administration is there, but they treat us like any other organization. i don't want special favors because if i get special favors, is looks like that, and shows that, and we lose our audience. i want to earn our credibility. >> host: alhurra and radio sawa, and thank you both for being on the communicators. >> guest: thank you for having me. ..

next to hearing on the british phone-hacking scandal headed by

lord justice leveson. during this inquiry witnesses testified reporters with the now defunct "news of the world" hack their phone conversations. they include parents of a 13-year-old girl who was murdered. author and columnist joan smith and later testimony from actor hugh grant who talks about his encounter with the "news of the world" reporter who he says abetted the tabloid was engaging in phone-hacking. this hearing is an hour and 45 minutes. >> before you begin to hear the evidence, may i just say a few words. we do think it is important that those who are here and those who will watch the proceedings clearly understand the procedure which the inquiry has laid down as being appropriate for this evidence under the inquiries

act. we of course as have the other corporate disciplines have seen the witness statements of those who are going to be called this week and next week and it is right to say that in some of them there is varying degrees of criticism or sections of the press and on occasion individual journalists and of course that is why they are here to give evidence to you. what i'm about to say very briefly, may i say that i am not including in this the dowler family or the mccann family in any sense, but we do believe that where criticism is made especially about individuals, and if it is our belief that criticism is incorrect or forward ever reason falls, that common fairness requires that we are any other corporate disciplines who arafat did ought to be able to put questions to the witness in order to put the

record straight or at the very least to put the other side. so that everybody understands however the procedure that the inquiry is following and so far as these witnesses are concerned, this is the procedure that the inquiry has required, we should put questions to inquiry counsel mr. jay who will then at his discretion put those questions if he thinks they are appropriate to the witness on our behalf. i have no doubt at all that mr. jay will do a better job than i would but i do not want to hide what is an important concern and that is that reputational criticism can be made by these witnesses and what is a televised situation without any opportunity for the object of that criticism to respond directly to questions from the lawyers representing the

corporate disciplines affected. so therefore can i say just two things, please? firstly and i understand your reluctance to entertain such an application, but if it comes necessary to correct a matter as a matter of fairness i am sure mr. jay will cover i hope all that we required but if it comes necessary, then i hope you would entertain an application under rule 10, subparagraph 4 provided we notify you of the questions that we would wish to put to a witness. understand that would be a position of last resort. secondly, to make it clear so far as possible, we will file where necessary to obviate the need for that evidence with the inquiry to correct any matter which we perceive to be important and which needs to be corrected. and just as one illustration of that, we will for example file

evidence and we'll hear this when mr. grant gives evidence, concerning the way in which daily mail journalists covered the announcement of the birth of his daughter. we will file evidence showing what we say the daily mail journalists did and explain exactly what happened. no disrespect for mr. grant who is here. it is simply that we wish to assist the anne craig in explaining what happened, and illustration and i hope it will be of assistance to you and possibly even to mr. grant. >> yes. well, the position of the inquiry is comparatively clear. it is abundantly clear, based upon the approach that sir michael moreland about -- adopted and nora boon island that it is unusual to permit

cross-examination outside the inquiry team and a challenge to that decision at common law failed in northern ireland, i think. >> in certain respect, what if i must just say there is an overriding fairness in section 17 and the rules do commend an application. >> absolutely. i understand that. the other important feature is to note that although your absolute liberty to via whatever evidence you feel is appropriate, and i will want to be balanced and fair, what is under investigation, this morning and indeed throughout the inquiry is the conduct and practice of the press, not the conduct and practice of any of the witnesses who are giving

evidence. >> i hope and i am sure we all hope that the evidence will be limited to deal with the general issue. >> yes. >> to deal with any reputational criticism that may arise. >> i understand. this is called a right of reply which is one of the topics by which some of those who criticize the press complained. that unfair mr. caplan at this stage of the morning but let's just see if we can't find the right balance. >> thank you very much. i have understood the point. >> right. >> our first witnesses.

>> i swear by almighty god the evidence i give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> i swear by the evidence i shall give to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> please sit down. if at any stage you need a break don't hesitate to say so. before we start, can i thank you both are being prepared to come to the inquiry. you have done so voluntarily and i am very conscious that it is a strain. i can only sympathize to both of you the appalling losses that you have suffered and the traumas that you have undergone over many years, so i am very appreciative to both of you for

being prepared to expose yourself further to assist me in the work so thank you very much. [inaudible] >> ask askew pleased to confirm the witness statement which is being signed on the third of november. there's a statement of truth at the end of that statement. do you confirm the truth of that statement? >> yes. >> yes. >> mr. sherbourne has a few questions for you and then i will ask some further questions. >> with your are mission. >> good morning mr. and mrs. dowler. you are a little nervous and i know the evidence was difficult so i am not going to ask you detailed questions about your statement. mr. jay will do that in a minute

but i -- and i began by asking you, we all know that it was the revelation publicly in july of this year that milly's phone had been hacked into by people acting on behalf of "news of the world." can i ask you how you feel about that? >> i will answer this one. i think the gravity of what happened needs to be investigated. i think there is a much bigger picture actually but i think that given that we learned about this just before the trial of our daughter, it was extremely important that we understood and people understand exactly what went on in terms of these practices to uncover this information in that situation. >> in prior to you discovering about milly's phone, did you read stories about other people,

including well-known people, whose phones have also been hacked into? >> yes. we had obviously been aware of siena, situation and also gordon taylor. we certainly follow that in the media and we were very much aware that certainly from the celebrity awareness viewpoint, that was going going to be an issue. but of course not realizing until we were informed about hacking in our situation that is spread much wider than just celebrity. >> how did you feel about the fact that there were other people whose phones have also been hacked? what impact if anything did that have on your case? >> well fundamentally, everybody's entitled to a degree of privacy in their private life and it's a deep concern that our private life became public, but i also think other people who are in the public eye who are in the public as well. >> we know that in time he

instructed martin -- mark lewis, the solicitor. can you just explain how you came to instruct mr. lewis? >> well was during the trial, just before the trial we found out about milly's phone being hacked. when we were given that information it was terribly difficult to process it because what you do with that information when it's in your mind and we were worried about the sort of forthcoming trial but also aware what happened and thought we have to get some rest and -- representation but i was right for doing that because we didn't have any money for that. so i didn't quite know how we were going to do that. i left a message on his phone and he played it back and said please come and see me. >> and what was your objective in going to see mr. lewis?

>> i think very much just to be in a position to respond to what would possibly become quite public and how would we deal with that? we had big been given information with no advice as to what to do but recognizing of course that it was quite dawning light information to be aware of and realize it had come to pass that was made public suddenly. it would have gotten very excited and very guess motivated about the whole situation. >> can i ask you just a question about your legal representation? did you have the money to pay for legal advice? >> no we didn't. >> how were you able to launch a complaint? >> when we went to see mark, which i have to say it was a very difficult thing to do

because it was during the trial and was like, we have got to do this because we need someone to represent us. and literally dragged ourselves to that meeting. he said you don't need to worry about the money, sally, i will represent you. and then actually with regard to -- we were able to use the cfa agreement, otherwise we wouldn't have been able to perceive. >> anchem i finally ask you this, we know that's "news of the world" subtlety or claim in july of this year. and you heard my opening submissions and you heard the opening submissions of the other media representatives. what if anything would you like to say to news international now? >> welcome i think given the gravity of what became public, the main knowledge about what had happened about our phone-hacking situation in the circumstances under which it took place, one would sincerely hope that news international and

other media organizations would sincerely look very carefully at how they procure, how they obtain information about stories because obviously the ramifications are far greater than just an obvious story in the press. >> and i think, as our daughter gemma said to mr. murdoch when we met him, use this as an opportunity to put things right in the future and to have some decent standards and adhere to them. >> thank you very much. if you would just wait there, mr. jay will have some further questions. >> is obviously fitting you should be they inquiry's first witnesses. going to ask you first of all to do with paragraph 7 of your witness statement, please. this is the private walk which occurred in may 2002. do you follow me? >> yes.

>> can i ask you please to tell me about that in your own words? you say it wasn't a formally organized walk? >> no. >> what was the purpose, please? >> well it was seven weeks after milly had gone missing so a lot of the sort of initial media hype had died down a little bit, and it was a thursday and that was the day that she'd gone missing. and it was quite a sunny afternoon. she would have come home about 4:00, and i remember calling bob and thinking actually, he had gone out to london on that day, into the office and i said, why do it come back and i will meet you there and we will do that walk back. so many questions were buzzing around in our head had, why didn't anyone anyone see her etc. etc. it was a very last-minute arrangement. so maybe an hour or two before that i found bob and said look, i want to do this.

i'm going to meet you at the station will walk back together. previously there had been a lot of press and things at the station but now it had calmed down a bit and when we actually got there there was no one there, it was empty. >> yes. >> so simply one of the police officers that i was working with, one of our fellows dropped me at the station. i met rob and then we just basically quietly retrace her steps and no one was really around so it was very much like she had actually gone missing. we put out missing leaflets with her photograph and a telephone number on, and that number had didn't change. and i was checking the posters to see if the number -- if the right poster was up and as i walked along i was sort of touching the posters. we walked back to our house which was maybe three-quarters of a mile, something like that, and that was on a thursday.

and then on sunday, that photograph appeared in the "news of the world." i can remember seeing it and i was really cross because we didn't see anyone. they'd obviously taken a picture with some sort of telephoto lens. how on earth did they know we were doing out walk on that day? it just felt like such an intrusion into a really, really private grief moment, really. >> yes. so it goes without saying you are completely unaware of the time that people were watching you as it were? >> yes, absolutely. >> we have the article. i'm not going to ask that it be put on the screen but as you know it's exhibited to your witness statement. we can draw our own inferences as to where they photographs must have been. some distance, of course, in

front of you. >> yes, i don't know where he would have been to take those pictures. maybe in a parked car down brightens road somewhere, i i don't know. >> but you see from the picture, that were basically walking along, immersed in a moment is the oddest phrase i suppose i would use. suddenly sally saw the poster and decided to check it. >> we see on the second page that they do give the surrey police for ward, topline, for what it's worth. >> yes. >> did you make any complaint about this beyond telephoning the police family liaison officer, do you recall? >> no. >> now, i just phoned -- did phone hour at the low on that day and had a little bit of a

rant. and asked, how did they get this picture? but in the scheme of things at the time, more importantly with the fact that milly was missing. and of course that was more mind consuming. >> it wouldn't have entered your mind presumably to contact the press complaints commission? >> not at that time, no. >> and we'd agreed that we would do all our press communications to the surrey police press office for obvious obvious reasons in a way. >> in paragraph 10 of your statement, it may be mr. dowler can better deal with this, but i'm in your hands. you refer to situations when you were doorstep by journalists and photographers. can you tell us a little bit more about that, please? >> certainly. it became quite a regular event for people to knock on the door. we'd established that we wouldn't do anything -- do any

interviews and would actually only do everything through the surrey police press office for the simple reason of not wanting to create any media war between ape ridiculous publication having access which they might consider, let's say, exclusive. that certainly it was fine and it was polite and at the end of the day our response was the same. it always has been the same. and even recently we have been doorstep in recent times as well. but i think the thing our own run property, i was out the front door, on her front drive probably putting something in our recycling bin or something and suddenly this person just hopped from behind the hedge and approach me. i remember it specifically because it was the time that the head of the investigation of the surrey police team was changed and he said to me, what do you think of the head of the investigation being change? and i mean really, it was sort

of, well what possibly am i going to say? fortunately i had the foresight to think, alone not let not going to say anything just say i have no comment and i think, i don't know, think he might have introduced which media he was from, but i think something you know appeared in the paper probably the next day to say you know, mr. dowler said no comment. are the same reason obviously as you said just to try and avoid the specifics because once you engage in one question, then there's the next question and then hearing gauged in discussion and that i guess de facto becomes an interview, doesn't that? >> i think in fact every time we went out the front door it's like you had to be on guard because someone might be there and they would come up to you when you are least expecting it so as you are sort of lifting stuff in and out of the car or something and then they will fire a question at you without introducing themselves. and so you have to train yourself not to answer.

>> maybe you feel the pressure is staying from that sort of tactic altogether, it doorstep in you? is that which he feel? >> well i think it is quite concerning because i think however believe -- polite people are come at the end of the day you really are afraid to open your front door because you are faced with a question. and however you respond to that question might then lead to a headline of one line or two and that's obviously difficult to deal with. but we have always tried to be polite and courteous and leave it at that. >> of course, i have to ask you next about milly's phone and the voicemail interception. you deal with this at paragraph 13 to 15 of the witness statement.

first of all, and trying to fix this into the chronology, you think this must have been an april or may of 2002, is that correct? >> yes, it was quite soon after she gone missing because where she actually was adopted was opposite this building called the birdseye building down by walton station, and there were cctv cameras on the birdseye building so everything really focused around these cameras. so we were asked to go up and have a look at some of the cc tv to see if we thought someone on it was milly. and do you want me to tell you about what happened? >> yes. well, first of all you tell us that you are phoning in to milly's voicemail. >> yes. >> quite regularly, presumably. >> anything else?

>> of course overt -- all the time. at first we were able to leave messages and then her voicemail became full and then you rang and he just got the recorded, we are unable to leave messages at the moment. and so i was used to hearing that, and we gone up to the birdseye building to look at the cctv. we were sitting downstairs in reception and i rang her phone. and it clicked through on tour her voicemail, so i heard her voice. and it was just like, she's picked up her voicemail, bob, she's alive. i just -- it was then, really. when we were told about the hacking that was the first thing i thought. >> yes. so your immediate reaction was to phone jama, is that right? >> gemma, yes i spoke to jama

and it died down afterwards because you are thinking is that the only reason that could have happened or what have you but it was, like i told my friend she picked up her voicemail, she picked up her voicemail. >> that is certainly a reasonable inference. can you tell us anything about the police reaction when you shared that with them? >> i remember, all i can remember is that they put some credit on her phone because she was very low and she had no credit on her phone. >> yes. >> i can only remember them telling us that she had put some credit on her phone. >> and when he told them that you managed to get through to the voicemail message. did that excite any particular reaction from the police? >> i can't really remember that. >> i think one of the flo's was with us.

unfortunately that was nine years ago. >> whether it had an impact on the police investigation is a matter of speculation? >> is something for them, isn't it? is at the end of the day with their investigation. >> and then much later on, and this was shortly before the criminal trial, you learned from the police that the voicemail had been hacked into by the "news of the world"? >> yes. >> april of this year, i think. >> certainly by mr. mulcaire i think specifically that's what we were told. >> what was your immediate reaction to that piece of news? >> well, we got a call from our flo to say that the police wanted to cs, and to tell us vaguely what it was about, and

as soon as i was told it was about phone-hacking, literally i didn't sleep for about three night. you replay everything in your mind and you are just thinking, oh that makes sense. and then we went along to the meeting and i said to them about this instance in the birdseye reception and also about walking back from the station were the two things that come at the time, i thought. this is odd. something untoward is going on. >> so in your mind you made the immediate connection with the dialing into the voicemail that you've told us about it and also a possible connection with the private walk you've told us about? >> yes. yeah. >> i think the thing to remember of course is that the walk was nothing to do with milly's phone so that could only come from.

>> yeah that was our home phone or own mobile phone. >> thank you for that. and we we now for obvious reasons, namely the fact of the criminal trial that this is information you could not share more widely until the trial had concluded, and we also know that the date of the revelation in the press, think it was the fourth of july of this year, so it fits into the chronology. can i ask you about some more wider questions? you referred to the press being a double-edged sword. it's obvious i suppose. you have to engage to some extent in order to assist the police in their inquiries. on the other hand there was a very important domain which was private. is there anything else you would like to see about the

double-edged nature of what you have -- might've had to do at that time? >> well, think in essence with our situation, you have to remember we were really, really desperate for some information about milly and so the press were in a position to be of help and they did get the message out that she was missing and lots of information came into the police headquarters. but on the other hand, the persistent being asked questions and reading doorsteps and everything else associated with it and all the letters that you get requesting books, films, interviews -- >> the point i made just now is

that i follow the media over the years quite a bit more than sally does, and certainly recognize that it's very important that we would try to be as consistent as we could when dealing with the media and not to actually give any one party a particular position or angle for the very reason of actually not wanting to create another set of issues to deal with, because in fact in the early days, those first six months of course, we were in a very desperate situation and in fact, it's unprecedented in your normal life for most people. how do you deal with it? how do you deal with these things? so we tried as best we could to be as balanced as we could about it but recognizing of course that things are outside of your own control. >> yes. is plainly well outside your own experience. you had to rely on your own

judgment in an entirely unique situation. did you get any help? you talked about the police liaison officers. presumably they did give you considerable assistance at this time? >> very much so. the flo's yeah, they were brilliant. they really helped us and the surrey police press record waiting thing so they took the majority of the burden off of us. >> yes. >> and we chose that route as well. that was definitely the route we wanted to go. >> i'm going to ask you about the settlement of your civil claim, but could i just ask you about -- he referred to a meeting with mr. rupert murdoch, which i think was probably about the 12th at the 13th of july. the date isn't going to matter. presumably that was a difficult meeting for both of you, is that right? >> when i say both of you, i mean both of you and for

mr. murdoch's? >> yes, it was a very tense meeting. >> he made it clear that what had happened was totally unacceptable, didn't he? >> he did, yes. yes, he was very sincere. you referred to a letter from the then ceo of the company and a meeting with prime minister, which i don't think it's necessary to go into unless you would like to. can i ask you though, both of you, about the section of your statement which deals with the future. you touched on this a little bit mr. fowler. this inquiry is here to consider press culture, which looks back in time, at the future. is also here to make some recommendations. this is your chance. is there anything that you would like to suggest to lord justice

leveson for him to think about at this stage? >> i think when we went to see the three party leaders and the prime minister, we were asked that question at that time, and the problem that sally and i have, where ordinary people so we have no experience in such a public life situation, and certainly no experience from a media control, media involvement situation. so it's always been on our own best judgment -- judgment as to how we dealt with these matters. >> i think was more we wanted the extent of it exposed in an inquiry could make the decisions. >> i mean, it appears to the inquiry that your judgment has been, if i may say so, extremely well exercised her out in very difficult circumstances and we understand and appreciate that. if you have anything more general, which you would invite the inquiry to think about.

but if not, there's no problem. we will be thinking -- >> i think we will leave that up to you. >> i'm sorry, were not -- >> how very generous of you. thank you. >> i have no further questions for you but i'm extremely grateful for your evidence and the way in which you kindly and frankly answered my questions. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> mr. sherbourne i think you were entitled to make an application as you are acting for the dollars. is there any other question you would like to ask? thank you very much for coming. >> may we break for five

minutes? >> yes, certainly. >> all rise. >> aright, guess. >> at warning. please call your next witness. >> ms. smith. >> i truly declare and affirm the evidence i shall give shelby to choose, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> thank you. >> ms. smith i will say to you as i have said before, thank you very much indeed for agreeing to give evidence. this was a voluntary activity and i'm conscious that it exposes personal matters that affect you in the public domain.

this is one of the things you are concerned about so i'm very grateful to you. >> thank you. >> good morning. could i ask you to state your full name? >> joan alison smith. >> you provided a witness statement to this inquiry and we can see that i think in in the big-screen. before i ask you any detailed questions about your statement can i ask you to confirm that the contents of your witness statement archer to the best of your knowledge and belief? >> yes. >> on that basis can we start with who you are. those who have a witness statement in front of them are meant to be looking at paragraphs 47 but for those who don't have the statement could you tell us a little bit about who you are and some brief details. >> i've been a journalist for more than 30 years. i started my career in national newspapers on sunday times. i worked for "the sunday times" insight team doing stories like

the iranian embassy siege, the yorkshire ripper murders and so on. after that, i decided to go freelance and i've written for a lot of national newspapers, "the guardian," both the independence, mainly as a columnist, the evening standard too and i also write books. i'm the author of six published novels and i have also written feminist books, and by most famous book is about women hating called misogyny's. i also work for penguin -- wrote for penguin a book about secular morality. i also do my human rights work from 2000 to 2004. i chaired the english pen writers in prison committee which was set up to promote freedom of expression around the world and to look after imprisoned writers and their families. at any one time we were looking after about 50 writers, academics and poets and so on in

places like syria and china trying to make representations on their behalf. latterly we started sending people to observe their trials if they were in court. in 2005 i went to observe the trial of or hand hammock and istanbul when he was on trial for insulting turkish identity. latterly in 2008 i got involved in a literacy project in sierra leone collecting books in this country. i did that with the times. they gave me the space to launch an appeal for children's books when i came back from freetown. we were able to collect about a quarter of a million, 300,000 children's books which we shipped out to sierra leone to set up school libraries, between 152500 books in different schools. so i do both those things. >> thank you very much. can i ask you about one specific part of your career history, the

one that you deal with for everyone who has the statement, at the end of paragraph 11 of your statement. its 23461 on the screen. this is work that you do, or you did with the human rights policy department of the foreign office campaigning for freedom of expression for journalists around the world. can you tell us briefly about that were? >> robin cook was a friend of mine and in 2001 just before the election he would ask me if i would share his least -- last big speech as foreign secretary. afterwards, he wanted to talk about how he had put into action the ethical dimension of his foreign-policy which had been a very famous statement that he made after he became foreign secretary and 1997. at a lunch afterwards i met of his special adviser, michael williams and the head of the human rights policy department, and they said to me, we want more involvement with ngos,

and can obviously had ngo status. they suggested that i was -- if i was thinking of sending someone to observe a trial in somewhere like belarus which was actually quite a frightening thing to do, that would could liaise with the foreign office and they would put us in touch with ambassadors and high commissioners. if somebody was -- i remember there was a trial in belarus in particular. i asked someone from the pen committee to go and observe the trial and they got a lot of help from the british ambassador in minsk which was very fortunate because actually there was a very unpleasant same in the court cleared by the local version of the kgb. there were bipartite talks on the future of turkey's application to join the e.u.. we did a lot of monitoring of human rights in turkey. we would take part in those talks at the foreign office each

year and give lists of things like all the books that have been banned in turkey in the last year and whether it was going up or down and whether journalists were still being imprisoned and so on. >> obviously a lot of interesting work there on freedom of expression issues. tell us briefly how important do you think freedom of expression for journalists to be? >> i see gets absolutely essential. seems to me the free press is absolutely a cornerstone sine qua non of civil society. if you don't have a free press which is able to call politicians and big companies and corporations, multinational corporations, all sorts of people to account and i think you have real problems. so i've always felt that i was very lucky to be able to pursue a journalistic career in a country where we did have a free press because i'm a very aware of what happens to journalists in countries where there isn't one. >> you told us that bit about the interesting work you do but can i ask you this, do you

consider yourself to be a celebrity? >> not in the least. i'm a very minor public figure in the sense that i write books and increasingly people who write books are expected to turn up a literary festival and talk about where we get our ideas from and things like that. that i am a writer. i can speak in public and i have, but i don't think that i'm somebody whose private life would be of much interest to the reading public. i mean i'm sure that apart from the papers i write for people who may be like my novels, most newspaper readers would be quite baffled to know who i was. >> moving on then to a brief question about your personal life. i don't really want to ask you any aspect of your personal life save one. you say that paragraph 8 of your statement that for a number of years you were in a relationship with dennis mcshane. is that correct? >> yes.

>> is probably a delicate question but was there anything illegitimate or secretive about their relationship? >> dennis sendai, he was my partner from 2003 to 2010 and i was always quite open about it. just before i first appear in mr. mulcaire's notes we have been to a conference in venice that dennis was speaking at an early 2004 and i remember that we had dinner with the former prime ministers of italy and sweden. that doesn't seem to me to be a very secretive way to conduct a relationship. >> before a move on, just want to ask you this. you rarely mention your private life when you write your columns and so on. can you tell me whether you ever have discussed your personal and private life in your columns and if so what sort of things would you typically say? >> very rarely. i remember once dennis rang me and said that p.m. he and three friends had just got to the

summit of mont blanc that warning and he was very excited about it. i was writing for the independent that day and i was talking about the changes, the way in which aging had changed and he pulled my generation do things at ages that our parents never would have dreamed of, and i just mentioned that. but it was just a half a sentence about my partner rang to say he'd climbed mont blanc with three friends who were all in their late 50s. that was all. >> you mentioned a moment ago that you appeared in the now famous mulcaire notebook so let me ask you a little bit about your experience of phone-hacking if i can. when did you first become aware that your voicemails might have been accessed in that way? >> in april this year when i was got an e-mail from a detective that operation leading. >> can you tell us a bit about what happened? >> i arranged -- i got in touch with the detective and wrote

that to this e-mail and said i gather you trying to get in touch with me and here are all my details, including my home address, my home phone taliban not -- telephone number and my bauble phone. he e-mailed straight back, oh right, those are all the details that we have in mr. mulcaire's now but. so he invited me to meeting and i went to my lawyer. we organized a meeting and two detectives came. i sat next to them and tamps and sat across the table with another detective. there was sort of a ceremonial eel unveiling of the notes and you your ask him i'm sure lots of other people have gone through this now. you are asked, are going to show you some pages photocopied from mr. mulcaire's now put. can you tell us, if you recognize anything? mr. mulcaire made a note of the fact that i was writing for both

independent and at times and what seems significant to me and what i found shocking was that he seems to be a very excessive notetaker as well as writing the name in the corner of the person at the "news of the world" he was dealing with. he also made a note of the dates, my name and address and details appeared mr. mulcaire's notes for the first time on the fifth of may 2004 and that's approximately six weeks after dennis' eldest daughter was killed in a skydiving accident in australia which had attracted a huge amount of publicity. i was incredibly shocked that in that period when dennis was b. reeves, and as you can imagine, it is not a good time were or in a wind when a 24-year-old girl has just died from such circumstances that the news in the world had been interested enough in both of us to ask mr. mulcaire to listen to our voicemails. >> can you tell us what your

reaction was when you've saw this now but book and he found out in all likelihood you had had your voicemails accessed at this time? >> i am amazed by how shocked i was visiting my journalistic life i've had one or two bad experiences. you know i was caught in a riot in sierra leone last year which was pretty unpleasant and i do now recognize the impact of shock. on that occasion i didn't because i was just in eight days. i saw all these notes and mr. mulcaire had obviously found out that -- he made a note that we were going to spain. i was going to append conference to meet other people, other writers who worked for the freedom of expression. i was going to barcelona and dennis was coming out the following weekend and he was going to make a speech in spain. i was amazed by the detail of notes that mr. mulcaire had made about flight times and the night -- note saying her to him,

so it appeared he had been getting information from my voicemail. the police said to me, is there anyway that mr. mulcaire could have gotten this information legitimately? and given that it was about two months after the bombings in madrid, when there was a high level of security around the government ministers it did seem unlikely. anyway to answer your question, i remember leaving that meeting and i had to go a meeting in the city. my mind was just buzzing. and again, as the dowler's would say does that explain something? i arrived at my meeting and i was slightly early. the secretary came in and said are you all right? he got me a cup of tea and i realized afterward it was such a shock. i had no idea that was happening. bespeak emma l. something else about that period?

what sorts of things were you writing about? >> i was writing a lot for the times and i was writing columns for the times. they would ask me to do additional things like vivian westwood was having a huge retrospective of her work at the vn day and they asked me to do a cover feature. interviewed vivienne westwood in my name is on the cover of t to. i was also writing columns and i think it was on the eighth of april 2004 -- >> i think we have that document. it was handed out this morning to everyone. >> i wrote this column headed celebrities or pagan deities. they had been doing but celebrities often do which is try to kind of negotiate their way to -- through a personal

crisis. so i wrote a column saying, and i suppose what was in the back of my mind was the intrusive reporting of the death of dennis' battery month before. i wrote a column saying that i think that people make unwise decisions. they think celebrities think that they can kind of control the media, you know that they can keep them friendly. actually the appetite for stories and personal life is so remorseless that they lose control of the story. so i was saying in the piece that i find it very disturbing that we have gone through situations where the idea of privacy used to be a shield for hypocrisies of people use to do terrible things in their private lives and pretend that they were a upstanding fine christian gentleman and so on. we have moved from that and wear a situation where people have almost no privacy at all. i was saying in this column in the times that i found it incredibly shocking that no matter what happens to people, whether it is a buries ment orie marable -- berto problem you are

apparently expected to deal with is completely in the column -- public eye. i wrote this column in the times in four weeks later the "news of the world" asked mr. mulcaire to spy on the. >> what is the link in your mind? >> i am not sure there is one. i think from what i've been able to understand about mr. mulcaire's activities and the number of names in his notebooks, but has been said that the spying was on an industrial scale and i think almost anybody, this could happen to almost anybody. that's the astonishing thing, that you don't have to be an incredibly famous actor or actress. you don't -- you just have to be tangentially, you know, come into the orbit of somebody who is well-known. i think probably there is such a gap between the cultures of the two parts of the press, what i think of as the serious press that i write for in the tabloid press, that it wouldn't even

occur to me to look at what i was writing. that actually was part of the argument. >> you've now had a few months to digest the information that you may have had your voicemails illegally accessed in this way. how do you feel about that now? you've told us a bit about how you felt about having your phone accessed at the time when mr. macshane lost his daughter. have you have the time to reflect? how do you feel about it now? >> i do think there's a sort of wider lesson to be drawn from it. i think i mentioned this at one of lord justice leveson's seminars, that it seems to me that tabloid culture is so remorseless, it's appetite is so unable to be filled. people involved have lost any sense of their dealing with a human being. when i was doing investigative journalism i quite often had to knock on the door of someone who was be reached but it wasn't because i wanted to know how it

fell. it was because i was writing about you now say the yorkshire ripper murders. there was always a purpose which i could explain and say you may not want to talk to me. if you don't want to talk to me i will go way. actually nobody did say go away. i think this is very different. everything has become a story and were all caricatures. i've said this in my writing. i think the tabloid press, we are just two-dimensional. were just fodder for stories. >> and i ask you to turn to paragraph 25 of your statement on words, where you are dealing with press conduct more generally. explained that a number of articles have been written about you over the years including as recently as december last year. these articles tended to be, we seen from them about your relationship with mr. macshane. you say that as recently as december 2010 they wrote an article about that relationship despite the fact that it had

ended some months earlier as i understand it. what is your view? >> i think it depends entirely on the context and it seems to me that there was a difference between somebody who is in the public eye like a politician say, who make sino what i would call traditional family values a part of his or her political platform. somebody saying the sanctity of marriage is very important, and people shouldn't have co-habitation all relationships or anything like that, and they have been kind of pose with their family in their election literature and so on, then i think maybe that's a different situation. but the point is that neither dennis nor i ever kind of courted the press and invited them into our lives. quite the opposite. on each of the occasions and is a gone on at a low level for about 20 years. i've had phonecalls and then

approached by journalists and they always come in this chummy kind of way and say oh, can you tell us about your relationship is so-and-so? and i would always say to them, and the journalist. if i wanted to put my private life in the public domain i could do it myself and i'd get facts right. so why would i need you as an intermediary? i always try to be fairly polite and i also think in december when i got this call, it was only a few months after i had left dennis, and i don't think that the journalists who contact you realize, or care that you are quite in a vulnerable state you know that your still processing all the feelings of a long relationship ending and it's actually not very nice. i was just in my gym. actually had been running and i just removed all my clothes and my phone rang. oh john we gather you and dennis are no longer an item and i actually thought, what it would

wonderful metaphor this is. i'm naked before the tabloid press and why shouldn't -- and why should i be? >> can i ask you this? some people might say that the press are entitled to write about the personal relationships of public figures such as mps or ministers regardless of whether they make statements about the virtues of family life and so on and so forth. what would you say to that? >> i think it's the confusion of the old confusion of not understanding the difference between to what interest the public and what's in the public interest. i think that private life has become a commodity, and there are lots and lots -- do i wrote a book about secular ethics and morality and i think adults lead their lives and lots of different ways now. for example i think that the legalization of civil partnerships is a great advance and i also think that marriage should be available to them.

so i think adults lead their lives in quite a sophisticated way now and they don't use one model. and yet tabloid press seems to live in a kind of 1950s world where everyone supposed to get married, stay married and if anything happens outside that, it's a story. >> can i ask you about two articles you referred to in your statement? the first is an article from the mail on sunday on june 19, 2005. this is an article which you should have in your exhibits. the headline is blair secretly divorced mr. europe and the feminist who believes marriage is redundant. >> lets just deal with that one. that was when your relationship is happening. blair secretly divorced mr. europe. was mr. macshane secretly divorced? >> i didn't know you could be secretly divorced. i thought you had to go to court and that it was listed and so

on. i think there is quite interesting confusion there between secret and private. i think dennis probably come i don't want to speak for him but i think you would probably regard this divorce is a private matter and didn't go up around buttonholing journalists and saying, oh did you know i just got divorced, but i can't see how it was a secret. ..

>> by the time you campaign to them, all your friends have read it, so, you know, you're not going to get much in the way of redes. >> i have been asked to put another question to you, and it's about -- actually, you wrote in the evening standard, on the 5th of december 2001, a copy in front of you, i think you were handed that this morning. >> yeah. >> and this appears to be, i'll paraphrase it, an article you wrote in 2001 about the relationship with gentleman, and you obviously discussed the issue that was occurring between the two at that time, and set out at the end some views. can i request you this -- i've been asked to ask you this. you wrote about elizabeth and

steve, and you wrote about their private life. if, as you say, and it's overzealous on reporting of people's private lives, why do you, yourself, write articles about celebrities? >> because i've been writing since the 1990s about the mistake that celebrities make of putting too much of their private life in the public domain. i didn't doorstep them or ring them up or ask them. they put that in the public domain, and if you read the article, what i'm saying in is it that this is a very dangerous thing to do. i mean, i said the same thing about the late princess die anna, and people think they can put their private life in the public domain and control what's said about them, and what worries me is given the underlying subtlety of the tab bloidz and at the time liz was

pregnant and in a vulnerable state, and i thought it was actually quite a dangerous track that she was on, and if you look, you will see that i talk about the kind of underlying unease that there is in our culture of women who are beautiful and base their careers on their appearance, and the dangerous that they lose their reputation to use an old fashioned world, and so i'm always incredibly happy when i get a chance to smuggle that into the popular press. >> thank you very much. >> well, a few final questions. you said in your statement you felt the experience -- [inaudible] you told us about it then, and in light of your experience, can i ask you this? you don't deal with it in your statement, but do you have views on the current system of regulation? does it work? do you have views on what you'd like to propose? >> no, i don't think --

>> [inaudible] >> i don't think it does work. i mean, i'm opposed of any idea of state regulation and opposed to the idea of licensing a journalist. there's two things that need to happen. one is about regulation, the other is about culture. in terms of regulation, i think that there needs to be a kind of success to the ccc which isn't dominated by editors, which has more representation from outside. i think that there ought to be things like -- it ought to be -- if newspapers don't take part in it, then i think they should lose their vat exemption so there should be a character part in it. i think there ought to be a much faster wry -- write of reply, and i think it takes in mediation in other situations like, you know, where liable might be involved in so on. i think it needs to be a much more complex and capable body, but on top of that, i think what

needs to happen is the change in culture, and i think that we do have a tabloid talk show that is almost infantile. my impression is the hacks go around like children who just discovered the astonishing information their parents just had sex and they can't help but see it, and we live our lives, and i think that obsession with sex and private life is remorseless and pitiless in terms of what it does to not just celebrities and crime victims, but just ordinary people. >> thank you very much. anything you'd like to add? i don't have any questions. >> i don't think so. >> i have a couple. >> uh-huh? >> you've identified on a number of occasions the ethics of what you call the tabloid press, that

is there or should there be any difference to the ethical considerations, which are put into the work of reporters by any section of the media? >> no, i don't think there should, and i think that's the real problem. when i first started out as a journalist, i wasn't particularly aware of any codes of ethics, but i knew why i became a journalist,. you know, in a young way, i wanted to change the world, and i thought that through times it might be necessary to break the law. i mean, during the okay rivers invest -- investigation, i was threatened, but nothing happened. things diverged too far. it should be possible to sl a vibrant press with just the things that say it a few decades ago, and i think that is not

something they see themselves doing particularly anymore, and so there is a separation which i think is very damaging. a lot of the time, you know, people like me who write for the, you know, when i was talking about earlier, the broad sheet press, it -- i feel like a different breed from the ethics and people who work in tabloid papers. >> okay. the second question 1 this. you saw the material the police assembled from the notebooks. do you have any sense of whether you are being targeted to the adjunct? >> my guess is his daughter's death made his profile much, much higher, and they got interested in him, and once interested in him, they got

interested in me. i suppose i was collateral damage. >> okay. thank you much. >> thank you very much. >> we'll take a short break. >> i think that's sensible. i'm perfectly content just to let people have a break. i'll say the same to witnesses who are coming. this is not always an entirely pleasant ordeal, thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> next witness is mr. grahm mr. graham shear, please. >> i swear that the evidence i give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the

truth. >> now, your full name, please. >> graham julian shear. >> you have given testimony to november 2011, the statements is truth that at the end of the statement, do you confirm the truth of that statement? >> i do. >> thank you very much. first of all, i'm going to ask you please to tell us a little bit about yourself, mr. shear. >> solicitor partner at an international law firm based in the city of london. i qualified in 1989, practiced initially commercial law, and then i became a commercial litigator, and i'm still today a commercial litigator. i have a very broad and wide ranging commercial litigation practice with an area of specialist in both sports and media work. the first major case i handled

to brought me into, i suppose, close contact with the media was when i acted for robbie williams break up in 1995. during the later part of the 1990s and into or to the present day i've acted for a broad spectrum of the actors and actresses from the high profile acting world brought for sportsman, sportswomen, footballers, celebrities, for politicians, for a very broad range of those who could become or be of interest to the media. >> and i think it's right that you are a claimant in the voice mail interception litigation which is in the chancellor division headed by mr. justice in january of next year? >> that's correct. >> you'll understand that we

cannot fairly discuss the merits of your individual case as to the facts in the individual case? >> yes. >> your statement covers matters of opinion and here say evidence on the one hand, but also direct evidence on the other, and i'm going to deal first with the direct evidence. let me start with paragraph 28, please. you referred to one incident when you arranged to meet a client, or, of course, you're not going to name, in the middle of a high profile crisis at a secret location, and you were followed by a reporter or photographer. >> yes. i mean, over the years, i've acted on some extremely high profile cases, and it is a fact that i've become quite well-known by those members of the press who are interested in those cases, and that they would often camp outside my office,

and therefore if i wanted or the client needed to have a private meeting, we would often arrange to do it other than my office. >> yes. >> on this plaf occasion, the -- particular occasion, the subject matter was extremely high profile, and the where abouts of the person concerned were of interest to the media generally. >> yes. >> often because, and in this case i'm sure it was the case, because the picture was the thing they wanted to publish. they wanted the current picture. >> yes. >> i spoke with the client who was quite a long way away from his normal residence, and we arranged for a meeting place in the oxfordshire countryside at a hotel. i have absolutely no idea who followed me. the likelihood it was probably a member of the pap rat cy or somebody given the task by one of the newspapers or general media concerned, but i was

followed on that trip. unfortunately for the person following me got lost somewhere behind me on the journey. as i say, i have no idea who the actual person given the task was. >> okay. you say in photograph 29, before the fame hacking scandal broke, that clients often said to you they felt the press was monitoring their electronic communications. how much did this happen or these fear were expressed? >> i would say very regularly. certainly, in the period from about the -- i suppose 2004 and 2005 onwards, clients began to believe that coincidences were being replaced by more likely interception of some form or another. i recall quite clearly clients

becoming irritated or frustrated and suspicious that private information was finding its way into the popular media, and they identified this with, you know, a straight facts that they knew only what could be to one or two people were being published. it caused them to ask questions not only of their family and friends, but even of me, and i i recall it clearly. it became so continuous that i suppose the suspicion that was directed as those who could have leaked began to become more focused in their own minds about whether or not this information was being obtainedded by surveil los angeles, and -- surveillance, and, you know, for a variety of reasons both that i acted for, some more than others, became more used to changing their mobile telephone numbers, changed them two or three times a year, and that was a common way for people to, i

suppose, give themselves some confidence, that perhaps there was a way that they, although they had no actual evidence or basis other than their own suspicion, but could prevent easy access about them. >> yes. you referred to a specific incident in early 2008. can you tell us a little bit more about that, please? paragraph 30 of your statement. >> yes. as i say, i've acted on a variety of high profile cases, and once again, this was an extremely high profile matter where there were two clients involved, and the press had different, but equally intensive interests in both of them. there was obviously a connection between them. the -- the increase in interest had got to a point of almost a

fevered activity, and their house had been surrounded by the press for several days. it was because of events then occurring and turnover events that could occur that they needed to seek advice from me. both of the law and common sense advice as well. >> [inaudible] >> sorry? >> occasionally the clients need to be told the realities of what can occur as well as the legal advice of the circumstance in which they find themselves in. hopefully, i provide a blend of both, and they wanted to come see me, and we knew that if i went to them, then that would automatically, i suppose, not just accelerate, but heighten interest, and if they came to my office, once again, that would

become an obvious point of focus for the media, and the media scram would develop. it arose literally an hour before the meeting was i suggest if they could get out of their house, they should come to my house because the media didn't know where i lived, and they thought that was a pretty good idea, and they lived out in the country, and they felt that if there was anybody who was following them that they could probably lose them in traffic or find a way to get to the home, and i recall clearly and we left, text me or sent me a text, and i left a voice mail message for him and details how to get there because he needs to put it into the sat nav and had to explain the best way of where

they lived, and i remember very clearly being sort of at my front door and sort of looking out because i wanted to be there for when they arrived, and i had a space in my drive for them to park their car, and i was flabbergasted when about, i suppose, several minutes before aarrived, two cars turned up with four or five people in each car. that proceeded them, and sort of parked sort of at one end of the street and a one a little further down to then have a few minutes later, the clients come up. it was absolutely clear to me that the paps or media concerned were well aware of where they were going to, and only i was privy to that information because i left the message and sent the text to the client, and only they were privy to it, so

it was quite an extraordinary event. which was followed by obviously quite intensive interest of what was happening inside my house for the rest of the day and the media were outside for many hours. >> >> it goes without saying. >> it was -- it was a private time not only for the clients as far as circumstances that related to them, but it was also a matter for them to seek and obtain legal advice which is obviously professionally privilege. >> well, you were so concerned that you say in paragraph 32 writing specifically to the information commissioner's office and to the metropoll tan police, --

metropolitan police listing the date, 2008 and 2009, and your name was on the list with a general inquiry in relation to phone hacking. you said at the end of the paragraph 3 # that the response from the police and information from the commission was negative. are you saying by that they didn't reply to the letter or saying by that they did reply and say you were not the subject of phone hacking? >> well, i became interested in the development of the information that came out of the various criminal trials that had taken place, but i asked the clients, i suppose in around about 2007, would they like to take matters forward? by 2008, a number of them had indicated that they did. some didn't, actually. some preferred or felt that they could suffer incrimination or further interest by the media by pursuing an action and decided

that they actively didn't want to pursue it, so as you say or as i have said in around about 2008 and twine, i sent a long -- 2009, i sent a long list of clients' names at their request to the police and commissioner. i included my name on it, a suggests from one of my partners, that i may be collaterally interested to them and could have been subject, so when i received the response, and i did receive a response from both the information commissioner and from the police, and the responses were specifically, no, no information had been found on their names contained on the list. i reported back to the clients and said, no, no information, and at the time, i recall thinking, well, there's two circumstances. either there were all of the evidence had been collated and reviewed, and no names had been found, or they had not finished

the review, and the third option was that actually not all evidence which related to misconduct by the news of the world had actually been retaped and considered. i reported back to the clients, and some of them were -- i suppose felt that it was unlikely that that they had not been subject of some form of unlawful surveillance, and others were actually very pleased that their names didn't appear. it was with some surprise that in the early part of this year or about the end of january or february that i was contacted by officers from operators who asked to come see me to talk about a number of my clients whose names did appear in the evidence that had been revisited

or reviewed by operations, and they came to see he and started to go through the process. >> yes. and were you shown relevant pages of the notebook that related to you? >> i was. actually, i -- it's become almost a regular event. specific officer was assigned, michelle roycroft, was assigned to me and my clients, and i was shown the information that related to my name and the detail of that, and it jumped out of the page at me, actually. although, it was not quite as specific as i now know in relation to other clients, but i immediately recognized the content of voice mail messages that had been left for me, and

conversations that had followed those messages. they were slightly cryptic, but the detail was very clear, and it related to information in a device that i had given to a client and to others who were advising him in relation to a case where i was acting for that client on a regulatory matter. >> i think news international will say, although i'm not contradicting anything what you just said, and what you just said may be an issue in other proceedings. >> i understand that. i've spoken to, or i'm aware that those who left the messages for me are also recalling what was said at that time as well, but i appreciate that. >> let me just understand that. in relation to the advice you had begin, are you saying that

was left on the voice mail message? >> no. i was actually in the hearing at the time, and i -- the way in which it worked is that i would leave messages for those who were representing my client, and they left messages for me, and they also received contact from third parties. and in this case, it was from a journalist, and they left a very detailed message for me about what the -- >> it's all messages? >> it's all messages. journalist left messages for me as well, so, yes, messages to inform. >> yes. >> you refer specifically to one incident in paragraph 36 advising in relation to regulatory proceedings. >> yes. that's to what it relates. >> thank you.

remind me, back in your statement, now, mr. shear and dealing with your opinions, and can you expect a general opinion about tabloid conduct and under the rubric in paragraph four and the commercial pressures? in your own words, please, what are those pressures operating at the moment? >> i believe it's a business model that's become almost dependent and infatuated with sensationalists and stories to the point where the facility, and this is just my opinion as i said, that phone hacking or unlawful surveillance provided, allowed those that were utilizing it and reviewing the information to not only build

their stories, but to pat them out with detail, and this coincided with the financial benefits that a newspaper could have from providing a diet of easily digestible, sensationalist material on a regular basis, and therefore, it's been a progression of sort of fairly sort of -- i suppose privacy invading, but interesting to a section of the public intrusion into the private lives of the rich and famous, powerful, or others that has created this self-generating process where people want to see or hear of the next event. >> yeah. >> so that's what i've seen. that's how i've seen it develop.

it's certainly was not quite as prevalent in the same sort of guys in the mid-1990s. it became more organized and orchestrated as we sort of turned into the early parts of 2000. certainly, the news of the world was out in front as the most defective story gatherer, and certainly quite a bit of daylight appeared with news of the world and the other newspapers with whom they competed. i think the types of surveillance that were being undertaken are likely to have been isolated to one newspaper purely because of the movements of journalists between the different newspapers. i mean, there are not that many newspapers as employers out there who would be available for the journalists to work for, and it's -- i was certainly aware of significant movements in the

early part -- early mid parts of the 2000s. i suppose in 2003 to 2005, journalists from some newspaper groups, specifically to news of the world. >> one thing that came through the seminar and also in evidence which is coming from the press is that the information you're giving us is totally incorrect whereas it might have been true in the late 1980s and early snows. 1990s. the goal is to improve behavior, and now you're giving us a stereotypical view, but it's completely wrong. do you want to comment on that? >> i don't, and i think the press is adapt at calculating opportunities and exploits them whether it be from checkbook

journalists and the persuasion of young girls to sell their stories on a sort of regular basis all the way to identifying which stories 20 alert the -- to alert the target of that relates to private information pre-publications and which stories to leave to the potential risk of post-publication damages, and in that sense, the pcc certainly is no match for that kind of organized and focused financial calculation. ..

of ethics to the extent. one has to question where the journalists have been trained about the requirements upon them when the obligation is upon them and their employers to act ethically and i think that's that element should also be introduced into anybody and anybody that replaces the ipcc or the enhancement to the power is a requirement for appropriate training and the journalists to replace or to enhance that conduct i do think that the pcc

have been affected by an antiharassment phone line and i think that is quite an effective facility and by myself have on occasion recommended that the clients that were concerned about the door stepping use the hotline and i know they've been a good job with that but i'm afraid so far as the regulation investigation is concerned today and yesterday it is no match for the larger media organizations to home they are to mediate. >> you mentioned in paragraph eight of your statement you have personal knowledge of the amount of some of the money between newspapers and to the purchased story? >> i have had a council on

several young women concerned. i think there was a tariff that almost all for time. some of it on the contest a basis between the different newspapers because obviously the story was high-profile the target person was of particular interest or the young lady had an effective agent and some of them did have good agents who increased the temperature for their story. that tariff as i say probably went from about 10,000 for the most innocuous to half a million and the upper end of that i get on the upper end of that is anecdotal and i have heard on the account of people who have been involved in the most high-profile cases for example who have been a very large sums

for their stories but the young lady concern became aware that there was a tariff and as i mentioned in my statement certainly a girl but repeat performance of i can put it that way who became fairly regular who took advantage of that and i do believe well i know one certainly more than one occasion clients might have been faced with a prospect of being alerted the newspaper had a kiss and tell girl but also that a young lady if she were paid more money and not sell her story that in itself after on certainly more than one occasion is an orchestrated the them to persuade our clients to actually pay off the young ladies which in itself could become an

enhanced story almost any form of orchestrated a black male so the supplement to the standard kiss and tell story i think occurred around 2006, 2007 where there was an appetite to kind of move it away from the standard to something more interesting. even the reasons of our regular papers needed some variety and i think that is possibly what occurred. >> on your view that tabloid consciously calculates the financial risk of publishing a story and that would include the divide a story that would yield additional circulation fy as for

the financial benefit. have you got any evidence of that speculation? >> think it is about the progression of behavior. i had very good working relationships with the national newspapers. i was probably and still am one of their principal adversaries and it's not just a question of whether or not you are an adversary on a weekly or a daily basis but you have to believe adversary early all the time. it had good relationships and during i suppose the early part of a century from 2000 to 2008 and even now occasionally the papers would alert us to a story they were going to publish and that was certainly more prevalent although one goes back

so we would be contacted on if your state or friday in relation to a story that was being developed for publication on sunday. it ordinarily involved even material that was potentially the newspaper was looking to balance out their risk by putting the story to the targets and the concerned material that was of a private nature and they were trying to assess what if any resistance they would receive and in order to enhance and regularize their approach to me i would send a list of all of my clients than notice basically say that if you have any material which you intend to publish please put it to us first because it gives us the right response and certainly until the last few years, the journalists in the legal department would put the

material to us. but over time what's actually happened is two things. first, the amount of damages awarded in relation to defamation to libel generally has reduced so when one goes back in time to the cases they were the last of the very high damages awards and so it's been on a sliding scale coming down words and the maximum amount in relation to the breach of privacy have been relatively modest and a newspaper or a media organization can calculate the financial consequences opposed publication they can also calculate whether or not the benefits of publishing of a story without actually approaching of a target or the lawyers first held sway the risk or financial consequences of the awards against them and even

cost post publications to what i have seen is a reluctance by the media generally to put stories prepublication and to stand back and away to the fallout if you liked after publication. that has to affect. first, some people viewed as once the stable door is open and the private information is in the public domain what is the public to the occupied in litigating the the defense it only reinforces and reminds the reader and those who perhaps didn't even read of the information about the private information, and so there's a natural deterrence post publication in some people's mind to commence the proceedings and certainly the family tree material is concerned i suppose there is an easier outcome for the defendants in any action post publication and that is to

make an offer in order to satisfy the claim so certainly so far as private information is concerned, i detected and see a reluctance over the last few years by the media to actually put stories prepublication. >> it appears to us the distinction between stories of which are private and true would appear a privacy issue and stories which are private and not true the defamation issue. >> there's a technical distinction that did in sue and david who live instructed as we've debated were debated over the last ten years as to the effect or the potential to bring privacy actions where there is the notion of the false privacy

where in order to contest the information, the private information you have to reveal some private information and therefore what everyone does by contesting it one is one defeat to opening one's private life to inspection by others in the circumstances you would not ordinarily wish to do so, and you are right that overlaps with the potential defamation proceedings as well because obviously the consequence of the false prophecy or false information is a claim of defamation after publication. >> can i deal with the privacy plant and the genie out of the bottle this year and that locks in to the notification. if the target is given the challenge to plant the injunction that which is in the bottle has a chance to remain in there and from your own personal experience are you able to say

how often this opportunity is now being given to plans of your c? >> increasingly rarely. i think it's proportionate to the size and nature and possible lynn pact of the story that's less likely the opportunity given. i've run probably as many if not more than any other, more prepublication injunctions or possibly any other lawyer in the area have started to convince them and have newspapers back down. i would say that at one point we were looking at the larger newspaper groups almost every weekend and it is more they have

a larger budgets do so over the last few years that preceded dramatically and it's not just the instance of this inquiry and the prominence of the phone hacking scenario. it's more about the change in behavior and the reluctance to be if you like not to tell the story by the media generally. >> it might also depend on how the judges are responding to these applications and of course we don't get much of the sense of that because of the very nature we see the judgments in the context of the damages cases in which there are quite a few but is the position this the judge would wish to see demonstrated a clear public interest in the privacy?

>> certainly. let me be absolutely clear about this. on seeking and of attaining the order is no easy thing. they are extremely hard fought. those on the opposite side of our adversaries of the media do not take them lightly and the judges that hear the application won't be assured that the individual's rights have been fully engaged first and then that is the most obvious point whether or not there is an inherent right to privacy in the information that is which the section seeking to publish and the second point is whether or not the balancing act in relation to public interest has been outplayed by the press for freedom of expression and appropriate freedom of expression all terms of the individual's rights and don't get me wrong on this.

i echo the last witness sentiment in the democracy the type we would desire to live in we need a strong and effective and free press, and i believe that that balancing act in relation to public interest is an absolutely vital part of the process, and it is, as i say, hard fought, but almost invariably certainly with respect to the sensational story which we've spoken about and it's very hard if not occasionally impossible to detect a public-interest rather than interest by the public and certain celebrities help those in junctions' occur and if one

can demonstrate those two ingredients then one has a fighting chance and the anonymity is appropriate. >> following your statement you deal with a specific matter of which arose in 2003. >> anything you wish to add to that? >> it is an example of how a newspaper might seek to bring to the public domain information about which themselves they would suffer risks of defamation actions for which the privacy actions fisa pos in that

particular instance the individual involved was a use the expression vilified because he was not willing to participate or to condone intrusion interest in his private life and therefore he was a high-profile footballer at the same time he wanted to retain the private life and the newspapers didn't appreciate that he would contest that intrusion into that in this particular instance or circumstances i could give you some detail because it's quite a lot in the public domain there were a group of footballers staying at the house hotel to read the were the subject of a complete body of john leedy that she had been sexually assaulted

and raped. i acted for the footballers concern. unfortunately for one of my clients he was also staying in the hotel and was probably of more interest and had a higher profile than the others and was the vilified footballer i mentioned a few moments ago and there was i think we're focused by the newspapers to identify him as being the likely potential accused a few light coming and to bring his team into the public domain by inference suggestions by the placing of stories and pictures in close proximity to the articles as they were published and this was a very high profile

event that was front-page news for several weeks there didn't seem to be much interest in identifying with or not he was -- it was appropriate for him to be brought out in this fashion and we let it be known that he was not actually present at any yvette about which should be of any concern to him or interest to them that they went ahead and inferred his involvement and we subsequently sued no matter of the result. >> it provided the evolution. >> i think that there was a point where so many people were -- there was so much suggestion

and inference that his name was being bandied about the likely instigator or perpetrator and was being treated on the internet and so he felt he had to come out and actually clear his name and not only is that not embarrassing in that circumstance, people are actually remember the wrong part of the story as the right part of the story for his activity and for his willingness to come out and say i was not involved and they tried to involve the and secondly also for his willingness to pursue the media he for many years after the case was resolved became the subject of the attention as well almost on a vindictive basis by many

sections of the newspapers that were the subject of our proceedings. >> you refer to what you call revenge on the attack of 23, and did you mention specific case which for reasons you can't delve into the details of but you do refer to the campaign by the press. i know it is going to be difficult to give the ensample without the identity of your plan but is their anything more that you can say about that? >> i think that this particular instance was disgraceful actually. i think that the notion that

they had any belief in the integrity of the story was completely satisfied by what we learned later on. this appeared to be an opportunity by newspapers generated by video which contained is supposedly explicit material. the newspaper decided not to buy the video but published and unsubstantiated story which did not seek to identify but only create speculation about our client. the way in which they did it was intended to either identify him for the benefit of those who were able to reconstruct the pixilated kimmage lacrosse of referencing it it was pixilated as a silhouette by cross referencing against photographs published another media and therefore bring in his name but

what they didn't appreciate is the a identification is actionable week, tested it and the consequence of that is not only was the general target of interest because of his ability and talent as a professional sportsman but also other areas but there was definitely an element of the revenge fuelled fervor because they're seemed to be the desire to dish out some retribution and they were determined to prove something damaging to his reputation or private life if you like the quid pro quo to on the national media and if any person is put under a microscope to call an

intensive microscope, and if there are large amounts being bandied about for the provision of information together with a few like the focus and intensity of targeting a person together with what appears to be a systemic approach to surveillance with phone hacking and other surveillance provides some results and they were certainly exploited beyond what was i feel appropriate or even the cory in in the form of public interest scenario. >> you have insisted the analysis from your perspective is the business model of newspapers use a but the calculation in the end

speculation will be increased and that will cover any damages and defamation or privacy they might have to pay and i would ask about the business model of such as yours because this is a point where i'm sure the press would wish me to make the view is a right that in many of the cases you work on conditional arrangements with your class? >> on some, yes i do. i've only done so for the last i suppose four or five years maximum. i did it for two or three reasons and it's not only in the area of media or purchase your defamation related work. i do read in other areas. it's too, if you like, balance out the power quotient between the policies to our adversaries.

it's also to neutralize the potential of risk and if you like to create a dialogue between the solicitor acting for my adversary and that adversary so that whether it is in the commercial case or media or defamation case the dialogue about the consequences of pursuing the defensive action often brought home very clearly when a better discussion about finances involved, and i've noticed those cases where there is the cfa agreement in place more likely to settle not because of the opposing party concerned about whether or not they are going to win or lose the case but it's more about accelerating and bringing earlier action that consideration of whether or not it's worthwhile elon gating the

case continuing the defense because if they lose the cost will increase. >> how about the point of view of the opposing party? you told us the damages in the privacy cases are not particularly large in the 60,000 pounds. imagine a case where the opponent is on the 100% commercial firms such as yours and you apply a procrit council to implement the plan. it began to get out of hand to use the vernacular therefore the newspaper calculates with the defense will cases they are almost compelled to settle those rather than fight them because the risks are disproportionately high. >> i don't accept that for a moment.

let's look at a case for the example you mentioned the highest case at 60,000 pounds. that is no more than a very gentle parking fine in proportion to the turnover in the financial returns in a high-profile stories it does not really compare to the premium being paid to the kiss and tell at the other end of the story provision if you like the question if the newspapers feel the cases that there are the risks of losing the case and the opportunity to settle the case and the appropriate and proportion that settlements if they do that earlier than the consequences of the cfa do not

actually bite upon them to the adverse cost of the escalation and let's also be clear about this the maximum consequences to a newspaper or double said the 100% if all of those on the other side imposing the solicitors and the barristers are all on the 100% uplift and the case is found to board and 100% uplift but i can tell you on the cfe bayside taken them to the settlement as well as the ford nearly gone to assessment and actually as in most the legation the court's only award something in the region of the 65 to 75% of the cost on assessment to the winning party and therefore there's a heavy delusion to the few like 100% uplift in any event and to relieve the risk to the newspapers of the cfa are only

restricted to the cases they actually lose them. i don't believe there's a real deterrent factor there where they have a significant prospect of losing any where they have a case they have a lesson trustee% chance of winning the case should be out. >> approximately how many cases in the last few years in this area have you done on the cfa? >> excluding the phone hacking cases we are conducting a the moment, no more than a handful. maybe six or seven. >> have you lost any of them? >> no. >> can you give some idea you will appreciate that when one assesses whether a cfa is appropriate to enter into as a solicitor we are we out to the

merits of the case very carefully because we are taking significant risk and investing our time into that case so i wouldn't take a case which i didn't believe was likely to have good or very good prospects of success so therefore one but only choose the appropriate case to enter into this dfa to respect it is very sensible and unless there is a case about it at the end of the progress council before any significant work is done but enough work for you to evaluate whether it is a good battle and a distant case. >> your policy of any state cases with a better than 50% chance, correct? >> correct. >> from the newspaper perspective, you mentioned the

uncertainty of the litigation we can see cases which are so cold winters and so-called losers but many cases fall when the middle with the 50 to 60% chance of success the existence of the cfa agreement will cause a prudent newspaper to be more cautious in relation to litigation and the least possibly to adopt a more defensive approach, wouldn't you agree with that? >> not necessarily. i believe that there has over the last few years i suppose since the evolution and development of the privacy law we in this country and the human rights act there has been slightly strange attitude and feeling about what is and what is not in the public interest and this sort of devotion to promoting the right to publish because of role models and

hypocrisy and it became ready and i think it is preceded through the decision making process, so even where there is a clear case where private information has been utilized and disseminated and that actually it looks like, it looks pretty clear that there was no proper public interest grounds upon which the media went home to publish because the event been able to submit evidence. they still gone ahead and contested the cases. partially because they see it as not just one battle but an ongoing war and they feel the necessity to maintain arms with every single battle even though they may look like cases that shouldn't be contested and i think that's also pervaded through so that which they feel

like published either the store your incrimination related to the consequences of the publication with her to be defamation findings against the privacy findings by either the high court judges who have heard those cases or the action in further targeting them later on. so it kind of goes through. i don't think it is necessary and totally rational with which some of these cases the media continued to contest them. >> in relation to the cfa to stay first fall scrutiny following the order of jackson support and second as i mentioned jurisprudence and

human rights and they say on the facts of that case and was the campbell's case the was the breach of article 10 of the convention with relation to the cfa that these were matters which need to be considered. you might touch on the one aspect of the public interest and suggest that in the cases which fought in the middle of the spectrum they are quite difficult judgmental issues we can see cases on one end of the spectrum where deutsch in a hypothetical case a politician and this is being mentioned in assimilation to family life it is made explicit and then the politicians lack in his or her private life there may be not much to dispute about that the identification of the public interest in exposing the

mismatch may be quite clear and then on the other end the evidence bearing on this later in the week we have successful people who have been over backwards to the privacy of their children and where it is difficult to see the proper public interest into their private life. the quite straightforward case. >> what about cases in the middle and perhaps some of the will model cases? uses are inevitably bound with public expectations about how people should be hit, maybe football in a certain position and nationality would ever just to give you one possible example, but it's very difficult to be where the public interest lies in a matter of opinion, isn't it? >> i.e. agreed to a degree.

i think that there are distinctions between the different clauses or groups of those to whom you refer. like you, if one of our elected officials was transgressing in a way that diminished the standing with which we should hold them, then i would want to know about it. if there was some even that was occurring that really did to the well-being of society, i would want to know that and i'm sure everyone else would want to know and therefore the rights to privacy in those circumstances clearly diminished and but you can normally separate what is private information from what is information that should be disseminated in the public interest. when you speak of will models or when you speak of those in who play football there are those who perhaps make their living from promoting their own screen

persona with the marketing activities such as actors or actresses who appear in the large motion pictures the have to go through a process but we actually know the person? no another screen persona which has evolved to the protection of what they are about. now, i believe that they are still entitled to a private life and the same goes to professional football. it's hard to understand how the suggestion that all professional footballers or even those that play on the team should be a role model to all that read the newspapers or all who watch them play. the main reason they've achieved that success is bergenfield and a devotee and they've decided

that from a very early age they wanted to be professional sponsor the event actually decided what they really want to be is a professional sportsman who also appears in the newspapers or on the media because the majority of or professional footballers rm very, very little money from the off pitch activities only in the absolute handful who have earned any significant sums and any of them who can fall into the category of the crossover between professional sports and general media profile so i don't accept it so far as the professional footballers are concerned unless one has a case and there are cases that do stand out as obvious cases where there may be public interest reasons why that information should be disseminated but there is one further point i would like to put on that and that is the mantra of journalists and

loyalists who worked for the other newspapers constantly saying your plans are role model to and have acted as a hypocrite and to hear of that from the senior journalists who why new extremely well at the news of the world and the editors whether it be from the futures or sports whatever during this over and over about how the of the hypocrites because they had an additional relationship or whatever so then learned of the activity of the news of the world they had supposedly been the hypocrisy bothers yet throughout this purpose they were unlawfully and hypocrisy in my view. >> the weakness of the argument that this present england to the

captain a couple of years ago to commence six minutes to stop the captain from failing to be the role model he was supposed to be in the journalistic you not necessarily out on a limb is it? >> i never quite sure the extent to which the decision making detached from the puerto rico people who operated the keillor absolutely right. there may be positions within the public life such as the captain of a national team where the standards of the private life are expected by those who placed them into the positions to be higher than others but fine what are we talking about? the you're talking about relatively few people. most people can actually separate the public engagements sections and if you like activities from those which are priced at.

i have no other than my activities as being a lawyer acting for people in the media or for large companies no public persona i can separate out my private life from what i do and act on behalf of the client relation to and most people in public life have been at to actually separating out the circumstances and especially when it comes to their family circumstances and children and elderly parents etc.. >> thank you for bearing with me. i've given you a bit of a platform and you've taken up the opportunity there is very clear others who would be in the position to express would be given the same courtesy but i'm grateful for you coming and i have no further question. espinel yet gough three topics

which move it back a little bit and each a rise from something you said. you spoke about the concern of your clients following 2,004 about the question of interception and then finding about the notebook and the intrusiveness that you are experiencing weather that has stayed the same, got better or worse in the years since 2006, 2007, 2008, else we have learned more and more about what is going on to beat in other words, trying to pick up on is the question we've understood so the press we've got the picture and it's now very different. you give a number of time

periods. estimate you can talk all the way sure threw them, sure. the biggest has occurred in the period from the summer this year on words and made part of 2010 there's been the greatest sensitivity and the fewest stories the intrusion has occurred while the microscope of this inquiry of the phone hacking claims are most apparent in clear and awfully recall the period from about 2003, 2004 and that goes back to several cases where i was acting to 2005 in relation to some high-profile methods i was involved in i think that there was a atmosphere not just of complacency but also there were

almost untouchable and therefore their activities became incredibly intrusive and there was a fever pitch to produce more and more and more detailed stories during that period with a far lower recognition with either of the consequences or private rights, so i think it accelerated and increased the period from about 2003 to about 2008 and 2009 and has receded because of the focus of the cemetery only time will tell for some potential positive to come out of it any way. i am sure that if i could morph into a further question i think if all that comes out of this is a more effective way to

facilitate a body that investigates and regulates and trains our media so that it is an effective if you like counterbalance to insure inappropriate the space process then, you know, if that is all that comes out of that that would be an extremely good thing because i think some of the proportionality and balance have not just eroded but become almost ignored i think the people lost of the ethical compass and becomes systemic so there was a real lead and incentive for people to push the boundaries further and further and that is why this sort of feeling -- almost to detect as before they were untouchable and could do almost anything. the second question is to some extent linked. you're talking about the question of the notification and

you told that there was a time you were in touch with newspapers almost every week when there was the potential stories but that had decreased dramatically and you explain the because of the damages and the balancing risk that you perceive the newspapers were taking. what i want to know is have there been in this program fewer stories, in other words, if the line of stories remain the same and you expect increased involvement post publication whereas previously you've been able to dampen down the rest of the publication of stories of course there aren't more stories than that in itself might reveal greater responsibility or greater decision making being taken by the press not to pursue

particular lines. >> i think recently there have been fewer stories which transgress. i think historically what occurred was that, you know, law of privacy evolves gradually so that originally the reason why the press were putting stories to us was to evaluate the risk of defamation damages or damages arising from defamation that occurred post publication and they would assess the risk prepublication and also to assess whether or not they would effectively have some resistance or no resistance from publishing the story or to acquire additional information. what actually occurred is as they put the story to us and a fumble or if you like the scope and the way that the arguments could be delayed increased there was a crossover so as the stories were sent to los we could identify with or not they

were appropriate stories to contest publication at all on the grounds that step on the personal or individual rights to privacy. but what also occurred at the same time as there was an increase in the volume of stories being generated were investigated so that perhaps from the late 90's to the early part of 2000 there would be maybe one sensationalist story line was really a kiss and tell once every three or four weeks it accelerated and increased dramatically during the sort of 2003, 2004 and onward era. so there's lots of different dynamics to what was happening in of the reasons why they did or did not become published.

you may be acting for the celebrities and the famous and have the wherewithal to instruct you or even to know about you and second, to do something about it if they want to. do you have any observations upon the risks of those who do not have the wherewithal or the money or the knowledge to engage with the press at this sort of level? >> there's two parts to that, isn't there? those people who have had stories published about them where the fuel to contest the stories and commence proceedings is either continuing the pain and therefore become deutsch word from doing so or they don't have the financial capability to

even consider the commencing proceedings, and i think that that is a combination of if you like the emotional consequences of having your private life for trusteed men's published about you coinciding with your financial capabilities. and there is those that do have the financial capability but become detour because they feel that they are confronting organizations which are enormous and have extremely deep pockets and as somebody once said to me why take on the newspaper where actually they just order another barrel of ink and you are at risk in the future and that is something that i've heard regularly over the years that detour people from taking in proceedings or taking on the media organizations because they

feel it will be a war that they will never win and at some point they will just have to give up the process. some people are extremely focused about it and fight to protect their rights and the rights of their families and they are very protective of the family situation and will not stand for it and they are normally ones that actually have continued and pursued proceedings which have resulted in the substantial damages. >> okay. the third and final area that i wanted to ask you concerns an area which we are certainly going to have to look at, which mentioned is the internet, and you made the point that i think

you're footballer was concerned about using material from the internet. have you had to engage with those that are responsible for putting material out on the internet? and if so, with what effect? because that is in part the elephant in the room. >> i have had three cases which have involved the dissemination of information through the internet either as a result of a few light of viral rumors or other means. they've all had different consequences and a different dynamics to them. it's an extremely difficult problem to confront. i remember the first case i was involved in was the grover house

case that i referred to a few moments ago. that case was the subject of huge speculation and a lot of it was undertaken by e-mail between people who were either e-mail and web sites or blogs or people within businesses, and it is extremely difficult to prevent a few like identification or i suppose focus by dissemination of information on the internet, and on that case we need it very clear to the employers being larger organizations that they should not condone what were defamatory e-mails by being passed within their organizations and we did actually managed to prevent some of the fallout by using that sort of technique.

interestingly, in another case that i had a where it was regarding the identification was the pixilated or the silhouette image that i referred to one of the issues the newspaper concern raised was that in respect of the fact that it had been identified on the internet who the person was in the image that was so low that that relatively few people became aware of the identity of that person because it was being treated on the internet publication and then a sort of more for its way very gradually into the mainstream media. and on that occasion i actually used the internet to take the poll to find out how many people did manage to identify the

person. so it goes both ways. you know, it is a tool that can be used but it is a extension of the media which is very difficult to moderate. i have identified situations in the past where i felt it was going to be counterproductive to attempt to restrict the agenda on the discussion. it's almost like a finger you can often create a bigger consequence by contesting by allowing it to pervade. i've also noticed one other feature which i think is relatively sinister and that is more recently where i believe sections of the media have instigated or stimulated media of the internet lead discussion and debate, and i suppose tattle

in order to bring into the internet culture information which the supports and reduces the risks and damages which would be available to the mainstream media is repeated within the mainstream media. so i've seen an element where the internet is being used were utilized in a very as i said sinister fashion. >> have you engaged with any of the internet service providers? >> yes certainly with respect to google and plater but that is more in situations where they have been custodians of the information and the same thing with perhaps wikipedia as well or information has been boreman to the four rooms and we have engaged and identified them in

the the assertions or information generally that is being passed between people and ask them to moderate it or remove that. there's a variety of responses that one receives. often it is very slow. i think they are concerned to become too much involved and perhaps google is concerned it is a difficult situation to continent because they don't have any of their servers in the u.k. and therefore one is placed in the position seeking to persuade them of what is appropriate and as opposed to inappropriate conduct or communication. they've become more responsive. i think twitter is a difficult social media forum to control or to moderate. people close their accounts. i've had a number of clients

whose names have been utilized by others to open twitter accounts and then utilize to then disseminate material quite wrongly and it is quite difficult to get that dealt with >> thank you. thank you very much indeed. well, there's no application to make under ten. that is probably enough for the morning. we will adjourn now and resume at 2:00 if that's all right. thank you.