19 Mar 12 | Leveson Inquiry
The associate editor (news) of the Sunday Express has said a Guardian story from July 2011 alleging the News of the World had deleted voicemail messages on murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler’s phone “chronically and potentially fatally” damaged press-police relations.
James Murray told the Leveson Inquiry that the article, which alleged the tabloid had deleted messages on the abducted teenager’s phone, giving her family false hope that she was alive and listening to her voicemail, had an “enormous impact” throughout the industry.
“We spent an enormous amount of time building up relations with Surrey police, meeting them for briefings, having coffee, gaining their trust,” he said. “All that trust was blown out of the water.”
He added that normal lines of communication have since been damaged, noting later: “Everyone’s cautious, everyone’s frightened.”
Last December the Metropolitan police announced that the tabloid may not have deleted Dowler’s voicemails, though it remains uncontested that the paper hacked her phone.
In response to this morning’s revelation that the News of the World had employed their own surveillance team to identify suspects and the deployed Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) team in the 2006 Ipswich murders inquiry, Murray warned against journalists acting as detectives. “Playing an amateur detective can get you into all sorts of trouble and that’s not what we’re about,” he said.
He added that the now defunct tabloid was a “lone wolf” in the field of surveillance, saying it had been mentioned the paper had resources to employ ex-detectives, and that he could not think of another mainstream newspaper that had “such a well-organised enterprise.”
On recommendations for press-police relations, Murray argued that issuing written guidelines would be “frankly ridiculous”, though he said a “broad-based framework” might be helpful.
Speaking earlier today, John Twomey, chair of the Crime Reporters Association and crime correspondent at the Daily Express, also warned against what he termed a “freezing effect” if all contact between reporters and journalists were to be recorded.
“Officers would be less likely to talk to you,” he said. “Some officers may just cease contact with you completely.”
Daily Star reporter Jerry Lawton also expressed his concern that the Inquiry may have impacted on the relationship between reporters and police forces, noting that lines of communication had “been shut down all over the place.”
“My concern in the fall-out from phone hacking and this series of inquiries is that a wedge will be driven between the police and press that will restrict the level of trust and guidance, therefore making accurate reporting more difficult,” Lawton wrote in his witness statement.
The Inquiry continues tomorrow, with further evidence from crime reporters, staff from West Midlands Police and Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe of the Metropolitan police.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
19 Mar 12 | Leveson Inquiry
A retired criminal investigator has accused the News of the World of jeopardising the investigation into murder of five women in Ipswich in 2006.
Testifying before the Leveson Inquiry this morning, Dave Harrison was part of a Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) team deployed to the Ipswich murder inquiry, in which five women were killed between October and December 2006. His team’s objective was to put any suspect under surveillance.
He said he was told that the News of the World had employed their own surveillance team made up of “ex-special forces soldiers, whose objectives were to identify any suspects we were working on, and to identify us and our operation base.”
“Someone in the police had found out that SOCA was being deployed and passed this information to the media,” Harrison wrote in his witness statement.
Harrison added that a surveillance team from the Sunday Mirror was also employed to “pick up and interview” the first suspect in the inquiry. In his witness statement, Harrison wrote that colleagues watched the suspect “being picked up and driven round by a team that carried out anti-surveillance manoeuvres before dropping him off at a hotel to be interviewed.”
Harrison said he believed the News of the World surveillance jeopardised the murder investigation by potentially hindering SOCA’s own surveillance. He told the Inquiry that a murder suspect, revisiting the scene of the crime, might halt or change his movements if they believed they were being followed. “The evidence would be lost and the prosecution case weakened.”
“If our surveillance had been weakened by having to try and avoid other surveillance teams looking for us, if we had lost the suspect he may have gone on and committed further murders,” Harrison added.
“If we had lost the suspect because of their actions there could have been tragic consequences.”
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
16 Mar 12 | Leveson Inquiry
England’s libel laws have turned the country into “liberty’s enemy”, Observer columnist and author of You Can’t Read This Book Nick Cohen said at last night’s launch of Index and English PEN’s final report of the Alternative Libel Project.
“We virtually invented freedom of expression, but any scoundrel can go to the High Court,” Cohen said.
He was among a host of libel reform campaigners speaking at yesterday’s event at London’s Inner Temple, reflecting on the strides made in the campaign and reaffirming the need for change in England’s defamation law.
The Alternative Libel Project, the result of a year-long inquiry looking into alternatives to resolving libel claims through the High Court, has recommended the use of quicker and cheaper methods to tackle the chilling costs of bringing a claim forward. The report advocates capping the cost of a libel claim at the average UK house price and allowing judges to protect ordinary people from having to pay the other side’s costs if they lose.
Cohen gave an impassioned defence of press freedom, noting that the proliferation of online publishing meant libel reform was no longer only an issue facing reporters. “Everyone is a journalist,” he said.
He praised the campaign’s efforts but urged supporters to look at the “cold climate into which this legislation is emerging”, comparing asking to do the press a favour to asking for a pay rise for MPs after the expenses scandal.
Science writer Simon Singh argued that issues of libel reform were not “old problems”, revealing that, in addition to battling a libel claim brought against him by the British Chiropractic Association, in 2010 he also received another threat over remarks he had made about climate change. The fear of libel, Singh said, was “widespread”.
Opening the event, Justice Minister Lord McNally echoed his statement made at yesterday’s Westminster Legal Policy Forum, saying that he would be “extremely disappointed” if a commitment to legislate of defamation was not part of the Queen’s Speech in May.
“This is not the end, not even the beginning of the end, but perhaps it is the end of the beginning,” he said.
Alternative Libel Project Final March 2012
15 Mar 12 | Leveson Inquiry
Alastair Brett, former legal manager at the Times, faced an intense grilling at the Leveson Inquiry today over the circumstances in which a reporter at the paper used email hacking to reveal the identity of anonymous police blogger, NightJack, in a 2009 story.
Former Times reporter Patrick Foster had identified the blogger as DC Richard Horton by gaining access to an anonymous email account run by Horton, the Inquiry heard last month.
Brett told the Inquiry he was “furious” with Foster when he approached him about the story and asked him if he had broken the law or if there was a public interest defence he could rely on. “I told him he had been incredibly stupid. He apologised, promised not to do it again,” Brett wrote in his witness statement.
“I was told it was a one-off occasion,” he said, “and I thought ‘I’ve got to tell him you cannot behave like this at a proper newspaper’.”
Email hacking is a breach of the Computer Misuse Act and does not have a public interest defence. Brett conceded he was unaware of the Act at the time.
He said Foster told him he could identify NightJack using publicly available sources of information. Brett told Foster that if this were possible then the Times would be able to publish the story, provided the reporter put it to Horton beforehand.
A stern and incredulous Lord Justice Leveson argued that the Times had misled the High Court over the unmasking of NightJack in their fight to overturn an injunction brought by Horton. He said Foster “used what he knew and found a way out to achieve the same result.”
Brett maintained Horton had been identified legitimately. “No he hadn’t, with great respect,” Leveson responded. “He couldn’t put out of his mind that which he already knew.”
Leveson also accused the Times of exposing wrongdoing “on the basis than an individual would not seek redress.”
“What the Times have done,” the judge said, “doesn’t that mean you’re justifying any route you wish to take to get a story provided it is true?”
Brett concluded the heated session by stressing he did not condone Foster’s methods. “In 33 years I was at the Times this was the one and only case I had,” he said. “God I wish I could have done without it.”
“If you could have been in the room with me and Patrick, I mean, the air was blue,” he said.
Earlier today the Inquiry heard from Daily Mail associate news editor and former crime editor Stephen Wright, who warned against examining contact between the police and the media “to the nth degree”, suggesting that rules banning informal contact between the two might be “abused by senior officers who seek to control the information flow.”
“It could lead to a corruption of a different kind,” he added.
The Inquiry continues on Monday.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
