27 Oct 11 | Leveson Inquiry
A schedule of hearings and the issue of potential anonymity for witnesses giving evidence were the major discussion points at yesterday’s directions hearing as part of the Leveson Inquiry into phone hacking.
The first hearing will take place on 14 November, with victims’ evidence to be heard at the high court from 21 November. It was also announced yesterday that the inquiry is likely to hear evidence from witnesses until February 2012.
Victims include the parents of murdered teenager Milly Dowler, whose voicemail messages were hacked and deleted by the News of the World after she went missing in March 2002, giving her family the impression she was in fact alive and checking her voicemail.
Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, also raised the issue of Lord Justice Leveson potentially granting anonymity to witnesses who may fear for their “jobs or professional reputation” if they give evidence.
Jay said anyone who wishes to give evidence to inquiry anonymously can do so if Leveson makes an order of section 19 of the 2005 Inquiry Act, which restricts public access and protects witnesses’ identities, in agreement with article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects witnesses’ rights.
Jay contended, however, that submitting evidence anonymously would strip the possibility of cross-examination.
Leveson pledged he would respect a request for anonymity, clarifying that those making a request should submit their evidence to the solicitor of the inquiry, along with the reasons for their request.
Last week The Guardian reported that the panel sees anonymous evidence “as a way to uncover a true picture of life at Britain’s tabloid newspapers”, having been criticised for not including members with experience of tabloid or regional newspapers. Leveson also expressed yesterday his intention to visit a regional newspaper to “see how it works.”
Another topic addressed was the Metropolitan Police and Crown Prosecution Service’s fear that suspects in the police investigation into phone-hacking could try to sabotage prosecutions, namely because evidence will be heard before criminal trials have occurred and charges brought forward.
In a joint submission to the Inquiry, the Met and CPS outlined their concern that an individual who is later charged may claim the Inquiry breached their right to a fair trial. Responding to this, Leveson stressed that his priority would be balancing the “absolute requirement” that anyone charged is given a fair trial along with resolving issues “in a way that satisfies public.”
The inquiry, which Lord Justice Leveson has said will focus more about the culture, practices and ethics of the press rather than “who did what to whom”, is expected to take a year to complete.
Rupert Murdoch’s News International is facing over 60 other claims of alleged phone-hacking. Among those suing are Sara Payne, who campaigned with News of the World to amend the law to allow parents to obtain access to information about paedophiles following the abduction and murder of her daughter Sarah in 2000.
Tens of individuals have also applied for core participant status, which will allow them full accesses to documents produced during the inquiry and will entitle them to give evidence either in person or through a lawyer. Among them, the parents of missing toddler Madeleine McCann are due to give evidence regarding invasion of privacy by the media.
A further pre-trial public hearing has been set for Monday 31 October.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson.
06 Sep 11 | Uncategorized
What very different figures Tom Crone and Colin Myler present in September 2011, compared with the chippy, brisk, pushy individuals who confronted the Commons media select committee in July 2009. And what a different picture they paint.
By way of a reminder, back then they began by attempting to have Tom Watson MP removed from the questioning panel on human rights grounds. Then Crone, formerly the legal affairs chief for the Sun and the News of the World, firmly told MPs: “In the aftermath of Clive Goodman and Mulcaire’s arrest and subsequent conviction various internal investigations were conducted by us.”
He asserted that the lawyers Burton Copeland, whom he described as “probably the leading firm in this country for white-collar fraud” had carried out an investigation inside News International in 2006-7.
Myler, the last editor of the News of the World, also spoke boldly in 2009 of Burton Copeland. They were all over the company at one time, he said: “My understanding of their remit was that they were brought in to go over everything and find out what had gone on, to liaise with the police…” He also pointed to News International’s own search of 2,500 emails in which “no evidence was found”. And he emphasised: “I have never worked or been associated with a newspaper that has been so forensically examined…”
Myler was “certainly not aware” in 2009 of any payment to Clive Goodman after his release from jail, and was apparently surprised when Crone admitted he had “a feeling there may have been a payment of some sort”.
It was a brazen-it-out, you’ve-got-no-proof performance. They were forgetful in some places and defiant in others, and generally gave the impression that they had done everything humanly possible to find out whether more than one rogue reporter had been involved in hacking, and come up with nothing.
Crone, moreover, gave the impression a lot of fuss was being made about nothing, dwelling on a remark by the police that there were only a “handful”of victims, and on a claim by Clive Goodman’s lawyer that only one story had ever been published that was based on hacking.
All that was in 2009. Both men — who as we know parted company with their employer over the summer — turned up this time in different mood. Indeed Myler, hunched over the table, appeared to be a different shape. They were some way short of contrite but they could not conceal that they were now playing on the losing side.
Little by little they conceded that, in truth, there were no internal investigations into hacking at News International in 2006-7. Burton Copeland’s letter on the subject could not have been clearer, declaring that the firm “was not instructed” to carry out any such investigation. As for the email search, another legal firm, Harbottle and Lewis, stated that that, too, could not be qualified as an investigation, while a former Director of Public Prosecutions, Lord Macdonald [an Index on Censorship trustee], has said that evidence of criminality in the emails was “blindingly obvious”.
And as we all know, too, there was more than one hacker. There wasn’t a handful of victims but almost certainly thousands. Lots of hacking stories were published. And Clive Goodman received a pay-off of £243,000.
The two men had little to offer in their defence. Myler said he had believed, wrongly, that there had been an investigation before he took over as editor, and then took refuge in blaming the police (not without some cause). And all along — this probably has the greatest long-term significance — he and Crone also firmly pushed the spotlight upwards, to James Murdoch.
If anybody thought they might meekly let James off the hook they were mistaken. The incriminating “for Neville” email was fully explained to the young News International chairman in a meeting in 2008, they said. According to Crone, now much more frank on the subject than he was in 2009: “I explained that this document meant there was wider News of the World involvement.” And “the effect of this document is that it goes beyond Clive Goodman”.
(This was the very interpretation that the Guardian put upon that document in 2009, and that the committee put upon it in 2010, a period when the likes of Crone and Myler were denouncing both as irresponsible and dishonest.)
The new Myler agreed with the new Crone about the meeting with James: “I think everybody perfectly understood the seriousness and significance of what we were discussing.” James’s insistence that he was given an “incomplete picture”, therefore, is directly challenged by the other two people who were there.
It is easy to forget that the formal purpose of these hearings is to establish whether the select committee has been misled in the course of its investigations into these matters since 2007. They will soon have to produce a report on that point — though probably not before hearing from James Murdoch again. As Crone and Myler must know, whatever else it may say, that report is certain to make very unpleasant reading for them.
Brian Cathcart is professor of journalism at Kingston University London and a founder of Hacked Off. He tweets at @BrianCathcart
This article can also be read at the Hacked Off website
28 Jul 11 | Index Index, minipost, News and features
The Guardian has revealed that the News of the World hacked Sara Payne’s phone, which Rebekah Brooks had given her as a gift.
Payne had previously been told, accurately, that her name did not appear in Glenn Mulcaire’s notes, but her personal details were found there on Tuesday. The News of the World used its final issue to congratulate itself for its campaign for Sarah’s law.
Sara Payne herself wrote a column for the farewell edition, describing the News of the World reporters as her “good and trusted friends.” Tom Watson MP has decried this as “a whole new low”; and Sara Payne has said that she is “absolutely devastated and deeply disappointed.”
Read Brian Cathcart’s writing on the phone hacking scandal here.
18 Jul 11 | Uncategorized
The Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal has published a bitter editorial methodically swiping at News Corps’ critics (in this order: “our competitors,” “British politicians now bemoaning media influence over politics”, the BBC, the Guardian, British and American publications that don’t defend defamation claims in Singapore, the news non-profit ProPublica, the Bancroft family that formerly owned Dow Jones, US Attorney General Eric Holder, US officials prosecuting Haitian and Polish foreign bribery cases, “the liberal press” and, more specifically, the New York Times). And then there is this:
“We also trust that readers can see through the commercial and ideological motives of our competitor-critics. The Schadenfreude is so thick you can’t cut it with a chainsaw. Especially redolent are lectures about journalistic standards from publications that give Julian Assange and WikiLeaks their moral imprimatur. They want their readers to believe, based on no evidence, that the tabloid excesses of one publication somehow tarnish thousands of other News Corp journalists across the world.”
In casually trying to draw a moral equivalency (or, rather, an immoral equivalency) between illegally hacking a murdered girl’s phone for newspaper scoops — and allegedly bribing public officials to keep the tactic under wraps — and working with WikiLeaks to vet leaked government documents for context relevant to the public’s understanding of the execution of two wars and US foreign diplomacy, the Journal stretches credulity one non sequitur too far.
Never mind that the Journal editorial page has for months been calling for the prosecution of Julian Assange even as its news pages have been covering the stories WikiLeaks helped make possible. Or that this implication suggests the Journal has never knowingly published journalism originating from leaked classified government information. The Journal’s plea to the sensibilities of its readers must also leave them to assume this: If the paper is willing to lash out at News Corp critics in ways that even Rupert Murdoch himself has not, perhaps the Wall Street Journal is not so far removed from the culture of its imploding parent company as the editorial’s subhed — “A tabloid’s excesses don’t tarnish thousands of other journalists” — suggests.
