Episode 18 The Phone Hacking Inquiry

scrutiny. Our Political Correspondent, Ross Hawkins reports.

I guarantee everybody in this room has - it is the way of the world.

Time to call in all the bottles of champagne. It becomes difficult to

see whether this inquiry can go. -- where this inquiry can go. These

were the events that through the immense into turmoil, that saw the

records nation of the assistant commissioner and the most senior

police officer in the country, the Commissioner himself. The outgoing

commissioner explained at the centre was a former police -- paper

man. In particular in relation to Mr Neil Wallis. Neil Wallis had

been the deputy editor of 'News of the World'. After he left, they

hired him to advise on public relations. Its bite the crisis he

was meant to held off. He was close to high ranking officers, they did

not just take his calls, go to dinner with him, they listen to his

advice when they were applying for a job of Commissioner itself. As

Neil Wallis explained, on day 59, - - he was a copper's copper, a man

of action. Stephen's got the commission has a job. What happened

was, this was a guy who was going for it. I getting some input. He

succeeded. I thought, happy days, because this has worked out all

right and hopefully, they will be a better moving forward way for the

media and the Metropolitan Police. That benefited my in newspaper so

it was good all round. When Sir Paul Stephenson was preparing his

application, Wallace was at hand again. Did she give him any advice

in relation to his campaign to become Commissioner? I basically

reverted to all my previous answers. If we were together and the subject

came up, I would tell him my view. Not all of his relationship with

police officers went well. With Lord Blair, things were cool.

put it bluntly, you did not get on? I did not not get on other than he

was a man who decided... He took a different view from John Stephenson.

He was not interest in the views or advisers of the tabloid press. He

was a cerebral man, he saw himself as someone who did not want to

pursue those contacts. He was a very, very bad communicator. How

can I put it... It was no surprise to many people when his career at

ended as it did. In the wake of the terror attacks on London in 2005,

Blair said out a reporter and an executive to do an interview. What

Blair had to say about the killing of police of an innocent man, came

as no surprise. I remember him at ringing me on the back bench. That

is where we sat as we edited. Saying you will never believe what

he has just said about the moment he was told that the man was

innocent. He said he described it as, when they told him, Ian Blair

said, it was like, Houston we have a problem a moment. It was a

wonderful example of his ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of

victory. He had absolutely no work to do on this but his arrogance and

his muse, as it were, Ricard in that sort of phrase over the

killing -- regarding that sort of phrase over the killing of an

innocent man, Houston, we have a problem. We are journalists, and we

used that as a headline and it did not go down too well. He was not

short of enemies in the press. joined in as best we can because we

do not like to be left out. The decision to fire in bled by Boris

Johnson, with the acquiescence of the government at the time, was not

driven by the tabloid press and all. Not every exchange was as

straightforward as that one. Robert Jay tried to find out more about

the hospitality offered to two former Commission assistant

commissioners. And did you ever by a champagne for Mr Hague or Andy

Hayman? I do not like can -- campaign. They may have done.

to my knowledge. Not to your college. I prefer a dry white wine.

What ever their preferred a drink, there was a fundamental question

here, was there anything wrong in a journalist having dinner with

senior police officers. They were experience people after all. John

Stephenson's is an officer who worked for 30 odd years with the

police. He lived his life, 20 years, as a target for I arrest

assassination as he carried out the inquiries. He was the gang Buster

in North Korea, he bus corruption in the Met. The suggestion that

this man of integrity of experience of immense crime fighting ability

is going to be seduced by mean taking him down for curries and

open a nice bottle of wine, I just cannot begin to see where this

comes from. All I'm saying is, have you ever had a working lunch, have

you ever had a working lunch with somebody more than once? And he

never had a drink? And you may have not, but I guarantee everybody in

this room has. It is the way of the world. I am not suggesting and I

will not accept the idea that me going for dinner with a police

officer is any different from a civil servant going for dinner with

a businessman. I see no difference in it at all. I might be wrong.

am not sure you are wrong. I am certain I am not. It was a witness

not clearly bound and at times tempers frayed. I am not asking you

what journalist should be doing I'm asking you what the police should

be doing. Not everything is indeed in the hospitality register. We

know a lot more about your friendship with senior police

officers then transpired in the hospitality register, don't we?

we? All right. We will take a break. While tolerance was stretched

further as on this subject of his daughter. She got a job in

administration in the Met. You are putting her... She is trying to

build a career and her name is constantly being poured into the

public domain. Over something the IPCC has said she has done nothing

wrong whatsoever. I did nothing wrong whatsoever. John Yates did

nothing wrong whatsoever. So, why is it ask in this pejorative way

yet again. I apologise if I feel brought about how my daughter is

treated but I am a bit like there, I guess. No evidence of misconduct

to justified disciplinary proceedings against Mr Yates. That

did not see at the inquiry away from the top be. The Lord Justice

latest debt Dean. I quite understand your concern about your

daughter. I sympathise with you very much in that regard. I also

regret the app said that it may have caused to her -- the upset. Do

you think that we ought to be paying more attention to the

privacy rights of individuals than once we did? I get you. I

understand. There was no less passion in the written statement

published by the inquiry with former top clubs battling over the

past. John Yates's handling of investigations was looked that.

Yates refuse, telling him he was very well connected. Yates denied

making that common and had not obstructed the inquiries. It was

quick who was responsible for an investigation that saw David Greene

arrested. He said Sir Paul Stephenson had drafted a

resignation letter at the time. In his written statement, Stephenson

denied that and that an investigation would have benefit

from less haste and more reflection. On day 60, the former editor of

'News of the World', arrested over Operation Elveden. It was agreed

she would not be asked with anything to do with that in said

they broke a career that saw her make close contact with people at

the top of the Met. You had a Mr Yates at the wedding but why you

describe of your relationship with him, professionally, does not seem

to me to fit in with, let's have him at the wedding. They may be a

good reason, there are two people in the wedding and maybe that is

the reason and that is fine. But you can understand why we are

asking about the nature of the relationship in order to get to

whether it has impacted on matters which concern the inquiry. There

were a few people at my wedding who I would class as a working friends,

who I did not socialise with outside work and Mr Yates falls

into that category. I got on well with him, I had a good rapport with

him, but we did not socialise outside of work. Senior officers

Mike Yates and Andy Hayman gave a back row information but... They

were not forthcoming. I did not spend a lot of time with them. They

were used force for Strategic and overviews but to get stories 'News

of the World' where interested in, you would have to go to court and

listen to these cases and try and The head of the mat made him useful

when he let her Viola story. Were you under pressure to file the

story? Yes. In the old days, people used to knock on doors to use

telephones when they were under pressure. On this occasion,

journalist instinct took over when they did what it took to get the

news desk of my back. There was more pressure when she got any mail

from the newsdesk, pushing for her to make the best offer contact with

Yates. We need an exclusive splash lines had time to call in all those

bottles of champagne? No use saying that that was light-hearted banter?

-- are you saying? It wasn't light hearted, he was putting pressure on

me to get a story. But I would call it bent of. That's how we spoke to

each other in the office. I would read that at that time as bent it

mixed with a bit of pressure. -- Benton. And thus the bottles of

champagne were going to everywhere. There were no bottles of champagne.

She did not even get to speak to Yates. She wondered if other

reporters weren't enjoying more expensive meals than those on the

crime beat. The Justice Levison suggest that the habits may come

under scrutiny. I don't think, on the hall, that crime reporters have

been over the top in seeing people in specialist field. In a dining

sense. I think if you went to any specialist journalist thing, you

would find paparazzi a lot more. They would be meeting with MPs. I'm

sure they would be much more frequent. We might turn on to that.

There will be plenty of politics here before too long. The next

model of this inquiry will examine the relationship between press and

politicians. It will feature some well-known names. Among them will

be the former News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks,

arrested as part of the operation. She has asked for core participants

status, that would give her early sight of witness statements. Rupert

Murdoch and James Murdoch are also expected to appear. The hearings

will be over at the end of July. Lord Justice Leveson would be

apportioning blame to individuals or firms, but the lawyers turn to

the delicate issue of what exactly he might or might not be allowed to

conclude. It is not even... Did the supervisor know perfectly well that

all sorts o all sorts o going into his or her title were the product of

intercept? It could do very well be it was well known that Tories were

being obtained -- that stories were being obtained as a result of

intercept. Whether or not they were responsible personally for the

intercept, or whether or not they had authorised it, or it was in

their title. Some lawyers have reservations about how much detail

the inquiry Prix could -- could use at any critical conclusions.

Reservations that were debated with feeling by Lord Justice Leveson.

Once you accept that I can criticise the press, I have to

identify the evidential basis. People have spoken about

individuals and titles. Now I have not... I have made it clear that I

will not criticise individuals by name. But how otherwise must they

do it? It seems to me that the effect of what I'm saying is that I

can't do anything. That is the quandary that the terms of

reference have created for you. At the moment, evidence is permitted

challenging the propriety of the conduct of individuals. It raises a

problem which is not about fairness in that the allegations were

published under the protection of absolute privilege. But it has

prevented them from, by reason of the inquisitorial nature of the

process, from being able to refute them in the way in which they would

have been able if this had been an adversary will process. There was

another debate with a lawyer. used suggesting that I cannot say

anything about anybody because at some stage the police may get

around to thinking about what they have said in the tribunal and may

decide to prosecute them for some offence purely based upon what they

have said in this tribunal? What has been submitted is that the

inquiry should strive not to make any findings that somebody falsely

denied they had knowledge of conduct. That person may be a

witness in future criminal prosecutions. They may be a

defendant in the future. A public finding as to their credibility is

something that carries with it are a risk and I put it no higher than

that. A risk of interfering with article 6 right. For the reasons

given in the case. Public statements by authorities should be

done with discretion and circumspection. None of which

impressed the victims barrister. With the greatest respect, the

submission to have heard belong in Alice in Wonderland territory. If

the inquiry reaches conclusions that it was well known that these

unlawful improper practices were taken place, all that those who

denied knowledge did so falsely, these are conclusions which can and

should be fully addressed in the report. The judge had not reached

any conclusions. This was all lawyers discussing theories and

possibilities. It had potentially serious implications. It may be

that I will have to have that -- I will have to add to the list of

issues in the future what I can publish in a report. But... If the

effect of some or all the submissions that I have received

means that I can't make any criticisms at all... However

framed... Then it... It becomes quite difficult to see where this

inquiry can grow up. On day 61, the barrister who prosecuted a News Of

the World reporter for phone hacking said via video link that

police told him there was no evidence about any of the other

journalists. I was concerned to discover whether it is went further

then just the particular individuals with which we were

concerned and I think I was conscious in my own mind to that

the question had to beat weather it was a journalist to the extent of

the editor. What answer did you receive from the police officers to

the question you put? We were informed that there was no research

evidence. In 2009 the Director of Public Prosecutions sought the four

level e-mail, he thought it suggested there might be other

phone hacking suspects and the police needed to do more work.

Yates disagreed. There was a degree of push back against my suggestion

that there should be a re- investigation off of the e-mail. To

the best of my recollection, Yates said it was not new, it had been

seen before. And I took from that that he did not consider at that

stage there was any point in investigating the e-mail. In the

end, he pushed for a full review. He got his way. The CPS we examined

the evidence. The police opened new investigations. Lord Justice

Leveson wound up Europe for a year. The question four of them,