friend, former israeli deputy defense minister defined ipf as an organization that provides the right combination of team pro-israel and pro-peace. today, we are particularly concerned with the current atmospherics within the jewish community and within the body politic in washington d.c.. particularly when it comes to the u.s. israel relationship and the effective use of u.s. diplomacy in the region. and that is why we are committed to convening forms of civil dialogue like the one today. on pressing issues that face she shared an american interests,

there is by all accounts no more pressing issue today than iran's nuclear ambitions. in the past two weeks, there have been two mysterious explosions at iranian military installations including one just yesterday. in israel, and in the united states, politicians and pundits are open late discussing the possibility of ben israeli military strike against iran, even as new sanctions have recently passed, which have escalated the economic pressure against the iranian regime.

recognized. mr. menendez: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, i come to the floor to speak to an amendment -- bipartisan amendment that my colleague from illinois, senator kirk, and i have offered. we believe it is one of the most critical issues facing our country in terms of national defense and global security, and so we've come together to the floor to speak about it. one of the greatest if not the greatest threat to the security of our nation and our ally, the state of israel, is the concerted effort by the government of iran to acquire the technology and materials to create a nuclear weapon that will do two things: first we can be sure that it will alter the balance of power in the middle east. and, second, altering the balance of power with a nuclear iran dedicated to the destruction of the state of israel would most certainly lead

to hostilities, hostilities that could spill over to engulf the entire region and well beyond. man, we cannot, we must not, and we will not let that happen. but the clock is ticking. published reports suggest that we may be just a year away from an iran having a nuclear weapon. and the ability to deliver that nuclear weapon to a target. to forestall the scenario, more importantly, to prevent it from happening in the first place, we must use all of the tools of peaceful diplomacy available to us. simply put, we must do everything in our power to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. a and i do not believe that there is anyone on either side of the aisle who disagrees with that proposition.

so we come to the floor today to discuss a bipartisan amendment that i've offered with my friend from illinois, senator kirk, to limit iran's ability to finance its nuclear ambitions by sanctioning the central bank of iran, which has proven to be complicit in iran's nuclear efforts. this amendment, the menendez-kirk amendment, will impose sanctions on those international financial institutions that engage in business activities with the central bank of iran. it is a timely amendment that follows the administration's own decision a last week designating iran as a jurisdiction of primary money laundering. in fact, the financial times enforcement network of the department of treasury wrote, "the central bank of iran, which regulates iranian banks, has

assisted designated iranian banks by transferring billions of dollars to these banks in 2011. in making these transfers, the central bank of iran attempted to evade sanctions by minimizing the direct involvement of large international banks with both the central bank of iran and designated iranian banks." close quote. and the under secretary of the treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence, david cohen, has written, and i quote, "treasury is calling out the entire iranian banking center, including the central bank of iran, as posing terrorist financing, proliferation financing, and money laundering risk to the global financial system." close quote. so, mr. president, the administration's own descritions clearly show that iran -- own decisions clearly show that

iran's conduct threatens the united states and its allies. and the complicit action of the central bank of iran based on its facilityatio facilitation, t in deceptive financial practices and elicit transsk transactionsd most importantly its provision of financial services in support of iran's efforts to acquire the knowledge, materials, and facilities to enrich uranium and to ultimately develop weapons of mass destruction threaten regional peace and global security. we recently learned just how far down the nuclear road iran has come. the international atomic energy agency's report indicates what all of us already success specked: that iran continues to enrich uranium and is seeking to develop as many as 10 new

enrichment faments, that iran has conducted high-explosives testing and detonator development to set off a nuclear charge as well as computer modeling of a core of a nuclear warhead, that iran has engaged in preparatory work for a nuclear weapons test, that i an august iaea inspection revealed that a component used to arm nuclear warheads was unaccounted for in iran, and that iran is working on an indigenous design for a nuclear payload small enough to fit on iran's long-range shah has been missile, a missile capable of reaching the state of israel. what more do we need to before we take the next diplomatic step to address the financial mechanism that is helping make iran's nuclear ambitions a reality?

these revelations, combined with iran's provocative effort in october to assassinate the saudi ambassador to the united states, demonstrate that iran's aggression has taken a violent turn adds that we have every reason to believe that if iran gets a nuclear weapon, it may very well use it and use it against the state of israel. this amendment would impose sanctions on any foreign financial institution that engages in significant transactions with the central bank of iran, with the exception of transactions in food, medicine, and medical devices. it recognizes the administration's actions last week pursuant to section 311 of the patriot act designated the entire iran banking sector as a primary money-laundering concern. it requires the president to prohibit transactions of iranian financial institutions that

touch u.s. financial institutions and to ensure that we don't spook the oil market, transactions with iran's central bank in petroleum and petroleum products would only be sanctioned if the president makes a determination that petroleum-producing countries other than iran can provide sufficient alternative resources for the country's purchasing from iran. and if the country declines to make significant decreases in its purchases of iranian oil. so, mr. president, this bipartisan amendment has been carefully drafted to ensure the maximum impact on iran's financial infrastructure and it's ability to -- and its ability to finance terrorist activities and to minimize the impact on the global economy. iran has a history of exploiting terrorism against coalition forces in iraq, in lebanon, and even in their attempt to assassinate the saudi ambassador

here in washington. while iran' iran's amendment to advance its nuclear weapons program has been slowed in international sanctions, it clearly remains undeterred. today we take, hopefully -- either today or tomorrow when we vote on this amendment -- the next step in isolating iran politically and financially. i look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on the other side and with the administration to achieve this goal and to also advance the legislation that i introduced earlier this year with many others on both sides of the aisle, the iran-north korea, and syrian sanctions consolidation act, which at this point has 80 bipartisan cosponsors. our efforts to date have been transformative but just as iran has been compared to adjust to the sanctions and unanticipated loopholes, just as it has been prepared to take advantage of every loophole to circumvent the

sanctions and keep moving forward in its effort to achieve a robust nuclear program, we must be equally prepared to adjust and adament by clos -- ad adapt by closing each loophole and stopping the regime's nuclear efforts. by identifying the central bank of iran as the iranian regime's partner and the financier of its terrorist agenda, we can begin to staffer the regime of the -- to star o starve the repeal of e money it needs. we cannot, we must not, and we will not allow iran to threaten the stability of the region and the peace and security of the world. and i appreciate my distinguished colleague from illinois, who is on the floor who has worked with us in this

regard come to a common view and effort to maximize the effect on iran, minimize the effect to both us and the global economy and certainly urge passage of this amendment and yield the floor to him. mr. kirk: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois is recognized. mr. kirk: mr. president, i rise in strong support of the menendez-kirk amendment, and i particularly want to thank my partner in this, senator menendez, a member of the banking committee with me, who has been a leader on concern regarding iranian terror and iranian proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and human rights for 20 or 25 years now. and we are reaching now asidizive point in the relation -- a decisive point in the relations of iran and other countries and importantly to the united states in this. how peaceful means and economic

sanctions can be used to avoid a conflict. that's why it's so important for the senate to adopt the menendez-kirk amendment with the long-term genome of collapsing the central bank of iran so that this country does not produce nuclear weapons that would destablize the entire middle east. we launched this effort, senator menendez and i, senator schumer, particularly in august when we called on our president to sanction the central bank of iran. in these partisan times in which the two sides are far apart on so many different issues, we have 92 senators -- all by eight senators signed the letter saying, collapse the central bank of iran, use this as a tool in our diplomatic war chest to make sure that we can remove one of the greatest dangers from the country from one of the most dangerous regimes. the record is pretty clear: the international atomic energy agency has ruled on the subject

of iran. we remember the iaea because the iaea with regard to iraq and the saddam hussein weapons of mass destruction program was consistently correct and the bush administration was wrong. the iaea said in its intelligence estimate that the state -- the threat was overstated in iraq and so with that level of credibility, we should listen to the iaea on the subject of iran. and there they have been extremely clear as well. they have outlined how iran has a separate enrichment cycle going way above the enrichment of uranium necessary to fuel a civilian reactor -- 5% -- now towards 20% where its there's no civilian use, moving towards the 98% used for a nuclear weapon.

they most ominously talk about a warhead of particular weight that would equate what would be in a nuclear weapon. and unlike a conventional warhead which basically has a spark initiator and explosive material, this warhead has an electric generator aboard and is only used to power and initiative a nuclear explosion. and so it's clear from the statements of the independent united nations agency that iran, a signature on the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, is violating its obligations and is creating as fast as it can a nuclear weapons program. we know also that iran has become the first space-bearing nation of the 21st century. that unlike the north koreans who have failed in their space launch time after time, it was

actually iran that was able to orbit the omid satellite aboard the safir rocket as the first nation to be able to accomplish ccomplish that in this century. if you can orbit anywhere over the earth, you can deorbit anywhere over the earth, an ominous sign for the future security of saudi arabia, of iraq, of our allies in turkey, but especially our friends in israel and long-term the united states. the record of iran in this regime with the rights to its own citizens shows the character of its government. long ago we knew about 330,000 baha'i citizens of iran who have been forced to register their addresses, whose kids have all been kicked out of university, whose families are not allowed any contracting with the government of iran. the bureaucratic mechanisms of

kristalnact have formed. we've seen this movie in a different decade wearing different uniforms in a different country but the ominous signs are it may turn out the same way. many people know about nada protesting about the stealing of an election in iran. we know about hussein renagi the first blogger who called for tolerance in iran who is languishing in prison. we know nas ir, a mother of two whose sole crime was representing a nobel laureate and how she was thrown in jail. beyond the nuclear program, beyond the missile program, beyond the repression of human rights in the country, we know about iran's long record of terror, that iran is the paymaster for hezbollah. we've known that for a long time, they have tortured the

poor country of lebanon. but in some sense there was a symmetry, we understood how this shiite power would support a shiite sect in lebanon even though they spoke arabic but they jumped the divide and also backed a new terror group called hamas that was trying to surround our allies in israel with missiles and terror necessary to extinguish the jewish people and the jewish state. we know how the iranian regime is also one of the central pillars of the syrian dictatorship and as that dictatorship hangs on to power, it's somewhat on the back of iranian money and iranian weapons and expertise that allows them to repress their own people. and then most recently we have seen that on the back of a bipartisan certification that iran supports terror, from president reagan, president

bush, president clinton, president bush, and president obama, we've seen a higher level of irresponsibility on behalf of the iranian regime. according to our own attorney general, the head of the iranian revolutionary guards quds force tried to contact and hire a mexican drug cartel, one of the most dangerous, the zetas, to assassinate the saudi arabian ambassador to the united states at a georgetown restaurant. and that it was only because the incompetent iranians hired a d.e.a. agent in mexico that we found out about this. that they would, had they been able to accomplish their goals lit off a car bomb in washington, d.c., paid for by the government of iran, and briefed all the way to the top level of their government. and today we find that after they had their radical young

persons' movement overrun the british embassy, seizing classified documents and holding for a time 50 british personnel, shades of the 1979 hostage crisis when for 440 days iranian radicals held americans, that our allies in the united kingdom have now made the decision to remove all iranian diplomats from the united kingdom. we've seen other calls, brave calls of allied action, a man i admire greatly, the president of france, president sarkozy, has called for ceasing all purse of iranian oil. he's called for the collapse of the iranian central bank. so it's with this level of irresponsibility, on nuclear technology, on missiles, on the repression of human rights, on the support of terror, on a plot to kill americans inside washington, d.c., and the overrunning of an embassy of our closest ally in europe, the united kingdom, that we come

forward with the bipartisan menendez-kirk amendment. what does this amendment do? it basically says in part if you do business with the central bank of i, you cannot do business with the united states of america. it forces financial institutions and other businesses around the world to choose between the small and shrinking $300 billion economy of iran and the $14 trillion economy of the united states. in that contest, we all know how just about everyone will choose. and we wish that choice to be made. we want -- we seek to break the stable financial intermediary in between iranian oil contracts and the outside world. so that it will just be easier to buy oil from elsewhere, and working with our allies, to make that oil more plentiful. now, we realize the concerns with this amendment. some have said this amendment comes too quickly, too soon, and so that's where senator

menendez and i have agreed and working with the administration to give time and flexibility. under this amendment, nothing happens right away. several weeks and several months go by before any action is required, and that is intended as a signal to oil markets that this requirement is coming, that we seek for you as our allies, for example, in japan or south korea or in turkey to wind up your current contracts and supplies. to meet your needs by other means. and, by the way, other means are coming. we are expecting libyan production to double. we're also expecting iraqi production to go way up and of course we know the swing production of saudi arabia, no love lost towards the iranians after having tried to kill their ambassador here and working with the oil suppliers to make sure everyone's needs are met while funding to the iranian regime is slowly choked off. we also provide two waivers in

this amendment, and this is very important at the request of the administration. we say that if there is a temporary restriction of oil supply, that this amendment can be suspended for a time. and if there is some unforeseen national security disaster, some real problem that the president can see, also he has that flexibility. but the general picture is this: the central bank of iran is the heart and financial soul of a web of terror, of nuclear production, of human rights abuse, and depression of other peoples principally in syria that is no longer acceptable to the international community and so that this regime should operate without the benefit of funding from the international community. i think this amendment is one of the last, best hopes for peace to bring effective economic sanctions to bear so that a

burden doesn't fall on our friends in saudi arabia or our allies in israel to do the far more tough military work that may be required to remove this common danger. many people say that you can't convince a country who is on a nuclear weapons course to reverse course and i say, well, you show your ignorance of history. because we saw the argentines give up a nuclear program, the brazilians. likely the south africans detonated a weapon and then decided to give up their program. in kazakhstan and ukraine nuclear weapons were given up, in libya nuclear weapons were given up and with effective pressure, my hope is that it can happen here. we know that. ahmadinejad is not proper rather, the regime does not enjoy the support especially of its younger citizens, we know at least half of iranians in a stolen election voted for the other guy who was not allowed to take power. and so this amendment comes

forward with solid bipartisan pedigree. it has been endorsed by -- speak lib senators lieberman, schumer, kyl, feinstein, gillibrand, manchin, stabenow and heller under senator menendez and i's leadership. for us it gives time for the oil markets to adjust and unhook from irp. it gives flexibility to the administration. but most importantly it helps us deal in a diplomatic way with one of the greatest dangers to our society. we think about the future ahead and some people say this amendment could cause some disruption in oil markets and yes, we're asking countries to unhook from the terror regime in iran. but just think about the instability that would come if military conflict broke out between iran and israel, or, worse, if nuclear weapons were

loose from iran in the middle east. if we do nothing, as soon as two years from now we could have a detonation of an iranian nuclear weapon in the middle east. if we show weakness and a lack of resolve, then countries in that region will decide they need nuclear weapons programs of their own. we will give birth to the saudi nuclear weapons program. the egyptian nuclear weapons program and others. this amendment is an attempt to make sure that the 21st century is not the most dangerous century ever facing young americans. and to use the full economic weight of the united states working with our allies to remove what is the greatest emerging danger. i think senator menendez is living in the spirit of those who watched the 1930's and worried about when america slept,. we're not asleep. we know exactly what is

happening and by decisive bipartisan action of the senate, we're bringing the best pressure to bear of nonmilitary means to make sure that our kids inherit a much safer 21st century. and with that i commend my partner in this effort and urge partner in this effort and urge

>> thank you very much. could we come from the this is now live? it is, is it? thank you. >> just joining us as the order of witnesses we are going to hear from today as ms. sienna miller, mr. mark thompson and then mr. max mosley and j.k. rowling. the first witness is ms. miller and i call ms. miller. >> why a from the evidence i shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

thank you very much. >> good morning. could you confirm to the inquiry please your full name? >> my name is sienna rosebud diana miller. >> and you have provided a contract for your solicitors and you have provided the inquiry was a witness statement. are you familiar with your witness stand? >> ibm. >> and the content of your statement correct to the best of your knowledge and belief? >> is they are. >> i have said to almost all of the people who've given a evidence to me before how grateful i am to you for being prepared to take part in this exercise. i'm gerry conscious that you have strong views about privacy, and the very act of coming to give evidence exposes you and means you are talking about

things which are quite key not to want to talk about. so i understand the difficult choice you have to make and i am very grateful. thank you very much. >> before i ask any questions i would like to ask you just -- >> good morning ms. miller. >> good morning. >> we have heard from a large number of witnesses who've already given evidence to this inquiry about the experiences they've had with press photographers and proxy, people such as mccann, hugh grant and a number of others and people who gave examples of such things as photographers camped outside their homes, being stalked wherever they go, jumping out without warning and driving dangerously and so on. are these examples which are familiar to you in terms of your experience? >> yes, they are.

>> can you given query just a little bit of an idea what you have personally experienced in that regard? >> at the time i actually now have an order against a proxy so my life it's changed dramatically but for a number of years, i was relentlessly pursued by about ten to 15 men almost daily, pretty much a daily and, you know, anything from being spat at or verbally abused i think that the incentive is really to get a strong reaction as possible, you know, as other people have mentioned being jumped at saying things to get emotional reaction and they seem to go to any length to try to upset you which is really difficult to deal with. >> you've given some examples about being spat at and be used to get a certain type of photograph. i think nasa said with a certain types of caption added to it. what about -- we heard a lot about driving.

have you had experience with driving around? >> illegal trading, overtaking, undertaking to read there was an incidence where a pregnant lady was nearly knocked down but this is a daily occurrence. people driving on motorcycles and vehicles while taking photographs and high-speed it causes you to drive dangerously and them to drive dangerously with little regard for anyone else on the road, and it's all in pursuit of relatively little. they are just desperate to find out where you are going next regardless of whether it is a meeting or some kind of a mean evin. it's just -- i think there is something about the mistake which is very exciting for the proper nazi. >> it may sound like a bit of a silly question, but actually experienced it first hand can you give us an idea what it feels like to be the victim of that kind of pursuit? >> well, you know, it is

terrifying. it's terrifying not only for the person experiencing a but family and friends with me and people driving cars. i would often find myself at midnight running down the dark street on my own what ten big man chasing me and the fact the cameras in their hand meant that was legal but to take away the camera would have you got? you have a pack of men chasing a woman and obviously it is a situation to be in. >> you've explained that when you did about it is got an order from the court. that was in the summer of 2008, and i think you said, but just to be clear, what happened if anything as a result of getting the order? >> it went from having 20,000 people outside of my house to zero so i can now leave a relatively quiet and normal life which is in fantastic but was a struggle to get there.

>> can i move on to another topic just dealing briefly it is obviously a matter now of record that you obtain and there has been the settlement that you obtain judgment against the news group newspapers in your action, and we have heard from, for a sample, bob fowler earlier this week about the fact that you having brought this action and other people having brought this action is what led to them being told themselves. was it an easy decision to take to bring the action against them? >> no, not at all. i rest -- taking on the empire that was rich and more in packed full than i would ever be the demise of the evidence that came from the police and felt i couldn't not do something about it but it was a very daunting. >> can i ask given that you have had your can you explain why you were giving evidence to this

inquiry? >> because you made me. [laughter] >> what do you hope to achieve by giving evidence? >> i hope some form of change comes. they are very respectful and fantastic in this country and of the same name as the press and given the grand differences between publications so i hope some change can come and that is where i'm actually happy. >> it explains very eloquently being an accomplished actress were back in 2005 and 2006 in the concerns of the media intrusion. can i teach you to paragraph four of your statement, please? connect yes.

>> where you describe the during this period almost every week extremely personal matters were being published including parts of private conversations. my question to you is how did that make you feel about those around you? >> initial yell i'm lucky i have a very tight group of friends and a very supportive family, and to this day no one has ever sold a story on me regardless of the fact several people even acquaintances have been offered large amounts of money to do so, i felt very protected. but it is baffling how certain pieces of and formation kept coming out. and the first initial step which was to change my number and then i would change it again and again and i ended up changing three times in three months, and stories still continued to come out with a very private information on the very select group of people knew about and so naturally having changed my

number and being pretty convinced of hacking even though that was my suspicion i hardly accused my friends and family of accused selling stories and the accused each other throughout. >> the same fema he picked up in paragraph seven of the witness' statement, where you describe one occasion you sat down with family and friends in a room and accused him of leaking stories to the press because a story had come out that only they knew about. >> yes, there was one particular private piece of information only four people knew about and i had been very careful to not tell my mother, my sister and two of my closest friends only. and so yes on the accused people who would never dream of selling in any sort of information i accused some in that room of

selling stories. >> you know now your phone was being hacked. >> the fact they had this information was as the result of accessing my phone has it is, and very few people around me. >> how does it make you feel now knowing that you are driven to make the accusations against your friends and family as a result of phone hacking. >> i really am angry, and i feel terrible, but it would even consider accusing people of the trading for me like that but it just seems so intensely paranoid to assume you are being misunderstood somehow and considering i changed my number seven times and is the hut and i couldn't think of an alternative. but it is really upsetting for them and for myself that i accused them. >> what would you say to those who did this?

>> it isn't appropriate in court. [laughter] i think it's understandable it's just outrageous. it's kind of unfathomable to feel that you are justifiable in be heading that way and the ramifications of people's lives is very rarely considered by what you were doing. i think the effect it had on my life was really damaging to me and my family and friends takes us perhaps uniquely to paragraph five of your witness statement where you describe some of the other intrusions into your privacy. in particular you talk about journalists and photographers and the meeting places that you had arranged and only they knew about and you had managed them sitting outside of your house and convinced they were somehow listening to your private

conversations. he touched on this a little bit older the but can i ask you perhaps to develop on just the skill of the impact on your life that these events had? >> to be honest it made it very difficult to leave the house. i felt constantly very scared, and intensely paranoid. i've kind of touched on it already since we have a separate number that we would only speak to each other or on that number and subsequently had that number as well so every area of my life was under constant surveillance and i felt that and felt very violated and paranoid and anxious constantly >> and to tell us that you found a photographer telling them

presumably being photographed at the surgeon circumstances but we are talking of the circumstances in which you are hoping to have some privacy. >> there was no existing circumstanced when i was to have reform of privacy, but overseeing certain situations that was impossible. what was more baffling is the fact people found out before i even our life where i was going so that feeling of just people going absolutely everything about you was as i said before really intimidating and scary and confusing. i didn't understand how the new but i felt like i was living in some sort of a video game and people were kind of pre-empting every move i made obviously as a result of accessing my private information. >> believing on had now more

broadly to the question of the photography, and one of the photographs taken of you and published accurately or were they altered? an example you would like to tell about? >> i think a story to tell a picture that is unique. speed the other way around. [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> we were notified of this [inaudible] i have no objections. you were going on the u.n. charter territories. everybody is agreed then.

it's not why would prefer to have have it happen. >> thank you. in this particular situation in the ambassador and all i was at the annual ball where many of the children were and many people were donating money, raising money etc., and there was a very sick child i was pleased with in the corner of the room who was pretending to shoot me and i was pretending to buy. we were playing a game and somebody took a photograph in the mirror and cut the boy out of the photograph and said that i was drunk. obviously looking at these photographs the local most amusing. they look awful, shocking and they were aware at that time of

the situation, the real situation i was in, so why of the inslee complained and i sued and won it was minuscule and irrelevant. a few days later but by that point the damage was done. if anybody in my line of work seize this photograph and hears about the hitting is the suggested at a charity event it's a detrimental to my career, to my reputation, and i think this is sort of the problem they knew they were pursued and had to pay damages is not enough and the situations. >> this article should not go on the website there is no reason to do it and i'm not prepared to read that of which happened.

>> if i read the apology that was later given by the newspaper in question that on saturday the 12th of march we printed pictures of sienna mother who is an ambassador for the starlight foundation at starlight of ill children. we sit her antics at the ease and would thereby set just she had behaved in an unprofessional manner. we are happy to make it clear that sienna was not drunk and did not begun professionally. in fact in the picture she was on the floor playing with a seriously ill 6-year-old child. we have apologized to sienna. now if i can move, photography to the question of the phone hacking and to buy lines and the way also in which sources were

per trade, you said in paragraph nine of the statement that the intrusive about your private life served to close friends appear to be closely linked to what you remember is being sent to you by your family and friends. did the fact that these articles being attributed to close friends see enough suspicion about your friends that you described earlier? >> of course especially when the information coming out was similar to that which he said to specific people. >> and to those that wrote these articles under the bylines, do you think that it is ethical to give a full such addition to a story? >> no. >> not a difficult question to

answer. >> if they'd been written by anonymous journalists they wouldn't print their names which is from that part unethical. >> if i can move on now to the time when you found out that you had been hacked and that paragraph 12 of your statement you say that you discovered it wasn't only you but lots of people close to you put under surveillance and that they had created a project under your name. how did you feel when you found out that the intrusion had gone beyond you to those around you? >> i felt terrible. people had never done anything remotely public who had been under constant surveillance.

it seemed very crude looking at the notes, these than receiving a stack of evidence with dates referring to very personal things in my life telephone numbers and my access numbers, pin numbers come across words to my e-mail that was used to make a e-mail in 2008 was on these notes. and then as you sit, you know, and of my friends i think about ten phone number xin total so there is a web of surveillance which obviously makes it very easy to understand how they were getting all of this information from everyone close to me was being monitored and electronically listened to treat stomach and i ask you now that the litigation itself, just a few questions? first of all, what was your team and the taking action against the media?

in the news group news, were you seeking financial compensation or did you have some other purpose? >> no it was not about financial compensation. i would rather not have gone through the litigation i've had to go through, and known of for financial being. i wanted to understand the extent of the information they had. i wanted to know who knew. who knew who had access to my telephone number who had been listening to me. i mean it is that feeling of knowing people are talking about you behind your back or watching you and not being able to confront it is very frustrating so i wanted to get to the bottom of it. >> it was claimed successful. and did you think that the core procedures provided an adequate remedy for you? >> no i'm still waiting for the full disclosure which is the

only thing i really want from the news international, and so far it has been very unsatisfactory what i have received. i will continue to wait for it but it's a long process so far. >> between you and news group news it may be right to tell you i've been told by counsel that the order is going to be complied with. can we perhaps look at what was that was admitted in the litigation that you brought and could we have a document of the reference number which starts with 31105, and i'm looking at eight on the second page.

this must be a wrong reference. >> no i don't think so. i think that's what you want. >> yes, that's exactly what i want. thank you. we see that then this is what was admitted in a nut shell - of the civil proceedings, and perhaps i can read this meant that news corporation accepted the confidential and private information had been attained at the voice mail messages the confidential and private information had been published as a result and that there had been an invasion of privacy breaches of conflict and a campaign of harassment for over 12 months. news group accepted these

activities should not have taken place in the articles that should not have been published. so there we have it in a nutshell. can i take you now please finally to the end of your statement in the 18, and in the conclusion to the witness' statement among other things, you make the point that the actions at the news of the world had made your life hell and damaged a lot of your relationships meeting you nervous and paranoid. i don't want you to go into anything private that you don't want to say in public but are you able to give us some insight about the kind of damage that was done? >> it's really hard to quantify.

it's more the state of mind that you are in as a result of that level of intrusion and surveillance and inception which is just complete eggs ied and pennoyer. and having watched the testimony of people this week there are far more severe cases and alarming what's happened in compare that to my life this was too much to deal with and i have to fight tooth and nail constantly to gain the freedom i've managed to acquire now. it's just this kind of mistrust among all of us and it wasn't just me accusing people, it was my mother accusing people and people with using my mother. nobody could understand how the information was coming up. everybody was just very upset and confused and felt very violated by the constant barrage

of information being published. it was impossible to leave any kind of normal life at that time and there was difficult for a young girl to estimate those are all of my questions. ..

bears the date the third first of october of this year and that you have signed the statement, is that true? >> yes i have. >> in relation to yourselves. put it in these terms you were born in 1914. you are fluent in french and german. you went to christchurch oxford to read physics and then you i think qualified as abaris sister, is that right? >> that is correct. >> terms of your professional career, you didn't in fact practice full time in the bar. you did something else all together. formula one.

tell us a little bit about that. >> while i was at the bar i used to race in club races, sort of a hobby. that grew and eventually i moved up into formula two which is category just below formula one and met people i halved been oxford with and we decided to start a company making racing cars. i so i gave up the bar after five years and entered the world of motor racing. >> what happened to cut a very long story short because it was a very distinguished career, at one point you were president of fisa, which is part of the fia. then in 1991 you were, late 1993 you were elected president of the fia which is the federation national of automobile, the governing body of formula one? >> that is correct. >> and you remained in that

role until your retirement in 2009. these, please give us a thumbnail sketch of all, what might be said your achievements in that role? >> well the, obviously the, fia's known because of motor sport, particularly formula one and up it is actually the world federation of all the big motoring clubs and so during the time i was there we expanded enormously the amount of activity concerning ordinary motoring. i had a great deal of activity particularly in brussels to do with road safety and the environment. the main thing i did was i started with other people. the new car assessment program which was a crash test program to improve the safety of vehicles. that led to what can be called a revolution in the safety of road vehicles. and i think, contributed to

saving of very great number about lives,00s in this country. thousands in europe. that wasn't just me. it was the organization which i headed but, that is a side of it that nobody talks about. they talk about a formula one motor sport. it was actually the road safety, plus the environmental things, things like trying to improving the, the emissions legislation so it was more effective. there was endless, list of things to deal with? >> road safety across the, not trying to drive fast? simply trying to drive safely on the roads of countries throughout europe? >> exactly, sir, yes. it was, the roads for example in this country is halved in last 15 years and 30% of that according to research laboratory is due to improved vehicle safety and i think what we did was probably responsible for most if not all of that.

so it is significant. >> the world of formula one of course is a glamorous world. would you say that you were someone who courted publicity, mr. moseley? >> no, never. i tried to get on and do my job i felt if you're running something like formula one, a bit like running a motel. if done properly you never see the manager my job was to make sure nobody got killed and secondly it was run as fairly as it possibly could be in a very difficult technological environment. >> we should note that you received a in paris the only public function i think your wife attended that is correct? >> it is correct. that was entirely to do with road safety, rather than formula one >> up with might be forgiven on personal note this world is long way removed from the world in which your parents

inhabited. is that a fair way describing it? >> that is. there was element of deliberateness about that the first time i took part in a club race and got somewhere off the grid people were standing around talking about the list of peel and somebody said, moseley, max moseley, he some relation of alf mosley the solicitor. i found a world where something is different. >> thank you. i mentioned we straightened out the paragraph 10 of your witness statement. and the date is the 30th of march, 2008, mr. mosley. it is an article published in "news of the world". i'm going to getted heading. we'll not look at either of text. i will paraphrase one matter. certainly not going. to look foirt than that. the heading is --

>> no question of this article appearing anywhere? >> no. >> good. >> formula one boss has sex nazi orgy with five hookers. the article itself links you with your father, doesn't it? >> it does. of. the article appeared on the front page and pages 4 and 5 of the newspaper. photographs appear which were the result of, i think a covert camera in the lapel of women e as she was called, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> can you tell us please about the timing? the article is not in the first edition of "the news of the world". it was in presumably the second edition. why do you think that was the case? >> i think that was to avoid

any danger of me finding out about the article and asking for an injunction to stop it. from being published. >> that is implicit in what you said. the first you knew about the article when it was drawn to your attention? you were given no forewarnering by anyone? >> is that correct that is correct. i was first aware on 10:00 sunday morning. >> the article had two aspects. there was a personal aspect goes without saying. then overlaid on that there was the nazi-themed aspect. >> yes. >> both enough to cause you concern but the nazi theme was particularly damaging, is that right? >> yes. i mean the other thing was straightforward invasion of privacy which i thought was outrage just and illegal but the nazi allegation was completely untrue and to me, particularly, enormously damaging. and. i was outraged by that.

>> what happened, you can tell me if i got this right, it was on "the news of the world" website. video footage was placed is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and was it placed in a, put there in a way which it could be copied by others, to your knowledge or not? >> yes. my understanding is that there is software that prevents video being copied but they did not, for whatever reason employ that software so the video was then copied all over the world. >> i think initially the video footage was removed by the "news of the world" at behest of your lawyers. they notified you they were going to put it back online. that prompted you to apply for an emergency injunction. have i got that right? >> think that's right, from memory. we asked them to take it down and then we applied for an injunction but they put it up again i think over the weekend even. >> yes. just moving ahead a little bit, mr. mosley, the

precise chronology the application for emergency injunction was heard by mr. justice edy friday afternoon which was the fourth of april. >> correct. >> and his lordship indicated that he would reserve his judgment over the weekend, presumably deliver it on monday morning. have i got that right? >> that's correct. >> what happened over the weekend in relation to the footage? >> as i understand it, they then, well they then published a second story on the 6th of april. >> yes. >> which purported to be a interview with woman e, the one who had worn the camera. we found out subsequently at the trial, the wrote the article, written it beforehand and took it up to milton kings and said i want you to sign this. this is 8,000 pounds. intimated if she didn't sign it her picture would be published unpixel eighted. >> let me understand this. the article is the previous

weekend? >> yes. >> it comes on for injunction before mr. justice edy on the friday? >> yes. >> he reserves without granting relief over the weekend, is that right. >> that is right. >> and that is when you learned of his other activities? >> yes. >> thank you. and the second article is over that weekend on the 6th of april and you told us the circumstances in which it was published and the evidence and comments it was based? in other words, no evidence at all? >> no. having the, what happened subsequently is that the woman who was supposed to have given the interview appeared on skytel vision and said that there was no truth in this nazi allegation at all. i should have said that the main purpose of the story on the 6th of april to try to stand up the nazi allegation but she actually first of all didn't turn up to give evidence at the trial and she wasn't prepared to

perjure herself and went on television and said there was no truth whatever in the story. >> hang on i'm losing chronology. the trial is much late he had on. >> indeed, sir, yes. >> sky news was -- >> i made a muddle there. the sky news came after the trial. i'm so sorry. >> no. no. >> she didn't turn up after the trial and did . >> the facts are very much in your mind and i got them i think but i just want to be clear. >> even i'm getting a bit muddled. it is three years ago. >> let's take it slowly, mr. mosley, because it is important to keep chronology in mind and not to rush too far ahead to the next bend or chicane. >> we can do without that, mr. jay. >> one aspect of the second article which you draw attention to paragraph 16 of your witness statement at the end, you don't have the article available even throughout. they made it clear that the tape was being sent to

formula one chiefs is that correct? >> that's correct. >> your feeling was, and you developed this in paragraph 16, that the purpose of the second article was to threaten you, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> now the judgement given by mr. justice edy on the 9th of april which i think must have been a wednesday, that doesn't matter but, in terms of summarizing it's, its outcome you were unsuccessful principally because the material was already so far into the public domain that there was no practical purpose mr. justice edy felt in granting future injunctive relief. is that a fair summary? >> i said the dam had burst and in another place he said he didn't want to be king

knute. he said there was no point in giving an injunction. it was everywhere. >> what he should order there should be expedited trial of your private say -- private say claim is that correct? >> that's correct. >> the matter was very considerably expedited because the trial itself -- >> you're going a bit too fast, mr. jay. let me understand it. justice edy took the view that there was no point in coping with something that already happened and therefore he refused you relief but he did, as i understand the, your evidence, observe there was no legitimate interest, element of public interest could be served by

additional disclosure of the edited footage at this stage? >> that is correct. >> but he didn't grant relief in relation to that but as i understand what you said, that didn't stop "news of the world" just reposting everything again? >> yes. that's exactly correct. >> and then -- >> -- judgement. >> paragraph 36. >> on the internal numbering page 11, in the longer numbered 31208. your lordship makes precisely those points. >> right. so then he orders an expedited trial.

and the hearing date took place over four days, maybe five days. from the 7th to the 10th, and the 14th of july, 2008. >> yes. >> the judgment itself was delivered or handed down on the 24th of july, 2008? >> yes. >> we know that from page 14 which is the judgement which i will come in a moment. so this was all happening very rapidly in terms of the usual course of litigation if i can so describe it. >> yes. >> deal with one point though. was it explained to you if you decided to take defamation proceedings rather than proceedings in breach of privacy or breach of confidence, that the legal process would be much longer? >> it was. i was told that would be about 18 months. and that, for me would have been really academic because

what i needed to do was to establish very, very quickly that the nazi allegation was completely untrue. >> in terms of the choices which were available to you, on the one hand you were facing expensive litigation. that is obvious. >> yes. >> were you given any idea, i'm not going to ask you to talk about what you were advised in terms of whether you would win or lose but why were you given any idea how much the litigation might cost before you embarked on it? >> yes. i mean, when i had my first meeting with counsel they explained to me very carefully that, first of all there is no such thing as certainty in litigation which i was already aware of obviously. that if i lost it would cost a million pounds or more. if i won it would still cost tens of thousands of pound. by taking the matter to court, the entire private

information which i was complaining about would be rehearsed again but in public. all the press there with benefit of absolute privilege for anything that was said and that at the end of all of that, no judge could remove the private information from the public mind, indeed by going to court i was augmenting the degree to which the public was aware of it. but taking all that into account, i thought what they had done was so outrage just, i wanted to get these people into the witness box and demonstrate that they were liars and the only way to do that was to put up with this extremely risky and unpleasant process which i then decided to do. >> were there any choice was to pack up your tent and beat a