Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
1860-1879)
MR CHRISTOPHER
GRAHAM AND
MR DAVID
CLANCY
2 SEPTEMBER 2009
Q1860 Adam Price: You have made that
case convincingly and, as far as I am concerned, you are pushing
at an open door. This is a marketplace which includes buyers and
sellers and it has to be looked at as a totality, does it not?
Coming back to the 305 journalists that you have not identified,
you have talked about criminal sanctions as the ultimate deterrent
and I can understand that, particularly in relation to private
investigators, but the newspaper industry or a part of it trades
on destroying people's reputations, but it is very, very protective
of its own reputation and that is why journalists do not tend
to do stories about other journalists maybe. If some eminent former
or current journalist is saying, "This is the biggest scandal
that has attached itself to the newspaper industry", surely
the best thing to do would be to publish those names, and those
journalists which have a legitimate public interest defence can
use that and The Observer can defend its corporate reputation,
but, if there are journalists, as you suggest, who sanctioned
purchase orders and invoices which clearly have the word "blagging",
well, prima facie were they not involved in criminal activity?
Mr Graham: Not if the story was
in the public interest.
Q1861 Adam Price: But that is the
point, that they can say that, surely? How are we to know? Unless
you publish those names, how will we ever know how far this went?
I read a story in Private Eye that claims that an editor
of a national newspaper was actually on the list. I do not know
whether that is true. I have heard that another editor was on
that list. Now, surely, when the editors, who are meant actually
to be policing the Code of the PCC, are on the list, we need to
know what is their defence and what is the background to this.
This is very, very serious. If we cannot trust the newspapers,
which are such an important part of democratic society, to obey
the law, then that takes away one of the key foundations of democratic
society, so it is actually very, very important. You have the
information, so surely you should put it out there? You believe
in freedom of information.
Mr Graham: Well, putting it out
there. This is the sort of personal data which would be exempt
from the Freedom of Information Act, so you cannot just say, "Well,
we'll publish 305 names and see what happens". Under the
Data Protection Act, there are a number of possible defences.
Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, it is an absolute
offence and there is not a journalistic defence. Where this story
started on 9 July was all about hacking and phone-tapping, which
is an offence under RIPA, and we now seem to be off in a completely
different domain where the ICO cannot help you because that is
not what we do. So we are now back talking about what we do do,
which is dealing with blagging, but there is a public interest
defence. I would say the only person who could say what the public
interest defence of an individual story could be would be the
editor or the managing editor of a newspaper, and I have been
a managing editor and I know what it involves. But we do not even
know what the stories were, never mind whether they were in the
public interest. What I have suggested is that it would have been
a good idea in December 2006, and it is not too late now, for
the titles who were named in that report to get in contact with
me and say, "We're very concerned that 35 or 45 of our journalists
appear to have been dealing with this deeply suspect individual.
Can we talk about it?" At that point, I would share with
a properly authorised editorial figure in a newspaper group the
names that were on that list just on the basis that that is what
the situation appeared to be in 2006.
Q1862 Adam Price: Seeing as you have
some kind of joint and shared responsibility, you have argued,
with the PCC, why do you not engage in a joint approach with the
PCC, sharing the news with the editors and asking the PCC as well
to be involved with a proper new investigation as to what lies
behind these individual requests and, if there are any which are
dubious, then obviously further action may be necessary?
Mr Graham: We have a co-operative
relationship with a number of bodies and those reports, What
Price Privacy? and What Price Privacy Now?, suggested
a programme of action for a whole series of other regulators,
self-regulatory bodies, trade associations and so on. But you
are focusing on the PCC. We do not have any formal relationship
with them, but I just accept that they do press standards and
we do data protection and, where those two things cross over,
then we probably need to talk. You have already spoken to the
PCC. I have said I am very happy to deal with editors who ring
me up to find out more, but there is no question of my being able
to give a blanket publication of 305 names that were doing something
in 2006; that would be a breach of section 59 of the Data Protection
Act and, for that, I am criminally liable and I am not going to
do it.
Q1863 Adam Price: So a list of names
that was possibly involved in breaching other people's privacy
you cannot release because you would be breaching their privacy?
Mr Graham: Without lawful authority.
Q1864 Mr Hall: In your opening statement,
I sort of got the impression that you were saying that the problem
about blagging, hacking, tapping and illegal access to DVLA records
was an ongoing thing which, it subsequently emerges, the private
investigators are doing and not the journalists.
Mr Graham: The journalists never
were. It was always the journalists—
Q1865 Mr Hall: Who employed them.
Mr Graham:— as the clients
of.
Q1866 Mr Hall: So they commissioned
the work?
Mr Graham: The only evidence we
ever had was of journalists commissioning the identification of
individuals and their addresses, their ex-directory phone numbers,
their friends and family details, their car registrations and
other things.
Q1867 Mr Hall: Then you went on to
say that in the Motorman case there was not any suggestion that
hacking or tapping had taken place. Is that correct or did I misunderstand
that?
Mr Graham: We have not got evidence.
Mr Clancy: There is no evidence
whatsoever.
Q1868 Mr Hall: Have you reviewed
the evidence that has been presented to you?
Mr Clancy: We looked at the evidence
and the evidence clearly indicated that there were no transcripts
of any calls whatsoever, it was just information in relation to
telephone numbers, et cetera. They may have obtained those
telephone numbers and subsequently hacked them, but we cannot
say.
Q1869 Mr Hall: In previous questions
from various members of the Committee, you then tried to establish
the scale of the abuse that journalists carry out in this field,
and the evidence that you have submitted to the Committee is that
there is no evidence that you can see about whether this is an
ongoing practice.
Mr Graham: There is no evidence
that we hold beyond the evidence which contributed to What
Price Privacy? and What Price Privacy Now? in 2006,
which was well investigated.
Q1870 Mr Hall: I just want to be
clear that that is what you said.
Mr Graham: I have not got anything
else, so I cannot help you further.
Q1871 Mr Hall: So your evidence to
the Committee is that the practice of private investigators continuing
in this illegal activity is ongoing and is a serious problem?
Mr Graham: Yes.
Q1872 Mr Hall: But we do not know
who the clients are anymore?
Mr Graham: Well, we know some
of the clients because of the example we have given.
Q1873 Mr Hall: But they are not journalists?
Mr Graham: We have not got any
further evidence of journalistic involvement beyond 2006.
Q1874 Mr Hall: Does that strike you
as the news industry having actually cleaned up its act or as
confirming the evidence that we have been given in this Committee
that the government case was a one-off, rogue journalist acting
ultra vires without the knowledge of his editor?
Mr Graham: But, if I could just
say, that related to a different case.
Q1875 Mr Hall: It was a completely
different case.
Mr Graham: That was the royal
correspondent to the News of the World and that was hacking
and tapping.
Q1876 Mr Hall: I know it is a completely
different case, but we were told it was a one-off.
Mr Graham: I do not think it was
ever suggested that the 305 journalists were a one-off, if that
is possible. It was simply suggested that, since nobody seemed
to know what the stories were they were engaged on, there may
have been a public interest defence.
Q1877 Mr Hall: If you have read the
transcripts of the previous sessions we have taken evidence, we
have clearly had two editors, the former editor of the News
of the World and the current editor of the News of the
World, saying that the government case was a one-off. Mr Coulson,
who was not aware that there were any, was surprised that there
was one. Then, Mr Myler said that he had conducted a serious investigation
and concluded that this was a solo incident, if you like. That
is what has been said on the record, and my question to you is
that he could have come and asked the Information Commissioner
about the 305 journalists who are recorded as being engaged in
some kind of activity, whether any of these other reporters were
involved in that and that did not happen.
Mr Graham: It did not happen,
but it was not the same thing. You were asking the News of
the World management about the phone-tapping and offences—
Q1878 Mr Hall: We asked them about
a whole series of activities.
Mr Graham: Well, the answers that
they gave you, as I read in the transcript, were in relation to
whether Mr Goodman was a one-off or symptomatic and they said
that this was a one-off and nobody knew about it, but that does
not say anything about the 305 journalists.
Q1879 Mr Hall: Would they not ask
the Information Commissioner whether the 305 journalists, which
you have a record of, were employed by the News of the World?
Mr Graham: But they did not need
to ask us because it was published in December 2006. There is
a table in What Price Privacy Now? and it lists a total
of journalists.
| 
