Hackgate - "Newsdesk Here, Kelvin Speaking..."

The latest from my regular contributor.

The phone goes. Someone is ringing to offer the news desk of the Sun a very big story indeed.

Let's imagine this time the call came in the summer of 2007 shortly after the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had decided the evidence collected by Surrey Police (true) was not strong enough to charge Jimmy Savile with the sexual abuse of four young girls.

The voice on the end of the line says he's a legal clerk/Crown Prosecution solicitor/police officer outraged at the decision of the CPS not to prosecute.

They make a stunning offer; I will hand over the CPS file so your journalists can study the evidence and make your own inquiries. But there's a catch - they insist "this is dangerous for me, so if you publish anything I want £1,000 in cash.

So writes Kelvin Mackenzie, former Editor of The Sun, in the Huffington Post this week:  'How Catching Jimmy Savile Would Have Meant Breaking the Law'.  It didn't take long for other ex-News International executives to rally in support

Kelvin Mackenzie on Sun arrests and the threat to Press freedom. Put aside any red top prejudice and have a long think. huffingtonpost.co.uk/kelvin-mackenz…
— Neville Thurlbeck (@nthurlbeck) November 8, 2012

Tabloid veteran Kelvin Mackenzie hits out atarrests of 21 Sun Reporters under little-known law no-one had heard of huffingtonpost.co.uk/kelvin-mackenz…
— Neil Wallis (@neilwallis1) November 8, 2012

Nice 'moral maze' scenario, Kelvin - one we should definitely think about - and look a tad more closely at your journalistic dealings with an imaginary Surrey policeman.

Mackenzie protests at how ridiculous it is to think your average newsdesk journalist might have been aware of the relevant laws governing their trade.  Sounding more like Harry Enfield's Kevin than Kelvin ("It's so unfaaaaair..."), he simply fails to see that perhaps a senior Editor could (nay, should) have ensured appropriate training.  And in Kelvin's World, it would be unrealistic to expect that highly motivated, Press Complaints Code-aware newshounds would have the skills in research, investigative techniques, or curiosity necessary to find out what legal constraints they should abide by.

Ah, but it's that word 'constraints' that peeves you so - isn't it Kelvin.

His ire is particularly, but not exclusively, aimed at the 1906 Prevention of Corruption Act.  And - even more outrageous - the 1906 act has no public interest defence!  Fortunately, that hypothetical Surrey policeman would be well aware of the Prevention of Corruption Act to save Kelvin and his newshounds from their blissful state of ignorance.

1906?!  So old, so obscure.  Who knew...?!

But that's why newspapers employ top flight lawyers.  If in doubt, journalists can double-check with these in-house legal specialists.  Why, they even have to undertake annual Continuing Professional Development (CPD) training so that they keep up to date.  Their essential role in advising and protecting against reckless journalism is exemplified by Times legal eagle Alistair Brett's evidence to the Leveson Inquiry

"Mr Foster wanted to know if he had already broken the law and if there was a public interest defence on which he could rely... "
"... I knew there was a public interest defence under section 55 of the DPA. I told Mr Foster that he might have a public interest defence under the section... by accessing someone’s computer as I did not think it was a RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) situation...."

"Q: Had you heard of the Computer Misuse Act?

A: I hadn't at that stage."

(later) ".... I realised that Mr Foster’s accessing of NightJack’s computer was far more serious than I initially thought as there was no public interest defence to Section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act."

There's a Computer Misuse Act?!  So recent, so new-fangled.  Who knew?!

Never mind, at least another News International title had some legal expertise on hand to keep it out of trouble.  Tom Crone's evidence to Leveson  (pp 36-39) showed how News of the World was on top of its game and well advised by him:

Q. The question you were posed related to the legality of paying public servants, including police constables, for information either in cash or in kind.... on such occasions, can you assist us, please, as to what your advice was?
A. Consistently that it would be a criminal offence to pay someone in public office for information which they shouldn't have been passing out.
Q. Was that advice ever put in writing?
A. Not that I'm aware of, no.

Well, that's clear then. And here's hoping that somebody at News Int is up to speed with the 1906 Prevention of Corruption Act provisions for CORPORATE level charges, the Bribery Act 2010 and even, say, the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. (Telegraph)

It's not fair - there's just too much law to keep up with isn't there, Kelvin.

Who knows, there may even be laws which are supportive of others - whistleblowers or those pressured to become conduits for illegal payments. Or to prevent newspapers gaining future leverage over public officials compromised by accepting payment, or who have private indiscretions they don't want exposed.  I don't know - and clearly you are no legal expert either.

But, Kelvin, you say you know exactly what the newsdesk would have done when that hypothetical Surrey policeman phoned in asking for "a few bob":

The news editor/editor would have agreed to the bargain in a shot. And, with the newspaper bar set a good deal lower than the judicial one, reporters would have used that leaked information to go back to the victims, heard their harrowing story, weighed the evidence and, I am sure, decided to adopt the old adage; publish and be damned.

Oh, Kelvin, Kelvin, Kelvin - where do we start?

• Use illegally leaked information to locate and harass victims? 
• Hear their harrowing stories - under pressure from hacks to tell all?
• Consider offering them money too? Thereby scuppering prosecutions by paying potential witnesses? 
• Weigh the evidence?  Who made you the best judge?
• Mightn't this have compromised any subsequent investigation whilst Savile was alive? 
• Even if your hypothetical leak happened after Savile's death, would it not prejudice other investigations into Savile's enablers and colluders?  Such as current Savile investigation, Operation Yewtree?
• And what about the effect on Savile's vulnerable victims? Brave enough to come forward, safe in the knowledge they could trust the police not to leak intimate details of their ordeals to the red tops? 

Would you not stop and give that any thought, Kelvin?  And yet you're so CERTAIN any news editor would have published a story on Jimmy Savile from a CPS file leaked by a hypothetical Surrey policeman? Really, Kelvin?  Really?

Or do you know something the rest of us don't?

You really ought to think through the implications of your imaginary scenario, Kelvin. Hypothetically, your Surrey policeman could have been arrested for leaking that Savile information for "a few bob".  In absolute horror, we would now be waiting to see Operation Yewtree in slow motion collision with Operation Elvedon - with fallout more spectacular than the Large Hadron Collider cranked up to maximum.

Consider that scenario, Neville and Neil. Think it through, Kelvin.  Because THAT would be, in your words,  "A very big story indeed".

Hypothetically.

Related Articles
Hackgate - Andre Baker - A Hackgate Footnote? 
Hackgate - Ten To Watch For
Hackgate - Dear Surrey Police
Hackgate - The John Boyall Files
One Rogue Email And The Indestructible Archive 
John Yates And Neil Wallis - A Mutual Understanding


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

John Yates And Neil Wallis - A Mutual Understanding

The latest piece by my regular contributor.

John Yates is back writing a column, for the Telegraph, with his old friend Neil Wallis playing cheerleader in the wings

Explosive! Ex-Met AC John Yates blasts Hogan-Howe betrayal of own officers over #Gategate shambles! in Telegraph today soc.li/qlapB3S
— Neil Wallis (@neilwallis1) September 29, 2012

Explosive! Betrayal! Shambles!

Yates' article - dubbed 'Enemy at the Gates' - uses the Andrew Mitchell bicycle debacle to aim a high-power snipe at the current Metropolitan Police (MET) Commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe.  Yates compares him unfavourably to the superior tenures of "commissioners of the calibre of Lord Stevens or Sir Paul Stephenson" - something else Wallis enthusiastically endorses.  They do seem to have a lot in common, don't they...?

Both Yates and Wallis share a love of football, fine dining, and a staggering lack of self-awareness.  The irony of his own words is clearly lost on Yates if one compares what he says now, as opposed to what he said then - in his last few years in the MET. Here in 2012, Yates states

The Met looked far too ready to concede that any additional investigation into these matters was not worth the effort.

Hmmm.... 'Additional investigation not worth the effort' in comparison to what, exactly?  The awarding of a very lucrative MET contract to News of the World former Deputy Editor, Neil Wallis?

The total value of the contract was based on two days work per month at £1000 per day. This was funded jointly by the MPS’s Public Affairs Directorate and Specialist Operations, which was headed at this time by Assistant Commissioner (AC) John Yates....  following the award of the contract Mr Wallis’ fees were split evenly between AC Yates’ department and the Department for Public Affairs headed by Mr Fedorcio.

Or perhaps lax by comparison to a scant eight hours devoted to deciding no further investigation was warranted to contradict the News of the World's 'one rogue reporter' fairytale? Move along, nothing to see here. Or as Lord Justice Leveson described it, a "back-of-the-envelope job for the day"? Maybe that is what Yates is echoing in the Telegraph when he says

An investigation, as I know only too well, would have bought time, given everyone the space to breathe and allowed hitherto unknown facts to emerge before final conclusions were reached. By closing this down early, No 10 and the Met have created a problem that was avoidable.

Yates goes on to bemoan what he sees as the current lack of accountability of senior MET officers.  In Yates' good old days, he would have expected the MET Commissioner to be challenged on

live television, with the national and local media present, the commissioner would have had to explain all the circumstances of the incident to a committee whose membership was drawn from all the major political parties...He would then be questioned in detail about his decision-making...Who really challenges the commissioner now and who will challenge other chiefs in the future? Where is the transparency and the public accountability around key decisions?

Yates sounds almost nostalgic for his own appearances before the Parliamentary Select Committees for Home Affairs,  and for Culture, Media and Sport regarding MET accountability on Hackgate.  His evidence sessions were virtuoso performances of stonewalling and evasion, added to his obvious irritation at the impertinence of any Select Committee calling him to account.  Ditto his evidence to the Leveson Inquiry, given by video link from Bahrain.

And what of the two previous MET Commissioners to whom Yates invidiously compares Hogan-Howe - Paul Stephenson and John Stevens?  Both had reason to owe Wallis a debt of gratitude

Former News of the World executive Neil Wallis advised two former senior policemen on how to get the job of Scotland Yard commissioner, the Leveson Inquiry heard today. Mr Wallis said he helped Lord Stevens "throughout" his successful application to become head of the Metropolitan Police, telling him to stress he was a "copper's copper" or "thief-taker".  The ex-tabloid executive also offered his opinions on what the post required to Sir Paul Stephenson, who took over as Met commissioner in 2009.

According to Leveson evidence, Dick Fedorcio informed Stephenson in advance of his intention to contract Neil Wallis.  Stephenson appears not to have disagreed with Fedorcio's decision, perhaps as Sir Paul had already been receiving counsel from an altruistic Wallis - for free - on key speech-making. Once contracted however, Wallis was paid for this advice retrospectively.  Unfortunately for him, Paul Stephenson was put into the position (at the behest of Cabinet Secretary Gus O'Donnell) of asking Bob Quick to investigate serious allegations that John Yates may have been leaking MET Management Board level information to those in the media with whom Yates had over-close friendships.

John Stevens is the other 'high-calibre' Commissioner extolled in Yates' Telegraph piece.  He also enjoyed fine dining with Wallis and was appreciative of Wallis' grooming his public image.  On his retirement from the MET, Wallis proposed that the News of the World serialised Stevens' autobiography. Stevens was then offered a generous contract for a regular column entitled 'The Chief' - ghost-written by NotW's Deputy Editor - Neil Wallis.  For this, Stevens "was paid £5,000 for seven articles in the first year before his fee was upped £7,000 for the second." (Hacked Off)

Robert Jay's questioning of John Stevens revealed other interests shared by Stevens, Yates and Neil Wallis

The Birdcage, which is or appears to be a restaurant in W1... lunch...Sandersons, a hotel in Berners Street W1... lunch with Lord Alli and Neil Wallis... dinner with Neil Wallis... London's Brasserie... dinner with Rebekah Wade and husband, The Ivy... dinner with Mr Wallis, Convivio... News of the World, Scalini - Andy Coulson, editor, Neil Wallis, deputy editor ...

We get the picture - if only Yates and Wallis did.  Blithely unaware of perceptions, they still don't get it.  Their mutual admiration society is cemented by an unshakeable belief in their shared integrity and unchallengable 'objectivity'.  Countering any view that Yates may now be an discredited choice for newspaper columnist, Neil Wallis' eulogised on Twitter:

@gsandhu The Telegraph obviously don't agree.And I promise you, neither do the majority of the Met, who adored him and mourned his leaving
— Neil Wallis (@neilwallis1) September 29, 2012

Ah, yes.  I believe Jung calls it 'projection' - no sense of irony or self-perception at all there from 'Wallis the Wolfman'.

So, Yates feels entitled to opine on the MET's handling of cycling in Downing Street, yet is stubbornly oblivious to the questionable closeness of past senior MET officers to Neil Wallis and News International. Ironically - Yates' own words in the Telegraph could equally reflect an alternative view of his role in Hackgate

It is, in the words of Malcolm Tucker from The Thick of It, an 'omnishambles'.  The only way to resolve it is to turn back the clock and for there to be a proper investigation.

 No shit, Sherlock - on yer bike.  Move along.

Related Articles
Alex Marunchak - Presumed Innocent
News Corp - Diplomatic Immunity?
The Cook-Hames Surveillance : A Watched Kettle...
Alastair Morgan On The Latest Hackgate Revelations

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