1 Introduction
1. This Report examines whether or not there
is good evidence to suggest that the Committee and its predecessor
Committees have been misled by any witnesses during the course
of their work on the phone-hacking scandal, which continues to
reverberate around News International and to have major repercussions
for the British newspaper industry as a whole.
Background: the Committee's work
on phone-hacking
2. In the last decade, the Committee's predecessors
have conducted three separate inquiries into press standards,
taking a special interest in privacy. In the last Parliament,
as part of the most recent of the three Reports—Press
standards, privacy and libel—the Committee looked into
allegations of widespread phone-hacking at the News of the
World.[1] It was not
convinced by assurances given to it that phone-hacking had been
the work of a single 'rogue reporter' and was frustrated by what
it described as the "collective amnesia" that seemed
to afflict witnesses from News International.[2]
It also criticised the Metropolitan Police for failing to pursue
its own investigation into phone-hacking.[3]
The Committee made it clear that it regarded some of the contentions
made by witnesses as straining credulity but, faced with a repeated
insistence that wrongdoing was not widespread, and the unwillingness
of police and prosecutors to investigate further, it was not possible
to conclude definitively that we had knowingly been given evidence
which was deliberately misleading or false, either by individuals
or by News International itself.
3. A series of events in 2011 changed the situation:
- On 5 January 2011, the News
of the World suspended its Assistant Editor Ian Edmondson
over alleged involvement in phone-hacking.
- On 15 January 2011, following continued civil
cases by phone-hacking victims, the Crown Prosecution Service
announced a review of the evidence collected in the Metropolitan
Police's original investigation of phone-hacking at the News
of the World. The announcement was made after News International
had tasked Group General Manager Will Lewis with re-examining
all the documents held by Harbottle & Lewis, a firm of solicitors
that—in 2007—had conducted an independent review of
those papers in the context of an unfair dismissal claim being
brought by Clive Goodman, the News of the World's former
Royal Editor, against the company. Mr Lewis had passed the material
to a different firm of solicitors, Hickman Rose, who in turn had
referred the material to Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, a former
Director of Public Prosecutions, for an opinion. On the basis
of his opinion, it was decided to refer the matter immediately
to the police.
- On 26 January 2011, the Metropolitan Police announced
that it was re-opening its investigation into phone-hacking. The
new investigation, Operation Weeting, is being led by Deputy Assistant
Commissioner Sue Akers, who replaced Acting Deputy Commissioner
John Yates, one of the Metropolitan Police witnesses who appeared
before the Committee in 2009. It is conducting a fresh examination
of all evidence, including that held by the police since the prosecution
of the newspaper's former Royal Editor, Clive Goodman, and the
private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, and is contacting, with
distinctly more vigour and purpose, victims of the newspaper's
phone-hacking activities. Since then, two further, parallel investigations
have been launched, also headed by DAC Akers: Operation Elveden
into alleged payments to police officers; and Operation Tuleta
into other activities beyond phone-hacking, including e-mail and
computer hacking.
- On 10 March 2011, Chris Bryant MP held an adjournment
debate on the floor of the House of Commons, during the course
of which he accused Acting Deputy Commissioner John Yates of having
misled both the Culture, Media and Sport and Home Affairs Select
Committees when giving evidence on phone-hacking. Mr Yates had
asserted that, under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
2000 (RIPA), it was only possible to prosecute illegal voicemail
intercepts if it could be proved that the hacker had accessed
the voicemail before the intended recipient had listened to it.[4]
Written evidence to the Home Affairs Committee from the Director
of Public Prosecutions stated, however, that "the prosecution
[in the cases of Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire] did not in
its charges or presentation of the facts attach any legal significance
to the distinction between messages which had been listened to
and messages that had not".[5]
In fact, because both Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire had pleaded
guilty, this issue was never tested.[6]
On 14 March 2011, Acting Deputy Commissioner John Yates wrote
to the Committee offering to give evidence in response to the
comments made by Mr Bryant in his debate four days earlier and
did so on 24 March.
- On 5 April 2011, Ian Edmondson and Neville Thurlbeck,
the News of the World's Chief Reporter, were arrested on
suspicion of unlawfully intercepting voicemail messages, the first
arrests in the course of the new police investigations.[7]
- On 7 July 2011, James Murdoch, Deputy Chief Operating
Officer and Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (International),
News Corporation, made a public statement announcing the closure
of the News of the World, in which he stated that wrongdoing
was not confined to one reporter and that both the newspaper and
News International had failed to get to the bottom of this affair.
He also said that "the paper made statements to Parliament
without being in the full possession of the facts. This was wrong".[8]
4. Taken together, all these events made it
inevitable, and imperative, that the Committee would wish to re-open
its inquiries into the phone-hacking affair, and its fall-out,
and investigate in particular the extent to which we, and previous
Committees, had been misled. We re-opened our inquiry. Given James
Murdoch's public assertion that the News of the World had
"made statements to Parliament without being in the full
possession of the facts", we decided to invite James Murdoch
to give oral evidence on 19 July 2011 so that he could expand
on this admission. We invited Rebekah Brooks, then Chief Executive
Officer of News International, and Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer of News Corporation, to give evidence
alongside him. Rebekah Brooks responded that she would be able
to give oral evidence at the time requested. Rupert Murdoch declined
to attend and James Murdoch said that he would be willing to attend
on an unspecified future date. Finding this to be unsatisfactory,
we issued an Order summoning Rupert and James Murdoch to attend
the Committee on 19 July 2011, which they did.
5. During the evidence session on 19 July 2011,
Rupert Murdoch was subjected to an assault by a member of the
public. The Chairman expressed his grave concern that such a serious
incident was able to take place within the precincts of Parliament
and apologised to Rupert Murdoch on behalf of the Committee. Similarly,
the Speaker of the House of Commons stated that "it is wholly
unacceptable for a member of the public to treat, and to be able
to treat, a witness in this way". He commissioned an independent
review into the security breach and steps have been taken to ensure
that no such thing can happen again.[9]
We thank Rupert Murdoch for his willingness to continue to give
evidence to us in those circumstances.
6. Given the testimony of the Murdochs, what
we had heard from other witnesses previously and a dispute between
two previous witnesses—Tom Crone and Colin Myler—and
James Murdoch,[10] we
held a series of further evidence sessions. On 6 September, we
heard from various former News International employees: Jonathan
Chapman, former Director of Legal Affairs; Daniel Cloke, former
Group Human Resources Director; Tom Crone, former Legal Manager
for News Group Newspapers; and Colin Myler, the former Editor
of the News of the World. On 19 October, we heard from
Julian Pike, a solicitor at Farrer & Co and long-time legal
adviser to News International, and Mark Lewis, a solicitor at
Taylor Hampton, whose pursuit of the affair as the legal adviser
to Gordon Taylor, the first victim to sue, had been instrumental
in exposing the extent of phone-hacking at the News of the
World. Les Hinton, former Executive Chairman of News International,
gave evidence by video-link on 24 October and, on 10 November,
we heard again from James Murdoch. Our predecessor Committees
had heard from Rebekah Brooks, Tom Crone, Colin Myler, former
News of the World Editor Andy Coulson, former News of
the World Managing Editor Stuart Kuttner, Mark Lewis and Les
Hinton during the course of their previous inquiries.
7. We also received a considerable amount of
very detailed written evidence, all of which is published alongside
the transcripts of the oral evidence sessions as part of this
Report. For ease of reference, a timeline of events and list of
the people involved are both included as annexes to this Report.
Parliamentary context
8. The truthfulness of evidence given before
a select committee, whether in written or oral form, is a cornerstone
of the parliamentary select committee system. Erskine May, The
Treatise on the Law, Privileges and Usage of Parliament,
notes that "the House requires truthful evidence from witnesses
and seeks to protect them from being obstructed from giving evidence".[11]
So strong is the presumption of truth, and so seriously do most
witnesses take the process of giving evidence, that it is not
usual for select committees to administer oaths to witnesses.[12]
9. To enable it to carry out its functions, each
House of Parliament enjoys certain rights and immunities, foremost
amongst which is freedom of speech. The sum of these rights and
immunities is known as parliamentary privilege. Breaches in privilege
are punishable under the law of Parliament. Actions which are
not breaches of a specific privilege but are offences against
the authority and dignity of the House, and would tend to obstruct
or impede it, are known as contempts of Parliament. Erskine May
notes that "the power to punish for contempt has been judicially
considered to be inherent in each House of Parliament".[13]
10. As bodies of the House of Commons, select
committees and their members share in the House's privileges and
the same principles of contempt apply. Witnesses found to have
misled a select committee, to have wilfully suppressed the truth,
to have provided false evidence and even to have prevaricated
have all been considered to be guilty of contempt of Parliament
in the past.[14] This
is no trivial matter, either for select committees or for witnesses.
Select committees rely upon the truthfulness of the evidence given
to them in order to conduct their business. As far as witnesses
are concerned, even setting aside the issue of punishment, to
be found in contempt of Parliament brings reputational damage
and public opprobrium. It is, therefore, something that all witnesses
would normally strive to avoid. This perhaps explains why committees
only very rarely need to consider the issue of contempt.
11. The allegation that witnesses have misled
the Committee is a grave one and the awareness of the potentially
serious consequences of our conclusions for the individuals concerned
has been an important consideration to us in our work. A select
committee inquiry is not a judicial process but the same principles
of fairness and impartiality should apply, particularly where
so much is at stake for specific individuals. For this reason,
we have been particularly careful to separate out fact from opinion
in both the evidence that we have received and in the conclusions
that we have reached.
The wider context and other investigations
into phone-hacking
12. Phone-hacking is currently the subject of
the Metropolitan Police's Operation Weeting investigation, as
well as a separate inquiry by Strathclyde Police and Lord Justice
Leveson's public inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics
of the media. Given that we have been inquiring into the issue
of whether or not the Committee has been misled, in theory the
scope for overlap with either the police investigation or Lord
Justice Leveson's inquiry should be limited. In practice, the
issue of whether or not we have been misled turns on a detailed
understanding of the scope and implications of a number of documents
and events, most of which are likely also to be of interest to
the Metropolitan Police and to Lord Justice Leveson.
13. We have, from the outset of this inquiry,
been mindful of the need to avoid unnecessary overlap with either
the work of the Police or Lord Justice Leveson's inquiry. Where
some degree of duplication has been unavoidable, we have worked
very hard to ensure that we did not pursue lines of inquiry which
risked prejudicing future criminal prosecutions. If some of the
individuals who have been of interest to us are suspected of any
form of criminal activity, it is clearly of paramount importance
that it is possible for a case to be brought and for any resulting
trial to be fair. For this reason, we have been careful to respect
the requests of individuals who have been arrested, in view of
ongoing police proceedings.
14. The issue of whether or not we have been
misled is, however, properly a matter for the Committee itself
to investigate. Indeed, had it not been for our insistence—as
well as the persistence of the Guardian newspaper, certain
lawyers and the civil claimants—many of the issues might
never have come to light. We believe that in our work we have
struck the appropriate balance between considering the important
matter of a possible contempt of the House and allowing the Metropolitan
Police investigation and the inquiry by Lord Justice Leveson to
proceed unimpeded. As with the 2010 Report into Press standards,
privacy and libel, we have also had to be pragmatic. Fresh
revelations occur in this affair day by day and civil claimants,
their lawyers and the judges involved have in their possession
more facts than this Committee, including disclosures protected
by court confidentiality. Conversely, through the powers of Parliamentary
privilege and our decision not to depose witnesses under oath,
we have been able both to ask questions of witnesses and to receive
written evidence that other inquiries and proceedings would never
have been able to obtain. We recognise that matters are fluid,
and any report of ours may be overtaken by events. Nevertheless,
it is incumbent on the Committee to produce a report based on
the evidence before us, which is substantial.
Scope of the Committee's investigation
15. News International's claim that phone-hacking
could be dismissed as the work of a single 'rogue reporter' at
the News of the World was a false one. As a result not
only of our own investigation, but also of civil cases currently
before the courts, Lord Justice Leveson's inquiry and investigative
journalism, there has been a steady flow of evidence which, taken
together, comprehensively discredits that assertion. This is beyond
dispute. We have not, therefore, sought to test News International's
original claim against every new piece of evidence: to do so would
not only consume many more months and pages than we have at our
disposal, but would also replicate work being done quite properly
elsewhere. Instead, we have conducted detailed scrutiny of a small
number of events and documents that are pivotal to any assessment
of the truthfulness of the more specific assertions made to the
Committee on previous occasions, in particular:
a) The nature of the so-called 'investigations'
at the News of the World involving its solicitors Burton
Copeland and Harbottle & Lewis;
b) The allegations made by Clive Goodman in pursuit
of his employment claim and his subsequent pay-off, as well as
that made to Glenn Mulcaire;
c) Awareness of the so-called 'for Neville' e-mail,
and its implications, within the News of the World and
its two holding companies News Group Newspapers and News International;
d) The out-of-court settlements made by News
Group Newspapers with Gordon Taylor and other victims or claimants,
insofar as evidence revealed in their cases is material as to
whether the Committee has been misled; and
e) The illegal interception of voicemails left
on Milly Dowler's mobile telephone.
16. During the course of this inquiry, we have
been very concerned to learn of the alleged surveillance conducted
by, or on behalf of, the News of the World, on members
of our predecessor Committee during the course of its inquiry.
We have, therefore, also followed up this serious matter in our
questioning.
17. In the light of the serious events since
our 2010 Report, not least the summary closure of the News
of the World in July 2011, before examining these areas in
detail, we turn first to the approach of the newspaper and News
International towards previous inquiries by the Committee, and
also towards those of the Metropolitan Police and the Press Complaints
Commission.
1 Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, Second
Report of Session 2009-10, Press standards, privacy and libel,
HC 362 (hereafter referred to as Press standards, privacy and
libel) Back
2
Press standards, privacy and libel, paras 441 and 442 Back
3
Press standards, privacy and libel, para 467 Back
4
AC John Yates oral evidence to Home Affairs Committee, Sept 7
2010, Q5, published as Specialist Operations, HC 441-i,
of session 2010-12 Back
5
Memorandum submitted by Keir Starmer QC, Director of Public Prosecutions
to the Home Affairs Committee, October 2010, published in Home
Affairs Committee, Unauthorised tapping into or hacking of
mobile communications, Thirteenth Report of Session 2010-12,
HC 907, Ev 126 Back
6
Standards & Privileges Committee, Privilege: Hacking of
Members' Mobile Phones, Fourteenth Report of Session 2010-12,
HC 628, Appendix Back
7
"Phone hacking: NoW journalist arrested" The Guardian
online, 5 April 2011 Back
8
News International Press Release, 7 July 2011 Back
9
HC Deb, 20 July 2011, Column 917 Back
10
www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/10/james-murdoch-phone-hacking-myler-crone Back
11
Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice, 24th ed.,
pp 817-818 Back
12
Erskine May, 24th ed., p 824 Back
13
Erskine May, 24th ed., p 203 Back
14
Erskine May, 24th ed., pp 252-253 Back
|
