The Dowlers
¶2.1 Bob and Sally Dowler fully appreciated that the disappearance of their daughter, Amanda,
known as Milly, was a 'massive news story'. From the start, the press was 'like a double-edged sword':4 as many have pointed out in similar vein, there is often a fine line between the need to engage the press to publicise a predicament or a cause, and the dangers of press intrusion. As Mrs Dowler explained in her witness statement:5
''What we did not appreciate was the extent to which the newspapers would intrude on our private turmoil and how little control we would have over where the lines were drawn in this respect. We did not have any experience in dealing with the media and we have to make a lot of difficult choices, without the benefit of professional advice and at an extremely harrowing time in our lives. It felt like a lot of our decisions to engage the press had ramifications beyond those you could logically expect.''
¶2.2 The Dowlers gave examples of two types of media intrusion which, in the light of all the
543other evidence the Inquiry was subsequently to receive, appear to be commonplace. First, in the months following Milly's disappearance, Mr Dowler was frequently 'door stepped' by journalists and photographers looking for a story. In the words of Mrs Dowler:6
¶Chapter 5 | Some Case Studies
''Bob would be in the front garden and a reporter would pop up asking a question about the case. In our experience, the journalists rarely started by introducing themselves. They would simply launch into a series of questions about Milly...''
¶2.3 Second, a particularly poignant piece of evidence concerns an occasion when the Dowlers
decided to walk home from Walton-on-Thames railway station following the route which Milly habitually took. This was intended to be an intensely private moment. As Mrs Dowler explained to the Inquiry:7
''I met Bob and then we just basically quietly retraced her steps and no one was really around, so it was very much like the day she'd actually gone missing, and we put out missing leaflets with her photograph and a telephone number on, and that number had been changed, and I was checking the posters to see if the number – if the right poster was up, and as I walked along, I was sort of touching the posters. And we walked back to our house, which is maybe three-quarters of a mile, something like that, and that was on the Thursday, and then on the Sunday, that photograph appeared in the News of the World and I can remember seeing it and I was really cross because we didn't see anyone. They'd obviously taken the picture with some sort of telephoto lens. How on earth did they know we were doing that walk on that day? And it just felt like such an intrusion into a really, really private grief moment, really.''
¶2.4 An article in the NoTW published on 12 May 2002 was headlined, 'The Longest Walk'. The
secondary headline was, 'Face etched with pain, missing Milly's mum softly touches a poster of her girl as she and her hubby retrace her last footsteps.' Although this doubtless made a F story replete with human interest, it is difficult to argue with Mrs Dowler's observation that this was an unjustified intrusion into a moment of private grief. The very language of the article indicates that the NoTW was well aware of the intrusion, but whether the editor or sub-editor gave any thought to whether it might be justified is impossible to know at this distance. If he or she did, the judgment reached was misconceived.
¶2.5 One of the questions which the Dowlers asked themselves at the time was 'how on earth
did they know that we were doing that walk on that day?'8 There is no evidence that NoTW photographers were carrying out day-to-day surveillance of the Dowlers on the off-chance; had they been doing so, obvious ethical concerns would arise. Another possible inference (as to which I make no finding) is that the NoTW discovered the Dowlers' likely whereabouts on the day by listening to a phone message.
¶2.6 The Dowlers also gave evidence as to the occasion on which Mrs Dowler gained access to
Milly's personal voicemail message, having previously only been able to hear the automated message. To the best of their recollection this occurred in April or May 2002 after a visit to the Birdseye building at Walton-on-Thames in order to view some CCTV footage. As Mrs Dowler told the Inquiry:9
544''we were sitting downstairs in reception and I rang her phone ... And it clicked through onto her voicemail, so I heard her voice, and it was just like – I jumped – "She's picked
¶PART F | The Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press: the Press and the Public
up her voicemails, Bob, she's alive", and I just – it was then, really. Look, when we were told about the hacking, that is the first thing I thought.''
¶2.7 At the time Mrs Dowler managed to access her daughter's voicemail it is clear from the
evidence that emerged during the course of the criminal proceedings that Milly was already dead. The 'false hope moment', as it came to be described, was generated by the fact that voicemails on the system were deleted, with the consequence that the automated message – signifying a full voicemail – was replaced by the personal voicemail greeting.
¶2.8 In the article published on 4 July 2011 the Guardian's account was along the lines that NoTW
journalists, or someone acting on their behalf, were responsible for the deletion of these messages. However, the accuracy of this account was questioned in December 2011, and given its obvious importance the Inquiry sought further assistance from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and Surrey Police who undertook a full investigation into what happened. Ultimately, in May 2012 the Inquiry received a witness statement from Detective Chief Inspector John MacDonald, of the MPS, which was read into the record.10
¶2.9 This evidence conclusively established that the Dowlers had visited the Birdseye building
shortly after 18:00hrs on 24 March 2002, which was three days after Milly's disappearance. The family liaison officer's log records:11
''At 19:10 hours Mr and Mrs Dowler were taken home by the FLO. Whilst at home, Mrs Dowler rang Milly's mobile. The log records that Mrs Dowler 'became distressed as Milly's voicemail was now on the recorded message whereas previously there was
¶F a recorded message (automated).''
¶2.10 Although call data subsequently established that the time of Mrs Dowler's call was 18:32hrs
(ie over 30 minutes earlier than the FLO's log record, which was completed after the event), it is clear from all the available evidence that the 'false hope moment' occurred during the early evening of 24 March 2002 and not in April or May as the Dowlers had originally believed. They are not to be criticised for this in any way, since at the time of giving their witness statement they were being asked to recall traumatic events occurring nearly a decade beforehand.
¶2.11 DCI MacDonald's investigation revealed that Milly's last call to her own voicemail was at
17:07hrs on 20 March, and one of Milly's friends called her voicemail at 19:46hrs on 21 March and left a message. This was almost certainly the tenth message left on Milly's voicemail: at this point, the mailbox was full, and a 'generic' (ie automated) message was left. But, after 72 hours, messages began to be automatically deleted. In the words of DCI MacDonald:12
545''The phone provider has also confirmed that when the voicemail box was full the automated message would be heard, and once messages had started to drop off, the personal voicemail greeting that Mrs Dowler heard would again have come into effect.''
¶Chapter 5 | Some Case Studies
¶2.12 Accordingly, the probable inference is that Mrs Dowler's call was made shortly after one of
the previous messages was deleted – 72¾ hours had elapsed between Milly's friend's call and Mrs Dowler's.
¶2.13 There are two additional pieces of evidence which fall to be considered, although on analysis
they do not bear on the genesis of the 'false hope moment'. First, on 26 March 2002 there was a voicemail platform migration by the service provider, Mercury one2one. That migration included Milly's voicemail. It would have had the effect of resetting Milly's personal greeting to an automated voicemail message, which would have remained as such until changed by the owner of the phone. Yet this occurred two days after the key date for present purposes, and could have had no impact on the false hope moment. Second, DCI MacDonald gave evidence that a message left on Milly's voicemail at 14:10hrs on 26 March was shown as a saved message when Surrey Police listened to it at 15:25hrs. The issue is complicated by the fact that there were a number of technical matters being carried out on that day by the service provider, but in the words of DCI MacDonald:13
''It is not possible to state why the message left at 14:10 hours on 26 March was shown as a saved message when Surrey Police listened to it at 15:25. One possibility is that it was subject to an illegal intercept in that 75 minute period. However we should also consider the lack of a complete set of call data for that time when trying to interpret what happened.''
¶2.14 It is neither necessary nor appropriate for present purposes to delve further into these issues.
Unnecessary, because whatever happened on 26 March 2002 can have no logical bearing on Mrs Dowler's state of mind two days earlier, and inappropriate, because the whole issue of F possible illegal interception of Milly's voicemails is now the subject of criminal proceedings. It is, however, appropriate to make reference to what was said on behalf of the Guardian newspaper on 9 May 2012 immediately after DCI MacDonald's evidence had been read:14
''The Guardian story of 4 July 2011 was based on multiple sources and their state of knowledge at the time. Our error, as we acknowledged and corrected last December, was to have written about the cause of the deletions as a fact rather than as the belief of several people involved in the case. We regret that. After five more months of intensive inquiry, the police have found that the passage of time and the loss of evidence means that 'reaching a definitive conclusion is not and may never be possible.''
¶2.15 It would be otiose for the Inquiry to comment on the Guardian's expression of regret, which
546speaks for itself. Whereas it is true that a definitive conclusion is not possible on the existing state of the evidence, and may never be, the Inquiry does conclude on the lower standard of proof of the balance of probabilities that tampering with or illegal interception of Milly Dowler's voicemail was not the cause of the 'false hope moment': this resulted from nothing less banal than the automatic deletion of messages in the ordinary course of the workings of the system.
¶PART F | The Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press: the Press and the Public
¶2.16 But it remains worthwhile to underline that the essential gravamen of the Guardian's original
story of 4 July 2011, namely that Milly Dowler's phone was hacked by or on the instructions of journalists employed by the NoTW, was correct, and is now the subject of criminal charges.
¶2.17 Surrey Police have submitted detailed evidence to the Inquiry and to the Culture, Media and
Sport (CMS) Select Committee bearing on this issue.15 This establishes that shortly before 13 April 2002 NoTW reporters listened to at least four voicemail messages left on Milly's phone, one of which (timed at 10:13hrs on 27 March 2002) they had transcribed as follows:
''Hello Mandy. This is [REDACTED from [REDACTED] recruitment agency. We are ringing because we are starting interviewing today at [REDACTED]. Call back on [REDACTED]. Thanks. Bye.''
¶2.18 The NoTW apparently deduced from this that Milly was still alive and using the name 'Mandy'
to seek work in the area where the agency was based. The agency notified Mercia Police that it had received two telephone calls from a woman claiming to be Mrs Dowler (either a hoaxer or a journalist) asking whether Milly was working for them. The agency gave out no information to the caller, but on 13 April 2002 NoTW reporters attended at the premises of the agency in search of further leads. At 12:10hrs on 13 April the joint owner of the agency contacted Surrey Police by telephone, stating:
''We have had a News of the World reporter... harassing us today. He says that our agency has recruited Milly as an employee, demanding to know what we know and saying that he is working in full co-operation with the police.''
¶F 2.19 That last assertion was of course untrue. Surrey Police then contacted the NoTW which
admitted that it had acquired its information from Milly's phone (claiming to have obtained the number and PIN from school children) and confirming that it had a recording of the voicemail message.
¶2.20 Later on 13 April the NoTW contacted Surrey Police claiming that it was confident of its
sources and that it was intending to print the information it had relayed to the police as a news story. Despite police warnings that the message was probably the work of a hoaxer, the NoTW went into print on Sunday 14 April 2002 with its angle on the story.
¶2.21 It is unnecessary for the Inquiry to investigate every aspect of this somewhat convoluted
sequence of events, which undoubtedly would have impacted on the police investigation in April 2002. Surrey Police carried out no arrests at the time, but detailed investigations have been conducted pursuant to Operation Weeting. It is sufficient for present purposes to state that the main thrust of the article published in the Guardian on 4 July 2011, that Milly Dowler's voicemail was hacked into by NoTW journalists, was correct. As the Dowlers explained in their witness statement, they received substantial compensation from News International (NI) to mark the egregious conduct of their employees. Even if that conduct did not embrace causing the 'false hope moment', its characterisation as egregious remains apposite.
¶2.22 The Guardian's error in relation to the circumstances in which Milly's voicemail messages
547were deleted was significant although, in the light of all the circumstances, had it been couched in more cautious or less certain terms may not have been capable of criticism at all. It certainly did not justify the attack that followed: I am certainly not criticising it or the paper. Nor, as I pointed out on 4 December 2011, does the Guardian's error in any way undermine
¶Chapter 5 | Some Case Studies
the reasons for setting up, or the work of, this Inquiry, despite what some have suggested.16 The fact remains that the NoTW hacked the phone of a dead schoolgirl called Milly Dowler. The revelation of that story rightly shocked the public conscience in a way that other stories of phone hacking may not have, but it also gave momentum to growing calls for light to be shed on an unethical and unlawful practice of which there were literally thousands of victims. In that context, whether or not NoTW journalists had caused the "false hope" moment is almost irrelevant.