07 May 12 | Leveson Inquiry
Cross-posted at Hacked Off
Peter Hill was editor of the Daily Express for seven years, from the end of 2003 to early 2011. Among his claims to fame is that he edited the newspaper throughout the Madeleine McCann affair in 2007-8, overseeing coverage that led to a £550,000 libel pay-out by the group and to grovelling front-page apologies.
Before he became its editor the Express had made its mark in the Motorman files, with seven of its journalists listed by the Information Commissioner as having employed the private investigator Steve Whittamore 36 times to carry out searches or inquiries.
But when Hill appeared before the Leveson inquiry in January, he did so after writing in a sworn statement: “I am not aware of ever having used a private investigator at the Daily Express.” Giving evidence under oath, he also declared: “I didn’t follow any of those practices. The regime completely changed when I became the editor.”
Another answer was less categorical, however. Hill was asked: “Is it your evidence that a number of people left, and therefore, because they left, you could be sure that private investigators were no longer being used? Or is it your evidence that you have no idea at all as to whether private investigators were ever used?” He replied: “I have no idea.”
Consider now the evidence to the inquiry of Nicole Patterson, the Express group’s legal chief. She said that after 2005 (and therefore when Hill was in charge at the Express) the papers had made use of no fewer than five companies in the field of data acquisition, of which one was Whittamore’s firm, JJ Services. In 2005 alone, she revealed, the papers spent £110,700 with these five firms, and though she said she saw no evidence of illegality it is not clear how closely she looked.
Besides answering questions at the inquiry, Patterson submitted documents giving details of the use of private investigators and search agencies by the Express papers. Those documents have not been made public, though some were displayed on screens at the hearings and seen by reporters.
The veteran investigative reporter Mark Hosenball has been able to piece together some details of these transactions in an article for Reuters. Notable among these is the case of ‘P Wilby’.
Peter Wilby is a former editor of the Independent on Sunday and the New Statesman and is now an award-winning comment writer. On 17 September 2007, in an article for the Guardian about the McCann case, he referred to the Daily Express as “a hopeless newspaper that couldn’t tell you the time of day”.
A cheap shot, you might say, but no more. Yet it appears to have had consequences, for according to Hosenball the Patterson documents “show that in September 2007 the Express group paid £963.50 to JJ Services [Whittamore] for information on ‘P Wilby’. This is an apparent reference to Peter Wilby. . .”
“According to the records,” Hosenball continued, “the payment was made shortly after Wilby published an article in the Guardian castigating British newspapers, including the Daily Express, for excesses in their coverage of the saga of Madeleine McCann. . .”
Wilby himself has written about this and is not inclined to make a fuss, but on the basis of Patterson’s public evidence we can say that £963,50 must have been a relatively large payment. Most payments to Whittamore and others in this period were for less than £100, she said. In other evidence it emerged that in 2007 Whittamore charged a daily rate of £240, so £960 would have neatly bought four whole days of investigating time, with the £3.50 added on for stationery perhaps.
If ‘P Wilby’ is indeed Peter Wilby (and it would be a remarkable coincidence if two people called P Wilby crossed the path of the Express in those same few days in 2007), then what we have here is a national newspaper commissioning a private investigator (and convicted criminal) to do four days work, or the equivalent in value, on a distinguished journalist.
Stop and think about that. The Express trades on criticism, frequently dishing out abuse worse than Wilby’s and often in a meaner spirit. The paper would say it has a right to do so. But what happens to someone who criticises the Express? It seems the critic gets investigated, and what could be the objective of such an investigation if not to find some means of demeaning or silencing him?
The paper had the right to criticise, in short, but no one had the right to criticise the paper.
Is there any evidence that the Express took such grave exception to Wilby’s jibe? It so happens that there is. On 19 September 2007, two days after the article appeared, the Guardian’s Media Monkey gossip column reported the following:
‘The Guardian has been banned from the offices of the Daily Express after editor Peter Hill blew his top over a column by Peter Wilby in Monday’s MediaGuardian section. . . Mr Hill has responded by banning the morning delivery of 18 copies of the Guardian to the Express offices on the banks of the Thames near Tower Bridge.” Monkey’s man on the inside explained: “He was deeply offended by a thoughtless remark by Peter Wilby, especially as the latter had met him only a couple of weeks previously and had been perfectly cordial. . .”
So this is what we know: on 17 September 2007 Wilby had a go at the Express in print; on 19 September Hill was reported to be so “deeply offended” that he banned the Guardian from the Express offices; ‘shortly after’ the Wilby jibe, someone at the Express commissioned Whittamore to carry out almost £1,000 worth of work on Wilby.
Two questions leap to mind. First, what was Whittamore commissioned to do? No article appeared in the paper subsequently to give any clue. Could he or an employee of his have spent four days engaged in entirely innocent inquiries about Wilby? By Patterson’s account the Express only employed investigators to do jobs journalists would not normally do, so we can presumably rule out a trawl of Wilby’s past journalism or research for a profile article that was never published.
We can also rule out a four-day search for Wilby’s contact details, since those can be found in the published telephone directory. It is an extraordinary thought (though we know it happened at News International), but is it possible that, for £240 a day, Wilby was placed under surveillance?
The other question is, who at the Express did the commissioning? It can’t have been Peter Hill since he is the man who wrote in a sworn statement: “I am not aware of ever having used a private investigator at the Daily Express.” Hill also had “no idea” whether his subordinates used them, so presumably it was one of them – just as it must have been subordinates who continued to commission work from Whittamore, a convicted criminal, right up to 30 July 2010.
Will we ever know the answers to these two questions? Probably not in this part of the Leveson inquiry, where the caravan has moved on. Perhaps it’s a job for a private investigator.
Read more about Steve Whittamore and the Motorman files here.
Brian Cathcart teaches journalism at Kingston University London and is a member of Hacked Off. He tweets at @BrianCathcart
03 May 12 | News and features
The last year has seen tumultuous shifts for media freedom. But core problems still remain in the world’s troublespots, says Padraig Reidy
(more…)
26 Apr 12 | Leveson Inquiry
In a second day of testimony before the Leveson Inquiry, Rupert Murdoch admitted that “one or two strong characters” were responsible for a cover-up of the phone hacking scandal at News International.
The News Corp chairman and chief executive explained to the court that he was “misinformed” and “shielded” from events that were taking place at the paper. Murdoch pointed the finger at “a clever lawyer”, who forbade people from reporting to News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks or chairman James Murdoch.
Despite the acknowledgement of the cover-up of the “cancer” that was prevalent in News International, Murdoch stressed to the court that the senior management of News Corp were not involved. He said:
“There was no attempt, at my level, or several levels below me to cover it up. We set up inquiry after inquiry. We employed legal firm after legal firm and perhaps we relied too much on the conclusions of the police.”
He added that when presented with information relating to a Guardian article in 2009 detailing unethical practices at the News of the World, the police said that the article was wrong. He said: “We chose to take word of police over guardian. We rested on that until beginning of 2011.”
After explaining that Colin Myler was hired as the editor of News of the World in 2007 to find out “what the hell was going on” in the newsroom, Murdoch admitted that he should have taken personal responsibility for ensuring that the brief was completed, and not delegated the duty to Les Hinton.
Murdoch also described his disbelief that law firm Harbottle and Lewis did not alert Rebekah Brooks that the problem was far more widespread than one rogue reporter: “I cannot understand a law firm reading that, and not ringing the chief executive of a company and saying ‘hey, you’ve got some really big problems’.”
The media mogul told the court that he had failed with now defunct News of the World. He said: “I am guilty of not having paid enough attention to News of the World, probably the whole time we owned it. It was an omission by me, and all I can do is apologise to a lot of people.”
Describing himself as “greatly distressed” by the closure of the News of the World, Murdoch admitted that the news paper and the journalistic practices operating within it were an “aberration”.
When asked by Jay why he closed the tabloid newspaper, rather than toughing it out, Murdoch told the court he “panicked”, but said he was glad he took that decision.
Murdoch explained “when the Milly Dowler situation was first given huge publicity, all the newspapers took it as the chance to make a really national scandal. You could feel the blast coming in the window almost.”
He added: “I’m sorry I didn’t close it years before and put a Sunday Sun in,” and described the “whole business” as “a serious blot on my reputation.”
Murdoch told the court he felt in hindsight should have had a one-on-one with Clive Goodman to establish if he was telling the truth that phone hacking was more widespread in the paper. Murdoch told the court he should have “thrown all the damn lawyers out” and cross examined Goodman. He added that if he decided Goodman was telling the truth he “would have torn the place apart, and we wouldn’t be here today.”
Turning to the controversial privacy case of ex-Formula One chief Max Mosley and Neville Thurlbeck’s blackmail of women involved in the case, Jay asked Murdoch if he really felt this kind of behaviour wasn’t something to worry about.
Murdoch replied: “A journalist doing a favour for someone, and someone doing a favour back is an every day occurrence.”
Leveson told Murdoch he considered that approach “somewhat disturbing,” asking the media proprietor to tell him if he believed this type of behaviour was seen as justifiable and acceptable common practice in the industry.
Murdoch replied: “It’s a common thing in life, way beyond journalism, for people to say I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine. This seems to go beyond that.”
Seeing an opportunity to challenge continual assurances that Murdoch did not have any inappropriate relationships with politicians, Jay suggested it was interesting that “you scratch my back” was a common attitude, but not one Murdoch held with regards to politicians.
Referring to the BSkyB bid which caused so much controversy earlier in the week, Murdoch told the court he had never met, nor dealt with Jeremy Hunt.
When asked if he and his son James had discussed the replacement of Vince Cable with Jeremy Hunt, Murdoch told the court he didn’t believe they did. Following Hunt’s appointment to the bid, Murdoch denied that James Murdoch had said “we’ve got someone better now,” but told the court “we couldn’t have had anyone worse”.
Asked by Jay if he believed the bid was derailed as a result of the revelations that the phone of murdered teenager Milly Dowler had been hacked, Murdoch said he was unsure if it was related to the “Milly Dowler misfortune” but that he did believe it was as a result of the hacking scandal.
The inquiry will continue on 7 May
Follow Index’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry @IndexLeveson
25 Apr 12 | Leveson Inquiry
Media mogul Rupert Murdoch has told the Leveson Inquiry that Labour leader Gordon Brown “declared war” on News Corp after the Sun moved to back the Conservatives in 2009.
Appearing before the inquiry today, Murdoch described a phone conversation between the pair, during which the veteran newspaper proprietor told the then Prime Minister that the newspaper would be backing a change of government in the next election.
Telling the court that he did not think Brown was in a “very balanced state of mind” during the call, Murdoch explained that the politician had called on the day of his party conference speech in 2009 after hearing about the paper’s altered political allegiance.
Murdoch said: “Mr Brown did call me and said ‘Rupert, do you know what’s going on here?’ I said ‘What do you mean?’ He said, ‘Well the Sun and what it’s doing.’ I said ‘I’m sorry to tell you Gordon, but we will support a change of government when there’s an election.’”
Despite suggestions from former Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie that Brown “roared” at Murdoch for 20 minutes, Murdoch insisted that there were no raised voices during the conversation.
Describing his relationship with Brown to the court, Murdoch said: “My personal relationship with Brown was always warm — before he became Prime Minister and after. I regret that after the Sun came at him, that’s not so true but I only hope that can be repaired.”
But Murdoch added that Brown made a “totally outrageous statement” when he described News Corp as a “criminal organisation,” after alleging that his health records had been hacked.
“He said that we had hacked into his personal medical records when knew very well how the Sun had found out about his son which was very sad”, Murdoch told the court, who went on to explain that the story relating to Brown’s son’s Cystic Fibrosis had been obtained from a father in a similar situation.
To allegations that he traded favours with Tony Blair, Murdoch repeatedly denied the suggestion: “You are making inferences. I never asked Mr Blair for anything, and neither did I receive anything.”
The court heard that Murdoch was slow to endorse the Labour party in 1994, but he denied that that was part of a strategy to gauge commercial interests. Later in his testimony, somewhat losing his patience, Murdoch added to Robert Jay, QC: “I don’t know how many times I have to state to you Mr Jay, that I never let commercial considerations get in the way.”
After a 1994 dinner with Blair, Murdoch acknowledged that he may have said “He says all the right things but we’re not letting our pants down just yet”, but could not remember exactly.
Similarly, Murdoch did not recall speculating on the future of his relationship with Blair, when he reportedly said: “If our flirtation is ever consummated Tony we will make love like porcupines — very, very carefully.”
Turning to his relationship with David Cameron, Murdoch denied saying he “didn’t think much” of the Conservative party leader. He recalled meeting him at a family picnic at his daughter’s house, and was “extremely impressed by the kindness and feeling he showed to his children”.
When asked if he discussed issues such as broadcast regulation, BBC license fees or Ofcom, Murdoch denied the allegations. He said: “You keep inferring that endorsements were motivated by business motives. If that were the case we would always have supported the Tories, because they’re always more pro-business.”
Jay asked if he and Cameron discussed the appointment of ex-News of the World editor Andy Coulson as spin doctor for the Conservative party. Murdoch explained to the court that he “was as surprised as everybody else” by the appointment.
Murdoch denied rumours that he hadn’t forgiven David Cameron for calling the inquiry, explaining that the state of media in the UK is of “absolutely vital interest to all it’s citizens”, and adding that he welcomed the opportunity to appear before the court because he “wanted to put certain myths to bed.”
The billionaire newspaper owner was also asked about his relationships with numerous other politicians, including Scottish politician Alex Salmond and former Prime Minister John Major. Murdoch also told the court that he “remained a great admirer” of Margaret Thatcher, but denied that he was “one of the main powers behind the Thatcher throne.”
Murdoch echoes his son James’ testimony, saying that relationships between the media and politicans were “part of the democratic process”. He added: “Politicians go out of their way to impress people in the press. All politicians of all sides like to have their views known by the editors and publishers of newspapers, hoping they will be put across, hoping they will succeed in impressing people. That’s the game.”
At the start of today’s hearing, Lord Justice Leveson responded to the furore relating to emails from Jeremy Hunt revealed during James Murdoch’s testimony to the court yesterday.
“I am acutely aware from considerable experience that documents such as these cannot always be taken at face value and can frequently bare more than one evaluation. I am not taking sides or expressing opinion but it is very important to hear every side of the story. In due course we will hear all relevant evidence from all relevant people.”
Rupert Murdoch’s evidence to the inquiry will continue at 10am tomorrow.
Follow Index’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry @IndexLeveson
