Culture, Media and Sport CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Lawrence Abramson, Partner, Fladgate LLP

I refer to your letter of 16 August 2011.

I have read the letters to you dated 11 August 2011 from Harbottle & Lewis (together with their attached response document) as well as Jon Chapman's statement as published on your website. I agree with everything that both Harbottle & Lewis and Jon Chapman have said. I therefore do not intend to repeat what either of them have said, and will instead confine this letter to filling in a couple of gaps with regard to telephone conversations, where for understandable reasons Harbottle & Lewis have been unable to assist.

There were two telephone conversations of significance that are not detailed in Harbottle & Lewis’ response, namely those on 9 May 2007 and 24 May 2007. On 9 May 2007, Jon Chapman telephoned me and briefed me orally on what Harbottle & Lewis were about to be asked to do (as subsequently set out in Jon Chapman's email of 10 May 2007). The conversation was relatively short, somewhere between seven and 12 minutes. I have a contemporaneous handwritten note of the conversation which I will make available to the Committee once I have obtained permission from the Metropolitan Police to do so.

On 24 May 2007, I had a longer telephone conversation with Jon Chapman lasting between 18 and 24 minutes. Having reviewed a limited number of e-mails that the Junior lawyers had produced to me, I was able to satisfy myself in most instances that they fell outside the scope of what Harbottle & Lewis had been instructed to consider. There remained somewhere in the order of a dozen e-mails that I had a query about. I therefore spoke to Jon Chapman and discussed these e-mails with him. During the course of that conversation, Jon Chapman explained and I accepted why those e-mails fell outside the scope of what News international Limited (‘News’) had instructed Harbottle & Lewis to consider. In one specific case, Jon Chapman told me to look at News’ server myself to put the e-mail in its context which I duly did. I then provided the opinion in my letter dated 29 May 2007 which accurately reflected the conclusion reached as a result of the review carried out by Harbottle & Lewis within the limited scope of the retainer.

The only other point on which I might be able to assist the Committee is that in or about the middle of April 2011, I was contacted by representatives of BCL Burton Copeland and asked If I would attend a meeting to discuss the work I did for News in relation to this matter. At this stage, I did not know what BCL Burton Copeland's involvement was with the matter and therefore telephoned Jon Chapman for instructions. He informed me that BCL Burton Copeland were advising News in connection with the criminal aspects of the matter and that I should give them my full assistance.

I therefore attended a meeting on 7 June 2011 with Michael Drury, a partner in BCL Burton Copeland, and his assistant. The meeting lasted just under two hours and I explained to the representatives of BCL Burton Copeland precisely what my role had been and how I had gone about it. I do not know to whom if anyone at News BCL Burton Copeland reported on the outcome of this meeting nor whether the content of that meeting was reported to either of the Murdochs before they gave evidence before the Select Committee on 19 July 2011.

Please let me know if I can assist any further.

24 August 2011