18 May 12 | Leveson Inquiry
There was an unsettling moment in the normally demure Leveson Inquiry last week.
As the 10 May hearing began Lord Justice Leveson announced he would be calling Independent on Sunday editor John Mullin to appear to discuss an article published the previous Sunday Leveson said disclosed details included in Andy Coulson’s confidential witness statement.
Coulson, the former News of the World editor and David Cameron’s ex-communications chief, was due to appear that afternoon. Under Inquiry protocol, witness statements are confidential, and Leveson has made clear his distaste for leaks, issuing restriction orders under section 19 of the Inquiries Act that prohibit prior publication of the statements outside of the Inquiry’s confidentiality circle.
Summoned under section 21 of the Inquiries Act, Mullin appeared, and was robust in his defence: he told Leveson that the story — which revealed Coulson held shares in News Corp while working at No. 10 — had been confirmed by three sources before the leaked copy of the witness statement came to his attention on the Wednesday evening prior to publication.
He said he was aware of the Inquiry’s restriction order but believed it did not apply to the story, as none of the sources relied on Coulson’s statement.
It quickly became rather unsettling, with junior counsel David Barr questioning why Mullin had read the statement at all and implying it was used as a fourth source for the article. A defiant Mullin did not budge, repeating that the story had been confirmed — “copper-bottomed” in his words — by the time the statement reached him.
“We didn’t use the statement as a source,” he told the Inquiry, adding:
We may not be the world’s greatest newspaper, in fact we may not be the greatest newspaper in our own building, but we’re good honest journalists and we try and do our job as best as we can do it. This is an issue of massive public importance. The fact that your Inquiry is going on shouldn’t stop us from doing good honest journalism as we go ahead. It was our misfortune that through good honest journalism we got this statement after we had already substantiated the story.
Later in the week Leveson said he would not pursue action under Section 36 of the 2005 Inquiries Act against the newspaper.
Even for an interested (and, if I may say so, pretty dedicated) Leveson watcher such as myself, exchanges of the Barr-Mullin kind made me question the Inquiry. Mullin explained clearly how he believed he did not break the restriction order; was it necessary for Barr to press further on the other three sources?
Besides being unnecessary, it was futile: journalists don’t reveal sources. At that moment, the gulf between the lawyers brought into examine the standards of the press and the journalists giving evidence had never seemed so wide, or so problematic.
In printing the Coulson story Mullin had done what good editors do: fill their pages with informed and readable content that serves the person buying the newspaper.
The judge might be a few months away yet from setting in stone his recommendations for what the country’s press regulation system should look like, but watching a lawyer trying to get a newspaper editor to shed light on his sources did little to calm fears of a chilling atmosphere towards the press and freedom of expression.
These fears aren’t just speculation: various crime correspondents across regional and national titles told the Inquiry during their evidence in the second module that previously open channels of communication between them and police forces had been shut down (see here, here and here).
The episode might have been nothing more than a roadblock, and Leveson has said that no inferences should be made from the orders he issues and his approach to press regulation.
But Mullin summarised it perfectly when he said the Inquiry — fascinating and illuminating though it may be — should not stop good, honest journalism.
To do so would go against the freedom and diversity of expression that British newspapers are built on.
Marta Cooper is an editorial researcher at Index, where she covers the Leveson Inquiry. She tweets at @martaruco
15 May 12 | Leveson Inquiry
Lord Justice Leveson has asked MPs not to interfere with his Inquiry, as he indicated he would take evidence from Adam Smith, culture secretary Jeremy Hunt’s special adviser, and News Corp PR chief Frederic Michel.
Leveson went through a lengthy reading of yesterday’s Hansard transcript, replying to the points of order raised in the House of Commons by Labour MPs who asked for Hunt to provide relevant material to the House before giving evidence to the Inquiry.
He responded firmly that this would “undermine the fairness of the procedure”, though he acknowledged he could not he could not stop Parliament from addressing such matters.
Smith resigned last month when it emerged in correspondence between Michel and Hunt’s office that News Corp was being given advance feedback of the government’s scrutiny of the BSkyB bid at a time when the media corporation was mounting a takeover bid of the satellite broadcaster. News Corp eventually abandoned the takeover bid in July 2011 in the wake of the phone hacking scandal.
The opposition has insisted that Hunt broke the ministerial code for failing to supervise Smith, a claim that Hunt, who has come under increasing fire for the liaisons between his office and News Corp, has denied.
Leveson stressed his determination to remain above party politics and that it was crucial to hear “every side of the story” before drawing conclusions. He repeated his stance that it was not up to him to adjudicate whether or not the House had been misled.
Hunt is also due to appear the Inquiry, which is currently examining relationships between the British press and politicians, before the end of the month.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
10 May 12 | Leveson Inquiry
Update 14 May 2012: Lord Justice Leveson has said he will not pursue action under Section 36 of the 2005 Inquiries Act against the Independent on Sunday. He added that a detailed ruling on the matter will be published on the Inquiry website.
The editor of the Independent on Sunday gave a staunch defence of his paper’s decision to publish an article about former News of the World editor and David Cameron’s ex-communications chief Andy Coulson’s shareholdings in News Corp.
In a robust performance, John Mullin said the paper had three sources for the story by the time he saw Coulson’s witness statement last Thursday.
“We have used nothing from Coulson’s statement,” he told the Inquiry.
Mullin, summoned by an order made by Lord Justice Leveson under section 21 of the Inquiries Act, refused to reveal the sources of the 6 May story, which claimed that Coulson held shares in News Corporation while he served as David Cameron’s director of communications, at a time when the government was deciding whether or not to approve the company’s takeover of BSkyB.
Lord Justice Leveson, who has been vocal about his distaste for leaks, told Mullin: “I am very anxious to ensure the evidence we are going to deal with is dealt with in an orderly fashion”, adding that there was a risk of disrupting “the process I’m trying to advance”.
Under the Inquiry protocol, witness statements are confidential. Over the course of the Inquiry, Leveson has issued restriction orders — under section 19 of the Inquiries Act — that prohibit witness statements from being published in whole or in part outside the confidentiality circle of Leveson, his assessors, the Inquiry team, core participants and their legal representatives.
Mullin said he was aware of the Inquiry’s restriction order regarding the publication of witness statements, but said he believed the order did not apply to the story, as none of the sources relied on Coulson’s statement.
Defending his paper, Mullin said: “the fact that the Inquiry is going on shouldn’t stop us from doing good, honest journalism.”
“My job is to put into the public domain the key question which has to be answered,” he said, adding that doing so before Coulson gives evidence is “perfectly defensible journalism”.
Mullin apologised to the Inquiry for any inconvenience caused, asserting that it was not his intention and that he and his paper are “motivated only by trying to get to bottom of the issue”.
Coulson is scheduled to give evidence at 2pm today.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
09 May 12 | Uncategorized
Cross-posted with Full Fact
The Cabinet agreed yesterday that Ministers will not exercise the right to request redactions of evidence submitted to the Leveson inquiry.
Yesterday Full Fact, English PEN, Index and the Media Standards Trust made an urgent application to the Leveson Inquiry for transparency regarding Government ministers’ new status as ‘core participants’ in the Inquiry.
We asked for transparency over access to confidential Inquiry material and government redaction requests, and to keep politically-appointed Special Advisers out of the process.
A few hours later a spokesman for No 10 told the Times: “We will not be making any requests to redact material.” He said the decision not to seek redactions applied to the whole of the Government, not only No 10.
The application was considered this morning by Lord Justice Leveson and he decided not to make the directions we asked for. We will be studying his reasons when the transcript is available.
However, he did emphasise his respect for Full Fact and the other applicants and his willingness to publicise attempted abuses of the redactions process by core participants. He also reemphasised his commitment to transparency.
Full Fact shares his view that transparency is vital to trust in the Inquiry’s eventual recommendations and are pleased to have played our part in enabling these significant issues to be fully considered in public.
Our focus now returns to helping to make sure the Inquiry produces the best possible recommendations for the future of press regulation and relations between politicians and the press.
William Moy is a director of Full Fact
