10 Nov 11 | Uncategorized
James Murdoch was accused of being a “mafia boss” as he gave further evidence today to the Commons culture, media and sport select committee about the phone hacking scandal.
During the two-and-a-half hours of questioning, Murdoch trod a fine line between appearing blissfully unaware of the extent of phone-hacking at the News of the World, and attempting to convince the committee that he supervised his company appropriately.
He also explicitly blamed the paper’s legal adviser Tom Crone and former editor Colin Myler for misleading the select committee, noting that their previous testimony was “economical”, “inconsistent” and full of “supposition”.
Murdoch repeated his previous claim that he had not received “evidence of widespread criminality” at the News of the World in meetings in May and June 2008 with Crone and Myler.
However, this contradicts evidence given by the pair, who told the committee in September that they had discussed with Murdoch the infamous “for Neville” email during said meetings. The email contained transcripts of hacked voicemails on the phone of Gordon Taylor, who was then suing the paper for breach of privacy. It is seen as a key indicator that hacking extended beyond Clive Goodman, the paper’s Royal correspondent who had been jailed in 2007 for hacking the phones of members of the Royal family.
He also maintained the pair had never discussed with him the significance of Michael Silverleaf QC’s legal opinion from 3 June 2008, which warned of “a culture of illegal information access” at News International that involved “at least three” of its reporters.
The News Corp boss was scrutinised in light of Silverleaf’s opinion, which also advised the newspaper to settle its case against Taylor. Murdoch insisted that he had no knowledge of the memo prior to his authorising a £750,000 payout made to Taylor in August of the same year. Again, he blamed Crone and Myler, arguing they “should have told me the whole story”.
Yet why Murdoch did not scrutinise the details of the Taylor payout, as well as his apparent ignorance of the scale of criminal activity at News International, raised issues of his competence as an executive. The committee asked, “which is worse? Willful blindness or incompetence by not knowing what was going on?”
Murdoch responded that News International was a “small piece of the News Corporation cake” and that it was “impossible” to manage every detail.
“I can’t believe your organisation has been so successful by being so cavalier with money,” Philip Davies MP added later.
Paul Farrelly said,
The one thing that shows us and any 10-year-old that the News of the World did not stack up is that Gordon Taylor was not a royal or a member of the royal household.”
Did [Murdoch] not ask “how come this man [Mulcaire] had hacked this phone when he [Taylor] is not royal?”
Did you not ask “Who the hell else had Mulcaire been hacking?”
Murdoch promised that lessons had been learnt, claiming his intention was for News Corp to be “as transparent as possible” in the future.
The riveting moment came when Labour MP Tom Watson revealed he had met former News of the World chief reporter Neville Thurlbeck immediately prior to the committee hearing. Watson said Thurlbeck told him that Crone had intended to show Murdoch the “for Neville” email in May 2008.
Watson quoted Thurlbeck as saying:
This is not some vague memory, I was absolutely on a knife edge. Tom [Crone] took it to him. The following week I said “did you show him the email?” He said “yes I did”. Now he can’t remember whether he showed it to Mr Murdoch or not. He said “it’s alright, it’s fine, it’s settled.”
Murdoch again denied all knowledge of the email, after which Watson accused the News Corp executive of being “the first mafia boss in history who didn’t know he was running a criminal enterprise.”
Murdoch told Watson his comment was “inappropriate”.
Reasserting his executive position, Murdoch also refused to rule out closing The Sun if evidence of phone hacking at the paper were to emerge. He said the recent arrest of Sun reporter Jamie Pyatt in connection with payments made to police officers was a “matter of great concern”, while Steve Rotheram MP told the committee that the words “the Sun” appeared in notes seized from the private investigator Glenn Mulcaire.
Murdoch also condemned the revelations this week of surveillance of hacking victims’ lawyers, calling it “appalling” and “unacceptable.”
Wrapping up the hearing, John Whittingdale MP said it was “unlikely” there would be future sessions.
The challenge now is for the committee to weigh up the contradictions between Murdoch’s account and those of Crone, Myler and Thurlbeck.
08 Nov 11 | Uncategorized
Interesting news from Paris, where motorsport boss turned privacy campaigner Max Mosley has had mixed results in his cases against News Group and News of the World reporter Neville Thurlbeck.
Unsurprisingly, Mosley won his privacy case against the publishers of the (dear, departed) News of the World. France is well known for the primacy given to privacy by its courts, so if the Mosley story (quick recap: video of him indulging in S&M games with prostitutes), was ruled to be a breach of privacy in London, it was almost certain to be a breach of privacy in Paris.
Interestingly, however, Mosley lost his case against NotW reporter Neville Thurlbeck (he of the infamous “for Neville” email at the heart of the News of the World phonehacking scandal) on the grounds that Thurlbeck could not be held responsible for the distribution of the newspaper in France.
So who exactly would be liable for a libel suit in this case? The publisher? The distributor? The lorry driver?
For some background on the case, read Ian Burrell (may contain traces of me).
02 Nov 11 | Leveson Inquiry, Uncategorized
Further evidence in the News of the World phone hacking scandal published yesterday by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee has revealed that senior executives at the paper were in 2008 alerted to “a culture of illegal information access” at News International that involved “at least three” of its reporters.
A legal opinion sent on 3 June 2008 by News Group Newspapers’ counsel, Michael Silverleaf QC, to the paper’s chief lawyer, Tom Crone, also advised the newspaper to settle its case against Gordon Taylor, the chief executive of the Professional Footballers Association, who was suing the paper for breach of privacy.
In addition, internal correspondence published by the Committee revealed that Crone had privately told former editor Colin Myler in the same year about a “damning email” that showed the tabloid had made use of “extremely private voicemails” left on Taylor’s phone in 2005. This contradicts the accounts given by Myler and Crone to the committee in 2009, in which they said there was was no evidence that other journalists were involved in phone hacking.
The revelations will heap further pressure on James Murdoch, who is due to face the committee on 10 November, to explain his role in handling the scandal. He told MPs in July this year that he was unaware that other News of the World journalists were implicated in the illegal practice before he paid Taylor a £750,000 settlement in 2008.
However both Crone and Myler told the committee in September that they had made Murdoch aware in June 2008 that phone hacking was not restricted to a single reporter. MPs are likely to question Murdoch about what he was told in his meetings with Myler and Crone, as well as whether he had been made aware of Silverleaf’s advice.
Detailed reports on yesterday’s revelations can be found here and here. Click here for the full evidence released by the committee yesterday.
31 Oct 11 | Leveson Inquiry
How far the Leveson Inquiry could prejudice the ongoing police investigation into phone hacking, raised last week in a joint submission by the Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service, took up much of the morning’s hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice.
The session was held to discuss the issue raised at last week’s hearing, namely concerns that an individual who is later charged may claim the Inquiry breached their right to a fair trial, as evidence will be heard before criminal trials have occurred. The hearing also debated journalists testifying anonymously, as well as further applications for core participant status.
Neil Garnham QC, representing the Met and CPS, told the Inquiry his concern was not only a risk of prejudicing criminal proceedings, but also the prospect that, in reporting the Inquiry, the media might “go beyond fair reporting” and damage the investigation.
Lord Justice Leveson replied that part one of the Inquiry, which will examine culture, practices, and ethics of the press, must create a “narrative” on which he will base any recommendations. Otherwise, he added, the Inquiry would “not be grounded in reality”.
He also questioned the practicalities of filtering information and evidence through the Met and CPS, which might then be subject to a judicial review. Were either the Met or CPS to raise any “red flags”, Leveson said, “the Inquiry could go on for a lifetime.”
Meanwhile, a legal representative for Surrey Police argued the force should be granted core participant status — which would allow them full accesses to documents produced during the inquiry and entitle them to give evidence either in person or through a lawyer.
He expressed concern that the Inquiry might trigger further bad press for the force, which has been criticised for not pursuing evidence that murdered teenager Milly Dowler’s phone was hacked by the News of the World in 2002. He added that several Surrey Police officers had been victims of phone hacking during the investigation into Dowler’s disappearance.
Leveson said that everyone had to “grin and bear” criticism in the public domain, including himself. “It is what a free press is all about,” he argued.
He also refuted Surrey Police’s argument that not granting them core participant status would severely limit their involvement in the Inquiry. He said the issue was “not contentious”, later adding that if there is anything the force could do to provide him with an accurate narrative, they would be given the opportunity to do so.
Leveson did, however, grant the National Union of Journalists core participant status, adding that one way for journalists to give evidence anonymously — an interest expressed by several reporters, the hearing was told — might be to do so through the union. Leveson stressed that the names of any journalists who had approached the Inquiry team will not be put into the public domain.
He also cautioned against identifying the newspaper with which anonymous witnesses are affiliated, arguing it might lead to the release of material that the paper “would feel obliged to deal with”.
Returning to the issue of the police investigation, Garnham expressed his concern that secret evidence kept by the inquiry and not revealed to the public could raise issues of fairness in criminal proceedings, namely that the evidence may be used in favour of defendant on trial.
Telegraph Media Group and Trinity Mirror were also granted core participant status.
The first hearing of the Inquiry will take place on 14 November, with victims’ evidence to be heard at the high court from 21 November. The Inquiry is likely to hear evidence from witnesses until February 2012.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson.
