Examination of Witness (Question Numbers
2180-2199)
MR LES
HINTON
15 SEPTEMBER 2009
Q2180 Paul Farrelly: Are you happy
in hindsight that you asked Mr Crone and Mr Coulson all the questions
that you might have asked them?
Mr Hinton: I am, yes. I am trying
to think but Andy and Tom and then Colin Myler were the trilogy
of investigators and I think they worked very hard to see if there
was any tangible evidence that they could act upon. There was
none. They had no suspicions that they relayed to me and I wanted
them to make certain that we got on with life.
Q2181 Paul Farrelly: I am not asking
the trilogy, I am just asking you whether, given what has happened
subsequently and the fact that you are here now answering these
questions, in hindsight you are happy that you asked all the questions
that you might have asked and learned, in case it comes up in
the future, anything from it?
Mr Hinton: Yes, I am happy.
Q2182 Paul Farrelly: That is a surprising
answer. Can I just come on to the payments to Clive Goodman and
Glenn Mulcaire which have been mentioned because that is also
a new fact that has been established by this inquiry. There was
some gossip in Private Eye and from Tom Crone and Stuart
Kuttner, after a bit of going back and forth, we gained the admission
that these payments had been made. Colin Myler in a letter to
us has also said that you were aware of the terms of the settlement.
Can I ask you what was the process of authorisation of both these
settlements when you were there in terms of who would have signed
them off, was it you or would they have gone to the board as well?
Mr Hinton: Putting aside signatures,
I would take responsibility for a payment such as that. As I said
before, we employ lots of people all over the place. Any settlement
of that sort is usually brought to my attention and I would have
the chance to object to it. In that particular case, I decided
not to and to authorise them. Just to make sure I am answering
your question properly, the judgment about that would have been
made by the Legal and Human Resources Departments, not by the
News of the World.
Q2183 Paul Farrelly: Would you be
acting with delegated authority from the board of either News
Group Newspapers or News International to do that or would it
have gone to the board?
Mr Hinton: I am sorry?
Q2184 Paul Farrelly: In authorising
that would you have been acting with delegated authority from
the board of News International or News Group Newspapers?
Mr Hinton: Right, just to explain
the structure, I was the Executive Chairman of a wholly-owned
subsidiary and therefore I was responsible for management decisions
so there was no delegation, I would have taken that responsibility
myself. We have an Executive Committee which I would keep apprised
of things but in matters such as that as it is a wholly owned
subsidiary within a public company that decision would have been
mine entirely.
Q2185 Paul Farrelly: You said a settlement
at that level would come to you. In terms of financial expenditure
at what level would you be involved? I am not asking for the amount
you gave them.
Mr Hinton: I did not mean to say
level. Of that nature, by and large, when there were employment
issues, and there were many complex issues such as claims of discrimination
or mistreatment by superiors, there were loads of issues like
that which frequently came up and very often in those cases, talking
hypothetically, they will be looking at the prospect of perhaps
a long hearing and there were sometimes just pragmatic decisions
to reach a settlement, so I liked to be aware of them when they
were being made, and so I would generally sit down with HR or
with one of the legal people and just be very quickly brought
up-to-date about what had happened and what they were proposing
to do. It was part of my job.
Q2186 Paul Farrelly: I understand
that. In the case of Clive Goodman he was summarily dismissed
and then exercised his right of appeal internally which he lost,
presumably on the advice of your employment lawyers and human
resources people throughout the process, and then what did he
do, did he bring a tribunal claim or threaten to bring one?
Mr Hinton: I haven't discussed
the terms. There was action taken by Mulcaire and Goodman and
the judgment was made by our HR and legal people that we should
reach a settlement, which we did.
Q2187 Paul Farrelly: But I am surprised
if he has exhausted his internal rights of appeal where the pressures
would have been involved that for good employment reasons only
you would find a reason to settle with him.
Mr Hinton: Well, I decided to
act upon the advice of the lawyers and HR.
Q2188 Paul Farrelly: It came out
in the trial that Clive Goodman was proposing to write a book.
Under the terms of the settlement is Clive Goodman at liberty
to write a book about his experience now?
Mr Hinton: You know, I have no
idea. I do not know what his rights to write a book are. I just
do not know.
Q2189 Paul Farrelly: These are sensitive
matters in which you as Executive Chairman felt the need to become
involved and writing a book would clearly have a reputational
effect on the News of the World.
Mr Hinton: Frankly, I do not ever
remember hearing in a trial or anywhere else that he was planning
to write a book. I just do not know.
Q2190 Paul Farrelly: You are not
aware that that was any part of the settlement, that he refrain
from writing a book?
Mr Hinton: Sorry?
Q2191 Paul Farrelly: You do not remember
that it was a part of any settlement that he refrain from writing
a book?
Mr Hinton: I do not remember it
ever being raised with me that he even wanted to write a book,
no.
Q2192 Paul Farrelly: I am coming
to a conclusion now. With Glenn Mulcaire at the time of the trial,
payments under his contract had stopped and that was stated in
court. He was a convicted criminal. It was also stated by News
International executives, but contrary to statements in court,
that he may have been working for other people, despite a clause
in his contract saying he had an exclusive relationship with you.
Again, it is very hard to find pure employment or contractually
related reasons why you might settle before going to tribunal.
Would you think that a fair comment?
Mr Hinton: What, to settle before
going to a tribunal?
Q2193 Paul Farrelly: Yes.
Mr Hinton: It is not at all uncommon.
Q2194 Paul Farrelly: On the basis
of employment rights only.
Mr Hinton: You will have to repeat
that, I did not hear it.
Q2195 Paul Farrelly: On pure employment
rights only, with Glenn Mulcaire it would seem strange that you
would feel the need to settle with him given what had gone on.
Mr Hinton: It was heading for
a tribunal and, as in many cases, there is a judgment made that
it is better to settle before the tribunal because of the prospect
of—again, I am talking hypothetically, not about this case—winning
or losing and you can save time, you can save money, and if you
think it is a marginal case hypothetically then you say, "Let's
settle and be done with it". That is a common, pragmatic
decision that employers make when they are faced with an employment
tribunal and that is not unusual.
Q2196 Paul Farrelly: Indeed, they
commonly make them, because tribunals are held in public, for
fear of publicity. Hypothetically, in this case might that have
been a consideration?
Mr Hinton: That is fair to say.
The consideration was that we could just as easily be done with
it, put it behind us and get on with life. The issue of being
public, I do not know.
Q2197 Paul Farrelly: Can I ask just
one final question on the settlement with Mr Mulcaire. My understanding
is that contains an indemnity for him in respect of any civil
claims he might face following his activities on behalf of the
News of the World. That is an open-ended contingent liability.
What would be the benefit to News International or News Group
Newspapers of agreeing an open-ended indemnity like that?
Mr Hinton: First of all, and I
feel I am repeating myself here, I am not going to discuss the
terms of it. I would be very interested to know why you are so
sure that an indemnity existed in the agreement.
Q2198 Paul Farrelly: It is based
on good information, shall we say.
Mr Hinton: I am not going to discuss
the terms of the agreement.
Q2199 Paul Farrelly: It is—
Mr Hinton: Frankly, I will tell
you this much: if that indemnity were to be in there, which I
do not know that it is, I do not recall it being in there, you
seem to be better informed than me because I cannot remember.
| 
