:00:02. > :00:04.The week was dominated by evidence from former News International
:00:04. > :00:09.employee. There is flash photography at the end of the
:00:09. > :00:14.report. I felt that there could have been
:00:14. > :00:20.bombs under the newsroom floor. I didn't know where they were.
:00:20. > :00:30.The graish population do not want the broad sheets. We risk our lives
:00:30. > :00:32.
:00:32. > :00:40.on a daily basis. We live under the shadow of a death threat.
:00:40. > :00:44.The facts of the case were simple and shocking. News of the World
:00:44. > :00:48.hacked into Milly Dowler's fans, that the tabloids deleted messages
:00:48. > :00:55.from the voice mail, giving the family, as the mother later
:00:55. > :01:00.explained, false hope. I rang her phone, and I heard her voice on the
:01:00. > :01:05.voice. It was just like - she picked up her voice mail. She is
:01:05. > :01:09.alive. It was then, really. world watched Sally Dowler recall
:01:09. > :01:13.that moment knowing that the News of the World was to blame. Until,
:01:13. > :01:16.that is, the inquiry published another story on page 10 of the
:01:16. > :01:19.newspaper, saying that the police have decided that the News of the
:01:19. > :01:26.World was probably not guilty of that particular offence.
:01:26. > :01:30.On day 15 of the inquiry, the Met's lawyer tried to clear things up.
:01:30. > :01:38.is conceivable that other News International journalists deleted
:01:38. > :01:41.the voice mails. But the NPS have no evidence to support that
:01:41. > :01:45.proposition and current inquiries suggest that it is unlikely.
:01:45. > :01:48.The most likely explanation is that existing messages automatically
:01:48. > :01:55.dropped off from the mailbox after 72 hours.
:01:55. > :01:58.Only later did the News of the World commission this private
:01:58. > :02:05.Detective, Glenn Mulcaire to hack Milly Dowler's voice messages. It
:02:05. > :02:08.didn't put the paper in the clear. It doesn't mean that no-one else at
:02:08. > :02:13.News International was responsible by another mean means for accessing
:02:14. > :02:18.those voice mails in that time. Indeed, we know that there was a
:02:18. > :02:24.particular journalist at News International, whose name I will
:02:24. > :02:29.not mention, who was in possession at that time of Milly Dowler's
:02:30. > :02:33.mobile telephone number and pin number, but not through Mr Mulcaire.
:02:33. > :02:38.Outside this inquiry, News of the World staff had lost their jobs,
:02:38. > :02:42.and they were angry, particularly at Nick Davis, the journalist who
:02:42. > :02:47.broke the original story. Inside, former News International employees
:02:47. > :02:57.got to have their say in front of Lord Justice Leveson, even if the
:02:57. > :03:05.first of them could be heard but not seen by the outside world.
:03:05. > :03:09.It was an undercover sting by the "fake sheikh" that exposed a
:03:09. > :03:13.contradict box fixing scandal that helped bring three players to jail.
:03:13. > :03:17.It was Mahmud started the police operation, after officers swooped
:03:17. > :03:22.that he claimed that there was a plot to kidnap Victoria Beckham,
:03:22. > :03:24.and the case collapsed at trial. The reporter, who hid his
:03:24. > :03:29.appearance from his subjects, convinced the inquiry to keep it
:03:29. > :03:33.from the public. So this blue screen was all they saw as he
:03:33. > :03:36.talked about the risks of his job. We risked our lives on a daily
:03:37. > :03:45.baifs, and lived under the shadow of death threat. The motivation is
:03:45. > :03:48.clear. I'm proud to have exposed
:03:48. > :03:54.paedophiles and drug-dealers and the like. That is my motivation.
:03:54. > :03:59.talked about the ethics. purchased child pornography, for
:03:59. > :04:04.example, which clearly is illegal. And that led to a conviction. Yes,
:04:04. > :04:08.there are times when we cross the line. But the overriding factor is
:04:08. > :04:12.public interest. I have never been prosecuted so far for drugs or
:04:12. > :04:18.offences relating to work that I've done. Does that mean that we go out
:04:18. > :04:24.to rob a bank to show banks can be robbed? No. Not all News of the
:04:24. > :04:30.World stories were secured by subterfuge. Some, like the exposure
:04:30. > :04:35.of David Beckham's relationship with Rebecca loose needed money.
:04:35. > :04:39.The man who brought the story in was asked why it was right to
:04:39. > :04:46.publish details about the footballer's private life?
:04:46. > :04:52.decided there was huge public interest in that matter because the
:04:53. > :05:01.Beckhams had been using their marriage in order to endorse
:05:01. > :05:06.products. They were openly presenting themselves as a very
:05:06. > :05:10.happily married, close-knit family, making millions of pounds on the
:05:10. > :05:20.back of that image. Promoting themselves as a fairytale image. I
:05:20. > :05:21.
:05:21. > :05:29.mean, they even got married on thrones.
:05:29. > :05:33.We felt it important to expose the fairytale as a scam. The kiss-and-
:05:33. > :05:39.tell story did not easily get in the paper. We went to enormous
:05:39. > :05:42.lengths to satisfy the lawyers that what we had was factually correct,
:05:42. > :05:49.most importantly, demonstrably correct. We would verify people's
:05:49. > :05:57.claims in all sorts of ways. We would ask them to provide
:05:57. > :06:03.documentary evidence, photographic evidence, perhaps a message left on
:06:03. > :06:09.a post-card or a birthday card, or, you know, some sort of gift. A
:06:09. > :06:15.telephone call made to the person in question would often verify the
:06:15. > :06:18.claim. Without these, we couldn't run the story. For every kiss-and-
:06:18. > :06:26.tell that made the News of the World, because it was proven to be
:06:26. > :06:31.accurate and correct, I would estimate there would be another six,
:06:31. > :06:36.ten, that fell by the wayside because that standard of proof was
:06:36. > :06:40.not obtained. Another of the scoops was an exposed original ji
:06:40. > :06:44.involving max Mosley, who won a privacy case against the paper. But
:06:44. > :06:48.this reporter insisted he had been accurate. In defence of this
:06:48. > :06:53.particular story, I mean, we were absolutely certain that we got the
:06:53. > :06:58.facts right, and nobody has come forward to show me that what I said
:06:58. > :07:04.had happened did not happen. You know, it was a factual account of
:07:04. > :07:07.what went on between the four walls. That contradicted not just by
:07:07. > :07:10.Mosley, who denied the orgy, but also by the judge in the court case,
:07:10. > :07:16.who said that there was no evidence of such a scene. Was the paper
:07:16. > :07:19.playing by the rules or not? This former News of the World reporter
:07:19. > :07:25.Paul McMullin suggested that he was proud of starting a riot and he
:07:25. > :07:29.enjoyed the car chases in his job. Neville fell bek rejected that
:07:29. > :07:35.evidence. I have to say that my experience of working with the vast
:07:35. > :07:39.majority of the people on the News of the World was wonderful. They
:07:39. > :07:44.are an exemplary bunch of people who could work on any newspaper in
:07:44. > :07:50.the world. One important member of the bunch was Neil Wallace, the
:07:50. > :07:53.long-time deputy editor of the paper, the man who sought to tell
:07:53. > :07:58.Leveson that politicians deserved the full scrutiny of journalists.
:07:58. > :08:04.All I'm saying is that if you choose, you elect to go and get
:08:04. > :08:14.elected, then I think you have chosen to put yourself in the
:08:14. > :08:14.
:08:14. > :08:18.public position, and I think that - I mustn't pontificate like this,
:08:18. > :08:22.apologies - I genuinely believe that when somebody elects you, they
:08:22. > :08:27.elect great parts of you. They want to know you, which is why it is
:08:27. > :08:32.interesting, isn't it, that how MPs can get themselves into scandal,
:08:33. > :08:37.how they are treated by their konstit wents later. For those
:08:37. > :08:42.wants to get rid of tabloids he spelt out the commercial reality.
:08:42. > :08:50.If you put together the circulations of the Guardian, the
:08:50. > :08:58.Independent, the Times and the 'Daily Telegraph' combined, that
:08:58. > :09:05.does not go anywhere near matching the sums in circulation. The chosen
:09:05. > :09:09.newspaper of this country is the Sun and the red tops. The Great
:09:09. > :09:15.British population do not want the broad sheets. Not only that, the
:09:15. > :09:20.Telegraph makes money, yes, thank goodness. Neither the Times, the
:09:21. > :09:25.Guardian, the Independent or Sky News, and certainly not BBC News
:09:25. > :09:29.Channel or the Parliamentary Channel, none of those makes money.
:09:29. > :09:33.On day 16, when happened when the paper made a lot of money, the News
:09:33. > :09:39.of the World came under threat. The inquiry heard it placed under
:09:39. > :09:43.surveillance two lawyers working for people making claims against it.
:09:43. > :09:47.Charlotte Harris and Mark Lewis, whose 14-year-old daughter was
:09:47. > :09:50.secretly filmed. One lawyer who worked for the paper explained why
:09:51. > :09:55.surveillance was necessary. Here, we were faced with what we
:09:55. > :10:04.perceived to be serious breaches of confidentiality over a significant
:10:04. > :10:08.period of time. And the issue was we wanted to look at putting
:10:08. > :10:14.together a jigsaw of what was going Carrying out exercises in relation
:10:14. > :10:17.to Mr Lewis's family, I could not condone it at all. I agree, clearly
:10:17. > :10:20.things had gone beyond that which was legitimate. Another said they
:10:20. > :10:30.looked into the private lives of those lawyers trying to find out if
:10:30. > :10:34.they were in a relationship. And I think I suggested - this is my
:10:34. > :10:39.memory - that since the News of the World seems to be rather good at
:10:39. > :10:45.producing evidence that people are having relationships, legitimately,
:10:45. > :10:48.as far as I'm concerned - not talking about phone-hacking - it
:10:48. > :10:51.might be worth asking whether they can have a look at people in
:10:51. > :10:56.question, to see whether they could establish the nature of the
:10:57. > :11:00.relationship. While Tom cob krone was giving his
:11:00. > :11:04.evidence, the committee of MPs looking at the issue published a
:11:04. > :11:09.chain of emails copied to James Murdoch in 2008. They included a
:11:09. > :11:13.report of a claim that hacking was rife at News International.
:11:13. > :11:17.That was important, because James Murdoch had always said he wasn't
:11:17. > :11:25.told back then about the full extent of hacking. What never
:11:25. > :11:30.happened is Mr Chron and Mr Miler show meeting the relevant evidence,
:11:30. > :11:36.explaining to me the relevant evidence and its relevance, or
:11:36. > :11:42.talking about wider spread issues. He said that he didn't know hacking
:11:42. > :11:46.was widespread. When the inquiry resumed on day 1p,
:11:46. > :11:54.Tom Crone insisted James Murdoch was warned about exactly that, and
:11:54. > :11:59.at a key meeting he was probably shown a document suggesting that
:11:59. > :12:03.hacking went beyond one reporter. can't remember whether they were
:12:03. > :12:09.passed across the table to them. I'm pretty sure I held up the front
:12:09. > :12:16.page of the email. What was certainly discussed was the email.
:12:16. > :12:22.The damning email, and what it meant in terms of further
:12:22. > :12:27.involvement beyond in phone-hacking beyond McMullan and Mulcaire. What
:12:28. > :12:32.related to Mr Murdoch was that this document was direct and hard
:12:32. > :12:37.evidence of that being the case. The Crone, of course, knew about
:12:37. > :12:41.the problems at the paper. Couldn't he have done more?
:12:41. > :12:49.And you have explained to us that the one rogue reporter was the
:12:49. > :12:56.defence which you never personally believed.
:12:56. > :12:59.Do you feel that someone at least should have placed his or hand on
:12:59. > :13:06.the ethical tiller to get the company back in the right place in
:13:06. > :13:11.Yes. Do you feel that appropriate steps
:13:11. > :13:17.were taken or not? But, instead, we see - is this
:13:17. > :13:22.right - a different strategy, namely avoid reputational damage,
:13:22. > :13:27.settle cases as an over-value, and hope that it all goes away. Is that
:13:27. > :13:31.right? It is not far off it. Tom Crone was much more active,
:13:31. > :13:39.when the director made a film called Star Suckers, critical of
:13:39. > :13:43.one of the News of the World's reporters,.
:13:43. > :13:47.Mr Crone's legal team wanted to come and see the whole movie. We
:13:47. > :13:49.pointed out that the News of the World had never given approval to
:13:49. > :13:54.the subjects of any of their investigations. That is the
:13:54. > :14:00.delicious irony of all of this - you never do, do you, Mr Crone.
:14:00. > :14:06.Was I asked for a copy of the approval? It doesn't look like it.
:14:06. > :14:12.In case you are wondering what happened to the rogue reporter, the
:14:12. > :14:19.jailed Clive Goodman, Leveson asked Jonathan Chapman to explain. Does
:14:19. > :14:26.it mean that Mr Goodman, this reporter who had been sent to
:14:26. > :14:29.prison for unlawfully accessing voice mail communications of
:14:29. > :14:34.members of the Royal Family received from News International a
:14:34. > :14:38.quarter of a million pounds? does seem that way, yes. Yet again,
:14:38. > :14:46.though, there was a background drama taking place away from the
:14:46. > :14:49.inquiry. It started with this early interjection. At 5.15 yesterday, Mr
:14:49. > :14:56.Mark Lewis received a telephone call from a journalist who
:14:56. > :15:00.identified himself as a reporter on the Daily Mail Hardcastle column.
:15:00. > :15:07.This journalist asked Mr Lewis whether, "In view of these
:15:07. > :15:10.revelations, will the dowelers be giving their money back?"
:15:10. > :15:14.Mr Lewis's reaction was to understandably question the moral
:15:14. > :15:24.compass of this journalist, although maybe not in those precise
:15:24. > :15:30.words. In one sense - in one sense only - I recognise that precisely
:15:31. > :15:35.what happened may not ultimately drive the issues that I have to
:15:35. > :15:45.consider within my terms of reference.
:15:45. > :15:45.
:15:46. > :15:52.However, I do entirely understand The Daily Mail said they refuted
:15:52. > :16:02.the allegations. They said it was a legitimate journalistic inquiry and
:16:02. > :16:06.
:16:06. > :16:09.they said Milly's... The man who had been brought in after the
:16:09. > :16:15.jailing of goods reporter and private investigator for phone
:16:15. > :16:20.hacking. He said he changed at paper, bringing more women and
:16:21. > :16:25.higher ethical standards but still, he was the man in charge when they
:16:25. > :16:35.published the Max Mosley story and lost the subsequent privacy case.
:16:35. > :16:37.
:16:37. > :16:45.Let us be clear that the News of the World was humiliated by Max
:16:45. > :16:50.Mosley's Corp venture. I was humiliated. It was a landmark in
:16:50. > :16:57.how tabloid newspapers would have to approach those kind of stories.
:16:57. > :17:07.I was not gloating. He stood by the principle of the most -- the Max
:17:07. > :17:17.Mosley story. He should have, I believe, dispelled ethical
:17:17. > :17:20.
:17:20. > :17:28.standards to merit the position he had. And taken part in organising
:17:28. > :17:33.paying women for sex. They were not the ethical standards expected.
:17:33. > :17:38.not by the e-mail sent by the chief reporter designed to get two women
:17:38. > :17:42.involved in that 40 to co-operate with the follow-up story on paying
:17:42. > :17:52.to be identified. You said it was unnecessary to have written in
:17:52. > :17:58.those terms. Yes, inappropriate as well. Well that is the point. Quite
:17:58. > :18:02.frankly, it is outrageous. So at an inappropriate. He was the editor
:18:02. > :18:10.who published diaries that Kate McCann had written for her missing
:18:10. > :18:16.daughter, giving evidence earlier, she described what that story did
:18:16. > :18:21.to her. I felt violated. I had written those thoughts at the most
:18:21. > :18:29.desperate time in my life. It was my only way of communicating with
:18:29. > :18:32.her. It was utter disrespect shown for me as a grieving mother. In his
:18:32. > :18:36.evidence, the editor of the Times said he thought he had her
:18:37. > :18:41.permission to publish. I did not want Kate McCann to come out of
:18:41. > :18:44.church on Sunday morning and find the diaries were there without her
:18:44. > :18:50.knowledge. I would not have published it I thought she had not
:18:50. > :18:55.been made aware. A spokesman for the couple said at no point did the
:18:55. > :19:04.paper it had the diary, instead saying they were planning a
:19:04. > :19:10.positive story based on leaks elsewhere. On day 18, while one
:19:10. > :19:19.group reported was accepted to have been blamed for phone hacking, he
:19:19. > :19:24.said he always had his concerns. always had some discomfort and I
:19:24. > :19:27.always felt they could have been bombs under the news room floor but
:19:27. > :19:32.I did not know where they work and I did not know when they were going
:19:32. > :19:39.to go off. The newspaper trade itself, he said, was in a similarly
:19:39. > :19:44.precarious situation. We are an industry historically that is quite
:19:44. > :19:50.dysfunctional. The competition between us, commercial and getting
:19:50. > :19:54.the best story, is such that we are not very good at even coming
:19:54. > :19:59.together to agree over the saluting the great and the good. We cannot
:19:59. > :20:03.agree on a system for the British Press Awards, where they should be
:20:03. > :20:07.held. In going to read judging session sometimes, it is almost
:20:07. > :20:17.like a war-zone. We had the broadsheets on one side and the
:20:17. > :20:17.
:20:17. > :20:22.tabloids on the other. The saddest thing is the collective brain power
:20:22. > :20:28.amongst those who produce newspapers is pretty magnificent.
:20:28. > :20:32.If only they could drop some of that commercial rivalry, understand
:20:32. > :20:38.and face the problems and issues that affect all of them. This is
:20:38. > :20:44.not about broadsheet, broadcast media, against the red tops, these
:20:44. > :20:49.are issues that affect all of them. Then from the boss of the News of
:20:49. > :20:56.the World, one of its most juniors -- junior reporters, the task of
:20:56. > :21:03.getting hold of Kate McCann's diary. I have every intention of
:21:03. > :21:10.apologising. I know that is not a question. That is my intention. I
:21:10. > :21:17.felt bad that my involvement in the story had made Kate McCann feel the
:21:17. > :21:24.way it had. That is the first thing. Why was it the wrong decision to
:21:24. > :21:33.publish? They did not have permission to. We did not have Kate
:21:33. > :21:37.McCann's permission to publish that story. This is how the inquiry
:21:37. > :21:44.barrister summed up what a former policeman, highly trained in
:21:44. > :21:48.surveillance, did for the paper. You tell us in general terms that
:21:49. > :21:54.in the period of eight years, you place approximately 150 people
:21:54. > :22:02.under surveillance on instruction from the News of the World. That is
:22:02. > :22:07.correct. There Brittany known as silent shadow, -- originally known,
:22:07. > :22:13.this report that targeted MPs and celebrities. If you were following
:22:14. > :22:17.an MP and they would go into the House of Commons, it would be very
:22:17. > :22:22.difficult. You might be there all day before they come out. So which
:22:22. > :22:31.is very difficult to analyse exactly how long you would do the
:22:31. > :22:35.surveillance for. Obviously, you might be called off at 5pm or you
:22:35. > :22:44.may carry on and go into the evening when they come out. So it
:22:44. > :22:48.depends on whether the person is on the move or where they're going.
:22:48. > :22:52.respect of one job you were given, you kept the wife of a famous
:22:52. > :22:59.footballer under surveillance for one month. What did that entail?
:22:59. > :23:04.lot of hard work. She went everywhere. Lawyers like those
:23:04. > :23:07.bringing claims against the paper are also among the target. It may
:23:07. > :23:13.sound like the word of a detective but when he started working for the
:23:13. > :23:18.paper again after a break, he was told to get a press card. Did you
:23:18. > :23:25.suddenly become a journalist? If somebody had asked you at the
:23:25. > :23:33.time what he did, what would you have said? A freelance researcher,
:23:33. > :23:42.journalist. What we doing? Surveillance. That mattered because
:23:42. > :23:46.Tom Crone and said there were restrictions on using private
:23:46. > :23:51.detectives. This was the week some of the staff who big goodbye to
:23:51. > :23:55.Britain's biggest-selling Sunday paper in July had their say. These