Hackgate - Dacre's Dodgy Dossier - War Of Attrition

The latest piece from my regular contributor.

What on earth could have brought about The Mail's scatter-gun 'Dodgy Dossier'?  For a start, it's not even news...

13th July 2011
Way back, in the dim distant days before the Leveson (yes, there really was a time before Leveson...), Prime Minister David Cameron announced he was setting up a judge-led inquiry into press practices. Lord Justice Leveson was appointed to report to the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport. 

20th July 2011
The Prime Minister announced the Terms of Reference and appointment of “a panel of experts” to assist the Inquiry.  He named each of them and observed (Hansard, 20 July 2011, column 918): “These people have been chosen not only for their expertise in the media, broadcasting, regulation and policing, but for their complete independence from the interested parties.”  Ed Miliband too welcomed the Inquiry "and, indeed, the panel members chosen by the Prime Minister". Cameron praised cross-party agreement which had “worked well over the judicial inquiry, the panel, the terms of reference". (Hansard, 20 July 2011, column 918 onwards)  So it is clear that the Assessors were Prime Ministerial appointments, in consultation with two Secretaries of State, and with cross-party agreement. They were not appointees in Leveson's gift.

At that time, News International might have been the most apprehensive about the forthcoming Inquiry. Yet, arguably, Paul Dacre and Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL) have proved the most challenging to Lord Justice Leveson. The Inquiry would hear evidence on ANL's past record with the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) when confronted with criticism - allegedly approximating string it out, object, delay, object some more, delay, go missing, too busy, fail to respond, object again.  Leveson may well have reflected later that this obdurate strategy was mirrored in ANL's dealings with him - the self-same modus operandi in macrocosm.

28th July 2011 
Leveson held an initial session and press conference to introduce himself, Assessors & Terms of Reference etc.  He also drew attention to the Inquiries Act, and its provision that any objections on Assessor appointments could be made within 14 days. None were made.

Summer 2011
Coordination, planning and procedural sessions continued on a variety of topics, including deciding who would have crucial Core Participant status. For example,
"Mr Mathieson of RPC repeated his position, identified in correspondence, that Associated Newspapers Ltd were minded to ask for core participant status but said that he was not in a position to do so in the absence of the Editor in Chief.  On other issues, he was without instructions." 

Pre-evidence discussion Seminars were scheduled  Mindful to include a range of experience and opinion, Leveson invited Paul Dacre to chair one of the Seminars: "I did ask him to participate. Unfortunately, on 6th October he cannot, and I am waiting to hear from him about the 12th, I understand."

26th August 2011
ANL wrote to Leveson, questioning the role and remit of the Assessor function, and challenging three of the six Assessors - Sir David Bell (here), George Jones (here), and Elinor Goodman (here).

In addition, ANL complained that the panel of Assessors lacked balance as none had tabloid or mid-market newspaper experience (oddly overlooking Elinor Goodman's freelancing for ANL's own Mail on Sunday).  Written exchanges continued with ANL adding concerns about Inquiry strategies they considered political partisanship for good measure.  Letters, submissions, maneuvering rumbled on all summer, delaying and distracting from the main business of the new Inquiry, leading to this revealing exchange:

MR CAPLAN: I am sure you will understand that Associated Newspapers, whom I represent, do not in any way wish to be confrontational with the Inquiry, but you will also understand of course --

LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: The letters didn't quite read like that.

 Leveson made a salient point about ANL's argument that long experience of working with tabloids should be the prime criterion for balance of Assessors.  If so, he suggested, it "would have been open to them (the Ministers) or to me to appoint, for example, Mr Mulcaire.  He has expertise."  (ANL Oral Arguments)  Far from being swatted away dismissively, Leveson mustered the patience of a saint to give ANL's objections due consideration.

17th October 2011
Leveson's formal Ruling reiterated any appeal against Assessors would have needed to be promptly addressed to the Ministers who appointed them not Leveson himself, and that he was satisfied with their relevance and integrity.  By this point, it should be remembered, the Inquiry evidence Hearings hadn't even begun. Finally in mid-November the Evidence Hearings started. But by Day 2, ANL's Opening Submission again set an uncompromising tone.  There were three main issues raised: the absolute necessity of press self-regulation, objections to anonymous witnesses, and - red rag to Dacre's bull - ANL's asserted innocence re Operation Motoman. (for background see here)

21st November 2012
Hugh Grant gave evidence.  That evening, "Paul Dacre, the Associated Newspapers editor-in-chief, had a hand in the drafting of the Daily Mail publisher's statement accusing Hugh Grant of "mendacious smears" (Guardian) 

Who can forget the interminable arguments in Court 73 twixt ANL and Mr Sherborne..?

2nd December 2011
Leveson held a closed session with Core Participant counsel to discuss the general treatment of Operation Motorman materials. A consensus was reached that there was prima facie evidence of newspaper 'bulk users' illegalities.  On condition of that collective consensus, Leveson proposed not to make the Motorman files public.

2012 dawned. Perhaps New Year's resolutions would bring peace and goodwill...

13th January 2012
Application for Judicial Review

High Courts of Justice, Case No: CO/11362/2011:
Before LORD JUSTICE TOULSON, MR JUSTICE SWEENEY and MRS JUSTICE SHARP
 Between: (Claimant)
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS LIMITED
- and -
(Defendant) THE RT HON LORD JUSTICE LEVESON (AS CHAIRMAN OF THE LEVESON INQUIRY)

In short, ANL applied for permission of overrule Leveson on allowing anonymised witness evidence from those fearful of victimisation.  ANL opined that Leveson would thereby be trampling on natural justice, risked causing them reputational damage, and trangressed their section 10 Human Rights.  Mr Justice Toulson declined...

...to micromanage the conduct of the Inquiry by the Chairman... (I) refuse this application for judicial review. For the future,...protocol will be matters of detailed consideration for him, which should not foreseeably give rise to further requests for judicial interference.

Mr Justice Sweeney: I agree.   

Mrs Justice Sharp:  I also agree.

The week scheduled for evidence from Editors was inconvenient for Dacre - again.  Robert Jay reported, ...

some people may be wondering why Mr Paul Dacre is not on the list for today. The answer is he's not available for the rest of this month, and indeed for today, but we have lined him up, as it were, for 6 February

6th February 2012
Dacre's first appearance. Duly sworn-in, Leveson welcomed him: "Mr Dacre, I thank you, as I've thanked the editors of other newspapers who have allowed me to visit their newsrooms. I know you weren't there at the time but I'm grateful to you for allowing me to do so"

Asked by Robert Jay if complainants to the PCC were commonly worn down by a protracted ANL 'war of attrition', Dacre categorically denied it (p45).  When questioned closely on Motorman and use of Steve Whittamore, Dacre became obstinate and combative.  He refused to accept ANL's titles might have been complicit in illegality so Leveson called a short break to allow him to consult Counsel.  On return Dacre was hardly pacified, asserting that whilst Whittamore may have done illegal acts ANL journalists had demonstrably not. (p57)

Because of the spat over Hugh Grant and the 'mendacious smear' allegation - Leveson directed that Dacre return for a second appearance.  Mr Caplan QC first argued against Dacre having to appear again, and then seemed to prevaricate as to whether Dacre would even comply. The exchanges are interesting:

LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: We, of course, as you know, fitted in to Mr Dacre's timetable....  We WILL find some short period of time for this to be the subject of further evidence and we shall do that this week. And there it is.
MR CAPLAN: Sir, I obviously will have to make enquiries of --
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes.
MR CAPLAN: I have no idea of Mr Dacre's whereabouts.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Mr Caplan, I'm very sorry. I know that Mr Dacre is busy. We have worked very hard to fit ourselves around his commitments. I cannot believe that in the next three days it is not possible to find a few minutes. We shall fit ourselves around him to such extent as we can but I beg you not to ask me to go further. 

(for more, see The Motorman Files and Dacre's Dilemma)

9th February 2012
Required to give that encore appearance (and clearly there grudgingly), yet another Dacre robust defence was prompted re Grant's "mendacious smears" - and a testy 11 page Supplemental Statement.



14th June 2012
ANL's counsel wrote to the Inquiry and, arguably, reneged on the consensus understood to be have been reached that the Motorman files demonstrated prima facie offences by press journalists.

18th June 2012
The Mail splashed its story alleging that Leveson had threatened to resign, was stifling free speech, and had clashed with Michael Gove's right-minded defence of press liberty.


19th June 2012
A seeming Motorman-related Submission from ANL on 'Standard of Proof', challenging Lord Justice Leveson. (here)

In ANL’s submission the issues to be considered are as follows:
(1) Whether it is open to the Chairman to express concerns based on suspicion?
(2) If so, in what circumstances, including, whether the grounds giving rise to the suspicion must be reasonable grounds or whether a lower standard of proof is acceptable, having regard to the duty of fairness?
(3) Whether it is fair or appropriate when dealing with allegations of a criminal or quasi-criminal nature for the Chairman to state that he finds such allegations proved on the civil standard?

10th July 2012
Leveson's measured response, via written Ruling - addressed solely to ANL - was that he considered "it would not be appropriate to reach a conclusion about the Whittamore material that one of the most significant core participants (and one of the largest users of Mr Whittamore’s services) wished to challenge without deploying that evidence in public" (p8)  So, Leveson was being very clear that he could and would put selected Motorman evidence into the public domain. As just ANL were recanting, he was prepared to arrange that only Motorman files exclusively linked to ANL titles would be made public.  To reinforce the point, he was happy to order the necessary additional public Hearings in August.  It did not sound as though Leveson was making an empty threat.

13th July 2012
ANL backed down by apologising for any misunderstanding: "It was not our intention to resile from the position confirmed on a confidential basis to the Inquiry in December 2011." (see here)

Lord Justice Leveson and Mr Jay QC must have given sighs of relief.... prematurely.

20th July 2012
ANL Closing Submission, (p41)

ANL also remains concerned that one of the Assessors who will be assisting the Chairman in his task is the former chairman of the Media Standards Trust, whose proposals for regulation - opposed by ANL and other publishers - include a proposed regulatory "backstop"

23rd July 2012Future Directions Ruling (here).  Amongst other observations, Leveson returned to Operation Motorman.  One outstanding issue he identified was "concerning the attitude of Associated Newspapers Ltd to the evidence revealed in the documentation seized from the private detective Steve Whittamore."  He reported back publicly ANL's letter apologising for any misunderstanding on the Motorman evidence.  Leveson also reminded that Mr Sherborne (Counsel for Core Participant Victims) was in the process of collating information on journalists named in the Motorman files who were still in continuous employment with the relevant titles. This exercice was to determine if those journalists had been rewarded by promotion or had perhaps retained data obtained from Whittamore.  Once presented, Leveson required responses from the newspapers by 10th September.  at time of writing, only one of those responses has been made public on the Inquiry web site - from ANL.

7th Sept 2012
Two days before the deadline, ANL sent the Inquiry 'Witness Statement from ANL re Steve Whittamore data'.  It suggested that the Inquiry misunderstood the organic, perhaps haphazard, nature of working journalists collection and retention of people's personal data that they procured.  ANL considered it disproportionate to search for and collate this "low grade" personal information, failed to name any journalists, and said they did not realise that Leveson actually required a response to his request made to Dacre as the Inquiry team had omitted to remind them.

16th November 2012
Safely past the cut-off date which may have risked another Leveson admonishment, Dacre launched his 'Dodgy Dossier' fusillade. Obviously unused to not getting his own way, the 'Special Investigation' targeted Leveson's questionable associates, raising "disturbing questions"  of the "quasi-masonic nexus" of "an elite" of "People-Who-Know-Best". (Dossier here)

What could have provoked Dacre's itchy trigger finger?  Well, there is one thing left out of our timeline as we don't know the 'if' or 'when'.  It is a requirement that Lord Justice Leveson write, giving notice and inviting response, to anyone he intends to criticise in his Final Report.

Hmmmm.... could it be that Dacre's Mail have had a Section 13 letter from Lord Justice Leveson? 

Related Articles
Hackgate - Sue Akers' Swansong
Hackgate - "Newsdesk Here, Kelvin Speaking..."
Hackgate - Andre Baker - A Hackgate Footnote?
Hackgate - Ten To Watch For
Hackgate - Dear Surrey Police
Hackgate - The John Boyall Files

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

Some Intriguing Hackgate "Known Unknowns"

Another article by a regular contributor.

...There are known unknowns; that is to say there are things that, we know know we don't know...

Some loose ends: The Leveson Inquiry has not concluded its formal evidence hearings having tied up all the frayed ends. In fact, it would be more accurate to say the Inquiry has not even concluded.  Dacre and Associated Newspapers have rowed back from their challenge to Lord Justice Leveson over prima facie wrongdoing evidenced in Operation Motorman - see their response to Leveson's Ruling - and have thus evaded the threat of Motorman Hearings in August. Yet, more submissions on partial release of Motorman information are expected from Core Participant Victims' counsel and any relevant responses should be completed by September 10th. These, together with the return of Sue Akers to update on police investigations, point to at least one more Hearing in mid-September.

And there are several more 'known unknowns'...

The Motorman Files: It is not explicitly known whether the Motorman material now forms part of the evidence currently being investigated.  However, recent charges specify timescales similar to Steve Whittamore's illegal activities and Sue Akers has made reference to evidence utilised from "previous investigations".  A limited amount of information is known from the Motorman Files, but further unknown lines of enquiry could come from the 17, 000 lines of information estimated by Alex Owens, (para 5.10), or 13,343 lines according to the Information Commissioner, 5,025 clear breaches and 6,330 probable breaches of law (pp 56-57' Robert Jay's Opening Submission Nov 14th 2011)

Glenn Mulcaire was ordered by the UK Supreme Court to disclose the names of those who commissioned him. These names will be disclosed only to victims' legal representatives - and to the Metropolitan Police Service.  It seems clear that the Met are then able to use this information in files for charging decisions which are referred to the Crown Prosecution Servive (CPS).  We do not know if those commissioning Mulcaire include any of those journalists already arrested or charged, but we do know that there are 28 legible 'corner names' in the Mulcaire documents.

The Mulcaire Notebooks comprise c. 11,000 pages, 2,266 taskings, those 28 legible corner names, 5,795 named potential victims, 690 audio recordings, 586 voicemail messages and an unquantified amount of computer material.

According to the Metropolitan Police, News International hacking operation had certainly begun by 2002, Milly Dowler being the first named victim. We, however, have recently seen a document which emanates from May 2001. The police believe that it continued until at least 2009. This belief is not derived from an analysis of the Mulcaire notebooks, which we know were seized back in 2006.

- Mr Jay, Opening 14th Nov 2011, pp86-88

So, it appears that there is unknown, additional corroborating evidence that post-dates Mulcaire's 2006 arrest. This must mean that there are as-yet unknown alleged offences between 2006-2009, for which Mulcaire (and possibly alleged conspirators) may or may not have recently been arrested and/or charged under Operation Weeting.

It is not known in detail what the Operation Nigeria material may contain that is relevant specifically to Hackgate.  It is though known that it is amongst the 750,000 documents in connection to Daniel Morgan's murder, and there is substantial other evidence including audio recordings. Surprisingly not all of these audio recordings have yet been transcribed, according to Tom Watson (House of Commons, 29th February 2012)

It is though known that ALL of the evidence relating to the murder of Daniel Morgan - which includes the Operation Nigeria material - is undergoing a forensic review by the Met, and possibly the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). The use of the term 'forensic' is nicely ambivalent as - technically- it encompasses establishing evidence to the standard necessary for court proceedings.  This follows the collapse at trial of the fifth investigation into Daniel Morgan's violent death, and publication of the official Report into how and why the trial collapsed.  (Confusingly, by a strange coincidences, one of the counsel at trial was 'Jonathan Rees QC')

The Cook/Hames Surveillance:  Two people amongst those arrested in 2012 have previously been reported to have connection or involvement with the obtaining of information and surveillance of Dave Cook and Jacqui Hames in 2002.  Both targets were then serving Met police officers, and Dave Cook at the time was an investigating officer on the fourth investigation into Daniel Morgan's murder.  Two others, Alex Marunchak of News International and Sid Fillery, are not known to have been arrested for any Hackgate allegations. Jonathan Rees, Fillery's former business partner, was in prison at the time of the possible conspiracy.

However, it is now known formally that the Cook/Hames surveillance, and the subsequent confrontation at Scotland Yard with Rebekah Brooks, IS being investigated. This is acknowledged by the Metropolitan Police here (Q28), which is an informative read.

Additionally, included are extensive questions on Daniel Morgan's murder (Q40 Daniel Morgan). These questions are not answered publically, presumably so as not to prejudice the forensic review or any possible future arrests.

A Senior Met officer has apparently made a court appearance in relation to an unknown prosecution.  As there are court-imposed reporting restrictions imposed till October, there is no public knowledge who he (or indeed she...) might be.  One national journalist observed on Twitter, following a list of CPS Operation Weeting charges on July 24th: 

and finally... charges against a quite senior Met Police officer remain secret #openjusticemyarse

The same day another national journalist, whose specialisms include writing on Hackgate, tweeted

A very senior police officer is accused of breaking the law in an area which I cover, but I can't tell you who they are due to a court order...
...But I can tell you it sounds very interesting. Roll on October.

Obviously, these tweets may be merely a plausible coincidence of timing and could be utterly unrelated to Hackgate.

The most recent Operation Tuleta arrests of named and unnamed Sun journalists have been accompanied by Met statements to the effect that they

... relate to a suspected conspiracy involving the gathering of data from stolen mobile phones and is not about seeking journalists to reveal confidential sources in relation to information that has been obtained legitimately.

It is unknown whether the mobile phones involved were allegedly stolen at random, or whether the alleged conspiracy targeted specific mobile phones, potentially stolen to order.  Sue Akers third appearance at the Leveson Inquiry made a short reference to further Operation Tuleta initiatives which may range nationwide.

New allegations/News Corp:  Lastly there is the known unknown of new allegations of wrongdoing being countered by Michael Silverleaf QC on behalf of News Corporation.

The details of the allegations, which could be used to seek punitive damages, should be kept from the public unless they are approved at a Sept. 7 hearing and added to the victims’ so- called generic claims, Judge Geoffrey Vos said

Silverleaf said, "The claims outline “generalized activities which we think are unsustainable...They may change the approach we are taking to the case."  These new allegations could well be connected to the new information, alleged by victims' legal representatives, that

News Corp failed for months to disclose in civil litigation an executive’s e-mail with instructions on hacking the mobile-phone voice mail of a “well-known person. 

How far these 'known unknowns' might reveal themselves over the next few months will continue to make Hackgate very engaging.

Related Posts
Hackgate for Beginners
Where Now For The Motorman Files?
Hackgate - Major Upcoming Events


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

Operation Motorman - Leveson Hearings In August?

The latest piece from a regular contributor.

Lord Justice Leveson delivered a new Ruling this morning regarding Operation Motorman and Associated Newspapers.  In this new Ruling, Leveson gives a glimpse of representations made in private on how the inquiry should interpret the Motorman Files - the Ruling itself gives a good background summary of the Motorman investigation and Steve Whittamore's documentation in relation to his business of 'enquiries' undertaken for national newspapers via named journalists.  Many of these commissions include criminal records checks, Police National Computer checks - on the face of it, data procurement which was illegal. No journalists were arrested, charged or prosecuted.

In order to address concerns on the level of detail that the Inquiry might make public, Leveson held private hearings to receive Core Participant views.  He understood from those private meetings that there was a general acceptance that breaches of data protection laws by some journalists were acknowledged. Given that understanding, Leveson ruled that he did not intend tp make public any or all information in the Motorman Files.  This decision drew criticism from those wanting all the information released into the public domain and, presumably, some relief was felt by the named journalists and the national newspapers who had employed them.

Then Paul Dacre decided to take umbrage at Lord Justice Leveson's understanding of the private hearings' consensus on Motorman.

Dacre's titles came top of Motorman league of journalists commissioning of Steve Whittamore so, arguably, Dacre has most to fear from any release or leak of the Motorman Files. For an analysis of Dacre's dilemma, see here.

During Paul Dacre's evidence to the Inquiry, he appeared to accept (prompted by Leveson's prompting to consult with Associted Newspapers counsel) that there was prima facie evidence in the Motorman Files that journalists in his employ had commissioned data procurement, obtained illegally by Whittamore.  This grudging and graceless acceptance was given by Dacre amid his defensive opinions on the accuracy and validity of the Motorman evidence.

However, Dacre now seems to be challenging Leveson's understanding of prima facie acknowledgement of illegality by Associated Newspaper journalists.  Associated Newspapers defensive actions may have been, in part, prompted by Core Participant victims' counsel, Mr Sherborne, making successful argument to Lord Justice Leveson for partial and redacted release of some Motorman Files evidence - that which relates to journalists still continuously employed by relevant newspapers. Even in redacted form - letter ciphers standing in for journalists' names - this represents the first Motoman evidence released which relates to non-News International titles.  (Whittamore's 'Blue Book' detailing named News International journalists commissions has been leaked by GuidoFawkes.)

Associated Newspapers representations to Leveson firstly take issue with his assumption that Dacre accepted strong prima facie evidence of illegality. Counsel have complained about Leveson's characterisation as "strong" prima facie evidence. Lord Justice Leveson's opening remarks this morning included an apology to Associated for mis-representing their understanding through his use of the word "strong".

Notwithstanding, should Associated Newspapers additionally be back-pedalling on any acknowledgement of bad practice, Lord Justice Leveson IS now prepared to address the Motorman Files (as they relate to Associated titles) - IN PUBLIC and over the summer:

If necessary I shall sit during August to deal with it

His intention seems to be to make public as many examples of illegal data requests as it takes for Associated Newspapers to finally and unequivocably accept prima facie evidence of wrong-doing, "strong" or otherwise.

Say goodbye to your summer.....

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

The Motorman Files And Dacre's Dilemma

A new piece by a regular contributor on Paul Dacre's problem with Operation Motorman and Lord Leveson.

Lord Justice Leveson announced a Hearings respite for this week, earmarked for taking stock, reading and reflection.  The respite did not even last the weekend.  Without fanfare, on Friday evening, the Leveson web site quietly published his new Ruling on Operation Motorman.

Brian Leveson's appetite for Sunday breakfast was doubtless blunted by the Mail on Sunday front page - blaring his alleged displeasure with Michael Gove as expressed in a phone call to the Cabinet Secretary.  Brian Cathcart has pinpointed this as the start of 'Operation Megaphone', a blast of shrill trumpets from sections of the press, sounding their battle cry against the Leveson Inquiry in the hope that the walls will come tumbling down.

These two weekend stories are not unconnected as it is the Mail on Sunday (and Daily Mail) which arguably have most to fear from the Motorman files.  And it is Paul Dacre, Editor-in-Chief, who has throughout resented Leveson's Inquiry the most.

When Dacre was first called to give evidence, in the week scheduled for Editors, he was apparently not available. As Robert Jay reported, ..."some people may be wondering why Mr Paul Dacre is not on the list for today. The answer is he's not available for the rest of this month, and indeed for today, but we have lined him up, as it were, for 6 February".  Dacre duly appeared that day to give his evidence (more below) but - because of the spat over Hugh Grant and the 'mendacious smear' allegation - he was required by Leveson to return for a second appearance.

Mr Caplan QC (Counsel for Associated Newspapers) first argued against Dacre having to appear again, and then seemed less than confident that Dacre would even comply. The exchanges are interesting:

LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: We, of course, as you know, fitted in to Mr Dacre's timetable....  We WILL find some short period of time for this to be the subject of further evidence and we shall do that this week. And there it is.
MR CAPLAN: Sir, I obviously will have to make enquiries of --
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes.
MR CAPLAN: I have no idea of Mr Dacre's whereabouts.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Mr Caplan, I'm very sorry. I know
that Mr Dacre is busy. We have worked very hard to fit ourselves around his commitments. I cannot believe that in the next three days it is not possible to find a few minutes. We shall fit ourselves around him to such extent as we can but I beg you not to ask me to go further.

Dacre's main evidence on 6th Feb could be characterised as resentful and defensive.  He was questioned by Robert Jay and attempted several times to cross-question him back. He gave the distinct impression that he regarded being questioned by the Inquiry as inconvenient and a gross impertinence. This was most marked when questioned about Daily Mail journalists topping the table of taskings given to Steve Whittamore (p9)

JAY: May I move on to Operation Motorman...You say this: "Until the Information Commissioner's 2006 reports, I was not personally aware of the extent that our journalists were using search agencies." By using the term "extent", were you intending to accept there that you were aware that the Daily Mail was at least using these search agencies?
DACRE: Yes.
JAY: But you weren't aware of the scale of the problem --
DACRE: The numbers. The numbers I wasn't aware of.
...
JAY: The Inquiry received evidence from Mr Peter Wright, the Mail on Sunday editor, and he said that he was aware of Operation Motorman at the beginning of 2004, in view of the Bob Crow story, which of course was published in the Mail on Sunday....Were you aware of Operation Motorman as a result of that particular issue?
DACRE:  I suppose I must have been, yes. I don't recall it exactly, but I must have been aware.
JAY: Yes, because the -- I think the journalist involved was interviewed and it was going to be part of Operation Glade, if not Operation Motorman. Operation Glade was the Metropolitan Police operation...
DACRE: This was a Mail on Sunday journalist?
JAY:  Yes, it was. So you were aware of it from that route, as it were.

This exchange above is particularly interesting as it pinpoints an identifiable story leading to an identifiable Mail on Sunday journalist being questioned by the Met - one of seven journalists interviewed by Operation Glade but not prosecuted.  Each of the seven protested they were unaware of Whittamore's illegal methods:

DACRE:  ...They said they were only getting phone numbers and addresses and they didn't seem to think they were behaving illegally.
...
JAY: But you accept that you didn't carry out an investigation in 2006 or earlier to ascertain the facts, don't you?
DACRE: Because, as I say, we didn't know then what we now know.
JAY:  But what was set out in the Information Commissioner's second report was quite clear, wasn't it, in relation to the Daily Mail: 958 transactions --

Robert Jay was pressing the point that no conceivable 'failure of corporate governance' was countenanced, and no individual disciplinary investigations mounted.  Whilst some Motorman-implicated journalists moved on, others stayed, thrived - perhaps even rewarded by career progression.  The identifiable Bob Crow story might serve as a case in point.  From Crow's witness statement, there is this:

On the 2nd February 2003 there appeared an article in the Mail on Sunday written by Christopher Leake which showed a photograph of me going to work on the back of a scooter owned by my Personal Assistant.

Crow was puzzled how Christopher Leake could have identified his movements and the scooter driver until "it was subsequently revealed to me as a result of a Court case involing a Mr. S. Whittamore and others around police corruption." Crow believes the Mail on Sunday identified the scooter driver through DVLA or Police National Computer data abuses via Whittamore, and that his whereabouts were obtained by phone hacking. Clearly, Paul Dacre has reason to be rattled at Leveson's new Ruling which may allow more of the Motorman files into the public domain; those of journalists still in employment - as Christopher Leake was, until just two weeks ago.

Lord Justice Leveson did make reference to Dacre specifically in his Motorman Ruling, on the question of whether or not Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday retained (and possibly still used) information illegally obtained by Whittamore.  He reminded:

Although on 9 March, I raised with Mr Caplan the question addressed to Mr Paul Dacre concerning storage of information to which he undertook to provide an answer (see 6 February pm page 60, line 12), he overlooked his failure to do so and has not responded to a subsequent reminder (leading to the delay in ruling on this submission): suffice to say, this evidence continues to remain outstanding

As rebukes go, this seems polite and understated. Yet the timing of the Mail on Sunday 'Gove v Leveson' story demonstrates that Dacre has shifted from defensive to attack mode, intending to deter any more inconvenient and impertinent enquiries. Dacre has raised the megaphone for the press and, as Brian Cathcart puts it:

...cover your ears as you may, from now on you will not be able to block out the howling fury of an industry that never accepted anything was wrong with the way it operated, and which will now vent its sense of injustice at maximum volume...  We do not have to let them swamp us with their self-serving noise.

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