• 37-year-old woman arrested in inquiry into payments to police
• Myler felt there were 'bombs under newsroom floor' at NoW
• Can't recall if Murdoch handed email but no reason to doubt Crone
• After June 2008 knew 'rogue reporter' defence failed to hold
Sanderson explains how the diaries were translated piecemeal.
We were translating the document; we were writing the story; we were checking with the McCanns and they were happy with the story; we would publish it.
I wasn't aware what the NoW planned to do with the diary once it was in the office.
We looked at the diary and for every entry we would cross-reference that with stories that may have appeared in the newspapers.
Sanderson says he believes the document came from the Portuguese police.
It had obviously been translated from Portuguese. I suppose thinking back it must have come from the Portuguese police. From memory when I was looking through the documents, I think there were comments on certain pages I remember. There were notes and comments, it looked like some kind of official document.
Sanderson says he was concerned about the diaries: "The whole thing caused me concern."
Did he share those concerns?
It's very very difficult for me to try explain but my thinking throughout this whole process was this story was going to be published with the co-operation of the McCanns.
Sanderson says: "With hindsight, it was clearly the wrong decision to publish."
Jay again asks Sanderson if he was he not concerned about the provenance of the diaries.
Sanderson struggles to answer and says: "I was a junior reporter at the time."
Leveson intervenes and says that because he is looking into press ethics "what junior members of staff thought is important".
Sanderson says he thought the News of the World was not going to publish the diary without the McCanns' consent.
It was clearly a private document I understood that, but at that stage we were not in possession of the diary so we didn't know what we were dealing with. As I understand the News of the World did not intend to publish it. I was told at the time that we would not be publishing the diary unless we had the express permission of the McCanns.
Sanderson says he knew the diary was "a private document".
Leveson asks if he was concerned about the provenance of the diary.
Sanderson says:
A diary is clearly a private document but at the time this was being publically circulated around Portugal. What the newspapers planned to do with the diary once we were in possession of that I didn't know that at the time.
Sanderson explains how he got in touch with a Portuguese journalist and they discussed payment for a copy of the diary. Sanderson then liaised with the news editor at the time, Ian Edmondson.
Edmondson hired a freelancer, Gerard Couzens, who is based in Spain to travel to Portugal to meet the journalist and collect the diary.
Sanderson says he wasn't aware at the time that the ultimate source was the Portuguese police.
Daniel Sanderson the News of the World reporter whose name appeared on the Kate McCann diary story in the News of the World, is up next.
McCann told the inquiry that publication of the diary left her feeling "violated".
Myler urges newspapers to pool their collective brainpower to sort the industry out. He says broadcasters also have to own up to their responsiblities.
He points out that TV channels pursued stories like the McCann story just as enthusiastically as the press.
He also says the rivalry between the broadsheets and red-tops is "almost like a war zone" and it is time peace broke out.
The collective brainpower of those who produce newspapers is pretty magnificent. If only they could drop some of the commercial rivalry … and embrace the issues.
Myler says some of the behaviour of the press has been "despicable" and it would be "unfair" to tar the industry with the same brush.
Leveson says he is "sure over the last five months there has been a lot of reflection" in the industry about its practices. He adds proof of this came in this morning's claims by Max Clifford that two stories have not appeared in the papers recently because of Leveson.
"The real question is, will it last?" says Leveson; he adds that his issue is "creating a system that ensure it does last".
Myler expands on his theme and says the industry has cleaned up its act.
There is no place for that now,. I think the industry has understood that, and reflected and changed its attitude to that. If you talk to a proprietor of any freelance picture agency most of them are going out of business pretty fast.
Leveson refers back to the Sienna Miller testimony in which she told the inquiry how she was spat at and verbally abused by photographers.
He also refers to the Charlotte Church and Kate McCann testimony in which they said photographers would jump out of bushes in an attempt to get photrographs.
Myler says those practices are unacceptable.
He says it was also unacceptable to harrass the mother of Hugh Grant's baby.
Myler on photographs and subterfuge:
Unless there was a public interest defence in using photographs that had been taken under subterfuge, that were supporting the story, or that met the PCC criteria, I wouldn't be interested in them.
Myler is asked if he ever doctored a photograph.
Jay refers to the example Sienna Miller gave in the second week of the inquiry when she told how was playing with a disabled child and the photograph was presented in such a way that she appeared inebriated.
Myler says he was not familiar with this or any other case of photographs being doctored.
The inquiry is now discussing the use of celebrity photographs. Myler says he has rejected photographs.
He cites the PCC code that bans photographs that are in breach of a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.
Jay says the inquiry has already heard of breaches of this code from previous witnesses (which have included Charlotte Church, JK Rowling and Sienna Miller).
Leveson asks if there is such a thing as the "lob it in" school of journalism.
Myler says there is not.
I don't think there is. I think in the McCann early days when Madeleine wen missing were truly appalling and should never appeared by any standards in this country. The industry did not like what those newspapers were doing, those newspapers were held to account publicly.
Most journalists and editors I know these days have incredibly high standards of ethics and the law. Yes, we get it wrong … but the manner in which we are all tarnished as reckless and negligent, it's just not there in my experience.
Myler says it would be "reckless" to publish untrue stories.
Any editor that published something knowing that they published something that wasn't true would be reckless and foolish.
Jay is now picking up testimony from former executive editor Neil Wallis who gave evidence on Monday.
Wallis told Leveson that when a story came in from a tipster "you would then task a reporter to make that story work, see if that story will work".
Did Myler agree with this, asks Jay.
Myler replies:
It might have been Mr Wallis's process, but the reality is you don't just take a phone call from someone, you say thank you very much and we'll see if it's true and accurate.
He adds:
I reject absolutely a proposition that we sat down and thought about a certain subject and how it should be and than worked out how we fit that recipe.
The hearing is now discussing a letter from the PCC which then promulgated a report in 2009 which was subsequently withdrawn, dated November 2009.
Jay says the PCC "refer to the claims in the Guardian not quite amounting to their billing, or words to that effect".
Myler says he was "full and frank" with the PCC and had""no belief that they didn't think I was being anything other than full or frank with them".
Jay accuses him of using "rather emollient" and "slightly disingenuous" commenbts regarding the extent of phone hacking in this correspondence to the PCC.
Myler points out that he wasn't at the Clive Goodman trial. "I had to rely on those who did attend the trial," he says.
He says he did not read the transcript of the trial.
Myler agrees with Jay who asks if it is correct to say that "after June 2008 he no longer believed the 'single rogue reporter' defence".
Myler said this was correct "because the 'for Neville' email made that clear".
The rogue reporter defence failed to hold once the 'for Neville' email was discovered and I made that clear to the select committee in I think July 2009 when I pointed out its signficance.
They are now discussion a Guardian report that the police had evidence that the paper had hacked into thousands of mobile phones.
He said he "didn't have any evidence to support" what the Guardian had reported.
I didn't have any direct information that our internal inquiries had gone to that point. One of the things that weighed heavily with me was that the police hadn't interviewed anyone else but Goodman in its inquiries. I was relying on what the police said.
Jay asks if the "clear and convincing justification" for cash payments had to be in writing.
Myler replies:
Preferably it would be in writing, but if it was something for which the departmental head was requesting anonymity, he may have preferred a meeting with the managing editor.
Reading from the correspondence, Robert Jay QC asks if it was his policy that "requests for cash payments must be accompanied by compelling and written justification signed off by the relevant department head".
Myler says he thinks that process was already in place when he arrived.
He agrees that this covered for payments for surveillance – if it was private, he would expect to see details.
They are discussing a letter to the PCC just three or four weeks into the job and another piece of correspondence on 10 May 2007 that deals with the issue of cash payments.
Myler says he has "finessed all rules" to avoid a "Goodman style recurrence".
The inquiry has now resumed.
Colin Myler's witness statements have been published:
http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Witness-Statement-of-Colin-Myler1.pdf
The inquiry has now returned to early 2007 when Myler had just joined News of the World.
Clive Goodman had just been jailed.
He is responding to a letter that had been sent to him by Mr Truman in February 2007.
The letter is nine pages long. Myler asks if he could the letter to refamiliarise himself with his correspondence.
Myler didn't receive the bundle, so Leveson breaks to give Myler time to read the correspondence.
Jay is quoting from Michael Silverleaf's opinion: "At least three NGN journalists appear to have been intimately involved in Mulcaire's research and Goodman's affairs".
Jay says: "If I asked was it a cover-up would you embrace it or shrink from that?"
Myler replies:
No, I wouldn't embrace that. I don't believe it was a cover-up, we were dealing with a very difficult negotiation. Newspapers deal with difficult negotiations throughout their business. I don't think its wrong or unreasonable for a business to protect the reputation of itself especially given what happened through the course of 2006-07.
Lord Justice Leveson says what one person calls a "cover up" another calls "limiting reputational damage"; it's a semantic issue.
Myler replies: "Absolutely sir."
Leveson asks if Myler believed the "one rogue reporter" defence at this stage.
He replies:
It couldn't be correct as much as the 'for Neville' email had indicated that at least another reporter had transcribed it, and it named another reporter.
They are now discussing the transcript of notes of a call Pike had with Tom Crone on 10 June.
He is asked about a line that says "CM moving towards to tell Taylor to fuck off".
Myler says perhaps his northern language came through. Leveson suggests to him that he was extremely angry over what was happening.
They are now discussing Julian Pike's notes of his call to Tom Crone in which it is said that at a "Mtg with JM + CM" "JM sd he wanted to think through options".
Myler says:
I don't believe he wanted to pay £1m but I think he was happy to go a way to see what negotiation could take place to settle the claim.
Jay asks if Murdoch give authority for a particular figure.
Myler replies:
I can't remember a particular figure, but I do remember leaving the meeting with the feeling he wanted to settle, not at any price.
Myler is asked if the term "culture" of the newsroom was discussed at that meeting.
He says he can't remember.
Jay asks if Myler can remember what documents were shown to Murdoch in that meeting on 10 June.
Myler replies:
I have said before that I can't recollect that he handed over the 'for Neville' email for him to see. I can't remember if he did that. I am aware that Crone said in his testimony and I have no reason to disblieve that he did what he said he did.
They are now discussing the email sent on 7 June 2008 by Myler to James Murdoch:
Update on the Gordon Taylor (Professional Footballers Asscociation) case
Unfortunately it is as bad as we feared.
The note from Julian Pike of Farrer's is extremely telling regarding Taylor's vindictiveness. It would be helpful if Tom Crone and I could have five minutes with you on Tuesday.
Colin
Myler says he cannot recall what Silverleaf's figure was.
Another note from Tom Crone to Myler shows that he was forwarded an email from Julian Pike regarding the settlement which says that Taylor "wants to demonstrate that what happended to him is/was rife throughout the organisation".
These emails were released to the select committee earlier this week. Myler says he has only seen them recently because News International had refused to release his correspondence to him.
Jay is now referring to correspondence in which it is noted that a Part 36 offer was made "on Tuesday". The note says that Taylor had previously made clear "that what he wanted was seven figures plus idemnity costs - £1.2m".
Myler says:
What I remember being told was his position was very simple - he [Taylor] wanted £1m or he wanted to go to trial.
What I remember being told was he wanted to humiliate the paper.
Lord Justice Leveson intervenes and says it wasn't actuallly on 6 June, but it was 3 June because then Pike is telling Taylor's solicitor that he is about to send another Part 36 offer.
Jay agrees and says then that the offer must have been made at a date "closer to 3 June".
Leveson points out: "You would normally tell an opponent you were about to make an offer for £350,000 unless you were about to do it."
Robert Jay QC is now trying to establish who instructed the offer of £350,000.
Jay: Instructions had to come from someone and that someone had to be either you or the chief exective?
Myler: Yes, but I wouldn't have taken it upon myself to sanction that kind of money, because I would have had to go to the chief executive for the authority for that.
Jay then refers to an attendance note of a meeting on 6 June 2008. It says that "JCP [Pike] had sent across a Part 36 offer for £350,000".
The QC concludes: "The best evidence we have is that this offer was made on 6 June, which was after the advice from Silverleaf and before the meeting on June 10 with Murdoch."
Jay says instructions must therefore have come from Myler or Murdoch, because Pike himself couldn't make instructions. Those had to come from the client.
Myler had "absolute confidence" in the experience in the way in which Crone and Pike were conducting the negotiation.
After leading counsel had advised, an offer was made to Taylor of £350,000.
I am sure I was aware, but there was a lot of moving parts to this decision …
I wasn't involved in every step of the way.
Myler says: "This was a case we didn't have a choice with. It was a matter of what the figure would be to settle and a figure Mr Taylor would accept."
Lord Justice Leveson intervenes and asks who was authorised to make payments of such amounts.
Myler replies it was James Murdoch, the then chief executive of the company:
No, no it was the chief executive. It was clear that the level Taylor was coming from was not in my authority, that it was way beyond Mr Crone's and my league.
PFA boss Gordon Taylor had become aware of the "for Neville" email, which was the first indication that more than one reporter at the News of the World may have been involved in phone hacking.
Taylor knew this and News International was negotiating a settlement following demands for £1m.
Myler recalls that the sum Taylor wanted was an "extremely high amount". The story had not appeared in the paper.
The demands being made by Taylor were "pretty blunt", says Myler.
Jay wants to know if the "for Neville" email was not a bombshell.
"You mentioned bombs under the newsroom floor," he says. "This was creating a tendency for one or more of those bombs to explode, would you agree with that?"
Myler agrees, and says "there was no appetite to go back to that place".
Myler says his main recollection was the "for Neville" email, not the opinion comtaining the phrase "culture of illegal information access".
The discovery of the 'for Neville' email was … fatal to our case – that is what I remember being central to silk's view, a view shared by Mr Pike, Mr Crone and indeed by myself.
Myler does not remember being told about Silverleaf's phrase "a culture of illegal information access".
Lord Justice Leveson expresses surprise:
That would hit you absolutely between the eyes. If you are there to do anything it would be to cope with that.
Jay returns to the Silverleaf opinion, and Myler says he didn't see it. He says he would have been briefed on it, however.
Leveson goes back to the note of the conversation with Pike on 28 May 2008 in which it is said "JM wld say get rid of them - cut out cancer".
Myler says he has nothing further to add by way of clarification.
Myler says he does not "recall" the written opinion of Michael Silverleaf.
Myler says he felt there were always "bombs under the newsroom floor":
I always had some discomfort. I felt there could have been bombs under the newsroom floor and I didn't know where they were and I didn't know when they were going to go off.
Myler says he was aware at the time that the police removed three sacks of material from Glenn Mulcaire's home when he was arrested and he had assumed they would have, if they had any evidence, spoken to others.
One of the things that was very foremost in my mind what the police took away three black binliners of evidence from Mr Mulcaire's home when he was arrested in August 2006. Given what I believed to be a thorough police investigation, given that police had not interviewed any other member of staff, that weighed heavily on my mind because I assumed they would have done so [if there were suspicions of wider illegal activity].
Myler says another factor that influenced his action was that the company called in Burton Copeland to act as a "bridgehead" between News International and the police.
Another point in the note says: "CM - my position as Editor - cannot ignore it - back to CG+"
Myler agrees this suggests he could not ignore allegations made by the former royal editor Clive Goodman who alleged after he was dismissed that others at the News of the World were involved in illegal activities.
Myler says it is difficult to go back and look at notes given the information that has come to light from police subsequently.
The note says: "didn't believe culture in the newsroom - editor".
Myler is not clear as to what Pike meant.
Robert Jay QC says one possible explanation is that "you the editor didn't believe it was going on" in 2008.
Myler is being asked about Farrer partner Julian Pike's notes on a conversation they had about the Gordon Taylor settlement, which contains the phrase "wait for silk's view".
"I don't recall this conversation," says Myler.
Colin Myler will continue to give evidence this morning – he is expected to be asked about the 'for Neville' email exchanges with James Murdoch.
In the meantime, the Leveson inquiry has published the statements of Jonathan Chapman, the former News International legal chief.
A 37-year-old woman has been arrested this morning as part of Operation Elveden, the Scotland Yard investigation into payments to police.
The Metropolitan police issued this statement this morning:
At 0615hrs on Thursday, 15 December, officers arrested a woman on suspicion of committing offences involving making payments to police officers for information.
She was arrested at a residential address in Surrey, and has been taken to a south London police station where she remains in custody.
This is the seventh arrest under Operation Elveden. 16 people have been arrested under Op Weeting and one person arrested under Op Tuleta.
Max Clifford has told the Times that tabloid newspapers have in recent weeks declined to publish "two major stories" about celebrities over fears that Lord Justice Leveson might not approve.
Clifford, the man behind various front-page tabloid stories over the years, told the Times: "There are two major stories that have come to me in recent weeks which newspaper editors would be running over burning coals to get if the Leveson inquiry wasn't going on.
"There are no illegal methods involved in obtaining either story but the editors are worried about anything that touches on the private lives of the rich and famous.
"They are thinking 'how would Leveson respond to this' rather than 'that's a bloody good story, let's get it in the paper'."
Clifford thinks the Leveson inquiry has "already changed the face of tabloid journalism". "The atmosphere is like I have never known it in 40 years," he says.
Good morning and welcome to day 18 of the Leveson inquiry.
Today we will hear again from Colin Myler, the last editor of the News of the World.
Myler was questioned at length on Wednesday about how his paper published the private diaries of Kate McCann without her consent. Later today the inquiry will hear from Daniel Sanderson, the reporter who is bylined on the story about Kate's diaries in September 2008.
Also up today is Derek Webb, the private investigator who said News of the World paid him to follow 90 people, including members of the royal family and celebrities.
James Robinson will be at the Royal Courts of Justice for the hearing. You can follow him on Twitter at @jamesro47.
Lisa O'Carroll and Josh Halliday are on the keyboards. You can follow them on Twitter at @lisaocarroll and @joshhalliday.
Tune in at 10am for minute-by-minute coverage.
Please not that comments have been switched off for legal reasons.
--
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/dec/15/leveson-inquiry-derek-webb-colin-myler-live
~
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com
Belum ada komentar untuk "Leveson inquiry: Derek Webb, Colin Myler, Daniel Sanderson - live"
Posting Komentar