>> right.a??accounts.

this is three in a half hours. >> the next witness please. >> [inaudible] can you confirm your full name? >> j.k rowling. >> i'm going to invite you to give your statement and it runs over 33 pages and at the end of it you will see i hope your name and signature, date which is the second of november and the usual

statements. this is your evidence. thank you. ms. rowling, you may have heard me say to other witnesses that i'm very grateful to them for giving up their time and putting the effort into volunteering evidence. i appreciate that he will be talking about things which i very clearly understand you wish to remain private, and by talking about them you are to some extent blowing on that wish. i understand that, but i hope you do realize the importance of what i'm trying to do. if you want a break at any stage you are entitled to say five minutes please and i appreciate

it is a very unusual environment. thank you. >> your witness doesn't need any introduction. we know your books published over the tenure period the last book in 2007. but can i move now to paragraph three of your witness statement? you make it clear you have no personal vendetta against the press but what are your views about the freedom of press? >> i believe very strongly and freedom of the press and freedom of expression and i would like to make it clear from the start that i think that there is alongside the kind of journalism we are going to be talking about today i think there is truly heroic journalism in britain. i suppose my feeling is we have at one end of the spectrum people who literally risking their lives to expose the truth about war and famine and resolution and the other end we have behavior that is illegal

and unjustifiably intrusive, so i wonder sometimes why they are given the same name and why they call with the same thing. we should invent a new word for the second. >> in paragraph four of your statement you recognize the staff of your career had some beneficial effect on your book. is the right? >> i would say it's an interesting question with regard to harry potter in particular because in 1997 when the book that was published the traditional media was the only game in town if a person wanted to say they had written a book or film or anything of that sort but during the ten years harry potter was published in the internet became a huge game

changer. i think the internet became for harry potter arguably a greater commission at all. but yes in the begiing certain press is helpful. >> in paragraph five you immediately move towards what you described as a different kind of journalism of captivity. as you explain your literally being driven out of your first house can you give a date for that? >> that was the first half i ever owned that i received on the first harry potter book particularly from america so we moved into that house in 97 and we left the house and 99. so during those two years it had

become untenable to remain in the house. >> it was what that made it unattainable? >> door stepping, photographs had been published that showed not only the number of the house but also the name of the street which happened to be on the building so i was a sitting duck for anyone who wanted to find me. journalists sitting outside of salon and because the st. -- when i bought the house i didn't know what was coming. i didn't know what was quick to the considerable amounts of money in this house on the street i really for someone who was going to receive that kind of press attention. 64. you explain generally what is the detail later in seven you have no choice but to take

action against prez through ipcc, the commission and the courts and the number of times you had to engage solicitors in this is about 50 is that right? >> probably, yes. >> does that cover both ptc and litigation? >> it might be more but as far as i can tell. yes. >> the main concerns you wish to express of the foremost concern to the privacy of your children and it is a privacy of your own and then the border issue. your children you deal with this in nine and when your first novel came out if you don't mind

the reading from the public domain he wore a single mother so what was your what it to our strategy that you had one in relation to any publicity first in regards to the book and secondly protection of your charge because it's been filed. >> we took the view them and i would like to say i certainly wouldn't like to be seen standing judgment because there are people i know who have made a view on this but it was my belief and remains my belief that children do their best when they are kept out of the public eye and if their home life is secure that means it feels like a place of safety. so from the very first to draw a very clear line between what i consider and the intrusion that

was largely my daughter i have requests and i vividly iran to the dhaka remember a woman who wanted to take a photograph of me with my broken down typewriter with my daughter on why kneee and when i said that is not happening i really did not want that to happen. i think one reason i agreed to appear because this is one thing i feel very strongly when you become well-known -- and it shocked me that i had become so well known so quickly, no one gives you a guidebook. there is nothing handed to you to say a, b or c. you have to make it up to an extent yourself and body inferred from the press justification for printing

photographs of the family. the justification was you have invited them into your home and allowed photographers to take pictures of your children. you have used your family as a promotional tool. sallai inferred that if i do not do those things, the privacy of my children -- well at that time my only child -- will be respected. so i was trying hard to abide by what i thought was the written code, and i would say - kasich mick fecund section of the press has respected my stance on that, but as a significant section of the press in my view have seen that as a challenge so why try to abide by what i thought were the rules and i felt. >> you mention one case on paragraph ten of the witness'

statement you took them along with you and they did try to take photographs and that never happened again. >> i never took her anywhere like that again. i remember that occasion. i was thrilled to receive the award and i took her. i knew other children more going to be there and it's not like i don't want my children to share these occasions with me but that experience taught me that can't happen because she was launched and i disagree. i took her away and after that i decided the way forward is not to take my children to these kind of defense. >> and well, you deal with the three causes you support. would you like to cover those specifically? please do.

>> i think it's relevant to say that i have on occasion discussed by phone, not my children's but multnomah wife and i suppose broadly speaking there are three areas of my life that are quite private that i have discussed. when i wrote to the first book has a single print that was common knowledge and i wasn't ashamed of that but it had been difficult to find child care and all of these things i did talk about and lastly i tried to do something meaningful because i became an ambassador for the campaign and then i also said in my statement on the society i found research for the funds. my mother died of complications

from multiple sclerosis. it's not something that i relish talking about but i talked about it with a purpose and i think that that is one of the up sides if you like being one of them that you can become a spokesperson for those kind charities. the last thing i said is i have talked openly about the fact i have depression. i think originally i discussed this in the context of my work and i do feel quite strongly that as a writer or any kind of creative person who are life become such an important factor in more work. so there are things in my work that relate to a recent repression or things i myself have experienced. so in other words i was talking about depression not try and to get sympathy or to be put there

was the purpose i had created in the harry potter books but i don't in any sense regret talking about depression because as i say in my statement i have received a number of letters particularly from younger people who have been depressed who found it helpful people don't treat that as something to be ashamed of, so yes i have discussed these matters but i would say first i think a more cultural life would be diminished if people were not allowed to say whether they received inspiration or ideas coming and i would say second i don't think any reasonable person could infer because i discussed these things. i think a reasonable people would be to quit their efficient >> thank you paragraph 13 new

developer the deployment which you've already touched on namely the importance of a marble charter for your children. you mentioned the one incident where there was a note from a journalist slip into your daughter's school bad. can you give more context? >> my daughter, my oldest daughter, so this would have been the first publicity surrounding me she's in her third year of school and i went through her school that in the evening and among the usual letters from school that every child generates i found an envelope addressed to me and it was from a journalist so it's my recollection that the letter said he intended to ask a mother at the school to put this in my

daughter's bad. i know no more than that and i don't know how that got into my daughter's school bag or not. i can only say that the sense that i felt such a sense of invasion that my daughters that bad. it's difficult to say how angry i felt that my 5-year-old daughter's school was no longer a place of secure journalists. >> 14. your religion has clearly stated in the second line my husband and i have taken every step we can think of to prevent the children being photographed by photographers and then you outlined some of them and some more general and some more

specific. would you care to elaborate on those, please for us? >> i say in our statement for example we didn't take a honeymoon. we were married because we had previously taken a holiday together and the was the location that will all along so we decided we took we went to great lengths to ensure it was private. there are many things we can do. we've tried to do all of them to prevent the children from being photographed. >> 15 occasions for the proper r.o.t.c. would find your house you occasionally hide your children on blankets.

>> after the birth of each of my subsequent children for weeks it was impossible for me to leave the house without being photographed, so wanted to be photographed in a month of those occasions they took residence outside our house and my husband was going to work in coming in and out being photographed but i felt completely trapped in the house and that has a massive effect on the children. >> you clearly stated in paragraph 17 the photographers and more important picture editors of newspapers, magazines and other media to give your children, have you done this by making statements to them or how

has this been achieved? >> i have gone through such linked to try to prevent for my children and does it is in the statement into court. i would like to say that particularly with regard to photographers all side of our house i think a very good example of this is show the journalists from the scottish tabloid to cut residence outside of our house in the car at the time i was absolutely unaware hot off of the interest i have a book coming out so i asked someone who wrote for the public relations company to please ask them what they wanted and the response she received was it is a boring day at the office so my

family and i were literally under surveillance for their amusement to pretend there was a story but this has to explain to people who haven't experienced what that feels like the twist because you wonder what do they want, what to they think they've got hot. it's incredibly threatening to have people watching you. >> you quite rightly state that the sun published an article in march of 2003 of no criticism of that but they said she is protective of her private life in a top-secret accurately stating the position. you have given some specific examples starting 21.

the picture in 2001 it a magazine when your child was in need. and that was was it a public or private meeting? >> this is where it went wrong because my husband and i were not married then. it was shortly before we were married. we were convinced we were on a private beach. they said we would be discovered that no beach. it's private. they were private by law. the hotel we were staying at had its own beach so we believe the ourselves to be in the private situation. my husband who is more of a servant and i said he was worried about a boat that was a little way out and i dismissed

it and said i was sure we were fine and he was being paranoid. he wasn't at all. we were being monitored and when we arrived home it was a photographer of the two of us, not my daughter but the two of us on the beach. >> get lead to a complaint to the pcc. the complaint was held as you know. >> this was the company of my daughter including. >> it was not rich and for not the case if he won the case because of these particular circumstances so if you look at the at adjudication set out in your witness statement to read

it out to do so while the commission may have regard to its previous decision circumstances were necessarily from case to case considered each complaint on the code. the code and titles every one of all ages respect to their life in the delude unacceptable the use to take pictures of people and places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy in addition it is greater protection to children and does not allow photographs of children under the age of 16 to be taken where the welfare is involved and allow the justification to publishing material of the other. it's also an exceptional public interest reaching these positions money was provided in the case.

the commission noted that it was not in dispute the calm through considerable length in the past to protect their daughters' privacy. it seems to have been respected and the location to not being charged. the family had gone down to avoid the unwanted attention. the commission would not ask the photograph of the complaint partner but considered in the circumstances given a high level of protection afforded by the code of children photographs should not have been taken or published and therefore breached for free. well, he would presumably agreed with every word of the decision, ms. rowling? >> i would agree with every word, yes. >> do we need to go on to the complaint if you liked?

>> may i say one word on that photograph of my daughter? unlike the citizen print you can receive an apology when an images disseminated it can spread around the world like a virus and that photograph of my daughter in her swimsuit was on the internet could to to months after the pcc ruling. they couldn't copy the image and put it on the internet and they had nothing to prevent that from happening but i feel that given the fact that an image can have the life that cannot be recalled once you see what someone looks like in their swimwear an apology does not remove that at the image has particular property in that way, so i

contacted my lawyers when i realized this was out there and with the attempted to remove it wherever they could. i'm sure it is out there. that is the particular harm of the image. >> the analysis in line with the standard practice is to provide your case in two different parts of the code. you've been looking at the cahal switches privacy is a relevant factor but the deal separately with the effect of the children issue and on a separate basis of the complaint which gives no reason in relation to draw free. >> it's noteworthy that the commission has made all the number of factors and the men of the clear which factor is determinant the consider all of

the circumstances that they may see these issues are not always straightforward. would you accept that or not? >> where children are concerned it is my personal belief the issue is not come textual. a child a matter who their parents are desert privacy. they have no choice who their parents are or how they behave so i would respectfully say that i think where children are concerned it is black-and-white and i think you would have to be extraordinary public interest to justify the publications of the photographs of children particularly without their response. >> the next sequence is slightly more complicated legally and

it's the big picture litigation. tell us what happened on the eighth of november, 2004 when me look at the legal consequences of that. >> i was heavily pregnant with my third child most unusually my husband had a morning off and this is relevant when we went out this time of day to get their because a was our belief that people were watching the house without any particular justification. we took a walk to the local cafe most people would say that is innocuous to do with the family and we were photographed covertly not realizing it had happened to realize when we took photographs it must have been

happening before and afterwards because we saw them running down the road to get a better in all of us and this was no middle child, my son being photographed estimate the photographs were published and as you explain one of the newspapers published a photograph that shows your son's face and what happened as they often happened a picture agency had taken the photograph and this particular instance happened to be a company called big pictures limited and they sold it to the highest bidder. >> that's my understanding of what happened, yes. >> he knew then the proceedings and use of an injunction as well as damages for the privacy and

the first stage before the judge your claim was struck out is that right? stickney i just say before we move on to that point there was a reason i didn't go in. it had been my hope that the adjudication which sent notice to the press that i took it extremely seriously if they invaded my children's privacy and clearly the message hadn't been strong enough and sanctions haven't been imposed the would make anyone think twice about this and they took a photograph of my child so that's why we didn't go back. that's why when we went a step further our intention was to underline the decision.

islamic the arguments of the defendant of first instance was accepted and was on appeal was that this was a public place with no harassment there for there was no confidence or privacy that could be protected. >> they disagree as you would expect. there was no harassment. speaking to a different view. islamic yes we were extremely disappointed that was the response of the court. islamic you have the right of appeal but, seventh of may, 2008 the court of appeal decided over by the then minister anthony clark favor of the judgment is of course publicly available. we've provided to you and our

top. you have quickly summarize it in your witness statement in paragraph 28 and said that it is understood to given the way that this went off the court of appeal was decided you had an arguable case you were not deciding whether he would win or lose it the end of the day although the judgment is the indy end of the keys to your satisfaction is that right? >> of the judgment does bear reading in full to the detailed and sophisticated judgment i am not going to take time with it that couldn't be justice by summarizing at 28 have

identified the key features as the fact we are concerned with the rights of the child. 29 you explain why you decided to prove this case. you have given us one of the reason. you lost confidence in the bcci and this was the failure of the press to respond to the agitation in 2001. the first reason -- >> there was another incident shortly after my son was born.

we were besieged for a week and then i believe the photographers had disappeared in the for the first time in a week i was able to get out of the house with my daughter and my beebee and i saw the photographer taking the picture from across the street with my daughter behind me and i didn't know how i would doubt run a 20 something pop r.o.t.c. and my daughter said calmed down it doesn't matter but it mattered to me that the moment i stepped foot outside the door my children were being photographed again so the effect becomes quite draining so i decided it is time to take action when we

had another instance. >> this is impeach 15 you make it clear you hadn't consented to the photographs being taken and point d the very fact you need to use the lens gives life to some position you are invading the factor which may be relevant. but the point on page 17 you were not contacted prior to the publication. what difference might that have made? >> if i had been told what was coming i think i could have said i will take steps through the

courts. i don't know what it would be if i had been notified to prevent publication we could have had a conversation. i could have used eight of my reasons not wanting the children photographed but again i feel the point is that i, like a lot of people who have agreed to give evidence we are not looking for special treatment. we are looking at the normal treatment. i don't regard myself entitled to more foreign simply asking for the same as an especially for white children. so yes if i had been notified of the children to leave to photograph of my child that i had consented to by would have been given an opportunity to and one would hope that would have carried some weight but again i wasn't notified so i couldn't do that. >> your position has been stated

before. there is no need to restate it. >> that's right. what can you do. >> a 13, ms. rowling, there were photographs that ranked in july july 2006 address of your family and children is the right? >> i would have to say i felt the immediate cause was literally the second time since 1998 a swimsuit on a public beach twice and both times i've been photographed hot and dusty

explain on the first occasion i believe it was a private beach. on the second occasion my guard was down we haven't encountered any press on assumed we were and i was wrong again. initially the photographs only of mean and why don't assess that i'm a writer so i don't really say that it is of any relevance or public interest to know what i look like in a swimsuit but people around me leave it and i felt the same way wouldn't be able to succeed to prevent publication of the photograph of me. i was very concerned i was in proximity to the children all

that afternoon and sure enough the agency confirmed they were holding a picture. they took one photograph of the children and agreed to destroy yet which i believe was done. estimate of the complaints -- >> i think my recollection is we didn't, and i think there was because -- >> my confidence in the pcc was it worth going through the complete relief. >> there was another incident hop speed 2019 and july 2007 in

a journalist contacted the headmaster of your eldest daughter's school. >> one of the instances of outreach a journalist contacted, did not contact me. i highly contact rebel person. there is a firm that represents the and i have publishers. there are numerous ways to contact me very easily. no one contacted me and as i say in my statement to the claim by the journalist was my eldest daughter had distressed fellow people by receiving that harry potter died in the final book and the headmaster received complaints from students and

parents because their children were so upset so my daughter was being characterized as a bully, using information from me to upset people and there wasn't one word of truth in it. at her own request she didn't want to know. i am very weary speculating and i have been on the receiving of stories being put to one that probably i would guess the journalists said or not true with the strategy seemed to be that they would surprise someone into saying something they can then print because i would say why not contact me? possibly there was a hope the headmaster might inadvertently revealed she had said something

or that's not what i heard. but again she's approached my daughter's school and it's outrageous. >> tariffs mcginn sub si, november 2007, more photographs outside of the coffeehouse. >> this one was just i had taken my youngest daughter out she was quite excited and we became aware that we were being photographed across the street and someone was with me and said please stop and the photographer refused.

the claimed the only saw her legs in the photograph. the justification that i heard on that occasion i was never in public again. >> the impact are you able to insist the inquiry on that? >> there's the particular impact for example my youngest daughter was very upset because the photographer wasn't going to resist. we have nowhere to go so we got in the car and went home again. on a general note, the sense of being unable to leave your house or move freely is obviously prejudicial to the normal family

life and certainly all three of my children have been aware of the suddenly pulled behind for i would split from the family group so you're hoping to draw them off. you go this way i will go that way. so there is the general edginess when you are aware there are people in the vicinity and when there are and to become jumpy and thinking the person be heading in a peculiar manner may be conceding the moment they may not but it's very unnerving to know that you are being watched so that impacted my children. >> we may move on to the second topic now which is privacy of home life and this is related of course to the issue of personal

security, which is an obvious matter of concern to you. can i deal with the matters in chronological order. i think -- >> yes. >> i think the right date is january, 2005 is the right? >> i think so, yes. >> there was an article published about work taking place at your home. you're full address which is published in the house in question obviously it is enough to identify which house we are

talking about so that it is clear what happened as a result of this? >> well, sorry, could you estimate it again? as a result of this publication of this photograph we asked them -- we went to this newspaper and requested that they remove both foes from the website and so on land they could do that. >> them into late 2005 saw of the border now the publisher and article with the street and photographs in scotland, no public interest in that and you're concerned additionally

that the article showed a certain security features which you quite rightly had in place. >> for obvious reasons i don't wish to go into details and happy to provide those details is relevant. >> like virtually everyone in the public eye for i have on occasion i have been the target on that individual and i mention this because my desire to keep the precise address of the property where i live with my family out of national newspapers is not because i'm being precious it is because of

a number of occasions we have needed to -- the police have been involved because of incidents or threats so it is reasonable of me to wish the papers would refrain from making my whereabouts of very identifiable. and clearly i have to live somewhere. we have taken all reasonable precautions in this matter. again i seek a reasonable person would see a difference between my house, my children's friends know where we live, and anyone who reads a national newspaper been able to find us. >> what happened in this particular case, and we will deal with pcc in a moment.

the addresses were in the public domain and they could be found on the internet. >> we've taken every step of one can to make sure that we are not listed on the registers the texas online. we can't prevent any individual putting our address online but if that is the justification of newspapers reprinted international press the is the justification that we have taken every reasonable precaution we can think of to protect our own privacy. >> then you point out of the third line of paragraph 43 published a picture of your daughter's. >> what i'm about to say does

not apply to the whole of the british press but it is my experience with the british press a few protest or make kump thinks that you can expect some form of retribution i thought the fact in this case it was a picture of my child put into the papers of very quickly after by asked if i was spiteful actually >> to move to a different title, the evening standard in october of 2007 published photographs and information about your home including descriptions of the property, details and to their history and the location and details of security arrangements and pictures what was the

complaint? >> as my witness statement says the had noted the contents of my letter and again this doesn't apply to the whole of the press but the attitude seems to be cavalier in what does it matter. you are asking for it. >> that is the final series in october, november, 2007 and on the daily record and on sunday to publish articles has identified the precise location of your home in the countryside saying the name of your home and

the property and in the name of the small town in which you lived in. >> when we complained about this the information was in the public domain what they put it in the public domain. you can't complain we are printing for the address on the address because we already printed photographs and the address. a >> so that it is made clear it had been put in before on sunday. >> about which we complained. >> therefore it is entirely disingenuous to the scottish male to rely on that argument in that part of the newspaper. >> right. >> does that apply to the daily record?

>> the meurlin and the deily record as i said the agreed to remove the article from their archives but they had no guarantee they wouldn't publish the information again at some point. estimate there were complaints to the pcc in some of these events, not all of them, so that we understand the position in paragraph 48 conduct the publication in july, 2005 which is what to talk about in paragraph 42 that you are complaining they were held in part by frank and we have the.

>> the key point they disagree with me they said they hadn't given it enough information to edify the property and i strongly disagree. people said to me after i know where you live now. and they described from the information in the newspaper the word accurately able to identify which house we thought, so i must disagree with the papers on that matter. >> the reasoning of the pcc so it is clear is the part of the case which was upheld the commission would set aside the photograph and the caption contained such sufficient information to identify the location of the property so that was on objectionable but to the argument was in relation to the other houses it was not sufficiently and therefore hope

and they would have to carry on further increase to pinpoint the location. >> i feel the pcc isn't able to trace. all it needs is three or four newspapers to provide partial information and one would be given a guided tour to my house. if each complaint is going to be struck down because that is almost your address we don't think that is good enough, then i feel we are all in vulnerable positions. estimate to the jigsaw. >> and exactly. i don't think the pcc -- a little conveniently not taking a holistic view of the matter. >> we see a similar theme whether it is right or wrong in relation to the 2007 publication

under tab for because the complaints are not of held in the same reason the identification isn't specific if you look at the four corners of the article itself you say the answer to that is the other information some of it has been disseminated by the press itself and it doesn't take too many steps dillinger and the pieces. >> literally it is because in fact when we bought a new house one newspaper gave -- i am sorry it was our previous house in edinburgh yes in fact i believe was this paper they said sufficient information to identify the location of the house.

however someone saw the article and the instantly knew which house it was. i used to live there. they gave the whole address so they were able on the basis of what they read to put everything to the public domain. and again i feel little if any weight has been given to that when the pcc looks at these matters. >> they put the entire address down to the post code, think actually it was done quite instantly they were rather excited to realize the house the lived in a few years previously but whole address was on the internet in two days. my lawyer was able to contact the person and say please -- if they did. but again in the meantime, how many people have seen the whole

address? >> to understand where you say the boundary lines are, what do you say is permissible, what is impermissible on this issue? >> on this issue i don't see why it is in the public interest to know where i live. i can't put a device over my house, nor do i wish to. i want to live in as normal as a way as possible but it is not normal for anyone famous or not famous for their address not to be known to the newspapers or the internet so that is where i would draw the line. and if i make a further point, as i said i moved of the first

house we ever owned because the photographs precisely identified the number on the door and the street number and the building turned so an image can do as much if not much more damage than even a postal address and print. >> thank you. the key area you wish to address is free treatment in the press in paragraph sixth, ms. rowling. in paragraph 51 you refer to an independent newspaper regarding the operation. t you believe you were the target of mr. wetmore, is that correct?

>> .. i am happy to say what i know and i think, i don't know. he appears to have made the investigations with people regarding me with people that i don't recognize so i don't know what he was after that and i don't know what he is searching for. but the bulk of what he appears to be trying to do was to track

down people, related to me. for what purpose i couldn't tell you, but yes, you coming seem to me making inquiries about my extended family. >> thank you. and as you say in paragraph 52 of your witness statement you are waiting a substantive response from the ico. you have now received some sort of response. >> there is -- i believe there is additional information. speaking may or may not the important. you get the gist of a. >> what i've seen so far. >> is there any significance? >> as i understand it we have seen some of the documentation but it is my understanding there is more to come. it's so expensive i don't want

to know the details. it might affect what i am thinking about and doubtless you can provide the information at some stage. i don't want the details with the length of the information could be variable but only if you feel it is, takes me further. >> thank you. >> paragraph 53 give another example and it's actually quite characteristic to evidence about it this morning. namely someone from the post office and they have a package but no address. >> i recalled while preparing the statement that i know about, i actually realized halfway through, keeping the small details but i was being blacked.

it was shortly after we moved into that first half that we owned and i believe the journalist didn't know where i had moved to. somehow, i don't know, had my telephone number but did not know my exact address. so i received a phonecall allegedly from the postal system. this man said to me, i am from the post office. i have got a package here for you. what's your address? so i began to speak and then i said wait, wait a moment. you are from the post office. what does it say on the package? and he hung up. >> the story were heard i think in your absence from another witness this morning was that he said well, the mobile phone has been left on the wrist, being left on the rift paper and in that case the information was provided.

>> well, -- >> so your account has resonance with some evidence that we actually heard this morning. >> my husband was very fortunate and we were not married. we had just started a relationship. my husband had just moved from one hospital to another and fortunately, not fortunately for neal they seem to be from the tax office and my husband was expecting a communication from the tax office. so that he could adjust his tax -- anyway, he gets a call, he takes the call and they say what is the tax and he gave them everything. he confirmed his national insurance number and it was the

next day or the day after that he opened his front door at 6:00 a.m. to visit the hospital and flashes went off in his face. the paparazzi had felt in. found him. so that was an a not very nice introduction. oh i should say was subsequently contact so that is how we know. >> alright. >> and then you attach on phone-hacking issues. the position at the moment is that as far as you are aware, depending on the basis of information evidence examined to date, there is nothing to connect you with with the phone-hacking, said wright? >> i barely use the mobile phone.

>> and with the issues of as much commercial confidence as personal privacy leaked information regarding your books. i think harry potter, five as you say and in 2003, became into possession of two copies of the book which was stolen from the printer's. >> yes. >> can you tell us a little bit about what happened next, please? >> i believe the story was that an unemployed gentleman had found a copy of harry potter in a field. i find that story rather difficult to believe. so we had taken every reasonable step to try and prevent

prepublication leaks and now the manuscript was in the possession of the tabloid newspaper so we took out, i'm not an expert on this by any means, but we took out what is called a john doe injunction against unknown persons to prevent because we didn't know how many journalists at this point had the manuscript publication of the content. >> there is associated news wishes to make it clear that so they understand the position, the injunction was obtained only in relation to the activities and not the daily maryland or the mirror. are you a where of the position they are ms. rowling? >> it is my belief and i would need to check with my lawyers that the john doe injunction was taken out against whoever have a copy of the information.

[inaudible] >> that is not our position. the position is that it was obtained. i think ms. rowling and her geysers did not know who might be in possession of the book and as far as the newspapers concerned although the book was offered to us, it was rejected immediately and in court the judge except the that it had been offered a completely reject it. >> very good, thank you so much. >> mr. caplan did provide me with an updated manuscript. >> don't worry. we will cope with it, yes. >> i'm sorry about that as well. it continues in paragraph 60.

what happened with the return of the copies? can you help us there please? >> a great deal happened. there was no straightforward handover of the book. a review of the book was published, which really was a way of publishing some of the contents, paraphrased. this in spite of the fact that they had promised not to reveal in court that they had promised not to reveal anything that was in the book. the book was photographed. those photographs obviously went into the paper, and so we had to go back to court to try and enforce cooperation with the original injunction. speier tell us the "the sun" was trying to turn this into an opportunity. >> yes, this is to me a classic example of again, except this is far from being all journalist but there is a section of the

press that sees opportunities in a situation like this that i felt like i was being blackmailed. what they really wanted was a photograph of me gratefully receiving back the stolen manuscript. so i was being asked to pose with the book. >> there was a similar sort of sequence in the offense but perhaps less seriously if you tell me that is right in relation to another book. i'm not sure whether it is the sixth of the seventh one. >> it's the sixth one, yes. i would agree it's less serious. this is opinion. my opinion is that if one shows oneself the page to take a stand, then i suppose i would say that the press is maybe being wary of me, in that on certain issues and often my

children's privacy being the most important one, but that they worried because they were aware that i could afford to pay for expensive noise and that is a sad reflection on the state of affairs. i mean, i therefore receive the kind of treatment on occasion that i think is not available to the ordinary person so it was a less serious situation on the sixth book because i think they had seen, i guess, because they had seen with that we were prepared to defend the book vigorously in 2003. >> thank you. we will move move onto false attribution in paragraph 63. in hello magazine, an article in 2010 or thereabouts claiming to

be an exclusive interview. one never occurred. >> yes and i think people might think that is quite a denial of occurrence but in fact it's not. if you are trying, as i am, to make it quite clear that my personal life, my family life is out of bounds, then the perception that i have grounded an interview to a magazine that is primarily notorious going into peoples houses, photographing them with their families, hearing personal details of the private lives and i since no one by the way for doing those interviews. i don't think that's an awful thing to do. it simply happens that is not something i wish to do. and so the magazine asserting that i had done that i feared would be used as justification for further invasion. you are prepared to sell your private life in this way, and as is clear from my statement, what they had done was take in my article from a different paper

and repackaged it, from a different source and repackaged it. >> and then you had a lot of difficulty with the apology. it took time and you feel they reneged on the agreement you had with them. >> yes, they were very very difficult to deal with a medication. they drug their feet for very long a very long time and they didn't want to admit they had done what we knew they had done in the apology was miniscule. >> in paragraph 6d, you are claiming defamation. could you just tell us a little bit about that please ms. rowling? >> yes, this was really quite horrible because it caused real distress to my oldest child. the day the express published an article saying that i had based an unpleasant character in the harry potter books on my ex-husband, this was wholly

untrue and their justification for writing this was that i had said, while doing a book greeting with a group of children, and i remember the event. it was the edinburgh festival and it was very pleasant. i'm often asked, do you base characters on real people? it was really a throwaway comment. i said, humorously, the character was based on someone with whom i had lived briefly. now, that's true. but that person probably can't remember that we were ever flatmates. this was a long time ago so i felt quite clean about saying that. identified no one and as i say, the clinton ship was so fleeting i didn't feel like i was doing anything damaging. and again this is in the context is speaking to children about the creation of a book. so i was relaxed and not

expecting what came next and which was this article. and not only did they say that i had aced this character on my ex-husband, they were clearly depicting me as the kind of vindictive person who would use a best-selling book to vilify anyone that -- which is simply nonsense. so i had to sit down with my oldest daughter because they are talking about her via logical father and say to her, this is a true. i would never do this. there was no point of resemblance between this man and your father and while she was very understanding about this, i know you wouldn't, i know you didn't, believe you, it was a horrible conversation to have to have. and of course, there is what happens outside the house. there is what happens when other children, many of whom have read harry potter, it tell my daughter that her father was the -- for this unpleasant character and that can't be

recalled. even though children don't tend to read newspapers, so that misinformation caused real emotional hurt. which i'm sure is a matter of difference for the person who wrote it. it did quite matter to me. >> it resulted in an apology. can you tell us anything about the apology? for example where it was printed and its size and what might have been said? >> i truly can't remember but i know that it was small. they certainly didn't occupy the same kind of space that the original article did. >> paragraph 61 we have covered. paragraph 62 is separate defamation issue. could you help us without one, please? >> now this one, i mean, untrue from beginning to end. there was an allegation printed that i was taking legal action

against a man who was writing family literature. it was simply enter and i had never heard of it until this accusation was made against me. >> okay. in another defamatory article, paragraph 63 published in the mirror on sunday and the scottish daily express and the daily star scotland concerning the -- house in town. the basic.there is that you paid well over what was alleged in order to force the seller to move out early. >> yes the original story says that i wrote into this house, which in actual practice our family home now, that i glanced at two rooms, that i've been offered a vast amount of money to get the owner out virtually instantly because i wished to

host a christmas party in this house. it is utterly, utterly untrue. we looked around the house exactly that way any normal person would look around the house we were tending to live in. we took her children around the house and there was no question of throwing money at them to make them leave. we had a very good relationship with the seller who moved out in a normal time period and we actually never held any kind of christmas party that year because we had just moved in. it was nonsense. again, some people might think, well it's not a big deal. well firstly, it is depicting me as a very arguable person who is unaware of the value of money, who uses it to bend anyone to her will, which i do not believe to be the case. but it's also, you are putting

or the newspaper is putting a version of me and the family into the public domain that has an effect on my children who are then asked about the house that we bought when we barely looked at it in the huge party and how your mother just throws money at people to move them out of their houses. and this is hurtful stuff. >> there were a number of apologies, but you point out four weeks later the scottish times published very defamatory allegations and they denied that they were. >> defamatory. i think this builds a picture of how very difficult it is. to stop defamatory articles of any nature, because no opportunity to correct the story but also it does spread like fire. someone else is lighting a fire over here and you say the person

has already accepted that is completely insured and we don't accept that it is untrue. >> okay. the last matter you covered, paragraph 64, there was an inquiry about "the sunday times" of your pr agents. this is quite recent. the development of your scottish -- and the type of trees you are going to use. can you tell us a little bit about that please? >> this was quite a disaster. it's a long story really. we did receive notice on this patient that the scottish sunday times wish to run an article about what we were planting in our garden. and i couldn't really into stand why that was of any public interest at all. then we were told that they were running an article on a non-native species and their

environmental impact. i still couldn't understand why we wear being referenced in the article. and when he said well, we don't mind to let you come and look at our trees the journalist said well i will come and see it for myself and. i will come onto your property i assume. it was the effect, it was quite aggressive. if you don't mind, we have skirted over an argument and i find it difficult to find it in my bundle here. it was about my husband. i think it was the sunday mirror. >> certainly. >> i'm going to need to find it but i really did want to talk about that one. >> what we will do ms. rowling, we will find that, come back to it and allow you to deal with that and in your own way as completely as you like.

>> thank you. 's beasher and that will be passed to me. what i would like to do is put you at a point that news international in "the sunday times" wish me to raise in relation to the non-native species article. >> oh yes. i'm interested in knowing. >> then we will come back to the sunday mirror if that is acceptable. have you been shown a copy of the peace in "the sunday times"? >> i wasn't aware that it had appeared. >> yes. >> thank you very much.

>> this is a general piece apparently because we can see in "the sunday times" on the 14th of august of this year. garden expert wage war on plant invaders. >> yes, i see myself in this article. >> the general theme is that apparently the garden at edinburgh is to investigate behavior of every plant in its collection and admit concerned more than 100 species may pose a threat to wildlife. they are a non-native species and then on the right-hand side, of the column you will see among those words the non-native plants is j.k. rowling who plans to introduce several varieties

at the edinburgh home and they are listed. they include evergreen native to the mediterranean which is invading southeast england. is listed as a plant to avoid. so the suggestion there is that these plants or trees aren't yet there but you were planning to introduce them. i think that is clear from what is being said. do you have a comment on that? >> it's just ludicrous. i charlie -- i find it ludicrous. i mean, i do not, don't recognize these plants they say i'm going to plant and as i've been involved in the garden clearly i've overlooked something important or they are mistaken and i tend to think that. >> it goes on and i appreciate this is rather difficult,

spokesman for patients and i'm not going to ask whether you recognize an income the architecture firm helping to design rowling's garden said they council plan to design the species. well, there it is. >> news international's position is the information obtained was from public available planning documents which may well be consistent with what we see in the final paragraph and secondly that you where they say offered an opportunity to comment through your pr company and comment came from the architects as we see reported. >> yes. >> does that make sense? >> yes, it makes sense. i wasn't aware this had appeared and in fact i thought that they weren't going to run the article, so this has been slightly sprung on me. i don't really know what to say

about it. >> mr. sherbourne did you see this article? >> i hadn't seen it until very recently. i had provided it this morning but i hadn't seen it. >> okay, we have now put it together, right? can i just checked before we go back to the point he wanted to raise, we have are covering the ground. yes, there is an article i am asked to bring to your attention. it may be that it simply hasn't been an opportunity. and therefore it's not something --

>> this came to me very late in the daily mail. it's probably, it's probably something and we are going to explore at all you should have the opportunity to look at. i can really press it now without the witness having a chance to read it. >> i am happy to answer questions on this but i don't know what is coming. i have sort of skimmed through it just before he came to sit down. i am happy to talk about it. >> can i see it? hang on. it's in article xii and a half years ago.

>> yes. >> let me see if i can put the point in the way that others may wish me to put in. the secret of events of my understanding is this, that after your first harry potter book which was of course a 1997, you were interviewed by angela levin then of the daily mail, various personal matters are dealt with. it's not necessary to go into them at all, but the article was not published at that time as we can see. it was not published until the ninth of july, 1999. are you with me so far? bim. >> the's was published apparently after the second harry potter novel was published. >> so no, this is 99 so that would he around the time that the third book was published. the picture here is that the first book but i see thea