Examination of Witness (Question Numbers
2220-2237)
MR LES
HINTON
15 SEPTEMBER 2009
Q2220 Mr Watson: One last question
on that line. On the use of enquiry agents, private investigators,
call them what you will, the Press Complaints Commission said
that the activity of enquiry agents would be regulated by the
PCC Code and that the responsibility lies with the paper to make
sure they behave within that code. Do you think there would be
any merit in a form of transparency where the PCC produces a list
of recognised enquiry agents that are used by national newspapers?
Mr Hinton: I had not thought of
it and I do not really know. It is certainly an interesting idea.
The Code, in fact, now specifically refers to the obligation to
behave properly on third parties that are being employed by newspapers,
so the issue of private detective agencies and the need for them
to behave under the same rules is very explicitly spelt out under
the Code in the last two years.
Q2221 Mr Watson: So if a private
investigator were to rummage through someone's bins, they would
either have been given permission or they were breaking their
contract?
Mr Hinton: Most probably, but
it would depend on whose bin it was, Mr Watson, and why.
Q2222 Mr Watson: A citizen.
Mr Hinton: Hypothetically I could
think of reasons why borderline activity might be warranted if
it were believed that a senior politician was receiving illegal
funds into his bank account, and I have used this example before
of the Republic of Congo. If you have got really firm evidence
of something like that then I think the measures you take, although
you have to do so with great care, to establish that so you can
publish it do fall under different rules than hacking into a telephone
for tittle-tattle about Prince Harry.
Q2223 Mr Watson: We are getting into
hypotheticals here and you warned us against that. The point is
an enquiry agent to rummage through a bin would have to get permission
from base to do that. Is that your understanding of how that would
work now?
Mr Hinton: Yes. If I were an editor
and any activity were going to take place that was borderline
personally I would want to have a proper conversation, be completely
satisfied that there were sufficient grounds, sufficient foundation
for doing it, absolutely.
Q2224 Mr Watson: Where would the
citizen go if it was the case that that had been broken? Would
you expect the newspaper to terminate the contract with that agency?
Mr Hinton: If a third party, such
as a detective agency, having been told specifically what the
rules were, were to step beyond them, if I were the editor I would
dismiss them instantly, yes.
Q2225 Paul Farrelly: That seems to
have been the case with Mr Glenn Mulcaire yet you settled with
him.
Mr Hinton: I only heard the "settled
with him" part of that.
Q2226 Paul Farrelly: With respect
to enquiry agents, and Tom's last question, that seems to have
been the case with Mr Mulcaire in that he had served a jail sentence
and yet you settled with him.
Mr Hinton: Yes.
Q2227 Paul Farrelly: I just want
to follow that up. When you were asked on a couple of occasions
regarding the prospects of a tribunal, which would be clearly
aired in public, you said effectively that the concern about adverse
publicity was not a factor in making these settlements with Mr
Goodman and Mr Mulcaire because you could not see what else could
be kept under wraps. That is not exactly the case, is it, because
both of these people pleaded guilty and were not cross-examined
in a witness box?
Mr Hinton: There was a great deal
said about what they were supposed to have done. The answer to
the question is the issue was that the grounds for settling were
advised to me as ones we should settle on, and we did.
Q2228 Paul Farrelly: They pleaded
guilty and it took them three months to indicate that they were
going to plead guilty following their arrests and finally pleaded
guilty at the end of November. Clearly it could have been much
worse had they been cross-examined.
Mr Hinton: I do not know, they
pleaded guilty. They chose to plead guilty.
Q2229 Paul Farrelly: Can I just follow
up one final point. During that time are you aware of any advice
that was given by the company, the newspaper, Mr Crone or lawyers
as to how they should plead?
Mr Hinton: I am not, no.
Q2230 Paul Farrelly: As you said
earlier in response to a question from Mr Davies it is quite often
the case that companies will back their employees by paying their
legal costs, but it is also the case that such agreement is conditional
on them accepting advice. Would you accept that?
Mr Hinton: I do not really know.
It sounds logical but I just do not know. It sounds logical.
Q2231 Paul Farrelly: Final question:
do you think it will be a fruitful question to ask the News
of the World now in writing whether those legal costs were
indeed paid for the trial and whether there is any conditionality
attached to that in terms of the pleas that were entered?
Mr Hinton: You do not need my
advice on whether or not it is a fruitful question. If you consider
it to be fruitful then go ahead and ask it.
Paul Farrelly: Thank you very much.
Q2232 Adam Price: I just wanted to
clarify because Mr Crone did tell us in his evidence that he was
not aware of any payment to Clive Goodman and you said you thought
he probably was aware. Could you help us. On what basis do you
think that he probably knew?
Mr Hinton: You may have misheard
me because I have not spoken to Tom. I thought that he said to
you when he gave evidence whenever it was in July, I am not sure
when, that he had been aware of a payment but that he did not
know the details. Maybe I am mistaken.
Q2233 Adam Price: Maybe the confusion
was it appears he was aware of the Mulcaire thing but not the
Goodman thing.
Mr Hinton: Yes.
Q2234 Adam Price: It seemed to come
as a bit of a shock to Colin Myler, I remember him doing a bit
of a double-take, he had not been aware of either payment. Why
was that information kept from him? Would it not have been sensible
for him to have known that happened considering the public interest
in this case?
Mr Hinton: I do not know. I did
not know he did not know and I cannot imagine why it would be
kept from him.
Q2235 Adam Price: Definitely finally:
Justice Gross in summing up the case in mitigation in relation
to Clive Goodman had this to say: "You", referring to
Clive Goodman, "had operated in an environment in which ethical
lines were not clearly defined or observed". Do you think
that is an unfair slur on the reputation of the News of the
World by Justice Gross?
Mr Hinton: Could you repeat that
just to make sure I heard it properly?
Q2236 Adam Price: Yes. This is the
judge summing up at the end and he is listing a whole series of
factors in mitigation in relation to Clive Goodman's sentencing,
one of which is the fact that: "You", Clive Goodman,
"had operated in an environment", that is the News
of the World, "in which ethical lines were not clearly
defined or observed." I just wonder what your comment is
on that conclusion by the judge in this case.
Mr Hinton: I do not know how specifically
he was referring and whether he was referring to Goodman. It is
not clear to me from what you have just read that he was referring
to the entire newspaper and its culture. If he was, he was wrong.
The newspaper has operated for many, many years, over 100 years,
and it is a popular newspaper. It sometimes gets under the skin
of people but over many years it has had everyone from the Archbishop
of Canterbury to Winston Churchill writing for it. It is read
by many millions, it is a fine newspaper. I dare say it has not
behaved universally entirely properly, there have been lapses,
as there have been with every newspaper, but I think it is a fine
newspaper and the people who work there deserve to be proud to
be working there.
Q2237 Chairman: I think on that note
we will draw this session to a halt. Can I thank you very much,
Les, for giving up time for us today.
Mr Hinton: Thank you very much.
| 
