Culture, Media and Sport CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Rebekah Brooks, former CEO, News International

Thank you for your letter of 22 November 2011, in which you have sought further detail concerning the settlement with Max Clifford and the alleged surveillance of select committee members and complainants’ lawyers.

You gave me a deadline of today by which to provide a response. The terms of this reply may disappoint you, but I am writing nevertheless to explain why I am unable to provide you with a substantive response.

As you know, I am keen to co-operate as fully as possible with the committee. You will recall that I gave evidence at some length on 19 July, despite having been arrested and questioned less than 48 hours earlier concerning the issues that you have been investigating. Necessarily, therefore, there were constraints on what I could say, but at the conclusion of my evidence I asked that when I was free from those constraints I could come back and provide evidence to address fully all the matters of concern to you.

Unfortunately, I am still bound by the same restrictions because, as you know, I am still under investigation by the police. One of the matters being investigated is the circumstances surrounding the Max Clifford settlement and I was questioned by the police on this issue in July. Perhaps you were not aware of this, and I mention it now only because your request places me in the impossible position that you are asking me to deal with issues that directly impact on the police investigation. In turn, this directly affects the fairness of the investigative process to which I am subject. The problem will be made worse if, as I anticipate, any substantive response from me is made public by you.

Indeed, this is the second occasion this week in which I have found that an investigation can impact on the criminal process. On Tuesday, at the Leveson Inquiry, I was subjected to totally unsubstantiated allegations by a witness which, I am advised, is bound to prejudice the police investigation against me. This evidence attracted widespread publicity, and my lawyers wrote yesterday to express their concern about the way in which this evidence emerged and the prejudice to my case that it has caused.

I also face more practical difficulties. I have no access to any of my records. In the light of your request, I asked both News International and the police for access. I heard from the police today that they have refused permission for News International’s lawyers to release any material to me or my lawyers. I therefore do not have any material on which to draw to refresh my memory and to check the accuracy of what I might say on both the issues that you have raised.

In these circumstances, I hope you will understand that I am most reluctant to attempt a response which inevitably would be incomplete, potentially inaccurate, and which, I am also advised, would almost certainly be prejudicial to the criminal investigation.

In saying this, I am also aware that there are others who are free from these constraints. It is not for me of course to suggest what alternative course you might consider, but I do respectfully point out that News International is much better placed to answer your questions since individuals there are freely able to answer them and have the material available to them to do so accurately.

I should be most grateful therefore if you would reconsider the request that you have made of me. You must understand that, despite my abiding wish to defend my name and my reputation, other considerations must, for the time being, take priority.

1 December 2011