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

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

Private Eye, Gordon Brown, And The Anonymous "Member Of The Public"

Way back in July 2011 Private Eye covered the Guardian's scoop on Gordon Brown's child's medical records being accessed, which seems relevant to today's appearance at the Leveson Inquiry:

The Guardian mucked up its scoop about Gordon Brown being a victim of repeated data thefts by News International hacks with some traditionally sloppy writing.

Its story that the Sun had obtained confidential medical information about Brown's infant son Fraser was true. But it said the Sun had obtained "details from his medical records" - giving the impression that somebody had actually accessed his file, of which there was no evidence.

The Grauniad duly agreed to run a correction. But that wasn't enough for the Sun's managing editor Richard Caseby, who appears to be the last Murdoch executive in the UK who hasn't realised that News International has lost its license to bully. In a number of foul-mouthed phone calls to senior Grauniad execs he demanded a grovelling apology.

Behind the swearing and shouting, the question remains: how did the Sun get that information about Fraser? The Sun says it came from "a member of the public" and that it has an affidavit. It won't, however, identify the member of the public or let anybody read the affidavit, nor will it say how the person was able to discover this confidential medical information.

Fact: the Sun has a close and long-standing relationship with a female health professional at the hospital in question. It appears very likely that the anonymous "member of the public" is her husband. A brief internal inquiry by Fife Health Board concluded lamely that there was no evidence that any of its health workers had accessed Fraser's records.

When the Grauniad questioned the Sun about this, it provoked another round of shouting and swearing from Caseby. At one point he yelled: "Look! You're fucked. Fife Health Board have just cleared our source." Oops! Or, as Mr Caseby would say: "Fucking oops!"

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