2249 Leveson 16- A week of important disclosures

It is possible that at the end of the first four day week of evidence to the Leveson Inquiry in Module 2 on the role of the Police to come to several conclusions.

The Metropolitan Police was in 2006 and 2007 justified in not embarking on the level of investigation presently being undertaken because of the Terrorist threat which the UK faced at that time but was not justified in restricting the prosecution to one Journalist when it had evidence that several others were involved and indeed notified Rebekah Wade and the Managing Editor of the Mail on Sunday of the position one in a recorded phone conversation and the other by email.

The Metropolitan Police was negligent in not notifying their original list of 418 victims compiled six days of the raid that their phones may have been hacked, taking account that the Police recorded in their official action log that this should be done.

The Metropolitan Police corporately misled the Metropolitan Police Authority, the House of Commons and the General Public about the extent of their knowledge for reasons which presently remain unclear. In particular the Metropolitan Police knew that News International and News Corporately repeatedly lied to Parliament and the General Public that one Journalist was involved when they knew this was not so and the Metropolitan Police protected that position for reasons which remain unclear.

There was an inappropriate relationship between individual senior officers of the Metropolitan Police and the News of the World, News International and News Corporation in particular.

The evidence confirmed that Senior News of the World and News International staff have lied about the nature and extent of their knowledge of illegal activity.
I remain uncertain whether there was deliberate cover up by the Metropolitan Police in 2009 and 2010 or the force was corporately incompetent and negligent.

Counsel for the Inquiry summarised the case as follows: Public concern may be expressed in just one sentence. The relationship between the Police and News International in particular, was at best inappropriately close and if not actually corrupt, very close to it; furthermore the nature of this relationship may explain why the Police did not properly investigate phone hacking in 2006 and subsequently in 2009 and 2010, preferring to finesse the issue on those mater occasions by less than frank public statements.

Lord Blair, the former Commissioner has submitted a statement in which he says, “I believe that where the problem may have become significant is that a very small number of relatively senior officers increasingly became too close to journalists, not I believe for financial gain but for the enhancement of their reputations and for the sheer enjoyment of being in a position to share and divulge confidences. It is a siren song. I also believe that they based their behaviour on how they saw politicians behave and that they lost sight of their professional obligations. The Metropolitan police did not have adequate defences against this behaviour and in previous decades would not have needed it.”

Counsel spelt out the risks and problems associated with this closeness:

“The acceptance of and conferring of inappropriate hospitality. The risks here are self evident.”

“The giving and receiving of off the record briefings. Again, the risks here are pretty much self explanatory, but apart from the obvious lack of transparency the person doing the briefing will often have an agenda and each party will be hoping for, if not expecting, future favours;”

“The problem of leaks putting to one side genuine whistle blowing;”

“The attribution of police sources to a story which is redolent of impropriety, or at least carries with it the possibility of inappropriate behaviour, either because the police officer has indulged in gossip or leaks, or because the term is in truth a cipher or fig leaf for an invented story because the source does not in fact exist;”

Sir Paul Stephenson makes explicitly in his statement that the so called police sources may not be a police officer but someone associated with the Police but from outside the Metropolitan Police.

“The last issue is the media turning up at an incident or at newsworthy occasions, because they have been tipped off by a police officer. Again, this is indicative of an unhealthy relationship existing between individual police officers and individual members of the press. Even if the ideal here is only the “sheer enjoyment” which Lord Blair refers to, and of course it might be more than that, we are talking about an inappropriate transaction.”

In the light of what Deputy Assistant Commissioner Ackers was to say, Mr Jay also pointed out that it would also be naive to ignore more sinister possibilities. “Corruption can of course occur in different ways,” he said.

There is the relatively straightforward case of a journalist paying a police officer whether or not using the of police source for the information which ought to be kept confidential and would not have been freely provided. Some commentators have observed that paying a police officer is not necessarily unlawful, for example, the consideration night be regarded as the reimbursement of expenses- but the breadth of the term any inducement or reward in the Prevention of Corruption Act and similar terminology in the Bribery Act would lead anyone minded to test the boundaries of the law to think again.

There is the less straightforward situation of police officers being employed by press organisations after leaving the force. This may be entirely above board but one can at least visualize the possibility that past favours are being called in.

Finally and perhaps the most sinister and certainly the most difficult to prove, is the suggestion that police turn a blind eye to known criminality on account of the unhealthy, over cosy relationship I have already mentioned. (There are two recent reports covering these issues and the Inquiry will hear from their authors).

Before the statement of Deputy Assistant Commissioner Ackers last Monday, Senior Counsel for the Inquiry presented an overview of Module 2 for Lord Justice Leveson, He explained that consideration needed to be given to the bigger picture and what should be the relationship between the Police and Media in democracy to which the present Commissioner has said in his statement that “Keeping the media properly informed about policing and criminal matters is critical to the functioning of the Metropolitan Police.”

First through the media, the organisation is able to communicate its key messages regarding prevention and detection of crime. Second, a healthy relationship with the media can serve to increase the public understanding of how the Metropolitan Police goes about its work in London. Third it provides an important means by which the Metropolitan Police can seek the assistance of the public in its work; maintaining a regular and professional dialogue with the media greatly assists in providing information to the public concerning crime appeals. Fourth contact with the media, properly handled, serves to increase public confidence in the police and to promote a greater understanding of the policies and initiatives and fifthly it provides the means by which the public can scrutinise police actions and policies. It also allows police to test the persuasiveness of their strategies, policies and tactics. It is important to keep the broad picture always in mind.

Counsel also explained as consequence of the Judicial Review brought by Brian Paddick John Prescott, the former Deputy Prime Minister, Chris Bryant the MP and others, a mass of relevant material was disclosed by the Metropolitan Police which has not been made available to the Inquiry and throws light on the contemporary thinking of the Metropolitan Police thinking and decision taking in relation to the original Goodman/Mulcaire prosecution and its aftermath.

I begin as did the Inquiry with Mr Paddick who was in several respects the ideal policeman which the Metropolitan Police wanted within its ranks. He joined in 1976 at 18 years working for four years in the Holloway area of London as a police Constable and then as a Sergeant and Inspector he was an operational officer in London. He then obtained a Police scholarship at an Oxford College gaining an honours degree and later obtained a Diploma in Applied Criminology and Policing at Cambridge University and a Master in Business Administration degree.

He was appointed as the Commander of the London Borough of Brixton with its proportionately high black population. He became a Deputy Assistant Commissioner and for time was an acting Assistant Commissioner and retired in 2007 with 30 years of service becoming the Mayoral Candidate for the Liberal Democrats in 2008 and is again standing for election this May with I would think an enhanced personal standing of doing better than before.

(It is because of the need to also call the previous and present Mayors because of their role accountable for Policing in London outside the City square mile and other politicians that the role of Politicians is being left until mid May after the local government Elections, the State opening of Parliament and the loyal addresses to mark the 60 years reign of Queen Elizabeth. There will then also be the 60th national celebrations in June and the Olympic games after which it is anticipated “all hell” will be let lose with the Publication of Iraq Inquiry as well as the Leveson Report 1, the prosecutions of arrested individuals can be expected to begin as well as the results of the Independent Police Commissions investigation into the Tottenham shooting and the elections for the new elected Police Commissioners and where in London the appointment will now be separate from that of the officer of the Mayor.)

Mr Paddick disclosed and was questioned about the extent of the hospitality he received. He lunched with a Sun Crime Reporter once and with the Crime reporter from the Financial Times and Guardian and attended one of the Guardian’s Editorial Lunches and a similar event held by the Daily Mirror. He explained how he came to establish a good relationship with the Times Crime Reporter because of a particular case and there was amusement over his lunch with Piers Morgan who guest included two Weather girls, and which he said consisted of listening to what Piers had to say for the greater part of the time on various matters. He thought this was a thank you for cooperating with Piers after a Sunday paper had printed a kiss and tell story about his private life.

Mr Paddick said that between 2002 and 2007 he had been subjected to a whole series of damaging articles, largely false, involving gross intrusion into his personal life but also attacking his professional reputation as a police officer. He said the failure of the Metropolitan Police to counter the false allegation against him demonstrated their lack of willingness to stand up to the media because of their closeness and wish to keep in their good books. He argued that there had developed the mentality of putting a positive spin on what the police did, covering up mistakes or matters which might bring criticism, including the differences of view and personal positioning within the force. This had arisen because of the development of investigate journalism and the public not accepting what the police said just because they were the police.

He said that several Police Commissioners had initiated charm offensives and when questioned he said that Sir John Stephens had been successful because he claimed according to a freelance journalist who he named that the Commissioner had wined and dined the media at a number of dinners, whereas Lord Blair had been the subject of adverse publicity because of his effort to change the culture in a way which did not go well with his senior colleagues and with a lot of right wing newspapers.

He claimed that Dick Fedorcio then head of the Metropolitan Police Press and Publication relations Department had campaign against Blair becoming the Commissioner on behalf of senior colleagues. There had been a lot of political in fighting between he senior officers at the Metropolitan Police which made Fedoricio’s position difficult as he was being pressed to brief against senior officers by others. Iain Blair had identified a culture of bullying by senior officers which he had been determined to put to an end, Mr Paddick disclosed that he had helped Ian Blair with his application to become the Commissioner and that following his successful appointment he had lunch with him at which he was invited to indicate what role he would like into new structure (presumably because of the help he had given)

Mr Paddick then gave a detailed account how a report which he had been asked by Ian Blair to prepare on how the Met handled rape cases was watered down, statistical information changed and that a police press officer had told him that Mr Fedorcio had told her that as far as practical the report should receive no publicity. Before his appointment Lord Blair had written a critical book of the way the Met handled rape cases and after his appointment he had arranged for a review with Professor Betsy Stanko of the police support team and she and Brian had identified worrying statistics and made strong recommendations. This evidence demonstrated the way information which showed the Met in a bad light could be covered up under the direction of top officers.

The next example given by Mr Paddick concerned the shooting of Mr Charles De Menzes when Mr Paddick explained that despite claims that those advising the Commissioner that they did not know the wrong man had been shot for 24 hours, they did. Mr Paddick said that he advised the Commissioner personally than those advising him did know and that as he had told the Independent Police Complaints Committee and an Assistant Commissioner what he had told the IPC and that after he had told the Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur the man had dismissed his press officer from a briefing with a BBC journalist for an hour, the following day and that it was Mr Ghaffur who leaked the information and not himself.

Mr Paddick said that arising from the leak he was the subject of discipline investigation and that Sue Akers had undertaken the investigation as head of Internal Investigations and she had told him there was nothing inappropriate in what he had done, but nevertheless Mr Yates had referred the matter to the Metropolitan Police Authority which was disproportionate as the MPA then undertook a formal investigation and this has changed his attitude towards continuing with the force.

Mr Paddick explained that he felt the De Menzies situation was history repeating itself going back to the Brixton situation when a police officer shot an innocent black man killing him during a peaceful protest which degenerated into a riot.

He explained what happened when officers under his command had examine Closed Circuit Television coverage and a detective chief Inspector brought to him footage and after viewing he had made three phone calls. The first was to Andy Hayman who was then head of Internal Affairs, the second to his boss and the third to the Chairperson of the community consultative police liaison group. He said that with the Chairman he met other members who would not be witnesses and said he intended to identify and prosecute the officers who had been involved in the particular incident. He said that he was told the Commissioner was furious for not waiting until after the prosecution, but he felt this would have been counter productive and the community had only found out at the time of the prosecution and he had not told them it would have undermined his credibility with them. His boss had relayed the view of the Commissioner John Stephens to him something which surprised him given his knowledge of Mr Blair.

The Inquiry then considered what had happened to Mr Paddick and his efforts to establish his position in relation to the activities of Mr Mulcaire. .

Mr Paddick explained that he had no dealings with the Anti Terrorist Bran and their investigation and had limited contact with Mr Hayman and like everyone else had assumed that the Prosecution of Mulcaire and Goodman had dealt with all the evidence available. It was not until the Guardian article in 2009 that he commenced to change his view and it is this context Mr Paddick submitted an article written by Mr Hayman about the Phone Hacking scandal which he was thanked for and said the issues raised would be taken up with Mr Hayman. The article stated that Mr Prescott and others were said to be a victim of phone hacking without any clear evidence that their phones were in fact hacked.

It November 2009 he wrote to his solicitors, Bindman’s and asked them to establish from the Metropolitan Police if there was any evidence that had been the subject of investigative activities by the News of the World and Mr Mulcaire. The letter was sent personally to Mr Yates. It was not until February 2010 that a reply was sent by the Met Legal Department which stated that there was no documentation to suggest “your client was subject to unlawful monitoring or interception.” He and his solicitor thought this was an odd form of words as he had asked if he was mentioned not whether the activity was illegal. It was revealed that his name and occupation as Police Commander had appeared in the records. (There had been a blatant attempt by the Metropolitan Police to mislead Mr Paddick).

In view of the police failure with others he had joined in a request for a Judicial review. The response of the Metropolitan Police to this action was also misleading in that it was again claimed there was no evidence that with he or Chris Bryant had been targets relying on the statements made by Yates.

In their formal defence of the action the Metropolitan Police claimed that the presence of a name and mobile phone number in the documents was not sufficient to indicate voicemail interception had taken place that the phone companies had agreed to warn those that had been listed. The Metropolitan Police claimed that they had provided the full extent of the information in their possession which Mr Paddick said was now known to have been with untrue(that is deliberately lie) or completely misleading.

It was not until 26 January 2011 that officers from Operation Weeting showed him the documents that also contained his mobile telephone number, home address and the home telephone number and details of his former partner. His name and details had been entered on the Mulcaire computer as a project.

Mr Paddick then covered the history of the police action arising from documents obtained as part of the Judicial review Documents Disclosure. A Case Review document dated April 2006 made by Detective Superintended Philip Williams sates that it was highly unlikely the illegal activity was limited to Goodman and was probably widespread among those who would be interested in such access- a much wider security issue with the UK and potentially world wide. The document said such an investigation would be resource intensive and possibly outside the remit of counter terrorism department.

In May 2006 it was discovered that another individual had been working with Mr Goodman and the discovery was listed in the Witness Statement of a Police case officer. In view of the information the Senior Investigating officer said it was matter for another Department and Mr Paddick argued that he does not still understand why the was not then passed to the Specialist Crime Directorate.

In July 2006 the Investigation was ready to make an arrest and this had become more urgent because it was established that the voicemail of Cabinet Minister Tessa Jowell had been hacked. Mulcaire and Goodman were arrested on 8th August 2006 and the 11000 pages of documentation obtained.

Mr Paddick then explained that acting on the advice of CPS the police had obtained only a limited warrant for the News of the World but even in this respect they were met with opposition from two in house lawyers and Julian Pike Solicitor and Managing editor Stuart Kutner and the search was then limited to Goodman’s desk and the account’s department. Goodman’s computer and safe were never handed over to the investigation.

In September the MPS wrote to News International requesting information the computer and the safe, submitting a draft Production Order in the event of failure to cooperate on a voluntary basis. News International responded with only a limited amount of additional information and Mr Paddick states the obvious question of in these circumstances did the MPS not seek the Production order which they had threatened. Who took the decision and why?

Earlier on August 10th the decision Log at the Met, a Log used to record important decisions and developments recorded that the investigation of the Mulcaire documents revealed that hundred of individuals including Royals, Members of Parliament, sports stars, military, police, celebrities and journalists. Within six days of the arrests 418 people had been identified in a list. This contradicts statements made by the Metropolitan Police including to the Judicial review that the documents seized by the police were not analysed. (It would be later explained at the Inquiry that they had not be analysed in terms of gaining evidence for other prosecutions).

Sue Akers has confirmed that there are 800 confirmed victims so far. The log also records the decision to that all the victims should be warned that they had been targeted by Mulcaire. The action to be taken was to be in two parts first (Royal Household, Military, Police and Politicians for because of the security concerns. The others would be told individually as with the first list or by the phone companies. Only a fraction were told with the rest mislead by police statements. The Metropolitan Police have admitted that the failure to do this was a breach of its legal obligations to the victims and apologised.

Mulcaire had created a list of 320 projects and this includes Mr Paddick. New International repeatedly lied that only one Journalist was involved and the Police had information which contradicted such statements and did nothing to counter the repeated lying. (This was disgraceful).

We then come to what many will regard as the most important disclosure made to Inquiry this it was set up.

On 15th September 2006 Tom Crone the now infamous Legal Affairs Manager send an email to the now infamous Andy Coulson that recorded a conversation between the now infamous Rebekah Wade and the now infamous Metropolitan police..

The Metropolitan police provided the infamous Wade with details of the information in their possession, the progress of the investigation and the strategy for the future. She was told that the Inquiry was not being widened to include other News of the World People but would do so if they received further evidence. The Metropolitan Police were attempting to obtain information voluntary and not through the issuing of warrants.

Mr Paddick makes the point that Wade was then Editor of the Sun at that time although she had been Editor of the News of World. (She was not the Chairman of News International or its Chief Executive. She was not the General Manager of the News of the World or its then Editor(Andy Coulson) nor was she the lawyers for the News of the World, News International or News Corporation so what the hell were the Metropolitan Police doing, who was responsible and why?) Mr Paddick asked these questions in the way former policemen will do!

In October 2006 the then Managing editor of the Mail was sent an email by the Metropolitan Police on Sunday that the names of a number of his journalists had been found in the Mulcaire notebooks! Victims were still not being notified.

Under the Freedom of Information Act Mr Paddick has seen the list of meetings between Senior Police Officers and News International Executives throughout 2006 when the investigation was taking place. Those involved the Deputy Commissioner, Andy Hayman and Dick Fedorcio and Neil Wallis the then deputy Editor of the News of the World.

The briefing note prepared by Yates after the 2009 Guardian article states that the victims had been notified when it was discovered this was not done the Metropolitan Police now blames the telephone companies.

It is evident that having identified the list of probably victims within six days the officer of the Metropolitan Police would have also identified a similar list of journalists. Those involved were never interviewed.

One of the investigating officers also identified a number of people in the Mulcaire Project list who were in the Witness Protection programmes as defendants and witnesses. Mulcaire and possibility the News of World knew of people who had been given new identities for their protection. No action appears to have been taken and nothing made public until now. The whole thing was covered up. One of those convicted of the murder of James Bulger was told in the summer of 2011 that his voice mail had been intercepted.

Mr Paddick then submitted his concluding observations and his recommendations.

I was interested to see how the Metropolitan Police would attempt to talk its way out of the case made by of its former most senior police officers with 30 years experience at all levels. Before then we heard from Lord Prescott and the former Crime Watch presenter.

2247 Leveson 14 The corruption of public officials on an industrial scale by the Sun Newspaper revealed

The opening of Module 2 of the part one Leveson Inquiry this week provided some important position taking within and outside the witness room

Michael Gove, the Education Secretary within the Coalition Cabinet and a former Rupert Murdoch paid journalist launched a ferocious and ill judged attack on the Inquiry claiming that the way Leveson was interpreting his brief was unintended and having a dangerous and chilling effect on press freedom. He made his comments in a speech to the Press Club where he was the after meal speaker (as well as making then during the meal). He did use Leveson as one example within a broad swipe at government’s setting up inquiries under public and political pressure suggesting the problems could be addressed differently and with less potentially harmful consequences.

Last week the Prime Minister was asked if he agreed with Gove and Cameron drew attention that the Inquiry had been set up with full Cabinet support and that while he, Cameron sometimes liked the press to be chilled, it was important to emphasise the importance of a free press. His response could be interpreted as a public rebuke to the Minister or that he also was having doubts about the way the Inquiry was approaching its task.

I was pleased that Ed Miliband for the Opposition raised the subject under questions to the Prime Minister Questions this week after Module 2 had commenced and the Metropolitan Police countered the mischievous articles which had appeared in the print media, and again I felt Cameron was ambiguous about his true position anxious not to appear critical of his Cabinet colleague who is perhaps also feeling out of the limelight as attention is paid to National Health and Social Security Issues.

Mr Gove presumably had prior knowledge that Simon Hughes has persuaded the Deputy {Prime Minister to ensure that there is Parliamentary Time in 2013 for any Coalition led proposals arising from the Leveson recommendations. In his response on Wednesday the Prime Minister made the point that that there would be no pre-emption of Leveson in the related legislation already tabled before the publication and consideration of any recommendations. Leveson is being astute in emphasising that it remains early doors about recommendations and that he wants to hear from anyone who wants to make submissions about all the areas on which he has been asked to comment, but also making the point that he is seeking to arrive at recommendations which will be supported by Parliament on behalf of the public Interest, by the news print Industry and by the police and politicians in relation to those matters affecting them.

At the opening Module 2 Lord Leveson said that contrary to recent comments in the print media he had emphasised throughout the months of the inquiry his commitment to protecting freedom of expression and free press. But the inquiry had been set up because the press were behaving in a way which undermined the public interest. When what is published in a newspaper is not remotely in the public interest, he did not consider freedom of speech or of the free press extended the interception of phone messages and the invasion of privacy or confidence. He drew attention that only one of the over 100 witnesses had suggested otherwise.

He said that attempting to find a system, given that everybody has agreed that the present system has not worked properly, which regulates illegal and unethical practices does not threaten freedom of the press either.

Everyone had also agreed that the civil system of justice is slow and expensive and it was sensible in moving forward to consider the proper operation of the rule of law.

The background to the presentation by Sue Ackers is that Trevor Kavanagh the Associate Editor at the Sun has led a at best a disingenuous and misleading attack on he decision of the police to arrest 13 Sun journalists including some of their most senior staff on grounds of corruption and conspiracy of corruption where the evidence to bring formal charges is substantial but where the decision has been taken to defer prosecutions until the completion of all appropriate inquiries.

The arrests arise from documentation provided by the now Independent News of the World police liaison and standards Committee and which according to Mail on Line includes information on those who were paid. While it is normal practice to accept that journalists should protect their sources News International now take the view that those who committed serious offences while holding public office have no right to such protection.

In her new written statement Deputy Assistant Sue Ackers explained that the Independent Management and Standards Committee of News International established by News Corporation in July 2011 and chaired by the Independent Lord Grabiner Q C had provided Operation Elveden material which indicated that police officers had received cash payments from journalists from the News of the World for the provision of Confidential information.

She said that the aim of police investigation was to uncover criminality and not to uncover legitimate sources. It is the Standards Committee reporting to the Vice President of the USA based corporation that is monitoring the search of the 300 million emails available to the authorities.

The terms of reference for Operation Elveden were initially set in relation to payments to Police Officers. It was the intention to follow the evidence whoever it led. The terms of reference have been revised in view of the information that becomes available. Legal advice was obtained from the Crown Prosecution service at an early stage on the offences which include under the 1906 Prevention of Corruption Act, Misconduct in a Public office and conspiracy to Commit these Offences. Given issues raised by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act legal advice had been obtained in relation to the Public Interest in investigating such payments as to other more general hospitality of providing meals and drinks (thus knocking on the head the wilfully deliberate misrepresentation that the police are attacking the provision of hospitality and free drinks although as Leveson later went to reveal the level of hospitality provided by News International in particular to senior Police Officer at the Metropolitan authority has been disgraceful). The Elveden terms of reference exclude this type of hospitality because it is considered part of journalistic practices. Legal advice was obtained to investigate journalists in relation to corruption payments and also to investigate their offices.

Forty police officers are deployed in this work and this being increased to sixty one and this does not include additional police used in relation to the making of arrests with 16 journalists arrested and bailed, 3 police officers, a member of the armed forces and a member of the MOD and a person acting as a conduit to a public official, 22 persons in total.

She confirmed that the Management Standards Committee of News Corps had provided information unredacted which has enabled the police to identify the public officials concerned, In relation to the wider system by which cash payments were made this is in reacted form and the police are required to provide evidence of a potential crime before the course is identified.

A News of the World journalist has have been arrested for authorising payments. The enquiry continues but no police officers/staff have yet been identified. This related to one ex journalist.

Another News of the World Journalist is known to have met with many police officers and that some of those officers may have received cash payments. The Journalist was arrested in December 2011 and as yet no individual police officers/staff have been identified.

A police officer employed by the Special Operations Directorate has been discovered to be seeking payments from News of the World Journalists and was arrested in December 2011.

A targeted further search of emails is being undertaken to identify cash payments to public officials.

Between July and November the Management Standards Committee of News Corp volunteered information in relation to the Sun Newspaper having discovered suspicious emails they felt required disclosure. This led to a Sun journalist arrested in November 2011 and following the provision of further information to the Metropolitan Police on 18 and 24th of January and 4 Sun/NI employees and one serving police officer from the Territorial Policing Directorate were arrested on January 28th.

A further operation on February 11th led to five Sun employees, one serving police officer, one member of the MOD and an army officer being arrested together with a relative of a public official acting as a conduit to hide a cheque payment to that person.

The arrests without warning have been conducted as we would in any other case where the primary aim is to secure the best evidence and prevent suspects conferring or disposing of evidence. The purpose of the police action was proactive to investigate the criminality which has been identified. The aim has never been to threaten the existence of the Sun (pity). To this end there was liaison with the Management Standards Committee so that searches of the offices were conducted on Saturday when the offices were empty. (The following weekend the Sun Sunday was launches as a successor to the News of the World).

Payments by journalists to public officials have been identified in the following categories: - Police, Military, Health, Government, Prison and others. The evidence suggests that such payments were being made to public officials across all areas of public life; The current assessment of the evidence is that it reveals a culture at the Sun of illegal payments and systems have been created to facilitate such payments whist hiding the identity of the officials receiving the money. The emails indicate that payments to sources were openly referred to within the Sun with the category of public official being identified rather than the individual’s identity.

There is recognition by the journalists that behaviour is illegal with reference being made to staff losing their pension or their job, to the need for care and to the need for cash payments. There is also an indication of tradecraft that is hiding the cash payments by making them to a friend or relative of the source. The evidence suggests that authority for such payments was made at a senior level within the newspaper.

While the activity is clearly evidenced and this is the reason why at this early stage more journalists have been arrested. As the investigation progresses it is anticipated that detailed enquiry will identify the corrupt public officials and they will be arrested.

The cases we are investigating are not ones involving the odd drink or meals They involve the delivery of regular, frequent and sometimes significant sums of money to small numbers of public officials. There is evidence of multiple payments amounting to thousands of pounds and in one instance the total appears to be in excess of £80000 to pay his sources a number of whom were public officials.

The statement makes reference to Article Ten and that a judge would rule on the issue of justification in relation to the public Interest in relation to specific disclosure. What can be said is that the vast majority of disclosures under investigation can best be described as salacious gossip. They often involve a breach of trust by the public official and an invasion into the privacy of the subjects of the newspaper articles. The police investigation is mindful of the need to protect genuine journalistic sources but in seeking to identify corrupt relationships it is necessary to probe into sensitive areas. However the payment to public officials for confidential information is illegal, especially in relation to police officers and cannot therefore be tolerated. It would be in wholly exceptional circumstances that such behaviour could be justified.

Since making the statement the Metropolitan Police have announced that the Sun Defence correspondent has been arrested by appointment under the Prevention of Corruption Act

It will be interesting to see what News International reveals about their involvement with politicians. Mr Kavanagh appears unrepentant claiming that the police were conducting a witch hunt against News International and that the investigations underway were disproportionate.

2227 Leveson 14 An importand High Court Judgement and Trinity Mirror Day

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.

2215 Lady Thatcher in old age

On Friday afternoon January 6th I went to see the second performance showing of The Iron Lady and the Bolden Cineworld. The film was shown in the largest of screen theatres and the audience for the 1.25 showing number around and 50 good for most early afternoon showing but less that for the Kings Speech or Tinker Tailor. I was not surprised at this because there are those on the political centre and left that hate what the woman did during her thirteen year reign as Prime Minister and would not contemplate seeing a film about her life.

In February 2007 (Blog 1008 Feb 2009)) after seeing Thatcher the Musical I mentioned knowing of several senior political figures at national and local level within the Labour Party who admired her ability to get things done, her way, and wished they had a leader of similar strength, ability and popularity. Be Careful what you wish for.

I attended an evening performance of the Musical at the Playhouse Theatre in Newcastle attend by an audience of 200 which mainly comprised students from the two Universities in the town. The auditorium to the main stage was about half full. The musical touched on all the things which many people came to hate her for, including Members of her Cabinet and Party because once she had made up her mind the Lady was not for turning even if the decision quickly proved wrong in terms of the desired outcome.

The show commenced with the quote from St Francis about compromise and healing divisions made before entering number 10 as Prime Minister for the first time and touched all the main issues which continue to be debated, monetarism and the Grocers daughter approach to budgets, her contempt for anyone who became dependent on the state, her attitude towards ideological Trade Union Leaders which I came to share, especially Scargill despite his being right about the end of coal mining in the UK, her approach to Europe and the single currency, her intransigence in Northern Ireland, her success with the Falklands War despite the sinking of the Belgrano as it appeared to be sailing away, her bonding with Ronald Regan and the generally hated Poll Tax together with the venom of former Cabinet Colleagues when they fell out. For me there was one aspect of her approach where her rough justice approach was wrong.

She presided over the destruction of local government autonomy from Central Government over budgetary control in setting local taxation according to the wishes of the local electorate. The Treasury became all powerful nationally and locally. When South Tyneside was first created in 1974 the controlling Mid Tyne Labour group were insistent that the emphasis should be on the provision of public services so they created a small management team which included the heads of Education, Housing and Social Services as well as Finance and Technical Services headed by a Chief Executive. Until that time Legal officers, Personnel Officers and Planners could have expected to have had permanent seats in management teams. It did not last long and soon the shift in power change and the money and their supporters took firm control. It was the job of the political chairman and vice chairman of the Committee to forge good links with their colleagues in control of the finance Committee and for myself and senior management work creatively and constructively with colleagues in the finance department to provide a degree of protection within the straitjacket imposed by central government.

Thatcher led the way to Treasurers taking control to the extent that they became more powerful than Prime Ministers after her, look at the way Brown controlled domestic policy while Tony had to play the international stage and in local government accountants rather than Lawyers became Chief Executives.

It is interesting that while David Cameron has talked the talk about decentralising power the approach of the first two years of the Coalition is to force local authorities to rigidly stick to the decision of no rate increases at the same time as reducing government financial support with the consequence of ruthless reductions in public funded services and their staff irrespective of local needs and circumstances and electoral wishes.

I came into close quarters with senior Tories and with Margaret Thatcher twice when as Minister of Education she came to a Social Service Annual conference and made it plain in private conversations and in her after dinner speech that she believed in self help and welfare being restricted to only those with carefully assessed need. The second occasion was when on a visit to London for a morning meeting I stayed over for a debate in the House of Commons on a child care scandal affecting an authority in the Northern region to which listened to the introductory speeches. The Deputy Labour Chief Whip arranged a seat on the floor of the House for me similar to those of the Civil servants but opposite to them. As I sat alone except when he came to sit with me, my presence appeared to interest the Government front bench and got a visual appraisal from her. I worked out the assumption being made that I was from the local authority under attack whereas in fact I was sympathetic to the criticism.

Lady Thatcher is said to have been influenced my two men, in addition to her father and her husband. Airey Neave who was assassinated by the IRA was a distinguished second world war soldier with the Military Cross and DSO who encouraged her not just to seek the leadership of the Tory but to see herself as Prime Minister and the loss of his wise and supportive counsel was greatly missed especially when she was forced out of office by the then Tory leadership.
In the film there is an important moment when Lady Thatcher challenges the claim they she has become governed by emotions, emphasising that all her life she has been concerned not just with ideas but putting ideas into practice. Her guru in this respect was Sir Keith Joseph who was my dinner guest on one occasion with whom I shared a flat overnight and who was responsible for approving my appointment as a local authority chief officer. When I openly admitted my different political perspective he suggested that I moved from the UK to a Russia, a sentiment which in the film Lady Thatcher also expresses in a different context. I think he understood more of my position when I commented that come the revolution we would both be on list for an early firing squad.

However while the film does refer as flashbacks to all controversial policies which marked her Premiership, The Iron Lady is not primarily about politics but about what happens when we get old, particularly those who have held positions of power or of public attention.

The film does cover the truths of political life at the top and that most colleagues belong to other political parties with as Churchill advised one newcomer to Parliament your enemies sit all around you. There is also the price to be paid in terms of partner and children. Denis, her husband played by Jim Broadbent, I suspect more as Jim Broadbent than Denis, complains that her ambition relegated him to an appendage. Yet the main focus of the film is inability of Lady Thatcher to accept the death of her husband allegedly keeping his clothing and possession for seven years or so in place before being persuaded to part with them and constantly having conversations with him as if he was with her long after his death. When her daughter arranges an earlier than planned visit to the Consultant Thatcher is defiant that she is not having hallucinations and afterwards tells Denis how she successfully dealt with examination although shortly afterwards she spends the night putting his clothes and possessions into bin bags for passing on to charity.

Michael Portillo on attending a private showing of the film last year commented on this Week that she had been shocked about how old she is presented. She was born in 1925 with HM Queen Elizabeth born in 1926. Yet the film also showed the difference between the elderly who are not cared for and those who are able to have their hair professionally attended and if female continue to sue make up. The film opens with Lady Thatcher going out alone early one morning to the local corner shop for milk and a paper and returning to tell Denis that the price of milk is now 46 pence a pint. The world around her is presented as alien to her but this is a misunderstanding as the film itself points out that when challenged by colleagues that she was out of touch because of the unfairness of the Poll Tax in practice, she is able to quote the price Lurpack and other makes of butter and challenges her male colleagues to do likewise. When meeting one of several comments about being a grocer’s daughter, she commented back that that she had had an Oxford Honours degree (second class in Chemistry).

The film is therefore primarily about how we perceive ourselves and our lives in old age and how others perceive us. For many they will see Lady Thatcher not as the old woman she is but as the ruthless Prime Minister she once was riding roughshod over the views of anyone and everyone who did not share her point of view and perspective. The acting in the film is superb and there will be no justice if Meryl Streep is not awarded the Oscar. I have not seen many films in theatre this season but it is the film of he year to date although the Artist which will be shown later in January is said set to be Oscar Winner along with the War Horse which has no appeal to me. I have reached the stage where a film has to appeal as well as appear to be of quality before I will venture to the theatre.

2204 Leveson (11) Hypocrites and terminological exactitudes

I have so much to write about that the Leveson Inquiry should take its place in a long queue. But if I do not allocate a few hours today it could be New Year before the there will is there again to do so.

The past week has provided important insights into the minds and outlooks of those professionally engaged in the commercially successful mass circulation British newsprint and I have chosen a subject which the Inquiry explored with forensic persistence.

I begin with the role of Derek Webb, an experienced former Police Detective from Hertfordshire who became a Member of the National Union of Journalists in order to get round the ban on using Private Investigators at the News of the World after the convictions of Goodman and Mulcaire, the departure of Coulson and the arrival of Colin Myler as Editor, the first Editor to be interviewed at the Inquiry. Mr Webb was asked to keep surveillance on two lawyers representing victims of phone hacking.

Mr Webb described himself as an expert in human surveillance having been trained and attached to special units for half his 30 years of his police service. He was recruited to the News of the World by Neville Thurlbeck who has become infamous being the recipient of the For Neville email which exploded the myth that phone hacking was restricted to one individual at the paper.

Mr Thurlbeck was appointed Crime Reporter and then Senior Crime Reporter at the News of the World, then Investigations News Editor and News Editor and from 2003 to 2011 he was the Chief Reporter.

Mr Webb explained that before retirement he was asked to execute a warrant in relation to a firearm’s offence following intelligence received from Mr Thurlbeck of the News of World who had worked undercover. This confirms an issue not yet covered in the Inquiry so far but which will no doubt feature more in the next Module with concerns relationships between the police and the media/press. It also touches on the evidence of Mazher Mahmood the extraordinary and at times notorious undercover journalist whose work has led to some 300 convictions who also disclosed that immediately he had come across an alleged terrorist plot he had contacted the appropriate authorities and worked with them consequently. There is therefore a two way interaction between the police and the news press which has proved to be in the national/public interest over many decades and is therefore not to be set aside without due consideration.

As with the official security services and the police and their agents there is often a grey area with relationships crossing ethical and legal boundaries. Previously I reported on the case of the undercover police officer who established a long term relationship with a target involved in environmental activism and where he had become a leading figure in the European wide movement, breaking the law as a consequence but also assisting several governments with intelligence. Only this week it was announced that a class action against the Metropolitan police by female activists because of the false relationships they had with eight undercover officers each lasting several years. At the same time it was also announced that a former Crime Editor at the News of World has been arrested on suspicion of corrupting a police officer(s) and who is married to a Scotland Yard detective. These are issues which will be dealt with in the second Module of Part one of the Inquiry scheduled to commence in the New Year.

In the instance of Derek Webb his position was clear from the outset. He was and remained a specialist in human surveillance and had contemplated establishing a formal business on retirement until it quickly became evident he was needed by the News of the World on a full time basis. From the outset it was established that his role was not to enter private property but to observe and report the movements of people using a secret video camera. Accordingly he was given assignment by over 25 journalists most he was able to name and included Mahmood (The Fake Sheik) who has not been arrested by Operation Weeting, and Clive Goodman, Ian Edmondson, James Weatherup, James Besborough as well as Neville Thurlbeck who all have together with Lucy Panton the former Crime Editor. Mr Webb confirmed that he had never been instructed directly by Ms Brooks, Mr Coulson who have not given evidence yet or Colin Myler, the last Editor of the Newspaper who has. He was also instructed via the internal travel company when on missions outside greater London.

Mr Webb confirmed that he was employed between 2003 and January 2007 when Andy Coulson was the Editor and Ms Brooks the Senior Executive. Mr Myler was brought in in January 2007 “to clean up the act” following the resignation of Coulson and the imprisonment of Goodman and Mulcaire for their role in phone hacking of members of the Royal family and where five other celebrities were included in the charges but were not made public and which revealed that others had been involved in commissioning work from Mulcaire and others.

Mr Webb continued as before until November of that year when he was formally suspended because of involvement as a suspect in criminal proceedings. He was advised by Thurlbeck that if the charges were dropped or he was found not guilty he could return and that his suspension did not prevent him doing work for other newspapers. Mr Webb was not questioned about what he did during the 18 month period when he was on police bail but he did allow his licence as a private detective to lapse.

When the case against him was dropped he was reemployed by the News of the World in March 2009. He was told by Thurlbeck that he had to end his private detective licence and become a member of the National Union of Journalists. Colin Myler said he later approved of this device.

The inquiry went through in great detail that Mr Webb had never written articles or undertaken work normally associated with journalism. His application had been sponsored by a journalist who did not work for the News of the World and he filled in the forms as best he could because he had no journalist or writing experience but he got his NUJ card through the post as a researcher. Lord Justice Leveson clearly found the ease extraordinary.

He said “Hang on. Did you have to provide any details of qualification to get an NUJ card? “Nothing I went through the details on the form as a police former police officer” was the reply The Lord Justice enquired: What sort of details? He was asked about his experience of various matters and he could not say any. But it was accepted. Lord Leveson: “Because you hadn’t?” Answer “I hadn’t.”

Ms Patsy Hoskins for the Inquiry then questioned him closely about his subsequent role and the confirmed that nothing changed from his previous role how he was commissioned, what he had to do or the payment system, except he had to abandon his former company name and used his own name. Her had written no articles and his name never appeared in the paper. He was not given a copy of the old or new PCC Code of Practice. No one discussed with him whether what he did was in the Public Interest.

Mr Thurlbeck disclosed that he had been offered potential immunity from prosecution by Scotland Yard in return for giving evidence for the Crown but declined on the basis that he believes the police investigation will exonerate him. Mr Thurlbeck states in writing that he was willing to answer any questions about phone jacking but he did respond at length about the Max Moseley case and the employment of Derek Webb. He confirmed that Mr Webb was commissioned through the Newsdesk and that immediately he was able to confirm the commissioned interest a journalist was despatched to work alongside him to write the story. Mr Thurlbeck however denied he had any knowledge about the decision to use Mr Webb to keep surveillance on the lawyers Charlotte Webb and Mark Lewis who were acting for claimant victims against the News of the World. So who did and why?

Julian Pike is a partner in the firm of Farrer and Co, a firm which had acted for News International for 25 years. He heads the firms contentious media law practice as well as providing pre publication/broadcast advice and he also provide reputation advice to those who find themselves the subject of media attention and the firm has occasionally advise News International when it is being sued in relation to contentious media law. In his second written statement Mr Pike disclosed that “for a number of reasons, by the early part of 2010 I had concerns which had accumulated over the previous months that Miss Harris and Mr Lewis may be exchanging highly confidential information gained from acting for claimants (and Mr Taylor in particular) in cases against the NGN in order to assist other clients in bringing further actions against NGN.”

“I shared these concerns with NGN and in March 2010 I suggested that we should consider again whether Miss Harris and Mr Lewis were in a position to continue acting. I also mentioned surveillance. I was instructed by NGN on May 5th 2010 to engage private investigators to conduct a review. This was the only investigation on behalf of NGN regarding this matter. The investigation was limited to a search of publicly available documentation. By that time I was aware that NGN had put Miss Harris and Mr Lewis under surveillance. I was not informed the nature of that surveillance.” The next section is redacted.

On May 11th 2010 the private investigators reported on these public record searches. In my initial instructions I had suggested that we may need to move carrying out some discreet observations, but given the information reported by (redacted) I did not instruct him to carry out any such observations. Also in May 2010 I did sought specialist leading Counsel Advice as to the question whether Miss Harris and/or Mr Lewis were properly able to represent other claimants. I never instructed Derek Webb on any matter whether for NGN or any other client. I have never had any dealings with him and nor has any member of my team.

Mr Pike was asked further question before giving oral testimony about the matter and the use of private investigators which he replied in writing. He disclosed that “as regards NGN I did not have knowledge of it using private investigators, save for the surveillance discussed in key second witness statement (re Harris and Lewis). I have of course also become aware that NGN instructed Mr Mulcaire, Me Webb and Mr Whittamore, but I was not aware at the time that they had been instructed.

Under questions on 13th December Mr Pike stated that he had expressed his concerns about Miss Harris and Mr Lewis by email on March 26th to Tom Crone the Legal Manager at the News of the World since 1991. Mr Crone’s responsibilities covered pre and post publication. The focus of his role was the Sun and News of the World Papers although his role covered all publications. He argued in his statement that he had responsibility for compliance in terms of the law which sides stepped the issue of compliance to the Press Complaints Commission standards or journalist ethical standards in general. In his view compliance in these respects was the responsibility of the Managing Editor

He was provided with no training or guidance or issued policy statements in relation to his role on advising on the legality of information gathering methods and standards.

Lord Justice Leveson commented: Wouldn’t you have been somewhat concerned about that Mr Pike, to make sure they (the investigators hired by NGN on his advice) didn’t overstep the bounds of what you considered appropriate? Mr Pike answered that he had assumed the work would have been conducted in an appropriate matter. He regarded the surveillance as straightforward.

Mr Jay for the Inquiry asked if it was not unusual for two lawyers to be placed under surveillance. Mr Pike agreed. Mr Jay persisted suggesting that the form of surveillance based on the commission to establish if the two were having an intimate relationship would require skill; given that proof was not of itself establish that the two had exchanged confidential information. Mr Pike did not agree that the work required an expert having previously indicated it was work which could have been carried out by a journalist. Mr Pike said he would have used a professional private investigator if he had organised this part of the surveillance but it could have been a journalist. Justice Leveson suggested they were dancing on the head of a pin.

Mr Pike was then asked for the authorship of a report which Mr Lewis had attached to his supplemental witness statement (not disclosed to the public). Mr Pike did not know and said he had only become aware of the document, Mr Jay read from it

“The motivation of and association between the key civil lawyers opposing News International is becoming clear. Specifically, the main protagonists are politically motivated with a number being strong Labour Party supporters, their cases helping to promote their professional advancement. The News of the World is planning to use these tensions and motivations as a way to force compromise and settlement.” Mr Pike was asked if this did represent NGN strategy and replied that he had no knowledge. He was also asked to comment on the section “The News of the World is aware of these facts and is planning to put pressure back on the solicitors by revealing these facts and by linking their political affiliations and career benefits from the cases. They plan to do this publicly and through discreet lobbying” Mr Pike said this was also unknown to him.

He was then asked to confirm his memorandum to Mr Crone of March 26th where he stated that “I think we should look again at preventing JMW (Ms Harris’s firm) and Stripes (from acting). They will both continue to be deeply untrustworthy, continuous leaks to the Guardian, and the potential cost saving of JMV acting did not exactly materialise in Clifford. I think we should go and get an expert view on the question of conflict” You suggested going to leading Counsel and then said “I’ve not mentioned to Taylor’s lawyers that Lewis has appeared acting for Philips, but I strongly suspect Taylor may have want to hand this to the SRA complaint he’s made against Lewis. Mr Jay asked Mr Pike to confirm that he was aware that Mr Taylor had made a complaint against Mr Lewis to the Solicitor’s Regulation Authority and that he wanted to contribute to the action? Mr Pike explained that Taylor’s lawyers had contacted because he needed to be released from his confidentiality agreement in order to both instruct Brabners and take his complaint forward. So they contacted us in that context and clearly we were able to assist them to some extent.

“I have had a brief word with (names redacted) but we need to put some surveillance onto them. Mr Pike agreed this surveillance on Mr Lewis and Ms Harris. Mr Pike again made the point that this would have been done by Private Investigators through his office but by Investigators or journalists at the News of the World. In a further exchange Mr Pike revealed that a third lawyer had been placed under surveillance. He confirmed that instructions had been given to the firm Tectrix. This related to a letter from Farrer to Linklaters.

“Julian Pike’s email dated 20th April 2010 refers to the paper renewing their surveillance and he believes he must have been told something about the surveillance of Lewis and Harris but he does not recall whether this was by Ian Edmondson or Tom Crone. Mr Pike said he had no memory of what he had been told but accepted that he may have had a conversation between his March email and that in May.

Mr Jay asked if Mr Crone had told him the surveillance had not yielded anything of interest but Mr Pike could not remember. After further questioning Mr Jay asked about the approach to Leading Counsel on May 13th 2010 and if requested advice on the propriety of what they were doing. There was no suggestion what they were doing was wrong (adding) as it wasn’t.

He was then asked if he was aware of any other situations where lawyers for one side had put the lawyers for the other side under surveillance. Mr Pike explained that they had been faced with significant breaches of confidentiality over a significant period of time. And they wanted to get to the bottom of the situation by digging around and putting together a jigsaw of what was going on. The surveillance of the lawyers was a legitimate exercise.

He could not condone the surveillance of the family of Mr Lewis because it served no purpose. He added that what was requested was not a highly intrusive exercise if done properly.

Mr Jay drew attention to the serious implication of article 8( not explained but I assume relates to the conduct of lawyers).Mr Pike said that Article 8 was not an absolute right and that he faced with a similar situation today he would have no trouble in doing the same again. He was asked why he had not checked on the way the surveillance was being carried out. He replied “that was easily said now.”

So I will sum up. Mr Pike admitted what he was doing was unusual if not unique but he had not bothered to set down how and who should do the surveillance or to find out what happened afterwards. It should have been straightforward and was justified/

There was then an interesting exchange between Mr Pike and the lawyer representing the victims about the attendance note made by his firm and to the names of the subject matter: Sky Andrew was a claim brought by the agent of Sol Campbell against News Group Newspapers. A claim for unlawful interception of voicemail. Vanessa Peroncel a claim against NGN re privacy which did not involve phones. Nicola Phillips about voicemail interception. Andy Gray, David Davies, George Galloway. Kelly Hoppen. Mr Pike agreed the names were correct.

In relation to Sienna Miller Mr Sherborne introduced his exorcet. She has also issued proceedings against News Group as well as well (That‘s right). And Farrer‘s were involved for News Group as well.

Mr Sherbornel then asked if Mr Pike was aware that the Metropolitan Police had made an application to see the related documents on June 1st 2010. Mr Pike said he had not at the time but since. Mr Sherborne said that the application was made anonymously and in private three weeks after the meeting. Mr Pike was told that that there was no public mention that that Sienna Miller had made a complaint was on September 6th four months later. So how on May 13th was it possible for his firm to know to know about a claim from Siena Miller before it had been officially made? Lord Leveson told Mr Pike to find out and Mr Pike said that with permission of Linklaters he would.

Mr Sherborne made the point that the only people who knew Sienna Miller was making a claim were her solicitors and the Police. Mr Pike did not know the answer (with the implication that either the police had leaked the information or information had been illegally obtained from the Solicitors or conversations between Ms Miller and the Solicitors). Lord Justice Leveson said “we’ll have to see, won’t we? Let’s find out the answer. For News International Mr Davies said he did not think there would be privilege. Lord Leveson said right. You’re not very far away Mr Pike in Lincoln’s Inn Fields. I would be grateful if you could do that. Mr Pike then contested evidence from Ms Harris. It was pointed out she had already withdrawn the contested allegation. It is not known if Mr Pike has provided Lord Leveson with the requested information.

It was then time for Mr Crone. Mr Crone commenced by agreeing with the evidence of Mr Lewis that when they had met at a restaurant in London Mr Pike was not present but a third party. I am not covering Mr Crones knowledge of Operation Motorman and then Mulcaire Goodman but that in relation to Mr Webb Mr Lewis and Ms Harris. He was asked if it was correct that private detectives on instruction from Colin Myler the new Editor were not used after 2007. Mr Crone said at the outset that he understood Mr Webb to be a free lance journalist employed by the Newsdesk.

Mr Crone in his second written statement detailed the reason why he agreed to the surveillance of Mr Lewis and Ms Harris who he noted had worked together at George Davis. He believed Mr Lewis was the source of information going to the Guardian and also came the view that Ms Harris might also be a source of information. He said that it was never the intention to look at the families of the two lawyers and that he understood that Mr Webb was an accredited freelance journalist and not a private investigator.

Given what that we know Mr Crone had a long standing senior position through the period when everyone at the Newsdesk, that is 30 odd individuals had commissioned Mr him knowing he was he was an ex policeman surveillance specialist licensed private detective and this was supported by Mr Thurlbeck and Mr Myler Mr Crone’s statement merits incredulity.

Three weeks later Mr Crone was shown a photograph taken by Mr Webb which were not of Mr Lewis or Ms Harris but included an unknown woman shopping at a garden centre. He phoned the news desk and said it appeared this was a case of mistaken identity. He told the news desk executive not to bother to send Mr Webb back. He said he played no part and was not aware of the surveillance of lawyers, Committee Members, claimants or anyone else connected to phone hacking cases or inquiries.

In questioning he said he had approached Mr Edmondson of the Newsdesk to arrange for the surveillance of Mr Lewis and Ms Harris. He maintained the stance that he thought Mr Webb was a free lance journalist who worked regularly for the paper. He did not know the work had been limited to surveillance, He admitted he was aware that Mr Webb had not been employed for a period of over a year. He did not remember that in 2007 he with Stuart Kuttner had drawn up a confidentiality agreement for Mr Webb to sign for his period of suspension because of the arrest. He had no knowledge of telling Thurlbeck to tell Webb to give up his detective licence and join the Journalist Union. He knew the man had a press card but not how he had got it. He was told he was an accredited journalist. Mr Crone challenged the suggestion that Mr Webb had been used on fishing expeditions.

Lord Justice Leveson said- that if you employ an ex policeman week after week, month after month on surveillance activities, but you have arranged that he obtain a card from the National Union of Journalists, you are absolutely fairly to say that you don’t employ investigators, you only employ journalists. Mr Crone then argued that if all he did was surveillance this did not mean he was not a journalist a reporter gathering information for use in stories. Lord Justice repeated his question statement to which Mr Crone said he thought the question was loaded. He admitted Mr Webb was not working on a story in the instance but for the legal department. Mr Crone was repeatedly questioned and twice said he had not been enthusiastic about the idea which came from Mr Pike My Jay reminded that Mr Pike was involved with information gathered by Tectrix and had left the human surveillance to Mr Crone to arrange. Mr Crone went on to say that he did not see the point in bringing a professional misconduct complaint unless there was evidence of information sharing. There was also the issue that if the two were taken of cases the claimants would go to another firm at higher rates which the company would end up paying and this did not make sense at all.

Mr Sherborne then indicated that he wanted to use a confidential document which Mr Crone should see and where the information had to remain confidential. Lord Leveson said he was anxious to protect the Article 8 right of the two lawyers. He then rose so that the issues could be considered further. Mr Sherborne said that given Mr Crone had admitted the decision to keep the two lawyers under surveillance was regrettable and that Counsel for the Newspaper group declared the action entirely inappropriate he had two question on the activities of Mr Webb. Mr Sherborne referred to a the letter sent by Linklaters (News International solicitors) to the Metropolitan Police on 16th September 2011. The advised the Metropolitan Police of the folder on the use of private detectives by the News of the World. Mr Sherborne referred to the review of emails between Tom Crone and Colin Myler on the use of Private Detectives. The particular email was from Stuart Kuttner to Paul Nicholas an assistant or deputy managing editor and copies to a number of senior Executives including that of Mr Crone. This states that the Derek Webb file was being passed over described as Silent Shadow (the name of his business as a private detective) Mr Crone accepted that the email plus file had been sent to him but he had no recollection of seeing it. The other files sent were about the Guardian phone interceptions allegations against the News of the World, the subsequent Commons Select Committee hearings and the Goodman/Mulcaire cash payments. The fourth is the Webb file. Mr Crone said he thought this was an email saying that Mr Nicholas was off on holiday and had left various files with people. Mr Crone persisted he had not seen or noted that Mr Webb was called the Silent Shadow.

He then asked about the covering letter from Linklaters to the Police re private detectives. A memory stick containing copy footage recorded on video tape located in Tom Crone’s office. He was asked about the covering note from the private detective to Mr Edmonson who had been filming a target of the News of the World and was found in your office in the memory stick with the footage. Mr Crone said this did not mean that Mr Webb was not a journalist. Mr Crone said he had never used a memory stick and therefore did not see the contents of the memory stick. Lord Justice Leveson again clarified Mr Crone’s definition of a journalist.

Colin Myler the last Newspaper Editor said his understanding was that Mr Webb was a private investigator. He had become aware of Mr Webb when he had been arrested and charged related to a Thames Valley journalist. When the case against Mr Webb collapse the News Editor approached Mr Myler and said he was expert in surveillance former police officer who had done excellent work and could be reemployed if he became an NUJ member to get round the objection to using private detectives.

Lord Justice Leveson That did not make him a journalist. No said Mr Myler of course not but it made him more aware of his responsibilities for working for the News of the World. My Jay asked why it did that. Mr Myler said this was because of the Code they operated which he would have been aware of anyway (In evidence he said he was never given a copy of the Code or made aware of it), Mt Myler then said he was only aware of the one job Mr Webb had worked on, that when he was arrested and Mr Myler had said he could not continue to work for the paper. His name was not mentioned to him again after his reemployment. Mr Myler defended the past use of Private Investigators adding that banks, insurance companies used private investigators.

Mr Webb was the last of the group to give evidence on the subject. He explained that in the first intance he had been asked to follow a solcitor to see if the individual met up with the other. He was taken off a job in Surrey to go to Manchester. He was told to find out if the two people were having an affair. He was given the name of a man who was not Mark Lewis so the name was not mentioned at the Inquiry. He had followed a woman from the address all day and taken a video footage to establish the idenity which was collected from the hotel he was staying that same evening. Mr Webb confirmed he had sent a note to Ian Edmondson which was previously raised by Mr Sherbornne with Mr Crone. He was then told to stand down as the woman was not that commissioned.

He was then told to return to Manchester and given two photos which he printed out. One of Ms Harris and the other was of a man-not Mr Lewis). He was told to decide which of the Solicitors offices he was observe to see if one individual went to meet the other. He did not see either and therefore obtained no video footage and was told to stand down as they were both in London. Mr Sherborne then had two question for Mr Webb, the first was if he been asked to undertake surveillance on Senna Miller and Jude Law. Mr Webb said on one day but he had been immediately called off.

Mr Webb then said he was unable to confirm that the person he had filmed at the garden centre was the 14 year old daughter of Mr Lewis because he had not seen the video footage and therefore he had nothing to say to Mr Lewis was at the Inquiry. So the question remains. Was 14 year old girl mistake as a woman and followed over a day? If not who took the video which was shown to Mr Lewis by the Police?

I decided to present this situation rather than the evidence in relation to the Mosley case or the extent if any that Rupert Murdoch knew about the widespread hacking or some of the other issues covered over the week because I believe the Webb case and the surveillance of Mr Lewis and Ms Harris together with response of the Journalists and the lawyers reveals more clearly what had been going and the brave face attempted to put on the sordid unethical and thoroughly disreputable practices going on and which were summed up nicely by Counsel for the Inquiry who said it was deliciously ironic that the paper had demanded to see the whole video taken by a TV programme denouncing their tactics because it impuned the integrity of one of their journalists. He could have justifiable called the bunch hypocrites.