9 Dec 2011 | Leveson Inquiry
The former Information Commissioner told the Leveson Inquiry he was disappointed by the Press Complaints Commission’s lax response to allegations of illegal activities among the British press.
Richard Thomas said he wanted “loud, strident condemnation” from the regulator, having written to them in November 2003 after being advised by the ICO’s legal team that prosecuting journalists over the use of private investigators would be too costly. Yet he was told by PCC Chairman Sir Christopher Meyer that the regulator’s role was not to enforce the law. Thomas said he “just did not buy that line”, that the PCC could not intervene because the use of private investigators by the press was a criminal matter.
“I thought their response was less strident [than I expected],” Thomas said. “I think they could have and should have done more.”
He added that attempts to develop a “guidance note” with the PCC ground to a halt in April 2004.
Thomas reflected that, “with hindsight, I think I would’ve been more aggressive and assertive” with the PCC.
He noted his surprise and outrage at the PCC’s assertion that the ICO’s report on Motorman’s findings had “come out of the blue”, given that Thomas and PCC representatives had had two meetings about its contents.
Thomas described the data breaches exposed by Operation Motorman as “pernicious”, and felt deterrents would prevent further wrongdoing. In a “breakthrough” government consultation paper issued in July 2006, Thomas proposed two-year prison terms for those found guilty of trading in illegal data.
He admitted he was not expecting a “powerful campaign” of hostility from the tabloids. “It left me with the message that we were challenging something that went to the heart of tabloid activity,” he said. “As somebody said to me ‘you do realise you are challenging their business model’.”
Thomas reiterated his agenda “was not to send journalists to prison”, but to correct bad behaviour.
The Inquiry continues on Monday, with evidence from former News International staff.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson.
9 Dec 2011 | Leveson Inquiry
The former Information Commissioner has denied that there was a policy of not investigating journalists during Operation Motorman.
Testifying at the Leveson Inquiry, Richard Thomas CBE said “there was no policy from the outset that we were not going to go against the press.”
He added he did not want to “let the press off the hook” but was advised by the ICO’s legal team that the financial aspect of prosecuting journalists over the use of private investigators to obtain personal data was too great.
The ICO’s counsel’s written advice, shown to the Inquiry on Monday, stated that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute journalists. Yet both he and the Office’s in-house lawyer told Thomas that journalists confronted would be well-briefed and well-armed, “like a barrel of monkeys”.
Thomas also denied any recollection of Motorman’s lead investigator Alec Owens suggesting journalists should be investigated, or of former deputy Francis Aldhouse saying the press were “too big” to take on.
On Monday Aldhouse himself denied saying this, negating Owens’s testimony.
Thomas said he was not involved in any discussion of investigating journalists, adding he was unaware of any decision that anyone “actively considering” prosecuting journalists.
His focus, he said, was the prosecution of private investigators, who he called “the middlemen who were organising the illegal trade”.
After a series of grilling questions from Robert Jay QC, counsel to the Inquiry, Thomas said he took full responsibility for everything that happened, while adding that it was hard to have details of what takes place in a large organisation.
He repeated that he was pleased no journalists were prosecuted, noting that would be “very demanding indeed” on the ICO. Journalists confronted would have “gone straight to Strasbourg”, he said, had they raised issues of freedom of expression.
Thomas told the Inquiry that “prosecution is not the only way to deal with a particular problem”, adding that the 2004 prosecution of private investigator Steve Whittamore produced a “perverse outcome” in his conditional discharge.
In a letter to the former chairman of the PCC, Christopher Meyer, Thomas had also written that the body could provide “more satisfactory outcomes than legal proceedings” in taking on the issue.
Discussing the outcomes of Motorman and its findings, Thomas said he could not categorically say all the journalists identified had committed offences. “They were driving the market,” he said.
When pressed by Jay, Thomas admitted that he could not think of a public interest defence for obtaining the contact numbers of friends or family through a private investigator. He added it would indicate a breach of section 55 of the Data Protection Act “at some stage”.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson.
8 Dec 2011 | Leveson Inquiry
A group of academics told the Leveson Inquiry today that there is no lack of ethics training for students on journalism programmes, and that the issue to address is newsroom culture.
Professor Steven Barnett, of the University of Westminster, said ethics were like a “stick of rock” running through modules taught. Brian Cathcart of Kingston University (and Index on Censorship blogger) added that, in offering ethics training, he and his colleagues sought to produce “not just journalists but reflective journalists who think about what they’re doing.”
Cathcart, also founder of the Hacked Off campaign, added that we’ve “come a long way”, noting he received no ethical training at the start of his career.
Head of journalism at City University, Professor George Brock, added that the key issue was the newsroom culture, which he said determined behaviour. Barnett added that it is impossible to teach someone how to deal with ethical problems on national tabloids. “It is a matter of individual moral courage,” he said.
Angela Phillips, of Goldsmith’s College, noted that many young graduates want to work for more ethical papers but get “trapped” due to higher salaries offered by redtops.
Lord Justice Leveson was keen to reiterate he was “not on a witch-hunt”, adding that he was “anxious to find out what has gone wrong in an industry in which there is an enormous amount that goes absolutely right.” Brunel University’s Julian Petley (also an Index on Censorship contributor), while noting that the term tabloid should not be a “dirty word”, was eager to differentiate between the redtops and broadsheets. He suggested it was time that “editors of ethical papers stop making common cause with editors of papers that have brought this Inquiry into being”, adding later that the Daily Mail “bullies” the government. Cardiff University’s Ian Hargreaves replied, “nice liberal broadsheets can be bullies as well.”
Both Petley and Phillips argued journalistic standards could be improved by a statutory right of reply and for offending newspapers to print adjudications.
Brock spoke in favour of rewriting privacy legislation, arguing that balancing Article 8 and Article 10 of the Human Rights Act had “not worked well”. He advocated legislation that protects private life while not chilling solid journalism, and called for a greater focus on public interest defences.
There was a consensus that the Press Complaints Commission needed reform, with Hargreaves arguing that robust regulation does “not come in the thickness of the armour, but in the cunningness of design.” Petley advocated a new regulatory process with a “limited” statutory backdrop and more investigatory powers, while Barnett suggested those who choose not to sign up to a new, independent self-regulatory system should pay VAT.
Petley added later that “journalism rarely recognises its own power”, while Cathcart and Barnett argued that the press had not been “caught up in the move towards greater accountability.”
“Public trust in journalism has been damaged,” Cathcart said, adding that any remedy “must be seen to be radical.”
The Inquiry continues tomorrow with evidence from former Information Commissioner Richard Thomas.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson.
8 Dec 2011 | Uncategorized
Several Bahraini human rights activists have been sent threatening twitter messages during the past few days. Hostile messages were allegedly to Mohammed Al-Maskati, President of the Bahrain Youth Society for Human Rights (BYSHR), Nabeel Rajab, President of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights (BCHR), and Yousif Almuhafda, who also works for BCHR, from a twitter account (@ADEL_FELAIFEL) allegedly operated by former colonel in the State Security and Intelligence Service, Adil Felaifel. According to Al-Maskati, one tweet, which came from the now deleted account, were directed towards himself and AlMuhafda, and said: “Do not think that because I’m not in the Ministry of Interior, I will shut up about you.”
Another tweet aimed at Maskati and Rajab said: “Maskati and Nabeel Rajab your future death and hell.”
Human rights activists in Bahrain, particularly those active on the popular social media site have endured regular attacks from “trolls” who regularly bombard individuals that send tweets to the Bahrain hashtag. The online attacks, which attempt to fan sectarian differences, are carried out by what activists call “e-thugs”, who are pro-Bahraini government activists as well as accounts believed to be run by government officials.
While twitter attacks have become commonplace for activists, Al Muskati felt that the potential threats from Adil Felaifel, who some believe is one of those responsible for overseeing torture in the 1980s and 1990s, changes the tone of the tweets. He said, “what’s different is that he is an ex-torturer who feels that he can threaten Human Rights Defenders publicly with impunity, knowing that no one will hold him accountable.”
