, and then the wrestling was over whether there should be a photograph of me above it. They didn't want the photograph because that would draw attention to the apology. Actually, in the end, we got the photograph, but I mean, this is pathetic. Wrestling over 1.5 inches when you have had five pages of something which the paper itself deems untrue? That is not the way forward.
The way forward has to be that people -- that a newspaper suffers when it gets things wrong. We suffer when we get things wrong. We have to correct them. We have no choice but to correct it if it is wrong. We will often, if we can, apologise in the programme. I am afraid I have had to make far more apologies than I care to admit, but they tend to come at the end of the programme: "I'm very sorry to have to say that when we reported X at 7.10 tonight, actually we had a mistake there, and it was X, Y, Z", whatever. You know, it is standard practice and right. What is so shameful about being wrong? We are all human beings. Let's admit it. There is no exceptional about an editor. Editors are human beings. They can apologise.
Q. How important is this idea of a photograph -- I understand that your main view would be if there has to be an apology, it should be given the same prominence as the article which led to the apology. In the alternative, what is in this idea of a photograph to draw attention to a particular --
A. The whole idea of apology is to hide it, is to keep it as low key as possible. In my case, it was on page 2. I didn't know, but page 2 of a tabloid is the least read page. There will be people here who will confirm that that's not true, but I think it is true. Page 3 is the one you look at, not because Murdoch has made it a sort of nude job but because that is where your eye falls, and so if you can get the apology out on page 2 and little and preferably without anything which defines it as anything more than just a couple of columns of boring print, you are in business. So in case, right up to publication moment, the issue is: would we allow a less than passport photograph of me to go at the top of the column or not? And they said no and we said yes, and in the end, they caved in and this vast concession was made to put a photograph at the top of the apology, which, as I say, extended for 1.5 inches. That is the process we have at the moment. That is justice; that is the way any reader who -- or any person offended by a paper who has something wrong gets redress.
Mr Snow signalled that his direct and committed style did lead him into make comments which other might hesitate when asked about the relationship between Number Ten and newspaper owners and Editors he said
A. I mean, we can be very clear that we were very well aware of Rupert Murdoch's movements, either at the back of the premises or the front. They tended to veer from one to the other. Not always, but sometimes. And that should have raised a little bit of an alarm bell.
Q. What is it about what you have heard that has astonished you about the access or level of access?
A. Well, I mean some of it is allegation, isn't it? So one has to be careful.
Q. Yes.
A. I am shocked that there is the strong allegation that there was an attempt to change legislation affecting the commercial interests of a broadcaster -- that would seem to me to be amazing -- in reward for -- in return for support for a particular election campaign. Those sort of things. You know, we used to laugh up our sleeves and say that is what the Italians did. Now we've discovered we do it. It is amazing. I am astonished.
One can be cynical as a journalist and say they are at it all the time, but actually I never did think they were at it. I didn't think we were a particularly corrupt society. I have always worked on the basis that there was something a bit better.
The statements speak for themselves but the position and role of Mr Gove who was sitting, and looking best buddies, with Mr Hunt last Wednesday PMQ’s merits further attention and will be covered in the separate piece on recent political developments. Tomorrow Mr David Mellor gives evidence in the afternoon and I look forward with interest what he will have say.
No comments:
Post a Comment