Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
2040-2059)
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
JOHN YATES
AND DETECTIVE
CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
PHILIP WILLIAMS
2 SEPTEMBER 2009
Q2040 Adam Price: So this is solid
information which has led you to believe that quite possibly or
probably their own phones were intercepted as well?
Mr Williams: Yes.
Q2041 Mr Hall: One of the things
that really concerned me about the very swift response from the
Metropolitan Police that there was no new evidence in this case
and therefore nothing further to investigate was that it came
out very quickly, and yet right at the start of the session you
explained the amount of time that you put in during the day to
reach that conclusion. Would it have been wiser on your part to
have perhaps deliberated a little bit further before making the
statement?
Mr Yates: We are sort of damned
if we do and damned if we do not in these cases. If we are tardy
we get criticised and if we are too quick we also get criticised.
With Phil and others around the team we sat down and looked at
what Mr Davies was saying in his article. We understood the genesis
of it in terms of this was three stories, three old stories, conflated
into one. We considered whether there was anything new within
it and there was not, and we came to a view fairly quickly. Far
be it from me to say it, but events have proved that that was
probably the right decision to reach. I think we considered the
DPP's and senior counsel's view on that.
Q2042 Mr Hall: What has emerged this
afternoon is that this investigation and the prosecution was a
very narrow and very fixed investigation, and it did not go further
because you were not permitted to do fishing exercises with the
News of the World to see if this was a widespread practice,
rather than with the information you had to show if you had a
particular case in certain circumstances. I am thinking about
the request you made to the News of the World for information
and their response, which you say is a response but did not give
you any more information or led you any further forward. Is that
a fair assessment?
Mr Yates: We could only follow
the evidence. To go fishing is neither appropriate, lawful or
ethical, we can only follow the evidence, and that is what we
did in this case.
Q2043 Mr Hall: At one point I thought
Detective Superintendent Williams was actually going to explain
how the money worked and then the questionner led you further
away. Detective Superintendent, how was this money actually paid
to Goodman and how was it paid to Mulcaire?
Mr Williams: Mulcaire had a fixed
contract, so that went into his bank, and then he received individual
payments from Goodman. Goodman, according to the material that
News of the World gave us, would claim, for example, £500
and the records would show, which is what we got from News
of the World, that it was Goodman to pay the pseudonym they
were using for Mulcaire (and presumably Goodman) "Pay Mulcaire".
That amount of money over the period totalled £12,300, and
because it was believed to be in relation to Mulcaire's activities,
the subject of our case, that was an amount we could say beyond
reasonable doubt was as a result of this activity and therefore
it became the subject of a confiscation order, which the judge
granted, and it was not opposed.
Q2044 Mr Hall: If I can be clear,
Mulcaire had a contract direct with the News of the World
which they paid into his bank account, and he received subsequent
amounts of money—
Mr Williams: Additional sums.
Q2045 Mr Hall: —from Goodman?
Mr Williams: Yes.
Q2046 Mr Hall: And Goodman claimed
them from a pot in the News of the World organisation?
Mr Williams: Yes.
Q2047 Mr Hall: Is there an audit
trail to the News of the World funds to show how much Goodman
claimed and how much he passed on?
Mr Williams: Yes, and all that
was the subject of the trial—
Q2048 Mr Hall: This was all disclosed
at the trial?
Mr Williams: Again, off the top
of my head, it was a number of payments totalling £12,300.
Q2049 Mr Hall: These were cash payments?
Mr Williams: I believe they were.
I could not quote you on that. I do not know.
Q2050 Mr Hall: Having looked at Mulcaire's
bank accounts, there were no sums of money in his account which
he could not actually account for?
Mr Williams: I do not know. I
know we looked at his financial profiling, we knew where he was
getting his money, from News of the World—
Q2051 Mr Hall: So if there were other
deputy editors in the News of the World—say the Sports
desk rather than the Royal Family desk—and they had an arrangement
with a private investigator who was on contract, the payments
would work the same way? That editor would claim them from a central
pot in News of the World and pay them direct to the person
supplying the information?
Mr Williams: If I have understood
it, yes. Other people in News of the World had similar
arrangements with other people. I am presuming, I do not know,
is the honest answer, how they do it, but it could well be there
would be similar records in News of the World to that.
Q2052 Mr Hall: Because of the requirements
of the production order, you were not allowed to ask those questions?
Mr Williams: I can only ask in
relation to what I am investigating. There is absolutely no basis
to ask them that.
Q2053 Mr Hall: Did you follow the
audit trail on the emails as well?
Mr Williams: Which?
Q2054 Mr Hall: The Goodman-Mulcaire
audit trail via email? Was there an audit trail via email?
Mr Yates: Mulcaire's computer
was seized and has been examined for any relevant material.
Mr Williams: There was nothing
on his computer.
Q2055 Mr Hall: We were told by the
current editor that he looked at 2,500 emails and he could not
find anything to suggest this practice was active anywhere else
in the News of the World. I do not suppose you looked at
the 2,500 emails, did you? Although why would you.
Mr Williams: I do not know which
emails he looked at. Again, my basis would be, who is Mulcaire
working for? Give me names of people, give me stories, and then
if you get that you would look at what gets revealed, but I have
been told there is nothing in our records, therefore legally I
have no basis to pursue it.
Q2056 Mr Hall: One final question,
was John Prescott's phone actually tapped or not?
Mr Yates: No. As I said on the
day, there is no evidence it was.
Q2057 Mr Hall: There have been plenty
of stories about him which would be explained if his phone had
been tapped.
Mr Yates: We have no evidence
it was.
Q2058 Mr Watson: When you were examining
the payments to the various people, the credit element and the
cash payment element, did you have any reason to notify the Inland
Revenue that tax offences might have been taking place?
Mr Williams: We did consider a
raft of things. For instance, if he has received this fixed money,
is there any basis for asset confiscation beyond the £12,300?
So that was considered; all of that. There were some financial
inquiries, but when it comes back to it, with counsel and CPS,
we are completely unable to say on what basis he acquired that
money; there is no basis to say it was unlawful. In fact the only
basis we could say any of the payments were unlawful was that
£12,300, so therefore that was the only bit that we could
actually take off him. For the rest of it, we have no evidence
to be able to support anything under asset confiscation or any
of those matters.
Q2059 Mr Watson: With respect, that
was not my question. I understand the point that you needed to
find evidence of fraud for the trial—
Mr Williams: I think you were
asking about tax.
| 
