Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
1920-1939)
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
JOHN YATES
AND DETECTIVE
CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
PHILIP WILLIAMS
2 SEPTEMBER 2009
Q1920 Mr Sanders: I am trying to
get to the point of what time that day you then announced that
this process had been completed.
Mr Yates: I think it was late—it
was early evening. I think it was five-ish.
Q1921 Mr Sanders: What sort of relationship
does the Metropolitan Police have with the News of the World?
Mr Yates: Cordial, professional,
as we do with all the media outlets, both London and nationally.
In terms of transparency and confidence in policing, of course
we do engage with journalists at all levels, be it the most senior
executive, and reporters on the ground. You would expect us to
do that.
Q1922 Mr Sanders: Is the News
of the World a newspaper you consider is more or less helpful
than other newspapers in helping the Metropolitan Police with
some of the inquiries they have to undertake?
Mr Yates: I think all newspapers
can be extraordinarily helpful in terms of some crime inquiries,
but I think—
Q1923 Mr Sanders: That is not what
I asked. Is the News of the World more or less helpful?
Mr Yates: I would not like to
give you a view on it. If you look at some of the coverage we
have from newspapers, particularly the News of the World,
occasionally, it is pretty brutal.
Q1924 Mr Sanders: I am not asking
about how they portray you. I am saying is the News of the
World more or less helpful with the Metropolitan Police in
terms of the relationship that you have, in terms of the information
that can be exchanged?
Mr Yates: We have a very professional
relationship at a number of levels—with the Crime Reporters'
Association, which is at the more tactical level, all the way
up to the senior executive level in terms of people like the Commissioner
and myself. It is a professional, objective relationship where
we will seek their help on a number of occasions and get their
help on a number of occasions with serious crime matters when
we are seeking information, and, quite rightly, they will hold
us to account when we are perceived or otherwise to have made
misjudgements. If you look at the G20 recently, if you look at
the coverage of G20, what the News of the World gave us
then, pretty brutal.
Q1925 Mr Sanders: In terms of the
information that is passed to you, do you ever question how that
information may have been obtained by a newspaper?
Mr Yates: In what sense?
Q1926 Mr Sanders: If you want to
tap somebody's phone you have to go through a process.
Mr Yates: Yes, we have to get
a Home Secretary warrant. I am not sure what you are suggesting.
Q1927 Mr Sanders: I am asking whether
you ever question how a newspaper that gives you information may
have obtained that information.
Mr Yates: Of course we have to.
Q1928 Mr Sanders: What if that information
had been obtained illegally?
Mr Yates: In supposition terms,
any investigation would uncover that. You would have to source
where the information came from in order to present it into a
court, and if we had uncovered that it had been sourced illegally
then, of course, we would have to deal with that.
Q1929 Mr Sanders: That is if it formed
part of the evidence.
Mr Yates: If it formed part of
anything. We are dealing in supposition anyway so I cannot—
Q1930 Mr Sanders: Going back to when
somebody listened to a recorded message that the original recipient
had already listened to themselves, you suggested that that is
not an illegal activity.
Mr Yates: No.
Q1931 Mr Sanders: But, surely, that
they are listening to something without permission—in a
sense, if I wanted to see something in your file that you did
not want me to see but I somehow was able to see what was in that
file, surely an offence has been committed for me to see what
was in that file.
Mr Yates: It is not an offence
under RIPA but it is a breach of privacy, which my colleague here—
Q1932 Mr Sanders: Would that not
be under the human rights legislation?
Mr Williams: It is actually under
the Misuse of Computer Act, which is one of the other offences
that we considered, but, similar to the previous witness in terms
of data protection, there are those three bits of law that cover
broadly what is happening. Misuse of computer essentially is someone
unlawfully gaining access to data that they should not have. The
voicemail, being data, with it comes a sentence of six months
and a fine, so it was considered in our case as one of the potential
offences but the substantive offence that reflected the seriousness,
the gravity, of what we were dealing with, was clearly the section
1 interception offence.
Q1933 Mr Sanders: So you could be
fined. Has this ever been tested in law? Has anybody ever been—you
might not know the answer to this, but has this ever been tested
in law?
Mr Williams: You mean the misuse
of a computer?
Q1934 Mr Sanders: That offence, in
relation to voicemail.
Mr Williams: As far as I am aware,
no. There have been cases of misuse of computer. It gets quite
complex in proving what is data and that again was one of the
reasons, when we liaised with the CPS, that in terms of simplicity,
of presenting something clear and unambiguous before a court,
section 1, interception, was something where everyone, we hoped,
would readily grasp exactly what was happening and it would be
clear what we were trying to prove, and it was by far the substantial
offence that would give a court the greatest powers.
Q1935 Paul Farrelly: I just wanted
to say that the written statement that there is no new evidence
is not going to get us very far because that is a circular argument
and because the Guardian's evidence has come from what
is in your files in the first place and in Motorman. The question
really is, whilst we all appreciate the need for case management
with limited resources, what evidence was there and whether it
was acted upon, and, if not, why not. It does seem quite extraordinary
to offer a justification that the chief reporter was not interviewed,
nor the junior journalist who wrote the email, whom you have named
as Ross Hindley, because they would have said, most likely, "No
comment", and I imagine that if that was the approach to
all police interviews we would not be getting very far.
Mr Yates: That was a secondary
point, Mr Farrelly. The first point was that there was no evidence
to put to them and there were no reasonable grounds to question
them. That was the point that both counsel for the CPS and ourselves
came to the view on.
Q1936 Paul Farrelly: But there is
a series of transcripts of telephone conversations.
Mr Yates: The secondary point
is that, in terms of where was it going to take us in terms of
proving the prosecution's strategy at that time, that was where
we chose to go then. I concede what Mr Davies has said: perhaps
in 2006 it ought to have been done; I do not know, but in 2009
that is going to take us absolutely nowhere.
Q1937 Paul Farrelly: Could I ask
Detective Chief Superintendent Williams what Clive Goodman and
Glenn Mulcaire's first comments were on the August date when they
were hauled in front of the police? Was it "No comment",
or did they plead guilty immediately?
Mr Williams: I cannot remember
what they replied to caution, but through all interviews it was
"No comment". In fact, they have never made a comment
to us.
Mr Yates: As I opined in the trial.
Q1938 Paul Farrelly: We all have
a problem with the words, of course, that are on your card, but
we have all heard on the tele, "You may exercise your right
to silence although this may effectively be held against you",
which would put the fear of God up me if I were unwilling to co-operate,
but there is also the issue of interviewing people not as suspects
under caution but as witnesses. It strikes me as extraordinary,
given that this email existed with transcripts of telephone conversations,
which was the very thing that you were investigating following
the concerns that had been raised by members of the royal household,
that these people and the editor and the managing editor who was
authorising the payments to this person were not interviewed even
as potential witnesses. Can you explain why that was the case,
Chief Superintendent?
Mr Williams: After the arrest
and having discovered this material, and it was not all discovered,—yes,
obviously, it was discovered on the day of the search but it then
had to be searched through and analysed—we did go through
a process of seeking to explore who else knows about this. Now
that the whole investigation was overt, as it were, people were
aware of exactly what we were after, we were quite open in terms
of exploring who else knows about this. We had a list of things
that we wanted to understand. We did consider getting things like
legally something called a production order which would give us
the authority to go in and require material. Again, we came up
against what grounds did we have to ask for that material. With
CPS and counsel advice we went through a process of co-operation
with the lawyers representing News of the World. We quite
clearly set out the range of material that we wanted to have access
to, including things like an understanding of how their internal
phone system worked. We asked for plans so that we could put a
telephone on a desk in different offices because, as was already
read out, we were open to the potential—were there other
people who were involved in this conspiracy—because we were
looking to explore all of that. That process went on over a number
of months. The replies that we eventually got, I can quote some
of them—
Mr Yates: Would it help if I briefly—it
will take less than 30 seconds—read out for the record what
we sought from the News of the World? This was obviously
dealing with their lawyers on a lawyer-to-lawyer basis. We sought
a copy of all documents relating to the contract for the employment
of Glenn Mulcaire and his company, Nine Consultancy Ltd; any record
of work completed in respect of Mr Mulcaire; how is the return
of work for Mr Mulcaire's weekly retainer confirmed; who does
Mr Mulcaire report to; who does Mr Mulcaire work for; has he completed
work for other editors/journalists at the News of the World;
can we have a copy of any other records for work completed by
Mulcaire for these editors/journalists, including subjects on
whom he might have provided information; can we have the details
of the service providers for the telephone systems installed in
the offices where Clive Goodman works; details of the floor plan,
to include the locations of telephone extensions in the office
where Mr Goodman works; details of the phone used regularly by
Clive Goodman, i.e., the number of the phone on his desk or any
mobile issued to him by the company; and, lastly, itemised billing
of the phones used regularly by Goodman, i.e., the phones on his
desk or the mobile phones, for the period 1 December 2005 to 8
August 2006. As I said, the investigation was attempting to identify
all persons that may be involved, including fellow conspirators,
so we were not exactly ignoring it.
Q1939 Paul Farrelly: No. Can I ask
you whether, from your memory of the investigation at the time,
Detective Superintendent Williams, you got truthful and satisfactory
replies to those questions from News International?
Mr Williams: I can tell you we
got written replies. I can quote what they said: "No documents
exist recording any work completed by Mr Mulcaire, monitoring
of Mr Mulcaire's return of work, reporting structure of any persons
for whom Mr Mulcaire may have provided information. There is no
floor plan. The telephone system installed at News Group Newspapers
does not provide an itemised breakdown in respect of any particular
extension number. We note with concern your assertion that you
seek the telephone numbers of persons called before and after
relevant unlawful calls. It is highly likely that such information
will amount to confidential journalistic material." What
I would say is that they answered our questions by and large by
saying, "We do not have it". As I explained, we were
exploring two routes: a production order to get this, which we
have to do and go before a judge for and there is a set of criteria
we need to meet. We were also looking on the financial side and
I had financial investigators pursuing that side. I suppose it
would be fair to say that these are solicitors representing, so
they are acting within the law. It would be fair to say they are
being robust, they are meeting what they need to meet in terms
of their legal requirements, and indeed we did get financial material
and documents relating to Goodman and Mulcaire, which indeed were
part of the prosecution case, but their answer, as you have heard,
to these other things was no, so when it comes to us considering
everything in the round and we look at this other material, I
have to consider where is this taking me in my investigation.
Also, I look to what is it I am seeking to achieve, and I was
very conscious, as Mr Yates has said in his opening, that this
is an area of great public concern. There is always, as we have
heard with the previous witness, this issue of public interest.
Obviously, if I can find evidence I will pursue it; my team are
very tenacious in that, but what I wanted to be clear about was
to present a case that once and for all would clearly say, "This
is wrong. It is criminal and you will go to prison", because
it would be the first time that this clarity had actually been
produced. The other thing that I was very clear about was that,
yes, this could very well be widespread potentially, and for everyone,
all of us in this room and in the UK, how are we going to stop
this happening again? That required very close and I must say
good co-operation from all those companies involved, and I know
that at the time and since then they have all brought in a raft
of measures that should stop this happening again. It comes back
to what Mr Yates said. In terms of what we were seeking to achieve,
I understand that this might not be palatable but I have to follow
the evidence and we pursued it.
| 
