:00:11. > :00:19.standards. Comments from the former 'News of the World' editor Piers
:00:19. > :00:23.Morgan.. I did not hear her say "Phone hacking". The truth is it
:00:23. > :00:33.impossible the fight. I would say it is unlikely he did not know it
:00:33. > :00:35.
:00:35. > :00:40.The British newspaper editor who made it big on US television, Piers
:00:40. > :00:45.Morgan was the famous face among this week's witnesses. The tabloid
:00:45. > :00:50.careers however do not all need to. Take the man on the right here for
:00:50. > :00:56.instance. A showbiz reporter once just like Piers Morgan but after he
:00:56. > :01:02.left the 'News of the World' he said this. It was endemic. It
:01:02. > :01:06.happened. When you say "It was endemic" phone hacking and the use
:01:06. > :01:11.of illegal practices to secure stories, that was endemic, is that
:01:11. > :01:14.what you are saying? Yes. He was noticed not at the start but a
:01:14. > :01:19.whistleblower, one who used alcohol as a touch as the phone hacking
:01:19. > :01:23.story gathered pace. He was found dead at his flat in July. Alcohol-
:01:23. > :01:29.related liver disease was to blame so on day 19 it was his brother
:01:29. > :01:34.Sarah Stewart who spoke on his behalf. Giving his evidence off
:01:34. > :01:39.camera he said hacking as not limited to a single paper. I take
:01:39. > :01:45.on board what you about the names but I want to make it very clear
:01:45. > :01:50.that this allegedly practice not only went on at the 'News of the
:01:50. > :01:56.World' but went on at the Sun. I want to make it very clear this was
:01:56. > :02:02.a practice that was taken to the 'News of the World'. Stuart's anger
:02:02. > :02:10.at those who had managed his from near was obvious. I found it very,
:02:10. > :02:14.very difficult today not to name names but the seniors that were
:02:14. > :02:18.involved in the practices that went on know that they are involved and
:02:19. > :02:22.they know the wrong that has been done. The part of his time at 'News
:02:22. > :02:26.of the World' the editor was this man Andy Coulson. Later head of
:02:27. > :02:30.communications for David Cameron, a former editor who has always denied
:02:30. > :02:37.know binge hacking. Asked about the David Cameron connection a
:02:37. > :02:42.journalist not the 'Independent on Sunday' said he had considered had
:02:42. > :02:48.Hore had been politically motivated. One barrister David Barr asked
:02:48. > :02:51.exactly what Hoare knew. Did hotel you he had hacked phones while
:02:51. > :02:56.working for the 'News of the World' Yes, he did. Did you get the
:02:56. > :03:00.impression I was a one-off or was it something he had done numerous
:03:00. > :03:05.times? Numerous times. Did hotel you that anybody else had hacked
:03:05. > :03:10.mobile phones while they were working for the news of the World?
:03:10. > :03:14.Yes. He said there was more to this hacking. There was a trade in news
:03:14. > :03:20.lists, records of stories on which papers were working. For a rival
:03:20. > :03:30.newspaper to get hold of your news list is a good thing to have. Um,
:03:30. > :03:37.and I'm told, Shaun told me they would get �400 in cash and a person
:03:37. > :03:43.on another paper was paid �200 to hand over this news list. And �100
:03:43. > :03:47.would go to Shaun and �100 would go to the other executive. This sports
:03:47. > :03:50.reporter once prospered on the paper. He tells the inquiry about
:03:51. > :03:55.getting a tip a football manager was unwell. Failing to confirm the
:03:55. > :04:00.story then getting a call to the sports editor. He said "You are
:04:00. > :04:03.right the story is true I have his medical records with me at the
:04:04. > :04:07.moment". And having been on the daily star when none of that
:04:08. > :04:13.happened I was amazed that it seemed that easy to obtain
:04:13. > :04:17.someone's medical records and he said "Is is nothing liver
:04:17. > :04:23.threatening but I know exactly what it is, what procedure he has had"
:04:24. > :04:30.and I did ask how was it obtained and he said through a bragging
:04:31. > :04:35.technique. I was told sometimes you would get a situation where if an
:04:35. > :04:38.investigator sent a fax to a GP or hospital saying "I'm a specialists,
:04:38. > :04:44.I need these details" it was incredible how many times that
:04:44. > :04:53.would get sent straight back relation was his bosses were to
:04:53. > :04:56.break town. Editors would live a very cose the ed life. Some editors
:04:57. > :05:00.would become editors having been journalists and favoured industry
:05:01. > :05:05.mefpbl it was a classic clicheed example of the power corrupting.
:05:05. > :05:10.They suddenly walk into a life of chauffer-driven cars and very high
:05:10. > :05:15.salaries and I think some of them lost touch with reality.
:05:15. > :05:22.believed he had incurred the wralt of Andy Coulson and soon even a
:05:22. > :05:27.minor complaint became a serious issue. The paper made it into some
:05:27. > :05:31.enormous crime and the disciplinary machinery went into action once
:05:31. > :05:35.again. I knew exactly what had all meant, they were just trying find
:05:35. > :05:40.ways to get rid of me. He as asked about a former News International
:05:40. > :05:44.executive who had said there was a feeding of family compassion at the
:05:44. > :05:49.company. It is almost laughable he would even suggest something lying
:05:50. > :05:53.that. It is a business. These people went to jail - something
:05:53. > :05:58.like that. For something they had done and to give this I will
:05:58. > :06:02.presentation of this lovely family atmosphere - I know when I tried to
:06:03. > :06:06.get Shaun Hoare to come forward and talk he felt the same as well, that
:06:06. > :06:10.it just was not fair that journalists on news were getting
:06:10. > :06:14.all the blame for everything that had gone on because of the culture
:06:14. > :06:21.in that newsroom. I mean, you know, my tribunal found it was a culture
:06:21. > :06:27.of bullying, I would say it is a culture of lying a lot of the time.
:06:27. > :06:32.That tribunal won this man �800,000 but he never got another reporting
:06:32. > :06:38.job. He said no-one had wanted to employ journalists who took on
:06:38. > :06:41.their boss and won. The man who represented him at the tribunal and
:06:41. > :06:46.suggested disciplinary procedures at the 'News of the World' were
:06:46. > :06:50.used as a tool forgetting rid of unwanted staff. The unique think
:06:50. > :06:56.about the 'News of the World' was they were usually phoney complaints
:06:56. > :07:00.and the individual quickly got the message that they wanted him out.
:07:00. > :07:05.That was the point. What has happened with Matt Driscoll he was
:07:06. > :07:10.much more determined that. He was not willing to be fobbed off. When
:07:10. > :07:16.Driscoll went off sick with severe depression. They subjected him to
:07:16. > :07:20.the most amazingly unpleasant behaviour, hassling him with phone
:07:20. > :07:25.calls, wanting to send a nurse to his home. This was not just about
:07:25. > :07:30.one member of staff, he said, or one paper. One company fairly
:07:30. > :07:34.recently, one of our members went to management to complain of
:07:34. > :07:40.bullying and they instantly said to him "You had better leave" and that
:07:40. > :07:47.is what happened, he left. A severance package was again
:07:47. > :07:50.rapinged and the person is still there. Nothing has within done
:07:50. > :07:54.about it. Life after tabloids went something better for Sharon
:07:54. > :07:58.Marshall who got work as a television soap pundit after being
:07:58. > :08:03.told to confront a pregnant celebrity with an untrue allegation
:08:03. > :08:09.this the celebrity's partner was having an affair. In my resignation
:08:09. > :08:15.letter which I put on his desk I said I was leaving because I had
:08:15. > :08:19.been asked to beach the PCC code and the moral code and therefore I
:08:19. > :08:28.was refusing to do it and that was the reason for my resignation. I
:08:28. > :08:33.just did not want to work there any more. I, um, I guess I just fell
:08:33. > :08:38.out of love with the hole industry. I just said "No I just do not want
:08:38. > :08:42.to do this". Having walked away from tabloid life she wrote a book
:08:42. > :08:45.about it complete with the claim it was a true story. She said in her
:08:45. > :08:51.witness statement her book was not a precise and accurate account of
:08:51. > :08:57.what exactly happened but that true story claim caused her no end of
:08:57. > :09:02.trouble. I was writing what somebody in a pub told me I did not
:09:02. > :09:04.get hard evidence for because I was not writing the witness statement.
:09:04. > :09:08.Of course you were not writing a witness statement. I understand
:09:08. > :09:13.that and you have said that now to or three times so you do not have
:09:13. > :09:18.to repeat it. But what you are asserting in this forward is these
:09:18. > :09:23.stories all happened, these very bad things were done. It is not
:09:23. > :09:30.unreal is stick for me to ask had you were telling the truth in those
:09:30. > :09:34.words. Um, this is what people told me. So I turned it into a yarn but
:09:34. > :09:39.I did not go through full legal checks and everything, I just
:09:39. > :09:44.simply said "Tell me a legend and I will put it in the book" so yes
:09:44. > :09:49.this is true what a journalist has told me. It is either accurate with
:09:49. > :09:54.all our experience of working in the business or it is not accurate.
:09:55. > :10:00.It has a bit of topspin. I have occasionally heightened reality to
:10:00. > :10:06.create the good story. What do you mean by the word "Topspin"?
:10:06. > :10:10.sorry, I just mean... Lies?. Colour, I would say. When Sharon Marshall's
:10:10. > :10:15.book was placed under scrutiny she had a fairly simple defence - I was
:10:15. > :10:18.not entirely true, she said S Piers Morgan, the former editor of the
:10:18. > :10:22.'News of the World' and of the 'Daily Mirror' was a much bigger
:10:22. > :10:27.player but faced a similar level of examination of interview assist
:10:27. > :10:31.given, an article he had written and crucially his published diaries.
:10:31. > :10:36.I'm going to ask you now another general question about the first
:10:36. > :10:46.two volumes of your diaries. The first volume is called the Insider,
:10:46. > :10:47.
:10:47. > :10:53.the second volume "Don't You Know Who I Am?". How accurate and
:10:53. > :10:58.reliable are these documents? Um, well, that is a moot point. They
:10:58. > :11:02.are my record of 10 years of editing newspapers which were
:11:02. > :11:09.compiled nots a contemporaneous diary let's say in the introduction
:11:09. > :11:14.but from a collection of notes, memos, emails, stuff like that and
:11:14. > :11:19.stuff I just checked on a weekly basis. And I constructed the book
:11:19. > :11:25.in diary form as best my memory served it, but is it a record of
:11:25. > :11:30.100% historical import? I would say no. But is it your best
:11:30. > :11:35.recollection at all material times? Yes. When Morgan tried to answer
:11:35. > :11:39.back he was silenced. Mr Morgan, I would be very great fill if you
:11:39. > :11:44.would answer Mr Jayakody's questions rather enter into a
:11:44. > :11:50.debate with him, I'm sure we would get on much more quickly. He was
:11:50. > :11:53.read an interview in which he said he sympathise would the news of the
:11:53. > :11:57.world reporter Clive Goodman, something Morgan said phone hacking
:11:57. > :12:02.had been going on at almost every paper in Fleet Street for years.
:12:02. > :12:06.That was the rumour mirblgs I as exploding - I have not been there
:12:06. > :12:13.for three years but everybody you talked to said he was being made a
:12:13. > :12:16.scapegoat, this was a widely prevalent thing. I was not aware it
:12:16. > :12:20.was widely prevalent in any specific form. I was hearing these
:12:20. > :12:26.rumours like anybody else. Is this a practice if we may add a third
:12:26. > :12:32.newspaper to the mix, was taking place in the Daily Mirror? I do not
:12:32. > :12:37.believe so, no. You do not believe so or you are sure? I don't believe
:12:37. > :12:44.so to the best of my recollection, toy not believe so. And he was
:12:44. > :12:49.asked about this 2009 exchange? "What about this nice middle-class
:12:49. > :12:54.boy would who have the deal with people who raked bins for a leafing,
:12:55. > :13:00.people who take secret photographs and do all that nasty den in the
:13:00. > :13:04.gutter stuff? How do you feel about that? A lot of this was done by
:13:04. > :13:12.third parties rather the staff them. That is not to defend it because
:13:13. > :13:17.you were running results of their work. I try to answer the question
:13:17. > :13:21.but she cuts me off because I know where she is going. She is talking
:13:21. > :13:26.about what I guess would be described as the dark dance of
:13:26. > :13:29.newspaper investigations, had that is the thin man, paparazzi
:13:29. > :13:34.photography, and I was responding in general terms. I think if you
:13:34. > :13:40.hear the tape back in real-time you can see. That I did not hear her
:13:40. > :13:46.say "Phone-tapping" and I certainly was not eluding to phone-tapping. A
:13:46. > :13:50.message Sir Paul McCartney's former wife was at the centre of one key
:13:50. > :13:55.exchange. In 2006 she is Morgan who admitted to hearing message. Have
:13:55. > :13:59.you listened to recordings of what you knee ever knew to be illegally
:13:59. > :14:03.obtained -- knew to be illegally obtained voice mail messages?
:14:03. > :14:07.not believe so, no. You either did or didn't, I do not think it is a
:14:07. > :14:11.question of belief. No I did not. Sh have you list yined to
:14:11. > :14:16.recordings of what you knew to be illegally obtained voice mail
:14:16. > :14:20.messages? I do not believe so. I cannot discuss where I was played
:14:20. > :14:26.that tape or who played it because to do so would be to compromise a
:14:26. > :14:30.source and I cannot do that. not sure about that, Mr Morgan. You
:14:30. > :14:39.can discuss in general terms where it was, can't you? Actually, no, I
:14:39. > :14:43.can't. It was a tape of a voice mail message, wasn't it? I'm not
:14:43. > :14:46.going to discuss where I heard it or who played it to me for the
:14:46. > :14:51.reasons I have discussed. I do not think it is writ and in fact the
:14:51. > :14:57.inquiry has already stated the me cow do not expect me to identify
:14:57. > :15:02.sources -- you. Think about it this way, Mr Morgan - without
:15:02. > :15:09.identifying your source, the only person who would lawfully be able
:15:09. > :15:14.to listen to the message is the lady in question or somebody
:15:14. > :15:24.authorised on her behalf. To listen to it - isn't that right?
:15:24. > :15:29.
:15:29. > :15:36.possibly. Well? Sorry, what do you expect me to say? Another
:15:36. > :15:41.possibility if there is one, I don't...? I mean (LAUGHTER) I can't
:15:41. > :15:47.go in to the detaifl it without compromising source and -- details
:15:47. > :15:51.of it without compromising source and I'm not going to do that.
:15:51. > :15:57.I am perfectly happy to call Lady McCartney to give evidence as to
:15:57. > :16:00.whether she authorised you to listen to her voice mail. Heather
:16:00. > :16:05.mills herself later issued a statement saying she would be happy
:16:05. > :16:10.to tell her side of the story and denying she had ever played Piers
:16:10. > :16:20.Morgan any tape. Also making case against Morgan was one of the
:16:20. > :16:23.writers of the City Slickers column who was later jailed in a share-
:16:23. > :16:30.dealing scandal. The barrister quoted from her account of what was
:16:30. > :16:34.going on at Piers Morgan's paper. Journalists were carrying out
:16:34. > :16:38.repeated infringements to hack into the voice mail systems of
:16:38. > :16:42.celebrities, their friend, publicists and public relations
:16:42. > :16:45.executives. The frequency of them having activities gave me the
:16:45. > :16:49.impression that phone hacking was consider add 'bog standard tool'
:16:49. > :16:57.for gathering information. Did you see this sort of thing going on, Mr
:16:57. > :17:01.Morgan? No. Are you sure about that? 100%. I would also pint out
:17:01. > :17:04.that James Hipwell is a convicted criminal. Come the end Morgan was
:17:04. > :17:08.clearly unhappy with his treatments. This has gone how I thought it
:17:08. > :17:13.would. It becomes like a rock star having an album brought out from
:17:13. > :17:20.his back cat loving all his worst- ever hits and I do feel still very
:17:20. > :17:25.proud of a lot of the very good stuff that both the Mirror and the
:17:25. > :17:28.'News of the World' did in my tenure as editor. Not only Heather
:17:28. > :17:31.Mills but Rupert Murdoch might be called to give evidence. A source
:17:31. > :17:35.later said there was a strong possibility he could make an
:17:35. > :17:40.appearance at this inquiry. And even as he gave his evidence, Piers
:17:40. > :17:45.Morgan knew that on day 21 James Hipwell would be making his
:17:45. > :17:53.allegations in person. Allegations about an editor he said had a tight
:17:53. > :18:00.reign over the Mirror. newspaper was edited and produced
:18:00. > :18:05.with the - his personality. He was a very strong, um, strong-minded
:18:05. > :18:11.individual and he had enormous charm and charisma and he was the
:18:11. > :18:16.newspaper. The paper's showbiz reporter sat three feet from
:18:16. > :18:22.Hipwell's desk and heard that phone hacking was a tolerated and regular
:18:22. > :18:30.practice. It seems to be perfectly acceptable to some of the Mirror's
:18:30. > :18:35.senior editors and I saw it on a daily basis in 1999 especially
:18:35. > :18:40.latter half of 1999 where I was going as far as to say it happened
:18:40. > :18:48.every day and that it apparent that a great number of the Mirror's show
:18:48. > :18:53.business stories would come from that source. Did you ever see or
:18:53. > :19:00.hear phone hacking taking place or being discussed in front of Mr
:19:00. > :19:07.Morgan? No I did not. Is there anything which makes you think that
:19:07. > :19:15.Mr Morgan did or did not know that the practice was taking place?
:19:15. > :19:21.I mean I discussed what kind of an editor he was. And I, you know,
:19:21. > :19:25.this is - I can't approve that he - who knew what at what time but
:19:25. > :19:30.looking at his style of editorship I would say it was very unlikely he
:19:30. > :19:34.did not know it was going on because I accept he was not - there
:19:34. > :19:39.was not very much he did not know about. In his witness statement,
:19:39. > :19:46.Piers Morgan described the comments as the unsubstantiated allegations
:19:46. > :19:51.of a liar and convicted criminal, and the Mirror's lawyer had this to
:19:51. > :19:54.say about Hipwell. He is on his own account an acknowledged liar.
:19:54. > :20:00.three reporters who worked on the daily express coverage of the
:20:00. > :20:04.disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The Star paid half a million pounds
:20:04. > :20:08.TD campaign the find Madeleine and printed apologies about a libel
:20:08. > :20:12.account of their coverage the papers had wrongly claimed the
:20:12. > :20:15.McCanns caused then covered up their daughter's death. One
:20:15. > :20:17.reporter explained the impact of the fact that police could not
:20:17. > :20:22.legally tell journalists about ever anything about the investigation.
:20:22. > :20:27.Then you tell us in the final sentence of paragraph 4 quite
:20:27. > :20:33.frankly this was a ludicrous state of affairs which made covering the
:20:33. > :20:37.story near impossible. That is correct. Did you mean that - by
:20:37. > :20:43.that getting to the truth of the matter or did you mean by that - or
:20:43. > :20:47.what did you mean by that? Getting to the truth, yes, as if you had
:20:47. > :20:53.been transported like Dr who into some nightmare or something where
:20:53. > :20:57.the truth is impossible the find. But despite all that he accurately
:20:57. > :21:01.reported what the police thought at the time, something the victim's
:21:01. > :21:06.barrister told the judge he did not accept. You heard him say more once
:21:06. > :21:11.now this the police files have revealed that the articles he was
:21:11. > :21:15.writing were truthful and accurate and I would like to pick him up on
:21:15. > :21:18.that comment and take him through one or to of the articles to
:21:18. > :21:23.demonstrate how that is simply incorrect. Another express reporter
:21:23. > :21:29.on that story explained that its journalists in Portugal simply had
:21:29. > :21:33.to file copy. It would be quite a brave reporter to call the desk and
:21:33. > :21:40.say "I'm not really sure about this, I'm not going to send anything back
:21:40. > :21:44.today". But by now it was pretty clear what the Lord Justice thought
:21:44. > :21:53.of the stories they were sending back. These were clearly very
:21:53. > :21:55.fragile stories in the sense that it was all, um, I use the phrase
:21:55. > :22:00.tittle-tattle but information coming from somebody who as getting
:22:00. > :22:08.information from somebody else who was not supposed to be saying
:22:08. > :22:11.anything anyway. In six weeks this inquiry has put the matter based on