CREW: FCC: Seeking To Deny Renewal of Fox Broadcast Licenses: 8/22/2012 - Exhibits U-HH

EXHIBIT U
Day 96 am
Leveson Inquiry
23 July 2012
Monday, 23 July 2012 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 (10.00 am) LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes, Mr Jay? MR JAY: Sir, first of all, were going to have an update from DAC Akers, please. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank you very much indeed. DAC SUE AKERS (recalled) Questions by MR JAY LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Youve twice given evidence before, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Id be grateful if you bear in mind youre still subject to the oath you took at the beginning. A. Yes, sir. MR JAY: Deputy Assistant Commissioner, youve kindly provided the Inquiry with a further witness statement dated 20 July under the standard statement of truth; is that right? A. Yes. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: So that its quite clear, this statement, as indeed each of the others, has been provided following notice issued under Section 21 of the Inquiries Act. A. Yes, sir. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank you. MR JAY: Paragraph 4 of the statement, first of all. You Page 1 continue to lead all the operations. These, of course, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 are Operations Weeting, Elveden and Tuleta; is that right? A. Thats correct. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Then Mr Lewis and Mr Greenberg were introduced to help facilitate the co-operation, which they did. And in mid-May this year, following a development in our investigation, it caused the MSC to reconsider their position and they decided that they would prefer the meetings to be on a more formal basis with lawyers only. I should say, that hasnt affected the co-operation, which is still very good.
Q.
Thank you. You explain in paragraph 9 in mid-May of this year there was a development in your investigation, which appears to have caused the MSC to reconsider their relationship with you. And there was a pause for several weeks in the voluntary disclosure material to you. But a meeting took place on 1 June, Lord Grabiner and other lawyers acting for the MSC, and voluntary disclosure resumed. So the pause was for two or three
12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
weeks; is that right?

A. Yes. The pause was from the middle of May until I think we then got more disclosure in the middle of June. 14 June, I think, was when we got our next disclosure. And its continued since that date.
Q.
In tenns of the resources, you observe in paragraph 10 that the Management Standards Committee have committed significant resources to assist these investigations, continuing to co-operation and disclose documentation; Page 3 a professional and productive relationship and not without its challenges. Operation Weeting now, paragraph 12. You explain the background. In paragraph 13, could you sum up the position there as to the number of people who have been arrested and when the bail has to be renewed or reconsidered?
Q. Paragraph 5, could I ask you to speak to that, please? A. Investigating all of these investigations and theyre
numerous
weve worked obviously closely with the CPS,
and they have advised us regarding potential offences. Weve sought legal advice and in respect of both individual and corporate offences, and also in relation to our police powers and our options for investigating.
A. Yes. 15 current and former journalists have been arrested and interviewed in relation to conspiracy to intercept communications. 12 of those remain on pre-charge bail, 11 of whom are due to return to various police stations tomorrow, 24 July, other than one individual who has been bailed to 2 August. One non-journalist has also been bailed to tomorrow, 24 July. Files in respect of all of these individuals are currently with the CPS for advice as to potential charges.
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q.
Thank you. To date, as you explain in paragraph 6, youve primarily been seeking the co-operation of News International. Indeed the subsidiary company, NGN as well, I suppose. But your dealings with the Management Standards Committee, you explain that at the end of June of this year, a Mr Zweifach replaced Mr Klein; is that right?
A. Thats correct.
Q. Thank you.
The perverting the course ofjustice matter,
Q.
Can you help us with paragraph 8. Mr Lewis and Mr Greenberg no longer attend the regular meetings. Can you remember about when that change took place?
I think we all understand what that relates to and who the individuals are, but youve been careful not to name them. Its summarised in paragraph 14; is that right? A. Yes.
A. It took place fairly recently. At the beginning, when
we began the enquiries, all contact was through the

lawyers; then these were other lawyers, Burton Copeland. Page 2
Q.
We can just note that.
Paragraph 15, the non-journalist; you want to change Page 4 1 (Pages ito 4)
Merrill Corporation (+44) 207 404 1400
www.merrillcorp/mls.com
8th Floor 165 Fleet Street

London EC4A 2DY
Day 96 am
Leveson Inquiry
23 July2012
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
paragraph 14 to paragraph 13? A. Yes, the re-numbering has caused us to miss that. That should read the non-journalist referred to at paragraph 13.
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
stories were published.

In this case, the individuals former partner has acted as the conduit and facilitated the payments into their bank account. And that bank account, from the former partner, reveals numerous payments from News International, Trinity Mirror and Express Newspapers between April 2010 and June 2011. And those payments total nearly 35,000. There were in fact further payments after the prison officer retired, which he did in June last year. The last of which was made by Express Newspapers in February this year.
Q.
You make it clear there that the alleged offence relates to money-laundering matters, and the bail has been extended to tomorrows date. Paragraphs 16 and 17, 1 think youve already covered that satisfactorily?
A. I think I have.
Q. Q.
Unless theres anything else youd like to add? Were moving forward to Operation Elveden, which starts at paragraph 18 of your statement. May I invite you, please, to sum up the position there. Its paragraph 19.
A. No.
Q.
Thank you. And paragraph 23, you say that co-operation from the MSC has enabled you to identify the stories to which the News Intemational payments related, and further investigation has enabled you to identify stories in the Daily Mirror, the Sunday Mirror, the Daily Star and the Sunday Star that are suspected to be linked to the payments?
A. Yes. Elveden to date has conducted 41 arrests. Broken down, thats 23 current or former journalists, four police officers, nine current or former public officials and five individuals who acted as conduits for corrupt payments. There are currently files at the CPS for three police officers and one journalist. And were continuing to supply the CPS with files as we get them ready.
A. Yes, thats right, sir.
Q.
Again, in the same way as you carefully dealt with paragraph 22, can you do the same, please, for paragraph 24?
A. Yes. This describes another case were investigating, where again the public official is a prison officer at Page_7
Q.
The CPS are continuing to advise. Theres a range of Page 5 offences there, which of course will be familiar to the Inquiry and to criminal lawyers, but the money-laundering, apart from the well-known corruption offences and new Bribery Act offences, and before the Bribery Act, it was of course the Prevention of Corruption Act.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
a different high security prison. And again, that individuals partners has facilitated the payments into their account. These payments are from Trinity Mirror. They were made between February 2006 and January 2012, and the total amount in this case was in excess of 14,000. Again, further investigation has enabled us to identify stories in the Daily Mirror which we think are linked to those payments.
Can I ask you, please, about paragraph 21, if

I could ask you to summarise that? A. Yes. Before I do, when I go on to talk about developments in our investigation, I have in some cases used the word alleged but I havent repeated it throughout. I think I said this on a previous occasion when I gave evidence. Where I talk about these developments, what I say is a matter of allegation and not established fact. In relation to Elveden then, our ongoing investigation has recently revealed that in some cases where weve identified a public official whos received payments from News International, weve also established that they have received payments from other newspapers.
Q.
Thank you. In paragraph 25, the assessments youve made to date, could you explain those to us, in particular the public interest aspect?
A. Yes. As I say, ultimately the public interest test is a mafter for the CIS, but we make an assessment ourselves as well around public interest as to whether the alleged criminal conduct can be justified as being in the public interest, as well as whether there are grounds to suspect offences. Its our assessment that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that offences have been committed and that the majority of these stories reveal very limited material of genuine public interest.
Q.
Thank you. Im going to ask you now to deal with paragraph 22 in some detail.
Q.
Thank you. On 11 July
--
obviously only two weeks ago
A. This relates to one case where the public official was a prison officer at a high security prison during the periods when the payments were made and the related Page 6
or slightly less --following the arrests of one employee of Trinity Mirror and one employee of Express News Group, letters were served on the head of legal for Page 8 2 (Pages 5 to 8)

London EC4A 2DY
Day 96 am those newspapers requesting specific evidential material. Can I ask you, please, to explain what has happened and to update us as to progress and co-operation with those companies?
A. Yes. Weve
Leveson Inquiry
23 July 2012
that, despite challenges, quite correct and proper
2 3
4 5 6
2 3
4 5 6
challenges, the co-operation continues and we have recently received a substantial amount of material.
Q. Thank you. In paragraph 31
we asked for a response by 18 July to our
request for evidential material, which we think are in the possession and control of both Trinity Mirror and Express News Group. Weve had those responses. Trinity Mirror Group have asked us to obtain a production order and indicated that they wont oppose that. Express Newspapers have taken a slightly different stance. They wish to proceed by way of voluntary protocol, which would be more akin to how weve co-operated with News International. And at the moment were in the process of drafting that voluntary protocol.
7 8
9
7 8
9
you refer to an internal review the MSC have conducted of their own volition, but that has yielded no further evidence for you; is that right? material that they had disclosed to us, but we havent received or
A. Well, the MSC would say the result of the review was the I understand there is no formal report as
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19
Q.
Thank you. In paragraph 27, further lines of inquiry
20 21 22 23 24
25
may result in further arrests. In paragraph 28 now, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, can you explain whats happening with Elveden and the MSC, in particular the Sun newspaper?
A. Yes. These paragraphs Im attempting to explain, as asked in my Section 21, how co-operation has worked. We opened our investigation, as we say, on the basis of full co-operation, and the MSC then conducted their
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25
a result of their review.
Q. Okay. May we move forward to Operation Tuleta, and

I ask you, please, first of all in paragraph 33 to summarise where we are. Its paragraphs 33 and 34.
A. Yes. Tuleta is a kind of over-arching name for a number of discrete investigations. Were conducting an assessment of 101 separate allegations of data intrusion. These include allegations of phone hacking, computer hacking, improper access to medical, banking and other personal records. In order to undertake this assessment, weve collated relevant documentation from previous inquiries and looked at electronic storage devices which had been previously seized in other inquiries. And were gathered between 8 and 12 terabytes of data across 70 Page 11 storage devices, which were searching for evidence to either support or contradict the allegations that have been made by these 101 individuals. Thats a very substantial amount of documentation and data. I know the last time I was here I was hopeless in answering your question as to what that might amount to, so Ive done some homework and a terabyte, if downloaded in the form of a kind of normal-size paperback, which is then piled on top of one another, Im told the terabyte amounts to three and a half times the height of Everest. So between 8 and 12 terabytes, whilst leaving rather a large margin of error, I agree, its still a substantial amount of documentation. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: It creates its own problems for
Page 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 own internal review of the Sun, which was not a request made by us, but they did it nevertheless. As a result of that, they voluntary provided a lot of documentation, which evidenced suspected criminality and which led to a couple of individual arrests and then to very substantial arrest days, which were highly publicised. They were on 28 January this year and then again on 11 February, and involved the Sun newspaper. Following that, those two arrest days, there was considerable adverse publicity of both the MPS, the police and the MSC, including threats of legal action against the MSC. Following that, there was a change in the nature of the co-operation. We were being asked perhaps to justify our requests to a degree that we perhaps formerly hadnt been, and the material that we were requesting was slower in being forthcoming. The MSC were obviously very conscious to protect legitimate journalistic sources, and of course the law places very strict restrictions on the police obtaining such material. The comments are we started on the basis of full co-operation, so any change in that co-operation could adversely affect initial decisions that wed made and arrests that were made as well. But I should stress
2
3
4
5 6
7 8
9
10 11 12 13 14
15
analysis and research?

A. It absolutely does, because we cant look at every piece of documentation. We have to be careful about how we search it and what criteria we put in that questions of the data. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. A. But continuing on, sir, to date weve made six arrests under the Computer Misuse Act and/or in respect of offences of handling stolen goods, subjects of which are all on police bail pending completion of the arrest phase and further investigation. As in the other cases, Page 12 3 (Pages
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
in our
Page 10
9 to
12)
8th Floor 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Day 96 am
Leveson Inquiry
23 July 2012
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
in due course files will be submitted to the CPS for charging advice. MR JAY: Thank you. The MSC have been one of the sources of material for Operation Tuleta purposes. Then paragraph 36, you explain what happened in April of this year. Can I ask you, please, to tell us about that? A. Yes. As a result of the material that weve had provided to us from the MSC, it seems that on occasions weve found that material has been downloaded from and is in possession of News International titles which appear to have come from stolen mobile telephones. It appears from some of the documentation, and thats dated around late 2010, that one of the mobile phones has been examined with a view to breaking its code, its security code, so that the contents can be downloaded by experts. And obviously a significant and important line of inquiry for us is to identify the experts that have been used. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
you last gave evidence. Can I ask you, please, to surnmarisc paragraphs 42 to 46? A. Yes. I think the last time I gave evidence we were still in the process of notifying victims and potential victims of phone hacking. Weve completed that process now as far as we can insofar as we could identify the victims who we think have been likely to have been subjected to phone hacking. And so weve notified a total of 2,615, of which 702 we think are likely to have been victims.
Q.
Mm. have been victims but, for one reason or another, were unable to contact those people. Thats why theres a discrepancy in the figures between paragraphs 44 and 45.
A. We have a figure above 702 who we think are likely to
MR JAY: Great, thats very clear. Thank you very much, Deputy Assistant Commissioner. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Ms Akers, I received evidence of the response which the police received when they visited News International in 2006. Would it be right for me to conclude at this stage that whatever might have happened in the past at News International titles, the senior management and corporate approach now has been to assist and come clean, from which I might be able to draw the Page 15 inference that there is a change in culture, practice
Q.
At the moment, as you say, their identities are unknown to you but theyre likely to exist in different parts of the country. Paragraph 38, tell us about that, please, and then lead into paragraph 39.
A. Well obviously request now further documentation from the MSC as a result of what weve discovered in respect Page 13 of the stolen mobile phones, and were hopeful that that
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
will produce further relevant information which will then lead us to the expert services, and when we reach them, at that point we hope to establish whether in fact these are just isolated incidents or just the tip of an iceberg.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
and approach? A. Yes, sir. I dont disagree with any of that. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank you. It is obviously very important that when I report, and the exercise of this Inquiry will come to an end, as Im sure at some stage so will your operations, it has the benefit of absolutely up-to-date information. Of course, lam not concerned about individuals at this stage, I am merely concerned with whats gone on in the past and what I might derive from that as to culture, practice and ethics, and what impact that might have on the future. But in order that I am absolutely up-to-date as far as is possible, I would be grateful if you would be prepared to return in the autumn so that I know what the position is fast-moving

Q.
Mm. Thank you. Paragraph 40, one mobile telephone theft took place in Manchester and another in South West London, and this may suggest that this is more than an isolated local issue, but as youre careful to say, youre at a very early stage in the investigation.
A. Yes.
Q. Paragraph 41, please, its a similar pattern, I think, with the co-operation of the MSC. Its now only lawyers
who
--
its obviously
A. Yes. The co-operation is exactly the same in terms of the make-up of the MSC team that deals with our offices, and now we deal entirely through the lawyers. Q. You say that initially there was a challenge to Operation Tuletas request for information about the apparent handling of the stolen phones and subsequent downgrades, but now theres a willingness to assist. A. Yes, there is.
and in that way at least can give those who read my report the benefit of what that up-to-date position is. I hope that wont cause you too much inconvenience. A. No, sir, Id be very happy to do so. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank you very much indeed. Thank you. Right. MR JAY: Now 81 statements which we were planning to read in Page 16 4 (Pages 13 to 16)
Q.
Victims next. Youre taking the story fonvard from when Page 14
Day 96 am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Leveson Inquiry
23 July2012 present day can be established, they should do that without further delay and in witness statement form. Any other core participant will then be able to submit a short statement in response, either from the title or the journalist concerned. The purpose of this exercise is necessarily limited. It would not be to require titles to list when each journalist who made a request to Mr Whittamore left the paper; it is only intended to address the specific journalists that Mr Sherbornes clients have identified who are still in their employment. Nor would it be to require titles to prove in general terms the history of their retention or destruction of information acquired from Mr Whittamore, in the absence of specific and recent evidence of use. I am not in any event requiring that any of this be done either by Mr Sherborne or the individual titles but I will, of course, consider anything that emerges from the exercise (in addition to the information which Mr Dacre for Associated Newspapers Limited offered to provide in writing) and it will form part of the evidence. As I understand it, that information has not yet been provided to the Inquiry but is being pursued. It only seems fair to put a deadline on it: if any other core participant is able to deal with it, the evidence Page 19
today, but weve had a request from at least one core I participant that that be delayed until tomorrow on the 2 basis that they say there wasnt time to read them all. 3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: All right. 4 MR JAY: We can do that first thing tomorrow. 5 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: All right. Does that prejudice 6 proceeding with the submissions that people want to make 7 at this stage? 8 MR JAY: (shakes head). 9 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Theyve all seen the statements, and 10 therefore, to such extent as they wish to, as that might 11 affect their submissions, then their submissions with be 12 tailored accordingly. 13 MR JAY: Yes. I imagine the submissions are going to be at 14 a higher level of generality. I dont know that, having 15 had no idea what topics are going to be addressed 16 orally, but I suspect its going to make no difference 17 whatsoever. 18 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: All right. 19 Before commencing the oral submissions that I have 20 invited at the end of this module, it is sensible if 21 I deal with the future progress of the Inquiry, and I do 22 so under three headings, that is to say: issues that 23 presently remain outstanding, the impact of Rule 13 of 24 the Inquiry Rules 2006 (the Rules) and any further 25 Page 17 developments. Outstanding issues. As I have just made clear to deputy Assistant Commissioner Akers, it is important that my report is based on what is then the most up-to-date information about the progress of the criminal investigation. Thus, without descending into who did what to whom or offending the self-denying ordinance on the detail, the extent of that investigation including how widely it then ranges and what it has excluded may inform my view about the culture, practice and ethics of at least a section of the press. It is in those circumstances that I make clear that I will issue another request under Section 21 of the Inquiries Act 2005 (the Act) returnable on a date probably in September. Notice of a hearing will be provided in good time to all core participants to Modules 1 and 2, and they will have the opportunity of submitting any evidence they wish to deal with what is then reported. There are three remaining issues in relation to Operation Motonnan. The first two arise from my ruling on 11 June 2012, paragraph 11 of which reads: If Mr Sherbornes clients wish to provide the Inquiry with such information as they have collated from the Whittamore records where a continuous link to the Page 18
--
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
--
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
should be provided by the end of this month with a response by any relevant newspaper by 10 September. So as to ensure that there is no risk of work having to be done twice, I also identif that date for the other information that Mr Dacre offered to supply to which 1 also refer in that ruling. 1 do not anticipate that this evidence will require oral elaboration and I anticipate that I will make it part of the formal record of the Inquiry, along with other statements that are being read into the record when DAC Akers or whomsoever is then in charge of the police inquiry provides the further update. The third remaining issue arising out of Operation Motorman flows from my ruling of 10 July 2012 concerning the attitude of Associated Newspapers Limited to the evidence revealed in the documentation seized from the private detective Steve Whittamore. In short, I had been concerned to learn whether any core participant wished to argue that I could not use the Motorman material to reach generic adverse conclusions about the practice in general of the press perhaps because it was be wrong to conclude, even on the balance of probability, that breaches of Section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998 could have been established against journalists. I then postulated three possible Page 20 5 (Pages 17 to 20)
www.merrillcorpfmls.com
Day 96 am I 2 3
Leveson Inquiry
23 July2012 dealing with the position of the Metropolitan Police. I did so specifically so that any challenge to that approach could be tested by way ofjudicial review in
approaches namely, first, that it is conceded that there is prima facie evidence that journalists did act in breach of Section 55 by seeking information which, prima
2 3
4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
facie, could not be justified in the public interest. The second position is that the core participant does not want to advance a positive case contradicting the first position. The third was that it is, in fact, challenged that there is a prima facie case against journalists that they acted in breach of the law. Associated Newspapers Limited has now responded to that ruling and made it clear that it adopts the second of the three approaches: the open letter from its solicitors to the Inquiry to that effect will be published as part of the record. Apart from the police investigations and Operation Motorman, I recognise that there is real potential for other evidence to be forthcoming. In a number of the closing submissions, it has been suggested that one of the consequences of the fast-moving nature of this Inquiry has been an inability to challenge material particularly where relevant witnesses have already given evidence prior to new allegations being made. That is to misunderstand how the Inquiry has proceeded. It has always been open to core participants (and others) to submit evidence to the Inquiry to answer Page 21 allegations that have been made and, in appropriate cases where the interests of fairness require, that evidence will be published as part of the record of the Inquiry. There have been a number of examples where this has already happened and I am prepared for that type of material to be provided to the Inquiry over the weeks to come (albeit no later than the end of August 2012 in respect of evidence prior thereto). One example will suffice. The Inquiry only learnt of the existence of Matthew Sprake very recently, but I am conscious that his evidence last week concerned, in large part, the work which he had been employed to carry out for The People. Further, it raised issues relating to the responsibilities for the ethical decisions in connection with its commissioning. Although I recognise that it is now too late to serve a notice under Section 21 of the Act on the editor, Mr Lloyd Embley (who gave evidence during the course of Module 1), should he wish to provide his account of that relationship, dealing with what Mr Sprake has said, I will, of course, consider it. Rule 13 of the rules. On 1 May 2012, 1 handed down a ruling dealing with my approach to Rule 13 of the rules, which 1 supplemented three days later with a further ruling Page 22
4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
good time and without disrupting the timetable: see paragraph 64 of the ruling of 1 May 2012. There has been none and I intend to proceed accordingly. It is, however, important to make public certain aspects of this procedure. First, Rule 13 provides that I may send a warning letter to any person who I consider may be the subject of criticism in my report and, by Rule 13(3), must not include any explicit or significant criticism of a person in the report unless I have sent such a letter and provided the recipient with a reasonable opportunity to respond. In the circumstances, I intend to send letters under Rule 13 setting out criticisms which may be made on the basis of what is considered to be reasonably arguable on the facts and evidence canvassed over the course of the Inquiry to date, the purpose being to alert the recipients to the full range of matters in respect of which further representations may be made. What it is critical to appreciate, however, is that it should not be thought by any recipient that the specific criticisms which I consider to be reasonably arguable will necessarily appear in that form (or, Page 23 indeed, necessarily at all) in the final report. Warning letters are an inherent part of conducting the Inquiry fairly and constitute the process of ensuring that all those potentially subject to possible criticism have the opportunity to respond. It may be that it will be thought that submissions that have already been made deal with the possible criticisms and it will be sufficient either not to respond or simply to refer to those submissions. At the other end of the spectrum, representations can include the provision of further evidence and I am prepared to consider the possibility that I may have to reconvene oral hearings to allow an appropriate response: see Beer, Public Inquiries, paragraph 9.41. Having said that, however, bearing in mind the approach which I have made clear that I intend to adopt to the facts, it should only be in the clearest of cases that the submission of further evidence should be contemplated. I ought to add that although further evidence might be read into the Inquiry record, I anticipate that the likelihood of consequential oral hearings to be comparatively remote. The second point to be made about the Rule 13 letters is to underline that responses will only be of value if they address the possible criticism. As foreshadowed in my ruling, I will shortly be issuing Page 24 6 (Pages 21 to 24)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Merrill Corporation
(+44) 207 404 1400
Day 96 am I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Rule 13 letters of a generic nature relating to the culture, practises and ethics of the press referring either to the press as a whole or to a part of or
Leveson Inquiry
23 July 2012
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
section within the press. I appreciate that it will be tempting for companies to respond by reference only to their own practices; each, however, has read or heard the evidence that has been put before the Inquiry and I expect responses which address the wider issues about the conclusions that I may reach generically. A response that says no more than, Not me, will be of little, if any, value. Obviously, other letters may address possible individual criticisms: they will require an individual response. Finally, I wish to say something about the confidentiality of these letters. Rule 14 makes it clear that the contents of a warning letter are to be treated as subject to an obligation of confidence owed by each member of the Inquiry Team to the recipient and by both the recipient and the recipients recognised legal representative to me. The purpose is not to keep the workings of the Inquiry secret: indeed, in relation to the recipients of any letter, the duty of confidence lapses when the Inquiry report is published. Rather, it is to recognise that which is set out in paragraph 10 above, namely that the criticisms outlined in the letter Page 25 do not represent my concluded view. Thus to publish them as my view or as emerging thoughts (as some of the challenges which have I asked about during the hearings have been reported) would be to misunderstand the purpose of the exercise and misrepresent the position of the lnquuy. I hope that the duty of confidence will be observed by all. Twill, however, wait to see. Further developments. In the ten months during which the Inquiry has received briefings, held seminars and been taking evidence, much has happened which is relevant to conclusions that may be reached as to the culture, practices and ethics of the press, and as to many aspects of the terms of reference. Events have transpired which have been reported and reports have given rise to complaint: a good example can be found in the evidence of Giles Crown dealing with the tragic death of an li-year-old boy. In the same way that I wish to be kept informed about the progress of the police investigations encompassed by Operations Weeting, Elveden and Tuleta, so if there are further incidents that cause concern about the press that I can consider before issuing my report, I shall do so. Concerns have come to the attention of the Inquiry Page 26
in different ways. The Inquiry has clearly attracted considerable public interest which itself has generated additional lines of inquiry beyond those initially identified. In addition, the Inquiry has been subject to a great deal of commentary. I have previously directed that the press cuttings in relation to the Inquiry will form part of its record. Without necessarily dealing with any explicitly, I will consider reports that in my view either support or undermine concerns that have been expressed in evidence; I will equally consider the validity of the comments that are critical of the direction or approach of the Inquiry. I add only that the collection of cuttings will continue until the Inquiry reports. Right. We were to start with Mr Sherbome, but I understand that hes suffered a family bereavement and in those circumstances well take a slightly different order. Do the core participants, Mr Jay, understand the order in which they are to speak and does it cause them any embarrassment? MR JAY: I havent checked with all of them. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Ill rise for a few minutes for you to do that. (10.45 am) (A short break) Page 27 (10.35 am) LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Mr Jay, I gather that arrangements have been made for those core participants who were due to speak this afternoon for representatives from their clients to attend. I dont Want to disrupt those arrangements, so Ill hear Mr Gamham, who was due to speak this morning, and then well have an early break and resume this afternoon. MR JAY: Yes. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Right. Yes, Mr Garnham. Closing submissions by MR GARNIIAM MR. GARNHAM: Sir, at the beginning of this Inquiry, the MPS emphasised that it came here to assist not obstruct, to self-criticise and not to justify, and to try and improve rather than to hide. The MPS has done everything it can to be open and transparent, willing to acknowledge mistakes and learn from the errors which the Inquiry exposes. In our written closing submissions for Module 2 of II May 2012 and our closing submissions for Module 3 of 17 July, the MPS attempted to summarise the evidence heard by you and the Inquiry insofar as it was relevant to the MPS or the relationships between the MPS and the press. We frankly admit that there have been incidents Page 28 7 (Pages 25 to 28)
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
www.merrillcorpfmls.com
Day 96 am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Leveson Inquiry
23 July2012
which have led to a plain perception of cosiness between particular senior IvIPS officers and particular journalists. The MPS also acknowledge that the decisions in July 2009 and September 2010 not to reopen the phone hacking investigation were taken too quickly and with a defensive and closed mindset. However, the MPS also submits that its clear from the evidence youve heard that the vast majority of contact between the police and the media has been and continues to be sensible, constructive and proper. There has been nothing to suggest corruption on anything other than the rarest of occasions, and those rare occasions have been the subject of proper investigation and proper sanction. The evidence received by the Inquiry unequivocally demonstrates, we submit, that there was no relationship between senior officers and journalists that was in fact corrupt. There was no cosiness or inappropriately close relationships that in fact tainted police decision-making. More specifically, we say, the evidence has demonstrated that the phone hacking investigation was not at any stage limited because of pressure from or fear of the media, whether News International or the press more broadly. Similarly, we submit, the evidence has demonstrated Page 29 that the decisions in 2009 and 2010 not to reopen the investigation were not in fact influenced by relationships between senior officers and News International. The MPS has addressed these points in detail in its written submissions and I will not repeat those submissions here. However, we are grateful for the opportunity briefly to address orally some assertions and criticisms made by other core participants in their written submissions. In particular, sir, I want to deal today with two issues, which we say are critical to any proper analysis of the evidence. First, the danger of conflating the perception of wrongdoing with its reality, and secondly, inaccuracy concerning the current work of the MPS to implement changes to its media relations, policy and practice. The written submissions of the core participant victims in relation to Module 2 of 28 May cover much of the same ground as our submissions. Like us, the CPVs make a distinction between the perception that there were corrupt or inappropriate relationships between the police and the press and the reality of such relationships. However, in our submission the CPVs have at numerous points conflated or confused the two. That, we submit, is both unhelpful and potentially dangerous. Page 30
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
At paragraph 2 of their submissions, the CPVs say that: Perception is as important as reality. With respect, that cannot be correct. A perception that senior officers are too close to journalists is indeed a source for concern. The MPS well recognises the damage that such a perception has caused and acknowledges the importance of ensuring that it doesnt arise in the future. However, had the Inquisy uncovered evidence of actual corruption of senior police officers or of inappropriate relationships with journalists actually causing different operational decisions to be made, it would, we submit, rightly be even more concerned about this than about the perception that some relationships were unduly close. Saying that, sir, is not to downplay the importance of perception. It simply recognises the obvious truth that actual corruption or relationships which actually affect police decision-making would be worse. To say that the perception of corruption and real corruption are equally important is simply not valid. The CPVs say perception is so important because perception that the police are corrupt can lead to a loss of public confidence in the police and a perception that the press can act with impunity, which Page 31 can lead to a worsening behaviour by the press. We agree. The same point has been made by many witnesses to this Inquiry. However, asserting that there is widespread corruption in the police and that inappropriate relationships between police and press have compromised police independence when the evidence doesnt demonstrate that is unjust and simply serves to worsen the perception. In short, it creates the very problem that the CPVs are so keen to avoid. That, we submit with respect, is precisely what the CPVs have done on a number of occasions in their submissions. Having recognised the distinction between perception and reality, and, we say, wrongly asserted that perception is just as important, the CPVs then assert that a number of senior police officers did in fact become too close to reporters and failed as a consequence of that closeness fully to investigate or disclose evidence of media wrongdoing. In particular, they assert that in 2006, 2009 and 2010 close relationships with News International journalists and editors actually affected police decisions. In doing so, the CPVs are eliding the perception of police independence being compromised with the reality Page 32 8 (Pages 29 to 32)
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Day 96 am
Leveson Inquiry
23 July 2012
of such compromise. Thats clear from phrases such as 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 independence or at least the appearance of independence was compromised, paragraph 32 of the CPVs submission. They have conflated the two and asserted that because there may have been occasions when it appeared that certain senior police officers independence was affected, it was in fact affected. That plainly doesnt follow. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: No, the question is whether its an inference that can be drawn. MR GARNHAM: Absolutely. Sir, you anticipate precisely the next clause of the sentence, which is: and there is nothing to support so serious an inference. The CPVs are not the only core participants to have conflated perception with reality. Guardian News and Media Limited have done the same in their Module 2 submissions. They assert at paragraph 10(1) that there was cosiness between senior MPS officers and News International executives. At paragraph 12 they state that there is real force in the view that an excessive close relationship developed between NI executives and senior police officers such as to materially influence the MPS response to the phone hacking investigation. But the evidence they point to, primarily the Filkin Page 33 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 report, is about a perception of inappropriate relationships, not actual compromise of independence, and that flawed analysis, we submit, needs to be exposed. Im going to concentrate for the main part in these short oral submissions on the core participant victims submissions, as theyre the most extensive, but the points could equally be made towards the Guardians submissions. There are several points in the CPVs submissions where the evidence referred to may justifiably be said to demonstrate a perception or appearance of unduly close relationships, but cannot be said to show that there was compromise of police independence in reality, yet the CPVs do assert such actual compromise. I deal with it by just three examples. At paragraph 48, the CPVs refer to a dinner hosted by the News of the World, which Andy Hayman and Dick Fedorcio attended on 25 April 2006. They note that this was at a crucial time in Operation Caryatid and assert that the possibility of inappropriate conversation cannot be excluded. But in fact the timings suggest that such hospitality could have had no effect whatsoever on operational decisions. On 18 April, a few days before Page 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2
3
this dinner, DCS Phil Williams had sought and been given additional resources for Operation Caryatid. On 26 April, the day after the dinner, the decision was made to proceed with the investigation. Those actions are suggestive, we submit, of a robust, independent police force, not one whose independence was compromised. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But could it ever have been sensible for the police
--
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
for particularly a very, very senior
ranking officer-- to have dinner with an organisation that one of his officers was then investigating? MR GARNHAM: That, with respect, is a separate question. It may well be, sir
--
Im going to make no concession

--
--
you will decide that it was not. But that is not fact.
and
this is the critical point--evidence of corruption in LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: No, I understand the point that youre making, but the trouble is that this is where perception does become extremely important. If, as was the event, that investigation was limited, no doubt for different reasons, it doesnt require a very suspicious mind to join the dots together. MR GARNHAM: I absolutely agree and concede that, sir. Of course thats right. And the which of such a dinner happening at such a time is plainly something which can Page 35 be the subject of comment. But its a huge jump to say that you can proceed from that to a conclusion that in fact at that dinner they got around the table and said, Tell you what, well just go through the motions. And that is, in our submission, at the root of the error of the analysis thats been put forward by some. The CPVs severely criticise DSC Williams for failing to widen the scope of Caryatid in 2006. They conclude at paragraph 82 that there remains in relation to DCS Williams a strong inference that he was fearful of the influence of the powerful media friends of his superiors. There is simply not the evidence to support such an inference. I will deal with these criticisms at little length because theyre more extensive and havent been specifically covered in our written submissions. In our submission, the Inquiry has heard compelling evidence from all the officers involved in the investigation about the overwhelming pressure on the MPS from the terrorist threat in 2006 and the absolute priority that had to be given to counter-terrorist operations. As Peter Clarke said in a memorable phrase: Invasions of privacy are odious. They can be extraordinarily distressing and at times they can be illegal, but to put it bluntly: they dont kill you. The CPVs, in their analysis, skip lightly over this Page 36 9 (Pages 33 to 36)
Day 96 am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Leveson Inquiry 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
23 July 2012
crucially important factor in a single sentence at paragraph 75. They say: Be that as it may, it doesnt explain the reluctance of DC Williams to reveal the full extent and nature of the evidence to the CPS or pursue the agreed strategy of informing victims. We submit that that is wildly to underappreciate the nature and significance of the evidence about terrorist threats. Theres no need to drive that point home, I suspect, sir. We deal with it in our written submissions and Im not going to labour it. The Inquiry has heard no evidence that DCS Williams himself had any relationship with the media which could conceivably be perceived as overly close, let alone actually corrupt. Moreover, as the CPVs acknowledge, there is no evidence that he made any conscious decision to suppress evidence. Nonetheless, the CPVs feel able to assert, paragraph 76, that he would no doubt have been aware that his superiors in the MPS hierarchy enjoyed extremely close relationships with those he was investigating and therefore that it was: Inevitable that the relationships between very senior MPS officers and the media exerted some influence on his decision-making. Page 37 With respect, thats nonsense. First, theres no evidence to suggest that DCS Williams had any knowledge at all about the relationships between other officers and particular journalists at particular newspapers, and that point was never put to him. Second, that assertion assumes what it seeks to prove, that DCS Williams was making not just incorrect decisions, but decisions motivated by improper considerations. And third, it ignores the fact that DCS Williamss superior was Peter Clarke, an officer whom, as the Inquiry has repeatedly heard, is held in the highest regard by everyone whos ever worked with him. Even the CPVs accept that Mr Clarke did not accept much hospitality at all, and what he did accept was even-handed as to his relationship with the media. The CPVs make their inference about DCS Williams on the basis that he knew there was evidence ofjournalists other than Clive Goodman being involved but misled the CPS prosecuting counsel and AC Clarke by saying there was no such evidence. Weve addressed that in our submissions and Ijust make three short points. First, CPS and counsel were plainly aware that the evidence implicated journalists other than Goodman Page 38
because of counts 15 to 20. The CPS knew about the corner names. They had a copy of the Blue Book. Second, DCS Williams was working on the understanding that the evidential requirement to prove unlawful interception of voicemail was that it had to take place before it was accessed by the intended recipient. Now, sir, you may decide he was wrong about that. You may conclude that he was taking too narrow a view of the legal requirements to make out his case. But there is nothing to support a case that DCS Williams was there actively or intentionally misleading anyone. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Its not just a question of my construction of the statute, is it? Because at the time charges were pursued on the basis of the wider view, and in any event, he, like any experienced detective, would well have understood the reach of the law of conspiracy. MR GARNHAM: Absolutely, absolutely. But he was guided in the decisions he made and it may be he got it wrong. But he was guided by the advice hed received. And it is an enormous jump, and one which we would suggest the Inquiry would not be justified in taking, between saying he got it wrong on these points and saying, as the core participant victims do, that he was misleading in some active sense anybody, whether counsel or CPS or his Page 39
--
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
superiors. We say the evidence simply doesnt support such a conclusion. It is also, in our submission, significant that it became clear from DCS Williamss evidence that he was applying a restrictive view of what constituted evidence. He appears to have believed that he had to obtain concrete, forensically irresistible proof His whole approach, it emerged, was that it wouldnt be sufficient to rely on inference, however powerful a lawyer might think the inference to be drawn was. He might be wrong about that, but the idea that he was actively misleading anyone is, in our submission, farfetched. The CPVs also base their inference about DCS Williams on the assumption that the MPS was in possession of all the evidence in 2006 necessary to realise that phone hacking was as extensive as its turned out to be seen to be. But that, in our submission, is to fall into the obvious trap of viewing this through the wrong end of the telescope. It wholly fails to take into account the hugely time-consuming and resource-intensive nature of the work that would have been needed to be carried out in order properly to investigate these affairs. It is, in our submission, sufficient to look at the Page 40
10 (Pages 37 to 40) Merrill Corporation (+44) 207 404 1400 www.merrillcorp/mls.com 8th Floor 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Day 96 am
Leveson Inquiry
23 July2012
extent and nature of Operation Weeting to see the 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 quantity of work involved. DAC Akers reminded the Inquisy this morning about the volume of material involved in some of these operations. The CPVs point to a failure to seek a production order against News Intemational as a further reason to draw inferences against DCS Williams. Weve made separate submissions on this issue in relation to Module 4. You have written evidence from the Deputy Commissioner on that topic, and we would respectfully refer you to that in this context. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. What hes saying is that actually it becomes almost impossible because merely to assert, Well co-operate, makes it extremely difficult to satisfy the engagement criteria for a production order. MR GARNHAM: Yes. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Because you cant prove that they havent co-operated. So the co-operation might be a fig-leaf for doing not very much, and theres nothing very much the police can do about it. MR GARNHAM: Its seen as a self-justifying, self-fulfilling assertion when police are met with that sort of response.
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
strategy for informing potential victims as evidence from which inferences can be drawn against DCS Williams that his independence was compromised. Again, we say the scattergun nature of the CPVs analysis is evident. The MPS has acknowledged that the victim strategy was not properly implemented. Its done so both in its submission to this Inquiry and in the judicial review proceedings, but the reasons for that were various: lack of resources, competing demands, failure to follow-up a process that was believed to be working properly. But theres no evidence that youve heard at any stage to suggest that it was fear of News International, whether on the part of DCS Williams or anyone else in the investigation team, which caused the failure of the victim strategy. We say that for the CPVs to assert to that effect is another example of conflating perception and reality. CPVs summarise their allegations at paragraph 108. They say that the failures in the investigation are so significant that an inference can be drawn that police officers deliberately sought to downplay the evidence out of fear of News International. Hindsight is a dangerous device in an Inquiry of this sort. Nowhere, we say, is it capable of greater mischief than here. No one concerned with this Inquiry Page 43 can wholly exclude from their minds knowledge of the significance of the material which subsequent events have demonstrated. The potential significance of first names scribbled across the corner of a piece of paper is now patent, but its a long way from providing a ground for criticising those who at the time regarded this not as evidence of complicity in wrongdoing by journalists but as no more than a potential lead, which with a great deal of further work might lead to evidence, which might justify the arrest of an as yet unidentified individual. Still less, we say, is it grounds for inferring that operational decisions were made because of fear of News International. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But the police certainly had got to grips with the Mulcaire documentation, hadnt they? MR GARNHAM: Yes. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Because they sought to interviewI think it was Mr Mulcaire about these very topics, and also identified other names and the material which included PIN numbers and the like, which suggested, at any rate, that this was very much more extensive than that which eventually emerged as the prosecution case. MR GARNHAM: They had begun to get to grips with it, I readily concede, and they had started to detect what that evidence might suggest, yes. But its a long way Page 44 11 (Pages 41 to 44)
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But on the other hand, of course, one 25 Page 41 has to be very careful to respect journalistic sources,
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
for all the reasons that weve discussed during the course of the Inquiry. MR GARNHAM: Absolutely. And thats the nature of the problem that we have sought to address in Deputy Commissioner Mackeys submission. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. MR GARNHAM: But it suffices for present purposes to observe that the Operation Caiyatid team found News Internationals lack of co-operation back in 2006 frustrating in the extreme. Youll remember in answer to a question from you this morning, sir, DAC Akers drew a sharp distinction between that level of co-operation and what she has received in more recent months. The criticism faced by the police when journalists are investigated or searched is apparent from Module 2, written submissions from the NUJ, which Ill come back to in a moment. But we say the CPVs attack is undiscriminating when it fails to recognise that whatever criticisms might be made of the law relating to production orders in cases involving newspapers, DCS Williams and the rest of the Operation Caryatid team was having to work with the law as it was then, not as it might be at some future day. Finally, sir, the CPVs point to the failure of the Page 42
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Day 96 am
Leveson Inquiry
23 July2012 that the evidence surrounding 2009 and 2010 could give rise to a perception or suspicion of cosiness influencing decision-making, but its simply not valid, 1 would submit, to assert that the MPS were involved in a cover-up, intentionally or otherwise. Indeed, Im not entirely clear how one can unintentionally cover up anything, since the verb cover-up in this context necessarily involves some deliberate action.
from that to putting together a case that was sufficient 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to be taken to court. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I understand that, but thats not the charge specifically. The charge might just as easily be, as I read the submission, that you never went that could be further. And another example that might be given of and I ask you to deal with it the failure to deal with the much enunciated rogue
---
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
10
11
journalist theory, where certainly the police had the very gravest concerns, it seems to me, that this wasnt one rogue journalist, and yet I mean, normally, if
--
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I think I agree with that. MR GARNHAM: Its right to acknowledge that the decisions were probably taken too quickly and with a defensive mindset that may not have asked the right questions. That was conceded by Sir Paul Stephenson and by others subsequent to him, and we respectfully urge you to adopt that. But there is absolutely nothing by way of hard evidence which calls into question the integrity of John Yates when he made those decisions. Theres nothing to show that he was in fact swayed in his decision-making by his friendship with Neil Wallis or his relationships with News International more generally. Theres nothing to show that he deliberately misled the Select Committee, the DPP or the victims, and again we say that to confuse legitimate criticisms that can be made about perception with reality is wholly unwarranted.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
the police fear that there may be other criminal conduct which they cant prove, I think the phrase is they wsm people as to their conduct. MR GARNHAM: Yes.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Rather than caution them, because 16 they can only caution somebody who admits it. Because 17 it was nothing like that. 18 MR GARNHAM: Two points in the observations youve made, sir. As to the second, about the good sense of giving such a warinng, that was addressed by senior officers, more recently-appointed senior officers, in answers to questions from you, and they agreed. Mr Peter Clarke agreed that although it would be difficult sometimes for him to go into the office of Page 45 a managing director of a large organisation and read the riot act in the way youve suggested, there were occasions when that would be sensible, and I dont attempt to dissent from that. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I cant immediately see that an officer as senior as Mr Clarke would have very much difficulty in making his views very clear to whomsoever he wished to make his views clear, however unhappy the response he might receive. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Page 47
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Mr Yates certainly didnt do himself any favours, did he? MR GARNHAM: And fortunately thats not the case Im having
to make Out, SIT.
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: No. MR GARNFIAM: We would urge you not to make the same mistake as the CPVs and others. Some of the evidence heard over the course of the last nine months could give rise to criticisms based on perception, but the evidence goes nowhere near to establishing that corruption or actual compromise of police independence occurred. And to slide from perception to fact is an easy move to make, but would not be remotely justifiable on the evidence youve heard. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: What about this, Mr Garnham may be that it doesnt take any matters any further, and Im not saying that Ive reached this conclusion, I say immediately. But in connection with the decision in 2009, could it be said certainly approached too defensively, but also approached on the basis that very senior officers knew and understood the leaders of this organisation, and because of their personal knowledge of them were therefore less prepared to think ill of what they had been doing? Page 48 12 (Pages 45 to 48)
6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25
MR GARNHAM: I dont attempt to dissuade you from that view, 10 sir. That was put perfectly fairly to Mr Clarke and he 11 dealt with it. But what I do attempt to respond to is the suggestion that there is in that some evidence which founds an inference that DCS Williams was either cowardly in his approach to police officers [sic] or was positively corrupt. Those are huge jumps, which I say are simply not justified on the evidence. The final example of CPVs conflating perception and reality relates to the decisions in 2009 and 2010 not to reopen the phone hacking investigation. Paragraph 109 of the CPVs submissions read: Intentionally or not, the MPS supported and participated in a cover-up of the facts, which has led to suspicions of corruption. Sir, in our submission it may be valid to consider Page 46
12
13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
and it
Day 96 am
Leveson Inquiry
23 July 2012
2 3
MR GARNI-IAM: Sir, thats somewhere between the two stances LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thats why I asked you about it.
--
4
5
6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25
MR GARNHAM: Ive identified. I understand that, sir. I would submit that even that would be going too far. You dont have the evidence even for that. But that is some way short of actual corruption or actual compromise of independence; and I say you cant go even that far on what youve heard, but plainly it is a gradation. Its instructive, we say, to observe that the very same factual context can be perceived from very different standpoints, depending on the observer. Thats apparent from the NUJs submissions on Module 2, which criticise the MPS for being interfering and threatening in its media relationship. And it does so over precisely the same period of time during which its accused of being over-cosy by the CPVs. We submit were trapped somewhat between a rock and a hard place in trying to get this right. On the one hand, we can be criticised by the NUJ for being draconian. On the other, we can be criticised for being overfriendly. That serves, we submit, to illustrate the difficult position the police are in when it comes to dealing with Page 49
--
3 4
5
6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15
16 17
18
some legitimate grounds for criticism of MPS conduct, primarily regarding the public perception created by the actions of some of its officers. We submit that the MPS has demonstrated through the evidence of its current senior officers an intent to address and correct the errors that this Inquiry has exposed. We remain ready to listen to and learn from your conclusions, and we do so whether or not they happen to coincide with our own analysis. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Mr Gamham, Im very grateful for that, but could you help me with the present position of the ACPO responses, both to Sir Denis OConnors report and I think that also encompasses what Elizabeth Filkin had to say? MR GARNFIAM: The honest answer to your question is: No, I dont think I can. I dont act for ACPO, but I have lines of communication to ACPO and I would have to take
instructions and respond to that
--
19 20
21 22 23 24
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I wasnt necessarily asking from ar ACPO perspective. Presumably your clients know where theyve got to in relation to the ACPO line.
25
MR GARNHAM: Yes. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I think it would be useful if you could just at some stage submit a very short note on it so that I know. Page 51 MR GARNHAM: I will do so, sir. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank you very much indeed. Thank you. Right. Its not happened many times during the course of the last ten months, but in the light of the
fact that we cant proceed further, well adjourn now until 2 oclock.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
an investigation of the press, and in that circumstance it is, we would submit, remarkable that the Inquiry has heard such a substantial body of evidence thats been positive about the work of the MPS, about the relationship between the MPS and the press and about the work of the MPS and the press together. The second of my two issues, sir, youll be glad to know, is much more straightforward and can be dealt with much more shortly. The Guardian has at paragraph 6 of their submissions suggested that the MPS has adopted the recommendations of the Filkin report, and they then go on to criticise some of those. Its simply not correct to say that the MPS has adopted the Filkin reports recommendations. As Commissioner Hogan-Howe explained, the MPS has accepted her findings and the broad thrust of her report, but needs to do more work on whether and how to implement the recommendations. The work is being done now and thats set out in our Module 2 submissions. Theres an update on progress at annex I of our Module 3 submissions. We submit that the overall picture thats emerged in the course of your Inquiry is that relations between the press and the police, whilst not perfect, have been essentially sound. We recognise that there has been Page 50
2 3 4 5
6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13
Thank you. (11.32 am)

(The luncheon adjournment)
14 15
16
17
18
19 20
21 22 23 24 25
Page 52 13 (Pages 49 to 52)
Day 96 am
Leveson Inquiry
23 July 2012
Page 53
A able 15:25 19:3 19:25 37:18 absence 19:14 absolute 36:19 absolutely 12:16 16:8,13 33:11 35:23 39:18,18 42:4 47:15 AC 38:21 accept 38:15,15 38:16 accepted 50:16 access 11:19 accessed 39:6 account 7:4,4 8:3 22:19 40:21 accused 49:18 acknowledge 28:17 29:3 37:1647:10 acknowledged 43:5 acknowledges 31:8 ACPO 51:12,16 51:17,20,21 acquired 19:13 act 1:22 6:4,5,6 12:22 18:14,14 20:24 21:2 22:17 31:25 46:2 51:16 acted 5:20 7:3 21:9 acting 3:15 action 10:11 47:8 actions 35:5 51:3 active 39:25 actively 39:12 40:12 actual 31:10,18 34:2,15 48:11 49:8,8 add 5:11 24:18 27:13 addition 19:18 27:4 additional 27:3 35:2 address 19:9 24:24 25:8,12 30:8 42:5 51:6 addressed 17:16 30:5 38:22 45:21 adjourn 52:6 adjournment 52:10 admit 28:25 admits 45:17 adopt24:16 47:15 adopted 50:11 50:14 adopts2l:ll
advance 21:6 adverse 10:10 20:20 adverseLy 10:24 advice 2:94:17 13:2 39:20 advise 5:25 advised 2:8 affairs 40:24 affect 10:24 17:12 31:19 afternoon 28:4,8 ago 8:22 agree 12:12 32:2 35:23 47:9 agreed 37:5 45:23,24 Akers 1:5,7 15:19 18:4 20:11 41:2 42:12 akin 9:13 albeit 22:7 alert 23:20 allegation 6:14 allegations 11:17 11:18 12:2 21:22 22:1 43:18 alleged 5:5 6:11 8:15 allow 24:13 amount 8:5 11:3 12:4,6,13 amounts 12:10 analysis 12:15 30:12 34:3 36:6,25 43:4 51:9 Andy 34:18 and/or 12:22 annex 50:20 answer 21:25 42:11 51:15 answering 12:6 answers 45:22 anticipate 20:7,8 24:20 33:11 anybody 39:25 apart 6:3 2 1:15 apparent 14:22 42:16 49:14 appear 13:11 23:25 appearance 33:2 34:12 appeared 33:5 appears 3:11 13:12 40:6 applying 40:5 appreciate 23:22 25:4 approach 15:24 16:2 22:24 23:3 24:15 27:1240:8
46:15 approached 48:20,21 approaches 21:1 21:12 appropriate 22:1 24:13 April 7:7 13:5 34:19,25 35:3 arguable 23:18 23:25 argue 20:19 arising 20:13 arrangements 28:2,6 arrest 10:6,9 12:24 44:10 arrested 4:6,9 arrests 5:17 8:23 9:18 10:5,25 12:21 asked 9:5,9,23 10:14 26:3 47:12 49:3 asking 51:19 aspect 8:11 aspects 23:7 26:15 assert 32:16,21 33:17 34:15,20 37:1941:14 43:1647:4 asserted 32:15 33:4 asserting 32:4 assertion 38:7 41:23 assertions 30:8 assessment 8:13 8:18 11:17,21 assessments 8:9 assist 3:24 14:23 15:24 28:13 Assistant 1:10,14 9:19 15:18 18:3 Associated 19:19 20:15 21:10 assumes 38:7 assumption 40:15 attack42:18 attempt 46:4,10 46:12 attempted 28:21 attempting 9:22 attend 2:21 28:5 attended 34:19 attention 26:25 attitude 20:15 attracted 27:1 August4:13 22:7 autumn 16:15 avoid 32:10 aware 37:20 38:24
B back42:10,17 background 4:4 bail 4:6,11 5:6 12:24 bailed 4:13,14 balance 20:22 bank 7:4,4 banking 11:19 base40:14 based 18:5 48:9 basis 3:6 9:24 10:22 17:3 23:17 38:19 39:15 48:21 bear 1:11 bearing 24:15 Beer 24:13 began 2:24 beginning 1:12 2:23 28:12 begun 44:23 behaviour 32:1 believed 40:6 43:10 benefit 16:8,18 bereavement 27:16 beyond 27:3 Blue 39:2 bluntly 36:24 body 50:3 Book 39:2 boy 26:19 breach 21:3,9 breaches 20:23 break 27:25 28:7 breaking 13:14 Bribe 6:4,5 briefings 26:11 briefly 30:8 broad 50:16 broadly 29:24 Broken 5:17 Burton 2:25 C calls 47:16 canvassed 23:18 capable 43:24 careful 4:21 12:17 14:11 42:1 carefully 7:21 carried 40:23 carry 22:12 Caryatid 34:20 35:2 36:8 42:9 42:22 case 6:23 7:2,24 8:5 21:6,8 39:10,11 44:22 45:1 48:3 cases 6:10,17 12:25 22:2 24:1742:21
cause 16:19 26:23 27:19 caused 3:4,11 5:2 31:7 43:14 causing 31:12 caution 45:16,17 certain 23:7 33:6 certainly 44:14 45:9 48:1,20 challenge 14:20 21:20 23:2 challenged 21:8 challenges 4:2 11:1,2 26:3 change 2:22 4:25 10:13,23 16:1 changes 30:16 charge 20:11 45:4,4 charges 4:18 39:15 charging 13:2 checked 27:2 1 circumstance 50:1 circumstances 18:12 23:15 27:17 Clarke 36:21 38:12,15,21 45:24 46:6,11 clause 33:12 clean 15:25 clear 1:19 5:5 15:17 18:3,13 21:11 24:15 25:16 29:7 33:1 40:446:7 46:8 47:6 clearest 24:17 clearly 27:1 clients 18:23 19:10 28:5 51:20 CLive 38:20 close 29:18 31:5 31:15 32:18,21 33:21 34:13 37:15,21 closed 29:6 closely 2:7 closeness 32:19 closing 21:18 28:11,19,20 code 13:15,15 coincide 51:9 collated 11:22 18:24 collection 27:13 come 13:11 15:25 16:6 22:7 26:25 42:17 comes 49:25 commencing 17:20
comment 36:1 commentary 27:5 comments 10:22 27:11 Commissioner 1:10,14 9:19 15:18 18:4 41:10 42:6 50:15 commissioning 22:15 committed 3:23 8:19 Committee 2:16 3:23 47:22 communication 51:17 communications 4:10 companies 9:4 25:5 company 2:14 comparatively 24:21 compelling 36:16 competing 43:9 complaint 26:17 completed 15:5 completion 12:24 complicity 44:7 compromise 33:1 34:2,14 34:15 48:11 49:8 compromised 32:6,25 33:3 35:7 43:3 computer 11:19 12:22 concede 35:23 44:24 conceded 21:1 47:13 conceivably 37:15 concentrate 34:5 concern 26:23 31:6 concerned 16:9 16:10 19:5 20:18 22:11 31:14 43:25 concerning 20:14 30:15 concerns 26:25 27:10 45:10 concession 35:13 conclude 15:22 20:22 36:8 39:9 concluded 26:1 conclusion 36:2 40:248:18
conclusions 20:20 25:9 26:13 51:8 concrete 40:7 conduct 8:15 45:12,14 51:1 conducted 5:17 9:25 11:5 conducting 11:16 24:2 conduit 7:3 conduits 5:20 confidence 25:17 25:22 26:7 31:24 confidentiality 25:15 conflated 30:24 33:4,15 conflating 30:13 43:1746:18 confuse 47:23 confused 30:24 connection 22:15 48:19 conscious 10:18 22:11 37:17 consequence 32:19 consequences 21:19 consequential 24:21 consider 19:17 22:21 23:10,24 24:11 26:23 27:8,11 46:25 considerable 10:10 27:2 considerations 38:10 considered 23:17 conspiracy 4:9 39:17 constitute 24:3 constituted 40:5 construction 39:14 constructive 29:10 contact 2:24 15:14 29:9 contemplated 24:18 contents 13:15 25:16 context 41:11 47:7 49:12 continue 2:1 27:13 continued 3:21 continues 11:2 29:10 continuing 3:25 5:23,25 12:21 continuous
Merrill Corporation
(+44) 207 404 1400

London EC4A 2DY
Day 96 am
Leveson Inquiry
23 July 2012
Page 54
18:25 contradict 12:2 contradicting 21:6 control 9:7 conversation 34:21 Copeland 2:25 copy 39:2 core 17:1 18:16 19:3,25 20:18 21:5,24 27:18 28:3 30:9,17 33:1434:6 39:23 corner 39:2 44:4 corporate 2:10 15:24 correct 2:4,19 11:1 31:4 50:13 51:6 corrupt 5:20 29:18 30:21 31:23 37:16 46:16 corruption 6:3,6 29:11 31:10,18 3 1:20,20 32:5 35:15 46:24 48:11 49:8 cosiness 29:1,18 33:18 47:2 counsel 38:21,24 39:25 counter-terror... 36:20 country 13:21 counts 39:1 couple 10:5 course 2:1 4:19 6:1,5 10:19 13:1 16:9 19:1722:18,20 23:19 35:24 41:25 42:3 48:8 50:23 52:5 court 45:2 cover 30:18 47:6 covered 5:8 36:15 cover-up 46:23 47:5,7 cowardly 46:15 co-operate4l:14 co-operated 9:14 41:19 co-operation 2:13 3:2,7,25 7:13 9:4,23,25 10:14,23,23 11:2 14:15,17 41:19 42:10,13 CPS 2:7 4:17 5:21,23,25 8:13 13:1 37:5
38:21,24 39:1 39:25 CPVs 30:19,23 31:1,22 32:10 32:12,16,24 33:3,14 34:10 34:15,17 36:7 36:25 37:16,18 38:15,18 40:14 41:5 42:18,25 43:4,16,18 46:18,21 48:7 49:18 created 51:2 creates 12:14 32:9 criminal 6:2 8:15 18:645:12 criminality 10:4 criteria 12:18 41:15 critical 23:22 27:12 30:11 35:15 criticise 36:7 49:15 50:12 criticised 49:21 49:22 criticising 44:6 criticism 23:11 23:12 24:5,24 42:15 51:1 criticisms 23:16 23:24 24:7 25:12,25 30:9 36:13 42:20 47:23 48:9 Crown 26:18 crucial 34:20 crucially 37:1 culture 16:1,12 18:11 25:2 26:13 current 4:8 5:18 5:19 30:15 51:5 currently 4:17 5:21 cuttings 27:6,13 D DAC 1:5,7 20:11 41:2 42:12 Dacre 19:19 20:5 Daily7:17,18 8:7 damage 31:7 danger 30:13 dangerous 30:25 43:23 data 11:17,25 12:4,19 20:23 date 2:12 3:21 5:7,17 8:10 12:21 18:15 20:4 23:19 dated 1:16 13:13
day 19:1 35:3 42:24 days 10:6,9 22:25 34:25 DC 37:4 DCS 35:1 36:9 37:13 38:2,8 38:11,18 39:3 39:11 40:4,14 41:7 42:21 43:2,13 46:14 deadline 19:24 deal 6:21 14:19 17:22 18:18 19:25 24:7 27:5 30:10 34:16 36:13 37:11 44:9 45:7,8 dealing 22:19,23 23:1 26:18 27:8 49:25 dealings 2:15 deals 14:18 dealt 7:21 46:12 50:8 death 26:19 decide 35:14 39:8 decided 3:5 decision 35:3 37:17 48:19 decisions 10:24 22:14 29:4 30:1 31:12 32:23 34:25 38:9,9 39:19 44:12 46:19 47:10,17 decision-making 29:20 31:19 37:25 47:3,19 defensive29:6 47:11 defensively 48:21 degree 10:15 delay 19:2 delayed 17:2 deliberate 47:8 deliberately 43:2 1 47:21 demands 43:9 demonstrate 32:8 34:12 demonstrated 29:21,2544:3 51:4 demonstrates 29:16 Denis 51:12 depending 49:13 deputy 1:10,14 9:19 15:18 18:3 41:9 42:5 derive 16:11
descending 18:7 describes 7:24 despite 11:1 destruction 19:13 detail 6:22 18:8 30:5 detect 44:24 detective 20:17 39:16 developed 33:21 development 3:3 3:10 developments 6:10,14 18:1 26:9 device 43:23 devices 11:23 12:1 Dick 34:18 difference 17:17 different 8:1 9:12 13:20 27:1,17 31:12 35:21 49:13 difficult4l:l4 45:25 49:24 difficulty 46:7 dinner 34:17 35:1,3,10,24 36:3 directed 27:6 direction 27:12 director 46:1 disagree 16:3 disclose 3:25 32:20 disclosed 11:9 disclosure 3:13 3:16,19,21 discovered 13:25 discrepancy 15:15 discrete 11:16 discussed 42:2 disrupt 28:5 disrupting 23:4 dissent 46:4 dissuade 46:10 distinction 30:20 32:14 42:13 distressing 3 6:23 documentation 3:25 10:4 11:22 12:4,13 12:17 13:12,24 20:1644:15 doing 32:24 41:20 48:25 dots 35:22 doubt 35:20 37:19 downgrades 14:23 downloaded 12:7 13:9,16
downplay 31:16 43:21 DPP 47:22 draconian 49:22 drafting 9:15 draw 15:25 41:7 drawn 33:10 40:10 43:2,20 drew 42:12 drive 37:10 DSC 36:7 due 4:11 13:1 28:3,6 duty 25:22 26:6 E early 14:12 28:7 easily45:4 easy 48:13 editor 22:17 editors 32:23 effect 21:13 34:24 43:16 either 12:2 19:4 19:16 24:8 25:3 27:9 46:14 elaboration 20:8 electronic 11:23 eliding 32:24 Elizabeth 51:13 Elveden 2:2 5:13 5:17 6:16 9:20 26:22 embarrassment 27:20 Embley 22:17 emerged 40:8 44:22 50:22 emerges 19:17 emerging26:2 emphasised 28:13 employed 22:12 employee 8:24 8:24 employment 19:11 enabled 7:14,16 8:6 encompassed 26:21 encompasses 51:13 engagement 41:15 enjoyed 37:21 enormous 39:2 1 enquiries 2:24 ensure 20:3 ensuring 24:4 31:8 entirely 14:19 47:6 enunciated 45:8 equally27:Il
31:21 34:8 error 12:12 36:5 errors 28:17 51:6 essentially 50:25 establish 14:4 established 6:15 6:19 19:1 20:24 establishing 48:11 ethical 22:14 ethics 16:12 18:11 25:2 26:14 event 19:15 35:20 39:16 events26:15 44:2 eventually 44:22 even-handed 38:17 Everest 12:10 evidence 1:9 6:13 11:6 12:1 15:1,3,19 18:18 19:14,21 19:25 20:7,16 21:2,17,22,25 22:3,8,11,18 23:18 24:11,18 24:19 25:7 26:12,18 27:10 28:21 29:8,15 29:21,25 30:12 3 1:10 32:7,20 33:25 34:11 35:15 36:12,17 37:5,8,13,17 37:18 38:2,19 38:22,2540:1 40:4,6,16 41:9 43:1,11,21 44:7,9,25 46:13,17 47:1 47:16 48:8,10 48:14 49:7 50:3 51:5 evidenced 10:4 evident 43:4 evidential 9:1,6 39:4 exactly 14:17 examined 13:14 example 22:9 26:17 43:17 45:6 46:18 examples 22:4 34:16 excess 8:5 excessive 33:21 exclude 44:1 excluded 18:10 34:22 executives 33:19 33:22
exercise 16:6 19:5,18 26:5 exerted 37:24 exist 13:20 existence 22:10 expect 25:8 experienced 39:16 expert 14:3 experts 13:16,18 explain 2:12,16 3:9 4:3 8:10 9:2,20,22 13:5 37:3 explained 50:15 explicit 23:12 explicitly 27:8 exposed34:4 51:7 exposes 28:18 Express 7:6,11 8:24 9:8,11 expressed 27:10 extended 5:7 extensive 34:7 36:14 40:17 44:21 extent 17:1118:9 37:4 41:1 extraordinarily 36:23 extreme 42:11 extremely 35:19 37:21 41:14 F faced 42:15 facie 21:2,4,8 facilitate 3:2 facilitated 7:3 8:2 fact 6:15 7:9 14:421:7 29:17,19 30:2 32:17 33:7 34:23 35:16 36:3 38:11 47:18 48:13 52:6 factor 37:1 facts 23:18 24:16 46:23 factual 49:12 failed 32:18 failing 36:7 fails 40:21 42:19 failure 41:5 42:25 43:9,14 45:8 failures 43:19 fair 19:24 fairly 2:23 24:3 46:11 fairness 22:2 fall 40:19 familiar 6:1
www.merri11corp/mls.com
Day 96 am
Leveson Inquiry
23 July 2012
Page 55
family 27:16 far 15:6 16:14 49:6,9 farfetched 40:13 fast-moving 16:17 21:19 favours 48:2 fear 29:23 43:12 43:2244:12 45:12 fearful 36:10 February 7:11 8:4 10:8 Fedorcio 34:18 feel 37:18 figure 15:12 figures 15:15 fig-leaf4l:20 files 4:16 5:21,23 13:1 Filkin 33:25 50:12,14 51:13 final 24:1 46:18 Finally 25:14 42:25 findings 50:16 first 1:4,25 11:13 17:5 18:21 21:1,7 23:9 30:13 38:2,24 44:3 five 5:20 flawed 34:3 flows 20:14 follow 33:8 following 1:21 3:3 8:23 10:9 10:13 follow-up 43:9 force 33:20 35:6 forensically 40:7 foreshadowed 24:25 form 12:8 19:2 19:20 23:25 27:7 formal 3:6 11:10 20:9 former 4:8 5:18 5:19 7:2,5 formerlylo:16 forthcoming 10:17 21:17 fortunately48:3 forward 5:13 11:12 14:25 36:6 found 13:9 26:17 42:9 founds 46:14 four 5:18 frankly 28:25 friends 36:11 friendship 47:19 frustrating 42:11
full 9:25 10:22 23:20 37:4 fully 32:19 further 1:15 7:9 7:16 8:6 9:17 9:18 11:6 12:25 13:24 14:2 17:25 19:220:12 22:13,25 23:21 24:11,17,19 26:9,22 41:6 44:9 45:6 48:17 52:6 future 16:13 17:22 31:9 42:24 G Garnham28:6 28:10,11,12 33:11 35:12,23 39:18 41:17,22 42:4,8 44:16 44:23 45:15,19 46:10 47:10 48:3,6,1649:1 49:451:10,15 51:22 52:1 gather 28:2 gathered 11:25 general 19:12 20:21 generality 17:15 generally 47:21 generated 27:2 generic 20:20 25:1 generically 25:9 genuine 8:21 Giles 26:18 give 16:17 47:1 48:9 given 1:9 21:21 26:17 35:1 36:20 45:6 giving4s:20 glad 50:7 go 6:9 36:4 45:25 49:9 50:12 goes48:l0 going 1:4 6:21 17:14,16,17 34:5 35:13 37:12 49:6 good 3:8 18:16 23:4 26:17 45:20 Goodman 38:20 38:25 goods 12:23 Grabiner 3:14 gradation 49:10 grateful 1:10 16:14 30:7 51:10
gravest45:10 great 15:17 27:5 448 greater 43:24 Greenberg 2:21 3:1 grips 44:15,23 ground 30:19 44:5 grounds 8:17,19 44:1151:1 Group 8:25 9:8,9 Guardian 33:15 50:10 Guardians 34:8 guided 39:18,20 H hacking 11:18,19 15:5,8 29:5,21 33:24 40:17 46:20 half 12:10 hand 41:25 49:21 handed 22:23 handling 12:23 14:22 happen 51:9 happened 9:3 13:5 15:22 22:5 26:12 52:4 happening 9:20 35:25 happy 16:21 hard47:16 49:20 Hayman 34:18 head 8:25 17:9 headings 17:23 hear 28:6 heard25:628:22 29:8 36:16 37:13 38:13 43:11 48:8,15 49:10 50:3 hearing 18:16 hearings 24:12 24:21 26:4 height 12:10 held26:1138:13 help 2:20 3:1 51:11 hide 28:15 hierarchy 37:20 high 6:24 8:1 higher 17:15 highest 38:13 highly 10:6 Hindsight 43:23 history 19:12 Hogan-Howe 50:15 home 37:10 homework 12:7 honestSl:15
hope 14:4 16:19 26:6 hopeful 14:1 hopeless 12:5 hospitality 34:24 38:16 hosted 34:17 huge 36:1 46:16 hugely4o:21 I iceberg 14:6 idea 17:16 40:11 identified 6:18 19:10 27:4 44:19 49:4 identify 7:14,16 8:7 13:17 15:6 20:4 identities 13:19 ignores 38:11 ill 48:24 illegal 36:24 illustrate 49:24 imagine 17:14 immediately 46:5 48:19 impact 16:12 17:24 implement 30:15 50:18 implemented 43:6 implicated 38:25 importance 31:8 31:16 important 13:17 16:5 18:4 23:7 3 1:3,21,22 32:16 35:19 37:1 impossible4l:13 improper 11:19 38:9 improve28:15 impunity 31:25 inability 21:20 inaccuracy 30:14 inappropriate 30:2131:11 32:5 34:1,21 inappropriately 29:18 incidents 14:5 26:22 28:25 include 11:18 23:12 24:10 included 44:20 including 10:11 18:9 inconvenience 16:20 incorrect 38:8 independence 32:7,2533:2,2
33:6 34:2,14 35:7 43:3 48:12 49:8 independent 35:6 indicated 9:10 individual 2:10 4:13 10:5 19:1625:12,13 44:10 individuals 4:16 4:21 5:20 12:3 16:9 individuals 7:2 8:2 Inevitable 37:23 inference 16:1 33:10,13 36:10 36:13 38:18 40:9,10,14 43:20 46:14 inferences 41:7 43:2 inferring 44:11 influence 33:23 36:11 37:24 influenced 30:2 influencing47:3 inform 18:10 information 14:2 14:21 16:8 18:5,24 19:13 19:18,22 20:5 21:3 informed 26:20 informing 37:6 43:1 inherent 24:2 initial 10:24 initially 14:20 27:3 inquiries 1:22 11:22,24 18:14 24:14 inquiry 1:15 6:2 9:17 13:17 16:6 17:22,25 18:24 19:23 20:9,12 21:13 21:20,23,25 22:4,6,923:19 24:3,19 25:7 25:18,21,23 26:6,10,25 27:1,3,4,7,12 27:14 28:12,18 28:22 29:15 31:9 32:3 36:16 37:13 38:13 39:22 41:3 42:3 43:7 43:23,25 50:2 50:23 51:6 insofar 15:6 28:22 instructions
51:18 instructive 49:11 integrity 47:16 intend 23:6,15 24:16 intended 19:8 39:6 intent 51:5 intentionally 39:12 46:22 47:5 intercept 4:10 interception 39:5 interest 8:11,12 8:14,16,21 21:427:2 interests 22:2 interfering49:15 internal 10:1 11:4 International 2:14 6:19 7:6 7:15 9:14 13:10 15:21,23 29:24 30:4 32:22 33:19 41:643:12,22 44:1347:20 Internationals 42:10 interview 44:17 interviewed 4:9 introduced 3:1 intrusion 11:18 Invasions 36:22 investigate 32:19 40:24 investigated 42:16 investigating 2:6 2:11 7:24 35:11 37:22 investigation 3:4 3:10 6:10,17 7:16 8:6 9:24 12:25 14:12 18:6,9 29:5,13 29:22 30:2 33:24 35:4,20 36:1843:14,19 46:20 50:1 investigations 2:6 3:24 11:16 21:15 26:21 invite 5:14 invited 17:21 involved 10:8 36:17 38:20 41:2,447:4 involves 47:8 involving 42:21 irresistible 40:7 isolated 14:5,10 issue 14:11 18:13 20:13 41:8
issued 1:21 issues 17:23 18:2 18:20 22:13 25:8 30:11 50:7 issuing 24:25 26:24 J January 8:4 10:7 Jay 1:3,4,8,14,25 13:3 15:17 16:25 17:5,9 17:14 27:18,21 28:2,9 John 47:17 join 35:22 journalist 5:22 19:5,745:9,11 journalistic 10:19 42:1 journalists 4:8 5:18 19:9 20:25 21:2,9 29:3,17 31:5 31:11 32:22 38:5,19,25 42:15 44:7 judicial23:3 43:7 July 1:1,16 4:12 4:15 8:22 9:5 20:14 28:21 29:4 jump 36:1 39:21 jumps 46:16 June2:17 3:14 3:20,20 7:7,10 18:22 justice 1:3,6,9,19 1:24 4:19 12:14,20 15:19 16:4,22 17:4,6 17:10,19 27:22 28:2,10 33:9 35:8,17 39:13 41:12,18,25 42:744:14,17 45:3,16 46:5 47:9 48:1,5,16 49:351:10,19 51:23 52:2 justifiable 48:14 justifiably34:Il justified 8:15 21:4 39:22 46:17 justify 10:15 28:1444:10 K keen 32:10 keep 25:20 kept 26:20 kill 36:24 klnd 11:15 12:8
Men-ill Corporation (+44) 207 404 1400
Day 96 am
Leveson Inquiry
23 July 2012
Page 56
kindly 1:14 Klein 2:18 knew 38:19 39:1 48:22 know 12:5 16:16 17:15 50:8 51:20,25 knowledge 38:3 44:1 48:23 L labour 37:12 lack42:10 43:8 lapses 25:23 large 12:12 22:12 46:1 late 13:13 22:16 law 10:19 21:9 39:1742:20,23 lawyer 40:10 lawyers 2:25,25 3:6,15 6:2 14:15,19 lead 2:1 13:23 14:3 31:23 32:144:8,9 leaders 48:22 learn 20:18 28:17 51:7 learnt 22:9 leaving 12:11 led 10:5 29:1 46:23 left 19:8 legal 2:9 8:25 10:11 25:20 39:10 legitimate 10:19 47:23 51:1 length 36:14 letter2l:12 23:10,13 25:16 25:22,25 letters 8:25 23:16 24:2,23 25:1,11,15 level 17:15 42:13 LEVESON 1:3,6 1:9,19,24 12:14,20 15:19 16:4,22 17:4,6 17:10,19 27:22 28:2,10 33:9 35:8,17 39:13 41:12,18,25 42:744:14,17 45:3,16 46:5 47:9 48:1,5,16 49:3 51:10,19 51:23 52:2 Lewis 2:20 3:1 light 52:5 lightly 36:25 likelihood 24:20 limited 8:20 19:6 19:19 20:15
21:10 29:22 33:16 35:20 line 13:17 51:21 lines 9:17 27:3 51:17 link 18:25 linked 7:19 8:8 list 19:7 listen 51:7 little 25:11 36:14 Lloyd22:17 local 14:10 London 14:9 long 44:5,25 longer 2:21 look 12:16 40:25 looked 11:23 Lord 1:3,6,9,19 1:243:14 12:14,20 15:19 16:4,22 17:4,6 17:10,19 27:22 28:2,10 33:9 35:8,17 39:13 41:12,18,25 42:744:14,17 45:3,16 46:5 47:9 48:1,5,16 49:3 51:10,19 51:23 52:2 loss 31:24 lot 10:3 luncheon 52:10 M Mackeys 42:6 main 34:5 majority 8:20 29:8 make-up 14:18 making3s:18 38:846:7 management 2:16 3:23 15:24 managing46:1 Manchester 14:9 margin 12:12 material 3:13 8:21 9:2,6 10:16,21 11:3 11:9 13:4,7,9 20:20 21:20 22:6 41:3 44:2 44:19 materially 33:23 matter 4:19 6:14 8:13 matters 5:6 23:21 48:17 Matthew 22:10 mean 45:11 media 29:9,23 30:16 32:20 33:16 36:11 37:14,24 38:17
49:16 medical 11:19 meeting 3:14 meetings 2:21 3:6 member 25:18 memorable 36:21 merely 16:10 41:13 met4l:23 Metropolitan 23:1 middle 3:18,19 mid-May 3:3,9 mind 1:11 24:15 35:22 minds 44:1 mindset29:6 47:12 minutes 27:22 Mirror 7:6,17,17 8:3,7,24 9:7,9 mischief 43:25 misleading 39:12 39:24 40:12 misled 38:20 47:22 misrepresent 26:5 mistake 48:6 mistakes 28:17 misunderstand 21:23 26:4 Misuse 12:22 Mm 14:7 15:11 mobile 13:11,13 14:1,8 module 17:21 22:18 28:19,20 30:18 33:16 41:9 42:16 49:14 50:19,20 Modules 18:17 moment 9:15 13:1942:18 Monday 1:1 money-launde... 5:6 6:3 month 20:1 months 26:10 42:14 48:9 52:5 morning 28:7 41:3 42:12 motions 36:4 motivated 38:9 Motorman 18:21 20:14,19 21:16 move 11:12 48:13 moving 5:13 MPS 10:10 28:12 28:15,21,23,23 29:2,3,7 30:5 30:15 31:6
33:18,23 36:18 37:20,24 40:15 43:5 46:22 47:4 49:15 50:4,5,6,11,14 50:15 51:1,4 MSC 3:4,11,15 7:14 9:21,25 10:11,12,18 11:5,8 13:3,8 13:25 14:15,18 Mulcaire 44:15 44:18 N name 4:21 11:15 names 39:2 44:4 44:19 isarrow39:9 nature 10:13 21:19 25:1 37:5,8 40:22 41:1 42:4 43:4 near 48:10 nearly 7:8 necessarily 19:6 23:25 24:1 27:8 47:8 51:19 necessary 40:16 need 37:10 needed 40:23 needs 34:3 50:17 Neil 47:19 never 38:6 45:5 nevertheless 10:2 new 6:4 21:22 News 2:14 6:19 7:6,15 8:25 9:8 9:14 13:10 15:21,23 29:24 30:4 32:22 33:15,19 34:18 41:642:10 43:12,2244:13 47:20 newspaper 9:21 10:8 20:2 newspapers 6:20 7:7,11 9:1,11 19:19 20:15 21:10 38:5 42:21 NGN 2:14 NI 33:21 nine 5:1948:9 nonsense 38:1 non-journalist 4:14,25 5:3 normally 45:11 normal-size 12:8 note 4:24 34:19 51:24 notice 1:21 18:15 22:16
notified 15:8 notifying 15:4 NUJ 42:17 49:21 NUJs 49:14 number 4:5 11:16 21:17 22:4 32:12,17 numbers 44:20 numerous 2:7 7:5 30:24 0 oath 1:11 obligation 25:17 observations 45:19 observe 3:22 42:8 49:11 observed26:7 observer 49:13 obstruct28:13 obtain 9:9 40:7 obtaining 10:20 obvious 31:17 40:19 obviously2:7 8:22 10:18 13:16,24 16:5 16:16 25:11 occasion 6:12 occasions 13:8 29:12,13 32:12 33:5 46:3 occurred 48:12 odious 36:22 offence 5:5 offences 2:8,10 6:1,4,4 8:17,19 12:23 offending 18:8 offered 19:19 20:5 office 45:25 officer6:247:10 7:25 35:10 38:1246:6 officers 5:19,22 29:2,17 30:3 31:5,10 32:17 33:6,18,22 35:11 36:17 37:24 38:4 43:21 45:21,22 46:15 48:22 51:3,5 offices 14:18 official 6:18,23 7:25 officials 5:19 Okay 11:12 ongoing 6:16 open 21:12,24 28:16 opened 9:24 Operation 4:3 5:13 11:12
13:4 14:21 18:21 20:13 21:15 34:20 35:2 41:1 42:9 42:22 operational 31:12 34:25 44:12 operations 2:1,2 16:7 26:21 36:21 41:4 opportunity 18:18 23:14 24:5 30:8 oppose 9:10 options 2:11 oral 17:20 20:8 24:12,21 34:6 orally 17:1730:8 order 9:10 11:21 16:13 27:18,19 40:23 41:6,16 orders 42:21 ordinance 18:8 organisation 35:10 46:1 48:23 ought 24:18 outlined 25:25 outstanding 17:24 18:2 overall 50:22 overfriendly 49:23 overly 37:15 overwhelming 36:18 over-arching 11:15 over-cosy 49:18 owed 25:17 oclock 52:7 OConnors 51:12 P paper 19:844:4 paperback 12:8 paragraph 1:25 2:5,12,20 3:9 3:22 4:3,4,22 4:25 5:1,1,4,14 5:16 6:7,22 7:13,22,23 8:9 9:17,19 11:4 11:13 13:5,22 13:23 14:8,14 18:22 23:5 24:14 25:24 31:1 33:3,17 33:19 34:17 36:9 37:2,19 43:18 46:20 50:10 paragraphs 5:8 9:22 11:14
15:2,15 part 19:20 20:9 21:14 22:3,12 24:2 25:3 27:7 34:5 43:13 participant 17:2 19:3,25 20:18 21:5 30:17 34:6 39:24 participants 18:17 21:24 27:18 28:3 30:9 33:14 participated 46:23 particular 8:10 9:21 29:2,2 30:10 32:20 38:4,5 particularly 21:21 35:9 partner 7:2,5 partners 8:2 parts 13:20 patent44:5 pattern 14:14 Paul 47:13 pause 3:12,16,18 payments 5:21 6:19,20,25 7:3 7:5,8,9,15,19 8:2,3,8 pending 12:24 people 4:5 15:14 17:7 22:13 45:14 perceived 37:15 49:12 perception 29:1 30:13,20 31:3 31:4,7,14,17 31:20,22,23,25 32:9,14,16,24 33:15 34:1,12 35:1943:17 46:1847:2,24 48:10,13 51:2 perfect 50:24 perfectly 46:11 period 49:17 periods 6:25 person 23:10,13 personal 11:20 48:23 perspective 51:20 perverting 4:19 Peter 36:21 38:12 45:24 phase 12:25 Phil 35:1 phone 11:18 15:5 15:8 29:5,21 33:23 40:17 46:20 phones 13:14
www.merrillcorp/rn1s.com
Day 96 am
Leveson Inquiry
23 July 2012
Page 57
14:1,22 phrase 36:21 45:13 phrases 33:1 picture5o:22 piece 12:16 44:4 piled 12:9 PIN 44:20 place 2:22,23 3:14 14:8 39:6 49:20 places 10:20 plain 29:1 plainly 33:7 35:25 38:24 49:10 planning L6:25 please 1:5 2:5 5:15 6:7 7:22 9:2 11:13 13:6 13:22 14:14 15:1 point 14:4 24:22 32:2 33:25 35:15,17 37:10 38:5 41:5 42:25 points 30:5,24 34:8,10 38:23 39:23 45:19 police2:ll 4:12 5:19,22 10:11 10:20 12:24 [5:20 20:12 21:15 23:1 26:21 29:9,19 30:22 31:10,19 31:23,24 32:5 32:6,7,17,23 32:25 33:6,22 34:14 35:6,9 41:21,23 42:15 43:20 44:14 45:9,12 46:15 48:12 49:25 50:24 policy 30:16 position 3:5 4:5 5:15 16:16,19 21:5,7 23:1 26:6 49:25 51:11 positive 21:6 50:4 positively 46:16 possession 9:7 13:10 40:16 possibility 24:12 34:21 possible 16:14 20:25 24:4,7 24:24 25:12 postulated 20:25 potential 2:8 4:17 15:4 21:16 43:1
44:3,8 potentially 24:4 30:25 powerful 36:11 40:9 powers 2:11 practice 16:1,12 18:11 20:21 30:16 practices 25:6 26:14 practises 25:2 precisely 32:11 33:11 49:17 prefer 3:5 prejudice 17:6 prepared 16:15 22:5 24:11 48:24 present 19:1 42:8 51:11 presently 17:24 press 18:12 20:21 25:2,3,4 26: 14,23 27:6 28:24 29:24 30:22 31:25 32:1,6 50:1,5,6 50:24 pressure 29:23 36:18 Presumably 51:20 Prevention 6:5 previous 6:12 11:22 previously 11:24 27:5 pre-charge 4:11 prima 21:2,3,8 primarily 2:13 33:25 51:2 prior2l:2222:8 priority 36:20 prison 6:24,24 7:9,25 8:1 privacy 36:22 private 20:17 probability 20:23 probably 18:15 47:11 problem 32:9 42:5 problems 12:14 procedure 23:8 proceed 9:12 23:6 35:4 36:2 52:6 proceeded 21:24 proceeding [7:7 proceedings 43:8 process 9:15 15:4,5 24:3 43:10 produce 14:2
production 9:10 41:5,1542:21 productive 4:1 professional 4:1 progress9:3 17:22 18:6 26:20 50:20 proof 40:7 proper 11:1 29:10,13,14 30:12 properly 40:23 43:6,10 prosecuting 38:21 prosecution 44:22 protect 10:18 Protection 20:24 protocol 9:13,16 prove 19:11 38:8 39:4 41:18 45:13 provide 18:23 19:20 22:19 provided 1:15,21 10:3 13:8 18:16 19:23 20:1 22:6 23:14 provides 20:12 23:9 providing 44:5 provision 24:10 public 5:19 6:18 6:23 7:25 8:11 8:12,14,16,21 21:4 23:7 24:13 27:2 31:24 51:2 publicised 10:7 publicity 10:10 publish 26:1 published 7:1 21:14 22:3 25:23 purpose 19:5 23:19 25:20 26:5 purposes 13:4 42:8 pursue 37:5 pursued 19:23 39:15 put 12:18 19:24 25:7 36:6,24 38:6 46:11 putting 45:1
12:19 45:23 47:12 quickly 29:5 47:11 quite 1:19 11:1 R raised 22:13 range 5:25 23:20 ranges 18:10 ranking 35:10 rare 29:12 rarest 29:12 rate 44:21 reach 14:3 20:20 25:9 39:17 reached 26:13 48:18 read 5:3 16:18 16:25 17:3 20:10 24:19 25:6 45:5 46:1 46:21 readily 44:24 reads 18:22 ready 5:24 51:7 real 21:16 31:20 33:20 realise 40:17 reality 30:14,22 31:3 32:15,25 33:15 34:14 43:17 46:19 47:24 reason 15:13 41:6 reasonable 8:18 23:14 reasonably 23:18,24 reasons 35:21 42:2 43:8 recalled 1:7 receive 46:9 received 6:18,20 11:3,10 15:19 15:20 26:11 29:15 39:20 42:14 recently-appoi... 45:22 recipient 23:14 23:23 25:18,19 39:7 recipients 23:20 25:22 recipients 25:19 recognise 21:16 22:15 25:24 42:19 50:25 recognised 25:19 32:14 recognises 31:6 31:17 recommendati... 50:11,14,18
quantity 41:2 question 12:6 33:9 35:12 39:13 42:12 47:16 51:15 questions 1:8
reconsider 3:4 3:11 reconsidered 4:7 reconvene 24:12 record20:9,10 21:14 22:3 24:20 27:7 records 11:20 18:25 refer 11:420:6 24:9 34:17 41:11 reference 25:5 26:15 referred 5:3 34:11 referring 25:2 regard 38:14 regarded 44:6 regarding 2:8 51:2 regular 2:21 related 6:25 7:15 relates 4:20 5:5 6:23 46:19 relating 22:13 25:1 42:20 relation 2:10 4:9 6:16 18:20 25:21 27:6 30:18 36:9 41:8 51:21 relations 30:16 50:23 relationship 3:12 4:1 22:19 29:16 33:21 37:14 38:17 49:16 50:5 relationships 28:23 29:19 30:3,21,23 31:11,15,18 32:6,22 34:2 34:13 37:21,23 38:4 47:20 relevant 11:22 14:2 20:2 21:21 26:12 28:22 reluctance 37:4 rely 40:9 remain 4:10 17:2451:7 remaining 18:20 20:13 remains 36:9 remarkable 50:2 remember 2:22 42:11 reminded 41:2 remote 24:21 remotely 48:14 renewed 4:6 reopen 29:4 30:1 46:20
repeat 30:6 repeated 6:11 repeatedly 38:13 replaced 2:17 report 11:10 16:5,18 18:4 23:11,13 24:1 25:23 26:24 34:1 50:12,17 51:12 reported 18:19 26:4,16 reporters 32:18 reports 26:16 27:9,14 reports 50:14 represent 26:1 representations 23:21 24:10 representative 25:20 representatives 28:4 request 9:6 10:1 13:24 14:21 17:1 18:13 19:7 requesting 9:1 10:17 requests 10:15 require 19:6,11 20:7 22:2 25:13 35:21 requirement 39:4 requirements 39:10 requiring 19:15 research 12:15 resources 3:22 3:24 35:2 43:9 resource-inten... 40:22 respect 2:9 4:16 12:22 13:25 22:8 23:21 31:4 32:11 35:12 38:1 42:1 respectfully 41:10 47:14 respond 23:15 24:5,8 25:5 46:1251:18 responded 21:10 response 9:5 15:20 19:4 20:2 24:13 25:10,13 33:23 41:2446:9 responses 9:8 24:23 25:8 51:12 responsibilities 22:14 rest42:22
restrictions 10:20 restrictive 40:5 result 9:18 10:3 11:8,11 13:7 13:25 resume 28:8 resumed 3:16 retention 19:12 retired 7:10 return 4:11 16:15 returnable 18:15 reveal 8:20 37:4 revealed 6:17 20:16 reveaLs 7:5 review 10:1 11:5 11:8,11 23:3 43:7 re-numbering 5:2 right 1:17 2:3,18 3:17 4:22 7:20 11:7 15:21 16:24 17:4,6 17:19 27:15 28:10 35:24 47:10,12 49:20 52:4 rightly 31:13 riot46:2 rise 26:17 27:22 47:2 48:9 risk 20:3 robust 35:6 rock49:19 rogue 45:8,11 root 36:5 Rule 17:24 22:22 22:24 23:9,11 23:16 24:22 25:1,15 rules 17:25,25 22:22,24 ruling 18:21 20:6 20:14 21:11 22:23,25 23:5 24:25 S sanction 29:14 satisfactorily 5:9 satisfy4l:l5 saying 31:16 38:21 39:22,23 41:12 48:18 says 25:10 scattergun 43:4 scope 36:8 scribbled 44:4 search 12:18 searched 42:16 searching 12:1 second 21:5,11 24:22 38:7
www.men-illcorp/mls.com
Day 96 am
Leveson Inquiry
23 July 2012
Page 58
39:3 45:20 50:7 secondly 30:14 secret 25:21 section 1:21 9:23 18:12,14 20:23 21:3 22:16 25:4 security 6:24 8:1 13:15 see23:4 24:13 26:8 41:1 46:5 seek 41:5 seeking 2:13 21:3 seeks 38:7 seen 17:10 40:18 41:22 seized 11:24 20:16 Select47:22 self-criticise 28:14 self-denying 18:8 self-fulfilling 41:22 self-justifying 41:22 seminars 26:11 send 23:9,15 senior 15:23 29:2 29:17 30:3 31:5,10 32:17 33:6,18,22 35:9 37:24 45:21,22 46:6 48:22 51:5 sense 39:25 45:20 sensible 17:21 29:10 35:8 46:3 sent 23:13 sentence 33:12 37:1 separate 11:17 35:12 41:8 September 18:15 20:2 29:4 serious 33:13 serve 22:16 served 8:25 serves 32:8 49:24 services 14:3 set 25:24 50:19 setting 23:16 severely 36:7 shakes 17:9 sharp 42:13 Sherborne 19:16 27:15 Sherbornes 18:23 19:9 short 19:4 20:17 27:25 32:9
34:6 38:23 49:7 51:24 shortly 24:25 50:9 show 34:13 47:18,21 sic 46:15 significance 37:8 44:2,3 significant 3:24 13:16 23:12 40:3 43:20 similar 14:14 Similarly 29:25 simply 24:8 31:17,21 32:8 36:12 40:1 46:1747:3 50:13 single37:1 sir 1:4,13,23 7:20 12:21 16:3,21 28:1230:10 31:16 33:11 35:13,23 37:11 39:8 42:12,25 45:20 46:11,25 47:13 48:4 49:1,5 50:7 51:12 52:1 six 12:21 skip 36:25 slide48:12 slightly 8:23 9:11 27:17 slower 10:17 solicitors 21:13 somebody 45:17 somewhat 49:19 sort 41:23 43:24 sought 2:9 35:1 42:5 43:21 44:17 sound 50:25 source 31:6 sources 10:19 13:3 42:1 South 14:9 speak2:5 27:19 28:4,7 specific 9:1 19:9 19:14 23:24 specifically 23:2 29:20 36:15 45:4 spectrum 24:10 Sprake 22:10,20 stage 14:12 15:22 16:7,10 17:8 29:22 43:12 51:24 stance 9:12 stances 49:2 standard 1:16 Standards 2:16 3:23
standpoints 49:13 Star 7:18,18 start 27:15 started 10:22 44:24 starts 5:13 state 33:20 statement 1:15 1:16,20,25 5:14 19:2,4 statements 16:25 17:10 20:10 stations 4:12 statute 39:14 Stephenson 47:13 Steve20:17 stolen 12:23 13:11 14:1,22 storage 11:23 12:1 stories7:1,14,17 8:7,20 story 14:25 straightforward 50:8 strategy 37:6 43:1,5,15 stress 10:25 strict 10:20 strong 36:10 subject 1:11 23:10 24:4 25:1727:4 29:13 36:1 subjected 15:8 subjects 12:23 submission 24:17 30:23 33:3 36:5,16 40:3,12,19,25 42:6 43:7 45:5 46:25 submissions 17:7 17:12,12,14,20 21:18 24:6,9 28:11,19,20 30:6,7,10,17 30:19 31:1 32:13 33:17 34:6,7,9,10 36:15 37:11 38:23 41:8 42:17 46:21 49:14 50:10,19 50:21 submit 19:3 21:25 29:16,25 30:25 31:13 32:11 34:3 35:5 37:7 47:4 49:5,19,24 50:2.22 51:4 51:24 submits 29:7
submitted 13:1 submitting 18:18 subsequent 14:22 44:2 47:14 subsidiary 2:14 substantial 10:6 11:3 12:4,13 50:3 SUE 1:7 suffered 27:16 suffice 22:9 suffices 42:8 sufficient 24:8 40:9,25 45:1 suggest 14:10 29:11 34:23 38:239:21 43:124425 suggested2l:18 44:20 46:2 50:11 suggestion46:13 suggestive 35:5 sum 4:4 5:15 summarise 6:8 11:14 15:2 28:21 43:18 summarised 4:22 Sun 9:21 10:1,8 Sunday 7:17,18 superior 38:12 superiors 36:12 37:2040:1 supplemented 22:25 supply 5:23 20:5 support 12:2 27:9 33:13 36:12 39:11 40:1 supported 46:22 suppose 2:15 suppress 37:18 sure 16:7 surrounding 47:1 suspect 8:17,19 17:17 37:10 suspected 7:18 10:4 suspicion 47:2 suspicions 46:24 suspicious 35:21 swayed 47:18 T table 36:3 tailored 17:13 tainted 29:19 take 27:17 39:6 40:21 48:17 51:17 taken 9:11 29:5 45:2 47:11
talk 6:9,13 team 14:18 25:18 42:9,22 43:14 telephone 14:8 telephones 13:11 telescope 40:20 tell 13:6,22 36:4 tempting 25:5 ten 26:10 52:5 terabyte 12:7,9 terabytes 11:25 12:11 terms 3:22 14:17 19:12 26:15 terrorist 36:19 37:8 test 8:12 tested23:3 Thank 1:6,24 2:123:94:19 6:21 7:13 8:9 8:22 9:17 11:4 13:3 14:7 15:17 16:4,22 16:22 52:2,2,8 theft 14:8 theory4s:9 thereto 22:8 thing 17:5 think 3:19,20 4:20 5:8,10 6:12 8:7 9:6 14:14 15:3,7,9 15:1240:10 44:1845:13 47:9 48:24 51:13,16,23 third 20:13 21:7 38:11 thought 23:23 24:6 thoughts 26:2 threat 36:19 threatening 49:16 threats 10:11 37:9 three 3:16 5:22 12:10 17:23 18:20 20:25 21:12 22:25 34:16 38:23 thrust 50:16 time 12:5 15:3 17:3 18:16 23:4 34:20 35:25 39:14 44:649:17 times 12:10 36:23 52:4 timetable 23:4 time-consuming 40:21 timings 34:23 tip 14:5 title 19:4
titles 13:10 15:23 19:7,11,16 today 17:1 30:11 told 12:9 tomorrow 4:12 4:14 17:2,5 tomorrows 5:7 top 12:9 topic 41:10 topics 17:16 44:18 total 7:8 8:5 15:9 tragic 26:18 transparent 28:16 transpired 26:16 trap 40:19 trapped49:19 treated 25:17 Trinity7:68:3 8:24 9:7,9 trouble 35:18 truth 1:1631:17 try 28:14 trying 49:20 Tuleta 2:2 11:12 11:15 13:4 26:22 Tuletas 14:21 turned 40:18 twice 1:9 20:4 two 3:16 8:22 10:9 18:21 30:11,24 33:4 45:1949:1 50:7 type 22:6 U ultimately 8:12 unable 15:14 uncovered 31:9 underappreciate 37:7 underline 24:23 undermine 27:9 understand 4:20 11:10 19:22 27:16,18 35:17 45:3 49:5 understanding 39:4 understood 39:17 48:22 undertake 11:21 undiscriminati... 42:19 unduly 31:15 34:12 unequivocally 29:15 unhappy 46:8 unhelpful 30:25 unidentified 44:10 unintentionally
47:6 unjust 32:8 unknown 13:19 unlawful 39:5 unwarranted 47:25 update 1:4 9:3 20:12 50:20 up-to-date 16:8 16:14,18 18:5 urge47:1448:6 use 19:14 20:19 useful 51:23 V valid 31:21 46:25 47:3 validity27:11 value 24:24 25:11 various 4:11 43:8 vast29:8 verb 47:7 victim 43:5,15 victims 14:25 15:4,5,7,10,13 30:18 34:6 37:6 39:24 43:1 47:22 view 13:14 18:11 26:1,2 27:9 33:20 39:9,15 40:5 46:10 viewing40:19 views 46:7,8 visited 15:20 voicemail 39:5 volition 11:5 volume 41:3 voluntary 3:13 3:15 9:13,15 10:3 W wait 26:8 Wallis 47:19 want4:25 17:7 21:6 28:5 30:10 warn 45:13 warniug 23:9 24:2 25:16 45:21 wasnt 17:3 45:10 51:19 way 7:21 9:12 16:17 23:3 26:19 44:5,25 46:2 47:15 49:7 ways 27:1 week 22:11 weeks 3:13,17 8:22 22:7 Weeting 2:2 4:3
www.merri1lcorpIm1s.com
Day 96 am
Leveson Inquiry
23 July 2012
Page 59
26:21 41:1 well-known 6:3 went 45:5 West 14:9 well 13:24 27:17 28:7 36:4 41:14 52:6 were 1:4 5:13,22 7:249:15 11:16,2412:1 14:1 15:13 49:19 weve 2:7,9 6:18 6:19 9:5,8,14 11:21 12:21 13:7,9,25 15:5 15:8 17:1 38:22 41:7 42:2 whatsoever 17:18 34:24 whilst 12:11 50:24 Whittamore 18:25 19:8, 13 20:17 wholly 40:20 44:1 47:24 whomsoever 20:1146:7 widelyl8:9 widen 36:8 wider 25:8 39:15 widespread 32:4 wildly 37:7 Williams 35:1 36:7,10 37:4 37:13 38:3,8 38:18 39:3,11 40:15 41:7 42:22 43:2,13 46:14 Williamss 38:11 40:4 willing 28:16 willingness 14:23 wish 9:12 17:11 18:18,2322:18 25:14 26:20 wished 20:19 46:8 witness 1:15 19:2 witnesses 21:21 32:2 word 6:11 work 20:3 22:12 30:15 40:22 41:2 42:23 44:9 50:4,6,17 50:18 worked 2:7 9:23 38:14 working 39:3 43:10 workings 25:21
World 34:18 worse 31:19 worsen 32:8 worsening 32:1 wouldnt 40:8 writing 19:20 written 28:19 30:6,10,17 36:1537:11 41:942:17 wrong 20:22 39:8,19,23 40:11,20 wrongdoing 30:14 32:20 44:7 wrongly 32:15 Y Yates 47:1748:1 year 2:17 3:3,10 7:10,12 10:7 13:6 yielded 11:6 Z Zweifach 2:17 1 13:1418:17 22:182323:5 50:20 103:2220:2,14 25:24 10(1) 33:17 10.00 1:2 10.35 28:1 10.45 27:24 101 11:17 12:3 108 43:18 109 46:20 114:11 8:22 10:8 18:22,22 28:20 11-year-old 26:19 11.32 52:9 124:3,10 11:25 12:11 33:19 134:45:1,4 17:24 22:22,24 23:9,16 24:22 25:1 13(3)23:11 14 3:20 4:22 5:1 25:15 14,000 8:6 154:8,25 39:1 165:8 175:828:21 185:149:534:25 195:16 1998 20:24 2 24:13 18:17 28:19 30:18
31:1 33:16 42:16 49:14 50:19 52:7 2,615 15:9 20 1:16 39:1 2005 18:14 2006 8:4 15:21 17:25 32:21 34:1936:8,19 40:1642:10 2009 29:4 30:1 32:21 46:19 47:1 48:20 2010 7:7 13:13 29:430:1 32:21 46:19 47:1 2011 7:7 2012 1:1 8:4 18:22 20:14 22:8,23 23:5 28:20 21 1:21 6:7 9:23 18:14 22:17 226:227:22 231:15:187:13 244:12,15 7:23 258:934:19 26 35:3 279:17 289:1910:7 30:18
7537:2 7637:19 8 82:20 11:25 12:11 81 16:25 8236:9 9 93:9 9.41 24:14
3 28:20 50:20 3111:4 32 33:3 33 11:13,14 34 11:14 35,000 7:8 36 13:5 38 13:22 39 13:23 I 4 1:25 41:9 40 14:8 415:17 14:14 4215:2 44 15:15 45 15:16 46 15:2 48 34:17 5 52:5 5520:23 21:3 6 62:1250:10 6423:5 7 70 11:25 702 15:9,12
www.merri1lcorp/m1s.com
EXHIBIT V
Phone hacking: six arrested under Operation Weeting Media I guardian.co.uk
Page 1 of2
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here
theguardian
Phone hacking: six arrested under Operation Weeting

Arrests in London, Oxfordshire, Hampshire and Hertfordshire on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice
Josh Halliday and Vilcrain Dodd guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 13 March 2012
05.10
EDT
Phone hacking: six people have been arrested by Scotland Yard detectives under Operation Weeting. lhotograph: Dominic Lipinski/PA
Six people have been arrested by Metropolitan police detectives investigating phone hacking. Five men and one woman were arrested on Tuesday morning at addresses in London, Oxfordshire, Hampshire and Hertforclshire by officers from Operation Weeting. All six were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course ofjustice. The Met police said a 43-year-old woman was arrested at home in Oxfordshire; a 39year-old man was held in Hampshire; a 46-year-old man was arrested in west London; a 49-year-old man was arrested in Oxfordshire; a 39-year-old man was arrested in Hampshire; a 38-year-old man was arrested in Hertfordshire, and a 48-year-old man was arrested at a business address in East London. All six were arrested between am and am on Tuesday and are being interviewed at police stations. Scotland Yard said in a statement: A number of addresses connected to the arrests are being searched. Todays operation follows consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service. Police said the arrests did not result from information passed to them by News Corporations management and standards committee. A number of past arrests followed News Corps MSC, which is reviewing internal emails and documents, passing suspicious-looking ones to the Weeting team.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media120 12/mar/i 3/phone-hacking-six-arrested
8/14/2012
Phone hacking: six arrested under Operation Weeting I Media guardian.co.uk

The arrests form the biggest single swoop yet by the Met police in its ongoing investigation into alleged voicemail interception. So far 22 people have been held under Operation Weeting, with two people released without charge. To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. Ifyou are writing a commentfor publication, please mark clearly jor publication. To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile,follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook
Page 2 of 2
Ads by Google
British food store USA Tea, sweets, crisps, biscuits, cake drinks & gravy. Fast shipping www.englishteastore.com Shocking Horscones Insert your birthdate & get answers about Past, Present & Future. Free www.PremiuniAstrologv.com Become a Social Worker With an Online Masters from USC. No Relocating Required. Learn More! msw.USC.edu/Virtual-Academic-Center
2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reservei
http://www.guardian.co.uk/mediaJ20 12/mar/i 3/phone-hacking-six-arrested
8/14/2012
EXHIBIT W
8/15/12
The Suns Whitehall Editor arrested in illegal payments probe Telegraph

-
The Suns Whitehall Editor arrested in illegal payments probe

Clodagh Hartley, the Suns Whitehall Editor, has been arrested as part of the investigation into illegal payments to public officials, News International sources have confirmed.
I-
She was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to corrupt and suspicion of conspiracy to cause misconduct in a public office
By Martin Evans, Crime Correspondent

3:07PM BST 25 May 2012
The 37-year-old, who became the papers first female lobby journalist three years ago, was arrested when she attended Bromley Police Station by appointment this morning. She was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to corrupt and suspicion of conspiracy to cause misconduct in a public office.
Ms Hartley is a long standing Sun reporter who has worked in Los Angeles for the paper and has also
had spells as the consumer affairs correspondent and home affairs correspondent. When she was appointed to the papers lobby staff three years ago, the then political editor, George
Pascoe-Watson described her as a distinguished veteran news reporter with ten years experience on
telegraph.co.ulclnews/uknews//The-Suns-Whitehall-Editor-arrested-ip-illegal-payments-probehtml 1/2
/15/12
The Suns Whitehall Editor arre5ted in illegal payments probe Telegraph

-
the road. It is understood she has been on maternity leave from the paper in recent months. She is the 30th person to be arrested as part of Operation Elveden, which was set up to investigate allegations that journalists had illegally paid police officers and public officials for information and stories. The investigation, which is being supervised by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, is running alongside Operation Weeting which is examining phone hacking allegations at the News of the World newspaper. A Scotland Yard spokesman said: The 37-year-old woman attended Bromley Police Station by appointment and was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to corrupt under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906, suspicion of conspiracy to cause misconduct in a public office, contrary to Common Law and suspicion of bribery, contrary to the Bribery Act 2010. In an internal memo to staff, News International chief executive Tom Mockridge said: 1 am sorry to inform you that a further News International employee has been arrested by the police in connection with Operation Elveden. He added: As I have said before, it is important that proper due process takes its course and we must not prejudge the outcome of the police interviews. The company is continuing to do everything it can to assist our colleague, and has provided her with legal support. I appreciate this is difficult news for everyone and I am grateful for your continued hard work. The arrest followed information that was passed to the police by News Corporations Management and Standards Committee, set up by Rupert Murdoch in the wake of the hacking scandal last summer. The company is carrying out internal investigations relating to Mi Murdochs remaining UK papers The Sun, the Times and the Sunday Times and is working closely with the police team investigating

alleged phone-hacking and corrupt payments to police and other public officials. Among the
arrests so far
are a number of senior Sunjournalists as well as police officers, members
of the wined forces and a worker from HM Customs and Revenue.
Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2012
telegraphco.ulcfnews/uknews//The-Suns-Whitehall-Editor-arrested-in-illegal-payments-probehtml
2/2
EXHIBIT X
15/12
Operation Weeting CPS charging decisions

-
The Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS incorporates RCPO.
cPs
Operation Weeting charging decisions

24/07/20 12
CPS
Decision to Charge
Once the Police have completed their investigations, they will refer the case to the Crown Prosecution Service for advice on how to proceed. We will then make a decision on whether a suspect should be charged, and what that charge should be. Find out more about how we decide whether to charcie a suspect Find out more about private prosecutions
Statement from Alison Levitt QC, Principal Legal Advisor to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP): This statement is made in the interests of transparency and accountability to explain the decisions reached in relation to Operation Weeting. During June and July 2012, the Crown Prosecution Service received files of evidence from the Metropolitan Police Service, relating to thirteen suspects. This has followed a period of consultation and cooperation between police and prosecutors which has taken place over many months. All the evidence has now carefully been considered. Applying the two-stage test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors I have concluded that in relation to eight of these thirteen suspects there is sufficient evidence for there to be a realistic prospect of conviction in relation to one or more offences. I then considered the second stage of the test, applying the DPPs interim guidelines on assessing the public interest in cases involving the media, and I have concluded that a prosecution is required in the public interest in relation to each of these eight suspects. The eight who will be charged are: Rebekah Brooks, Andrew Coulson, Stuart Kuttner, Glenn Mulcaire, Greg Miskiw, [an Edmondson, Neville Thurlbeck and James Weatherup. They will face a total of nineteen charges in all. The full wording of all the charges will be made available, which will include the names of others whom the prosecution say are victims, but for now I shall summarise them as follows. All, with the exception of Glenn Mulcaire, will be charged with conspiring to intercept communications without lawful authority, from 3rd October 2000 to 9th August 2006. The communications in question are the voicemail messages of well-known people and/or
ww.cpsgov.uIQnews/press_statements/operation_weeting_-_cps_cha rging_decisions/
The Role of The Crown Prosecution Service

The Crown Prosecution Service is the government department responsible for prosecuting criminal cases investigated by the police in England and Wales. As the principal prosecuting authority in England and Wales, we are responsible for: advising the police on cases for possible prosecution
1/6
/15/12

-
those associated with them. There is a schedule containing the names of over 600 people whom the prosecution will say are the victims of this offence. In addition, each will face a number of further charges of conspiracy unlawfully to intercept communications, as follows:
Rebekah Brooks will face two additional charges:
reviewing cases submitted by the police determining any charges in more serious or complex cases preparing cases for court
the first relates to the voicemails of the late Milly Dowler the second to the voicemails of Andrew Gilchrist
Andrew Coulson will face four additional charges, relating to the following victims:
presenting cases at court
Find out more about the role of the Crown Prosecution Service
Milly Dowler the Rt Hon David Blunkett MP the Rt Hon Charles Clarke, and Calum Best Stuart Kuttner will face two additional charges, relating to: Milly Dowler and the Rt Hon David Blunkett MP
Greg Miskiw will face nine further charges, relating to the following victims or groups of victims:
Milly Dowler Sven-Goran Eriksson Abigail Titmuss and John Leslie Andrew Gilchrist the Rt Hon David Blunkett MP Delia Smith the Rt Hon Charles Clarke Jude Law, Sadie Frost and Sienna Miller, and Wayne Rooney
Ian Edmondson will face a further eleven charges, relating to the following victims or groups of victims:
the Rt Hon David Blunkett MP the Rt Hon Charles Clarke Jude Law, Sadie Frost and Sienna Miller Mark Oaten Wayne Rooney Calum Best
wwcps.govulnews/pressstatements/operationweeting-cpscha rging_decisions/ 2/6
3/15/12

-
the Rt Hon Dame Tessa Jowell MP and David Mills the Rt Hon Lord Prescott Professor John TuJloch Lord Frederick Windsor Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills Neville Thuribeck will face a further seven charges in relation to the following victims or groups of
victims:
Milly Dowler Sven-Goran Eriksson the Rt Hon David Blunkett MP the Rt Hon Charles Clarke Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt Mark Oaten the Rt Hon Dame Tessa Jowell MP and David Mills James Weatherup will face a further seven charges in relation to the following victims or groups of victims: the Rt Hon David Blunkett NP the Rt Hon Charles Clarke Jude Law, Sadie Frost and Sienna Miller Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt Wayne Rooney the Rt Hon Lord Prescott Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills For legal reasons, Glenn Mulcaire does not face the first of these charges. However, he will face four charges, relating to: Milly Dowler Andrew Gilchrist Delia Smith, and the Rt Hon Charles Clarke In relation to three of the remaining suspects, I have concluded that there is insufficient evidence for there to be a realistic prospect of conviction. It follows that no further action will be taken in relation to them. Because others are now about to be charged, it would not be appropriate for me to give reasons for these decisions at this stage. There are two suspects in relation to whom the police have asked me to defer making a decision whilst further enquiries are made. For this reason I do not intend to give their names or say anything further about them at this stage. The eleven suspects have this morning been informed of my decision. They are all due to answer
Nww.cpsgovuInews/press_statementsfoperatjon weeting-cps charging decisions! 3/6
/15/12
Operation Weeting CTS charging decision5

-
their bail at police stations. When they do so, the eight whom I have already named will be charged. Following charge, these individuals will appear before Westminster Magistrates Court on a date to be determined. The police intend to contact all the victims who will then be told that their names appear on the indictment. Once all have been informed the full list of those whom the prosecution says were victims will be made available. May I remind all concerned that these eight individuals now will be charged with crirrnaI offences and that each has a right to a fair trial. It is very important that nothing is said, or reported, which could prejudice that trial. For these reasons it would be inappropriate for me to comment further. Ends
Charges in full:
1. CHARGE 1: Rebekah Brooks, Andrew Coulson, Stuart Kuttner, Greg Miskiw, Ian Edmondson, Neville Thurlbeck and James Weatherup, between the 3rd day of October 2000 and the 9th day of August 2006 conspired together, and with Glenn Mulcaire and Clive Goodman and persons unknown, to intercept communications in the course of their transmission, without lawful authority, namely the voicemail messages of well-known people and those associated with them, including but not limited to those whose names appear on schedule 1. 2. CHARGE 2: Rebekah Brooks, Andrew Coulson, Stuart Kuttner, Glenn Mulcaire, Greg Miskiw and Neville Thurlbeck, between the 9th day of April 2002 and the 21st day of April 2002, conspired together and with persons unknown, to intercept communications in the course of their transmission, without lawful authority, namely the voicemail messages of Amanda Dowler, also known as Milly Dowler. 3. CHARGE 3: Greg Miskiw and Neville Thuribeck, between 13th day of May 2002 and the 29th day of June 2006, conspired together and with Glenn Mulcaire and persons unknown, to intercept communications in the course of their transmission, without lawful authority, namely the voicemail messages of Sven-Goran Eriksson and persons associated with Sven-Goran Eriksson, including Faria Alam. 4. CHARGE 4: Greg Miskiw between the 22nd day of October 2002 and the 21st day of July 2006, conspired with Glenn Mulcaire and with persons unknown, to intercept communications in the course of their transmission, without lawful authority, namely the voicemail messages of Abigail Titmuss and John Leslie and those associated with Abigail Titmuss and John Leslie, including Matthew McGuiness. 5. CHARGE 5: Rebekah Brooks, Glenn Mulcaire and Greg Miskiw, between the 3rd day of December 2002 and the 22nd day of January 2003, conspired together and with persons unknown, to intercept communications in the course of their transmission, without lawful authority, namely the voicemail messages of Andrew Gilchrist. 6. CHARGE 6: Andrew Coulson, Stuart Kuttner, Greg Miskiw, Ian Edmondson, Neville Thurlbeck and James Weatherup, between the 1st day of January 2004 and the 29th day of July 2006, conspired together and with Glenn Mulcaire and persons unknown, to intercept communications in the course of their transmission, without lawful authority, namely the voicemail messages of persons associated with The Right Honourable David Blunkett MP, including some or all of the following: Kimberley Quinn, Sally King (nee Anderson), Andrew King, John Anderson and Jason Carey.
vww.cps.gov.ulclnews/press_statementa/operation_weeting_-_cps_charging_decisions/ 4/6
8/15/12
Operation Weeting CPS charging deci5ion5

-
7. CHARGE 7: Glenn Mulcaire and Greg Miskiw, between the 28th day of February 2005 and the 12th day of March 2005 conspired together and with persons unknown to intercept communications in the course of their transmission, without lawful authority, namely the voicemail messages of Delia Smith and of persons associated with Delia Smith, including Michael Wynn-Jones and Ian Christmas. 8. CHARGE 8: Andrew Coulson, Glenn Mulcaire, Greg Miskiw, Ian Edmondson, Neville Thurlbeck and James Weatherup, between the 6h day of April 2005 and the 22nd day of June 2005, conspired together and with persons unknown to intercept communications in the course of their transmission, without lawful authority, namely the voicemail messages of persons associated with The Right Honourable Charles Clarke, who included either or both of the following: Hannah Pawiby and Lucy Pawlby. 9. CHARGE 9: Greg Miskiw, Ian Edmondson and James Weatherup between the 1st day of July 2005 and the 1st day of June 2006, conspired together, and with Glenn Mulcaire and persons unknown, to intercept communications in the course of their transmission, without lawful authority, namely the voicemail messages of Jude Law and persons associated with Jude Law, Sadie Frost and Sienna Miller, who included some or all of the following: Jade Schmidt, Archie Keswick and Ben Jackson. 10. CHARGE 10: Neville Thurlbeck and James Weatherup, between the 5th day of July 2005 and the 4th day of May 2006, conspired together, and with Glenn Mulcaire and persons unknown, to intercept communications in the course of their transmission, without lawful authority, namely the voicemail messages of persons associated with Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, who included Eunice Huthart. 11. CHARGE 11: Ian Edmondson and Neville Thurlbeck, between the 9th day of January 2006 and the 6th day of May 2006, conspired together and with Glenn Mulcaire and persons unknown, to intercept communications in the course of their transmission, without lawful authority, namely the voicemail messages of Mark Oaten. 12. CHARGE 12: Ian Edmondson and James Weatherup, between the 17th day of January 2006 and the 1st day of August 2006, conspired together, and with Glenn Mulcaire and persons unknown, to intercept communications in the course of their transmission, without lawful authority, namely the voicemail messages of Wayne Rooney and persons associated with Wayne Rooney, who included either or both of the following: Laura Jane Rooney and Patricia Tierney. 13. CHARGE 13: Greg Miskiw, between the 17th day of January 2006 and 1st day of August 2006 conspired with Glenn Mulcaire and persons unknown, to intercept communications in the course of their transrrssion, without lawful authority, namely the voicemail messages of Wayne Rooney and persons associated with Wayne Rooney, who included either or both of the following: Laura Jane Rooney and Patricia Tierney. 14. CHARGE 14: Andrew Coulson and Ian Edmondson, between the 23 March 2006 and the 21st day of May 2006, conspired together and with Glenn Mulcaire and persons unknown, to intercept communications in the course of their transmission, without lawful authority, namely the voicemail messages of Calum Best. 15. CHARGE 15: Ian Edmondson and Neville Thurlbeck between the 2nd day of March 2006 and the 26th day of July 2006, conspired with Glenn Mulcaire and with persons unknown to intercept communications in the course of their transmission, without lawful authority, namely the voicemail messages of The Right Honourable Dame Tessa Jowell MP and David Mills. 16. CHARGE 16: Ian Edmondson and James Weatherup, between the 24th day of April 2006 and the 22nd day of June 2006, conspired together and with Glenn Mulcaire and persons unknown, to intercept communications in the course of their transmission, without lawful authority, namely
www.cps.gov.ulc/news/press_statements/operation_weeting_-_cps_cha rging_deci5ions/ 5/6
8/15/12

-
the voicemail messages of persons associated with The Right Honourable Lord Prescott, who included some or all of the following: Tracey Temple, Joan Hammell and Alan Schofield. 17. CHARGE 17: Ian Edmondson, between the 25th day of April 2006 and the 15th day of May 2006, conspired with Glenn Mulcaire and with persons unknown, to intercept communications in the course of their transmission, without lawful authority, namely the voicemail messages of Professor John Tulloch and persons associated with Professor John Tulloch, who included some or all of the following: John Davies, Maire Messenger Davies and Janet Andrew. 18. CHARGE 18: Ian Edmondson, between the 25th day of April 2006 and the 1st day of June 2006, conspired with Glenn Mulcaire and persons unknown, to intercept communications in the course of their transmission, without lawful authority, namely the voicemail messages of Lord Frederick Windsor. 19. CHARGE 19: Ian Edmondson and James Weatherup, between the 15th day of May 2006 and the 29th day of June 2006, conspired together and with Glenn Mulcaire and with persons unknown, to intercept communications in the course of their transmission, without lawful authority, namely the voicemail messages of Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills, and of persons associated with Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills, including some or all of the following: Fiona Mills, Stuart Bell, Alan Edwards and Chris Terrill.
www.cps.gov.ulcfnews/press_statements/operation_weeting_-_cps_charging_decisions/
6/6
EXHIBIT Y
8/16/12
Crown Prosecution service charging announcement in relation to offences of perverting the course of
The Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS incorporates RCPO.
cr5
Charging announcement in relation to offences of perverting the course of justice against Rebekah Brooks and others
15/05/2012 Alison Levitt, QC, Principal Legal Advisor to the Director of Public Prosecutions, oversees CPS decision making, and all potential prosecutions, in relation to the ongoing phone hacking investigations and other related matters. Miss Levitt said: This statement is made in the interests of transparency and accountability to explain the decisions reached in respect of allegations that Rebekah Brooks conspired with her husband, Charles Brooks, and others to pervert the course of justice. The Crown Prosecution Service received a file of evidence from the Metropolitan Police Service on 27th March 2012 in relation to seven suspects: Rebekah Brooks;
Decision to Charge
Once the Police have completed their investigations, they will refer the case to the Crown Prosecution Service for advice on how to proceed. We will then make a decision on whether a suspect should be charged, and what that charge should be. Find out more about how we decide whether to charge a suspect Find out more about private prosecutions
The Role of The Crown Prosecution Service

The crown Prosecution Service is the government department responsible for prosecuting criminal cases investigated by the police in England and Wales. As the principal prosecuting authority in England and Wales, we are responsible for: advising the police on cases for possible prosec ution
1/2
Charles Brooks; Cheryl Carter

Mark Hanna
-
Mrs Brooks personal assistant;
Head of Security at News International;

-
Paul Edwards International;
Mrs Brooks chauffeur who was employed by News
Daryl Jorsling and a seventh suspect both of whom provided security for Mrs Brooks supplied by News International.
-
All the evidence has now carefully been considered. Applying the two-stage test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors I have concluded that in relation to all suspects except the seventh, there is sufficient evidence for there to be a realistic prospect of
cps.gov.uIcL../cha rging.a nnouncement_in_relation_to_offences_of_perverting_the_course_ofjustice...
/16/12
Crown Prosecution service charging announcement in relation to offences of perverting the course o(
conviction. I then considered the second stage of the test, and I have concluded that a prosecution is required in the public interest in relation to each of the other six. All seven suspects have this morning been informed of my decisions. They are all due to answer their bail at police stations later today. When they do so, they will be charged as follows:
CHARGE 1 JUSTICE
-
reviewing cases submitted by the police determining any charges in all but minor cases preparing cases for court presenting cases at court
CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF
Find out more about the role of the Crown Prosecution Service
Rebekah Brooks between 6th July and 19th July 2011 conspired with Charles Brooks, Cheryl Carter, Mark Hanna, Paul Edwards, Daryl Jorshng and persons unknown to conceal material from officers of the Metropolitan Police Service.
CHARGE 2- CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE
Rebekah Brooks and Cheryl Carter between 6th July and 9th July 2011 conspired together permanently to remove seven boxes of material from the archive of News International.
CHARGE 3- CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE
Rebekah Brooks, Charles Brooks, Mark Hanna, Paul Edwards and Daryl Jorsling conspired together and with persons unknown, between 15th July and 19th July 2011, to conceal documents, computers and other electronic equipment from officers of the Metropolitan Police Service. All these matters relate to the ongoing police investigation into allegations of phone hacking and corruption of public officials in relation to the News of the World and The Sun newspapers. Following charge, these individuals will appear before Westminster Magistrates Court on a date to be determined. No further action will be taken against the seventh suspect. May I remind all concerned that these six individuals now will be charged with criminal offences and that each has a right to a fair trial. It is very important that nothing is said, or reported, which could prejudice that trial. For these reasons it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.
:ps govuk/../charging_announcement_in_relation_to_offences_of_perverting_thecourse_ofjustice..
2/2
EXHIBIT Z
8/16/12
Phone hacking: Milly Dowler family set for 3 million News International payout Telegraph
-
Phone hacking: Milly Dowler family set for 3 million News International payout
The family of the murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler have been offered 3 million in damages from News International after the publisher of the News of the World admitted her phone had been hacked.
Photo: PA
By Gordon Rayner, and Andrew Hough

6:30AM BST 20 Sep 2011
The payout will include a personal 1 million donation to charity from Rupert Murdoch, the News Corporation chief executive and chairman, as well a 2 million settlement directly to the Dowler
family. James Murdoch, the chairman of News International, is understood to have personally approved the offer as the company tries to rebuild its reputation following the scandal hich led to the closure of the Sunday tabloid. Sources close to the negotiations said an initial offer of lm to the Dowler family and a further Lim
1/2
8/16/12
Phone hacking: Milly Dowler family set for 3 million News International payout Telegra ph
-
to a charity in memory of Milly had been rejected by the Dowlers, and that the final sum would now be 3m, of which 2m will go to the family. The offer is currently being considered by the family and has yet to be accepted after they had hoped for a payout closer to 3.5m. Sources also said the 1 million donation will come from Rupert Murdoch personally. It is not yet known which charities are set to benefit. The settlement is three times the biggest payout to any other victim of phone hacking, but reflects the gravity of the actions of News of the Worldjournalists in accessing the murder victims voicemails. The 13 year-old was still being treated as a missing person when the News of the World arranged for her messages to be intercepted in 2002. In July, Rupert Murdoch, the head of News Internationals parent company, met the Dowler family to make a personal apology to them.
James Murdoch shut down the News of the World as a direct result of the discovery that Milly Dowlers phone had been hacked. Rebekah Brooks, the chief executive of News International, later resigned. A News International spokeswoman confirmed on Monday night that it was in advanced negotiations with the family about a compensation settlement. She added: No final agreement has yet been reached, but we hope to conclude the discussions as quickly as possible. Mark Lewis, the solicitor representing the Dowler family, declined to comment on the negotiations, saying only that the final figure would be substantial.
Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2012
2/2
EXhIBIT AA
8/16/12
Phone hacking: News International lawyers admit redacting dive Goodman letter Telegraph
-
Phone hacking: News International lawyers admit redacting Clive Goodman letter
Lawyers for News International have admitted they redacted a letter submitted to MPs which implicated senior News of the World staff in phone hacking.
I
Clie Goodman, the former News of the World royal correspondent Photo: GETTY
By Mark Hughes, Crime Correspondent

3:24PM BST 19 Aug 2011
The letter written by Clive Goodman, the News of the Worlds former royal correspondent, was submitted to the culture, media and sport select committee on behalf of News International with significant redactions.
It directly implicates Andy Coulson and a number of other senior editorial staff at the former Sunday
tabloid in phone hacking. Sources at the News International said that the redactions, which included removing a claim that Mr Coulson promised that Goodman could keep his job if he did not implicate others, had been made
following discussions with police.

But that suggestion was undermined by the release of the same letter by Harbottle and Lewis, the law firm who were instructed by the News of the World to defend against Mr Goodmans claim of wrongful dismissal, which contained significantly fewer redactions.
1/2
1/16/12
Phone hacking: News International lawyers admit redacting dive Goodman letter Telegraph
-
Harbottle and Lewis said they too received guidance from the police about what to omit, prompting suggestions that News International had attempted to cover up the details in the letter. The Daily Telegraph understands that while Scotland Yard asked for names of individuals to be removed, they did not prescribe changes instead leaving it down to the discretion of the legal teams working for News International and Harbottle and Lewis. Now Linklaters, the law firm currently acting on behalf of News International, have admitted that it made the redactions In a letter sent to the parliamentary committee, the firm writes: The redactions were made following guidance from the Metropolitan Police. Those redactions were made by a partner from this firm. Linklaters denies that the redactions were made as part of any cover up, pointing out that the letter was given to the police by News International. The redacted Goodman letter was submitted to the committee by James Murdoch, the chairman of News Corporation, the parent company of News International. But Linklaters said he took no part in deciding hat should be redacted. No News International or News Corporation officer or employee took any part in deciding what to redact, their letter adds.
Cop1ght of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2012
2/2
EXHIBIT BB
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Conthtion and Results of Operations (continued)
prices in managing its businesses to maximize operating profit during expanding and contracting economic cycles. Paper is a basic commodity and its price is sensitive to the balance of supply and demand. The Companys costs and expenses are affected by the cyclical increases and decreases in the price of paper. The Publishing segmenrs products compete for readership and advertising with local and national competitors and also compete with other media alternatives in their respective markets. Competition for circulation and subscriptions are based on the content of the products provided, service, pricing and, from rime to time, various promotions. The success of these products depends upon advertisers judgments as to the most effective use of their advertising budgets. Competition for advertising is based upon the reach of the products, advertising rates and advertiser results. Such judgments are based on factors such as cost, availability of alternative media, distribution and quality of readership demographics. The Company believes that competition from new media formats and sourcts and shifting consumer preferences will continue to pose challenges for the Publishing segments businesses.
Other The Other segment consists primarily of:
Digital Media Group The Company sells advertising, sponsorships and subscription services on the Companys various digital media properties. Significant expenses associated with the Companys digital media properties include development costs, advertising and promotional expenses, salaries, employee benefits and other routine overhead. The Company sold Myspace in June 2011. Wireless Generation Wireless Generation, the Companys education technology business, provides data systems and professional services that enable teachers to use data to assess student progress and deliver individualized instruction. Significant expenses associated with the Companys education technology business include salaries, employee benefits and other routine overhead. News Outdoor News Outdoor sells outdoor advertising space on various media, primarily in Russia. Significant expenses associated with the News Outdoor business include sire lease costs, direct production, maintenance and installation expenses, salaries, employee benefits and other routine overhead. The Company sold its outdoor advertising businesses in Russia and Romania in July 2011.
Other Business Developments In Junt 2010, the Company announced that it had proposed to the board of directors of British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (BSkyB), in which the Company currently has an approximate 39% interest, to make a cash offer of 700 pence per share for the BSIyB shares that the Company does not already own. Following the allegations regarding News of the World, on July 13, 2011, the Company announced that it no longer intended to make an offer for the BSkyB shares that the Company does not already own. As a result of the July 2011 announcement, the Company paid BSkyB a breakup fee of approximately $63 million in accordance with a cooperation agreement between the parties. During fiscal 2011, the Company acquired an additional interest in Asianet Communications Limited (Asianee), an Asian general entertainment television joint venture, for approximately $92 million in cash. As a result of this transaction, the Company increased its interest in Asianet to 75% from the 51% it owned at June 30, 2010. In August 2010, the Company increased its investment in Tata Sky Ltd. (Tata Sky) for approximately $88 million in cash. As a result of this transaction, the Company increased its interest in Tata Sky to approximately 30% from the 20,6 it owned at June 30, 2010. In fiscal 2011, the Company agreed to backstop 400 million (approximately $525 million), of financing measures that were being initiated by Sky Deutschland of which approximately 342 million (approximately $450 million) has been completed. As part of these financing measures, the Company acquired 108 million additional shares of Sky Deutschland, increasing its ownership from approximately 45% to 49.9%. The aggregate cost of the shares acquired by the Company was approximately 115 million (approximately $150 million) and the shares were newly registered shares issued pursuant to the total capital increase. In addition, in accordance with the backstop, the Company agreed with Sky Deutschland to subscribe to a bond issuance that is convertible for up to 53.9 million underlying Sky Deutschland shares. The convertible bond was issued to the Company in January 2011 for approximately 165 million (approximately $225 million). The Company currently has the right to convert the bond into equity, subject to certain black-out periods. If not converted, the Company will have the option to redeem the bond for cash upon its maturity in four years. The remaining amount under the backstop of approximately 58 million (approximately $75 million), must be funded prior to December 2011 and will be provided as a loan to the extent Sky Deutschland does not generate other proceeds through capital increases or convertible bond issuances. The Company has also agreed to loan Sky Deutschland approximately $70 million to support the launch of a sports news channel. The Company expects to fund
these amounts in fiscal 2012. In November 2010, the Company formed a joint venture with China Media Capital (CMC), a media investment fund in China, to explore new growth opportunities. The Company transferred the equity and related assets of its STAR China business along with the Fortune Star Chinese movie library with a combined market value of approximately $140 million and CMC paid cash of approximately $74 million to the Company. Following this transaction, CMC holds a 53% controlling stake in the joint venture and the Company holds a 47% stake. In December 2010, the Company disposed of the Fox Mobile Group (Fox Mobile). [n fiscal 2011, the Company acquired Wireless Generation, an education technology company, for cash. Total consideration was approximately $390 million, which inclssded the equity purchase price and the repayment of Wireless Generations osststanding debt. In April 2011, the Company acquired Shine Limited (Shine), an international television production company, for cash. The total
14
FCV
ccepor.nio
Mugnrnentu Diunounion used Anuiyois of Finuuiul oaudi5io.u und Rnu,,its of Oporutionu (eotirnmd)
consideration for this acquisition included (i) approximately $480 million for the acquisition of the equity, of which approximately $60 million has been set aside in escrow to satisfy any indemnification obligations, (ii) the repayment of Shines outstanding debt of approximately $135 million and (iii) net liabilities assumed. Elisabeth Murdoch, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Shine, and daughter of Mr. K. R. Murdoch and sister of Messrs. Lachian and James Murdoch, received approximately $214 million in cash at closing in consideration for her majority ownership interest in Shine, and is entitled to her proportionate share of amounts that are released from escrow. In June 2011, the Company transferred the equity and related assets of Myspace to a digital media company in exchange for a minority equity interest in the acquirer. As a result of this transaction, the Companys interest in the acquirer is now accounted for under the cost method of accounting. In July 2011, the Company announced that it would close its publication, News of the World, after allegations of phone hacking and payments to police. As a result of these allegations, the Company is subject to several ongoing investigations by U.K. and U.S. regulators and governmental authorities, including investigations into whether similar conduct may have occurred at the Companys subsidiaries outside of the U.K. The Company is fully cooperating with these investigations. In addition, the Company has admitted liability in a number of civil cases related to the phone hacking allegations and has settled a number of cases. The Company has taken steps to solve the problems relating to News of the World including the crearion and establishment of an independent Management & Standards Commitree (the MSC), which will have oversight of, and take responsibility for, all matters in relation to the News of the World phone hacking case, police payments and all other connected issues at News International Group Limited (News International), including as they may relate to other News International publications. The MSC appointed an independent Chairman, Lord Grabiner QC, and will report directly to Joel Klein, Executive Vice President and a director of the Company, who in torn will report to Viet Dinh, an independent director and Chairman of the Companys Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. Both directors will update the Companys Board of Directors. The MSC will ensure full cooperation with all relevant investigations and inquiries into News of the World matters and all other related issues across News International and will conduct irs own internal investigations where appropriate. The MSC will also be responsible for reviewing existing compliance systems and for proposing and overseeing the implementation of new compliance, ethics arid governance procedures ar News International. The Company has engaged outside counsel to assist it in responding to U.K. and U.S. governmental inquiries. In July2011, the Company sold its majority interest in irs ourdoor advertising businesses in Russia and Romania for approximately $360 million. The Company expects to record a gain related to the sale of this business during the first quarter of fiscal 2012.
Results of Operations Results of Operations
Fiscal 201.1 versus Fiscal 2010
The following table sets forth the Companys operating results for fiscal 2011 as compared to fiscal 2010.
2011 For the years ended June 30, 2010 Change % Change
(S millions)
Revenues Operating expenses Selling, general and administrative Depreciation and amortization Impairment and restructuring charges Equity earnings of affiliates Interest expense, net Interest income Other, net Income from continuing operations before income tax expense Income tax expense Income from continuing operations Loss on disposition of discontinued operations, net of tax Net income Less: Net income attributable to nonconctolling interests Net income attributable to News Corporation stockholders
not meaningful
$ 33,405 (21,058) (6,306) (1,191) (313) 462 (966) 126 18 4,177 (1,029) 3,148 (254) 2,894
$ 32,778 (21,015) (6,619) (1,185) (253) 448 (991) 91 69 3,323 (679) 2,644
$ 627
(43) 313 (6> (60) 14 25
35
2%
(5)% 1% 24%
3% (3)% 38%
(51) 854 (350) 504 (254) 250 (50) $ 200
(74)% 26% 52% 19% 9% 48% 8%
2,644 (105) $ 2,539
(155) 2,739
Oven,iewThe Companys revenues increased 2% for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011 as compared to fiscal 2010. The increase was primarily due to revenue increases at the Cable Network Programming, Television and Publishing segments. The Cable Network Programming segmenrs revenues increased primarily due to increases in net affiliate and advertising revenues. The increase at the Television segment was primarily due to advertising revenues from the Super Bowl which was broadcast on FOX in fiscal 2011, higher pricing resulting from improvements in the advertising markets and higher comparative political advertising due to the 2010 mid-term elections. The revenue increase at
2011 Annual 5epot 15
EXHIBIT CC
/16/12
Nexis: Delivery Status
1 of 1 DOCUMENT
The New York Times July 22, 2012 Sunday Final Late Edition
Murdoch Resigns From His British Papers Boards

BYLINE: By JOHN F. Montclair, N.J. SECTION: LENGTH: Section A; 1096 words BURNS and RAVI SOMAIYA; David Carr contributed reporting from
Column 0;
Foreign Desk;
Pg.
After more than a year of scandal in his British newspaper empire, Rupert LONDON Murdoch has resigned his directorships in a string of companies that control titles that include The Sun tabloid, The Times and The Sunday Times, raising fresh speculation that he may be planning for an eventual sale of the newspapers that were a major steppingstone during the decades in which he built his global media empire.
A company spokeswoman said Saturday that Mr. Murdoch, the 81yearold founder of the News Corporation, resigned last week as a director of the NI Group, the Times Newspaper Holdings, and Newscorp Investments in Britain. Those companies are subsidiaries of the News Corporation, Mr. Murdochs $53 billion New York-based company whose assets include The Wall Street Journal, the Fox Broadcasting television networks and the 20th Century Fox film company. Apparently eager to calm disquiet among thousands of staff members at the British newspapers, who received a corporate email confirming Mr. Murdochs moves on Saturday, the company offered assurances that Mr. Murdoch and his family had no immediate plans to sever their connection to the newspapers. The British newspapers were central to building Mr. Murdochs fortune in the years after he expanded his media holdings beyond his native Australia, and before he moved on to expanding his empire with far more profitable enterprises in the United States. Last week, Mr. Murdoch stepped down from a number of boards, many of them small subsidiary boards, both in the U.K. and U.S., a spokeswoman for News International, the British newspaper subsidiary of the News Corporation, said Saturday, speaking on the condition of anonymity in line with company policy. She described Mr. Murdochs resignations from the British directorships as nothing more than a corporate housecleaning exercise ahead of the restructuring announced last month that will split News Corporation into two separate entities. One company will consist primarily of newspapers and other print assets, while the other will own the far more profitable television and film enterprises. The latter businesses generated an operating profit of $4.6 billion in the fiscal year that ended June 2011, more than five times what the publishing businesses earned. Murdoch would remain
1/3
The e-mail outlining the move to staff members said Mr.

v3nexis.com/new/delivery/PrintWoridng.do?dnldFileName=Murdoch_Resigns_From_l-lis_British_Paper..
/16/12
personally involved in the British newspaper operations, enterprises he has often said were central to a lifelong passion for newspapering, as chairman of the newspaper and publishing business that will be set up as part of the split, according to an employee who did not want to be identified as discussing a confidential internal document. Still, the move was a remarkable turnaround. Last February, Mr. Murdoch skipped the Oscars and flew to London to personally oversee the inaugural issue of the Sunday version of The Sun, pledging his unwavering support in a memo to employees. The British newspapers, with which Mr. Murdoch has had a strong personal bond since moving his corporate base to London from Australia in the l960s, have been badly tarnished in the past year by revelations of widespread phone hacking and other newsroom wrongdoing, particularly at The Sun and The News of the World, a 168year old tabloid that was one of the countrys most profitable papers. According to company officials who claim to be familiar with his thinking, the scandal has convinced Mr. Murdoch that the British newspapers, including The Times and The Sunday Times, which have been racking up tens of millions of dollars in losses in recent years, have become a financial and reputational drag on the News Corporations other holdings. On both sides of the Atlantic, there has been mounting speculation among corporate analysts that he would seek to sell the newspapers once dozens of impending lawsuits stemming from the phonehacking have been concluded. The scandal has led to a wide-ranging investigation by Scotland Yard, whose investigators have been looking into allegations that the Murdochowned newspapers illegally intercepted the voice mail messages of hundreds of people, including politicians, athletes, celebrities and crime victims, and that the wrongdoing extended to computer hacking and payments to public officials, including police officers, in search of scoops.
The scandal prompted Mr. Murdoch to close The News of the World last summer, and led in recent months to the arrest of about 50 people, many of them executives, editors and reporters at the Murdochowned newspapers, on suspicion of criminal activities. In recent weeks, some of those arrested have been formally charged, including Rebekah Brooks, who resigned as chief executive of News International when the scandal broke last year. Ms. Brooks and her husband, Charlie Brooks, a racehorse trainer, have been charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Both have been close friends of Prime Minister David Cameron, whose government has been caught in a bitter controversy over the web of connections among Britains newspapers, politicians and the police. The ramifications have been explored for the past nine months by a judge-led inquiry into the scandal that has produced a drumbeat of embarrassing headlines for Mr. Cameron and the Conservative Party, as well as for his Labour Party predecessors as prime minister, Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. Company representatives did not return messages seeking further comment on Mr. Murdochs resignation from the British corporate boards on Saturday evening. Before his resignation from the British directorships became public, signaled a waning interest in his British operations. Mr. Murdoch had
In the wake of announcement that News Corporation would split, he told the Fox Business channel that he had decided to step back from efforts to acquire all of British Sky Broadcasting, or BSkyB, a British satellite television network that is 39 percent owned by the News Corporation. The abandonment of a $12 billion offer to
J3nexis.com/new/deliveiy/Printworking.do?dnldFileName=Murdoch_Resigns_From_His_British_Paper... 2/3
/16/12
acqiire the remaining shares in the company, announced as the phone hacking scandal grew last year, was part of the heavy price the Murdochs have paid for the tabloid
scandal. Referring to billions of dollars that the News Corporation had amassed for the BSkyB bid, Mr. Murdoch said, If Britain doesnt want them, well invest them here. Im much more bullish about America than I am about England. It was not immediately clear whether Mr. Murdochs American newspaper and publishing interests would be affected by the moves announced Saturday. URL: http: //www. nytimes corn
.
LOAD-DATE: LANGUAGE: GRAPHIC:
July 22, ENGLISH
2012
PHOTO: Rupert Murdoch with his new The Sun on Sunday in February. GETTY IMAGES) (PHOTOGRAPH BY CARL COURT/AGENCE FRANCEPRESSE
--
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
s3.nexis.com/new/dehvery/PrintWorking.do?dnldFileName=Murdoch_Resigns_From_His_British_Paper.
3/3
EXHIBIT PD
/16/12
1 of 1 DOCUMENT
The Observer July 17,
(England) 2011
National: News International scandal: 9/11 phone hack claim divides US politicians: The News Corp scandal has crossed the Atlantic, with Democrats leading the charge
BYLINE: SECTION: LENGTH: Paul Harris, New York Pg. 8
OBSERVER HOME NEWS PAGES; 568 words
The battle over Rupert Murdochs News Corporation is splitting American politics along party lines, with senior Democrats calling for investigations into the company while some senior Republicans play down the crisis. Allegations that News International reporters may illegally have attempted to obtain the phone numbers of 9/11 victims have prompted an FBI probe into the company, which last week launched a preliminary investigation into the allegations. But a backlash has begun, focusing on the source of the claim: a single story in the Daily Mirror The former Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain has criticised the decision to investigate, saying there is little evidence so far that the problem of phone hacking had spread to the US and the probe was unjustified. It seems to me that this is a British issue that needs to be resolved first, he told Sky News. Ive heard of no evidence or allegation yet of anything being done in the United States of America. His defence is significant not only because he is a senior Republican but also because he has criticised News Corp in the past. In 2001, he publicly questioned its plans to take over the satellite television service DirecTV, citing concerns over media consolidation. The Washington Post yesterday criticised the Mirror report, saying it appears to be based on a shaky foundation. The Mirror names no specific sources in its reporting, and it relies on a single anonymous secondhand source for its account. More predictably, support has also come from News Corps rightleaning cable channel Fox News, where there has been a reluctance to devote as much time to the story as other outlets, especially the left-leaning MSNBC network. A recent episode of the show Fox and Friends featured a media consultant, Robert Dilenschneider, who said that the scandal was being overplayed and Murdoch had done all the right things. Though one Republican congressman, Peter King, has been influential in calling for probes into News Corp, the bulk of the anger has come from Democrats. Four Democratic senators have written letters to the department of justice and the
13.nexiscomfnew/delivery/PrintWorking.do?dnldFileName=NationaLNews_InternationaLscandaL9ll... 1/2
/16/12
securities and exchange commission asking for investigations. They include powerful figures such as California senator Barbara Boxer and West Virginia senator Jay Rockefeller, who chairs the influential senate commerce committee. At the same time John Podesta, a former Clinton chief of staff who is close to Obama, has come out swinging against News Corp. In an interview in Canada last week, he attacked Fox News and declared that the company might have broken US laws if it paid bribes to police in Britain. This is not one rogue editor. This is an empire that was built on a set of journalistic ethics thats beginning to explode and unravel, he said. Liberal campaigning groups have mobilised against News Corp: a protest was organised last week outside Rupert Murdochs New York apartment, and there is a peLition drive calling for an official investigation into the company. There has also been a focus on the companys political contributions, notably to the Republican Governors Association and the US Chamber of Commerce. That issue may prove less suitable for clear-cut campaigning, however, because News Corp has given money to politicians from both parties in the past. Captions: Republican senator John McCain has criticised the decision to investigate. Getty
LOAD-DATE: LANGUAGE:
July 17,
ENGLISH
2011
PUBLICATION-TYPE:
Newspaper
Copyright 2011 Guardian Newspapers Limited All Rights Reserved
3.nexiscom/riew/delivery/PrintWorking.do?dnldFileNa me = Na tiona LNews_Intemationa Lsca nda L911...
2/2
EXHIBIT EE
Phone hacking: 9/11 victims may have had mobiles tapped by News of the World reporters
HIS media empire is crashing around him, hes just shut down a scandalhit newspaper and his BSkyB bid is in tatters, but Rupert Murdoch still came out grinning yesterday.
Like 2 Send
I I
A Testosterone Trick They Dont Want You to Know
How Cruise Lines Fill All Those Unsold Cruise Cabins How New iPads are Selling for Under $40
RECOMMENDED IN NEWS
Wb
A long. lingering. gruesome death: Man iiied for beating puppvto death with baseball bat
Elvis Presley
He arrived in a cowboy-style hat to be hit by cLaims News of the World reporters hacked the phones of 9/11 victims.
Murdoch held talks with News InternationaL chief executive Rebekah Brooks, amid fears nine staff and three cops may face jail. HIS media empire is crashing around him, hes just shut down a scandal-hit newspaper and his BSkyB bid is in tatters, but Rupert Mur; flame out grinning yesterday. And this cosy picture of him giving his backing to smiling Rebekah Brooks wiLl no doubt infuriate the 200 loyal staff at the defunct News of the World who were sacrificed while she clung to her job.
Shooting TVs. whole loaf sandwiches and a sexually aggressive et monkey: Weirdest ever EMs Presley rumours
Holiday deals
Size does matter: New website reveals airline hand luggage restrictions Human rights Pure tortur&: Locked-in syndro me sufferer Tony Nicklinson loses right to die legal battle
Miracle babies
Little miracle: Babyborn with a cyst the size of a melon on her face survives life-saving surgery
Dons
Spike strikes
again! Second do left with FIVE HUNDRED quills stuck in her face after run in with a porcupine Jeremy clarkson Britain is a nation of 62 million complete and utter b *****ds: Jeremy clarksons rant at evil UK
Rebekah Brooks and Rupert Murdoch
As Labour Leader Ed Miliband vowed to scupper Mr Murdochs bid to own aLL of BSkyB, the News Corp boss seemed to brush off his troubles to joke with the under-fire News International chief executive who was editor when murdered teenager MIILy Dowlers phone was hacked. Asked what his first priority was, he gestured at Mrs Brooks and said: This one.
-
Diamond Jubilee tour Royal tea for three? Win the chance to have a cuppa with Prince William and Kate Middleto n
Viral Going down: Cockpit footage shows planes shocking fall from the sky... with passengers having a miracle escape Education child genius: Maths prodigy. 14. set to be one of UWs youngest ever undergraduates after achieving A* A-level results DIETING OFFER Weight Watchers Monthly Pass
Mr Murdoch arrived in London yesterday, wearing a Panama hat and clutching a final copy of the News of the World, in a bid to save his crumbling organisation after the phone-hacking scandal saw the 168-year-old paper axed. But he flew straight into another storm as it was cLaimed 9/11 victims may have had their mobiles tapped by News of the World reporters. And there was more bad news when it was revealed nine reporters allegedly at the centre of the phone scandal and claims of police corruption could face jail, along with three officers. After he spent time at News Internationals Wapping HQin East London, 80year-old Mr Murdoch held crisis talks with Mrs Brooks, 43 who denies any knowledge of the Milly phone tapping at his home in Mayfair.
-
No reg fee and your first month just 14.95

COMPARE CREDIT CARDS Find the best deal Get the card thats right for you
The pair chatted behind cLosed doors as a former New York cop made the 9/11 hacking claim. He alleged he was contacted by News of the World journalists who said they would pay him to retrieve the private phone records of the dead. Now working as a private investigator, the ex-officer claimed reporters wanted the victims phone numbers and detaiLs of the calls they had made
RECOMMENDED ON THE MIRROR
WbZ
and received in the days Leading up to the atrocity. A source said: This investigator is used by a Lot of journaLists in America and he recently told me that he was asked to hack into the 9/11 victims private phone data. He said that the journaLists asked him to access records showing the calls that had been made to and from the mobile phones belonging to the victims and their reLatives. His presumption was that they wanted the information so they could hack into the relevant voicemaits, just like it has been shown they have done in the UK. The P1 said he had to turn the job down. He knew how insensitive such research would be, and how bad it would look. The investigator said the journalists seemed particularly interested in getting the phone records beLonging to the British victims of the attacks. The News of the World was shut after 11,000 documents seized from a private investigator revealed the ugly truth behind many of its scoops. One police source said: These documents show the hacking was not just one or two attempts at accessing voicemails. More than 4,000 people had their phone hacked. This was hacking on an industrial scale. Mr Murdochs son James, who is chairman of News International, admitted to approving out of court settlements to hacking victims and misleading Parliament which he claims was not deliberate.
-
London 2012 Olympics Free Olympics souvenir magazine inside the Daily Mirror Chris Brown Most exoensive night out ever? Drake and Chris Brown face $16m lawsuit after club brawl Sunderland AFC Knowing me. knowing you: Saha signs for Suriderland on free transfer RSPCA A long. lingering. gruesome death: Man jailed for beating puppy to death with baseball bat Robin van Persie transfer Video special: Arsenal fans burn Robin van Persie shirts (with vanng degrees of successi
h (Pic: Getty lmages) The fresh tapping claims prompted Mr Miliband to declare war on Mr Murdochs bid to control BSkyB. In his most outspoken attack on the media mogul yet, he said yesterday: The idea that this organisation, which has engaged in these terrible practices, should be allowed to take over BSkyB... without that criminal investigation having been completed, and on the basis of assurances from that self-same organisation... frankly that wont wash with the public.
-
Enaland v South Africa cricket
Flying Finn strikes for England: Hosts reduce Proteas
to 65-4 at lunch
Elvis Presley
Labour will table a motion on Wednesday catting on Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt to delay signing off the takeover deal until the criminal investigation into the hacking allegations is wrapped up. Lib Dem ministers are thought to be prepared to back the Labour leader. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Business Secretary Vince Cable are said to be totally united against the bid.
Shooting TVs.
whole Loaf sandwiches and

a sexually aggressive pet monkey: Weirdest ever Elvis Presley rumours
Holiday deals
Size does
matter: New
website reveals airline hand luggage restrictions Human rights Pure torture: Locked-in svndro me sufferer Tony Nicklinson loses right to die legal battle Miracle babies Little miracle: Baby born with a cyst the size of a melon on her face survives life-saving surgery
Lib Dem deputy leader Simon Hughes lent his support yesterday. He said: 9 will be suggesting to my colleagues that we as a party, a party thats never been close to Murdoch, should make clear that we think there should be a postponement of the decision. Mr Murdoch also owns the Sun, the Times and the Sunday Times. Former News of the World editor Andy Coulson, 43, was arrested on Friday over phone hacking and police corruption allegations. Ex-royal editor Clive Goodman, 53, was also held along with a unnamed 63year-old man. All three were freed on police bail after being quizzed by officers. Mr Coulson was hired as David Camerons press aide, despite warnings to the PM over his possible knowledge of the hacking while at the News of the World. And last night criticism of Mr Camerons judgment grew Louder as senior political figures lined up to reveaL they had urged him not to take Mr Coulson into government. Lib Dem Lord Paddy Ashdown and Energy Secretary Chris Huhne claimed they warned the PM after the election but were ignored.
-
Mr Huhne said: Well I raised it with Nick and Nick raised it with the Prime Minister and it was made clear to us that this was a personal appointment to the Prime Minister. It wasnt a Government appointment and therefore we didnt have any standing to object to it, but it was very clear from what I had said previously that I think there were big reputational risks.
The Prime Minister has said that he wanted to give Andy Coulson a second chance and thats very commendable. The reality is that there were very serious risks being run there. We knew with Andy Coulson that anybody in charge of a newspaper needs to know whats going on and at the very least either Andy Coulson was complicit in criminal acts or, alternatively, he was a very incompetent editor by the standards of Fleet Street.
MilLy DowLers parents SalLy and Bob and sister Gemma are due to meet Mr Clegg today. They wilL also see Mr Cameron later in the week, Downing Street has said.
2
Like
Find the best deal
Our comparison service can help you choose
FROM AROUND THE WEB:

SUElit(I:flfl
37!!
Pictures of the London OLympic Mishaps SI. corn
:;;t
-.
Kern Walsh Tattoo Picture (Zimbio)
British man sentenced to four years for linking to pirated content (Digital Trends 1
Off-Duty Cop Crashes Motorcycle Into Little Girl Then Kills Her Enraged Dad (CafeMom)
ADS BY GOOGLE ING DIRECT Investing Buy Stocks for $4 No Minimums. $100 Account Bonus. Learn More! www.sharebuilder.com/ingdirect
-
Is He Cheating On You? 1). Enter His Email Address 2). See Hidden Pics & Social Profiles Now! Spokeo.com/Cheating-Spouse-Search
Online Cooking Lessons

Ready To Get Cooking? EnrolL Today! Escoffier Online Culinary Academy. www. escoffieron line, corn
\ fIowers,.
Send smiles today
rLve $10
ons5999&up
Shop Now)
EXHIBIT FF
Rupert Murdoch may face US court over Jude Law phone hacking in NY claim Mail 0... Page 1 of 10
Click here to print
maitOniine
Will Jude Laws claim his phone was hacked in New York mean Murdoch will face court in U.S?
Actor says his phone was hacked on arrival at JFK airport First specific claim of hacking on American soil Alleged use of U.S. cell phone network would break federal law Murdoch empire already unravelling after departure of Dow Jones CEO Les Hinton
By Daily Mail Reporter UPDATED: 07:58 EST, 17 July 2011
http://www.dailymail.co.uklnews/article-20 1 5624/Rupert-Murdoch-face-US-court-Jude-La... 8/15/2012
Rupert Murdoch may face US court over Jude Law phone hacking in NY claim I Mail 0... Page 2 of 10
airport Legal action: Jude Law says he and his personal assitants phones were hacked when he arrived at JFK
Rupert Murdochs News Corp empire could face charges in America over phone hacking scandal after it was claimed that The News of the World hacked into Jude Laws phone while he was in the United States. It is the first specific case of hacking on U.S. soil leaving the company open to prosecution under federal law. The alleged hacking of Law and his personal assistant Ben Jackson took place shortly after they arrived at JFK airport, meaning their phones were operating in U.S. mobile networks. Prosecutions and costly law suits could be launched in the U.S. regardless of where the hacker was based.
http ://www.dailymail.co.uklnews/article-201 5624/Rupert-Murdoch-face-US-court-Jude-La... 8/15/2012
The company is already facing investigations by the FBI and Attorney General over claims the relatves of 9/11 victims were hacked. Murdochs American empire is also said to be exploding and unravelling as he faces the threat of losing control of his Fox and other cable networks if found guilty of breaching anti-corruption laws. One of the tycoons most senior deputies Les Hinton has already quit as CEO of Dow Jones, which published the Wall Street Journal. He was chairman of the UK subsidiary News International when the hacking took place. He said he had no knowledge of the hacking. Law, 38, who is also suing the News of the Worlds stablemate The Sun, claims that the Sunday tabloid hacked into his phone and used the messages for four articles in 2005 and 2006. The hacking is alleged to have taken place when he was staying in New York en route to Canada to film I Heart Huckabees. The story claimed that Law had sent his personal assistant ahead when he arrived at JFK to check for waiting photographers and ring him if it was safe to emerge. A News of the World reporter watched Law arrive at the airport.
http ://www.dailymail.co.uklnews/article-20 1 5624/Rupert-Murdoch-face-US-court-Jude-La... 8/15/2012
amid claims he could lose Crumbling empire: Rupert Murdoch has alreadty seen Dow Jones CEO Les Hinton, right, resign control of his U.S. cable networks
The News of the World story said: The star refused to leave the baggage reclaim hail until Ben had spent 20 minutes scouring the arrivals lounge. Ben rang Jude on his mobile to confirm the coast was clear.
...
It also detailed where Law was staying and how much his hotel bill came to. the The story went on to give details of Laws arrival at The Carlyle Hotel that evening. It also gave number of the room where Law was staying and how much he spent on room service. told the Brian Kabateck, a Los Angeles lawyer who has represented victims of phone hacking in the U.S. individuals were here in the US, this Daily Telegraph: if phones or messages were hacked while these would clearly be a criminal offence under the federal wiretap acts. victims The authorities take this very seriously here. As well as being an offence under federal status, the would also have the right to bring a civil damages case.
http ://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-20 15 624/Rupert-Murdoch-face-US-court-Jude-La... 8/15/2012
Splash: Front page of the August 1, 2007 edition of the Wall Street Journal reporting that Rupert MurdocWs News Corp will purchase Dow Jones & Co
As well as civil cases in the U.S., News Corp could face prosecution under the 1977 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act which makes it illegal for American firms to bribe foreign officials after the company allegedly paid British police officers for information. Salt was rubbed into the wound by comments from John Podesta, president of the Centre for American Progress, a liberal think tank, and the man who helped Obamas transition to the White House in 2008. He told the Globe and Mail: This is not one rogue editor. This is an empire that was built on a set of journalistic ethics thats beginning to explode and unravel. They were routinely bribing public officials. Weve called attention to the fact that this story is going to go on for a while, this is not a two-week story, I dont think. He is one of a number of senior Democrats hoping Murdochs U.S. empire will fall in the wake of the scandal. The White House has long fought with Fox News, owned by News Corporation, and boycotted the channel for a time. Now there are increasing signs Murdoch could lose control of all his cable channels in America, which include National Geographic and FX as well as Fox. Under federal law, holders of television and radio stations licences have to undergo character tests to show they are fit and proper to be media owners.
http://wwwdailymail.co. uklnews/article-20 15 624/Rupert-Murdoch-face-US-court-Jude-La... 8/15/2012
News Corp, for which John Probe: Attorney General Eric Holder is considering launching a formal investigation into claims Centre for American Progress, predicts a dire future Podesta, of the
Murdoch seems unlikely to pass those tests if Wall Streets fierce regulator, The Securities and Exchange Commission, seeks to enforce the part of the foreign bribery law that requires companies to keep accurate books, according to the Los Angeles Times. to If it is proven that a company violates this and U.S anti-bribery provisions, there is a penalty of up $2m, up to five years in prison. and if convicted, employees could face Julius Genachowski, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, reportedly said this week the allegations should be investigated, but did not say whether his organisation would launch such a probe. Yesterday Mr Holder confirmed the Department of Justice is responding to calls from lawmakers to investigate claims News Corporation hacked into the phones of 9/11 victims. in At a press conference in Sydney, he said: There have been serious allegations raised in that regard Great Britain: there is an ongoing investigation. There have been members of Congress in the United States who have asked us to investigate those same allegations. And we are progressing in the regard using the appropriate federal agencies in the
http ://www.dailymail.co.uklnews/article-20 1 5624/Rupert-Murdoch-face-US-court-Jude-La... 8/15/2012
United States. He also confirmed reports yesterday that the FBI has launched its own informal probe into the allegations.
programmes Jeopardised: Any convictions against News Corporation could make obtaining television licenses for broadcasting difficult
It comes as senior Democrats questioned whether Murdochs American papers, such as the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal, may also have engaged in telephone hacking. The Democratic Senate Campaign Committee has already launched an online petition to demand the truth from Murdoch. It reads: Its time for Rupert Murdoch to come clean and immediately tell the American people whether his company targeted any Americans here at home. Sign our petition to demand the truth. Representative Peter King wrote: If these allegations are proven true the conduct would merit felony charges for attempting to violate various federal statues related to corruption of public officials and prohibitions against wiretapping. Any person found guilty of this purported conduct should receive the harshest sanctions available under law. A spokesman for News International denied the new claims against the Sun, Britains best selling daily newspaper. The company issued a statement saying: We believe this is a deeply cynical and deliberately mischievous attempt to draw The Sun into the phone-hacking issue. By their own admission, News International have misled the police, parliament and the public for nearly five years about the extent of the wrongdoing by their journalists and executives. Some in the business world think Murdochs days are numbered at the helm of News Corporation.
http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article-20 15 624/Rupert-Murdoch-face-US-court-Jude-La... 8/15/2012
Porter Bibb, managing partner at Mediatech Capital Partners, was reported as saying: It is very likely, there will be at some point.., an entire new management. Its a fine company, it has great assets and a terrific future but Murdochs influence despite his de facto ownership is going to being diminished.
MOST READ NEWS

Previous .1 2 .3 .4 Next
29. and her boyfriend. 62. reoeatedllv raned her...
Look away now Anderson! Coopers boyfriend spotted kissing...
She is my heart and I am her legs: Devoted dad runs...
Chad Ochocinco Johnson cheated with mistress for four...
Dont turn out the light! Terrifying photos of ghosts that...
http ://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-20 15 624/Rupert-Murdoch-face-US-court-Jude-La... 8/15/2012
EXHIBIT GG
News Corp faces growing threat of phone-hacking lawsuits in US Media guardian.co.uk
Page 1 of 2
Sign into the Guardian using your Facebook account
theguardian
News Corp faces growing threat of phone-hacking lawsuits in US

Lawyers preparing News of the World phone-hacking claims in New York
Josh Halliday and Ed Pilldngton guardian.co.uk, Friday 13 April 2012 02.50 EDT
over ews Corporation headquarters in Manhattan: Murdoche US empire is facing the growing threat of legal action NoW phone-hacking scandal. Photograph: Mario Tama/Getty Images
Rupert Murdochs News Corporation is facing the growing threat of legal action in the US after two prominent lawyers said they were preparing News of the World phonehacking claims in New York. Mark Lewis, the lawyer behind many phone-hacking claims in the UK, flew to the US on Thursday for legal discussions about four potential actions against News Corp in the United States. A second London lawyer is understood to have started exploring the possibility of legal proceedings over alleged phone hacking across the Atlantic. This lawyer, who declined to be named because proceedings had not been filed, claimed there was considerable evidence that a celebrity client had had voicemail messages intercepted by the now closed News of the World while on US soil. The fresh legal moves mark a broadening of the attack on Murdochs media empire, whose multimillion-dollar US headquarters has so far remained untouched by the scandal that has engulfed the groups UK newspaper operation. The potential US lawsuits are understood to relate mainly to public figures who believe their phones were hacked while in America, where voicemail interception could constitute a violation of US telecommunications and privacy laws. Lewis will next week begin discussions with his New York-based legal partner Norman Siegel, former director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, over the details of US law as it applies to phone hacking.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media120 12/apr/i 3/news-corp-phone-hacking-lawsuits-us
8/15/2012
News Corp faces growing threat of phone-hacking lawsuits in US I Media guardian.co.uk

One of the legal issues being explored by those preparing fresh lawsuits in the US is the rule over so-called double recovery: that is, whether or not a claimant is able to win damages from a defendant in a foreign jurisdiction following earlier action in a different country. It is also understood that a US citizen had his or her phone hacked while in America as a result of hacking into the transatlantic conversation of a foreign-based celebrity who was a friend of the victim. So far, the Us component of the hacking scandal has been confined to an FBI and department ofjustice investigation under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which forbids corporations headquartered in the US from indulging in acts of bribery or corruption abroad. Any lawsuit that flows from Lewiss US activities would take the scandal to another level by becoming the first legal action within the US. The legal moves carried out in America come as phone hacking lawyers prepare a fresh tranche of civil claims in the high court in London. News Group Newspapers, the News International subsidiary that published the News of the World, could face up to 200 more civil actions, with figures including Cherie Blair, the wife of the former Labour prime minister, singer James Blunt, Ukip leader Nigel Farage, and Alex Best, the wife of the ex-Manchester United footballer George Best, having already filed claims.
Page 2 of 2
Ads by Google
Dinner With Barack Obama Learn how you can have dinner with President Obama. barackobama.com/dinner-with-barack Mitt Romney and GST Steel Trying to save a closing plant Learn the truth about GST Steel www.MittRomney.com Filing for Bankruptcy? Call for a free phone consultation (571) www.kohlawfirm.com
921-9990
in Tysons VA
reserved. 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media120 12/apr/i 3/news-corp-phone-hacking-lawsuits-us
8/15/2012
EXHIBIT HH
8/16/12
1 of 1 DOCUMENT
Los Angeles Times July 15, 2011 Friday Home Edition
FBI opens inquiry into Murdochs News Corp

BYLINE: SECTION: LENGTH:
Richard A.
MAIN NEWS; 1309 words
Serrano,
National
Jim Puzzanghera and Kim Geiger

Desk; Part A; Pg. 1
DATELINE:
WASHINGTON
The phone hacking scandal that has ignited a political firestorm in Britain jumped the Atlantic on Thursday as the FBI opened an investigation into whether British reporters tried to access celiphone messages and records of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in violation of U.S. law. The preliminary probe further rattled the New Yorkbased global media empire of Rupert Murdoch, who was forced this week to withdraw his $12billion bid to take the over Britains largest satellite broadcaster, and raises new questions about future of News Corp. is U.S. officials said the FBI is trying to determine if a full investigation yet emerged to confirm that News Corp. employees warranted, and no evidence has the sought to hack phones in the United States. But the unfolding scandal sent in trading. companys battered stock down another 3% l members of The FBIs New York field office launched the investigation after severa journalists at News Congress urged an inquiry into British media reports that to gain access Corp. s recently closed News of the World tabloid in London had tried according to to phones of Sept. 11 victims and the families of those who died, federal law enforcement officials. requested We are doing this based on their requests, said one official, who the letters anonymity because the investigation is underway. But after reviewing after consultation with the U.S. Attorneys office in New and their allegations, and York, we are proceeding. s that News Felony convictions in a U.S. court could imperil the 27 federal license The stations are part of the Corp. uses to operate TV stations across the country. Fox Broadcasting Co. network. in Overall, News Corp. s U.S. holdings are larger and more profitable than those Journal and Britain. They include the 20th Century Fox movie studio, the Wall Street New York Post newspapers, and HarperCollins Publishers.
w3.nexis.com/new/delivey/PrintWorkjngdo?dnldFjleNa me =FBLopens_inquiry_into_Murdoch%27s_Ne... 1/4
3/16/12
Facing an angry backlash by lawmakers on both sides of the Atlantic, Murdoch told the Wall Street Journal on Thursday that corporate executives would create art independent, internal committee to investigate every charge of improper conduct. Murdoch defended his companys handling of the widening controversy, executives had made only minor mistakes. saying
Murdoch said he was getting annoyed with press coverage of the scandal, but said, Ill get over it. He predicted that the financial and political damage to News Corp. was nothing that will not be recovered. A News Corp. spokesman said the company had no public comment on the FBI investigation. Separately in Britain, Murdoch and his son James, after initially refusing a summons, agreed to appear Tuesday before a committee in Parliament that is investigating the alleged phone hacking and police bribery there. Rebekah Brooks, who heads the companys British newspaper division, also agreed to testify. She was editor of the News of the World when some of the hacking allegedly occurred, but has denied any knowledge of it. News Corp. has faced a deepening crisis in Britain since reports in a rival publication that News of the World reporters hacked into the phone of a teenager kidnapped in 2002 who was later found slain, and may have impeded a police investigation into the girls disappearance. The pressure intensified Thursday with the arrest of former News of the World executive editor Neil Wallis, the 9th person who worked at the tabloid to be detained by police. In a letter Wednesday to FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, Rep. Peter T. King (R N.Y.), who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, had cited reports that News of the World journalists attempted to obtain phone records of victims of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11th through bribery and unauthorized wiretapping. King also cited reports that the reporters had solicited a New York police officer victims. to gain access to the content of private phone records of the Sept. 11 the It is revolting to imagine that members of the media would seek to compromise gain in the pursuit of yellow integrity of a public official for financial journalism, King wrote. The 9/11 families have suffered egregiously, but strains. unfortunately they remain vulnerable against such unjustifiable parasitic Police Paul Browne, deputy commissioner of public information for the New York city Department, said the officer referred to in the reports was no longer a that the employee and now works as a private investigator. It was in that capacity newspaper was reportedly soliciting help from the exofficer, Browne said. He allegedly was approached by them, Browne said. Browne added that at this point, we have no inquiry underway at the NYPD, deferring instead to federal investigators. l Other members of the House and Senate from both parties called for congressiona No hearings have been investigations, adding to the political cast of the scandal. scheduled, however. chairs Rep. Bruce Braley (0Iowa) sent a letter to Rep. Darrell Issa (RVista), who Government Reform Committee, asking for an investigation the House Oversight and
w3.nexis.com/new/deliveiy/PrintWorking.do?dnldFileNa me =FBopens_inquiry_into_Murdoch%27sN e.. 2/4
8/16/12
into whether victims of the September 11, 2001 attack and other U.S. their cell phones targeted by News Corporation. Rep.
citizens had
Anna G. Eshoo (DMenlo Park) made the same request of Rep. Fred Upton (R Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. News Corp. is a very, very powerful journalism organization and we should at least investigate to determine if this happened on this side of the pond as well, she said.
...
Rep. Mary Bono Mack (RPalrn Springs), chairwoman of a House subcommittee that deals with telecommunications issues, contacted News Corp. to ask if the companys reporters had used hacking techniques that may violate U.S. privacy laws. They have been cooperative and assured congresswoman Bono Mack that this is not a U.S. problem, said Ken Johnson, senior advisor to Bono Mack. Separately, lawmakers called for the FBI, Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission also to investigate whether U.S.based News Corp. violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which forbids bribery of foreign officials to obtain or retain business. Legal experts said that if News Corp. journalists bribed London police, the company and its employees could be criminally prosecuted. But with British authorities already pursuing the case, it would be unusual for the U.S. to get involved. I dont think the Justice Department would be in a rush to insert itself in a British bribery case, said Richard Cassin, a Charlottesville, Va., lawyer who helps clients comply with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. But because of the disgusting allegations, the public revulsion and the political hornets nest that all of this created, the Justice Department may feel pressure to get involved, he added. The SEC could seek to enforce the part of the foreign bribery law that requires companies to keep accurate books, Cassin said. If News Corp. employees disguised bribe payments with accounting tricks, the SEC may have grounds to fine the company. An SEC spokesman declined to comment on the case. Violations of U.S. antibribery provisions carry penalties of up to $2 million. convicted, employees could face up to $250,000 in fines and five years in jail. If
Such convictions could jeopardize News Corp.s TV licenses. Federal law contains character requirements for holders of licenses for television and radio stations. Felony convictions are grounds for revocation or could be cited to prevent renewals, although such moves are rare. Asked about the controversy at a congressional hearing Thursday, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski said the allegations should be investigated but he did not say that his agency would start such an inquiry.
richard. serrano@latimes corn

.
jim. puz zanghera@latimes corn

.
kim. geiger@latimes corn

.
w3.nexiscom/new/delivery/PrintWorking.do?dnldFileNa me= FBLopens_inquiiyjnto_Murdoch%27s_Ne...
3/4
3/16/12
LOAD-DATE: LANGUAGE:
July 15, ENGLISH
2011
GRAPHIC:
FATHER AND SON: Rupert and James Murdoch, shown in a photo last year, had initially refused a summons but agreed to appear next week before a Parliament panel investigating allegations against News Corp. PHOTOGRAPHER:Adrian
PHOTO:
Dennis AFP/Getty Images PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2011 Los Angeles Times All Rights Reserved
w3.nexis.com/new/delivery/PintWoddng.do?dndFileName=FBI.opens_inquiry_iflto_MUrdOCh%275_Ne...
4/4

CREW: FCC: Seeking To Deny Renewal of Fox Broadcast Licenses: 8/22/2012 - Exhibits U-HH

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CREW: FCC: Seeking To Deny Renewal of Fox Broadcast Licenses: 8/22/2012 - Exhibits U-HH

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

EXHIBIT U

weeks; is that right?

weve worked obviously closely with the CPS,

The perverting the course ofjustice matter,

A. It took place fairly recently. At the beginning, when

we began the enquiries, all contact was through the

We can just note that.

Merrill Corporation (+44) 207 404 1400

8th Floor 165 Fleet Street

stories were published.

A. Yes, thats right, sir.

Can I ask you, please, about paragraph 21, if

Thank you. On 11 July

obviously only two weeks ago

Merrill Corporation (+44) 207 404 1400

8th Floor 165 Fleet Street

Q. Thank you. In paragraph 31

we asked for a response by 18 July to our

Thank you. In paragraph 27, further lines of inquiry

a result of their review.

Q. Okay. May we move forward to Operation Tuleta, and

analysis and research?

Merrill Corporation (+44) 207 404 1400

8th Floor 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY

A. We have a figure above 702 who we think are likely to

Merrill Corporation (+44) 207 404 1400

8th Floor 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY

Merrill Corporation (+44) 207 404 1400

8th Floor 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY

8th Floor 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY

Merrill Corporation (+44) 207 404 1400

8th Floor 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY

Merrill Corporation (+44) 207 404 1400

8th Floor 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY

for particularly a very, very senior

Im going to make no concession

Merrill Corporation (+44) 207 404 1400

8th Floor 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY

Merrill Corporation (+44) 207 404 1400

8th Floor 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY

Merrill Corporation (+44) 207 404 1400

8th Floor 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY

Thank you. (11.32 am)

Page 52 13 (Pages 49 to 52)

Merrill Corporation (+44) 207 404 1400

8th Floor 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY

8th Floor 165 Fleet Street

Merrill Corporation (+44) 207 404 1400

8th Floor 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY

Men-ill Corporation (+44) 207 404 1400

8th Floor 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY

Merrill Corporation (+44) 207 404 1400

8th Floor 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY

Merrill Corporation (+44) 207 404 1400

8th Floor 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY

Merrill Corporation (+44) 207 404 1400

8th Floor 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY

Merrill Corporation (+44) 207 404 1400

8th Floor 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY

Phone hacking: six arrested under Operation Weeting Media I guardian.co.uk

Phone hacking: six arrested under Operation Weeting

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media120 12/mar/i 3/phone-hacking-six-arrested