Where Now For The Motorman Files?

Another piece by a regular contributor speculating on the future for the Operation Motorman files:

The latest Ruling given by Lord Justice Leveson is his THIRD on Operation Motorman - it just won't go away.  (For more on the genesis of Operation Motorman, see here) 

The 1st Ruling on Op Motorman was dated 2nd Dec '11, and set out conditions of confidentiality and security imposed on Core Participants' access to electronic spreadsheet copies of the 'Motorman Files'.  The same day, Leveson held private hearings to address concerns from Core Participants on the assumptions the Inquiry could agree regarding the Motorman Files as evidence of wrongdoing.

The 2nd Motorman Ruling was 11th June '12. It addressed arguments on the validity for the Inquiry of releasing the names of the commissioning journalists to ascertain if their employers had subsequently reprimanded, disciplined or alternatively rewarded them with promotion. Leveson resolved that counsel for victims could present evidence from the Motorman Files only for those journalists still continuously employed. this restricted release of Motorman evidence would be names-redacted  for the public domain. Leveson proved loathe to publicise journalists' names as, he said, "I did not intend to prejudice the ongoing criminal investigation".

The 3rd Ruling, dated 11th July '12, specifically concerns Associated Newspapers submissions which challenge Leveson's assumed acknowledgement of prima facie illegalities contained in the Motorman Files. Lord Justice Leveson has, as a consequence, said that he is now prepared to make public Motorman data relating to Associated in order to resolve the contended issues.  There may be Public hearings in August for the Inquiry to deal with this sticky subject.  (For analysis, see here)

A trawl back shows that Motorman has dominated a great deal of Inquiry witness evidence, legal submission and opening statements in every Module.  Throughout, newspaper groups whose journalists are named in the Motorman Files have argued that the evidence so old, dating back to 2000-03, and could not possibly have any relevance to the current Inquiry.  Yet the Motorman Files contain, for example, evidence that Whittamore was commissioned to target the phone numbers of family members of Milly Dowler, in 2002.  Operation Baronet is the investigation into the in/actions of Surrey Police officers who, in 2002, were aware of interceptions of Milly Dowler's voicemail by the News of the World.  Glenn MULCAIRE's hacking activities for News of the World date back at least as far as 2002 if not earlier. Obviously the length of time that has passed has not precluded other police enquiries.

And wait up a minute..... what was that again? in the 2nd Motorman Ruling? Leveson saying he did not want to "prejudice the ongoing criminal investigation"? Why would he say that specifically in relation to OPERATION MOTORMAN?  Might it be that Motorman is being re-examined?  So many questions, so many loose ends...

One interesting aspect which might be worth some speculation is what has happened since Operation Motorman.  It certainly is remarkable how several 'enquiry agents'  quietly resumed working for national titles following conviction - remaining loyally silent and not implicating newspapers who commissioned them. 

Whittamore's associate John BOYALL's  premises (Data Research) were also reported as raided for evidence by Operation Motorman. 'Data Research Ltd' is dormant but still in existence, based in Surrey, but BOYALL is not listed as director - Christopher DEWSE is, another 'enquiry agent' named in the Motorman Files.

BOYALL is listed as director of 8 different companies, including the very similarly-named 'L.R.I. Research Limited', 'Legal Resource and Intelligence Research Limited' and 'Liberty Resources and Intelligent Research Limited'.

For more on evasive legal strategies of business name-changes and Jonathan REES, see 'Southern Investigations: What's in a Name?'

Glenn MULCAIRE was re-employed by News International after his release from prison, even though Mulcaire's company 'Nine Consultancy Ltd' had been dissolved in Feb '06. But Mulcaire (aka 'Alexander', aka 'Paul Williams') had another company called 'Nine Consultancy UK Ltd' too, not dissolved until 2007.

Yet another Mulcaire company 'Eight Consultancy UK Ltd' (Company No. 06280986) wasn't dissolved until 2009. Presumably, this was the conduit for his invoicing.

'JJ Services' is obscured amongst similar names in the Companies House database. However, within a month after the Operation Motorman raid, Whittamore's wife Georgina (resident at an address in Surrey) incorporated a business called 'JJ Information Ltd'. It is therefore possible that it was this new company that was open for business as usual and still used by Express titles as late as 2010.  Associated Newspapers continued to use Whittamore, according to Paul Dacre's witness evidence to the Inquiry (p 49): "But you know in 2007 we brought the shutters down and banned absolutely the use of all these -- of Whittamore enquiry agencies."  Note the plural.

So, how far has Motorman information been circulated? How much is already in the public domain? Well, a surprising amount...

The ICO have released relevant documentation to selected victims of Glenn Mulcaire's phone hacking, eg Gordon Taylor.

A Freedom of Information request made by Tom Watson MP in Feb 2010 brought some informative (though heavily redacted), searchable material into public scrutiny including the kinds of information targeted, such as criminal records checks, vehicle, friends & family numbers. 

The ICO says the Motorman Files were also used in "the Southampton prosecutions" (anybody..?), and were inspected by the Chair of the Culture, Media & Sport Select Committee.

Alex Owens, former Senior Investigating Officer of Operation Motorman, provided the Leveson Inquiry with the full Motorman Files.

Core Participants have been provided with copies of Alex Owens' Motorman Files data, under strict conditions of confidentiality.

Guido Fawkes leaked a partially redacted version of the Motorman Blue Book on his blog (servers located outside of UK).

Several news organisations have had access to the full unredacted Motorman Files, resulting in reports eg The Guardian, The Independent, and ITV.

The Leveson Inquiry has required the ICO to hand over the original Motorman Files in their hard copy form.

Leveson's 1st Ruling also reveals another striking recipient of the Motorman Files: 

I also make it clear that I understand that the Metropolitan Police have been provided with copies of these documents by the Information Commissioner for the purposes of their inquiries.

Maybe 63yr old Steve Whittamore (Director ID : 908886016 Year of Birth: 1949, wife resident in Surrey) might have additional information of interest to the Metropolitan Police Service? Perhaps the Met indeed want the Motorman Files to assist  live investigations?  Might the Met be thinking of interviewing more journalists,and perhaps this explains their extending of interest further than just News International titles? Using information NOT provided by News Corporation's Management and Standards Committee? 

How much longer before the Operation Motorman dam bursts?

So many questions, so many loose ends...

You can contact the author on Twitter @brown_moses or by email at brownmoses@gmail.com

Leveson Inquiry To Release Operation Motorman Files

Now for an excellent contribution from a regular reader regarding Operation Motorman:

On Monday 11th June, Lord Justice Leveson lit a slow-burning fuse with a few words in his opening remark:

I am today handing down rulings in relation to the application made concerning Operation Motorman and in relation to costs.

The week's high-profile hearings then moved swiftly on to Gordon Brown, George Osborne, John Major, Ed Milliband and David Cameron et al. No wonder then that this mention of Operation Motorman has been overlooked in the cacophony. Leveson's new Ruling on Operation Motorman was quietly published on the Inquiry web site on Friday evening.

Motorman is the pivotal investigation in a sorry succession of ineffectual probes into press abuses through invasions of privacy, phone hacking, corruption of police and public officials and so on. The narrative starts with Operation Reproof and continues to the current police investigations, Operations Weeting, Elvedon and Tuleta.  For more background, see Hackgate for Beginners - Past Police Operations.

Two key pieces of witness evidence mentioned in Lord Justice Leveson' s new Ruling are those of Alex Owens and DCI Gilmour of the Metropolitan Police Service.

Alex Owens was a lead investigator on Operation Motorman, which was an Information Commissioner's (ICO) investigation (therefore not a police investigation) into 'industrial scale' illegal information-gathering practices by 'enquiry agent' Steve Whittamore who kept records of hundreds of transactions that he and three associates carried out, commissioned by multiple journalists for national newspaper titles.  These records are collectively known the Motorman Files and were summarised in table form in the ICO publication 'What Price Privacy Now', p9

In short, the Motorman Files comprise several note books which are colour coded.  The Red Book refers to Trinity Mirror Group journalists, Yellow and Green Books mainly to the Mail and Express (and related titles), and the notorious Blue Book deals solely with News International titles. Collated into spreadsheets by the ICO, these Whittamore notebooks contain a wealth of information on commissioning journalists' names, their targets, personal details, type of information sought (eg criminal records, County Court judgements, mobile phone numbers), and the substantial fees invoiced by Whittamore.

None of the Motorman files has been officially released into the public domain, but Leveson did earlier rule their circulation - under conditions of strict confidentiality - to Core Participants only.

A partially redacted version of the Blue Book has however been leaked and there are rumoured to be a few unredacted copies around.

DCI Gilmour's evidence revealed that information gleaned by Operation Motorman was used in the Met's parallel Operation Glade and that seven unnamed journalists were interviewed by police:

Freelance journalist
Journalist for News of the World
Journalist for News of the World, Scotland
Journalist for the Daily Mirror
Journalist for the Sunday Mirror
Freelance Journalist
Journalist for the Mail on Sunday 

None of these were prosecuted as - identically - their legal representation  argued a) their ignorance of Whittamore's illegal methods and b) the possibility of having 'public interest' defence.  It may or may not be fair to assume these are a representative sample of  'worst offenders' in sheer volume of requests to Whittamore, but it is certain that these seven bear witness to the range of major national newspaper titles.  This why Leveson's June 11th new Ruling on Motorman is likely to lead to explosive revelations, as he has now ruled that more information WILL be released from Operation Motorman - and not just the News Int related Blue Book.

At the end of February 2012, an application was made other than by a core participant to make public the submissions that I had heard in private. On 13 March, I ruled against that application for two reasons. First, I concluded that this private information was within the purview of the Information Commissioner whose decision as to appropriate disclosure deserved respect and, secondly, this Inquiry was not concerned with ‘who did what to whom’ but rather with the culture, practices and ethics of the press as a whole...I then said that Mr Sherborne, on behalf of core participants who were his clients was at liberty to argue that the details should be made public consistent with the Terms of Reference of the Inquiry and my observations about fairness.

David Sherborne duly made representations on 9th May, based on a variety of arguments which make interesting reading, whilst pressing that release of the Motorman Files was essential "to demonstrate the prevailing and continuing culture, practices and ethics of the press."  Counter-arguments were presented on 11th May by other leading newspaper groups - the Core Participants most likely to suffer a high degree of 'reputational damage'. As one would expect, these arguments covered the 'too historical', 'no longer employed by us', 'public interest', 'information was available legally elsewhere', 'trivial in nature' variety - and are essential reading.  In addition, Leveson's Ruling makes specific reference to the evidence of Pia Samar, Editorial Legal Director of Times Newspapers Ltd, who had robustly defended News International by stating that insufficient evidence had been provided by the ICO in 2006, some of it was erroneous, it was impractical to look into the issue further and that, in any event, no prosecutions had to mean presumption of innocence.

In his considerations Leveson observes,

When I saw the identity of some of those who had been targeted and the nature of the information sought, it seemed to me clear not only that much information had been obtained in breach of the Data Protection Act 1988 but also that the potential to deploy the statutory defence was limited in the extreme. I was reluctant to disclose the details and put them into the public domain not least because of the consequent publicity, probably unwelcome, that would attach to the targets who would suffer a further invasion of privacy nine or ten years after Mr Whittamore had first undertaken the task.

Arguably, these are very damning observations and Leveson has also taken the unusual and sensitive step of consulting with some target-victims to glean their views. He goes on to question whether the press were perhaps slow or reluctant to learn any lessons from Operation Motorman and 'What Price Privacy Now' - one newspaper group had even continued to employ the services of Steven Whittamore after his conviction.

Adhering to his 'who did what to whom' self-denying principle, Leveson notes that David Sherborne's main argument was focused on establishing  subsequent rewards and career trajectories of journalists named in the Motorman spreadsheets, as well as "the lack of disciplinary action and the fact that at least a number of the involved journalists had been promoted to senior editorial positions. I agree that these are potentially relevant considerations."

... I can express my conclusions quite shortly. If Mr Sherborne’s clients wish to provide the Inquiry with such information as they have collated from the Whittamore records where a continuous link to the present day can be established, they should do that without further delay... it is only intended to address the specific journalists that Mr Sherborne’s clients have identified who are still in their [the individual newspaper titles] employment. .....I will, of course, consider anything that emerges from the exercise...

...for public purposes, names will be redacted...names of targets and journalists will (when in redacted form) be referenced by letters so that it will be possible for the public to track any answer that might be provided in connection with any allegation.

Leveson's latest Ruling clearly implies that more explosive information from Motorman will be published and, most importantly, illuminate the ethical practices of newspaper titles in addition to those of News International.

In the absence of any individual journalist being prosecuted, Leveson re-asserts their presumption of innocence though, he says, that "is not, however, a total answer to a charge of failure of corporate governance."  Lastly, he returns to the damaging effects on victims of invasion of privacy and how how questions of corporate governance affect or effect corporate culture and ethics: "it might be thought that Operation Motorman provides better evidence of that culture than interception of mobile telephone messages because it undeniably extends beyond one title."

The possibility of further damaging information emerging as a result of Lord Justice Leveson's new Ruling will not be welcomed by News International, nor newspaper groups which have to date escaped public censure. In particular, this may have severe implications for News International Scottish titles and for the Strathclyde Police investigation (Operation Rubicon) into allegations of perjury at the Tommy Sheridan trial.

We have yet to see what fireworks may ensue, but there is no doubt that Leveson has lit the blue touch paper..... and it's smouldering.

You can contact the author on Twitter @brown_moses or by email at brownmoses@gmail.com