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

Hackgate - Dear Surrey Police

Another article from my regular contributor.

Dear Surrey Police,
There are eight senior, Deputy and Chief Constables in England currently under investigation.  Count them - EIGHT - for a variety of allegations: using undue influence, corruption, misuse of public funds, gross misconduct, even lying to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

Well okay,  I grant you, one is appealing being sacked for gross misconduct, the first since 1977.

True, that has attracted press coverage.  But only because of its rarity value.  We're much more used to senior officers being allowed to quietly retire on full pension to avoid disciplinary action - like this one, or these.

Sometimes though, you get things right. You did interview Jimmy Savile about alleged sexual offences.  And when you decided there was enough evidence, you were prepared to follow that up with a referral to Crown Prosecution Service.  Sadly, the CPS decided insufficient evidence so no charge could be brought. There were others though who didn't voice their suspicions and have attracted criticism for their inaction - such as this tweet:

No, sorry, Janet. Sorry Esther. I don't buy it. If you knew and you did nothing, you're part of the problem you condemn.
— Louis Barfe (@LFBarfe) October 4, 2012

So credit where it's due - you did investigate.

Because who doesn't loathe such hateful crimes against children, doubly victimised by crass abuse of power and smothered by walls of silence?  Who would not feel like weeping for their powerlessness?  Unless it were Milly Dowler and you knew about that phone hacking.

And you knew.  It's not even in dispute.  The News of the World "admitted to Surrey Police in April 2002... (it) had unlawfully accessed Milly Dowler's voicemail messages."  News International has conceded that to victims taking civil action.  It is the main foundation of the criminal prosecutions too, of course - conspiracy unlawfully to intercept communications.  Those charged in relation to Milly Dowler are Rebekah Brooks, Andy Coulson, Stuart Kuttner, Greg Miskiw, Glenn Mulcaire and Neville Thurlbeck.  Are you seriously hoping no-one will notice?  Do you really think no-one will wonder who in Surrey Police was told?  Can you honestly believe nobody will ask why nothing was done to prevent phone hacking continuing? The next victims after Milly herself were her family - and maybe you could have prevented it.

Granted, you did invite the Independent Police Complaints Commission to investigate.

And that's the last we heard of that.  Doubtless the IPCC will kick the can further down the road, and we'll be told it can't report till the News of the World prosecutions conclude - when might that be? 2014? 2015?  But why?  By that time, we will have guessed that no charges will be made.  And we will definitely have clocked if anyone were to be allowed to quietly retire with a full pension and avoid disciplinary action.

No, sorry, Surrey.  Sorry IPCC.   I don't buy it. If you knew and you did nothing, you're part of the problem you condemn.

There are Questions Still Unanswered, and continuing Discrepancies and Delays.

The Leveson Inquiry has acted like a searchlight. Regardless of its outcomes, it's served the public well, giving the opportunity to watch the process.  Whatever its Report recommends, the open scrutiny is necessary if the battered and bruised public confidence in policing is ever to start healing.  Two Prime Ministers spelled out the 'Dowler Test'.  David Cameron said,  "... bear in mind who we're doing this for, why we're here in the first place, and that's the real test. If the families like the Dowlers feel this has really changed the way they would have been treated, we would have done our job properly."

Gordon Brown said

...the question (is) that the Dowlers put to us: how can we defend the privacy of a family who at their moment of greatest grief and at a time when they're at their most vulnerable have their privacy invaded by the press in a way that splits the family apart and makes everybody in that family suspicious of each other, and particularly so since it's been done by unlawful means, which include telephone tapping.... I think Lord Justice Leveson put it: 'who will guard the guardians?' was a question which he wanted to address. I will say: who will defend the defenceless?

Who guards the guardians?  We do.  All of us.  The private citizens, public servants, our MPs, the bloggers, investigative journalists, the armchair Leveson viewers, Hacked Off and the pissed off - asking our questions and putting your integrity under our spotlight.

And we are watching what you do next.

Yours Faithfully,

Mr Reg Contributor

c/o Brown Moses

Related Articles
Hackgate - The John Boyall Files
One Rogue Email And The Indestructible Archive 
John Yates And Neil Wallis - A Mutual Understanding
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

The Milly Dowler Hacking - Part 3: A Short Postscript

The Leveson Inquiry web site is currently doing a summer document dump.  This comprises three categories of documents - additional Legal Submissions, further 'Taken as Read ' material, and Exhibits to previously published witness statements.  The latter are scattered throughout the alphabetical witness evidence listings.

There are several interesting documents in the newly published Exhibits - hat-tip to Tom Watson MP for pointing to Andy Coulson's Severance/Compromise Agreement with News International here - it's worth reading.

But it was another Exhibit caught my attention....

When Bob QUICK gave his evidence to the Leveson Inquiry, he outlined a review he undertook when he was Chief Constable of SURREY Police. He was asked by the MET to look at the Cash-for Honours scandal (Operation Ribble).  Specifically, there were high-level leaks from the investigation to newspapers.  The then Commissioner of the MET, Sir Paul Stephenson, was very concerned that the leaks were coming from Acting Assistant Commissioner John YATES.

QUICK's Report to Stephenson made more than a dozen suggestions, including that YATES should allow his mobile phone and landline billing records to be scrutinised, scoured for calls to newspaper contact numbers, and timings cross-checked against press stories emanating from leaks.  YATES cold response to QUICK's recommendation was to refuse, saying  "he was ’very well (or too well) connected’. When I questioned this remark he emphasised "No Bob - I am VERY well connected".   (p9)

The full (though redacted) report from Bob QUICK to Stephenson is now available - Exhibit BQ2 here.

This was in late 2006, the exact same time of the well-publicised trial and conviction of Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire. How one 'rogue reporter' from the News of the World had hacked mobile phones for stories made headline news and TV coverage.  Ironic then that one of Bob QUICK's other recommendations to Stephenson was that all phone calls between YATES and the press should be monitored and recorded.  QUICK added that

Surpol (SURREY POLICE) is researching the legality of recording options and I will report on these imminently.

Doubly ironic is that QUICK was seemimgly unaware that he had been  impeded by YATES' cold refusal PLUS the force of which he was Chief Constable.  QUICK was relying on legal research from SURREY POLICE - who had known for more than four years that News of the World had illegally hacked and recorded the voicemail of Milly Dowler.

Related Posts
The Milly Dowler Hacking - Part 1: Questions Still Unanswered
The Milly Dowler Hacking - Part 2: Discrepancies And Delays
Hackgate for Beginners
Surrey Police and the Hacking of Milly Dowler's Phone
Bloggerheads - News of the World: 110% certainty, the remainder fact

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

The Milly Dowler Hacking - Part 2: Discrepancies And Delays

Part 1 provided contexts up until just after Milly Dowler's disappearance.  Part 2 looks at when evidence and suspicions of NotW hackings could - perhaps should - have been unearthed.

May 02  Seven weeks after her disappearance, Bob and Sally Dowler were stalked by NotW whilst they quietly re-traced missing Milly's last known steps. Their 'grief walk' became a major story in NotW, with surveillance photo.  Sally told her police Family Liaison Officer that NotW could only have found out their plans from their phone conversation or a police source.

SURREY Police therefore had an opportunity to connect their knowledge of NotW phone hacking and suspicions that it was still continuing, with Milly's parents as targeted victims.  Adjoining force, Sussex Police, were requested to start a review of the SURREY Dowler enquiry. It is not known if SURREY's knowledge of NotW hacking was disclosed to Sussex officers.  Another missed opportunity.

16th July 02  A major discrepancy here.  According to a SURREY Police statement in 2012 (page 13), this date was when NotW met with SURREY Police detectives Craig DENHOLM and Stuart GIBSON of the Miller Dowler investigation team.  This contradicts The Independent's report  (also cited in Part 1) that two face-to-face meetings had taken place weeks before, in April. The July 16th timing is debatable however as Stuart GIBSON had already been replaced on the Dowler investigation in late June.

Aug 02  The Soham murders, Cambridgeshire.  In 2011, the victims' parents were informed by police that their phone numbers had been found in Glenn MULCAIRE's notebooks.

Sept 02  Milly Dowler's body found.

Nov 02  Devon and Cornwall Police's Operation REPROOF planned with ICO their first raid on suspect premises.  As per good practice REPROOF informed, liaised with and secured necessary support from the relevant geographical constabulary - SURREY Police.  REPROOF and ICO then raided the business premises (Guildford, SURREY) and home (Caterham, SURREY) of John BOYALL. As a result of material seized, ICO commenced OPERATION MOTORMAN, their investigation into widespread data offences.

Mar 03  Raid on Steve WHITTAMORE's Hampshire home and the business premises of 'JJ Services' , registered address Sutton, SURREY - on the SURREY/MET border. Evidence was found of illegal access to the Police National Computer (PNC) and two other suspects were investigated - one was a civilian worker at a MET police station. The other, retired MET officer Alan King, had his private investigator premises in London searched and his home in Coulsdon, SURREY.

Apr 03  OPERATION MOTORMAN investigators briefed MET officers on their evidence that PNC information had been accessed by WHITTAMORE associates.  The MET then started preliminary investigations, prior to establishing their own formal Operation GLADE.  Also in April 03, Bob QUICK left the MET for his new appointment as Deputy Chief Constable of SURREY Police.

May 03  ICO investigators gave the MET further detailed update presentations on OPERATION MOTORMAN and evidence uncovered for use in Operation GLADE. The unsorted MOTORMAN Files continued to be organised and compiled into an electronic database.

Aug 03  OPERATION GLADE officially commenced - this MET investigation was restricted to only some of the PNC offences uncovered by MOTORMAN.

2003 - 04 Controversially, OPERATION MOTORMAN refrained from interviewing any journalists.  OPERATION GLADE interviewed only seven journalists; none were prosecuted.  More missed opportunities.

Oct 04  Bob QUICK promoted to Chief Constable, SURREY Police.

Apr 05 OPERATION GLADE investigation concluded in convictions of John BOYALL, Steve WHITTAMORE, ex-MET officer Alan King and MET civilian worker Paul Marshall after guilty pleas.  Via prosecutions preparations, copies of the MOTORMAN Files remained in the possession of the MET and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The ICO retained their own MOTORMAN database and the original hard copy evidence.

Just a few weeks later, members of the royal household began to suspect their phone messages were being intercepted by NotW.  Their suspicions were raised with MET Counter-Terrorism/Royalty Protection - the command headed by Andy HAYMAN. Dec 05 the resultant covert investigation started - OPERATION CARYATID.

Apparently, the MET failed to make any connection between CARYATID and the MOTORMAN or GLADE investigations, despite NotW featuring so largely in all three operations.

8 Aug 06  OPERATION CARYATID raided the London home and attempted to raid the NotW Wapping office of royal correspondent Clive GOODMAN. Simultaneously, Glenn MULCAIRE was also arrested and a large quantitiy of material seized from his London home and from business premises in Sutton, SURREY.

CARYATID established extremely narrow parameters solely to inform 4 priority categories of people named in MULCAIRE's notebooks and defined as victims - royal, politicians, police and national security.  Even so not all were informed, including Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott.  MULCAIRE's information gathered about the Dowler family was undiscovered in his notebooks, and stored by the MET in bin bags.  Yet another opportunity missed.

Nov 06  GOODMAN and MULCAIRE convicted.

2007  Gordon Taylor negotiations on his settlement with NotW.  His lawyer, Mark Lewis, gained a crucial court decision ordering diclosure of all relevant material held by:
MET (from MULCAIRE and OPERATION CARYATID)
CPS Crown Prosecution Service (limited material from OPERATION CARYATID)
ICO (from OPERATION MOTORMAN)

It seems that all evidence of the Dowler hackings was still left overlooked in this disclosure search process.

Mar 08  Bob QUICK left SURREY Police for new post at the MET as Assistant Commissioner Specialist Operations (Counter-Terrorism, Cabinet and Royal Protection).  It is not apparent if he was briefed on OPERATION CARYATID and its implications for royal, national security and senior politicians' protection. And if not, why not.

Apr 08  Craig DENHOLM left SURREY Police for his new post as MET Commander working directly with Assistant Commissioner John YATES.

June 09  Craig DENHOLM left MET and returned to SURREY Police for promotion to Deputy Chief Constable.

July 09  John YATES did his one-day assessment to decide that re-examining OPERATION CARYATID unused evidence was unnecessary.  Questions are still unanswered as to whether or not DENHOLM informed YATES what he knew, and his '02 meetings with NotW when they had admitted Milly Dowler's mobile phone was hacked.  And if not, why not.

Also in July, the CPS undertook its short, parallel consideration of its limited CARYATID material and supportively agreed with YATES that no re-investigation was justified.

The Dowler evidence in bin bags of MULCAIRE material continued to be overlooked.

Aug 09  YATES instructed CARYATID material to be collated and (for the first time) entered into a searchable database.  This work took months

2010  Civil litigations, Select Committee evidence and other revelations increasingly rendered NotW's 'one rogue reporter' defence untenable.

Jan 2011 MET announced the start of the OPERATION WEETING investigation into phone-hacking.

Apr 2011  Sally and Bob Dowler are finally informed by OPERATION WEETING that their (and their murdered daughter's) phone mesages had been intercepted. 

Apr 2012  The Culture, Media & Sports Select Committee reported that John YATES "told us that the eventual number of additional victims who were contacted as a result of the supposedly more vigorous investigation in 2009 was just eight." (para 259)

Inexplicably - and unforgivably - this was more than nine years after SURREY Police knew of the Milly Dowler phone hacking.

There may yet be legal repercussions for SURREY.  They are mentioned twice in court rulings of the 'Mobile Telephone Voicemail Interception Litigation'.  The Generic Particulars of Claim (the agreed basis for all current and future litigation) states that NotW journalists  "had admitted to Surrey Police in April 2002 that the First Defendant (News Group Newspapers) had unlawfully accessed Milly Dowler's voicemail messages."

Plus, Mr Justice Vos has adressed another ruling to the MET on processes for disclosures to claimants.  Vos ordered the Met to disclose to claimants relevant documents, computer data and other material - including that of

the Respondent (The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis), the First Defendant (News Group Newspapers),  Clive Goodman and the Surrey Police.

Grouped together in this way, they look a motley crew...

Related Posts
The Milly Dowler Hacking - Part 1: Questions Still Unanswered
The Milly Dowler Hacking - Part 3: A Short Postscript
Hackgate for Beginners
Surrey Police and the Hacking of Milly Dowler's Phone
Bloggerheads - News of the World: 110% certainty, the remainder fact

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

The Milly Dowler Hacking - Part 1: Questions Still Unanswered

Here's the first part of a re-examination of the Milly Dowler phone hacking from a regular contributor.  Part 1 looks at the background to Dowler hackings and highlights some early warning signs, particularly in the interplay between the Metropolitan Police Service and Surrey Police.  Part 2 considers points at which specific evidence of the Dowler family as victims of News of the World 'dark arts' practices remained overlooked for almost a decade.

1999  Operation Nigeria - This was a Metropolitan Police Service (MET) covert operation (into the murder of Daniel Morgan) which bugged the premises of a private investigator, Jonathan Rees, in Thornton Heath, SURREY.  It eavesdropped on evidence of corrupt practices by private investigators, MET police officers and journalists. Three private investigators implicated were John GUNNING, John BOYALL and Glenn MULCAIRE (more on these below). 

Subsequently, two MET officer associates of Rees were convicted in a long-term operation into police corruption in South East London - one of the investigating officers was then Detective Superintendent John YATES. Simultaneously, and also investigating MET corruption allegations, the Head of MET Professional Standards Department was Andy HAYMAN. When YATES moved on to a different post, he was replaced by Bob QUICK.

In 2000, Bob QUICK wrote a report on the increasing dangers of journalists corrupting police officers, with suspect private investigators often acting as brokers. QUICK's report was submitted to the Head of the MET Professional Standards Department, Andy HAYMAN (see page 5 of Quick's Leveson statement).

This context demonstrates how, from 1999 onwards, key senior officers at the MET were aware of the potential for a corrupt nexus of private investigators, police and newspaper journalists. Self-evidently, YATES, HAYMAN and QUICK were sensitised to these kinds of corrupt 'dark arts' - the modus operandi was already on their radar.

Jan 02  Operation REPROOF commenced.  It was a Devon and Cornwall investigation into illicit data access by corrupt officers, procured by suspect private investigators nationwide - including John BOYALL (implicated in Operation Nigeria). 

Feb-Mar 02 Operation REPROOF contacted the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) re perceived data offences; the catalyst for initiating Operation MOTORMAN.

Devon and Cornwall Police also informed several constabularies of evidence pointing to potential corruption in their respective forces. One force - in addition to the MET - informed of suspected corrupt officers was SURREY Police.

21st Mar 02  Milly Dowler disappears from Walton-on Thames, SURREY.  The following timeline (where *asterisked*) is based on that given to the Leveson Inquiry
* 25th Mar 02  SURREY Police apply legal authority to "preserve" Milly Dowler's mobile phone voicemail messages.  There is no evidence that her voicemail was acessed by the News of the World (NotW) prior to this.
*  10.57  Milly's PIN number was re-set by Mercury, thus dis-enabling Milly's own PIN.
*  15.19  Mercury re-set the PIN again - no explanation has been given for this anomaly as to why this second Mercury re-set was necessary.  A first download of Milly's voicemails messages was undertaken.

Here there is a disturbing discrepancy.  Instead of enlisting technical assistance from Mercury, SURREY Police say they engaged a specialist forensic phone data company to do the download but this attempt was unsuccessful.  The un-named company deny undertaking any such work (pp9-10).

This contradiction has yet to be resolved, as are the questions of why a private company was decided on, which company exactly, and on whose recommendation.

Late Mar/ early Apr 02 News of the World (NotW) commission private investigator Steve WHITTAMORE to obtain personal information about the Dowler family. The tasking can be found in the Operation MOTORMAN Blue Book.

A NotW journalist, Sarah Arnold, sought the home address of the Dowlers and relevant ex-directory (XD) telephone numbers. The XD number procurement was subcontracted by Whittamore to John GUNNING (implicated in Operation Nigeria).

*  12th Apr 02  A female from NotW telephoned an employment agency in the West Mercia region, purporting to be Milly Dowler's mother.

*  13th Apr 02  The employment agency was 'beseiged' by NotW reporters.  NotW phoned SURREY Police several times that day, asking to speak urgently to the Milly Dowler investigation team.  SURREY Police telephoned NotW back and were informed by NotW that they had obtained Milly's mobile phone number and PIN from her school friends.

An either/or scenario needs considering here. Did NotW use Milly's original PIN - obtained from her friends - to access voicemails between (at the earliest) 24th March and (at the latest) 26th March when that PIN was re-set? If so, NotW then waited until 12th April to inform Surrey Police.

Or, did NotW acess her voicemails post-26th March, ie AFTER the two PIN re-sets?  How was this possible and who did the hacking?

Or BOTH?

*  17th Apr 02 Surrey Police do a second download of voicemail messages

*  20th Apr 02 NotW email SURREY Police and offer their recordings of Milly's voicemails. Later the same day, NotW phoned SURREY Police and played back Milly's voicemails over the phone.

*  23rd Apr 02  Detective Constable John Lyndon of SURREY Police logged his suspicions that NotW had been hacking Milly Dowler's mobile phone voicemails.

There is at this point an important discrepancy regarding meetings between NotW and SURREY Police.  As reported in The Independent, senior news staff of NotW met twice in April 02 with SURREY Police investigating officers, Craig DENHOLM and Stuart Gibson.

In these meetings, NotW made no secret of the fact that they had caused Milly's mobile phone to be hacked.

The Independent's report also states that minutes of one of the meetings exist still in the un-used Milly Dowler evidence files.  There is no mention of these April meetings in the SURREY Police timeline evidenced to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in 2012, nor in MET evidence given to the Leveson Inquiry in May 2012.

Mid-April 02 seems to be when SURREY Police knew definitively that Milly Dowler's voicemails had been hacked by, or at the behest of, NotW.  Arguably, this is the critical point at which action to stop NotW dubious practices could have been taken.

So, hacking of Milly's mobile was known to SURREY Police. In addition, Steve WHITTAMORE's files contained evidence of NotW's procurement of the numbers of Milly Dowler family's phones - awaiting discovery by Operation MOTORMAN.

Tomorrow, part 2 tracks the subsequent actions, inactions and missed opprtunities which conspired to keep the Dowler family ignorant of NotW wrongdoing...

Related Posts
The Milly Dowler Hacking - Part 2: Discrepancies And Delays
The Milly Dowler Hacking - Part 3: A Short Postscript
Hackgate for Beginners
Surrey Police and the Hacking of Milly Dowler's Phone
Bloggerheads - News of the World: 110% certainty, the remainder fact

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

Surrey Police and the Hacking of Milly Dowler's Phone

With this week's report to the Leveson Inquiry regarding the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone a regular reader has sent me this interesting theory relating to it:

The name of a serving senior Surrey Police officer, Craig Denholm, keeps cropping up in relation to the Milly Dowler phone-hacking.  Indeed, Surrey Police themselves are soon to conclude  an investigation into the handling of the 2002 Interceptions of Milly's mobile - Operation Baronet.  Denholm is at present Deputy Chief Constable of Surrey. In 2002, following Milly Dowler's disappearance, he was one of three officers who met with two News of the World news executives. The two journalists from the NotW volunteered that Milly Dowler's mobile number had been obtained and the content of her voicemails messages accessed.

Craig Denholm is one of several police officers who have spent their careers boomeranging between the Surrey force and the Metropolitan Police Service.  He first joined the Met in 1984 and spent time in CID on anti-corruption, drugs and intelligence work, and thence to NCIS (National Criminal Intelligence Services). He transferred to Hampshire Police for a relatively short time, subsequently moving to Surrey Police (for the first of his two Surrey stints) in 2001. He was a senior detective at the time of Milly's disappearance in 2002.

It appears that Denholm took no known action regarding his knowledge of Milly Dowler's mobile hacking by NotW. Was it then within Denholm's power to have taken action to stop the phone hacking scandal in 2002?

The present Assistant Chief Constable of Surrey, Jerry Kirkby, recently gave evidence to the Leveson Inquiry and, in his first witness statement, he stated that he is in the closing stages of heading an investigation into the circumstances surrounding Surrey Police actions (and inactions) re the hacking of Milly's mobile. This is Operation Baronet, and one of its tasks - to date unconcluded - is securing evidence from 2002. On completing Operation Baronet, Surrey Police intend submitting their final report to the Leveson Inquiry, together with additional witness statements. Obviously, the Operation Baronet report may be submitted confidentially, or redacted to avoid prejudicing Operations Weeting or Elevedon.

The long-anticipated 11th Report, 'News International and Phone-Hacking', from the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee was published last week:
"The Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee criticised the (Surrey) police for being told by reporters they had hacked into the Walton teenager's phone - but not investigating for another ten years."

Denholm's career flourished with Surrey Police - Head of Crime Management, then Divisional Commander, then attaining the rank of Assistant Chief Constable until leaving Surrey Police in 2008.

He followed a well-worn path, yet again, back to the Met.  He took up an appointment as Commander (Counter Terrorism) in Special Operations..... working directly with John Yates.  Denholm could not have failed to be aware of John Yates' self-confessed, "crap", one day quasi-review of the facts around Operation Caryatid - the Goodman-Mulcaire phone hacking investigation. Although leaving the Met in June 2009 (returning AGAIN to Surrey Police), Denholm must have been aware of the Guardian story breaking and becoming headline news in early July on radio and TV news programmes.

Clearly, this raises questions, as well as eyebrows.

Why/Did Denholm stay silent about his knowledge of NotW phone-hacking in 2002?

Did Denholm maintain that silence in 2009, or did he tell John Yates when the Guardian broke its phone scandal story in that July?

If he DID tell John Yates, did Yates ignore this then-new evidence?  Or did Denholm and Yates conceivably collude in suppressing their shared knowledge of NotW Milly Dowler mobile hacking?

It is now alleged too that the key meeting between Denholm and the NotW senior journalists was minuted - let's hope those minutes are amongst the 2002 evidence being secured by Operation Baronet.

On Monday May 4th, the Leveson Inquiry held an unscheduled hearing to address an application to make selected senior Government ministers
Core Participants.  Lord Justice Leveson's Ruling, accepting the application, was published on the Inquiry web site.

The same day, another written Ruling also quietly appeared on the Inquiry web site - unremarked amongst the furore about Government Core Participants. This additional May 4th Ruling addressed an application by the Metropolitan Police.  In essence, it sought to prevent or restrict Leveson's ability to criticise any individual current or former Metropolitan Police officer by name. Neither should Leveson, the Met asserted, even use any examples of behaviour which might allow identification of any un-named officer.  The Ruling is worth a read. Lord Leveson argues, elegantly and eloquently, that he retains the right to cite names or other relevant evidence. Otherwise, hog-tied, he could be accused of providing unsubstantiated and subjective findings in reporting on the "Culture, Practice and Ethics of the Press".  The example Leveson uses in his Ruling is John Yates.

The Met have 14 days from this May 4th Leveson Ruling to appeal via a Judicial Review.  It will be interesting to watch out for a possible appeal.... and to look forward to hearing more of Craig Denholm and Operation Baronet.

 Food for thought ahead of this week's Inquiry.

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