Examination of Witness (Question Numbers
2140-2159)
MR LES
HINTON
15 SEPTEMBER 2009
Q2140 Adam Price: Well, who first
raised it?
Mr Hinton: I do not know, I was
not that involved in the discussion.
Q2141 Adam Price: Finally, it was
mentioned by the Chairman that a number of the stories which were
at the heart of this case had two bylines on them, Clive Goodman
and Neville Thurlbeck, including one from the spring of 2006 where
we now know from the police's evidence that actually it was the
Princes' phones themselves that were hacked into because the whole
basis of the story, with the byline of Clive Goodman and Neville
Thurlbeck, was a message left by one Prince on another Prince's
phone. Did nobody ever think to ask Neville Thurlbeck, who co-wrote
that story, what he had thought at the time as to the provenance
of the story? It could only have come from one source and if it
had not been fabricated it could only have come from phone hacking.
Mr Hinton: I do not know anything
about that story, I am sorry, I cannot help you, I just do not
know. I do not know the circumstances in which it was written.
I do not remember it. I just do not know, I am sorry.
Q2142 Adam Price: It is incredible
that nobody from the Editor down or senior executives ever knew
anything about that story. I am sure that if we got Neville Thurlbeck
who co-wrote that story he will probably plead the Fifth Amendment
as well.
Mr Hinton: Mr Price, I did not
plead the Fifth Amendment. Just to give you some context, I was
responsible for five newspapers and 4,000 employees. I am sure
you do not expect me to be familiar with the detail of every single
story that we published.
Q2143 Adam Price: This story has
been the subject of recent press coverage because it has now been
established, pretty incredibly and I cannot think of another case
of this, that a reporter, and probably more than one reporter,
writing a story in your newspaper actually hacked into the phones
of the Royal Family of this country. It was quite a big story.
You would imagine that you might have read some of the press coverage
about that.
Mr Hinton: I am sorry but I am
at a bit of a distance and I am not familiar with it, I am sorry.
Q2144 Mr Watson: Hello again, Les.
Does it surprise you that Andy Coulson did not know the provenance
of that story?
Mr Hinton: He might well have
known. Mr Watson, you have to put it in the context of the amount
of work that the Editor of one of those big papers does. If there
were three or four particular big stories going on and he was
trying to arrange employment with people or other stories, an
Editor does not vouch for every single word in that kind of detail
with everything that goes in the paper. It is one of the stories
that he might well have known about but it does not particularly
surprise me that he did not, no.
Q2145 Mr Watson: So in the measures
that you have put in place post the Goodman incident to stop journalists
obtaining information illegally, who would actually verify the
provenance of a story today?
Mr Hinton: That is exactly the
right question. The point about the way in which a newspaper works
is that information comes from the bottom up, if you like. You
have lots of reporters who provide information and depending upon
the nature of the story it will be visited with more scrutiny
as it gets up the line before being published. The most important
thing is that the reporters who are on the ground who are at the
coalface getting this information are properly aware of when it
is proper and improper to use borderline methods to gain information.
Q2146 Mr Watson: Mr Hinton, you have
made a very strong case to say mistakes were made in the past
and that you have learnt by those and what I am trying to do is
establish how responsibility can be taken for it not happening
again. Would you say now that an editor should investigate the
provenance of those stories more deeply than perhaps happened
in the past?
Mr Hinton: Two things—I
think that what is right and wrong can be made very clear to the
people who are actually gathering the information, but obviously
if I were back in the days when I was an editor and if I were
an editor now I would be especially sensitised to the need to
make certain and to get involved personally to make sure that
something like this was not happening unless there was a really
good reason for it to happen.
Q2147 Mr Watson: You were Chief Executive
of five newspapers; from the learning you took from the News
of the World how confident are you that those activities were
not happening in the other four News International newspapers?
Mr Hinton: They were across thelondonpaper,
The Times, The Sunday Times and The Sun and
there was never any suggestion, but they were all equally reinforced
with the rules about what it is proper to do. I never attached
the possibility of suspicion to the Times Literary Supplement
so I probably did not speak to them.
Q2148 Mr Watson: In the case of a
paper deciding to break the law or commit an illegal act where
you think there is a public interest test at what level in the
organisation would that public interest test be scrutinised? Would
that be at editor level now?
Mr Hinton: It would be at least
at the editor level. In the case of really big matters—for
example the Telegraph's exposure of the expenses misconduct
in Parliament—that may have gone beyond the editor. When
the Hutton Report was obtained by Trevor Kavanagh at The Sun
I was involved in knowing what we were going to do, but at least
the editor has to have responsibility.
Q2149 Mr Watson: So the Editor of
The Sunday Times would take responsibility for embedding
Claire Newell into the Cabinet Office and stealing Government
documents?
Mr Hinton: I am not familiar with
that case, Tom. I cannot remember the grounds or anything else,
but you would have thought if a major act was being carried out
to discover information that was judged to be very possibly in
the public interest, then I would expect at any stage, and certainly
in this particular situation, for an editor to be aware.
Q2150 Mr Watson: Claire Newell was
a journalist who then applied for a job through a temporary employment
agency as an assistant in the Cabinet Office and was then arrested
with an armful of documents when leaving the building. I think
she now works on The Sunday Times Insight Team.
In that particular case the Editor would have taken responsibility
for that decision; is that right?
Mr Hinton: I would not be surprised
if he did but I do not know the circumstances, frankly, all I
know is what you are telling me now, Tom, so I am not sure.
Q2151 Mr Watson: Okay. Just one last
question, Mr Hinton, what did Rupert Murdoch think about all this?
Mr Hinton: Are we going back to
the Goodman case?
Q2152 Mr Watson: Yes?
Mr Hinton: He was very concerned
about it.
Q2153 Mr Watson: And so he would
expect that any current activities that might reflect some of
the activities of the past would be completely eradicated and
he would expect his editors to take responsibility for that now?
Is that a fair assessment?
Mr Hinton: Without wanting to
put words in his mouth, I think that is a fair assessment. I would
have thought if anyone were found conducting themselves in the
way that Clive Goodman did, first of all, I think it is highly
unlikely, but if they did, yes, there would be no question about
that.
Mr Watson: Thank you very much.
Q2154 Mr Hall: Mr Hinton, in evidence
that we have had previously from Colin Myler and Mr Coulson, and
again repeated by you this afternoon, that the Goodman case was
a one-off case, you said that all the evidence points to that
and you backed that up by saying that there was a very thorough
police investigation. The police investigation was very specific
with a very specific remit. It did not have the remit to do a
broad investigation into the wider practices of the News of
the World. Is that correct?
Mr Hinton: I do not know. I do
not know quite what the grounds were. They spent a long time and
they have said it again and again that they had no evidence to
charge anyone other than Goodman and the private investigator.
I would imagine the police would make an investigation as broad
as they see fit and you know what they have said. Certainly I
have never spoken to any of them and they have never spoken to
me about it. There was never any suggestion by them or anyone
else other than the media that the place was a ferment of telephone
hackers.
Q2155 Mr Hall: They had other evidence
of telephone hacking and telephone tapping of the Royal Family
and other celebrities. Goodman was responsible for the Royal desk.
Who was responsible for other people whose phones were tapped
who came to light in this investigation? Who was the editor who
was responsible for that?
Mr Hinton: I do not know who else's
phones were tapped by reporters from the News of the World.
Q2156 Mr Hall: Elle Macpherson, Gordon
Taylor, to name two, Max Clifford, Simon Hughes, two more.
Mr Hinton: Hang on, there was
a settlement with Gordon Taylor. I do not know what the terms
of it were and I do not know if we acknowledged or agreed that
we had access. I am not familiar with that because it happened
after I left.
Q2157 Mr Hall: This came out during
the trial. Counsel on behalf of Mulcaire stated that he had hacked
into the phones of Gordon Taylor, Sky Andrew, Elle Macpherson,
Simon Hughes and Max Clifford as well as several members of the
Royal Household, and was working almost exclusively for News International
and Goodman was responsible for the Royal desk; who was responsible
for the celebrity desk?
Mr Hinton: Clive did a range of
stuff. He was predominantly the Royal Editor but I cannot answer
that question off the top of my head.
Q2158 Mr Hall: That would be the
editor who would authorise activities on behalf of News International
following what you have already given in evidence this afternoon.
That would be the editor who authorised those actions, surely?
Mr Hinton: We were talking more
specifically with Mr Watson about those issues where there is
a clear public interest reason for engaging in certain activity
and if that were being done, now or ever, by any newspaper, The
Times or The Sunday Times, it would be a matter for
very serious discussion in advance of it being done. That is what
I think Mr Watson was referring to.
Q2159 Mr Hall: I am referring to
Gordon Taylor, Sky Andrew, Elle Macpherson, Simon Hughes, Max
Clifford and others whose phones were tapped, admitted in evidence
in 2007 on behalf of News International.
Mr Hinton: Tapped by whom, by
Mulcaire?
| 
