14 Dec 2011 | Leveson Inquiry
Lord Justice Leveson has dismissed claims that the Milly Dowler case was the only reason his Inquiry into press standards and ethics was set up.
Agreeing with the lawyer for victims of phone hacking David Sherborne, Leveson said the past month of evidence of press intrusion and harassment should “dispel any doubt” that the hacking and deletion of messages on the murdered schoolgirl’s phone was the only reason the Inquiry was taking place.
This follows what Sherborne dubbed had been a “storm of misreporting” after the Metropolitan police announced that the News of the World may not have deleted the girl’s voicemails and giving her family false hope she was alive.
Yesterday Richard Caseby, managing editor of the Sun, accused the Guardian of having “sexed up” their original coverage of the case in which they reported the News of the World was responsible for deleting Dowler’s messages.
Yet it remains uncontested that the tabloid did hack into her phone.
This morning Sherborne told the Inquiry that hacking victims’ solicitor Mark Lewis was contacted on Tuesday evening by a Daily Mail reporter who asked him if the Dowler family will be giving money back in light of revisions.
The Dowlers had previously issued a statement through Lewis, stating they had a “clear recollection” that the police had told them the now-defunct News of the World had deleted their daughter’s voicemails.
Lewis told BBC News the reporter’s actions were “appalling”.
Leveson reiterated the significance of the issue, stressing that it was in the public interest to be resolved in an “orderly manner”.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson.
12 Dec 2011 | Leveson Inquiry
Undercover reporter Mazher Mahmood has told the Leveson Inquiry said public interest was the “overriding” factor for his 500-plus stories exposing criminality or wrongdoing.
“Exposing criminality gave me great satisfaction,” Mahmood said of his work. “I’m proud to have jailed paedophiles, arms dealers and drug dealers.”
In his 30-year career, 20 of which were spent as an undercover reporter at the now-defunct News of the World, Mahmood says he did at times cross the lines into illegality. He admitted once purchasing child pornography, but added that his actions led to the conviction of an offender and that the ends justified the means.
Mahmood claimed those holding public office should be open to scrutiny. “I don’t think I’d vote for my MP if i knew he was having an affair,” he said. When Lord Justice Leveson asked him if this view extended to celebrities, Mahmood said those “cashing in” on happy family life while engaged in extra marital affairs deserved to be exposed for their “hypocrisy”.
Mahmood repeated that there was a “hypocrisy justification” for exposing those who portray themselves publicly as “wholesome characters”, citing a story he wrote exposing two models working as prostitutes and selling drugs.
Mahmood repeatedly denied using methods of entrapment to expose crime, calling the “myth” about the use of such methods “annoying”. He said his subjects were already “predisposed to committing a crime”, and that he and his team provide the environment for the target to do so.
“I don’t want to go into our modus operandi,” he said, “but our methods have been tested time and time again in the courts.”
He added that he never commissioned private detectives to work for him.
Mahmood denied any knowledge of phone hacking at the News of the World, saying he was only made aware after the arrest of the paper’s Royal reporter Clive Goodman in 2006. “Rumours were about,” he said, “but there was no firm evidence.” He added that “all fingers were pointing to the newsdesk.”
Mahmood, known as the “Fake Sheikh” for the disguise he has worn when exposing criminals, said that his work has led to 261 criminal prosecutions.
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.
5 Dec 2011 | Leveson Inquiry
The former Deputy Information Commissioner told the Leveson Inquiry today that he did not recollect telling an investigator in Operation Motorman that the press were too big to take on.
Francis Aldhouse said this was not his view and he did “not fear the media”.
In his testimony to the Inquiry last week, former investigator Alec Owens claimed that, when he had alerted Aldhouse to the documents seized from private investigator Steve Whittamore’s home that revealed the extent of the press using private investigators, Aldhouse had told him the press were too big for the ICO to take on.
Aldhouse refuted the claims, telling the Inquiry that he did not recollect the meeting Owens, or hold the view that the media were too powerful. He said he had been happy to negotiate with the press in the past.
He added that he believed there had been a case for involving newspapers and journalists further in the Operation. He said he was “disappointed, but not surprised” to have apparently not been
consulted by his colleagues on the involvement of journalists.
He said had he been asked at the time, his view would have been that “we really ought to find a way to pursue this.”
Pressed by the Inquiry, Aldhouse said he did not recall any discussions regarding the way forward of the Operation, which he deemed one of the ICO’s “largest”. He said decisions made not to prosecute the press were done so by the Information Commissioner himself, adding that discussions he had with him were only “casual”.
The Inquiry was also shown potentially damning evidence given to the ICO by a senior lawyer in 2003. The counsel’s advice read that “many if not all of the journalists involved have committed offences”, and went on to say that the “overwhelming inference is that several editors must have been well aware of what their staff were up to and therefore party to it.”
The counsel’s advice also prioritised enforcement over the prosecution of journalists, to give a chance for the Press Complaints Commission to “put its house in order”.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson.
