>> which document are you talking about, mr farrelly? >> the document that you discovered in april or may in the offices of harbottle & lewis. >> i have not asked him, but i also thinkas he has testifiedthat he, as chief executive of news international at the time, would not have been expected necessarily to read x- hundreds or thousands of emails, but would rely on the opinion of counsel about what they had done. >> was colin myler aware of that evidence lying with harbottle & lewis? >> i cannot speak to other individuals' knowledge in the past. i simply don't know. >> would tom crone? >> i simply cannot speak for them. >> and stuart kuttner? >> the same goes, mr farrelly. i simply can't speak for them. >> and rebekah brooks? >> i simply cannot speak for their knowledge. i know that mrs brooks, when she was chief executive, was one of the people who brought it to my attention as a new thing. >> i am just going to wrap up this questioning. we are left now in a situation where you, having looked into this affair and co-operated with the p

mr. farrelly, i respect you to understand that detailed questions about any of the evidence, information that we passed to the police in relation to their ongoing criminal inquiries are difficult for me to answer. i would appreciate it if we could allow the police to undergo the important work that they are undergoing. there's a process that's important. we're cooperating with it. we're providing information on a regular basis. the company is providing information on a regular basis as needed by the police, and i really believe we have to allow the police to conduct their investigation and hold the people who did wrong to account in this area. >> okay. i'll respect -- >> i want to comment on anything now. it could have resulted in guilty peop people. >> i fully understand. i will respect that clearly. the descriptions in the press so they're on the record actually do -- including in "the sunday times" implicate andy in knowledge of payments to the police, so i wouldn't expect you to comment on that. i will now turn to the letter that was provided as -- provided to us by rebekah brooks as

mr. farrelly's knowledge of the observer will be better than mine, they wrote an editorial on this three months ago sort of addressing, again, readdressing that climate then and how different it is now. >> in the committee in 2003 they concluded there was widespread evidence of despicable actions across the media. i appreciate the legal sensitivities involved in this question but i will put it to you anyway. in 2003 you were asked if you paid the police and you clearly said we have paid the police in the past. if i may suggest to you that the manner in which you said that, you said it almost as though we have paid the police in the past, the implication being as do all tabloid newspapers. i'm not asking you to make specific allegations. in your general knowledge, were payments to the police widespread across fleet street or were they confined to news international titles? >> if you remember, the evidence as i gave in 2003, that it was actually i was going on to explain my comment and as you know, mr. bryant was asking me to explain my comment and the actual session ended. in 2003, straig

mr. farrelly, whether you had read it yourself and you said no. in the circumstances, where you have rely on other people and advisers and they have severely let your company down, you do not think, mr. murdoch and mr. rupert murdoch, that you ought to take the time and read through everything in that followeder personally? >> for claret, mrs. mensch, i did say that i did read some of the con teantstents. they were shown to me. and what i saw was sufficient to know that the right thing to do was to hand them over to the authorities and help them with their investigations. >> i understand that. but you were shown a representative simple, which can be tricky -- sample, which can be tricky. in the circumstances and given the enormous damage which i am sure you will be the first to admit has been done to news corp, do you not think that, senior executives in the company, you should take the time and read the entire file? is it not the case that you are the captain of the ship? you are the chief of news corp? >> it is a much bigger ship. >> yes, but yo