Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
1520-1539)
MR TOM
CRONE AND
MR COLIN
MYLER
21 JULY 2009
Q1520 Mr Watson: It could be that
he was paid that amount in the years before that.
Mr Crone: It was an annual contract,
and the last annual contract was a touch over—it was about
£104,000 a year.
Q1521 Mr Watson: That contract ended
when he was convicted?
Mr Crone: Yes.
Q1522 Mr Watson: Then you said there
was an employment disagreement. He, presumably, thought that because
he had worked for you for more than a year he had employment rights
and, therefore, you needed to afford him the same employment just
as you gave Clive Goodman. Is that what you understand?
Mr Crone: No, I was not privy;
I was not part of that process, but my understanding of the employment
law (as I say, I am only repeating what I have been told) is that
freelancers or contractors, if they do more than a certain number
of hours a week for you, then they have rights.
Q1523 Mr Watson: So when he came
out of jail, was his company paid or was he paid directly?
Mr Crone: I do not know.
Q1524 Mr Watson: You could let us
know that afterwards. Is that right?
Mr Crone: Yes. I hope someone
is writing down what I need to let you know.
Q1525 Mr Watson: And the amount?
Mr Crone: I do not know.
Q1526 Mr Watson: You could confirm
that afterwards as well?
Mr Crone: I am sure.
Q1527 Mr Watson: Mr Myler, I was
going to say to you that people whose judgment I respect tell
me that you are a very decent man and that if there was wrongdoing
in the company when you took over you would have cleaned it up.
My final question to you, on which I am trying to get light in
this Inquiry, is how a newspaper decides what is in the public
interest. The judge in the case said that in certain circumstances
illegal activity is allowed in the public interest. Am I right
to say that under your leadership that public interest test would
be taken by you, having sought legal advice, and would not be
taken further down the food chain?
Mr Myler: I think it is safe to
say, Mr Watson, that in 40 years in this business I spend, probably,
equal amounts of time and, depending on the story, more time with
lawyers than I do with journalists.
Mr Watson: Thank you.
Q1528 Mr Sanders: I think the Committee
is very grateful for the way you have explained certain things
and how things work, but I am still a bit confused about this
junior journalist who transcribed a tape of `phone recordings.
Is that common, for a junior journalist to act as transcribers,
rather than to use secretaries?
Mr Myler: I was a junior journalist
once, and I was given many tasks, and one of the things would
be to transcribe a tape, yes.
Q1529 Mr Sanders: That is you. What
I am saying is, why was this junior journalist asked to transcribe
this tape? From the fact that he cannot remember transcribing
this tape it suggests that he transcribed many tapes. So why would
you have a junior journalist transcribing lots of tapes?
Mr Crone: I would think that on
the News of the World floor there are four secretaries—five—all
of whom have their own jobs, all very busy. A junior reporter
might not have anything to do for days on end, so it seems a useful
use of facilities to give it to him or her.
Q1530 Mr Sanders: This does not quite
gel—horses for courses.
Mr Crone: It is not a difficult
task; you do not need a great deal of skill for it, to transcribe
a tape. That is what he was doing; he was doing an awful lot of
it.
Mr Myler: For example, there will
be reporters back in the office now taking a note of this meeting,
transcribing it over the television feed. It depends who is around;
it depends who is in the office. It might be a secretary who is
doing it; it might be a reporter; it might be a junior reporter.
Q1531 Paul Farrelly: Just in terms
of the payment, let us get this quite correct: Clive Goodman was
dismissed when he was convicted summarily and he lost his appeal.
So, therefore, after he was summarily dismissed on conviction
neither he nor anyone associated with him was made any further
payments by News International or any companies or individuals
or agents acting on behalf of News International, or associated
with the company. Is that correct?
Mr Crone: I am not aware of that.
Mr Myler: I am not aware either.
Q1532 Paul Farrelly: So Clive Goodman
was the Royal editor and, as far as you are aware, no further
payments were made to Clive Goodman, who was convicted on one
charge of conspiracy and pleaded guilty to it. Yet Mr Mulcaire,
who was arrested at the same time—
Mr Crone: I am sorry. I think
I misunderstood your question. Are you asking whether, at the
end of whatever employment issues were raised, Mr Goodman received
a payment?
Q1533 Paul Farrelly: I am asking:
there were no further payments to Mr Goodman after he was summarily
dismissed? Or anyone associated with him by anyone associated
with News International?
Mr Myler: I am not aware of any
payment.
Q1534 Paul Farrelly: The answer was
clear. I am moving on to Mr Mulcaire now. Mr Mulcaire was convicted
on six counts: one of conspiracy and five of the actual deed;
he is a convicted criminal, he has breached the press code of
conduct all over the place and any other, no doubt, what would
be called gross misconduct in any organisation; yet, at the end
of the day, you consider that he still has claims against the
company in terms of some sort of employment rights and a payment
is made to him.
Mr Crone: That explains my confusion.
I am sorry, that does explain my confusion. You are assuming that
no payment was made to Clive Goodman.
Q1535 Paul Farrelly: I asked whether
or not—
Mr Crone: If I could finish, then
we will both understand each other, I hope. Your question seems
to be premised on the facts, and that is my understanding, that
at the end of his employment appeal and everything else process
there was no payment. I do not know whether that is right—it
may not be right, in fact.
Q1536 Paul Farrelly: You said "No"—
Mr Crone: That is because I misunderstood
the question, which is why I—
Q1537 Paul Farrelly: Would you clarify
that to us?
Mr Crone: I am not absolutely
certain, but I have a feeling there may have been a payment of
some sort.
Mr Myler: With?
Mr Crone: Clive Goodman.
Mr Myler: I would have to check.
Q1538 Paul Farrelly: Can you clarify
that afterwards? Clive Goodman was summarily dismissed and yet,
having been convicted on six counts, your company felt that—
Mr Crone: Are you talking about
Mulcaire?
Q1539 Paul Farrelly: Yes, Mr Mulcaire
still had some claims in terms of some unspecified employment
rights and you made him a payment.
Mr Crone: Yes, apparently he did.
I do not know employment law, but apparently (as I have now said
for the third time) the law means that if you do so many hours
a week there are certain rights. Alongside those rights you have
rights of process as to how you are dismissed. If you do not get
the process right—
| 
