Episode 5 The Phone Hacking Inquiry

The week was dominated by evidence from former News International

employee. There is flash photography at the end of the

report. I felt that there could have been

bombs under the newsroom floor. I didn't know where they were.

The graish population do not want the broad sheets. We risk our lives

on a daily basis. We live under the shadow of a death threat.

The facts of the case were simple and shocking. News of the World

hacked into Milly Dowler's fans, that the tabloids deleted messages

from the voice mail, giving the family, as the mother later

explained, false hope. I rang her phone, and I heard her voice on the

voice. It was just like - she picked up her voice mail. She is

alive. It was then, really. world watched Sally Dowler recall

that moment knowing that the News of the World was to blame. Until,

that is, the inquiry published another story on page 10 of the

newspaper, saying that the police have decided that the News of the

World was probably not guilty of that particular offence.

On day 15 of the inquiry, the Met's lawyer tried to clear things up.

is conceivable that other News International journalists deleted

the voice mails. But the NPS have no evidence to support that

proposition and current inquiries suggest that it is unlikely.

The most likely explanation is that existing messages automatically

dropped off from the mailbox after 72 hours.

Only later did the News of the World commission this private

Detective, Glenn Mulcaire to hack Milly Dowler's voice messages. It

didn't put the paper in the clear. It doesn't mean that no-one else at

News International was responsible by another mean means for accessing

those voice mails in that time. Indeed, we know that there was a

particular journalist at News International, whose name I will

not mention, who was in possession at that time of Milly Dowler's

mobile telephone number and pin number, but not through Mr Mulcaire.

Outside this inquiry, News of the World staff had lost their jobs,

and they were angry, particularly at Nick Davis, the journalist who

broke the original story. Inside, former News International employees

got to have their say in front of Lord Justice Leveson, even if the

first of them could be heard but not seen by the outside world.

It was an undercover sting by the "fake sheikh" that exposed a

contradict box fixing scandal that helped bring three players to jail.

It was Mahmud started the police operation, after officers swooped

that he claimed that there was a plot to kidnap Victoria Beckham,

and the case collapsed at trial. The reporter, who hid his

appearance from his subjects, convinced the inquiry to keep it

from the public. So this blue screen was all they saw as he

talked about the risks of his job. We risked our lives on a daily

baifs, and lived under the shadow of death threat. The motivation is

clear. I'm proud to have exposed

paedophiles and drug-dealers and the like. That is my motivation.

talked about the ethics. purchased child pornography, for

example, which clearly is illegal. And that led to a conviction. Yes,

there are times when we cross the line. But the overriding factor is

public interest. I have never been prosecuted so far for drugs or

offences relating to work that I've done. Does that mean that we go out

to rob a bank to show banks can be robbed? No. Not all News of the

World stories were secured by subterfuge. Some, like the exposure

of David Beckham's relationship with Rebecca loose needed money.

The man who brought the story in was asked why it was right to

publish details about the footballer's private life?

decided there was huge public interest in that matter because the

Beckhams had been using their marriage in order to endorse

products. They were openly presenting themselves as a very

happily married, close-knit family, making millions of pounds on the

back of that image. Promoting themselves as a fairytale image. I

mean, they even got married on thrones.

We felt it important to expose the fairytale as a scam. The kiss-and-

tell story did not easily get in the paper. We went to enormous

lengths to satisfy the lawyers that what we had was factually correct,

most importantly, demonstrably correct. We would verify people's

claims in all sorts of ways. We would ask them to provide

documentary evidence, photographic evidence, perhaps a message left on

a post-card or a birthday card, or, you know, some sort of gift. A

telephone call made to the person in question would often verify the

claim. Without these, we couldn't run the story. For every kiss-and-

tell that made the News of the World, because it was proven to be

accurate and correct, I would estimate there would be another six,

ten, that fell by the wayside because that standard of proof was

not obtained. Another of the scoops was an exposed original ji

involving max Mosley, who won a privacy case against the paper. But

this reporter insisted he had been accurate. In defence of this

particular story, I mean, we were absolutely certain that we got the

facts right, and nobody has come forward to show me that what I said

had happened did not happen. You know, it was a factual account of

what went on between the four walls. That contradicted not just by

Mosley, who denied the orgy, but also by the judge in the court case,

who said that there was no evidence of such a scene. Was the paper

playing by the rules or not? This former News of the World reporter

Paul McMullin suggested that he was proud of starting a riot and he

enjoyed the car chases in his job. Neville fell bek rejected that

evidence. I have to say that my experience of working with the vast

majority of the people on the News of the World was wonderful. They

are an exemplary bunch of people who could work on any newspaper in

the world. One important member of the bunch was Neil Wallace, the

long-time deputy editor of the paper, the man who sought to tell

Leveson that politicians deserved the full scrutiny of journalists.

All I'm saying is that if you choose, you elect to go and get

elected, then I think you have chosen to put yourself in the

public position, and I think that - I mustn't pontificate like this,

apologies - I genuinely believe that when somebody elects you, they

elect great parts of you. They want to know you, which is why it is

interesting, isn't it, that how MPs can get themselves into scandal,

how they are treated by their konstit wents later. For those

wants to get rid of tabloids he spelt out the commercial reality.

If you put together the circulations of the Guardian, the

Independent, the Times and the 'Daily Telegraph' combined, that

does not go anywhere near matching the sums in circulation. The chosen

newspaper of this country is the Sun and the red tops. The Great

British population do not want the broad sheets. Not only that, the

Telegraph makes money, yes, thank goodness. Neither the Times, the

Guardian, the Independent or Sky News, and certainly not BBC News

Channel or the Parliamentary Channel, none of those makes money.

On day 16, when happened when the paper made a lot of money, the News

of the World came under threat. The inquiry heard it placed under

surveillance two lawyers working for people making claims against it.

Charlotte Harris and Mark Lewis, whose 14-year-old daughter was

secretly filmed. One lawyer who worked for the paper explained why

surveillance was necessary. Here, we were faced with what we

perceived to be serious breaches of confidentiality over a significant

period of time. And the issue was we wanted to look at putting

together a jigsaw of what was going Carrying out exercises in relation

to Mr Lewis's family, I could not condone it at all. I agree, clearly

things had gone beyond that which was legitimate. Another said they

looked into the private lives of those lawyers trying to find out if

they were in a relationship. And I think I suggested - this is my

memory - that since the News of the World seems to be rather good at

producing evidence that people are having relationships, legitimately,

as far as I'm concerned - not talking about phone-hacking - it

might be worth asking whether they can have a look at people in

question, to see whether they could establish the nature of the

relationship. While Tom cob krone was giving his

evidence, the committee of MPs looking at the issue published a

chain of emails copied to James Murdoch in 2008. They included a

report of a claim that hacking was rife at News International.

That was important, because James Murdoch had always said he wasn't

told back then about the full extent of hacking. What never

happened is Mr Chron and Mr Miler show meeting the relevant evidence,

explaining to me the relevant evidence and its relevance, or

talking about wider spread issues. He said that he didn't know hacking

was widespread. When the inquiry resumed on day 1p,

Tom Crone insisted James Murdoch was warned about exactly that, and

at a key meeting he was probably shown a document suggesting that

hacking went beyond one reporter. can't remember whether they were

passed across the table to them. I'm pretty sure I held up the front

page of the email. What was certainly discussed was the email.

The damning email, and what it meant in terms of further

involvement beyond in phone-hacking beyond McMullan and Mulcaire. What

related to Mr Murdoch was that this document was direct and hard

evidence of that being the case. The Crone, of course, knew about

the problems at the paper. Couldn't he have done more?

And you have explained to us that the one rogue reporter was the

defence which you never personally believed.

Do you feel that someone at least should have placed his or hand on

the ethical tiller to get the company back in the right place in

Yes. Do you feel that appropriate steps

were taken or not? But, instead, we see - is this

right - a different strategy, namely avoid reputational damage,

settle cases as an over-value, and hope that it all goes away. Is that

right? It is not far off it. Tom Crone was much more active,

when the director made a film called Star Suckers, critical of

one of the News of the World's reporters,.

Mr Crone's legal team wanted to come and see the whole movie. We

pointed out that the News of the World had never given approval to

the subjects of any of their investigations. That is the

delicious irony of all of this - you never do, do you, Mr Crone.

Was I asked for a copy of the approval? It doesn't look like it.

In case you are wondering what happened to the rogue reporter, the

jailed Clive Goodman, Leveson asked Jonathan Chapman to explain. Does

it mean that Mr Goodman, this reporter who had been sent to

prison for unlawfully accessing voice mail communications of

members of the Royal Family received from News International a

quarter of a million pounds? does seem that way, yes. Yet again,

though, there was a background drama taking place away from the

inquiry. It started with this early interjection. At 5.15 yesterday, Mr

Mark Lewis received a telephone call from a journalist who

identified himself as a reporter on the Daily Mail Hardcastle column.

This journalist asked Mr Lewis whether, "In view of these

revelations, will the dowelers be giving their money back?"

Mr Lewis's reaction was to understandably question the moral

compass of this journalist, although maybe not in those precise

words. In one sense - in one sense only - I recognise that precisely

what happened may not ultimately drive the issues that I have to

consider within my terms of reference.

However, I do entirely understand The Daily Mail said they refuted

the allegations. They said it was a legitimate journalistic inquiry and

they said Milly's... The man who had been brought in after the

jailing of goods reporter and private investigator for phone

hacking. He said he changed at paper, bringing more women and

higher ethical standards but still, he was the man in charge when they

published the Max Mosley story and lost the subsequent privacy case.

Let us be clear that the News of the World was humiliated by Max

Mosley's Corp venture. I was humiliated. It was a landmark in

how tabloid newspapers would have to approach those kind of stories.

I was not gloating. He stood by the principle of the most -- the Max

Mosley story. He should have, I believe, dispelled ethical

standards to merit the position he had. And taken part in organising

paying women for sex. They were not the ethical standards expected.

not by the e-mail sent by the chief reporter designed to get two women

involved in that 40 to co-operate with the follow-up story on paying

to be identified. You said it was unnecessary to have written in

those terms. Yes, inappropriate as well. Well that is the point. Quite

frankly, it is outrageous. So at an inappropriate. He was the editor

who published diaries that Kate McCann had written for her missing

daughter, giving evidence earlier, she described what that story did

to her. I felt violated. I had written those thoughts at the most

desperate time in my life. It was my only way of communicating with

her. It was utter disrespect shown for me as a grieving mother. In his

evidence, the editor of the Times said he thought he had her

permission to publish. I did not want Kate McCann to come out of

church on Sunday morning and find the diaries were there without her

knowledge. I would not have published it I thought she had not

been made aware. A spokesman for the couple said at no point did the

paper it had the diary, instead saying they were planning a

positive story based on leaks elsewhere. On day 18, while one

group reported was accepted to have been blamed for phone hacking, he

said he always had his concerns. always had some discomfort and I

always felt they could have been bombs under the news room floor but

I did not know where they work and I did not know when they were going

to go off. The newspaper trade itself, he said, was in a similarly

precarious situation. We are an industry historically that is quite

dysfunctional. The competition between us, commercial and getting

the best story, is such that we are not very good at even coming

together to agree over the saluting the great and the good. We cannot

agree on a system for the British Press Awards, where they should be

held. In going to read judging session sometimes, it is almost

like a war-zone. We had the broadsheets on one side and the

tabloids on the other. The saddest thing is the collective brain power

amongst those who produce newspapers is pretty magnificent.

If only they could drop some of that commercial rivalry, understand

and face the problems and issues that affect all of them. This is

not about broadsheet, broadcast media, against the red tops, these

are issues that affect all of them. Then from the boss of the News of

the World, one of its most juniors -- junior reporters, the task of

getting hold of Kate McCann's diary. I have every intention of

apologising. I know that is not a question. That is my intention. I

felt bad that my involvement in the story had made Kate McCann feel the

way it had. That is the first thing. Why was it the wrong decision to

publish? They did not have permission to. We did not have Kate

McCann's permission to publish that story. This is how the inquiry

barrister summed up what a former policeman, highly trained in

surveillance, did for the paper. You tell us in general terms that

in the period of eight years, you place approximately 150 people

under surveillance on instruction from the News of the World. That is

correct. There Brittany known as silent shadow, -- originally known,

this report that targeted MPs and celebrities. If you were following

an MP and they would go into the House of Commons, it would be very

difficult. You might be there all day before they come out. So which

is very difficult to analyse exactly how long you would do the

surveillance for. Obviously, you might be called off at 5pm or you

may carry on and go into the evening when they come out. So it

depends on whether the person is on the move or where they're going.

respect of one job you were given, you kept the wife of a famous

footballer under surveillance for one month. What did that entail?

lot of hard work. She went everywhere. Lawyers like those

bringing claims against the paper are also among the target. It may

sound like the word of a detective but when he started working for the

paper again after a break, he was told to get a press card. Did you

suddenly become a journalist? If somebody had asked you at the

time what he did, what would you have said? A freelance researcher,

journalist. What we doing? Surveillance. That mattered because

Tom Crone and said there were restrictions on using private

detectives. This was the week some of the staff who big goodbye to

Britain's biggest-selling Sunday paper in July had their say. These