27 Feb 2012 | Leveson Inquiry, News and features
Former Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Brian Paddick, has described a culture of cover-up and infighting among senior officers during his time at the force.
Testifying at the Leveson Inquiry today, Paddick called for a change in culture “from the top”, arguing that it was important for there to be a healthy and “above-board” relationship between the police and the press, suggesting that relations between the two should be on the basis of formal, minuted meetings, “not on gossiping over dinners or booze”.
“We have to draw a line when it comes to police officers being paid for information,” Paddick added. “I do not accept (…) that if a story is in the public interest you can pay a public official to disclose information,” he said.
He told the Inquiry that the Met’s commissioners had “conducted charm offensives with mixed success” and wrote in his witness statement that the efforts made to get positive stories into the media “distorted” senior officers’ judgments.
“The difficulty comes when the police have to prosecute their ‘friends’” his statement read.
Paddick wrote that the culture at the Met went from being “very open to almost paranoid” during Sir Ian Blair’s Commissionership. He cited a “clampdown on anyone having contact with the media”, and unsuccessful investigations being launched to look into unauthorised leaks of information. He added that “good relationships” with UK newspaper editors were “seen as being more important than ever”.
He added that the Met sought to prevent certain stories from getting into the public domain in order to protect its reputation. He told the Inquiry he was ordered to “tone down” criticisms made of a review into rape investigations by the Met that had found “serious shortcomings” and made recommendations. The press officer involved said her job was to “make sure report got no publicity”, Paddick added, arguing that the interests of rape victims were sacrificed to protect the Met.
He opined that the “desire of the MPS to avoid public embarrassment and reputational damage may have led them not to pursue evidence of possible police corruption and to mislead the public about the ambit and scale of phone-hacking.”
He noted that within six days of the arrests of Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire in August 2006, 418 potential hacking victims had been identified, but “only a tiny fraction of those people were actually told”.
Paddick also told the Inquiry his name appeared on a printout from private investigator Glenn Mulcaire’s computer, listed as a “project”, which he said meant it was “reasonable [that] there was a prima facie case I was a target for phone hacking.”
He also revealed that a printout from Mulcaire’s computer that was shown to a police officer appeared to contain details of people who had been given new identities after being put on the Witness Protection Programme.
“It would have included people like the people convicted of James Bulger’s murder,” he said. “People are only put into the witness protection programme when their lives are potentially at risk or in serious danger. For this to be in the hands of Mulcaire and potentially the News of the World is clearly worrying.”
He stressed he had the “utmost respect” for current DAC Sue Akers, the officer leading the investigations into illegal behaviour of journalists, but added that it was “difficult to see how everybody can have complete confidence we are going to get to the bottom of what is going on” He suggested it would be better for public perception if current investigations were being conducted by an outside force not connected to the Met.
Last year Paddick and the former deputy Prime Minister Lord John Prescott successfully argued at a judicial review that the Metropolitan Police failed to notify them about potential hacking.
Prescott, who also appeared before the court this afternoon expressed his unease about the relationship between politicians and the press.
“I’m not the best person to ask about relationships with the press because mine has never been good but with regards to the Murdoch press, I always thought it was wrong that politicians at the highest level were too close to Murdoch…There is always a price. It’s not exactly corruption and I’m not accusing them of that…I thought it gave a corrupting influence that they had too much influence and power.”
Prescott added that that he was opposed to a statutory regulation, even though he believes he has “as much reason as anyone to have a go at the press”. The former MP suggested a regulatory framework, to be decided on by a judge, adding: “You have to find a balance that people think is fair. What’s made the difference is no-win no-cost. I just think if you can’t get redress, you’ve got to have a sanction.”
Describing the stories regarding his social life, the politician told the court he had wondered where stories came from, but never imagined that his phone had been hacked. In December 2009, Prescott was told by police that there was no evidence that Glenn Mulcaire had intercepted his voicemail, but police said there were two tax invoices and a piece of paper with “Prescott” written on it.
“That should be a good clue to a policeman that there is something there. I did suspect at first they meant my son because the Murdoch press and the Times had done a number of stories on him but I’ve since been assured not,” Prescott told the court.
He added that misleading statements and the failure of the police to provide him with the information he believed he was entitled to, led him to take legal action.
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
13 Feb 2012 | News and features, Uncategorized
Cross-posted at Hacked Off
There is fury and fear among Sun staff after the latest round of arrests by police investigating the alleged corruption of public servants by journalists, and there is more widespread alarm about the future of the press. Where will this end? Will other papers close, as the News of the World did? Is the baby of free expression about to go down the plughole with the murky bathwater of journalistic misconduct?
The anxiety is likely to increase as Rupert Murdoch visits London this week. Though he has said he has no intention of closing the Sun, he is not (how to put this?) a man distinguished by the rigid keeping of his word. It is easy to see why nerves are frayed.
But the picture is not as bleak as some fear, and News International and the Metropolitan police are only doing what they have to do in a society ruled by law. (We need to note, too, that nobody has been charged with anything.)
It is only a few months since News International was rightly lambasted for covering up evidence of, and information about, potentially criminal activities. That material, about phone hacking, had to be dragged out of the company, notably by civil litigants who for the most part have now settled their cases.
If, as seems to be the case, the company is now diligently searching its databases and handing everything suspicious that it finds to the police, then we should be grateful. Nor can we complain that junior figures are suffering the consequences while the top brass are spared: those arrested (and bailed) are for the most part big hitters.
As for the Met, it is doing its job. It may well be doing it with a special zeal, in response to criticisms about a previous absence of zeal, but we can hardly complain about that either. And it is not as though it can make up new laws. Where they have information about possible breaches of the law the police are supposed to investigate, question, search and so forth, and that is what they are doing here.
Corrupting officials matters, too. If local government officials take bribes to fix planning applications for builders, or if defence officials take bribes when awarding arms contracts, we expect prosecutions of both those who pay and those who receive. More than that, we expect the press to expose such wrongdoing, and journalists tend to take pride in the work. Corruption creates injustice and is anti-democratic.
Will the pursuit of these matters lead to unwanted consequences? Will it corrode free expression? I cant see why.
There are no grounds for Murdoch to close the Sun, and if he were to do so it would be another short-sighted, cowardly and capricious act like the closure of the News of the World. He has to take responsibility, show leadership and steer his paper (which is by any measure a national institution) through the crisis.
Does it follow that other papers are in danger? I have no idea, but if journalists on other papers have been bribing public officials (something which nobody can fail to realise is against the law) then they need to face the consequences. It is no use saying that the law is wrong or unfair; if that is the case the right course is to try to change the law, not to ignore it. (Newspapers are rarely tolerant of others who consider themselves above the law.)
The bathwater of unethical and illegal practices in journalism needs to be drained, and the Leveson process exists to do that. There is no reason to suppose that the baby of free expression will be washed away in the process. A far more realistic prospect is that, if we are persuaded to leave this bathwater where it is, the baby will drown in it. Corrupt journalism is the enemy of free expression; it places us at the mercy of monopolists, bullies and lawbreakers. We surely don’t want that.
Brian Cathcart, a founder of Hacked Off, teaches journalism at Kingston University London. He tweets at @BrianCathcart
17 Jan 2012 | Leveson Inquiry
Lord Justice Leveson has today made suggestions that a new model may need statutory backing in order to “give some authority to independent regulation”.
The judge made the remarks while discussing today’s Times leader article defending a free press with the paper’s editor James Harding at the Leveson Inquiry.
While in favour of a “sufficiently robust” system, Harding expressed concerns that a “‘Leveson act’ would give politicians the ability to loom over press coverage”, which he said would have a “chilling effect” on press freedom.
“I do not want journalists from The Times, years from now, walking into the offices of politicians and behaving in a certain way,” he added later, reiterating his fear of reporters submitting to political influence.
Leveson was blunt: “Watch my lips”, he told Harding, adding that his mind was not yet made up. He said that the issue of regulation needed to be solved suitably by the press, adding, “it’s got to work for the public as well.”
Leveson also made it abundantly clear more than once today that he was not looking into mandatory prior notification.
Earlier in his testimony, Harding also said his proprietors “never raised a finger” to stop the Murdoch-owned title covering the phone hacking scandal that engulfed the News of the World last summer.
When asked if The Times was slow to cover the phone-hacking scandal perhaps due to external pressures, Harding said that his paper followed up on the Guardian’s original story in summer 2009.
Following last summer’s revelations over the hacking of murdered teenager Milly Dowler’s phone, Harding said the Times featured the story “on the front page for about three weeks”, criticising the News of the World and News International.
Harding added: “Looking back I certainly wish we’d got on the story harder, earlier. The reality is that both the police and News International poured cold water on the story.”
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
