Appendix 5: Evidence relevant to the generic conclusions on the relationship

Appendix 5: Evidence relevant to the generic conclusions on the relationship

¶

• between politicians and the press: Part I, Chapter 8 — 1955

• Appendix 6: Bibliography — 1985

¶xi parT F The Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press: the Press and F the Public

437 439

¶Chapter 1 Introduction 1. Overview 1.1 Whether published every day, every week or every month, the press produce a vast amount of reading material covering an enormous range of topics. The daily and weekly papers will cover – in no particular order – news, politics, investigations, foreign affairs, business, sport, culture (including books, art, film and theatre), property, fashion, travel, motoring, personal finance, entertainment, TV and radio, games and doubtless other topics. There are features and opinions, gossip and jokes. They inform and they entertain and they do so very much in the public interest. The overwhelming majority of these topics are attractively covered in a way that undoubtedly appeals to readers.

¶1.2 The reason that the Inquiry has not focussed on what is the overwhelming majority of the work of journalists is that, in the main, there is no public concern about the way in which most of these topics have been reported. The culture, practices and ethics of the press that are of interest to the Inquiry cover only one aspect of the way in which the press goes about its business. True, there could be arguments about the extent to which a travel journalist or food critic should inform the reader that he or she received a discounted or complimentary holiday or meal, but such issues are on the very edge of what the Inquiry has been concerned about. The focus, therefore, has only been on those areas which have been the subject of F criticism; in particular, the way in which parts of the press can deal with individuals without regard to their rights and without regard to the public interest. It must be remembered that these are individuals who almost invariably do not have the same megaphone to defend themselves or put the contrary view.

¶1.3 Most of the topics covered by the press will never trouble any regulator, whether it is the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) or someone else. As a result, the need for a regulator and the scope of its authority is not dictated by issues that arise from the vast majority of stories. But that is not the same as saying that there is no need for a regulator. Most doctors behave impeccably towards their patients but a regulatory mechanism is necessary for those who do not, whether on a serial basis or because of a single lapse. The need to examine the criticisms of the press inevitably focuses on those areas that cause difficulty so as to ensure that, whatever the answer to regulation is, it can deal with these issues.

¶1.4 I am conscious that focussing on criticisms of the press will cause (and has, indeed, caused) many to criticise the Inquiry on the basis that it has been slanted to the poor practices and has paid insufficient attention to good practices. Piers Morgan, the former editor of the Daily Mirror, for instance, complained at the conclusion of his evidence that a lot of the very good things that newspapers have done and continue to do were not being highlighted by the Inquiry. He said it was "like a rock star having an album brought out from his back catalogue of all his worst-ever hits".1 To some extent, that is the inevitable consequence of the Inquiry's Terms of Reference and its focus on public concerns and complaints rather than on the successes and achievements of the press. During the course of the Inquiry, I made it clear that I did not believe that the culture, practices and ethics of the press were predominantly p110, lines 10-22, Piers Morgan, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-20-December-2011.pdf sub-standard or worthy of criticism. In my view the majority of editors, journalists and others who work for both the national and regional press do good work in the public interest, as well as entertaining their readers. I have no doubt that the press can take pride in most of its work.

440

¶1.5 However, good practices do not require a public inquiry and do not require regulation. They also take less time to define, describe and substantiate, and can be cast in a way that is entirely uncontroversial. It takes far more time and space to consider and analyse the extent to which complaints and criticisms are well-founded, and to identify the mechanisms that should be available to encourage all that is good while discouraging that which is properly capable of criticism. As a consequence, this important Part of the Report starts, at Chapter

¶2, with a recognition of the enormous value that the press plays in our daily life, and notes that for all of the examples of poor practice cited below, there are many more examples of good practice. However, having said that, the rest of this Part of the Report focuses on the concerns and complaints that have been made and expressed, along with the ways in which they have or have not been adequately addressed. It would be entirely wrong to view the number of words expended in this Report on the good versus the bad as reflecting any overall judgment. The nature of my task is to focus on those aspects of press culture, practices and ethics (even if in small pockets) which leave something to be desired. Inevitably, the focus is overwhelmingly on poor practice rather than good.

2. Module One and the Terms of Reference F 2.1 This Part of the Report examines the evidence the Inquiry has received relating to 'the Press and the Public', in other words, the first of the four modules into which the work of the

¶Inquiry was conveniently allocated.

¶2.2 The Terms of Reference do not specifically mention 'the public' (cf. politicians and the police) but it is obvious that any inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press must investigate all the respects in which press conduct and behaviour (nouns which do appear in the express wording) impact on those who feature predominantly in the work of newspapers, in other words 'the public'. Indeed, owing to the nature of the concerns which directly triggered the setting up of the Inquiry, I decided to bring 'the public' into the heart of the first module. The relationships between the press and the police, and the press and politicians, naturally give rise to slightly different issues which could best be addressed after Module

¶One.

¶2.3 The terminology – the 'culture, practices and ethics' of the press – was the subject of analysis by Counsel to the Inquiry in opening Module One in November 2011, and submissions by the

¶Core Participants. The analysis of Robert Jay QC was as follows:2

"It may be helpful to take those three terms together. We are looking at practices which may be widespread rather than isolated and sporadic. Practices which may be widespread, insofar as they are bad practices, may well flow from systems which are broken and/or from attitudes and mores which are dysfunctional. The more we may see patterns of behaviour and practices which are generic, and the more widespread they are, the more it may be possible to infer the existence of broken systems, dysfunctional attitudes and mores; and, overall, the existence of a culture which tends to explain why these problems are occurring in the first place."

¶p19, lines 3-14, Robert Jay, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-14-November-2011.pdf

441

¶2.4 Further, in my ruling on the Application of Rule 13 of the Inquiry Rules 2006, I said this:3

"Turning from the general to the specific, it is first necessary to consider the Terms of Reference which clearly visualise 'the press' as capable of being a sufficiently homogeneous group to allow analysis of its culture, practices and ethics even if (as is undoubtedly the case) different titles and different types of newspaper will or may exhibit different or slightly different approaches to them. Nobody, however, has suggested that the legal or ethical approach should be different even if the pressures, the likely impact of ethical considerations on the type of story sought and the willingness to take risks might be. Having said that, it is clear that an isolated act of criminal or unethical behaviour would not, of itself, represent the culture or constitute a practice of 'the press'. Subject to a practice being sufficiently widespread to constitute evidence of a culture or practice of the press, however, there is no question of it being necessary to quantify that practice and, in any event, I will need to consider the extent to which the picture is built up inferentially and cumulatively."

¶2.5 These broad interpretations, which in my view make the same points in different ways, have been my guiding principles throughout this Inquiry. Thus, the endeavour throughout has been to focus on the generic or, more precisely, what might on first examination be evidence bearing on the culture, practices and ethics of the press overall. On occasion, I have come to the conclusion that evidence which had the appearance of exemplifying this core issue within my Terms of Reference did not, in fact, demonstrate any generic failing, but rather was indicative of the isolated or wayward. On other occasions, I have rejected the submissions of Core Participants that I should conclude that some failing was a 'one-off' and have decided that it was, in fact, illustrative of a wider problem. Throughout, I have had regard to a possible F broader picture without pre-judging the issue: whether or not a piece of evidence is truly part of the jigsaw has depended on assessing that evidence in its own terms and then more widely; but the point to be reiterated and fully understood is that the shape and nature of the jigsaw did not come into sharp and clear relief until the end of the Inquiry, after all the evidence had been assessed and analysed.

¶2.6 There are three further points I would like to make at this stage. First, although I recognise the inherent difficulties, there are clear practical reasons why the press should be considered as a broad entity rather than as a series of individual print titles. This, as I have already stated in my ruling of 1 May 20124, is not the same as saying that 'the culture' at each newspaper is exactly the same. Journalists move from newspaper to newspaper, and the commercial pressures I explore below are similar across the industry as a whole; I recognise that some newspapers are more profitable than others and that newspapers vary in respect of the sort of stories they like to print. Furthermore, the industry is fairly closely-knit in the sense that newspapers competing with one another tend to have a fair idea of what their colleagues or competitors are up to.

¶2.7 Second, although the Terms of Reference are not worded so as to pre-judge the issue, it is clear that those who participated in their formulation were of the view that the culture, practices and ethics of the press left something to be desired. Thus, paragraph 1d of the Terms of Reference refers to 'media misconduct' (in the context of previous warnings), paragraph behaviour' (implying that press misbehaviour is a current concern). Plainly, the Terms of

442

¶Reference require me to describe and characterise press conduct and, where appropriate, to identify causes: in other words, fully to diagnose the problem before potential solutions and remedies are recommended. Given what had been revealed at the News of the World

¶(NoTW), that may not be surprising but it is important to underline that I have approached this exercise with an open mind, and not on the basis that the explicit and implicit premises of the Terms of Reference do not require independent validation by me.

¶2.8 Third, and a point which again flows directly from an examination of the Terms of Reference, my recommendations must support 'the integrity and freedom of the press...while encouraging the highest ethical and professional standards' (paragraph 2a). It is clear from this language that the Inquiry must do its best to foster a free press which has integrity as well as ethical standards: indeed, the highest ethical and professional standards. Many commentators have focused on the importance of a free press (which I would be the first to recognise and uphold) without any reference to the need for an ethical press to possess integrity. These are demanding standards and require ethical judgments to be made at all material times:

¶merely to broadcast the values of 'freedom' is seriously to overlook a complementary and equally important set of values, and to run the danger of creating or permitting that which is undesirable and not in the public interest. In my view, the unification of these twin requirements – freedom and ethics – is not an impossible aspiration: both may co-exist in the same press, working in harmony and in cooperation with each other. But the recognition of the need for an ethical press inevitably carries with it the recognition of the need for a responsible press, which respects the rights and interests and others, and which does not regard 'freedom' as the ultimate panacea or touchstone for its mores and conduct. F 2.9 As a final point, I should note that many of the arguments made in respect of the rights or wrongs of the practices and ethics of the press can turn on one's view of the amorphous concept of the public interest. Many otherwise unethical practices may be made ethical simply by virtue of the fact that they are justified, in the circumstances, in the public interest.

¶For example, covert surveillance and photography of an actress playing with her children in a private garden is almost certain to be unethical; by contrast, the covert surveillance and photography of drug dealers supplying heroin (in the equivalent of a back garden) is almost undeniably ethical and entirely in the public interest. As such, the Terms of Reference do require me, when assessing the culture, practices and ethics of the press, to engage in questions relating to the public interest.

¶2.10 There can be many reasonable views of what is, or is not, in the public interest. In line with judicial authority, it is not for me to impose my own conception as the correct and only one:

¶the judgment of editors and journalists should be given significant weight.5 But that does not mean that journalists and editors have free rein to define the public interest however they choose. It is clear, as most (but not all) have fully recognised, that the public interest is something quite different from simply what interests the public.

3. Evidence in Module One of the Inquiry 3.1 Module One sat for 40 days between 14 November 2011 (when Mr Jay opened the Module)6 and 9 February 2012, closing with supplementary evidence from Paul Dacre. However, as I have explained, the modules do not form hermetically sealed caskets and further evidence relevant to Module One was adduced at later stages.

443

¶3.2 The body of evidence received by the Inquiry is vast, both in terms of its volume and scope, and it will not be possible to deal with all of it in this Report. To do so would create a sprawling and overly cumbersome narrative which would imbalance the Report as a whole, lack appropriate focus and, in consequence, fail to do justice to the Terms of Reference. Instead, I adopt a more focused, thematic and analytical approach which serves to find the right balance between indiscriminate citation of the evidence on the one hand and overly boiling down the material on the other. My overriding goal is, and always has been, to set out a sufficient narrative which enables everyone to understand the basis of my generic conclusions in relation to the culture, practices and ethics of the press; and, even more saliently, my recommendations as to a new regulatory regime. Even adopting this more tailored approach, I recognise that there will inevitably be elements of duplication and overlap. This is largely for two reasons: first, certain pieces of evidence may be relevant to more than one generic conclusion, and second because there is more than one way of approaching, narrating and analysing the key elements of the story. My different angles of approach will sometimes require me to recruit the same evidence for slightly different purposes.

¶3.3 Module One saw evidence given by a range of people, chosen to provide as complete a picture as possible on the relationship between the press and the public. Those witnesses broadly fell into categories as described below.

¶3.4 First, the Inquiry heard from 21 witnesses from across British society, each with a different personal story to tell about their adverse treatment by parts of the press. As more fully F explained below, some of the witnesses may fairly be described as 'celebrities'; others were individuals who would challenge that characterisation and say that they do not seek out fame or media celebrity as such but find their way into the public eye only because they are good at what they do (whether it be acting, singing, writing, playing sports); others have featured in the press because they are unfortunate enough to be the victims of crime, or otherwise have been associated with notorious crime; and yet others have been ordinary people who have attracted press interest for whatever reason. Thus, the witnesses occupied a disparate range of occupations and social groups, and no one could fairly say that they were all celebrities, still less that they openly courted publicity and should therefore accept the rough with the smooth.

¶3.5 Although most witnesses were required both to make statements and to give evidence by reason of a notice issued under s21 of the Inquiries Act 2005, these witnesses (all of whom were speaking about intensely personal experiences) were not. They were self-selected from among the Core Participants who complained about press intrusion. As I have made clear, in the main, their evidence was not subjected to detailed probing by Counsel to the Inquiry and, in accordance with my direction, there was no cross-examination by the other Core Participants, although they did suggest questions (which Counsel generally then felt it appropriate to ask) and were, additionally, allowed (if not encouraged) to put in evidence in rebuttal if so advised. Accordingly, the Inquiry recognises that some of this evidence was not fully tested for its reliability and credibility in a manner which would have been appropriate had it been essential to reach findings of fact at a granular level. Nonetheless, nobody has suggested that the majority of the evidence received by those witnesses was anything other than reliable and so, as a whole, it casts important light on the broad issue of the culture, practices and ethics of the press.

444

¶3.6 Second, the Inquiry heard evidence from journalists and commentators who had written

about their experience of the culture, practices and ethics of the press. Those critical of press standards included Richard Peppiatt, a former journalist, and Alastair Campbell, the former Director of Communications for No 10. At the other extreme end of the spectrum was Paul McMullan who rejoiced in an anarchical view of the approach to any standards within the press. In the middle, there were others whose evidence, on the face of their witness statements, was more favourable to the press, but who also needed to be probed and tested not least as they moved away from prior published statements on the subject matter. Witnesses in this category included Mr Morgan and Sharon Marshall, a former journalist with the NoTW.

¶3.7 Third, the Inquiry heard evidence from each of the national titles in England and Wales,

some magazines and similar publications, and also from a sample of regional titles and those publishing in the devolved administrations. In the time available it was not possible to do other than hear from a representative sample of journalists in order to give me a flavour of the position, although it should be recorded that the Inquiry did hear in person from virtually all the national newspaper editors and proprietors (albeit that the timing of the evidence of many of the proprietors was at the start of Module Three not least because they had a number of topics to cover and I wished to ensure that they did not have to appear at the Inquiry more than once). Aside from being asked to elaborate on the key points made in their detailed witness statements, editors and journalists were asked to address and comment on examples of the culture, practices and ethics of the press which had come to the Inquiry's notice, some exemplifying ostensibly good practice, others less good.

¶F 3.8 Inevitably, the Inquiry's most detailed consideration was reserved for what may be called

the 'really big stories', some of which are addressed as exemplifying facets of the culture, practices and ethics of the press below.7 Equally inevitably, the Inquiry in these instances heard evidence from the journalists and editors involved: as was made clear at the time, and I reiterate, the purpose of doing this was not to subject the journalists in particular to personal censure, but rather to examine what they did (and did not do) for the light it was capable of throwing on the general picture. That said, I fully understand that the experience of giving evidence before a televised public inquiry could not always have been a pleasant one for the press witnesses concerned: the Inquiry is grateful for their contributions, and notes that, on all occasions, witnesses were treated with courtesy and consideration.

¶3.9 Fourth, the Inquiry also received evidence in Module One from those involved in electronic

media and the internet, with a view to seeking to understand the specific challenges presented to press regulation generally by the existence of the worldwide web and the burgeoning range of possibilities created by new technology.

¶3.10 Fifth, the Inquiry heard evidence from a number of special interest groups bringing different

perspectives to my deliberations. First, there was a range of groups, such as Trans Media Watch, ENGAGE and End Violence against Women, who complained about unbalanced reporting in the press of issues concerning them, and of the failure of the PCC to address their concerns. Second, there were other groups, such as English PEN and Index against Censorship, who came to the Inquiry with particular perspectives on Article 10, free speech and public interest issues. Third, there were organisations such as Full Fact and the Science Media Centre, concerned about inaccuracy in press reporting, either generally or in a specific context. This list is not exhaustive, either of the groups who testified or of the issues they covered, but it provides a flavour of the range of evidence the Inquiry has been asked to

¶7 Part F, Chapter 5 take into account: a considerable body of other evidence to like effect but affecting other interested or concerned groups was read into the record of the Inquiry.

445

¶3.11 Sixth, the Inquiry heard from those with experience in the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) and the Press Board of Finance (PressBof), covering the existing system of regulation of the press and proposals for the future. The Inquiry heard from the past and current directors and chairs of the PCC, and the current chair of PressBof, Lord Black. The present chair of the PCC, Lord Hunt, assisted the Inquiry with the then current state of play regarding the industry's proposals for 'self-regulation' within a new contractual framework, and he returned to update me on this topic in Module Four.

¶3.12 Finally, a different perspective on the approach to stories came from the Information Commissioner and the police. As for the Information Commissioner, the evidence from Operation Motorman provides a window on the way in which some journalistic investigations were conducted or information researched (albeit without the knowledge of those affected). Its significance is such that it is summarised in Part E, Chapter 3; the position is then subject to separate analysis in Part H. As for the police, their investigations are detailed in Part E, Chapters 2,⁴⁴ Other material 35 The importance of a free press: public debate and holding power to account 63 Other public goods 75 i Prime Minister Brown: 2007-2010 1150 Reflections 1231 Chapter 5: Media policy: examples from recent history 1233 Data Protection Act 1998 1270 http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Application-of-Rule-13-of-the-Inquiry-Rules-in- relation-to-the-MPS-4-May-2012.pdf Great Britain, Royal Commission of the Press, 1947-1949: Report, p3 para 3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Key-Questions-Module-4.pdf p6, ibid Claire Enders, Competitive Pressures on the Press, Seminar 6 October 2011, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2012/07/Claire-Enders-Competitive-pressures-on-the-press.pdf ibid http://www.freeview.co.uk/ p11, para 3.8, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Ofcom-Measuring- Media-Plurality1.pdf Great Britain, Royal Commission on the Press 1947-1949: Report, p3 p86, lines 1-9, Lord Justice Leveson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-9-May-2012.pdf p3, para 3.3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Alexander- Owens1.pdf p43, para 84, ibid p9, para 32, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Third-Witness-Statement-of-DAC-Sue- Akers.pdf http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Application-of-Rule-13-of-the-Inquiry-Rules-2006. pdf p66, lines 4-11, James Dingemans QC, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-23-July-2012.pdf para. 1.38-1.39, in Part A for an explanation of the term pp1-2, para 5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Sally-Bob- Dowler.pdf p7, para 23, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Charlotte- Church.pdf pp9-10, paras 43-44, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Witness-Statement-of-Piers- Morgan.pdf pp14-15, lines 19-20, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Robert-Jay-opening- submission-for-Module-23.pdf p4, para 10, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Lord-Condon. pdf pp109-110, lines 19-2, Elizabeth Filkin, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-5-March-2012.pdf p47, lines 18-21, Lord Condon, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-6-March-20122.pdf p32, lines 1-25, Alexander Owens, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-5-December-2011.pdf p34, lines 16-24, Alexander Owens,ibid p14, para 3.21, ibid pp57-60, lines 23-25, Alexander Owens, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript- of-Afternoon-Hearing-30-November-2011.pdf; http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Third- ws-of-Alexander-Owens.pdf Part H, Chapter 5, para 2.46 p15, lines 5-13, Rupert Murdoch, ibid The Sun, 9 April 1992; see p2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by- Professor-Steven-Barnett-University-of-Westminster.pdf See paragraphs 3.18-19 and 3.38 below James Evans' memorandum to The Secretary of State for Trade, 23 January 1981, pp4-5, ibid p8, paras 3.17-3.18, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Witness-Statement-of-James- Rupert-Jacob-Murdoch.pdf p2, line 22, ibid p2, para 5 ibid pp55-56, lines 7-14, Michael Gove, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-29-May-2012.pdf pp17-18, Ed Miliband, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Exhibit-EM-22.pdf p1, lines 15-17, Lord Hunt, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-10-July-2012.pdf K pp66-67, lines 13-2, David Cameron, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-14-June-2012.pdf pp2-3, para 5, ibid p11, para 3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Coordinating- Committee-for-Media-Reform.pdf pp51-52, lines 24-4, Professor John Horgan, ibid Part J, Chapter 4 Part K, Chapter 4, para 5.41 Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.10 Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. See also C-353/89 EC Commission v Netherlands [1991] ECR I-40689 at para 30Show full note and 5.

¶3.13 This short summary scarcely gives the full flavour of the scope, range and scale of the evidence the Inquiry received during the first 40 days of its sitting. The live oral evidence, accompanying witness statements and exhibits, and the read-in evidence, including all the documentary evidence and submissions, add up to a very substantial mass of material, all of which has been sifted, read, considered and analysed with a view to drawing the Inquiry's generic conclusions. Recognising that this burden of material only represents a small proportion of F the evidence which might have been adduced had time and resources been greater, I should nonetheless record that I believe that the evidence that has been received is sufficient in terms of its quality and quantity to enable me to discharge my Terms of Reference.

¶Evidence from "the Public" 3.14 As set out above, the Inquiry heard evidence of unethical and damaging press behaviour from a broad and representative cross-section of society. Witnesses to the Inquiry have included: individuals with a public profile; the victims of crime and indeed those incorrectly accused of criminality or other wrong-doing by the press; innocent bystanders to events; and individuals who may themselves be of no obvious in interest to the wider public but for their connections to the types of person set out above. These individuals have contributed to the Inquiry's work either by formally testifying in person or through witness statements which were read in to the Inquiry record, or through the mechanism of informal submissions to the Inquiry from ordinary members of the public made in response to questions published on the Inquiry website. I recognise the obvious limitations inherent in this latter category of evidence and, whilst appreciating the contributions which have been made, do not place independent reliance on this informal material.

¶3.15 It is wrong to suggest that the public are somehow homogeneous, or that (as some commentators have suggested) the Inquiry has only heard the complaints of the rich and famous. This is not the case: the spectrum of people who claim to have been the victims of unethical or damaging behaviour by the press and have given their personal accounts to the Inquiry is broad.

446

¶People with a public profile 3.16 People with a public profile can be visualised in different ways, depending mainly on how that profile arises. Evidently, there are those who occupy positions of power and responsibility in our democracy and who, by virtue of these functions, legitimately attract the interest of the press. Everyone can readily understand and appreciate who falls into this first category but, for my part, it is interesting to ask whether press proprietors and editors should be seen as being part of that group and, if so, how much press attention they personally attract. It should also be emphasised that what I have described as the legitimate interest of the press should not be understood as a carte blanche to look everywhere: the public's right to know is circumscribed by the subject-matter, and a correct appreciation of what the public truly has a right to know about.

¶3.17 'People with a public profile' also includes those who have become famous as a consequence of their success in their chosen career or profession. This second sub-group includes (in terms of those who have testified before me): footballers, such as Garry Flitcroft; musicians, such as the singer Charlotte Church; as well as film and television stars such as the television presenter,

¶Anne Diamond, and the actors Sienna Miller and Hugh Grant. These are all individuals in whom the public is interested as a consequence of the success they enjoy in their chosen walks of life, but they are also individuals whose private lives are largely unrelated to their professional lives and their careers.

¶3.18 As has been frequently pointed out to the Inquiry by the press Core Participants, some within this sub-group, but none of those mentioned above, have sought commercial advantage from F displaying a particular brand or persona before the public, or have made representations about themselves for direct or indirect advantage. But one does need to be clear about this, because just as 'the freedom of the press' has been pronounced by some as a mantra which conquers all, so has 'hypocrisy' been used indiscriminately in support of unjustified intrusions into the private lives of the famous and the successful. By way of illustrating, but not at this stage analysing the point, Mr Grant told the Inquiry:8

"... I wasn't aware I traded on my good name. I've never had a good name. And it's made absolutely no difference at all. I'm the man who was arrested with a prostitute and the film still made tons of money."

¶3.19 Further, the writer JK Rowling also told the Inquiry that she most emphatically does not seek fame or to benefit from her public persona, yet is still the subject of intense press interest.9

¶3.20 This category of people with a public profile also includes a third sub-group: individuals who are famous only for their celebrity, or put another way the mere fact of their having entered the public eye. These people are those who actively participate in the 'celebrity industry,' actively pursuing publicity's sake, employing publicists to provide a steady stream of stories to the press and to inform paparazzi of their whereabouts, in order to ensure that they continue to appear in the public eye. This sub-group might reasonably be said to include, for example, some stars of reality television. Certainly in these cases, where the fame of the individual is linked to their exposure to the public through the press and other media, the relationship between individual and the press, and what is acceptable and what is unethical, is more nuanced. In such cases the public interest in what might otherwise be private matters may

¶8 p86, lines 17-19, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing- 21-November-2011.pdf 9 p41, lines 2-8, JK Rowling, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of-Afternoon- Hearing-24-November-20112.pdf well be stronger and the nature of what can and cannot be considered private may be more difficult to determine.

447

¶Victims of crime 3.21 Members of the public who have been at the receiving end of unethical behaviour by the press also include the victims of crime and individuals who have been linked, either directly or indirectly, to crimes. To an extent this level of scrutiny is understandable as crime remains a key concern for the public and indeed much crime reporting is of the highest standard. However, the Inquiry has heard evidence in relation to some crime reporting, by a number of newspapers, that is alleged to have fallen far short of acceptable standards of behaviour in terms of inaccuracy and intrusiveness, sometimes giving rise to concerns of the risk of prejudicing subsequent criminal proceedings and, in relation to those who are already the victims of crime, causing considerable additional harm and distress.

¶3.22 This category of individual includes those who have been harmed emotionally as well as suffering damage to their reputations, such as Drs Kate and Gerry McCann whose daughter Madeleine disappeared when the family was holidaying in Portugal in May 2007. The subsequent coverage of Madeleine's disappearance included libellous and highly inaccurate articles in a number of newspapers, particularly in The Daily Express which made a number of allegations about the entirely unproven role of Drs Kate and Gerry McCann in the disappearance of their daughter.10

¶3.23 This sub-category also includes the parents of the murdered school girl Milly Dowler. Bob and Sally Dowler were subjected to an unwarranted barrage of intense and intrusive media

¶F attention.11 Aside from the well-publicised matters which led to the setting up of this Inquiry, moments of intense private grief were captured by photographers and published in the NoTW.12

¶3.24 These high-profile cases are far from isolated examples. The Inquiry also heard evidence from the parents of Diane Watson, who was murdered at school in Glasgow in 1991. In their evidence to the Inquiry, Mr and Mrs Watson not only raised the issue of unwarranted and indeed intrusive press attention but also, like the McCanns, pointed to the highly inaccurate and sensationalised reporting around their daughter's death.13

¶3.25 Such intense press interest is not restricted to the victims of crime but also extends to those who have been linked to, or wrongly, accused or suspected of committing, crimes. Christopher Jefferies was arrested in relation to the murder of the student Joanna Yeates at the very end of 2010 but subsequently was released without charge; he was not merely cleared of any wrong-doing but proved to have been a victim himself, the subject of disinformation by the killer intent on avoiding his own responsibility. However, as more fully examined below,14 during the course of the investigation, Mr Jefferies was subjected to a protracted campaign of vilification in the press. This saw a significant number of libellous allegations made by a number of newspapers, including The Sun and the Daily Mirror; both of which were later held to be in contempt of court. Indeed, so intense and unpalatable was this press attention that

448

¶Mr Jefferies was forced to leave his home and change his appearance.15

¶Innocent bystanders 3.26 It is not only individuals with public profiles and the victims of crime who have been the subject of intense press scrutiny and potentially unethical and damaging reporting. There are also many other ordinary members of the public who have complained of unwarranted press attention in a number of different respects. In particular, the Inquiry heard evidence from a number of organisations representing minority, community and societal groups alleging that individuals within those groups, or the groups themselves, have attracted inaccurate and discriminatory press interest. By way of example only, I have already mentioned Trans Media

¶Watch, a charitable and support organisation which represents the interests of members of the transgender community by in particular monitoring the quality of reporting of newspapers on transgender issues. Their basic complaint, which will be examined in greater detail below,16 is that transgender people are subject to disproportionate and damaging press attention simply by dint of being members of that group, rather than in consequence of anything they might have said or done, and because of what they describe as an obsession in parts of the British press with 'outing' members of the transgender community.17 3.27 Individuals who fall into this category do not consist only of members of pre-formed groups.

¶The category also extends to individuals who may find themselves at the centre of damaging F media attention, such as the families of suicides and also suicide victims themselves. The

¶Inquiry has heard evidence of intrusive and damaging press attention directed at the grieving families of suicides. In evidence to the Inquiry, the Samaritans describe the damaging and intrusive nature of press reporting of the suicides of a number of young people in Bridgend over a six month period in 2007 and 2008.18 During this time, it is argued, the relatives of some of these young people were not only subject to, sensationalised reporting which propounded unfounded speculation that they were linked through a cult or death pact, but also turned their relatives into the subject of newspaper stories.19

¶Those with links to the above 3.28 The last category of person to be considered here is broader and perhaps more nebulous;

¶it covers those who have become the subject of press speculation and attention as a consequence of the links they may have to those groups or types of people described above.

¶Included in this category are people like the parents of the singer Charlotte Church, who have been subject at times to intense press attention and a substantial number of intrusive and hurtful newspaper articles.20 Media interest in the parents of Ms Church clearly has more to do with their relationship to their famous daughter than their own actions: such interest would not have arisen otherwise. Another is the mother of Hugh Grant's daughter and, indeed, her mother. Finally, there are the innocent bystanders, such as Mary-Ellen Field, who are not even targeted or explicitly written about but become 'collateral damage' because of the suspicions generated by subterfuge.

449

4. The structure of Part F of the Report 4.1 Turning to the overall contours and direction of this Part of the Report, Chapter 2 summarises my own assessment of the evidence of good press practices, and reflects my view that the press can take pride in most of its work. However, even if the examples of good practice represent the vast bulk of the way in which the press works, it cannot be said that there is no cause for concern. 4.2 Chapter 3 moves to summarise the aspects of press practices which have given rise to complaint and concern. Standing back from all the evidence that the Inquiry has received over the past year, it is possible to discern a number of common themes or complaint headings which are set out in summary form in this Chapter before the further analysis which follows. Chapter 3 also summarises the nature of the harm suffered by individuals and by the public at large as a result of unacceptable press practices. It is necessary to assess the impact of unethical press practices in this way because the benefits of a free press cannot be assessed in isolation from other considerations: if a free press amounts to a press which, to a greater or lesser extent, fails to adhere to proper standards of behaviour, the consequences need fully to be understood.

¶4.3 Nobody denies that the poor practices identified in Chapter 3 exist in some form or other, F although there may well be arguments or debates about the extent to which they prevail (if at all) in individual titles. It must be remembered, however, that this is a qualitative assessment based on more than the odd or exceptional example (what is happening?) rather than a quantitative assessment (to what extent and in what particular titles?). When considering the success or otherwise of a regulatory regime, that must be the starting point. It is also why the submission made by some individual titles (that the conduct of which complaint is made cannot be brought home to them) simply misses the point: I am required to consider the press as a whole and the fact that any particular title (if it be the case) may never engage in the practices of which complaint is made is irrelevant.

¶4.4 Chapter 4 is devoted to the culture at the NoTW, in respects beyond the practice of phone- hacking which is addressed elsewhere. I dedicated a week of Inquiry time to this topic in December 2011, and, on other occasions, witnesses such as Paul McMullan and Sharon Marshall testified in somewhat different ways to the culture at that now defunct title. Given that the goings-on at the NoTW were the immediate trigger to the setting up of this Inquiry, it is appropriate to devote a whole chapter to this issue.

¶4.5 Chapter 5 takes a series of what I am calling 'case studies' – in truth, some of the most egregious stories the Inquiry examined in Module One – as exemplifications of the unethical press practices which underpin the core generic conclusions reached in the following chapter, Chapter 6. Accordingly, the case studies should be read not as random or individual instances of sub-standard press practice but as the exemplars of a wider problem. The fact that a title or a journalist is either necessarily identified or is capable of identification in a case study should not be taken as meaning that I am seeking to place that title or that journalist in a different category to those responsible for other examples of poor practice given in evidence to the Inquiry.

450

¶4.6 In Chapter 6 I seek to evaluate and analyse, in detail, the evidence of press practices which have given rise to concern, and to come to what may be called generic conclusions about the culture, practices and ethics of the press from this critical stand-point. Inevitably, this is a lengthy chapter. Not merely is the evidence voluminous but the issues which arise from it are complex and multi-faceted. I should emphasise that in reaching the conclusions I do, I have paid very careful regard to all the evidence the Inquiry has accumulated as well as the Core

¶Participants' helpful submissions.

¶4.7 Finally, in Chapter 7, I draw overall conclusions and seek to identify some of the drivers for unethical practices within parts of the press. Those drivers include the impact of commercial pressures in a shrinking newspaper market; the specific employment context in a number of newspaper titles; and inadequacies in internal governance and leadership at individual titles.

¶Ultimately, the Chapter concludes with a recognition that the unethical practices identified throughout the Report require both cultural, as well as systemic, changes within newspaper titles. While these changes must come from within newspaper groups, they must also be monitored and enforced by a robust and empowered regulator.

451

¶Chapter 2 Good Practice 1. The value and virtues of the UK press Overview 1.1 This Chapter of the Report will examine what is far too easy to take for granted, namely that in so many important respects the press is a force for good in British society. This issue is capable of being analysed in a number of ways. The first two concern over-arching issues relating to society as a whole. Thus, the very existence of a free press is invaluable in the sense that societies without such a press are invariably totalitarian regimes which do not and cannot, countenance the type of scrutiny which only an untrammelled Fourth Estate is capable of applying. Second, as many Core Participants have pointed out, a free press is the lifeblood of a mature democracy: it is an invaluable medium for the representatives of the people to get their message across, and an equally invaluable means both of examining the political message and holding the messengers to account.1

¶1.2 The second type of analysis is more pragmatic but no less important; however many times it was repeated during the course of the Inquiry, it continues to require emphasis. Most of the work of the press represents good practice rather than bad. Broadly speaking, stories are accurate, informative, well-written and respectful of the rights and interests of others. F Further and additional to that point, it is equally important to underline that the press carries out a valuable role in entertaining its readers according to their tastes and interests: indeed, if it failed in this important respect, readers would desert to other newspapers or other forms of media, including the array of electronic media currently available and ever burgeoning, as their preferred means of obtaining information.

¶1.3 These features lead to a further point which it is relevant to make in this context (as well as in other places). However cheap and easy access to online aggregated material, blogs and tweets might be, it is to those whose business is the collection, collation, accurate presentation and analysis of news, related commentary, current affairs, sports, fashion and entertainment (to name but a few) that the public look for informed views. Those who are in that business are called journalists and whether they produce their content in print or online, it is vital that their work continues to be trusted and recognised for the good that, in the main, it does and for the very important contribution that it makes to our society.

¶Existence of a free press: its intrinsic value 1.4 The submissions of News International have reminded the Inquiry of an exchange in Sir Tom Stoppard's satire on the British news media, Night and Day, published in 1978. Milne says to Ruth: 'No matter how imperfect things are, if you've got a free press everything is correctable, and without it everything is concealable'. Ruth replies: 'I'm with you on the free press. It's the newspapers I cannot stand'.

¶These concepts are discussed in greater detail in Part B Chapter 1 concerned with the importance of a free press and freedom of speech

452

¶1.5 The point is rightly made that freedom of the press is essential to a free society, and one of the key hallmarks of societies which are not free is the absence of a free press.2 Arguably, the point can be taken even further: there is a close correlation between press freedom on the one hand and the extent to which a society may be seen as being open and free on the other. And this is not simply a matter of journalists, editors and proprietors not being held in the thrall of the Executive: press freedom requires the press to discharge their important responsibilities by being ever-questioning and ever-vigilant, if necessary noisy, iconoclastic, irreverent and unruly. It remains to be considered whether, as has been suggested, it is these same instincts which may from time to time cause the press to be led astray.

¶1.6 Accordingly, the existence of a free press is valuable in itself and not merely for all the benefits it carries with it. It is noteworthy that not one witness suggested anything to the contrary, and that virtually all the witnesses who had come to tell their personal stories of press misconduct were at pains to explain that they believed in the value of a free press in its own right. Being free, however, is not the same as insisting on a free for all without any accountability of any sort.

¶Preponderance of good practice over the bad 1.7 Although the point has already been made that the Inquiry is not in a position to quantify reliably the amount of bad practice perpetrated by the press over the years, and furthermore does not need to do so in order properly to reach conclusions about the culture, practices and ethics of the press, or a section of the press, the converse is not the case: in other words, F the Inquiry is able to state with confidence that the majority of press practice is good, if not very good. The evidential foundation for this conclusion is clear. First, there is the convergent evidence received from numerous witnesses over the course of the hearings. Second, there is the weight of evidence coming from the press Core Participants. Finally, the Inquiry has been able to make its own assessment of the overall quality of the work of the press over a number of decades: this is based upon its own reading, assisted in this context by the knowledge and experience of the Assessors. Given the quantity of newspaper print produced up and down the country day in and day out, no doubt running to thousands of pages, it should be obvious that, if the work of the press was not predominantly acceptable, the volume of complaints and litigation would be orders of magnitude greater than they have been both historically and more recently.

¶1.8 The Sun has provided the Inquiry with some hard data which supports this point.3 A large issue of The Sun may contain 104 pages and 300 individual items, or even more, adding up to nearly 100,000 items over the course of a year. Of this total, fewer than half a dozen a week will result in a complaint to the PCC. Even recognising that stories are not always based on issues that could give rise to complaint and that, even if they do, many of those who might have wished to complain do not do so (whether out of disenchantment with the PCC or a reluctance to take on a large and powerful newspaper group), these statistics provide some overall support for the proposition that most press practice is good.

¶1.9 This reference to 'good practice' is intended to cover the work of the press generally, not just the work of news desks producing 'hard' or serious news. For the avoidance of doubt, here

¶2 In the famous words of John Wilkes MP writing in the mid-C18th, 'The liberty of the press is the birthright of a Briton, and is justly esteemed the firmest bulwark of the liberties of this country' p13, para 5.1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Submission-from-The-Sun-in- response-to-Inquiry-questions.pdf the Inquiry has in mind the work of those writing and producing the comment, opinion and editorial sections of newspapers; the sports pages; the show business and entertainment pages; the features pages; the business and personal finance columns; the crossword and games pages etc. This list is not of course exhaustive, and will vary from print title to print title, but the general point needs to be reiterated and reinforced.

453

¶1.10 Further, the term 'good practice' is also intended to cover a number of different facets of journalistic practice. First is the means by which the material for stories is obtained, investigated, researched and tested for its accuracy. Second, there is the intrinsic interest, variety, imagination and quality of the stories, varying according to the tastes and interests of the newspaper's readers. Perhaps the most compelling way of making this point is to record that the majority of newspaper content is stimulating and entertaining for its readers, recognising always that reader X may buy a particular paper for its sports coverage whereas reader Y may be more interested in its comment sections. Public taste is eclectic, but newspapers are extremely adept in attuning themselves to the viewpoints and various interests of the majority of their readers.

¶1.11 It is not inconsistent with the recognition that most of press practice is 'good' that journalists and editors will sometimes make mistakes, including errors of fact and of judgment. Sources, even multiple sources, may simply be wrong in a particular case, however right they might usually be; journalists might be misled by apparently reliable sources or websites putting out incorrect data and information; errors and slips may be made in the heat of the moment, in order to meet a particular deadline; editorial judgments may be incorrect in a specific instance notwithstanding that they may usually be entirely sound. Mistakes of this sort are made in every walk of life and are part and parcel of the human condition: depending on all F relevant factors, they may be entirely consistent with good press practice. But whether or not they exemplify good or bad practice at the end of the day will depend on matters such as systems for checking information and sources, and the press response when the error is pointed out, including press willingness to engage with the complainant and sort things out as quickly as possible.

¶1.12 There are two aspects of press practice which merit particular mention. First, Lionel Barber, editor of the Financial Times, emphasised in his evidence that the reputation of his paper depended on getting the story right. In the context of financial reporting it may readily be understood that accuracy has a special premium, or rather that inaccuracy can be especially damaging, but the same general point may fairly be made in relation to the press as a whole.

¶Newspapers trade on their reputation; their commercial success ultimately must rest upon the reputation they build for honesty, reliability and accuracy. This goes beyond the discussion of serious issues of politics or current affairs. A reader passionately interested in football, for example, will think twice about paying the cover price if the paper of his choice consistently

¶'gets it wrong' in relation to stories of interest to him or her.4 Further, the reader will come to learn in due course whether stories are true or false. It flows from this that newspapers have every incentive to be as honest, reliable and accurate as they can.

¶1.13 Second, the Inquiry recognises that journalists often work under the pressure of deadlines, and in such circumstances simply do not have the luxury of triple-checking sources or satisfying themselves to the point that they are sure beyond reasonable doubt that a story is true. This is a factor which must be taken into account, although exactly how far the point goes is worthy of careful consideration. For example, however pressing the deadline, a piece which would be seriously defamatory if untrue would require careful checking indeed, and

¶4 The Inquiry is not in a position to say whether this proposition is equally as accurate for racing tips in the ordinary course prior notice to the subject, before being published. This is always a matter of fact and degree, involving the exercise of sound and sensitive judgment.

454

¶Good journalism may also entertain 1.14 The Inquiry fully recognises and understands that not all journalism can or should be 'worthy' or high-minded. If this were some sort of requirement, or even a desirable objective, the outcome would be undemocratic and ultimately contrary to the public interest, because the readers of such a press would not be representative of the range of tastes, educational attainments and opinions which constitute modern British society. 1.15 An important section of the press, probably in truth the largest section, must be popular and must entertain. Even readers of more highbrow papers are not interested only in serious articles; light and entertaining pieces are all part of the overall package. The same naturally applies to an even greater extent in relation to the mid-market and tabloid press, and no one is remotely suggesting that this is an unworthy or inappropriate objective. 1.16 Thus, purely entertaining stories serve at least two functions: first, they have value in their own right, and accord pleasure to their readers on their own terms; second, they have a corollary function in attracting readers to the newsstand and in maintaining circulation; and the advantageous by-product of both these functions is that readers will participate more in the democratic process by being drawn to the news and comment pages of the paper which are often skilfully interwoven with the lighter sections and are usually written in a F clear, compelling, user friendly and pungent style. 1.17 Journalism which has no value other than the fact that it entertains does not require a public interest justification provided that its processes of research and preparation, as well as its subject matter, do not impinge on the rights of others. Submissions from a number of the press Core Participants appear to have come close to suggesting that the Inquiry's provisional view might be that a public interest justification is required for all stories: this is, as I hope has been made clear, to misunderstand the Inquiry's analysis of the issue. A public interest justification is required only if rights and interests such as the privacy of private individuals may be harmed. In all other cases, subject to issues such as accuracy and the like, the press is both entitled and entirely free to publish what it likes in the way that it likes. 1.18 What might or does amount to 'entertainment' will naturally vary from paper to paper, and no one could or should be remotely prescriptive about this. Here, the issue touches subjective matters of taste and opinion which, subject to not overstepping various bounds, must lie solely within the editorial judgment of the newspaper in question.

2. Some case studies 2.1 At the directions hearing on 3 April 2012, I made the following statement:5

"on a number of occasions it has been suggested to me that I have not paid sufficient attention to the good work of the press. Perhaps that's an inevitable consequence of the terms of reference of the Inquiry, but in order that nobody can suggest that I have paid insufficient attention to that aspect, I will invite any title that wishes to submit what they perceive to be their top five public interest stories over the last few years, merely to reflect the other side of the coin."⁵⁵ Submissions 36 Press freedom within the rule of law and the role of statute 65 Political news management 1155 Chapter 4: The Conservative revival and the coalition 1164 Communications Act 2003 1278 Chapter 6: media policy: The BSkyB bid 1299 pp1-14, lines 4-17, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of-Afternoon- Hearing-15-May-2012.pdf para 664, Ibid p6, para 3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Dr-Neil-Manson.pdf p2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Professor-Christopher- Megone.pdf Guardian website based on ABC figure http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/table/2011/oct/14/abcs-national- newspapers http://www.newscorp.com/investor/annual_reports.html http://www.sky.com/products/tv-packs/extra-channels/ p2-3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Professor-Christopher- Megone.pdf O'Malley, T and C Soley, Regulating the Press, pp51-56 p28, para 27, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Stephen-Abell.pdf pp77-78, lines 15-3, DCI Middleton, ibid p4, para 3.5, ibid p32, para 83, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Andy- Hayman1.pdf http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/evidence/?witness=dac-sue-akers Communications Act 2003 1278 Chapter 6: Media policy: The BSkyB bid 1299 see for instance Flood v Times Newspapers 2012 UKSC 11 pp7-8, lines 25-2, Rhodri Davies QC, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-24-July-2012.pdf Part E Chapter 4 p2, para 6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Sally-Bob-Dowler. pdf pp33-34, lines 19-5, Charlotte Church, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-28-November-20111.pdf; p11, para30, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Charlotte-Church.pdf p4, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Richard-Peppiatt.pdf HMIC Without Fear or Favour: A review of police relationships http://www.hmic.gov.uk/media/a-review-of-police- relationships-20111213.pdf p14, lines 8-9, Lord Condon, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-6-March-20122.pdf p34, lines 9-14, Brian Paddick, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/lev270212pm.pdf Part G Chapter 3 p39, lines 20-23, Francis Aldhouse, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-5-December-2011.pdf p10, para 4.14, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Alexander- Owens1.pdf pp22-24, paras 6.1-6.7, ibid p66, lines 5-9, 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 2.57 p39, lines 3-4, Tony Blair, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-28-May-2012.pdf The Sun, 11 April 1992; see p16, ibid p21, para 60, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Witness-Statement-of-David- Cameron-MP.pdf p7, ibid p2, lines 4-13, Lord Justice Leveson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-23-April-2012.pdf p3, lines 2-12, ibid p52, lines 6-13, Viscount Rothermere, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-10-May-2012.pdf pp65-68, lines 7-2, Claire Enders, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-17-July-2012.pdf Part E, Chapter 4 p37, lines 12-24, Paul Ashford, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-12-January-2012.pdf; pp73-77, lines 25-2, Richard Desmond, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-12-January-2012.pdf Part J, Chapters 2 and 3 p67, lines 1-12, Lord Hunt, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of-Afternoon- Hearing-31-January-2012.pdf K p2, para 4, ibid p102, lines 1-9, Ed Richards and Colette Bowe, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-12-July-2012.pdf p52, lines 17-24, Professor John Horgan, ibid p13, para 1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Lord-Black-of- Brentwood1.pdf Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.20; it would be particularly worthwhile to give consideration to the evidence that was provided to the Inquiry both in witness statements and orally, but specifically deployed on 16 July 2012 Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.10 1803 L Signed and proclaimed by the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission at the European Council meeting in Nice on 7 December 2000Show full note pp1-2, lines 14-8, Lord Justice Leveson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ lev030412pm.pdf

455

¶2.2 In this section of the report I will address a selection of the public interest stories drawn to my attention by a number of the press Core Participants pursuant to my invitation, and consider some specific pieces of evidence referred to in written submissions as illustrative of good practice. Not every title responded to my invitation, and in any event not every story will be expressly covered below: some of the campaigns which are relied on as evidence of 'public interest stories' are not without controversy, and some are ongoing. I will conclude this section with the Daily Telegraph's MPs' expenses stories, since much Inquiry time was devoted to it from a number of perspectives. 2.3 Inevitably, I will be drawing attention to the work of individual titles. I see no difficulty in doing this because reference to good practice does not engage in any way what I have been calling the mantra and the self-denying ordinance. 2.4 I am also drawing heavily on the content and wording of the submissions of the press Core Participants. I should accordingly make it clear that by making reference to any particular campaign, I should not be interpreted as passing judgment on the merits of that campaign or any underlying argument, although I fully recognise the right of the relevant title to campaign as it sees fit. Furthermore, it is extremely important that this aspect of the work of the press, namely holding public authorities and others to account in ways that an independent mind has perceived is in the public interest, is recognised and appreciated. When dealing with practices of sections of the press that I criticise, nothing should be taken to detract from the role of the press generally to expose wrongdoing, incompetence or inefficiency, and to challenge those who make decisions about the way they were reached or basis for them.

¶Associated Newspapers Limited F 2.5 The Daily Mail's written submission is that it is a newspaper which champions causes, fights injustice and raises millions from generous readers to help those facing real hardship. It has never been afraid, or frightened, to stand up against injustice, often in difficult or even dangerous circumstances. 2.6 The following are advanced as examples of public interest campaigns in recent years. 2.7 The first story advanced by the Daily Mail is the Stephen Lawrence campaign. When the prime suspects were acquitted in 1997 of Stephen's murder in south east London in 1993, the Daily Mail took up the case. A front page proclaimed 'Murderers,' accused the suspects of the crime and printed their pictures. Under a headline: 'The Mail accuses these men of killing. If we are wrong, let them sue us', the paper effectively challenged the suspects to sue. They did not. After the abolition of the rule against double jeopardy and new DNA developments, earlier this year two of the suspects were found guilty of his murder. 2.8 Second, two years after the 1998 Omagh bombing atrocity, in despair that the killers were still at large, devastated families of the 29 people, including the mother of unborn twins who had been killed in the outrage, approached the Daily Mail in a final attempt to win justice for their loved ones. the Daily Mail, which accused British justice of a 'shameful betrayal', appealed to its readers and received support across the religious and political divide, raising £1.2 million to fund a landmark civil court action. In June 2009, the family finally succeeded when a historic Belfast court ruling awarded them more than £1.6 million in damages against the four Real IRA terrorists they accused of tearing their lives apart. 2.9 The third campaign identified by the Daily Mail concerns compensation for wounded servicemen. In 2007, the Daily Mail highlighted the paltry sums given to injured heroes by the Ministry of Defence and launched a campaign focusing on the case of paratrooper Ben Parkinson, 24, who lost both legs, the use of one arm, his speech and much of his memory in a mine blast in Afghanistan. After a year of campaigning, the Government announced it was doubling the maximum pay out to the worst injured; this was followed, in 2010, by the announcement that compensation for thousands of others badly wounded in the line of duty, would also be raised, backdated to 2005.

456

¶2.10 Following the devastating tsunami on Boxing Day 2004, an appeal ('Flood Aid') by the Daily

¶Mail raised nearly £16 million from readers; this was a world record for newspapers. Much of the money was filtered through the Disaster Emergency Committee, which represents major UK-based charities, but the paper also oversaw the rebuilding of a large state school for children of the poor in Galle on Sri Lanka's southern coast and the reconstruction of a fishing village in Banda Aceh, together with new boats for fishermen.

¶2.11 The Daily Mail has also drawn attention to the many other successful campaigns the newspaper has run. Just a few of them are Dignity for the Elderly; Osteoporosis; Alzheimer's drugs; Prostate Cancer Awareness; The £6 million Kosovo Appeal; the £5.5 million Farm Aid appeal; The Battle of Britain memorial; Coming Home; and Money Mail's campaigns to help readers get compensation from the banks, from the tax man and from Building Societies.

¶2.12 It may readily be understood that Associated Newspapers Ltd's examples of 'public interest journalism' are examples of campaigns which it has pursued with enormous vigour over the years, in each case in the public interest and with ultimate vindication. They illustrate a different facet of the vital public importance of the press, no less important than paradigm illustrations of investigative reporting. Further, some might argue that the Stephen Lawrence campaign was not merely fraught with obvious risk, (legal risk being only one potential F concern) but it involved the difficult decision, raising serious public interest issues, as to whether to accuse those who had already faced a criminal trial for a crime as serious as murder (the private prosecutions brought by the Lawrence family having collapsed through lack of then available evidence). However, Paul Dacre, the editor of the Daily Mail back in

¶1997 as he is now, explained why he was prepared to support the Lawrence family in the face of injustice. It must be emphasised that his judgment has been entirely vindicated by subsequent events, namely the setting up of a public inquiry under the Chairmanship of Sir William MacPherson (along with its conclusions), the conviction of two men and the maintenance of public awareness of the case and its important ramifications.

¶The Guardian 2.13 Appendix A to the Guardian's submissions, filed on 23 July 2012, details five recent public interest investigations conducted by Guardian News and Media Ltd.6 I set out these in full.

¶2.14 The first concerns the death of the newspaper seller, Ian Tomlinson. In the days after the

¶Mr Tomlinson's death, during protests over the G20 summit in April 2009, dogged reporting by the Guardian's Paul Lewis raised questions about the police account of the sequence of events leading up to his collapse. The official account was unpicked when the Guardian obtained video footage showing Mr Tomlinson being struck by a police officer before his collapse. Mr Lewis's reporting led to the reversing of the original pathologist's findings that

¶Mr Tomlinson died of natural causes, an inquest returning a verdict of unlawful killing, and the prosecution (and subsequent acquittal) of a police officer for manslaughter.⁶⁶ Engagement with the public: the website 37 Chapter 3: Further issues of law 38 The protection of sources and other legal privileges of the press 68 Chapter 3: Competing public interests 69 http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/people/assessors/lord-david-currie/ This obligation of confidence is owed by the Inquiry team to any recipient of the letter and by that recipient to me, as Chairman of the Inquiry: see para. 14(1) of the Inquiry Rules 2006 Great Britain, Royal Commission on the Press: 1961-1962: Report (Cmnd 1811) p1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Dr-Rowan-Cruft.pdf p32, lines 16-21, Professor John Tasioulas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-16-July-2012.pdf Claire Enders, Competitive Pressures on the Press, Seminar 6 October 2011, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2012/07/Claire-Enders-Competitive-pressures-on-the-press.pdf ibid http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/how_we_govern/charter.pdf p3, lines 4-10, Robin Foster http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-17-July-2012.pdf Political and Economic Planning, Report on the British Press http://www.pcc.org.uk/index.html p9, para 8, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Witness-Statement-of-T-ACC-Russell- Middleton.pdf Information Commissioner's Office, What Price Privacy?, p15, para 5.1 p33, para 89, ibid p2, para 6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Fourth-Witness-Statement-of-DAC-Sue- Akers.pdf http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/hearing/2011-11-14am/ http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/hearing/2011-11- p53, lines 23-24, Michael Gove, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-29-May-2012.pdf p28, lines 22-25, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-25-April-2012.pdf p3, para 10, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Sally-Bob- Dowler.pdf pp14-17, lines 17-3, Charlotte Church http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-28-November-20111.pdf p5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Witness-Statement-of-Michelle-Stanistreet.pdf http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Report-by-Elizabeth-Filkin.pdf pp4-5, paras 11-13, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Lord- Condon.pdf p35, lines 10-12, Brian Paddick, ibid pp25-26, lines 12-11, Neil Wallis, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-2-April-2012.pdf p75, line 13, Richard Thomas, ibid, emphasis added. Mr Thomas suggested, however, that s55 of the DPA which founded the prosecution powers was most likely to be the most relevant provision of the regime to the terms of reference: p3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/First-Witness-Statement-of-Richard- Thomas-CBE.pdf pp41-42, lines 25-3, Francis Aldhouse, ibid pp11-12, paras 4.18-4.19, Alexander Owens, ibid pp6-16, para 3.3-3.26, ibid p2, para 7, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Witness-Statement-of-John- Witherow.pdf Part H, Chapter 5, para 2.64 p36, lines 4-24, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-25-April-2012.pdf p53, lines 18-19, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-25-April-2012.pdf pp4-5, lines 16-2, David Cameron, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-14-June-2012.pdf pp7-8, ibid pp58-59, Lord Justice Leveson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-10-May-2012.pdf; p5, lines 5-11, Lord Justice Leveson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-15-May-2012.pdf pp87-88, lines 6-2, ibid p52, lines 14-21, ibid pp3-4, lines 19-3, Robin Foster, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-17-July-2012.pdf Home Office Large Major Enquiry System p46, lines 20-21, Lionel Barber, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- J Morning-Hearing-10-January-2012.pdf pp8-9, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Professor-Roy-Greenslade-of- City-University.pdf p14, lines 13-14, Lord Black, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-1-February-2012.pdf p10, lines 10-22, Lord Black, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of-Morning- K Hearing-9-July-2012.pdf p3, para 6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Media-Regulation- Round-Table.pdf p53, lines 9-22, Professor John Horgan, ibid Part K, Chapter 2 Part K, Chapter 3, para 5.14 Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.16 See for example: Application 22954/93, Ahmed v United Kingdom (1998) 29 EHRR1 at para 70, and Application 11800/85, Ezelin v France (1991) 14 EHRR 362 at paras 37 and 51Show full note pp25-26, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Closing-Submission-from-Guardian-News- and-Media-Ltd.pdf

457

¶2.15 The second Guardian story concerns the tax gap. In a two week series of articles based on several months of investigation, a Guardian team in February 2009 revealed how leading companies including Barclays, GlaxoSmithKline and Shell were using a range of highly complex offshore devices to avoid paying millions in UK tax. The reports involved the Guardian in a legal battle with Barclays, which sought to prevent publication of documents outlining its tax avoidance schemes, and later led to the Government taking significant steps to crack down on tax avoidance.

¶2.16 The third story relates to the oil trading firm, Trafigura. In May 2009, The Guardian acquired a confidential document which suggested that the waste dumped from a tanker chartered by Trafigura in the Ivory Coast port of Abidjan was highly toxic. A large number of local residents became sick. Trafigura later attempted to gag the paper by seeking a super-injunction, preventing not just publication of the key document but even reporting of an MP's question about it. After a public campaign the super-injunction was lifted; Trafigura was later convicted by a Dutch court with regard to the delivery of the toxic waste to, and its export from, Amsterdam and fined 1 million Euros. The company is appealing the decision.

¶2.17 The Guardian also refers to its campaign in relation to rendition and torture of detainees. For more than five years and in scores of articles, The Guardian's Ian Cobain has painstakingly uncovered the extent of Britain's complicity in the torture and rendition of detainees in the face of countless official denials. Mr Cobain has linked Britain to the mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. Mr Cobain's reporting was one of the key factors leading to the Government's decision to order an inquiry into allegations of British complicity in torture, now delayed until police investigation of two cases is complete.

¶F 2.18 Although the underlying disclosures by WikiLeaks remain potentially controversial, the Guardian's collaboration with whistleblowers' website WikiLeaks and four other international newspapers in 2010 and 2011 led to the publication of a string of major public interest stories touching almost every corner of the globe. They included the disclosure that Saudi Arabia was secretly putting pressure on the US to attack Iran, that US diplomats believed Russia was "a virtual Mafia state" and that a British oil company claimed to have "infiltrated" all of Nigeria's major ministries. The role played by the Guardian, however, is not controversial: it played a central part in ensuring that hundreds of thousands of documents which might have been dumped "raw" on the Internet were carefully analysed first and redacted to avoid exposure of vulnerable sources. More than 30 Guardian specialist reporters and foreign correspondents were involved in the huge effort to comb and authenticate the documents over several months.

¶2.19 The Guardian might also have drawn specific attention to the work of Nick Davies in investigating the phone hacking story over a number of years, culminating in the revelations of July 2011 which led directly to the setting up of this Inquiry. The criticisms made of that report are analysed in the case study dealing with the murder of Milly Dowler.

¶2.20 In my view, these are all excellent examples of public interest investigative journalism, properly so called: in other words, the unearthing of the often unpalatable truth by dogged hard work and persistence. This is different to the conduct of a campaign for or on behalf of causes which meet a newspaper's particular agenda. The latter may well discharge an important public interest function in the drawing of attention to worthwhile causes which would not otherwise have crossed the public's radar and may have no less importance, but the nature and quality of the journalism involved is somewhat different. Nor do I lose sight of the point that campaigning journalism might be much more controversial on the basis that it is capable of dividing public opinion; here, the newspaper is providing its own megaphone to amplify the volume in relation to causes its editors or proprietors happen to favour.

458

¶Northern & Shell 2.21 The Daily Star, the Daily Star Sunday, the Daily Express and the Sunday Express have supplied the Inquiry with copies of a considerable number of articles which comprise examples of good journalistic practice, whether it be campaigning journalism, investigative journalism, or a combination of the two. I propose to set out a representative sample below.

¶2.22 Both the Daily Express and the Sunday Express have mounted a campaign for veterans of Bomber Command to be accorded greater recognition in view of their and their late colleagues' service and sacrifice during the Second World War. This campaign has included pressing for veterans to be issued with the Second World War Campaign Medal, and for a

¶Bomber Command Memorial to be inaugurated. On 28 June 2012, HM The Queen unveiled such a memorial in recognition of the 55,573 aircrew who lost their lives in the Second World

¶War and the Daily Express published a souvenir edition to mark this event.

¶2.23 The Inquiry's attention has also been drawn to a number of stories in the Sunday Express relating to a scandal uncovered by the newspaper whereby social workers were "sexing up" documents to give local authorities the power to take thousands of children from their families and put them up for adoption, so as to meet flawed Government targets. The paper is also responsible for an ongoing campaign to achieve a greater understanding and openness F in the discussion and treatment of mental illness.

¶2.24 A number of impressive public interest stories have been run by the Daily Star Sunday, but the following examples will suffice for present purposes. First, the newspaper ran several articles exposing the activities of the English Defence League (EDL) and contending that they could legitimately be described as dangerous thugs. When it appeared that the EDL was getting a groundswell of support among working class people, the newspaper continued running strongly worded editorials criticising the group and exposing the criminal records of several of their members. More recently, the newspaper's investigators spent months working on the scandal of PIP breast implants, speaking to victims and experts to ascertain the dangers the implants pose. Key successes include uncovering for the first time a detailed list of ingredients contained in the implants.

¶2.25 A third public interest inquiry was mounted which, on two occasions, revealed that the paper had found IT blunders by Government workers who placed restricted information in the public domain by failing adequately to redact them so that the restricted information was not revealed. These stories have led to a change in the way certain departments redact documents.

¶2.26 Fourth, the newspaper seeks to have an article each week covering the human side of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Following complaints about the quality of equipment the servicemen were using, the Daily Star Sunday (along with other newspapers) wrote a series of articles calling for improvements to be made. These stories led to a marked improvement in equipment, including the decommissioning of so called Snatch Land Rovers. The fifth example is that the paper has been investigating unpublicised dangers surrounding Tamiflu for many months, after it found it had been linked to the deaths of 13 people. The newspaper exposed links between the licensing authority and the drug-maker, and has documented numerous complaints from patients affected by the drug.

459

¶The Sun 2.27 The Sun's written submissions and evidence refer to a number of its campaigns,7 and I have borne these well in mind, recognising the arguable public interest in bringing these matters to the attention of their readers at the particular time. But, rather than setting these out specifically, I believe that it is more valuable at this stage to refer to some of the evidence given by its current editor, Dominic Mohan.

¶2.28 The first example of true public interest journalism concerns neither investigation nor campaigning. Rather, it is to explain extremely complex concepts of vital public importance. By way of example, Mr Mohan referred to an article published on 27 July 2011 in which The Sun gave a succinct description of the state of the Eurozone bailout crisis, saying that the majority of working people in the UK preferred to read "a really concise and well-executed spread ... which gives them very quick, digestible summary of very, very complex issues".8 He said that such reporting in The Sun was how "millions of people learn of serious issues on a daily basis".9 Nobody can pretend that the issues at stake are straightforward and there is no doubt that journalism of this type is of a very high order.

¶2.29 Mr Mohan also referred with pride to The Sun's science reporting. He mentioned his engagement of Professor Brian Cox as "The Sun's Professor". He writes for The Sun "on very complex issues like the Hadron Collider and digests them into very accessible chunks for the readers".10 He also referred to praise for The Sun's science coverage by the Science Media Centre:11 its director, Fiona Fox, said Professor Cox was "wonderful". She said that he and others who write on science for tabloids are "genius" and went on "every single day they communicate very complicated and very important science to a mass audience".12 F 2.30 The Sun has also provided good illustrations of public interest stories which may fairly be described as examples of investigative journalism.13 These can best be identified by reference to the headline and story: no further comment is necessary.

¶2.31 "We smash poison doc's prison plot to kill ex and baby" (14 May and 16 June 2012). The Sun revealed how a doctor, already jailed for six years for drugging his mistress to try and force a miscarriage, was planning a revenge plot to kill her and her baby. In an undercover investigation, reporters from The Sun asked another convict secretly to film the doctor, Edward Erin, explaining his plan. The evidence was handed to the police and as a direct result Erin was jailed for an additional two years.

¶2.32 "Court in the act – clerk brags of £500 bribes to wipe records of dangerous drivers" (4 August 2011 and 19 November 2011). After a tip-off that a Magistrates Court clerk was offering to wipe clean convicted drivers' licences, The Sun mounted an undercover operation to test the allegation. The Sun reporter sought and won approval from the editor and The Sun's legal advisers to offer the clerk £500 and film the transaction, even though this was in contravention of the Bribery Act 2010, which came into force the previous month.14 The evidence was handed to police and the clerk, Munir Patel, became the first person to be convicted under the Bribery Act 2010; he was subsequently imprisoned for six years.

460

¶2.33 "Maddie fraudster nicked" (25 November 2009). Kevin Halligen was a private detective employed by Drs Gerry and Kate McCann to help find their missing daughter. He swindled their charitable fund of £300,000 and went on the run after being accused of a £2 million fraud for which he was wanted in the US. The Sun tracked him down, he was arrested and he has now lost his appeal against extradition.

¶2.34 "We're in jail, dude", (6 February 2007). The Sun revealed the secret cockpit tape from a US jet which attacked a British convoy and killed a British soldier, Lance Corporal Matty Hull, in a friendly fire incident during the Iraq war. The Ministry of Defence had failed to produce the video at the inquest into Lance Corporal Hull's death. But, as a result of The Sun's investigation, the Coroner was able to deliver a verdict of unlawful killing.

¶The Sunday Times 2.35 It is impossible not to mention the extremely well known exposure of the effect of the drug

¶Thalidomide in the 1970s and the campaign against Distillers (spearheaded by the then editor,

¶Sir Harold Evans) as one of the most outstanding examples of persistent and challenging journalism. It exemplifies both investigative and campaigning journalism and stands as an F example of the power and effectiveness of the press at its very best. The much more recent illustrations put in evidence by The Sunday Times15 are also good examples of investigative journalism which can have a campaigning effect. Once again, it is sufficient to illustrate them by reference to the headline and story.

¶2.36 "Tory treasurer charges £250,000 to meet PM" (Insight,²⁵²⁵ p91, line 6 et seq, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing- 25-April-2012.pdf p2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Dr-Neil-Manson.pdf pp36-37, lines 22-2, Professor Sue Mendus, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-16-July-2012.pdf p52, lines 7-9, Dominic Mohan, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-9-January-2012.pdf p2, para 7; p5, paras 14-15, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of- Lord-Patten1.pdf pp11-13, paras 25-30, ibid Robertson, G People Against the Press: An Inquiry into the Press Council, p13 p206, paras 270-271, ibid p8, lines 2-20, Alexander Owens, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-5-December-2011.pdf p8, para 16, ibid p10, para 34, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Third-Witness-Statement-of-DAC- Sue-Akers.pdf http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8044998.stm ibid, passim p39, lines 6-17, Matt Driscoll, ibid pp39-40, lines 22-1, Robert Jay QC, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-23-November-2011.pdf pp45-46, lines 6-2, JK Rowling, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-24-November-20112.pdf pp68-71, lines 13-21, Susan Panuccio, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-17-January-2012.pdf; p3, para 5.1.3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Susan-Panuccio.pdf; p7, para 22.1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Simon-Toms.pdf p51, lines 6-10, Tim Godwin, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-7-March-2012.pdf pp5-6, para 14, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Lord-Blair. pdf; http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Annex-to-Lord-Blair-Statement.pdf p14, para 31, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Mark-Hughes- The-Telegraph-taken-as-read.pdf ACPO guidance on gifts, gratuities and hospitality, paras 2.21-2.26 pp40-41, Alexander Owens, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-30-November-2011.pdf – this is discussed further below p70, lines 13-25, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-9-December-2011.pdf; p3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/ Second-Witness-Statement-of-Richard-Thomas-CBE1.pdf; p1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2011/12/Third-Witness-Statement-of-Richard-Thomas-CBE1.pdf; p2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2011/12/Fourth-Witness-Statement-of-Richard-Thomas-CBE.pdf http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/News-International-Addendum-to-Privacy-Law- Submission.pdf p68, lines 13-16, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-9-December-2011.pdf p5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Witness-Statement-of-Andrew-Marr.pdf pp51-52, lines 24-7, Adam Boulton, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-15-May-2012.pdf p98, lines 6-11, David Cameron, ibid p5, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Exhibit-KRM-16.pdf p32, ibid p61, lines 10-12, ibid I am, of course, conscious of the limited extent to which the Liberal Democrat party (and its predecessors) have, in practice, fitted within that description pp76-78, lines 20-21, Claire Enders http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-17-July-2012.pdf Details contained in the judgment of the Court of Appeal [2012] EWCA Crim 1243 para 50, ibid p6, para 38, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Witness-Statement-of-Baroness- Buscombe1.pdf p19, para 42, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Closing-Submission-from-Associated- Newspapers-Ltd.pdf p1, para 3, ibid p16, para 14, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Professor-Roy- Greenslade-of-City-University.pdf pp3-4, para 17, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Tim-Suter-of- Perspective-Associates.pdf p57, lines 19-22, Professor Horgan, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-13-July-20121.pdf p2, ibid Part K, Chapter 7, para 5.2 L 1806 see Armonienė, cited above, para 39 EHRR CD 105Show full note March 2012). The co-treasurer of the Conservative party, Peter Cruddas, was filmed by Sunday Times reporters selling secret meetings with the Prime Minister for donations of £250,000. He offered a lobbyist and undercover reporters, posing as overseas clients, direct access to the Prime Minister if they joined a "premier league" of party donors. Mr Cruddas resigned within hours of the story being published and Mr Cameron came under intense pressure to disclose the identities of all donors who had been entertained privately at Downing Street.

¶2.37 "Vet offers only hope for Syrian wounded" and "We live in fear of a massacre", (19 February

¶2012). The last despatch from Marie Colvin, the renowned Sunday Times war correspondent, revealed the scale and depth of suffering among the 28,000 civilians caught up in the Syrian army's shelling of the Babr Amr district of Homs. Ms Colvin was killed by a rocket on 22 February

¶2012, three days after her story was published, provoking international condemnation of

¶President Assad's regime and adding impetus to the efforts to secure Russian and Chinese backing for political transition in Damascus.

¶2.38 "Revealed: the full horror of Misrata", (10 April 2011). The Sunday Times foreign reporter

¶Hala Jaber boarded a gun runners' trawler to get to the Libyan port of Misrata after it was besieged and bombarded for weeks with no independent access for journalists. She found a city in desperate need of humanitarian and military help. Her front page report increased international pressure for aid shipments to trapped civilians and NATO airstrikes on Colonel Gadaffi's forces in the area.

461

¶2.39 "World Cup votes for sale" (Insight, October 2010). The Sunday Times reporters exposed corruption in the FIFA voting process which decides who will host the football World Cup. During an investigation that lasted three months and involved travel to three continents, the undercover team discovered six senior FIFA officials, past and present, who offered to work as fixers and suggested paying huge bribes to FIFA executive members. One executive member asked for £500,000 for a personal project, another asked for £1.5 million for a sports academy. As a result, eight officials were suspended for between one and four years and, in future, every member country will have a vote on which country should host the World Cup rather than the decision being left to a secretive 24 man committee.

¶The Telegraph 2.40 In written submissions filed on 2 May 2012, Telegraph Media Group Ltd drew attention to a number of recent public interest stories.16 Pride of place goes to the MPs' expenses story which is covered under a separate heading below. Again, the stories speak for themselves.

¶2.41 'Baby Girls Aborted: No Questions Asked'.17 An undercover investigation by The Daily Telegraph disclosed that women were being offered illegal sex selection abortions. Doctors were secretly filmed offering to abort foetuses purely because they were either male or female, even though it is illegal to carry out a termination for that reason. One doctor, a consultant who works for both private clinics and NHS hospitals in Manchester, told a pregnant woman who said she wanted to abort a female foetus, "I don't ask questions. If you want a termination,

¶F you want a termination". She later telephoned a colleague to book the procedure, explaining that it was for "social reasons" and the woman "doesn't want questions asked". The Daily Telegraph's investigation also recorded several other doctors at clinics in other parts of the country offering similar terminations based on the unborn baby's gender. The consequence of this exposure is that there are now three separate and ongoing police investigations by the Metropolitan, Greater Manchester and West Midlands police forces. In addition, the matter is being pursued in separate professional investigations by the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council. Finally, the Care Quality Commission has made unannounced inspections at more than 250 abortion clinics.

¶2.42 'Cheating the System: How Examiners Tip off Teachers'.18 An undercover investigation disclosed that teachers were paying to attend seminars with chief examiners where they were advised on examination questions. One examiner was recorded telling the teachers what examination questions to expect and admitted "we're cheating". The investigation exposed a system in which examination boards aggressively competed for "business" from schools. Evidence was uncovered that standards of examinations had been driven down to encourage schools to enter pupils for particular boards. The Chief Examiner of one examination board told one undercover reporter that "there is so little content we don't know how we got it through" and in an attempt to win new business told him "we don't have to teach a lot". This investigation had an impact on millions of children across the country and the teaching profession. The Secretary of State for Education, Rt Hon Michael Gove, welcomed The Telegraph's investigation and there is now a fundamental review of the examination system, and an inquiry being conducted by the Education Select Committee in the House of Commons.

462

¶2.43 'Inquiry into Stem Cell Clinic that offers help to Sick and Disabled'.19 This was a Sunday

¶Telegraph undercover investigation at Europe's largest stem cell clinic, which was taking tens of thousands of pounds from the most vulnerable in society for unproven clinical treatments.

¶The XCell-Centre clinic, in Germany, became the centre of a scandal following the revelation that it was conducting stem cell transplants which are illegal in Britain and most of Europe.

¶Hundreds of British patients travel there each year. A Sunday Telegraph reporter was told that, if he underwent treatment at that clinic, there was a chance that he could be able walk again.

¶The paper also uncovered that an 18 month old baby died and another was seriously injured following transplant of stem cells into their brains. The Sunday Telegraph investigation led to the clinic being closed by the German authorities but the paper and its journalists persisted with a follow up inquiry. These further investigations (reported in the paper in spring 2012) reveal that the chief executive and founder of the German clinic had now established another clinic in Lebanon.

¶2.44 'Chronic Lack of Equipment Puts Soldiers' Lives at Risk'.20 In June 2007, the Daily Telegraph first disclosed worrying information about the lives of servicemen being at risk due to what it described as "woefully inadequate" resources. The paper highlighted serious supply problems and failures of equipment, such as the fact that only 70% of Chinook helicopters were available for use, only 50% of Apache helicopters were working and soldiers were buying their own binoculars as the Army supplied ones were inadequate. The Telegraph papers continue to report of worrying problems of this kind. Since the Coalition Government came into power, Telegraph revelations have included a private letter sent by the Defence

¶Secretary warning the Prime Minister that "draconian" cuts in the defence budget cannot be carried out without "grave consequences". There continues to be strong Parliamentary and F public interest in these issues.

¶The Times 2.45 The Times has provided its view of the top five public interests stories published by the paper in the recent past. They are listed in evidence21 and it is sufficient to select four examples.

¶Headline and story provide sufficient detail.

¶2.46 The tax avoiders (19–21 June 2012). An undercover investigation by Times reporters revealed that thousands of wealthy people in Britain pay as little as 1% income tax. The comedian

¶Jimmy Carr and members of the pop group Take That were named among those who used a

¶Jersey based tax scheme that shelters £168 million from Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

¶(HMRC). As a result of The Times articles, the Prime Minister condemned Mr Carr's conduct and Mr Carr promised to conduct his financial affairs "much more responsibly". HMRC also vowed to shut down the "K2 scheme" used by Mr Carr and more than 1,000 others.

¶2.47 "Fox in dock over links with "bogus aide"" (8–15 October 2011). Times reporters revealed that

¶Adam Werrity, a defence consultant and friend of Liam Fox, the former Defence Secretary, was accompanying Dr Fox on trips around the world despite having no official role at the

¶Ministry of Defence. The disclosures led directly to the resignation of Dr Fox.

¶2.48 The Times' Adoption Campaign, (April 2011). This Times investigation exposed the ways in which the adoption system had become riddled with delay and inertia, and how that had affected children waiting for permanent new families. As well as stories, interviews, graphics and case studies, The Times commissioned Martin Narey, the former director-general of the Prison Service, to analyse the system and recommend reforms. The response was swift. First, in July 2011, the Government appointed Mr Narey as its first ministerial adviser on adoption with a remit to drive up the number of adoptions, especially at the worst performing local authorities. Then, in October 2011, the Prime Minister intervened to promise radical reform of the system. Finally, in December 2011, the Government announced it would scrap the bureaucratic assessment process for would-be adoptive parents and replace it with a more streamlined system.

463

¶2.49 "Israel rains fire on Gaza with phosphorus shells" (5 January 2009). The Times revealed that the Israeli Defence Force was using white phosphorus shells during an offensive over one of the most densely populated areas of the world. The shells, which can cause horrific burns, are banned under the Geneva Treaty of 1980 as a weapon of war in civilian areas, but not if they are used as a smokescreen. Human rights groups accused the Israelis of war crimes.

¶MPs' expenses 2.50 Over the years, there have been many examples of journalism at its best, resulting in ground breaking stories of national and international importance. The examples provided to the Inquiry by press Core Participants are no more than illustrative; and they are intended to underline that most journalists go about their work with legal and ethical principles very much in mind, and are willing to test the product of their work against what the public interest truly demands. It is not the intention of the Inquiry to identify what has been 'the F best' or 'the most important' story but, without putting any one above any other, it is worth examining one of the recent ground breaking stories in a little detail, if only to demonstrate good practice and the proper exercise of editorial discretion.

¶2.51 On 8 May 2009, the Daily Telegraph published the first of a number of articles that detailed the expenses and allowance claims made by MPs over a period of four years from 2004- 2008.22 These claims contained a significant number of what were said to be fraudulent claims that breached both Parliamentary rules on expenses and allowances and, in some cases, the criminal law. The Telegraph's exposé preceded the formal publication of data relating to MPs' expenses and allowances by Parliament by a number of months. The data that formed the basis of the Telegraph's stories was contained on one disk, supplied by an undisclosed source in exchange for payment of approximately £110,000. Representatives of the Daily Telegraph have told the Inquiry that, before deciding to buy the material, they satisfied themselves that the material was not, in fact, stolen and that its acquisition was not in breach of the criminal law.23

¶2.52 The disclosure by the Telegraph of MPs' expenses claims was the subject of intense and extended media coverage and, indeed, public debate. The scale of wrong doing was quickly recognised by the then leaders of the major political parties. Such was the public outrage at the steady disclosure of expenses claims that MPs appeared to have tried to keep out of the public domain that, almost immediately, senior politicians offered an unreserved apology to the public. On 11 May 2009, the then Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Gordon Brown, apologised

464

¶"on behalf of all politicians" for the expenses claims that had been made. Later that day, the

¶Leader of the Conservative Party, Rt Hon David Cameron, said that all MPs should apologise for the expenses scandal. He told the BBC that the system of expenses "was wrong and we're sorry about it".24 On 12 May, Mr Cameron went further in his criticism of the claims made by some MPs and said that these were also "unethical and wrong."25 In a statement made to the House of Commons, the then Speaker of the House, Michael Martin, said that "serious change" was required in the future and that MPs should not just work within the rules, but rather in "the spirit of what is right".26

¶2.53 The impact of the revelations was significant. There was an immediate loss of confidence in the political system generally and in the established mainstream political parties in particular.

¶This was most clearly manifest in an unprecedented spike in support for minority political parties. It was also reflected in the observations of leading commentators and thinkers.

¶The editor of The Times, James Harding, called the unfolding scandal Parliament's "darkest hour".27 On 23 May 2009, in a speech on the potential impact of the revelations on political life, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, warned that:28

"the continuing systematic humiliation of politicians itself threatens to carry a heavy price in terms of our ability to salvage some confidence in our democracy."

¶Writing the same day in The Times, the columnist and former Conservative MP, Matthew

¶Parris, suggested that:29

¶"extravagance, genuine mistake, sly acquisitiveness and outright criminal fraud are F now jumbled together in the national mind as though there were no moral differences".

¶Background 2.54 The publication of the details of expenses claims was neither the beginning nor the end of journalistic interest in the subject. Journalists had sought to uncover the detail of claims made by MPs through the use of powers granted under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which had come into force in October 2004. The first requests for publication of MPs' receipts date back to January 2005. Then, journalists Ben Leapman of The Sunday Telegraph, Jon Ungoed-Thomas of The Sunday Times, and the freedom of information campaigner and journalist,

¶Heather Brooke, submitted Freedom of Information requests relating to the expenses of 14

¶MPs, including the then Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the then Conservative front bencher,

¶George Osborne.30 These requests were twice rejected by the House of Commons authorities before they were appealed to the Information Commissioner, by Mr Leapman, Mr Ungoed-Thomas and Ms Brooke, in the spring of 2005.31

¶2.55 The then Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, considered the three separate requests jointly for two years before, on 13 June 2007, deciding that the requested information should be disclosed.32 He ruled that the disclosure should be in abridged and aggregated form and without the publication of the relevant receipts underpinning those claims. However, the Information Commissioner's decision was appealed by the House of Commons authorities later that month.33 They argued that the disclosure would be "unlawfully intrusive".34 The case was passed to the Information Tribunal to decide. The journalists who had submitted the original requests also appealed the decision.

465

¶2.56 Two months previously, in May 2007, a majority of MPs had voted for the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill introduced by the Conservative MP, David MacClean, which proposed to exempt MPs from the terms of the 2000 Act. The Bill was withdrawn shortly before its second reading in the House of Lord's as peers were not willing to sponsor the bill.35 Although unsuccessful, this was the first of three attempts by Parliamentarians to restrict the application of the Freedom of Information Act to Parliament ahead of the formal publication of MPs' expenses claims. In July 2008, amendments to the Freedom of Information Act 2004 were passed by Parliament. These exempted the addresses of Members of Parliament from the terms of the Act. Lastly, in January 2009, Harriet Harman QC MP, then the Leader of the House of Commons, tabled a motion intended to exempt expenses claims from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Although Government MPs were placed under a three line whip, opposition Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs opposed the motion. On 21 January 2009, the proposals were formally dropped by the Government.

¶2.57 In February 2008, the Information Tribunal published its decision on MPs' expenses, rejecting the defence put forward by the House of Commons authorities.36 Further, it ordered the release of information on 14 MPs.37 The hearings that led to the decision were not without further controversy: in particular, there were revelations around the content of the so called John Lewis list which set out the amounts that could be claimed for particular items without F question or justification. The items on the list were benchmarked against the purchase price for such items at the John Lewis department store chain.

¶2.58 The decision of the Information Tribunal to order the publication of expenses was the subject of an immediate appeal to the High Court by a small number of senior MPs representing each of the main political parties. On 16 May 2008, the court ruled that the requested details of MPs expenses should be released.38 Moreover, the High Court also ruled that further details not included in the original order made by the Information Commissioner should be disclosed, including addresses. Following the High Court ruling, no further appeal was lodged and, on 23 May 2008, the expense claims of 14 MPs, including the former Prime Minister Tony Blair and the Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, were made public.

¶2.59 The ruling of the High Court and the subsequent disclosure of the expenses of the 14 MPs named in the test case, did not lead directly to or necessarily expedite the publication of the expenses claims of all MPs scheduled by the House of Commons authorities. It had been intended that publication would take place in November 2008 but the date of the release of the information was pushed back until the summer of 2009, ostensibly to allow for the proper collation of the data.39 In April 2009, the House of Commons authorities announced that publication of expenses, with certain information deemed "sensitive" removed, would take place in July 2009.40

466

¶2.60 On 18 June 2009, more than one month after the first disclosures in the Daily Telegraph, the details of all MPs' expenses and allowance claims approved by the House of Commons authorities during the period from 2004 to 2008 were published on the official Parliament website. However, a number of details, including personal data such as addresses, were redacted. The published data also excluded claims made by Parliamentarians that had not been approved for payment by the House of Commons authorities, as well as related correspondence between MPs and the Parliamentary fees office. These omissions resulted in further allegations in the press of unnecessary secrecy, and also served to confirm an increasingly widespread suspicion that the most serious abuses of the expenses system would not have come to light had the redacted documentation been the only information available. Details of voluntary repayments by MPs amounting to almost £500,000 were also published by the House of Commons authorities.41

¶2.61 It is noteworthy that shortly after the publication of the first of the disclosures in the Daily

¶Telegraph, the House of Commons authorities asked the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), to investigate the journalistic activities of the paper. This request was declined by the MPS on the grounds that a prosecution would not, in any event, be in the public interest (although, as identified above, the then editor of the Daily Telegraph made clear in his evidence that the advice that he received was that no criminal act had taken place).42

¶F

¶Disclosure by the Daily Telegraph: the story 2.62 On 30 April 2009, the Daily Telegraph obtained access to a full copy of all expenses claims made by MPs between 2004 and 2008. This data had been purchased from a middleman,

¶Major John Wick, for the sum of approximately £110,000. The material had also been offered to other newspapers including The Times and The Sun. Mr Harding confirmed in evidence that his newspaper decided against purchasing the information because of concerns that it may have been stolen.43 The Daily Telegraph began publishing in instalments, from 8 May

¶2009, the details of expenses claimed by certain MPs.

¶2.63 Mr Lewis has given evidence at length to the Inquiry about the process which led to the purchase of the material by the Daily Telegraph. He said that the decision to purchase and publish the material was iterative: senior management at the newspaper were consulted throughout and fully aware of the need to establish the provenance and legality of the material, as well as the need to make most effective use of the limited ten day's worth of access to the data that the Daily Telegraph had purchased in the first instance.44 Mr Lewis also made clear that conditions based on fairness and impartiality were attached to the sale of the material by the seller.45 Mr Lewis has said that he was mindful that the need to meet those conditions determined the scope and sequencing of the eventual publication of the material from 8 May.46

467

¶2.64 Mr Lewis told the Inquiry that the purchase and publication of data was a "story laced with risk".47 He said that those risks existed on a number of levels. First, senior management at the Daily Telegraph were worried that the material may have been fabricated as part of an elaborate hoax. He suggested that the memory of The Sunday Times' publication of 'the Hitler diaries' in the early 1980s48 had cast a long shadow over many of those who were in some way involved with that story.49 Mr Lewis said that the legality of the data was also a serious consideration. However, Mr Lewis' position was that there was an overriding public interest in ensuring that the data entered the public domain, and in exposing what he described as "profound wrong-doing at the heart of the House of Commons",50 as well as to ensure that readers were informed about how the "MPs were fleecing the taxpayer".51 Further, Mr Lewis told the Inquiry that the decision to publish was justified because the official disclosure of these expenses claims by the House of Commons authorities would have omitted key information, particularly around the re-designation of second-home nominations. Mr Lewis confirmed that the public interest in publishing data, rather than any commercial value or advantage to the newspaper, was the determining factor in the decision to purchase and publish the data.52

¶2.65 Aside from the advice on the criminal law which the Daily Telegraph received, Mr Lewis explained that there were further legal considerations that the newspaper had to overcome ahead of publication of the material. Specifically, these were around the conditions set down by the source of the data, and focused on payment for the data, the legal protection of the source and the fair and balanced treatment of the material.53 F 2.66 For Mr Lewis, the greatest challenge faced by the newspaper was in the analysis of the data itself within the initial ten day time-frame permitted under the terms of the sale.54 This, Mr Lewis said, was undertaken by a dedicated MPs' expenses team working solely and secretly on the data.55 The team examined more than 1 million documents on the disk, representing about half of the total data set.56 There followed serious consideration with colleagues at the paper as to how best to ensure that the revelation of the data was fair and balanced. In addition, the newspaper wrote to the MPs concerned in order to seek confirmation from them of the veracity of the claims. It was only when the then Justice Secretary, the Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, responded to the paper confirming the detail of his claims and providing an explanation for them that Mr Lewis felt sufficiently confident to proceed with publication of the story.57

468

¶2.67 The Daily Telegraph revealed details of these expenses sequentially.58 The first revelations concerned the expenses of the then governing Labour Party,59 beginning with the claims made by members of the Cabinet.60 Details of claims made by junior ministers and Labour backbenchers followed. A further tranche of expenses claims made by Labour MPs was published on 14 May.61 In order to provide the fairness and balance imposed as a condition of purchase, the coverage did not focus exclusively on claims which had been made by the then Government. On 11 and 12 May, the Daily Telegraph revealed details of the expenses claimed by members of the Front Bench of the Conservative Party,62 followed by the claims of backbench Conservative MPs. The expenses claims made by Liberal Democrat MPs were revealed last of the three main parties.63

¶Areas of abuse 2.68 In addition to the exposition and publication of specific allegations of incorrect claims, including claims for the cost of mortgages already repaid in full, the Daily Telegraph also set out alleged abuses of the Parliamentary "Green Book" rules on expenses and allowances. These, the newspaper rightly contended, provided considerable scope for a number of different abuses.

¶In particular, the abuses set out by the Daily Telegraph related to costs of maintaining two residences, one in the constituency and one in London. Other alleged abuses brought to the public attention by the Daily Telegraph included (but were not limited to):

¶
• nominating second homes: the Green Book states that "the location of your main home will normally be a matter of fact". MPs and peers were able to ensure that their second

¶F home was the one which enabled them to claim more expenses;

¶
• redesignating second homes: MPs were able to switch the designation of their second home, enabling them to claim for purchasing, renovating and furnishing more than one property. This practice has become known as "flipping";
• subsidising property development: the Green Book rule that MPs could not claim for repairs "beyond making good dilapidations" was not enforced, and consequently MPs were able to add significantly to the value of a property. By implication some "second homes" were effectively businesses not homes since they were renovated on expenses and then rapidly sold;
• claiming expenses while living in "grace and favour" homes: Ministers with "grace and favour" homes in Westminster were also able to claim for a "second home" as well as their existing primary residence;
• overclaiming for food: MPs were permitted to claim up to £400 for food each month without receipts, even when Parliament was not sitting; and
• overspending at the end of the financial year: MPs were able to submit claims just be- fore the end of the financial year, so as to use up allowances, without being challenged as to their legitimacy.

469

¶Parliamentary reaction 2.69 The expenses claims disclosed by the Daily Telegraph and subsequent public anger at the behaviour of MPs led to substantial changes to the manner in which Parliamentary expenses and allowances were administered. On 20 May 2009, Ms Harman, announced the creation of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to manage Parliamentarians' expenses independently of any interference from Parliament.64 Further, an independent Panel chaired by Sir Thomas Legg was established to examine all claims relating to the second home allowance between 2004 and 2008. The panel published its findings on 12 October 2009 as MPs returned to Parliament following the summer recess.65 Many claims that had previously been regarded as legitimate were now considered to have breached the rules.

¶Consequences 2.70 As a direct result of the Daily Telegraph's exposé:

¶(a) four MPs and two peers have been imprisoned; some peers have been excluded from

the Lords' Chamber until repayment of their claims; and one former MP has been found unfit to stand trial, although in a trial of issue the jury found that she had committed false accounting and used false instruments;

¶(b) several other MPs remain subject to police investigation; (c) there was the biggest shift in the composition of Parliament for a generation, with more than 100 MPs announcing their intention to retire or leave the House of Commons; (d) six ministers resigned or were reshuffled amid controversy over their expense claims; F (e) the first resignation of the Speaker of the House of Commons in generations occurred; (f) more than £1 million in taxpayers' money has been returned to Parliamentary authorities by MPs; (g) a new transparent system with an independent regulator was established. In its first

year, the new system led to a reduction in the cost of the MPs' expenses scheme of £15 million; and

¶(h) in addition, the investigation led to wide areas of Government expenditure being

opened up to public scrutiny and the acceptance that, as the Prime Minister put it: 'sunlight is the best disinfectant'.

¶2.71 The Daily Telegraph's detractors might say that the story brought the paper a huge publicity coup and the inevitable increases in circulation and sales: all the ingredients of a modern succès du scandale. Rupert Murdoch expressed his 'disappointment' that The Times had not felt able to buy up the story from the middleman when he was touting it around the market place. Overall, however, the Daily Telegraph earned whatever commercial advantages it secured from its substantial financial investment. Although it might be stretching language somewhat to call this a case of investigative journalism in the exact sense of the term (the material was effectively handed to the Daily Telegraph on a metaphorical plate and did not need to be rooted out in the manner of a Thalidomide investigation) the obvious public interest in the story and the fact that it was undeniably 'laced with risk' deserve full recognition. The data might have been bogus; there was certainly an issue as to whether some breach of the criminal law had occurred (or, at the very least, ethical concerns surrounding the manner in which the data had been extracted and supplied); and a vast amount of work had to be undertaken to analyse and review the raw material not least to ensure accuracy. The legal and ethical issues were properly and responsibly addressed, and the Inquiry is fully satisfied that no corners were cut. This, as I am pleased to repeat, is an example of journalism at its best.

470 471

¶Chapter 3

¶Complaints of an Unethical Press 1. Overview 1.1 As a prelude to the more detailed assessment and treatment of the evidence set out below,1 this Part of the Report will summarise, with little weighing or assessment, the complaints voiced during Module One of the Inquiry of an unethical press. As cannot be over-emphasised, the criticisms are not of every title or every journalist, or even anything like every title or every journalist. The great majority of both perform their work admirably, ethically and with scrupulous attention to detail. The purpose of the Inquiry, however, was to address the practices of those who do not and any culture that is based on the latter rather than the former. Accordingly, references to unethical or unlawful practices of "the press" must be read as referring to such practices within "parts of the press". It should be noted, however, that although some stories in the regional press have been the subject of criticism, the generic concerns are not directed to the regional press. 1.2 The initial wave of evidence received by the Inquiry from its first 21 witnesses, over five working days between 21 November and 28 November 2011, undoubtedly made an immediate and powerful impact within the Inquiry room and beyond. All those who spoke volunteered to do so; more have complained and some of the further statements have been put into the record of the Inquiry. Access to this evidence by the vast majority of the public has been through the Inquiry's website which remains available to anyone who wishes to view or review this F testimony: everyone therefore has the opportunity to test the Inquiry's assessments and conclusions against this evidence base if so minded. 1.3 This Chapter summarises the thematic trends which emerged in the evidence given by the victims of unethical press practices in the first 5 days of the inquiry. But before beginning to examine these trends, it is possible to take a wider perspective. Complaints of an unethical press are of considerable lineage and are not confined to the United Kingdom. Of perhaps even greater relevance for present purposes is not so much the bare fact that such complaints have been made but rather the contemporary chord they often strike. For example, the great

¶American jurists, Warren and Brandeis, writing in the Harvard Law Review in 1890 said this:

"The press is overstepping in every direction the obvious bounds of propriety and decency. Gossip is no longer the resource of the idle and of the vicious, but has become a trade, which is pursued with industry as well as effrontery. To satisfy a prurient taste the details of sexual relations are spread broadcast in the columns of the daily papers. To occupy the indolent, column upon column is filled with idle gossip, which can only be procured by intrusion upon the domestic circle..."

¶1.4 The reference to the need to satisfy a prurient taste hints at the commercial pressures operating on the press as long ago as 1890. More recently, Sir John Major writing at the very end of the twentieth century put the point somewhat differently:2

"Across Fleet Street, sensational and exclusive stories sold extra copies – straight reporting did not. Accuracy suffered, squandered for something, anything, 'new'. Quotes were reconstructed, leaks and splashes abounded, confidentiality was not respected and reputations sacrificed for a few days' hysterical splash."¹¹ Introduction 3 Setting up and preliminaries 10 Rule 13 of the Inquiry Rules 2006: the approach 38 Scope 49 Context 56 Context 69 The 1992 general election 1134 Introduction and background 1164 Purchase of The Times and The Sunday Times 1233 Introduction 1299 p2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Dr-Neil-Manson.pdf http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/rep_pub/reports/2000/fulltext/442a4.2.pdf - cited as being cc from data in Advertising Statistics Yearbook 1999 The Times is published by Times Newspapers Ltd and the other titles by News Group Newspapers Ltd. The corporate structures are examined below. January 2012 Report and Accounts for the Financial Year of the Telegraph Media Group Limited (published 21 March 2012) http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/public-interest-test-nov2010/statement/public-interest-test- report.pdf p24,lines 1-8, David Cameron, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-14-June-2012.pdf Appendix 4 sets out a detailed analysis of section 55 pp4-5, para 13, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Witness-Statement-of-DAC-Sue- Akers.pdf p19, lines 14-25, Robert Jay QC, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-14-November-2011.pdf January 2007 and 4 January 2009) was provided to the Inquiry on a confidential basis. It has not been published as it includes commercially sensitive data p4, lines 7-12, Charlotte Church, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-28-November-20111.pdf pp 8-9, lines 21-4, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/lev270212am.pdf p4, para 10, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Lord-Condon. pdf Part E, Chapter 3 pp8-9, para 4.9, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Alexander- Owens1.pdf p5, para 2.5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Christopher- Graham.pdf p24, lines 13-22, Alexander Owens, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-30-November-2011.pdf Part H, Chapter 5, para 2.60 p53, lines 1-2, Kenneth Clarke, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-30-May-2012.pdf pp1-2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Witness-Statement-of-Harriet-Harman-QC- MP.pdf see Section 4 of this Chapter for a discussion of the circumstances in which the cross media plurality test came to be enacted. He illustrated this memorably by reference to the seating plan at a dinner in December 2009: p27, lines 16-17, Nick Clegg, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-13-June-2012.pdf http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Covering-Letter-from-Ofcom.pdf pp66-67, lines 18-1, Lord Hunt, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-31-January-2012.pdf pp1-2, lines 14-14, Lord Hunt, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-10-July-2012.pdf p2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Press-Council-of-Ireland-Chairman-speech.pdf Part F, Chapter 2 K Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.5Show full note Major, Sir J, The Autobiography, p359

472

¶1.5 At a perhaps higher level of generality, in mitigating his client's case on his behalf at the sentencing hearing which took place on 26 January 2007, defence counsel for Clive Goodman said this:3

"Mr Goodman has lived his life in a world where, and I say this with some trepidation, ethical lines are not always clearly defined, or at least observed..."

¶1.6 Defence counsel was no doubt speaking on instructions when he made this submission.

¶Regardless of the trepidation apparently evinced, the point counsel was making was not intended to be revelatory; rather, he was seeking to remind the judge that his client was operating within a wider press culture which did not always encourage best practice. It is unlikely that 'the world' he was referring to was confined to the microcosm of the News of the World (NoTW): it was intended as a wider metaphor comprising the press as a whole, or at the very least a section of it.

¶1.7 In his closing arguments on behalf of Northern & Shell, James Dingemans QC submitted, in the context of his succinct analysis of the culture, practices and ethics of the press, that:4

"... [f]ourthly, the evidence shows that they have a tendency to see news as divorced from the individuals involved. Fifthly, in some areas, there has been shown a stunning lack of judgment to the extent that it might engage the criminal law, and I say no more about that; about where lines can properly be drawn between the public interest in acquiring news and privacy"

¶F 1.8 In his closing remarks, Rhodri Davies QC on behalf of News International arguably went slightly further:5

"Going on to the evidence heard in Module 1, there is no doubt that that made out the case that all has not been well with the press..."

¶1.9 Finally, when asked for his assessment of the evidence the Inquiry received during Module

¶One, Rt Hon Michael Gove MP, Secretary of State for Education recognised that the evidence disclosed a problem which was capable of being regarded as 'serious',6 although he proceeded to observe that the cure might be worse than the disease. This, of course, raises a separate matter which will be relevant when discussing what 'the cure' might be. For present purposes it is sufficient to record that a wide range of witnesses, commentators, observers and interested parties have stated or opined that not all is well in the state of the culture, practices and ethics of the press: the complaints cannot be dismissed, as parts of the press have sought to do, as the whining of a few disgruntled celebrities.

¶1.10 The ground having being set, a thumb-nail sketch of the complaints of unacceptable press practice will now be set out under thematic sub-headings, recognising always a considerable element of overlap between many of these.

473

2. The complaints

¶Failing to respect individual privacy and dignity 2.1 An overarching complaint which encompasses many of the individual cases set out below is that the press has failed always to treat individuals with common decency, and has failed always to respect individual privacy. This encompasses many of the unethical techniques complained of, including phone hacking, surveillance, blagging and harassment. It is also exemplified by complaints relating to the publication of private and/or sensitive material without any public interest justification, and the intrusion into grief or shock. Three of the

¶'case studies' examined below7 are prime examples of this tendency: the way in which parts of the press treated the Dowlers, the McCanns, and Christopher Jefferies indicates a press indifferent to individual privacy and casual in its approach to truth, even when the stories were potentially extremely damaging for the individuals involved.

¶2.2 Further evidence relevant to this complaint included Sienna Miller's complaints of harassment, and the intrusion into the private grief of Anne Diamond and Baroness Hollins. Further evidence suggesting that parts of the press have failed to respect individual dignity and privacy were the examples seen by the Inquiry of the access and publication of sensitive personal information, including medical information, without any or any adequate consideration of the rights of, and effects on, the person in question and his or her family. Examples included the publication of confidential medical information relating to one of Gordon Brown MP's children in 2006, and the publication of extracts of the Kate McCann diaries in the NoTW in

¶2008: these are both the subject of detailed analysis below. F 2.3 The key issues to be considered under this heading are whether practices existed within the press consistent with an unethical culture of seeing individuals (and celebrities in particular) as objects, that is to say, simply as material for a story; whether there was an unethical cultural indifference to the consequences of exposing private lives; and, whether there was an unethical cultural indifference to the public interest in exposing private lives, exemplified by failures to put in place adequate procedures to ensure that potentially relevant public interest considerations were addressed and recorded.

¶Unlawful or unethical acquisition of private information

¶Phone hacking 2.4 A number of witnesses have alleged that they were the victims of phone hacking, in all but one case at the hands of a private investigator engaged, and perhaps journalists employed, by the NoTW.8 Much of the supporting evidence is derived from the notebooks of the private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, currently the subject of detailed review by the officers involved in Operation Weeting. Additionally, reliance may safely be placed for present purposes on the admissions and settlements made by News Group Newspapers in the civil proceedings and the acknowledgements that such actions were unacceptable and wrong made by representatives of that company, News International, and News Corporation before the Culture, Media and

¶Sport Select Committee and the Inquiry itself.

474

¶2.5 Notwithstanding the number of arrests which have been made to date,9 it is still not clear just how widespread the practice of phone hacking was, or the extent to which it may have extended beyond one title; and, in the light of the limitations which necessarily impact on this aspect of the Inquiry because of the ongoing investigation and impending prosecutions, it is simply not possible to be definitive. The evidence of Paul McMullan, Sharon Marshall and

¶James Hipwell points to phone hacking being a common and known practice at the NoTW and elsewhere. In relation to other titles, the degree of knowledge, acquiescence and turning of the metaphorical blind eye may be difficult to assess quantitatively on the basis of the evidence the Inquiry has received (although a fuller analysis of this issue will be conducted below);10 in qualitative terms, however, valuable evidence was obtained from witnesses such as Piers Morgan, Heather Mills, Jeremy Paxman and Dominic Mohan.

¶2.6 Although the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) contains no defence of acting in the public interest, the Inquiry has examined the extent to which it could be argued that the hacking of voicemails was carried out in pursuit of stories which could properly and fairly be characterised as being in the public interest. There is no evidence that this is so: to such extent as the evidence has been ventilated, the hacking of voicemails was systematically deployed to garner pieces of gossip and tittle-tattle about the lives of celebrities and those otherwise in the public eye whether as victims of crime, politicians or potential sources for stories; in other words, to intrude into their privacy without any conceivable justification that could truly be argued to be in the public interest. Whereas in other contexts it has been argued by the press, or sections of the press, that there is a public interest in freedom of speech itself, and that an editor should be permitted to decide where the ethical balance falls, no such argument has been aired in this particular context. F 2.7 Put at its very lowest, the Inquiry will need to consider whether, at least until 2006, there existed a culture within the press of indifference to the unlawfulness of the practice of phone hacking (or a lack of understanding of its unlawfulness, which itself is difficult to justify) and to its unethical nature. It will also be necessary to consider whether the evidence received is sufficient to reach conclusions in respect of the use of phone hacking at titles other than the

¶NoTW.

¶Blagging 2.8 Aside from the evidence generated by Operation Motorman,11 a number of witnesses told the Inquiry how their privacy had been breached in contravention of the Editors' Code and also potentially section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998, through the technique known as blagging. A flavour of this evidence may be given by furnishing a number of examples. In her witness statement12 JK Rowling stated that, during the course of 1998, she received a telephone call purportedly from the Post Office. The caller explained that they had a package that the Post Office wanted to deliver but that they did not have Ms Rowling's address. On the face of it, this was a remarkable claim and, on being pressed to justify it by Ms Rowling, the caller swiftly hung up. It is difficult to avoid the inference that this was a journalist seeking personal information. Ms Rowling's husband-to-be appears to have received similar treatment by the press in 2000.13 He was telephoned by a person claiming to be from the tax office seeking information regarding his address and earnings, and this was duly disclosed.

475

¶The following day this information was published by a Scottish newspaper and the paparazzi duly descended on Ms Rowling's future husband's home. The inference that the caller was a journalist is here even stronger.

¶2.9 HJK14 gave a similar account of being the likely victim of this technique.15 Again, there was a telephone call from someone claiming to be from the Royal Mail, but, on this occasion, the assertion was made that the address on a package had been ripped off and all that was left was the intended recipient's mobile phone number. HJK provided his/her address and later that month received an unwelcome visit from a journalist determined to find out whether he/she was in a relationship with X. The journalist was adamant as to the reliability of his sources, and subsequently proposed that HJK should come to 'an arrangement' with him regarding the disclosure of information. HJK refused to do so.

¶2.10 Overall, and in a similar manner to phone hacking, the Inquiry will need to consider whether there was a culture of indifference within the press as to the lawfulness of blagging (or a lack of understanding as to its unlawfulness), and to its unethical nature.

¶Email hacking 2.11 The present state of affairs in relation to Operation Tuleta is set out elsewhere.16 Given its current status it is difficult to reach any conclusions of a generic nature in relation to email hacking, save to observe that it remains possible that a considerable quantity of criminality will be exposed in due course.

¶F Bribery and corruption 2.12 Again, the present state of affairs in relation to Operation Elveden is set out elsewhere.17 As of 31 October 2012 (Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers' fourth witness statement) a total of 52 individuals had been arrested by officers working on Operation Elveden; of these,²⁷²⁷ For reasons which will become apparent, I take a slightly different view in relation to the disclosure of the medical condition of Mr Brown's son: see Part F, Chapter 5 Dr Thomas Fuller, 1733 p104, lines 6-12, Professor Christopher Megone, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-16-July-2012.pdf p52, lines 7-22, Dominic Mohan, ibid Section 19 of the BBC Editorial Guidelines, http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-accountability- ofcom/ pp13-14, para 34, ibid Great Britain, The Report of the Committee on Privacy, p13 p44, para 87, ibid p28, lines 4-15, Alexander Owens, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-30-November-2011.pdf p13, para 16, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Witness-Statement-of-DS-Philip- Williams.pdf; para 29, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Witness-Statement-of-DCS- Keith-Surtees.pdf; p13, lines 8-18, DAC Akers, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-23-July-20121.pdf p1, James Harding, The Times, (15 May 2009, London) For broadly convergent accounts by other witnesses see: p8, para 24, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Charlotte-Church.pdf; pp3-6, paras 11-20, http://www. levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Supplemental-Witness-Statement-of-Hugh-Grant.pdf; see p5, para 11, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-JK-Rowling2.pdf p5, para 2.1, Michelle Stanistreet, ibid http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmcumeds/362/362i.pdf pp66-67, lines 14-21 ibid p3, para 11, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Richard- Desmond.pdf The Daily Mail introduced new procedures in late 2011 as part of a review of payments to third parties in light of the new Bribery Act; however, Paul Dacre did not accept that problems existed under the previous system: p3, para 7, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Witness-Statement-of-Paul-Dacre.pdf pp81-82, lines 20-2, Dr Rob Mawby, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/lev030412am. pdf p42, lines 2-7, Michael Sullivan, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-15-March-2012.pdf p59, lines 5-6, Jeremy Lawton, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-19-March-2012.pdf ACPO guidance on gifts, gratuities and hospitality, para 2.12 p96, line 7, Richard Thomas, ibid pp73-76, lines 24-9, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-9-December-2011.pdf; pp3-4, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/ Second-Witness-Statement-of-Richard-Thomas-CBE1.pdf; p2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2011/12/Third-Witness-Statement-of-Richard-Thomas-CBE1.pdf; p2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2011/12/Fourth-Witness-Statement-of-Richard-Thomas-CBE.pdf [2003] QB 633 p67, lines 11-20, Richard Thomas, ibid pp7-8, lines 22-25, Lord Mandelson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-21-May-20121.pdf pp8-9, lines 23-6 and p9, lines 20-22, Tony Blair, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ I Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-28-May-2012.pdf Andy Coulson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/AEC2.pdf January 1981 – Mr Biffen's decision and debate in Parliament 1.31 An Emergency Debate was held in the House of Commons on 27 January 1981 to discuss a reference of the transfer to the MMC. Contrary to the hopes expressed in Cabinet the previous day, the Opposition pressed vigorously for a reference. The Rt Hon John Smith MP pointed first to the concentration of newspaper power which would result from the transfer, describing it as: "probably unique and unprecedented in our history";27 second, to the special place of The Times and The Financial Times in national life; and third to the mechanism for scrutiny afforded under the Fair Trading Act 1973. As to that Act, he contended that The Sunday Times was economic as a going concern. The undertakings given by Mr Murdoch, he argued, removed rather than strengthened existing safeguards. 1.32 The financial issue was contested by Mr Biffen, who insisted that he had to look at the issue under the existing ownership and under present conditions. He was supported in his approach by the Rt Hon Peter Emery MP, who had been the Minister responsible for getting the Act onto the statute book.28 Mr Biffen also made clear his view that there was a real possibility of closure if he chose to refer the matter to the MMC, pointing out that he had no power to compel the MMC to produce a report to an abridged timetable. He concluded:29 "After earnest consideration, and to avoid disruption and uncertainty, I have concluded that I should give my consent forthwith, and without a Monopolies and Mergers Commission investigation, to the transfer of Times Newspapers to News International, subject to certain conditions." 1.33 The eight conditions referred to were firmly entrenched. Those relating to editorial independence were incorporated into the articles of association of the relevant companies. Any change to them required the Secretary of State's consent. All of the conditions, if breached, were potentially the subject of criminal proceedings and a custodial sentence. Sections 62(2) and 62(3) of the Fair Trading Act 1973 provided:30 "(2) Where ...the consent of the Secretary of State is given to a transfer of a newspaper or of newspaper assets, but is given subject to one or more conditions, any person who is knowingly concerned in, or privy to, a breach of that condition, or of any of those conditions, as the case may be shall be guilty of an offence". "(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both". 1.34 George Gardiner MP described the conditions in the debate as being: "...as stringent as any that could conceivably arise from an investigation by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission".31 At the end of the debate, Mr Biffen quoted Sir Harold Evans who had said earlier in the I day that: "No Editor or Journalist could ask for wider guarantees of editorial independence on news and policy than those Mr Murdoch has accepted and which are not entrenched by the Secretary of State".32 It is right, of course, to point out, as Sir Harold did when he gave HC Hansard, 27 January 1981, vol 997 cols 780-826, http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1981/jan/27/ times-newspapers 1983 UKHL 6; 1985 1 AC 374 p22, lines 7-17, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-25-April-2012.pdf http://www.ppa.co.uk/legal-and-public-affairs/ppa-responses-and-evidence/~/media/Documents/Legal/ Consultations/Lords%20Communications%20Committee/final_report.ashx p80, lines 18-21, Claire Enders, ibid paras 12-13, http://cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/index.html at 614E p1, paras 3 and 4, PCC, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Exhibit-SA-S11.pdf p43, para 14, Sir Charles Gray, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-12-July-2012.pdf Part K, Chapter 2, sections 4 and 5 http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Second-Submission-from-PressBof-in-relation-to- Module-4.pdf p5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Submission-by-Paul-Dacre1.pdf p58, lines 7-19, Professor John Horgan, ibid p63, lines 13-20, David Cameron http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-14-June-2012.pdf Part K, Chapter 7, para 6.4 Von Hannover, cited above, para 66Show full note were current and former journalists (including journalists from The Sun; the Daily Mirror and its sister paper, the Sunday Mirror; and the Daily Star Sunday).18 In an important piece of evidence, DAC Akers pointed out that offences of this nature were suspected to have been committed in at least three separate newspaper groups right up to early 2012.19

¶2.13 The fact that these arrests have occurred does not of course prove that an unlawful and unethical practice existed within the press of inducing, or seeking to induce, public officials to disclose confidential information about individuals or organisations; given the test required to justify arrest in the first place, it merely raises reasonable grounds to suspect that various offences may have been committed. Further, the ongoing criminal investigation hampers the ability of the Inquiry to explore the available evidence. Recognising these constraining factors, these developments cannot be dismissed as irrelevant.

476

¶Surveillance, subterfuge and similar intrusive methods 2.14 A number of witnesses, as well as those contributing submissions on the Inquiry website, have described the use of covert surveillance or intrusive subterfuge by journalists or their independent contractors as a means of uncovering stories. This testimony covers a range of different techniques: by way of example, the deployment of private detectives to carry out what might be described as traditional surveillance of subjects; the recording of telephone conversations with subjects, sometimes coupled with the giving of assurances which are not kept; and the use of long-lens photography. At the very least, the issue arises of whether journalists give any, or any adequate, consideration to such surveillance being likely to generate relevant information in the public interest. 2.15 The evidence of journalists Sharon Marshall and Paul McMullan, which appeared to confirm the widespread use of such techniques by parts of the press, must be treated with a degree of caution. But it must also be considered in light of other evidence heard by the Inquiry. That evidence included the logbooks of private investigators Derek Webb20 and Matt Sprake21 which showed newspaper titles having commissioned covert and sometimes extended surveillance on hundreds of individuals, most of them so called celebrities, over a number of years. Mr

¶Sprake's evidence that ethical questions were for the newspapers which commissioned his work rather than for him emphasised the importance of newspaper oversight of third parties. 2.16 Evidence from 'targets' of intrusive press techniques also supported the evidence of Ms

¶Marshall and Mr McMullan. The inquiry heard of the gross intrusions into the privacy of lawyers Charlotte Harris and Mark Lewis by News International. It also heard of the paranoia caused by the surveillance on, and/or threats received by, politicians Tom Watson MP and F Chris Bryant MP. Other witnesses, including Steve Coogan, gave evidence of the use by the press of duplicity and subterfuge to acquire stories that could not possibly be justified by the public interest. 2.17 The Report will need to consider the extent to which these practices and others were sporadic and limited or widespread and/or cultural within parts of the press.

¶Unlawful or unethical treatment of individuals

¶Harassment 2.18 A number of witnesses testified to a range of practices, including the use of intrusive photography, pursuit by photographers whether on foot or in vehicles, 'door-stepping' and

¶'staking out'. Here again the Inquiry will need to consider whether a culture existed within the press, or a section of the press, which encouraged or condoned these practices; or, insofar as these practices were perpetrated by independent contractors, which failed to ensure that sufficient steps were taken to ascertain whether information, photographs and data were acquired in a context in which an individual was subject to harassment. 2.19 Amongst the most cogent evidence of harassment of this nature was that given by the actress Sienna Miller. She gave a powerful account of acts of dangerous driving, and of being harassed, verbally abused and spat at by freelance photographers, until, that is, a court order protected her from such conduct in the future:22

477

"I would often find myself – I was 21 – at midnight running down a dark street on my own with ten big men chasing me and the fact that they had cameras in their hands meant that that was legal, but if you take away the cameras, what have you got? You've got a pack of men chasing a woman and obviously that's a very intimidating situation to be in."

¶2.20 Ms Marshall in Tabloid Girl has written about the efforts that both she and her colleagues went to secure a story; common practices included the aggressive door-stepping of individuals. In one notable instance she described her efforts to door-step the broadcast journalist, Jeremy Paxman, by putting the same question to him 14 times,23 in an attempt to report on rumours of an extramarital affair.24 She described other occasions in which, whilst in pursuit of a story, she harried individuals at their home and refused to comply with requests to desist in her attempts to obtain a quote or break a story.25 2.21 Ms Marshall's memoirs (which she sought to dilute in her evidence by talking about the use of 'top-spin') record a pattern of behaviour which is also described by a number of witnesses. Ms Miller, Sheryl Gascoigne and the McCanns gave consistent evidence of high-speed car chases by journalists and press photographers. Ms Gascoigne explained how, following her marriage to the footballer Paul Gascoigne, she was subjected to intense press scrutiny that sought to depict her as a money grabber and the cause of her husband's issues with addiction and mental illness. This scrutiny went beyond coverage of her public appearances and extended to the sustained harassment of her in and around her home. At times it took extraordinary forms. One journalist followed Ms Gascoigne and her children from their home in Hertfordshire to the Bluewater shopping centre in Kent.26 2.22 In very different contexts, Christopher Jefferies and Kate and Gerry McCann described their F experiences of sustained scrutiny and intrusion following the well-publicised events which attracted press interest. All three witnesses described how journalists and press photographers camped outside their homes, sometimes for days on end, making it impossible for them to go about their daily lives or indeed live comfortably or securely in the family home.27 2.23 In his witness statement Dr McCann told the Inquiry how at times his car was mobbed by journalists and photographers as he, or his wife, tried to drive with their family from their home. He recalled that journalists and press photographers banged on the car windows and shouted at the family even though their young children were not only visible but were also clearly distressed by such behaviour.28

¶Intrusion into grief or shock 2.24 A number of witnesses told the Inquiry of occasions when journalists and press photographers intruded into moments of grief, shock and similar personal difficulty, in the face of clause 5 of the Editors' Code and the wish of the witnesses to be left in peace. For example, Anne Diamond, the broadcast journalist and presenter, described how following the loss of her infant son through cot death, she wrote to all the editors of the national newspapers asking them to stay away from the funeral. However, she told the Inquiry that she saw a photographer in the vicinity of the church, and that a photograph of her and her husband was then published on the front page of The Sun above a bogus story entitled 'Anne's plea'. The editor of The

478

¶Sun rejected Ms Diamond's husband's request not to publish the photograph29 and, following what she described as 'emotional blackmail', the family subsequently succumbed to pressure placed on them by the paper to join forces with The Sun to raise funds in aid of cot death research, rival papers carrying 'spoiler stories' shortly thereafter.30 Thus, what should have been an intensely private moment of personal anguish was rendered all the more difficult and distressing.

¶2.25 Ms Diamond's evidence on this topic related to events which occurred nearly 20 years ago, but not dissimilar evidence was given by Professor Baroness Sheila Hollins whose daughter

¶Abigail was the victim of a brutal knife attack in April 2005. She told the Inquiry how a journalist tricked her way into the home of Baroness Hollins' terminally ill mother and refused to leave until she was given a photograph of Abigail; eventually the police had to be called to secure her departure.31 Similar acts of press intrusion and insensitivity included attempts to photograph Abigail at her grandmother's funeral,32 the taking and publishing of photographs of the whole family during a trip to Lourdes,33 and surveillance of the entrance to Abigail's home for a number of weeks. When one of the journalists in question was approached, he is alleged to have said that he was doing nothing wrong.34

¶Discrimination and the treatment of women and minorities F 2.26 The evidence bearing on this topic is addressed in Section 3 below when discussing the nature of the harm caused to public discourse by unacceptable press practices. The issue for consideration below35 is whether an unethical culture, and concomitant practices, have existed within the press in relation to the discrimination and the treatment of women and minorities, in particular by demonstrating and fostering prejudice, unfairness and lack of respect and dignity, and failing to avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to individuals' race, colour, religion, transgender, gender, sexual orientation or disability.

¶Inaccuracy and inaccessibility 2.27 Many witnesses have complained of stories about them being inaccurate or misleading (see, for the most egregious examples, the evidence of Christopher Jefferies and the McCanns);

¶some have gone further to allege that evidence and quotations are deliberately fabricated in order to substantiate a story, add colour to it, or to pursue a particular line. Furthermore, organisations such as Full Fact have drawn to the Inquiry's attention many examples of allegedly knowingly inaccurate or misleading reporting in areas such as asylum, immigration and climate change.

479

¶2.28 The point has already been made above36 that it is in the nature of journalism that mistakes will be made: indeed, that is an unavoidable aspect of human nature itself. Deliberate falsification (or reckless reporting) of material and evidence is, of course, another matter altogether. The Inquiry will need to determine whether culture and practices exist within the press which fall short of the standards of accuracy which can reasonably be expected to be in the public interest. As part and parcel of this overall assessment, consideration will need to be given to whether, in particular, insufficient standards of care have been applied to avoiding the publication of inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures; and of whether misleading or inaccurate headlines have been deployed, knowingly or otherwise, with a view to attracting purchases.

¶2.29 Justice cannot be done to all the multifarious complaints of inaccuracy which the Inquiry received. Instead, for present purposes the focus will be on the evidence of a number of journalists. Both Richard Peppiatt and Sharon Marshall pointed to a propensity in some parts of the press towards a form of lazy journalism where quotes were made up to back a particular line in a story,37 or where entire stories were built around fabricated quotations.38 Both were also clear that in the newsrooms in which they worked this practice was neither limited to a small number of journalists nor deprecated. Rather, the practice was widespread, managers were aware of it and even offered cash incentives to staff.39 It should be noted that this evidence has been strenuously denied by the papers concerned and that its quality wholly depends on the assessment the Inquiry makes as to their credibility and reliability as witnesses.

¶2.30 Similar evidence was provided to the Inquiry by Chris Atkins, the director of Starsuckers, a documentary on the willingness of tabloid newspapers to run stories supplied by third parties F with little or no basis in truth. Mr Atkins described supplying one newspaper with a fabricated story about a particular celebrity's hair catching on fire at a party. In addition to running the story without making due efforts to check its authenticity, the paper further embellished the story by inventing a pithy conclusion: the paper wrote that another person at the party had put the fire out by punching the woman in her 'barnet'.40

¶2.31 Evidence of falsification and inaccuracy presented to the Inquiry goes beyond the fabrication of single or even small numbers of facts associated with a story or with a witness. Hugh Grant gave evidence about the publication in the Sunday Express of an entire article supposedly written by him; in fact, he had had nothing to do with it.41

¶2.32 In a revealing exchange with Robert Jay QC, Dawn Neesom, the editor of the Daily Star, said this:42

Q. There might be a kernel of truth in the story, but in order to make it more appetising and entertaining to its readers, which obviously you are plugged into – A. Yes, of course.

480

Q. you spin, embroider and weave around the edges of the story. Does that happen? A. It's – I wouldn't quite put it in those words, but as I say, it's written in a style that we know works for our readers.

¶2.33 On a separate but related topic, a considerable number of witnesses and commentators have complained about the use of misleading and inaccurate headlines, often it seems knowingly used in order to attract custom. By way of example only, a number of such instances were put to Ms Neesom,43 and at least in one case she deployed the somewhat euphemistic adjectives

¶'dramatic' and 'eye-catching' to characterise the inaccurate headline used. She also accepted in this context, and perhaps in others, that newspapers do on occasion 'cross lines'.44 2.34 As with all these complaints of unethical conduct, an assessment will need to be made below45 as to whether this particular problem is sporadic on the one hand or illustrative of a cultural strand within press practice on the other. 2.35 Aside from these complaints of inaccuracy, the Inquiry has also received a body of evidence which, on analysis, may be characterised as amounting to a generic complaint of it being difficult, if not impossible, for readers to assess for themselves the evidential basis for what is apparently being put forward as fact. This evidence may be categorised as follows: that there has been an insufficiently clear distinction between comment, conjecture and fact, as required by clause 1 of the Editors' Code; that insufficient information has been provided in relation to the sources of material published, on occasion giving rise to the suspicion if not the inference that the source did not exist; and, that insufficient care has been taken in relation to the special public interest in the understanding of material relating to public F health, medical and other scientific matters. 2.36 It is fully understood that each of these three categories gives rise to its own set of problems.

¶Newspapers are, of course, entitled to speculate and to offer their own opinions, and the definition of what is 'fact' is capable of being controversial, depending on the context.

¶Furthermore, as a number of Core Participants have pointed out, with reference to legal authority, the distinction between fact and opinion in the specific context of the law of defamation is itself one of judgment: each does not require a separate, self-contained article or section of the newspaper, provided that it is reasonably clear to the reader from the tone and language used which is which. However, the complaint that has frequently been made is that, even with this element of latitude, fact and opinion are often so co-mingled that the reader is misled. Clause 1 of the Editors' Code correctly recognises the importance of this distinction, particularly in circumstances where the reader is placing trust in the newspaper as a reliable purveyor of news as fact. Many have complained that clause 1 is more honoured in the breach than in the observance, and the validity and strength of this complaint will therefore need to be assessed. 2.37 The issue of journalistic sources is more controversial, not least because clause 10 of the

¶Editors' Code places a moral obligation on journalists to protect their confidential sources.

¶If this obligation were to be interpreted as being absolute, in the sense of being incapable of yielding to countervailing public interest considerations, then clause 10 itself would be exceptionable as going further than the protections accorded to journalists under Article 10 of the ECHR and the law of contempt. In any event, there is a wider concern here, namely that journalists may not always act ethically when invoking what protections they should properly enjoy. The evidence heard from Richard Peppiatt, Alastair Campbell, Hugh Grant and Magnus

481

¶Boyd raised the strong suspicion, even if it did not provide conclusive evidence, that some journalists habitually refer to 'sources' even where the latter do not exist or where they have never said that which is attributed to them. But readers will never know where the truth lies, and will never acquire the means of finding out, because abuses of the system are extremely difficult to prove. The anonymous source (and one who truly requires anonymity as the price for giving up the story) can of course be an extremely valuable tool in the hands of the ethical and scrupulous journalist, but the possibilities for abuse are legion. An assessment will need to be made as to the extent to which the important principle of the anonymous source is abused, even if there is no obvious solution to that abuse. 2.38 The third category of complaint under this rubric is one articulated by a number of special interest groups in relation to scientific, medical and public health reporting: not simply is the concern one of inaccuracy, it also covers a failure to provide sufficient information to facilitate public understanding of what can often be complex and multi-faceted issues, where there may be no 'right' answer. The complaint has been variously expressed: as one of imbalance; or one of unreliability; and, in clear-cut instances, as one of frank inaccuracy. Again, it is appreciated that complex issues have to be set out in a manner comprehensible to readers, and that newspapers often succeed in distilling and presenting these in an admirably user-friendly fashion. The issue which arises, though, is whether there exists a strand of unacceptable practice within the press which needs to be recognised and addressed.

¶Treatment of critics and complainants General discouragement of public criticism 2.39 Numerous individuals in public life have complained in evidence to the Inquiry that they F have been afraid or unwilling to confront the power of the press, or – putting the matter another way, failings in the culture, practices and ethics of the press – owing to concerns about personal attack and vilification. The issue for consideration is not whether these fears are honestly held (given the weight of convergent evidence, this could not seriously be disputed) but rather whether the press has by its conduct caused, fostered or permitted such an 'atmosphere' to exist and be perpetuated whereby such fears have naturally spread. 2.40 The corpus of evidence relevant to this issue is vast, but for present purposes it can be considered in three parts. First, the Inquiry heard evidence of overt intimidation of those who had criticised the press. For example, after writing critical articles about the Daily Star in particular, and the tabloid press in general, Richard Peppiatt received threatening phone calls and text messages saying that he was "a marked man until the day you die". Similarly, while Hugh Grant was criticising tabloid press ethics while appearing on Question Time, the mother of his child was called and told to "Tell Hugh Grant to shut the fuck up". 2.41 Second, a significant number of the witnesses who testified during the first two weeks of Module One gave evidence of their fears of, or actual retaliation, by the press in response to complaints. JK Rowling made the point very compellingly in these terms:46

"I would like to emphasise that what I'm about to say does not apply to the whole of the British press, but it is my experience with certain sectors of the British press. If you lock horns with them in this way, if you protest or you make a complaint, then you can expect some form of retribution fairly quickly, and I thought the fact that in this case a picture of my child was put into the papers, so very quickly after I'd asked them not to print my address, I thought that was spiteful, actually. Just spiteful."

482

¶2.42 Her experience was consistent with a body of evidence received by the Inquiry suggesting that a practice has existed within the press of obtaining or publishing material about individuals or organisations with whom they have been in dispute or disagreement, in circumstances where it is legitimate to conclude that the aim was to 'pay back' or 'punish' for the disagreement by causing distress, embarrassment or discomfort, rather than because the article had a public interest for the readership. 2.43 Two possible examples of this practice may be provided at this stage although each will be discussed in greater detail below.47 The first concerns what may be described as 'real-time' evidence generated by or during the course of the Inquiry: the Daily Mail accused Hugh Grant of 'a mendacious smear' after he had given evidence to the Inquiry when he speculated that his voicemail had been hacked by or on the instructions of Daily Mail journalists.48 Second, a very similar sort of allegation was made by The Sun against Gordon Brown MP in relation to his claims of how the paper had obtained details of his son's medical condition.49 The terminology used by the paper was that Mr Brown's allegation had been 'false and a smear'.50

¶The very obvious parallels between the two stories are notable, and an assessment is made below51 of the extent to which the press response in those examples was fair and/or to what extent it reflected a wider culture of aggressive defence. 2.44 Third, examples were provided of aggressive press attacks on decision makers who brought proposals, or made decisions, perceived to be adverse to parts of the press. Vitriolic attacks by The Sun on female critics of Page 3 were prime examples. A further example was the press response (and not just the NoTW) to Max Mosley's victory in his privacy action before Mr

¶Justice Eady, which often appeared high in critical volume but low on reasoned and measured F analysis. Some editors resorted to ad hominem attack, characterising the judge as being

¶'arrogant' and 'immoral'.52 Adverse comment about judges, and in relation to judicial decisions, can be entirely legitimate and represent the proper exercise of the right to challenge: I am not, for one moment, seeking to suggest otherwise. In this case, however, as was pointed out in the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee Report on Press Standards, Privacy and Libel,53 the criticism of the ruling was too often based on a frank misunderstanding of the judicial role in applying the well-established principles set out in Article 8 of the ECHR as explained by the Strasbourg court. In any event, it is worth pointing out that if, Mr Justice

¶Eady had erred in this regard, it was open to News International to appeal his decision to the

¶Court of Appeal: it did not do so. Had there been good grounds of appeal, it is implausible that News International would not have sought to exercise its rights. 2.45 The point goes further: quite apart from the extent to which titles do, in fact, write critically about those who have challenged them (all in the name of the exercise of free speech), the climate is such that that there is an undeniable perception that this is precisely what will happen. Witnesses were reluctant to give evidence because of the fear of press retribution; some overcame that expression of fear but others did not. I do not make any finding or reach any conclusion based upon what is not part of the evidence but the same inference may be drawn from the unwillingness of journalists to speak out (which resulted in the necessity to hear evidence anonymously through the National Union of Journalists). The fear of journalists was not merely that the relevant title would not employ them: it was that a consequence of speaking out would be that they would no longer be able to obtain any employment in the national press. This feature alone raises real concerns about the culture and practices of the press, in closing ranks and refusing to accept and recognise that legitimate debate about its own role and methods of working is not to be shut down but encouraged.

483

¶Failure to take reasonable steps to pre-notify 2.46 Article 8 of the ECHR does not place an obligation on newspapers to pre-notify the subjects of intended stories as a matter of course54 and it is easily understood why some stories cannot be the subject of pre-notification. However, concerns have been expressed during the course of the Inquiry that, in some of those cases where pre-notification did not occur, culture and practices have existed within a section of the press of deliberate decisions not to take reasonable steps to pre-notify the subjects of news articles in advance, without there being a good reason not to do so. The principal aim of this was to unfairly deny the subject of the article the possibility of verifying or challenging it, or to ensure that the story is not lost to a competitor. A number of journalists and editors testified to a reluctance to pre-notify in certain situations; the evidence relating to Max Mosley's privacy action and the publication of the Kate McCann diaries provides a powerful insight into the key drivers of press conduct in this type of situation. Each of these cases is considered as an individual example below,55 F but the absence of pre-notification is not examined as a problem to be addressed generally. All the evidence suggested that a failure to pre-notify was the very rare exception rather than a recurring practice or culture within the press.

¶Failures to take reasonable steps to remedy 2.47 Numerous witnesses gave evidence to the Inquiry of the difficulties they have faced in seeking an opportunity to reply to inaccuracies in stories (notwithstanding clause 2 of the Editors' Code) and in securing corrections or apologies, either at all or published with suitable prominence. Given the weight of evidence bearing on this issue (which is considered in detail below),56 it may well be difficult for anyone to deny the existence of a problem;57 it will, however, be necessary to examine whether its manifestation may fairly be characterised as illustrative of a cultural failing in the press or a section of the press.

3. The harm 3.1 Overall, it is possible to group these complaints of unethical practices by the press under two general headings. First, there are a series of complaints which, however formulated, amount in essence to an allegation that the press have failed to respect the rights and personal autonomy of individuals in circumstances where there is no, or no sufficient, public interest justification for that failure. Second, there are complaints of inaccuracy in press reporting, either in relation to what individuals have or have not done, or in relation to what might be described as matters of general public interest.

484

¶3.2 All the ramifications of unethical conduct by the press need fully to be understood. Some of these may be obvious: defamatory reporting in relation to individuals is capable of destroying reputations although an action in libel goes some way to restore the position. Breaches of privacy may also do the same, and the fact that a story happens to be true (although it should never have been published) may lead to damage which cannot be repaired. This consequence is not inevitable because a breach of privacy which does not result in publication of any story may have only very limited (if any) adverse consequences: the private information may only be shared between a handful of journalists who themselves decide to keep it private.

¶However, this prospect aside, some of the consequences of unethical conduct by the press are less obvious and therefore require exposition. Furthermore, consideration needs to be given to the broader, and perhaps deeper, consequences for a mature democracy respectful of the rights and freedoms of individuals of inaccurate and unjustifiably intrusive press reporting.

¶This section of the Report will begin to examine these issues.

¶Consequences of intrusive reporting

¶Phone hacking 3.3 While phone hacking itself is a 'silent crime' inasmuch as the victim will usually be unaware of, or not even suspect, the covert assault on his or her privacy, its consequences – both direct and indirect – have often been serious and wide-ranging, as the evidence submitted to the Inquiry and separately generated by the phone hacking litigation has demonstrated.

¶F 3.4 The Inquiry has heard how the details of private lives, known only to the witnesses testifying

¶(in other words, the targets of voicemail hacking) and their most trusted confidants and friends, became the subject of articles in the press.58 Further, evidence was also received that, as a consequence of voicemail hacking, journalists and press photographers were able to record moments that were intensely private, such as relationship breakdown,59 or family grief, without either the knowledge or input of the individuals concerned. Sienna Miller explained how she was the subject of many articles either speculating on or reporting the state of her relationship with the actor Jude Law. In many cases, the information that had formed the basis of these articles had been known only to Ms Miller, Mr Law and a very small number of confidants who had not shared the information further.60 Ms Miller gave a graphic description of the fall-out from the voicemail hacking which News International has, of course, admitted took place. This included the corrosive loss of trust in aspects of family life, in relationships and in friendships, Ms Miller assuming, understandably, that her inner circle was the source of stories in the press.61 She described herself as "torn between feeling completely paranoid that either someone close to [her] [a trusted family member or friend] was selling this information to the media or that someone was somehow hacking [her] telephone." On one occasion she sat down with close family members and friends in one room and accused them of leaking stories to the press. Ms Miller explained that she felt that every area of her life was under constant surveillance; she felt violated, paranoid and anxious.

¶3.5 Other witnesses have told the Inquiry how they have lost friends and confidants as a consequence of the paranoia and mistrust engendered by phone-hacking. For example, Mary-Ellen Field described the damage done to her reputation and livelihood as the consequence of what she believed to be the hacking of Elle Macpherson's voicemail. Given the publication of a number of articles about Ms MacPherson which set out in detail confidential information concerning her personal and private life, of which Ms Field had direct knowledge, Ms MacPherson assumed that Ms Field must have been the source of those stories. Ms Field's refusal to acknowledge responsibility led to accusations of illness and then alcoholism for which she subsequently underwent treatment. Finally it was decided that Ms Field was incapable of carrying out her employment to the required standard and she was dismissed from her position. This led to financial difficulties and the loss of friendship.62 Ms Field has also made clear how difficult it has been to restore her reputation once such damage had been done.63

485

¶Other intrusive conduct 3.6 The Inquiry has heard how the disclosure in the press of embarrassing or personal details not only impacts on the self-esteem and reputation of the person involved, but also affects others around them as well. For example, the spouses and children of witnesses have been subjected to bullying and abuse as a consequence of stories written about them. Garry Flitcroft described the abuse directed at his children at school following the publication of stories in the press about him.64 He detailed how abuse by rival fans was so hurtful and offensive that his father could no longer watch him play football; he also believes that this ultimately contributed to his father's suicide.65 3.7 Witnesses have also spoken about the distress caused to spouses and partners by the aggressive pursuit of 'kiss and tell' stories and the knock-on effects of disclosures of infidelity. In a number of cases the disclosure of marital infidelity is believed to have led or contributed to a suicide attempt, or had a deleterious impact on the health of vulnerable members of the F family. 3.8 Charlotte Church said that her mother found articles published by the News of the World about her father's infidelity, without forewarning, so distressing that it led to an attempt take her own life.66 The Inquiry has heard similar testimony from Max Mosley, who has expressed the belief that the constant, unflattering and unpleasant coverage of him was a contributing factor in the suicide of his son.67

¶Consequences of inaccurate reporting 3.9 The potential damage done by inaccurate reporting can extend well beyond the intrinsic harm attendant on the distortion of fact. Witnesses have explained that it can cause much greater distress, anguish and pain. Taking perhaps the most extreme and unsettling example, Margaret Watson has set out her belief that inaccurate and partial reporting of the murder of her daughter, Diane, contributed significantly to the suicide of her son, Alan, who was unable to cope with the unsubstantiated allegations levelled at his dead sister.68 This evidence chimes with a number of submissions and witness statements received by the Inquiry from ordinary members of the public who have reported their experiences of inaccurate reporting, and subsequent refusal by the press to engage with attempts to correct those inaccuracies. In a number of cases, that coverage has concerned the suicide of a family member. 3.10 Evidence of factual misreporting does not merely relate to suicide but also to the reporting on cases of murder. For example, the Director of Support After Murder and Manslaughter in Northern Ireland (SAMM NI), Pam Surphlis, described the routine inaccurate reporting by newspapers of murders committed in the Province. These inaccuracies related to the family details, age and background of the victims, and overall sensationalising of the murders, with damaging consequences for the families of the victims.69 In her oral evidence Mrs Surphlis referred to the newspaper coverage of the murder of a 15 year old boy in which the victim was described as a heroin addict, when in fact he was diabetic.70 She noted that "once it goes in, whether right or wrong, it becomes fact".71 Mrs Surphlis also described the press coverage following the murder of her father and sister in 1993. Her father, who was a faith healer, was described as a 'witchcraft clergyman'.72 Further, she gave the example of her sister, who in coverage of her death was always represented in a picture of her wedding dress even though she had endured years of marital abuse, notwithstanding that Mrs Surphlis had provided a different photograph.73 3.11 It goes without saying that reporting of this nature is particularly distressing to the family and friends of the deceased. 3.12 The cases of the McCanns and Christopher Jefferies are especially egregious examples of defamatory and sensationalised reporting causing, in their different ways, personal anguish and distress. These examples are treated in more detail below.74 F

486

¶Impact on public discourse 3.13 The Inquiry has received submissions and evidence from various campaign organisations or pressure groups, think tanks, community representative groups, professional practitioners, trade bodies and academic institutions complaining of the impact of inaccurate and at times discriminatory and inflammatory reporting on public discourse. This is not a criticism of the right of the press to be partial: it is a complaint specifically directed to inaccuracy. This problem is aggravated by the unwillingness of the PCC to accept complaints from interest groups unless there is an identified 'victim' of the reporting willing to complain. 3.14 For example, evidence was received from ENGAGE, an organisation set up to promote improved awareness and standards of reporting in the British media of Muslims, as well as to encourage greater political participation and civic engagement of Muslims living in Britain.75

¶ENGAGE provided examples of what it described as "inaccurate, unfair or discriminatory" reporting in some parts of the British press.76 In particular, ENGAGE expressed concern at what it suggested was a tendency to present reporting of fringe and extremist elements as representative of the viewpoints of British Muslims as a whole.77 Examples of headlines which tended to reinforce that impression, but were without basis in fact, included "Poppies banned in terror hotspots" and "Muslim only public loos". Reference was also made to a front page headline ("Muslim plot to kill the Pope"), published in the Daily Express in September 2010, which was later admitted to have no basis in fact.78 Although the paper published an apology and correction after a complaint had been made by ENGAGE, Mr Bungawala on behalf of that organisation pointed out that it was "a single sentence buried under a news item on page nine".79 Tellingly, he explained that the size and placing of the correction does not mitigate the damage to community relations caused by a front page article of this nature.80 3.15 Similar concerns at the damage capable of being caused to community relations and potentially vulnerable individuals have been raised by other organisations, in particular those representing migrant and refugee communities. Such organisations include The Runnymede Trust, the Refugee Council and the Migrant and Refugee Community Forum. 3.16 In written evidence submitted to the Inquiry, both the Refugee Council and Migrant and Refugee Communities Forum suggest that some parts of the press seek deliberately (or, at least, recklessly) to conflate statistics for asylum and immigration to imply a growing "wave" of asylum seekers coming to the UK, despite evidence that the number of asylum seekers has fallen significantly since 2002.81 82 This view is also shared by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, which contends that the motive may be a political one.83 The Migrant and Refugee Communities Forum draws attention to a report by the Cardiff University School of Journalism, 'What's The Story' (2003), which noted that asylum debates tended to focus heavily on statistics and figures which were un-sourced.84 3.17 In his book, Democracy under Attack, Malcolm Dean of Sheffield University suggested that F certain strands of press reporting on asylum and immigration (and often the strand which may have been only loosely based in fact) have played a role in influencing Government policy on these issues.85 3.18 The submissions received in this area went a little further than simply criticising inaccuracies in reporting; they also claimed that there was a tendency in parts of the press to discriminate against certain minorities and to inflame tensions or exacerbate difference. The Refugee Council suggested that some titles were less active than others86 in engaging with organisations who work with the relevant communities when seeking comments for articles on asylum and immigration: consequently, negative content is less likely to be balanced with positive stories.87 ENGAGE drew attention to a report by the Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies which concluded that, between 2000 – 2008, references in the press to radical Muslims outnumbered references to moderate Muslims by 17 to one.88

487 488

¶3.19 The Runnymede Trust emphasised its concerns in relation to the impact of inflammatory reporting by reference to an article published in the NoTW in 2003, which purported to describe the cost of moving a refugee family. It ran under the headline: "Asylum Seekers' Free

¶£220 Taxi" with a sub heading, "and guess what… YOU'RE paying the fare." Concerns with this article include the publication of a photograph of the family in question in which the faces of the children were clearly visible (in breach of the Editors' Code of Practice), the failure adequately to disguise the location of the family's new property (it was identifiable by door numbering and signage), the tone of the article, which included leading questions, "WHAT

¶DO YOU THINK? Does it make you angry…?" in capital letters, and the failure of the article to make clear that train tickets for the family were more costly than the fare for the taxi.

¶3.20 Concerns at the accuracy (as well as tone and content) of reporting in some parts of the press in relation to minority groups have also been raised elsewhere.89 In her evidence to the Inquiry,

¶Helen Belcher on behalf of Trans Media Watch described what she regards as the frequently pejorative nature of reporting in some parts of the British press on transgender issues.90 The use of 'before' names as well as photographs of the individuals in question not only causes obvious distress but can place them at risk.91 Ms Belcher also claimed that the tone of much reporting was derogatory and intended to cause ridicule.92 She referred specifically to one article in The Sun which ran under the headline: "Sex swap mechanic goes nuts at medics".93

¶Apart from the inherently offensive nature of such language, Ms Belcher's complaint was that it contributed to the shaping of public attitudes towards trans people.

¶3.21 Responding to this evidence from Trans Media Watch,94 Dominic Mohan, the editor of The

¶Sun, accepted that some reporting on these issues had been a "bit insensitive", but claimed F that it had improved.95 The title had worked hard with the Mermaid Trust, an organisation that supports transgender people, to improve the quality of its reporting and, indeed, had received praise from some quarters.96 Shortly after Helen Belcher had given evidence to the

¶Inquiry, The Sun ran two further stories on transgender issues: one concerned coverage of a transsexual man who had given birth; the second to a five year old who had been born male but identified as a girl.97 In a further written submission to the Inquiry, Trans Media Watch suggested that both stories were sensationalised and lacked wider context, and that real privacy concerns around the identification of vulnerable people were ignored.98

¶3.22 Concerns at the damage that can be done by sensationalised reporting were also raised by

¶Professionals Against Child Abuse (PACA), an organisation that represents the professionals who work in child care and social services. In its submission to the Inquiry, PACA set out its belief that sensationalised and sometimes inaccurate reporting of failings in social services were putting at risk the lives of vulnerable young people.99 PACA suggests that sensationalist reporting is damaging the profession through the popular vilification of individuals, and is impacting on retention and recruitment across the children's care sector.100 The PACA submission refers to work undertaken by the Association of Directors of Children's Services (ADCS), which notes the rise of child protection vacancies; and, following a survey of users, found that a third of respondents believed the effectiveness of advice being offered by health professionals has been adversely affected.101 A submission received from the Royal College of Psychiatrists also reflects similar concerns about the impact of press reporting on the profession and on recruitment and retention.102

489

¶3.23 In its submission the Royal College of Psychiatrists also expressed concern at the impact that the sensationalising of crime can have both on the victims but also on the rehabilitation of the perpetrators and, in particular, young offenders.103 Likewise, the Youth Media Agency has suggested that the sensationalised reporting of youth crime and, specifically, the use of what it describes as an "overwhelmingly negative vernacular" in reporting of issues relating to young people risks harming their aspirations and opportunities.104 Citing the coverage of the August 2011 riots by some newspapers as an example of the sensationalising of the role of young people in topical events, this organisation noted that just 26% of rioters were identified as aged 10-17, a statistic which was by no means clear from the coverage in some papers.105

¶3.24 The role of the press in shaping public attitudes to rape and violence against women has been criticised in evidence submitted by End Violence Against Women Coalition (EVAWC) and EAVES Housing. The latter's submission cites research that it had conducted on the press reporting and statistical realities of rape.106 It argues that in the British press there is a F disproportionate coverage of the comparatively rare "stranger rape" stories and instances of falsely reported rapes, but reporting on the most common form of rape, which is committed by a person known to the victim, is infrequent.107 It suggests that the imbalance discourages victims to speak up and report their experiences, believing they do not fall within the "real rape" template.108

¶3.25 Similarly, the EVAWC submission suggests that much press reporting on rape serves to perpetuate a number of societal myths around rape that are damaging both to victims and the criminal justice system as a whole. EVAWC notes reporting on a 2009 study which found that promiscuous men were more likely to commit rape.109 However, press coverage of that study, particularly in the Daily Telegraph, suggested that the research claimed that provocatively dressed women were more likely to be sexually assaulted.110 Although the headline was removed from the Telegraph website following complaints from EVAWC and other women's groups, EVAWC are concerned that the damage had been done.

490

¶3.26 These complaints of the trivialisation of violence towards women in some sections of the press are echoed in evidence received by the Inquiry from OBJECT. It argues that the frequent juxtaposition in the tabloid press of images and text that depict women as sex objects with stories of violence towards women trivialises that subject matter.111 In support of this proposition, OBJECT has submitted a number of articles published in The Sun, The Daily Star and The Sport in which this juxtaposition is evident. By way of example, OBJECT has drawn the attention of the Inquiry to a front page headline in The Sun which read: "Death threats to Harry girl". That article was illustrated with a photograph of the young woman in question in her underwear.

¶3.27 The Inquiry has also received a submission from Beat, a campaign group which provides support for those tackling eating disorders. In its submission Beat expresses concern at what it alleges is the use of inappropriate images of severely emaciated women and men in some parts of the press to illustrate stories on anorexia nervosa and other eating disorders.112

¶Beat contends that such images can cause harm to people either suffering or recovering from eating disorders,113 as well as damage to the public awareness of such disorders by creating a false image of sufferers. That said, Beat also acknowledged recent and substantial improvements in the accuracy and tone of press reporting on these.114

¶3.28 It is worth repeating that both freedom of speech and freedom of the press permit wide F latitude to editors and journalists to publish the stories they consider appropriate in the way that they wish.115 The Editors' Code of Practice, however, requires care to be taken not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information (Clause 1(i)) and also requires the press to avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability (Clause 17(i)). That is the standard that the press has set for itself. The evidence touched on here, and addressed further below,116 includes reporting which falls at different points along a spectrum: some may be contentious, opinionated and partial, while still complying with the standard set;

¶others may be inaccurate, prejudicial and discriminatory, and fall clearly on the wrong side of that standard. What is clear is that a critical mass of articles which breach the standard can have seriously deleterious effects on public discourse and community relations.

¶Medical and scientific research 3.29 The Inquiry has also received a number of submissions from organisations working in medical and scientific research setting out concerns at what they perceive as the detrimental impact of the quality and accuracy of some reporting on issues relating to science and health policy.

¶The Science Media Centre, through its director Fiona Fox, gave oral evidence to the Inquiry, and written submissions have been received from organisations such as the Wellcome Trust,

¶Sense about Science, and the Cardiff University Brain Imaging Centre. Perhaps unsurprisingly, all these organisations cite press reporting on the MMR vaccination following the publication of a case study in The Lancet in 1998 as an example of how journalism that they allege was both inaccurate and unbalanced led to a media generated health scare.117 Both the Wellcome Trust and Sense About Science have explained that in the immediate aftermath of the most intense period of coverage there was an estimated fall in vaccination rates of 61% in some areas of London,118 as well as a much lower take-up of the vaccination overall.119 This reduction is reported to have had a real impact on the risk that incidence of the diseases will increase with potentially serious consequences to those affected.

491

¶3.30 Similar, but more controversial, concerns have been raised by organisations in relation to the reporting of issues as diverse as climate change and drug addiction.120 It is unnecessary to do more than touch on these: the relevant submissions are available on the Inquiry website for public scrutiny. It goes without saying that the Inquiry has not undertaken the task of forming its own expert scientific judgment on this material and, in any event, it is unnecessary that it should do so.

¶3.31 This body of evidence emphasises the need for balanced and responsible reporting on matters of public interest and, in particular, reporting that reflects the balance of scientific and/or medical opinion on any specific issue. This need arises because the press is regarded as a reliable and responsible source of information; if it was not so regarded (and the press itself would hardly want it so), this issue would not arise. If, for example, the overwhelming preponderance of informed medical opinion is to the effect that a vaccine is safe, any reporting of suggestive evidence to the contrary effect should recognise and fairly characterise the nature and quality of that evidence, and accord proper recognition to where the clear consensus of opinion lies. This is not to accord undue weight to the views of the scientific and

¶F medical establishment; rather, it is to accord due recognition to the strength of the available evidence to ensure that the position is not misrepresented. As the MMR story made clear, the failure to do so can have a widespread and harmful impact.

¶Inaccuracy and harm: a wider perspective 3.32 Overall, there is a broader point which flows from the status and role of the press in a mature democracy as a reliable, authoritative and accurate purveyor of news and information. The press is trusted by its readers to adhere to high standards in terms of getting things right. The importance of differentiating between fact and opinion is that the public must be in a position to understand what is fact (and therefore to be relied on as such) and what is opinion (and therefore to be understood as precisely that). The public interest in facts being accurate is that readers may well be misled if they are not, their knowledge about the world may well be faulty as a result, and their judgments based on that knowledge may well be imperfect. The wider harm to the public interest of inaccurate journalism should be seen in that light.

¶3.33 There is, of course, no bright line for the way that accurate facts are described, or for the choice of accurate facts that are reported and it is recognised that journalists do not have the same standards of impartiality that affect broadcasters. The challenge, in reality, is to the extent to which the Editors' Code (or any agreed code) is followed 'not only in the letter but in the full spirit' (see the Preamble to the Code) and the unwillingness of the press to be prepared to address legitimate complaints in that regard.

492 493

¶Chapter 4 Some practices at the News of the World 1. Introduction 1.1 As Robert Jay QC said in opening the Inquiry:1

"In most institutions, cultural problems of this nature will usually emanate from high up within the organisation, but this will not always be the case. They will not always be the product of a deliberate policy decision made by those with power within the organisation to make them. Sometimes the existence of a culture derives from the operation of more subtle and complex forces, from historical trends, from what is condoned and not stamped upon, leading to insidious evolution and perpetuation, from complacency leading to arrogance and purblindness. There is clearly a range of possibilities."

¶1.2 There is an extent to which News International (NI) and the rest of the press have sought to draw a line between the practices that are alleged to have taken place at the News of the World (the NoTW) and the newsrooms of all other newspapers. Having argued originally that phone hacking was limited to one rogue reporter, one may be forgiven for thinking that the company and sections of the industry are now arguing that it was limited to one rogue title. F On account of the ongoing criminal prosecutions2 it is not possible for Part One of this Inquiry to investigate the allegations of illegal behaviour that surround the NoTW, and neither is it a matter for Part One to reach firm conclusions as to whether similar illegal behaviour has been engaged in elsewhere in given specified titles. The goal of Part One of the Inquiry is to discern the broad contours of the culture, practices and ethics of the press and reach conclusions on the extent to which those meet public expectations and support the public interest. Given the extent of the allegations against the NoTW, and the widespread view that the NoTW was not typical of the rest of national newspapers, I have focused in this Chapter of the Report on the culture at the NoTW. Elsewhere, I consider whether what may be described as the wider culture of the press was and is reflected in or by the culture of the NoTW (or not).

¶1.3 The criminal investigations and the many civil actions brought against the NoTW in relation to phone hacking mean there is a vast fund of information about alleged illegal practices in the hands of both NI, the police and in the High Court. However, the ongoing criminal investigations mean that the Inquiry has not been able to delve into any of this evidence and has been constrained in the areas of questioning that might have been pursued with many of those who were employed by the NoTW. Further, NI has drawn attention to the fact that they have not attempted to put forward a positive case in relation to the NoTW and has argued, therefore, that in the context of the Inquiry the NoTW is an 'undefended party'.3

¶1.4 The NoTW is, indeed, in a unique position. The title was closed down in July 2011 by NI in response to the public distaste for what had been revealed about the widespread use

494

of phone hacking as a technique at the paper, and in particular the alleged targeting of ordinary people and the victims of crime such as Milly Dowler. As previously explained, in respect of Operations Weeting, Elveden and Tuleta, NI has provided substantial quantities of information to the police relating to NoTW operations. A number of former NoTW journalists and executives have been arrested and charged, both in relation to phone hacking and other offences. Although the Inquiry has taken evidence from many of those involved it was not possible to ask questions about any issue that is the subject of criminal investigation, with the result that the picture presented is partial. This is a necessary consequence of what I have called the 'mantra'4 but, in any event, I am not seeking to present a detailed account of how things happened in the NoTW newsroom.

¶1.5 Rather, I am aiming to sketch out an impression of what was considered important at the

NoTW, what the priorities were, how people behaved and what the prevailing attitudes were to ethical and legal constraints, the rights of individuals and the Editors' Code. The picture set out here is gathered from the evidence of a number of people who have worked at the newspaper over last ten or so years. None has been able to give a full account, and given the frank inconsistencies between some of the accounts that I have received (taken together with other reasons such as my assessment of them as witnesses) I am driven to conclude that not everything I have heard has been accurate or, in some cases, truthful. That said, I believe that the resulting picture is sufficiently robust to stand as a recognisable portrait of how the organisation operated over that period, without seeking to concentrate on, or draw conclusions about, the alleged illegal behaviour that is the subject of current or potential police investigations.

¶F 2. Influence on culture at the News of the World 2.1 This chapter will consider a number of different aspects of culture, practices and ethics at the

¶NoTW, namely:

(a) the impact of those in the most senior positions on the rest of the organisation: the chain of events surrounding the prosecution of Glenn Mulcaire and Clive Goodman and the civil litigation, in particular Mr Gordon Taylor's claim, provide an important and powerful insight into accountability and responsibility within the upper echelons of the NoTW. These issues have already been covered in considerable detail above,5 and I reiterate here those findings and assessments; (b) the culture in the newsroom: how responsibility is handled at working level and the behaviour of the senior team towards their staff; (c) the pressures on journalists and editors: including how they inform actions and can influence the culture of the organisation; (d) the attitude within the newsroom towards individuals who were the subjects of potential stories: including what attitudes to privacy, as well as methods of persuading people to co-operate, can tell us about culture; (e) approaches to compliance, including the approach to data protection, with specific reference to Operation Motorman, the approach to legal compliance, dealing with complaints and attitudes to accuracy; and

495

¶(f) finally, the relationship between the paper and the public, with reference to how the paper considers the wider public interest and its approach to public scrutiny.

¶Setting the tone from the top 2.2 In relation to the NoTW, the relevant influences on the culture and operation of the newspaper appear to be the ultimate owner of the title, the NI management, the editorial and executive team at the NoTW, the exigencies of operating as a Sunday title and the pervading culture and practices of the UK press and UK journalism. What follows attempts to describe the effect of some of these different influences.

¶2.3 If the culture is set from the top of an organisation then, in seeking to understand the culture at the NoTW, it is essential to look at the approach taken by the ultimate owner. Rupert Murdoch, speaking no doubt in his capacity as Chairman of News Corp, told the Inquiry:6

"I do try very hard to set an example of ethical behaviour and make it quite clear that I expect it. One can describe that in a number of ways. But do I do it via an aura or charisma? I don't think so."

¶Talking generally about the role of his newspapers he said:

"It was always to tell the truth, certainly to interest the public, to get their attention, but always to tell the truth."

¶He said that he felt that the public were the best arbiters of what should be in newspapers.7 F 2.4 In describing the specific 'brand' of the NoTW, Mr Murdoch said:8

"It's a campaigning newspaper….certainly it was interested in celebrities, just as the public is, and a much greater investment went into covering the weekend soccer….. Coverage of celebrities, yes. Salacious gossip? Meaning – I take gossip as meaning unfounded stories about celebrities: no. I certainly hope not."

¶2.5 Mr James Murdoch described the brand of the NoTW as:9

"an investigative newspaper with exposés and the like, wasn't only concerned with celebrities and salacious gossip, but also uncovering real wrongdoing, scandals, campaigning and so on and so forth."

¶James Murdoch told the Inquiry that the culture at the NoTW when he joined as Chief Executive was very different from that at BSkyB. He said that he wanted it to be 'more collaborative'.10

496

¶Code enforcement 2.6 When Colin Myler arrived at the NoTW he reviewed the protocols and systems in place and introduced changes where he thought they were necessary to improve the governance within the NoTW.11 This included an amendment to the standard employment contract to make it:12

"...abundantly clear that the employee understands and accepts that failure to comply with the requirement, which was PCC, criminal law, will lead to disciplinary proceedings, which may result in summary dismissal."

¶However, Mr Myler went on to say that during his time as editor there were no instances where failure to comply with the Code led to disciplinary proceedings.13 He was able to recall one case that led to an oral warning and one that led to a written warning, but no others.14

¶This is particularly surprising in the light of the adverse adjudications, mediated complaints and defamation actions settled during the period (as to which see paragraph 2.33 below) most, if not all, of which must, almost by definition, have breached the Code in some way.

¶The culture in the newsroom 2.7 In looking at the culture of an organisation, it is important to consider the relationships between the organisation and its staff, how responsibility was handled at working level and, more particularly, what the NoTW was like to work for.

¶2.8 The Inquiry heard a number of different perspectives on what really mattered at the NoTW. F Paul McMullan, former deputy features editor, described the raison d'être of the NoTW as

¶"chasing circulation and nothing else."15 He spoke repeatedly and passionately about the fact that NoTW had the highest circulation of the national papers and that the readers appeared to welcome the sort of stories that he wrote:¹⁶¹⁶ Other examples are discussed in the ruling concerning the evidence of Peter Tickner: see http://www.levesoninquiry. org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Ruling-of-26-March-2012.pdf p20, para 52, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Application-of-Rule-13-of-the- Inquiry-Rules-2006.pdf at para 52 p2, Professor Baroness Onora O'Neill, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness- Statement-of-Professor-Baroness-ONeil.pdf p12, ibid p3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Professor-Baroness- ONeil.pdf p61, lines 1-11, Richard Wallace, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-16-January-2012.pdf ibid pp19-20, lines 23-8, Mark Thompson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-23-January-2012.pdf pp3-4, para 6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/DCMS-submission_Narrative-on- media-ownership.pdf ibid, p59 p85, para 189, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Stephen- Abell.pdf For my part, it seems remarkable that notwithstanding all that has been written about criminal records over the years, the journalists all misunderstood the meaning of the acronym "CRO" or believed that a search of court records could have been accomplished within the time of the response. That said, I am not suggesting that the advice of the CPS, on which the police were bound to act, was based on anything other than an objective and independent minded assessment of the strength of the evidence. The Inquiry has gone no further than this summary identifies; its value is simply as part of the history of attempts to use the criminal law in this area. p26, lines 16-19, Alexander Owens, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-5-December-2011.pdf p75, lines 2-7, Mark Maberly, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-29-February-2012.pdf p3, para 6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Witness-Statement-of-DAC- Sue-Akers1.pdf Part F, Chapter 6 http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Public-Interest-Stories-from-Telegraph-Media- Group.pdf Part E, Chapter 6, sub-section 2 above p43, lines 10-12, Paul McMullan, ibid for example, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073364/Police-reveal-theres-evidence-News-World-deleted- Milly-Dowler-voicemails.html p6, para 11, ibid p1, para 1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Witness-Statement-of-Jonathan- Chapman.pdf; p2, para 4, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Witness-Statement-of- Tom-Crone.pdf p8, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Commissioner-Bernard- Hogan-Howe1.pdf http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/MPS-9-Special-Notice-19-00.pdf p50, lines 13-20, Sandra Laville, ibid Paragraph 2.76, Part G, Chapter 3 pp93-109, Richard Thomas, ibid p74, lines 19-21, Richard Thomas, ibid pp26-27, 34, 38, 40-41, lines 21-12, 10-15, 3-12, 17-1, Christopher Graham, ibid pp13-16, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Philip-Coppel-QC- redacted.pdf p103, lines 9-21, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-9-December-2011.pdf Part H, Chapter 5, para 2.107 pp14-15, lines 13-4, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-25-April-2012.pdf September 1992, when the Government was forced to withdraw the pound from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism p9, lines 7-9, ibid pp24-25, para 18, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-statement-of-Andrew- Neil.pdf p3, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Exhibit-KRM-6.pdf on the other hand, Rupert Murdoch said it was a pure coincidence that the bid was announced a month after the General Election: p16, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript- of-Afternoon-Hearing-25-April-2012.pdf p9, lines 8-21, Alex Salmond, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-13-June-2012.pdf p14, line 11, Evgeny Lebedev, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-23-April-2012.pdf p24, para 5.20 ibid EC Regulation 561/2006 on drivers' hours and tachographs (together with regulations 3820/85, 3821/85, 3314/90, 3688/92, 2479/95, read with the regulations relating to driver's hours and recording equipment , in particular SI 2006/1117, SI 2007/1819 and Part VI of the Transport Act 1968 as amended The settlements that News International have agreed with a large number of those who have litigated in relation to phone hacking cannot be assumed to represent the sums that the court would have awarded p5, para 6.1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Tim-Toulmin. J pdf; p6, para 25, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Witness-Statement-of-Giles-Crown. pdf Part J, Chapter 5 pp4-5, para 5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Lord-Black-of-Brentwood-Annex-D1. pdf p9, para 30, ibid p4, para 1.12, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Submission-by-Alternative-Libel- Project-English-PEN-and-Index-on-Censorship.pdf; pp3-4, para 6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Media-Regulation-Round-Table.pdf K pp1-2, ibid http://www.newspaperinnovation.com/index.php/category/legislation/page/3/ p11, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Witness-Statement-of-Sir-Christopher-Meyer. pdf Part K, Chapter 3, para 4.28 Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.37 For example the ECtHR has arguably conceded that a positive obligation arises for the State to protect the right to freedom of expression by ensuring a reasonable opportunity to exercise a right of reply and an opportunity to contest a newspaper's refusal suing for a right to reply in courts (see Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX). The Court has stressed that States are required to create a favourable environment for participation in public debate by all the persons concerned, enabling them to express their opinions and ideas without fear (Dink v. Turkey, para 137) that "it is not easy to extract from [the Directive] any purpose other than the protection of privacy"Show full note

"But the reality was it was bought in its millions. This is what the people of Britain want. I was simply serving their need, their – what they wanted to read."

¶In one of the most provocative statements made to the Inquiry, Mr McMullan said that:¹⁷¹⁷ http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Key-Questions-Module-2.pdf p8, para 24-25, http://www.bahamousainquiry.org/linkedfiles/baha_mousa/key_documents/rulings/ standardofproofruling7may2010.pdf p66, lines 1-12, Dr Rowan Cruft, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-16-July-2012.pdf p4, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Professor-Christopher- Megone.pdf pp66-67, line 25-6, Professor Baroness Onora O'Neil, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-16-July-2012.pdf p85, lines 10-15, Richard Peppiatt, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-29-November-2011.pdf ibid Article 5 of the Royal Charter, http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/how_we_govern/charter. pdf p4, para 7, ibid O'Malley, T and C Soley, Op cit, p58 p85, para 190, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Stephen- Abell.pdf p2, para 6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Second-Witness-Statement-of- Richard-Thomas-CBE1.pdf; p2, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/RJT- Exhibit-47.pdf pp34-35, para 66, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Peter- Clarke.pdf pp5-8, paras 19-27, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Third-Witness-Statement-of- DAC- Sue-Akers.pdf; p5, para 15, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Fourth-Witness- Statement-of-DAC-Sue-Akers.pdf pp56-57 passim, Helen Belcher, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-8-February-2012.pdf February 2012, and various articles and dates thereafter p41, lines 6-8, Paul McMullan, ibid p14, lines 7-13, Gerry McCann, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-23-November-2011.pdf pp49-54, lines 1-12, JK Rowling, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript- of-Afternoon-Hearing-24-November-20112.pdf; p7, para 19-22, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-JK-Rowling2.pdf p14, line 20, John Witherow, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript- of-Afternoon-Hearing-17-January-2012.pdf; p9, para 33, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-John-Witherow.pdf p24, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Lord-Condon.pdf p12, para 34, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Lord-Stevens. pdf p2, para 6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Michael-Sullivan. pdf Interim ACPO Guidance for Relationships with the Media, para 10.3, http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/report s/2012/201204IntGuiMediaRels.pdf pp1-2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Fifth-Witness-Statement-of-Richard- Thomas-CBE.pdf p70, lines 21-22, Richard Thomas, ibid pp40-41, lines 23-1, Christopher Graham, ibid p17, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Philip-Coppel-QC-redacted. pdf pp45-47, lines 25-3, Francis Aldhouse, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-5-December-2011.pdf Part H, Chapter 5, para 2.108 Part I, Chapter 5 p23, lines 2-7, Jack Straw, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-16-May-2012.pdf p47, lines 7-13, David Cameron, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-14-June-2012.pdf pp2-3, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Exhibit-KRM-91.pdf pp70-71, lines 23-20, James Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-24-April-2012.pdf pp26-27, lines 13-3, ibid p16, lines 21-25, ibid pp1-3, paras 1-8, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Claire-Enders- Enders-Analysis.pdf For example, the majority of organisations operating as financial services markets, exchanges and firms which are regulated by the Financial Services Authority, and firms defined as the regulated sector under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 commonly have compliance departments Numerous examples were provided by the evidence both of victims and solicitors acting in these cases: p10, J lines 2-11, Sally Dowler, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-21-November-2011.pdf; p39, line 15, Christopher Jefferies, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-28-November-2011.pdf; pp92-97, lines 21-5, Mark Lewis, http:// www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-23-November-20111. pdf; p44, line 20, Gerry McCann, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-23-November-2011.pdf; para 39: http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ Submission-on-behalf-of-Neil-Morrissey.pdf. In addition, when making submissions to Lord Justice Jackson, almost all claimant firms placed great importance on the role of CFAs in offering non-wealthy claimants access to justice p17, para 103, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Gerald- Patrick-McCann.pdf p1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Further-Submission-from-Professor- Christopher-Megone.pdf paras 3.9-3.14 below K p1, ibid p2, para 7, point 3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Joint-Submission-by-Core- Participant-Victims1.pdf http://www.presscouncil.ie/about-the-press-council.77.html http://www.ejc.net/media_landscape/article/norway/ p9, Speech by Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales 19/10/2011 http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/ Resources/JCO/Documents/Speeches/lcj-speech-annual-justice-lecture-2011.pdf Part K, Chapter 4, para 16.4 Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.40 See Applications 8384/78, 8406/78, Glimmerveen and Hagenbeck v Netherlands 18 DR 187 (1979), EcomHR (racist literature); Application 9325/81, X v Federal Republic of Germany 29 DR 194 (1982), EcomHR (Nazi leaflets);Show full note

"in a bizarre way, I felt slightly proud that I'd written something that created a riot and got a paediatrician beaten up, or whatever was the case,"

¶as if he was delighted to feel (or glorified in the fact) that he had written an article that had moved people to action, even if the action itself had been utterly misguided and wrong.

¶2.9 Mazher Mahmood, an investigative journalist who has specialised in undercover exposures and 'stings', advanced a different view. He explained that he was motivated by public duty and exposing wrongdoing, so much so that not all his investigations had been with a view to eventual publication in the newspaper.18 In discussion of a Court of Appeal finding that his real priorities were as a journalist wanting to publish a story, Mr Mahmood said:19

497

"Of course, our motive is to publish an article in the newspaper. I'm not a police officer, I'm not a social worker; I'm a journalist."

¶2.10 An alternative view to that expressed by Mr Mahmood of what was driving people in the NoTW newsroom was provided by Stuart Hoare, on the basis of the discussions he had had with his late brother, Sean, a journalist at the newspaper, suggesting that the main aim was to deliver a story and deliver it as quickly as possible:²⁰²⁰ http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Key-Questions-Module-3.pdf p3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Dr-Neil-Manson.pdf ibid http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/28/business/fi-fox28 Section 2 of the BBC Editorial Guidelines, http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-using- roles-responsibilities; p4, paras 3.1-3.2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness- Statement-of-Robert-Peston.pdf; p3, para 3.1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ Witness-Statement-of-Nicholas-Robinson.pdf p6, para 12, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/DCMS-submission_Narrative-on- media-ownership.pdf Great Britain, Royal Commission on the Press 1961-1962: Report, p101 http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Exhibit-SA-H213.pdf Information Commissioner's Office, What Price Privacy?, p21, para 5.27 p12, para 16, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Witness-Statement-of-DS-Philip- Williams.pdf; p8 para 16, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Witness-Statement-of-DCS- Keith-Surtees.pdf On 20 November 2012 five individuals were charged with two conspiracies relating to the receipt and authorisation of payments to public officials pp22-23, lines 9-7, Charlotte Church, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-28-November-20111.pdf Various articles and dates p4, para 9, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Witness-Statement-of-Derek-Webb.pdf p13, lines 12-19, Stuart Hoare, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-19-December-2011.pdf p19, lines 17-22, Gerry McCann, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-23-November-2011.pdf Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 446 p51, lines 1-15, Thomas Mockridge, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-17-January-2012.pdf; p7, para 19, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ Witness-Statement-of-Dawn-Neesom.pdf; p10, para 42, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Dominic-Mohan.pdf; p6, para 43, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2011/12/Witness-Statement-of-Colin-Myler1.pdf; p9, para 33 http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-John-Witherow.pdf p11, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Sara-Cheesley.pdf p3, para 5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Witness-Statement-of-Jacqueline- Hames.pdf p11, para 43, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-John-Twomey. pdf http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/MPS-4-HMIC-without-fear-or-favour.pdf, p5 http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Order-of-2-December-2011.pdf Following an application, I issued a further ruling: http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Ruling-In- Relation-to-Operation-Motorman-Evidence-11-June-20123.pdf p28, para 6.8, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Exhibit-1.pdf pp29-30, lines 21-7, Philip Coppel, ibid p93, lines 14-15, Richard Thomas, ibid p11, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-statement-of-Andrew-Neil.pdf p82, lines 15-16, Tony Blair, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-28-May-2012.pdf p47, lines 14-23, David Cameron, ibid p5, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Exhibit-KRM-16.pdf p32, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Exhibit-VC1-1-to-Witness-Statement-of-Vince- Cable-MP.pdf p52, lines 16-22, Alex Salmond, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-13-June-2012.pdf pp22-23, lines 10-3, ibid p25, para 5.28, ibid Part E [2012] EWCA Civ 1039; http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1039.html p28, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Submission-by-Trans-Media-Watch.pdf pp101-102, lines 7-9, Dr Colette Bowe and Ed Richards, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-12-July-2012.pdf see Figure 1 Senior Lecturer in the Department of Media & Communications, Goldsmiths, University of London K pp44-46, lines 22-11, Sir Charles Gray, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript- of-Afternoon-Hearing-12-July-2012.pdf pp56-57, lines 24-4, Professor John Horgan, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-13-July-20121.pdf p42, lines 4-8, Viscount Rothermere, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-10-May-2012.pdf Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.36 1805 L [2001] 2 AC 127Show full note

"it seems, you know, as though no one was in control. As long as they delivered an article, whether it could stand up or not didn't really matter, but as long as they delivered something, and if they delivered something early on in the week, then all the better because they can go and do whatever they want to do for the rest of the week. It was a very strange world that they operated in."

¶2.11 It is difficult to assess the reliability of the evidence bearing on these differing perspectives, for at least two reasons. First, it has to be recognised that Mr McMullan's evidence needs to be treated with very real caution given his tendency to exaggerate and sensationalise. He was not an attractive witness, although ultimately I conclude that his evidence did contain a substantial kernel of truth, once the elaboration is removed. Secondly, and notwithstanding my reservations about certain aspects of Mr Mahmood's evidence which I address elsewhere, I am prepared to accept that he personally felt that he was discharging some sort a public function rather than merely generating commercial gain for himself and his employer. That F said, the evidence of Messrs Hoare and McMullan does not stand alone and I have reached the conclusion that in broad and general terms, exaggeration aside, it does serve to identify at least one of the key drivers of culture at the NoTW.

¶Pressures on journalists 2.12 It seems clear, therefore, that a drive for circulation increased the pressure on those working at the NoTW. The Inquiry heard from a number of former employees of the newspaper who were in complete agreement that the newsroom at NoTW was a very pressurised environment and that reporters were under pressure to deliver stories, preferably exclusive stories, regularly. Mr McMullan said that the consequence of not getting sufficient bylines was that you would get fired.21 Neville Thurlbeck (who had occupied a number of senior positions as a journalist on the NoTW) told the Inquiry:22

"there was a kind of an unofficial recognition that bylines were a reasonable performance indicator, and if your byline count was low, then obviously your job would be in jeopardy."

498

¶2.13 Other journalists said the same thing. Daniel Sanderson, a former journalist at the paper, said that the environment of the newsroom was highly pressured and that you had to be available all the time.23 Matt Driscoll, another former journalist who left the newspaper suffering from stress, said that there were lots of pressures on a news staffer at the NoTW to perform and get stories. He mentioned the pressures to get a story, to sell the paper, and to get a big front page exclusive.24 Mr Driscoll also recounted his doctor's assessment of the pressure applied to journalists which was in terms that:25

"journalists work under an incredible amount of pressure and stress, and it was his opinion that you get used to that level of stress. You just think that's normal. You know, the high sort of fast lane of Fleet Street does take its toll. You travel around the world, you work at a great pace, so if something doesn't go quite right, you can quite easily get tipped over the edge. You're used to a high level of stress, but you're almost at saturation point."

¶2.14 This picture of a newsroom under immense pressure was supported by anonymous evidence received from the National Union of Journalists (NUJ). As discussed below, such was the concern about the risk of repercussions for journalists giving evidence to the Inquiry that an application was made by the NUJ that I should be prepared to receive evidence anonymously.

¶I acceded but, inevitably, treat the resulting evidence far more cautiously as a consequence.

¶One journalist wrote that there was tremendous pressure at the NoTW, that everyone talked about the byline count and reporters had to do what they needed to get the story.26 Another said "The NoTW was an incredibly tough and unforgiving workplace" and described seeing three or four members of staff collapse in the office in consequence, at least in part, from F stress, as well as himself or herself having suffered from severe stress.27 Sharon Marshall described the NoTW as 'a very tough working environment' where you literally would not know what the person next to you was doing.28

¶2.15 Whilst the picture of the NoTW as a tough and demanding, often stressful, working environment was not challenged by any of the evidence before the Inquiry, there was no such agreement on whether this toughness extended to bullying. Some have argued very clearly that that there was a bullying culture at the NoTW. Mr Driscoll told the Inquiry of his dismissal from the

¶NoTW and the subsequent Employment Tribunal hearing. The Tribunal found that then editor of the NoTW, Andy Coulson, had 'presided over a culture of bullying'²⁹²⁹ p10 line 15 et seq, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing- 14-November-2011.pdf, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of-Afternoon- Hearing-14-November-2011.pdf; http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-15-November-2011.pdf; http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-15-November-2011.pdf; http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-15-November-2011.pdf; http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-16-November-2011.pdf Part J Chapter 2 p5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Professor-Christopher- Megone.pdf p10, lines 12-16, James Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-24-April-2012.pdf ibid p15, para 40, ibid Snoddy, R, Op cit, p88 p61, lines 2-8, Baroness Buscombe, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-7-February-2012.pdf p99, lines 1-10, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-9-December-2011.pdf p18, para 24, ibid p10, para 28, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Fourth-Witness-Statement-of-DAC- Sue-Akers.pdf p4, Matthew Parris, The Times, (23 May 2009, London) p73, lines 6-15, Anne Diamond, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-28-November-20111.pdf p3, Matt Driscoll, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing- 19-December-2011.pdf p62, lines 16-22, David Pilditch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-21-December-20111.pdf pp69-70, lines 15-3, JK Rowling, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-24-November-20112.pdf pp47-49, lines 1-7,Richard Wallace, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-16-January-2012.pdf; p7, para 27, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Dominic-Mohan.pdf; p5, para 11, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Dawn-Neesom.pdf; p3, paras 12-13 and p6, para 22, http://www. levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-John-Witherow.pdf p82, lines 6-10, Dr Rob Mawby, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/lev030412am.pdf p27, line 2, Stephen Wright, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-15-March-20121.pdf pp7-8, para 40, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Sean-ONeill. pdf Part G Chapter 3 pp14-15, Richard Thomas, ibid p53, lines 5-12, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-9-December-2011.pdf pp43-44, lines 16-7, Philip Coppel, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-17-July-2012.pdf Part F, Chapter 6 p5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Alastair- Campbell.pdf p41, lines 17-19, Tony Blair, ibid p110, lines 17-21, David Cameron, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-14-June-2012.pdf p6, ibid pp94-96, lines 1-7, Alex Salmond, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-13-June-2012.pdf Part I Chapter 6 above pp14-15, paras 71-72, Jeremy Hunt http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/JH-Witness- statment-MOD300005597.pdf http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/guidance_for_prosecutors_on_assessing_the_public_interest_in_cases_ affecting_the_media_/ Where the Court of Appeal had power to order a new trial on the ground that damages awarded by a jury were excessive or inadequate, this provision allowed the Court "to substitute for the sum awarded by the jury such sum as appears to the court to be proper" p511, para 110, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Stephen- Abell.pdf 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/2012/06/Sumission-from-Jeremy-Hunt-MP.pdf pp23-24, para 37, ibid p5, para 11, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Lord-Black-of-Brentwood-Annex-B1. pdf pp11-12, lines 20-3, Lord Black, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-9-July-2012.pdf; pp13-14, para 2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ Submission-by-Lord-Black-of-Brentwood1.pdf K p82, lines 12-22, Nick Clegg, ibid Part K, Chapter 7, para 6.5 Application 22824/04, [2008] ECHR 746 at para 26Show full note as well as specifying particular instances of behaviour by the editor that it considered to constitute bullying.30 The

¶Tribunal further found that the disciplinary proceedings leading up to Mr Driscoll's dismissal had been a pretext for the then editor's desire to 'get shot of' Mr Driscoll.31 The Tribunal felt that in conducting the disciplinary process the senior management team were going through a cynical process of giving an appearance of fairness towards Mr Driscoll.32

499

¶2.16 The Tribunal's findings were not the subject of any appeal by NI to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, notwithstanding the very substantial award of compensation to Mr Driscoll. However, it cannot be overlooked that Mr Coulson did not give evidence before the Employment Tribunal, despite the fact that he has subsequently said that he wished to do so, and that he has sought to challenge the findings of fact made by the Tribunal. Whatever his account now, I am not prepared to permit Mr Coulson or NI to re-litigate issues which, if they were live, could and (in my view) should have been argued before the Employment Tribunal at the appropriate time.

¶2.17 Ian Edmondson was the news editor at the NoTW for much of the relevant period. He agreed that there was a culture of bullying, saying that it emanated from the editor. He said this was true even for senior executives such as himself: "It's not a democracy at a newspaper. Autocratic."33 A number of the journalists providing evidence anonymously through the NUJ echoed this perception, including one who described repeated bullying of themselves and colleagues,34 and another who described what amounted to bullying of Clive Goodman.35 A third described a 'systematic regime of bullying' at the NoTW.36 These journalists describe their experience of being bullied and seeing others bullied in graphic detail. Steve Turner, of the British Association of Journalists gave evidence of at least three cases, other than Mr Driscoll, of bullying at the NoTW in each of which:37

"...the journalist was unreasonably subjected to disciplinary proceedings, realised that the newspaper felt his face did not fit any more and that they were trying to F drive him out, and asked him if a severance package was available to resolve the matter."

¶2.18 Others disagreed. Mr Sanderson was clear that he did not recognise the picture painted by other witnesses of a bullying culture at the title.38 Another, Dan Wootton (who worked in Features before becoming TV editor and then Showbiz editor) was confident that he had experienced no bullying culture at the NoTW, although he ascribed this to his having worked on the Features desk and to different parts of the paper having different cultures.39 Rupert Murdoch said that he was not aware of any allegations of bullying at NoTW or within NI, stating "they always strike me as a very happy crowd,"40 but made it clear that the type of conduct found to have occurred in the Driscoll case had no place in NI newsrooms.41

500

¶2.19 NI cautions the Inquiry about reaching any conclusion about a culture of bullying based on the allegations of a single individual or even a handful of individuals.42 However, Mr Myler explained that when he became editor, he ran a staff survey asking about the working environment. The responses were clear that they had a long way to go to meet the aspirations of the staff. Mr Myler went on to say that his response included holding seminars for the heads of departments on how to welcome challenge and to avoid bullying. Mr Myler indicated that the subsequent year's survey results were much improved, putting the NoTW ahead of the rest of NI.43 This lends some weight to the concerns of others that a bullying culture did, at least to an extent and prior to 2009, exist in the NoTW, as well as indicating that some steps were taken to address it.

¶2.20 It must be recognised that not all the evidence offered can be taken at face value and, in particular, as I have said, I must be very careful about placing too much reliance on the evidence of anonymous journalists unless it is converges with other reliable evidence. However, in the light of the body of consistent evidence which the Inquiry has received, and of Mr Myler's evidence (which is not challenged by anybody) there can be little doubt that the NoTW was a tough working environment, that the staff collectively felt that challenge from superiors was not welcomed, and that bullying was a problem. The evidence which Mr Driscoll gave to the Employment Tribunal, repeated to me, along with the confirmation of witnesses

¶(both identified and anonymous) satisfies me that, at least on occasion, individuals were, indeed, victimised and bullied. Whilst Mr Myler took steps to address the culture that he obviously perceived as being harmful, there was no evidence that any individuals responsible for bullying, or creating a climate at the paper which was unhealthy and oppressive, were disciplined in any way or that the victims were offered any support. F 2.21 In any event, whether the pressures to perform amounted to bullying or not, it has been suggested by a number of witnesses that these pressures, both to deliver a story and to deliver sufficient evidence to make it legally defensible, may have led journalists to use whatever means were necessary, even if that meant stepping beyond the Editors' Code or the law. Mr McMullan described the attitude of a previous editor, Piers Morgan, as "I want that story at all costs" and "I don't care what you have to do to get that story".44 He recounted a specific incident alleging that Mr Morgan, against the advice of Rebekah Brooks, had actively encouraged him to steal a photograph from a private house:⁴⁵⁴⁵ p11, Professor Baroness O'Neill, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness- Statement-of-Professor-Baroness-ONeil.pdf HC Hansard 27 January 1981, Volume 997, Column 806 onwards, ibid ibid p24, para 61, ibid O'Malley, T and C Soley, Op Cit, p82 Shannon, R. (2001) Op. Cit., p38 p5, paras 1.10-1.11, ibid pp74-75 lines 15-2, Lord Macdonald, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-4-April-2012.pdf http://www.newsint.co.uk/compensationscheme/index.html p58, line 21, William Lewis, ibid Part F, Chapter 6 p70, lines 15-21, Paul McMullan, ibid Exhibit PWH3 to the witness statement of Peter Hill (which included circulation figures for the Daily Express between pp52-53, lines 25-16, Garry Flitcroft, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-22-November-20111.pdf; pp3-4, para 20-22, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Garry-Flitcroft.pdf pp32-33, lines 15-14, Paul Silva, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-11-January-2012.pdf; p73, lines 9-20, Peter Wright, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-11-January-2012.pdf; p9, para 38, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-John-Twomey. pdf p15, para 43, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Lord-Stevens. pdf p43, lines 19-23, Francis Aldhouse, ibid p72, lines 2-11, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-9-December-2011.pdf Part I, Chapter 5 p93, lines 1-3, Philip Webster, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-25-June-20121.pdf p4, line 18, Tony Blair, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-28-May-2012.pdf; he later referred to the "few people" of the press having "substantial power", p56, line 24, ibid p62, lines 15-22, George Osborne, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-11-June-2012.pdf pp9-10, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-25-April-2012.pdf p3, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Exhibit-KRM-18.pdf pp69-70, lines 11-23, George Osborne, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript- of-Afternoon-Hearing-11-June-2012.pdf pp61-62, lines 22-21, Sir John Major, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-12-June-2012.pdf p7, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Coordinating-Committee-for- Media-Reform.pdf pp12-13, paras 3.2-3.3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Closing-submussion-from- MPS.pdf Para 134, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201012/jtselect/jtprivinj/273/273.pdf p47, line 17, p48, line 14, Lord Grade, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript- of-Afternoon-Hearing-31-January-2012.pdf p34, para 63, ibid p106, lines 11-15, Lord Black, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-9-July-2012.pdf pp4-6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Submission-by-The-Campaign-for-Press- and-Broadcasting-Freedom.pdf p79, lines 15-21, ibid. p80, lines 3-13, ibid p21, para 28, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Lord-Black-of- Brentwood1.pdf Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.35 Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2001] QB 967 at para 150, per Keene LJ in the CA, approved in A v B (a company) [2002] EWCA Civ 337 at para 11(iii), per Lord Woolf LCJShow full note quite apart from the unsatisfactory nature of parts of Mr McMullan's evidence, that allegation was not put to

¶Mr Morgan and I make no finding about it.

¶2.22 On the other hand, James Hanning (deputy editor of the Independent on Sunday) reported

¶Sean Hoare suggesting that his impression was that getting stories that could be printed was more important than professional standards.46 Mr Driscoll told the Inquiry that there was pressure to go along with using unethical or illegal methods to stand up a story:47

501

"it would be a very brave journalist…to suddenly say 'I'm not happy with these techniques that are being used.'…..Anyone on that floor who complained too much would find themselves pushed out, certainly."

¶Mr Driscoll went on to say:48

"there was a pressure to use, as it now turns out, almost any means necessary to make sure that a story was 100 per cent true."

¶2.23 Mr Edmondson described an environment where anyone in the newsroom had to comply with an instruction from the editor, even when the editor's instruction might be morally or ethically questionable. He said that an instruction from Mr Myler (denied by Mr Myler) that he misled Clarence Mitchell, the PR assistant to the McCann family, about the NoTW's position in relation to Dr Kate McCann's diaries was a particularly egregious example of an instruction effectively to deceive someone, but that there had been other occasions.49

¶2.24 Mr Hoare described how he believed that his brother, Sean, had felt pressure to drink and take drugs in order to be able to do his job effectively, as he relied on mixing socially within the entertainment world.50 Mr Hanning also described how Mr Hoare had felt that there was great pressure to perform and that he was put under increasing pressure when things were going less well.51

¶2.25 Again, this general picture is reflected in the anonymous evidence given through the NUJ. One such witness said "if you've got people who are hacking phones and producing great stories, the honest reporter is thinking they're not in the same league, that something's wrong with them".52 Another complained of pressure to deliver too quickly:53

F "There'd be no time to make calls and get things right……..There was [one time] when I had to make up a quote – it was only once….I felt terrible. But I didn't have a choice and I had to get the piece done."

¶A third said:54

¶"I never made stuff up but the pressure on people was enormous."

¶2.26 Other witnesses were clear that they had not felt under pressure to behave improperly in pursuit of stories or evidence. Mr Thurlbeck spoke of the "enormous lengths" to which they went to satisfy the lawyers as to factual accuracy, asserting that only proper means were used to achieve that aim.55 Mr Sanderson said that he had no experience of working in uncomfortable situations, or of being forced to behave against the Editors' Code.56

502

¶Approach to discipline 2.27 It is interesting to consider the NoTW's approach to staff who committed breaches of the

¶Editors' Code or been found to have broken the law. Mr Myler explained that it was the practice that a journalist who failed to meet PCC Code standards would receive a written reprimand, though he could only recall one example of this happening from his four year tenure as editor.57 According to Mr Myler, this was sometimes also the case in relation to lapses that did not lead to a PCC complaint.58

¶2.28 When Mr Thurlbeck was found by the High Court to have sent emails to potential interviewees which could be said to be tantamount to blackmail,59 no action was taken against him by the NoTW in connection with the incident; neither does it appear that there was even a reevaluation of the propriety of what had been done.60 I shall return to the issue of these emails at a later stage of this review of the culture at the NoTW.

¶2.29 The treatment of Clive Goodman, as set out above,61 was also instructive. Mr Goodman had been found guilty of a criminal offence and served a prison sentence for it. This is clearly grounds for dismissal under the News International Disciplinary Policy. Indeed, "[c]onviction for a criminal offence which may bring News International into disrepute…" is given as an example of gross misconduct which could lead to dismissal without notice or payment in F lieu of notice.62 However, as Mr Crone explained, Mr Goodman was given indications that he would be able to return to the NoTW.63 In the event that, did not happen and Mr Goodman was dismissed, but he did secure in the region of £250,000 in payments and legal expenses in circumstances where one would have thought that his strict legal entitlement, regardless of any technical want of fairness by the company in its dismissal procedures, were nugatory or non-existent.64

¶2.30 There are different possible interpretations of the rationale for why there was any possibility or suggestion that Mr Goodman might have been taken back to work at the NoTW. One, put forward by Mr Goodman himself in his unfair dismissal claim, was that management recognised that Mr Goodman was operating within normal and accepted practice at the NoTW and it would be unfair for him to be dismissed as a result. Consequently it was appropriate, at least, for him to be compensated if he was not going to be able to keep his job. Another possible interpretation suggested was that executives at the newspaper felt a sense of paternal responsibility for Mr Goodman and his family and that they did not want them to be too heavily penalised for one mistake when set against a long and (largely) honourable career. A further interpretation is that, given his knowledge of inappropriate activity at the NoTW, by keeping him on the staff, Mr Goodman could be persuaded to keep such matters confidential. Mr Crone has denied that there was any 'keep your mouth shut' element to the indications given to Mr Goodman that he might have a job at the NoTW after his release from prison.65

503

¶2.31 Any one of these arguments might also explain the willingness of the NoTW to reach a substantial settlement with Mr Goodman once he had been dismissed. Jon Chapman, former head of legal and corporate affairs at NI, told the Inquiry that the NoTW settled with Mr Goodman because they did not want to face the reputational damage of allegations being repeated in an Employment Tribunal.66 Mr Chapman's contention was that the allegations were unsubstantiated but nonetheless damaging. There would be an equal rationale for persuading Mr Goodman not to repeat his allegations if they were, in fact, substantiated.

¶2.32 What is particularly striking are the differences between the treatment of Mr Thurlbeck and Mr Goodman, on the one hand, and Mr Driscoll on the other. Whilst Mr Goodman was dismissed, it took some considerable while for that conclusion to be reached. No formal action was taken against Mr Thurlbeck whatsoever, and any informal reprimand was offered only long after the event. Both of these cases involved unlawful (or potentially tantamount to unlawful) behaviour and breaches of the Code. By contrast Mr Driscoll had broken neither the Code nor the internal rules of the NoTW and was dismissed as rapidly and with as little personal consideration or compensation as possible.67

¶F 2.33 Looked at more broadly, the Inquiry has seen no evidence that the policy set out by Mr Myler, that breaches of the Editors' Code would result in a written reprimand, was implemented or enforced. NI has not provided any examples of such written reprimands, despite at least 17 upheld PCC complaints against the NoTW, including five since 2007,68 and 19 defamation actions since 2005 including 12 settled.69 Mr Myler cited four cases in which the PCC adjudicated against the NoTW while he was editor.70 The Inquiry has been given no evidence of disciplinary action having been taken in response to those breaches of the PCC Code despite Mr Myler's assertion that it would have done so. Some five people were dismissed from NoTW in the period from 2005-2011 for misconduct, three of them in 2011, and no information is provided about what constituted misconduct in these cases. The example of Mr Driscoll demonstrates that this will not always relate to a breach of the Code.

¶2.34 Some NoTW journalists were clear that the Code was distributed to staff and they were made aware of their obligation to follow it. Dan Wootton confirmed that he attended a PCC seminar on the day that he joined the NoTW and was provided with a copy of the PCC Code that day, which he would carry with him at all times.71 Ms Marshall echoed this, saying:72

504

"when you start at the News of the World, you're given a copy of the PCC code. Every journalist should know what the PCC code is. You wouldn't be reminded of it on a daily basis. You should know it."

¶2.35 Ms Marshall told the Inquiry that she had resigned from the NoTW because she had been asked by her manager to do something which she considered unethical: she was told to put a story to a subject in a way and at a time that she considered inappropriate. In the event she did not comply with the request and no story ran. Ms Marshall said that the editor and deputy editor had not been aware of this request until she resigned and that they had tried to persuade her to stay.73 However, she left, and the person responsible for the request had stayed in their job.74 Ms Marshall also told the Inquiry that she was not aware of anyone having been disciplined for an ethical breach.75

¶2.36 As previously observed, not all the evidence adduced as to the pressure on staff to use all means possible, whether or not they were ethical or legal, to get a story and stand it up can be taken at face value. I repeat that only limited weight or reliance can be placed on uncorroborated anonymous evidence, and the evidence of Mr McMullan, Mr Driscoll, Mr

¶Edmondson and Mr Hanning is challenged by NI on various grounds of unreliability. On the other hand, whereas aspects of NI's challenges are, no doubt, well-founded, for reasons earlier explained, I have concluded that the evidence of these and other similar witnesses contains a substantial kernel of truth. F 2.37 It goes further. Mr Thurlbeck's continued denials of the use of improper means at the NoTW ring hollow in the face of the conclusions of Mr Justice Eady that he had resorted to a tactic that could be considered tantamount to blackmail; the fact that, even now, he does not accept any lack of propriety on his part speaks volumes. The evidence of how the NoTW treated staff who had gone too far clearly suggests that while there may not have been overt pressure to breach the Code or break the law, there was an attitude that expected results and that did not actively discourage, or penalise those who went beyond the boundaries of what was proper.

3. Attitude towards individuals 3.1 The attitude within the newsroom towards individuals who were the subject of potential stories, including specifically attitudes to privacy, shines a bright light onto the culture of a newsroom. This sub-section of the Report covers ground which is also addressed on a more generic basis below,76 but it is convenient and appropriate to address here similar issues in the specific context of the NoTW. 3.2 The Inquiry has seen two distinct attitudes towards the subjects of stories or potential stories.

¶The first is that celebrities or subjects must be humoured and nurtured in order for stories to continue to flow; and the second, as for example in the case of Max Mosley, considers individuals as commodities, and their interests solely from the perspective of legal risk to the company. There are three aspects of the treatment of individuals by the NoTW that I examine here: (a) the approach to privacy, including the attitudes to Article 8 rights, use of intrusion and surveillance; (b) pressure put on people to co-operate; and (c) deception, including blagging, and other investigative techniques.

505

¶Privacy 3.3 The Inquiry heard that, whereas libel had always been an issue for newspapers, concerns about privacy were more recent. Mr Crone said that privacy considerations had become more important as case law on privacy developed, dating that from approximately 2002/3.77 He gave evidence that privacy incrementally became more important as a result. Mr Myler described how, coming back to the UK in 2007 after five years in the United States, the privacy landscape was unrecognisable:78

"As a result of challenges and the change in the law, as it were, and verdicts, it was becoming very challenging to meet the requirements that the courts had laid down."

¶This, he said, led him to approach privacy issues with a cautious frame of mind.79 Mr Thurlbeck said that privacy had become an important issue since 2008.80 Before then, he said, there was F less regard to privacy issues although there was always an awareness that there had to be "an element of justification behind it."81 It is notable that, in the case of both Mr Crone and Mr Myler, this increased caution with respect to privacy was driven by the development of law surrounding privacy, not by the requirements of the Editors' Code or any general ethical considerations or changes in what the reading public were willing to support.

¶3.4 The Inquiry heard evidence from a number of NoTW staff in relation to both the general approach to privacy and to specific incidents involving a breach of privacy. Mr McMullan was at the extreme end of the lack of respect for privacy, informing the Inquiry:82

"In 21 years of invading people's privacy I've never actually come across anyone who's been doing any good. The only people I think need privacy are people who do bad things. Privacy is the space bad people need to do bad things in. Privacy is particularly good for paedophiles, and if you keep that in mind, privacy is for paedos, fundamental, no one else needs it, privacy is evil. It brings out the worst qualities in people. It brings out hypocrisy. It allows them to do bad things."

506

¶3.5 Mr McMullan argued that he saw no distinction between the public interest and what the public was interested in.83 This line of argument led him to suggest that the level of sales of the

¶NoTW demonstrated that its stories were essentially in the public interest.84 He specifically recounted a story, in which he had been involved, that led to the subject ultimately killing herself. He recalled this story with regret, but continued to believe that there was no need for controls on privacy because the public did not seem to have a problem with the coverage:85

"…because the News of the World readership didn't decline after that. It didn't put anyone off buying it."

¶3.6 Mr Mahmood argued that someone holding public office should have no right to privacy. By contrast, he suggested that in the case of those not holding office, any intrusion into privacy would need to be justified, for example on the grounds of exposing hypocrisy.86

¶3.7 Mr Thurlbeck described a newsroom in which the question of whether privacy was being intruded into, and the justification for any such intrusion, was the subject of lengthy debates with the editor:87

"It was something we talked about literally every day…..we did everything we could to ensure that we didn't step over those boundary marks."

¶3.8 Mr Sanderson said that in every story he would consider privacy, the public interest and whether he was adhering to the Editors' Code. However, he was unable to point to any consideration of breach of privacy in relation to the acquisition of the diaries of Dr McCann, F appearing to feel that the matter would be satisfactorily covered by obtaining the consent of the McCanns to any proposed publication.88

¶3.9 Describing the attitude of executives to privacy, Mr Crone said that he was sometimes asked to advice on what attitude a court might take in relation to the privacy aspects of a case:89

"I would express the view that they were probably going to get into trouble over it. That wasn't always accepted in terms of 'we won't publish it', no."

¶He explained that the executive's view of the public interest in publishing was not always in line with his (Mr Crone's) assessment of what a court would find.90

¶3.10 Mr Wallis said that the NoTW had a policy until the early 2000s to make a 4 o'clock Saturday afternoon telephone call to the subject of an exposé, but that that was now impossible.91 He explained:92

507

"As the success of late-night Saturday injunctions increased, for reasons that were subject to debate and some discussion in the media and in the legal profession, it became clear that whatever the rights and wrongs of a case, it was becoming much more easy – easier for a judge to grant an injunction. If you – if that injunction was granted, that means (a) that you – all that hard work had to go on hold, and (b) it stopped becoming yours, because it then became out to the rest of the world. Because if you fought the injunction, it would be heard on a nice comfortable Thursday or Friday morning in the High Court and you, as a Sunday newspaper, have your story all over the daily newspapers."

¶3.11 There are very real tensions between what the Inquiry has been told, for the most part, about the general approach to privacy, which suggested a careful consideration of the issues raised, and the actual decisions taken, and rationale for those decisions, in specific cases. A prime example of this is the publication of the story about Mr Mosley. It is not necessary to set out in detail the facts of the Mosley case, which can be found in the judgment of Mr Justice Eady in Max Mosley v News Group Newspapers.93 In short, the NoTW published a series of stories alleging that Mr Mosley, the then head of the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), had taken part in a 'Nazi themed orgy'. The newspaper also published online a video of Mr Mosley engaged in sado-masochistic sex, alleging this be evidence of the Nazi orgy. In fact, the allegation of a Nazi theme was held by the court to have no basis in fact, but was no doubt an attractive headline for the newspaper and its readership on account of the fact that Mr Mosley is the son of former British Union of Fascists leader Oswald Mosley. The revelations in the NoTW were incredibly damaging to Mr Mosley and his family and amounted to a gross breach of his private life.

¶F 3.12 In this case, Mr Thurlbeck could not remember with any precision when the public interest in breaching Mr Mosley's privacy was considered. He was clear that he had no such conversation with the editor, Mr Myler, but did think he had discussed the issue with the news editor both when he started to research the story and throughout. Despite his earlier characterisation of regular and lengthy debates with the editor on privacy issues (see paragraph 3.7 above), when asked whether he thought it appropriate to discuss the public interest in invading Mr Mosley's privacy with the editor, Mr Thurlbeck said:94

¶"In the normal course of events I would talk to the news editor".

¶3.13 Mr Thurlbeck was clear that decisions on prior notification of the subjects of stories was a matter for the news desk. He said:95

"I would always wait for an instruction from the news desk before revealing our hand…and on this occasion I wasn't told, therefore I assumed we weren't putting the allegations to him….."

¶3.14 The editor, Mr Myler, and legal advisor, Mr Crone, did remember considering privacy issues in relation to Mr Mosley. Mr Crone's view at the time was that if Mr Mosley was told in advance about the story there was a good chance that a pre-publication injunction would be granted. For this reason, and to guard against leaks, he advised against notifying Mr Mosley.96 Mr

508

¶Myler agreed that he believed that had Mr Mosley applied for an injunction he was likely to have been successful.97

¶3.15 Mr Crone said that he was not asked to advise on whether the video should be put on the website. He said, "I thought it was pushing it to put up the video," but at no time did he advise that it should not be put up, or that it should be taken down.98 It seems clear that there was no systematic consideration of the propriety of invading Mr Mosley's privacy (or that of the other parties to the event), other than in the context of how to ensure that Mr Mosley was not put in a position to exercise his right to privacy by seeking an injunction to prevent publication. Mr Thurlbeck noted that one of the risks of an injunction application was that during the period of any interim injunction the story might leak out and the paper would lose its commercial advantage from the story.99

¶3.16 In the event, when Mr Mosley brought a claim for breach of privacy, Mr Justice Eady found that there was no public interest justification for the breach of Mr Mosley's privacy. He also found that the decisions to publish the story and the online video were indicative of "casual" and "cavalier" editorial judgments. In awarding Mr Mosley £60,000 damages, he noted that

¶"no amount of damages can fully compensate the Claimant for the damage done. He is hardly exaggerating when he says that his life was ruined."¹⁰⁰¹⁰⁰ p5, para 2.12, ibid p112, lines 10-23, Paul Staines, ibid pp25-26, lines 25-4, ibid p13, lines 7-10, Lord Black, ibid para 16, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Peter-Clarke.pdf http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Exhibit-2-to-submission-by-Professionals-against- Child-Abuse.pdf para 236, http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2008/1777.html Part F Chapter 6 pp14-21, lines 12-15, Michelle Stanistreet, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-9-February-20121.pdf; http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/MS-Exhibit-11.pdf p5, para 5.2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Joanne-Bird. pdf p115, lines 10-17, Thomas Pettifor, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-20-March-2012.pdf p4, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Exhibit-1.pdf pp21-23, lines 22-12, Gordon Brown, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-11-June-2012.pdf p1, lines 15-16, ibid p76, lines 15-21, Sir John Major, ibid p41, lines 15-22, Dr Vince Cable, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-30-May-2012.pdf p1, Stephen Abell, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/SA-B-258.pdf p30, para 52, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Lord-Black-of- Brentwood1.pdf p85, lines 3-10, Lord Black, ibid p21, para 74, ibid K The Media Act regulates the organisation, finance and responsibilities of public broadcasting in the Netherlands. K The rules set in the Dutch Media Act 2008 are upheld by the Dutch Media Authority, known as the 'Commissariaat voor de Media', who are responsible for broadcasting but not the printed press. Application 40485/02, [2005] ECHR 951Show full note

¶3.17 A similar example of a casual and cavalier approach to privacy is offered by the handling of the diaries of Dr Kate McCann by the NoTW, discussed in detail below.101 In short, the NoTW had come into possession of the personal diaries of Dr McCann, via a Portuguese journalist who had, himself, acquired them from the Portuguese police. It chose to publish highly personal F excerpts from the diaries without the consent of Dr McCann.

¶3.18 Paragraph 3.8 above explains that Mr Sanderson, the NoTW journalist who acquired the diaries, confirmed to the Inquiry that he applied no consideration of privacy when acquiring them. His understanding was that the diaries would not be published without the consent of the McCanns; he appeared not to realise that the acquisition of the diaries alone involved a substantial breach of Dr McCann's privacy, even without the intention to publish.

¶3.19 The Inquiry heard two conflicting accounts of the approach taken by the NoTW to gaining the consent of the McCanns to publish. First, Mr Myler told the Inquiry that he had instructed Mr

¶Edmondson to make it clear to the McCann's PR assistant, Clarence Mitchell, that the NoTW had the whole diary and that they were planning to publish extracts of it. He asserted that Mr

¶Edmondson led him to believe that this had been done.102

¶3.20 Mr Edmondson, by contrast, gave evidence that he had had express instructions from Mr

¶Myler to do no such thing.103 Instead, he said he was instructed to have a conversation with

¶Mr Mitchell that was 'woolly' and 'ambiguous'. He was told not to reveal that the NoTW had the diaries in its possession, and not to reveal that they intended to publish extracts from the diaries, but to indicate that something would be published and to seek consent for the publication. This tactic of not giving full disclosure was to avoid the McCanns preventing publication by direct approach to Mr Myler, or by seeking an injunction.104 For the reasons I set out in greater detail below,105 I accept Mr Edmondson's account.

509

¶3.21 It seems clear from these examples that, despite some evidence to the contrary, the NoTW was not particularly exercised by issues of privacy, particularly in the context of 'big' stories. While Mr Crone was able to advise on what approach a court might take, such advice was used at least as much to determine strategy for evading legal intervention such as injunctions as to inform a principled decision on how to proceed. This is another manifestation of what may be identified as a general theme running through the culture, practices and ethics of the press, not merely prevalent at the NoTW but also elsewhere: the focus was only on legal risk, not on ethical risk (and, one might add, the dictates of ethical journalism) and the rights of the individual.

4. Intrusion Phone hacking 4.1 As explained earlier, it is not the business of this part of the Inquiry to arrive at conclusions on what may be described as a high level of granularity in relation to the facts relating to phone hacking. Although much, if not all, is likely to emerge during the course of criminal proceedings, further or detailed analysis can only be undertaken once the criminal investigation and any F subsequent prosecutions are complete.

¶4.2 The activities of private investigator Glenn Mulcaire and former royal editor of the NoTW, Clive Goodman in the period between November 2005 and June 2006 were the subject of criminal proceedings in which both pleaded guilty; they were sentenced by Mr Justice Gross in January 2007. These proceedings are discussed in detail earlier in the Report.106

¶4.3 The sentencing of Mr Mulcaire and Mr Goodman set in train a number of civil claims brought by victims of alleged phone hacking against News Group Newspapers (NGN) and Mr Mulcaire. For example, on hearing of the conviction of Mr Mulcaire and Mr Goodman, the lawyer acting for Gordon Taylor, Mark Lewis, believed that information published about Mr Taylor had been obtained through illegal methods and advised his client to bring a civil claim. At this time, Mr Lewis explained in his evidence that it was believed there was a handful, in the region of 10 or 12 of victims of phone hacking.107 It is now clear that the numbers of potential victims has swelled well beyond this figure.

¶4.4 In her evidence to the Inquiry Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers identified that there were potentially 6,349 victims that could be identified from the Mulcaire material, in respect of which 4,375 names were linked to phone numbers.108 Of those,⁸²⁹⁸²⁹ p15, para 70, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Sean-ONeill.pdf people were regarded by the police as being likely victims of phone hacking.109

510

¶4.5 The admissions of the NoTW in the range of civil claims brought in the wake of the convictions of Messrs Mulcaire and Goodman are important in establishing the extent of phone hacking at the title. On 12 May 2011 NGN admitted liability for the entirety of Sienna Miller's claim110 and, through a statement in open court read on 7 June 2011, it accepted that confidential and private information had been obtained by the unlawful access of her voicemail messages, that confidential and private information had been published as a result, and that there had been an invasion of her privacy, breaches of confidence and a campaign of harassment for over 12 months.111 NGN accepted that these activities should not have taken place and that the articles should not have been published.112

¶4.6 NI has provided to the Inquiry a list of further admissions made in other proceedings: these include that Glenn Mulcaire had gained access to voicemails, and in some of the claims it is admitted that use was made of confidential information, obtained by accessing voicemails, in published articles. Rupert Murdoch gave evidence that, in the 72 civil cases that had been settled by 17 April 2012, NGN had assessed whether or not it was likely that voicemail interception occurred and accepted liability in principle only where it was appropriate to do so.113

¶4.7 The admissions by NoTW that voicemails have been unlawfully accessed, and the "discovered" information subsequently published, is significant. There can be no justification for the conduct admitted by NGN Ltd: wholly unsurprisingly, no public interest argument was advanced in any of the claims.

¶4.8 It is probably uncontroversial to state that phone hacking at the NoTW was not limited to F Clive Goodman, but that there were an unknown number of others who were involved.

¶Some evidence on this matter was given by Paul McMullan, Stuart Hoare and James Hanning.

¶As I have already noted, Mr McMullan was not an attractive witness and was prone to exaggeration. Furthermore, the evidence given by Mr Hoare and Mr Hanning was hearsay evidence only, reporting conversations with Stuart Hoare's late brother Sean. In addition,

¶Sean Hoare had suffered from both drug and alcohol addiction problems whilst working for the NoTW, and he left the paper under circumstances which were not entirely happy.114 These matters have obvious implications for the confidence that can be placed on their evidence.

¶However, notwithstanding these considerable caveats, I am prepared to place some weight on this evidence, given its consistency with the evidence which has emerged in particular from the civil claims, from the MPS, and from victims of phone hacking.

¶4.9 Mr McMullan described the interception of telephone calls as a device that journalists had used for a long time. He said that, before 2000, the use of scanners to intercept conversations and obtain stories was widespread among journalists.115 He went on to say that intercepting voicemail messages was a 'school yard trick' that was in common use among the general population.116 He recalled a trade in PIN numbers and said that he had personally swapped the number of Sylvester Stallone's mother for that of David Beckham.117 He said that the technique of hacking into voicemail messages was 'not uncommon' among journalists on the NoTW118 although, in fairness to the NoTW but without necessarily accepting it as other than unsupported assertion, I should note that he also said that he:119

511

"...thought the News of the World was one of the least bad offenders. The others were much worse."

¶4.10 It is a matter of regret that Mr McMullan went further than was appropriate in his evidence, given the need to safeguard any future criminal proceedings and, for obvious legal reasons, his assertions of wider knowledge were not further pursued. It is perhaps a true measure and reflection on the man that Mr McMullan, alone among the witnesses who had appeared in front of the Inquiry, continued to maintain that:120

"...phone hacking is a perfectly acceptable tool, given the sacrifices that we make, if all we are trying to do is to get to the truth."

¶4.11 Mr Hoare, giving evidence of conversations he had had with his brother Sean, who died in July 2011, said that he had been told by his brother that phone hacking was a daily routine at the NoTW and, possibly to a lesser extent, at The Sun. In line with Mr McMullan's view, Sean Hoare told his brother that the practice had been taken to the NoTW from The Sun.121

¶4.12 Mr Hanning said Sean Hoare had told him that he himself had hacked phones, on numerous occasions, whilst working at the NoTW;122 he gained the impression from his conversations with Mr Hoare a number of other employees of NoTW had engaged in phone hacking. Mr Hanning related a story told to him by Sean Hoare of a senior executive taking a call from

¶F a celebrity, who gave him her PA's phone number in case he needed to get in touch, and then passing the number immediately to a colleague so that it could be hacked.123 Another example he gave was purchasing the news list (that is to say the list of stories that are to be run) from another paper. Mr Hanning said that he had been told that this was a system which involved Mr Hoare and a colleague taking £400 in cash from the NoTW, paying £200 to their source and keeping £100 each.124

¶4.13 Mr Hoare told the Inquiry that his brother had described to him a process whereby a specific colleague would be able to obtain the location of a person from their cell phone number.125 It is speculated that one possible source for this information was the Police Service, although in practice it must also be possible that such information might ultimately come from the mobile phone operator who has access both to user data and cell site information.

¶4.14 Mr Crone confirmed to the Inquiry that he provided advice on the legality of phone hacking in 2004, but due to legal professional privilege he would not say to whom he gave the advice or in what context.126 Without attempting to draw any conclusions about how many journalists or executives were engaged in, or aware of, phone hacking, it does seem clear, to use the words of Mr Silverleaf QC (albeit also having regard to additional evidence that was not available to him in June 2008), that there was "a culture of illegal information access" deployed at NGN in order to produce stories for publication. It is inconceivable that this was not symptomatic of a broader culture at the paper which regarded the imperative of getting information for stories as more important than respecting the rights of any individuals concerned or, indeed, compliance with the Editors' Code or the law.

512

¶Surveillance and the use of private investigators 4.15 There were three private investigators who have been identified as working for, or carrying out a significant amount of work for the NoTW. These are Glenn Mulcaire, Derek Webb and

¶Steve Whittamore. They had different specialisations. For evident legal reasons this Report will not look in any detail at the employment of Mr Mulcaire by the NoTW. Whereas Mr

¶Mulcaire was very much associated with phone hacking, Mr Whittamore's metier was to obtain personal data, such as phone numbers, addresses and vehicle registration details. Mr

¶Webb, by contrast, was an expert in surveillance and was used solely for that purpose. The

¶Inquiry has not heard evidence of any other individual private investigators working for the

¶NoTW but cannot assume that there were only three. Mr Webb told the Inquiry that he heard rumours about other private investigators working between 2003 and 2007 but that, beyond 2009, he was not aware of any private investigators other than himself working for the newspaper.127 F 4.16 Mr Whittamore provided services across very many national titles, and other media organisations, which demonstrates that the use of private investigators to obtain access to personal data was, at least until 2006, routine as a journalistic practice. According to the Information Commissioner's report What Price Privacy Now, the ICO identified 228 transactions linked to the NoTW, through 23 journalists. This put the NoTW as the 5th highest user of Mr Whittamore's services by volume of transactions and the 6th highest user by number of commissioning journalists.128

¶4.17 Mr McMullan told the Inquiry that the use of private investigators was 'too extensive'. He said that in some weeks the NoTW paid Steve Whittamore £4,000.129 Operation Motorman and its implications in this context are covered in detail elsewhere in this Report,130 and the issue of how the NoTW reacted to the disclosure of Mr Whittamore's activities is covered later in this section. For these purposes it is sufficient to note that use of Mr Whittamore to obtain personal data, whether legitimately or otherwise, was routine at least until 2006. No evidence has been presented to suggest that the NoTW continued to use private investigators to obtain personal data in this way subsequently, in particular after Mr Myler's arrival as editor.

513

¶4.18 I turn now to Mr Webb. According to Mr Crone, it was and is a standard part of journalistic practice to watch the subjects of stories.131 Mr Webb was recruited to work for the NoTW in 2003 by Mr Thurlbeck, whom he had met whilst working as a police officer, in order to provide surveillance services.132 Mr Webb provided these services for the NoTW from 17 December 2003 until 20 November 2007, and then again from 20 March 2009 until the title closed in 2011.133 During that time Mr Webb placed approximately 150 different people under surveillance on instructions from the NoTW.134

¶4.19 When Mr Webb started working for the NoTW he obtained a private investigator's licence (although that was not required by the paper),135 dubbed himself 'Silent Shadow' and invoiced the company for each shift worked.136 He was given certain ground rules:137

"They said that I do not go on private land, any private property, do not go hunting through rubbish bins and do not take pictures of – photographs of children or follow children connected to families. So if the child walks up the road, don't follow the child."

¶His instructions sometimes did include following relations or contacts of celebrities,138 for instance in the hope that they would lead him to the celebrity in question.139

¶4.20 Throughout the period that he worked for the NoTW Mr Webb worked full time for them, carrying out surveillance on a mix of around 85% celebrities, politicians and sports stars, with the remaining 15% being people suspected of drug offences, addictions or crime.140 From the work log Mr Webb provided to the Inquiry, it is clear that the majority in the first category were celebrities, and most of the instructions would be tips about sexual relationships, F affairs and intimate relationships.141 Mr Webb was clear that the number and nature of his assignments did not change at all in 2007 when Mr Myler took over as editor of the NoTW.142

¶4.21 Mr Thurlbeck, who told the Inquiry that he had tasked Mr Webb with 'many dozens of assignments',143 suggested the assignments were a mix of investigations into intimate relationships, drug taking or fraternising with undesirables.144 However, Mr Webb said that people suspected of fraternising with criminals formed no part of the surveillance that he undertook,145 and the work log provided by Mr Webb indicated that surveillance with a view to revealing criminal behaviour was very rare indeed.

514

¶4.22 Mr Webb was tasked by different journalists working for the news desk who would call or email with instructions.146 Mr Thurlbeck told the Inquiry that all the assignments given to Mr

¶Webb would be the result of some specific intelligence as "...it was too expensive to go on fishing expeditions …. and it's just not something we would do….."147 This was confirmed by

¶Mr Webb.148

¶4.23 Mr Thurlbeck explained that there would be consideration of whether the alleged behaviour was worth reporting as being in the public interest before Mr Webb would be tasked. These discussions and decisions were not, however, recorded,149 and Mr Webb was not himself ever involved in any discussion of the public interest which justified the surveillance.150 Mr

¶Edmondson explained that, in relation to affairs, the consideration would largely be around whether the person was:151

"projecting themselves in media as wholesome, faithful, would never cheat on their wife, and then doing something else in private…."

¶4.24 The ambiguity and subjectivity surrounding the terminology 'projecting themselves' should of course be noted, and in any event Mr Edmondson drew a distinction between how carefully these questions were considered before and after Mr Mosley's successful action against the NoTW.152 Mr Webb told the Inquiry that he was never involved in, or told of, any public interest considerations. Perusing the work log provided by Mr Webb, it would be very surprising indeed if all, or even the majority, of the instances of surveillance of celebrities and sports stars (generally in order to reveal intimate relationships) was so justified.

¶F 4.25 Although not expressly mentioned in his evidence, it is clear from other evidence the Inquiry has received that, in 2007, Mr Myler brought in a new rule strictly limiting the use of private detectives.153 Despite this apparent change in policy there appears to have been no immediate change of any sort with regard to Mr Webb's employment: the nature and quantity of his work remained the same.154 He did, however, stop working for the NoTW between November

¶2007 and January 2009 when he was charged with aiding and abetting misconduct in public office. Mr Crone told him that he would have to stop working for the NoTW if he was charged, but that he could come back to work if he was acquitted or if the charges were dropped.155

515

¶4.26 In the event, the charges were dropped and Mr Webb went back to the NoTW. At that point, he was told by Mr Thurlbeck that he would have to make some changes to the arrangements for his employment. Specifically, he was asked to change his company name from 'Shadow Watch' (to which he had changed it earlier from 'Silent Shadow') to 'Derek Webb Media', he was asked to surrender his PI licence (which had, in fact, lapsed while he was not working for the NoTW) and he was asked to get himself an NUJ card. He complied with all these requests.156 Mr Webb was told that these changes were: "in relation to the Clive Goodman affair……that they didn't want to be tied up with private investigators."157 Mr Webb was clear that he had no journalistic experience and that he never wrote an article for the paper. He nonetheless was able to acquire an NUJ card.158

¶4.27 This process of trying to pretend that Mr Webb was a journalist was a particularly extraordinary one. It was quite clear from Mr Webb's evidence that his role never changed and at no time did he consider himself to be doing the work of a journalist. However, clearly some executives at the NoTW felt it would be more appropriate for him to appear to be a journalist, hence the instructions relayed to him by Mr Thurlbeck. Mr Edmondson said that surveillance was something that a journalist or photographer would be expected to do,159 but accepted that persuading Mr Webb to join the NUJ in order to be able to employ him, despite the introduction by Mr Myler of significant restrictions on using private investigators, was 'just a sham'.160 Mr Edmondson further told the Inquiry that Mr Myler, Stuart Kuttner and Mr Crone were all aware of this 'pretence'.161

¶4.28 Mr Myler said that he regarded Mr Webb as a private investigator when he became aware of him in 2007 after his arrest.162 Mr Myler said that once the charges against Mr Webb had been dropped, Mr Edmondson had approached him and asked if he would be more F comfortable employing Mr Webb if he was a member of the NUJ. Mr Myler agreed, as: "it made him more aware of the responsibilities of working for the News of the World."¹⁶³¹⁶³ p8, para 27, ibid Keir Starmer QC, succeeded Lord Macdonald as the Director of Public Prosecutions on 1 November 2008 p66, line 3-14, Colin Myler, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-14-November-2011.pdf pp44-71, lines 17-13, Brendan Gilmore, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-9-May-2012.pdf p8, para 14, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Chief- Inspector-Sally-Seeley.pdf p12, lines 14-23, ibid David Cameron, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Exhibit-DC-2.pdf p50, lines 2-19, Jack Straw, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-16-May-2012.pdf p42, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Exhibit-KRM-18.pdf p47, lines 9-22, Lionel Barber, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-10-January-2012.pdf p2, para 5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Terry-Hunt-Editor-of- East-Anglian-Daily-Times1.pdf p56, lines 16-21, ibid see Eady J in CC v AB [2006] EWHC 3083 (QB)Show full note Mr Myler did not suggest that this process made Mr Webb a journalist.164 He was confident that appropriate oversight and processes were in place to ensure that Mr Webb was not doing anything that was not lawful and legitimate.165

¶4.29 Mr Crone, however, told the Inquiry that he thought Mr Webb was a freelance journalist.166 His evidence on this point may be doubted: Mr Webb's evidence was that, in 2007, he had discussed his criminal charge with Mr Crone in detail and Mr Crone had personally arranged the compromise agreement with Mr Webb when he was forced to leave his employment because of the charge, which directly related to his activities as a private investigator.167

516

¶4.30 There were two particular cases of surveillance which stood out from Mr Webb's evidence:

¶both were notable because they involved opponents or campaigners against the NoTW's involvement in phone hacking.

¶4.31 The first example was the surveillance of Mark Lewis and Charlotte Harris, lawyers representing claimants in the civil claims brought against NoTW in respect of phone hacking. Mr Webb was tasked to follow each lawyer in order to try to discover whether they were having an affair.

¶The surveillance task (which involved, for part of the time, the surveillance of the wrong person) lasted a week.

¶4.32 The rationale for the surveillance of Ms Harris and Mr Lewis was the concern, shared by

¶Julian Pike at Farrers, solicitors then acting for NoTW, and Mr Crone, that they were not respecting confidentiality agreements relating to phone hacking settlements and that this was detrimental to NGN's position. They further concluded that the right course of action was to try to prevent Ms Harris and Mr Lewis from acting in subsequent cases. One of the tools in this campaign was to be surveillance, to identify the nature of the relationship between the two solicitors that might lend circumstantial support to the allegation that they were exchanging confidential information.168 Mr Pike said that he was aware that the NoTW had put Ms Harris and Mr Lewis under surveillance. He defended the decision to do so, saying that he would do the same again in the same circumstances.169 He claimed not to know that the surveillance was not being carried out by a journalist.170

¶4.33 Mr Crone asserted that he did not commission private investigators to watch Ms Harris and

¶Mr Lewis, but instead had agreed that Mr Webb would be asked to "ascertain the nature of F the relationship" between them.171 Mr Edmondson told the Inquiry that the surveillance of

¶Ms Harris made him uncomfortable because it was not something which was likely ever to lead to a publishable story.172 He said that he raised this with Mr Crone and that:173

"Tom Crone's response was that he accepted that, namely that it was unlikely material for inclusion in the newspaper as a story, but told me that the main reason to investigate was that it could provide the newspaper with good leverage against the two individuals."

¶4.34 Mr Crone continued to maintain, despite being the only witness before the Inquiry to believe it, that Mr Webb was employed as a freelance journalist,174 though he did accept that in undertaking the specific task of surveillance of Mr Lewis and Ms Harris he was "doing something for the legal department."175

¶4.35 This whole saga reflects poorly on all involved. The use of covert surveillance against solicitors representing the opposition in damaging litigation is dubious at best, particularly when it seems clear that the surveillance was commissioned in order to put pressure on the solicitors to withdraw from the litigation. It is a case of attacking the man and not the ball. Mr Crone must, ultimately, take final responsibility. Despite his efforts to persuade the Inquiry to the contrary, in my judgment he well knew that Mr Webb was not carrying out proper journalistic functions. Additionally, it was primarily his decision to engage Mr Webb to conduct discreet surveillance of Mr Lewis and Ms Harris in circumstances where there was no conceivable journalistic or other justification to do so: this was clearly in breach of their Article 8 rights.

517

¶4.36 The second notable example of NoTW surveillance is equally dubious. Tom Watson MP, arguably the most energetic of the anti-hacking MPs, and a member of the Culture Media and Sport (CMS) Select Committee was placed under surveillance during the investigation by the CMS Committee of phone hacking. As far as Derek Webb was concerned he was asked to try to prove an alleged affair (there was no affair).176 The surveillance seems to have been part of an orchestrated attempt to put pressure on Mr Watson to step back from the hacking issue. Around the same time as the surveillance was commissioned, Lord Mandelson confirmed that Rebekah Brooks had asked him for Mr Watson and others on the Select Committee to be "pulled off" the hacking issue.177

¶4.37 It now appears that Mr Watson may not have been the only member of the Select Committee targeted for surveillance. On 3 May 2012, when reviewing Mr Watson's book,178 Mr Thurlbeck (describing what he had told Mr Watson in confidence and which Mr Watson had recorded in the book) wrote in the New Statesman:179

"So the public now knows that, at the height of the hacking scandal, News of the World reporters were despatched to spy round the clock on the members of the F culture, media and sport committee. The objective was to find as much embarrassing sleaze on as many members as possible in order to blackmail them into backing off from its highly forensic inquiry into phone-hacking. It was a plan hatched not by the News of the World but by several executives at News International – up the corridor in "Deepcarpetland", as the area staffed by managers and pen-pushers was known. And it failed because the reporters had grave reservations, so dithered and procrastinated. It wasn't journalism, it was corporate espionage. Ten days later, the plot was cancelled."

¶4.38 Mr Thurlbeck's article must be treated with some caution. When requiring him to provide a statement, the Inquiry made it clear that it wished to be informed about other aspects of the culture, practices and ethics at the NoTW and then specifically asked about his awareness of the surveillance carried out by Mr Webb (although the question was clearly not limited to Mr Webb). His answer was that Mr Webb had been engaged by the majority of the reporters on the NoTW (including him) "to undertake what journalists do on all newspapers have been doing for more than a century, namely to observe human behaviour and report on it" and that, so far as he was aware, Mr Webb had not been instructed to do anything illegal.180 He did not provide this obviously extremely significant information (set out in the piece in the New Statesman) about the culture and practices within the paper. Neither did he volunteer it when he gave evidence on 12 December 2011. In view of my concern about the way in which this account emerged, I make no finding about it; if true, however, it reveals a very disturbing state of affairs and is suggestive of an 'untouchable' mentality. I share the concern expressed by the CMS Select Committee about the fact that NI was undertaking discreet surveillance of members of that Committee, a matter for which Mr James Murdoch has quite rightly fulsomely apologised.181

518

¶4.39 I do not pass direct comment on the other assignments Mr Webb undertook between 2007 and 2011, save to note that any public interest justification for the surveillance of the many celebrities and sports stars contained in Mr Webb's work log is likely to have been extremely thin in the vast majority of cases. It appears more likely that covert surveillance, like phone hacking, was considered by some within the NoTW to be an ordinary technique for news gathering, rather than an exceptional technique to be used where justified by the public interest in the underlying story.

¶Persuasion and harassment 4.40 It is a fact of life that not everybody is always keen to cooperate with the press, particularly when details of their own private lives or the private lives of their friends or family are involved.

¶Journalists have therefore developed methods of persuading them to talk. A specific example arises in relation to the NoTW and has already been touched on. This relates to the approach of Mr Thurlbeck to the women involved in the Max Mosley case. The facts of the matter are that, following publication of the original story on 30 March 2008, Mr Thurlbeck sent emails F to two of the women involved in the story in the following terms:182

"Hope you're well. I'm Neville Thurlbeck, the chief reporter of the News of the World, the journalist who wrote the story about Max Mosley's party with you and your girls on Friday. Please take a breath before you get angry with me! I did ensure that all your faces were blocked out to spare you any grief and soon the story will become history, as life and the news agenda move on very quickly. There is a substantial sum of money available to you or any of the girls in return for an exclusive interview with us. The interview can be done anonymously and your face can be blacked out too. So it's pretty straightforward. Shall we meet/talk?"

¶4.41 The following day he sent the two women another email:183

"I'm just about to send you a series of pictures which will form the basis of our article this week. We want to reveal the identities of the girls involved in the orgy with Max, as this is the only follow up we have to the story. Our preferred story, however, would be you speaking to us directly about your dealings with Max and for that we would be extremely grateful. In return for this, we would grant you full anonymity, pixelate your faces in all photographs and secure a substantial sum of money for you. This puts you firmly in the driving seat and allows you much greater control ..."

¶4.42 As is clear, the women in question were given Hobson's choice: cooperate with the NoTW or face public humiliation.

519

¶4.43 Mr Thurlbeck gave evidence that, although his name was on these emails, they were dictated to him184 by Ian Edmondson.185 He was seemingly reluctant to name Mr Edmondson (he initially described him as a man on the news desk; Mr Edmondson was in fact the news editor) and agreed that he had given this account before Mr Justice Eady in the civil case brought by Mr Mosley. Mr Edmondson, on the other hand, said that he had no memory of the emails, or of emails of that nature being sent. He said they were drafted in language he would not use.186 Mr Edmondson's evidence was somewhat equivocal. He was clear that he would have expected an approach to be made to the two women seeking their cooperation in a follow-up article. However, he asserted that he would not, in any circumstances, have allied himself with this type of approach to any witness.187

¶4.44 In truth, it does not matter which account is accurate. If either Mr Thurlbeck or Mr Edmondson was concerned about what was happening, that itself should have triggered some mechanism for review. This was not some small story on one of the back pages: what was being discussed was going to affect people's lives. Mr Thurlbeck concedes that they were sent by him, in his name and willingly.188 It follows, therefore, that Mr Thurlbeck must accept responsibility for them and not merely as the cipher for someone else. He was after all the chief reporter at the paper and a journalist of very considerable experience.

¶4.45 As I have already observed, in his judgment in the Mosley case, Mr Justice Eady likened the emails to blackmail. He commented on Mr Thurlbeck's inability to see that point and cited the following cross examination from the trial:189

"Q Let's be direct about this. There is a clear threat here that if they don't cooperate they will expose them in the News of the World? F A No, I don't accept that. I think there was a clear choice here but there was no attempt to threaten them. ... Q Let's get this straight. If the blackmailer says to the victim, 'Either you pay up or I'll put your picture in the newspaper' he's offering him a very fair choice? A No. Q There's no threat? A No, because I'm asking for something here. Your example states that I'm asking for something in return for issuing a threat. Q Yes, indeed you are. A No, I'm offering to give them something. I'm offering to pay them money for an anonymous interview. I'm offering to pay them, not to take anything from them, so in that sense I'm not blackmailing them at all. That thought never crossed my mind. I'm offering them a choice."

520

¶4.46 In his evidence to the Inquiry, it seemed that Mr Thurlbeck still could not see the point and was untroubled that a High Court judge took a different view to his. Further, he appeared to suggest that all others at the NoTW shared his view. He said:190

"The point that Mr Justice Eady makes is that it could be interpreted as being blackmail. I don't interpret it that way, and we didn't at the News of the World. Nobody at the News of the World – nobody, from the editor down – has discussed or accused me of blackmailing these girls. Now, if I had, I would have expected Mr Myler, who was a very fair-minded man, to have reprimanded me severely. We didn't have a conversation about it because it simply was not the case."

¶4.47 Mr Thurlbeck further explained that this was normal practice:191

"People would often be reluctant to help a newspaper because of their identities coming out, and often deals would be done to protect their identities. We would say, "Look, if you talk to us anonymously, then we can write a story about this." This happens all the time. [….] This is the course of a normal journalistic practice, if you like, offering people a degree of anonymity in return for evidence that could support a story."

¶4.48 To the CMS Select Committee in 2009, Mr Crone denied both that Mr Thurlbeck's behaviour could constitute blackmail and that the judge had considered that it might do so.192 Despite Mr

¶Crone's approach in front of the Committee, he took a different line when he gave evidence to the Inquiry. When asked if he accepted that the emails amounted to blackmail he replied:193 F "They were pretty close, I think."

¶4.49 Mr Myler accepted, both in the High Court and to the Inquiry, that he could see that the emails probably could not be interpreted other than as a threat and that he was surprised by them.194 Mr Justice Eady concluded from the failure of Mr Myler to take any disciplinary action at all against Mr Thurlbeck that:195

"it would appear that Mr Myler did not consider there was anything at all objectionable about Mr Thurlbeck's approach to the two women, as he did not query it at any stage. This discloses a remarkable state of affairs."

¶4.50 Mr Myler accepted this criticism.196 He contradicted Mr Thurlbeck's assertion that no one had discussed the matter with him, saying that he had, in fact, admonished Mr Thurlbeck197 and, by implication, had also raised the issue with Mr Edmondson,198 making it clear that

¶'care needed to be taken.' He told the Inquiry that writing in that way was 'unnecessary' and

521

¶'totally inappropriate'.199 Mr Edmondson told the Inquiry that, on reading the emails now, he thought they were a threat.200

¶4.51 I observe that Mr Myler's evidence to the Inquiry is inconsistent with his evidence to Mr Justice Eady,201 to the effect that he did not at any stage raise any concerns with Mr Thurlbeck. It is likely that what he said to Mr Justice Eady (when the relevant matters were fresh in his mind) was correct but, again, the importance of this episode is what it says about the culture at the NoTW, the practice of journalism at the paper and the lack of attention paid to the rights of those who not merely might be affected but undoubtedly would be seriously affected by what was published.

¶4.52 Rupert Murdoch's evidence on this issue was also revealing. Although he made it clear that at the time of giving his evidence he had not acquainted himself with the detail of Mr Justice Eady's judgment, Mr Murdoch's initial reaction to the judge's assessment was:202

'No, it's not my position at all. I respect him and I accept what he says, I'm just simply saying that a journalist doing a favour for someone in returning [sic] for a favour back is pretty much everyday practice.'

¶When probed on this issue he claimed 'I don't know if she was offered money but it happens', and subsequently said:203

"And I may well agree with every word if I read it [i.e. the judgment of Eady J]. But it's a common thing in life, way beyond journalism, for people to say, "I'll scratch your back if you scratch my back." F

¶4.53 Mr Murdoch did go away and read the judgment; he subsequently wrote to the Inquiry clarifying his evidence on this issue and explaining that it was not his intention to appear to take issue with the judge's conclusions. However, although Mr Murdoch would no doubt not wish to countenance the deployment of tactics tantamount to blackmail, his more general observations about the doing of favours and back-scratching are extremely revealing as to the culture, practices and ethics of the press more generally, and far more so than simply in the circumstances which he was then discussing. It is also revealing that the judgment of Mr Justice Eady had not been brought to Mr Murdoch's attention prior to his giving evidence to the Inquiry, or that he had chosen not to read it. It was, after all, a judgment in which the NoTW had been found to be guilty not only of practices tantamount to blackmail, but also of casual and cavalier journalism. It was costly for the NoTW and, according to many of the NoTW witnesses, it had led to a change in approach to privacy generally. That Mr Murdoch was not apparently familiar with it says something about the degree to which his organisation engages with the ethical direction of its newspapers.

¶4.54 From the foregoing, it is difficult to reach any other conclusion than that Mr Thurlbeck, and possibly Mr Edmondson, regarded the approach taken in these emails as an entirely standard way to behave. Mr Thurlbeck was supported in this view by the complete lack of negative feedback from Mr Myler or any other senior colleague. The apparent change of heart of both Mr Myler and Mr Crone is noted, but the volte face comes far too late. On this basis, it seems entirely probable that the approach taken in these emails was not so very unusual, that the attitude was condoned within the NoTW and that subsequent retractions have been driven as much by the public exposure of the tactic as by any genuine belief that such an approach was inappropriate. The conclusion of the CMS Committee on this point bears repeating:204

522

"A culture in which the threats made to Women A and B could be seen as defensible is to be deplored. The fact that News of the World executives still do not fully accept the inappropriateness of what took place is extremely worrying."

¶4.55 The example of the emails sent to the women in the Mosley case is an extreme instance of a technique described by the actor and comedian, Steve Coogan:205

"The technique they often use is – these women are often vulnerable and not canny enough to understand the techniques of the press, and I know anecdotally that they – what they do is they say, "We're going to run a story about you. It's going to be very unsympathetic. We're going to make you look tawdry." They say this to the girl, "We're going to make you look tawdry and awful and sluttish, but if you talk to us, you can make the story all positive and friendly and nice and we'll make you look lovely and we'll give you some money as well."

¶4.56 Mr Coogan was himself treated in a similar way. He was called by a journalist from the NoTW and told that, if he would confirm certain aspects of a story, in return the journalist would guarantee that the more lurid details would be omitted.206 In the event, Mr Coogan confirmed the story, and the NoTW in turn proceeded to publish the whole story, including the lurid F details they had promised not to print. Mr Coogan indicated that this was not the action of a rogue reporter, but had been sanctioned, or even organised, by the subsequent editor, Mr

¶Coulson.207

¶4.57 In a rather different twist, Mr Driscoll told the Inquiry what happened in relation to the case of the medical records of a Premier League football manager, where information obtained by blagging was not used in a published story but was instead used to put pressure on the individual to cooperate with the paper on subsequent stories. Mr Driscoll said:208

"I know there was a phone call to that football manager to tell him exactly what we knew and that he was very upset about it, and he made his thoughts known about that and said that there was no way he wanted that story to appear in public. And this is another technique on the News of the World, if you want to call it a technique, that information is a tradable commodity, and it was put to [blank] that we wouldn't use this information and in the end it was mentioned to him that we would keep it quiet and we would keep it out the public domain, and because of that, he then started cooperating with the paper."

¶4.58 Given that the information appears to have been accessed unlawfully, and its publication is likely to have been an actionable misuse of private information, the fact that the newspaper sought to bargain with the private medical information reveals a remarkable degree of audacity and a disregard for both the privacy of the individual and the confidentiality of the information.

523

¶Deceit 4.59 Evidence to the Inquiry has revealed that it was absolutely standard practice across the industry, and certainly within the NoTW, to record all conversations without telling people that they were being recorded.209 A number of witnesses gave evidence that it was standard practice at NoTW to make tape recordings of any conversations with sources.210 Mr Thurlbeck said:211

""you would have to equip yourself, obviously, with recording devices to record their admissions and write about it in the newspaper without fear of being sued for libel."

¶Mr Edmondson argued that this was entirely proper because people might otherwise not speak frankly.212 The implication seemed to be that people may not be prepared to go so far, knowing that they were being recorded, as they would if they did not know. Whilst there may not be anything wrong with this practice (and a true record of what was said can have very real value), it does at least raise questions about trust between journalists and their sources (and in instances where the recording is not of a conversation with a source but someone like Clarence Mitchell the questions arise all the more acutely). Suffice to say, there are circumstances in which it might be considered to be low level deceit.

¶4.60 It is not entirely clear that this is a practice permitted by the Editors' Code. Paragraph 10 of the Code states: F

"i) The press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or by accessing digitally-held private information without consent. ii) Engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge, including by agents or intermediaries, can generally be justified only in the public interest and then only when the material cannot be obtained by other means."

¶4.61 The first limb of paragraph 10 appears primarily to relate to interception of a communication that does not otherwise involve the journalist, although this is not explicit. The second limb is more about a failure on the part of the journalist to be honest with those he or she is dealing with. In this context it is, at least, arguable that recording conversations without notifying the other party is a form of subterfuge. At any rate, it is not unreasonable to suppose that some consideration as to whether it is appropriate to do so should be undertaken in each case, rather than the routine recording of people without their knowledge or permission.

524

¶4.62 This practice of covert recording sometimes goes further. An example is the video recording that Mr Thurlbeck persuaded his source to make of Mr Mosley. He explained that this was done for legal reasons:213

"It was important for Michelle to video the orgy to ensure that we had sufficient evidence should Mr Mosley threaten to sue the News of the World for libel."

¶But the NoTW did not simply put the recording in a cupboard until it was needed for the inevitable libel or privacy case. Instead, they put it on their website, leading to some of the privacy issues discussed above.

¶Blagging 4.63 Another technique that qualifies as deceit is what has been called 'blagging'. Mr McMullan described the process of blagging on these terms:214

"A blag might be: "Hello, I am Mr X's accountant, could you please fax the bill", and then you get a list of all the phone numbers that he's just rung and then you ring them all up and you find the mistress he's just rung."

¶4.64 Mr McMullan was clear that his belief was that this sort of activity was common at the

¶NoTW.215 He explained why:216

¶"It's very hard to get a story. You just don't go up to a paedophile priest and say, F "Hello, good sermon, and are you a priest because you like abusing choir boys?" It

doesn't happen. You don't say, "Hello, I work for the News of the World." You have to go to the nth degree to get to the truth."

¶Mr McMullan provided a specific example of a blag in which he was involved, securing access to a database of convicted paedophiles under false pretences and:217

"basically plundered about 50 paedophiles who had raped and abused children and had served a sentence."

¶4.65 The circumstances described by Mr McMullan – blagging in order to uncover a paedophile ring – could be an example of investigative journalism in the public interest, depending on whose the database it was: blagging the information from the police or, for example, the probation service, in order to 'name and shame' raises different issues. Given that s55 of the Data Protection Act 1998 contains a public interest defence, some kind of blags are likely to be both lawful and compliant with ethical codes, provided there is sufficient prima facie evidence to justify the blag in the first place.

¶4.66 It is important to underline that I am not suggesting that deception is not a potentially legitimate tool within the armoury of a journalist: it will all depend on the circumstances.

¶The concern will always be the circumstances in which and the purposes for which the deceit is used. There is a real public interest in exposing crime or serious impropriety, protecting public health and safety and, depending on the circumstances, preventing the public from being misled. In those cases, journalists may well have to be devious to obtain the story and nobody is likely to criticise them for behaving in that way. The issue is the abuse of that technique simply in order to pursue stories or people without any public interest justification of any sort.

525

¶4.67 The evidence from Operation Motorman,218 challenges the suggestion that blagging was used, in the majority of cases, in the public interest. To the contrary, there is clear prima facie evidence that there was no public interest in much of the information that many of the blags obtained.

¶4.68 At the NoTW blagging was not only used to get material that would eventually form the basis of a published story. Blagging was also used as a technique to obtain the codes required to engage in other forms of illicit access to information. Mr McMullan, when asked if he had paid officials at phone companies, said:219

"The people we employed were more into blagging to try and trick people out of their PIN codes and that kind of thing, rather than actually paying someone who worked at Vodafone or whatever."

¶4.69 Another example was given by Mr Driscoll, who described failing to track down details of the medical condition of a prominent football manager by 'old-fashioned means', to be subsequently called by his sports editor and told: "the story is true. I have his medical records with me at the moment."220 Mr Driscoll described what he had been told about how the F medical records were obtained:221

"I was told it's through a blagging technique. I was told that will sometimes you'd get a situation where – if an investigator sent a fax to a GP or a hospital saying, "I'm his specialist, I need these details", it was incredible how many times that would just get sent straight back. There were different techniques to obtain them and I was told they weren't obtained through any illegal source but it was from through blagging at the time."

¶4.70 Mr Driscoll said that this blagging was not done by the news editor himself, but that:222

'there were specialist people on the News of The World who did that sort of stuff…… special people on the news desk or features desk that he went to."

¶4.71 Mr Driscoll said that he was not personally happy with using blagging of this sort to get information,223 but he did not raise these concerns with the sports editor or any other senior executive at the paper because he was afraid it would damage his career:224

526

"it would be a very brave journalist, certainly in the early years of his career on the paper, to suddenly say, "I'm not happy with these techniques that are being used." You'd be basically making a decision over your career there. Anyone on that floor who complained too much would find themselves pushed out, certainly."

¶4.72 Mr Driscoll also provided another example when he was told that someone had persuaded the Football Association into revealing information about a drugs test by pretending to be from the football club of the individual concerned. This, he said, was a story which he had obtained from various sources, but it was the blagging phone call that satisfied the legal team that the story was true and therefore safe to print.225 He suggested that this imperative to ensure that a story was true before publishing it was generally the reason for resorting to such techniques.226

¶4.73 Mr Driscoll asserted that this was common practice at the NoTW and widely accepted by his colleagues.227 However, despite this assertion, he was clear that the two examples of blagging set out here were the only two of which he had personal knowledge during the years that he worked at NoTW.228

¶4.74 Mr Myler, Mr Wallis and Mr Thurlbeck all rejected Mr McMullan's evidence on the widespread use and appropriateness of blagging, and indeed most of Mr McMullan's evidence generally, saying that he painted a picture of the NoTW that they did not recognise.229 Mr Thurlbeck said:230

¶"My experience of the News of the World is that it was a highly professional F organisation. It was staffed by some of the best journalists on Fleet Street, who

worked with great diligence and integrity, and continue to do so. I don't – I was proud to work alongside all of my colleagues. I have enormous respect for all of them. You know, there may have been a small caucus of people who gave us a bad reputation now."

¶4.75 I come to no conclusion as to the size of the 'caucus of people' who were responsible for the unethical practices identified in this Chapter, including blagging. However, I do conclude that blagging was utilised at the NoTW as a means to access private information, either by using third parties or by journalists themselves.

5. Investigative journalism 5.1 More substantial use of subterfuge and deceit is generally the preserve of investigative journalism, that is to say, when subterfuge and deceit are used the press generally term the result 'investigative journalism', regardless of whether that label is strictly merited. The Inquiry heard evidence from Mr Mahmood who carried out many hundreds of investigations whilst working for the NoTW and other titles. Mr Mahmood told the Inquiry that, before he embarked on an investigation, he would provide senior and legal staff with justification as to why the story was in the public interest and why any subterfuge was justified.231 The specific methods to be used were discussed with the legal team and he would stay in constant touch with them during an investigation.232 He explained that the approach at the NoTW was much more informal than he had been used to when working for The Sunday Times. There were, for example, no formal meetings or discussions, but nonetheless everything was discussed with Mr Crone.233 Mr Mahmood gave evidence that, "we were extra cautious to comply with the PCC Code," and that there was keen scrutiny of whether a proposal for the use of subterfuge would pass the public interest test. The key factors they would take into account were the exposure of criminality, or moral wrongdoing or of hypocrisy234 and whether it would be possible to obtain the same information without using subterfuge.235

527

¶Disguise 5.2 Mr Mahmood described situations in which he had masqueraded in many guises in order to obtain information for stories. In some cases, for example, he had posed as a client for prostitutes in order to secure evidence of drug dealing:236

"They were dealing drugs to clients. I mean, sure, the only way to infiltrate them was to pose as a client and then the offer would be made to us."

¶On another well known occasion Mr Mahmood posed as a Sheikh, Mohammed al Kareem,

¶F in order to get his target to 'relax' and 'be himself'.237 The purpose of taking on these fake personalities was to make an offer for, or wait to be offered, illegal substances or to show a willingness to undertake unlawful or immoral actions in order to expose the commission of illegality.

¶Inducements 5.3 The NoTW did pay for information. Mr Mahmood said:238

"We advertised it. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, as long as the individuals are not profiting from their crimes by doing so. I mean, if they were whistle-blowing and helping us expose drug rings and paedophile rings and expecting a fee for that, then I see nothing wrong with that."

528

¶The issues surrounding payment for information are dealt with in detail later in this report.239 In seeking to understand the culture of the NoTW it is sufficient to note that this was considered a standard practice.

¶5.4 Mr Mahmood was reluctant to explain his modus operandi to the Inquiry240 but it was clear that in many cases it involved offering the target some inducement to commit the act that he was seeking to expose. Mr Mahmood pointed out that, in the Fake Sheikh case, judges both in the UK and at the European Court of Justice had ruled that there was no entrapment.

¶He was keen to emphasise that, in his opinion, he did not entrap people. He went further, asserting that he did not believe that it was possible to ensnare normally law-abiding people into behaving in an illegal fashion;241 he also said that the number of successful prosecutions following on from his stories was testament to the fact that his methods had been tested and considered appropriate time and again by the courts.242

¶5.5 Entrapment by a journalist is not ordinarily a defence to the commission of a crime. There are, however, ethical questions here as to the circumstances and extent to which it is right to encourage or entice someone into the commission of an offence that they would otherwise not have committed, at least on that specific occasion. Witnesses such as Alastair Campbell have drawn attention to this question, and have criticised Mr Mahmood for his modus operandi.243

¶5.6 Mr Mahmood was clear that there were circumstances in which he considered it ethical to break the law in order to get a story in the public interest. He used the example of purchasing child pornography in a case that led to the conviction of the supplier. He stressed that the F overriding factor was the public interest and that he had never yet been prosecuted for drugs or other offences relating to work that he had done.244 When pressed on whether there was a level of criminal behaviour to which he would not go in order to expose criminality, he indicated that he would not go out and rob a bank just to show that banks could be robbed.245

6. Approach to compliance

¶Responsibility and accountability for compliance 6.1 The Inquiry was told by many witnesses that the editor was responsible for everything that happened at his or her newspaper, although they would not necessarily be aware of all that was going on. This was no different at the NoTW. However, there was very little clarity about who was responsible in practical day-to-day terms for compliance with legal and ethical requirements. Whilst individual journalists were clearly required by their employment contracts to comply with the terms of the Editors' Code, and to comply with other company policies and procedures, it has not been possible to ascertain who, if anyone, had senior responsibility for ensuring legal and ethical compliance within the organisation.

529

¶6.2 Mr Crone, the legal manager at News Group Newspapers (NGN), told the Inquiry that he had no role in ensuring ethical (or, it would appear, even legal) behaviour within the company:246

"I'm not a guardian of ethics, really…..my job was really to advise on legal risk, the law relating to a particular situation that the newspaper was in or was thinking of getting in."

¶When pressed on the point he said, "I don't know who would be identified as the person most involved with compliance and ethics."247 Mr Crone suggested that corporate compliance might be the responsibility of the Company Secretary248 or the Chief Executive.249

¶6.3 In fact, Mr Chapman, the Company Secretary, told the Inquiry that his compliance function "would have related to the commercial side of the business". He differentiated this from the editorial function and said it was limited to commercial and business support functions such as HR, production, advertising and marketing.250 Mr Chapman felt that responsibility for compliance on the editorial side of the business would sit with the editorial legal team; in other words, with Mr Crone.251

¶6.4 Despite Mr Crone's claim that ethical compliance might be a matter for Mr Chapman, when he became aware of serious ethical and legal lapses through his involvement in the legal challenge by Gordon Taylor, Mr Crone took only limited steps to alert those within the organisation who one might think should have been responsible for dealing with them. In particular, he said that he did not discuss the concerns about a 'culture of illegal access to information' with Mr Chapman. As has already been discussed above,252 Mr Crone told the Inquiry that he did think that James Murdoch, the Chief Executive, was made aware of the situation in the Gordon F Taylor case, including all 'seriously relevant' parts of the opinion provided by Mr Silverleaf QC.253 He appeared to think that this represented bringing the matter to the attention of the right person.

¶6.5 James Murdoch told the Inquiry that governance was for the editor254 (at this time Mr Myler). He said that he had sought, and was given, assurances that extensive training and procedures had been put in place and that the NoTW had been thoroughly investigated with respect to phone hacking, that no new evidence had been found and that the police had closed their case.255 For his part, Mr Myler accepted ultimate responsibility for governance at the paper but said that he sought to instil:256

530

"a culture of individual and collective responsibility for ensuring compliance with the PCC code and the law."

¶6.6 Mr Myler was editor of the NoTW from February 2007 until July 2011. Although he drew some distinction between the culture in place at the newspaper before his arrival and that which he sought to deliver, he also argued that there were protocols and systems in place before he arrived and that "the members of senior staff clearly understood their roles and responsibilities.257 James Murdoch similarly took the view that there were senior legal managers in post who had a lot of experience,258 and that the oversight structures in place

¶(Management Boards and audit processes) should have been sufficient to ensure good governance.259

¶6.7 Rupert Murdoch, having told the Inquiry that it was his clear understanding from Les Hinton, former Executive Chairman of NI, that Mr Myler had been put in place to find out "what the hell was going on",260 appears to have made no effort to follow up the matter directly. He told the Inquiry that he took no steps to see whether Mr Myler was discharging his brief as he relied on Mr Hinton to oversee the process.261 Rupert Murdoch said that Mr Myler:262

¶"never reported back that there was more hacking than we'd been told."

¶6.8 The Inquiry is not in a position to allocate responsibility (or blame) as between these senior individuals. What is abundantly clear from the review of relevant events more fully covered above263 is that the processes and people in place at the NoTW were not sufficient to ensure good governance. On the basis of the admissions made in the civil claims alone it is clear that F the newsroom at the NoTW had, to use Mr Crone's words, 'lost its way'²⁶⁴²⁶⁴ p20, lines 4-6, Richard Wallace, ibid p50, lines 6-13, ibid p53, line 15, Tom Crone, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-14-November-2011.pdf p1, paras 3-5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Supplemental-Witness-Statement- of-Hugh-Grant.pdf p77, lines 4-18, Chief Superintendent Derek Barnett, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/04/lev030412am.pdf p12, Rebekah Brooks, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Exhibit-RMB-11.pdf p7, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/KRM17-Document-53.pdf PCC, p9, para 13.3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Exhibit-SA-V21.pdf p11, para 11, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Submission-by-working-group-led- by-Lord-Prescott.pdfShow full note at least with regard to phone hacking.

¶Data protection – Operation Motorman 6.9 As might be expected, the NoTW was clearly aware that the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) was relevant to them. Specifically, the Inquiry heard that Mr Crone was once asked to put together a note on what the law of data protection meant in relation to working journalists, and did so. He did not, however, remember offering advice on the matter on a regular or ongoing basis,265 although he did think that there might have been legal courses and other journalistic courses where data protection issues were addressed.266

531

¶6.10 The essential narrative of Operation Motorman is set out above,267 and need not be repeated here. The NoTW, in common with the rest of the newspaper industry, does not appear to have recognised these events as having any significance for its own processes, despite the clear implication that members of its staff might, to put it at its lowest, have been engaging Mr Whittamore to undertake unlawful activities.

¶6.11 Mr Crone accepted that he was aware of the arrest of Mr Whittamore and the fact that some of the latter's customers were NI employees, but confirmed that he had not been asked to provide any advice on the DPA in relation to Operation Motorman.268 Further, there was no formal investigation of the allegations coming out of Operation Motorman.269 Mr Myler, who arrived at the NoTW in 2007, explained that there was a NI policy in place that required compliance with data protection law and that as far as he knew it was complied with throughout his tenure as editor.270 Mr Pike, the solicitor acting for NI, accepted that he was aware of the Operation Motorman material in 2008 and the implication that it pointed to a wider use of illegal methods of collecting stories within the NoTW, which could support the case being made by Mr Taylor.271

¶6.12 This is all in line with the approach more widely taken by national newspapers, that Operation Motorman raised no particularly pressing questions for the newspaper industry, or individual titles, to address. In one respect therefore, the NoTW is subject to the same criticism applicable to other titles: the evidence emerging from Operation Motorman and from the ICO's reports demanded action, but the evidence suggests that almost nothing was done in response. However, the NoTW is subject to specific criticism as well. The arrests of Mr Goodman and Mr Mulcaire in August 2006 came after the Operation Motorman revelations and between the ICO's publication of What Price Privacy? and What Price Privacy Now? Their arrests and F subsequent convictions need to be seen in that context. A responsible title exercising effective governance would have questioned the credibility of the 'one rogue reporter' thesis in light of the ICO's evidence of a widespread and unlawful trade in private information, and would have demanded proper investigations into compliance with legal and ethical standards by its journalists.

¶Accuracy 6.13 The PCC Editors' Code requires the press to "take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information". Most complaints to the PCC are about alleged breaches of this provision.

¶6.14 Mr Driscoll was clear that stories were not fabricated at the NoTW. He said: "Any suggestion of that, I think, is absolutely crazy because, you know, as I said, the litigation would be too severe. It would cost too much money."²⁷²²⁷² pp3-4, para 14-15, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Witness-Statement-of-Aidan- Barclay.pdf p58, lines 18-21, Lord Blair, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-7-March-2012.pdf p21, lines 6-12, Matt Driscoll, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-19-December-2011.pdf p6, para 23, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Sheryl- Gascoigne.pdf pp11-12, lines 25-7, ibid pp78-79, lines 22-3, Rebekah Brooks, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-11-May-2012.pdf pp3-4, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/KRM17-Document-73. pdf pp40-42, paras 92-95, House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, http://www.publications. parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmcumeds/458/458.pdf pp20-21, para 3.40-3.41, ibid [2001] EWCA Civ 1233 at para 34Show full note

532

¶6.15 Mr Wootton explained that he would very rarely run stories without getting confirmation of their truth by notifying either the celebrity or his or her agent. Sometimes that would not be necessary because the story was already in the public domain. On very rare occasions he was requested by the editor or a senior executive not to put a call in.273 In these situations the decision not to provide a right of reply would normally be to avoid the risk of leaks.274 Mr

¶Wootton said that in his experience a right of reply would only not be given if the newspaper or the editor was 100 per cent certain of the truth of a story.275

¶6.16 This emphasis on accuracy as an essential protection against libel action was echoed by evidence given by many witnesses to the Inquiry and it is clear that there is a serious legal imperative to get the facts right when the material to be published might be thought to be defamatory. However, it is far from clear that a similar passion for accuracy applies in respect of material that is unlikely to have legal ramifications if it is wrong. This issue is considered in more detail further on in the report.276

¶6.17 Once again, the Max Mosley story provides an admirable example of this issue. Mr Thurlbeck was criticised in Mr Justice Eady's judgment in relation to the preparation of a statement by the woman who provided the information about the party. Mr Thurlbeck had prepared a statement for her to sign, drawn from the many conversations she had had with him. She signed this statement without amendments but Mr Thurlbeck later amended it himself, without seeking a further signature from the woman, and used parts of the amended statement in the story. Mr Justice Eady doubted Mr Thurlbeck's evidence on this issue.277 Mr

¶Thurlbeck defended his actions on the grounds that:278

¶F "Mr Justice Eady is entitled to his opinion, but my – all I would say is this, in defence

of this particular story: we were absolutely certain we got the facts right and nobody has come forward to show me that what I said had happened did not happen..."

¶6.18 Mr Thurlbeck is, of course, entitled personally to disagree with the conclusions of the court, but I repeat that the NoTW chose not to appeal the decision. Amending a signed statement and deploying it as the statement affirmed by the witness without making clear the fact that it had been changed takes a measure of justification; it is further illuminating that, by the time he gave evidence to the Inquiry, Mr Thurlbeck still had not adjusted his approach to issues on which the court had reached clear conclusions.

¶6.19 The attribution of stories to individual journalists was another area where a degree of inaccuracy seemed acceptable. Mr Wootton told the Inquiry that:279

"Where a desk head wrote a story, it was convention that the article would appear under another reporter's name. However, in such circumstances, it could be that the first you knew of the article appearing under your name would be when you opened the paper and read it on a Sunday morning."

533

¶6.20 Mr Wootton said that although this was standard practice across newspapers, it did not happen very often and was always seen as positive thing for the journalist who was 'gifted' the article.280 Conversely, it was also usual practice to put Mr Wootton's byline on his column even on those occasions when it had been written by someone else because he had been away.281

¶Financial controls 6.21 A key aspect of corporate governance and compliance is financial control. There are three elements to consideration of this issue. First, the understanding of financial delegation and spending limits; secondly, controls on cash; and thirdly, the attitude to claiming of expenses.

¶Spending limits 6.22 The Inquiry has been provided with little specific evidence relating to the financial delegation arrangements at the NoTW, but there is one point that appears worthy of note. Mr Crone told the Inquiry that he had delegated spending authority of £5,000. However, he routinely settled cases for more than £5,000 without any concerns arising, though he would usually consult the editor before doing so.282 Despite the formal £5,000 limit, Mr Crone was unable to give a view on whether he had actual authority to offer a settlement of £150,000, as he had done in the Mr Taylor case:283

"I don't know the answer to that, but it certainly wouldn't have been the first time – that's probably pretty high, but I'd been over 100 a few times and no one had ever F said to me afterwards, "You didn't have authority to do that", internally."

¶6.23 This lack of clarity over the financial limits of senior executives within the organisation becomes a matter of serious concern when taken in conjunction with allegations of an attempt to keep more senior management in the dark over important issues. It is certainly arguable that Mr Myler and Mr Crone had no choice other than to raise the Gordon Taylor case with James Murdoch, simply because the cost of settling the case had got beyond what either of them could imagine they had authority to approve. Financial controls are normally set in order to ensure that decisions of a level of importance to an organisation are taken by people in commensurate positions of authority and responsibility. If the delegated authorities are able to be easily breached then the ability of senior management to exercise oversight and governance is obviously reduced. Issues of alleged cover up have been addressed elsewhere.284

¶Cash payments 6.24 One of the changes made by Mr Myler upon his arrival as editor was the introduction of new controls on cash payments, which required department heads to ensure that payments were legal and legitimate, or 'real payments to real people for stories that really exist'.285 As a result of the new policies cash payments fell by around 89% from 2004/5 to 2007/8.286 Mr

534

¶Myler estimated that the majority of this change was due to a change of staff and processes in the features department.287 This rather startling outcome suggests that, prior to Mr Myler's arrival, there was less than rigorous control of the use of cash. This is not an insignificant issue.

¶Part of the NoTW's explanation as to how Mr Goodman had managed to task Mr Mulcaire without management being aware of what was going on was that he had paid Mulcaire cash outside of an otherwise legitimate contract. Whether or not that was true, the fact that the rules on cash expenses would allow it demonstrates, yet again, a lack of oversight and governance within the organisation that allowed inappropriate, or even illegal, behaviour to go unnoticed and unchecked.

¶Expenses claims 6.25 Finally on the issue of financial controls I turn to the claiming of expenses. Mr McMullan suggested that in order to 'bump up salaries' staff were given a certain amount of leeway on expense claims. He suggested that he would generally claim between £15,000 and £20,000 of expenses in a year of which only £3,000 was legitimate.288 Mr McMullan further suggested that an expansive approach to expenses was expected, and even encouraged by management.289

¶This approach to expenses was broadly consistent with the account told by Ms Marshall in her book, Tabloid Girl, where she describes numerous examples of fabricated expense claims.

¶In the book Ms Marshall describes the practices of journalists in relation to expenses as "all very definitely illegal"290 and justifies such practices on the grounds that they "...sort of made up for all the years of impossible tasks, lousy years and bollockings".291

¶F 6.26 In her oral evidence Ms Marshall explained that all the specific examples of expense fraud in the book were anecdotal, but that the general attitude in the newsroom was that outrageous expense claims were funny rather than to be frowned on. She pointed out "we're not ripping off the taxpayer".292 Although she back-tracked from most of the specific examples in the book, this expenses culture was one of the few areas where the basic thrust of Ms Marshall's evidence was consistent across both the book and her evidence to the Inquiry, and on that basis it is reasonable to conclude that it was true. Whilst Ms Marshall's evidence on the culture in respect of expenses was not directed specifically at the NoTW she suggested that this approach was common across all titles she had worked at. It should also be observed that Ms Marshall's general mantra in relation to assertions made in her book, namely that they amounted to 'topspin', was one I did not find particularly convincing in the context of her evidence as a whole. I allow for an element of exaggeration and 'gilding of the lily', but have come to the conclusion that her book contained a substantial kernel of truth, and her attempts to backtrack from it were not persuasive.

¶6.27 Ms Marshall's evidence was flatly contradicted by Mr Thurlbeck, who said that Mr Kuttner, the managing editor, was a forensic examiner of newspaper expenses. Everything required a receipt and any questionable claims would be returned and an explanation required.293 The deputy editor, Mr Wallis supported Mr Thurlbeck's assertions but, if that were the case, it is difficult to see why Mr Myler felt driven to change the system or the dramatic effect of that change.294

535

¶Bribery 6.28 Given the current police investigations into bribery of police and public officials, this Report cannot go into any detail on any specific allegations. However, some anecdotal evidence of little evidential value was offered. Mr McMullan said that he was aware of the NoTW paying police officers for information. He gave the Inquiry an example of taking a phone call from a royal bodyguard with information about where Princess Diana would be at a given time, indicating that the source might have been paid as much as £30,000 for such information because of the risks of providing it.295 More significantly, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Akers told the Inquiry that the police had material that identified an ex-NoTW journalist who may have paid police for information. The police have arrested a number of ex-senior managers for authorising and facilitating such payments.296

¶6.29 It is not possible to go further but it seems fair to conclude that there is, at least, a real possibility that there was a culture of payments at the NoTW for information of the type discussed, facilitated or overlooked by management control of financial authorisations.

¶Attitude to the PCC 6.30 A key issue in understanding the NoTW's approach to compliance is the attitude to the PCC. In F this context I consider the PCC both as a body that enforces the Editors' Code and in respect of its two considerations of the phone hacking issue.

¶6.31 Taking enforcement of the Code first, I have already set out above that Mr Myler, when he became editor of the NoTW, made it clear that compliance with the law and the PCC code was mandatory, and that disciplinary procedures would follow for failure to comply. However, also as set out above, there is no evidence to show that failure to comply with the Code did result in any disciplinary action.

¶6.32 A number of NoTW journalists told the Inquiry that individuals at the newspaper did take the PCC seriously,297 owing to the embarrassment to editors of an adverse adjudication. Specifically, Mr Wallis told the Inquiry 298

"We didn't want to fall foul of either legal problems or the PCC. An editor is not going to survive very long if he has a series of legal judgments against him. An editor is not going to survive very long if he has a series of PCC adjudications against him. It costs money."

536

¶He said that the senior executives constantly made it clear to journalists that they were not interested in the idea of breaking the law, breaching the PCC Code, risking libel claims or spending a lot of money on privacy law battles.299

¶6.33 It seems a reasonable conclusion from what has been set out in this Chapter that, although the

¶NoTW may have had at all times appropriate policies in place to require journalists to comply with both the Editors' Code and the criminal law, and although individual journalists may have considered it important to do so, there was no clear line of accountability for oversight or enforcement of those policies: compliance, if it occurred, was accidental, rather than the consequence of the implementation of sound systems of governance. It is not possible within the confines of Part One of this Inquiry to allocate blame to individuals; neither, however, at this stage is it appropriate to exonerate any one individual at a senior level of responsibility within the corporate hierarchy.

¶6.34 It is at least possible that this systematic failure to hold anyone to account for breaches of the

¶Code might have led to a sense among journalists at the NoTW that compliance was not, in fact, particularly highly rated and that breaches of the Code would go unpunished. If breaches of the Code lead to more, or better, stories, then systematic failure to penalise anyone for breaching the Code could be seen as indirect encouragement to do so. The fact that Mr

¶Goodman was dismissed does at least suggest that the company was aware that it needed to appear to the outside world as though it took criminal activity seriously. The terms on which he parted from the company, however, and the discussions that preceded his departure, suggest that this was not altogether the case. The persistent failure of the company properly to investigate Mr Goodman's allegations that methods of unlawful interception were both F widely in use and approved by management within the organisation was a significant failure of governance.

¶6.35 I have already set out in earlier Sections of the Report the circumstances of the two PCC considerations of phone hacking and the NoTW response. It suffices to say that an organisation which, at the very least, overstated the assurance that it was prepared to provide to its regulatory body (even, or perhaps especially, a self-regulatory body) is not an organisation that takes compliance seriously. It is clear that at no time did it occur to management at the

¶NoTW to seek to drill down to discover precisely what Mr Mulcaire had done for the large amount of money he was paid or to respond openly to the enquiries made by the PCC. The same point can be made about the attitude of NoTW executives to the Select Committee

¶Inquiries.

¶Attitude to the courts 6.36 Finally, it is important to consider what the Inquiry has learned about the attitude of journalists and executives at the NoTW to the courts. It is notable that many of the NoTW witnesses, particularly Mr Thurlbeck, have maintained that, regardless of the judgment in the case, the story about Mr Mosley was in the public interest. The lack of respect for the judgment of

¶Mr Justice Eady is perhaps exemplified by the fact that Mr Myler put the story forward for a 'scoop of the year' award.300 Any disappointed litigant is entitled to feel that the judge got it wrong but the evidence gives no sense of re-appraisal of the position in the light of the judgment: there does not appear to have been any detailed reconsideration or point by point rebuttal of the reasoning of the judge, such as might permit senior management to conclude that a review of their approach to issues of the kind generated by the case was unnecessary.

537

¶6.37 Similarly, Mr Mahmood refused to accept criticisms of him made by Mr Justice Eady in relation to a story which exposed a plot to kidnap the children of David and Victoria Beckham.301 In such circumstances, it is perhaps unsurprising that Mr Crone testified that his advice to executives about the attitude that a court would be likely to take in any litigation was not always acted upon.302

7. Credibility of witnesses 7.1 NI has raised the point that the NoTW at any one time employed around 152 editorial staff, of whom only three have come forward to make allegations on the record of the issues covered in this Chapter of the Report. In addition, some five anonymous journalists have raised issues of concern about conduct at the NoTW. This is a tiny proportion of those who worked there. I accept this; I also accept that, with some exceptions, others who have given evidence who have worked at the NoTW have tended to disagree with the picture painted by Mr McMullan, Mr Driscoll and Mr Hoare. I have already pointed out that the evidence of these witnesses needs to be viewed with some caution. Furthermore, I am entirely content to accept that large parts of the NoTW, and many of the journalists, operated in a way that no-one has suggested was not entirely appropriate and in accordance with high standards. To some extent, those journalists are also victims having suffered damage to their individual reputations because of what has emerged from the NoTW over the last few years.

¶F 7.2 Having said that, however, for reasons which I have already given I do not consider that the evidence of bad practice to which I have referred can be disregarded. The evidence of these three whistleblowers and of the anonymous journalists in relation both to the use of the 'dark arts' and bullying possesses an internal consistency which provides considerable credibility, but it also coheres with other evidence, including the admissions made by the NoTW in civil proceedings, as well as evidence from victims of unethical press practices. For the purposes of this Report I do not have to take a view on precisely the extent to which any of these witnesses is providing a full and complete picture. Rather, I simply need to satisfy myself that there are cultural and ethical issues here which require addressing in the context of my finding that there is an essential kernel of truth within what each of these witnesses said.

¶7.3 It is also the case, as detailed in this Chapter, that even ignoring the evidence of those whom NI submit cannot be relied upon, and focusing only on the evidence of witnesses such as Messrs Myler, Thurlbeck, Edmondson and Crone have given, very serious concerns arise about the governance at the NoTW, the attitude of management and staff to the right to privacy, the attitude of management and staff to the law and the attitude of management to public scrutiny.

¶The consequences 7.4 The possible criminal behaviour and its impact on the individuals involved are obviously very serious, but are not for this Report. What is, however, clear is that the financial implications for NI and ultimately for News Corp have been significant, from the costs of the civil claim settlements, the costs of the closure of the NoTW, including lost revenue, the failure of the BSkyB takeover and the commercial opportunities that that presented, through to the reputational damage done to the image of News Corp across the globe and any ramifications that may have. It may never be possible to quantify those costs, and certainly it is not necessary for me to attempt to do so, but Rupert Murdoch told the Inquiry that the scandal had cost News Corp 'hundreds of millions'.303

538

¶7.5 I conclude this Chapter of the Report with setting out the evidence of Mr Murdoch and his overall assessment of the phone hacking issue, both for the light it throws on that issue, and more generally:304

"I think the senior executives were all informed, and I – were all misinformed and shielded from anything that was going on there, and I do blame one or two people for that, who perhaps I shouldn't name, because for all I know they may be arrested yet, but there's no question in my mind that maybe even the editor, but certainly beyond that someone took charge of a cover-up, which we were victim to and I regret and, you know, I'm getting ahead of myself now, perhaps, or getting ahead of you when I say that, you know, we did take steps after the conviction and the resignation of Mr Coulson. A new editor was appointed with specific instructions to find out what was going on. He did, I believe, put in two or three new sort of steps of regulation, if you like, but never reported back that there was more hacking than we'd been told. Harbottle & Lewis were appointed, and given a file. Now, it's argued that they were only given a very specific brief, but I've got to say that I have not gone through that

¶F whole file that they were given of emails, but I have again tasted them and I cannot

understand a law firm reading that and not ringing the chief executive of a company and saying, "Hey, you've got some big problems."

539

¶Chapter 5

¶Some Case Studies 1. Introduction 1.1 The previous Chapter explored the culture, practices and ethics prevailing at the News of the

¶World (NoTW) before its demise. This, and the following Chapter, takes a broader view. They seek to examine the wider evidence submitted to the Inquiry in some detail, with a view to making a general assessment of the culture, practices and ethics of the press, in line with the

¶Terms of Reference. It should be understood that it is not possible or desirable to cover all the evidence submitted to the Inquiry in the Report: some of it will be referred to simply by way of footnotes to the main text; other parts of the evidence will not be mentioned expressly at all.

¶1.2 In this Chapter, before proceeding to examine the evidence as a whole,1 I examine in detail a number of individual examples of press reporting in recent years. Some of those examples will be well known to many reading this report and include the reporting of the disappearance of

¶Amanda (Milly) Dowler, the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the arrest of Christopher

¶Jefferies on suspicion of murder and the publication of details of the medical condition of the former Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Gordon Brown's son. The first three of those, at least, were chosen because they exemplified what might be described as the most egregious cases of unethical journalistic conduct.

¶F 1.3 The final examples included in this Chapter are defined by the fact that they are contemporaneous with the Inquiry; they are stories which emerged during the course of, or subsequent to, the formal hearings, and may indicate that the risks identified in the following

¶Chapter cannot be dismissed as historical. They include the Daily Mail's attack on Hugh

¶Grant's 'mendacious smears', the press treatment of the family of Sebastian Bowles after his death, and the contrasting approach to the recent stories which impacted on the privacy of two members of the Royal Family.

¶1.4 All (except the Royal examples) were subjected to detailed scrutiny during the course of the

¶Inquiry. The theme common to them all, and which therefore merits their generic description as 'case studies', is their link to the next chapter of the Report containing the wider criticisms of the culture, practices and ethics of the press, and the emergence of patterns. In other words, each case study exemplifies at least one and often several of the attributes of and flaws in the press which have been addressed at length below;2 in this Chapter, however, they are not addressed from the perspective of the criticism but rather from the perspective of the victim, thereby providing some insight into the overall impact of the way in which the relevant story has been reported. Accordingly, the time taken to examine these cases is not for the purpose of levelling specific criticisms against individual titles and journalists (although

¶I recognise that this might be a by-product of the exercise) but for the light they shine on the wider picture. It follows that the analysis of each case study will not be exhaustive; it will merely be sufficient to illuminate and buttress the generic conclusions that I have felt it appropriate to reach.

540

¶1.5 What follows in this introductory section is a thumbnail sketch of each of these case studies, as a prelude to the more detailed analysis set out in subsequent chapters.

¶1.6 The evidence relating to the reporting of the disappearance of Milly Dowler is examined as

the first of these case studies. This Inquiry was set up in the light of the public reaction to the Guardian's story published on 4 July 2011 that the voicemail of Milly Dowler was hacked into and tampered with by one or more journalists from the NoTW, such that a number of her voicemail messages were deleted, thereby giving her family false hope in her well being.3 The evidence relating to these allegations will need to be examined, not least because the Guardian later retracted that part of its story that asserted that one or more messages had been deleted.

¶1.7 Of equal if not greater importance, however, is that Mr and Mrs Dowler were subjected to

intrusive and insensitive press reporting at a time of intense personal distress. Such was the appetite in certain sections of the press to acquire information and photographs which would enable 'the story' to be kept alive as one of ongoing human interest to readers, these sections of the press often overlooked the privacy rights and personal feelings of the Dowler family. Thus, the family came to be treated as little more than a commodity in which the press had an unrestricted interest.

¶1.8 The Inquiry also heard at length from Dr Kate and Dr Gerry McCann, who, following the

disappearance of their daughter Madeleine in Portugal in May 2007, were the victims of what may only be fairly described as serial defamations in a number of newspapers between September 2007 and January 2008. The McCanns were initially the subject of balanced and

¶F sensitive press reporting in the British press: not merely did the story attract the open-hearted

sympathy of the public, owing to the way that it resonated on a number of obvious levels, but the parents took a strategic decision at a very early stage to engage with the press in order to avail the search for their daughter.

¶1.9 By the summer of 2007, however, what had begun as a sympathetic approach by the press

to an ongoing personal tragedy had altered; this change had been prompted by 'leaks' from the Portuguese police to the local and British media representing their version or speculation of what might have happened to Madeleine. Some, but certainly by no means all, sections of the press in the UK decided to run with stories which alleged that the McCanns were in some way responsible for the disappearance of their daughter. One title prided itself in the fact that it was apparently fair minded because on one day it would print a hostile story while the next it would provide a more sympathetic portrayal. The defamatory reporting continued for approximately four months, the principal perpetrator asserting that the public appetite for the story was undiminished. Ultimately, it took the threat and then the reality of libel action to bring this spate of reporting to an end, and the McCanns received substantial damages and a front page apology in settlement of their claims.

¶1.10 It was inevitable and entirely in the public interest that there be full reporting of stories about

both Milly Dowler and Madeleine McCann. Like the Dowlers, however, the McCanns were also treated as if they were a commodity in which the public, and by extension the press, had an interest or stake that effectively trumped their individual rights to privacy, dignity or basic respect. The press believed that the public's legitimate interest in the story was insatiable, and that belief required it to sustain that interest by following every possible development or turn, however implausible or apparently defamatory. Also like the Dowlers, the McCanns were the victims of grossly intrusive reporting, prying photographers and an ongoing 'media

¶http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/04/milly-dowler-family-phone-hacking scrum' which paid little or no regard to their personal space, their own personal distress and, in particular, the interests of Madeleine's younger siblings.

541

¶1.11 There are two other aspects of the McCann 'case study' which merits its inclusion as such. First, the PCC did nothing until it was too late, and the reasons for this inactivity need to be explored. Secondly, the NoTW published highly personal extracts from Dr Kate McCann's diary in September 2008 following a telephone conversation between its news editor and the McCanns' spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, on 12 September. The Inquiry was provided with a transcript of that conversation at an early stage, but without knowing the full background it was difficult to discern the true purpose of the conversation and what was understood or agreed by or between the participants to it. However, when he came to give evidence, the news editor accepted that Mr Mitchell had been deliberately misled so that it would appear that he had given his consent to the publication of the extracts on behalf of Dr McCann whereas in truth he had not.

¶1.12 Another individual who was the victim of unbalanced, prejudicial and wildly inaccurate press reporting was Christopher Jefferies, who was arrested on suspicion of being involved in the murder of Joanna Yeates on 30 December 2010. Mr Jefferies gave evidence to the Inquiry and, notwithstanding the remarkably measured and dispassionate terms in which it was given, testified to a series of egregiously defamatory and unfair articles in a number of national newspapers over the New Year period, which hinted, rumoured, speculated, suggested, or at times indicated that he was the perpetrator. Again, this is a very clear example of injudicious, sensationalised and intemperate reporting which was designed to feed what the newspapers concerned judged to be the curiosity and prurient interest of their readers; this was no doubt, supported by an (entirely erroneous) assessment that the police had 'got F the right man'. In the result, the police had not: Mr Jefferies was released, initially on police bail; subsequently, the perpetrator of Ms Yeates' murder (who had provided information which purported to implicate Mr Jefferies) was arrested, charged and convicted at a trial which did not challenge responsibility for the killing. Mr Jefferies brought defamation actions against a number of newspapers, and the Attorney General successfully brought contempt proceedings against two.

¶1.13 The next case study which will be examined concerns the story published in The Sun in 2006 regarding the illness of one of Mr Brown's children. This story is of interest for a number of connected reasons. First, even without disclosing its source so as to permit his or her identification, The Sun has refused to explain how the story was sourced. The second reason concerns the absence of any public interest justification for publishing a story about the health (ie the private life) of a child; and the third is the circumstances in which the paper sought to obtain the consent of Mr and Mrs Brown to its publication. The evidence in this last respect has clear resonances with the evidence of Anne Diamond, the broadcast journalist and presenter, relating to the death of her infant son and her enforced association with The Sun's cot death charitable appeal, and the evidence relating to the obtaining of Dr Kate McCann's consent, through a conversation with her agent, to the publication of extracts from her personal diary.

¶1.14 There is much that could be discussed about the evidence that actor Hugh Grant provided and he would be the first to say that press treatment of those who have achieved what is called 'celebrity status' should only be considered behind the complaints of people like the Dowlers, the McCanns and Mr Jefferies. He is included as a case study because of a detail in his evidence and the reaction that it provoked. He gave evidence to the Inquiry as to his belief that a story in The Mail on Sunday about an alleged flirtation with a 'plummy-voiced executive' had been obtained by voicemail hacking. Mr Grant accepted that he had no hard evidence to support this belief; it was an exercise in speculation (although it might otherwise be described as inference). The day after he had appeared before the Inquiry, on 22 November 2011, the

542

¶Daily Mail published a piece which accused Mr Grant of making a 'mendacious smear' against the Mail titles. It is of value because it is a good example of the strategy of 'defensive attack'

¶(although the Mail titles argue that the story was entirely justified) which itself represents a strand within the culture of the press. It is also of interest since the relevant evidence grew out of the Inquiry's proceedings themselves.

¶1.15 During the course of the Inquiry, Sebastian Bowles, an 11-year old schoolboy, was tragically killed in a coach crash in Switzerland. Unfortunately, his family was subjected to insensitive and intrusive press reporting which failed to respect their privacy and their grief. The evidence given by the family solicitor, Giles Crown, chimed with evidence given during the course of

¶Module One of the Inquiry, more fully set out and footnoted below. Again, this has been selected by the Inquiry as a case study because it is illustrative of a clear strand within the culture, practices and ethics of the press, as well as shining light on the effectiveness of the

¶PCC.

¶1.16 The final Section of this Chapter deals with two significant stories which entered the public domain after the formal Inquiry sessions concluded in July 2012. They relate to the private lives of two members of the Royal Family, Prince Harry and the Duchess of Cambridge. The intrusions in relation to Prince Harry, and the contrast with the approach to the story relating to the Duchess of Cambridge and the ramifications of both, form the basis of an important case study, illustrating as it does a series of generic issues surrounding the approach to clause

¶3 of the Editors' Code and the general provision relating to the public interest; the relevance F of publication on the internet; and the overall response (or lack of it) of the Press Complaints

¶Commission (PCC).