:00:03. > :00:12.eventful week. Several newspaper editors defended the practices of
:00:12. > :00:16.journalists. It has been a terrible Spear on a
:00:16. > :00:20.company I love it. I said, there is no way you could know that unless
:00:20. > :00:30.you have been listening to my messages. There are dozens of
:00:30. > :00:30.
:00:30. > :00:35.examples of people whose lives have been damaged and destroyed.
:00:35. > :00:37.For months, this church has scrutinised Britain's papers,
:00:37. > :00:42.summoning their reporters, demanding explanations, and
:00:42. > :00:49.weighing heavily on editor's mind. When Day Two P7, thank you
:00:49. > :00:52.witnesses who wield considerable power outside the inquiry room. The
:00:52. > :01:00.police officer leading three investigations into the activities
:01:00. > :01:03.of the press. Their team is ploughing through 300 e-mails from
:01:03. > :01:07.News International and 11,000 pages of notes from this private
:01:07. > :01:11.detective, Glenn Mulcaire, jailed for phone hacking alongside a News
:01:11. > :01:17.of the World reporter. From those notes, they have identified 829
:01:17. > :01:27.people whom they describe as likely victims. We define a likely victims
:01:27. > :01:32.as those that have detail around their names that would make it seem
:01:32. > :01:35.like they had been hacked or had the potential to be hacked.
:01:35. > :01:42.Information from inside News International was driving her
:01:43. > :01:46.inquiry into alleged illegal payments to police officers. Where
:01:46. > :01:56.did the information come from which enabled those arrests to take
:01:56. > :01:56.
:01:56. > :02:02.place? It came from the Standards Committee as well as our own
:02:02. > :02:07.analysis of the material. A small operation is examining computer
:02:07. > :02:17.hacking allegations dating back decades. Some of them are connected
:02:17. > :02:25.
:02:25. > :02:33.with investigations that go a very long way back, into the late 1980s.
:02:33. > :02:38.Some are connected with the very historic investigation. That was a
:02:38. > :02:44.relatively rare update into the work of the police. Perhaps
:02:44. > :02:50.surprising -- surprising given the nature of their investigation.
:02:50. > :02:53.Seldom heard in public, the editor of the Daily Mail explained how he
:02:53. > :02:58.thought journalists should work and what they should be allowed to
:02:58. > :03:04.print. Celebrities make a lot of money by revealing their lives to
:03:04. > :03:10.the public. I think is so -- journalist should be allowed to
:03:10. > :03:16.look into their lives were made her. I do believe there is an
:03:16. > :03:25.opportunity to build on existing haphazard press card systems. There
:03:25. > :03:29.are 17 bodies providing these cards. We should transform these into an
:03:29. > :03:39.essential guideline for ethical journalism. The key would be to
:03:39. > :03:40.
:03:40. > :03:43.make the cards available only to members of print organisations.
:03:43. > :03:47.ombudsman figure would have the right to recommend that an
:03:47. > :03:57.accredited journalist guilty of gross malfeasance have their
:03:57. > :04:02.
:04:02. > :04:10.Prescott cancelled. -- press card. There was a request for 10
:04:10. > :04:19.telephone numbers of friends and family at a cost of �10,000.
:04:19. > :04:24.this in breach of section 55? would say that this information
:04:24. > :04:29.could all be obtained equally but it would take time. This was a
:04:29. > :04:35.quick and easy way to obtain that information. -- legally. But that
:04:35. > :04:40.would suggest that it was illegal. Time is everything in journalist --
:04:40. > :04:50.journalism. Very often a legal roads are quick and easy and also
:04:50. > :04:51.
:04:51. > :04:56.expensive. On the face of it, it looks as if you're titles were
:04:56. > :05:06.seeking to obtain those numbers in order to snoop around the target to
:05:06. > :05:13.see who might be of interest. was to check facts. You do not have
:05:13. > :05:21.the first clue in this particular example? I do not know what you're
:05:21. > :05:28.talking about. He robustly defended his paper and its staff, like a
:05:28. > :05:35.journalist who wrote a column about a singer who died on holiday. So
:05:35. > :05:45.many people wrote complaints about it that the website crashed. Can I
:05:45. > :05:51.
:05:51. > :06:01.put this in context? On previous days, these were the headlines that
:06:01. > :06:04.
:06:04. > :06:10.appeared in popular news. "My Heart romp with Stephen and his hobby" "I
:06:10. > :06:18.did have sex with Stephen on the night he died" "And Stephen has
:06:18. > :06:21.smoked cannabis" I would suggest that this article was not of the
:06:21. > :06:31.same tone as the other material and other people had said far more
:06:31. > :06:33.
:06:33. > :06:40.offensive things. You realise that these are all on wine complaints.
:06:40. > :06:45.It is an example of how twittering can create a firestorm. One man who
:06:45. > :06:53.admitted he had not read the article said it was unpleasant.
:06:53. > :06:59.That built into a viral storm. Most people had not read the piece.
:06:59. > :07:02.for its coverage of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann...
:07:02. > :07:07.I believe that our coverage of that story was much more responsible
:07:07. > :07:11.than that of most papers. accepted they were at fault,
:07:11. > :07:15.although far from the worst behaved and their treatment of Christopher
:07:15. > :07:25.Jeffries, the innocent landlord of John -- murder victim to one a
:07:25. > :07:27.
:07:28. > :07:31.Yeates. -- Jo Yeates. We learnt from experience. There was no
:07:31. > :07:34.apology for Hugh Grant who suggested to this inquiry that the
:07:34. > :07:41.Mail on Sunday had hacked his phone messages, something the paper has
:07:41. > :07:51.always denied. It is a terrible smear on the company I love. I
:07:51. > :07:51.
:07:51. > :07:58.discussed with the editor and we were deeply aware that I had to
:07:58. > :08:08.report such a damaging allegation. We agreed it was a mendacious
:08:08. > :08:17.
:08:17. > :08:27.besmear. -- mendacious sneer. A witness statements have made clear
:08:27. > :08:31.
:08:31. > :08:34.that we deny phone hacking. It is my view that Hugh Grant made that
:08:34. > :08:40.statement, attempting to hijack your enquiry with a highly
:08:40. > :08:48.calculated attempt to ruin my company. The discussion around to
:08:48. > :08:56.grant was to drag the inquiry into extra-time. Ed sat an extra hour,
:08:56. > :09:01.allowing the barristers to probe further. I'm putting to you that
:09:02. > :09:05.this latest statement put together for you with examples provided by
:09:05. > :09:13.people within your organisation is just another shooting from the hip
:09:13. > :09:19.attack on Hugh Grant, instead of simply responding to correct record
:09:19. > :09:27.if there is an inaccuracy. I deny that. It is not shot from the hip,
:09:27. > :09:36.it is very careful -- very carefully considered. The following
:09:36. > :09:46.morning, it was clear that the issue was far from resolved. I want
:09:46. > :09:55.
:09:55. > :09:58.to say that I'm extremely unhappy about the way in which yesterday
:09:58. > :10:07.afternoon did damage to what I consider to be the appropriate flow
:10:07. > :10:10.of this inquiry. The Mail claimed that you Grant was guilty of lying.
:10:10. > :10:16.It was a statement attacking one of the witnesses who gave evidence to
:10:16. > :10:23.this inquiry by in -- accusing him of perjury. The Mail's lawyer
:10:23. > :10:25.objected. There were tough questions for the woman who was
:10:25. > :10:30.chair of the Press Complaints Commission in 2009 when it
:10:30. > :10:35.published a report concluding that the Guardian's phone hacking
:10:35. > :10:40.stories did not live up to their original billing. I put my name to
:10:40. > :10:44.it. But I was never comfortable with it. We did not have the powers
:10:44. > :10:51.and structure and processes in order to seriously consider this
:10:51. > :10:56.whole issue. If you were not comfortable with it, why was this
:10:56. > :11:06.included? I meant the whole report in the sense that one has to think
:11:06. > :11:07.
:11:07. > :11:17.about this in context. This is a report which I regret with
:11:17. > :11:21.
:11:21. > :11:25.hindsight, but I think that I regret this in the way I was misled
:11:25. > :11:35.with -- by News International. I felt like my hands were tied
:11:35. > :11:36.
:11:36. > :11:42.through the process. One or two editors did not even bother to
:11:42. > :11:46.reply to my letters. She said that because editors hated ruling
:11:46. > :11:52.against their papers... I would do love you to have been at the end of
:11:52. > :11:59.the phone and when we had issued critical adjudication. The end of
:11:59. > :12:05.the phone from some of the editors and their fury that we had issued a
:12:05. > :12:10.critical adjudication. Don't you think the anger might be that the
:12:10. > :12:18.PCC have had the nerve to criticise their judgement? That's it exactly.
:12:18. > :12:25.We have had the audacity to... I remember one editor who rang me up
:12:25. > :12:33.and was barely abusive because we had the audacity to name his
:12:33. > :12:41.newspaper on our website. All we were doing was saying that a
:12:41. > :12:49.complaint has been resolved between the Financial Times and the
:12:49. > :12:52.complainers. Then the editor of the Times recalled to explain and
:12:52. > :12:56.apologise for the hacking of an e- mail account by a former Times
:12:56. > :13:06.reported. He had done so to discover the identity of an
:13:06. > :13:10.
:13:10. > :13:18.As editor, I am responsible for the journalists. I it sorely regret the
:13:18. > :13:25.intrusion into Richard Dawkins's e- mail account. I am sure that he and
:13:25. > :13:32.many other people expect better of the Times. So do I. On paper, I
:13:32. > :13:37.apologise. He sought an injunction to protect his privacy. The heir to
:13:37. > :13:43.said he did not even know about the hearing until after it had taken
:13:43. > :13:47.place. -- the editor said. It is very unusual. I have never heard of
:13:47. > :13:56.a case where the legal manager takes the case to the High Court
:13:56. > :14:05.without informing the editor or the managing editor. That caused my
:14:05. > :14:10.surprise. Is that systemic? It needs to be addressed. You can
:14:10. > :14:14.imagine the surprise it caused me. I do not believe it is systemic.
:14:14. > :14:19.was put to James Harding that what the court was told was not correct.
:14:19. > :14:24.I am not a lawyer. I was responsible for what happened in
:14:24. > :14:30.the newsroom of the Times. But I do feel that while the company handles
:14:30. > :14:36.legal affairs, somebody owes Mr Justice e deep an apology. I have
:14:36. > :14:45.written to him to apologise for the fact that this was not disclosed to
:14:45. > :14:50.the court. The newspaper editor was asked about a series of stories.
:14:50. > :14:59.lot of information is obtained in a wall around knowing what is
:14:59. > :15:04.happening in telephone calls. a bit of colour to illustrate a
:15:04. > :15:14.story about a relationship for a split. Might the stories that were
:15:14. > :15:18.obtained by hacking into voice mails? I cannot say 100%. There is
:15:18. > :15:23.an internal investigation being carried out at the moment. But you
:15:23. > :15:28.have picked a number of stories over more than three years and I am
:15:28. > :15:33.sure if you took a sample from any number of newspapers are a very
:15:33. > :15:43.three-year period, there would be numerous references to phone calls.
:15:43. > :15:51.
:15:51. > :15:57.On day 39, Paul Staines, in other Mahmoud Ali -- another blogger,
:15:58. > :16:05.explained his take on the view. was outlined how one publication
:16:05. > :16:11.may cost the taxpayer �50 billion. The Financial Times published its
:16:12. > :16:21.online and immediately was hit with injunctions. I also got a copy of
:16:21. > :16:31.the memo. I wrote a story and took the precaution of uploading the
:16:31. > :16:37.
:16:38. > :16:41.memo. I put it on a foreign website and link it to that. Of orphans
:16:41. > :16:51.were chasing hosting agencies around the world and when that
:16:51. > :16:53.
:16:53. > :16:58.became boring, I gave it to Wikileaks. -- law firms. And it was
:16:58. > :17:05.said it would be clarified in the guts to journalists. It will be
:17:05. > :17:09.prudent to have a policy that sets out in one place the factors that
:17:09. > :17:15.prosecutors will take into account when you consider whether or not
:17:15. > :17:21.the prosecutor is acting because of their work as journalists. My
:17:21. > :17:26.intention is that we will consult on that in to run policy for a
:17:26. > :17:30.period of 12 months... 12 weeks, which is a usual consultation
:17:30. > :17:36.period. At the end of which we will take into account the responses and
:17:36. > :17:41.adjust the policy. And the final day in the first part of this
:17:41. > :17:45.inquiry. It was a day packed with high-profile witnesses and some
:17:45. > :17:51.answers to questions raised in the early appearances. In November,
:17:51. > :17:55.powerful testimony from Kate McCann was heard. She described feeling
:17:55. > :17:59.violated after her private diaries were published in the News of the
:17:59. > :18:09.World without her permission. In December, the inquiry heard the
:18:09. > :18:09.
:18:09. > :18:16.then editor argued he would never have published them had -- had he
:18:16. > :18:22.known that she had not given permission. He said he was misled.
:18:22. > :18:32.He decided to ask me to make the call and not make it clear what we
:18:32. > :18:35.
:18:35. > :18:38.had, tell will in general terms. The preferred outcome to the
:18:38. > :18:43.conversation would be what? Do keeping the impression that we were
:18:43. > :18:47.running a story but not help specifically what story. Certainly
:18:47. > :18:52.do not say we were in possession of the complete diaries, as we
:18:52. > :18:57.understood. They have been extracts of the diaries in Portuguese papers
:18:57. > :19:02.which had been translated into English. But certainly not to the
:19:02. > :19:09.extent that we had. He was frightened that if he knew what we
:19:09. > :19:19.had, he may take action. presumably were uneasy in carrying
:19:19. > :19:19.
:19:19. > :19:24.out these instructions? Yes. I had an alternative which I presented.
:19:24. > :19:28.He was the only one to have during the can's mobile number and until
:19:28. > :19:36.then had had a good relationship with him. I thought he could argue
:19:36. > :19:46.that we could work collaboratively. -- Gerry McCann. What was the
:19:46. > :19:47.
:19:47. > :19:52.reaction? No. He went on to talk about the culture of bullying in
:19:52. > :19:59.the newsroom. Everything is dictated by the editor. In the past,
:19:59. > :20:04.we have asked witnesses why they had not done certain things but you
:20:04. > :20:09.were not doing anything unless you were told to. The next witness was
:20:09. > :20:15.Heather Mills - the ex-wife of Paul McCartney. She said she was called
:20:15. > :20:19.by a contact. He said, we have heard you and Paul have had an
:20:19. > :20:24.argument. I have heard a message of him singing on the phone to you,
:20:24. > :20:30.asking for forgiveness. I said, there is no way that you could know
:20:30. > :20:34.that unless you have been listening to my messages. He laughed. I said,
:20:34. > :20:40.if you report the story, even though it is true, you have
:20:40. > :20:44.obtained the information illegally and I will do something about it.
:20:45. > :20:49.He never reported the story. contact was not an employee of
:20:49. > :20:54.former tabloid editor Piers Morgan but years later, Piers Morgan Road
:20:54. > :20:58.he had been played a voicemail message from Sir Paul McCartney to
:20:58. > :21:05.Heather Mills. Did you all the rise Piers Morgan to access your voice
:21:05. > :21:10.now? Never. The to authorise him to listen to your voicemail? Never.
:21:10. > :21:14.After lunch, at a celebrity tales had played such a big part, it
:21:14. > :21:17.seemed only right that a man who built a fortune are -- out of
:21:17. > :21:21.spreading and preventing them share his take on the modern media.
:21:21. > :21:31.the years went by, the competition got more fierce and circulation
:21:31. > :21:36.started to subside. Methods became more and more creative. In my
:21:36. > :21:44.experience, the vast majority of journalists I have been involved
:21:44. > :21:52.with for 45 years would not get involved in anything like this. The
:21:52. > :21:58.tiny minority that do, some of them were forced. Some had no choice. If
:21:58. > :22:06.you do not, you are sacked. That is my belief. It was a tiny minority.
:22:06. > :22:10.It is a cancer that has hopefully now been cut out. He said ordinary
:22:10. > :22:16.members of the public the to be protected. I know of many examples
:22:17. > :22:23.where people's lives have been destroyed by excessive media
:22:23. > :22:28.activity. There is no-one there for them. Finally, the return of Paul
:22:28. > :22:32.Dacre. The accusation printed that the actor Hugh Grant had smeared
:22:32. > :22:36.the newspaper group earlier in the course of the inquiry by accusing
:22:36. > :22:42.them of being involved in phone hacking. The QC tried to convince
:22:42. > :22:52.Paul Dacre to retract the accusation. Will you now withdraw
:22:52. > :22:54.
:22:54. > :22:58.your allegation of inundation? want him to withdraw his repeated
:22:58. > :23:03.statements about the Daily Mail. That tells us something about the
:23:03. > :23:08.culture and ethics. It was up to Lord Levison to end the session on
:23:08. > :23:16.a more positive note. I would like to recognise the progress we have
:23:16. > :23:24.made so far. We have actually heard from 184 witnesses. The statements
:23:24. > :23:30.of 42 other witnesses as well. They have been bred into the record. --
:23:30. > :23:36.read into be. Under these circumstances, I would like to pay
:23:36. > :23:40.tribute to all of those who have allowed us to do that. There is a
:23:40. > :23:44.two-week break and a different focus when they return. The