Mark Lewis HARDtalk

The British press is in a state of convulsion. A huge Government-

commissioned inquiry into newspaper standards is underway. The reason?

Allegations about phone-hacking, and one of those, at the centre of

the maelstrom is Mark Lewis, the lawyer for many of those who say

they are victims of phone-hacking, including the family of a murdered

schoolgirl. Mark Lewis says that he, too, has

felt the wrath of the newspapers. But is there a danger that in the

end a free and vibrant British Mark Lewis, welcome to HARDtalk.

Phone-hacking is the listening of other people's voice mail messages

on their mobile phones, without their consent. It is illegal in

this country. When did you first realise that newspapers might be

doing this? It became apparent in - I blocked a story for Gordon Taylor,

the chief executive of the Professional Footballers'

Association, and Joanne Armstrong, the in-house lawyer.

There had been an arrest for a former correspondent of News of the

World and Glenn Mulcaire. It seemed to disappear. The two of them

pleaded guilty. I would have thought no more of it. But Gordon

Taylor's picture was on the news behind the sentencing. And I

realised that this story that I had been told as to the investigation

months earlier, that this was a proper journalististic inquiry.

Because, actually, nothing of the sort, hacking of a phone, set off

through legal phones to find out if the voice mails were intercepted.

Yes, they were intercepted. You are certain of that? 100%. No doubt

about it whatsoever. You then pursued that case and, in

the wake of that, you gave evidence to a parliamentary committee of

inquiry. I think it was in 2009. You said that you felt that the

practice was so widespread that as many as 6,000 people had had their

phones hacked into. How did you get from just one case, Gordon Taylor -

the boss of the Professional Footballers' Association - to

6,000? Well, as it happened, I recounted a conversation that I say

took place. The Metropolitan Police still deny it took place. It was

between me and a police officer. He told me that there had been 6,000

victims. I made it clear to the parliamentary inquiry that it

wasn't necessarily 6,000 phones that had been hacked. It could have

been 6,000 including the people who had left messages. And what you

have to be aware of is at that time it thought that there was just a

handful of victims of phone-hacking. Eight or nine people who'd been in

the initial Glenn Mulcaire and Clive Goodman investigation. No-one

knew it was much more widespread. Of course, it has now transpired

that the police have indicated that there was something in the region -

I think 5,795 name, of which 803 are people who are victims, which I

take to mean as people who have had their voice mails hacked. An

uncanny coincidence with the numbers that I put forward.

there was widespread disbelief at the time, wasn't there, that that

amount of phone-hacking could have gone on? I mean, you were told,

essentially, that you were - misleading members of parliament.

The accusation was that I was misleading. I was almost the lone

voice crying in the wilderness saying, "No, believe me, this is

much bigger than people are saying." But there was a propaganda,

almost, put out by a wall of silence, by newspapers - not just

News International but others - suggesting a lining plot between

the Guardian, maybe the Independent, and something that I was doing,

saying it was bigger. There wasn't just a sense of opposition from

other newspapers. I mean, your own law firm told you, from what I

understand, not to take up other phone-hacking casing. Is that

correct? Well, what has happened is that they gave me an ultimatum. In

2009, July, the Guardian had run a story. I was about to be instructed

to - have been instructed to pursue a case of someone else. My old law

firm gave me an ultimatum that within an hour I had to decide

whether I would - the choice they gave me was not to act on any other

victims of phone-hackinging or leave...

Why? That was their decision. You would have to ask them why they

reached that decision. What do you take from that? That they thought

there was not going to be under any money in it. They thought they

would be under pressure? I got the message on my BlackBerry at 10

o'clock on Monday morning, saying, "Here is an ultimatum. You have to

undertake that you will not take on other victims of phone-hacking."

I said that I was going to be on Newsnight. In fact, what happened

was that by the time I said, "Well, can I have a look at the

partnership agreement" I was told that I had been expelled as a good-

leaver. You left the law firm and you then began a descent into

difficult personal circumstances? Well, I 'd -- I'd always had a job,

been working. And after 20 years of working for a living as a lawyer, I

was suddenly without a job. I had been told that I was 79 out on my

own. I said that I wanted to do this for me and the partners of the

law firm, but selaufld I was left without a - all of a sudden I was

left without a law firm. It was a difficult, emotional time, going

through all sorts of matters dealing with that, but without a

firm behind me for a very short period of time. How did you deal

with it? Well, in a way, it dealt with me, rather than me dealing

with it. When I thought things could not go any further wrong, I

then got a letter from News of the World's lawyers saying that they

were going to - they were threatening to sue me. They told me

that it was rare that we have to admonish that a fellow professional,

but there is time for me to do the right thing. So I not only had lost

my job oryx was without a job, but I -- job, or was without a job, but

I had the weight of News International and threatening to

sue me. It was those circumstances that led me to give evidence to

parliament, to say, "Look, somebody has to hear about this?" I know it

didn't come on at the same time, but you were dealing with a

debilitating medical condition - multiple sclerosis. Yes, I have MS.

I didn't choose to have it, or go public about it. But it became more

and more obvious. I was under a lot of physical pressure. I mean, you

are not not Ghent to be under stress when you have MS. I had the

stress of losing my job and take everyone on. It was - really,

everybody seemed to be coming at me. The one thing I don't have in my

character is an ability to say, "Alright, I will go away and I will

just take it." You have had specific advice from your doctor,

from what I understand, not to pursue this matter. They said, "For

heavens sake, don't put yourself through it. Because of the MS."

What was said, to be fair, look, you are meant to have a review

every year to see how you are doing. I don't look after myself as I

suppose I should do. But the last time I went to my consultant,

probably four or five years ago, the consultant had said to me, "Are

you still working?" There was a presumption that I might not be

working at all. I said, "Well, yes, I am." He said, "Look, as long as

you don't do anything stressful, you will be OK." The reality of my

life, what I'm doing, is probably the most stressful thing you could

be doing. It was about to get more stressful, because the parents of

the murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler got in touch with you?

I mean, that happened probably - I ended up - I suppose to put the

story into perspective, I moved from Manchester to London to move

job, to move cities at an age when most don't - probably 45, 46 years

old, got MS, moving city to do those things, and having to deal

with it. Then I get a phone call from Sally Dowler and have a

meeting, and pursue the case for Milly Dowler. Sally Dowler being

the mother of Milly Dowler, murdered back in 2002. She was

concerned that Milly, her murdered daughteress's phone, may have been

hacked? The Dowler family were going through the trial at the time

of the person who'd murdered their daughter. They were notified by

their family liaison officer at Surrey Police that the Metropolitan

Police wanted to talk to them because Milly Dowler herself, the

murdered schoolgirl, her phone had been hacked. There were other

suggestions that their phones might have been hacked and their landline.

There is no doubt whatsoever that Milly Dowler's phone was hacked,

the voice mail was listened to. The News of the World have accepted

they did that. A key part of the story, though, is that when the

news broke, when the Guardian newspaper broke the news back in

July, that Milly Dowler's voice mail had been listened to. They

also said that her voice mail had been deleted, her messages had been

deleted, by a News of the World investigator.

That now turns out probably not to have been the case. There seems to

be something of a backlash in the media against those who put it

about that her voice mail messages were deleted by a News of the World

investigator. Do you understand that there is concern that the

totally understandable outrange about her voice mail being listened

to as now reached a level where perhaps there's been too much of a

reaction? It's not quite right. I mean, look, one, her voice mails

were linded to by the News of the World. -- were listened to by News

of the World. There is no doubt about that. There is nobody from

News International that suggests that anything other than that

happened. Nobody from the police suggest that that didn't happen.

There has been a suggestion that the theory that the deletions of

messages - see, what had come, Sally Dowler, as a mother, on 24

March 2002, suddenly was able to get through to Milly Dowler's voice

mail. Previously she had not been able to get through to it, because

there had been automatic messages. She had false hope. She had false

hope. But what we know, following the dates, 21 March 2002, Milly

Dowler went missing. But we know that from the telephone records,

that she had not listened to her phone since 20 March. On 24 March,

every single voice mail message was deleted. So any theory that there

was a 72-hour automatic deletion does not work. But the reason it is

important is that until there is firm evidence that somebody - a

newspaper, journalist or investigator - deleted her voice

mail deliberately - let me put it to you what Stephen Glover, a

columnist wrote, "If the Guardian had not published its inaccurate

accusation that the voice mails had been deleted, events could have

gone differently. The Sunday red- top might not have been closed by a

panic-stricken Rupert Murdoch. And the Leveson inquiry might not have

been set up by an equally panic- stricken David Cameron." Do you see

any truth in that? It is far- fetched. Lord Justice Leveson had

said that the inquiry was not just looking into Milly Dowler's voice

mail deletions. We just don't know what happened with the deletions.

We do know messages were deleted, we do know that it wasn't automatic.

We do know that the News of the World hacked her phone, listened to

her voice mail messages. We know that the family were given false

hope, anyway, that there were activities by News of the World

reporters who published a story based on voice mail messages. That

is without a doubt. They pursued that. There is no evidence, as far

as the police are concerned, that anybody connected with the News of

the World deleted with these voice messages. That might be - might be

- the case. But there is no evidence that they didn't either.

But, as a result of that, this whole fur erroree, News of the

World and Rupert Murdoch, paid a large sum of money, millions, to

the dowelers. That was for compensation. One

daily newspaper has asked whether any of the money will be paid back.

Will it? No, one, it will not be paid back. It is preposterous. We

know that the News of the World - and the News of the World accepts

this - that they had information that they thought they had

information for a story that they were running that Milly Dowler was

still alive. Over a week before, they notified the police that they

had this information. They withheld information. Cruelly, they didn't

tell the parents that their daughter might still be alive. I

mean, that was evil, evil, coming from News of the World. And why

that is being defended by the Mail, why they bothered to ask the

question, why they bothered to make such preposterous allegations to me,

asking questions - really, what needs to happen is an intecial

inquiry at the Mail, from the Mail's editor, as to why the

journalists phoned up to ask that question. They ought to be ashamed

of themselves. You didn't just take a telephone call from the Mail. You

were put under surveillance by newspaper, secret surveillance, as

were your family. How did you become aware of that?. Well, that

was almost a circumstance and coincidence. I was aware that there

had been a report. I was told that a report had been prepared on me.

The News International deny that they did. Although the information

in the report is not true, there is enough truth about it that involves

some surveillance. It was - or some inquiries about my background. It

talks about my education, about my health. There would have been some

information that they would have had - whoever prepared that report.

There would have been nobody else interested in that report other

than a journalist at News International.

But that is how you found out about it. How did you - No, I found out

about that report, and then I found out that it was suggested by a

television company, who contacted me to say they had been given

information by a former News of the World employee that my voice mails

had been hacked. I said, "Well, there is always apparently a

report", which was pursued. What happened was that I made a

complaint to the police about the surveillance, who eventually

obtained information from News International, which included a

video-recording of my ex-wife and my daughter, who was 14 years old

at the time. Did you not think at that point

perhaps it is time to back off, because other people are at risk

here? Not at all. I mean, it is just not

in my character. It is not how it is. Well, yes, you say it is not in

your character. But there are other people who are being put on the

line here. The only way that you can protect other people, whatever

you do, is to fight back. You always have to - you always have to

fight back. Otherwise - that is what is wrong with the whole system.

People are too scared to stand up. It is interesting that you use

language like "fight back". Sometimes you talk less as a lawyer

and almost more as a campaigner. Do you feel that this is personal now?

It is not personal. It is not a crusade. I'm a lawyer. I pursue

cases for clients. I will represent clients. Oddly enough, I would have

hacked into News International if they instructed me first, and

perhaps I might have done a better job than it was. You talk in

personal terms, pugnacious terms. This is a quote from a profile of

you recently. You have so many of the big law firms on this. And on

the other side, you have got me, "I don't have a secretary, I have one

hand" because of your multiple sclerosis. "I I had two hands, I

would tie one behind my back because they need a head start."

That is pugnacious, being a lawyer. It involves my personality, I will

fight back for someone. Look, what I say to any client, not just in

terms of the phone-hacking cases, but historically I've always said

to a client that this is - anything is about bullying. If on the first

day of school, if the school bully says, "Give me your dinner money",

if you do, you will be doing it every diof your school life.

Actually, what you have to do is turn around and give the bully a

punch on the nose, and he will run off. If you cannot do that, you

need the big person, a big person to stand next to you to do that. I

always tell clients, I will be the big person who will stand next to

you. How widespread do you think the culture of phone-hacking has

been in newspapers? It is incredible to suggest that - I

34507, I almost feel sorry for News of the World. It wasn't, obviously,

just News of the World. What is your evidence of that? Right. Well,

for all sorts of reasons the police said, this was 2004/06, of the News

of the World and one inquiry agent, Glenn Mulcaire. The police now say

it is probably a lot - 2001 - 06 period. It is unrealistic to think

that if a journalist was doing it at News of the World and moved on,

that he would be... It is supposition rather than hard

evidence. It is suppositions about information that appeared about

them in other newspapers that could only appear if they hacked into the

phone. There is a difference between - look, there could be no

justification for hacking into the phone, listening to the voice mail

of a dead 13-year-old. I don't think that anybody would disagree

with you on that. The reason I asked the question is that we have

this inquiry, principally as a function of the actions with Milly

Dowler's voice, into press ethics and where you draw the line. How

difficult is it to draw that line? Well, I don't think it is that

difficult. I think people can... How do you define public interest?

People can see the difference between public interest and what

lawyers talk about with the public. With we have a priority interest as

to what goes on. If, for example, a politician espouses a hypocritical

view of, say, family values, but, at the same time, is having an

adulterous affair, then he is right to expose the hypocrisy. Hypocrisy

could be enough of a defence? Hypocrisy of a politician, for

example is enough of a defence. is illegal - phone-hacking is

illegal at the moment. Yes, but I think it probably ought to have,

like most thing, ought to have a public interest defence. Which you

could see, for example, if the journalist were exposing an act of

criminal wrongdoing. But hypocrisy, it is much more of a political

hypocrisy... But it is a difficult, again, it is

a difficult distinction to draw, and, also, what you are essentially

doing is saying is that hypocrisy would allow you to commit an act

that is strictly illegal. Strictly illegal. The procedures

that ought to be adopted is not a journalist deciding on his own

behalf that he should be doing something, but the journalist

should be talking to his editor, who should make a decision, ought

to be a unanimous decision between the editor, the in-house lawyer who

ought to be a responsible and upright person, and perhaps an

external adjudicator or representative, a lawyer or

something, so that the three of them would have to say, "This is

justified, to back-up a story that you have got." The way the press

and the media works, you talk to the editor, the in-house lawyer.

I'm just wondering, though, where this all ends up. That is quite a

liberal suggestion from you in many ways. But there are a lot of people

out there who say there is a danger with Lord Justice Leveson's inquiry,

at which you have given evidence, that, in the end, in order to draw

a line as to where the standard and press ethics will be, he will

inevitably be end up muzzling a free press here. It is a joke to

suggest that we have a free press at the moment. It is controlled by

the proirt proprietarys of the press. It is the interest. If you

look at a free press, the perfect example of a free press is the

phone-hacking scandal. And the failure to report on it by all the

other newspapers. Because a free press would have reported on it. It

would have told everybody what was happening. And journalists who

worked for newspapers have not been able to write about things because

their owners, who it comes down to all sorts of issue of plurality of

ownership, their owners have said, "If you do this, there is a

problem." So we have got to have firm guidelines for reporters. Look,

most journalists are good, honest people who do their job. Look, if

you are exposing a Watergate, an MP expenses scandal, and the

suggestion is that it was obtained by a breach of the law but it was a

good law to be breached because it helped - it is a democratic value