10 May 2012 | 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
27 Feb 2012 | Leveson Inquiry
The Metropolitan police’s Deputy Assistant Commissioner told the Leveson Inquiry this morning that Operation Elveden has revealed there was “a culture at the Sun of illegal payments while hiding the identity of the officials”.
Discussing the recent arrests of journalists at the tabloid over alleged improper payments, Sue Akers said that payments to sources were openly referred to within the Sun, and that one official has been paid more than £80,000 over a number of years, while another journalist received £150,000 over a period to pay a source.
Akers said Operation Elveden, which investigates payments to police officers, revealed a “network of corrupted officials”, and that payments were made not only to police officers but wide range of public officials across the military, prisons, police and health departments. Akers added that were was a “tradecraft” of hiding cash payments by making them to a source’s friend or relative, a practice that was authorised at a “senior level” at the paper.
The majority of payments she had seen evidence of had led to articles that were “salacious gossip rather than anything that could regarded as remotely in the public interest”, Akers claimed.
The revelations were made as the Leveson Inquiry began its second module, which examines the relationship between the press and the police.
In a dramatic morning, Inquiry counsel Robert Jay QC discussed an email from ex-News International legal manager Tom Crone to former News of the World editor Andy Coulson, which revealed that Coulson was told in 2006 that there were over £1 million of payments to private investigator Glenn Mulcaire, and that Mulcaire had hacked hundreds of phones.
The email, based on a briefing that Crone had been told by then Sun editor Rebekah Brooks, showed that Brooks was aware the police had found evidence of News International’s payments to Mulcaire, and that police had asked her whether she “wanted to take it [the investigation] further”.
It was revealed that after the 2006 arrest of Mulcaire and former News of the World royal reporter Clive Goodman, the police realised that there were hundreds of individuals who had been targeted for hacking, yet argued that counter-terrorism was more important than investigating the practice.
In his opening remarks, Jay said the relationship between News International and the Metropolitan police was “at best inappropriately close, and if not actually corrupt, very close to it.”
He added that there was an “obvious risk when two powerful organisations come into contact” arguing that there was scope for “self-interest” and that it “does not take many rotten apples to undermine the whole body politic.” Jay cited that risks might include off the record briefings with an “obvious lack of transparency” and the attribution of stories to police sources who may not in fact be police sources.
Lord Justice Leveson also made a thinly-veiled rebuttal of remarks made by education secretary Michael Gove that the Inquiry had had a chilling effect on the British press.
Leveson argued that criticism of the Inquiry was “troubling”, and that the inquiry itself had “done no more than follow its mandated terms of reference”.
In a speech to journalists at Westminster last week, Gove claimed there was now a “chilling atmosphere towards freedom of expression which emanates from the debate around Leveson”.
“I do not believe the inquiry was or is premature, and I intend to continue to do neither more nor less than was required of me,” Leveson said.
He reiterated his belief in freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but said journalism must obey the “rule of law” and act in the public interest. He said he was “not interested” in becoming an arbiter of what a free press should look like.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
29 Nov 2011 | Leveson Inquiry
The former deputy features editor of the News of the World told the Leveson Inquiry today the paper’s editors knew that phone hacking was taking place.
In his explosive testimony, Paul McMullan accused former News of the World editor Andy Coulson of having “brought the practice wholesale” to the paper. He added that ex-News International CEO Rebekah Brooks was well aware of hacking, saying “we did all these things [hacking phones] for our editors.”
He went on to call the pair “scum” for denying any knowledge of the practice and “trying to drop me and my colleagues in it”.
In his two-hour account, McMullan said phone hacking was a “perfectly acceptable tool…if all we’re trying to do is get to the truth.” He went on to say the hacking of abducted schoolgirl Milly Dowler’s phone was “not a bad thing for a well-meaning journalist to do”, adding that the reporters involved were “doing their best” to find her.
McMullan admitted he had attempted to hack the phone of footballer David Beckham, but failed once Beckham answered the call. He also said he had swapped Sylvester Stallone’s mother’s number for Beckham’s with a fellow reporter.
McMullan painted a vivid picture of life at the now-defunct News of the World. He described giving chase to celebrities as “such good fun”, adding that he would be told by the features desk to “take a fast car and see what you can get.” He recalled one of Princess Diana’s security guards offering to tell the paper when she was landing at Helsinki airport in exchange for £30,000. In another instance he recounted, former editor Piers Morgan congratulated him for stealing photos of a former lover of John Major. He earlier quoted Morgan as saying, “I don’t care what it costs, I just want to get the defining stories of the week”.
McMullan repeatedly defended his trade, saying he “used any means necessary” to “catch people who rule over us.” He recounted pretending to be “Brad the rent boy” to get a photo of a priest spanking a young man. “I was either a drug user, a drug dealer or a millionaire from Cambridge,” he added.
When asked about his views on privacy, McMullan was blunt: “Privacy is evil…[it] is the space bad people need to do bad things in.” He added, “Privacy is for paedos” and claimed that “in 21 years of invading people’s privacy, I’ve never actually come across anyone who’s been doing any good.”
He added that public interest was defined by circulation. “I don’t see it’s our job to force the public to choose, ‘you must read this and you can’t read that’,” he said.
Also speaking today was The Guardian’s Nick Davies, who uncovered the phone hacking scandal that led to the closure of the News of the World this year.
He told the Inquiry that Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator hired by the paper, had only “facilitated” the hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone in 2002, and that it was reporters at the paper who listened to and deleted her voicemails.
Davies said Mulcaire was “a brilliant blagger, so he could gather information [and] data from the mobile phone company.”
Earlier this month Mulcaire denied deleting Dowler’s messages.
Davies also said the journalism industry was not “interested in or capable of” self-regulation, citing the Press Complaints Commission’s failure to properly investigate the extent of phone hacking in 2009. He said that the PCC did not take into account getting remedy for victims of the press, adding that apologies should be published as prominently as the stories that had contained incorrect or damaging information.
He cited libel as the “worst burden” facing journalism, advocating a system of arbitration so libel cases could be dealt with outside the courts.
He spoke in favour of an advisory body to guide reporters on whether they were operating in the public interest, noting how it was often difficult to know what the public interest boundaries were.
Former Daily Star reporter Richard Peppiatt was also in the witness box, describing the atmosphere of the tabloid press as one of “you toe the line or you get punished.” He added that the paper was ideologically driven, and that a reporter’s job was “simply to write the story how they [the paper] want it written”.
When asking editors if he should meet an anonymous caller who phoned the paper and made sensational claims about the death of actor Matt Lucas’ husband, Peppiatt said he was told to “just write it up.” He added that he invented a story about model and actress Kelly Brook seeing a hypnotist. He said the news editor had offered £150 to the first person to come up with a page 3 story at 6pm on a Sunday.
Reading out a stream of fabricated headlines and recounting a trip to Scotland to stage a mock proposal to Britain’s Got Talent star Susan Boyle, Peppiatt said at the forefront of tabloids’ minds was questioning how far to push boundaries. He added that much of the Star’s content was based on stories taken from the Daily Mail, and that if a reporter found a Mail story was based on poor evidence, “you would be kicked back to your seat fairly robustly”.
Peppiatt labelled the redtops’ practice as “free speech Darwinism…[they] will shut up voices contrary to theirs.” He noted how one freelance reporter at the Star expressed unhappiness over the tone of the paper’s coverage, and was then given “every anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant” story for the next fortnight.
He added that he was “sick” of editors “stepping forward saying ‘moral considerations are at the forefront of our minds’,” saying it was “certainly not true.”
However, he highlighted the economic pressures facing newspapers, citing financial reasons behind why he stayed at the Star. “There are so few jobs for journalists in current climate,” he said, “I couldn’t afford not to be working.”
Peppiatt, who resigned from the tabloid in March 2011 after two years at the paper, also said he had received threats after his departure, including a message that said “you’re a marked man until you die”. He said he was the victim of a “campaign of harassment”, and told the Inquiry he was taking legal action against an unnamed person in the tabloid world who he says threatened him for speaking out.
The Inquiry continues tomorrow, with evidence from former Number 10 director of communications Alastair Campbell, and Alec Owens, an ex-policeman who worked on the Information Commissioner’s Operation Motorman inquiry.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson.
15 Jul 2011 | Uncategorized
Just two weeks ago I was emailing all the leading journalists I know, recruiting support for a campaign which I feared would struggle to attract public attention, let alone result in action. We were supposed to launch on the Wednesday (6 July). On the Monday, however, the Guardian published Nick Davies’s report of the hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone and everything changed.
It has been a breathless fortnight, not least for Hacked Off, whose objective was to secure a public inquiry into the scandal. By the time of the formal launch our website (www.hackinginquiry.org) was online, our petition already had something like 5,000 signatures and the government had actually announced an inquiry. We were still concerned, however, that it should have teeth, that it should address all the issues and that it should not fall victim to any political sleight of hand.
Because Hacked Off existed as a group, because we had been thinking about a public inquiry and because we had connections with hacking victims, we were in a position to help a little in shaping the inquiry — though it’s worth remembering that the terms of reference will not be fixed until next Tuesday (or so we are told).
We saw all three of the main party leaders and three of the Commons select committee chairmen. I think they were still gathering their own thoughts as they spoke to us; certainly they seemed open-minded and receptive. That the inquiry would be led by a judge was already decided, but little else. We pressed the politicians to ensure that it was established promptly and with clear terms of reference (so there could be no “long grass” shenanigans). We made the case for the inquiry to start work immediately, on the grounds that there is plenty to do before criminal proceedings have run their course. We urged that the inquiry should range over the whole of the press and not just News International. And we argued for wording that would enable the judge to call politicians to give evidence at any stage. (These are, roughly, the points that we set out in our manifesto document at the beginning of the campaign and we were conscious that we had no remit to go further. We have never, for example, had a Hacked Off view about the BSkyB purchase.)
We need to remain vigilant until Tuesday, but on the face of it the leaders — David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband — appeared to agree to pretty well everything we suggested, including some detailed drafting. It is possible, I suppose, that they might have reached the same conclusions without our prompting. I can’t say that the latest draft terms-of-reference document is a simple one — for example, the inquiry will have different characters at different times — and no one could ever claim it was perfect, but assuming there are no last-minute changes it seems to me that it has the capacity to put before the public, over time, a lot of the truths that need to be told, and certainly many more of them than seemed likely to emerge only a couple of weeks ago.
A couple of questions now. First. who do I mean when I talk about “we”? Hacked Off began in conversations I had with Martin Moore of the Media Standards Trust and the campaign idea gained momentum from exchanges with some of the victims’ lawyers. We joined forces then with some of the prominent politicians who were most active on hacking — though they have since largely gone their own way, concentrating on parliamentary activities.
Hacked Off has thousands of online supporters, as well as its dozens of distinguished early endorsers (named on the website) and the lawyers and victims. At its core, however, are the people who met the party leaders: Martin Moore, Evan Harris (the former LibDem MP and a campaigning genius), Mark Lewis (solicitor to a number of hacking victims) and me. With us were Brian Paddick, a hacking victim who knows about policing, Thais Portilho-Shrimpton, a journalist (and Kingston journalism graduate) who has been coordinator and press officer, Rachit Buch and Vanessa Furey, who work with Evan Harris, and also Horatio Mortimer, who works for Sovereign Strategy, of which more in a moment.
Then there were the Dowlers, Bob, Sally and Gemma. Their contribution has been tremendous. I can see that it would have been difficult for a party leader to decline to meet them, but they were far more than just a means of opening doors. They were never bullies and they were rarely emotional; they were engaged, constructive, clear-sighted and a real part of the Hacked Off group. And there was also Hugh Grant, whom you may have seen and heard. (I swear that if you dropped him in the middle of the Sahara a crowd would form in seconds.) He has been a powerful asset, often ready to appear at short notice, active in the strategy discussions and very shrewd about how to be most useful to the campaign.
As I say, it is not over. At the very least we need to keep up the pressure until Tuesday and we are keen to help ensure that the interests of the victims are well represented when the inquiry itself begins. Beyond that it is clear already that we will not simply wind up Hacked Off. We are just at the beginning of a great storm of debate about the press, police and politics and we see value in Hacked Off being around to take part in that debate, though obviously we will need to consult our supporters about that.
And how have we paid for the campaign? So far we have had only minor costs — mainly the website, taxis, a few meals and central London meeting rooms for briefing and debriefing on our big meeting days. We have lived hand to mouth. Sovereign, which is a lobbying and PR company run by former Labour MEP Alan Donnelly, helped us pro bono with one room and some admin and taxis. I paid for one room in a Whitehall hotel (not cheap, I have to say). The Media Standards Trust has paid for the website. Things became a bit tight on Wednesday and I turned for help to the nearest rich person I could find, Hugh Grant, who was gracious and generous. We are afloat, but assuming we carry on in some form we will need to get the campaign a more regular footing.
There have been moments in the past ten days when I asked myself, or expected someone to ask me, “Who the hell are you to be roving around Westminster lecturing elected representatives?” In those moments I have recalled those people — victims, journalists, academics, lawyers — who have watched the scandal unfold over the years and who feared, like me, that the truth would never come out. I also recalled the dozens of prominent people who agreed to support us before the Milly Dowler story broke, and I recalled the many thousands who have signed our petition and other petitions, demanding an effective inquiry. Some of them, I know, are readers of this blog. I hope they, or rather you, have been content with the contribution that Hacked Off has been able to make so far.
Brian Cathcart teaches journalism at Kingston University London and tweets at @BrianCathcart
