Episode 15 The Phone Hacking Inquiry

Click on the link and you will find it there. I will be back at the top

of the hour with a full but et inn. Now we will have a -- bulletin. Now

we will have a look at the Leveson Inquiry.

You will be bribing more police officers. Won't you? That is not

accurate, is it? It is not entirely When the worst happens we rely on

the police to investigate and crime reporters to tell us about their

investigation. This week, this inquiry asked whether both sides,

police and journalists, were sticking to the rules, whether they

had grown too close and what happens when things go wrong? On

day 48, a senior officer in the Metropolitan Police, who thought a

few of her colleagues had far too much to say to the press.

Whether negligent or careless, when it is official secrets, through to

actually forming a relationship with somebody and deliberately

passing information to somebody, for example a member of the press,

we have had a small number of convictions and some misconduct

findings. Some officers, if not guilty of misconduct, left the

public thinking there was not enough distance between them and

reporters. I think it is certainly a perception. There east no doubt

about that. It is clearly -- there's no doubt about that. It

whats been clearly discussed here and within the media. It is also

the case that there's been very regular and close contact between

some senior members of the Met. contact with the media was more

closely regulated. The inquiry barrister quoted from her evidence.

I request any information to the director of public affairs. Any

request for an interview I have accepted has been supported by DP

and I have always a press officer present at a inter-- an interview.

Cressida Dick could speak directly to Kit Malthouse.

On a couple of occasions, he has, I thought jokingly said to me, "I

hope you are not putting too many resores in." On the third occasion,

-- resources in." On the third occasion, I said, "Well, that's my

decision, not yours. That is why I am operationally independent." We

went on to have a perfectly reasonable conversation about where

the public interest lay, which of course is a legitimate thing for

him to want to discuss with me. I felt I wanted to put down a marker.

Mainly because I didn't want to compromise him. Kit Malthouse's

spokesman said it had been entirely proper for him to have that

conversation with Cressida Dick, and questioned the Met in any

number of areas. With the mayoral race well underway, this has become

a party political issue. One Labour MP has called for the deputy mayor

to resign over similar evidence earlier in the inquiry. The issue

here is politicians with the job of scrutinising the police, but the

obligation not to compromise their operational independence. The

question is whether police and politicians should draw the line.

On day 49, the Met spoke to the press about what was being done.

So, you didn't need to do the entertaining bit to do the job? I'm

not suggesting it was necessarily wrong. It's not a necessary part of

the job? Not always, no. Ever? think meeting journalists on an

informal basis is not inappropriate. No. I didn't say it was. I am

simply asking whether it's a necessary part of the job?

could argue, no. Yes, you could argue no, or you

could argue, yes. But you are doing the job. You have done it for many

years. Do you think it is a necessary part of the job? I don't

think you can come down one way or the other. Well,, do I gather Miss

Cheesley that you do not want to answer that question? Not at all,

Sir. That morning Rebekah Brooks and her husband, Charlie were among

six people arrested by police on suspicion of trying to convert the

-- pervert the course of justice. The second time she was arrested

during the investigation. The head of press at the Met answered

questions to Rebekah Brooks about a police horse. He said he had to

tell the Met commissioner all about it buzz he had lunch with Rebekah

Brooks on the same day. Brooks visited the stables.

You say in paragraph 63 that you felt that this, which presumably

was Rebekah Brooks taking out the horse, could be for the care of

retired police horses. You were keen she got her horse. Is that

right? I was expressing a view that if she got a horse it might leak to

some coverage. Why did you speak to the commissioner about it, if it

with us not on the premise that she would get her horse? I spoke to the

commissioner because on the day I was due to take her there, we were

having lunch with Rebekah Wade. I thought it would be wrong for her

having been at the stables that morning have a conversation with an

officer. I thought her first line would be "We had an interesting

morning at the stables." The commissioner might be blank. I

thought he needed to be briefed. News with News International staff

continued. That was just a couple of weeks,

was it, after the arrest mf Mr Mulcaire and Mr Goodman? Yes.

Was that wise? I think looking at it now, one would question that and

one would question a series of interactions over the following

months and years. Phone hacking was not discussed at those meetings, he

said. There were questions too about the decision to let Lucy

Panton to e-mail a story to her news desk. Did you have any concern

about the ethics of that, putting to one side she was using your

machine to pass on this story? the time, I was thinking I was

helping someone who was put under, what I thought was unnecessary

pressure, if not bullying by a news desk. To help her solve the problem.

In return, from my perspective, I thought I would get sight of a

story, which I might not otherwise get sight of until Sunday morning.

It was for me to consider the impact of that on the Metropolitan

Police, if at all. Do you feel that this is an example of an error of

judgment, perhaps, which was resulting from your friendship can

Lucy Panton? I don't think from my friendship. I would consider doing

it for anybody in that set of circumstances. I accept it may have

been an error of judgment. biggest question about his judgment

was on his decision to employ this man, Neil Wallis. A former deputy

editor of the News of the World to advice the Met on PR once he left

the paper. He was later arrested and bailed. The decision has been

examined by the Independent Police Complaints commission, with

Fedorcio on leave from the Met since last year. It was John Yates

who decided not to re-open the phone hacking allegations. Not

knowing how friendly they were and how friendly they were outside of

work. Had you known what you know now about the proximity of the

relationship between Mr Yates and Mr Wallis, would you have thought

it inappropriate to hire Mr Wallis at all? You were aware there was an

issue surrounding Mr Wallis and the News of the Worldch he was the

deputy editor of the News of the World. You were aware of that,

weren't you? Yes. Did that not of itself cause warning bells to ring?

I think I need to be sure, whether in the work that was done

originally, or in this scoping work, would have been done, at the time

was there anything where Mr Wallis's name or anything that is

in that that might give a cause for concern to say they shouldn't touch

it. I didn't get that indication. On day 50, the view from other side.

The reporter whose job is it to look into the police.

I perceive it as an over reaction. It is already happening. I have

relationships with officers that the press off Fiz are trying to

stop me talking to now, for no - no decisions have been made, but this

is happening already. The officer, a senior rank, I have known for

many years, I wanted him to talk to me about a subject that he knew

very well. He had been senior investigating officer. Both cases

had concluded. He was happy to talk to me, but he said I had to ask a

press officer. I asked a press officer in an e-mail and on the

phone, she refused me access to the officer. Lord Justice Leveson said

all meetings between press and the police could be recorded. The

journalists had a warning for the judge. I think closing down

communications and only allowing information to come from one source,

is not necessarily going to reduce abuse or corruption. It could drive

it underground, drive the flow of information underground and create

a black market, if you like. So, I think we need to use the laws we

No one is suggesting you need to be confined to one source only, the

official source? Information is constantly channelled through

official sources. Police officers are scared of talking. This veteran

correspondent recalled a time after being appointed to a crime reporter

to the News of the World in 1981, when the news editor did nothing he

was doing enough, and had a suggestion. He said, you have to up

your performance. I said it is really, it really difficult. I am

struggling to make the adjustments in this difficult world and so

forth. He said to me, there is money available, you should be out

there are spending it on your contacts. I cannot remember exactly

how the dialogue float now, but I said I am sorry, what are you

suggesting? He said put some inducements out there. I said, and

right, OK. I recoiled from this but he was my boss. I went away and I

thought, did I hear this correctly? About three or four weeks later,

clearly my performance was still not satisfactory and he took me to

one side and he was quite cross with me, I suppose. He said to me,

have you taken up my suggestion, I do not see anything here, you are

not invoicing reform money to be splashed about. He said you should

be essentially bribing more police officers. A couple of weeks later

he was taken off the crime beat. There was an element in there that

had a tendency towards questionable, unethical behaviour. And that

manifested itself in a variety of ways. I think there was some

reporters who played very fast and loose with the truth. And I think

there were probably reporters there who had, not just in the world of

policing, probably had informants been paid in other areas of private

life. But it was only anecdotal evidence. And others be on German -

- journalism were not playing by the rules either. A pernicious

influence on some journalists were a small number of former police

officers, some of whom I would have to say had excellent sense of what

was news and what wasn't, better than some journalists I think in

some cases. They realised they were exploitable. As X's police officers

-- as ex-police officers they could legitimately be paid for

information and there was always a suspicion, nothing was ever proven,

they were receiving information from certain police officers,

brokering that information to certain journalists and

organisations and sharing the profits. On day 51, the story of

one of the most controversial murder investigations which when

reopened led to the conviction of two men. The Daily Mail named on

its front page the five men it said had murdered Stephen Laurence and

invited them to sue them if it thought it got its facts wrong. But

the officer in charge of the later inquiry, it was Daily Mail reporter,

Stephen Wright, who published 10 years on, details of a secret

meeting between the Met, Stephen Laurence's mother and investigators

on the case. I have nothing respect for Mr Right and no one has tried

harder, no organisation has tried to bring justice to Stephen's

parents. But we were getting there. It was undermining that inquiry.

After suspects arrested in the inquiry, the senior investigating

officer said one potential witness asked him to keep his name and

address secret from a senior member of the Met's staff, he claimed it

was rumoured to have a corrupt relationship with the media.

contact him bided information astute to keep his name and address

a secret because they were frightened of what the defendants

would do after they had been arrested. This was during the

period before November 2011? It was January I was contacted and that

was when he asked me to keep his name with the senior member of the

Met. The contacts said it was well known in Fleet Street that this

person, the senior person briefed outside official meetings and late

is added a more serious allegation? Correct. Neither the contact or the

police officer was named. But its findings were reported to the

Independent Police Complaints Commission and an investigation

into illegal payments by the media to public officials. We have heard

about expensive lunches shared by journalist and police. The crime

reporter of the Sun poured cold water on that report of high living.

There have been reports of long lunches and reporters, journalists

entertaining lavishly, bottles of champagne. My experience actually,

is those lunches and dinners become an increasing rarity over the last

few years. And that is perhaps Phoebe Street sobered up or perhaps

the police became more professional with alcohol taken during working

hours. He found himself at odds with the Met's lawyer over an

accusation the Met kept track of which reporters most the Rick --

wrote the most friendly pieces. I suggest the Met graded

journalists according how favourable stories are towards the

Met. Can you give us an indication as to how you think you know that?

I cannot tell you who told me, but they may not be such a system now,

but I can tell you I was reliably informs about three to four years

ago, could be five years ago that there was such a system. Could it

be possible EU and your source could be confusing and arrangements

did detect policing themes in the media, although even that did not

isolate journalists? I am quite confident of what I said is correct.

Eight Daily Mail executive, formerly a long-serving crime

Correspondent, described the pressures he and his colleagues

were under. As crime reporters we act ethically, but we are soon out

of work if we rely on press releases. At Stowe about the story

had this undermined the Stephen Laurence investigation, he said he

warned Scotland Yard about it in advance and had been told not to

run it. He was asked if he were shocked by the concern expressed by

the police officer? There was shock in the sense that I would disagree

personally that that article would jeopardise the police investigation.

Then, the former legal manager of the Times, Alastair Brett who had

one of the paper's then reporters coming to him admitting to gaining

unauthorised access to an anonymous e-mail account. On that allow the

reporter, Patrick Foster, to unearth the identity. But the

policeman's lawyers went to court to protect his identity. Only after

getting into the e-mail did Foster go about really obtaining the

policeman's name through publicly available information. The court in

considering to protect the policeman's identity was not told

about e-mail hacking. And there were sharp questions about whether

Foster's statement in the case gave a full picture on discovering the

policeman's name. I began to systematically and running the

details of the articles through the database of newspaper articles

collected around the country. I could not find any real life

examples. That suggests that is where he started and that is how he

has gone about it, doesn't it? suggests he has done precisely that,

yes. And that is how he has gone about it? Yes. That is not accurate,

is it? It is not entirely accurate, know. Paragraph 15. Sorry, I have

started now. Because of the startling similarities between the

posts and the case detail in the newspaper reports, I began to work

under the assumption... I began to work under the assumptions. Same

question, that simply isn't accurate is it? I know we are being

fantastically precise. I am being precise because this is a statement

been submitted to a court, we do not want me to be precise?

course I would want you to be precise. It is not a full story.

spokesman for the Times and News International says his testimony

was a painful reminder in which the conduct of the paper failed to meet

its own standards. Lord Justice leathers and won't get the full