Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
1980-1999)
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
JOHN YATES
AND DETECTIVE
CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
PHILIP WILLIAMS
2 SEPTEMBER 2009
Q1980 Paul Farrelly: If you would,
please.
Mr Yates: Presumably she knows
now.
Paul Farrelly: I think she already knows.
She is named.
Chairman: She is JA.
Q1981 Paul Farrelly: If you could
come back to us on that particularly, please.
Mr Yates: Yes, I will.
Q1982 Paul Farrelly: There has been
some controversy about what the evidence shows about how many
people's phones were hacked into. I think we have got to eight
or ten so far, and Andy Hayman has said a handful and somebody
said fewer than 20. Detective Chief Superintendent, do you have
a feel for what your inquiry threw up in terms of how many people's
phones were actually hacked into?
Mr Williams: Our challenge has
been the technical side, which is going back to the companies
to understand what has gone on in terms of the voicemails, and
this goes into the technical side. I think some of it may have
been explained in the submission, but what we were relying on
was each individual's company's internal engineering software
to tell us what is happening in the voicemail box, and by and
large that engineering software is not good enough to tell us
because it is their own administration, so the only people that
we can actually prove—and that was looking at our potential
list of victims—is people that we have done a significant
amount of work on in terms of frequency, duration of calls and
what the individual companies can tell us, and in one instance
the phone company had to write some new software to be able to
do some of the analysis. I am being very cautious around knowing
who is a victim of what, because he clearly has got an interest
in a range of people which, as we have said, is his job. He has
this ability but we do not know definitively to what extent he
has used that and we are entirely reliant on the phone companies
being able to look at their internal data and come back to us.
I suppose the honest answer is we do not know, and if we were
saying to people, "The honest answer is we do not know",
some of these people that were part of our case, it is an inference
that they may have been a victim of this.
Q1983 Paul Farrelly: But we have
got documentary evidence, which comes from your inquiry because
it was released to Gordon Taylor's case, that shows Jo Armstrong
of the Professional Footballers' Association, for instance, being
a victim, as was Gordon Taylor. It is quite worrying to hear that
that name was not being recognised and it is only one of a few
names.
Mr Yates: It would have formed
of the indictment. There have been 600 or 700 names bandied around,
so I am not able to remember every one of them.
Q1984 Paul Farrelly: The issue was
germane to the statement that you made, Assistant Commissioner,
where you said you had been asked to establish the facts. You
made a statement that the people who had been subject to tapping
were all contacted by the police. That does not seem to be the
case.
Mr Yates: Yes, it is.
Q1985 Paul Farrelly: And then later
on in the evening there is a corrective statement put out by Scotland
Yard clarifying that, saying, "The process of contacting
people is currently under way and we expect this to take some
time to complete".
Mr Yates: If you go to the end
of the statement I think I make it clear that there could be people
that fell through the gap and that was my concern, had we been
sensible, reasonable and diligent, I think I used those words,
in terms of contacting everybody, and that is what I undertook
to do, so I make the assumption that Mrs Armstrong was one of
those.
Q1986 Paul Farrelly: She was only
one of eight or ten people.
Mr Yates: Okay. Your point is
made.
Q1987 Paul Farrelly: Do you feel
now that if there are further revelations and there is further
public concern, and I think there are three categories of people—A,
definitely hacked; B, suspicions but through case management we
do not pursue them; C, targeted, i.e., if people do bring concerns
to you and the issue stays live, there might be an argument for
taking a fresh look at the case?
Mr Yates: We have always said
and I have always said that if new evidence is presented we would,
of course, consider it. No new evidence has been presented. It
has been now two months since that article and no new evidence
has come to light. Also, there has got to be a sense of what can
you do with that material now, three years later, when there is
no technical data. There have to be some sensible, pragmatic decisions
taken around these things on occasion. If new evidence comes to
light we have always said we would consider it, but no new evidence
has come to light.
Q1988 Paul Farrelly: That is a circular
argument, as we established when I opened my questions, but anyway,
if further complaints are made, would you consider it?
Mr Yates: If there are further
complaints with viable evidence that we can pursue, then of course
we would consider it.
Q1989 Mr Watson: I do not envy you.
It has got everything, this case, has it not? Competition, celebrities,
Royals, big newspapers, you always seem to get them, and that
must temper the way you look at this case. You have to proceed
with caution. You said you asked a number of detailed questions
of the News International lawyers when you were investigating
the case. Did they tell you when they first had a relationship
with Mulcaire, what year that was? I think you asked for contracts
of employment and the year he started working for News International.
Did they tell you that?
Mr Williams: I am now going totally
off the top of my head, so be careful. In relation to Mulcaire,
yes, I believe they did supply the information. We obviously found
a contract and in relation to him—
Q1990 Mr Watson: It would be great
if you could clarify that perhaps in writing afterwards. When
we interviewed Tom Crone, the lawyer, and the editor, there was
a bit of confusion about the year that Mulcaire started. I think
they said he started in the late nineties. When you say there
were a few people you suspected had had their phone hacked, did
that include the royal princes?
Mr Yates: No, to my knowledge.
Mr Williams: Say the question
again, sorry.
Q1991 Mr Watson: Did you suspect
that the royal princes had had their phones hacked?
Mr Williams: In terms of them
ringing their voicemails?
Q1992 Mr Watson: What did you suspect
had happened to the royal princes' phones?
Mr Williams: Yes.
Q1993 Mr Watson: By Goodman and Mulcaire?
Mr Williams: Yes.
Q1994 Mr Watson: And presumably you
did not want to drag the royal princes into court, so you chose
not to pursue that route?
Mr Williams: The criminality was
through their private secretaries, so they are listening to their
private secretaries' voicemail which has messages.
Q1995 Mr Watson: From the princes?
Mr Williams: And other people.
Q1996 Mr Watson: And did you suspect
that they had listened to the mobile phones of the royal princes?
Mr Williams: Yes, I think they
may well have done.
Q1997 Mr Watson: I do not know how
many people you have put away in jail over the years but it must
run into hundreds. Does it run into hundreds?
Mr Williams: Yes.
Mr Yates: Twenty-eight years yesterday.
Q1998 Mr Watson: When people go to
jail they do not just lose their liberty; they lose their livelihoods,
they lose their jobs, they are guilty of gross misconduct. Is
there anyone that you have ever put away that you know has received
a payoff from their employer, having received a custodial sentence
and lost their job?
Mr Williams: I personally? What
do you mean? Do you mean because—
Q1999 Mr Watson: They have received
a payoff by their employer after they lost their job when they
went to jail.
Mr Williams: What, legally?
| 
