i think chris huhne is right about the financial imperative, no doubt news group made a large offer —nto court, as the phrase goes, and, as chris says, if he had secured lower damages than the presumably large sum they were offering, he would have got nothing. indeed, he would have had to pay their costs. and that's how it works. now, is that fair? chris says he wants this information brought out — it won't be. well, you could say it's very unfortunate, from the point of view of the claimants, but from the court's point of view, it takes a view that it's there to provide compensation for a loss, damages if you have been damaged, and if the defendant is willing to pay you, and you're willing to accept that money, well, that's the end of it, and that's why the case doesn't come to court. well, jake, just to bring you back in, nobody from news group obviously had to testify, because there hasn't been a court case. do you think there has been reputational damage to ngn as a result of this? because, you know, they've won in the sense that they don't have to have a drip, drip, drip of alleg

let's talk to chris huhne, who was an mp whose phone was hacked by the news of the world and received he was acutally due to be cross examined in this case had it gone ahead. this is the first time the sun has admitted unlawful activity, how significant is that? the significance _ significant is that? the significance is - significant is that? the significance is that - significant is that? the | significance is that they significant is that? tue: significance is that they have denied under oath in a court case, under oath at the levenson inquiry, and again and again publicly that this ever happened. so they have finally admitted something which they have actually been lying about, notjust ordinarily lying, but lying under oath. the real question now becomes, was this ignorance? were they totally incompetent? 0r becomes, was this ignorance? were they totally incompetent? or were they totally incompetent? or were they actually knowingly trying to mislead a court of law and a public inquiry? if it is the latter, that is perjury. and if it's perjury, that in itself is a criminal offence.

i'd like to bring in chris huhne, former cabinet | chris huhne, former cabinet minister in the conservative been in this position yourself? very ironic position for anybody— very ironic position for anybody making - very ironic position for anybody making a - very ironic position for. anybody making a claim very ironic position for - anybody making a claim against newsgroup _ anybody making a claim against newsgroup which _ anybody making a claim against newsgroup which is _ anybody making a claim against newsgroup which is you - anybody making a claim against newsgroup which is you could . anybody making a claim againsti newsgroup which is you could go to court. — newsgroup which is you could go to court. when— newsgroup which is you could go to court, when a _ newsgroup which is you could go to court, when a settlement - to court, when a settlement from — to court, when a settlement from newsgroup _ to court, when a settlement from newsgroup but - to court, when a settlement from newsgroup but if- to court, when a settlement from newsgroup but if that. from newsgroup but if that settlemen