Sir Brian Leveson: "I Knew I was Being Lied to by Newspaper Editors Over Phone Hacking"

I Knew I was Being Lied to by Newspaper Editors Over Phone Hacking, says Sir Brian Leveson
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
21 June 2019
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The recently retired judge revealed he always feared the Leveson Inquiry was “unwinnable”.

The judge who led the public inquiry into press ethics has revealed he ‘knew’ some national newspaper editors were lying to him under oath about phone hacking.
Sir Brian Leveson, head of criminal justice in England and Wales, made the unusually candid admissions at a public question-and-answer session at Oxford University with Alan Rusbridger, former editor of the Guardian newspaper.
On whether editors told him the truth from the inquiry witness box, Sir Brian said: “Some people did, some people didn’t. Do I know who I know didn’t tell the truth? Yes. Did I always say that in there? No. Not least because [at the time] the criminal investigation was still going on.”

Sir Brian Leveson wrote:So somebody somewhere hasn’t told the truth. Now that would have been an interesting part of Part 2.

Sir Brian’s powerful comments put pressure on the Metropolitan Police and Crown Prosecution Service to investigate, among others, former Daily Mirror editor Richard Wallace and Sunday Mirror editor Tina Weaver over the evidence they gave to the 2012 inquiry.
Both denied knowledge of phone hacking only to be found by High Court judge Mr Justice Mann in a subsequent civil trial to have been explicitly aware of the illegal news-gathering practice, as revealed by Byline last November.

---

Future Criminal Investigations

Under the Inquiries Act 2005, the penalty for “intentionally distorting” evidence to a public inquiry is up to 51 weeks in prison or a £1,000 fine, or both, although proceedings to prosecute can only be instituted by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) of England and Wales, Max Hill QC.
On whether there should be criminal probes, Sir Brian said: “It is not for me to decide… it’s not for me to initiate prosecutions. I’ve done the job; other people have got to get on with it.”

Sir Brian Leveson wrote:It is interesting is it not, that The Sun newspaper has paid out millions to people who complained that they were hacked by The Sun, although we were told The Sun wasn’t involved at all?

In the wide-ranging Q&A with Mr Rusbridger, held at Oxford University in May, Sir Brian said: “At the time I thought I was not being told the truth [by multiple editors]… if you look sideways through this [Leveson Inquiry] report, I’m prepared to bet you can see it.”
He added: “It is interesting is it not, that The Sun newspaper has paid out millions to people who complained that they were hacked by The Sun, although we were told The Sun wasn’t involved at all?”
Graham and Dan Evans are part of the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Team out of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Sir Brian’s inquiry was divided in two in order to allow criminal trials to happen involving key figures at Rupert Murdoch’s News International (now News UK).
An initial “phone hacking super trial” in 2014 saw the company’s Chief Executive (and former editor of The Sun) Rebekah Brooks acquitted of wrongdoing at the Old Bailey after she denied criminal behaviour. Former News of the World editor Andy Coulson was convicted of phone hacking, as were seven of his staff (two at a later trial). Other trials saw The Sun and News of the World staff accused of bribing public officials, which led to the conviction of 34 people, including nine police officers and two journalists.
But Sir Brian said: “Read the evidence, that the editors gave, in the trials they were involved in, and read the evidence that the journalists in the second trial gave, and I think you will find, they don’t live in the same world. So somebody somewhere hasn’t told the truth. Now that would have been an interesting part of Part 2.”

---

The Criminal Courts – ‘A Critical Part of Society’

Last year, the Conservative Government, as it headed into Brexit negotiations, unilaterally cancelled Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry.
On whether he got to the truth during Part 1, Sir Brian said: “Well, events subsequently proved I didn’t… there was nothing much about News of the World that we didn’t expose.
“But the editors of the Trinity Mirror [owner of the Mirror titles] newspapers, said ‘ooh, we’re not aware’. When you look at their evidence, it’s very, very, careful.
“Well we now know [why], because they have paid an absolute mint of money… to people who undeniably were hacked.”

Sir Brian said he always feared the Inquiry was “unwinnable”.

In a separate interview with the BBC today, Sir Brian – who retires officially as the country’s most senior criminal judge when he turns 70 tomorrow – hit out at the failure of the justice system to prosecute criminals.
He told the broadcaster: “The criminal courts are a critical part of our society and they are the way that society reflects the minimum standards of behaviour which it requires of all its citizens.”
Sir Brian – who described as “not bonkers” his recommendations for an independent regulatory body to promote high press standards with the power to investigate serious breaches of editorial codes of conduct and sanction offending newspapers – said he always feared the Inquiry was “unwinnable”.
In the end, the former Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron refused to implement Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, which was required to enforce the Inquiry’s findings in full.
Sir Brian said: “It was unwinnable… because there were certain people who were running newspapers, who weren’t prepared to release the grip that they had on news, and it was a great pity.”

---

A Marked Man

The retiring judge said he knew he was inviting press scrutiny on his family and colleagues by accepting the job – but was still “appalled” by some of it and still feels a marked man today.
He said: “Did I know the way they [the newspapers] were going to eviscerate one of my assessors? No, I did not. Was I shocked by that? Yes, I was. Was I appalled by that? Yes, I was.
“But, to this day, I’m conscious that some newspapers, not all, would be only too pleased to be able to write something about me.”

… to help us commission more great journalism every day.

The judge said that he also knew at least one newspaper lawyer had disguised phone hacking, which is an eavesdropping crime under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.
He said: “It was a lawyer who had worked for one of the newspapers who admitted a story which he knew was obtained from hacking, to be presented as though it hadn’t been, and then when there was litigation, [he] did not come clean.”

Evidence emerging since the Inquiry from whistleblowers like John Ford, who worked as a specialist data thief for the Sunday Times for 15 years, suggested some broadsheet titles also had further questions to answer.

Admitting to having a “bit of a go” at the solicitor in question, Sir Brian added: “I was just professionally upset by what had happened.”
A public audience at Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, listened intently, as Sir Brian said evidence emerging since the Inquiry from whistleblowers like John Ford, who worked as a specialist data thief for the Sunday Times for 15 years, suggested some broadsheet titles also had further questions to answer.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
John Ford. Photo: Dan Evans

Sir Brian added that, even during his Inquiry, newspapers were intruding into private grief in breach of their self-regulatory Editor’s Code of Conduct “if the story was big enough”.
He related the case of Sebastian Bowles, a British boy killed in a coach crash while on a school skiing trip in Switzerland.
He said: “The school had set up a website for the kids to communicate with their families, and after this accident, certain organs of the press… published extracts from the website; private, really private communications, they published photographs from the Facebook page of the boy… they published a photograph of this nine-year-old sister of this little boy, clutching photographs, going to be taken to the scene of the accident. Now tell me which bit of the code, permits any of that? Well it doesn’t.
“So even while the Inquiry is going on, if the story is big enough, the rules went out the window. That was the business of those selling certain newspapers.”

---

Press Victims

Paying tribute to the bravery of press victims who volunteered to give evidence, Sir Brian spoke of the tragedy of a child murdered by a class mate in Scotland, whose conviction newspapers campaigned against, despite being told by the judge involved there were no grounds to campaign.
He said: “The press were telling stories that the victim had persecuted the defendant… the parents were distraught by this, they wrote to the judge and got a letter from the judge saying there was no provocation at all… and they took the letter to the editor, and said look, this is unfair, please correct it, and they declined to do so.
“And they had one other child, a son, and the son committed suicide, and in his hand, was the article about his sister.
“These are terrible stories. And how many of these do you need to tell to say there is something that is not right with the culture and the ethics of the press?”
Byline Times contacted DPP Max Hill, asking whether he was intending to start criminal proceedings under the Inquiries Act or whether he had any comment on Sir Brian’s remarks.
His office referred questions back to the Metropolitan Police, adding: “As this is a request for legal advice we cannot assist.”
Byline Times asked the Metropolitan Police Service whether it was starting an investigation but has received no response at the time of publication.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Did he realise anyone else was lying ?

I believe this is a national disgrace

It was, and is, but he was set up to conduct an Inquiry.

Like a "Yes , Minister inquiry."  It is set up, but never actually does anything, and even if it did cannot come to any firm conclusions because everything is inextricably lined with everything else.

Bit like another case people are still worrying about after 12 years !

Sir Brian Leveson wrote:It is interesting is it not, that The Sun newspaper has paid out millions to people who complained that they were hacked by The Sun, although we were told The Sun wasn’t involved at all?


And today
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Revealed: Prince Harry has launched High Court action against Sun and the Mirror over claims his voicemail messages were hacked, as war on press escalates

Ooooops.  

12ft.io/https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/oct/11/the-sun-faces-fresh-claims-of-phone-hacking-during-rebekah-brooks-era

The Sun faces fresh claims of phone hacking during Rebekah Brooks era
Eight individuals have legal cases against tabloid alleging wrongdoing including when Brooks was editor
The Sun is facing fresh allegations that phone hacking took place at the newspaper, including when the News UK chief executive, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], was editor.
Rupert Murdoch’s media company has always said illegal voicemail interception only took place at the now defunct [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] newspaper and no illegality occurred at the Sun.

Yet in recent years the company has, without any admission of liability, reached financial settlements with three individuals who made specific claims that phone hacking took place at the Sun.
There are now eight additional “Sun-only claims” working their way through the legal system. The group is [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], who has been joined by the 7/7 London bombings survivor John Tulloch, the jockey Kieren Fallon, and David Beckham’s father, Ted. The other individuals making Sun-only claims include Charlotte Church’s mother, Maria, George Best’s former agent Phil Hughes, Paul Gascoigne’s friend Jimmy “Five Bellies” Gardner and Tricia Bernal, the mother of the murdered stalking victim Clare Bernal.
All eight individuals were among the first News of the World phone-hacking victims to receive settlements from Murdoch’s company but are now alleging phone hacking also took place at the Sun.
The Sun-only claims come after more than 150 individuals launched new phone-hacking cases against Murdoch’s News Group [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (NGN). They include:

• Gerry McCann, the father of missing child Madeleine McCann.
  
• The former cabinet ministers Peter Mandelson, Andy Burnham, Tom Watson, Vince Cable, Chris Huhne and Alistair Carmichael, plus the former Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron.
  
• Tom Parker Bowles and Andrew Parker Bowles, the son and ex-husband of Camilla, Queen Consort.
  
• Doreen Lawrence, the mother of the murdered schoolboy Stephen Lawrence, who has also started separate proceedings [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
  
• Singer Tulisa, who was the subject of a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] by the Sun on Sunday’s “fake sheikh” reporter Mazher Mahmood.
  
• The British schoolteacher Christopher Jefferies, who was falsely suspected of murdering Joanna Yeates.
  
• The former footballers Shaun Wright-Phillips and Robbie Fowler.
  
• Comedian Jimmy Carr, actor Christopher Biggins and film director Sam Mendes.
  
• The presenters Tom Bradby, Clare Balding, Chris Moyles, Diane-Louise Jordan and Anne Diamond.
  
• The musicians Louise Redknapp, Gary Barlow and Nadine Coyle.
  

Advertisement

Since 2006, Murdoch’s media company has paid hundreds of millions of pounds in legal fees and damages to settle claims of phone hacking, primarily at the News of the World. Brooks was found [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] in a criminal trial in 2014 before returning to run Murdoch’s UK media business as chief executive a year later. She now oversees newspapers, radio stations and television channels including the Sun, the Times, TalkTV and Virgin Radio.
Despite efforts by NGN to halt the legal proceedings, a judge recently confirmed there would be at least one more wave of claimants. This means the phone-hacking claims against Murdoch’s company are on track to last more than 20 years, making them one of the longest series of cases in English legal history. Reach, the publisher of the Mirror, also continues to face expensive litigation.
The three “Sun-only” claims that have already been settled were brought by the actor Sienna Miller, former footballer Gascoigne, and the ex-Lib Dem MP Sir Simon Hughes.
Miller said she had wanted to take the case all the way to trial but – despite a successful Hollywood career – she was unable to afford the millions of pounds in legal fees that would be required. As a result she accepted a financial settlement while [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] for criticism.
Hughes also received a settlement after alleging his phone was hacked during the time Brooks was editor of the Sun. Outside court [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]: “I have been very clear that we have not named names, but it is clear from all I have seen that it went to the top of the Sun. I think I will have to leave you to draw your own conclusions about that.”
A spokesperson for NGN said: “Since 2011 we have settled cases relating to historical allegations of phone hacking at the News of the World and the company has offered apologies to those affected.”
They said the company had settled the previous Sun-only cases for a variety of reasons and it was not an admission of guilt: “NGN has always maintained that phone hacking did not take place on the Sun. A handful of cases have made claims against the Sun only and have come to financial settlements in the course of the litigation, without admission of liability. Those familiar with civil litigation will be aware that settlement is a practice encouraged by the courts and there are many reasons for both parties to settle a case without admission of wrongdoing including for all sorts of commercial reasons.
“As we reach the tail end of litigation, NGN is drawing a line under disputed matters, some of which date back more than 20 years ago. We have not however ruled out taking disputed cases to trial or challenging where cases should have been brought many years ago.”