APPENDICES
Peter Oborne: • para 7, on the link between government ability to do media organisations favours and positive coverage, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ Witness-Statement-of-Peter-Oborne.pdf • p1, on a culture of client journalism, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/05/Exhibit-PO2-to-Witness-Statement-of-Peter-Oborne.pdf • 45/2-46/2, on implicit deals between politicians and journalists that briefing against colleagues is exchanged for favourable coverage; 46/15-46/18, on meetings between journalists and ministers leading to "some sort of bitchy piece about a colleague", http:// www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-17-May-2012.pdf • p2, on the reporting of untruths by politicians, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2012/05/Exhibit-PO2-to-Witness-Statement-of-Peter-Oborne.pdf • p1, on a culture of client journalism, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/05/Exhibit-PO2-to-Witness-Statement-of-Peter-Oborne.pdf • 37/5-38/11, that there was a sense that News International was above that law and was given political protection by the government, giving examples, http://www.levesoninquiry. org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-17-May-2012.pdf
1979Lord O'Donnell: • p14, on the link between leaking and pre-briefing and media interest in disagreements in government, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Witness- Statement-of-Lord-ODonnell.pdf • 23/1-26/16, on the risks of politicians being motivated to persuade newspapers that their policies are right, and explaining policies in a certain way to garner support; 31/24- 32/21, media reaction as a factor when politicians make policy decisions, http://www. levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-14- May-2012.pdf • paras 18-19, on a "feedback loop" between politicians feeding stories to supportive newspapers and newspapers' political biases becoming stronger, and leaks and advance briefing of government measures in order to put them in a good light, http://www. levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Witness-Statement-of-Lord- ODonnell.pdf • para 25, on the inappropriateness of the Order in Council in relation to Alastair Campbell contrasted with the impartiality of civil servants, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2012/05/Witness-Statement-of-Lord-ODonnell.pdf • 31/24-32/21, that politicians take into account likely media reaction to and support for a policy and that in relation to regulation and taxation of the press politicians are very nervous because of the possibility of personal attack by the press, http://www. levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-14- May-2012.pdf
¶Appendix 5 | Evidence Relevant to the Generic Conclusions on the Relationship Between Politicians and the Press: Part I Chapter 8
¶Jeremy Paxman: • para 2.12, on politicians telling journalists things to settle a score or undermine a colleague, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Witness-Statement-of-Jeremy-Paxman.pdf • para 2.13, on the politicisation of the government information service, http://www.
¶levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Witness-Statement-of-Jeremy-Paxman.pdf • paras 2.10, that the media has an influence over public policy; 10.1, giving examples of governing in response to headlines, including amendments to legislation to reform the NHS, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Witness-Statement-of-Jeremy-Paxman.pdf • 121/23-122/19, that politicians caring too much about how they are portrayed in the media risks ending up with legislation like the Dangerous Dogs Act, http://www.levesoninquiry.
¶org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-23-May-2012.pdf
¶Jack Straw MP: • para 11, on the risk of politicians being influenced by the agendas of media organisations, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Witness-Statement-of-Jack-Straw-MP.pdf • para 24, on the risk of opposition politicians "playing fast and loose with statistics", http:// www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Witness-Statement-of-Jack-Straw-MP.pdf • 5/3-5/11, on most political stories being "knocking stories", and on relationships between particular journalists and opposition spokespeople; 5/12-5/17, on building relationships with correspondents to "build up stories and enjoy the results", http://www.levesoninquiry.
¶org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-16-May-2012.pdf • 78/14-79/6, on the privileging of some journalists and newspapers over others, http:// www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-16-May-2012.pdf • 78/14-79/6, that specific newspapers or journalists were favoured by Downing Street or ministers, that these groups were "very, very incestuous", http://www.levesoninquiry.
¶org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-16-May-2012.pdf • paras 115, that the media plays an important role in the development of policy; 117, the political class has indulged the tendency of sections of the media to exercise power without responsibility; 119-122, that pressure from the press can be intense in certain policy areas, and that he had sometimes pursued a policy due to media coverage, http:// www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Witness-Statement-of-Jack-Straw-MP.pdf • paras 83-90, describing media lobbying and influence on the penalty for misuse of data;
¶at para 91, the appointment of Paul Dacre to head the review of the 30 year rule and that Gordon Brown and Paul Dacre had discussed the appointment ahead of Gordon
¶Brown becoming Prime Minister; at paras 102-111, describing media influence over the formation of s.12 Complaints handling 709 Chapter 7: Conclusion 717 1 Introduction 717 2 Possible causes 719 3 The relevance of the internet 736 4 The press response to this Inquiry 737 PArT G: The PreSS And The POlICe: The relATIOnShIP 741 Chapter 1: Policing with Consent: the role of the press 743 1 Introduction 743 2 The purpose of the relationship and public confidence 745 3 Tensions in the relationship between the media and the police 748 Chapter 2: The history of the relationship: different Approaches 751 1 Metropolitan Police Service: the Commissioners 751 2 Other police forces 756 3 Press departments 763 Chapter 3: Press and the Police: the harm and the response 780 1 Introduction 780 2 The use and abuse of information 780 3 Entertainment: an overview 830 4 The perception of influence 851 5 The problems of friendship 898 6 Calibrating the harm: the views of Commissioners 928 v http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Assessor-Protocol-17-October-2011.pdf http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/231111-S19-restriction-order-HJK.pdf Re H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] AC 563 at 586 per Lord Nicholls p49, para 47-90, Professor Baroness Onora O'Neill, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-16-July-2012.pdf Feldman,D 'Secrecy, Dignity or Autonomy? Views of Privacy as a Civil Liberty', p54, http://clp.oxfordjournals.org/ p52, lines 3-12, Professor Jennifer Hornsby, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-16-July-2012.pdf http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Spencer-Feeney.pdf; http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Mike-Gilson.pdf; http:// www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-John-McLellan.pdf; http://www. levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Jonathan-Russell.pdf ibid p5, para 13, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Lord-Patten1. pdf p3, para 5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/DCMS-submission_Narrative-on-media- ownership.pdf Great Britain (1949) Op cit, p178 p54, paras 121-124, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of- Stephen-Abell.pdf p52, lines 4-18, DCI Gilmour, ibid pp6-7, para 4.4, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Alexander- Owens1.pdf p43, para 84, ibid p9, lines 19-22, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-6- February-2012.pdf pp12-13, lines 16-14, Sally Dowler, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-21-November-2011.pdf pp34-35, lines 17-13, Fiona Fox, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-24-January-2012.pdf p25, para 53, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-JK-Rowling2. pdf p16, lines 21-25, Colin Myler, ibid p20, lines 6-10, Robert Jay QC, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-9-May-2012.pdf; p7, para 17, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ Witness-Statement-of-DCI-John-Macdonald.pdf pp25-26, lines 11-14, Charlotte Church, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript- of-Afternoon-Hearing-28-November-20111.pdf p9, lines 3-18, Hugh Whittow, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-12-January-2012.pdf p32, ibid p31, lines 21-23, Lord Condon, ibid p4, lines 16-24, Assistant Chief Constable Jerry Kirkby, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-27-March-2012.pdf Interim ACPO Guidance for Relationships with the Media, para 3.5, http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/reports/2 012/201204IntGuiMediaRels.pdf pp30-32, ibid; p1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Fourth-Witness-Statement-of- Richard-Thomas-CBE.pdf p54, lines 16-18, Richard Thomas, ibid p50, lines 10-12, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-9-December-2011.pdf http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Philip-Coppel-QC-redacted.pdf; without reproducing it in full here, his general introduction to the history and substance of the Act is a commendably lucid and concise overview which should recommend itself to the general reader and which I am pleased to be able to adopt for the purposes of this Report: see pp2-12. This was also covered in his oral evidence: pp1-20, Philip Coppel, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-17-July-2012.pdf pp81-86, lines 17-3, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript- of-Afternoon-Hearing-9-December-2011.pdf Part H, Chapter 5, para 2.72 p11, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-statement-of-Andrew-Neil.pdf pp22-23, lines 25-1, Jack Straw, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-16-May-2012.pdf p50, lines 8-24, David Cameron, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-14-June-2012.pdf p15, ibid p20, lines 16-19, James Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-24-April-2012.pdf pp3-4, lines 24-2, ibid p12, para 40, ibid p21, para 5.1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Ofcom-Measuring- Media-Plurality1.pdf As I have made clear in Part E Chapter 5, there is an issue about the way in which the relationship between the Management and Standards Committee and the MPS has recently developed. I repeat that I am satisfied that it is not appropriate to elaborate further although the assistance upon which the police have had to depend only serves to make the point that this Chapter identifies This argument subsequently prevailed in the European Court of Human Rights following further litigation relating to Naomi Campbell when the Court ruled that the recovery of success fees at the level sought by lawyers in privacy and defamation cases represents a significant violation of freedom of expression. In that case, the figures were startling: Ms Campbell was awarded £3,500 in damages after the House of Lords ruled her right to privacy had been breached by a front-page story revealing her attendance at Narcotics Anonymous. Her legal costs came to more than £1m, including £288,468 base costs, £279,981.35 in success fees and £26,020 disbursements: see MGN v. United Kingdom (Application 39401/04) p171, para 247, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Stephen- Abell.pdf pp6-7, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Sumission-from-Jeremy-Hunt-MP.pdf; p8, para 3.1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Tim-Suter-of-Perspective- Associates.pdf http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Lord-Black-of-Brentwood-Annex-C1.pdf pp6-7, paras 20-21, ibid pp3-7, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Michelle-Stanistreet-on- behalf-of-the-National-Union-of-Journalists.pdf p54, lines 1-10, Professor John Horgan, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-13-July-20121.pdf para 179, report of Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201012/ jtselect/jtprivinj/273/273.pdf Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.24 Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.31 See for example, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24, and Lingens, cited above, §§ 41-42) and recently Centro Europa 7 SRL and Di Stefano v Italy (Application no. 38433/09) of the Human Rights Act, • http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Witness-Statement-of-Jack-Straw-MP.pdf
1980