Prosecutions arising from Operation Motorman

¶4.1 The Information Commissioner formed the view that the material obtained during the course

of Operation Motorman was of sufficient quality and quantity to bring criminal proceedings against the private detective Mr Whittamore and his associates involved in the blagging and obtaining of personal information. However, the evidence obtained by the ICO overlapped to some extent with the material obtained by the MPS and therefore the prosecutions led by the CPS in relation to the offences of corruption and conspiracy were given priority, being offences of a more serious nature.35

¶4.2 The evidence discovered by the MPS had highlighted the unauthorised supply of information from the PNC by a civilian police employee, and the CPS charged four individuals; namely E Steve Whittamore, John Boyall, Alan King and Paul Marshall with corruption offences.

19 incidents were covered by the indictment,¹²¹² Complaints handling 709 Chapter 7: Conclusion 717 1 Introduction 717 2 Possible causes 719 3 The relevance of the internet 736 4 The press response to this Inquiry 737 PArT G: The PreSS And The POlICe: The relATIOnShIP 741 Chapter 1: Policing with Consent: the role of the press 743 1 Introduction 743 2 The purpose of the relationship and public confidence 745 3 Tensions in the relationship between the media and the police 748 Chapter 2: The history of the relationship: different Approaches 751 1 Metropolitan Police Service: the Commissioners 751 2 Other police forces 756 3 Press departments 763 Chapter 3: Press and the Police: the harm and the response 780 1 Introduction 780 2 The use and abuse of information 780 3 Entertainment: an overview 830 4 The perception of influence 851 5 The problems of friendship 898 6 Calibrating the harm: the views of Commissioners 928 v http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Assessor-Protocol-17-October-2011.pdf http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/231111-S19-restriction-order-HJK.pdf Re H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] AC 563 at 586 per Lord Nicholls p49, para 47-90, Professor Baroness Onora O'Neill, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-16-July-2012.pdf Feldman,D 'Secrecy, Dignity or Autonomy? Views of Privacy as a Civil Liberty', p54, http://clp.oxfordjournals.org/ p52, lines 3-12, Professor Jennifer Hornsby, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-16-July-2012.pdf http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Spencer-Feeney.pdf; http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Mike-Gilson.pdf; http:// www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-John-McLellan.pdf; http://www. levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Jonathan-Russell.pdf ibid p5, para 13, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Lord-Patten1. pdf p3, para 5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/DCMS-submission_Narrative-on-media- ownership.pdf Great Britain (1949) Op cit, p178 p54, paras 121-124, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of- Stephen-Abell.pdf p52, lines 4-18, DCI Gilmour, ibid pp6-7, para 4.4, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Alexander- Owens1.pdf p43, para 84, ibid p9, lines 19-22, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-6- February-2012.pdf pp12-13, lines 16-14, Sally Dowler, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-21-November-2011.pdf pp34-35, lines 17-13, Fiona Fox, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-24-January-2012.pdf p25, para 53, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-JK-Rowling2. pdf p16, lines 21-25, Colin Myler, ibid p20, lines 6-10, Robert Jay QC, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-9-May-2012.pdf; p7, para 17, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ Witness-Statement-of-DCI-John-Macdonald.pdf pp25-26, lines 11-14, Charlotte Church, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript- of-Afternoon-Hearing-28-November-20111.pdf p9, lines 3-18, Hugh Whittow, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-12-January-2012.pdf p32, ibid p31, lines 21-23, Lord Condon, ibid p4, lines 16-24, Assistant Chief Constable Jerry Kirkby, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-27-March-2012.pdf Interim ACPO Guidance for Relationships with the Media, para 3.5, http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/reports/2 012/201204IntGuiMediaRels.pdf pp30-32, ibid; p1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Fourth-Witness-Statement-of- Richard-Thomas-CBE.pdf p54, lines 16-18, Richard Thomas, ibid p50, lines 10-12, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-9-December-2011.pdf http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Philip-Coppel-QC-redacted.pdf; without reproducing it in full here, his general introduction to the history and substance of the Act is a commendably lucid and concise overview which should recommend itself to the general reader and which I am pleased to be able to adopt for the purposes of this Report: see pp2-12. This was also covered in his oral evidence: pp1-20, Philip Coppel, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-17-July-2012.pdf pp81-86, lines 17-3, Richard Thomas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript- of-Afternoon-Hearing-9-December-2011.pdf Part H, Chapter 5, para 2.72 p11, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-statement-of-Andrew-Neil.pdf pp22-23, lines 25-1, Jack Straw, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-16-May-2012.pdf p50, lines 8-24, David Cameron, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-14-June-2012.pdf p15, ibid p20, lines 16-19, James Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-24-April-2012.pdf pp3-4, lines 24-2, ibid p12, para 40, ibid p21, para 5.1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Ofcom-Measuring- Media-Plurality1.pdf As I have made clear in Part E Chapter 5, there is an issue about the way in which the relationship between the Management and Standards Committee and the MPS has recently developed. I repeat that I am satisfied that it is not appropriate to elaborate further although the assistance upon which the police have had to depend only serves to make the point that this Chapter identifies This argument subsequently prevailed in the European Court of Human Rights following further litigation relating to Naomi Campbell when the Court ruled that the recovery of success fees at the level sought by lawyers in privacy and defamation cases represents a significant violation of freedom of expression. In that case, the figures were startling: Ms Campbell was awarded £3,500 in damages after the House of Lords ruled her right to privacy had been breached by a front-page story revealing her attendance at Narcotics Anonymous. Her legal costs came to more than £1m, including £288,468 base costs, £279,981.35 in success fees and £26,020 disbursements: see MGN v. United Kingdom (Application 39401/04) p171, para 247, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Stephen- Abell.pdf pp6-7, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Sumission-from-Jeremy-Hunt-MP.pdf; p8, para 3.1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Tim-Suter-of-Perspective- Associates.pdf http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Lord-Black-of-Brentwood-Annex-C1.pdf pp6-7, paras 20-21, ibid pp3-7, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Michelle-Stanistreet-on- behalf-of-the-National-Union-of-Journalists.pdf p54, lines 1-10, Professor John Horgan, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-13-July-20121.pdf para 179, report of Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201012/ jtselect/jtprivinj/273/273.pdf Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.24 Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.31 See for example, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24, and Lingens, cited above, §§ 41-42) and recently Centro Europa 7 SRL and Di Stefano v Italy (Application no. 38433/09)Show full note in respect of Criminal Record Office offences and seven in relation to vehicle checks from the PNC. Two of the accused pleaded guilty to the corruption charges. On 6 April 2005, the Crown amended the indictment to include two offences under the DPA. Mr Whittamore and Mr Boyall pleaded guilty to offences under s55 of the DPA.36

¶4.3 On 15 April 2005, His Honour Judge Samuels QC, sitting at Blackfriars Crown Court, sentenced

the four defendants. HHJ Samuels QC stated that: "the vice of the primary conspiracy was to make known to the press information which on any view ought to have been confidential, and was bound at its lowest to cause immense embarrassment to members of the public who required the state to maintain confidentiality in their affairs".37 However, the judge considered himself circumscribed by two factors. First, Paul Marshall had already been given a conditional discharge at an earlier trial in respect of unrelated offences, his mitigation being that he was seriously ill; in the court's view, Mr Marshall could not now be given a higher sentence for a less serious offence, and his co-defendants could not be treated less leniently either. Second, the personal circumstances of each of the defendants (as argued before the judge) meant that the court considered that it could not impose a fine. Consequently, each defendant received a conditional discharge.

¶4.4 Separate proceedings under s55 of the DPA had been commenced by the ICO against Mr

Whittamore and five other private investigators. However, the proceedings were withdrawn when the CPS prosecutions resulted in a sentence of a conditional discharge.38 The reasons for the discontinuance of the prosecutions are identified in the report What Price Privacy?; namely that the ICO was disappointed at the sentences imposed by the court and considered that it was not in the public interest to proceed with the ICO's own prosecutions in these

265

¶Chapter 3 | Operation Motorman

circumstances.39 Given that the maximum sentence for a breach of s55 was a financial penalty, it cannot be said that this decision was unrealistic.