it cost $100,000 in security at every sunday. $100,000 for the security per sunday. i don't know if that is the fact that is what they say. people are in line at around the corner and the pastor doesn't quite feel like it is a private occasion for his congregation so i think there are logistical issues, disruptive issues, security issues. all that is true. at the end of the day though i would like to see him have a home base church if that was possible. he is not unique in that guard. >> host: there is a church right across a lot. >> guest: he goes to saint john's. he has been to some other churches around town. suppose, o

particular order, a link to the place or it might be the burglar was acting on the instructions of the press to gain sight of inside of your flight, but we don't know which -- >> or both. i think the most likely scenario is both. >> or a burglar -- decided here somewhere he can make some money. >> whatever. fine. but they were very, this was at a time when there a lot of press outside all the time, desperate to get them. it was in the middle of the summer and i know they were listing. it was right, four floors up and

they heard one or two parties i had at a time but i know they're desperate to get some sort of access. >> aircraft eight in following you deal with various libel actions. all of which are successful. can you tell us how many libel claims we're talking about? >> i don't know. it's been 16, 17 years since four weddings, since i became any kind of interest to the tabloid press. i would imagine in the 17 years, i don't know, half a dozen, maybe more, maybe 10. my lawyers, you can ask him. but i just mentioned to hear, it would be very going to go through them all. in themselves they are not significant, but these two particular examples i think are significant. >> the example you give in

paragraph 11, february 2007, the woman issue, are you suggesting that story must have come from phone hacking? >> well, what i say in this paragraph is that the mail on sunday ran an article, february 2007 saying that my relationship with my then girlfriend, was on the rocks because of my persistent late-night flirtatious phone calls with a plenty voiced studio executives from warner bros. and it was a bizarre story, completely untrue, that i sued for libel over and one and damages were awarded, statement was made in opencourt.

but think about how they could possibly come up with such a bizarre left-field story, i realize that although there was no plumby-voiced studio executive from warner bros., any kind of relationship, for patients our weather was, there was a great friend of mine and was interest who runs production company which is associated with warner bros. and his assistant, charming, married middle-aged lady, english, who as happened to hollywood is a person who review, the executive never rings you. is always their executive. jack bailey on the phone for you. this is what she used to. she used to call and leave messages. because she was a nice english to living in l.a., sometimes we spoke would have a joke about english stuff and whatever. so she would leave charming, jokiness just say please call the studio executive back. and she has a voice that could only be described as plumby.

so i cannot for the life of me think of any conceivable source for this story. and the mail on sunday, except those voicemails on my mobile telephone. >> well, you haven't alleged that before, have you? >> no, but when i was preparing this statement, going through my old trials and relations with the press i look at that one again and i thought that looks weird, and then the penny dropped. >> it could be speculation on your part. >> yeah, you could, speculation, okay. but i would love to have them. i think mr. capps was in earlier today that they would like to put in a supplementary statement, you know, referring to the things i say. what i would love to hear, what daily mail on sunday mail explanation for that article was, what their source was. if it wasn't phone hacking.

>> well, i may come back to that but i believe there for the typing. the next article you refer to his paragraph 12, your statement which ran in the sunday express, and the point about this article, and we've got it on the internal number, the bottom right hand side of a number ending 191. is this article is entirely untrue? >> yes. it's an article that purported to be written by me, and which i hadn't written, nor had i done that thing which happens, someone talking to some of her i hadn't even spoken to a journalist who is completely as far as i could see either native or patched and paste from previous quotations i might have given in interviews.

>> right. >> that's why as i recall the express lost their case and they were apologizing. >> this statement in opencourt makes precisely that point, that you did not contribute to the article in any way, and the express admitted that. those are two examples of defamation claims. you're also providing examples of previous he claims. in the first one of these, over which there was litigation was paragraph 13 in your witness statement, a visit to the hospital. details of which are probably unnecessary to go into, but it did culminate in a claim against the near for which competence and you got justice, is that right? >> down. >> you also complained -- yeah.

>> you also complained, and that claim is upheld, was it not? >> yes, finally. but after a lot of effort. it took months and months. they were very reluctant to do anything. finally, i got a tiny recognition that my complaint had been upheld, deep in the newspaper. without referring to what the complaint was about. >> i can state that the ppt adjudication you have -- tab for of that bundle, -- >> okay. >> they upheld,. [inaudible] the complaint also raised a number of issues providing for the complaint involving confidentiality, which are outside the commission's -- [inaudible] the commission also regretted,

had anything to do with the jurisdiction. rightly or wrongly i don't think it would be possible for us to go into this, though there were questions raised as to whether your complaint fell -- [inaudible] it took them time to resolve those questions. once they resolve the questions they upheld that part of the complaint which they felt they could do with. do you understand that? >> i understand that that's what they wrote, but i fail entirely to understand how an individual's medical records being appropriated and printed for commercial profit could not come under -- what the hell is that bbc four? [inaudible] spent why did it taken so long? >> other matters their thing to don't i get by what those matters were. your essential complaint, you can see that in the first paragraph adjudication, confidential medical information

about you published. that's the complaint they eventually focused on and they upheld it. >> we don't know from this document the date of this adjudication. everybody agrees it took a long way. you have said it took a long time, but do you know the date? do you member of approximately how long it took? the date is not on it. >> my recollection is that it is about three months. >> doubtless someone will be able to tell us at some stage. don't worry about it. >> there is another similar complaint, or rather issue, and you can touch on this in paragraph 15 in your statement. it's much more recent, involved a visit to the hospital in march of this year. first of all, mr. grant, are you happy, we talk about --

>> yes, otherwise i would have put it in the statement. >> the article itself is under ht one, internal number page 14, a longer numb at the bottom right hand side of the page is the number ending 1932. ht one is have number two, mr. grant,. >> thank you. >> 1932? >> yes. >> fourteen just above it. >> okay. >> i'm going to ask you to comment about this. the details probably doesn't matter, you ended up in an

accident and emergency department in this hospital. here is a hey, famous men, he waved his turn, we all know from these departments you sometimes have to wait a long time. it's not serious, you made no complaint. it rather reflects well on you. could you follow that? >> yeah, but that's not my interpretation of the story. >> okay. >> the classic tabloid technique cover really egregious breach of somebody's privacy is to wrap it up in a nice story. so they photographed someone's baby they will say what a pretty baby. to try to stop the parents suing them for breach of privacy. this is exactly the same. this is an article which says, not only that it went to hospital, but what i went for. it's my medical record. it's that complaint i was dizzy and short of breath which to me is a gross intrusion in my privacy. and they have deliberately dress

that up as a flattering article about how i'm feverish i was to try to get away with that. >> it ended up, i'll come back for further comment on it, but it ended up with this are either paying damages for pain to a charity, is that right? >> yes, but it wasn't just the son who ran that peace. the express ran a piece similar as i recall, and as i said in my statement by that stage in my life, i think it was this year. i was weary that, you know, certain degree where he of endless lawsuits against tabloid. they take a lot of time. there's a lot of stress so i try to short-circuit it by offering them a look, there'll be no lawsuit if you just each pay 5000 pounds to a charity, which i support called health talk

online, and seeing as they both talked about my health online, i thought that was elegant. the express flatly refused to pay a penny and after much protesting was done, "the sun" give a charity 1500 pounds. >> is a good point, mr. grant, that it doesn't matter whether the underlying story is true, the point is it's an invasion of your privacy and it's not a public interest, people putting out articles about your health, is that your point in a nutshell? >> i think no one would expect, a british citizen would expect their medical records to be made public or to be appropriated by newspapers for commercial profit. i think that's a fundamental to our british sense of decency. >> to be fair to "the sun," we don't know the source of the

story, the article itself. >> maybe it was just a lucky guess. >> i don't think they are probably suggesting that. but it could be a number of different cases. >> what would they be, sir? >> they could well be evidence about this later, but the story apparently came from a picture agency who had been tipped off by nonmedical employ at the hospital. could that be troop? >> well, there was no picture so that it is a little weird. but for them to know my medical details why i went there, it must've been someone with access to the computer where you register. i hope and i am sure it was none of the medical staff who i have to say it was fantastic in that hospital. but i suspect that it was the old system of someone at the hospital being on a retainer from either a tabloid newspaper

or perhaps picture agency, you know, if anyone famous comes in you tell us and here's 50 quit or whatever it is. i'm quite sure, my opinion is, that was the source. as it had been back in june 1996. and as it was again recently in the case of my baby. >> paragraph 16 and 17 of your statement, you deal with other intrusions on your privacy, which i think we will just take as read, and would like to move on to paragraph 18 and the section about paparazzi. you give one example at the bottom of paragraph 18 about being chased at high speed, or your girlfriend was.

can you tell us a little more about that? >> that was relatively common occurrence with two other girlfriends i've had. -- two of the girlfriends i've had. they both had children, and in both cases, actually that's not quite -- the first, when she was with me she didn't have children, so that doesn't apply. the second girlfriend, although the first girlfriend has had children and was chased in the district of the second girlfriend she did have children and she was fatally, especially in the early days of our romance, followed and chased even when she had her children in the car and even when the children were not enjoying it, crawling. they pulled up, they would ask the paparazzi who pulled in and start taking pictures, please go away. the children in his car, they are fried. these paparazzi would continue to take pictures. and then they would be bought by one of the national newspapers.

>> paparazzi assumedly working freelance? >> yes. as i spent in a statement there are two kinds of press photographer. there are the ones who are on staff for the papers. they occasionally show a modicum of decency, although they didn't in the case of recently my baby. they staked out a new mother for three days. she couldn't leave her home. and then there are the much worse freelance paparazzi, who are increasingly, well, the police stomach, increasingly recruited from criminal classes, and very often have criminal records. they have been in different fields of crime previous to being paparazzi. and who really will stop at nothing, show no mercy because the bounty on some of these pictures is very high. and i suspect that the ones who, for instance, were chasing microgram and her children were those freelance types. i suspect they were the ones who

tried to take, who always tried to take pictures of girls in skirts and digitally remove their underwear so they can sell the picture for a little more if they do that. i suspect they are the ones who are following princess diana when she died, and whom the tabloid papers, particularly the daily mail, promised they would never buy pictures from a can, but which they subsequently did about three months later. >> not now but i would like to come back to the mechanisms whereby any of that can be controlled, just for your view of it, not now. >> ashore. >> moving on to the issue of hacking, covered in some detail. to set the scene, you tell us in paragraph 24, how to protect

privacy. and amongst the advice they gave, numbers should be changed frequently and voicemail -- [inaudible] can you remember when those warnings started to emanate? >> i can't exactly but i mean, i'm guessing it was early 2000s, you know. 2000-2005, that time. >> right. were you the direct recipient of that warning? >> i had secured e-mails that were sent from media lawyers to clients and x. client. i think i've been an ex-client, i can't remember, and i remember looking at this letter. be careful bluetooth, be careful of your pin numbers, be careful of your phones, and so on. get your card swept spent in paragraph 25, about 2004,

someone came to the information commissioner's office? >> yes, out of the blue. >> can you remember whether it was a policeman who came, or was it an official from the information commissioner? >> well to be honest with you i've always been confused about that. he was not wearing a uniform but for some reason i've always been told the story as a policeman, maybe he had a rank or something but i wish i could tell you accurately. and i can't find, i've looked everywhere for the details for the meeting, it definitely happened but i didn't make it a. he came to my house, sat in my kitchen and he told me they arrested a private detective, a private investigator whose no book contained intimate and personal details and a number of people, and i was one of them. and that it contained my address, the address of my close friends, relations. i remember him saying phone numbers, although i know you're about to contest that but i

can't imagine he would come to tell me that someone had my address because everyone had my address. and i said to is this person working for, he said it looks like he's working for most of the british press. >> yes, which might suggest it was information commission, mr. mulcaire spent i'm sure it was. i'm sure it wasn't mulcaire. spent i'm -- >> yes, we know that because there was a story recently in the independent about one of those police officers that were shocked at the end of this particular inquiry they weren't allowed to interview any of the journalists who hired the private detective in the first place. >> you are in danger of foreshadowing evident we will be hearing next week. but what i need to, clear the information commissioner's office position is that they

never discovered any evidence relating to phone hacking. so if that's right, do you suggest your recollection must be incorrect, you must be confusing this with the mulcaire notebooks and not -- >> i know this wasn't the mulcaire case that came to me. as i said to you before, i cannot understand why they would come and tell me that a man had my address because everyone had my address. all the time. so if he didn't also have my phone numbers, at the very least and i think he said in numbers as well, and i don't understand why he would come to see me. >> but, of course, can i just play that down, having your address, or it may not be that, difficult piece of data to obtain, could be obtained in breach of the protection data act, do you follow the? >> yeah. yeah. >> and it may be that you are, you are associating what could

have been a reasonably limited, if not remarkable, discussion which was limited to breaches of the data protection act. and then extrapolating from that and bringing in more sinister detail about pin numbers and possible evidence of voicemail hacking. >> we will not agree on a so we'll have to leave it. but certainly they were telling me about blacking, that kind of thing. >> certainly. was that the phrase they use? >> i can't remember. it was 2004, but it was -- >> i don't think you ought to assume that mr. jay is a green or disagreeing. the fact is, i'm sure you appreciate, it's very important that those others who are going to give evidence, some of them have seen parts of what you said in order to comment. and part of the system is that you were asked about their

concerns so they can respond that but you shouldn't assume that mr. jay is asking the question, he necessarily is a green or disagreeing with the proposition is putting to you. >> i don't know. >> was mr. whitmore's name mentioned by the gentleman from the information commissioner's office? >> i don't think so. by seeing how that whole inquiry was about the arrest, it's difficult to imagine that it was about anyone else. >> you learned subsequently, didn't you? >> yes. >> the next event was a chance encounter with a moan. you do with it in paragraph 26 of your statement. >> yeah. >> and tell us about the chance

encounter. we have read about it, but you ended up in the same car as him, didn't you? >> yes. i broke down, yes, in my car in kent, the remotest countryside just before christmas last year. but what am i going to do? i am late for my opponent. it was christmas, it was icy and amazingly it then pulled up, this dual carriage way and i thought good, some nice person has come to help. and instead i stepped in with a man with a great long things. and i can't believe in the middle of kent, in the middle of christmas, and he's coming over and taking lots of pictures but i wasn't entirely polite to him. then to my horror i ran out to the would. there was no other way of getting to this opponent. he said he wants a lift? finally i did. so that i was in the car with this man, with my friend. that is when he revealed that he

was an ex-"news of the world" editors feature who is now retired running a pub in dover. he kept his camera in his glove box of his car just in case some happy accident, and then he went on to tell me all these fascinating things, boasting really about how extensive phone hacking has been at the "news of the world," how andy coulson had known about it for sure, how they had enjoyed the competitive fancy a five competitive governments, of the way they paid off the place kick and i was thinking for years, and i think this is all amazing stuff, i wish i had a tape recorder. >> to cut a long story short, the next time you saw him he did have a tape recorder? >> yes, that is right. >> and, indeed, there's a piece about this in your statement,

which again in our bundle, hg one, on the internal numbering it is page 50, longer number 1933. quite a zippy title. >> thank you. >> is this, mr. grant, a date in transcript of the tape recorder? >> yes. that are boring bits left out of it, but i put inches all the juicy bits. -- i put in all the juicy bits. spent we have all read it. i'm not going to go over all of it, you understand. i have been asked to go over in particular, i wasn't in any event intended to do so, the very bottom of the first page -- >> yeah.

>> you are chipping in, and dot dot dot it wasn't just the "news of the world." it was, and then it continues. and first of all, can you remember what goes in the dot dot dot? >> no. that would be one of the boring bits. but i mean, it's nothing sinister. or it could be that the jukebox was too loud at that point. a tape recording is quite hard to hear, and i was only able to transcribe it, you know, having just had the meeting. >> i say, is it necessary? we're not going to do it now, but we could listen to it, if you agreed, do you have a problem with that? >> i do have a problem with that. i feel like i did my revenge number on paula mullen, and for

me, that's the issue closed within. and when i have had now two separate police in greece, the one in police corruption and the other into phone hacking, they have come to me and asked me for the tape and i have refused because it seems to me too harsh. i don't want to be sending him to prison. in addition to which he has to give me some credit for having been whistleblower on all this stuff. >> we know that answer, but i've got to continue with your question. it wasn't just the "news of the world." it was, you know, the mail. very much leading question, mr. grant, was in its? >> yes. >> there was no evidence -- >> but i'm not a lawyer. i am allowed to ask leading questions. >> fair enough. there is no evidence that you had, your personal knowledge, that the man was involved at

all? i will ask you to be very careful with your answer to the question. don't share speculation with us. don't share an opinion. we are looking for evidence. there isn't any evidence, is there? >> the evidence for "the daily mail" being involved in phone hacking for me would be what we spoke about earlier, the plumby-voiced woman, and it would be their answer to this question. >> let's look at the answer them. oh, absolutely yeah. when i went freelance in 2004, the biggest pairs, thought it would be the "news of the world" as it was "the daily mail." if i take a good picture the first person i go to is such as in your case, the mail on sunday. do you see that story? the picture of you breaking down. want to thank you for that.

he's talking there about selling a photograph of you, isn't he? >> well, he segues into that, but i didn't leave anything out. you know, if it helps, you can come around to my house and listen to the ticket i'd left nothing out. it wasn't just the "news of the world." it was the mail and answering oh, absolutely yeah, the biggest pair you thought it would be news of the will to act it was "the daily mail." that is the sequence of the conversation. there is nothing left out. >> so what you're asking us to do then is to read carefully what he says and interpret his answer. certainly one highly reasonable interpretation of his answer is he is limiting his comment, his evidence, if you like, to setting up a card from disney? >> as i said before he segues into the answer straight onto photographic he said if i take a good picture the first person. i agree that it is a strange

syntax. it's a segue, but i have no reason to believe that his answer oh, absolutely yeah, referred to "the daily mail" being involved in phone hacking. spent i have to ask this, question. had you been drinking? >> had i been 20? >> no, had mr. mcmullen been drinking laughing spit he didn't seem drunk it all. spent and then you say, but why would they, the mail, by phone had story? isn't that a bit of an odd question, given he hadn't refer to a phone hacking story? >> is not an odd question at all given that he just done this strange segue. i was trying to get them back on the interesting. very interesting whether they were involved in phone hacking or not. so what i do there, i

immediately, there's no dot dot dot, i say with a, then the, iphone hacking stories. to which he answered for for five years they were clean. before that they were as dirty as anyone. they had the most money. >> he is not giving any details their of any specific phone hacking activity by "the daily mail," has he? >> no. >> then we can read on, some of the rest of what he said is quite controversial, so it's probably best if i don't read it out. >> i thought this inquiry was -- >> but some of it is controversial in the sense, mr. grant, he names particular names of people who -- >> i would explain. you know perfectly well there is a police investigation going on.

>> all, that, yes. >> i've got to be extremely careful. >> i understand that. >> that i don't prejudice any potential prosecution. >> of course spent and i'm sure you wouldn't want to, either. >> know i wouldn't. >> he is right to say, this has been published in the new statesman, it's in the public domain, anybody can google it. and, frankly, we will leave it as it is, if you don't mind. >> are you saying for clarity, mr. grant, that if the inquiry wanted to listen just to the bits of the tape which we have been discussing specifically, something which you would be notable with are uncomfortable with? >> those bits, yes, because i don't think they send mullen to prison, so that's fine.

>> i want to make clear, i'm not being too coy about the investigation. i have made some really is about how we are going to go do it, but i don't want to add unnecessary material into public domain, beyond that which is necessary for me to go to identify the pra. >> the mullen incident, but you also tell us about, and i'm back to paragraph 27 of your witness statement, earlier this year an officer came to you and we have heard two other witnesses did he

speak about a situation. and they tell you that your phone had been hacked. can you just tell us a little bit about that, that meeting, please? >> yes. they rang my letter, the please read my letter and wanted to show me some evidence. they came around, one of the previous witnesses today, explained, it's quite a formal thing. they get out these pages and they form a sort of announce them, and then they say would you have a look at this page, is there anything you recognize? i look at this and i saw various phone numbers of mind from the middle of, rather 2005, something like that, together with some pin numbers, together with some access numbers. used to get a separate phone number to ring your messages remotely. and then there were other names i recognize on that. people around me, profound, people i knew, numbers, words

come a that all sort of made sense but then one particular case triggered a memory of a couple of stories that have been in the "daily mirror" and in "the daily mail." and i found that interesting. when you see these pieces of paper in a place in korea they their attack certain bits, including the famous top left hand corner which is where mullah care kept the initials of a particular journalist who had commissioned the phone hacking. so subsequent to that meeting the police, i was very interested to know who had commissioned that particular page of hacking seemed that this particular story had not appeared in the "news of the world" that have appeared in "the daily mail" and the "daily mirror." >> then you mentioned "the daily mail," you mentioned it for the first time. it's not in your witness

statement. >> yes. >> yes, my apologies, you have to. okay. >> the top corner which, of course, we are excited again for the reasons i've displayed, that was, in fact, somebody -- >> to get access to the redacted top left hand corner, i was told i had to ask for it formally through a court or get a disclosure order from the metropolitan police. so i got it, and it was, in fact, or seems to be, a journalist from the "news of the world." that is a mystery that he commissioned the work but it appeared in the mail and the mere. >> -- the mere. [inaudible] may i move on, please, do your

supplementary statement. this deals with quite recent events. culminating in the injunction last week. we have seen a copy of his judgment. first of all, can i ask you please to look at hg 2, which will be behind your witness statement, a separate tab. not going to go into this much

detail, and that you want me to. it relates to the front page of the "news of the world," april of this year. it looks as if these are photographs taken with a telephoto lens, is that right? >> i would imagine so, yes. i was definitely unaware they were being taken. i wish i could find the piece of paper. what is the tab number? >> it is under tabbed 2. you can go to the first six or seven pages of your witness statement and then you should find an exhibit h. g. 2, and the first couple of pages of the exhibit are three pages, are the articles we are referring to. argue with me speak was obvious that i think stupid i am on the second tab -- >> third tab. [inaudible]

>> you can have my copy if there's any problem with it. >> thank you very much. thanks. >> thank you, sir. >> so you have it now. we are not concerned with the headline. we are not concerned with a detailed. unless you want to discuss it. the point is this is a telephoto lens really and you were unaware these photographs were being taken? >> correct. >> you also see in your statement you were not asked to comment before the piece was published along with a photograph? >> correct. >> and had you been asked to comment, what might have you said? >> i would have said nothing. i would have, there would have been, i wouldn't have returned the calls.

>> might you have taken proactive steps to protect your privacy, for example, by taking legal? >> if i done that it would've drawn attention attention to the whole story. my overwhelming motive throughout this whole episode was to protect the mother of my child from a press storm, so anything like you just suggested would have been one way of alerting the media. and would've been a matter of public record and they would've said this is a good story, and her life would've been hell, as it subsequently was. >> by doing nothing, your life and her of life was made hell anyway, wasn't? >> well, we held them off for a surprisingly long time. after this article they followed her around. she was a single pregnant woman. she was being tailed by

paparazzi, one in particular, who frightened her a lot. over the months of her pregnancy. but they didn't have anything to print that could link her to me until i visited the hospital after the birth when, again, this seems a bit of leak from the hospital at that point. the dam was preached and we were bombarded with calls -- was breached and were bombarded with calls saying we know this happened, that she had a baby in the hospital and hugh grant visited, and even new fake name she checked into the hospital under. clearly there have been a leak. and then again, asked to say nothing which we differ longtime. a lot of pressure was put on, the typical pressure of the tablet, in this case it was a daily mail who seem to have all of the information, the details of the hospital and the fake name, et cetera. they kept saying we're going to

print, we're going to print the story anyway, what's your comment? because i have gotten wise to this technique over the years, it seems me that was a fishing technique and they didn't want to print the story based solely on their hospitals was because that might have been unethical or possibly illegal so they need a comment for my site. and that is why i said nothing, and i asked all my assistance in london and my p.r. people in america who didn't even know about this baby to say nothing as well. >> we are moving ahead a bit. quite important details before that. >> i'm sorry. >> particularly paragraph five. on question time, then you tell us about the phone calls -- and we see what you say about it, and the man said till hugh grant to shut up. after that whether please involve?

>> when she told me about the next day i he merely called and we agreed to get the police onto it, which we did. but the last moment the mother probably rightly in retrospect said let's not do that because there's always a chance of elite from the police and that will bring down the press storm on my head. so we didn't. >> taking things in stages, the contact was made with the police. the police were willing to assist, were they not? >> yes, they were. >> but then as they were called off because they concerned about leaks from the press to the police? >> from the police to the press, yes. >> you touch on this, and the final sense of the paragraph six, your second statement. i'm going to ask you to try to exclude from your mind

supposition, speculation and opinion. do you have any direct evidence of leaks from the police to the press which you can give us evidence, mr. grant? >> i'm not quite sure where supposition blends into evidence, but -- >> do you have direct knowledge of? can we start with that? >> all i know is that for a number of years, although it did get better in recent years, if someone like me call the police for a burglary, a muggy, something industry, something that happened to one of me or micro then, the chances are that a photographer or a reporter would turn up on your doorstep before a policeman. so whether you call that supposition or fact, i don't know. and on top of that i have of course also paul mullins recording session recorded testimony, testament, what he said about a third of the

metropolitan police were on the backend of the tabloid press. >> i think there you're commenting on other people's evidence. can the tried and confined it to your own evidence? >> well, it wasn't just me to experience this phenomenon of reporters are paparazzi coming around instead of a policeman. other people have been in the public eye who i used this conversation with, complaint exactly of the same thing. >> right. i think what i'm trying to do is trying to ask you to give an example of something which might give rise to the inference that there was a leak from the police to the press. take an example from your own expense, not you commenting on someone else's experience. do you see my point? >> yeah. i'm trying to think of a specific one but i certainly remember my one girlfriend been mugged, and we called the police and it was the photographers who came around first. >> thank you.

>> going back to your second witness statement, you visited the hospital i think the day after childbirth. >> yeah. spent i think him if he don't mind me giving the date, the end of september and? >> yeah. >> and what happened after that visit? >> well, i had been very reluctant to be present at the birth, because of the danger of a leak from the hospital bringing this press storm down on the mother of my child and for what was about to be my child. so i had asked me a plan with a

mother not to visit at all when she got home from across the. she was happy with that plan. she had her parents there. she had my cousin there. but action on the day after the birth i couldn't resist a quick visit. i thought i would try to get away with it. i went, i had a look. it was very nice, but the day after that i think it was, the phone calls started from "the daily mail." in this case same we know about her having had this baby can we know what name she checked under, we're going to write this story. so all my fears about the leak seemed to have been justified. >> the evidence you provide the inquiry in relation, this again is in exhibit hg 2, if you can find in that bundle, or we can provide it to you, provided to you separately.

there are examples of e-mails and texts dated the 21st of october, which is three weeks at a bit after the birth. >> yeah. >> to be a clear about it, "the daily mail" did not publish the story, today, until the news had been broken by someone else, that's right, isn't? >> they threaten to but because we didn't comment they didn't until it was brought in by an

american magazine. >> you say they threatened you, but another way of looking at this is until they have a comment from you concerning the truth of the store, they quite rightly decided not to publish, is that they're? >> that would be wrong. bringing my assistant or my publicity people in new york who started to get the calls as well, and on these phone calls it was consistently we are publishing this story tomorrow, which is a tactic of print and ship to make you say something so they could stand up a story that otherwise they would have to stand up entirely on leaked information from hospital spend whatever they were saying to you in order to to either confirm or deny the story, it is an incontestable fact that they didn't publish the story, did they? >> they did not, no. >> and it is a fair, the reason why they didn't publish the story is that you hadn't

confirmed its troop? >> i disagree with your interpretation. i think the reason they didn't publish it is because they would not have looked good to a publisher from a leaking information from hospital which is unethical. >> might have updated information from somewhere else altogether, right? >> it's highly impossible that i find incredible. >> was there into some other newspapers about his times because there was the daily star i think were onto it somewhat, yeah. but originally, the whole story had been the subject back in the face of the pregnancy, had been the subject of "news of the world" interest. one journalist in particular. when the "news of the world" was closed down, that journalist appeared to have moved over to "the daily mail" because a lot of this work and these calls come from that same journalist, now representing "the daily

mail." >> those no evidence of that journalist took any photographs with him from the "news of the world" to "the daily mail," is there? .. back

incident in which it culminated injunction proceedings none of that was covered in your supplementary statement. >> yes. >> it was potentially a very dangerous incident because the grandmother of the child had to jump out of the way of the car in which one or more of these individuals with the camera; that's correct? >> yes. the house where the mother of my child and my child were besieged was surrounded by the paparazzi and i asked my lawyer what could

be done and they said maybe if we could get some pictures of these so that they could be called off. the 61 grandmother of my child took a picture of a man sitting in a car with a great big camera. he turned around and took a lot of pictures of her, wound the window down and shouted a lot of abuse at her and as she crossed the road he drove at her very fast and made her jump out of the way and then at the end of the road he did a u-turn and menaced her with the car. >> i think the police were also involved, were they not? >> well, the police have been called and they're coming on wednesday to see about this. >> at the time my understanding the police offered to go around and get a statement or investigate the matter with the mother and the grandmother. did you know about that? >> i think -- i can't remember. i think we may have talked about that. i can't remember the exact fact of that. but certainly the police should have involved. >> yes.

the police did want to become involved. and they were told and isn't there a suggestion this is improper. they were told by your solicitor you prefer in the first instance to get an injunction, is that possible? >> well, that may be true that my barrister may have said that and he may have been right a police investigation might have taken some time and it may have put one bad pap out of the way and there's a whole bunch of them outside and considering this is an egregious event likely to warrant an injunction against all of these people, that seems like the right tactic that he adopted. >> yes. now, on questioning the tactical strategy. >> okay. >> and we know what has happened and we've read the reasons in a publicly veritable judgment.

but to these serious matters your publicist put out a statement about the -- about the birth; is that right? in the end -- in the end having held off all that time from all these inquiries and this brinkmannship from the british papers and a magazine in america, us magazine seemed to have gotten hold of the story. >> yes. >> and they published it at which point i was in sort of a no-win situation. i in the end decided the best thing to do is because the story within hours was going to go everywhere, particularly, into the british tabloids and i was very anxious that they would give it a twisted spin. so i thought the best thing to do is to be as honest about the thing as possible. so i said i was delighted by the birth but i did not want the papers to write a twisted version of which suggested that

she was a jilted girlfriend so i tried to find a form of words to say that she was a friend but had not been a formal girlfriend and that, therefore, there was no question of her having been jilted as a pregnant mother. >> was it your form of words or your publicist's form of words? >> well, we had a hasty conversation on the phone while i was filming in germany. it was not ideal circumstances. i was dressed as a cannibal at the time. [laughter] >> maybe you were. but there's a form of words which were -- were these, i can confer -- this is your publicist speaking on your behalf. >> yeah. >> hugh grant is the delighted father of a baby girl. he and the mother had a fleeting affair and while this was not planned, hugh could not be happier or more -- putting it

bluntly -- >> as i just said to you i felt it was important to be honest and not to have the wrong version, a twisted version appear in the newspapers who had been my girlfriend which had been dumped when she got pregnant that was not the case or it was a planned pregnancy that i was running from. i didn't want her to be a jilted girlfriend or i was a monster running away from my girlfriend. it's true i have been given a hard time for using those words which is ironic which is actually the truth but that doesn't seem to be very popular. >> well, one alternative strategy might have been to say simply to confirm the birth of the child that you're a delighted father that this is a private matter and neither the mother nor the father wish to

comment further. >> which would have been an invitation to the papers to write something invented about the relationship that i had with that girl. if in the absence of information, they'll make it up. >> what did happen in response to the form of words that you selected? you relied on one piece about amanda brutell which is written in a particular tone or style that other newspapers have put in similar pieces. are you aware it was quoted in the "times" saying to the effect that you should marry the woman in the guardian and something in the daily telegraph. i mean, it could be said all organizations of the press are

intruding into your privacy. but the theme from each of them is not inconsistent? >> well, first of all, there were some supportive pieces as well especially in the broad sheets that said, you know -- gave me some credit for having stood up -- and put my hand up and this is my baby and i'm delighted and, you know, providing for the child and the mother. the hatchet jobs -- that's fine. i expect hatchet jobs. that's been the story for 17 years. but it always does make you grind your teeth slightly when they're based on falsities and misreportings and the fact that i now had a 21-year-old german girlfriend and, in fact, i don't. that was an invented girlfriend infected by a german tabloid and copied faithfully by british hacks and it was -- the hatchet jobs were based on the fact that

i appeared to visit for half hour callously for the birth and if i would have been a really good father that i wouldn't have visited at all since it brought a press storm on the mother's head. >> i'll just finish this little sequence of events before we break but in terms of your privacy, is it your position that these matters should not have been covered at all in the press. so is it your position they should have been covered in a certain way, in a way which didn't misrepresent -- >> if you cling to the naive notion that newspapers report the truth, nothing could really be wrong with that. i mean, i had a baby with this girl. she's a good friend of mine. she still is a good friend. it's a nice thing. there's really not much more to it than that. but that doesn't necessarily newspapers. a nasty spin has to be given to

it, hence, the extraordinary efforts of various newspapers to dig dirt on the new mother, happily enjoying her new baby while "the daily mail" paid 125,000 pounds for her ex-lover to sell private pictures of her. >> i think your complaint is -- it's not the intrusion into your privacy per se. it is the nasty spin they put on a story which have they reported it in a fairer and more accurate way would have been a proper story for them to print; is that right? >> no. there are moments which are intrusions of privacy. if you paid someone off at the portland hospital to say something about a celebrity's baby that's an invasion of privacy. but also there's an ugly spin being put on a lot of this stuff because it sells papers better. and in the opinion of some people, the particularly ugly

spin in the last few weeks given to the birth of my baby was not unrelated to the fact that i'm here today giving evidence at this inquiry and its reference in some of those hatchet jobs including by amanda butell. she gives my concerns of abuses of tabloid press which is a reason i should be loathe. it's possible for some people to see a connection between those hatchet jobs and what i'm saying here and have said for the last few months. >> yes. the part you paid off someone at the portland hospital, that is -- it's just a piece of speculation on your part. you don't know that's how the story broke at all, do you? >> unless the -- my cousin range up "the daily mail" and told them all the chinese parents who speak no english who did that, it's very hard to draw any other conclusions. >> do you know how the american

paper magazine got ahold of the story? >> no. >> well, that may be a convenient -- >> we'll have a break, and you can have a break too. but let me just ask, you've been granted relief, has that grant of relief been reflected in your child and her mother being left alone? >> yes. very grateful for it. >> you'll be conscious that i've made it clear that i would want to know this intrusion arose as a result of anybody giving evidence to this inquiry? >> yeah. i heard that and i'm grateful for that too.

>> can i bring up two very brief matters of chronology. the first was raised in relation to the 1996 daily mirror article that mr. grant refers to paragraph 13 in his witness statement and you ask that it might be possible that we would have the dates. can i just give you those dates because we've managed to obtain them. as i understand it, the visit to the hospital was in may, 1996, the 9th of may. the article which appeared on the daily mirror which was on the 23rd of june of 1996. the adjudication was not until the 27th of july of 1997 by mr. grant and his recollection, perhaps he's being somewhat generous. perhaps it took over a year for that adjudication to arise. as i understand it, a claim was issued, a legal claim, was issued in october of 1997 which

resulted somewhat more speedily in the judgment that he refers to in paragraph 14 being given in his favor in december, only some two months later. >> all right. thank you. >> and then can i move on secondly to the injunction mr. jay referred to the police and reports that the police and the decision to follow a civil course instead or at least in the first instance. can i just remind you, sir, that the incident in relation to the paparazzi who was trying to run over mr. grant's baby's grandmother's took place on thursday the tuesday of november and i applied the next day for an emergency injunction on friday the 11th of november which was granted by the justice and his reasons arrived a week later, the purpose, of course, was to immediately bring the

campaign to an end which as you just heard, it did with remarkable efficiency. that's all i wanted to say, sir. >> okay. thank you. this chronology actually comes out of the justice's judgment, which we've got. >> thank youg now after this break with testimony from actor hugh grant. >> you referred to a detail expose a story written by both the mayor and the mayor.

i'll give you details of the story as such. can you help us with an approximate date? >> yeah. summer, 2004. >> thank you. go back to the issue of the reporting particularly in the context of your supplementary statements. you refer in your fact statement to a few articles in the sun don't you? >> do i? what do i say? >> well, look at it. what paragraph is it?

>> paragraph 17, towards the bottom of that paragraph. >> yeah. >> this is the second stage. >> it is, yes. >> thank you. >> i don't really want to go over too much of the details of this unless you're content i do so. you've seen, i think, the article in the sun on the 3rd of november. and first of all, it shows a fixture. it says that you're holding hands with someone. if you look at the paragraph i'm not giving expert photographs it looks like you're holding hands. >> correct. you can see the palm of her hand. >> yes.

>> is the woman in the photograph correctly depicted? >> i can't -- >> right. it's separately -- we provided it to you separately. >> so there's three girls in this article, three pictures. three girls. >> we're looking at the one at the bottom of the page. >> sorry, two girls. >> yes, yes. they're both the same girl. >> that is the same girl, yes. >> to me, to be clear the article on the following day, the 4th of november has some different young girl. >> and there's a picture of me and a girl that is not the same

girl. in fact, i have no idea who she is. >> that's right. >> and one of the reasons why they aren't able to find any pictures of me and my new german girlfriend is because i haven't got one. so they've had to find a picture of me and some girl. >> to be fair to the article, i'm just looking at what it says and not any inferences or innuendo which may be gone from it. this woman is not described as your girlfriend, is she? >> you want me to read the whole thing now? >> well, i think you've had the chance to look at it. she's not described as your girlfriend, is she? >> i've not seen that before. >> i'm sure about that then he ought to have a chance. >> yes. >> well, to me just the article hugh and new girl three weeks before baby. maybe i'm reading a different language.

>> okay. i'm just trying to be fair to the authors of this piece, mr. grant. to make a judgment -- >> you've been very, very fair to news international and to associated today. >> i hope i've been fair to everybody. >> you told me backstage you were -- >> i hate to see you googling. >> let me continue to bowl you straight bowls. it reports the woman's denial that this is other than a friend, doesn't it? >> it does. right down there in the bottom line. at the end of the article. >> then it does add in the middle a local report which is the report from a german magazine build? >> correct. which said after this dinner, this innocent dinner i had with this german girl. not this one but on the page before that i had a completely

innocent dinner and dropped her off on the taxi because the paparazzi is board with a man getting into a taxi with a girl. either they invented passionate taxi in the kissing because there was none. i'm on the road here. this is tittle tattle and it's a big stick to beat me on the head because of the birth of my daughter and that's why i'm here in front of the leveson committee and a much too young girl and even though she denied it was in all these papers. >> i'm seeking to analyze what appears in this article and receive your comment upon it and you've kindly given me that. >> can i just ask you, what's

the position of the papers in germany? have they reported you in the way in which you've complained about being -- >> yes, yes. it wouldn't have been germany. it's everywhere. i say in my main statement, you know, this is one of the problems when something is misreported, it's a splatters around the internet. this is a fact that i have a 21-year-old german girlfriend and it doesn't matter unless it's used a stick to beat me again and again and it does become a little wearying and you wished they bothered to ask me or bothered to listen to the girl's denials. >> and is it possible to do something about this in germany? >> it's not -- it's really not a big -- it's not like it's libelous. i was merely giving an example of the use of misreporting to beat somebody up. it was an agenda to beat someone

up. >> i understand the point entirely but i'm trying to understand what i can put a box around in this country whether by way of recommendation or otherwise and what impact that might have elsewhere in the world to somebody who isn't merely a national figure but has international status. you see the point -- >> i think so. >> i'm grappling with. >> well, if the story emanates from abroad, which this one did, your recommendation, whatever it might be, would have to be, you know, that you at least have to check the fact or -- i mean, it

is hard for me to believe i'm going to quarrel over a piece of tittle tattle it. it doesn't matter that much. >> i'm not concerned about this particular article in terms of. indeed, as you probably know, i'm not going to -- this isn't what this inquiry is about. who and what circumstance they knew. and it's not the whole question of regulation of the press in this country and that culture and practices. >> yeah. >> but also how that has impacted or affected by what happens abroad or what happens on the internet. the questioner asked this morning. >> hmmm. >> so i'm just trying to paint a bigger picture. >> all i can say is when it comes to stories being copied around the world, they are copied from the internet. and they're particularly copied if they come from a website that

belongs to a newspaper because newspapers are generally considered to have a certain gravitas and the news-gathering techniques to have a certain professionalism. often, that may be a mistaken assumption. but that is why -- you know, for the story is on a newspaper website, it will scatter much faster and if it's on someone's blog or a tweet or something like that. i can sense i haven't answered your question. >> no. my question is really aimed at the impact that i can have on other press activity in relation to somebody with a reputation simply by doing what i can do in this country. >> well, there's obviously there's nothing you can do outside of this country. >> i agree.

>> but if you made our press behave, then they wouldn't be so damage when they spread on the internet. >> and then the question arises where stories emanate from. i mean, one of the stories you've talked about actually -- i think you said it emanated initially in america but whether it went to america from here or with where, i don't know. >> well, that is always difficult to know. >> yeah. >> i'm just trying to grapple with the whole problem. that's all. and i'm certainly not focusing on individual stories. >> yeah. >> for the reasons that you understand. >> yeah, yeah. >> okay. we'll move off the second written statement. i'm going to cover now some matters of opinion and try and look at the bigger picture. before i do that, can i ask you some questions about publicity and publicity.

>> yeah. >> you've referred at least once to a publicity you have in the u.s.; is that right? >> yeah, how many publicists do you have around the world? >> well, i have one. they're in new york. and i only use them sporadically when films come out and they're not -- they're like antipublicists. they're not for getting publicity but for -- when a film will be coming out warner brothers will be desperate for you to do everything in america and the job of my publicist to pay them not very much money. he's not doing that. he might do that because that's a classy one. that's all they're there for. and between films, i don't pay them. they go on hiatus and they knew nothing about any of this until they kept getting calls from british tabloids saying he had a baby. >> it's not their function to advise you in relation to your dealings with the press?

>> it is in relation in my relation with dealing with press in america when a film comes out. >> yes. >> and a little bit around the world. they tried to be experts on what a tv show to do if you're on a world tour in russia. >> right. >> and to be absolutely honest they throw up their hands when it comes to britain. they have no advice. it's uncontrollable. >> okay. we did see in relation to that little piece of the sun about your health, your publicist declined to comment. >> they called my -- >> just wait for the question. >> yes. >> it looks as if likely or wrongly someone in the sun telephoned your assistant or your publicist for comment and quite rightly got no comment. is that a fair inference. >> or they phoned my assistant in london who's an executive assistant. she's fantastic. but she's not a publicist.

>> it's a stand p.a. >> right. >> and it's really not part of her role to advise you in relation to your dealings with the press? >> not at all. in terms of british press, i have no advice yet myself. >> right. if, for example, you give an interview to the press, you consult your own advisor, no one else; is that correct? >> you're talking about the british press? >> yes. >> well, in 17 years i've only given two interviews to the british press. the rest have either been brought in from abroad -- >> yes. >> or invented. so the question doesn't really arise. >> yes. you carried one interview, i

think, in 2002, which has been -- [inaudible] >> it relates with sandra bullock. [inaudible] >> the question -- [inaudible] >> that people are interested in the film to answer -- [inaudible] i do understand -- [inaudible] >> curiosity -- >> it doesn't mean to say you can obtain that information illegally? >> no.

>> and then you continue, when i think about actors i know -- i'd much rather who they're shagdz than what film their doing next? >> that remains true. but again as i say -- i don't mean that information should be obtained illegally. >> and then you -- you go on probably into an area which is -- >> i know it was given -- that quote comes from, i think, a press conference with a thing called the hollywood foreign press association the people who control the golden globes. and it's always a very lighthearted occasion. and i always try to give lighthearted answers and as i say, in my main statement prior to about a year ago, if the subject of the british tabloids came up in an interview, i took the line that everyone else in the country who's ever been in

the crosshairs of british tabloids will take which is to give a neutral answer or a flippant answer. to speak out and criticize is to invite a terrible rainstorm on your head so i think the answer you're referring to is one of those flippant answers. >> well, i assumed it was, mr. grant, that's why i wasn't going to read it out. you quite rightly say whatever the interests of the public may be in your private life, that cannot justify the use of illegal or unethical news-gathering methods; is that correct? >> right. >> what happens if information has eventually entered the public domain and then once it's in the public domain, the press want to comment on it? is it fair and right for them to do that in your view?

>> i think not. i always thought they obtained the information illegally and unethically. why should i help them because first of all their motive was profit. it's never public interest. it's profit. someone is making money out of this. so why would i help them invading my privacy. >> it's probably my fault for asking the question with not ultimate precision. but we see it a little bit in microcosm in relation to the recent history. that for whatever reason "the daily mail" published, you made your point in relation to how "the daily mail" you think obtained relevant information and they didn't act on it and eventually it comes out in the united states of america. we don't know on what basis they obtained the information after that story. but once it's out in the public domain, it's out in the public domain. and so everyone else from the

press can now comment on the story which is by definition in the public domain. would you agree with that? >> that's right. and from experience, i know that not only will they comment but they'll write it with news with little embellishment. they will say a friend tells us or an insider tells us or an insider tells us those are usually invented. they almost never exist. they will create a whole new story based on the original story that could have a very wrong or twisted slant to it. hence, my decision to put out a statement to try to put out the real facts. >> yeah. you've added a sort of extra dimension, quite rightly, that we've got a story which is now in the public domain with some clear -- [inaudible] >> how the american newspaper obtained the story. >> yeah. >> we simply don't know. once it's in the public domain there it's in the public domain across the world and now the press here comments upon it.

your point is what they're not simply to do is embellish the story or fix the news which is untrue. let's agree about that. but if they don't -- if they stop short of doing that and they don't embellish but all they do is comment on you -- >> uh-huh. >> maybe in a way that you don't like, do you have a problem with that? >> no. i don't mind -- listen, i'm ready for comments i don't like. believe me. i'm very really ready for that. i've experienced it. i nash my teeth when those adverse comments or hatchet jobs are based on among facts or lazy journalism like you have a 21-year-old girlfriend or it was cruel for him to only visit for a half hour when, in fact, i was being kind. i mean, i was trying to protect the mother of my child. that's annoying. but, of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion. >> yes. obviously, the inquiry needs to consider this issue of

embellishment which is incorrect and that can be corrected or addressed. one way it can be corrected is that you can bring proceedings in defamation. >> yeah. >> what about explaining to the pcc about recent events. have you thought about doing that? >> i experienced, as you saw, way back in 1996, it's not a very positive one. and they took a year so decide it was a wrongful thing for a hospital to give out my medical records. in the case of recent events, my lawyer did -- before he took out the injunction, while we were trying to get rid of a strategy to get rid of all these paparazzi and reporters who were besieging the mother of my child's house and making her life miserable and following

her, he did send a warning letter to the newspapers and he sent it by the pcc and there was a 10% dip in activity outside of the house for maybe 12 hours and then it was back to normal. so my verdict on their contribution to this was that they were ineffectual. >> now, another -- another factor in your case which i say adds -- >> i'm sorry. mr. jay, i would just comment on that. the pcc at the moment is monitoring or provides a service certain to the press. but that won't ever touch paparazzi, the freelance paparazzi, right? so one of the things one would

have to think about whether one could devise assistance irrespective if you're employed by a newspaper? >> yes. you're probably right. or to somehow kill the market for those pictures. i think, you know, there would be no rogue paparazzi if there wasn't big national papers paying for their picture. and so i'm not quite sure which end of that do you attack first. >> so the question then arises, which goes back to the questions asked about international interests because one could say -- one could do something about in pictures in this country, one wouldn't be able to

regulate the pictures abroad. >> that is true. that is true. but i think -- if i'm right, in france, there's laws -- for instance, you can't take someone's picture in a public place. and that does give a much more humane, civilized existence to people in the public eye despite the fact that presumably those pictures could come back in from abroad. is that what you're saying? >> there are problems one could think about the domestic market which is i'm mainly obviously focused on. but i have in view someone of the public perspective because of the interest that was shown internationally. >> yeah. >> and i'm wondering how that plays in the picture?

>> i don't know the answer to your question i'm afraid in terms of international. all i can tell you is that not just in my opinion but in the opinion of other people who are quite well-known around the world, for instance, sometimes do tours, publicity tours with a film or whatever they're unanimous in saying by far and away the worst territory to any kind of publicity is this one. >> and maybe that's right. and maybe, therefore, i just shouldn't worry. i'm just looking for your assistance. that's all. >> well, i think that's right. there's certain pockets of quite toxic yellow journalism around the rest of the world but on the whole it's still done with a certain elegance, an elegance we've lost in the last 30 years in this country. >> thank you.

one comment you haven't spared was directed to "the daily mail." rather than in context of the amanda butell, one strips away the factual inaccuracies particularly with respect to the german woman and you made your point about that. do you have any other broader objection to her piece notwithstanding that it is -- it is due very critical of you. on a human level, you say, of course, i do. i don't like to read that sort of stuff. but we're talking on our piece sort of i think more abstractly in terms of where the boundaries should be drawn in terms of regulating these pieces 'cause after all, all she is doing is exercising her right to comment. >> right. well, that's fine. >> that's fine, is it? >> it's fine.

it's sad that it's based on so much lazy reporting. >> uh-huh. okay. >> a visit to the baby and didn't know the fact. but and it is possible that many of my friends, professors of journalism have range me up and said it's clearly a deliberate hatchet job because you're speaking against tabloid press, that may be true. but i was reluctant even to talk about it in a statement because i've always felt that a comment is a comment and it's really not cool to comment on it. but i was persuaded because of this theory that it might be a stick to beat me with because i'm doing this, that maybe it was relevant. >> yes, yes. well, i put in the equation three other articles which are admittedly not couched in the same language which make the same sort of point about you and

we're weighing on quite a lot of material on a similar nature which you haven't seen all of them. >> i haven't seen all of them, thank god, but you keep coming back to this point, they are based largely on a lot of misreporting. >> yes. >> but for the past, that's not based on this reporting it's perfectly fine to hate me. i have become very accustomed to that. it's been extremely fashionable for a long time and that is what i expect in this country. >> now, mr. grant, we probably got another half an hour. i'm going to give you the opportunity now -- as i've given previous witnesses. >> yeah. >> to as it were elaborate your opinion, and your opinion is contained mainly in your first statement beginning of 39 and

40. >> yeah. >> this is where i go through -- >> and what i'd like to do with you and make sure we've got your point, okay and we're not skating over them. >> uh-huh. >> and you have them in mind. and your first point -- when i think we'll probably all agree with celebrities and politicians slap the hands with newspapers -- and you've given us some examples and some of the examples you've given human beings who will testify before this inquiry very shortly. >> yeah. i talk about quickly the vulnerable people, who have been victims of trauma such as the dowlers who we saw earlier today. or the victims of the london bombings or families of soldiers killed in afghanistan. and then i talk about collateral damage. >> yes.

>> where my phone is hacked but so is my assistant's my, you know, my brother's my father's whatever it might be. innocent people having their privacy invaded just because they're in the collateral damage. and then i talk about innocent people who have been monstered by the press like christopher jefferies or robert or madeleine mccann whose threats are guilty of guilty crimes -- >> you didn't mean madeleine, you mean her parents. >> i'm sorry. i apologize. >> i understand. >> i only corrected not to get at you but i don't want anyone to think you said that. >> well, i did and i was wrong. >> and then you deal with the issue of whether egregious of

privacy were committed by "news of the world" and you express your opinion about that. here you're hitting on one of the central points of this inquiry. this is what we're trying to investigate. but we're looking at all the evidence and we've heard your position on that and you've given direct evidence in relation to it and everything he says will be taken fully into account. >> yes. and i'd just like to echo from what i heard from one of the witnesses that given the cross-fertilization of journalists in the tabloid world, it's highly unlikely that they only practice dark arts for one title. they are always swapping titles and i can't believe they didn't practice those arts in other places as well. >> and the third is throwing the

baby out with the bath water point. and could you -- could you elaborate on that, in your own words. what you're getting on there? >> well, it is a commonly voiced opinion that you cannot in any way regulate or prove, legislate for the worst practices of the worst journalists in this country without damaging free speech, without muzzling proper journalism. and the matter is be careful with throwing the baby out with the bath water and i've always said that i don't think it's that difficult to tell the difference between what is bath water and what is a baby. most people it's bloody obvious. and that i've always thought that you just simply take the

baby, which in this case is excellent journalism. we're lucky to have some of the best in the world in this country out of the bath and let the bath water run out. >> okay. >> it's a very difficult distinction to make what's good journalism and what's not. i don't say it's black and white. it's a gray area. >> thank you. and the fifth message is to a related point overregulation will lead to the tyranny. can i ask you, please, sir, about what your positive proposals would be in relation to best regulation. >> it's not -- >> say it again. >> you're on four, i think. any attempt to regulate the press means we're heading for zimbabwe which is another one of these arguments with throwing the baby out with the bath water. >> yes. >> i simply make the point that

it's way too simplistic and, two, it's very insincere and used by tabloid newspapers to protect their lucrative business model which is after all almost no journalism no. it's mainly the appropriation usually through illegal means of citizens and fundamental rights of privacy to sell them for profit. and this argument that you can't in any way deal with that without us living in a state like zimbabwe is not absurd but it's highly convenient for them. there's many examples of regulation between zimbabwe and being the total free for all that we have for you. >> i think -- i think this inquiry -- if you're able to assist to the extent that it

degradations in the middle of this sector. no one is suggesting having any kind of form of regulation which will result with zimbabwe or tyranny. we're dealing with something much less extensive than that. >> you are, yes. >> but can you help us suggestions? >> there are forms of -- if you take one end of the scale, safe regulations and you take it to the other end of the scale, no self-regulation, there are various gradations of what some that i call coregulation which would be regulation by a -- say a panel that would be comprised of partly journalists but partly also nonjournalists in the field

who would draw up a code of he haddics and would apply it with proper sanctions, meaning sanctions, either financial or in terms of apologies. .. >> to make the thing meaningful. but there are people much more extra on this and i'm sure you will be calling, a much more expert than me and i'm sure you'll be calling on him. >> you are absolutely right we'll be calling a range of

people, certainly from my perspective, it's abundantly clear this is a topic, and, obviously, suffered as you described as the expense you described, whether justified or not, and, therefore, i wanted to make sure that you had the opportunity to say anything he wanted to say on the subject. >> i come to that sort of at the end of my statement. that's were i think there are many ways could make f1 happy. the press is after all the only industry in this country that have a profound influence over other people, our citizens that is regulated only by its cell. there's no other industry like that, whether it is medicine or advertising. it's all regulated, and no one calls for those regulators to be tougher than press. and yet when it comes to themselves, no regulation. which although and love the idea which would be fantastic if it

worked, have absolutely been shown not to have worked for the last 20 or 30 years. we've had so many last chance saloons and it's been a failure. this is the big opportunity now, this inquiry, in my opinion. >> thank you. privacy law under the human rights act -- you made the point -- [inaudible] >> yes. there's a lot the squealing again from the tabloid press about these injunctions and so one. and they say it muzzled the press and it is at a chilling effect. and just make the point, first of all, no one think is prosecuting "the guardian." secondly, if the public answers defense, why in the case of many vast majorities of these injunction cases to the newspaper in question not even bother to turn up to defend

their piece on the grounds of public interest. the judge sits there and says worth the paper? they don't turn out. i ask is that because there's no public interest? i think we all know the answer to that. and i make the point, ultimately it all comes down to public interest and who is better to decide whether a piece of journalism is in the public interest or not. would that be a judge or would it be the tabloid editor who stands to profit commercially from the peace? to me it is the judge, and i would argue that most of the judgments made in these injunction cases have been right, nor have they been biased. we saw that in the case recently. the judges are quite ready to -- all this fuss from at least the tabloid in from the british

press about these injunctions is bogus and convenient. >> this leads into the related point -- >> i am fine with that. >> you say they don't. let's see what happens to that. the nation to appear have been reviewed by single or justice, but here we understand the accusation of being reviewed. number seven, privacy, can only be a rich man toy. that depends a bit on the survival of conditional theory, is that? >> i think it depends on that and on establishing proper replication pashtun regulation.

you should be able to go straight to the regulator and skip the whole court process, especially if you're not a person of means. i think they'll been those wonderful thing to come out of this inquiry is proper regulated to get access to justice of the kind that having to go through the court. but there will always be cases, we will have to go through the courts, and when they do it is scandalous, in my opinion, that this will now be, if what is going through parliament now in the back of the jackson report happens, people without great means will be excluded from justice. if you look at the dowlers, use the cfa in their phone hacking case against "news of the world," they would not have been able to make that case. they would not have been able to prosecute that case without cfa. jeffries was a man wrongly accused of the murder in brussels, or maligned by the

press. had to use the cfa to get justice, sorrow of pain, same thing. without cfa, those people have no justice. and this whole campaign to restrict use of cfa has been very heavily pushed by the tabloid press. and the government in its infinite obedience of the tabloid press has simply said yes, fine. >> okay, thank you. clear on that point, mr. grant. the next point that exposé carry a public interest defense, i think we party major position clear, clear on that. but please say whatever you wish to say in addition. >> i did say that there is certainly cases where there is a public interest defense, politician, campaign on family

value platform. in his obligations, and he's been, you know, having extramarital affair or whatever, i addressed that with a nun, sleep with prostitutes do we need to know about it because he is a hypocrite. but i think that the vast majority of these exposés peoples sex lives are not in the public interest and that the public interest defense offered by tabloid newspapers are very flimsy at best. they'll say he trades on his reputation, but he doesn't. he trades to me quickly on the fact he's a brilliant football. of anyone is buying a pair of his but because they think he's a great family man. i think they're buying it because he has won lots of trophies for majesty's united. and i read an independent this point, apparently i do the same thing. i trade on my good name and,

therefore, there's a public interest defense going into my private life. but i wasn't aware i traded on my good name. i've never had a good name. [laughter] and it's made absolutely no difference at all. i was the man arrested with a prostitute and the film still made tons of money. it doesn't matter. >> okay. i think that's very clear, mr. grant. myth number nine, this is a sort of development about the impact idea speech yes, it's another very common defense of what i would call the privacy invasion industry, some people call it the tabloid press, that what i see is a myth, people like me want to be in the papers and, therefore, our objections to privacy intrusions are hypocritical. and i go on to some length, explaining how that is a myth,

that in my business, for instance, what i need is not to be in "the daily mail" or the mayor, it's to make enjoyable films. that is 85% of success. about 10% of the success is the film is well marketed. soma becomes a good trader or tv spot. right at the end of a 5% of the success might be just before the film comes out you bang the drum a bit and a bit of publicity. quite minor, and you are under an obligation to do it. and not just, sometimes its contractual but more times it's just a moral obligation. someone put up a lot of money for the films. hundreds, sometimes thousands have worked on this for over year. if you didn't do a bit of publicity you would be a monster. you would be -- people would hate you. so you got to do a bit. but it's only 5% of what contribute to success in the film. and within that 5%, how much of that is tabloid newspapers, or even newspapers at all. very little.

what everyone does not is broadcast media. everyone is in television and radio. and if tabloid were so important to the success of the film or success of an actor or a singer, why is it, for instance, none of us in the large ensemble cast actually took to any tabloid newspaper at all when that film was released and the film is still a gigantic? the theory put about by tabloid paper that they are responsible for success films and the create stars. it is entirely in spirit. either they are mad, arrogance, this funny cocoon of self-importance, or it's just highly convenient because it gives them a chance to say if anyone criticizes us, it's hypocritical. >> isn't it, particularly one goes back towards the start of your successful part of your career, the early 1990s,

didn't it help your career that you were quite constantly in the public eye? didn't that make you more attractive to future filmmakers possibly? >> no. i would argue, what may be attracted to the film makers was for weddings and feel, pressure a couple of felt like they said i was arrested with a prostitute, you couldn't call the positive press, and i'm still very high level because someone had made money. in terms of a career, that's all studios cared about. and audiences only care about whether the film is intended or not. i can to examples of films that have wall-to-wall tabloid covers before the come out and still die at the box office because they're not entertaining. it is a big myth. and i personally have actually argued with my lawyer over the years when making settlements, libel or whatever with papers saying please, forgive me,

forget an apology. just make them give an undertaking never to mention my name again. and i can bring you a list of hundreds of people in the public eye in this country who would happily sign up for that. it's such a myth to say we wanted so badly, we are also being, we're dying to be in the paper. it's the last thing anybody wants is to be in a british tabloid newspaper. so long as the work you're doing at that moment is okay. >> you deal with i suppose one aspect or another aspect -- [inaudible] understatement. >> yeah. >> what is the consideration, if you do an interview with a paper or magazine, you are saying here, well, it doesn't give any lifelong license to publish

whatever you like about this subject matter. that, of course, must be right as a matter of common sense. but it surely gives some license to comments, possibly unfavorably on the rest of the and to speak with you are, of course, that would be fine, absolutely fun. but i'm talking here about intrusion. and i have heard the defense quite frequently from tabloid papers, he never talked to your private life, then you have no defense. you have no right to expectation of privacy, which i think is absurd. because anyone, as i told you earlier i think i've only done two interviews with british press, but when anyone does do interview, it is after all a bargain. that paper gets boost in sales they hope and the person giving the interview gives some noise about the forthcoming project.

and when it is over, it's over. i would not expect you to come to me ever afterwards and sing i cannot -- [inaudible] i would think you are mad to spend your point is more specifically, having conducted this little contract, it certainly doesn't authorize the press subsequently to investigate your unlawful and unethical way, or intrude into your privacy? >> that's what i'm saying, yes, exactly that. i do believe in shrine in our bill of rights, you know, a person's basic -- i don't think you should give that up. >> and the 10th myth is the

point -- >> yes. >> you see them glamorizing themselves, oh, well, we might be a bit naughty but, you know, we get the story. but when the story has been obtained by hacking the phone of a murdered schoolgirl or the family of a soldier killed in afghanistan, i don't find that naughty. i find that cowardly and bullying and shocking. and most shocking is that this is been allowed to go on for so long with no one putting their hand up and saying, stop, not the police because they're intimidated. not i in peace because they're intimidated, and not a good because they have been intimidated. [inaudible] paragraph 88? >> we sort of went over them.

i give you, paragraph 86 in a nutshell is included the issue be unacceptable and illegal to deprive a person of the fundamental human right to privacy, and thus there is a public role. it's not rocket science. the ways i would protect it is one, i would resist the clamor of the privacy stealing industry to close down privacy law as it emerged through common law, through the human rights act. and i would disband the pcc and create a proper regulation, which would not only protect people from abuses of privacy or libel of the first, but it would also be there to protect in good trim, this is the other side of all this. i, for instance, and keen on libel reform. i am keen to see good journalism protected as much as i possibly can. i am the reverse of a muscle or,

but i personally feel that the license that the tabloid press has had to steal british citizens privacy for the commercial profit very often will vulnerable british citizens is a scandal, that we could government too long have allowed it to pass. >> mr. grant, is there anything else you wish to tell the inquiry? we've covered the ground. >> no. it's a strange form of interview in the sense i wish i'd been able to read my two statements out loud first, because we haven't really, it's all been the defending positions in them without anyone saying with the statement as she says. >> i think you will find the statement will be available. >> i hope you will read it.

>> they will, mr. grant. further point, i would like to think what you wanted to bring out, you have brought out. if you feel the point -- >> there is one final point. >> please bring it out spent because i'm tired, i wouldn't mind reading it since it's in my statement. it's my conclusion, i guess i don't want to see the end of popular print journalism. i would want a country that was fun into power or success but i like and about and would always want to protect the british, difficult and to take the free press is of course the cornerstone of democracy, i have no question about that. i just think that there has been a section of our press that has become, allowed to become talks is over the last 20 or 30 years. its main tactic being bullying and intimidation and blackmail. and i think that needs a lot of courage to stand up to. and i feel it is time, you know,

this country has a historic we could record standing up to bullies, and i think it's time they found courage to stand up to this bully now. >> thank you very much. >> okay. >> mr. grant, thank you very much. [inaudible] although you may have felt that you're on the back for too often, it was a way of getting the picture a cross so that everybody has had a chance through mr. jay to ask questions, but the thrust of your evidence contained in your statements is clear, and you have no need doubt that i have read it or not paid full attention to it, and will continue to pay attention to it. >> thank you very much. >> right, thank you. anything else?

[inaudible] >> just the issue of anonymity if i may. >> well, let mr. grant, return to where he comes from so he can just relax for a moment. >> right. yes? >> earlier you made a ruling on the ninth of november, and if anybody was thinking of exercising their right under section 38 to seek any review of that, time expired on wednesday. and since then, of course, there has been a draft and an inky protocol, and i think you invited any further submissions to be with you by last thursday at 5:00. we certainly put in the submissions. i was just raising the matter to see if you wish to confirm the protocol, at anything during the course before -- >> i am happy to do that. i think that essentially the

points, many of the points we made eye take on board. i'm happy to clarify some things, if they need clarifying. i'm not entirely sure they do. but i would be surprised if anything in the protocol could impact on the fundamental decisions i made in my ruling. but if there's anything that needs to be done tomorrow, i'll do it. i think there are two slightly separate issues. there's that anonymity that i've granted to one of mr. hsu barnes clients who i know is h. j. k. and there is some knock on consequences about how we're going to do with his evidence in the absence of anybody saying anything to the contrary.

i propose to maintain that anonymity, and to allow him to give evidence in a way that ensures it. that will require taking certain measures, for example, he is likely to give evidence in a cleared inquiry come obviously the participant of lawyers we present. but otherwise nobody. i'm likely not to have a running transcript to publish a transcript as soon thereafter as possible in case something emerges that needs to be redacted. in that way i have, his evidence will be put in the public domain with any form that doesn't damage the anonymity have sought and which i found to be justifiable picking anybody has any comment about that, i

appreciate you have only recently seen the suggestions in that regard i'd be very, very interested to hear them. as regards other people, i'll make sure that i've got the final protocol for you to look at tomorrow. but as i say, i don't think it should really make a difference to whether or not there is an issue that is worthy of ventilation in the divisional court, which, of course, is your decision entirely. >> a couple of points. first, we just received submissions from the metropolitan police relationship the anonymity protocol. just this afternoon, so those will have to be considered. >> now i'm about to come out. i will say the reason there hasn't been won is because it was only up to the end of literally the end of friday that i saw the last one but i wasn't

sure what got them all. indeed, now you heard i haven't gotten them all and i did want to for everything and tell actually heard from everybody. so that's, isa limit on defense, which i was going to say anything about. anything else, mr. jay? >> in relation to h. j. k., one issue, whether when he gives his evidence he will not give evidence in relation to any named newspaper. in other words, that will be redacted out. >> yes. i've made it clear, i think if nonot in a ruling, and i in argument that in relation to any anonymous witness, in order to protect the position of any of the media, it would be quite wrong to allow names or titles to be identified. i'm not going to make decisions about names and titles, everybody knows i'm looking cost

of an practices and ethics across the piece, which is why my questions to mr. grant were of general rather than specific topics. and i would adopt the same process for hjk. so that's a matter of anybody of concern to anybody, then they should say so. thank you. well, thank you very much in the. i repeat my thanks. i will do all the witnesses, particularly those who have come as all have today voluntarily. and thank you very much. >> all rise.