Hackgate - Elveden: Murdoch Or King Cnut?

The latest from my regular contributor.

Noticed the upsurge in Elveden arrests and charges recently?  After a marked hiatus, it's like a dam has burst.

It started as a trickle which became a stream (Sue Akers) -

Operation Elveden began on 20 June 2011 when News International disclosed material to the Metropolitan Police Service that indicated that police officers had allegedly been receiving cash/cheque payments from journalists from the News of the World for the provision of confidential information. 

But its original 2011 terms of reference widened as the investigatory trickle built into a torrent throughout 2012 of arrests of (mainly Sun) journalists, public officials, prison and police officers.  2013 has so far seen the first Elveden conviction and imprisonment (April Casburn) and a wave of charges.  Both the number and nature of arrests are remarkable. (Hat Tip to Martin Hickman for the best lists of arrests/charges/etc).

Amongst News International arrests are royal editor(s), editor(s), sundry senior executives, managing editor(s), news editor, crime editor, executive editor, deputy editor, chief reporter, deputy news editor, defence editor, chief foreign correspondent etc.  These are not low-level roles or freelancers cutting corners.

Police arrests are also worth analysis: to date, no less than FOUR from MET Specialist Crimes & Special Operations alone, plus two senior officers from the City of London force.  The most recent (see here, Daily Mail) is a former Assistant Commissioner and thus the first (but perhaps not the last) ACPO rank arrest for suspected leaking of unauthorised information.  So police arrests are creeping up the 'food chain' too.  Little wonder that Sean O'Neill of the Times wryly commented on the subject

Down at Scotland Yard some of the command team are in the greenhouse throwing big bricks #elveden
— Sean O'Neill (@TimesCrime) March 5, 2013

Certainly Elveden is (so far) the biggest threat to parent company News Corp (see here) regarding potential corporate and US prosecutions.


And there is a detectable sense of urgency about recent News Corp manoevring - closing their phone hacking compensation scheme, frantic settling of as many civil actions as possible in a rearguard action to prevent further revelations in open court.  It's almost as if defensive embankments have crumbled and legal arguments on admissibility of key evidence (for example, email data pools) have been decided so the upstream log-jam delaying court cases has been prised wide open.

The timing of Rupert Murdoch's reported pep talk to arrested journalists is interesting too (Guardian)

It is understood the News Corporation chairman and chief executive and Sun proprietor met with the journalists on Wednesday at News International's Wapping headquarters in east London to allay concerns that their careers and futures have been left in limbo as they continue to be rebailed without knowing if they are going to be charged..... Sources say Murdoch vowed to continue to pay the arrestees' legal fees and offer whatever support was needed. However he said he could not, for legal reasons, tell them what would happen with regard to their employment if any were charged and found guilty.

Whatever the flood of recent developments, we may know more about the consequences quite quickly.

Tomorrow (Friday March 8th) is going to be a busy day for Operation Elveden at the Central Criminal Court (aka the Old Bailey)

Court No 1, sitting from 9.30am (Court Listing) 

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE FULFORD    

Plea and Case Management    

U20130197 Alan TIERNEY    

(Surrey Police officer)

U20130198  Richard TRUNKFIELD 

(Prison Operational Support Officer at HMP Woodhill, a high security category A men's prison)

Southwark Crown Court Case    

For Preliminary Hearing    

U20130199  FLATTLEY (MET police officer)  &

WHEELER (Sun journalist)

NOT BEFORE 10:00 am    

Plea and Case Management    

U20130210 

Rebekah BROOKS (the Sun)

John KAY  (the Sun)  & 

Bettina JORDAN-BARBER  (Ministry of Defence official)

U20130201

Andy COULSON (News of the World) &

Clive GOODMAN (News of the World)

It looks increasingly like Rupert Murdoch can't play King Cnut much longer and things aren't going swimmingly.


Related Articles
Hackgate - Elveden - Murdoch's Catch 22
Hackgate - "Snakes And Ladders" At The Met
Hackgate - April Casburn's Conviction - Myths And Misconceptions
Hackgate - Varec Revisited - Dissent In The Ranks
Hackgate - Sue Akers' Swansong
Hackgate - "Newsdesk Here, Kelvin Speaking..."
Hackgate - Andre Baker - A Hackgate Footnote?

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

Hackgate - Ten To Watch For

The latest piece from My Regular Contributor, looking at ten things to watch for in the ongoing Hackgate saga

1  Hole-in-the-Wall:  Steve Coogan told the Leveson Inquiry how the minutiae of his life was intruded on by Glenn Mulcaire.  Coogan was shown Mulcaire's notes (p14):

I saw a redacted copy, which had information about money I'd withdrawn from a cash machine,...the precise amount of money I'd withdrawn from a cash machine, which would suggest someone was looking over my shoulder when I was doing it.

Shoulder-surfing is only one explanation. A case cited in the 2008 Serious Organised Crime Agency report ('The Rogue Element of the Private Investigation Industry') is clearly Glenn Mulcaire. Following a description of his modus operandi, is this curiosity (p5, SOCA 2008):

The investigator also managed to intercept the landline of an Automated Telling Machine at a local shop to distance himself from his calls to the voicemail boxes.

Mulcaire is known as a former footballer, not telecomms technician.  Did he have that expertise himself?  Or was technical expertise recruited from amongst a wider private investigator network?  What kinds of ATM info interception were feasible?

2  Tracking: UK parent company of News International, News Group Newspapers (NGN), does not dispute that it commissioned Derek Webb to do surveillance on targets for stories.  Ex-policeman Webb was variously designated as private investigator / freelance journalist depending on when it was considered politic for him to hold an NUJ card.  But NGN has also admitted (p8 para 31, Admission of Facts) that information, unlawfully obtained by its own journalists from Mulcaire, was used to enable un-named "private investigators employed by News of the World to monitor, locate and track individuals to place them under surveillance."  It will be interesting to know what tracking and surveillance technology was deployed, and by whom.

3  Safety First: And on the subject of security technology, this small nugget from Mary-Ellen Field's evidence to Leveson is intriguing - the last time she ever spoke to celebrity client Elle McPherson after acrimoniously parting company:

I received a call out-of-the-blue from Elle asking me who the security people were who checked her house, office and car.  Elle did not explain why she wanted this information -- however I provided it to her.  It occurs to me now that it is likely that she needed that information following contact from the police in relation to phone hacking, having arrested Mulcaire.  I know now that Clive Goodman's column in the NOTW was cancelled the previous week.

If accurate, it is interesting to note police interest in how celebrities are willing to pay elite private security companies to safeguard their privacy.  For example, one such specialist company - Brookmans International - were very supportive in providing protection and security technology to Kerry Katona. Sadly, their best efforts did not prevent stories about Katona's private life appearing in newspapers.

4  Still on the topic of technology:  Operation Tuleta will soon be back in the news as awaited charging decisions are due.  The ongoing Operation Tuleta investigation includes Operation Kalmyk, focusing on alleged computer hacking related to Northern Ireland.  Outgoing MET DAC Sue Akers was asked about computer hacking at her final appearance before the Home Affairs Select Committee in early September

Q You mentioned computer hacking in the course of your remarks. What can you tell us about the progress of investigations on that, please?
Akers: It is difficult for me to go into any detail, obviously, because it is an ongoing investigation, but there are seven people who are on bail in relation to computer hacking.
Q  I know it is difficult for you but are you able to tell us generally what the nature of the allegation is in those cases, the general character?
Akers: You will have seen, maybe, the Panorama programme. There are inquiries in connection with that. It is difficult for me to go into much more detail.
Q  Are you able to say anything about the characteristics of the seven people who are under investigation, what category they might fall into?
Akers: I suppose the general category you would say is private investigator, some of them ex-police.
Q  Are there files with the CPS in relation to those matters or not?
Akers: Yes.

5  Weeting: There are still charging decisions outstanding under Operation Weeting.  Eight have already been charged:  Rebekah Brooks, Andrew Coulson, Stuart Kuttner, Glenn Mulcaire, Greg Miskiw, Ian Edmondson, Neville Thurlbeck and James Weatherup.  However the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Principal Legal Advisor announced at the same time that three others arrested would have no further action taken and

There are two suspects in relation to whom the police have asked me to defer making a decision whilst further enquiries are made. For this reason I do not intend to give their names or say anything further about them at this stage.

6  Andy Coulson - is still waiting for his Appeal over News Group Newspapers refusal to pay his legal fees.  In essence, Coulson argues NGN are contractually obliged tp pay his legal costs accrued as a result of his time in employment at NGN, whilst they argue their contractual obligation does not apply to illegal acts he may have undertaken. At the time of his unsuccessful hearing in December 2011, Coulson had been arrested by both Operation Weeting and Operation Elvedon.  Since then he has additionally been arrested once more (Operation Rubicon) and charged twice (Operation Rubicon and Operation Weeting).  Coulson is therefore clocking up massive legal fees for which he is, pending Appeal, personally liable.  The Appeal Hearing should be instructive.

7  DCI April Casburn - suspended from her MET job in Counter Terrorism Command (Specialist Operations), is due back in court, at the Old Bailey on November 2nd.  She is charged with offences which include an alleged offer to supply News International with insider information on Operation Varec - a sub-investigation of Operation Weeting.  Arguably the most significant aspect of Casburn's Old Bailey appearance is that she "must enter a plea to the charge"  - the first defendant to do so since the News of the World scandal erupted.

8 ICO:  There may be more charges to come, but this time by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).  Asked about the future sequence of events which might, in time, signal the closing stages of Hackgate, DAC Akers told the Home Affairs Select Committee that it would be necessary to involve the ICO in charges to be laid.  The ICO has its own powers to take action in relation to the Data Protection Act, in addition to any police/CPS prosecutions -

the Information Commissioner must get involved where there is not quite such serious criminality but, nonetheless, there are breaches of privacy.

Given the criticism of the ICO's failure to achieve convictions under Operation Motorman, they would doubtless be glad of the opportunity to take action on data protection offences.  And who is to say that potential prosecutions might not result, belatedly, from Operation Motorman itself?

9  Will Hackgate spread further?  Possibly

Home Affairs Select Committee  Q49 Mr Winnick: In your evidence to the Leveson inquiry, you said that Trinity Mirror, News International and Express Newspapers were being investigated for corrupt payments to officials. That is what you said?
Sue Akers: Yes.
Q50 Mr Winnick: Are there other organisations now involved in the investigation, apart from those?
Sue Akers: Those are the organisations that I have said publicly, and I think I should not go any further than what is in the public domain.
Q51 Mr Winnick: When you say you do not want to go any further, I do not want to press you when you consider that it would be inappropriate, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, but you have mentioned companies already to the Leveson inquiry. You are saying, in effect, if I understand you, that there are other companies but for some reason you do not want to mention them today.
Sue Akers: I am certainly not ready to say anything in the way that I did about the Mirror Group and the Express Group because our investigation is still continuing.
Mr Winnick: If that is the position, I will not press you further. Thank you.

10  Sue Akers' replacement - is MET Deputy Assistant Commissioner Steve Kavanagh, so his name will become familiar to Hackgate watchers.  His face may already be familiar from his press conferences during the London riots in 2011.  There is already one Hackgate gig awaiting him at the Leveson Inquiry. In addressing Future Directions, Leveson said

As I have just made clear to DAC Akers, it is important that my report is based on what is then the most up to date information about the progress of the criminal investigation.... I make clear that I will issue another request under s. 21 of the Inquiries Act 2005... Notice of a hearing will be provided in good time to all core participants to Modules 1 and 2 

Unless Lord Justice Leveson decides to accept a substitute written statement, Steve Kavanagh could be back in front of the cameras soon in Court 73.

So, plenty still to watch out for....

Related Articles
Hackgate - Dear Surrey Police
Hackgate - The John Boyall Files
One Rogue Email And The Indestructible Archive 
John Yates And Neil Wallis - A Mutual Understanding
Alex Marunchak - Presumed Innocent

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

Unlucky For Some - Section 13

A new piece from a regular contributor.

Today's Independent reports that Lord Justice Leveson has started sending out his requisite Section 13 letters.  These notification letters must be sent to any who may be criticised in the Inquiry's final report. (Don't get me started on the arguments about what legally constitutes 'a person'....)

Rule 13 provides:

The Chairman may send a warning letter to any person:
a. he considers maybe, or who has been, subject to criticism in the inquiry proceedings;
or
b. about whom criticism may be inferred from evidence that has been given during the inquiry proceedings;
or
c. who may be subject to criticism in the report, or any interim report.

The timely mail shot allows those in receipt of a Section 13 warning letter to raise objections, factual inaccuracies and so on. No doubt their legal advisors will be busy formulating responses.  But the defensive strategies to Section 13 warnings started long before letters starting dropping onto expectant doormats.

For example, way back in October '11, anticipation of severe criticism loomed large in the unsuccessful Surrey Police application  (pp1-16) for Core Participant status for Module 1 - before the Inquiry had even started to take any witness evidence.

In May, the Metropolitan Police Service (MET) submitted "that all individual criticism of any sort is outside Part 1 and inconsistent with the Terms of Reference" - Part 1 being the evidence-taking, up to Leveson's Final Report.  The MET submission was unsuccessful for the legal reasons given by Leveson in his Application of Rule 13 of the Inquiry Rules 2006 in Relation to the Metropolitan Police Service.

Another example of a preemptive strike was that of the Closing Submission of Module 3 Core Participant, Rebekah Brooks.  Fearful lest other's evidence to Leveson (including the MET's Deputy Assistant Commissioer Sue Akers) might have generated a negative impression, Rebekah warned

... the Inquiry should be mindful of the fact that her character and credibility will be a very significant issue in her trial (or trials), and that any conclusions affecting either are therefore likely to be significantly prejudicial to her case,.. she should not be made the subject of direct criticism.

Lord Justice Leveson however had already anticipated the debate on Section 13:

...it is very important that any Inquiry does not prejudice either the police investigation or any potential prosecution to such extent as thwarts the investigation or renders a prosecution so unfair as to constitute an abuse of process. That does not mean that there can be no mention of any person under investigation...

He also countered:

As a matter of fairness, as I have sought to protect the names of those who have been arrested from being linked with specific allegations of criminal conduct, so I have not thought it right to allow those who have not been arrested to be named as guilty of crime, even where I anticipate no prospect of a criminal investigation

Viz-a-viz his Report, Leveson also pointed out that:

... much more relevant than anything I say will be the underlying evidence which has been presented to the Inquiry; that will be available for any criminal trial

As will the evidence given to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, Privacy and Media Intrusion 2003, Self-Regualtion of the Press 2007, Press Standards, Privacy and Libel 2010, Home Affairs Select Committee,  Unauthorised Tapping Into or Hacking of Mobile Communications 2011 and Culture, Media and Sport, News International and Phone Hacking 2012.

All of these have been widely reported nationally and internationally, so (like pictures of Prince Harry's bum) there is little chance that 'collective amnesia' can be induced on such a wide scale that all such evidence could be conveniently forgotten.

Lord Justice Leveson is obliged to support his considerations in his Section 13 letters with EVIDENCE - evidence given to his Inquiry, which has so carefully avoided prejudicing criminal proceedings.

No doubt that is exactly what he will do.  Unluckily for some...

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

A Battle Royal - Murdoch vs Monarchy

From a regular contributor:

In the Battle of Harry's Bum, defiance of Leveson's 'chilling effect' in defence of freedom of speech is a mere distraction.  Whilst it may allow a public tussle for the high moral ground - with megaphones brandished in addition to pitchforks - one of its objectives may be to set up Lord Justice Leveson as a sitting target. Polarised debate simply allows the agenda to be hijacked and seen only as 'champions of freedom of expression' v 'authoritarian hand of the state'.

But from another perspective this skirmish has less to do with Leveson and more to do with targeting the Royal family itself - however that is dressed up.  Lest it be forgotten, it was News International that hacked Harry's phone. And it would be a mistake to think that act had one sole motivation because it had several layers.  At one level was a reporter's need for a scoop, at the next level there was an overbearing, over-competitive editorial culture. Add to that, News International's corporate profit-driven motives, plus, at the top level, a motivation to please a proprietor well known for his hatred of class deference, the British Establishment, and blue-blood, inherited privilege.

The predictable Establishment response to Goodman's actions was to circle the wagons of Royal protection.  Arguably, the Metropolitan Police Service (MET) has had a patchy history in that respect. They have been dogged by scandals from Southern Investigations being overheard discussing a story of a Palace fire-arms officer, through News of the World's Sophie Wessex sting, 'Harry's drug shame' story, to the arrest of a female senior Royal Protection officer by Operation ELVEDON. 

The MET response to the Royal household' suspicions of phone hacking needed to be seen to be decisive - and diplomatic.  So a decision was made which would have unforeseen consequences for monarchy, MET and Murdoch.

An investigative strategy was chosen which would give the Royal princes deferential and preferential treatment over all other victims. The prime motivator was to prevent any Royal having to appear as a witness in court, and avoidance of any charges which might reveal the content of any voicemails which might cause embarassment. Rather than data protection, computer misuse or conspiracy offences, a very narrow interpretation of RIPA dictated investigation parameters. 

Naturally, the Crown - the CROWN - Prosecution Service agreed.  With voicemail content 'out of court', proving illegal process was top priority.  The whole impetus for investigation, resources and prosecution had to be zeroed in on technical data. Employees in the Royal household complied with a covert sting, mobile service providers were enlisted to provide technical assistance  - anything to spare Royal blushes.  Of course, News of the World counsel would have used any princely court appearance to their advantage.  Yet, it could be argued that the princes were denied the opportunity to stand up in court and face down a tabloid.  That might have had more of a chilling effect on press 'dark arts' than any judicial inquiry.

The determination to keep the phone hacking prosecutions so tightly drawn rebounded. As the scandal grew wider, the MET response narrowed. Only four categories of thousands in the Mulcaire notebooks were deemed important enough to notify - police, security, senior politicians and of course, Royal.  Royal priority and privilege therefore enabled victims such as the Dowler family, parents of the murdered Soham girls, 7/7 bombings, service personnel killed on active duty in Afghanistan to be overlooked.  They simply weren't as important as protecting Royal from embarassment.  The whole point was to filter out 'extraneous matters'.

John Yates later argued that it just hadn't occurred to the MET that there could have been another category of phone hack targets - victims of crime. Though, debatably, you are only going to find what you go looking for.  The princes themselves were spared a court appearance, spared publicising of their private lives, and spared the opportunity to be treated by the MET as any other victim of phone hacking. In the event, not even the Royal employees had to give evidence in court as Goodman and Mulcaire both pleaded guilty.

And all because Murdoch capos were behaving too as adjuncts to a dynasty above the law.  No doubt Royal household and MET exchanged self-congratulatory sentiments after the convictions - perhaps shook hands, job well done, case closed.  News International retreated behind their 'one rogue reporter' fiction.

House of Windsor, House of Murdoch - neither could possibly have predicted the ensuing combat zone which has led to Harry's arse on the front page of The Sun.

Related Posts
Hackgate for Beginners
Some Intriguing Hackgate "Known Unknowns"
The Milly Dowler Hacking - Part 1: Questions Still Unanswered


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