:00:07. > :00:14.scrutiny. Our Political Correspondent, Ross Hawkins reports.
:00:14. > :00:19.I guarantee everybody in this room has - it is the way of the world.
:00:20. > :00:28.Time to call in all the bottles of champagne. It becomes difficult to
:00:28. > :00:33.see whether this inquiry can go. -- where this inquiry can go. These
:00:33. > :00:38.were the events that through the immense into turmoil, that saw the
:00:38. > :00:44.records nation of the assistant commissioner and the most senior
:00:44. > :00:49.police officer in the country, the Commissioner himself. The outgoing
:00:49. > :00:59.commissioner explained at the centre was a former police -- paper
:00:59. > :01:03.
:01:03. > :01:09.man. In particular in relation to Mr Neil Wallis. Neil Wallis had
:01:09. > :01:14.been the deputy editor of 'News of the World'. After he left, they
:01:14. > :01:21.hired him to advise on public relations. Its bite the crisis he
:01:21. > :01:26.was meant to held off. He was close to high ranking officers, they did
:01:26. > :01:32.not just take his calls, go to dinner with him, they listen to his
:01:32. > :01:42.advice when they were applying for a job of Commissioner itself. As
:01:42. > :01:43.
:01:43. > :01:50.Neil Wallis explained, on day 59, - - he was a copper's copper, a man
:01:50. > :01:56.of action. Stephen's got the commission has a job. What happened
:01:56. > :02:01.was, this was a guy who was going for it. I getting some input. He
:02:01. > :02:11.succeeded. I thought, happy days, because this has worked out all
:02:11. > :02:14.right and hopefully, they will be a better moving forward way for the
:02:15. > :02:21.media and the Metropolitan Police. That benefited my in newspaper so
:02:21. > :02:26.it was good all round. When Sir Paul Stephenson was preparing his
:02:26. > :02:32.application, Wallace was at hand again. Did she give him any advice
:02:32. > :02:36.in relation to his campaign to become Commissioner? I basically
:02:37. > :02:42.reverted to all my previous answers. If we were together and the subject
:02:43. > :02:48.came up, I would tell him my view. Not all of his relationship with
:02:48. > :02:57.police officers went well. With Lord Blair, things were cool.
:02:57. > :03:06.put it bluntly, you did not get on? I did not not get on other than he
:03:06. > :03:12.was a man who decided... He took a different view from John Stephenson.
:03:12. > :03:18.He was not interest in the views or advisers of the tabloid press. He
:03:18. > :03:28.was a cerebral man, he saw himself as someone who did not want to
:03:28. > :03:29.
:03:29. > :03:36.pursue those contacts. He was a very, very bad communicator. How
:03:36. > :03:45.can I put it... It was no surprise to many people when his career at
:03:45. > :03:51.ended as it did. In the wake of the terror attacks on London in 2005,
:03:51. > :03:57.Blair said out a reporter and an executive to do an interview. What
:03:57. > :04:04.Blair had to say about the killing of police of an innocent man, came
:04:04. > :04:11.as no surprise. I remember him at ringing me on the back bench. That
:04:11. > :04:17.is where we sat as we edited. Saying you will never believe what
:04:17. > :04:24.he has just said about the moment he was told that the man was
:04:24. > :04:31.innocent. He said he described it as, when they told him, Ian Blair
:04:31. > :04:35.said, it was like, Houston we have a problem a moment. It was a
:04:35. > :04:43.wonderful example of his ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of
:04:43. > :04:51.victory. He had absolutely no work to do on this but his arrogance and
:04:51. > :04:54.his muse, as it were, Ricard in that sort of phrase over the
:04:54. > :05:00.killing -- regarding that sort of phrase over the killing of an
:05:00. > :05:05.innocent man, Houston, we have a problem. We are journalists, and we
:05:06. > :05:12.used that as a headline and it did not go down too well. He was not
:05:12. > :05:22.short of enemies in the press. joined in as best we can because we
:05:22. > :05:26.do not like to be left out. The decision to fire in bled by Boris
:05:26. > :05:30.Johnson, with the acquiescence of the government at the time, was not
:05:30. > :05:36.driven by the tabloid press and all. Not every exchange was as
:05:36. > :05:41.straightforward as that one. Robert Jay tried to find out more about
:05:41. > :05:46.the hospitality offered to two former Commission assistant
:05:46. > :05:54.commissioners. And did you ever by a champagne for Mr Hague or Andy
:05:54. > :06:01.Hayman? I do not like can -- campaign. They may have done.
:06:02. > :06:06.to my knowledge. Not to your college. I prefer a dry white wine.
:06:06. > :06:11.What ever their preferred a drink, there was a fundamental question
:06:11. > :06:17.here, was there anything wrong in a journalist having dinner with
:06:17. > :06:21.senior police officers. They were experience people after all. John
:06:21. > :06:28.Stephenson's is an officer who worked for 30 odd years with the
:06:28. > :06:34.police. He lived his life, 20 years, as a target for I arrest
:06:34. > :06:41.assassination as he carried out the inquiries. He was the gang Buster
:06:41. > :06:48.in North Korea, he bus corruption in the Met. The suggestion that
:06:48. > :06:53.this man of integrity of experience of immense crime fighting ability
:06:53. > :06:57.is going to be seduced by mean taking him down for curries and
:06:57. > :07:05.open a nice bottle of wine, I just cannot begin to see where this
:07:05. > :07:10.comes from. All I'm saying is, have you ever had a working lunch, have
:07:10. > :07:15.you ever had a working lunch with somebody more than once? And he
:07:15. > :07:21.never had a drink? And you may have not, but I guarantee everybody in
:07:21. > :07:25.this room has. It is the way of the world. I am not suggesting and I
:07:25. > :07:32.will not accept the idea that me going for dinner with a police
:07:32. > :07:39.officer is any different from a civil servant going for dinner with
:07:39. > :07:46.a businessman. I see no difference in it at all. I might be wrong.
:07:46. > :07:52.am not sure you are wrong. I am certain I am not. It was a witness
:07:52. > :07:56.not clearly bound and at times tempers frayed. I am not asking you
:07:56. > :08:03.what journalist should be doing I'm asking you what the police should
:08:04. > :08:10.be doing. Not everything is indeed in the hospitality register. We
:08:10. > :08:14.know a lot more about your friendship with senior police
:08:14. > :08:22.officers then transpired in the hospitality register, don't we?
:08:22. > :08:31.we? All right. We will take a break. While tolerance was stretched
:08:31. > :08:36.further as on this subject of his daughter. She got a job in
:08:36. > :08:40.administration in the Met. You are putting her... She is trying to
:08:40. > :08:45.build a career and her name is constantly being poured into the
:08:45. > :08:49.public domain. Over something the IPCC has said she has done nothing
:08:49. > :08:57.wrong whatsoever. I did nothing wrong whatsoever. John Yates did
:08:57. > :09:01.nothing wrong whatsoever. So, why is it ask in this pejorative way
:09:01. > :09:11.yet again. I apologise if I feel brought about how my daughter is
:09:11. > :09:14.treated but I am a bit like there, I guess. No evidence of misconduct
:09:14. > :09:21.to justified disciplinary proceedings against Mr Yates. That
:09:21. > :09:28.did not see at the inquiry away from the top be. The Lord Justice
:09:28. > :09:38.latest debt Dean. I quite understand your concern about your
:09:38. > :09:38.
:09:38. > :09:48.daughter. I sympathise with you very much in that regard. I also
:09:48. > :09:57.regret the app said that it may have caused to her -- the upset. Do
:09:57. > :10:07.you think that we ought to be paying more attention to the
:10:07. > :10:09.
:10:09. > :10:16.privacy rights of individuals than once we did? I get you. I
:10:16. > :10:20.understand. There was no less passion in the written statement
:10:20. > :10:29.published by the inquiry with former top clubs battling over the
:10:29. > :10:34.past. John Yates's handling of investigations was looked that.
:10:35. > :10:41.Yates refuse, telling him he was very well connected. Yates denied
:10:41. > :10:45.making that common and had not obstructed the inquiries. It was
:10:45. > :10:49.quick who was responsible for an investigation that saw David Greene
:10:49. > :10:55.arrested. He said Sir Paul Stephenson had drafted a
:10:55. > :10:59.resignation letter at the time. In his written statement, Stephenson
:10:59. > :11:05.denied that and that an investigation would have benefit
:11:05. > :11:10.from less haste and more reflection. On day 60, the former editor of
:11:10. > :11:17.'News of the World', arrested over Operation Elveden. It was agreed
:11:17. > :11:21.she would not be asked with anything to do with that in said
:11:21. > :11:29.they broke a career that saw her make close contact with people at
:11:29. > :11:32.the top of the Met. You had a Mr Yates at the wedding but why you
:11:32. > :11:39.describe of your relationship with him, professionally, does not seem
:11:39. > :11:44.to me to fit in with, let's have him at the wedding. They may be a
:11:44. > :11:54.good reason, there are two people in the wedding and maybe that is
:11:54. > :11:56.
:11:56. > :12:01.the reason and that is fine. But you can understand why we are
:12:01. > :12:07.asking about the nature of the relationship in order to get to
:12:07. > :12:14.whether it has impacted on matters which concern the inquiry. There
:12:14. > :12:17.were a few people at my wedding who I would class as a working friends,
:12:17. > :12:22.who I did not socialise with outside work and Mr Yates falls
:12:22. > :12:28.into that category. I got on well with him, I had a good rapport with
:12:28. > :12:35.him, but we did not socialise outside of work. Senior officers
:12:35. > :12:42.Mike Yates and Andy Hayman gave a back row information but... They
:12:42. > :12:47.were not forthcoming. I did not spend a lot of time with them. They
:12:47. > :12:50.were used force for Strategic and overviews but to get stories 'News
:12:50. > :13:00.of the World' where interested in, you would have to go to court and
:13:00. > :13:04.
:13:04. > :13:09.listen to these cases and try and The head of the mat made him useful
:13:09. > :13:19.when he let her Viola story. Were you under pressure to file the
:13:19. > :13:21.
:13:21. > :13:28.story? Yes. In the old days, people used to knock on doors to use
:13:28. > :13:35.telephones when they were under pressure. On this occasion,
:13:35. > :13:39.journalist instinct took over when they did what it took to get the
:13:39. > :13:43.news desk of my back. There was more pressure when she got any mail
:13:43. > :13:49.from the newsdesk, pushing for her to make the best offer contact with
:13:49. > :13:55.Yates. We need an exclusive splash lines had time to call in all those
:13:55. > :14:01.bottles of champagne? No use saying that that was light-hearted banter?
:14:01. > :14:06.-- are you saying? It wasn't light hearted, he was putting pressure on
:14:06. > :14:13.me to get a story. But I would call it bent of. That's how we spoke to
:14:13. > :14:21.each other in the office. I would read that at that time as bent it
:14:21. > :14:27.mixed with a bit of pressure. -- Benton. And thus the bottles of
:14:27. > :14:32.champagne were going to everywhere. There were no bottles of champagne.
:14:32. > :14:35.She did not even get to speak to Yates. She wondered if other
:14:35. > :14:40.reporters weren't enjoying more expensive meals than those on the
:14:40. > :14:46.crime beat. The Justice Levison suggest that the habits may come
:14:46. > :14:52.under scrutiny. I don't think, on the hall, that crime reporters have
:14:52. > :15:00.been over the top in seeing people in specialist field. In a dining
:15:00. > :15:07.sense. I think if you went to any specialist journalist thing, you
:15:07. > :15:17.would find paparazzi a lot more. They would be meeting with MPs. I'm
:15:17. > :15:19.
:15:19. > :15:22.sure they would be much more frequent. We might turn on to that.
:15:22. > :15:26.There will be plenty of politics here before too long. The next
:15:26. > :15:33.model of this inquiry will examine the relationship between press and
:15:33. > :15:36.politicians. It will feature some well-known names. Among them will
:15:37. > :15:41.be the former News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks,
:15:41. > :15:47.arrested as part of the operation. She has asked for core participants
:15:47. > :15:51.status, that would give her early sight of witness statements. Rupert
:15:51. > :15:55.Murdoch and James Murdoch are also expected to appear. The hearings
:15:55. > :16:00.will be over at the end of July. Lord Justice Leveson would be
:16:00. > :16:04.apportioning blame to individuals or firms, but the lawyers turn to
:16:04. > :16:14.the delicate issue of what exactly he might or might not be allowed to
:16:14. > :16:19.
:16:19. > :16:27.conclude. It is not even... Did the supervisor know perfectly well that
:16:27. > :16:37.all sorts o all sorts o going into his or her title were the product of
:16:37. > :16:43.intercept? It could do very well be it was well known that Tories were
:16:43. > :16:48.being obtained -- that stories were being obtained as a result of
:16:48. > :16:53.intercept. Whether or not they were responsible personally for the
:16:53. > :16:59.intercept, or whether or not they had authorised it, or it was in
:16:59. > :17:04.their title. Some lawyers have reservations about how much detail
:17:04. > :17:09.the inquiry Prix could -- could use at any critical conclusions.
:17:09. > :17:13.Reservations that were debated with feeling by Lord Justice Leveson.
:17:13. > :17:19.Once you accept that I can criticise the press, I have to
:17:19. > :17:25.identify the evidential basis. People have spoken about
:17:25. > :17:30.individuals and titles. Now I have not... I have made it clear that I
:17:30. > :17:33.will not criticise individuals by name. But how otherwise must they
:17:33. > :17:38.do it? It seems to me that the effect of what I'm saying is that I
:17:38. > :17:46.can't do anything. That is the quandary that the terms of
:17:46. > :17:53.reference have created for you. At the moment, evidence is permitted
:17:53. > :18:00.challenging the propriety of the conduct of individuals. It raises a
:18:00. > :18:06.problem which is not about fairness in that the allegations were
:18:06. > :18:11.published under the protection of absolute privilege. But it has
:18:11. > :18:15.prevented them from, by reason of the inquisitorial nature of the
:18:16. > :18:21.process, from being able to refute them in the way in which they would
:18:21. > :18:28.have been able if this had been an adversary will process. There was
:18:28. > :18:35.another debate with a lawyer. used suggesting that I cannot say
:18:35. > :18:39.anything about anybody because at some stage the police may get
:18:40. > :18:44.around to thinking about what they have said in the tribunal and may
:18:45. > :18:52.decide to prosecute them for some offence purely based upon what they
:18:52. > :19:00.have said in this tribunal? What has been submitted is that the
:19:00. > :19:07.inquiry should strive not to make any findings that somebody falsely
:19:07. > :19:11.denied they had knowledge of conduct. That person may be a
:19:11. > :19:17.witness in future criminal prosecutions. They may be a
:19:17. > :19:22.defendant in the future. A public finding as to their credibility is
:19:22. > :19:28.something that carries with it are a risk and I put it no higher than
:19:28. > :19:36.that. A risk of interfering with article 6 right. For the reasons
:19:36. > :19:41.given in the case. Public statements by authorities should be
:19:41. > :19:45.done with discretion and circumspection. None of which
:19:45. > :19:50.impressed the victims barrister. With the greatest respect, the
:19:50. > :19:56.submission to have heard belong in Alice in Wonderland territory. If
:19:56. > :20:00.the inquiry reaches conclusions that it was well known that these
:20:00. > :20:06.unlawful improper practices were taken place, all that those who
:20:06. > :20:11.denied knowledge did so falsely, these are conclusions which can and
:20:11. > :20:15.should be fully addressed in the report. The judge had not reached
:20:15. > :20:21.any conclusions. This was all lawyers discussing theories and
:20:21. > :20:28.possibilities. It had potentially serious implications. It may be
:20:28. > :20:38.that I will have to have that -- I will have to add to the list of
:20:38. > :20:48.
:20:48. > :20:52.issues in the future what I can publish in a report. But... If the
:20:52. > :20:58.effect of some or all the submissions that I have received
:20:58. > :21:08.means that I can't make any criticisms at all... However
:21:08. > :21:14.
:21:14. > :21:21.framed... Then it... It becomes quite difficult to see where this
:21:21. > :21:26.inquiry can grow up. On day 61, the barrister who prosecuted a News Of
:21:26. > :21:31.the World reporter for phone hacking said via video link that
:21:32. > :21:41.police told him there was no evidence about any of the other
:21:42. > :21:43.
:21:43. > :21:48.journalists. I was concerned to discover whether it is went further
:21:48. > :21:58.then just the particular individuals with which we were
:21:58. > :22:03.concerned and I think I was conscious in my own mind to that
:22:03. > :22:10.the question had to beat weather it was a journalist to the extent of
:22:10. > :22:20.the editor. What answer did you receive from the police officers to
:22:20. > :22:21.
:22:21. > :22:28.the question you put? We were informed that there was no research
:22:28. > :22:32.evidence. In 2009 the Director of Public Prosecutions sought the four
:22:32. > :22:36.level e-mail, he thought it suggested there might be other
:22:36. > :22:42.phone hacking suspects and the police needed to do more work.
:22:42. > :22:48.Yates disagreed. There was a degree of push back against my suggestion
:22:48. > :22:55.that there should be a re- investigation off of the e-mail. To
:22:55. > :23:01.the best of my recollection, Yates said it was not new, it had been
:23:01. > :23:07.seen before. And I took from that that he did not consider at that
:23:07. > :23:13.stage there was any point in investigating the e-mail. In the
:23:13. > :23:18.end, he pushed for a full review. He got his way. The CPS we examined
:23:18. > :23:23.the evidence. The police opened new investigations. Lord Justice
:23:23. > :23:27.Leveson wound up Europe for a year. The question four of them,