PRACTICES AND ETHICS OF THE PRESS REPORT

¶The Leveson Inquiry culture, practices and ethics of the press

¶AN INQUIRY INTO THE CULTURE,

¶The Right Honourable Lord Justice Leveson

November 2012 4 volumes not to be sold separately Volume I

¶AN INQUIRY INTO THE CULTURE,

PRACTICES AND ETHICS OF THE PRESS

¶The Right Honourable Lord Justice Leveson

¶November 2012 Volume I

¶Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 26 of the Inquiries Act 2005 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 29 November 2012

¶HC 780-I London: The Stationery Office £250.00

¶4 volumes not to be sold separately

¶© Crown copyright 2012 You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or e-mail: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at generalenquiries@levesoninquiry.org.uk This publication is available for download at www.official-documents.gov.uk ISBN: 9780102981063 Printed in the UK by The Stationery Office Limited on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office ID P002525215 11/12 22930 19585 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum.

¶The Leveson Inquiry culture, practices and ethics of the press

¶Contents Volume I

¶Page

PARt A: the InquIRy — 1
Chapter 1: the Announcement — 3

¶The Leveson Inquiry

Chapter 4: The responsibilities of the press — 76
1 Context — 76
2 Press power and the impact on society — 76
3 Communication: truth, comment and 'assessability' — 78
4 Press ethics and the role of a code of ethics — 81
PARt C: the PRess — 91
Chapter 1: Context — 93
1 Introduction — 93
2 Commercial pressure on the press — 93
Chapter 2: The press: history, governance structures and finances — 99
1 Introduction — 99
2 News Corporation — 99
3 Associated Newspapers Ltd — 114
4 Northern and Shell Media Group Ltd — 120
5 Trinity Mirror plc — 125
6 The Telegraph Media Group — 130
7 The Guardian Media Group — 134
8 The Independent Group — 139
9 The Financial Times — 145
10 The regional press — 148
11 Magazines and periodicals — 152
Chapter 3: Alternative news providers — 156
1 Introduction — 156
2 Broadcasters — 156
3 The World Wide Web — 164
4 Blogs and other web-based commentary — 168
5 Social networking sites — 173
6 Other providers — 176
7 Enforcement — 177
8 Press photographers — 179
Chapter 4: Plurality — 180
1 What is plurality and why does it matter? — 180
2 Approaches to securing plurality — 181
3 The history of media ownership rules in the UK from the 1990s — 183
4 History of the newspaper ownership regime — 190

¶ii

¶Contents

PARt d: stAndARds — 193
Chapter 1: The historical background — 195
1 Introduction — 195
2 The Royal Commission into the Press 1947 — 196
3 The Royal Commission of 1962 and the Younger Committee into privacy — 200
4 The Royal Commission of 1974 — 203
5 The first Report of Sir David Calcutt QC — 205
6 The second Report of Sir David Calcutt QC — 210
7 The death of Diana, Princess of Wales — 214
8 Conclusions — 216
Chapter 2: Self-regulation of the press — 219
1 Introduction — 219
2 The establishment of the PCC — 219
3 Current powers, operation and standards — 221
4 PressBoF — 228
5 Benefits of self-regulation — 235
6 Anti-harassment policy — 236
7 Complaints — 241

¶PARt e: CRossIng legAl BoundARIes:

The CrImInAl And CIvIl lAw — 247
Chapter 1: The legal framework — 249
Chapter 2: Police investigations start — 251
1 Operation Reproof — 251
2 Operation Glade — 251
Chapter 3: Operation motorman — 257
1 Introduction — 257
2 The genesis of Operation Motorman — 257
3 The search — 258
4 Prosecutions arising from Operation Motorman — 264
5 Publication of Parliamentary Reports in 2006 — 265
6 Conclusions — 268
Chapter 4: Phone hacking: the expanding impact of Operation Caryatid — 270
1 Introduction — 270
2 The collection of evidence — 273
3 The prosecution strategy — 294
4 The outcome to the prosecution — 307
5 Subsequent operational decisions — 308
6 Police strategy for the aftermath — 325

¶iii

¶The Leveson Inquiry

7 The reaction of the News of the World — 337
8 July 2009: The Guardian — 350
9 September 2010: The New York Times — 401
10 December 2010: The Guardian article and the aftermath — 408
11 The past unravels — 412
12 Conclusions: the police and the CPS — 425
Chapter 5: A new approach to the allegations — 421
1 Police Inquiries: Operations Weeting, Elveden and Tuleta — 421
2 The Management and Standards Committee — 424

¶Volume II PARt F: the CultuRe, PRACtICes And ethICs oF the PRess:

the PRess And the PuBlIC — 437
Chapter 1: Introduction — 439
1 Overview — 439
2 Module One and the Terms of Reference — 440
3 Evidence in Module One of the Inquiry — 442
4 The structure of Part F of the Report — 449
Chapter 2: Good practice — 451
1 The value and virtues of the UK press — 451
2 Some case studies — 454
Chapter 3: Complaints of an unethical press — 471
1 Overview — 471
2 The complaints — 473
3 The harm — 483
Chapter 4: Some practices at the news of the world — 493
1 Introduction — 493
2 Influence on culture at the News of the World — 494
3 Attitude towards individuals — 504
4 Intrusion — 509
5 Investigative journalism — 526
6 Approach to compliance — 528
7 Credibility of witnesses — 537
Chapter 5: some case studies — 539
1 Introduction — 539
2 The Dowlers — 542
3 Kate and Gerry McCann — 547
4 Christopher Jefferies — 558

¶iv

¶Contents

5 The Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP and his son's illness — 564
6 Hugh Grant and 'the mendacious smear' — 572
7 Sebastian Bowles — 576
8 Recent events: Royal photographs — 579
Chapter 6: Criticisms of the culture, practices and ethics of the press — 592
1 Introduction — 592
2 Lack of respect for privacy and dignity — 593
3 Unlawful or unethical acquisition of private information — 610
4 Breach of confidence and misuse of confidential and/or sensitive information — 640
5 Harassment — 645
6 Intrusion into grief and shock — 655
7 Treatment of children — 658
8 Representation of women and minorities — 660
9 Inaccuracy — 673

¶The Leveson Inquiry

7 The question of corruption — 933
8 Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) — 943
9 HMIC report: 'Without Fear or Favour' — 948
10 Elizabeth Filkin's review of the relationship between the MPs and the media — 960
11 Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) — 966
Chapter 4: The press and the police: conclusions and recommendations — 980
1 Introduction — 980
2 Tip offs — 983
3 Involvement of the press on operations — 984
4 Off-the-record briefings — 985
5 Leaks of information — 987
6 Gifts, hospitability and entertainment — 988
7 Media employment — 990
8 Corruption, whistleblowing and related matters — 991
9 Conclusion — 994

¶Volume III

PArT h: The PreSS And dATA PrOTeCTIOn — 997
Chapter 1: Introduction — 999
1 Background — 999
2 The ICO: structure, governance and approach — 1000
Chapter 2: Operation motorman — 1003
1 The investigation — 1003
2 The ICO response: leadership — 1008
3 The approach to the PCC — 1011
4 What Price Privacy? The political campaign — 1020
5 What Price Privacy? The reaction of the PCC and the editors — 1025
Chapter 3: Other possible regulatory options — 1031
1 Criminal proceedings in respect of journalists — 1033
2 The use of regulatory powers — 1040
3 Engagement with the industry: guidance and promoting good practice — 1042
4 Engagement with victims — 1045
5 Conclusions and the questions raised by Operation Motorman — 1050
Chapter 4: the ICo and the press today — 1054
1 Introduction — 1054
2 Personal information privacy and press practices — 1056
3 Following up Operation Motorman — 1058

¶vi

¶Contents

4 Following up the political campaign — 1058
5 Phone hacking and the ICO — 1059
Chapter 5: Issues about the legal framework — 1062
1 The current views of the ICO — 1062
2 A different perspective on the legal framework — 1065
Chapter 6: The relationship: the ICO and the press — 1097
1 "Too big for us?" — 1097
2 The struggle for a profile: political campaigning and the power of the press — 1104
3 Independent regulation of the press: lessons learned — 1106
4 Powers, governance and capability of the ICO: reflections of the future — 1108
Chapter 7: Summary of recommendations — 1111
PARt I: the PRess And PolItICIAns — 1115
Chapter 1: Introduction — 1117
Chapter 2: The Conservative years — 1121
1 Prime Minister Thatcher: 1979-1990 — 1121
2 Prime Minister Major: 1990-1997 — 1126
Chapter 3: new labour — 1134

¶The Leveson Inquiry

¶3 June 2010 – December 2010: The Rt Hon Dr Vince Cable MP and

the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills — 1309
4 21 December 2010: Dr Cable's comments and the transfer of function — 1335

¶5 December 2010 – July 2011: The Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt and

the Department for Culture, Media and Sport — 1351
6 News Corp and the Rt Hon Alex Salmond MSP — 1407
Chapter 7: Further political perspectives on relationships with the press — 1414
1 Introduction — 1414
2 The Deputy Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP — 1414
3 The Leader of the Opposition, the Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP — 1416
4 The First Minister of Scotland, the Rt Hon Alex Salmond MSP — 1418
5 The Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke QC MP — 1423
6 The Rt Hon Michael Gove MP — 1425
7 The Rt Hon George Osborne MP — 1427
Chapter 8: Conclusions and recommendations — 1428
1 Introduction — 1428
2 The proprietors — 1430
3 'Too close' a relationship — 1438
4 Existing regulatory framework — 1446
5 Recommendations for future relations between politicians and the press — 1451

¶Chapter 9: Plurality and media ownership: conclusions

and recommendations — 1461
1 Introduction — 1461
2 Scope — 1462
3 Measuring plurality — 1465
4 Limits and remedies — 1466
5 What should trigger a review? — 1471
6 Who should be responsible for the decisions? — 1473

¶Volume IV PARt J : AsPeCts oF RegulAtIon: the lAw And the

PreSS COmPlAInTS COmmISSIOn — 1477
Chapter 1: Introduction — 1479
Chapter 2: the criminal law — 1480
1 Introduction — 1480
2 The investigation of crime: complaints to the police — 1482
3 The Investigation of crime: gathering evidence — 1485
4 A failure of policing — 1486
5 Police resources — 1488

¶viii

¶Contents

6 Public interest: a defence to crime — 1489
7 Public interest: the decision to prosecute — 1491
8 Public interest: other safeguards in the criminal process — 1494
9 The future — 1496
Chapter 3: The civil law — 1499
1 Introduction — 1499
2 Civil proceedings: the present risk of litigation — 1499
3 Litigation against the press — 1504
4 The substantive civil law — 1508
5 Damages — 1508
6 Costs — 1512
Chapter 4: The Press Complaints Commission and its effectiveness — 1515
1 Introduction — 1515
2 What the PCC did well — 1518
3 Independence from the industry — 1520
4 The alignment with industry — 1530
5 The PCC as regulator — 1541
6 Structural problems with the PCC — 1544
7 Investigatory failures — 1561
8 Conclusions — 1576
PARt K: RegulAtoRy Models FoR the FutuRe — 1581
Chapter 1: Criteria for a regulatory solution — 1583
1 Introduction — 1583
2 Effectiveness — 1584
3 Fairness and objectivity of standards — 1588
4 Independence and transparency of enforcement and compliance — 1590
5 Powers and remedies — 1591
6 Cost — 1593
7 Accountability — 1594
Chapter 2: The self-regulatory model proposed by the PCC and PressBoF — 1595
1 Industry acceptance of the need for reform — 1595
2 The proposal: overview — 1596
3 Governance and structures — 1597
4 Complaints — 1601
5 Standards and compliance — 1603
6 Potential for growth — 1608
7 Funding — 1609
8 The Code and the Code Committee — 1610

¶ix

¶The Leveson Inquiry

9 The Industry Funding Body — 1610
10 Incentives to membership — 1611
Chapter 3: Analysis of the model proposed by the PCC and PressBoF — 1614
1 Introduction — 1614
2 Effectiveness — 1614
3 Fairness and objectivity of standards — 1623
4 Independence and transparency of enforcement and compliance — 1625
5 Powers and remedies — 1632
6 Cost — 1638
7 Response of editors and proprietors to the PCC and PressBoF proposals — 1641
8 Summary and conclusions — 1648
Chapter 4: Other proposals submitted to the Inquiry — 1651
1 Introduction — 1651
2 A new regulatory body — 1651
3 Functions and structures — 1651
4 Should coverage be voluntary or mandatory? — 1655
5 Incentives for membership — 1659
6 Statutory recognition — 1671
7 Statutory provision — 1673
8 The Code — 1680
9 Complaint handling — 1686
10 Remedies and redress — 1692
11 Sanctions — 1694
12 Dispute resolution — 1696
13 The role of the courts — 1698
14 Costs and funding — 1699
15 Protection and promotion of freedom of expression — 1703
16 Protection of journalists — 1705
Chapter 5: International comparators — 1708
1 The Press Council of Ireland and the Press Ombudsman — 1708
2 Other models of press regulation: Europe and beyond — 1717
3 Review of press regulation: Australia and New Zealand — 1727
Chapter 6: Techniques of regulation — 1734
1 Introduction — 1734
2 Regulatory options — 1734
3 Regulatory tools — 1742

¶x

¶Contents

¶Chapter 7: Conclusions and recommendations for future regulation

of the press — 1748
1 Introduction — 1748
2 Options put forward — 1750
3 A new system must include everyone — 1751
4 Voluntary independent self-regulation — 1758
5 Encouraging membership — 1769
6 Giving effect to the incentives — 1771
7 Summary of recommendations — 1781
Chapter 8: The alternatives — 1783
1 The issue — 1783
2 The questions — 1783
3 What standards should be complied with? — 1784
4 What consequences should apply for breach? — 1786
5 How should any consequences be applied? — 1788
6 To whom should any provision apply? — 1790
7 My views — 1793
Chapter 9: recommendations for a self-regulatory body — 1795
1 Introduction — 1795
2 Recommendations to a new regulatory body — 1795
PARt l: suMMARy oF ReCoMMendAtIons — 1801
APPendICes — 1819
Appendix 1: Counsel to the Inquiry and the Inquiry Team — 1821
Appendix 2: Submissions and correspondence statistics — 1823
Appendix 3: Witnesses to the Inquiry — 1827
Appendix 4: Legal materials — 1843

¶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 a parT a

¶The inquiry

A ChapTer 1 The announCemenT

Introduction 1.1 On,¹³¹³ http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Ruling-on-the-role-of-the-assessors-PDF-102-KB. pdf This evidence included hearsay, anonymous material which Michelle Stanistreet the General Secretary of the National Union of Journalists sought to adduce from a number of journalists who feared for their careers if they spoke out in public. An application for this evidence to be heard was challenged by other Core Participants and subject to 'gateway' rulings by the Inquiry: http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Anonymous- Witnesses-Ruling-PDF-64.5-KB.pdf and http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Anonymous- Evidence-28-November-2011.pdf. These were issued along with a protocol http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Protocol-regarding-Applications-for-Anonymity.pdf. The rulings were the subject of unsuccessful challenge in the Administrative Court (Toulson LJ, Sweeney and Sharp JJ): see R (on the application of Associated Newspapers Ltd v. The Rt Hon Lord Justice Leveson as Chairman of the Leveson Inquiry [2012] EWHC 57 (Admin), http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assoc-news-v-chair-leveson-inquiry.pdf. There was then a substantive ruling on the merits of the application which was granted: http://www.levesoninquiry. org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Anonymous-witnesses-ruling-7-Feb-2012.pdf [2006] QB 468 p3 para d), Professor Baroness Onora O'Neill, http://levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/witness- statement-of-Professor-Baroness-ONeil See, however, the observations of Dr Manson on the nature of privacy rights in 'public' spaces and the difference between degrees of intensity in the public gaze: pp15-20, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-16-July-2012.pdf; p8, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Dr-Neil-Manson.pdf p19, lines 10-21, Professor John Tasioulas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-16-July-2012.pdf pp99-100, Spencer Feeney, Mike Gilson, John McLellan and Jonathan Russell, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-18-January-2012.pdf http://www.newscorp.com/corp_gov/MSC_reporting_structure.html p4, para 13, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Mark- Thompson.pdf p3, para 5, ibid Snoddy, R, The Good, the Bad, and the Unacceptable: The hard news about the British press, p84 p55, para 125, ibid p52, lines 4-18, DCI Gilmour, ibid Care was taken over this issue which became the subject of some controversy during the hearing and was the subject of a ruling: see http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Operation-Motorman-and- ANL-10-July-2012.pdf. Associated Newspapers Ltd later confirmed that it did not advance a positive case contradicting the position that there exists prima facie evidence that journalists did act in breach of s55 by obtaining information which, prima facie, could not be justified in the public interest. That group thus fell into line with all other press core participants. p22, lines 18-24, Keith Surtees, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-29-February-2012.pdf p2, para 6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Fourth-Witness-Statement-of-DAC-Sue- Akers.pdf pp97-98 passim, Margaret Watson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-22-November-20111.pdf p4, para 5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Fifth-Witness-Statement-of-Richard- Caseby.pdf p26, para 54, ibid p18 lines 13-18, Colin Myler, ibid pp30-31, lines 23-4, Robert Jay QC, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-9-May-2012.pdf; p16, para 38, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ Witness-Statement-of-DCI-John-Macdonald.pdf p5, line 11; p38, line 25; pp46-47, lines 24-12; p58, line 21; p26, line 14; p78, lines 4-11; JK Rowling, http://www. levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-24-November-20112.pdf p119, lines 5-17, Hugh Whittow, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-12-January-2012.pdf; pp12-13, lines 15 –18, John Witherow, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-17-January-2012.pdf; p10, para 42, http://www. levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Dominic-Mohan.pdf p6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Witness-Statement-of-Ed-Stearns.pdf http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm42/4262/4262.htm pp110-111, lines 4-10, Lord Stevens, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-6-March-20122.pdf p30, lines 2-11, Elizabeth Filkin, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-5-March-2012.pdf pp4-5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/First-Witness-Statement-of-Richard- Thomas-CBE.pdf It is, perhaps, worthy of note that Mr Thomas appears to focus on the profile of s55 DPA rather than the underlying issue of the practices of the press p55, lines 3-6, Richard Thomas, ibid pp22-23, lines 23-6, Christopher Graham, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-26-January-2012.pdf Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data p85, lines 9-14, Richard Thomas, ibid Part H, Chapter 5, para 2.73 pp33-34, lines 3-6, Kelvin Mackenzie, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-9-January-2012.pdf p39, lines 17-23, Sir John Major, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-12-June-2012.pdf p24, para 71, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Witness-Statement-of-David- Cameron-MP.pdf pp2-6, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Exhibit-KRM-5.pdf p5, para 3.2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Witness-Statement-of-James-Rupert- Jacob-Murdoch.pdf p34, lines 16-22, ibid pp12-14, paras 41-44, ibid p22, para 5.10 ibid Part E, Chapter 4 Chapter 32, para 3.4 Having paid fulsome tribute to Mr Abell's witness statement, I should also record my admiration for the Media Standard Trust's work in this area. The relevant material and submissions is on the Inquiry website. Given its comprehensiveness, I have sought to boil the issues down somewhat p1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Covering-Letter-from-Ofcom.pdf Part K, Chapter 1 p7, paras 22-23, ibid p3, para 5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Media-Regulation- Round-Table.pdf Defamation Act 2009 s44, http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2009/en.act.2009.0031.pdf http://www.lemonde.fr/actualite-medias/article/2009/12/30/les-editeurs-de-presse-en-ligne-se-repartissent-20- millions-d-euros-d-aides_1285932_3236.html p1, para 7, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Joint-Submission-by-Core-Participant- Victims1.pdf Part B Part F, Chapter 6, para 2.74 Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.32 News Verlag GmbH & co KG v Austria (2000) 31 EHRR 246 at paragraph 39Show full note July 2011, the Prime Minister made a statement to the House of Commons in these terms:1

"In recent days, the whole country has been shocked by the revelations of the phone hacking scandal. What this country—and the House—has to confront is an episode that is, frankly, disgraceful: accusations of widespread lawbreaking by parts of our press: alleged corruption by some police officers; and, as we have just discussed, the failure of our political system over many, many years to tackle a problem that has been getting worse. We must at all times keep the real victims at the front and centre of this debate. Relatives of those who died at the hands of terrorism, war heroes and murder victims—people who have already suffered in a way that we can barely imagine—have been made to suffer all over again. I believe that we all want the same thing: press, police and politicians who serve the public. Last night the Deputy Prime Minister and I met the Leader of the Opposition. I also met the Chairs of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the Home Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee to discuss the best way forward. Following these consultations, I want to set out today how we intend to proceed: first, on the public inquiry; secondly, on the issues surrounding News International's proposed takeover of BSkyB; and thirdly, on ethics in the police service and its relationship with the press. Before I do that, I will update the House on the current criminal investigation into phone hacking. I met Sir Paul Stephenson last night. He assured me that the investigation is fully resourced. It is one of the largest currently under way in the country, and is being carried out by a completely different team from the one that carried out the original investigation. It is being led by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers, who I believe impressed the Home Affairs Committee yesterday. Her team is looking through 11,000 pages containing 3,870 names, and around 4,000 mobile and 5,000 landline phone numbers. The team has contacted 170 people so far, and will contact every single person named in those documents. The commissioner's office informed me this morning that the team has so far made eight arrests and undertaken numerous interviews. Let me now turn to the action that the Government are taking. Last week in the House I set out our intention to establish an independent public inquiry into phone hacking and other illegal practices in the British press. We have looked carefully at what the nature of the inquiry should be. We want it to be one that is as robust as possible— one that can get to the truth fastest and also get to work the quickest, and, vitally, one that commands the full confidence of the public. Clearly there are two pieces of work that have to be done. First, we need a full investigation into wrongdoing in the press and the police, including the failure of the first police investigation. Secondly, we need a review of regulation of the press. We would like to get on with both those elements as quickly as possible, while being mindful of the ongoing criminal investigations. So,

¶HC Hansard,¹³¹³ http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Ruling-on-the-role-of-the-assessors-PDF-102-KB. pdf This evidence included hearsay, anonymous material which Michelle Stanistreet the General Secretary of the National Union of Journalists sought to adduce from a number of journalists who feared for their careers if they spoke out in public. An application for this evidence to be heard was challenged by other Core Participants and subject to 'gateway' rulings by the Inquiry: http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Anonymous- Witnesses-Ruling-PDF-64.5-KB.pdf and http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Anonymous- Evidence-28-November-2011.pdf. These were issued along with a protocol http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Protocol-regarding-Applications-for-Anonymity.pdf. The rulings were the subject of unsuccessful challenge in the Administrative Court (Toulson LJ, Sweeney and Sharp JJ): see R (on the application of Associated Newspapers Ltd v. The Rt Hon Lord Justice Leveson as Chairman of the Leveson Inquiry [2012] EWHC 57 (Admin), http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assoc-news-v-chair-leveson-inquiry.pdf. There was then a substantive ruling on the merits of the application which was granted: http://www.levesoninquiry. org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Anonymous-witnesses-ruling-7-Feb-2012.pdf [2006] QB 468 p3 para d), Professor Baroness Onora O'Neill, http://levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/witness- statement-of-Professor-Baroness-ONeil See, however, the observations of Dr Manson on the nature of privacy rights in 'public' spaces and the difference between degrees of intensity in the public gaze: pp15-20, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-16-July-2012.pdf; p8, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Dr-Neil-Manson.pdf p19, lines 10-21, Professor John Tasioulas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-16-July-2012.pdf pp99-100, Spencer Feeney, Mike Gilson, John McLellan and Jonathan Russell, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-18-January-2012.pdf http://www.newscorp.com/corp_gov/MSC_reporting_structure.html p4, para 13, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Mark- Thompson.pdf p3, para 5, ibid Snoddy, R, The Good, the Bad, and the Unacceptable: The hard news about the British press, p84 p55, para 125, ibid p52, lines 4-18, DCI Gilmour, ibid Care was taken over this issue which became the subject of some controversy during the hearing and was the subject of a ruling: see http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Operation-Motorman-and- ANL-10-July-2012.pdf. Associated Newspapers Ltd later confirmed that it did not advance a positive case contradicting the position that there exists prima facie evidence that journalists did act in breach of s55 by obtaining information which, prima facie, could not be justified in the public interest. That group thus fell into line with all other press core participants. p22, lines 18-24, Keith Surtees, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-29-February-2012.pdf p2, para 6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Fourth-Witness-Statement-of-DAC-Sue- Akers.pdf pp97-98 passim, Margaret Watson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-22-November-20111.pdf p4, para 5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Fifth-Witness-Statement-of-Richard- Caseby.pdf p26, para 54, ibid p18 lines 13-18, Colin Myler, ibid pp30-31, lines 23-4, Robert Jay QC, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-9-May-2012.pdf; p16, para 38, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ Witness-Statement-of-DCI-John-Macdonald.pdf p5, line 11; p38, line 25; pp46-47, lines 24-12; p58, line 21; p26, line 14; p78, lines 4-11; JK Rowling, http://www. levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-24-November-20112.pdf p119, lines 5-17, Hugh Whittow, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-12-January-2012.pdf; pp12-13, lines 15 –18, John Witherow, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-17-January-2012.pdf; p10, para 42, http://www. levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Dominic-Mohan.pdf p6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Witness-Statement-of-Ed-Stearns.pdf http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm42/4262/4262.htm pp110-111, lines 4-10, Lord Stevens, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-6-March-20122.pdf p30, lines 2-11, Elizabeth Filkin, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-5-March-2012.pdf pp4-5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/First-Witness-Statement-of-Richard- Thomas-CBE.pdf It is, perhaps, worthy of note that Mr Thomas appears to focus on the profile of s55 DPA rather than the underlying issue of the practices of the press p55, lines 3-6, Richard Thomas, ibid pp22-23, lines 23-6, Christopher Graham, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-26-January-2012.pdf Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data p85, lines 9-14, Richard Thomas, ibid Part H, Chapter 5, para 2.73 pp33-34, lines 3-6, Kelvin Mackenzie, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-9-January-2012.pdf p39, lines 17-23, Sir John Major, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-12-June-2012.pdf p24, para 71, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Witness-Statement-of-David- Cameron-MP.pdf pp2-6, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Exhibit-KRM-5.pdf p5, para 3.2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Witness-Statement-of-James-Rupert- Jacob-Murdoch.pdf p34, lines 16-22, ibid pp12-14, paras 41-44, ibid p22, para 5.10 ibid Part E, Chapter 4 Chapter 32, para 3.4 Having paid fulsome tribute to Mr Abell's witness statement, I should also record my admiration for the Media Standard Trust's work in this area. The relevant material and submissions is on the Inquiry website. Given its comprehensiveness, I have sought to boil the issues down somewhat p1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Covering-Letter-from-Ofcom.pdf Part K, Chapter 1 p7, paras 22-23, ibid p3, para 5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Media-Regulation- Round-Table.pdf Defamation Act 2009 s44, http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2009/en.act.2009.0031.pdf http://www.lemonde.fr/actualite-medias/article/2009/12/30/les-editeurs-de-presse-en-ligne-se-repartissent-20- millions-d-euros-d-aides_1285932_3236.html p1, para 7, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Joint-Submission-by-Core-Participant- Victims1.pdf Part B Part F, Chapter 6, para 2.74 Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.32 News Verlag GmbH & co KG v Austria (2000) 31 EHRR 246 at paragraph 39Show full note July 2011, vol 531, col 311-312

¶A PART A | The Inquiry

after listening carefully, we have decided that the best way to proceed is with one inquiry, but in two parts. I can tell the House that the inquiry will be led by one of the most senior judges in the country, Lord Justice Leveson. He will report to both the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The inquiry will be established under the Inquiries Act 2005, which means that it will have the power to summon witnesses, including newspaper reporters, management, proprietors, policemen and politicians of all parties, to give evidence under oath and in public. … Starting as soon as possible, Lord Justice Leveson, assisted by a panel of senior independent figures with relevant expertise in media, broadcasting, regulation and government will inquire into the culture, practices and ethics of the press; its relationship with the police; the failure of the current system of regulation; the contacts made, and discussions had, between national newspapers and politicians; why previous warnings about press misconduct were not heeded; and the issue of cross-media ownership. He will make recommendations for a new, more effective way of regulating the press—one that supports its freedom, plurality and independence from Government, but which also demands the highest ethical and professional standards. He will also make recommendations about the future conduct of relations between politicians and the press. That part of the inquiry we hope will report within 12 months. The second part of the inquiry will examine the extent of unlawful or improper conduct at the News of the World and other newspapers, and the way in which management failures may have allowed it to happen. That part of the inquiry will also look into the original police investigation and the issue of corrupt payments to police officers, and will consider the implications for the relationships between newspapers and the police. Lord Justice Leveson has agreed to these draft terms of reference. I am placing them in the Library today, and we will send them to the devolved Administrations. No one should be in any doubt of our intention to get to the bottom of the truth and learn the lessons for the future."

¶1.2 The Terms of Reference were then the subject of further discussion both with the devolved

administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and other interested parties. The Prime Minister returned to the topic on 20 July 2011, when announcing the appointment of the Assessors. He said:2

"We have made some significant amendments to the remit of the inquiry. With allegations that the problem of the relationship between the press and the police goes wider than just the Met, we have agreed that other relevant forces will now be within the scope of the inquiry. We have agreed that the inquiry should consider not just the relationship between the press, police and politicians, but their individual conduct too. We have also made it clear that the inquiry should look not just at the press, but at other media organisations, including broadcasters and social media if there is any evidence that they have been involved in criminal activities."

¶1.3 Thus, the Terms of Reference of the Inquiry, as finally drafted, are:

part 1 1. To inquire into the culture, practices, and ethics of the press, including:

¶HC Hansard,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 July 2011, vol 531, col 919

Chapter 1 | The Announcement A (a) contacts and the relationships between national newspapers and politicians, and the conduct of each; (b) contacts and the relationship between the press and the police, and the conduct of each; (c) the extent to which the current policy and regulatory framework has failed including in relation to data protection; and (d) the extent to which there was a failure to act on previous warnings about media misconduct. 2. To make recommendations: (a) for a new more effective policy and regulatory regime which supports the integrity and freedom of the press, the plurality of the media, and its independence, including from Government, while encouraging the highest ethical and professional standards; (b) for how future concerns about press behaviour, media policy, regulation and cross-media ownership should be dealt with by all the relevant authorities, including Parliament, Government, the prosecuting authorities and the police; (c) the future conduct of relations between politicians and the press; and (d) the future conduct of relations between the police and the press. part 2 3. To inquire into the extent of unlawful or improper conduct within News International, other newspaper organisations and, as appropriate, other organisations within the media, and by those responsible for holding personal data. 4. To inquire into the way in which any relevant police force investigated allegations or evidence of unlawful conduct by persons within or connected with News International, the review by the Metropolitan Police of their initial investigation, and the conduct of the prosecuting authorities. 5. To inquire into the extent to which the police received corrupt payments or other inducements, or were otherwise complicit in such misconduct or in suppressing its proper investigation, and how this was allowed to happen. 6. To inquire into the extent of corporate governance and management failures at News International and other newspaper organisations, and the role, if any, of politicians, public servants and others in relation to any failure to investigate wrongdoing at News International 7. In the light of these inquiries, to consider the implications for the relationships between newspaper organisations and the police, prosecuting authorities, and relevant regulatory bodies – and to recommend what actions, if any, should be taken.

¶1.4 By letter dated 28 July 2011,3 as responsible Ministers under the Inquiries Act 2005, the Rt

Hon Jeremy Hunt MP (then the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sports) and Baroness Browning (then a Minister of State at the Home Office) appointed me to Chair the Inquiry pursuant to s3(1)(a) of the Act. On the same date, their appointment having previously been announced by the Prime Minister, acting pursuant to s11(2)(a) of the Act, the Ministers appointed six Assessors with a wide range of professional experience to assist the Inquiry.

¶http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Lord_Justice_Leveson_Redacted.pdf

¶A PART A | The Inquiry

These were Sir David Bell,4 Shami Chakrabarti CBE,5 Lord (David) Currie,6 Elinor Goodman,7 George Jones8 and Sir Paul Scott-Lee.9

¶1.5 From the day of the announcement of my appointment, it was necessary to identify

appropriate support. A Director General with a legal background and experience at the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Rowena Collins Rice was an ideal appointment as Secretary to the Inquiry. Kim Brudenell, a senior solicitor from the Treasury Solicitor's office was appointed Solicitor to the Inquiry; Amanda Jeffery (from the Judicial Office) and Rachel Clark (from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and previously the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) were appointed as Heads of Administration and Research respectively. With an eye on prudent financial management, suitable civil servants from across Government were recruited to staff the Inquiry and ensure that it could proceed expeditiously and efficiently.

¶1.6 I also set about appointing counsel. With the assistance of the Treasury Solicitor, I selected

Robert Jay QC to be Counsel to the Inquiry; with my approval he nominated David Barr and Carine Patry Hoskins as junior Counsel, later adding Lucinda Boon for Module 2 (concerning the relationship between the press and the police). Counsel were assisted by junior members of the Bar in relation to the necessary research for both preparing the examination of witnesses and the subsequent collation of the evidence.

¶1.7 At the very beginning of this Report, it is appropriate to record my enormous gratitude to the

Assessors, to Counsel and to the entire Inquiry team (whose names are set out in Appendix A to this Report) for their unstinting commitment to the Inquiry and the prodigious effort that has been put into ensuring that it proceeded smoothly, to budget and, most important, was able appropriately to address the Terms of Reference within a time frame that aIlows early consideration to be given by the Government and Parliament to the way forward.

role of the assessors

¶2.1 From the outset, challenges were mounted by a number of press interests to the way in

which the Inquiry was set up and, in particular, to the experience, role and responsibility of the Assessors. Having obtained cross party support for their appointment, when identifying them by name,10 the Prime Minister said of them "these people have been chosen not only for their expertise in the media, broadcasting, regulation and policing, but for their complete independence from the interested parties."

¶2.2 At the opening session of the Inquiry, I spoke of the Assessors having "a central role in the work"

so that the report would be a "collaborative effort" and that if a particular recommendation was not unanimous, "I shall make the contrary view clear." It was argued that this would make the Assessors into members of the panel pursuant to s4 of the Inquiries Act 2005 and that they lacked balance on the basis that their number included nobody with tabloid or mid- market newspaper experience.

¶http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/people/assessors/sir-david-bell/ http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/people/assessors/shami-chakrabarti/

Chapter 1 | The Announcement A

¶2.3 In a ruling of 17 October 2011,11 I rejected the view that the Assessors were a hybrid between

assessors within the meaning of s11 of the Inquiries Act 2005 and members of the determining panel (as set out in s4). I set out the role for assessors in para 3 of the Assessor Protocol in these terms:12 "An assessor will take such part in the proceedings of the Inquiry as the Chairman may request, and in particular the Chairman may at any time request an assessor to: (a) Attend the whole or part of any hearing, seminar or briefing; and/or (b) Chair the whole or part of any seminar in an area of his or her expertise; and/ or (c) Prepare a report for the Chairman on any matter relevant to the Inquiry within the area of expertise of the assessor; and/or (d) Provide to Counsel to the Inquiry suggested lines of questioning for witnesses, in respect of any matters within his or her expertise; and/or (e) Provide the Chairman with any other assistance, or advice, on any matter relevant to the Inquiry within the expertise of the assessor."

¶2.4 In the event that an Assessor prepared a report that I intended to take into account, paragraph

4 of the Protocol made it clear that it should be disclosed to the Core Participants (who could submit observations upon it) and thereafter published as part of the evidence. In the event, I have not asked any Assessor to prepare a report that I intend to take into account; there is no question of any providing me with 'evidence' or other material which it is appropriate to share with Core Participants in order that they may make submissions about it. The extent to which the Assessors would take part in or impact upon my conclusions was also explained in my ruling which includes a description of their role and responsibilities in these terms:13

"30. The assessors also bring an understanding of the practical implications of potential ways forward – what may, or may not, work in the fields of their respective expertise. It is that to which I refer when I speak of being collaborative and 'striving for unanimity'. There is absolutely no point in my suggesting a way forward (if different from the present system) that everyone decries as unworkable; if that were my provisional view, I would want to be told. The process I envisage would entail, amongst other things, seeking the assistance and advice of my assessors but, as I have also explained, I may also test out possible solutions in further seminars. Again, with fairness as my touchstone, if I believe that new material is generated, that material will be shared so that all can make submissions upon it.

31 Ultimately, however, as I have made very clear, my conclusions shall be solely my conclusions. There is no question of publishing concurring views. In the spirit of openness and transparency, however, I shall identify the fact that one or more of the assessors disagrees with my conclusions and I shall explain the nature of the disagreement: in that way, those who read my report will be able to make up their own minds."

¶2.5 The Assessors have been scrupulous to follow the approach set out in the Protocol and ruling.

They have assisted in relation to avenues of investigation and lines of enquiry both generally and to specific witnesses. Although there has been repeated criticism of the Inquiry for not

¶A PART A | The Inquiry

engaging an assessor with experience of tabloid or mid-market newspapers (along with suggestions that nobody working in a broadsheet newspaper would be able to understand the dynamics of tabloid or mid-market journalism), nobody has suggested in evidence that the approach to ethical issues should be different. In any event, far from ignoring the different interests to which tabloid and mid-market newspapers appeal, the Assessors with experience of journalism have been assiduous to keep me aware, both in advance and as I was hearing the evidence, of the arguments that have in fact been put forward in favour of the needs of this profitable sector of the market. In doing so, they have continuously emphasised the perspective that was trailed particularly by Trevor Kavanagh and Kelvin MacKenzie in the seminars and underlined by editors and journalists working for titles from these sectors when they gave evidence. They have kept at the front of my mind the ways in which those titles appeal to their very large readership and the vital importance of ensuring that it is taken into account in full measure – which I have done.

¶2.6 The role of the Assessors was described by me in my ruling of 17 October 2011, when I said:14

"27. It is obviously desirable (as the Prime Minister and others have identified) that I obtain advice and assistance from those who have made their lives and careers in the various areas covered by the Inquiry, in particular in relation to dealings between the press and the public, the press and politicians and the propriety of press contact with the police. Not least, this is because I would be keen to understand any flaws or unintended consequences that might flow from suggestions that are advanced that my lack of experience would not otherwise identify. That is not to make the assessors advocates for any particular cause and that is not how I (or they) see their role."

¶2.7 Neither has any of the Assessors sought to act as an advocate. It has recently been suggested

in a number of press reports that, in the some way, I have been subject, on the part of my Assessors, to hidden lobbying, political partisanship or self-interested influence with specific agendas in mind. That is untrue. Having spent over 40 years seeking to persuade or influence, or listening to others trying to do the same, if it had been attempted or even crept in unconsciously, I would have detected it very quickly. I have found the assistance of my Assessors, in their areas of expertise and experience, invaluable. They will, however, not mind my saying here what I have assured them of many times as we have gone along: that my task in response has been to sift, weigh and test what they have said and make such use of it as seems to me right.

¶2.8 It should be remembered that the Assessors were selected by the Prime Minister who, I

repeat, described them as having been chosen "for their complete independence from the interested parties". The Leader of the Opposition welcomed the Inquiry and "indeed the panel members chosen by the Prime Minister". After they were nominated, I spoke to each at length and satisfied myself that the Prime Minister was right.

¶2.9 Full declarations of possible conflict were made by each before the start of the Inquiry:

along with their CVs, these have been published on the Inquiry website throughout. When challenging the position of the Assessors in the argument that led to the ruling to which I have referred, Jonathan Caplan QC for Associated Newspapers Ltd submitted that the three journalist Assessors were not representative of the industry but made it clear, in terms, that he recognised that there was no statutory requirement that an Assessor be impartial.15 I

Chapter 1 | The Announcement A underline that. It is an Assessor's task to offer me the benefit of his or her personal perspective, expertise and experience. It is mine to take the impartial view.

¶2.10 The duty of confidence which the Assessors owe by law in relation to the internal deliberations

of the Inquiry is there to enable them to provide their expertise fully and frankly and to protect them from external pressures. In fact, nothing that the Assessors have said or done during the course of the Inquiry would allow anyone to suggest that they had gone any further than precisely to perform the role set out in my ruling. I make one further point about the Assessors. None has been concerned with or involved in any the decisions of fact, where I have had to make my mind up about what I considered had been established to the relevant standard. Those parts of the Report that depend only on a forensic analysis of issues of fact or issues outside their expertise (for example, Part I Chapter 6 in relation to the bid for the shares of BSkyB plc), have not even been seen prior to publication of the Report.

Visits 3.1 In an effort, at least in part, to assuage concern that I had no experience or perception of

the issues faced by the newspaper industry and the way in which newspapers operate, I have been very willing to receive evidence on the topic. Additionally, I offered to undertake private visits to any newspaper title that invited me. I was clear that one such newspaper should be regionally based and, prior to the commencement of the Inquiry, I visited the Southern Daily Echo in Southampton, the offices of Associated Newspapers Ltd (The Daily Mail and The Sunday Mail), Trinity Mirror plc (The Daily Mirror, The Sunday Mirror and The People) and News International Ltd (The Sun, The Times and The Sunday Times). I was treated with courtesy at each and shown not only the layout and operation but also aspects of the production of online editions.

¶3.2 Towards the end of the hearings, I was invited to the offices of the Press Complaints

Commission: having regard to the very extensive evidence that I had received both as to the operation of the Commission and the approach of its staff, I felt that to do so could give rise to misunderstanding and, furthermore, did not consider that it would add to my understanding of the issues. In the circumstances, I declined that invitation.

¶A

ChapTer 2 The approaCh

Setting up and preliminaries

¶1.1 This Inquiry is unlike any other for a number of reasons. The principal reason concerns the

way in which Inquiries are generally conducted. Usually, an event such as a disaster or other type of incident giving rise to public concern occurs. The natural anxiety is to learn, first of all, what precisely has caused the event to happen and, thereafter, what should be done to prevent repetition. Albeit based on an inquisitorial model (with Counsel to the Inquiry conducting the forensic investigation), a judicial inquiry will thereafter proceed rather as any judicial investigation or trial might. Witnesses to the incident will be called and the Inquiry panel will then exercise the usual functions of a judge sitting alone and 'find' the facts, that is to say, on the balance of probabilities, reach conclusions as to what actually happened. This exercise will usually involve deciding precisely what, as a matter of fact, caused or led to the event, who was responsible for making what decisions and what impact those decisions have had.

¶1.2 A civil (or criminal) trial would then go further and determine the standard required by the

civil (or criminal) law and decide whether that standard has been met. If it has not, civil (or criminal) liability will result. In the former case, damages or some other remedy will follow to benefit those who have suffered injury or financial loss as a consequence. A conviction in a criminal trial will lead to the imposition of a sanction or sentence. An Inquiry, however, does not lead to these consequences. Although the facts will be found as to what has happened and why, an Inquiry will go on to recommend steps that might be taken in the future to avoid similar problems. There is and will be no determination of civil or criminal liability.1

¶1.3 The difference in the case of this Inquiry is the fact of the criminal investigations being

undertaken by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). The most important are Operation Weeting (into the interception of mobile telephone messages), Operation Elveden (into the payment of police officers, and, indeed, others holding public office or position, by the press) and Operation Tuleta (into other forms of computer hacking). These and other subsidiary investigations are proceeding apace and, during the course of the Inquiry, there have been a large number of arrests with journalists and others being bailed for further inquiries to be made. In a number of cases, criminal prosecutions have been commenced; these are presently awaiting trial and I anticipate that there will continue to be developments in the period which follows the publication of this Report. This is the reason for the Inquiry being split into two parts (with the question "who did what to whom" generally falling within Part 2, which is intended to follow the conclusion of any criminal prosecutions). One consequence, however, is that any investigation of the facts has inevitably been circumscribed, in particular, by an inability to investigate the full detail of specific criminality in the core areas of interception of mobile telephone voice mail messages and alleged bribery of public officials.

¶1.4 This limitation must be put in context. Concern about this type of activity constituted an

important factor leading to the establishment of this Inquiry and the issue cannot be ignored: it is one of the central reasons for public concern about the conduct of the press (or sections of it). In relation to each of those who have been charged or arrested, however, criminal proceedings are active (within the meaning of the Contempt of Court Act 1981).

¶s2(1) Inquiries Act 2005

Chapter 2 | The Approach A

¶1.5 This has two consequences, the implications of which are important. First, to avoid prejudice

to any criminal investigation or prosecution, there are inevitable limitations on the extent to which it is appropriate to examine the evidence relating to specific incidents of such practices, let alone in relation to the identification of those who might have been involved. Second, the rights of those who have been charged or arrested must be respected and, in particular, their right not to self incriminate must be protected. This could arise either by the Inquiry inviting answers to potentially incriminating questions or, inferentially, by putting them in a position that refusal to answer questions itself generates suspicion. In the circumstances, none of those who have been arrested has been asked questions about interception of voice mail messages or payments to public officials.2 Taking full account of these issues, however, the rights of individuals do not mean that it is inappropriate to consider, as a matter of generality, the extent to which there was a recognised and understood willingness to obtain information in this way albeit in some cases, perhaps, without knowledge of (or, at the very least, due regard to) the relevant criminal law.

¶1.6 In any event, Part 1 of the Terms of Reference covers very much more than this activity. In

relation to the press and the public, quite apart from the admirable journalism conducted entirely in the public interest, and journalism which sets out simply to entertain harming nobody, its culture, practices and ethics cover many other types of conduct which have been the subject of complaint. Without intending to create a definitive list, these include deception ('blagging'), bullying (by reporters of members of the public and by editors of reporters in order to obtain stories), breaches of privacy and harassment, other forms of intrusion, misleading or inaccurate stories or headlines whether deliberate or accidental, discrimination and other conduct that breaches the Editors' Code of Conduct.

¶Scope 1.7 This Inquiry has covered the "culture, practices and ethics of the press" which obviously

includes newspapers whether printed or online: it does not include broadcasters (ultimately regulated by Ofcom). Thus, although the Director General of the BBC, then Mark Thompson, gave evidence, he did so only to provide a comparison between the approach adopted internally by the BBC Trust along with the oversight from Ofcom. In those circumstances, although there have been many calls during the Inquiry for me to expand the terms of reference to investigate other organisations (most recently the BBC in the wake of the allegations against Sir Jimmy Savile), it is simply outside the Terms of Reference within which I am working.

¶1.8 Part 1 also covers the culture, practices and ethics of the press across a far wider canvass than

the way in which it deals with the public. It is concerned with the relationship between the press and the police. This encompasses allegations that the two have become far too close, involving the payment of money or the provision of other favours for inside information, prior notice of newsworthy incidents or participation in high profile operations (including presence at arrests). It also covers the cross fertilisation of employment with retired senior police officers being engaged as newspaper columnists and journalists being employed in PR departments or as PR advisers by police services. Part 1 also deals with the relationship between the press and politicians including, in particular, the perception that, in return for political support, politicians have been too ready to allow undue influence to be exercised in relation to policy and that, in any event, the relationship between the two has not been transparent.²² Role of the Assessors 6 The gathering and presentation of evidence 19 Rule 13 of the Inquiry Rules 2006: the practice 42 Purpose 49 A brief history of press freedom in the United Kingdom 58 Freedom of expression 71 The 1997 general election 1139 Mr Cameron's relations with the press whilst Leader of the Opposition 1165 Response to the reports of Sir David Calcutt QC 1246 The plurality test and quasi-judicial procedure 1303 vii Barendt, E, Freedom of Speech (2nd ed), pp183 -186 ibid http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr11/UK_Doc_Section_1.pdf Page, B, The Murdoch Archipelago, p10 http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/public-interest-test-nov2010/statement/public-interest-test- report.pdf Communications Act 2003 s375 (1)(2B) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/375 Operation Reproof is considered in detail at Part E, Chapter 2 p42, para 83, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Peter-Clarke.pdf p1, para 2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Witness-Statement-of-DAC-Sue- Akers1.pdf a to a 'new more effective policy and regulatory regime' (implying that the existing regime is ineffective to address the problem), and paragraph 2b to 'future concerns about press paras 1.38-1.40, Part A, the Introduction p12-13, Charlotte Church, ibid p3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Commissioner-Bernard- Hogan-Howe1.pdf p5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Witness-Statement-of-Dr-Rob-Mawby.pdf Mr Owens was the senior investigating officer in the ICO having previously spent 30 years as a police officer reaching the rank of Detective Inspector. He described having "special responsibility for the investigation of high profile or complicated investigations relating to breaches of the [then] new [Data Protection] Act.": p1, http://www. levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Alexander-Owens1.pdf pp30-31, lines 24-1, Alexander Owens, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript- of-Afternoon-Hearing-30-November-2011.pdf p18, lines 2-5, Christopher Graham, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-26-January-2012.pdf p18, para 5.18c, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Alexander- Owens1.pdf Part H, Chapter 5, para 2.60 p3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Witness-Statement-of-Lord-Mandelson.pdf p39, lines 14-15 and line 24, Sir John Major, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-12-June-2012.pdf p5, para 12, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Witness-Statement-of-David-Cameron- MP.pdf p84, Jeremy Hunt, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Exhibit-JH1-MOD300004241- MOD300004682-docs-1-52.pdf ; see 4.39 below for Mr Hunt's public comments pp94-95, lines 13-1, ibid p12, para 3.11, ibid The Independent, 'PM signals end of Press Complaints Commission', 8 July 2011, http://www.independent.co.uk/ J news/media/press/pm-signals-end-of-press-complaints-commission-2309210.html; pp58-60, lines 19-4, David Cameron MP, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-14- June-2012.pdf particularly in Part J, Chapter 5 p36, lines 1-8, Lord Black, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-1-February-2012.pdf K p3, lines 11-15,Lord Hunt, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-10-July-2012.pdf p8, para 9, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Submission-by-working-group-led-by- Lord-Prescott.pdf p51, lines 2-10, Professor John Horgan, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-13-July-20121.pdf journalists from News International, Trinity Mirror and Express Group: http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2012/07/Third-Witness-Statement-of-DAC-Sue-Akers.pdf Part K, Chapter 3, para 4.26 Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.7 Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by UN General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966, entry into force 23 March 1976 AC 457, at para 111 De G & Sm 652; 1 Mac & G 25, matrimonial secrets, Argyll v Argyll [1967] Ch 302, and information about sexual relationships, Stephens v Avery [1988] 1 Ch 449Show full note The problems arising from the concurrent nature of the criminal investigation are described in my ruling on the Approach to Evidence: http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Approaches-to-evidence-7- November-PDF-106KB.pdf

¶A PART A | The Inquiry

¶1.9 Taken together, this remit is almost breathtaking in its width and, from the beginning, I have

been extremely conscious of a number of very significant consequences of the task that I have undertaken and the need to cope with those consequences. First, it would be all too easy to allow an investigation of the issues to spiral out of control and to become far too enmeshed in detail at the expense of the overall picture. Examples could be provided of concerns which focus on individual aspects of the Inquiry and it would be entirely legitimate to subject each to detailed analysis, providing the opportunity to anyone affected or potentially affected to challenge the inferences to be drawn. In some cases, for good reason, detail at that level has, indeed, been necessary. The contrary approach, with no attention paid to specifics, would risk creating an overview that is far too general and has little value as a true narrative of events.

¶1.10 The need to ensure a balanced approach to the facts has to be reflected in the context of the

second consideration. That is the broad time frame within which it important for me to report. I put it in that way because, without suggesting that the period of one year identified by the Prime Minister constitutes (or was intended to constitute) a straight-jacket, the imperative to deal with this issue is real; public concern at the time of the closure of the News of the World (NoTW) was intense and it is important to address the problems that were perceived and are now recognised in relation to the regulation of the press as a matter of urgency.

¶1.11 In any event, this consideration chimes with the question of cost. At a time of fiscal austerity

for the public and increasing pressure on the commerciality of the newspaper industry, it was always important that time and the resources of both were well used and not wasted on an analysis of detail that was too extensive and unnecessary for the purposes of providing a sufficient narrative. Cost is not just about legal and other financial outlay, whether by Core Participant members of the public who do not qualify for legal assistance, public authorities such as the police or police authorities, the newspaper industry or the Ministries required to fund the running of the Inquiry. Cost also encompasses the energy and time commitment of all whether participant or witness, both in responding to calls for evidence (which, in some cases, has involved an enormous amount of work) or attending to give oral evidence.

¶Engagement

¶1.12 The third consideration has been my anxiety to ensure that the industry is fully engaged in

the process and to avoid the risk that this imposed Inquiry requires or has meant that their only role is to be reactive or, perhaps more serious, entirely defensive. In that regard, one concern (evidenced in fact) has been that parts of the press would consider that I approached the Inquiry without the necessary and, in my view, entirely appropriate enthusiasm and absolute commitment to freedom of expression and the independence of the press; and that this concern would fashion their approach to the Inquiry, impact on the assistance that they provided and colour the way in which they viewed any conclusion I might reach. A subsidiary concern has been that whatever view I might have about these fundamental freedoms, I would change them in the light of what they perceive to be unbalanced evidence of problems. Of course, as many have reported, it has been inevitable that a large body of the evidence would be uncomfortable for the press, if not worse, and that the positive features of our press both at a national and regional level would be lost in the welter of criticism, although reflective consideration will demonstrate that any Inquiry of this nature will inevitably focus on the problems. As I will repeat at various stages throughout this Report, I am very conscious that most journalism, most of the time meets high standards and can compete with the best journalism in the world; the Inquiry has been concerned with that which does not.

Chapter 2 | The Approach A

¶1.13 The fourth consideration has been the interests of the public. I have made the point that

the public interest in the issues identified in the Terms of Reference is intense and, in my judgment, correctly so. It has thus been vital to ensure that the Inquiry proceeded in a way that engaged the public and provided appropriate access to it. By access, I do not mean only that the hearing of the Inquiry would be in public for that goes without saying. The concern has been to find ways, first, of providing the public with information as to the framework of law and regulation within which the press operate; second, of ensuring that the public has maximum access to the evidence and the material which forms the basis of my Report; third, of allowing and encouraging the public to feed their views into the Inquiry without losing the necessary judicial rigour with which any Inquiry must be conducted or creating the perception that I am effectively engaged in what is little more than a substantial exercise in public consultation.

¶1.14 I approached these problems in a number of different ways which I explain in chronological

order of them being put into practice. In order to provide some coherence to the evidence and so that the public could understand the approach of the Inquiry, the Terms of Reference were split into four modules: the Press and the Public, the Press and the Police, the Press and the Politicians and, finally, the Future. The first three modules were designed to provide the platform for focused evidence broadly dealing with the topic in question. I say 'broadly' because I have not wanted to trouble witnesses with necessarily having to return to give evidence for each module. Thus, during the module concerned with the Press and the Public, the relevant editors were asked about payments or other inducements to police officers (which is Module Two), along with questions about meetings with and influence upon politicians. Conversely, certain witnesses (and, in particular, Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch, Rebekah Brooks and Andrew Coulson) were, or at least could be (subject to allowance in the cases of Mrs Brooks and Mr Coulson to the fact that, at the time they gave evidence, they had been arrested as part of the police investigation and have now both been charged) central to a number of modules and I took the view that it was more sensible to deal with all aspects of the Inquiry towards the conclusion of the oral evidence.

¶1.15 Furthermore, the fourth module (the Future) was not intended, as might have been thought,

to be free-standing. From the outset, I have been concerned to challenge all or most of the witnesses to provide ideas for the future. I have then tested them with other witnesses and encouraged a continued dialogue between all those affected by the issues which are the subject matter of the Inquiry. In that way, I have endeavoured to ensure that, parallel to the Inquiry, others (including the industry, academic journalists and those interested in this area) engage in dialogues to ensure that all possible mechanisms for regulation are examined and considered. The purpose of Module Four, therefore, was to test possible approaches and so ensure that the final Report did as much as it possibly could to take account of all concerns and reflect a solution that not only balances the legitimate interests of all those affected by the way in which the press goes about its business, but also provides a solution, or series of solutions, that have been submitted to rigorous analysis and, hopefully, can work in the real world.

¶Briefing sessions 1.16 In addition to splitting the Terms of Reference into four modules, I took other steps to provide

sufficient bedrock on which to build consideration of the evidence as to the need for change and the future. Having signalled my intentions and rejected submissions that it would not be

¶A PART A | The Inquiry

appropriate to proceed in this way,3 the second preliminary step was to organise a series of briefing sessions to set out the technical, legal and regulatory framework both for me and the assessors.

¶1.17 Although running contrary to my fundamental approach to the Inquiry, I agreed that the

technical briefing (to explain methods of interception of telephone and IT systems) should be conducted in private, on the basis that there was no justification for putting into the public domain methods whereby the unscrupulous could learn how to commit what are, in fact, criminal offences. An approved summary of that briefing is, however, available and has been posted on the website. The other briefings concerned the criminal and civil law framework within which the press operate and the regulatory framework, both in relation to the press (presently through the Press Complaints Commission PCC) and also in other, comparatively related, industries. Although these briefings were not recorded, transcripts were prepared and anyone interested in the subject matter of the Inquiry has been in a position to acquaint themselves with the framework of law and regulation in order better to understand the issues that the Inquiry intended to address. These briefings are not formal parts of the record of the Inquiry; I am, however, satisfied that they accurately reflected the current position and, where those who provided them gave evidence, they were happy to incorporate into the record what they said at the briefings.

¶Seminars

¶1.18 The third preliminary step, after the briefing sessions, was to seek to widen understanding

of the background and the present state of the industry while at the same time distilling the issues and starting the debate. This was taken forward by three seminars held over two full days. Again, these seminars are not formal parts of the record but, again, in the case of all those who gave presentations or otherwise contributed and who later attended to give evidence, each attested to the accuracy of what he or she then said and accepted that their contribution should be taken as part of their evidence. In each case, after a formal presentation, there was an open debate before an invited audience. The seminars were recorded and a transcript of the day was also prepared: along with the briefing sessions, these remain available on the website and can all be accessed on the website both to watch and to read.4

¶1.19 The first set of seminars, on Thursday 6 October 2011, was called "The Competitive Pressures

on the Press and the Impact on Journalism". It was chaired by Sir David Bell, supported by Elinor Goodman and George Jones, and received presentations from Claire Enders of Enders Analysis on the competitive pressures facing the press today; Phil Hall (former editor of the NoTW, Hello! Magazine and director of the editorial department at Trinity Mirror plc) on how the press operates in a competitive environment and the pressures facing editors; and Richard Peppiatt (formerly a reporter on the Daily Star) on the day to day effect of competitive pressures on working journalists. The second seminar, similarly chaired, was called "The Rights and Responsibilities of the Press" and received first a presentation from Alan Rusbridger (editor-in-chief of the Guardian) on why a free press matters. This was followed by Trevor Kavanagh (formerly political editor and now an associate editor and political columnist on The Sun) and Professor Brian Cathcart (formerly deputy editor of The Independent on Sunday and now Professor of Journalism at Kingston University and a founder of the Hacked Off campaign), both of whom spoke about whether there is a difference between the public

¶The justification for proceeding in this way is explained in my Ruling on the role of the assessors: pp10-11, paras 32-36, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Ruling-on-the-role-of-the-assessors-PDF-102-KB.pdf www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/news-and-events/

Chapter 2 | The Approach A interest and the interest of the public and what questions this raised in relation to a single set of journalistic ethics.

¶1.20 The second day of seminars was held on Wednesday 12 October 2011. The third seminar

was called "Supporting a free press and high standards – Approaches to Regulation". The morning was chaired by Lord Currie, supported by Shami Chakrabarti. Presentations were provided on the future for self regulation from the different perspectives of a regulator, an editor and a user by Eve Salomon (a former PCC Commissioner and currently Chair of the Internet Watch Foundation), Paul Dacre (editor-in-chief of Associated Newspapers Ltd and chair of the Editors' Code Committee of the PCC) and Will Moy (Director of Full Fact, an independent fact-checking organisation) respectively. The role of corporate governance was considered by Lord Borrie (formerly Director General of Fair Trading and thereafter Chair of the Advertising Standards Authority), Stephen Hill (formerly Chief Executive Officer of the Financial Times and now a non-executive director of Channel Four television) and Sly Bailey (then Chief Executive of Trinity Mirror plc).

¶1.21 In the afternoon, chaired by Shami Chakrabarti supported by Lord Currie, redress for breach

of standards was discussed by Professor Steven Barnett (Professor of Communications at the University of Westminster), Desmond Browne QC (a leading media silk and formerly Chairman of the Bar)5 and Professor Robert Baldwin (Professor of Law at the London School of Economics specialising in regulation). Finally defending freedom of expression was the subject of presentations by John Kampfner (then Chief Executive of Index on Censorship), Professor James Curran (Professor of Communications at Goldsmiths, University of London and Chair of the Co-ordinating Committee for Media Reform) and Kelvin MacKenzie (a columnist for The Sun and the Daily Mail, formerly editor of The Sun and managing director of BskyB and Mirror Group Newspapers).

¶1.22 It is not necessary to summarise the views expressed either in the presentations or by the

others who contributed to the seminars. To such extent as they have been incorporated into the record of the Inquiry (which, during the course of subsequent evidence, most have), they will be reflected in the analysis that follows. What is important to emphasise, however, is that, with very limited exception, all the speakers saw and took the opportunity of the seminars to analyse where recent events were leading and had led the business, industry or profession of journalism; in my view, this did a great deal to open up the issues to a wider audience.

¶1.23 Without minimising any contribution from any speaker, I particularly mention Mr Dacre who,

while challenging the justification upon which the Inquiry was set up (including the credentials of those participating in it), identifying what he described as paradoxes in the current furore over the press and seeking to de-bunk what he called myths surrounding the PCC, went on to recognise the need for reform if trust was to be regained and made a number of suggestions which openly and emphatically started the debate as to the future. This was a very important recognition of the need for change which, coming from an extremely important player in the

¶5 Mr Browne was later instructed to act on behalf of Trinity Mirror plc but I am entirely satisfied that his appearance at the Seminar was as an expert in the field and not as counsel to a media group that was later to become a Core Participant

¶A PART A | The Inquiry

industry, was of enormous value. It is a matter of record that, as he was perfectly entitled to do, he later resiled from at least one of the suggestions that he then made.6

¶1.24 These seminars had another value, which was to allow me to signal (as I have repeated many

times throughout the Inquiry) that I saw the best solution as one that both the press and the public would accept as a realistic approach to the issue of regulation. The recognition that the PCC no longer held the confidence of the public (whatever might have been the position in the past) was a vital stepping stone to identifying a system that would achieve the legitimate aims of the press while, at the same time, satisfying the legitimate aspirations of the public. It is obviously important that the system works for the press and that, preferably, it is acceptable to them. However, it is even more important – indeed critical – that it works for the public in the sense that the public accept that the press are able to pursue legitimate investigative journalism that is in the public interest, but, at the same time, can be held to account for abuses of the freedoms which they have to pursue stories which have no discernible public interest and whether those abuses are criminal, tortuous, or merely contrary to any recognised code of legitimate journalistic practice. I believed that the editorial representatives of the press appreciated that, if it was accepted that the PCC could no longer continue as it had, this goal was a fundamental requirement of the Inquiry.

¶1.25 I ought to add that I initially intended to hold further seminars for different aspects of the

work of the Inquiry.7 In the event, as evidence became available, I decided that the impetus which had been the extremely valuable result of the first series of seminars did not require repetition. It was sufficient for public understanding of the work of the Inquiry and its direction for Counsel, Robert Jay QC, to open each module in turn, explaining precisely what it was intended to achieve and the direction that the Inquiry would take. That understanding was also aided by the identification and publication of key issues for each of the modules which, in turn, generated public response.

¶Broadcasting

¶1.26 The fourth preliminary step in relation to the broad approach concerned the extent to which

it would be appropriate to allow cameras into the Inquiry room to record the evidence and thereafter to stream it live onto the Inquiry website. On the one hand, I was conscious that it would create pressure on witnesses who wished to protect their privacy and, as a result of the presence of a permanent record of their evidence, could serve to undermine that privacy. It would also serve to increase the day to day pressure on Counsel and all others participating in the work of the Inquiry. On the other hand, I recognised the significant public interest in what the Inquiry was doing and seeking to achieve, along with the very real importance in ensuring that the evidence was available for all to see in a form that was unmediated by press or other reporting. I dealt with my concern in relation to the witnesses who complained of press intrusion by ensuring that all who gave oral evidence were volunteers and understood that their evidence would be streamed on the website and available to be seen in the future; it is for that reason that I particularly recognised the value of their participation when each gave evidence.

¶At the third seminar, Mr Dacre said: "While I abhor statutory controls, there's one area where Parliament can help the press. Some way must be found to compel all newspaper owners to fund and participate in self-regulation." http:// www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/RPC_DOCS1-12374597-v1-PAUL_DACRE_S_SEMINAR_

¶SPEECH.pdf. That is no longer his position: on 15 June 2012, he submitted: "In retrospect, after hearing some of the devastating evidence to the Inquiry in the third module, I regret this suggestion because I now fear that ANY parliamentary involvement would be the "thin edge of the wedge" which could result in fuller statutory control of the press": p5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Submission-by-Paul-Dacre1.pdf http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/about/opening-remarks/

Chapter 2 | The Approach A

¶1.27 In the event, I am satisfied that the decision to stream the work of the Inquiry (and to enter

into appropriate contractual relationships with television broadcasters as to the use to which it may be put) was entirely justified. Sky News and the BBC devoted a considerable proportion of time to televising the hearings and other media news channels used the footage both on television and as part of their online reporting.

¶1.28 When dealing with the topic of televising the Inquiry, it is important to sound a note of caution.

I am conscious that a number of people have used the valuable impact of the reporting of the Inquiry in support of the argument that all court proceedings should be capable of being televised and that the present restrictions contained within s41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 should be removed. Although the experience of the Inquiry can inform any such debate, it is important to provide the context. The press and other professional witnesses were subject of notice under s21 of the Inquiries Act 2005 (and so were required to provide evidence and, when appropriate, attend the Inquiry). However, as I have said, the witnesses who complained about press intrusion were volunteers and understood that their evidence would be streamed and available on the website; cross examination was limited or non- existent. In very few cases, steps were taken to preserve anonymity of appearance if not identity. In a criminal trial or family proceedings, civilian witnesses are victims, involved in personal tragedy or accidental (and, in many cases, reluctant) participants in the process of justice; they can be cross examined at length and, frequently, as to their credit. To film their evidence (particularly in high profile cases) would be to subject them to intolerable and damaging pressure which would most certainly not be in the interests of justice.

¶1.29 Returning to the impact of the other preliminary steps that I have outlined, the briefings and

the seminars had the intended effect. In addition to eliciting responses from those who were either invited to provide evidence or, pursuant to notice under s21 of the Inquiries Act 2005, were required to do so, many other interested parties and the members of the public did engage in the process of the Inquiry.

¶Core Participants 1.30 Running at the same time as the briefings and seminars, as a fifth preliminary step, it was

necessary to determine who should be entitled to Core Participant status for any or all of the modules of the Inquiry and to decide how the Inquiry should proceed in the light of any representations that Core Participants might make. I decided to separate out applications for Core Participant status for each of the four modules, on the basis that although many interested parties would have equal interest in all aspects of the Inquiry (and so were granted on a blanket basis from the outset), a number might only be concerned with fewer aspects of the Terms of Reference. In the circumstances, I invited applications for each of the modules and dealt with them on that basis. Although deadlines for such applications passed, in the

¶A PART A | The Inquiry

main, I considered each, whenever it was made, on its merits and ruled in accordance with the letter and spirit of Rule 5(2) of the Inquiry Rules 2006.8

¶The approach to evidence

¶1.31 The sixth, and final, preliminary issue concerned the steps that I should take, while seeking

to obtain a narrative of facts, to ensure that I did not prejudice any criminal investigation or potential prosecution and, at the same time, maintain a balanced and fair approach to others said to have been involved in illegal or unethical methods of gathering stories. In relation to the former, having invited submissions at an early stage (in particular from the Director of Public Prosecutions and the police), I ruled on the appropriate approach to evidence in relation to those charged with criminal offences or under investigation. My conclusion is summarised at para 1.16 above.9 Fairness (as required by s17(3) of the Inquiries Act 2005) has, however, taken me further for I have not felt it appropriate to protect the names of those who have been arrested from being linked to specific allegations of criminal conduct, while affording no such protection for those alleged to have been involved in other criminal (or, in some cases, unethical) conduct which is not being investigated (and therefore gives rise to no risk of prejudice).

¶1.32 This approach has been criticised by those who wish to expose what is said to be the greater

criminality revealed by a study of the documents seized by the Information Commissioner during Operation Motorman (the arrest of a private detective, Steve Whittamore), involving a very much greater section of the press than those seized by the police during Operation Caryatid (the arrest of Glenn Mulcaire, now being revisited in Operation Weeting). However, it is entirely consistent with the fact that the Terms of Reference are divided into two parts and that this first Part concerns the culture, practices and ethics of the press rather than individual conduct. Throughout the Inquiry, there are references to what I have described as the 'mantra' that I have not presently been concerned with 'who did what to whom' but culture practices and ethics. To the mantra, I have added what I have called the 'self-denying ordinance' that, although the Inquiry has investigated with individual journalists conduct which is not the subject (or likely to be the subject) of police inquiries, so that the question of self incrimination does not arise, in the main, I have extended similar protection to individual journalists and others who are not currently the subject of any investigations.10 This approach has not been inflexible because it has been critically important to ensure that an appropriate

¶Module 1 rulings: http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Core-Participants-final-14.09.11.

¶pdf; http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of-judgement-relating-to-Elaine-Decoulos-4-October-PDF-50.2KB.pdf; http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Further-Rulingon-Core-Participants-2-Novembr-2011.pdf. Module 2 rulings: p26, [line 4 et seq], http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-25-January-20121.pdf and http://www.levesoninquiry.

¶org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Further-ruling-on-Core-Participants-17-February-2012.pdf. Module 3 rulings:

¶http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Further-Ruling-on-Core-Participants-Module-35-April-2012.pdf and http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Further-Ruling-on-Core-Participants-Government-4-May-2012.pdf. Module 4 rulings: http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2011/11/Amended-Ruling-in-relation-to-Core-Particpants-for-Module-42.pdf. Applications by Ms Decoulous to appeal each decision refusing her Core Participant status were refused by the Administrative Court (Module 1 on

¶4 November 2011 by Moses LJ and Singh J: [2011] EWHC 3214(Admin); Module 2 on 14 March 2012 by Richards LJ and Kenneth Parker J: CO/2320/2012; and Modules 3 and 4 on 17 July 2012 by Sir John Thomas PQBD and Silber J:

¶CO/4182/2012, CO/7190/2012)

¶http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Approaches-to-evidence-7-November-PDF-106KB.

¶pdf

¶There are numerous references in the transcripts to this approach; see, for example, the ruling in relation to Rule 13 of the Inquiry Rules 2006 [para 5], http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Application-of-Rule-13-of-the-Inquiry-Rules-2006.pdf

Chapter 2 | The Approach A narrative of fact is available, against which to judge the efficacy of the present system of self regulation promulgated through the Press Complaints Commission and any proposals to amend or replace that system.

¶1.33 I can illustrate this necessary inhibition on what I have been able to do with a simple example.

In his first statement to the Inquiry, the editor of The Times, James Harding, made a passing reference to a single instance of computer hacking. This was not investigated further at that time but, in a masterly analysis, David Allan Green linked the reference to the exposure of a blogger known as Nightjack. That led to a letter and a further statement from Mr Harding which resulted in his being recalled to give evidence. Because the Nightjack incident had been the subject of litigation, the then legal manager of The Times, Mr Alastair Brett, appeared at the Inquiry when the matter was analysed in some detail. On the basis of this evidence, it would certainly be possible to draw a number of important conclusions about what happened at The Times and about internal governance and legal risk management. However, because the journalist who was said to be at the centre of this incident has now been arrested for offences of computer hacking and attempting to pervert the course of justice, it is not appropriate to risk prejudice to that investigation or to any possible trial by further discussing it.

¶1.34 A further consequence of this has been the need to avoid the possibility of inferential

criticism of those who are currently the subject of criminal investigations. So, for example, a criticism of the governance arrangements at a particular newspaper, whether in general terms or directed at particular members of the management team, could, by implication, be interpreted as a criticism of others, elsewhere within the organisation. The requirement on me to tread this careful path might mean that some readers of this Report are surprised that a number of senior executives who gave evidence are not subject to the criticisms that might otherwise have been expected or, at least, discussed. It is, however, the consequence of the imperative not to or cause substantial prejudice to the investigation or prosecution of allegations of crime.

The gathering and presentation of evidence

¶Module One 2.1 As I have explained, many public inquiries follow some incident or event which has

immediately been the subject of police or other investigation, so that the product of that investigation will be able to form the basis body of evidence upon which the inquiry can rely for its facts. In the case of this Inquiry, however, although aspects of the Terms of Reference had been or were the subject of litigation,11 the police investigation was ongoing. Although the Inquiry obtained evidence both from the civil and public law actions, the collection of evidence even for Module One (the press and the public) required trawling from a very wide range of people including (a) individuals who complained that they have been the subject of press criminality or intrusion (one of whom gave evidence with the benefit of complete

¶This includes the civil actions of Gordon Taylor and Sienna Miller which were of critical importance to the greater understanding of the truth behind the assertion of 'one rogue reporter', the many civil actions conducted before Vos J and the public law review of the conduct of the Metropolitan Police in relation to Operation Caryatid

¶A PART A | The Inquiry

anonymity),12 (b) newspaper proprietors, editors, journalists13 and support staff (including, in relation to News International, external lawyers), (c) freelance journalists, campaign groups and others who have been concerned about press conduct, (d) photographers (including paparazzi) and private detectives, (e) mobile phone operators, (f) the police and Director of Public Prosecutions, (g) the Information Commissioner and his staff, (h) the Press Complaints Commission, (i) academic journalists and (j) bloggers and internet sites. The remaining modules required different groups of people or different individuals within the relevant organisations.

¶2.2 Section 21(2) of the Inquiries Act 2005 provides that I could require any person, within such

period as appears to be reasonable to provide evidence in the form of a written statement (including documents). For each module, save in relation to those who complained about press intrusion (whom I considered ought to have the opportunity to decline to give evidence in public about their complaints of invasions of privacy) and a number of the most senior politicians, I decided that all witnesses would be required pursuant to the Act to assist me: this was not intended to reflect a concern that witnesses would not be prepared to volunteer their assistance (as, I believe almost without exception, all were) but rather to ensure that there was a consistency of approach across all those whom the Inquiry approached. Such requests could only be made after the Inquiry had formally commenced (at the end of July 2011) and it was obviously essential to give everyone to whom requests for evidence had been addressed sufficient time to submit considered evidence. Given the summer, this meant that most of the evidence was not, in fact, available until the autumn. It then had to be assimilated and, eventually, made available to Core Participants for any comment prior to it being called.

¶2.3 In addition to witnesses whom the Inquiry approached, an invitation was posted on the

website inviting members of the public and other interested individuals or groups to submit evidence directly to the Inquiry.14 It is worth setting out the key questions posed which were as follows:

"The Inquiry is currently looking at the relationship between the press and the public. We're interested in hearing from professionals and the public with information and examples in response to the specific questions below. Your answers may be considered as potential evidence to the inquiry.

The Inquiry needs to understand how newsrooms operate, particularly in the tabloid and mid-market sectors. Can you provide a personal account of culture, practices and ethics in any part of the press and media?

Chapter 2 | The Approach A

Seminar debates have suggested that commercial pressures were not new, were not unique to the press, and did not impact adversely on standards of journalism or ethical behaviour. The Inquiry would be interested in submissions on this, with examples where possible. 3. Some seminar attendees suggest reader loyalty limits competition between titles. Professional competition to be first or best with a story, though, could be a powerful force. Other participants suggested some papers put journalists under significant pressure to produce a story within a tight timeframe. The Inquiry would be interested in experiences of the competitive dynamics in journalism and how that impacts on the way in which journalists operate, with examples where possible. 4. With the advent of the internet and 24 hour news as well as declines in revenue and circulation, we have heard that fewer journalists are having to do more work. The seminars also raised the issue of the casualisation of the workforce. The inquiry would be interested in experiences of how this may have changed the culture in newsrooms and what it might mean in terms of journalistic practice, with examples where possible. 5. The issue of stories that attract a high degree of press attention but subsequently turn out to be false was raised at the seminars. The Inquiry would be interested in submissions from editors, reporters and subjects of such stories - why they occur (what are the pressures that drive press interest), and how they occur (what checks and balances are or should be in place to stop this happening and why do they sometimes not operate)? 6. One seminar attendee suggested that the National Council for the Training of Journalists does not teach ethics. The Inquiry would be interested in experience of how ethics are taught and promulgated amongst journalists.

¶Standards 7. Attendees proposed that the general law, as it applies to everyone, should be the only constraint on the press. The inquiry would welcome submissions on whether, and if so why, the press should be subject to any additional constraints in relation to behaviour and standards, for example relating to accuracy, treatment of vulnerable individuals, intrusion, financial reporting or reporting on crime, other than those imposed by existing laws. 8. Editors at the seminars argued that the Editors' Code was a good set of standards to work to. The Inquiry would be interested in submissions from all parties on the coverage and substance of the Editors' code including accuracy and redress for those who are affected by breaches of the code. 9. It has been argued that the statutory regulation and impartiality requirements that apply to broadcasting do not chill investigative reporting on television. Broadcasters are able to rely on the printed press to break controversial stories and then follow on behind. The inquiry would be interested in submissions on the extent to which the regulatory regime for broadcasting casts a chill on broadcast reporting and the relationship between the printed press and broadcast media as a result of the different regulatory environments.

¶Public interest 10. The Inquiry has heard strong arguments for the importance of a free press in a democratic society. The Inquiry would be interested in submissions on the special role to be played by the press in a democracy, what 'freedom' requirements need to be

¶A PART A | The Inquiry

in place for that role to be played and the whether this role places any obligations or responsibilities on the press. 11. We've heard arguments that sometimes it will be in the public interest for journalists and media organisations to do things that would otherwise be ethically or legally questionable. The inquiry would be interested in submissions on the extent to which, if at all, should acting in the public interest be a complete or partial defence in relation to unlawful or unethical activity in pursuit of journalism; and, if so, subject to what conditions. 12. In practice any public interest argument would need to be considered in the context of specific cases. The Inquiry would be interested in submissions on who should be responsible for reaching decisions on whether something is in the public interest, and on what basis. Illustrative examples would be helpful."

¶2.4 It has been suggested that the Inquiry never engaged with the public, and therefore never

engaged with those who purchase tabloid or mid-market papers, with the result that the evidence has been in some sense skewed or biased against the millions who read that type of paper. In fact, as discussed below, members of the public (with different interests in the work of the Inquiry) did respond to this invitation and it proved an extremely valuable resource for material which the Inquiry would not otherwise have obtained. Further, a number of witnesses and groups who availed themselves of the opportunity to provide views and material were later invited to attend to give evidence orally so as to develop the issues which had been raised. As for the risk that only those with some criticism of the press might respond, as the questions make clear, the Inquiry was equally anxious to hear in support of the press as in criticism of it.

¶2.5 The briefings, seminars, and the collection, examination and distillation of the evidence meant

that it was not possible to start the formal hearings of the Inquiry until Monday 14 November 2011, when Robert Jay QC made an opening statement, followed by opening statements from the Core Participants. Witness evidence commenced on Monday 21 November 2011 and, for Module One, continued until 9 February 2012:¹⁷⁵¹⁷⁵ http://northernandshell.co.uk/media/express.php pp22-23, lines 20-1, David Perry QC, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-4-April-2012.pdf. p63, lines 19-21, Tom Crone, ibid pp13-21, lines 1-5, Matt Driscoll, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-19-December-2011.pdf p1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Jeff-Edwards.pdf p21, para 43, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Peter-Clarke. pdf p67, James Murdoch, lines 2-5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-24-April-2012.pdf p3, Tessa Jowell, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Exhibit-TJ20.pdf p1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Exhibit-2-to-Witness-Statement-of-Norman- Lamb-MP.pdf Morgan, P, The Insider, p82 p5, para 23, ibid For example, Lykiardopulo v Lykiardopulo [2010] EWCA Civ 1315 where it was held family financial affairs are privateShow full note witnesses gave evidence over a period of 40 days and the evidence of further witnesses was read into the record of the Inquiry not only while Module One was ongoing but also, as it emerged, throughout the Inquiry and, where appropriate, even after the formal hearings had concluded. This latter process has given rise to misunderstanding which I have frequently sought to correct during the course of the Inquiry but which it is appropriate to make very clear.

¶2.6 While the evidence on Module 1 was proceeding, a number of submissions were received

from campaigning groups who argued that the approach of the PCC to third party complaints was such that there was no avenue for redress in the absence of a identified 'victim' who was prepared to pursue a complaint on his or her own behalf. In particular, therefore, generic complaints (of misleading and inaccurate reporting of issues such as immigration, domestic violence and others) were unchallengeable. This was not simply a complaint about tone or balance (although there were such concerns as well) because it was well understood that newspapers, unlike broadcasters, were perfectly entitled to be partisan in their views. Rather, it was to do with factual accuracy and consequent comment. To that end, arrangements were made for evidence to be given from, among others, Inayat Bunglawala (Engage), Heather Harvey (Eaves Housing for Women), Anna Van Heeswijk (OBJECT), Jacqui Hunt (Equality Now), Marai Larasi (End Violence against Women) and Helen Belcher (Transmedia Watch). As explained by Fiona Fox (Science Media Centre) misleading and inaccurate reporting of

Chapter 2 | The Approach A conceptual issues (such as climate change or science generally) were similarly not covered by the complaints system.

¶2.7 Submissions from different groups continued to be received covering other areas of extremely

important social awareness; these included, among others, submissions concerning the treatment afforded by the press to the young, the mentally ill, the disabled and other groups in society, some of which were vulnerable and others the particular subject of press concern.15 All make the same or similar points to those which the Inquiry had already heard, albeit from the different perspective of the particular concern of that specific campaign. Quite apart from the question of the available time (given the very wide-ranging Terms of Reference and the other evidence that it was essential to capture), the question arose whether it was necessary to call this evidence orally in order to make the points that were developed in writing.

¶2.8 In the event, I decided that it was not necessary to call more evidence; however, arrangements

were made for each of these submissions (as with all other evidence read into the Inquiry) to be circulated to Core Participants so that if any advanced a reason why the evidence should not received into the record of the Inquiry, that argument could be considered. In the event, no objection was received and all this evidence was 'read into' the Inquiry record. That means that it is published as part of the evidence of the Inquiry: I have read it and, where appropriate, included references to parts of it in this Report. What I am very anxious to emphasise, however, is that I do not consider that any of this evidence was 'second class' or to be accorded a lesser status to the evidence that was adduced orally: it has all been important and it has all been considered. The same can be said of the submissions to the Inquiry made by others (not necessarily relating to campaigning groups concerned with third party complaints) which, having also been read into the record, has become part of the evidence in the Inquiry.

¶2.9 As I deal with evidence that was read into the record but not called before me, I ought also to

deal with complaints that were made to the Inquiry that were not adduced as evidence, not because they were not relevant to the Terms of Reference but, rather, because they were both complex and highly fact-sensitive. This would have resulted in a considerable amount of time being devoted to investigating the circumstances, without there being any corresponding value to be derived as to the generic culture, practices and ethics of the press (rather than the behaviour of those titles involved in the particular facts being examined). One example will suffice.

¶2.10 In March 1997, a private investigator, Daniel Morgan was murdered in South East London.

There have been five police inquiries into the circumstances of his death and it has been alleged that his partner, Jonathan Rees, might have been involved in his murder (he was later acquitted when the prosecution were unable to guarantee his right to a fair trial following the discovery by the police of four undisclosed crates of material). Mr Rees had been employed by the NoTW and, the nature of the relationship has been the subject of media comment. I can well understand why Mr Morgan's family saw the Inquiry as an opportunity to uncover information about his death (and Mr Rees clearly visualised that possibility because he

¶A PART A | The Inquiry

applied for Core Participant status on the basis that he might be the subject of criticism). Whether there should be an inquiry into this particular case is not for me to say: it is sufficient if I repeat the explanation that to have examined the issues arising would have taken weeks or months and I did not consider that the very limited time available for this Inquiry was best deployed in that way. In the event, although I made it clear that Mr Rees could make a statement for the Inquiry, he has not done so.16

¶Module Two

¶2.11 That conveniently brings me to Module Two which started on 27 February 2012. The

evidence touching the relationship between the press and the police had been obtained and assimilated while Module One was proceeding. Once again, key questions for this module were also published on the website17 which, again, generated considerable public interest. The questions (which provide a good overview of some of the issues which the Inquiry was to consider in this module) were as follows:

"The Inquiry is now looking at the relationship between the press and the police. We're interested in hearing from professionals and the public with information and examples in response to the specific questions below. Your answers may be considered as potential evidence to the Inquiry and may be published in a redacted form as part of the Inquiry's evidence.

Culture, practices and ethics: 1. The Inquiry needs to understand how the relationship between the press and the police currently operates. The Inquiry would be interested in the experiences of police officers, other police staff, and journalists as to how the relationship between the press and the police works in practice. 2. The Inquiry would be interested in the experiences of police officers, other police staff, and journalists as to how the current Police Service policies and guidance in place to regulate the relationship between the press and the police work in practice. 3. The Inquiry would like to build up an overall picture of the nature and level of the interaction that currently exists between the police and the press. The Inquiry would therefore be interested to receive submissions on the type and frequency of contact which currently exists between police officers, other police staff, and the media (differentiating between local and national media contact), with examples where possible. 4. The internet,²⁴²⁴ This is one of the reasons why, given the concessions that were made by the press Core Participants, it was inappropriate to investigate the detail contained in the books seized from Steve Whittamore during Operation Motorman. For the purposes of Part 1 of the Terms of Reference, I concluded that it was necessary to go so far but no further: this is dealt with below but, by way of cross reference, is evident from the rulings which sought to ensure clarity of the position: http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Ruling-In-Relation-to- Operation-Motorman-Evidence-11-June-20123.pdf, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ Operation-Motorman-and-ANL-10-July-2012.pdf, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ Ruling-on-Future-Direction-23-July-2012.pdf p1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Professor-Christopher- Megone.pdf pp33-34, lines 18-1, Dr Neil Manson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-16-July-2012.pdf http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4138209/Its-Sun-day-Were-launching-new-edition-of-Britains-No1- newspaper.html p8, para 23, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Lord-Patten1. pdf pp9-11, para 24, ibid ibid, pp64-67 p206, paras 272 & 291, ibid Information Commissioner's Office, What Price Privacy?, p15, para 5.3 p13, para 29, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Witness-Statement-of-DCS-Keith- Surtees.pdf p9, para 25, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Fourth-Witness-Statement-of-DAC- Sue-Akers.pdf http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8043057.stm Marshall, S, Tabloid Girl, pp51-52 pp27-28, lines 23-5, Matt Driscoll, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-19-December-2011.pdf p38, line 23, Gerry McCann, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-23-November-2011.pdf p20, para 32, ibid pp34-35, lines 14-15, Paul Ashford, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-12-January-2012.pdf p3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Tim-Godwin.pdf p14, lines 21-22, Lord Blair, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-7-March-2012.pdf; p9, para 21, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness- Statement-of-Lord-Blair.pdf p7, para 33, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Jonathan- Ungoed-Thomas.pdf p41, ibid See also the connection made in What Price Privacy Now?, pp7-8, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2011/12/Exhibit-2.pdf p2, ibid On the application of s32 to 'new media' journalism, see para 99, Tugendhat J, The Law Society & Ors –v– Kordowski [2011] EWHC 3185 p2, para 8, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Fourth-Witness-Statement-of-Richard- Thomas-CBE.pdf p34, lines 4-10, Lord Grade, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-31-January-2012.pdf p78, lines 17-22, Andrew Grice, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-25-June-20121.pdf p97, lines 8-15, David Cameron, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-14-June-2012.pdf pp2-4, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Exhibit-KRM-10.pdf; p5, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Exhibit-KRM-16.pdf pp17-18, ibid pp58-60, lines 12-14, ibid I did not write to the leaders of the national parties of government and opposition in the UK devolved administrations in this way because, as I make clear in this Report, in my opinion the conduct of politicians of devolved government cannot reasonably be considered as part of the historical UK national pattern with which my generic conclusions are concerned p6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Annex-1-to-Submission-by-Claire-Enders- Enders-Analysis.pdf I pp56-57, lines 21-6, Will Lewis, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-10-January-2012.pdf; para 31.3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ Witness-Statement-of-William-Lewis.pdf This is the same view as that formed by the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions in its Report: see http:// www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201012/jtselect/jtprivinj/273/273.pdf (HL Paper 273; HC 1443), para 37 p3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Professor-Roy-Greenslade-of- City-University.pdf p18, para 42, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Closing-Submission-from-Associated- K Newspapers-Ltd.pdf p8, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Submission-by-Paul-Dacre1.pdf p1, para 1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Lord-Black-of-Brentwood-Annex-C1.pdf p21, para 72, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Media-Regulation- Round-Table.pdf pp89-90, para 6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Media-Standards- Trust.pdf Defamation Act Schedule 2 s5(1), ibid p1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Submission-from-Kenneth-Clarke-MP.pdf Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.13 Application 13470/87, Otto Preminger Institut v Austria (1994) 19 EHRR 34; Ashdown v Telegraph Group [2001] EWCA Civ 142; Application 31457/96, News Verlags GmbH v Austria (2000) 9 BHRC 625 at para 45; Application 69698/01, Stoll v Switzerland (2008) 47 EHRR 59Show full note hour news and social media has brought new challenges for both the police and the press. The Inquiry would be interested in the experiences of police officers, other police staff, and journalists on how this may have altered the relationship, and whether the Police Service policies and guidance in place have kept pace with this changing environment, with examples where possible. 5. The Inquiry would be interested to receive views on the level of awareness and experience that exists within the Police Service of "media crime" (the unlawful interception of communications, bribery of officials by the media and harassment by paparazzi and journalists, for example), with examples where possible.

Chapter 2 | The Approach A

The Inquiry would be interested to receive views as to whether the Police Service governance arrangements, policies and guidance currently in place are sufficient to sustain a transparent and ethical relationship between the police and the press which at the same time upholds the confidentiality and rights of the victims of crime and the public more generally. 7. The Inquiry would be interested to receive submissions on what Police Service training, governance and oversight arrangements exist, and views on whether it is sufficient, to ensure that acceptable boundaries exist between the police and press, with examples where possible. 8. The Inquiry would be interested in the experiences of journalists about whether you have ever felt under any pressure not to report a story involving a police officer or member of police staff (detailing where and from whom the pressure came), with examples where possible. 9. The Inquiry would be interested to receive submissions from police officers, other police staff, and journalists on the extent to which formal and informal interaction between the press and the police is recorded for the purposes of transparency (are such records audited, and if so by whom, for example). Information control and disclosure: 10. The Inquiry would be interested to receive submissions on the extent to which systems are in place (and an assessment of whether they are adequate) to identify, prevent, manage and investigate police data leaks and breaches. 11. The Inquiry would be interested in the experiences of the victims of crime and the public more generally, who feel that they have been adversely affected (perhaps through a data leak or breach, or through the reporting of a case) by the current relationship between the press and the police, with examples where possible. The Inquiry would also be interested to receive submissions in relation to this issue on whether it is felt that the current investigation and complaint regime are adequate to properly address instances of this type. 12. The Inquiry would welcome submissions on how the police and the media working together is and can be of benefit to the public, with examples where possible.

¶Professional Standards: 13. The Inquiry would like to receive views as to whether it is felt that adequate governance and oversight arrangements are in place for police officers and other police staff to ensure the effective management and recording of gifts and hospitality, secondary business interests, associations and conflicts of interest. 14. The Inquiry would be interested to receive views as to what type of payments, gifts or hospitality (if any) you consider to be legitimate transactions between police officers, other police staff, and the media, and is and should the approach to payments, gifts or hospitality between the press and the police be different to the approach between the police and other parties. 15. The Inquiry would be interested to receive views as to whether there should be rules in place to govern how and when police officers and other police staff leaving the Police Service can take up posts with the media, commercial or other bodies, with examples of when such a move has been problematic or brought advantages where possible.

¶A PART A | The Inquiry

The Inquiry would be interested to receive views as to whether there should be rules in place to govern how and when members of the press, or the media more generally, can take up posts with the Police Service, with examples of when such a move has been problematic or brought advantages where possible."

¶2.12 At a more specific level, Module Two covered a number of different topics. First, it involved

a consideration of Operation Caryatid from its inception, following a complaint by the Royal Household in relation to the interception of mobile phone messages, through to the commencement and impact of Operations Weeting, Elveden and Tuleta. To that end a number of police officers gave evidence, along with the relevant Directors of Public Prosecutions and leading counsel instructed in the prosecution of Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire. Second, it concerned the more general relationship over many years between the press and the MPS, thereby involving witnesses who complained about the impact of that relationship upon themselves; the last four Commissioners and the present Commissioner of the MPS, together with many very senior officers and ex officers and personnel from the Department of Public Affairs; and journalists who had considered the relationship and crime journalists who depended upon it. Third, evidence of comparison with other regional police forces and the regional press was called both from Chief Constables, other ranks and press departments, as was evidence of the approach of the Association of Chief Police Officers. Fourth, reports prepared by the Chief Inspector of Constabulary (Sir Denis O'Connor) and, for the Commissioner of the MPS (by Elizabeth Filkin), and the views of police authorities (including the relevant regulator for the MPS, the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime) also fell to be considered. This evidence broadly concluded on 4 April 2012, with the Inquiry having heard from 93 witnesses over 23 days.

¶2.13 As I have indicated above, the evidence of a number of witnesses covered all four modules.

That was particularly so in relation to Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch, the proprietors of other newspaper groups and a number of senior staff from News Corporation or News International. This group of seven witnesses gave evidence (over two weeks in April and May 2012) between Module Two concerning the press and the police and Module 3 concerning the press and politicians.

¶Module Three

¶2.14 Module Three formally opened on 10 May 2012 and involved evidence over a period in excess

of four weeks from 44 witnesses. These included some of the most senior politicians of the last 20 years (including the present and last three Prime Ministers, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the First Minister of Scotland), senior civil servants, special advisers and political journalists. The primary concern was the relationship between politicians of all political hues and the press, together with the impact (whether in reality or as a matter of perception) of such relationships as existed on the development and implementation of policy concerning the press. Political challenges came to the fore, however, in particular concerns about the handling by the present Government of the bid by News Corporation for those shares in BSkyB Ltd which were not already owned or controlled by Rupert Murdoch. Although only one of a number of issues regarding the relationship between politicians and the proprietors and editors of mass market newspapers over the last 30 years, the questions that arose (being of contemporary political concern) came to dominate aspects of the Inquiry. There was particular interest in an issue arising from Parliamentary Questions addressed to the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, which were the subject

Chapter 2 | The Approach A of a detailed account in his statement to the Inquiry.18 In the event, these Parliamentary Questions were not then pursued in the House of Commons; they were examined, at some length, when Jeremy Hunt MP gave evidence.19 This module continued until 14 June 2012, although aspects were further examined on 25-26 June.

¶2.15 As with the first two modules, key questions regarding the relationship between the press

and politicians were identified and placed on the website20 for consideration and comment by any interested group or member of the public. Again, it provides useful context for the work of the Inquiry to set these questions out at this stage:

"The Inquiry is now looking at the relationship between the press and politicians. We are interested in hearing from professionals and the public with information and examples in response to the specific questions below. Your answers may be considered as potential evidence to the Inquiry and may be published in a redacted form as part of the Inquiry's evidence. 1. The Inquiry is interested in the extent of public knowledge and understanding of the relationship between the media and the politicians. Where does that knowledge come from? How is it tested? What use is made of publicly available information (for example about meetings between senior politicians and leading media figures)? Has the change to the Ministerial Code in July 2011 made a difference? (The Code now states: "the Government will be open about its links with the media. All meetings with newspaper and other media proprietors, editors and senior executives will be published quarterly, regardless of the purpose of the meeting".) 2. The Inquiry would like to hear views on the specific benefits and risks to the public interest arising from relationships between senior politicians, at a national level, and the media. What does the public stand to gain from this relationship? What does it stand to lose? How can the gains be maximised and the risks minimised? Are there specific considerations the Inquiry should be aware of in the run up to general elections and other national polls? 3. The Inquiry is interested in hearings views on the conditions that are necessary for a free press in a democracy to fulfil its role in holding politicians and the powerful to account. What is the nature of that role? What is the public entitled to expect of the press in fulfilling it? How can the public see for itself that the press is taking this role seriously and going about it responsibly? Are there some good examples? 4. Is there a perception that political journalism generally has moved from reporting, to seeking to make or influence political events? How far is there evidence for that, and should it be a matter of public concern or not? Does the press have a legitimate function in fulfilling a political Opposition role? 5. The Inquiry is interested in the nature of media influence on public policy in general (for example in areas such as criminal justice, immigration or European policy). Do you have views, or any specific examples, about how that influence is exercised and with what effect? How transparent is the process? Is the public well served by it?

¶A PART A | The Inquiry

The Inquiry is particularly interested in the influence of the media in the content and timing of a party's media policies, and in a Government decision-making on policy or operational issues directly affecting the media. Do you have any personal examples of how this works in practice? Are the media effective lobbyists in their own causes? Do any risks arise from the Government's role in the determination of takeovers and/ or mergers of media organisations? Is there a need for additional safeguards or limits on such involvement? 7. Is there a need for plurality of voice in news providers within the press, in providers of other types of news media or across the media as a whole? How does access to news information through the internet affect the need for plurality? What level of plurality is required? Is plurality of ownership a sufficient proxy for plurality of voice? 8. Is there evidence of media influence on public and political appointments (including the tenure and termination of those appointments)? The Inquiry is interested in examples, including of cases where the public interest was, and was not, well served by such influence. 9. How far do you think politicians feel inhibited from acting in the public interest to ensure that the media's conduct, practices and ethics are themselves in the public interest? Why might that be? What would make a difference?"

¶Module Four

¶2.16 Module Four commenced on 9 July 2012 and the Inquiry heard from 30 witnesses. This

module was initially described as involving a discussion of 'emerging findings'. In the event, it was clear that the Press Board of Finance (PressBoF) and the current chair of the PCC had embarked upon the process of re-casting self-regulation; this Module therefore consisted of a detailed examination not only of that model but also a substantial number of other models for the regulation of the press that had been submitted as evidence to the Inquiry. To encourage that process and assist those devising potential solutions to the problems of press regulation, the Inquiry published Draft Criteria for an Effective Regulatory Regime.21 These were not intended to be definitive but merely illustrative of the issues that had to be addressed. These criteria were as follows:

"In module 4 the Inquiry will hear proposals for potential press regulatory solutions. There are three aspects to the question of what regulatory regime should apply to the press in the future: firstly what a regulatory regime should do; secondly how it should be structured to achieve that; and thirdly the detailed rules that are put in place to achieve the objectives. The 'what' is about outcomes and the 'how' is about processes, structures and accountabilities. The detailed rules would be dealt with in the substance of any code or regulations. These three aspects of a regulatory regime need to be considered separately as they are not necessarily dependent on each other and it may be possible to achieve the desired objectives by different combinations of solutions. The Inquiry has already heard a number of suggestions in relation to the 'how' and the purpose of module 4 is to look at those suggestions in more detail. In order to facilitate the scrutiny of the 'how' proposals it is necessary to understand 'what' any regulatory solution is seeking to achieve. The draft criteria for a regulatory solution below set out the criteria against which the Inquiry proposes to measure potential regulatory solutions. The Inquiry would welcome comments on these criteria.

Chapter 2 | The Approach A

¶Draft Criteria for a Regulatory Solution 1. Effectiveness 1.1 Any solution must be perceived as effective and credible both by the press as an industry and by the public:

¶(a) It must strike a balance, capable of being accepted as reasonable, legitimate and in the public interest by all.

¶(b) It must recognise the importance for the public interest of a free press in a

democracy, freedom of expression and investigative journalism, the rule of law, personal privacy and other private rights, and a press which acts responsibly and in the public interest.

¶(c) It must promote a clear understanding of 'the public interest' which would be accepted as reasonable by press, industry and public alike.

¶(d) It must be durable and sufficiently flexible to work for future markets and technology, and be capable of universal application.

Fairness and objectivity of Standards 2.1 There must be a statement of ethical standards which is recognised as reasonable by the industry and credible by the public. This statement must identify enforceable minimum standards as well as articulating good practice that should be aimed for. 2.2 All standards for good practice in journalism should be driven by the public interest and must be benchmarked in a clear objective way to the public interest. 2.3 The setting of standards must be independent of government and parliament, and sufficiently independent of media interests, in order to command public respect.
Independence and transparency of enforcement and compliance 3.1 Enforcement of ethical standards, by whatever mechanism, must be operationally independent of government and parliament, and sufficiently independent of media interests, in order to command public respect. 3.2 In particular all relevant appointments processes must be sufficiently independent of government, Parliament and media interests to command public support. 3.3 Compliance must be the responsibility of editors and transparent and demonstrable to the public.
Powers and remedies 4.1 The system must provide credible remedies, both in respect of aggrieved individuals and in respect of issues affecting wider groups in society. 4.2 The regulatory regime must have effective investigatory and advisory powers. 4.3 The system should also actively support and promote compliance by the industry, both directly (for example by providing confidential pre-publication advice) and indirectly (for example by kitemarking titles' own internal systems). 4.4 The system should be a good fit with other relevant regulatory and law enforcement functions.

¶A PART A | The Inquiry

Cost 5.1 The solution must be sufficiently reliably financed to allow for reasonable operational independence and appropriate scope, but without placing a disproportionate burden on either the industry, complainants or the taxpayer."

¶2.17 Quite apart from the regulatory solution, Module Four also dealt with other key questions

and, to that end, involved evidence from experts in diverse fields ranging from differing approaches to press regulation across the word (and, in particular, the Irish model) to data protection, from ethics and philosophy to plurality. The key questions, reflecting some of these issues, were published on the website22 and, again, interested parties and the public were invited to submit evidence which could be considered during the course of the evidence (even if only to prompt questions from Counsel to the Inquiry). These questions were as follows:

"Relevant aspects of the public interest 1. How would you describe the public interest in a free press? 2. How would you describe the public interest in freedom of expression? To what extent does that public interest coincide with, or diverge from, the public interest in a free press? 3. In order to maximise the overall public interest, with what other aspects of the public interest would freedom of expression, or freedom of the press, have to be balanced or limited? The Inquiry is particularly interested in the following, but there may be others: (a) the interest of the public as a whole in good political governance, for example in areas such as – national security, public order and economic wellbeing, – the rule of law, the proper independence and accountability of law enforcement agencies, and access to justice, and – the democratic accountability of government for the formation and implementation of policy; (b) the public interest in individual self-determination and the protection and enforcement of private interests, for example – privacy, including (but not necessarily limited to) the rights to privacy specified in general in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and in European and national legislation on the protection of personal data, – confidentiality, the protection of reputation, and intellectual and other property rights, and – individual freedom of expression and rights to receive and impart information where those interests and rights are not identical to the interests and rights of the press. 4. What are your views on the extent to which the overall public interest is currently well served, both in principle and in practice, by the current balance between the public interest in the freedom of the press and free expression on the one hand, and competing aspects of the public interest on the other? In your opinion, what

Chapter 2 | The Approach A changes if any would be desirable in this respect, in order to maximise the overall public interest? If relevant, please state whether those changes should be voluntary or obligatory.

Press ethics 5. What would be the distinguishing features of the conduct and practices of a media industry, or any organisation which was a part of that industry, which would make it an 'ethical' one? 6. In particular, to whom might the press be considered to owe ethical duties, and why? What might be the content of such duties? To what extent might such duties come into conflict, and how should any such conflicts be resolved? The Inquiry is particularly interested in the following as potentially owed ethical duties, but there may be others: (a) readers and consumers of the media (b) persons who are the subject matter of stories and other media products (c) the wider public (d) employees, journalists and other producers of the media (e) shareholders, investors, advertisers and others with an economic interest in the media. 7. What role might reasonably be expected to be played by a code of conduct in encouraging, inculcating or enforcing ethical behaviour by the press? What would be the distinguishing principles and features of any code of ethical conduct with universal application to the media industry? 8. To what extent does the media industry's Code of Practice (http://www.pcc.org. uk/cop/practice.html) meet the needs of an ethical code? 9. What approach would you recommend to the consideration of improvement to the nature, status, content and enforceability of the current Code? Are there changes to either content or enforceability of the current Code you would wish to see? Please explain your thinking. 10. What other changes would you consider desirable in order to encourage or constrain the press to improved standards of ethical conduct and practice? Your answer should explain the standards you consider appropriate and why, whether conformity should be encouraged or constrained, and how."

Challenging the evidence 3.1 Litigation in this country is generally conducted by way of adversarial process. In other words,

subject to the over-riding control of the court, the parties to the litigation define the issues and the evidence to be adduced, each side disclosing the evidence on which it is intended to rely and calling such witnesses as it feels necessary to prove its case. Witnesses called by one side are cross-examined by the other side or sides, challenging evidence which is disputed and 'putting' the case which is to be advanced so that the witness can deal with the allegations made against him or her. The role of the judge or tribunal is to stand in the middle of the exercise, intervening in the evidence to elucidate or seek explanation and then listen to the opposing arguments of the parties both as to the facts and the law, before ultimately deciding the issues at stake. Inquisitorial proceedings (more common in civil law than common law jurisdictions) are led by the judge or tribunal and involve active participation the investigation

¶A PART A | The Inquiry

of the facts. There will still be an important role for the legal representatives of the parties to ensure that their 'case' is fully considered.

¶3.2 The purpose of an Inquiry is not to resolve issues between parties to litigation; there are no

parties and there is no litigation in place. On more than one occasion, it has appeared that at least one Core Participant has treated itself as if in adversarial litigation with the Inquiry but that is to misunderstand both the Inquiry and the role of those who participate in it. The role of the Core Participants has been to assist the Inquiry in the elucidation of the facts which form the substratum of the Terms of Reference and then to make submissions on the way forward. The point was made in specific connection to this Inquiry by Lord Justice Moses in the first of the challenges by Elaine Decoulos to my failure to grant her Core Participant status. He said [2011] EWHC 3214 (Admin) at para 5:

"The purpose of the Inquiry is not to vindicate individuals' sufferings or claims they may have due to mistreatment by the press, but rather for all of us as citizens concerned at the relations between the press, institutions and the public."

¶3.3 The role of Core Participants is, therefore, totally different to that of the parties to litigation

and very much more constrained than the role that might be adopted even in inquisitorial proceedings which are directed to dealing with individual complaints or claims. Furthermore, the part that is or can be taken by Core Participants (or anyone else) is defined by statute and does not fall within the general discretion of the Inquiry. Thus, Rule 10 of the Inquiry Rules 2006 is in these terms:

(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) to (5), where a witness is giving oral evidence at an inquiry hearing, only counsel to the inquiry ... and the inquiry panel may ask the witness questions. (2) Where a witness, whether a core participant or otherwise, has been questioned orally in the course of an inquiry hearing pursuant to paragraph (1), the chairman may direct that the recognised legal representative of that witness may ask the witness questions. (3) Where – (a) witness other than a core participant has been questioned orally in the course of an inquiry hearing by counsel to the inquiry, or by the inquiry panel; and (b) that witness's evidence directly relates to the evidence of another witness, the recognised legal representative of the witness to whom the evidence relates may apply to the chairman for permission to question the witness who has given oral evidence. (4) The recognised legal representative of a core participant may apply to the chairman for permission to ask questions of a witness giving oral evidence. (5) When making an application under paragraphs (3) or (4), the recognised legal representative must state – (a) the issues in respect of which a witness is to be questioned; and (b) whether the questioning will raise new issues or, if not, why the questioning should be permitted.

¶3.4 As early as 6 September 2011, I raised this provision and the potential consequences of it, observing that given the pressure on the Inquiry, subject to submissions, I "may well" require

Chapter 2 | The Approach A issues which Core Participants wished to raise to be discussed with Counsel to the Inquiry in the first instance; he would then be able to conduct such cross-examination as he believed appropriate and, at the same time, restrict other cross-examination.23 That was, in fact, the way in which the Inquiry proceeded but it did so in an even-handed way. By way of example, although Core Participants for affected newspapers suggested questions and lines of enquiry in relation to those who complained that they had been the victims of illegal or unethical press attention (and many of these were pursued by Counsel to the Inquiry when the witnesses gave evidence), I did not permit these witnesses to be cross examined in a manner that could have been appropriate in civil proceedings: I was not prepared to allow them potentially to be victimised again simply because they wished to complain about what had happened to them. Similarly, not only did I prevent cross examination by Core Participants of journalists and others in relation to the subject matter of criminal investigation; subject to specific exceptions and the requirements of fairness enshrined in s17(3) of the Inquiries Act 2005, neither did I generally permit it in relation to other allegations of illegal or unethical conduct.

¶3.5 That is not to say that the evidence has not been probed: that is the role that Counsel to the

Inquiry has undertaken with rigour but always with an eye to the Terms of Reference in general and addressing the culture, practices and ethics of the press in particular. Notwithstanding the general approach, however, some aspects of the evidence have been subject to detailed examination.

¶Findings of fact 3.6 Although the constraints relating to the examination of witnesses are written into the statute

and thus have bound me, I would not want it to be thought that I considered them to be inappropriate or inimical to the interests of justice in this particular Inquiry. Quite the reverse. Had the procedure been otherwise, this Inquiry need never have finished. In relation to the press and the public, the Inquiry has not only looked at the historical position but has traversed over 20 years of journalistic activity. Hundreds of complaints have been made and, although there is no issue about many, a lot more have been the subject of challenge (to greater or lesser effect) and could have given rise to detailed factual investigation. Those few stories that have been investigated in depth inevitably took a great deal of time: had it been necessary for each one, the time taken would have been inordinate.24

¶3.7 Further, the Inquiry covered far more than the press and the public. The relationship between

the press and the police covered the tenure of no fewer than five Commissioners of Police for the Metropolis and crossed all national titles. Other forces, their press offices and local papers were also the subject of evidence. As for the relationship between press and politicians, in the same way that time was devoted to the bid by News Corp for the remaining shares in BSkyB Ltd, so many dominating political stories (from Iraq to the Euro) have been subject to rigorous and detailed analysis. Many have argued that this the Inquiry should have proceeded in this way on the basis that all were or may have been affected or influenced by the way in

¶A PART A | The Inquiry

which they were reported. The same is said for the development of press handling by the Government over the last 20 years. The effect, however, would have been an Inquiry that would have taken many years, by the end of which time the specific concerns which brought about the Inquiry in the first place (and, in particular, the issue of the regulation of the press) would have remained unaddressed, other than in whatever way the press chose themselves to address them in the meantime. That was not the brief that was contained within Part 1 of the Terms of Reference and it is not how I have sought to address them.

¶3.8 This means that a large number of specific individual incidents have not been the subject of

very detailed factual investigation so that, subject to very limited exceptions, I do not feel in a position to make findings of fact as to what did and did not occur; neither, for the purposes of addressing the Terms of Reference is it necessary that I do so. One example, the subject of considerable press comment, will suffice.

¶3.9 Prior to autumn 2009, The Sun had supported the Labour Party in the three preceding

General Elections. During the Labour Party conference, it decided to make public a change in allegiance and thereafter to support the Conservative Party. For present purposes, although relevant to the issue of the impact of proprietors on editorial policy, the circumstances of that decision do not matter. When giving evidence, Rupert Murdoch said that after this decision had been publicised in September 2009, he received a telephone call from the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP, which included the observation by Mr Brown that "your company has declared war on my government and we have no alternative but to make war on your company."25 Both in his statement and in his evidence, Mr Brown emphatically denied having any conversation with Mr Murdoch, still less making such a remark. When he gave evidence he said: "This conversation never took place. I'm shocked and surprised that it should be suggested, ... There was no such conversation."26 He provided telephone records from the Downing Street switchboard (through which he says any such telephone call would have been routed) backing up this denial.

¶3.10 It has been suggested that it is important that I resolve this conflict of evidence and express

my view as to where the truth lies. I decline to do so for two very different reasons. The first is very important in the context of the nature of the Inquiry and the manner in which it has had to be approached both as a matter of statute but also, as I have indicated, practicality. It is possible to postulate circumstances in which the question of whether this telephone call took place was central to the resolution of civil litigation between the parties. In that event, considerable investigation would have focussed around the precise date and time of the alleged telephone call; questions would have been addressed to Mr Murdoch as to how he said that the call had been connected; phone records and other documents sought on discovery. Mr Murdoch would have been cross-examined at length by counsel for Mr Brown and vice versa. The question who to believe would have been capable of decision within a far fuller factual matrix. To do so, in particular, without permitting cross-examination seems to me to be unfair to both men.

¶3.11 I recognise that judges are sometimes required to make difficult factual decisions with very

little more than the information available and, if it was critical to do so, I would have had to do the best that I could. That leads me to the second reason. In short, it is neither critical nor, indeed, necessary to decide where the truth of this conversation lies: save in the limited respect of the credibility of Mr Murdoch, it is not relevant to the Terms of Reference at all.

Chapter 2 | The Approach A On any showing, Mr Brown would hardly have been pleased about the loss of the support for his Government of The Sun;whether and if so how he chose to communicate his view simply takes the Inquiry no further.27

¶3.12 In part, I have gone into the detail of this particular factual conflict because of the interest

and concern that has been expressed about it. Of greater importance as a reason for doing so has been to explain the limitations of the forensic exercise that it has been possible to undertake while addressing the very wide Terms of Reference within the broad timeframe within which I have been asked to report. This Report will not provide all the answers to all the questions that could possibly arise out of the uncountable number of issues that have been raised in evidence. Those who are expecting it to do so will be disappointed.

Other material 4.1 The material which can fall to be used by the Inquiry is not, however, limited to the statements

that have been put into evidence. It has fallen to me to determine what should be part of that record; I have deliberately adopted as wide a definition of relevance as possible, in order to ensure that as full a picture of the culture, practices and ethics of the press can be put into the public domain by the Inquiry. In that way, the public can itself make a collective decision based on the same material that has been available to me. Thus, both in advance of the Inquiry and while it has been proceeding, different press titles have throughout presented the evidence and the issues (or their perception of each) and commented on the approach, asserting facts and reaching their own conclusions both as to what I have been doing and what I have been thinking. Some titles, conversely, have offered minimal, if any, coverage of the Inquiry for their readers. Free speech requires no less and although I have occasionally raised concerns about factual accuracy,28 I stand fully behind the freedom of the press to comment critically about me, my approach, the evidence and any other aspect of the Inquiry that it sees fit to write about.

¶4.2 Very quickly, however, it became apparent that the way in which the Inquiry was being

reported told its own story about the culture and practices of the press. In the circumstances, in addition to the other evidence that has been read into the record of the Inquiry, I also decided that the product of a press cuttings service dealing with the Inquiry should also be read into the record. At several stages during the course of the hearings, I have made this fact clear.

¶4.3 The Inquiry has not been alone in commenting on the way in which the press have reported

the Inquiry. Private Eye has regularly published commentary on the way in which it has been reported; the campaign (on the website http://hackinginquiry.org/) has done the same. Bloggers have added their own comment and the Inquiry has engaged with Twitter (http:// twitter.com/@levesoninquiry) on which there has been a regular and substantial dialogue about the Inquiry both in this country and abroad. This also is a very powerful example of the proper manifestation of free speech.

¶A PART A | The Inquiry

Submissions

¶5.1 In addition to leading Counsel to the Inquiry, all those who were Core Participants for Module

One made formal opening submissions at its commencement.29 There were submissions at the start of Module Two from Mr Jay, and also on behalf of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and the Metropolitan Police Authority (now the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime).30 Module Three was opened only by Mr Jay.31

¶5.2 In the same way, Counsel to the Inquiry and the Core Participants have assisted me with

argument in relation to the rulings to which I have referred above and other issues that have arisen during the course of the hearings. On more than one occasion, it was necessary to deal with disclosure of information that had been shared with Core Participants in advance of its publication: these were highly relevant during the course of the hearings but are now unnecessary further to rehearse.32 Submissions have also been received dealing with issues of evidence, on the approach to Rule 13 of the Inquiry Rules 2006 and in relation to the standard of proof, the last two of which I deal with below. Submissions have generally in writing and supplemented orally; all are also published on the website so that it is possible to see the entirety of the argument put before me as well as the ruling that followed.

¶5.3 Final submissions on various aspects of the Inquiry have also been received following the

conclusion of the various modules. In the main, they have been extremely thorough, very detailed and, as a consequence, extremely lengthy. They have clearly been the product of an enormous amount of work and I am grateful for the effort and very great care that has been put into them. The fact that some arguments and submissions have not been specifically addressed in this Report is not intended as a discourtesy either to the writers or to the arguments. Inevitably, this Report has had to focus on the Terms of Reference, whereas the relevant Core Participants have understandably cast their nets rather wider in order to deal both with the generality and the specifics of some of the issues that have been raised to such extent as they affect them.

¶5.4 Although it was always anticipated that it could be necessary to re-convene the Inquiry, to

obtain updated information in relation to the police investigations and to receive any other important evidence that had emerged following the conclusion of the hearings in July 2012, written and oral closing submissions were invited and presented by most (but not all) of the Core Participants. To such extent as they address the future, they shall be analysed during the

Chapter 2 | The Approach A course of the consideration of the regulatory regime, although I shall be doing so from the perspective of 'the press' as opposed to the extent to which individual titles have behaved in such a way as requires a different approach to regulation. I saw no value in Counsel to the Inquiry making a closing submission and he did not do so.

Engagement with the public: the website 6.1 Before turning to the issues of law that have had to be considered as part of the Report

writing process, I return to the website because it is appropriate to say something more about the way in which the Inquiry has sought to involve the public in its process and ensure that the evidence which has been given has received the widest audience.

¶6.2 I have referred to the questions that were posted on the Inquiry website as each module

came to be discussed in the evidence. The purpose was to engage with as wide a reach of members of the public as possible and to obtain as wide a range of views as possible. The extent of that response can be judged from Appendix B which sets out a detailed record of the type and number of communications received by the Inquiry through the general mailbox or otherwise. Where it was possible to do so, every communication (a number of which were anonymous) was acknowledged and considered so that a decision could be taken as to whether it was right to take what was said forward in any way. Although I recognise that a number of those who wrote will have been disappointed that they were not given the opportunity to give oral evidence, I explicitly recognise and pay tribute to the very hard work that has been put into ensuring that all the observations have been received have been acted upon appropriately.

¶6.3 Appendix B also identifies the number of times up to the end of October 2012 that the

Inquiry website has been accessed along with its reach. I believe that the Inquiry has done as much as could reasonably have been expected to engage with the public would be surprised if any public inquiry has achieved as much public access. I have no doubt that this has all contributed to the public reaction to events and the further debate as to the way forward.

¶A

ChapTer 3 FurTher issues oF Law

Rule 13 of the Inquiry Rules 2006: the approach

¶1.1 Prior to the publication of any Report which includes explicit or significant criticism of any

person, the Inquiry Rules 2006 mandate that such a person must be warned of that criticism and given a reasonable opportunity to respond. I set out the background and the legal framework in a ruling on the Application of Rule 131 which I can do no better than repeat:

"8. One of the touchstones of the inquisitorial process prescribed by the 2005 [Inquiries] Act is the requirement of fairness to all. Whereas s. 17(1) of the Act provides that the procedure and conduct of the Inquiry shall be such as I direct, that provision is subject to s. 17(3) in these terms: "In making any decision as to the procedure or conduct of an inquiry, the chairman must act with fairness and with regard to the need to avoid any unnecessary cost (whether to public funds or to witnesses or others)." 9. No higher manifestation of that duty is apparent than that which deals with the requirement that those who may be criticised in any report have the opportunity afforded to them to deal with the basis of that criticism. The origin is to be found in the Royal Commission on Tribunals of Inquiry (Cmnd 3121, 1966) ("the Salmon Report") which proposed, among other recommendations, that before a person was called as a witness, he should be informed of any allegations which are made against him and the substance of the evidence in support of them: thus were born Salmon letters although over-rigid adherence has been recognised as 'unhelpful': see the observations of Sir Richard Scott VC (in (1995)¹¹¹¹¹¹ HL Hansard, 09 October 1990, Volume 522, Column 169, http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1990/oct/09/ broadcasting-bill p83, lines 17-21, Carla Buzasi, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-8-February-2012.pdf p587, lines 14-23, Baroness Buscombe, ibid pp45-46, lines 24-23, ibid p2, para 14, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Witness-statement-of-Anna-van- Heeswijk.pdf http://www.atkinsthomson.com/07.06.2011%20-%20Sienna%20Miller%20Statement%20in%20Open%20Court.pdf in order to protect the privacy of the Bowles family to such extent as is possible, and notwithstanding the fact that the information is, at least to a large extent, in the public domain and available, this Report will not publish references to their names, the precise articles or photographs or other family details p70-71, Piers Morgan http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of-Afternoon- Hearing-20-December-2011.pdf; p19, para 40, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Chief- Constable-Matthew-Baggott.pdf p8, para 42, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Sean-ONeill. pdf p1, para 1, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/RJT-Exhibit-18.pdf pp1-6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Exhibit-GB6-to-Witness-Statement-of- Gordon-Brown-MP-Black.pdf p3, lines 17-23, Rupert Murdoch, ibid p65, lines 11-15, Sir John Major, ibid p8, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Exhibit-KRM-18.pdf ibid p9, paras 54-55, ibid K p34, lines 16-21, Lord Black, ibid p38, para 119, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Lord-Hunt-of- K Wirral.pdf This includes organisations such as the Chinese Federation of Labour, the China Youth League or the All-China Women's Federation [2004] 2 AC 457Show full note LQR 596) to the effect that every inquiry must adapt its procedures to meet its own circumstances. 10. The next manifestation of this requirement (described as 'fair play in action' by Sachs LJ in Re Pergamon Press Ltd [1971] Ch 388 at 405) dealt with comment on proposed criticism. Mr Robert Maxwell's attempt to obtain sight of proposed draft conclusions was rejected in the Court of Appeal when Lawton LJ put the matter in this way: see Maxwell v Department of Trade and Industry [1974] QB 523 at page 541B- D: "Those who conduct inquiries have to base their decisions, findings, conclusions or opinions ... on the evidence. In my judgment they are no more bound to tell a witness likely to be criticised in their report what they have in mind to say about him than has a judge sitting alone who has to decide which of two conflicting witnesses is telling the truth. The judge must ensure that the witness whose credibility is suspected has a fair opportunity of correcting or contradicting the substance of what other witnesses have said or are expected to say which is in conflict with his testimony. Inspectors should do the same but I can see no reason why they should do any more." 11. Notwithstanding these judicial observations, the broad process was adopted by Lord Bingham in the BCCI Inquiry, by Sir Richard Scott in the Inquiry into Matrix Churchill and also by Sir John Chilcott in the Iraq Inquiry. This lack of clarity is itself unhelpful and potentially productive either of very substantial delay or satellite litigation (in each case with attendant cost) or both.

¶http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Application-of-Rule-13-of-the-Inquiry-Rules-2006.pdf

Chapter 3 | Further Issues of Law A 12. The 2005 Act (pursuant to which this Inquiry is being conducted) adopts a different and, in my judgment, self-contained approach to ensure fairness. First, s.²¹²¹ http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Draft-Criteria-for-a-Regulatory-Solution.pdf pp1-2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Dr-Rowan-Cruft.pdf p10 ibid ibid p5, para 21, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Summary-of-Evidence-presented-by- the-BBC.pdf pp6-7, paras 13-17, ibid ibid, p102 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmcumeds/532/53204.htm pp27-28, lines 14-19, Alexander Owens, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-5-December-2011.pdf Although this aspect of the evidence has not been investigated in detail, it contrasts with the evidence of Steven Nott who spoke about the security ramifications of the messaging system to Vodafone as long ago as 1999 before seeking to interest the press, the television and other mobile providers in the issue: http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Witness-Statement-of-Steven-Nott.pdf pp6-7, paras 22 and 24, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Third-Witness-Statement- of-DAC-Sue-Akers.pdf p3, para 4, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Fifth-Witness-Statement-of-Richard- Caseby.pdf pp3-10, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Matthew-Sprake. pdf Mr Sprake may prefer to call himself a photographer, but in substance he was a private investigator equipped with a camera p32, lines 9-25, Paul McMullan, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-29-November-2011.pdf pp16-17, lines 23-1, Gerry McCann, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-23-November-2011.pdf p22, para 43 http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-JK-Rowling2. pdf p50, lines 10-25, Thomas Mockridge, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-17-January-2012.pdf; p119, lines 5-17, Hugh Whittow; p9, lines 3-18, Nicole Patterson, http:// www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-12-January-2012. pdf; pp12-13, lines 15-end, John Witherow, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-17-January-2012.pdf; p5, para 25, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Justin-Walford.pdf; p13, para 49, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Richard-Wallace.pdf; p9, para 33, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-John-Witherow.pdf p3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Sandra-Laville.pdf p2, para 6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Sandra-Laville. pdf p40, lines 10-15, John Twomey, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-19-March-20121.pdf Part G Chapter 3 pp25-26, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-5- December-2011.pdf pp38-39, lines 13-39, Alexander Owens, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-30-November-2011.pdf pp36-37, lines 25-7, Philip Coppel, ibid p119, lines 19-24, Richard Thomas, ibid p51, lines 12-18, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-25-April-2012.pdf p81, lines 14-19, Tony Blair, ibid David Cameron, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Exhibit-DC-2.pdf pp2-4, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Exhibit-KRM-10.pdf European Intervention Notice, 4 November 2010, p245, Dr Vince Cable, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2012/05/Exhibit-VC1-2.pdf p53, lines 14-19, ibid p22, lines 22-23, ibid pp29-30, para 5.52-5.55, ibid pp71-71, lines 8-3, Sheryl Gascoigne, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-23-November-20111.pdf [2012] EWCA Civ 1288; http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1288.html p6, para 37, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Witness-Statement-of-Baroness- Buscombe1.pdf p2, para 7, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Tim-Suter-of- Perspective-Associates.pdf p22, para 31, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Lord-Black-of- Brentwood1.pdf K pp35-36, lines 3-13, Angela Philips, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-13-July-20121.pdf pp5-6, para 2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Submission-by-George-Eustice-MP. pdf Defamation Act Schedule 2.7, http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2009/en.act.2009.0031.pdf K p44, lines 19-21, Evgeny Lebedev, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-23-April-2012.pdf Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.42 See remarks of Munby J in Kelly v BBC [2001] Fam 59 at 70, summarising that proper evidence, rather than assertion or assumption will be requiredShow full note of the Act provides that I may by notice require any person to provide evidence in the form of a written statement along with documents. Such notices have identified, in comprehensive terms, the issues with which the statement has been required to deal; where appropriate, it has identified relevant documents or other public statements which should be addressed. It cannot, of course, deal with evidence not then seen by the Inquiry but where issues of significance have arisen before the witness arrives, forewarning has been given and, if necessary, witnesses allowed time to deal with a matter for which they were not prepared. Where the issue has arisen only after the witness has given evidence, again if it is significant, second statements have been requested and obtained; more than one witness has been required to return to give further evidence. 13. The second (and most extensive) protection is provided by Rules 13-15 of the Inquiry Rules 2006 ('the 2006 Rules') which concern what are described as Warning Letters. Thus, Rule 13 provides: (1) The Chairman may send a warning letter to any person: (a) he considers maybe, or who has been, subject to criticism in the inquiry proceedings; or (b) about whom criticism may be inferred from evidence that has been given during the inquiry proceedings; or (c) who may be subject to criticism in the report, or any interim report. (2) The recipient of a warning letter may disclose it to his recognised legal representative. (3) The inquiry panel must not include any explicit or significant criticism of a person in the report, or in any interim report, unless (a) the chairman has sent that person a warning letter; and (b) the person has been given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the warning letter."

¶1.2 In my ruling, I explained the ways in which I have sought to ensure that the Inquiry was

conducted fairly and with full regard to the position of all who might be affected. In relation to Rule 13, therefore, I concluded that a warning addressed to a section of the press consisting of the national titles (even if a number of those have not been the subject of criticism or complaint) allowed each to make submissions as to the conclusions that I should draw as to the culture, practices and ethics of the press generally (as opposed to the specific conduct of individual titles although it has been made clear titles have been free to comment on stories which are identifiably referable to them). I went on to conclude not only that generic criticisms should be evidence based, but that the justification for my concerns should be "visible and capable of being understood both by those affected and by the public".2

¶1.3 I appreciate (as was argued by Mr Desmond Browne QC for Trinity Mirror plc) that this could

allow anyone following the references through to the transcript to identify the titles and, perhaps, the relevant journalists; in reality, however, that would be possible whether or not I identified the references and, on the basis that I have not made specific findings in most individual cases, this approach does not offend the general principle that I am not focussing

¶2 p15, para 41, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Application-of-Rule-13-of-the- Inquiry-Rules-2006.pdf

¶A PART A | The Inquiry

on the detail of 'who did what to whom'. It is equally consistent with the principle that my intention not to prejudice criminal proceedings means that I have not identified those alleged to have been involved in mobile phone interception; therefore, in fairness, although there are exceptions when I have considered that the narrative compels specificity, generally speaking, I have exercised similar restraint in respect of those, not being investigated, who may be responsible for similar or other illegal or unethical practices.

¶1.4 Conscious that any approach to Rule 13 was likely to be contentious, I arranged for the matter

to be argued in principle and ruled on the approach generally. This ruling fell within to s38(1) (b) of the Inquiries Act 2005 and had any Core Participant wished to challenge it by way of judicial review, that course was open within 14 days. There was no such challenge and, insofar as generic criticism is concerned, I have followed it.

¶1.5 I have, however, issued Rule 13 warnings to individuals (and others concerned with the

relationship between the press and the public) in those circumstances where I thought fairness warranted it and, in particular, when I was concerned that any conclusion that I might reach in relation to a specific incident could be said to contain an express or implied criticism of them. The touchstone has been to provide an opportunity to make representations about identifiable concerns that I was proposing to express.

¶1.6 Having said that, it is important that I emphasise that this Report should not be read as

addressing the individual conduct of members of the press in their dealings with the public and no implied criticism should be read into the fact that references to particular complaints are inevitably to particular stories written by identifiable journalists (albeit not named in the text of the Report). I cannot repeat too often that this part of the Inquiry is not concerned with individual conduct but with the culture, practices and ethics of the press (or a section of the press) as a whole. Who would be to blame for a particular egregious story? Would it be a proprietor or editor who ordained a particular approach or a particular agenda? Would it be the journalist who felt driven to do what had been bidden irrespective of personal qualms? Would it be the sub-editor who wrote a headline that misrepresented what should be derived from correctly identified facts or modified the words of caution that the journalist had carefully included? How could I decide between these cumulative or alternative possibilities? In the circumstances, I have only been able to take the story at face value along with the reaction of the subject of the story and my view of the law (for example in relation to privacy) and the Editors' Code of Practice.

¶1.7 The result of this analysis is that, in relation to most of the complaints made by those who

have been subject to press intrusion I have not issued Rule 13 letters. This is because I do not intend either expressly or by implication to make explicit or significant criticism of the relevant journalists (rather than, generically, of the press). If I had done otherwise, hundreds of journalists (if not more), most of whom have neither been asked nor volunteered to give evidence to the Inquiry or even to make a statement, would have had to receive a warning. Having said that, if, in any particular case or in relation to any particular example that I wish to highlight, I have been in doubt, I have issued a warning and provided an opportunity for representations to be made. In reaching my conclusions, I have taken full account of the representations that I have received in response to all these warnings including those issued generically to the press.

¶1.8 In relation to Module Two and the police, different considerations apply on the basis that there being no ongoing criminal investigation into the conduct of the MPS (although there are

Chapter 3 | Further Issues of Law A inquiries into other aspects of police conduct in relation to the press).3 On the other hand, I received detailed submissions from Counsel for the MPS both generally and specifically as to the interaction of Parts 1 and 2 of the Inquiry. In the circumstances, I separately ruled in relation to the application of Rule 13 both to the MPS and to individual police officers.4 Again, I have followed it and issued Rule 13 letters both general and specific in nature, taking full account of the representations that I have received.

¶1.9 Module Three raised different issues for a number of reasons. First, there is no criminal

investigation that could affect my approach and, in addition, it does not appear that there will be any other consideration of the general issues which I have to address in the Terms of Reference; that might be thought to be a basis for encouraging me to range further and wider than in relation to the other modules. On the other hand, the Terms of Reference are specific to the culture, practices and ethics of the press 'including contacts and the relationships between national newspapers and politicians, and the conduct of each'. It is argued that the Inquiry should investigate the nature of friendships between individual members of the press and individual politicians but, save to the extent that these bite or may bite upon the way in which a journalist (or politician) attend to his or her professional duties, it does not appear to me that it is necessary or appropriate for me to enquire. Throughout the hearing of Module Three, I emphasised that politicians were entitled to be friendly with whosoever they wished; absent some impact on the public interest, it is no part of the work of the Inquiry to challenge that right.

¶1.10 Second, each of the major UK political parties has recognised, in general terms, that the

relationship between politicians and the press has become too close: indeed, that was the conclusion expressed by the Prime Minister and his three predecessors when they gave evidence. For me to express that conclusion, however, undeniably constitutes an 'explicit or significant criticism' in respect of which I must issue a Rule 13 letter. Such a criticism, however, is not intended to be personal but generic. It recognises that how close is too close is itself a very difficult and nuanced issue, given that it is critically important, in a democratic society, that politicians engage with the press and seek to explain their policies to the public through the press.

¶1.11 The third concern has been the extent to which the work of the Inquiry has involved

contemporary political issues with the risk of entering into a party political debate which is no part of its function: this particularly relates to the attempted acquisition News Corp of the publicly owned shares in BSkyB Ltd. I made it clear that I would not opine on the Ministerial Code or seek to prevent Parliament from investigating whatever aspect of the bid it wished to investigate;5 however, I recognise that it constitutes the most recent and most well documented inter-reaction between a very powerful media organisation and politicians (although the interaction in relation to the legislative proposals now contained in s77-78 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 which has not yet been implemented are also important). I have, therefore, attempted to analyse these issues from a general, cultural perspective: the process has inevitably involved a consideration of individual decisions and, on the basis that, even if not explicit, implied significant criticism may be inferred, I have issued appropriate warnings accordingly.

¶A PART A | The Inquiry

¶1.12 I can deal with Module Four quite shortly. In this Report, each of the ideas put before the

Inquiry has been subject to rigorous analysis and none more so than the proposals advanced by Lord Black of Brentwood (on behalf of the Press Board of Finance) and advocated by, among others, Lord Hunt of Wirral, the Chairman of the Press Complaints Commission. It is right that they should be, not least because, from the outset of the Inquiry and throughout, I encouraged the press to put forward their own ideas for press regulation, bearing in mind not only the values which it held to be important but also the interests of the public as demonstrated not only by the demand for this Inquiry but also by the evidence which has been given to it.

¶1.13 I appreciate that Lord Black has had to deal with a wide spread of press interest; I have no

doubt that different constituents have put forward different priorities and different ideas and that, furthermore, Lord Black has done his best to bring everyone to a common consensus which I expect is also consistent with his own ideas. Any concern or criticism that I have of the final formulation, however, is not a criticism of him or, indeed, any other person whether individual or corporate: neither should it be seen as such. In those circumstances, I have not felt it appropriate or necessary to give advance warning of my concerns but have simply set them out in the body of the Report.

Rule 13 of the Inquiry Rules 2006: the practice

¶2.1 The reason for the existence of Rule 13 of the Inquiry Rules is clear from this analysis. Flowing

from that, however, are two further consequences. The first is the fact that a notice is only necessary to address potential criticism: it is not intended to present a balanced picture of any sort. Nobody needs to be warned of the risk that their conduct might be applauded. The point was clear from the body of the letter which explained:

"By definition, this letter is focussed on the aspects of the culture, practices and ethics of the press which may attract criticism and it is not the function of this letter to refer to the evidence of good culture, practice and ethics which the Inquiry has received."

¶2.2 The second consequence flows from the first. A possible criticism should not be interpreted

as one that will inevitably be made. As a result, the letter also made it clear that both it and any response were subject to "a legal duty of confidence" owed in the public interest under Rule 14(1)(b) of the Inquiry Rules 2006.6 This requirement (expressly mandated in the Rules) is specifically designed to discourage public discussion or debate about criticisms which have not yet been made and which could well, in the end, be less serious. It was and is, therefore, a demonstrable attempt to be fair and to provide an opportunity to those who might be affected to make submissions about possible criticism at a time when, as I made clear, I was continuing to reflect on the narrative and conclusions which I would reach and before I had done so.

¶2.3 Thus, although it has been portrayed as such, the letter is not intended to be a secret: it is

only confidential until the Report is signed or published,7 after which time anyone is free to discuss the letters, criticise their content and analyse the extent to which my views might have changed. My concluded view, as expressed in the Report, will then be available.

Chapter 3 | Further Issues of Law A

¶2.4 It is therefore not in the least surprising that the letters are "one-sided," that the positive

should not be subject to a similar letter, or that I would be concerned if the contents were being openly discussed in the press.8 All are, of course, entitled to express whatever view they wish about the summary of press practice that can be culled from the evidence but it is worth repeating (not for the first, or the last, time) that the criticisms that I have suggested were not directed at the entirety of the press: most journalists, most if not all the time, do not behave in the way that, on my assessment of the evidence, a small but not insignificant number have behaved, thereby generating criticism of the culture that permitted this to happen, the practices involved and the ethics of those who have behaved in that way. As in every other walk of life, regulation is required for the small minority.

¶2.5 A number of recipients of Rule 13 letters have questioned the fairness of the process on various

grounds, and I should record that I have considered these objections and submissions with great care, always in the context of my ultimate obligation under section 17 of the Inquiries Act to act fairly. I am completely satisfied that all recipients who have chosen to submit substantive responses have understood the issues in respect of which I have sought further assistance, and have addressed them in appropriate detail. In the few instances where it appeared that recipients might have misunderstood the point that I wished them to have the opportunity to address, I have provided further explanation and given them that opportunity. In the result, many of my provisional conclusions have been revised or reformulated to reflect the Rule 13 process and the representations that I have received.

The nature and standard of proof 3.1 The starting point for any consideration of the nature of what must be proved and the standard

of proof is, from the outset, to recognise that the Inquiry has been set up specifically because "particular events have caused ... public concern".9 To some extent, it is sufficient simply to refer back to the Terms of Reference of Part 1 of the Inquiry but, summarising at least the most important of these events, it would be appropriate to include as topics about which I have been required to inquire:

(a) the disclosure of the interception of Milly Dowler's mobile phone messages and the deletion of such messages; (b) the fact that it was common ground that the News of the World had engaged in interception of mobile phone messages (revealed in civil litigation and otherwise) contrary to the continued assertion that Clive Goodman was one "rogue reporter"; (c) other complaints of illegal or unethical methods by which journalists obtained stories (not the least significant being activity in breach of Data Protection legislation leading to a concern about the policy, operation and effectiveness of the regulatory regime for data protection); (d) the harassment and pressure placed both on members of the public caught up in stories attracting enormous press coverage and those in the public eye whether because of

¶A PART A | The Inquiry

their celebrity or otherwise; (e) the failure of the Press Complaints Commission to address the activities of the News of the World (save only to exonerate them and criticise The Guardian for its reporting); to provide adequate regulatory oversight in relation to the press; to provide adequate redress for those complaining of press misconduct save in limited circumstances; and to ensure that its remit embraced the press as a whole; (f) the nature of the relationship between the press and the police and, in particular, the extent to which failure of the police properly to investigate the extent of interception of mobile phone messages was a consequence of that relationship; (g) the way in which politicians engaged with the press and, in particular, the extent to which the commercial interests of the press influenced the development or implementation of policy, along with the failure to address prior concerns over many years relating to media misconduct; and (h) the impact of the plurality of the media and cross media ownership on the public interest.

¶3.2 More important than the topics about which I am required to inquire are the subjects

about which I am required to make recommendations. It is sufficient to repeat the Terms of Reference which are expressed in this way:

"To make recommendations: (a) for a new more effective policy and regulatory regime which supports the integrity and freedom of the press, the plurality of the media, and its independence, including from Government, while encouraging the highest ethical and professional standards; (b) for how future concerns about press behaviour, media policy, regulation and cross-media ownership should be dealt with by all the relevant authorities, including Parliament, Government, the prosecuting authorities and the police; (c) the future conduct of relations between politicians and the press; and (d) the future conduct of relations between the police and the press."

¶3.3 These issues are to be contrasted with those set out in Part 2 of the Terms of Reference,

which are specifically directed to a far more fact focussed investigation of the conduct of News International and other newspaper organisations ("the extent of unlawful or improper conduct", "the extent of corporate governance and management failures"), along with the police ("the extent to which the police received corrupt payments or other inducements, or were otherwise complicit in such misconduct or in suppressing its proper investigation") and politicians ("the role, if any, of politicians, public servants and others in relation to any failure to investigate wrongdoing at News International"). In Part 2, there is a requirement "to consider the implications" of what is then found to have happened. In other words, Part 1 of this Inquiry is a qualitative exercise of sufficient breadth to determine the appropriate recommendations to make for the future. Part 2 is a quantitative exercise: how extensive have been the identified failures in News International, other press organisations, the police, the political class, public servants or others? On that basis, the implications (and any additional recommendations fall to be addressed. Part 2 requires a far greater and more detailed factual investigation than has Part 1: this is not surprising given that the Terms of Reference were split into two because of the ongoing police investigation and the lack of clarity as to where it might lead).

Chapter 3 | Further Issues of Law A

¶3.4 Against that background it is necessary to consider the overriding obligation as to the

procedure or conduct of the Inquiry, which requires me "to act with fairness and with regard to the need to avoid any unnecessary cost".10 Further, although the Inquiry may "not rule on and has no power to determine, any person's civil or criminal liability", it is not inhibited in the discharge of its function "by any likelihood of liability being inferred from the facts that it determines or recommendations that it makes".11 Subject to this framework, the obligation is set out in s24(1) of the Inquiries Act 2005 in these terms:

"The Chairman of an inquiry must deliver a report to the Minister setting out – (a) the facts determined by the inquiry panel; (b) the recommendations of the panel ... The report may also contain anything else that the panel considers to be relevant to the terms of reference (including any recommendations the panel sees fit to make despite not being required to do so by the terms of reference)".

¶3.5 The facts as determined, however, are those which are necessary in order to provide the

context for the recommendations. Focussing on the relationship between the press and the public, therefore, the submission that a single or occasional instance of misconduct will not itself justify any adverse finding about the culture, practices or ethics of the press is to proceed on the mistaken basis of thinking quantitatively rather than qualitatively. In relation to the future of regulation, the question whether a new regime is appropriate must be asked by reference to how the present regulatory regime has dealt with such issues as have arisen and whether it retains public confidence. If problems with or concerns about the culture, practices and ethics of the press are – represented by a single or occasional example – it may not be appropriate or necessary to recommend any change. Nobody, however, has submitted that this is the case. It is not challenged that there is legitimate public concern about the regulatory regime which it is no longer suggested is fit for purpose; the issue is the extent of that problem and the benefits and detriments of possible solutions.

¶3.6 Neither does it matter that any problem is limited to one or a small number of titles. A

regulatory regime must deal with all titles and be in a position appropriately to deal with even a single recalcitrant paper; it is irrelevant if one or more title never attracts its adverse attention. To that extent, the approach of at least one newspaper group to the Inquiry, restricting itself to demonstrating how illegal or unethical activity cannot be placed at its door, has wholly missed the point. I have no intention of either applauding one paper for its culture, practices and ethics or (with the exception of the NoTW) of condemning another. The reason for the exception is so that the public do not ascribe to other titles the many criticisms that have been articulated about that one. What I sought from all Core Participants (but have not always received) was an analysis of the extent to which, as a matter of generality, there was a problem with the culture, practices and ethics of the press or a section of the press, so that it would be possible to consider a new and sufficiently robust policy and regulatory regime which supports the integrity and freedom of the press but also reflects the legitimate rights of others.

¶3.7 In argument, it has been submitted that it is appropriate for the Inquiry to express its findings

at a high level of generality. The point is made in this way. It does not matter whether, for example, phone hacking occurred only at one title or was more widespread since it is an established problem of conduct by at least part of the press which will inform the recommendations made. Similarly, the problem of intrusion on grief identified by certain

¶A PART A | The Inquiry

witnesses is a problem of conduct by at least part of the press and it matters not for the purpose of making recommendations whether it occurred only at one title, at several titles, or at all titles. From this perspective the Inquiry can find that there are 'concerns' about alleged press misconduct without determining whether the particular type of misconduct occurred on one occasion or one hundred, at one title or many. This puts the qualitative versus the quantitative argument at its highest.

¶3.8 To a point, the argument is well made and correct. I have already concluded, however, that a

single or occasional instance of misconduct may not be sufficient to justify an adverse finding about culture, practices and ethics on the basis that it is of no real significance. Neither am I prepared to proceed on the basis that the argument of 'one rogue reporter' can be replaced, by the remainder of the press, with an argument of 'one rogue newspaper title': if that is what I consider the position to be, I shall so conclude. That does not require me to decide how extensive was the practice or knowledge of phone hacking (although keeping quiet about a known abuse of the law by another title itself says something about culture, practices and ethics, on the basis that who otherwise will hold the press to account) but, in any event, illegality and unethical behaviour comes in many different forms and it is the overall picture that is critical.

¶3.9 That is not to say that I will not deal with individual cases because worked examples can

exemplify the problems that exist even in titles that are not the subject of repeated complaint and these may add to the overall picture. As a consequence, it is important to underline that it is not an inevitable inference that the culture, practices and ethics of the title affected is driven by the problem that I am exemplifying. Each generality along with each example is intended to provide or add to the narrative of facts against which to judge the regulatory regime and consider what should now take its place.

¶3.10 Against that background, a consideration of the standard of proof becomes much more

straightforward. I accept that the public interest requires that the findings of the Inquiry are expressed in such a way that can readily be understood to be a judgment on what has occurred and why any recommendations have been made and, furthermore, that the appropriate standard is that applicable in all but criminal cases, namely the balance of probability. To put it more colloquially, before reaching a conclusion, for example, that an event has happened, I must conclude that its occurrence is more likely than not. I further recognise both from an analysis of Re H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof)12 and the subsequent decisions of R(N) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region)13 and Re D14 that the application of the balance of probabilities is flexible in its application in that the more serious the allegation, the more careful the analysis of the facts will have to be not least because of the reduced likelihood of it being true.15

¶3.11 In my ruling in relation to the application of Rule 13 of the Inquiry Rules 2006, I raised the

question whether it was sufficient that I consider whether the evidence reveals such a concern about particular conduct that regulatory arrangements should be put in place to deal with that type of behaviour should it arise.16 I there had regard to the Baha Mousa Inquiry conducted by The Rt Hon Sir William Gage who, referring to s24(1) of the Inquiries Act

Chapter 3 | Further Issues of Law A 2005 (to the effect that the report could contain "anything else the panel considers relevant to the terms of reference"), concluded that it was open to him to express suspicion that an allegation is true. He recognised that such a comment would not be a finding of fact and that the power so to conclude "should be exercised sparingly".17

¶3.12 I accept that unresolved suspicions, on their own, do not provide a sufficient basis for

conclusions, in particular as to the success or otherwise of the present regulatory regime but the words 'on their own' are important. By way of example, I can conclude without difficulty that mobile phone interception was far more extensive at the NoTW than was initially admitted and I can also be satisfied that knowledge of the technique was far more widespread than the confines of the NoTW but, until the Guardian article in 2009, it was not addressed by the press or the PCC.

¶3.13 That alone is likely to be sufficient to justify a new approach to regulation but it seems to

me that I can (and should) be able to go much further. A considerable body of evidence has been adduced which gives rise to reasonable grounds for believing that knowledge of the practice was linked to its use, albeit there is not the hard evidence (such as comes from the Mulcaire material) of names, telephone numbers and the like. It seems to me that it could be possible to conclude, inferentially, on the balance of probability, that others were involved in the practice; it might be fairer, however, (and sufficient to add to the weight of any conclusion about the need for a new approach to regulation) simply to conclude that there are strong reasonable grounds for believing that it did. I recognise, however, the need for real caution before proceeding along these lines.

¶3.14 Mr Jonathan Caplan QC for Associated Newspapers Ltd argues that any general statement

that there are grounds to suspect senior executives within a section of the national press of knowledge, concealment or acquiescence in voicemail interception raised very serious reputational issues for those senior personnel reasonably considered by the public to be within that section of the press (that is to say the tabloid or popular press). It is argued that such conclusions should not be reached unless the evidence discloses objectively reasonable grounds to suspect those executives which it cannot because there has been no proper investigation of the issue.

¶3.15 I have not singled out 'senior executives' for special mention but it is important to make the

point that this should not and does not mean that, in appropriate cases, individual titles (and individual executives or journalists) will not be identified or identifiable. The effect of the argument that to do so offends my general approach is that I would not be able to reach any conclusion because to criticise any individual title or group is to criticise the editor. This is no more than a repetition of the argument that I rejected in the ruling on Rule 13 concerning the implied criticism of those involved18 which was not thereafter challenged. I am certainly prepared to accept, however, that I should not criticise any individual by name unless satisfied on the balance of probability that such criticism is justified.

¶3.16 Similar, but not identical, reasoning applies to my approach to the relations between the

press and the police (Module Two) and the press and politicians (Module Three) and I will express my conclusions about the nature and impact of those relationships on the balance of probability. In both of these cases, there is no complication of pending criminal investigation which could limit my ability to focus on individual conduct.

¶A PART A | The Inquiry

¶3.17 In connection both with the police and with politicians, the material before the Inquiry is

sufficient to reach conclusions on the important questions without having to consider issues of reasonable suspicion but the complication in these relationships arises in connection with the additional question of perception. Thus, by way of example, it has been suggested that 'deals' were struck between the press and politicians to the mutual advantage of both. That allegation has been strenuously denied both by the press and by politicians. Quite apart from that, however, there is the very different issue of whether, even assuming there was no such 'deal', the behaviour of both gave rise to legitimate perception in the public that the relationship was being conducted in a way that was not in the public interest. On that basis, it may be entirely wrong to suggest or conclude that there was impropriety of any sort but still correct to decide that the way in which the relationship is handled from the perspective both of the press and politicians requires adjustment so that each can perform their duty but in a way that does not give rise an adverse perception. A similar problem arises in connection with the relationships between the press and the police (in particular in relation to the refusal to re-open investigations into mobile phone interception).

A ChapTer 4 The reporT

Scope 1.1 The Inquiry is UK-wide in its scope. It was set up, and its Terms of Reference were finalised, with

the support of the Devolved Governments of the UK in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. In so far as my recommendations address matters within areas of devolved competence, it will of course be for the devolved administrations and legislatures to consider them in the usual way. I have not, however, sought to any extent at all in this Report to analyse the position separately from the perspective of the devolved jurisdictions, nor to acknowledge, where legal matters are considered, the points on which different law applies in different parts of the UK. My timetable did not allow for that; it would have been a very complex and time- consuming exercise. I recognise in the result that my Report may be less helpful to those with decision-making responsibilities in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, but I have sought to set out my analysis and conclusions in a sufficiently explicit and reasoned way to enable the experts within the devolved jurisdictions to see as readily as possible how they could be made to fit. I have not been made aware of any technical reason why my recommendations should not be able to be accommodated, with appropriate adjustment, in all parts of the UK, but I have not sought detailed advice on the matter. I intend no discourtesy at all by this approach and hope that those with the relevant decision-making responsibilities will understand the reasons.

Purpose 2.1 This Report fulfils three quite separate functions. First, it is an account of the Inquiry. The

purpose of the Inquiry was to inquire into the culture practices and ethics of the press and to make recommendations. By conducting the Inquiry in public and in such a way that it can be followed by anyone with an interest to do so, the story has emerged but it is important that it is collected together in one place and I have attempted to do that as a balanced account of what has transpired. Further, that balance can be checked. Anyone is able to go onto the Inquiry website, watch the play-back of the evidence, read every statement of witnesses whether called or simply introduced into the record, examine every relevant document in the form made part of that record whether specifically referred to not and consider every submission from a Core Participant or Counsel to the Inquiry and so form his or her own conclusion about the balance of the Report.

¶2.2 Collecting the material and presenting it in an ordered form has generated an additional

issue. It will quickly be obvious that some stories appear in more than one place in the narrative and some not at all. That is not because different examples of types of conduct are not available from either the material called at the Inquiry or read into the record; neither is it because of my over-reliance on a particular witness and the story that he or she had to recount. It is important to appreciate, however, that in some instances, manifestations of different criticisms come together in the same story, aggravating the wrong committed. It is equally valuable, however, to understand the same story from the perspective of the victim, simply trying to deal with life events as they occur (with the press providing its own, sometimes monumental, challenges) or, in some cases, over a lengthy period of time, again

¶A PART A | The Inquiry

and again having to confront different attacks from the same or different quarters. To tell every story was simply impractical but to say (as is frequently asserted) that the Inquiry has been 'hijacked' by celebrities is both wrong and unfair; the claim may be thought to be an attempt to divert attention away from the real harm caused to real people.

¶2.3 The second purpose of the Report is to set out my conclusions on the culture, practices and

ethics of the press and the other areas of my Terms of Reference. It is also to identify and explain my recommendations as to the way forward: that, after all, is precisely what the Terms of Reference require me to do. Both conclusions and recommendations appear throughout the Report but are, I hope, reasoned and comprehensible.

¶2.4 The third purpose of the Report is, in my view, the most important. It is to allow those

who read it to reach their own conclusions about every aspect of the Terms of Reference. From the outset (and consistently the subject of commentary throughout the hearings and subsequently), it has been suggested that a judge is wholly unsuited to the task of seeking to discern, let alone determine, how a free press should operate and how it should exercise its rights of free speech. It has been said that I have had an agenda and that the failure to involve a journalist with tabloid or mid-market experience as an assessor demonstrates a failure to understand the popular culture of journalism and an attempt to impose a broadsheet agenda when the profitable newspapers are the former not the latter. It is argued that the Terms of Reference are either too broad or too narrow. It is open to all to reach their own conclusions.

¶2.5 I have no doubt that all sections of the press will report and comment upon this Report, each

newspaper or title from its own perspective. It will be for anyone who reads the Report to decide the extent to which any comment upon it is fair in the same way that it will be for the Government (maintaining, I hope, the cross party consensus with which this Inquiry was set up) to decide how far it wishes to take the recommendations that I have made. That is where the ultimate decision making properly lies.

Timing and content

¶3.1 It is also necessary to say something about the timetable. Although the Prime Minister initially

hoped that the Report would be available within 12 months, two developments affected the prospect of such a time frame being met. The first was the extension, beyond that initially envisaged, of the Terms of Reference. More significant, however, was the appreciation that there was no body of evidence immediately available to provide the basis from which to commence the calling of witnesses; the police investigation was ongoing and therefore it was not appropriate to seek to use the evidence that had been collected during that inquiry. Thus, it was only possible to start the collection of evidence in August 2011 and, given the holiday period, it was inevitable that it would take some time to be prepared; only after it had been prepared and served could it be assimilated and the hearings commenced.

¶3.2 In the event, the oral hearings commenced on 14 November 2011 and, had it been essential

to deliver a Report by the end of July 2012, they would have had to have been concluded by April. Given the remit involving the press, the public, the police and politicians, this was simply not feasible. I therefore set different targets namely that the evidence should conclude within about 12 months of the appointment of the Inquiry and the Report should be available within about 12 months of the commencement of the evidence. I did so because I recognised the fundamental importance of early delivery of a Report so that decisions could be made and implemented as to the future within a reasonable timetable, rather than being pushed back thereby falling in the run up to a general election.

Chapter 4 | The Report A

¶3.3 Meeting the timetable has not been without consequences. In relation to the evidence, careful

selection was made of those witnesses who would be called to give evidence on oath and representations were invited from Core Participants in relation to other potential witnesses whose statements, in the absence of objection, could be read into the record without their personal attendance. Understanding the approach of the Inquiry to the evidence generally, sensible decisions were made by the Core Participants whose assistance, throughout, has been of very great value. The consequence, as I have explained, is that a vast body of evidence was not in fact the subject of oral exposition and the timetable for the hearings was met. There are, however, no different classes of evidence: although some of the material provided in writing is not referred to, it has all been considered.

¶3.4 As for the Report, the consequences are different. In an ideal world, I would have wished to

write, re-write and hone this Report so that every nuance could be the subject of mature reflection. As previous inquiries have shown, given the amount of evidence whether oral, documentary or read-in, that would have been a task of very many months duration. This Report, therefore, is the work of many hands,1 all working to my direction and reflecting my views; that is the inevitable consequence of the way in which the work has had to be done. I place on record my appreciation to all those who have collated the evidence in relation to different aspects of the Report. Having said that, I repeat that every finding of fact, every conclusion and every recommendation expressed in this Report is mine alone. Equally, any errors are my responsibility.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 That is to say, I have been assisted in the drafting by Counsel and by civil servant members of the Inquiry team; the Assessors have been invited to provide comments on drafts only where appropriate.

¶B parT B THE prESS aND THE pUBLIC INTErEST

CHapTEr 1 INTroDUCTIoN B

¶1.1 This Part of the Report alludes to some of the fundamental principles which must provide

the context for any consideration of the role of the press in the United Kingdom. It does so principally for the purpose of brief overview and explanation, and to set the scene for the narrative, analysis and recommendations which follow.

¶1.2 The principles which are set out are not simply derived from philosophical or jurisprudential

writings. Proprietors, editors and journalists wrote and spoke about the importance of what they do for all of us in the UK, and the value it has for our common life. Politicians described the principles informing their own relationship with the media, including as policy-makers. Commentators suggested the matters that the Inquiry should bear particularly in mind in approaching its task. This brief overview seeks to distil, without necessarily fully rehearsing, the essence of the points of principle which were put before the Inquiry.

¶1.3 Without seeking, or needing, to do full justice to the fine nuances of opinion which it is

possible to hold and debate about such matters, this Part of the Report aims simply to set out a framework of understanding which is relatively uncontroversial. It is therefore the intention simply to underline, to put beyond doubt, the extent to which the Inquiry has itself proceeded on the basis of the perspectives set out, and to do so in terms with which I believe that most of the public would be able broadly to agree.

¶1.4 It is also the intention of this Part of the Report to clarify some of the strands of thought which

have been woven through a great deal of the evidence the Inquiry has received. Concepts such as the freedom of the press, freedom of expression and the public interest have been much referred to in the course of the evidence. These are potent expressions, and powerful and important concepts; commensurate clarity and care is needed in their deployment in the context of a Report on the culture, practices and ethics of the press. They are concepts which are capable of being, and have been, used both rhetorically and analytically to explain and support a range of different perspectives, arguments and conclusions.

¶1.5 Attempting an all-embracing definition of concepts of this sort, even within the limitations

of the Inquiry's Terms of Reference, is neither necessary nor appropriate. Some measure of clarification is nevertheless attempted, both to underline the importance of these concepts and also to indicate the traps they can sometimes set for the unwary. This is not intended to make any claims to an especial authority in doing so, but only to give some indication of why they are important, and the limits of the uses and justifications to which they can be put. These are precious and fundamental principles, to which great respect must be paid; at the same time, they must be handled thoughtfully and with care.

¶1.6 The Inquiry was considerably assisted in this respect not only by the way that the issue has

been put by so many journalists but, in particular by the expert witness evidence it received, in both written and oral form.1 I recognise that I have freely borrowed from their observations in some of what follows and I am grateful to them. In doing so and while acknowledging this debt, I should make clear, that the analysis set out here is entirely that of the Inquiry and is not to be taken to be representative of the entirety of the views of the expert witnesses, collectively or individually. As with other aspects of the evidence that I have sought to summarise, I can only commend those interested to the original evidence: any summary cannot attempt to do full justice to it.

¶http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-16-July-2012.pdf

CHapTEr 2 THE frEEDom of THE prESS aND

¶B

¶DEmoCraCy

Context

"A free press is the unsleeping guardian of every other right that free men prize; it is the most dangerous foe of tyranny … Under dictatorship the press is bound to languish … But where free institutions are indigenous to the soil and men have the habit of liberty, the press will continue to be the Fourth Estate, the vigilant guardian of the rights of the ordinary citizen."1 Winston Churchill

"The proper functioning of a modern participatory democracy requires that the media be free, active, professional and inquiring. For this reason the courts here and elsewhere, have recognised the cardinal importance of press freedom and the need for any restriction on that freedom to be proportionate and no more than necessary to promote the legitimate object of the restriction."2 Lord Bingham

¶1.1 The importance of a free press to democracy is surely incontrovertible, and, as Lord Bingham's

statement makes clear, enshrined in law and constitution in the UK. Why it is so may be thought obvious, but bears some consideration. The quality of that freedom also requires consideration; again, as Lord Bingham indicates, freedom has many components and is rarely in a democracy absolute or paramount, if only because democracy may itself be thought of as a system for reconciling competing freedoms. Equally, a press that is free and nothing else will not necessarily enhance democracy. Other conditions are necessary too; Lord Bingham's formulation that the press must also be 'active, professional and inquiring, and Churchill's vision of the press as 'vigilant guardians of the rights of the ordinary citizen' raise interesting questions about how freedoms can be used.

¶1.2 My attention has been drawn by press Core Participants to statements of the highest judicial authority which develop these points in a variety of ways.

¶1.3 In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms (2000)²² Role of the Assessors 6 The gathering and presentation of evidence 19 Rule 13 of the Inquiry Rules 2006: the practice 42 Purpose 49 A brief history of press freedom in the United Kingdom 58 Freedom of expression 71 The 1997 general election 1139 Mr Cameron's relations with the press whilst Leader of the Opposition 1165 Response to the reports of Sir David Calcutt QC 1246 The plurality test and quasi-judicial procedure 1303 vii Barendt, E, Freedom of Speech (2nd ed), pp183 -186 ibid http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr11/UK_Doc_Section_1.pdf Page, B, The Murdoch Archipelago, p10 http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/public-interest-test-nov2010/statement/public-interest-test- report.pdf Communications Act 2003 s375 (1)(2B) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/375 Operation Reproof is considered in detail at Part E, Chapter 2 p42, para 83, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Peter-Clarke.pdf p1, para 2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Witness-Statement-of-DAC-Sue- Akers1.pdf a to a 'new more effective policy and regulatory regime' (implying that the existing regime is ineffective to address the problem), and paragraph 2b to 'future concerns about press paras 1.38-1.40, Part A, the Introduction p12-13, Charlotte Church, ibid p3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Commissioner-Bernard- Hogan-Howe1.pdf p5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Witness-Statement-of-Dr-Rob-Mawby.pdf Mr Owens was the senior investigating officer in the ICO having previously spent 30 years as a police officer reaching the rank of Detective Inspector. He described having "special responsibility for the investigation of high profile or complicated investigations relating to breaches of the [then] new [Data Protection] Act.": p1, http://www. levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Alexander-Owens1.pdf pp30-31, lines 24-1, Alexander Owens, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript- of-Afternoon-Hearing-30-November-2011.pdf p18, lines 2-5, Christopher Graham, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-26-January-2012.pdf p18, para 5.18c, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Alexander- Owens1.pdf Part H, Chapter 5, para 2.60 p3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Witness-Statement-of-Lord-Mandelson.pdf p39, lines 14-15 and line 24, Sir John Major, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-12-June-2012.pdf p5, para 12, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Witness-Statement-of-David-Cameron- MP.pdf p84, Jeremy Hunt, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Exhibit-JH1-MOD300004241- MOD300004682-docs-1-52.pdf ; see 4.39 below for Mr Hunt's public comments pp94-95, lines 13-1, ibid p12, para 3.11, ibid The Independent, 'PM signals end of Press Complaints Commission', 8 July 2011, http://www.independent.co.uk/ J news/media/press/pm-signals-end-of-press-complaints-commission-2309210.html; pp58-60, lines 19-4, David Cameron MP, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-14- June-2012.pdf particularly in Part J, Chapter 5 p36, lines 1-8, Lord Black, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-1-February-2012.pdf K p3, lines 11-15,Lord Hunt, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-10-July-2012.pdf p8, para 9, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Submission-by-working-group-led-by- Lord-Prescott.pdf p51, lines 2-10, Professor John Horgan, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-13-July-20121.pdf journalists from News International, Trinity Mirror and Express Group: http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2012/07/Third-Witness-Statement-of-DAC-Sue-Akers.pdf Part K, Chapter 3, para 4.26 Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.7 Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by UN General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966, entry into force 23 March 1976 AC 457, at para 111 De G & Sm 652; 1 Mac & G 25, matrimonial secrets, Argyll v Argyll [1967] Ch 302, and information about sexual relationships, Stephens v Avery [1988] 1 Ch 449Show full note A.C. 115, a case

which held that any restriction on the interviewing of prisoners by journalists must be strictly justified, Lord Steyn explained at paragraph 126:

'Freedom of expression is, of course, intrinsically important: it is valued for its own sake. But it is well recognised that it is also instrumentally important. It serves a number of broad objectives. First, it promotes the self-fulfilment of individuals in society. Secondly, in the famous words of Holmes J (echoing John Stuart Mill), 'the best of truth is the power of thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market': Abrams v US (1919)²⁵⁰²⁵⁰ p13, para 49, ibid See, for instance, R(B Sky B and others) v Chelmsford Crown Court and Essex Police [2012] EWHC 1295 (Admin) p85, lines 8-14, Jon Chapman, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-14-November-2011.pdf p2, para 50, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Exhibit-Annex-1-to-Chris-Atkins- supp..pdf p47, lines 9-12, Ed Stearns, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/lev030412am.pdf p4, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Exhibit-KRM-27.pdf p2, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/KRM17-Document-33.pdf p1, Stephen Abell, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/SA-B182.pdf p8-9, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Submission-by-Paul-Dacre1.pdf This was upheld on appeal by the Court of Appeal, who emphasised the fact that the individual who wished to disclose private information about another had been in, and only possessed this information because of a (more than transient) relationship of confidenceShow full note U.S. 616, 630, per Holmes J (dissenting). Thirdly, freedom of speech is the lifeblood of democracy. The free flow of information and ideas informs political debate. It is a safety valve: people are more ready to accept

¶Speech, 1949

¶R (Laporte) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire [2006] UKHL 55

¶Chapter 2 | The Freedom of the Press and Democracy

decisions that go against them if they can in principle seek to influence them. It acts as a brake on the abuse of power by public officials. It facilitates the exposure of errors in the governance and administration of justice of the country: see Stone, Seidman, Sunstein and Tushnet, Constitutional Law, 3rd ed. (1996), pp. 1078-1086. It is this last interest which is engaged in the present case. The applicants argue that B in their cases the criminal justice system has failed, and that they have been wrongly convicted. They seek with the assistance of journalists, who have the resources to do the necessary investigations, to make public the wrongs which they allegedly suffered.'

¶1.4 The point was developed in the speech of Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead in Reynolds v Times

¶Newspapers Ltd (2001)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 A.C. 127, at paragraph 200:

'The high importance of freedom to impart and receive information and ideas has been stated so often and so eloquently that the point calls for no elaboration in this case. At a pragmatic level, freedom to disseminate and receive information on political matters is essential to the system of parliamentary democracy cherished in this country. This freedom enables those who elect representatives to Parliament to make an informed choice, regarding individuals as well as policies, and those elected to make informed decisions...Likewise, there is no need to elaborate on the importance of the role discharged by the media in the expression and communication of information and comment on political matters. Without freedom of expression by the media, freedom of expression would be a hollow concept.'

¶1.5 The same point has been made with equal force in the European Court of Human Rights

in Strasbourg. In Castells v Spain (1992)¹⁴¹⁴ http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Ruling-on-the-role-of-the-assessors-PDF-102-KB. pdf http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Key-Questions.pdf [2008] 1 WLR 1499 p69, Dr Rowan Cruft, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-16-July-2012.pdf To use two of the examples of potentially supervening public interest considerations presently identified in the Editors' Code of Practice p17, lines 13-24, Professor Hornsby, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-16-July-2012.pdf pp7-8, paras 26-27, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Vijay- Vaghela.pdf Part E, Chapter 5 ibid O'Malley, T and C Soley, Op Cit, p56 p85, para 188, ibid p63, lines 3-13, DCI Gilmour, ibid pp4-7, lines 20-15, Alexander Owens, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-5-December-2011.pdf p34, para 65, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Peter-Clarke.pdf pp2-3, paras 7-8, ibid pm/ Part F, Chapter 5 For reasons identified in Part J Chapter 2 and by reference to the Code for Crown Prosecutors, it is inconceivable that anyone would consider there to be a public interest in prosecuting the journalist in these circumstances Witness anonymised under section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005 to protect his or her Article 8 rights p21, lines 5-13, Colin Myler, ibid p34, lines 8-17, Gillian Phillips, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-9-May-2012.pdf p2, para 5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-JK-Rowling2.pdf p15, lines 18-20, p23, lines 10-15, Hugh Whittow, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-12-January-2012.pdf p9, lines 20-23, Peter Clarke, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-1-March-2012.pdf pp4-5, para 14, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Lord- Stevens.pdf pp1-2, para 5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Sandra- Laville.pdf Briefings may be a combination of the two: for example, part embargoed (i.e. reportable later) and part non- reportable (ie background only, and never to be reported). Equally, a briefing may be in part on the record and, in part, embargoed or non-reportable. pp79-80, lines 25-3, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-9-December-2011.pdf p57, lines 14-16, Richard Thomas, ibid Q1884, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmcumeds/362/9090210.htm pp12-13, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Philip-Coppel-QC- redacted.pdf pp1-3, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/RJT-Exhibit-272.pdf Part H, Chapter 5, para 2.65 Part I, Chapter 5 pp16-17, lines 17-2, Tony Blair, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-28-May-2012.pdf p24, para 71, ibid p12, ibid pps 9-10, para 13, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Witness-Statement-of-Ed- Miliband.pdf p4, para 15, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Richard- Desmond.pdf p22, para 5.12 ibid R v. Bristol Crown Court, ex parte Bristol Press and Picture Agency Ltd [1986] 85 Cr App R 190 per Glidewell LJ at 196 and R v. Central Criminal Court ex parte Bright and others [2001] 1 WLR 662 per Judge LJ (as he then was) at p679 Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129 p26, lines 10-22, Dr Martin Moore, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-10-July-2012.pdf p6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Further-submission-from-the-Media- Standards-Trust.pdf; p2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by- Coordinating-Committee-for-Media-Reform.pdf K Part K, Chapter 4 pp7-8, paras 24-26, ibid pp8-9, para 6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Early-Resolution.pdf Defamation Act Schedule 2.2, http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2009/en.act.2009.0031.pdf K various press reports, http://www.mondaynote.com/2009/11/15/young-readers-already-hooked-on-subsidies/ K pp 1-2, lines 14-14, Lord Hunt, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-10-July-2012.pdf Part I, Chapter 9 Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.35 Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.33 Centro Europa 7 SRL and Di Stefano v Italy (Application no. 38433/09)Show full note EHHR 445 a senator of an opposition political party in Spain published an article in a weekly magazine critical of the government, and was charged and convicted of insulting the government and disqualified from holding political office. During the trial, Senor Castells attempted to adduce evidence as to the truth of the article, but it was declared inadmissible by the Spanish Supreme Court. The Strasbourg Court held that his conviction constituted an unjustified interference with his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR. At paragraph 43 the Court observed:

'...the pre-eminent role of the press in a State governed by the rule of law must not be forgotten. Although it must not overstep various bounds set, inter alia, for the prevention of disorder and the protection of the reputation of others, it is nevertheless incumbent on it to impart information and ideas on political questions and on other matters of public interest... Freedom of the press affords the public one of the best means of discovering and forming an opinion of the ideas and attitudes of their political leaders. In particular, it gives politicians the opportunity to reflect and comment on the preoccupations of public opinion; it thus enables everyone to participate in the free political debate which is at the very core of a democratic society.'

¶1.6 The fundamental importance of the freedom of the press was a very familiar theme of the

evidence received by the Inquiry, and rightly so. It is one I emphasised myself on several occasions. The description of the importance of press freedom was put to the Inquiry largely in two forms: first, as a negative or 'default' argument (any interference with any sort of freedom must always be justified in a liberal democracy) and, second, as a positive argument (the press must be free to fulfil its important role). To the extent that either or both of these

¶PART B | The Press and the Public Interest

arguments was deployed in the service of contentions about the right approach for the Inquiry to take to its Terms of Reference, and explicitly to the question of how far it might end by asking new things of the press in respect of its culture, practices and ethics, it is necessary to

¶B stand back and reflect on the origins and explanations for the importance of press freedom.

a brief history of press freedom in the United

¶Kingdom

¶2.1 The history of the press is filled with struggles against the state and debates over the rights

and privileges of the press. It thus provides an essential background to understanding the commitment of modern democratic society to freedom of the press. It also explains the strength of feeling demonstrated by so many journalist witnesses.

¶2.2 From the advent of the printing press in 1476 until the end of the seventeenth century,

state licensing meant that the Government and the Church could control the press, and in particular prevent the printing of seditious or heretical works. State control over printing tightened when, in 1538, Henry VIII decreed that all new printed books had to be approved by the Privy Council and registered with the Stationers' Company. This system of state control endured under a series of decrees issued and enforced by the Star Chamber.

¶2.3 The licensing regime ended with the abolition of the Star Chamber in 1640. However, in 1643

licensing was reintroduced by Cromwell's Parliament in an effort to suppress the publication of material about Charles I. This act moved John Milton to write his now immortal defence of the free press in The Areopagitica, a Speech for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing:

"The attempt to keep out evil doctrine by licensing is like the exploit of that gallant man who thought to keep out the crows by shutting his park gate … Lords and Commons of England, consider what nation it is whereof ye are: a nation not slow and dull, but of a quick, ingenious and piercing spirit. It must not be shackled or restricted. Give me the liberty to know and to utter and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties."

¶2.4 Milton's plea went unheeded and for the next half century the press was governed under a

licensing system which suppressed all but official publications. Licensing eventually ended in 1695 when the House of Commons refused to renew the licensing legislation. Ever since the licensing of the press was abolished, there has existed a general right to publish newspapers, books or magazines without state authorisation.

¶2.5 Although no longer required to obtain a licence for the mere act of publishing, there remained

a number of restraints on the content of what the press could publish. The offences of criminal and seditious libel, for example, were still punishable at common law. In 1738, Parliament banned reporting in print of the proceedings of either house of Parliament. In 1712, the Stamp Act introduced taxes on the press. These 'taxes on knowledge', intended to curb the radical press, created a culture in which journalists and newspapers subsisted through bribes and government subsidies.

¶2.6 It took a century of campaigning by proponents of the radical press and free speech to secure

further independence for the newspapers. Parliament ended the ban on press reporting in Parliament in 1771, after a legal battle by the radical MP and journalist John Wilkes against attempts to arrest several printers for reporting parliamentary debates. The Libel Acts of

¶Chapter 2 | The Freedom of the Press and Democracy

1792 and 1843, restoring the right to trial by jury and introducing a truth defence to the charge of seditious libel, provided the press with a measure of security against unmeritorious criminal prosecutions. Newspaper stamp duty was eventually abolished in 1861.

¶2.7 The repeal of newspaper taxes resulted in a period of rapid press expansion. However, by

B the early part of the twentieth century, a new form of limitation on press independence had emerged. The proliferation of both regional and national newspapers was followed by a period of consolidation as increasingly powerful newspaper chains bought up provincial titles. For much of the inter-war period the proprietors of these large corporations – the press barons of the day – dominated the press.

¶2.8 During the Second World War, Government censorship returned, this time in the guise of

the now infamous Defence of the Realm Regulations. Regulation 2D conferred on the Home Secretary the personal power to ban any publication which published "material calculated to foment opposition" to the war. Relying on this power, the Government closed down two communist papers. Following mass rallies in response, the ban was lifted.

¶2.9 In general, however, the press response to the unprecedented levels of Government

censorship which characterised the war period was muted. Representative of the type of views being expressed on this issue, but not on others, George Orwell gave the following retrospective perspective:3

"Any fair-minded person with journalistic experience will admit that during this war official censorship has not been particularly irksome. We have not been subjected to the kind of totalitarian 'co-ordination' that it might have been reasonable to expect. The press has some justified grievances, but on the whole the Government has behaved well and has been surprisingly tolerant of minority opinions. The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary."

¶2.10 During the immediate post-war period, the growth in the power of a limited number of press

organisations increased. Growing concern over the dominance of a small group of proprietors led to the establishment of the first Royal Commission on the Press:4

"with the object of furthering the free expression of opinion through the Press and the greatest practicable accuracy in the presentation of news, to inquire into the control, management and ownership of the newspaper and periodical Press and the news agencies, including the financial structure and the monopolistic tendencies in control, and to make recommendations thereon."

In the final report, the Commission recognised the potential problem presented by the concentration of newspaper ownership. The solution proposed by the Commission was the creation of a General Council of the Press:5

"to safeguard the freedom of the press; to encourage the growth of a sense of public responsibility and public service amongst all engaged in the profession of journalism […]; and to further the efficiency of the profession and the well being of those who practise it".

¶PART B | The Press and the Public Interest

¶2.11 Concerns about the continued diminution in press diversity led to the establishment in 1962 of the second Royal Commission on the Press:6

¶"to examine the economic and financial factors affecting the production and sale B of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals in the United Kingdom, including

(a) manufacturing, printing, distribution and other costs, (b) efficiency of production, and (c) advertising and other revenue, including any revenue derived from interests in television; to consider whether these factors tend to diminish diversity of ownership and control or the number or variety of such publications, having regard to the importance, in the public interest, of the accurate presentation of news and the free expression of opinion".

It found that the share of circulation controlled by the large proprietors had substantially increased; the leading three proprietors' share of the national daily press amounted to almost 90%. It severely condemned the General Council and urged reform. The industry eventually responded in 1974, when the Press Council was created to replace the General Council.

¶2.12 Notwithstanding this reform, there remained major concerns about the need to protect

editors and journalists from the control of proprietors. The third Royal Commission on the Press was established in 1974:7

"To inquire into the factors affecting the maintenance of the independence, diversity and editorial standards of newspapers and periodicals and the public freedom of choice of newspapers and periodicals, nationally, regionally and locally."

The report recommended the development of a written Code of Practice, warning "it is unhappily certain that the Council has so far failed to persuade the knowledgeable public that it deals satisfactorily with complaints against newspapers". The Press Council rejected this proposal.

¶2.13 In 1989, the Government set up a Committee under Sir David Calcutt QC to investigate growing

concerns over invasions of privacy by the press. The 1990 Calcutt Report recommended the establishment of a new Press Complaints Commission to replace the Press Council. The PCC was established in 1991 and tasked with administering a new Code of Practice. Since its inception, concerns have been voiced about the PCC. These developments (and, indeed, a fuller history of all these reviews) are described later in the report.8

¶2.14 Whilst attempts to achieve a functioning of system of self-regulation stalled, great strides

were achieved in securing legal protection for a free press. Beginning in 1950, when freedom of expression was enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights ("the ECHR"), legal protections for the press have steadily increased. Although Article 10 is a protection for individual rather than corporate freedom of expression, and does not expressly refer to the press, press reportage has consistently been recognised in case law as protected speech. In this regard, the European Court of Human Rights has emphasised the pre-eminent role of the press in a democracy and its duty to act as a "public watch-dog".9 It has also recognised the importance of pluralism in the media, noting that "there can be no democracy without pluralism. Democracy thrives on freedom of expression".¹⁰¹⁰ Financial controls and payments for stories 694 HC Hansard, 20 July 2011, vol 531, col 918; see also columns 922, 941, 944 s17(3) of the Inquiries Act 2005 Centro Europa 7 SRL and Di Stefano v Italy (1Application no. 38433/09) Part 1, Public Order Act 1986; Protection from Harassment Act 1997 p7, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Dr-Neil-Manson.pdf PWC adspend study, http://www.iabuk.net/research/library/2012-h1-digital-adspend-results ibid p3, para 5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Lord-Patten1.pdf p2, para 2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/DCMS-submission_Narrative-on-media- ownership.pdf ibid, p164 p50, paras 107-108, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of- Stephen-Abell.pdf. See pp21-23, para 25, ibid for a complete list of Commissioners/Directors of the PCC p58, lines 17-24, DCI Gilmour, ibid Information Commissioner's Office, What Price Privacy?, p15, para 5.2 During the six years that have elapsed, many of the officers involved in Operation Caryatid have been promoted through the ranks. For the sake of clarity, the Report refers to them throughout by the rank which they held at the time they gave evidence rather than the (sometimes different) ranks that they held at the various times of their involvement in the investigation or may hold at the time of publication of the Report p14, para 39(i), ibid pp31-32, lines 16-19, Gerry and Kate McCann, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-23-November-2011.pdf p52, lines 14-17, Dominic Mohan, ibid Part F, Chapter 6 p6, lines 5-8, James Murdoch, ibid p10, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-9-May-2012. pdf; http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Witness-Statement-of-DCI-John-Macdonald.pdf pp22-23, lines 18-7, Charlotte Church, ibid pp117-118, lines 12-2, ibid p27, HMIC (2011), Without Fear or Favour: A review of police relationships, http://www.hmic.gov.uk/media/a- review-of-police-relationships-20111213.pdf p2, para 6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Sandra-Laville. pdf p70, lines 3-14, James Murray, ibid MPS Special Notice 6/01 referred to at paragraph 2.23, Part G, Chapter 3 above pp55-56, Francis Aldhouse, www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-5-December-2011.pdf p38, lines 3-6, Richard Thomas, ibid pp8-9, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Exhibit-2.pdf p15, para 3.26, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Christopher- Graham.pdf pp54-55, lines 20-9, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript- of-Afternoon-Hearing-9-December-2011.pdf Part H, Chapter 6, para 4.9 p3, lines 1-24, Sir John Major, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-12-June-2012.pdf p68, lines 9-12, Harriet Harman, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-12-June-2012.pdf p4, para 9, ibid pp17-18, ibid p72, lines 18-19, James Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-24-April-2012.pdf p44, lines 8-10, ibid p9, para 31, ibid p25, para 5.42 ibid pp1-2, para 3 and pp3-4, para 7, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Witness- Statement-of-DAC-Sue-Akers1.pdf Part F, Chapter 7 pp62-64, lines 15-9, Graham Shear, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-21-November-2011.pdf p76, lines 17-20, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-26-April-2012.pdf http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Lord-Black-of-Brentwood-Annex-B1.pdf K p5, para 12, ibid p10, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-British-and-Irish-Ombudsman- Association.pdf p81, lines 21-25, Nick Clegg, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-13-June-2012.pdf Part K, Chapter 7 Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.35 Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.26 [2000] 2 AC 115 at 126Show full note

¶Chapter 2 | The Freedom of the Press and Democracy

¶2.15 Consistently with other international instruments protecting freedom of expression, Article

10 expressly acknowledges that freedom of expression generally, including freedom of press expression, may be restricted where necessary to protect the legitimate aims of a democracy. The court has recognised that freedom of expression may need to be restricted in the interests of national security and public morality, as well as individual rights to privacy and peaceful B enjoyment of property. The ECHR jurisprudence has nonetheless afforded a broad degree of protection of the press, drawing a distinction, however, between the protection afforded to reporting contributing to debate on economic, social and political issues and press reports involving tawdry allegations about an individual's private life.11

¶2.16 Since 2000, Article 10 has been incorporated into domestic law through the mechanisms

set out in the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998. In the years since incorporation, the domestic courts have joined Strasbourg in seeking to strike a balance between the protection afforded a free press, the restrictions necessarily placed on that freedom in a democratic society.

¶2.17 This brief history makes a number of points about the values and functions of press freedom

in democracy. First, the struggle to achieve press freedom (in the sense of freedom from the power of the State) was driven by the democratic value served by the press. Freedom of the press, according to this historical tradition, was and is celebrated not simply because of any intrinsic value of a free press, but because of the public benefits associated with free flow of information and debate.

¶2.18 Second, it is clear from this history that threats to the democratic function of a free press

can take many forms. Government licensing and censorship of content is the most easily identifiable restriction and was deployed with invidious effect in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The democratic freedom to own and operate a printing press in the first place is precious and hard won. However, as the more recent history of the struggle for press freedom illustrates, there are other sources of power which may threaten press freedom, and indeed other freedoms which may have a legitimate claim to being taken into account.

¶2.19 A free press contains within itself immense power to promote democratic freedoms and

the public good. It also contains within itself the reverse potential, that is to say, to create undemocratic concentrations of power and undermine freedoms and the public good. The challenge of securing the democratic benefits of a free press, whilst obviating the harm presented by the unchecked exercise of concentrated or unaccountable power, is the legacy of the historic struggle to free the press. Professor Baroness Onora O'Neill put the matter in this way:12

"I think if we just say we're in favour of press freedom, we beg all the important questions. The important question is: which conception of press freedom and how do you justify it?"

The importance of a free press: free communication 3.1 When confronting the challenge of securing a free press it is important to be clear about

why we value a free press and what we seek to protect. Perhaps the most enduring and least contentious rationale for a free press is the argument that a free press contributes to the

¶PART B | The Press and the Public Interest

free flow of communications in a liberal democracy. This can be put in a very broad way, for example:13

¶"the public interest in … a free press is best construed as an interest in adequate (or B better than adequate) standards of public communication, that allow readers, listeners

and viewers to gain information and form judgements, and so as to participate in social, cultural and democratic life. A free press is a public good because it is needed for civic and common life."

¶And:14

"a liberal public sphere, one in which every member, everyone in the community, can take part is just a very good thing in itself. It's useful partly for the results it creates but it's also a good in itself that we all have the status of being able to take part in the liberal public sphere and it seems the press plays a role in that. People who are insufficiently articulate or insufficiently confident to take part in the public speech, the press can give them a voice."

¶3.2 A number of serving editors have given the Inquiry the benefit of a perspective from the front line. Representative of such viewpoints was the reference by Alan Rusbridger to:15

"the simple craft of reporting: recording things; asking questions; being an observer; giving context. It's sitting in a magistrates' court reporting on the daily tide of crime cases – the community's witness to the process of justice. It's being on the front line in Libya, trying to sift conflicting propaganda from the reality. It's reporting the rival arguments over climate change – and helping the public to evaluate where the truth lies."

¶3.3 It is important to note that this is not just a general argument for the benefits of free self-

expression. Freedom for commercial mass media businesses ('corporate speech') is a very different proposition from the freedom of individual self-expression ('personal speech'). The latter is discussed further below, and has its roots in a very personal conception of what it is to be human. Take, for example, John Stuart Mill's argument from On Liberty, that freedom of speech serves a central function in promoting individual autonomy and self-fulfilment. This argument has no direct relevance to press freedom because, put simply, press organisations are not human beings with a personal need to be able to self-express. In any event, "an argument for free speech for the powerless will not make a case for free speech for a powerful organisation."16

¶3.4 The general argument for a free press as a means of free communication, on the contrary, has

to do with a number of different things. These include the ability to give a powerful voice in the public domain to those unable to do so effectively for themselves (perhaps of diminishing importance in the era of social media and self-expression on the internet). Importantly, it is also to do with the constitution by the media in their own right of a public forum, where information, ideas and entertainment are both circulated and held up to scrutiny. The essence

¶Chapter 2 | The Freedom of the Press and Democracy

of the importance of a free press is therefore not an interest in free 'self' expression but in free communication, the free flow of knowledge, information and ideas:17

"Readers, listeners and viewers don't need media that 'express themselves': they need media that meet at least minimal standards for adequate communication with B intended audiences.18 The critical public interest in a free press is not so much in a press which exercises self-expression as in a press that is free from censorship, not subject to some kind of central control.19 Even if the press does have a very important right to freedom of expression, you have to remember that it's justified by what it does for individuals by constituting a public sphere in which all individuals can take part."

¶3.5 A free press will not necessarily provide an effective 'market-place for ideas'. The freedom of

the press is a prerequisite for that, but not sufficient in itself, for all sorts of reasons. There must be some degree of effective connection between communicators in the press; and when some elements of the press are more powerful communicators than other papers and individuals, its capacity to facilitate informed debate may be impaired. In a similar vein, a measure of plurality of voices is required if a free press is to enhance democratic debate.

¶3.6 The 'argument from truth', which identifies free speech as an important condition for the

attainment of truth, is also not straightforward when applied to the press. Mill's argument that society will benefit from "the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error" may hold in relation to the battle between truth and falsity expressed by individuals (but even then, only in the sort of discourse which aims at the truth). However, it is less certain that truth will prevail in the encounter between individual and institutional speech, or between different forms of institutional speech. To put the matter bluntly, "there is nothing to stop a free press … from freely deciding to support corruption or to be involved in it. We cannot assume that a free press, or specific agents within a free press, will be motivated to provide the kind of content that is, in fact, in the public interest."20

¶3.7 The fundamental point is that unlike freedom of expression for individuals, which has intrinsic

merit as a form of self-expression, press freedom has value to some extent as an aspect of commercial freedom, and to some extent because of the functions it serves. In other words, freedom of the press is largely understood as an instrumental good, to be valued, promoted and protected to the extent that it is with the result that it is thereby enabled to flourish commercially as a sector and to serve its important democratic functions.

The importance of a free press: public debate and holding power to account 4.1 There are two, more specific, strands to explanation for the importance of a free press in a democracy. They were explained to the Inquiry by different witnesses in these terms:

¶PART B | The Press and the Public Interest

"a free press serves the public interest instrumentally in two key respects: – Constraining power: A free press is an important check on political and other forms of social power (corporate, individual). To achieve this end, the press requires not just

¶B freedom from interference with the form and content of what it says, but also the

capacity to investigate and acquire information. – Enabling democratic deliberation and decision-making; educating and enabling understanding. A free press – especially a diverse press in which many views are represented – is an important forum for public deliberation and education, a means for enabling the public to engage in informed democratic decision-making."²¹²¹ http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Draft-Criteria-for-a-Regulatory-Solution.pdf pp1-2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Dr-Rowan-Cruft.pdf p10 ibid ibid p5, para 21, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Summary-of-Evidence-presented-by- the-BBC.pdf pp6-7, paras 13-17, ibid ibid, p102 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmcumeds/532/53204.htm pp27-28, lines 14-19, Alexander Owens, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-5-December-2011.pdf Although this aspect of the evidence has not been investigated in detail, it contrasts with the evidence of Steven Nott who spoke about the security ramifications of the messaging system to Vodafone as long ago as 1999 before seeking to interest the press, the television and other mobile providers in the issue: http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Witness-Statement-of-Steven-Nott.pdf pp6-7, paras 22 and 24, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Third-Witness-Statement- of-DAC-Sue-Akers.pdf p3, para 4, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Fifth-Witness-Statement-of-Richard- Caseby.pdf pp3-10, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Matthew-Sprake. pdf Mr Sprake may prefer to call himself a photographer, but in substance he was a private investigator equipped with a camera p32, lines 9-25, Paul McMullan, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-29-November-2011.pdf pp16-17, lines 23-1, Gerry McCann, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-23-November-2011.pdf p22, para 43 http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-JK-Rowling2. pdf p50, lines 10-25, Thomas Mockridge, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-17-January-2012.pdf; p119, lines 5-17, Hugh Whittow; p9, lines 3-18, Nicole Patterson, http:// www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-12-January-2012. pdf; pp12-13, lines 15-end, John Witherow, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-17-January-2012.pdf; p5, para 25, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Justin-Walford.pdf; p13, para 49, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Richard-Wallace.pdf; p9, para 33, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-John-Witherow.pdf p3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Sandra-Laville.pdf p2, para 6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Sandra-Laville. pdf p40, lines 10-15, John Twomey, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-19-March-20121.pdf Part G Chapter 3 pp25-26, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-5- December-2011.pdf pp38-39, lines 13-39, Alexander Owens, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-30-November-2011.pdf pp36-37, lines 25-7, Philip Coppel, ibid p119, lines 19-24, Richard Thomas, ibid p51, lines 12-18, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-25-April-2012.pdf p81, lines 14-19, Tony Blair, ibid David Cameron, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Exhibit-DC-2.pdf pp2-4, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Exhibit-KRM-10.pdf European Intervention Notice, 4 November 2010, p245, Dr Vince Cable, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2012/05/Exhibit-VC1-2.pdf p53, lines 14-19, ibid p22, lines 22-23, ibid pp29-30, para 5.52-5.55, ibid pp71-71, lines 8-3, Sheryl Gascoigne, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-23-November-20111.pdf [2012] EWCA Civ 1288; http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1288.html p6, para 37, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Witness-Statement-of-Baroness- Buscombe1.pdf p2, para 7, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Tim-Suter-of- Perspective-Associates.pdf p22, para 31, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Lord-Black-of- Brentwood1.pdf K pp35-36, lines 3-13, Angela Philips, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-13-July-20121.pdf pp5-6, para 2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Submission-by-George-Eustice-MP. pdf Defamation Act Schedule 2.7, http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2009/en.act.2009.0031.pdf K p44, lines 19-21, Evgeny Lebedev, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-23-April-2012.pdf Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.42 See remarks of Munby J in Kelly v BBC [2001] Fam 59 at 70, summarising that proper evidence, rather than assertion or assumption will be requiredShow full note "there are also some very well-known instrumental benefits of the press. So it's a very important check on political power and other forms of power. It's an important source of education and an important means of enabling democratic decision-making."²²²² http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Key-Questions-Module-4.pdf p69, Dr Rowan Cruft, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-16-July-2012.pdf pp10-11, pp25-18, ibid http://www.newscorp.com/investor/stock_quotes.html p3, para 10, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Mark- Thompson.pdf; pp5-6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Lord- Patten1.pdf pp7-8, paras 18-19, ibid O'Malley, T and C Soley, Op cit, p64 p8, para 25, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Exhibit-SA-F2.pdf Information Commissioner's Office, What Price Privacy?, p17, para 5.10 p13, para 18, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Witness-Statement-of-DS-Philip- Williams.pdf p8, para 27, ibid In the United Kingdom MPs can claim expenses, including the cost of accommodation, "wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred for the performance of a Member's parliamentary duties". In the tax year 2007–2008, MPs' cost of staying away from their main homes was limited to £23,083 p24, lines 12-18, Sienna Miller, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-24-November-2011.pdf p17, lines 7-10, Neville Thurlbeck, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-12-December-20111.pdf p13, paras 78-80, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Gerald- Patrick-McCann.pdf; In July 2008 proceedings were commenced against Associated Newspapers Ltd in respect of 67 articles published in the Daily Mail and the Evening Standard over a five month period, as well as over 18 articles on the latter's website. These proceedings were compromised by the payment of a substantial donation to the Madeleine search fund and the publication of an apology in the Evening Standard. The Daily Mail were willing to publish a number of 'free adverts' to aid the search, but refused to publish any apology, claiming that the supportive articles they had written counter-balanced the others. As Dr McCann explained, by that stage he did not wish to embark on a protracted dispute with the newspaper, particularly given the need to maintain good relations with the press in continuing to publicise the search for Madeleine p18, para 30a, ibid p3, para 11, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-John-Witherow. pdf p10, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Report-by-Elizabeth-Filkin.pdf p2, para 23, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Michael- Sullivan.pdf p40, lines 21-23, John Twomey, ibid pp64-65, line 6-1, Bernard Hogan-Howe, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-20-March-2012.pdf pp11-12, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/First-Witness-Statement-of-Richard- Thomas-CBE.pdf pp54-55, lines 25-6, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-9-December-2011.pdf; p2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/ Fourth-Witness-Statement-of-Richard-Thomas-CBE.pdf p39, lines 3-22, Philip Coppel, ibid p40, lines 12-15, Richard Thomas, ibid p20, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Alastair-Campbell.pdf pp14-15, lines 7-12, Tony Blair, ibid David Cameron, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Exhibit-DC-3.pdf See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/23_12_10_murdoch_meeting.pdf. This document is dated 2 February 1981 but, since consent had been given by then, this must be a reference to the date upon which the document was produced. The fact that Mr Biffen met Mr Rupert Murdoch on 26 January 1981 is evidenced in the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet Ministerial Committee on Economic Strategy. subsection 5 below: Handling of the Bid by Jeremy Hunt and DCMS Part I, Chapter 5 pp27-28, lines 16-18, ibid p26, para 5.33, ibid pp11-12, lines 15-17, Sienna Miller, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-24-November-2011.pdf Part K, Chapter 7. As part of the response to encouragement by the Joint Committee to promote a voluntary, media- orientated forum for dispute resolution, the Government recognised that there could well be value in there being a range of arbitration options available, noting that methods of redress and the type of body required to secure effective regulation were issues which are central to this Inquiry: see para 68 p46, lines 9-15, Lord Grade, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-31-January-2012.pdf p24, para 38, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Lord-Black-of- Brentwood1.pdf p1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Lord-Black-of-Brentwood-Annex-B1.pdf p10, para 4.13, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Ofcom.pdf p6, para 4, ibid Defamation Act Schedule 2.8-2.9, ibid p106, line 18, Aidan Barclay, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-23-April-2012.pdf Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.46 See Application 28496/95, EK v Turkey (2002) 25 EHRR 1345. The ECtHR has observed on a number of occasions that in a democratic society, the actions and omissions of Government must be subject to close scrutiny and of public opinion and government must display restraint in resorting to criminal proceeding in this context. In particular, see a number of cases arising out of criminal proceedings taken against the owner of a newspaper for publishing press articles, readers' letters and reports concerning the conflict between Turkish Government and Kurdish organisations where the ECtHR emphasised that there is little scope under Art 10(2) of the Convention for restrictions on the press in relation to political speech and debate: Application 23556/94, Ceylan v Turkey (2000) 30 EHRR 73, Application 23144/93, Ozgur Gundem v Turkey (2001) 31 EHRR 49Show full note "The public interest in a free press lies largely in the character of our society as a liberal democracy. It is in the public interest that there be a free press because and insofar as such a press serves as a necessary bulwark against government duplicity or tyranny. A free press serves also to inform people about the principles under which they live and the policies which government adopts and pursues in their name. This is of particular importance in a democratic society where governments are elected by the people and act in the name of the people. The argument from democracy is, so to speak, a 'guiding light'. Insofar as it reminds us of the most important purpose of a free press, it also, and at the same time, reminds us of the most significant duties of a free press – duties to communicate those things which people need to know if they are to be effective and informed citizens"²³²³ p13, lines 12-22, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/leveson-inquiry- transcript-060911.pdf pp4-5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Professor-Susan- Mendus.pdf p12-13, ibid p1, para 1.1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Thomas- Mockridge.pdf pp103-104, lines 24-3, Lord Patten, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-23-January-2012.pdf pp8-9, paras 20-23, ibid ibid, pp63-65 p206, para 272, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Stephen- Abell.pdf No records of these approaches were kept before May 2010 p41, lines 4-7, Alexander Owens, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-30-November-2011.pdf p17, para 22, ibid http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Ian-Hurst.pdf pp57-58, lines 18-5, William Lewis, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-10-January-2012.pdf Ms Marshall claims that this was replicating Mr Paxman's interview of a well-known politician in the 1970s pp89-90, lines 24-12, Daniel Sanderson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-15-December-20111.pdf p37, lines 3-16, Gerry McCann, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-23-November-2011.pdf p16, para 29d ibid pp84-85, lines 8-20, Peter Wright, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-11-January-2012.pdf; p11, para 35, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/02/Witness-Statement-of-Paul-Dacre.pdf; p6, para 17, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Dawn-Neesom.pdf; pp1-2, paras 5 – 6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-James-Welsh.pdf; p4, para 13, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Peter-Wright.pdf pp102-103, lines 15-3, Elizabeth Filkin, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-5-March-2012.pdf p7, para 18, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Lord-Blair.pdf p70, lines 1-12, Paul Peachey, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-14-March-2012.pdf para 4.2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Report-by-Elizabeth-Filkin.pdf pp23-24, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-9-December-2011.pdf p4, 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 http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Philip-Coppel-QC-redacted.pdf p29, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Exhibit-1.pdf p99, lines 14-18, Lord Mandelson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-21-May-2012.pdf p9, lines 3-6, Tony Blair, ibid p74, para 221, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Witness-Statement-of-David- Cameron-MP.pdf ibid p32, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Exhibit-VC1-1-to-Witness-Statement-of-Vince- Cable-MP.pdf p56, lines 13-16, Alex Salmond, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-13-June-2012.pdf Part K, Chapter 7 pp7-8, para 32, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Claire-Enders- Enders-Analysis.pdf The majority of the press core participants have argued in favour of a public interest defence for journalists, see for example News International closing submissions at para 64, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/07/Closing-Submission-from-News-International.pdf, Associated Newspapers closing submissions at para 31 http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Closing-Submission-from-Associated- J Newspapers-Ltd.pdf, Guardian News closing submissions at para 17 http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/07/Closing-Submission-from-Guardian-News-and-Media-Ltd.pdf. See also part 5, http://www. levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Media-Standards-Trust.pdf; Part 6, http://www. levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Professor-Roy-Greenslade-of-City-University.pdf which support a general public interest defence for journalists Appendix 4 p40, lines 3-6, Baroness Buscombe, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-7-February-2012.pdf p3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Covering-Letter-from-Ofcom.pdf; p10, para 23, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Lord-Black-of-Brentwood1.pdf; p8, para 4, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Submission-by-Carnegie-Trust.pdf; p20, para 3.35, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Submission-by-MediaWise1.pdf; p11, http:// www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Michelle-Stanistreet-on-behalf-of-the- National-Union-of-Journalists.pdf; p13, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission- by-Coordinating-Committee-for-Media-Reform.pdf pp106-107, Lord Black, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-9-July-2012.pdf p60, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Media-Standards-Trust.pdf Part H K Defamation Act Schedule 2.10, ibid p70, lines 1-3, James Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript-of- K Afternoon-Hearing-24-April-2012.pdf Part K, Chapter 7, para 3.14 Discussed in detail in Section 3 of this AnnexShow full note "The serious purpose the press serves, the purpose which makes it critical to a genuinely free and democratic society has two principal components – to inform citizens and to enable citizens to hold accountable those who should be serving the wider public."²⁴²⁴ This is one of the reasons why, given the concessions that were made by the press Core Participants, it was inappropriate to investigate the detail contained in the books seized from Steve Whittamore during Operation Motorman. For the purposes of Part 1 of the Terms of Reference, I concluded that it was necessary to go so far but no further: this is dealt with below but, by way of cross reference, is evident from the rulings which sought to ensure clarity of the position: http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Ruling-In-Relation-to- Operation-Motorman-Evidence-11-June-20123.pdf, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ Operation-Motorman-and-ANL-10-July-2012.pdf, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ Ruling-on-Future-Direction-23-July-2012.pdf p1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Professor-Christopher- Megone.pdf pp33-34, lines 18-1, Dr Neil Manson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-16-July-2012.pdf http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4138209/Its-Sun-day-Were-launching-new-edition-of-Britains-No1- newspaper.html p8, para 23, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Lord-Patten1. pdf pp9-11, para 24, ibid ibid, pp64-67 p206, paras 272 & 291, ibid Information Commissioner's Office, What Price Privacy?, p15, para 5.3 p13, para 29, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Witness-Statement-of-DCS-Keith- Surtees.pdf p9, para 25, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Fourth-Witness-Statement-of-DAC- Sue-Akers.pdf http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8043057.stm Marshall, S, Tabloid Girl, pp51-52 pp27-28, lines 23-5, Matt Driscoll, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-19-December-2011.pdf p38, line 23, Gerry McCann, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-23-November-2011.pdf p20, para 32, ibid pp34-35, lines 14-15, Paul Ashford, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-12-January-2012.pdf p3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Tim-Godwin.pdf p14, lines 21-22, Lord Blair, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-7-March-2012.pdf; p9, para 21, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness- Statement-of-Lord-Blair.pdf p7, para 33, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Jonathan- Ungoed-Thomas.pdf p41, ibid See also the connection made in What Price Privacy Now?, pp7-8, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2011/12/Exhibit-2.pdf p2, ibid On the application of s32 to 'new media' journalism, see para 99, Tugendhat J, The Law Society & Ors –v– Kordowski [2011] EWHC 3185 p2, para 8, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Fourth-Witness-Statement-of-Richard- Thomas-CBE.pdf p34, lines 4-10, Lord Grade, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-31-January-2012.pdf p78, lines 17-22, Andrew Grice, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-25-June-20121.pdf p97, lines 8-15, David Cameron, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-14-June-2012.pdf pp2-4, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Exhibit-KRM-10.pdf; p5, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Exhibit-KRM-16.pdf pp17-18, ibid pp58-60, lines 12-14, ibid I did not write to the leaders of the national parties of government and opposition in the UK devolved administrations in this way because, as I make clear in this Report, in my opinion the conduct of politicians of devolved government cannot reasonably be considered as part of the historical UK national pattern with which my generic conclusions are concerned p6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Annex-1-to-Submission-by-Claire-Enders- Enders-Analysis.pdf I pp56-57, lines 21-6, Will Lewis, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-10-January-2012.pdf; para 31.3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ Witness-Statement-of-William-Lewis.pdf This is the same view as that formed by the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions in its Report: see http:// www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201012/jtselect/jtprivinj/273/273.pdf (HL Paper 273; HC 1443), para 37 p3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Professor-Roy-Greenslade-of- City-University.pdf p18, para 42, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Closing-Submission-from-Associated- K Newspapers-Ltd.pdf p8, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Submission-by-Paul-Dacre1.pdf p1, para 1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Lord-Black-of-Brentwood-Annex-C1.pdf p21, para 72, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Media-Regulation- Round-Table.pdf pp89-90, para 6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Media-Standards- Trust.pdf Defamation Act Schedule 2 s5(1), ibid p1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Submission-from-Kenneth-Clarke-MP.pdf Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.13 Application 13470/87, Otto Preminger Institut v Austria (1994) 19 EHRR 34; Ashdown v Telegraph Group [2001] EWCA Civ 142; Application 31457/96, News Verlags GmbH v Austria (2000) 9 BHRC 625 at para 45; Application 69698/01, Stoll v Switzerland (2008) 47 EHRR 59Show full note "A free press can communicate important facts that the public have a legitimate interest in knowing (and which others might want to conceal). …one aspect of the public interest in a free press is that it provides an essential set of checks and balances on power (and, more importantly, the abuse of power). …there is a public interest in learning of dangers and risks, even where others may wish to conceal them…. A free press, free of the censorship and restrictions imposed by the powerful, … serves the public interest by its investigative and communicative role. Both roles are necessary."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

¶4.2 First, therefore, a free press serves democracy by enabling public deliberation. Citizens

need information to make intelligent political choices. To this end, the press serves both as a conduit for the dissemination of information as well as a forum for public debate. It is therefore unsurprising that the proliferation of newspapers which followed the abolition of the stamp duty in the nineteenth century was accompanied by one of the most active periods of political reform in modern history.

¶Chapter 2 | The Freedom of the Press and Democracy

¶4.3 The second way in which a free press serves the interests of democracy is through its public

watchdog role, acting as a check on political and other holders of power. The press is able to perform this function because of its hard-won position as a powerful institution independent of the state, a position which earned it the nickname or sobriquet of the Fourth Estate amongst nineteenth century writers. B

¶4.4 The British press has a strong tradition of holding power to account. A forerunner of

investigative journalism, Charles Dickens, exposed some of the cruellest aspects of Victorian society in his excoriating accounts of the work houses. More recently, investigations conducted by his modern counterparts at The Daily Telegraph resulted in the exposure of widespread misuse of the parliamentary expenses scheme by Members of Parliament. Less headline grabbing, but of equal significance, is the role of investigative journalism in consumer affairs and at exposing abuses of power in publicly-run institutions such as hospitals, care homes and prisons.

¶4.5 Again, it is not a given that a press which is simply free will perform this function. The press

must be independent from those in power and must be afforded the privileges necessary to enable investigative journalism to take place. It must also be 'active, professional and inquiring'.

press freedom within the rule of law and the role of statute 5.1 The unique power wielded by the press plays a vital function in democracy. However,

this power must also be used consistently with other democratic values. A free press in a democracy must therefore operate within certain parameters.

¶5.2 Chief amongst these is the requirement that press freedom promotes, and operates within,

the rule of law which itself is often described as the cornerstone of a democratic society.26 Although the democratic function of the rule of law is primarily associated with the idea of government in accordance with the law, the doctrine's deeper implications concern the need for accountability and constraint of all power in a modern democracy: "Be you never so high, the law is above you"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

¶5.3 Lord Bingham encapsulated this essential function of the rule of law in his now celebrated

monograph on the subject, in which he defined the rule of law as follows:28 "[A]ll persons and authorities within the state, whether public or private, should be bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws publicly and prospectively promulgated and publicly administered in the courts." In other words, the rule of law is at the cornerstone of democracy because it protects the freedoms on which democracy depends, including press freedom, from arbitrary power.

¶5.4 In a modern democracy that abides by the rule of law, press freedom can never mean a press

which sits outside, above and beyond, or in disregard of, the law. Respect for the law is the common framework within which the press, as an important commercial sector, is enabled

¶PART B | The Press and the Public Interest

to flourish, to preserve and enjoy its freedoms, and to make its unique contribution to a democratic society.

¶5.5 That general principle relates to the law (both common law and statute) which applies to B press organisations in the same way as it applies to other commercial organisations; these

include the laws of taxation, for example, and, where relevant, the requirements of company or trust law. It also applies to the law which is of particular application to the activities of the press, specifically including information-gathering and publication. Appendix 4 to the Report sets out the principal sources of law applying in this more activity-specific way to press organisations. Some of this law is of particular, or modified, application to the press; whether or not that is the case, in many ways it does constrain the conduct (or 'freedom') of the press in order to hold it in balance with other important aspects of the public interest. How it does so is considered more fully below.

¶5.6 The point of paramount importance for present purposes, however, is that there is a

fundamental public interest in respect by the press for and obedience to the law. A press considering itself to be above the law would be a profoundly anti-democratic press, arrogating to itself powers and immunities from accountability which would be incompatible with a free society more generally. All who have the privileges and responsibilities of holding power to account, including police, politicians and press, must themselves champion and uphold the accountabilities they proclaim for others. The rule of law, in other words, 'guards the guardians' and is a guarantor of the freedom of the press, not an exception to it.

¶5.7 Reference has already been made to the separate public interest in a press which is diverse.

Even if newspapers are, as editors have forcefully suggested, merely the passive conduits of their readers' views, the argument for a multiplicity of such views is clear. To the extent that the press does more, and is capable of influencing public opinion, the argument becomes even stronger. These arguments are recognised in general terms by plurality and media specific competition laws, which apply both to the print and broadcast media. Of course, I fully appreciate that plurality and partisanship are separate concepts; that the print media is fully entitled to be partisan; and that the broadcast media is required to be impartial. The simple point I am making about the press is that an irreverent and opinionated print media should, taken as a whole, reflect a range of views if it is fully to realise its potential to contribute to the public interest.

¶5.8 From this brief overview, it is possible to see that the organisation, activities and products of

the press are in many ways limited by, or made accountable through, the operation of the law, that is to say, both common law and statute. In this, the press is no different from any other provider of, or participant in, democratic public life. As explained above, the rule of law is at the most fundamental level the guarantor of the freedom of the press, not an exception to it. And where it limits the activities or the press, or makes the press formally accountable for its actions, the law is simply performing its inherent democratic functions of balancing competing freedoms and competing public goods. So much is to state the obvious.

¶5.9 That it needs to be stated at all, and more than stated, emphasised, is a result of two lines of argument put to the Inquiry, both of which are dealt with more fully below.

¶5.10 The first of these is the proposition that the press is, or should be, 'entitled' to break the law

where to do so would be 'in the public interest'. It is certainly true that there are a number of modifications in various aspects of the law applicable to the press which gives it greater latitude within the law than is afforded to others. But that, emphatically, does not mean recognition within the law that, as a matter of general principle, the press possesses any entitlement or expectation to be indulged, in the national interest, in special exemption from

¶Chapter 2 | The Freedom of the Press and Democracy

observing the requirements of the law. The Inquiry has been asked to consider the possibility of recommending that a general public interest defence be accorded to journalists in relation to what might be described as the whole of the criminal law insofar as it relates to the press. I give this proposal full and independent consideration.29 B

¶5.11 The other reason to clarify that a free press within a mature democracy operates within the

rule of law is to address the line of argument, put to the Inquiry from time to time, that a statutory framework for, or underpinning of, press standards would by itself be repugnant to a proper view of the freedom of the press. This argument, in turn, appeared in two distinct forms.

¶5.12 The first version of this argument posits that any change to the law by Act of Parliament to

require or restrict any behaviour by the press, or to increase its accountabilities, regardless of the content or justification of any such change, is intolerable in a democracy as an act of state control. I understand this argument, but believe that it completely lacks merit. It seems to rely, at some level, on a mistaken conflation of state censorship with the ordinary democratic processes of making and applying statute law.

¶5.13 As has been illustrated, there are many forms of statute law which already restrict the

activities of the press, whether in terms of their organisation, competition or activities up to and including in limited cases what it may or may not be lawful to publish (race hate, for example). On the face of it, these statutory restrictions are legitimate and proportionate exercises in democratic lawmaking, balancing competing public freedoms and goods. Of course, as such, they need to be justified, and considered on their merits. Not every statutory restriction possible will be proportionate and justifiable. But to contend that no statutory reform could be so is to push the argument far beyond any reasonable statement of principle. Ultimately, there is no necessary connection between statutory underpinning of a regulatory system (to apply the argument more closely to home), on the one hand, and state censorship on the other, nor in my view is there some sort of slippery slope gliding from the first to the second.

¶5.14 The second variant of the argument is more limited. It is put by witnesses, such as Lord

Hunt, on the basis that any proposal for statutory reform of the law as it applies to the press contains within it a risk of exposure to a Parliamentary process in which a commitment to the importance of press freedom does not at present exist.30 There are two objections to this argument. The first is that I am aware of no empirical evidence to support it.31 On the contrary, in recent years there are, I think, examples only of Parliamentary law making in respect of the press which is clearly focused on strengthening, rather than restricting, the freedoms of the press.32

¶5.15 The second objection is an objection of principle and constitution. More than one view is no

doubt possible of how the freedoms of the press should best be held in balance with other freedoms and public goods. Parliament is the proper and legitimate forum within which such views can and must be debated in a democracy. If the press fears for its liberties in a Parliamentary context, its answer is to ensure that the case is put with maximum clarity in that forum, not to seek to avoid the forum altogether.

¶PART B | The Press and the Public Interest

The protection of sources and other legal privileges of the press B 6.1 A free press is able to perform valuable functions which individual free speech cannot. It is

because of the position of the press as an institution of power that it is able to stand up to and speak truth to power. The professional skills and resources at its disposal enable the press as an institution to carry out ground-breaking investigations in the public interest. It is these considerations and functions which have resulted in the press as an institution being afforded certain privileges going beyond those protected by freedom of speech.

¶6.2 Principal amongst these is the press privilege not to disclose sources of information. Now

enshrined in section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, the privilege means that a publisher cannot be compelled to reveal the source of published information unless a court considers such disclosure to be in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of crime. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 confers a similar procedural privilege, preventing the police from access to journalistic material without authorisation obtained by application to the court. Furthermore, the courts have also recognised the right not to disclose sources as an important facet of the free press, as is reflected in the following words of Lord Woolf CJ:33

"The fact that journalists' sources can be reasonably confident that their identity will not be disclosed makes a significant contribution to the ability of the press to perform their role in society of making information available to the public".

¶6.3 Furthermore, whilst the press are not above the law, the criminal law does on occasion accord

journalists a form of protected status34 as well as certain protections in relation to otherwise defamatory publications (e.g. qualified privilege and the 'Reynolds' defence). These matters are all covered in some detail later in the report and stand to be enhanced in the Defamation Bill presently before Parliament. Suffice to say, these privileges afforded to the press are important precisely because they enable the press to serve the public interest in carrying out investigative journalism and disseminating information: they are not afforded for any other reason.

CHapTEr 3 CompETINg pUBLIC INTErESTS

Context 1.1 The public interest in a free press is fundamental. But it cannot be viewed in isolation. As has

been demonstrated, it is, itself, an aspect of wider public interests such as the public interest in democracy, for example, in public life and in the rule of law. There are other public interests also of which press freedom is not a major aspect, and with which it may sometimes be in tension. This section considers some of them, in order to put the public interest in a free press in its fuller context, and to reflect on how competing aspects of the public interest are resolved and reconciled.

¶1.2 The 'public interest' is therefore not a monolithic concept. Nor is it the particular property

of the press or any other organisation or sector. It will often be a matter of balancing a number of outcomes which would be for the common good, but which cannot all be achieved simultaneously. In a democracy, this is principally a role for Government that is, for example, used to grappling with a balance between the public interests in public spending and in low taxes, in liberty and in security, in high accountability and low bureaucracy.

¶1.3 That is by no means to portray any aspects of the public interest as mutually exclusive or zero-

sum. On the contrary, the fact that many aspects of public, and indeed private, life may benefit the public makes the task of the decision-maker a much more subtle and skilful one than that. There are critical decisions to be taken about how to balance, weigh and reconcile many things that are in themselves good but not all of which may be simultaneously achievable. So it is a complex task for those charged with it, and one for which accountabilities are rightly demanded. A wider perspective than that of the press is therefore inevitable:1

"There are more components of the public interest than those that are served by a free press, so that the press may need to control its activity to respect those wider factors. … Sometimes it seems that the press's confidence that its activities are serving the public interest makes it insensitive to the complexity of that notion."

¶1.4 Most proponents of free speech, for example, accept that its exercise must be restricted in

order to protect the rights and interests of others. There is an important public interest in free speech, and there is also an important public interest in the civil liberties of individuals. These may sometimes need to be reconciled. Certain acts of speech, such as speech inciting violence or race hate, are so connected with producing specific conduct as to be relatively unprotected. Even Milton, in a passage from the Areopagitica overshadowed by his rhetoric in defence of a free press, acknowledged necessary limits to free speech (although not necessarily limits which we would now condone):

"I mean not tolerated popery, and open superstition, which as it extirpates all religious and civil supremacies, so itself should be extirpate … that also which is impious or evil absolutely against faith or manners that no law can possibly permit that intends not to unlaw itself".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 pp3-4, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Professor- Christopher-Megone.pdf

¶PART B | The Press and the Public Interest

¶1.5 Some of those who place the strongest emphasis on press freedom take their lead from

the principally American brand of 'free speech absolutism'. Free speech absolutists take the injunction of the First Amendment to the United States Constitutions at face value:

¶B that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Within this tradition, the

United States Supreme Court has developed some of the most extensive protections of free speech in the democratic world, including the protection of religious and racist hate speech as a species of 'political speech'.2

¶1.6 However, even in a culture committed to maximum protection to free speech, the absolutist

position has proved impossible to sustain. In practice, the United States Supreme Court imposes extensive restrictions on freedom of speech by identifying categories of speech which are deemed not to fall within the scope of the First Amendment. These categories include for example advocacy of imminent illegal conduct, official secrets, defamation and fraudulent misrepresentation. The Supreme Court has also denied that certain categories of sexually explicit material amount to protected speech and has been prepared to sanction far more extensive restrictions of obscene material than exist in the UK.3

¶1.7 Article 10(2) of the ECHR itself permits "formalities, conditions or restrictions" on freedom of

expression so long as they are prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society. Thus, to the extent that press freedom is protected as an aspect of the protection of freedom of expression under Article 10, certain restrictions will be necessary and justifiable in the overall public interest.

¶1.8 The Inquiry invited thoughts on the place of press freedom within a wider concept of the

public interest by asking the following question, both of some of the expert witnesses and more generally of the public at large via the Inquiry website:4

In order to maximise the overall public interest, with what other aspects of the public interest would freedom of expression, or freedom of the press, have to be balanced or limited? The Inquiry is particularly interested in the following, but there may be others: a. the interest of the public as a whole in good political governance, for example in areas such as: – national security, public order and economic wellbeing, – the rule of law, the proper independence and accountability of law enforcement agencies, and access to justice, and – the democratic accountability of government for the formation and implementation of policy; b. the public interest in individual self-determination and the protection and enforcement of private interests, for example – privacy, including (but not necessarily limited to) the rights to privacy specified in general in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and in European and national legislation on the protection of personal data, – confidentiality, the protection of reputation, and intellectual and other property rights, and

¶Chapter 3 | Competing Public Interests

– individual freedom of expression and rights to receive and impart information where those interests and rights are not identical to the interests and rights of the press.

What follows picks up some of the strands of thought in the responses the Inquiry received B to these questions, and which seemed to be particularly pertinent.

freedom of expression 2.1 As noted above, the rights of individuals to freedom of expression have different origins from

the public interest in the free speech of the press. Thus, freedom of expression or speech has value for individuals because of its ability to contribute to individual self-expression and self-realisation.5

"Freedom of individual expression is important for the development and maintenance of social identity, and for forming relationships and associations, for developing projects (that may be counter to prevailing opinion or orthodoxy)."

¶2.2 There is a distinct public interest in individual freedom of self-expression. Liberal democracies

are composed of individuals free to express and develop themselves. It was put to the Inquiry in this way:6

"Freedom of thought and expression are also in the public interest because they constitute the public as a society of equals who respect one another: a society in which each member can participate and bring their own views to the public sphere. This is a good independent of the instrumental benefits it brings."

¶2.3 The public interest in individual freedom of expression is a distinct and different aspect of the public interest to press freedom. Here is one way in which the difference was explained:7

"The press has, as it were, no 'self' to fulfil, so an argument from self-fulfilment or self-development will not be directly relevant to questions of press freedom. More importantly, however, demands for press freedom are not (or not centrally) demands for free expression, but rather for the communication of information, and even if we think that individuals need to be able to express their views in order to develop fully as human beings, it does not follow that extensive freedom should be extended to those (eg the press) whose primary concern is with communication of information. To put the point starkly, those who aim to communicate must aspire to standards which are inapplicable for those who aim only to express their own views."

¶2.4 The democratic rationale for freedom of expression in relation to individuals is also different

from the democratic interest in a free press. It encompasses the individual's right to receive information, impart his or her own views and participate in democracy on an informed basis. Democracy benefits from a free press where the press, taken as a whole (a sum of partisan parts), communicate a plurality of views and provide a platform for public debate.

¶PART B | The Press and the Public Interest

¶2.5 In this context, mass communication by the press has the capacity both to enhance and inhibit

individual freedom of expression. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind the important point made to the Inquiry that some limitations to freedom of expression under the law are

¶B necessary in order to protect free speech from being inhibited by the free speech of others.

This is a significant issue when there is an imbalance of power between the competing voices. A free debate cannot happen if some participants simply drown out others and prevent them from speaking. As the New Zealand Law Commission pointed out in its submission to the Inquiry:8

"[C]ensorship is not the only enemy of free speech. Those who exercise their free speech to intimidate, bully, denigrate and harass others on the internet lessen the credibility of free speech arguments. Even though the web provides those who are harmed by free speech the opportunity to exercise their right of reply, not all have the courage or the standing to exercise it. In effect, those who exercise their free speech rights to cause harm may inhibit others from participating freely in this vital new public domain".

¶2.6 Such restrictions may be necessary to protect the freedom of expression of one individual

or group of individuals from the speech of another individual or group of individuals. For example, speech which inhibits personal self-expression, be it artistic, religious or sexual, or which intimidates others into silence, inhibits freedom of expression of others. This is why society does not protect racial or religious hate speech in law.9 Nor is there protection in law for speech which is threatening, intimidating or harassing.10

¶2.7 When one individual's right to freedom of expression is inconsistent with the similar rights of

another, a difficult balancing exercise must be carried out in law. It may also be necessary to balance the public interest in the free speech of the press against the public interest in the freedom of expression of individuals. Race hate would be no more protected in the pages of a newspaper than it would anywhere else. This is, of course, a straightforward example. Political philosophers and ethicists would say that more complex issues arise where individual freedom of expression is put under pressure by the free speech of others in ways which are not objectionable in law but which nonetheless might be objectionable on other grounds.

¶2.8 There are, for example, those cases in which the free speech of one party is experienced in a

very intimate way as a threat to the core self-expression and identity of another. That is the context, for instance, in which debates about the portrayal of women and some minorities in the press is conducted.11 There is a public interest in the free expression of views (and images) which some, perhaps many, find objectionable. There is also a public interest in the liberty of individuals to live free from publicly promulgated stereotyping which limits their own expression and development of themselves. This is not in any sense a point about censorship or law. It is a very simple and self-contained point about competing public interests in free expression.

¶Chapter 3 | Competing Public Interests

Personal autonomy and civil liberties 3.1 To this extent, the public interest in individual freedom of expression is an aspect of a broader

public interest in the autonomy, integrity and dignity of individuals. More generally, personal B autonomy and human dignity require that individuals enjoy a protected personal sphere over which they exercise a measure of autonomous control. This is a dimension to the public interest which has a very ancient history in the UK and a special place in public imagination. It underlies the iconic status of habeas corpus as an early guarantee of personal liberty, and it underlies the special importance of freedom from interference in home life: 'an Englishman's home is his castle'.

¶3.2 Personal autonomy means that individuals must have a sphere in which they can exercise

individual choices without interference from others (including the state). This important personal sphere has been described in Western liberal philosophy in terms of the public interest in personal privacy. As David Feldman has stated:12

"The combination of the idea of a right to be respected as a moral agent with the idea of social spheres of decision-making within which people or groups are entitled to regard themselves as free from outside coercion are, I suggest, of the essence off the notion of privacy as a civil liberty."

¶3.3 It is evident and well evidenced that the public interest in free speech and free self-

expression does, on occasion, come into tension with the public interest in individual privacy and autonomy. Both are protected in law. Article 10 of the ECHR (freedom of expression) is held in a dynamic balance with Article 8 (home and private life). This dynamic balance has been developed in the English law of the protection of privacy. Lord Hoffmann observed in Campbell v MGN Ltd that the protection of privacy was essential to "the protection of human autonomy and dignity – the right to control the dissemination of information about one's private life and the right to the esteem and respect of other people". In the same case, Lord Nicholls agreed that "[a] proper degree of privacy is essential for the wellbeing and development of an individual".

¶3.4 Thus the existence of a private sphere is vital for human development. It is the space in

which individuals are able to experiment with preferences and build personal relationships beyond public scrutiny and judgment. Violations of the private sphere prevent individuals from obtaining these benefits. The private sphere is also critical to personal autonomy as a space over which an individual exercises control. To invade someone's privacy disregards that individual's choices as to when and by whom he or she will be seen and what personal information he or she will divulge.

¶3.5 That element of choice and control of the personal sphere, although a fundamental public

good, is also capable of being exercised contrary to the public interest. So, for example, where an individual seeks to draw a veil of privacy over his or her criminal conduct, then the public interest in privacy will come into conflict with the public interest in law enforcement. But even there, the balanced result will be a partial and not a complete invasion of privacy, and one which is carefully prescribed by law; even in prison there are basic guarantees of human dignity.

¶3.6 Where the public interest in free expression, in holding power to account, and in the pursuit

of wrongdoing are all aligned on the one hand, and conflict with the public interest in an individual's privacy on the other, it is clear that the balance will be able to come down in

¶PART B | The Press and the Public Interest

favour of the former. But again, it is important to keep in mind that the public interest in privacy, although compromised, never completely goes away. Violation of the private sphere must always be proportionate to any larger public interest being served. The element of

¶B control over one's personal life is never all-or-nothing, but a matter of an infinite number of degrees and decisions.

¶3.7 Where an individual has chosen to put a matter within the private sphere into the public

domain, then he or she will have ceded a measure of control over it.13 Making choices of that nature is of the essence of personal autonomy. They do not necessarily imply that other choices will be made, much less that the freedom to make other choices is also being ceded. Everyone is entitled to some private space and always provided that there is no countervailing public interest in exposure of that private space (because, for example, it exposes crime or serious impropriety)14 there is a public interest in preserving it.

¶3.8 This important point was made in a number of ways to the Inquiry.15

"An actor who is successful may be well known because his films are viewed by many. He may indeed wish and hope that many continue to view the results of his (and others') craft. It does not follow from this that he has a pathological compulsion to display himself, or to have every aspect of his life observed and documented. Nor does it follow that he has made some kind of tacit contractual agreement, where he has waived his privacy rights in exchange for fame.... "Those who do wish to enter a quasi-contractual agreement where they exchange the protection of privacy for an increase in their fame should not be prohibited from doing so, but it does not follow from this that everyone that the public might have an interest in … should have their private lives placed at risk of intrusive and invasive acts."16

¶3.9 To treat an individual merely as something to be talked about, reported or looked at against

his or her wishes is contrary to the public interest in individual autonomy, and to the ethical imperative to treat individuals as an "end" and not simply as a "means".

¶3.10 It is right to acknowledge however that the nature of the public interest in privacy and our

understanding of the implications of choices made by individuals about their privacy are matters which lie at the heart of a number of fast-moving contemporary social changes, about which a clear and stable consensus may not yet have been reached. The explosion in use of social media, particularly by the young, has not yet been matched by a settled understanding of the implications of the choices that people make in placing private material online; many do so unwisely or naively with disproportionate exposure to exploitation of such material and the compromising of their privacy.

¶3.11 At the same time, the nature of commercial 'celebrity culture' continues to be pondered even

as it evolves with great rapidity; again, there is as yet no settled understanding or consensus about this. A celebrity obviously gives up his or her right to privacy if he or she sells an intimate

¶Chapter 3 | Competing Public Interests

photograph to a newspaper. How far this goes is another question. The right is clearly ceded as regards the transaction in question, but does that give the newspaper or even the press in general, a blank cheque for all purposes or for all time? Put in those terms, the answer, in my view, is clearly not. But around the margins there may be issues of fact and degree. B

¶3.12 In any event, while the precise limits of the public interest in this area may be being developed and contested, the underlying basics must not be lost sight of. As Professor Megone put it:17

"Journalists and editors need to recognise that both personal privacy and the importance of confidentiality can in part be understood in terms of an agent's ownership of his own information, and the importance of that to the control of his own life. These are matters a free society seeks to protect as part of the public interest – and the press need to be clear that they may well need respecting even when such respect adversely affects journalistic activity"

¶3.13 The protection of the "reputation and rights of others" is expressly identified by Article 10(2)

of the ECHR as a necessary public interest basis for limiting the expression of others. The right to freedom of expression must therefore be accommodated with other fundamental liberties. Thus, when confronted with conflicting claims under two protected ECHR rights, the courts must undertake a difficult balancing exercise to determine which will prevail. This is the reason why there is no protection for speech (written or oral) which unjustifiably damages a person's reputation or which interferes with a person's "reasonable expectation of privacy".18

other public goods 4.1 The relationship between freedom of the press and the public interest in justice is similarly a

matter of balance. On the one hand, freedom of expression is integral to the principle of open justice, which encompasses the entitlement of the media to impart and the public to receive information in relation to the process of justice. Therefore, any restriction on the ability of the press to report proceedings openly must be expressly limited.19 On the other hand, reporting restrictions may be necessary if the right of an individual to a fair trial would be prejudiced by publication of information about the proceedings: this is no more than the protect the integrity of the justice system and a person's right to a fair trial.

¶4.2 Even more fundamental are the limits on freedom of expression necessary to protect a

democratic society in which freedom of expression is able to flourish. Thus, first listed in the restrictions on freedom of expression permitted by Article 10(2) are those "necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime". These are straightforward concepts which speak for themselves.

CHapTEr 4 THE rESpoNSIBILITIES of THE prESS

Context 1.1 The idea that freedom of expression comes with responsibilities is both obvious and

entirely familiar. Article 10(2) of the ECHR provides that the right to freedom of expression "carries with it duties and responsibilities". In part, this is because, as discussed in Chapter 3, unrestricted speech has the power to harm competing public interests, including the free speech of others. It is also because the press is an institution of considerable power and the exercise of power in a democratic context brings with it proportionate responsibility for the consequences of choices to do so. Moreover, where power is exercised purportedly in the public interest, then there is a particularly acute responsibility to account for the exercise of that power to the public in whose name it is exercised.

press power and the impact on society 2.1 In order to understand the responsibilities incumbent on the press, it is necessary to consider

the nature of press power and the potential it has to impact on society. One obvious aspect of the power wielded by the press is its capacity for mass communication:1

"Mass communication has powers that local, individual, communication does not. Mass communication allows others to criticize, to inform of the failings, crimes, and deceit of the powerful. Mass communication allows agents to assemble, to unite, to form dissident movements, to organize and oppose those in power."

¶2.2 It is on account of this capacity of the press to communicate to large audiences, that the idea

of the "megaphone effect" of the press was invoked with such frequency throughout the Inquiry. The megaphone effect of the press has a tremendous capacity to serve the public interest. It is because of the ability of the press to reach a wide audience that it is taken seriously by, and therefore able to stand up to, other institutions of power.2

"[O]ne aspect of the public interest in a free press is that it provides an essential set of checks and balances on power (and, more importantly, the abuse of power): in all too many parts of the world the state routinely tortures and murders its citizens, though reporting of such facts is strictly prohibited. This can help a vicious regime retain an air of legitimacy, or, in some cases, even to present the air of democratic legitimacy (there are putative democracies which have serious restrictions on press freedom). Similarly, the there is a public interest in learning of dangers and risks, even where others may wish to conceal them. A powerful industrialist might wish to conceal the fact that his factories are polluting the water supply, or that his company's product is carcinogenic. A free press, free of the censorship and restrictions imposed by the powerful, thus serves the public interest by its investigative and communicative roles."

¶2.3 This power of the press to reach a wide audience, whilst having the capacity to do great good, carries certain risks:3

¶Chapter 4 | The Responsibilities of the Press

"Communication is a relational process, taking place between speaker (or writer) and audiences. A powerful media, even a powerful free media, can effectively block dissenting voices".

Mass communication by the press can block dissenting voices in a number of ways. One is by B preventing access to audiences. Access to audiences is integral to the ability of individuals to experience the communicative aspects of free speech:4

"Expression can be done by a lone individual, but communication is essentially relational, and involves others. Individual speakers have an interest in being accessible to audiences. Communication can be stifled, not by blocking speech, but by blocking access to audiences. For example, suppose a cunning King permits dissenting political views to be expressed, but only at the bottom of a deep mine shaft. Though here, strictly speaking, one has an opportunity to express one's views, one is not free to have them heard. Not only do we have an interest in there being an audience for our speech, we also have an interest in our being the audience to others' speech."

¶2.4 Clearly, if a particular individual or group of individuals are denied access to the press to promote their views, their ability to reach audiences is diminished:5

"Writers of such columns in the press can seek to mitigate these criticisms by endeavouring to articulate what they take to be important or widespread lines of thought. But this still points to the fact that in terms of self-expression the press only allows a select few to promulgate their views. Although absence of censorship allows others to set up press outlets, in principle the resources required to do this effectively limit this opportunity. This argument could be taken further and it could be said that the public interest in freedom of expression can even be adversely affected by a free press, if certain other conditions hold such that some voices get much more prominence than others. In those conditions the power of the press as a medium of expression may lead to certain views dominating the public sphere and other views being squeezed out."

¶2.5 One consequence is that views expressed through the press megaphone are more likely to

predominate: "Whether something's liable to be noticed, what effects it's liable to have on other people's perceptions must be very relevant";6 "Financial power ensures that one sort of idea is more likely to be promoted in the newspapers people read than another sort of idea".7

¶2.6 The tendency of views expressed in the press to prevail can be also be explained by a

second, and related, facet of press power. There is no doubt that the press is considered a voice of authority in society. In many quarters, it has rightly earned a reputation for accurate and vigorous reporting, independence and holding power to account. It is because of the authoritative quality of the press, combined with its access to mass audiences, that

¶PART B | The Press and the Public Interest

communication by the press, as an institution of considerable power, has a significant impact on society. It can set the news agenda, shape culture and change perceptions:8 9 10

¶"There is a great deal of difference between 'a bloke down the pub' claiming, to his B fellow drinkers, that the MMR vaccine causes autism, and a broadsheet newspaper

doing the same thing. Media institutions can shape public opinion, they can entrench, or change, public opinion in a way that individual speakers cannot."

¶2.7 The existence of a press with such significant power is a potent antidote to the dominance of

big business and government; but it also has potential to do great harm if not exercised with responsibility:11

"If someone in a position of moral or political authority makes a statement about race or about gender, it isn't simply that there will be a wider audience for that but also that the opinion comes with a greater degree of – with an imprimatur, or seems to, and that itself is problematic. That's why positions of responsibility in society are very difficult, because you have to take a lot of care about what you say because people pay attention to it."

¶2.8 The press has the power to cultivate stereotypes, not just as a matter of the megaphone effect, but by cumulative effect also:12

"there is an asymmetry between the individual case and the case of the press. One of the reasons we tolerate the fairly broad-ranging right of individual expression is that individuals' remarks are typically limited in their impact… But …this megaphone effect is a kind of culture-shaping effect … It exerts much greater influence and power on people, how they're perceived by others, creating stereotypes or creating certain assumptions in society."¹³¹³ http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Ruling-on-the-role-of-the-assessors-PDF-102-KB. pdf This evidence included hearsay, anonymous material which Michelle Stanistreet the General Secretary of the National Union of Journalists sought to adduce from a number of journalists who feared for their careers if they spoke out in public. An application for this evidence to be heard was challenged by other Core Participants and subject to 'gateway' rulings by the Inquiry: http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Anonymous- Witnesses-Ruling-PDF-64.5-KB.pdf and http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Anonymous- Evidence-28-November-2011.pdf. These were issued along with a protocol http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Protocol-regarding-Applications-for-Anonymity.pdf. The rulings were the subject of unsuccessful challenge in the Administrative Court (Toulson LJ, Sweeney and Sharp JJ): see R (on the application of Associated Newspapers Ltd v. The Rt Hon Lord Justice Leveson as Chairman of the Leveson Inquiry [2012] EWHC 57 (Admin), http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assoc-news-v-chair-leveson-inquiry.pdf. There was then a substantive ruling on the merits of the application which was granted: http://www.levesoninquiry. org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Anonymous-witnesses-ruling-7-Feb-2012.pdf [2006] QB 468 p3 para d), Professor Baroness Onora O'Neill, http://levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/witness- statement-of-Professor-Baroness-ONeil See, however, the observations of Dr Manson on the nature of privacy rights in 'public' spaces and the difference between degrees of intensity in the public gaze: pp15-20, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-16-July-2012.pdf; p8, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Dr-Neil-Manson.pdf p19, lines 10-21, Professor John Tasioulas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-16-July-2012.pdf pp99-100, Spencer Feeney, Mike Gilson, John McLellan and Jonathan Russell, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-18-January-2012.pdf http://www.newscorp.com/corp_gov/MSC_reporting_structure.html p4, para 13, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Mark- Thompson.pdf p3, para 5, ibid Snoddy, R, The Good, the Bad, and the Unacceptable: The hard news about the British press, p84 p55, para 125, ibid p52, lines 4-18, DCI Gilmour, ibid Care was taken over this issue which became the subject of some controversy during the hearing and was the subject of a ruling: see http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Operation-Motorman-and- ANL-10-July-2012.pdf. Associated Newspapers Ltd later confirmed that it did not advance a positive case contradicting the position that there exists prima facie evidence that journalists did act in breach of s55 by obtaining information which, prima facie, could not be justified in the public interest. That group thus fell into line with all other press core participants. p22, lines 18-24, Keith Surtees, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-29-February-2012.pdf p2, para 6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Fourth-Witness-Statement-of-DAC-Sue- Akers.pdf pp97-98 passim, Margaret Watson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-22-November-20111.pdf p4, para 5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Fifth-Witness-Statement-of-Richard- Caseby.pdf p26, para 54, ibid p18 lines 13-18, Colin Myler, ibid pp30-31, lines 23-4, Robert Jay QC, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-9-May-2012.pdf; p16, para 38, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ Witness-Statement-of-DCI-John-Macdonald.pdf p5, line 11; p38, line 25; pp46-47, lines 24-12; p58, line 21; p26, line 14; p78, lines 4-11; JK Rowling, http://www. levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-24-November-20112.pdf p119, lines 5-17, Hugh Whittow, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-12-January-2012.pdf; pp12-13, lines 15 –18, John Witherow, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-17-January-2012.pdf; p10, para 42, http://www. levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Dominic-Mohan.pdf p6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Witness-Statement-of-Ed-Stearns.pdf http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm42/4262/4262.htm pp110-111, lines 4-10, Lord Stevens, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-6-March-20122.pdf p30, lines 2-11, Elizabeth Filkin, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-5-March-2012.pdf pp4-5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/First-Witness-Statement-of-Richard- Thomas-CBE.pdf It is, perhaps, worthy of note that Mr Thomas appears to focus on the profile of s55 DPA rather than the underlying issue of the practices of the press p55, lines 3-6, Richard Thomas, ibid pp22-23, lines 23-6, Christopher Graham, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-26-January-2012.pdf Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data p85, lines 9-14, Richard Thomas, ibid Part H, Chapter 5, para 2.73 pp33-34, lines 3-6, Kelvin Mackenzie, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-9-January-2012.pdf p39, lines 17-23, Sir John Major, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-12-June-2012.pdf p24, para 71, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Witness-Statement-of-David- Cameron-MP.pdf pp2-6, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Exhibit-KRM-5.pdf p5, para 3.2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Witness-Statement-of-James-Rupert- Jacob-Murdoch.pdf p34, lines 16-22, ibid pp12-14, paras 41-44, ibid p22, para 5.10 ibid Part E, Chapter 4 Chapter 32, para 3.4 Having paid fulsome tribute to Mr Abell's witness statement, I should also record my admiration for the Media Standard Trust's work in this area. The relevant material and submissions is on the Inquiry website. Given its comprehensiveness, I have sought to boil the issues down somewhat p1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Covering-Letter-from-Ofcom.pdf Part K, Chapter 1 p7, paras 22-23, ibid p3, para 5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Media-Regulation- Round-Table.pdf Defamation Act 2009 s44, http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2009/en.act.2009.0031.pdf http://www.lemonde.fr/actualite-medias/article/2009/12/30/les-editeurs-de-presse-en-ligne-se-repartissent-20- millions-d-euros-d-aides_1285932_3236.html p1, para 7, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Joint-Submission-by-Core-Participant- Victims1.pdf Part B Part F, Chapter 6, para 2.74 Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.32 News Verlag GmbH & co KG v Austria (2000) 31 EHRR 246 at paragraph 39Show full note "It means that publications in the press are peculiarly vulnerable to promoting stereotypes, because it's – what's heard is widely heard. If it's assumed that a member of a group is portrayed as a typical member of that group, then attitudes at large towards the group will be affected."¹⁴¹⁴ http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Ruling-on-the-role-of-the-assessors-PDF-102-KB. pdf http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Key-Questions.pdf [2008] 1 WLR 1499 p69, Dr Rowan Cruft, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-16-July-2012.pdf To use two of the examples of potentially supervening public interest considerations presently identified in the Editors' Code of Practice p17, lines 13-24, Professor Hornsby, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-16-July-2012.pdf pp7-8, paras 26-27, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Vijay- Vaghela.pdf Part E, Chapter 5 ibid O'Malley, T and C Soley, Op Cit, p56 p85, para 188, ibid p63, lines 3-13, DCI Gilmour, ibid pp4-7, lines 20-15, Alexander Owens, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-5-December-2011.pdf p34, para 65, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Peter-Clarke.pdf pp2-3, paras 7-8, ibid pm/ Part F, Chapter 5 For reasons identified in Part J Chapter 2 and by reference to the Code for Crown Prosecutors, it is inconceivable that anyone would consider there to be a public interest in prosecuting the journalist in these circumstances Witness anonymised under section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005 to protect his or her Article 8 rights p21, lines 5-13, Colin Myler, ibid p34, lines 8-17, Gillian Phillips, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-9-May-2012.pdf p2, para 5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-JK-Rowling2.pdf p15, lines 18-20, p23, lines 10-15, Hugh Whittow, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-12-January-2012.pdf p9, lines 20-23, Peter Clarke, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-1-March-2012.pdf pp4-5, para 14, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Lord- Stevens.pdf pp1-2, para 5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Sandra- Laville.pdf Briefings may be a combination of the two: for example, part embargoed (i.e. reportable later) and part non- reportable (ie background only, and never to be reported). Equally, a briefing may be in part on the record and, in part, embargoed or non-reportable. pp79-80, lines 25-3, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-9-December-2011.pdf p57, lines 14-16, Richard Thomas, ibid Q1884, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmcumeds/362/9090210.htm pp12-13, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Philip-Coppel-QC- redacted.pdf pp1-3, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/RJT-Exhibit-272.pdf Part H, Chapter 5, para 2.65 Part I, Chapter 5 pp16-17, lines 17-2, Tony Blair, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-28-May-2012.pdf p24, para 71, ibid p12, ibid pps 9-10, para 13, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Witness-Statement-of-Ed- Miliband.pdf p4, para 15, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Richard- Desmond.pdf p22, para 5.12 ibid R v. Bristol Crown Court, ex parte Bristol Press and Picture Agency Ltd [1986] 85 Cr App R 190 per Glidewell LJ at 196 and R v. Central Criminal Court ex parte Bright and others [2001] 1 WLR 662 per Judge LJ (as he then was) at p679 Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129 p26, lines 10-22, Dr Martin Moore, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-10-July-2012.pdf p6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Further-submission-from-the-Media- Standards-Trust.pdf; p2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by- Coordinating-Committee-for-Media-Reform.pdf K Part K, Chapter 4 pp7-8, paras 24-26, ibid pp8-9, para 6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Early-Resolution.pdf Defamation Act Schedule 2.2, http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2009/en.act.2009.0031.pdf K various press reports, http://www.mondaynote.com/2009/11/15/young-readers-already-hooked-on-subsidies/ K pp 1-2, lines 14-14, Lord Hunt, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-10-July-2012.pdf Part I, Chapter 9 Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.35 Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.33 Centro Europa 7 SRL and Di Stefano v Italy (Application no. 38433/09)Show full note

Communication: truth, comment and 'assessability'

¶3.1 The role of a free press as an agency of free communication (rather than of self-expression),

of constituting a public forum of views and ideas, is an important one to focus on. The term 'media' implies both a conduit or market-place role (the means by which material is communicated) and also the freedoms of the press to comment, in a partisan way, on the

¶Chapter 4 | The Responsibilities of the Press

material that they publish (the message is editorially 'mediated'). The vocal power and reach of the press, and its freedoms to mediate, are what make it a mighty force.

¶3.2 A free press performs its communication role in a democracy in a myriad ways, day in and

day out. It is by no means only through political journalism and holding authority to account B that the press proves its value in this way (although those are very important aspects in their own right). All forms of journalistic content potentially perform this vital role. Debate and comment, information and speculation, news and opinion, education and entertainment, all play their part. It is exactly this multifunctional and multifaceted package of content, produced with such verve and to deadline week in, week out, which makes the press such a marvel, such a matter of pride.

¶3.3 The different functions of the press, though, have different implications. We care about

them in different ways and for different reasons. We apply different standards to them. So, for example, we might say we wanted the TV listings and football results to be 'accurate'; the editorial to be 'opinionated' (perhaps to confirm or challenge, or help us form, our own opinions); the sports reporting to be 'lively' (and reasonably fair), the travel writing to be inspiring but not misleading, the crossword to be challenging but not impossible, and so on. And above all, we want it all to be accessible and a good read, as we all think of that in our different ways. This communication function is, in other words, an extremely complex and sophisticated exchange between editor and reader.

¶3.4 Nowhere is that more the case than in the role of the media in conveying news. It is here

that both the demands and expectations of readers are particularly complex. We know that some news is more important than others, but we vary in our judgments about that. We want to know the facts, but we also want to know how people experienced them and what people think about them. We want the spirit as well as the letter of events – the emotion, the meaning, the drama, the implications. We have an instinct that different kinds of news should be communicated in different ways (a politician's mistake, an outbreak of disease, a missing child, a disappointing new film, another rape in the town), but we will not find it easy to articulate those differences with any great precision.

¶3.5 We also know about the editorial inflection, the world-view, of the newspaper we read. For

some, if not most, that is very much part of why it is their newspaper of choice. That does not mean we always agree with it. But we are familiar with it, and that familiarity is at some level part of the attraction. Newspaper readership is remarkably loyal. We want the news in the press to be true and accurate; we do not want to be misled or lied to. But we want, or are content for, it to be presented in a partisan way. We want a measure of balance and context, but we also want a perspective. We want the truth, but we understand that there are many versions of the truth, and incompleteness in all versions. Notwithstanding the emphasis put by both the industry and its critics on the difference between 'fact' and 'comment' these are by no means distinct and watertight categories. The very act of describing a fact is to comment on it. All forms of recording are selective.

¶3.6 What authentic communication between editor and reader needs in these circumstances

is no more, but no less, than a measure of shared understanding of what is going on in that act of communication. In most cases, that is easy and obvious. There will be a common expectation of complete accuracy in the TV listings; mistakes will irritate and inconvenience readers and ultimately drive them to look elsewhere. A newspaper urging readers to support a particular party in the run-up to a General Election can be expected to be more sympathetic to that party's outlook and objectives than another's, and to reflect that sympathy editorially elsewhere in its pages.

¶PART B | The Press and the Public Interest

¶3.7 But in some cases, it will be neither easy nor obvious for readers to orientate themselves in

relation to material they read in the press. Some important examples were put before the Inquiry in the course of the evidence. They included, for example:

¶B (a) science and health reporting, where most non-specialist readers cannot easily judge for

themselves what experts are telling us; (b) consumer journalism such as property or travel reporting and restaurant reviewing, where we might not know whether a journalist has been an objective 'mystery shopper' or whether he or she has in fact been treated to holidays or meals by the organisations being reviewed, or owns a property in the same square as the house being praised in the newspaper; (c) 'PR' journalism, in which what is effectively commercially-produced advertising material is reproduced as editorial without mediation at all; (d) the reporting of identity issues (gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, appearance and so on) where the fact and manner of bringing such issues into coverage has a potential to implant a relevance for them in readers which they have not chosen.

¶3.8 In all these cases, that is to say the inaccessible expertise, the conflicts of interest, the

subliminal, or the simply misleadingly incomplete, the reader cannot straightforwardly make up his or her mind about what the newspaper is saying. Professor Baroness Onora O'Neill, who gave the Inquiry her views as a leading expert in the field of public thinking on the role of the media, describes the need for readers to be able to 'orientate' themselves in relation to what they read as "assessability". Mostly, readers know where they stand with what the papers say, and can make their own minds up about it. But not always. Where they cannot do so unaided, more is needed for the press to fulfil its proper role.

¶3.9 This point about the importance of authentic communication by the press, which respects

the needs of readers to be able to make their own minds up about what they are reading, was made to the Inquiry in a number of ways. Examples include:

"Those who aim to communicate must aspire to standards which are inapplicable for those who aim only to express their own views."¹⁵¹⁵ Ibid, paragraph 20 Beat; Big Brother Watch; British Psychological Society; Carbon Brief; Carnegie Trust; Democratic Society; Disaster Action; Federation of Muslim Organisation; Federation of Poles in Great Britain; Full Fact; Howard League for Penal Reform; Inclusion London; Irish Traveller Movement; Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants; Joint Enterprise: Not Guilty by Association (JENGbA); London Muslim Centre and the East London Mosque; Make Justice Work; Migrant and Refugee Communities Forum Mind and Rethink Mental Illness; National Aids Trust; Neuroimmune Alliance; Professionals Against Child Abuse; Refugee Council; Royal College of Psychiatrists; Runnymede Trust; Samaritans Sense About Science; Support After Murder and Manslaughter (National); Transparency International UK; UK Drug Policy Commission; United Communications Ltd; Wellcome Trust, Cancer Research UK and Association of Media Research (Joint Submission); Wish; Youth Media Agency See Re D, per Lord Carswell at para. 28. The relevance of the concept of 'inherent improbability' to a determination of whether an event took place (as opposed to who was responsible) has recently been re-affirmed in Re S-B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2010] 1 AC 678 per Baroness Hale of Richmond at para 11-12 Alan Rusbridger, The importance of a free press, seminar 6 October 2011, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2011/11/Alan-Rushbridger.pdf p9, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Dr-Neil-Manson.pdf p3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Professor-Susan- Mendus.pdf Richard Wallace, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing- 16-January-2012.pdf http://www.newscorp.com/investor/annual_reports.html pp2-3, para 7, ibid lTC Notes, The Broadcasting Acts of 1990 and 1996, June 2003 ibid, pp57-58 p85, para 191, ibid. Commonly when asked for further information complainants choose not to pursue their complaints p69, lines 1-2, DCI Gilmour, ibid pp21, 27, lines 7-11, 18-19, Alexander Owens, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-30-November-2011.pdf Other police officers were involved in the investigation. They will be referred to as and when their involvement is relevant p3, para 9, ibid pp18-19, lines 25-6, Christopher Jefferies, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-28-November-2011.pdf p1, para 3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Fifth-Witness-Statement-of-Richard- Caseby.pdf p2, para 4, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-HJK.pdf p43, line 1, Paul McMullan, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-29-November-2011.pdf http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/culture-media-sport/Surrey-Police-to-Chairman-17- January-2012.pdf p7, para 14-17, ibid p1, para 3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Alastair-Brett. pdf ; p1, para 1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Witness-Statement-of-Jonathan- Chapman.pdf ; p1, para 2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of- Justin-Walford.pdf pp7-8, para 34, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Opening-Statement-on-behalf-of- the-Metropolitan-Police-Service.pdf pp55-56, lines 22-15, Lord Stevens, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-6-March-2012.txt pp49-50, lines 16-12, Sandra Laville, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-14-March-2012.pdf Paragraphs 11.16 and 11.17, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/closing-submissions- for-Module-2-from-MPS.pdf p84, lines 23-25, Richard Thomas, ibid p60, lines 23-25, Richard Thomas, ibid pp24-26, lines 12-4, Christopher Graham, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-26-January-2012.pdf p24, lines 8-10, Philip Coppel, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-17-July-2012.pdf pp1-4, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/RJT-Exhibit-29.pdf Part H, Chapter 5, para 2.73 p10, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-statement-of-Andrew-Neil.pdf p10, Alastair Campbell, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of-Afternoon- Hearing-14-May-2012.pdf p24, para 71, ibid p2, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Exhibit-KRM-7.pdf For News Corp's response seeking to rebut to such fears: pp220-230, Dr Vince Cable, http://www.levesoninquiry.org. uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Exhibit-VC1-2.pdf See Part A Chapter 4 pp64-66, lines 25-6, Richard Desmond, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript- of-Afternoon-Hearing-12-January-2012.pdf p22, para 5.12 ibid Part E Chapter 4 The reasons that Eady J gave were the absence of existing authority and concern about whether such a claim in relation to the misuse of private information satisfied the twin tests of necessity and proportionality in Art. 10 of the ECHR: see [2008] EWHC 1777, [2008] EMLR 20 at paras 172-197 p69, lines 3-6, Professor Brian Cathcart, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-8-December-20111.pdf; p63, lines 1-5, Graham Shear, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-21-November-2011.pdf p2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Covering-Letter-from-Ofcom.pdf p21, para 30, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Lord-Black-of- Brentwood1.pdf p8, para 27, ibid p1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Max-Mosley.pdf p1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Professor-John-Horgan-Irish- Press-Ombudsman.pdf EU commission, http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/14476 p3, lines 11-15, Lord Hunt, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-10-July-2012.pdf K Part F, Chapter 6, para 9.75 K Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.37 See Khurshid Mustafa v Sweden (16 December 2008) (Application no. 23883/06) at para 50; Ozgur Gunden v Turkey (2000) 32 EHRR 49 at para 43Show full note "The public interest in a free press is not confined to the public interest in a press that reports matters of fact accurately and observes the disciplines of truth seeking needed for various sorts of inquiry. It also includes an interest in having a press that communicates other sorts of content – eg music and art, puzzles and stories – that do not make truth claims. Nevertheless, where truth claims are made, there is a particularly strong public interest in standards of media communication that meet the relevant requirements for truth seeking – accuracy about evidence and its limitations; distinctions between different sorts of evidence; the inclusion of necessary qualifications, and many others."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 "Good public interest journalism enables the public to judge what is being said. There may be cases where one has to hold back on the source of certain information,

¶Chapter 4 | The Responsibilities of the Press

but good public interest journalism seeks to make the sources and the evidence as available to the public as is feasible, given certain other constraints."17 "I think the default in favour of openness is actually what good journalism does. They try to give the sources where they can. The difficulty about confidential sources is the B problem that the reader has in knowing (a) was there any source at all and (b) was it a reliable source?"18 "One aspect of the public interest … is the public interest in truthfulness … Here there are two kinds of interest. There is the direct interest that individuals have in not being deceived or misled. …But there is also a second indirect interest in truthfulness, an interest in maintaining a culture of trust. If communication is believed to be untruthful (or inaccurate), then trust in communication may diminish."19 "Simply requiring accuracy or truthfulness does not preclude a free press from misleading, distorting, or, in some cases, from covertly serving or promoting vested interests."20 "News media are often intermediaries. They play the role of communicating facts that have been discovered, established or claimed by others. The evidence, warrant or other justification for such claims may be lacking, or suspect. The intermediary may not be competent to assess the claim, or have access to the evidence. They may be willing to pass on claims made by other self-interested parties in an uncritical way. …"21 "Knowing the source of a story is relevant to how we interpret it. Audiences' reactions to an article on a 'new wonder drug' that 'combats cancer' might be less favourable if they knew that the copy was verbatim from a press release by the company making the 'wonder drug'. Our response to 'advertorials' may (or at least ought to be) different from our response to news stories."22 "With regard to truthfulness and other norms of communication, the arguments offered here are not that this or that claim ought to be made but rather, that the appropriate procedures and mechanisms need to be in place to ensure that what is said (whatever it is) is justifiable, assessable and evaluable with regard to its source. … Ensuring …communicative adequacy does not determine or constrain content, except insofar as content is unjustified, misleading and untraceable."23

press ethics and the role of a code of ethics 4.1 Press ethics, to which the Inquiry was directed by its Terms of Reference, can be understood

at a simple level by reference to the choices available to a free press, where those choices may have consequences for the benefit or harm of others, whether individuals, groups or the public as a whole. These are the choices by which newspapers and journalists can exercise their freedoms so as to fulfil the unique and important role of the press in a democracy or

¶PART B | The Press and the Public Interest

indeed to undermine it, to promote or restrict public communication and debate, to enhance or harm civil liberties and the autonomy of individuals.

¶4.2 These are choices which fall to be made within the framework of the law. Compliance with B the law (criminal, civil and regulatory) does not necessarily exhaust the ethical choices to

be made by a free press, nor does consideration of legal risk and consequence exhaust the responsibilities of a press aiming at journalism in the public interest, which takes into account ethical risks and consequences.

¶4.3 The choices that a responsible and ethical press will make, then, flow from precisely those

aspects of a free press which give it a unique role and privileges in a democracy, and from an awareness of its power to affect the public in general, and individual members of the public, for better or worse. The following are examples.

(a) If a free press in a democracy has a special role in facilitating free communication and in constituting a public forum, then an ethical press will want to comply with good standards of communication. It will want to enable people to recognise and assess the material being provided. Where it provides information, that information will be reasonably intelligible and accurate. (b) If a free press in a democracy has special privileges to keep its sources secret, then an ethical press will be mindful of the reasons for and effects of that privilege and will exercise it only for those reasons, and bearing in mind those effects. It will want to ensure that the protection of sources is used to enhance the free flow of significant information and especially to protect those seeking to help hold power to account. It will not use it merely to constrain or control sources, nor will it abuse the privilege to mask the weakness or absence of sources or the existence of conflicts of interest, or to hide its own wrongdoing. (c) If a free press in a democracy has a special place because of its ability to hold power to account, an ethical press will consider itself to have responsibilities to do just that. It will not collude with the powerful at the expense of the public. It will challenge all kinds of sources of power, both public and private. It will be mindful of the power of the press itself, and seek to hold that power to account no less than other sources of power. And it will support others with responsibilities for holding power to account in doing so, including in the case of the media itself. (d) Further, a free and autonomous press within a democracy will be mindful of the democratic freedoms and autonomies of others. All such freedoms and choices, after all, stem from the same sources of democratic authority and accountability. And all ethical systems have at their core a sense of respect for the individuality and self- determination of others.24 People are the stock-in-trade of journalism. An ethical press will therefore be especially mindful of the need to ensure that the individuals it deals with, both as sources of information and as the content written about, are treated as subjects and not objects, and both as subjects in their own right and as subjects in context, with families, connections and group identities which may be affected by the treatment of the individual.

¶4.4 All of this is to re-emphasise that the freedom of the press, even the freedom of the press

within the limitations and accountabilities under the law, is not enough by itself to secure the important democratic benefits for which press freedom is a prerequisite. To become an

¶Chapter 4 | The Responsibilities of the Press

authentically free press of the kind valued and privileged in a democracy, the press must also exercise its freedoms effectively for that purpose. It must actively choose that role and live out its implications. That point was made to the Inquiry in many ways; examples include:

"The duties or responsibilities of the press follow straightforwardly from the reasons B we have for wanting a free press. So if one of the main reasons for wanting a free press is that we be fully informed as citizens, then there are responsibilities on the press to be accurate, honest, open and accountable."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 "Clearly though, a press which is free in the sense of not being controlled centrally, not censored, will only be meeting a necessary condition for serving its purposes of informing and scrutinising. In order for the press to serve these public interests it will also need to pursue its work with accuracy and rigour, to be concerned for the truth, to seek to avoid bias or serving particular interests, to make wise judgments as to what is worthy of public attention and what not, and perhaps to be courageous in pursuing these goals. (And it may well also be … that in order to serve its purpose the press needs to communicate in ways that are intelligible and assessable)."²⁶²⁶ p59, line 23 et seq, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing- 11-June-2012.pdf As a fundamental constitutional principle, the rule of law is now recognised in statute: see s 1 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 p2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Professor-Christopher- Megone.pdf ibid p3, para 8, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Mark-Thompson. pdf p13, paras 31-33, ibid Frost, C, Journalism Ethics and Regulation, p217 pp185-186, paras 254-261, 280.2, ibid p13, lines 5-8, ibid p12, para 16, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Witness-Statement-of-DS-Philip- Williams.pdf; Vodafone referred to voicemail telephone numbers as unique voicemail numbers (UVNs) whilst O2 referred to them as direct dial numbers (DDNs). Rather than use one or more acronyms, they will be referred to generically as unique voicemail access numbers p10, para 36, ibid http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090511/debtext/90511-0003.htm p6, paras 23-24, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Sheryl- Gascoigne.pdf p1, para 1.1, Michelle Stanistreet, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/MS-Exhibit-11. pdf Part F, Chapter 6 pp65-66, lines 12-2, ibid p2, para 5.1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Susan- Panuccio.pdf p4, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Witness-Statement-of-Dr-Rob-Mawby.pdf pp3, 76, lines 9-21, 7-13, Lord Blair, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-7-March-2012.pdf p8, para 28, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Jeremy-Lawton. pdf Part G Chapter 3 Section 11 p97, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-9-December-2011.pdf; pp50-51, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-9-December-2011.pdf p4, 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 page 4-5, ibid p69, lines 6-15, Richard Thomas, ibid p4, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Alastair- Campbell.pdf p10, Alastair Campbell, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-14-May-2012.pdf; pp69-70, Harriet Harman, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-12-June-2012.pdf; p8, Lord Mandelson, http://www.levesoninquiry. org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-21-May-20121.pdf p99, lines 19-23, David Cameron, ibid p37-38, ibid pp63-64, lines 22-2, ibid pp8-9, lines 15-13, Lord Patten, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-23-January-2012.pdf pp76-77, lines 25-2, Claire Enders, ibid HC Hansard, Debates, 29 January 1951, vol 483, col 681 [1997] QB 586 pp6-7, paras 39 and 40, ibid p2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Max-Mosley.pdf; pp3-4, para 6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Media-Regulation-Round-Table.pdf K p4, para 4, ibid pp23-24, lines 23-11, Lord Black, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- K Morning-Hearing-9-July-2012.pdf p6, para 7, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Submission-by-working-group-led-by- Lord-Prescott.pdf p76, lines 13-22, Professor John Horgan, ibid pp51-73, Michael Gove, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of-Afternoon- Hearing-29-May-2012.pdf Part K, Chapter 7, para 5.5 Von Hannover, cited above, para 65; Hachette Filipacchi Associés (ICI PARIS), cited above, para 40; and MGN Limited, cited above, para 143Show full note "Freedom is not licensed, and that's the way in which all these responsibilities bear on how you exercise your freedom. So you have those guiding aims of the media … – holding people accountable and presenting information – serving those roles and then these constraints."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 "The strategy here has been to focus on the valuable ends that a free press is meant to serve and then to point out (a) that a free press need not secure those ends; (b) that a free press can even stand as an obstacle to the achievement of those ends. This is not to argue in favour of censorship but to point out ways in which a free press can fail to contribute towards the public interest, and, as such, public-interest based justifications will fail to apply."²⁸²⁸ By way of example, p1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-11-January-2012.pdf Bingham, T, The Rule of Law p6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Dr-Neil-Manson.pdf p44, lines 21-21, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-26-April-2012.pdf ibid pp14-15, paras 36-39, ibid O'Malley, T and C Soley, Op cit, p69 para 185 et seq. http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Stephen- Abell.pdf p28, lines 2-5, ibid p13, para 17, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Witness-Statement-of-DS-Philip- Williams.pdf, p14, lines 4-6, DAC Akers, ibid http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8064828.stm p8, paras 47-48, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Gerald- Patrick-McCann.pdf p43, lines 21-24, Sharon Marshall, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-20-December-2011.pdf p4, paras 22-23, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Witness-Statement-of-David- Pilditch.pdf Rowling v Daily Mirror, PCC Report 72 pp34-35, lines 14-15, Paul Ashford, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-12-January-2012.pdf p40, Iines 9-13, Ed Stearns, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/lev030412am.pdf p19, lines 6-10, CC Lynne Owens, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-6-March-2012.pdf p8, para 29, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Scott-Hesketh- taken-as-read.pdf p20, lines 12-24, Assistant Chief Constable Jeremy Kirkby, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-27-March-2012.pdf p29, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Exhibit-1.pdf pp73-74, lines 20-22, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript- of-Afternoon-Hearing-9-December-2011.pdf page 5-6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/News-International-Addendum-to- Privacy-Law-Submission.pdf p70, lines 11-19, Richard Thomas, ibid p3, lines 2-5, Peter Oborne, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-17-May-2012.pdf p9, line 21, Tony Blair, ibid p9, para 38, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Witness-Statement-of-Andy-Coulson. I pdf; see also pp20-25, lines 17-15, Andy Coulson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-10-May-2012.pdf for Mr Coulson's explanation p16, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Exhibit-KRM-12.pdf 1993 UKHL 8; 1994 AC 531 p23, lines 7-20, ibid I appreciate that other lobbyists might have other potential tools of persuasion in their possession; the megaphone (which is the tool available to the press), however, is undeniably extremely powerful and, therefore, justifies consideration in its own right p82, lines 14-25, Claire Enders, ibid p23, lines 2-17, Keir Starmer QC, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-8-February-2012.pdf [1991] 1 QB 153; see Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR at 178-9; Nourse LJ at 185-6; Russell LJ at 190: thereafter (per Sir Thomas Bingham MR in John at page 608) "juries were reminded of the cost of buying a motor car, or a holiday, or a house" p8, para 30, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Lord- Wakeham.pdf p19, para 43, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Closing-Submission-from-Associated- Newspapers-Ltd.pdf pp23-24, para 37, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Lord-Black-of- Brentwood1.pdf section 5 of Chapter J5 p64 line 23 – p66 line 4, Lord Hunt, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript- of-Afternoon-Hearing-31-January-2012.pdf; pp5-7, paras 14-18, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Lord-Hunt-of-Wirral.pdf http://www.presscouncil.ie/about-the-press-council/sub-sub-1.19.html p81, lines 19-21, Nick Clegg, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- K Morning-Hearing-13-June-2012.pdf Part K, Chapter 7, para 6.5 Application 15890/89, Jersild v Denmark (1995) 19 EHRR 1Show full note "it is important for good judgment that the press is clear not only on the nature of the purposes it serves in a free and democratic society but on their partial contribution to public interest as a whole and the independent significance of other components of the public interest. … In my view the press itself at present assumes too quickly that freedom of the press (and free expression to the extent that is related to press freedom) is sufficient to guarantee that the press serves its distinctive role in contributing to the public interest. On the one hand this is problematic because press freedom is only a necessary condition for the press to make its distinctive contribution to the public interest. Treating it as a sufficient condition is making the press insensitive to all the other factors that are critical to this – accuracy and rigour, avoidance of partiality, bias, conflict of interest, and the other factors mentioned above. All these must receive appropriate attention. But this is also problematic because assuming that a process (a free press) will achieve a beneficial goal allows journalists and editors to fail to address carefully the question of what exactly that distinctive purpose is, or how it relates to other parts of the public interest."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

¶PART B | The Press and the Public Interest

"While it is important to protect genuine investigative journalism into matters of public interest … it is also important to distinguish the genuine article from purported investigative journalism that ignores or flouts the relevant disciplines of truth seeking,

¶B or is not directed at any matters of public interest. Pseudo public interest journalism

discredits the genuine article, is not assessable by its audiences and damages the reputation of the media."³⁰³⁰ P6, p53 and p67 respectively, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/lev270212am.pdf pp63-64, Lord Hunt, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of-Afternoon- Hearing-9-July-2012.pdf p5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Professor-Baroness- ONeil.pdf http://www.newscorp.com/management/newsint.html ibid p15, para 41, ibid O'Malley, T and C Soley, Op cit, p69 p61, lines 19-22, Baroness Buscombe, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-7-February-2012.pdf Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing Regulations) 2002 p13, para 18, ibid http://www.independent.co.ui/news/uk/crime/former-times-reporter-patrick-foster-held-over-hacking-8092900.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7233560.stm pp73-75, lines 16-18, Anne Diamond, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-28-November-20111.pdf p52, lines 2-8, Matt Driscoll, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-19-December-2011.pdf p20, line 6, Peter Hill, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of-Afternoon- Hearing-12-January-2012.pdf Rowling v Scottish Mail on Sunday, PCC Report 77 pp112-113, lines 22-15, Tina Weaver, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-16-January-2012.pdf; pp107-108, lines 9-19, Hugh Whittow, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-12-January-2012.pdf; p3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Adrian-Faber.pdf pp7-8, lines 12-5, Sir Paul Stephenson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-5-March-2012.pdf; p6, para 15, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/ Witness-Statement-of-Sir-Paul-Stephenson2.pdf pp95-96, lines 21-1, Justin Penrose, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-20-March-2012.pdf pp4-6, para 3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Chief- Constable-Mike-Cunningham.pdf pp23-26, Richard Thomas, ibid p47, lines 3-13, Richard Thomas, ibid http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/News-International-Addendum-to-Privacy-Law- Submission.pdf p23, lines 18-20, Christopher Graham, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-26-January-2012.pdf p77, lines 2-9, Andrew Grice, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-25-June-20121.pdf pp61-64, in particular, p64, lines 11-15, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/04/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-25-April-2012.pdf p110, lines 17-21, David Cameron, ibid http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1973/41 pp7-8, lines 22-9, Dr Vince Cable, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-30-May-2012.pdf pp98-101, lines 9-14, ibid Exactly the same has been vigorously argued by the press in relation to certain celebrities p6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Submission-by-Harriet-Harman-QC-MP-on- behalf-of-the-Labour-Party1.pdf [1992] 14 EHRR 123 For example, Thompson v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [1998] QB 513 which concerned false imprisonment and malicious prosecution but applies equally to damages for defamation which were extensively discussed pp15-16, lines 17-13, Lord Wakeham, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-15-May-2012.pdf Part J, chapter 2 p4, para 6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Lord-Black-of-Brentwood-Annex-B1.pdf p43, lines 7-11, Lord Black, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-9-July-2012.pdf K pp95, lines 9-11, Ed Richards and Colette Bowe, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-12-July-2012.pdf pp58-59, lines 24-7, Professor John Horgan, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-13-July-20121.pdf K p4, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Submission-by-Harriet-Harman-QC-MP-on- behalf-of-the-Labour-Party1.pdf Part K, Chapter 7, para 6.10 Application 29183/95, Fressoz & Roire v France (2001) 31 EHRR 2; Application 69698/01, Stoll v Switzerland (2008) 47 EHRR 59 at para 103Show full note "The moral justification for a media organisation's rights of expression and communication … turns on the role of media organisations' rights in constituting a public sphere that gives appropriate status and respect to individual people, and on the related instrumental grounds [of constraining power and enabling democratic deliberation and decision-making]."³¹³¹ p62, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-10-May-2012.pdf The fact that occasional attempts have been made to introduce private Member's Bills (none of which have progressed) is hardly sufficient p2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Dr-Rowan-Cruft.pdf Snoddy, R, The Good, the Bad, and the Unacceptable: The hard news about the British press, p124 Section 6 of the BBC Editorial Guidelines, http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-fairness-right- of-reply// p16, para 42, ibid ibid, p71 p17, paras 2-11, Sir Christopher Meyer, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript- of-Afternoon-Hearing-31-January-2012.pdf p109, lines 1-9, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-9-December-2011.pdf pp23-24, lines 21-1, Keith Surtees, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-29-February-2012.pdf p10, para 28, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Fourth-Witness-Statement-of-DAC- Sue-Akers.pdf) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7233560.stm p14, lines 15-23, Professor Baroness Hollins, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-2-February-2012.pdf pp52-53, lines 20-3, Matt Driscoll, ibid p20, line 9-17, Peter Hill, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of-Afternoon- Hearing-12-January-2012.pdf p1, para 2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Steve-Coogan3. pdf p5, paras 33-34, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Nick-Fagge.pdf pp7-8, para 8, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Witness-Statement-of-Lucy-Panton. pdf p13, lines 2-22, Sir Paul Stephenson http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-5-March-2012.pdf; pp6-7, para 17, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/ Witness-Statement-of-Sir-Paul-Stephenson2.pdf p117, lines 6-16, Thomas Pettifor, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-20-March-2012.pdf ibid; MPS 36 – The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/03/MPS-36-The-Police-Conduct-Regulations-2008.pdf; and CCMC 11: Home Office Guidance – Police Officer Misconduct, Unsatisfactory Performance and Attendance Management Procedures (not available on the Inquiry website) p33, lines 15-16, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-9-December-2011.pdf pp48-49, lines 19-3, Richard Thomas, ibid page 6-8, ibid p111, lines 7-22, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-9-December-2011.pdf p10, lines 20-24, Alastair Campbell, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-14-May-2012.pdf p43, line 23, Tony Blair, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-28-May-2012.pdf pp9-10, para 39, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Witness-Statement-of-Andy- Coulson.pdf p13, ibid p5, Dr Vince Cable, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Exhibit-VC1-2.pdf. This transaction was the subject of a Competition Commission report, appeals to the Competition Appeal Tribunal and thereafter to the Court of Appeal pp26-28, lines 13-4, Kenneth Clarke, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-30-May-2012.pdf pp82-83, lines 24-9, Andy Coulson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-10-May-2012.pdf p7, ibid [2002] UKHL 11 [2008] EWHC 1777 QB; Eady J said (at para 214) that "the purpose of damages, therefore, must be to address the specific public policy factors in play when there has been an 'old fashioned breach of confidence' and/or an unauthorised revelation of personal information. It would seem that the law is concerned to protect such matters as personal dignity, autonomy and integrity". He went on (at para 216): "Thus it is reasonable to suppose that damages for such an infringement may include distress, hurt feelings and loss of dignity". p9, para 31, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Lord- Wakeham.pdf p45, para 94, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Fourth-Witness-Statement-of-Lord- Black.pdf part K, chapter 2, section 8 p44, lines 1-12, Lord Black, ibid pp17-18, para 58, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Media- Regulation-Round-Table.pdf p59, lines 8-24, Professor John Horgan, ibid para 187, report of Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201012/ jtselect/jtprivinj/273/273.pdf. This may fall foul of what might be described as an entirely legitimate requirement of the press that any regulation must be independent of politicians (and the Government) whom the press are required to hold to account Part K, Chapter 7, para 6.23 See for example, Application 19983/92, De Haes and Gijsels v Belgium (1998) 25 EHRR 1 at paragraph 39; Application 29183/95, Fressoz & Roire v France (2001) 31 EHRR 2 at paras 54-55; Application 21980/93, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v Norway (2000) 29 EHRR 125 at para 65Show full note "The public interest is not just in a free but a diverse press, and also – given the press's power and its central role within the public sphere of democratic policy-making – an accountable press too."³²³² Ruling, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Ruling-on-Publication-of-Statements-7- December.pdf ; the Restriction Order made pursuant to s 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005 http://www.levesoninquiry.org. uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Amended-Section-19-Order.pdf later amended http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Section-19-Order-26-April-2012.pdf; and the analysis of the circumstances in which a newspaper published material which had been contained in a statement provided for the Inquiry: http://www. levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Ruling-on-Publication-of-Statements-by-IoS-14-May-2012.pdf. For the avoidance of all doubt, the purpose of these orders and rulings were to preserve the integrity of the Inquiry: I do not consider that any of the concerns which are analysed should contribute to the conclusions that I have to reach about the culture, practices or ethics of the press s12 of the HRA 1998; s32 of the Data Protection Act 1998 p3, ibid Page, B, The Murdoch Archipelago, p102 pp11-12, para 34, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Lord- Patten1.pdf in Part H Chapter 4 Great Britain, Royal Commission on the Press: Final Report, p(i) p62, lines 9-12, Baroness Buscombe, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-7-February-2012.pdf pp101-105, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-9-December-2011.pdf Review of Case dated 9 March 2006 (not published) http://www.newscorp.com/news/bunews_452.html#top, http://www.newsint.co.uk/press_releases/management_ and_standards.html ICO Case reference: FS50079619 available at http://www.ico.gov.uk/tools_and_resources/decision_notices.aspx p2, para 8, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Witness-Statement-of-Baroness-Hollins. pdf p54, lines 3-7,Matt Driscoll, ibid pp83-84, Dawn Neeson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-12-January-2012.pdf; pp8-10, lines 19-6, Steve Coogan, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-22-November-20111.pdf p9, para 42, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Witness-Statement-of-Piers-Morgan. pdf; p5, para 21, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Dominic- Mohan.pdf; p3, paras 12-13, p6, para 22, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness- Statement-of-John-Witherow.pdf; p3, paras 6-7, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ Witness-Statement-of-James-Harding.pdf; p11, para 35, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/02/Witness-Statement-of-Paul-Dacre.pdf p5, lines 13-23, Jerry Kirby, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-27-March-2012.pdf p49, lines 10-12, Dick Fedorcio, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-13-March-2012.pdf p5, para 17, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Stephen- Wright.pdf Part G Chapter 3 p40, lines 8-10, Richard Thomas, ibid p56, lines 8-16, Richard Thomas, ibid Appendix 4 p8, para 19, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/First-Witness-Statement-of-Richard- Thomas-CBE.pdf pp66-67, lines 22-7, Adam Boulton, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-15-May-2012.pdf Mullin, C, 2009 A Walk on Part, p20 p5, para 7.5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Witness-Statement-of-George- Osborne-MP.pdf p23, ibid pp2-3, Dr Vince Cable, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-30-May-2012.pdf pp50-51, line 3-15, ibid http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-interests/ p77, lines 1-12, Nick Clegg, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-13-June-2012.pdf [2004] EWCA Crim 868 Cooper & another v Turrell [2011] EWHC 3269 see per Tughendhat J (at para. 102) who described damages for J misuse of private information as being "to compensate for the damage, and injury to feelings and distress, caused by the publication of information which may be either true or false(at para 102): http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/ QB/2011/3269.html p17, lines 6-12, Lord Wakeham, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-15-May-2012.pdf p2, para 6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-statement-of-Ian-Stewart1. pdf; p3, para 9, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Second-WS-of-Rosie-Nixon2.pdf; p2, para 6c, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Adrian-Faber-in-response- K to-Module-4-Questions.pdf; p3, para 6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission- from-Peter-Charlton-Yorkshire-Post-Newspapers.pdf p4, para 37, ibid p44, lines 12-13, Lord Black, ibid p39, lines 1-13, Hugh Tomlinson QC, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-13-July-20121.pdf pp74-75, lines 22-2, Professor John Horgan, ibid para 188, report of Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201012/ jtselect/jtprivinj/273/273.pdf Part K, Chapter 7, para 6.37 Application 15974/90, [1995] ECHR 12 at para 37 in particularShow full note "The fact that the press has certain investigative powers doesn't mean automatically that it has carte blanche to do whatever it wishes to find things out."³³³³ Ashworth Hospital Authority v MGN Ltd [2002] 4 All ER 193, 210. p7, lines 6-9, Dr Neil Manson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-16-July-2012.pdf ibid, p103 pp53-54, lines 23-23, Mark Thompson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-23-January-2012.pdf pp16-18, paras 43-47, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/DCMS-submission_ Narrative-on-media-ownership.pdf ibid, pp(i-ii) pp62-63, lines 23-25, Baroness Buscombe, ibid p107, lines 3-9, Richard Thomas, ibid p15, lines 8-15, Philip Williams, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-29-February-2012.pdf; Review of Case dated 4 April 2006 (not published) http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120618-711154.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/may/07/houseofcommons p2, para 9, ibid pp76-77, lines 25- 6, Ian Edmondson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-9-February-2012.pdf pp20-21, lines 25-2, Peter Hill, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-12-January-2012.pdf pp10-12, lines 7-1, Steve Coogan, ibid p11, para 35, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Witness-Statement-of-Paul-Dacre. pdf; p3, para 7, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-James- Harding.pdf; p9, para 7.1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement- of-Thomas-Mockridge.pdf p5, para 21, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness- Statement-of-Dominic-Mohan.pdf; p5, paras 34-35, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/ Witness-Statement-of-Colin-Myler1.pdf; pp48-49, lines 21-8, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-16-January-2012.pdf; p3, para 6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Dawn-Neesom.pdf; p9, para 42, http://www.levesoninquiry.org. uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Witness-Statement-of-Piers-Morgan.pdf; p7, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Assistant-Chief- Constable-Jerry-Kirkby.pdf p8, lines 11-17, Sir Paul Stephenson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-5-March-2012.pdf pp9-10, para 25, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Witness-Statement-of-Ed-Stearns.pdf pp63-64, lines 25-19, Theresa May, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-29-May-2012.pdf p45, lines 8-11, Richard Thomas, ibid pp43-44, lines 15-2, Alexander Owens, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript- of-Afternoon-Hearing-30-November-2011.pdf pp11-12, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Philip-Coppel-QC- redacted.pdf pp8-9, ibid p4, lines 13-20, Sir John Major, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-12-June-2012.pdf p60, line 16, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-25-April-2012.pdf p5, para 7.2, George Osborne, ibid p27, Sir Harold Evans, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of-Afternoon- Hearing-17-May-2012.pdf p13, paras 51-52, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Witness-Statement-of-Vince- Cable-MP.pdf p55, lines 20-22, ibid http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/ministerial-code-may-2010.pdf p21, para 77, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Witness-Statement-of-Vince-Cable- MP.pdf Reference is made to Article 8 of the ECHR Adenjii v London Borough of Newham [Case 01TLQ 823], October 2001. This was an approved settlement (Garland J) in the High Court p4, lines 4-16, Sir Christopher Meyer, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript- J of-Morning-Hearing-31-January-2012.pdf; p35, lines 5-24, Baroness Buscombe, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-7-February-2012.pdf pp70-71, lines 23-3, Lord Black, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-9-July-2012.pdf p23, para 38, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Lord-Black-of- Brentwood1.pdf p3, para 3.1.8, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Lord-Black-of-Brentwood-Annex-B1. pdf p13, lines 9-15, Lord Black p13/9-15, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-9-July-2012.pdf pp75-76, lines 25-7, Professor John Horgan, ibid para 180, ibid K Part K, Chapter 7, para 6.41 1807 L Application 69698/01, Stoll v Switzerland (2008) 47 EHRR 59Show full note "Freedom and responsibility are not incompatible notions. … Principally behind the notion of freedom in my account is freedom from censorship, from authorities coming in and telling the press what they may or may not say with respect to output, but they may nonetheless have a number of responsibilities they need to respect in producing those outputs. I think that's very important. No, I don't see them as inconsistent."³⁴³⁴ s55 of the Data Protection Act 1998 p102, lines 12-21, Professor Christopher Megone, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-16-July-2012.pdf Audit Bureau of Circulations, cited in Page, B, The Murdoch Archipelago, p120 pp55-56, lines 16-7, Mark Thompson, ibid; p12, para 34, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Lord-Patten1.pdf pp18-19, para 48, ibid ibid, p11 pp62-63, lines 10-25, Baroness Buscombe, ibid p65, lines 4-10, Richard Thomas, ibid para 19, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Witness-Statement-of-DS-Philip-Williams.pdf http://www.newscorp.com/corp_gov/MSC_faqs.html#05 Anil Danwar, the Guardian, (7th May 2008, London), http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/may/07/ houseofcommons p2, para 10, ibid p3, para 1.14, Michelle Stanistreet, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/MS-Exhibit-11. pdf p21, lines 13-15, Peter Hill, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-12-January-2012.pdf pp16-19, lines 14-1, Steve Coogan, ibid; pp3-4, para 13-15, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Steve-Coogan3.pdf p13, para 49, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Richard- Wallace.pdf p8, ibid p9, para 25, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Sir-Paul- Stephenson2.pdf pp9-10, para 25, ibid IPCC Report – 'Corruption in the police service in England and Wales: Second report – a report based on the IPCC's experience from 2008 to 2011, May 2012, p5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/IPCC- Corruption-in-the-Police-2nd-Report.pdf p52, lines 16-19, Richard Thomas, ibid pp1-22, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Exhibit-RJT-49.pdf pp20-21, lines 24-25, Philip Coppel, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-17-July-2012.pdf pp59-60, lines 24-14, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript- of-Afternoon-Hearing-9-December-2011.pdf Part I, Chapter 5 Campbell, A, 2009, Diaries, Volume 1, p45 p29, lines 8-18, Andy Coulson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-10-May-2012.pdf p9, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Exhibit-KRM-12.pdf pp11-12, Jonathan Stephens, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-25-May-2012.pdf p58, lines 8-12, ibid p5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Witness-Statement-of-Lord-ODonnell.pdf p37, para 5.93, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Ofcom-Measuring- Media-Plurality1.pdf Goodwin v UK (1996) 22 EHRR 123 paragraph 39; see also Ashworth Hospital Authority v MGN Ltd [2002] 1 WLR Campbell v MGN [2004] UKHL 22 p2, Sir Christopher Meyer, https://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Exhibit-SA- %E2%80%93-D8.pdf p2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Covering-Letter-from-Ofcom.pdf p23, para 38, ibid p7, para 3.1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Ofcom.pdf http://www.presscouncil.ie/about-the-press-council/structures-and-funding-.2172.html p2, para 8, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Joint-Submission-by-Core-Participant- Victims1.pdf Part K, Chapter 3, para 4.26 Application 22824/04, [2008] ECHR 746Show full note

¶4.5 The point was also made more narrowly, to underline that the freedom of the press, and the

value inherent in its freedom to publish, is the beginning and not the end of the questions about the public interest:

"The fact that freedom of expression is in the public interest – and it clearly is – it doesn't follow that every instance of expression is in the public interest."³⁵³⁵ p93, lines 3-5, Dr Rowan Cruft, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-16-July-2012.pdf Snoddy, R, The Good, the Bad, and the Unacceptable: The hard news about the British press, pp124-128 p12, para 34, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Lord-Patten1. pdf para 2.8, Media Ownership The Government's Proposals, May 1995 ibid, p13 p88, lines 16-17, Baroness Buscombe, ibid pp4-5, para 13, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/First-Witness-Statement-of- Richard-Thomas-CBE.pdf paras 5.3-5.5, provide an exposition of the weight of the terrorism investigations which were over-stretching the resources of S013 and had required Mr Clarke to "borrow" resources not only from other departments within the MPS but other police forces p9, para 6.2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Thomas- Mockridge.pdf; http://www.newscorp.com/news/bunews_452.html#top http://www.cfoi.org.uk/macleanbill.html Part F, Chapter 6 p5, para 2.2, Michelle Stanistreet, ibid p84, lines 18-23, Richard Desmond, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-12-January-2012.pdf p4, para 16, ibid p1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Richard-Peppiatt.pdf p15, Iines 3-12, Chris Jefferies, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-28-November-2011.pdf p6, para 16, ibid pp50-51, lines 24-5, Ed Stearns, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/lev030412am.pdf p82, lines 14-23, Richard Thomas, ibid pp10-11, para 4.16, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of- Alexander-Owens1.pdf p18, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Philip-Coppel-QC-redacted. pdf p13, para 37, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/First-Witness-Statement-of-Richard- Thomas-CBE.pdf p2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Witness-Statement-of-Sir-John-Major.pdf p1, para 2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Alastair- Campbell.pdf p5, para 7.3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Witness-Statement-of-George- Osborne-MP.pdf p10, ibid p2, Dr Vince Cable, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Exhibit-VC1-2.pdf p54, lines 8-12, ibid p34, Lord O'Donnell, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-14-May-2012.txt p38, para 5.100 ibid p23, line 13, Keir Starmer QC, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-8-February-2012.pdf Douglas v Hello! [2003] EWHC 786 (Ch). The award of Lindsay J was upheld by the Court of Appeal pp7-8, lines 24-2, Sir Christopher Meyer, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-31-January-2012.pdf Part D, Chapter 1 p7, para 15, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Lord-Black-of-Brentwood-Annex-D1. pdf p116, lines 13-22, Lord Black, ibid p19, para 64, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Media-Regulation- Round-Table.pdf p2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Professor-John-Horgan-Irish- Press-Ombudsman.pdf p11, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Witness-Statement-of-Sir-Christopher-Meyer. pdf Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.28 Loc. cit. Referring to the decision of the ECtHR in Application 21980/93, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v Norway (2000) 29 EHRR 125 at para 66Show full note "I think a kind of slippage can happen in which this freedom of expression is seen to be the primary public interest the public has in the press, and then that can then seem as liable to trump many of the other side constraints. … So, and if one's a journalist and one values being allowed to write what one thinks is important, … there's a kind of, as I say, a natural slippage in which this freedom of expression can be seen to be the dominating aspect of one's code."³⁶³⁶ p111, lines 12-22, Professor Christpher Megone, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-16-July-2012.pdf ibid, p14 pp57-58, lines 13-13; p59, lines 1-16, Mark Thompson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-23-January-2012.pdf http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/other/media-ownership-research/rulesreview ibid, pp235-236 p61, lines 9-14, Baroness Buscombe, ibid pp19-20, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Exhibit-RJT-49.pdf p21, lines 8-23, Philip Williams, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-29-February-2012.pdf; http://www.newscorp.com/news/news_499.html Decision of the Information Tribunal Case Reference numbers: EA/2007/0060, EA/2007/0061, EA/2007/0062, EA/2007/0063, EA/2007/0122, EA/2007/0123, EA/2007/0131 available on http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. uk/20110206200309 /http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/Public/search.aspx?Page=27 Part F, Chapter 2 p9, para 4.19, Michelle Stanistreet, ibid pp88-89, Richard Desmond, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-12-January-2012.pdf pp5-6, para 21-23, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Steve- Coogan3.pdf p37, lines 1-22, Dawn Neesom, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-12-January-2012.pdf p101, Iines 13-14, DCI Philip Jones, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-27-March-2012.pdf p10, lines 10-24, Sir Paul Stephenson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-5-March-2012.pdf; p8, para 23, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/ Witness-Statement-of-Sir-Paul-Stephenson2.pdf p9, para 24, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Witness-Statement-of-Ed-Stearns.pdf http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/RJT-Exhibit-512.pdf p83, lines 18-25, http://www. levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of-morning-Hearing-9- December-2011.pdf http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/13 p7, para 4.5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Alexander- Owens1.pdf pp4-5, ibid p5, para 7, ibid pp54-55, lines 19-19, George Osborne, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript- of-Afternoon-Hearing-11-June-2012.pdf p18, ibid p27, Dr Vince Cable, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-30-May-2012.pdf p64, lines 4-19, ibid pp 35-36, ibid pp40-41, para 5.119, ibid See R v. FB, R v. AB, R v. JC [2010] EWCA Crim 1857 and the cases therein cited and R v. SH [2010] EWCA Crim 1931 McKennitt v Ash [2005] EWHC 3003 QB p59, lines 1-5, Lord Hunt, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of-Afternoon- Hearing-31-January-2012.pdf see para 3.14 for an explanation of the appointments process for the first Board K pp34-36, lines 24-1, Lord Black, ibid pp13-14, paras 39-40, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Lord-Hunt- of-Wirral.pdf p92, lines 1-17, Professor John Horgan, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-13-July-20121.pdf p40, lines 5-9, Evgeny Lebedev, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-23-April-2012.pdf Part K, Chapter 4, para 5.41 Paragraph 34Show full note

¶4.6 I set these thoughts out to underline, and indeed to risk labouring, the point that ethical

standards are not inconsistent with a free press but necessary for it fully to realise the value of its freedom. Ethical standards and behaviour are about valuing the freedom of the press for what it is, and seeking to promote all that is good about that freedom, and not just about

¶Chapter 4 | The Responsibilities of the Press

avoiding the shoddy and the disreputable (far less just the unlawful). A free press certainly has choices which it can exercise in ways which undermine the premises of its freedom and work contrary to the public interest. An ethical press will not choose to exercise its freedoms in that way. B

¶4.7 With freedom, rights and privilege therefore come choices, and with choices, responsibilities

as to how they are exercised and with what consequences. With choices which affect the public sphere, come also public accountabilities.

¶4.8 The private interests of the press industry, or of organisations within it, can be expected to

be strongly aligned with the public interest for just this reason: it is what the free press in a democracy is all about. But there will also be powerful motivations of a contrary nature to be overcome by an ethical press. An ethical approach requires a culture of care and awareness, but deadlines are short and time is money. A diverse and plural press will also be a highly competitive one, contesting among its titles for readership and reputation. And the pressures of public demand, real or perceived, are by no means a reliable guide to the public interest.

¶4.9 This latter point is a well-worn one: the fundamental difference between the public interest

and what interests the public. It is nevertheless a point which it is important to stress once again, if only because of the seeming indefatigability of the argument in some quarters that whatever sells newspapers must ipso facto be a good thing, since newspapers are a good thing in themselves. The argument is sometimes put more subtly: that newspapers should simply meet the demands and expectations they perceive their readers to have or be capable of having in a non-judgmental way, and that the flourishing of newspapers by such means directly supports their ability to fulfil the higher purposes and freedoms of the press. But this is simply a further restatement of the error that because it is good for the press both to flourish and to be free to make choices, its exercise of those choices in its own perceived interests will itself necessarily be good. The fallacy of this line of reasoning was emphasised to the Inquiry in a number of ways:

"The key point here is that the fact that people have a (vicious) curiosity clearly does not entail a right to know those things, nor does it automatically excuse those who breach other norms in the service of that curiosity."³⁷³⁷ p9, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Dr-Neil-Manson.pdf Discussed in detail in Part I Chapter 3 p12, para 34, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Lord-Patten1. pdf http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/morr/statement/ Snoddy, R, Op cit, p91 p85, para 187 http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Stephen- Abell.pdf p18, ibid Decision log dated 18 April 2006 (not published) http://www.newscorp.com/corp_gov/msc.html Decision of the Information Tribunal Case Reference number: EA/2007/0060, http://webarchive.nationalarchives. gov.uk/20110206200309/http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/Public/search.aspx?Page=27 , p28, ss96-97 pp2-3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Richard-Peppiatt.pdf; and Marshall, S, Tabloid Girl, p227-228 p14, lines 20-25, Steve Turner, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-20-December-2011.pdf p86, lines 3-19, Richard Desmond, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-12-January-2012.pdf pp16-19, lines 14-1, Steve Coogan, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-22-November-20111.pdf p3, paras 16-19, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Witness-Statement-of-Colin- Myler1.pdf pp2-3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Gerald-Patrick- McCann.pdf pp17-18, lines 8-8, Sir Paul Stephenson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-5-March-2012.pdf; p9, para 26, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/ Witness-Statement-of-Sir-Paul-Stephenson2.pdf MPS Special Notice 6/01, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/MPS-10-Special- Notice-6-01.pdf http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Sixth-Witness-Statement-of-Richard-Thomas.pdf pp18-19, para 5.18, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of- Alexander-Owens1.pdf pp15-17, lines 21-1, Philip Coppel, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-17-July-2012.pdf; p9, para 42, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ Submission-by-Philip-Coppel-QC-redacted.pdf para 182, The Law Society & Ors –v- Kordowski [2011] EWHC 3185 p15, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Witness-Statement-of-Sir-John-Major.pdf; p7, Sir John Major, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Exhibit-SJM-1.pdf p6, para 7, ibid p56, lines 3-23, George Osborne, ibid p11, ibid p14,para 54, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Witness-Statement-of-Vince-Cable- MP.pdf pp1-4, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Submission-from-Kenneth-Clarke-MP.pdf http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content/ministerial-conduct-and-guidance p42, para 5.120, ibid See, for example, R v. Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court ex parte Bennett [1994] 1 AC 42, R v. Mullen [2000] QB 520 Part H, Chapter 5 p61, ibid pp40-41, para 76, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Lord-Black-of- Brentwood1.pdf pp20-21, lines 24-2, Lord Hunt, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-10-July-2012.pdf K p19, para 24, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Lord-Black-of- Brentwood1.pdf pp60-61, lines 20-4, ibid p107, lines 4-9, Aidan Barclay, ibid Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.20 Loc. cit., at para 104Show full note "There is no ethical duty at all to provide audiences with whatever they want, even if there are good economic reasons for doing so."³⁸³⁸ p15, ibid ABC circulation figures February 2012, http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=48913 &c=1 p56, lines 11-19, Mark Thompson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-23-January-2012.pdf pp21-22, para 54, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/DCMS-submission_Narrative-on- media-ownership.pdf ibid, p215 Part J Chapter 2 pp4-5, para 13, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Second-Witness-Statement-of- Richard-Thomas-CBE1.pdf para 1.11 http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Witness-Statement-of-DS-Philip-Williams.pdf p42, para 179, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Witness-Statement-of-Keith-Rupert- Murdoch2.pdf Corporate Officer of the House of Commons v The Information Commissioner & Ors [2008] EWHC 1084 (Admin) reported at [2009] 3 All ER 403, http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/1084.html pp2-3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Richard-Peppiatt.pdf; and Marshall, S, Tabloid Girl, p201 p90, lines 16-17, Daniel Sanderson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-15-December-20111.pdf p64, lines 5-18, Richard Desmond, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-12-January-2012.pdf pp21-23, lines 2-22, Steve Coogan, ibid p54, lines 4-12, Richard Wallace, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-16-January-2012.pdf; pp55-56, lines 22-1, Lloyd Embley, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-16-January-20121.pdf p2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Witness-Statement-of-Stewart-Gull.pdf p25, lines 10-16, Kit Malthouse, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-29-March-2012.pdf pp8-9, paras 4.27-4.34, Sir Hugh Orde, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Exhibit- SHO1.pdf pp44-46, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-9-December-2011.pdf p70, lines 8-10, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-9-December-2011.pdf pp15-16, lines 25-6, Philip Coppel, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-17-July-2012.pdf p15, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Witness-Statement-of-Sir-John-Major.pdf, Sir John Major, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Exhibit-SJM-3.pdf; and pp30-31, lines 13-3, Sir John Major, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing- 12-June-2012.pdf p7, para 8, ibid pp113-114, lines 25-10, David Cameron, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-14-June-2012.pdf p3, Dr Vince Cable, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Exhibit-VC1-2.pdf p1, ibid p36, Lord O'Donnell, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-14-May-2012.txt see the short post by Professor Charlotte Brewer on the meaning of the word plurality at http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2011/03/02/guest-blog-what-does-the-word-plurality-mean/ Per Lord Steyn in R v. Latif [1996] 1 WLR 104 at page 112 Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages (11th edition) has recently been published by the Judicial College (previously the Judicial Studies Board) p1, PCC, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/SA-B35.pdf p24, para 38, ibid p2, para 9, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Joint-Submission-by-Core-Participant- Victims1.pdf p6, para 7, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Submission-by-working-group-led-by- Lord-Prescott.pdf p66, lines 14-25, ibid p107, lines 9-10, Aidan Barclay, ibid K Part K, Chapter 3, Para 5.14 Loc. cit., at para 17 of dissenting opinion of Judge Bonello, joined by Judges David Thor Bjorgvinsson and SikutaShow full note "The 'we are only providing people with what they want' may appear to have a whiff of nobility about it, but where people's wants are vicious, it is little more than an admission of lack of moral sensitivity."³⁹³⁹ p19, ibid http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/table/2012/feb/10/abcs-national-newspapers p27, para 52.3, http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/how_we_govern/charter.pdf p22, para 56, ibid Great Britain (1977), Op cit, p241 For example A Woman v Clevedon People, p8, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ Exhibit-SA-J211.pdf Information Commissioner's Office, What Price Privacy?, p27, paras 6.7-6.8 para 21, ibid p7, para 7, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Jane-Furniss.pdf; p9, para 41, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Deborah-Glass. pdf p3, www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05784.pdf pp2-3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Richard-Peppiatt.pdf p26, lines 23-25, Dan Wootton, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-6-February-2012.pdf p77, lines 15-17, Richard Desmond, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-12-January-2012.pdf pp47-48, lines 7-7, Garry Flitcroft, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-22-November-20111.pdf p7, para 29, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Dominic- Mohan.pdf p5, ibid pp53-54, para 130, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Sir-Paul- Stephenson2.pdf MPS Special Notice 6/01, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/MPS-10-Special- Notice-6-01.pdf More than once Mr Thomas explained that the reason for his operational distance was that he was not himself a criminal lawyer p119, lines 5-6, Richard Thomas, ibid This debate might be influenced by the level of damages being agreed in the phone hacking litigation being brought against News Group Newspapers Ltd in relation to the News of the World p15, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Witness-Statement-of-Sir-John-Major.pdf p10, line 22, Lord Mandelson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-21-May-20121.pdf p74, para 222, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Witness-Statement-of-David- Cameron-MP.pdf pp3-4, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Exhibit-KRM-13.pdf p3, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Exhibit-KRM-18.pdf pp2-4, lines 17-11, Michael Gove, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-29-May-2012.pdf p37, lines 14-24 and pp 39-40, lines 20-1, Lord O'Donnell, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-14-May-2012.pdf p3, para 8, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Claire-Enders-Enders- Analysis.pdf See R v. Grant [2006] QB 60 per Laws LJ at para 54 s 6(3)(a)-(e) of the Civil Procedure Act 1997 p33, lines 5-12, Lord Grade, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-31-January-2012.pdf p25, para 39, ibid p2, para 1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Submission-by-Harriet-Harman-QC-MP- on-behalf-of-the-Labour-Party1.pdf pp18-19, paras 61-63, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Media- Regulation-Round-Table.pdf p68, lines 3-5, ibid K p69, lines 15-21, James Murdoch http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-24-April-2012.pdf Part F, Chapter 6, Para 8.22Show full note "[The idea of the public's 'right to know'] is puzzling and problematic for many reasons. First, it is not clear what the scope of the right is (right to know what?). Second, the very idea of a right to know is problematic. If it is a negative claim right (no one is permitted to stop me from knowing) then this does not entail any correlative right of publication or communication. But a positive right to know (others are obliged to ensure that I know) is not feasible: I might not believe them, even if they tell me the truth. Worst still, it doesn't tell us anything at all about whom the obligation to inform might fall upon."⁴⁰⁴⁰ p16, ibid ABC circulation figures July 2011, http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=48913&c=1 pp47-48, lines 25-2, Mark Thompson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-23-January-2012.pdf http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/morr/response-localmedia/ Local Media Final Document. pdf ibid, pp77-78 p15, http://www.pcc.org.uk/assets/111/PCC_Articles_of_Association.pdf These reports were laid pursuant to s52(2) of the DPA. pp20-21, lines 12-3, Richard Thomas, http://www. levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-9-December-2011.pdf Save where otherwise indicated references to the witness statements of DCS Surtees and DCI Maberly are also to witness statements they prepared for the judicial review proceedings http://www.newscorp.com/corp_gov/MSC_faqs.html#11 p4, www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05784.pdf p5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Witness-Statement-of-Chris-Atkins1.pdf p97, lines 5-9, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-26-April-2012.pdf pp39-40, lines 15-5, Richard Desmond, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript- of-Afternoon-Hearing-12-January-2012.pdf pp1-2, para 7-12, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Garry- Flitcroft.pdf; pp48-51, lines 16-6, Garry Flitcroft, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-22-November-20111.pdf p46, lines 17-25, Dominic Mohan, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-9-January-2012.pdf p13, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Anne-Campbell.pdf p2, lines 12-25, Commissioner Hogan-Howe, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-20-March-2012.pdf; p3, para 5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Commissioner-Bernard-Hogan-Howe1.pdf MPS Special Notice 6/01, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/MPS-10-Special- Notice-6-01.pdf p1, para 5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Fourth-Witness-Statement-of-Richard- Thomas-CBE.pdf p62, lines 15-16, Richard Thomas, ibid p48, lines 1-18, Philip Coppel, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-17-July-2012.pdf p16, ibid; Sir John Major, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Exhibit-SJM-4.pdf p7, para 21, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Witness-Statement-of-Tony-Blair1.pdf p30, lines 16-24, Andy Coulson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-10-May-2012.pdf p27, Sir Harold Evans, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of-Afternoon- Hearing-17-May-2012.pdf p107, lines 7-10, James Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-24-April-2012.pdf pp16-18, lines 23-9, ibid http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/ministerial-code-may-2010.pdf Ofcom report 'Measuring Media Plurality, Supplementary Advice' Figure 5 The exception is, of course, where the penalty is fixed by law: effectively, this only applies in relation to murder As was the case in relation to the 10% increase proposed by Jackson LJ adopted in Simmons v Castle [2012] EWCA Civ 1039 p54, para 120, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Stephen- Abell.pdf; p4, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Witness-Statement-of-Sir-Christopher- Meyer.pdf; p17, lines 4-8, Paul Dacre, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript- of-Afternoon-Hearing-6-February-20121.pdf; pp86-87, lines 25-29, Tina Weaver, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-16-January-2012.pdf p24, para 38, ibid p35, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Media-Standards-Trust.pdf p13, lines 3-8, Lord Black, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of-Morning- K Hearing-9-July-2012.pdf p67, lines 6-10, ibid http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Submission-from-Kenneth-Clarke-MP.pdf Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.39 [2004] UKHL 44, at para 15Show full note

¶PART B | The Press and the Public Interest

¶4.10 The commercial interests of the press in supplying or stimulating demands for particular

kinds of content are not therefore either identical to, or even necessarily aligned with, the public interest in a free press. More than that, in an industry with people as its stock in trade,

¶B and assuming an evident and growing public appetite for information about other people

which is contrary to the public interest because of the way in which it affects the personal autonomy or individual rights of those people, the commercial interests of the press have a clear potential to act contrary to the public interest.

¶4.11 There are other respects in which the commercial interests of the press have a clear potential

to tend contrary to the public interest. They include the instances discussed above in which the private interests of individual journalists, editors or proprietors may be engaged in editorial content in ways which may not be apparent to their readership.41 They also include incentives to anti-competitive business practices and cartel behaviour, that is to say practices which may benefit one organisation at the expense of the diversity of the sector as a whole, or which may seek to unite the industry against healthy competitive disciplines and external scrutiny capable of benefiting readers and the public as a whole.

¶4.12 There was some emphasis throughout the Inquiry on the place of ethical codes in supporting

an ethical press. I put the matter that way with care. No code of ethics can make an unethical organisation or sector an ethical one. An unethical organisation will simply find ways round or disregard any code it purports to apply to itself when motivated to do so. An ethical organisation, on the other hand, will be helped and guided by a code of ethics, but that will be on the basis that the code is simply a clear encapsulation of the values and practices of the organisation in any event.

¶4.13 This is a very fundamental issue about culture, practices and ethics, and the way they relate

to each other. Professor Christopher Megone, who has worked extensively with industry bodies (mainly in finance and engineering) on issues of workplace ethics, put the matter this way to the Inquiry:

"Of course an ethical media organisation needs to have an ethical code, one which reflects the distinctive mission of the organisation as part of the press (and thus is aware of the key role of the press regarding the public interest), and one which is sensitive to the particular ethical challenges that may arise for editors, journalists, etc in pursuit of their mission. "However, even more critical to the existence of an ethical media organisation is culture. … If there is an unhealthy culture then an organisation can have an ethical code but it will have little influence. Members of the organisation can undergo 'ethics training' but it will have little effect. As soon as they return from the training to their desk or office, the pervasive culture will dominate their decision-making. The culture brings to bear all sorts of 'accepted norms' which an afternoon's training will be relatively powerless to affect. (I do not, of course, think that good 'ethics training' is pointless, but simply that its effectiveness depends on whether, or to what extent, other factors are in place in the organisation.) … "… there are a number of critical factors that could be expected to bear on ethical culture in a media organisation. First, tone from the top – leadership – is of tremendous importance. The role of owners and editors here will be crucial. Certainly the organisation needs to have its ethical code, but that code needs to be fully understood and endorsed by its owners and editors, and these people need to live

¶Chapter 4 | The Responsibilities of the Press

out that code day in and day out. This is a decisive factor in that code having meaning for all who work in the organisation. But their living it out means thinking about how they can convey the code through their practice right across the organisation, how they interact with employees right across the organisation in a way that makes it resonant for them. … B "Secondly, an ethical organisation needs to have an open and honest culture in which it is possible for members of the organisation to raise their concerns about practices and to discuss them with colleagues and senior staff. … [S]taff need to feel confident that if they perceive unsatisfactory practices to be developing, or face a challenging situation, they can raise the matter with colleagues or senior staff. And they need to be confident that they can do so, and have a proper discussion, without fear of mockery or retribution. 'Accepted norms' need to be open to challenge. … "Amongst other things, developing an open culture in a press/media organisation will require sensitivity to the particular kinds of pressure that journalists and other employees are bound to be under."

¶4.14 Against this background, an operative code of ethics therefore would have a number of potential functions.

(a) It would serve as a reminder of the special importance and roles, the freedoms and privileges, the power and responsibilities of the press. It would, in other words, provide a full context for the choices which fall to be made in practice so that they can be made in accordance with the principles to be derived from this context. It would, in short, explain what ethical (or, as it is sometimes described, 'public interest') journalism is. (b) It would help journalists to understand the circumstances in which they are called upon to make ethical decisions. It would help them to make the right choices in practice. It would do this not as a matter of rigid and disconnected prescriptions and prohibitions, but by promoting "a stable disposition to act in certain ways for the right reasons".42 (c) It would recognise and explain the circumstances in which the temptations and motivations to act unethically (including commercial motivations) may be especially strong, and why they need to be resisted, in order to change the incentive structure in such cases.43 (d) It would seek to provide clarity, and would focus on practical applicability to everyday decision-making. (e) It would not expect to stand alone. It would take its place in a context of ethical culture, sources of advice and guidance both generally and at the particular levels of training, reinforcement, management and feedback. (f) It would be authoritative and respected. It would have consequences in terms of how individuals and organisations are perceived, in terms of rewards and sanctions.

¶4.15 The Inquiry asked a number of its witnesses specifically, and through its website the public

more generally, what would be the distinguishing features of the culture and practices of a media industry, or any organisation which was a part of that industry, which would make it a recognisably 'ethical' one. I was particularly interested to hear in response about Professor

¶PART B | The Press and the Public Interest

Baroness O'Neill's suggested 'six principles of openness'44 for identifying ethical journalism which seem to me to have much to recommend them:45

¶(a) openness about payments from others B

(b) openness about payments to others (c) openness about the interests (financial or otherwise) of owners, editors, programme- makers and journalists (d) openness about errors (e) openness about (most) sources, with an adequately drawn test of the public interest to allow sources to be kept secret, for specific reasons and in particular situations (f) openness about comments from members of the public.

¶4.16 It is also worth setting out extracts from some of the answers to this question which appear to me to be particularly illuminative.

"I do not mean a media industry driven by ethical goals in the way that a charity like Oxfam is. I mean, rather, a media industry whose members and whose regulatory framework, while driven by a range of diverse goals that are not necessarily 'ethical' in a narrow sense, are nonetheless deeply sensitive to the industry's pivotal role in the liberal public sphere … A free press within an ethical media industry in this sense would have the following features, among others: – a sense of journalism as a profession with its own aims and values, including respect for the truth, respect for those about whom the press writes, respect for readers; – poor practices (unethical, illegal, or contrary to the reasons supporting press freedom) are regarded as shameful and their practitioners are ashamed of them;- whistle-blowers are supported; – journalists, editors and proprietors grasp the complexity of the moral role of the press (as, perhaps, politicians since the expenses scandal grasp the moral complexity of their own role); – the wider public is willing to pay the comparatively high costs (e.g. of ethical investigative methods) to support a press that upholds a liberal public sphere.46" In my view media organisations are ethical if they genuinely try to communicate in ways that enable intended audiences to understand and to assess what they publish, while respecting the legitimate claims of those on whom they comment and of those affected by their reporting. These are demanding aims. To meet them the media need not only to refrain from unlawful speech acts (threatening, bribing, defaming, breaches of data protection, breaches of confidentiality – and many others) but to meet adequate ethical and epistemic standards in journalistic, editorial and business practice."⁴⁷⁴⁷ p6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Professor-Baroness- ONeil.pdf ABC circulation figures February 2012, http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=48913 &c=1 pp105-106, lines 12-1, Lord Patten, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-23-January-2012.pdf Communications Act 2003 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/Section/375 p6, para 11, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Third-Submission-by-Sir-Louis-Blom- Cooper-QC.pdf p3, lines 7-9, Lord Black, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-1-February-2012.pdf p17, paras 5.9-5.11, ibid pp34-35, Neil Garnham QC, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-23-July-20121.pdf http://www.newscorp.com/corp_gov/msc.html p56, lines 15-16, William Lewis, ibid Part F, Chapter 5 p19, lines 14-21, Matt Driscoll, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-19-December-2011.pdf paragraph 3.4 above pp7-8, para 48 -52, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Garry- Flitcroft.pdf; pp66-69, lines 16-7, Tom Crone, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-13-December-20111.pdf; p85, lines 2-25, Jonathan Chapman, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-14-December-2011.pdf p19, lines 1-14, Timothy Gordon, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-20-March-2012.pdf p11, para 57, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Michael- Sullivan.pdf p111, lines 5-8, Richard Thomas, ibid pp111-112, lines 14-7, Richard Thomas, ibid p15, para 48, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/First-Witness-Statement-of-Richard- Thomas-CBE.pdf pp5-17, Sir John Major, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Exhibit-SJM-5.pdf Blair, T, A Journey, p96 p75, para 224, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Witness-Statement-of-David- Cameron-MP.pdf p6, ibid p6, Dr Vince Cable, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Exhibit-VC1-2.pdf p16, lines 2-13, George Osborne, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-11-June-2012.pdf p7, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Submission-by-Harriet-Harman-QC-MP-on- behalf-of-the-Labour-Party1.pdf I do not ignore the considerations that flow from Article 10 of the ECHR and s. 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (as to which there is no material difference in principle: see Camelot Group plc v Centaur Communications [1999] QB Part K Chapter 6 I acknowledge that three of the lay commissioners have recently submitted evidence that they or their families had in the past been the subject of press attention. However, there has been no suggestion that they were the subject of the kind of intrusive reporting which has proved most damaging to victims; and which the PCC failed to tackle p1, para 1.2, ibid K p39, lines 4-12,Lord Black, ibid p2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Submission-by-George-Eustice-MP.pdf pp78-79, lines 24-12, ibid This is equally apparent from an analysis of the evidence quoted at 3.1-3.13 above Part K, Chapter 3, para 4.28 Imutran Ltd v Uncaged Campaigns Ltd [2001] 2 All ER 385 at paras 18–19, per Sir Andrew Morritt V-C. See also Re S (a child) (identification: restriction on publication) [2003] EWCA Civ 963 at para 52, Hale LJ confirmed that where a court has to consider both Art 8 and Art 10, "section 12(4) does not give one pre-eminence over the other". Hale LJ's comment was approved by Lord Hope in the House of Lords in Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004]Show full note

¶Chapter 4 | The Responsibilities of the Press

"1. There is a need for an aspirational code, not simply a list of prohibitions against failings which those in the media fall into. 2. Such a code needs to be presented in the context of the specific critical contribution that a free press can make to the public interest... B 3. The code could then be developed in terms of the duties to the key parties with whom the press/media interact in ethically relevant ways. 4. A code by itself is not worth the paper it is written on unless it is a lived code. To make a code a lived code, media organisations need to attend to the critical factors that can bring about an ethical organisation, or promote integrity in an organisation. These factors include tone from the top (or leadership), an open and honest culture, and so on. … 5. Part of developing such an ethically reflective organisation might be to introduce governance reports which press/media would produce annually, writing such reports in light of the requirements of the code. The reports might reflect both on the ethical culture of the organisation and on the organisation's contribution to the public interest. Any such governance reporting would need to avoid either being overburdensome or being a mere ritual in order to be both effective and meaningful…"⁴⁸⁴⁸ p13, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Professor-Christopher- Megone.pdf http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/feb/15/times-digital-subscribers-rise p106, lines 7-8, Lord Patten, ibid pp23-24, para 25.5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Witness-Statement-of-Ed- Richards.pdf pp6-8, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/First-Submission-by-Sir-Louis-Blom-Cooper- QC.pdf p3, lines 2-6, Lord Black, ibid p24, para 5.35, ibid Not published p13, para 30, 11th Report - News International and Phone-Hacking, Volume I, http://www.publications.parliament. uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmcumeds/903/903i.pdf pp39-40, lines 25-19, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-25-April-2012.pdf pp85-94, lines 5-21, Paul Dacre, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-6-February-20121.pdf, pp89-125, lines 20-11, Paul Dacre, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-9-February-20121.pdf; p9, line 14, Hugh Grant, http:// www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-21-November-2011. pdf; pp30-65, lines 2-16, Liz Hartley, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-11-January-2012.pdf pp19-20, lines 25-15, Matt Driscoll, ibid p17, para 103, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Gerald- Patrick-McCann.pdf pp60-61, lines 8-2, Garry Flitcroft, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-22-November-20111.pdf p3, para 3, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Witness-Statement-of-Jonathan- Chapman.pdf p90, lines 1-9, Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-26-March-2012.pdf p17, para 25, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Witness-Statement-of-Lucy-Panton. pdf pp7-9, lines 25-4, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-9-December-2011.pdf p51, lines 10-12, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-9-December-2011.pdf pp47-48, lines 15-5, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript- of-Afternoon-Hearing-9-December-2011.pdf pp29-30, lines 18-7, Sir John Major, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-12-June-2012.pdf; p3, Sir John Major, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/06/Exhibit-SJM-5.pdf p2, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Exhibit-KRM-30.pdf; p2, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Exhibit-KRM-31.pdf p7, para 30, Andy Coulson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Witness-Statement-of- Andy-Coulson.pdf p2, ibid p14, para 9, ibid p7, ibid CPR 44.3(4)(a) pp48-49, lines 25-2, Lionel Barber, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-10-January-2012.pdf p5, para 10.3, ibid p39, lines 12-18,Lord Black, ibid K 49 pp5-6, paras 2 and 4, ibid http://www.presscouncil.ie/office-of-the-press-ombudsman.167.html These are the amounts suggested by Lord Black in his proposal, p12, paras 2.1-2,2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org. uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Lord-Black-of-Brentwood-Annex-C1.pdf. There is some disagreement in the industry about whether these limits are equitable and reasonable: in setting up the regulator, that would be an issue that would have to be addressed Part K, Chapter 4, para 16.4 1809 L Lester, Pannick, Herberg, Human Rights Law and Practice (2009), Chapter B, Section 12, Section 2.12, footnote 1Show full note "In order for a code of conduct to be properly effective it has to be, not only coherent and justified in terms of its normative content, but such that there is something about the social, institutional, legal or practical context that motivates and secures compliance."⁴⁹⁴⁹ p15, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Dr-Neil-Manson.pdf p2, para 2.4, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Thomas- Mockridge.pdf pp49-50, lines 10-18, Mark Thompson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-23-January-2012.pdf s58A(1 ) O'Malley, T and C Soley, Op Cit, pp79-82 p4, lines 20-23, Lord Black, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-1-February-2012.pdf; p6, para 20, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Witness- Statement-of-Lord-Black1.pdf p2, para 7, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Richard- Thomas-CBE1.pdf para 34, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Witness-Statement-of-DCS-Keith-Surtees.pdf; p13, lines 2-8, DAC Sue Akers, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-6-February-2012.pdf pp55-56, lines 23-8, William Lewis, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-10-January-2012.pdf pp26-34, lines 5-12, Gordon Brown, https://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-11-June-2012.pdf; p8, https://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Witness- Statement-of-Gordon-Brown-MP.pdf p70, lines 11-16, Ian Edmondson, ; http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-9-February-2012.pdf; the diary incident will be examined further in Part F Chapter 5 section below para 356, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmcumeds/362/362i.pdf pp71-73, lines 6-16, ibid p23, lines 10-15, p25, lines 18-22, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Witness- Statement-of-Jonathan-Chapman.pdf pp36-37, lines 21-6, Anne Campbell, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-26-March-2012.pdf p16, para 24iv, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Witness-Statement-of-Lucy-Panton. pdf p114, lines 19-20, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-9-December-2011.pdf p27, lines 14-21, Richard Thomas, ibid pp1-10, Christopher Graham, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Exhibit-CG6.pdf p39, lines 1-2, Peter Riddell, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-25-June-20121.pdf p11, para 13, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Second-Witness-Statement-of- I Alastair-Campbell.pdf p8, para 31, bid pp2-3, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Exhibit-KRM-15.pdf p14, para 10, ibid p76, lines 15-18, Nick Clegg, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-13-June-2012.pdf CPR 44.3(5)(a) The example is often given of doctors serving on Disciplinary Committees of the General Medical Council. If an ENT surgeon from, say, Newcastle, sits on a Disciplinary Committee in respect of an ENT surgeon whom he does not know and has had no contact with from, say, London, he will be able to bring his expertise to bear in a completely impartial way. If one of a dozen or so national editors sits on a PCC panel in relation to a competitive title, it is almost inevitable that he or she will know the editor extremely well and is likely to have a view about the balance of Articles 8 and 10: a complainant may well not feel that such an editor could be entirely impartial. As appears from the analysis of the J position of Northern and Shell, the converse might also be true p4, para 10.1, ibid pp8-9, paras 6.1-6.4, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Early- Resolution.pdf p63, lines 4-10, Professor John Horgan, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-13-July-20121.pdf K Part J Chapter 3 Part H, Chapter 5, para 2.59 Clause 14 of the Editors' Code of Practice. The Code is enforced by the PCC and is published on the PCC website www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.htmlShow full note

¶4.17 I conclude this analysis by recognising the risks that this Inquiry must confront. The Editor-

in-Chief of the Mail titles, Paul Dacre, identified these risks, and the challenges the Inquiry faces, in this way:50

"...I would argue that Britain's commercially viable free press, because it's in hock to nobody, is the only real free media in this country. Over-regulate that press, and you put democracy itself in peril."

I have always been keenly aware of the dangers of going too far; and I have been continually reminded as the Inquiry has progressed. In short, it has not been difficult for me to remain alive to this critical risk. I go further. The public interest in a press which is free, which is viable, and which is diverse cannot be too highly valued. Without investigative journalism, and the ability of the press to scour hidden places, the domain of the powerful, for potential wrongdoing, our democracy would be severely impoverished. Nothing I shall recommend will fail to hold to these principles.

¶C parT C

¶The preSS

ChapTer 1 ConTexT

Introduction 1.1 The Inquiry is required to examine the culture, practices and ethics of the press but, in order

to do that, it is helpful to set out the commercial context within which the press operates. C This Part of the Report looks at the market for news provision and some of the ways in which it is changing as well as the newspaper market more generally. This Chapter looks briefly at the economics of the newspaper market and where the challenges are coming from.

¶1.2 Chapter 2 looks at the main players in the newspaper industry, including a brief review of the

history of each where relevant, the financial and commercial performance of each and the governance and compliance processes in place at each title. This is all important background in order to understand the differences, if any, between the cultures and practices of individual titles and publishers. The focus of Chapter 2 is on the national press, and within that on those with the largest circulation and market share. The Chapter also looks briefly at the markets for regional and local newspapers and for magazines, drawing, in particular, on evidence that the Inquiry has heard from specific titles. There is no attempt at a detailed analysis of these markets; this is not needed for the subsequent consideration of the issues at the heart of this inquiry.

¶1.3 Chapter 3 looks at other, non-print, news providers. This includes both the economic models

and market pressures, but also the regulatory environment within which they operate. Again, this is important context for subsequent analysis.

¶1.4 Finally, Chapter 4 looks at the way in which competition law specifically applies to the press

and the media, providing a brief history of media ownership and plurality provisions and how they currently apply.

Commercial pressures on the press 2.1 It is undeniable that the market in which newspapers compete has changed substantially

over recent decades and continues to change rapidly. The rise of digital broadcasting and the internet mean that UK citizens now have a much broader range of news and media providers offering news coverage, current affairs and entertainment than ever before; and newspapers have to compete in this market both for advertising revenue and for readership.

¶2.2 The result is that newspapers have a significantly smaller reach than they did 20 years ago, to

say nothing of 50 years ago, and are operating in a media environment in which consumers and citizens have very different expectations of standards from different types of media. Whilst newspapers are losing their share of the market, the costs of producing the news are not reducing significantly and much of the competition on the internet comes from organisations which are not, themselves, the originators of news content.

¶2.3 These changes mean that the commercial environment in which the press is operating is quite different to that in which the current self-regulatory regime was first established.

¶PART C | The Press

¶Newspaper economics

¶2.4 The media landscape in 2012 is very different from that which Sir David Calcutt QC looked

at when he made his recommendations that led to the establishment of the PCC in 1990. Then, the internet did not exist as a consumer medium, UK citizens had access to only four terrestrial TV channels, BBC1, BBC2, ITV and Channel 4, and satellite broadcasting had only just begun and was accessed by only a tiny minority of families. On the radio, citizens could listen to the (then) four BBC national radio stations (only joined midway through 1990 by Radio 5), local BBC radio and 69 commercial local radio stations. This meant that, in reality,

¶C most people had a choice of only two different radio providers.

¶2.5 National newspaper circulation stood at over 15 million for the national daily newspapers

and nearly 18 million for the Sunday papers.1 Regional and local press circulation (for paid-for papers) was nearly 17 million in total. The UK citizen therefore had limited sources of news and was heavily dependent on newspapers; broadcast media was limited to a very narrow range of broadcasters, with TV broadcasters, at least, having a public service remit in respect of news.

¶2.6 The picture now is very different. The citizen today has a very wide range of sources of national,

international and local news and comment, in a world of ever growing media complexity. Virtually every UK household has digital TV, providing a profusion of channels, including four free-to-view 24 hour news channels and others available with subscription. There are now 21 national radio channels, and 344 local radio stations,2 all of which will carry some form of news.

¶2.7 Over 70% of adults in the UK have access to broadband.3 All media organisations, whether

newspapers, broadcasters, or others now have some form of established internet presence, and the internet has opened up access to UK citizens to news coverage from across the world; some of this is from professional media organisations, but it also includes 'citizen journalism' from individuals sharing their experience of, and views on, events that occur. Nearly a quarter of all the time that adults spend engaging with media is spent on the internet.4

¶2.8 Against this growing digital activity, newspaper circulation has fallen significantly, as shown by

the table below. The national daily newspaper circulation stood at 9.45 million in September 2011.5 As Claire Enders explained at one of the Inquiry seminars in October 2011, the declines since 1990 and the Calcutt report have been biggest in the popular national press and the regional press, both falling by over 40%6 while the quality national press have seen falls of only 25% over that timescale. However, the decline has accelerated since 2005;7 that period has seen the whole of the 25% post-Calcutt fall in circulation of the quality nationals, while the popular nationals have fallen only by 14% in that time scale. Whilst other media sectors are now showing recovery from the recession, that is not the case with newspapers and magazines.8

¶Chapter 1 | Context

¶2.9 This table shows circulation for both national daily and Sunday titles in September 2002 and

September 2012. Although the speed of circulation decline differs from title to title there is an evident trend here.

Table C1.1: National newspaper circulation 2002 - 2012 Title Circulation Sept Circulation Sept % change

2002 — 2012

The Sun 3,733,052 2,445,361 - 34.49 C Daily Mirror 2,130,859 1,072,687 - 49.66 Daily Star 855,880 586,743 - 31.45 Daily Record 540,886 272,799 - 49.56 Daily Mail 2,387,149 1,884,815 - 21.04 The Express 942,842 543,912 - 42.31 Daily Telegraph 934,527 560,398 - 40.03 Times 640,424 406,711 - 36.49 FT 417,911 287,895 - 31.11 Guardian 389,894 204,937 - 47.44 Independent 187,042 81,245 - 56.56

News of the World 4,067,205 n/a Sun on Sunday 2,082,755 n/a Sunday Mirror 1,804,334 1,087,940 - 39.70 People 1,301,799 455,973 - 64.97 Daily Star Sunday 719,308 407,239 - 43.38 Sunday Mail 656,921 310,135 - 52.79 Mail on Sunday 2,306,911 1,758,720 - 23.76 Sunday Express 910,177 493,586 - 45.77 Sunday Times 1,387,182 904,548 - 34.79 Sunday Telegraph 744,023 446,526 - 39.98 Observer 432,938 238,282 - 44.96 Independent on Sunday 186,188 120,340 - 35.37 Source: Audit Bureau of Circulations9

¶Newspaper revenues 2.10 Newspaper and magazine revenues come from three sources: copy sales revenue, display

advertising and classified advertising. In the national press the main revenue streams are overwhelmingly sales revenue and display advertising: 52.6% from copy sales in quality press, 58.2% in popular press and only 27% in the regional press, where classified advertising makes

¶PART C | The Press

up 41.4% of revenue. Both copy sales and display advertising revenue streams are under pressure.

¶2.11 Competition for display advertising spend is marked, with much advertising moving online.

The Online Advertising Bureau stated that UK digital advertising expenditure grew 2.6% to £2.59 billion in the first half of 2012.10 In addition, advertising spend has historically declined when growth in the economy is slow, adding further pressures on newspaper revenues. More dramatically, print classified advertising has been particularly hard hit by the move to online. Online models have proved highly successful with buyers and sellers.

¶C

¶2.12 Thus, revenues accrued through recruitment advertising have reduced from £150 million per

year to £20 million per year, and there has been a similar decline in property advertising.11 Recruiters simply do not need to place print advertisements any more. Further, public sector advertising, once a source of considerable revenue for both regional and national press, has also largely moved online with significant implications for the revenues of newspaper businesses.12 The editors of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish newspapers who have given evidence said that advertising revenues were particularly important for the smaller circulation papers, and emphasised the impact of the loss of advertising from the public sector for those smaller papers.13

¶2.13 All of this means that newspapers face significant economic pressures. However, whilst

newspapers revenues have fallen for most publishing groups in the last five years, the different ownership and operation structures within the industry mean that the impact of these pressures is different.

¶2.14 Table C1.2 below shows the revenues of major newspaper groups in 2012 and the change from 2005 to 2012.

¶Chapter 1 | Context

Table C1.2: Newspaper revenues publisher newspaper division FY 2010 2005-10 change revenues (£m) in revenues (%) National newspapers News International* (News Corporation) 1,047 -2% Associated (DMGT)⁸⁵⁰⁸⁵⁰ p3, lines 15-21, ibid -3% Trinity Mirror national division 430 -14% C FT Group (Pearson)** 403 21% Telegraph Media Group 324 0% Guardian News and Media (GMG)²²¹²²¹ p6, para 25, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Lloyd-Embley.pdf para 51, ibid p14, lines 13-22, Matt Driscoll, ibid pp13-14, lines 16-2, Steve Coogan, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-22-November-20111.pdf p17, ibid pp53-54, lines 17-1, David Cameron, ibid pp11-14, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Exhibit-TJ38-to-Witness-Statement-of- Tessa-Jowell.pdf pp40-41, lines 12-15, Jeremy Hunt, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-31-May-2012.pdf p1, PCC, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Exhibit-SA-U2.pdf p6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Submission-by-Carnegie-Trust.pdf see Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2001] QB 967 per Keene LJ at para 168Show full note -5% Express Newspapers (Northern & Shell)²¹⁴²¹⁴ p23, lines 10-15, Nicole Patterson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-12-January-2012.pdf para 170, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Witness-Statement- of-Keith-Rupert-Murdoch2.pdf p68, lines 5-16, Paul McMullan, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-29-November-2011.pdf pp3-10, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Matthew-Sprake. pdf p27, para 35, ibid pp25-26, lines 25-11, George Osborne, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript- of-Afternoon-Hearing-11-June-2012.pdf p30, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Exhibit-TJ38-to-Witness-Statement-of-Tessa- Jowell.pdf p2, Jeremy Hunt, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Exhibit-JH14-MOD300008107- MOD300008132-docs-566-572.pdf p13, para 83, ibid Part J, Chapter 5 para 58, See also Spelman v Express Newspapers [2012] EWHC 355 (QB) in which a Cabinet Minister failed to obtain an interim injunction to prevent publication of private information concerning her 17 year old son, who was a successful Rugby player; and Mcclaren v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 2466 (QB) in which the Court declined to grant an interim injunction prohibiting details of a sexual activity between the claimant (a professional football manager) and a third party in circumstances where the claimant was undoubtedly a public figure having formerly managed England's football team and in which he had previously disclosed details of an extra-marital affairs in a national newspaperShow full note -26% regional newspapers Johnston Press 398 -23% Trinity Mirror regional division† 331 -48% Northcliffe (DMGT)²⁹⁴²⁹⁴ p9, para 20, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Finbarr- Ronayne1.pdf p28, lines 5-10, ibid pp95-96, lines 20-11, Neil Wallis, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-12-December-20111.pdf pp38-41, lines 7-18, Matthew Sprake, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript- of-Afternoon-Hearing-18-July-2012.pdf pp8-9, lines 6-11, ibid http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/magazine/05hacking-t.html?pagewanted=all p175, ibid p14, para 38, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Media-Regulation- Round-Table.pdf s14(1), Defamation Act 1996Show full note -43% Newsquest (Gannett) †† 344 -53% Notes: Unless otherwise stated, 2005-10 change in revenues is not like-for-like *News International includes News Group Newspapers Ltd and Times Newspapers Ltd **FT Group 2005-10 change like-for-like: 2005 revenue excl. IDC, reported in 2006 annual report †TM regional division 2005-10 change like-for-like: 2010 revenues excl. GMG Regional Media ††Newsquest revenues converted to sterling using exchange rate stated in annual report [Source: Enders Analysis based on company reports]

¶2.15 Certainly there has been no structural like-for-like shift in advertising revenues for newspapers

from print to online editions. Although the proportion of advertising online spend has grown at a considerable rate, those revenues are shared by a far greater number of businesses including micro bloggers and other online businesses. Although the internet enables highly personalised targeted advertising, for which advertisers will pay a premium, such revenues derived from advertising directed at specific types of user, so-called targeted or behavioural advertising, have not in any way matched the decline in revenue from traditional sources. It is certainly telling and illustrative of the challenges faced by newspapers that the UK's most successful online newspapers, the MailOnline and the Guardian, have yet to find a way of converting this into substantial or comparable profit.

¶2.16 This advertising is driven by the availability of vast quantities of data, both personal and

more general, that users upload when they make online purchases, or through anonymised tracking of individuals ISPs and other providers when users browse the internet. This model has served the internet industry and users well to a point. However, recent changes to the law restricting the use of cookies and other tracking technologies without the informed consent of the user may further dilute the potential revenues that a newspaper or other business may derive from this source.

¶2.17 The Inquiry has been told that circulation may be boosted temporarily, through price cutting

or promotional campaigns, but these do not generally have a long term impact and circulation levels tend to fall back once the promotional activity is discontinued.14

¶PART C | The Press

¶Impact of pressures on business models

¶2.18 The Inquiry has heard different interpretations of the impact of these economic pressures

on newspaper business models. It is common ground that falling revenues and the increased need to produce copy 24 hours a day has resulted in fewer journalists having to do more work.

¶2.19 Editors have argued that the financial levels affect staffing levels but that this simply means that journalists work harder15 and that there is no reduction in the quality of journalism. The C Inquiry has been told that the economic difficulties have not affected training of journalists.16

¶2.20 Others17 have suggested that the effect of journalists having to produce more stories in less

time and with less resource is that material is not as thoroughly checked as it once was, press releases are reproduced uncritically and stories are recycled around the media with little development or additional checking.

¶2.21 The impact on regional newspapers has been more severe, with a number of titles merging

or closing. For example, the Trinity Mirror portfolio of regional newspapers has fallen from 160 titles to 140.18

¶2.22 Across the press the same challenge faces all titles in respect of how to make money from

content online in a world where advertising revenues and revenues from physical circulation continue to decline,19 whilst readership online is growing. Two UK daily titles (the Financial Times and the Times) operate behind paywalls but this is not necessarily seen as a solution that can work across the industry.

¶2.23 That is not to say that, as is clear from Chapter 2 in this Part, there are not parts of the UK press that are profitable and, in some cases, highly profitable.

Chapter 2 the press: history, governanCe struCtures and finanCes

Introduction 1.1 In this Chapter I examine the history, governance structures and finances of the major

British newspapers. I will look first and in some detail at those newspapers owned by News International (NI), and ultimately by the parent company in the US, News Corporation.1 This is fitting given the central role of the News of the World (NoTW) in the events that led to establishment of this Inquiry, as well as the extraordinary influence that Rupert Murdoch has exercised over the development of the press in Britain, since he purchased NoTW newspaper in 1969. I will then look at the history, governance structures and finances of the other major British newspaper publishing houses, before turning albeit briefly to the regional press and the magazine industry.