#hackgate

The latest piece from my regular contributor. What on earth could have brought about The Mail's scatter-gun 'Dodgy Dossier'?  For a start, it's not even news... 13th July 2011 Way back, in the dim distant days before the Leveson (yes, there really was a time before Leveson...), Prime Minister David Cameron announced he was setting up a judge-led inquiry into press practices. Lord Justice Leveson was appointed to report to the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport.  20th July 2011 The Prime Minister announced the Terms of Reference and appointment of “a panel of experts” to assist the Inquiry.  He named each of them and observed (Hansard, 20 July 2011, column 918): “These people have been chosen not only for their expertise in the media, broadcasting, regulation and policing, but for their complete independence from the interested parties.”  Ed Miliband too welcomed the Inquiry "and, indeed, the panel members chosen by the Prime Minister". Cameron praised cross-party agreement which had “worked well over the judicial inquiry, the panel, the terms of reference". (Hansard, 20 July 2011, column 918 onwards)  So it is clear that the Assessors were Prime Ministerial appointments, in consultation with two Secretaries of State, and with cross-party agreement. They were not appointees in Leveson's gift. At that time, News International might have been the most apprehensive about the forthcoming Inquiry. Yet, arguably, Paul Dacre and Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL) have proved the most challenging to Lord Justice Leveson. The Inquiry would hear evidence on ANL's past record with the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) when confronted with criticism - allegedly approximating string it out, object, delay, object some more, delay, go missing, too busy, fail to respond, object again.  Leveson may well have reflected later that this obdurate strategy was mirrored in ANL's dealings with him - the self-same modus operandi in macrocosm. 28th July 2011  Leveson held an initial session and press conference to introduce himself, Assessors & Terms of Reference etc.  He also drew attention to the Inquiries Act, and its provision that any objections on Assessor appointments could be made within 14 days. None were made. Summer 2011 Coordination, planning and procedural sessions continued on a variety of topics, including deciding who would have crucial Core Participant status. For example, "Mr Mathieson of RPC repeated his position, identified in correspondence, that Associated Newspapers Ltd were minded to ask for core participant status but said that he was not in a position to do so in the absence of the Editor in Chief.  On other issues, he was without instructions."  Pre-evidence discussion Seminars were scheduled  Mindful to include a range of experience and opinion, Leveson invited Paul Dacre to chair one of the Seminars: "I did ask him to participate. Unfortunately, on 6th October he cannot, and I am waiting to hear from him about the 12th, I understand." 26th August 2011 ANL wrote to Leveson, questioning the role and remit of the Assessor function, and challenging three of the six Assessors - Sir David Bell (here), George Jones (here), and Elinor Goodman (here). In addition, ANL complained that the panel of Assessors lacked balance as none had tabloid or mid-market newspaper experience (oddly overlooking Elinor Goodman's freelancing for ANL's own Mail on Sunday).  Written exchanges continued with ANL adding concerns about Inquiry strategies they considered political partisanship for good measure.  Letters, submissions, maneuvering rumbled on all summer, delaying and distracting from the main business of the new Inquiry, leading to this revealing exchange:

MR CAPLAN: I am sure you will understand that Associated Newspapers, whom I represent, do not in any way wish to be confrontational with the Inquiry, but you will also understand of course -- LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: The letters didn't quite read like that.

 Leveson made a salient point about ANL's argument that long experience of working with tabloids should be the prime criterion for balance of Assessors.  If so, he suggested, it "would have been open to them (the Ministers) or to me to appoint, for example, Mr Mulcaire.  He has expertise."  (ANL Oral Arguments)  Far from being swatted away dismissively, Leveson mustered the patience of a saint to give ANL's objections due consideration. 17th October 2011 Leveson's formal Ruling reiterated any appeal against Assessors would have needed to be promptly addressed to the Ministers who appointed them not Leveson himself, and that he was satisfied with their relevance and integrity.  By this point, it should be remembered, the Inquiry evidence Hearings hadn't even begun. Finally in mid-November the Evidence Hearings started. But by Day 2, ANL's Opening Submission again set an uncompromising tone.  There were three main issues raised: the absolute necessity of press self-regulation, objections to anonymous witnesses, and - red rag to Dacre's bull - ANL's asserted innocence re Operation Motoman. (for background see here) 21st November 2012 Hugh Grant gave evidence.  That evening, "Paul Dacre, the Associated Newspapers editor-in-chief, had a hand in the drafting of the Daily Mail publisher's statement accusing Hugh Grant of "mendacious smears" (Guardian)  Who can forget the interminable arguments in Court 73 twixt ANL and Mr Sherborne..? 2nd December 2011 Leveson held a closed session with Core Participant counsel to discuss the general treatment of Operation Motorman materials. A consensus was reached that there was prima facie evidence of newspaper 'bulk users' illegalities.  On condition of that collective consensus, Leveson proposed not to make the Motorman files public. 2012 dawned. Perhaps New Year's resolutions would bring peace and goodwill... 13th January 2012 Application for Judicial Review

High Courts of Justice, Case No: CO/11362/2011: Before LORD JUSTICE TOULSON, MR JUSTICE SWEENEY and MRS JUSTICE SHARP  Between: (Claimant) THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS LIMITED - and - (Defendant) THE RT HON LORD JUSTICE LEVESON (AS CHAIRMAN OF THE LEVESON INQUIRY)

In short, ANL applied for permission of overrule Leveson on allowing anonymised witness evidence from those fearful of victimisation.  ANL opined that Leveson would thereby be trampling on natural justice, risked causing them reputational damage, and trangressed their section 10 Human Rights.  Mr Justice Toulson declined...

...to micromanage the conduct of the Inquiry by the Chairman... (I) refuse this application for judicial review. For the future,...protocol will be matters of detailed consideration for him, which should not foreseeably give rise to further requests for judicial interference.

Mr Justice Sweeney: I agree.   

Mrs Justice Sharp:  I also agree.

The week scheduled for evidence from Editors was inconvenient for Dacre - again.  Robert Jay reported, ...

some people may be wondering why Mr Paul Dacre is not on the list for today. The answer is he's not available for the rest of this month, and indeed for today, but we have lined him up, as it were, for 6 February

6th February 2012 Dacre's first appearance. Duly sworn-in, Leveson welcomed him: "Mr Dacre, I thank you, as I've thanked the editors of other newspapers who have allowed me to visit their newsrooms. I know you weren't there at the time but I'm grateful to you for allowing me to do so" Asked by Robert Jay if complainants to the PCC were commonly worn down by a protracted ANL 'war of attrition', Dacre categorically denied it (p45).  When questioned closely on Motorman and use of Steve Whittamore, Dacre became obstinate and combative.  He refused to accept ANL's titles might have been complicit in illegality so Leveson called a short break to allow him to consult Counsel.  On return Dacre was hardly pacified, asserting that whilst Whittamore may have done illegal acts ANL journalists had demonstrably not. (p57) Because of the spat over Hugh Grant and the 'mendacious smear' allegation - Leveson directed that Dacre return for a second appearance.  Mr Caplan QC first argued against Dacre having to appear again, and then seemed to prevaricate as to whether Dacre would even comply. The exchanges are interesting:

LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: We, of course, as you know, fitted in to Mr Dacre's timetable....  We WILL find some short period of time for this to be the subject of further evidence and we shall do that this week. And there it is. MR CAPLAN: Sir, I obviously will have to make enquiries of -- LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. MR CAPLAN: I have no idea of Mr Dacre's whereabouts. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Mr Caplan, I'm very sorry. I know that Mr Dacre is busy. We have worked very hard to fit ourselves around his commitments. I cannot believe that in the next three days it is not possible to find a few minutes. We shall fit ourselves around him to such extent as we can but I beg you not to ask me to go further. 

(for more, see The Motorman Files and Dacre's Dilemma) 9th February 2012 Required to give that encore appearance (and clearly there grudgingly), yet another Dacre robust defence was prompted re Grant's "mendacious smears" - and a testy 11 page Supplemental Statement. 14th June 2012 ANL's counsel wrote to the Inquiry and, arguably, reneged on the consensus understood to be have been reached that the Motorman files demonstrated prima facie offences by press journalists. 18th June 2012 The Mail splashed its story alleging that Leveson had threatened to resign, was stifling free speech, and had clashed with Michael Gove's right-minded defence of press liberty. 19th June 2012 A seeming Motorman-related Submission from ANL on 'Standard of Proof', challenging Lord Justice Leveson. (here)

In ANL’s submission the issues to be considered are as follows: (1) Whether it is open to the Chairman to express concerns based on suspicion? (2) If so, in what circumstances, including, whether the grounds giving rise to the suspicion must be reasonable grounds or whether a lower standard of proof is acceptable, having regard to the duty of fairness? (3) Whether it is fair or appropriate when dealing with allegations of a criminal or quasi-criminal nature for the Chairman to state that he finds such allegations proved on the civil standard?

10th July 2012 Leveson's measured response, via written Ruling - addressed solely to ANL - was that he considered "it would not be appropriate to reach a conclusion about the Whittamore material that one of the most significant core participants (and one of the largest users of Mr Whittamore’s services) wished to challenge without deploying that evidence in public" (p8)  So, Leveson was being very clear that he could and would put selected Motorman evidence into the public domain. As just ANL were recanting, he was prepared to arrange that only Motorman files exclusively linked to ANL titles would be made public.  To reinforce the point, he was happy to order the necessary additional public Hearings in August.  It did not sound as though Leveson was making an empty threat. 13th July 2012 ANL backed down by apologising for any misunderstanding: "It was not our intention to resile from the position confirmed on a confidential basis to the Inquiry in December 2011." (see here) Lord Justice Leveson and Mr Jay QC must have given sighs of relief.... prematurely. 20th July 2012 ANL Closing Submission, (p41)

ANL also remains concerned that one of the Assessors who will be assisting the Chairman in his task is the former chairman of the Media Standards Trust, whose proposals for regulation - opposed by ANL and other publishers - include a proposed regulatory "backstop"

Firing Cirrus of the Something Awful forums posted this interesting set of graphs looking at coverage of the UK phone hacking scandal: So there's been a couple of mentions of the network graphs that were put up in the last thread. I'm planning on getting back into working on them, now that I've finally got some time to do so again. Work has been especially hectic in the past six months and in that time there has been a lot revealed that can be mapped out. These two issues combined have resulted in a disastrously complex graph (simple version, last updated at the end of May) because I kept on throwing in extra connections as they arose, without any real plan or theory. The new plan is a focus on clarity and smaller networks that can be interlinked, if needed. In the meantime, I took a look at some different data today as some people have been wondering whether the current revelations are going to have much exposure in the press. I ran a quick search of "phone hacking" in a newspaper archive database and have plotted the number of articles published each month. The graph below shows a y-axis log plot of average number of articles published a day in each month from Jan 2010 (the month before the first CMSC report was published) up until today. As would be expected, spikes in the number of articles match up very nicely with events in this timeline. I've marked a few of the big ones:

I've adjusted the data so it's articles per day because months aren't uniform in length, Spetember isn't finished yet, and I'm a pedant. I've used a log y-axis in that graph because of this:

and just for 'fun' here's how article publication rate about phone hacking fares against article publication about something nicer. There's no correlation, sadly:

Will this new stuff coming out be another bump, like Sean Hoare's? I guess it's just a case of wait-and-see for now. 

The latest piece from a regular contributor. Lord Justice Leveson delivered a new Ruling this morning regarding Operation Motorman and Associated Newspapers.  In this new Ruling, Leveson gives a glimpse of representations made in private on how the inquiry should interpret the Motorman Files - the Ruling itself gives a good background summary of the Motorman investigation and Steve Whittamore's documentation in relation to his business of 'enquiries' undertaken for national newspapers via named journalists.  Many of these commissions include criminal records checks, Police National Computer checks - on the face of it, data procurement which was illegal. No journalists were arrested, charged or prosecuted. In order to address concerns on the level of detail that the Inquiry might make public, Leveson held private hearings to receive Core Participant views.  He understood from those private meetings that there was a general acceptance that breaches of data protection laws by some journalists were acknowledged. Given that understanding, Leveson ruled that he did not intend tp make public any or all information in the Motorman Files.  This decision drew criticism from those wanting all the information released into the public domain and, presumably, some relief was felt by the named journalists and the national newspapers who had employed them. Then Paul Dacre decided to take umbrage at Lord Justice Leveson's understanding of the private hearings' consensus on Motorman. Dacre's titles came top of Motorman league of journalists commissioning of Steve Whittamore so, arguably, Dacre has most to fear from any release or leak of the Motorman Files. For an analysis of Dacre's dilemma, see here. During Paul Dacre's evidence to the Inquiry, he appeared to accept (prompted by Leveson's prompting to consult with Associted Newspapers counsel) that there was prima facie evidence in the Motorman Files that journalists in his employ had commissioned data procurement, obtained illegally by Whittamore.  This grudging and graceless acceptance was given by Dacre amid his defensive opinions on the accuracy and validity of the Motorman evidence. However, Dacre now seems to be challenging Leveson's understanding of prima facie acknowledgement of illegality by Associated Newspaper journalists.  Associated Newspapers defensive actions may have been, in part, prompted by Core Participant victims' counsel, Mr Sherborne, making successful argument to Lord Justice Leveson for partial and redacted release of some Motorman Files evidence - that which relates to journalists still continuously employed by relevant newspapers. Even in redacted form - letter ciphers standing in for journalists' names - this represents the first Motoman evidence released which relates to non-News International titles.  (Whittamore's 'Blue Book' detailing named News International journalists commissions has been leaked by GuidoFawkes.) Associated Newspapers representations to Leveson firstly take issue with his assumption that Dacre accepted strong prima facie evidence of illegality. Counsel have complained about Leveson's characterisation as "strong" prima facie evidence. Lord Justice Leveson's opening remarks this morning included an apology to Associated for mis-representing their understanding through his use of the word "strong". Notwithstanding, should Associated Newspapers additionally be back-pedalling on any acknowledgement of bad practice, Lord Justice Leveson IS now prepared to address the Motorman Files (as they relate to Associated titles) - IN PUBLIC and over the summer:

If necessary I shall sit during August to deal with it

[Back to Controversial Cops and News Corp.] Thanks to a regular contributor for putting this latest information together. The following useful information is mainly extracted from a Briefing Note for Members of Parliament, published 26 June 2012, 'Phone hacking – Inquiries and Reports'

This note provides brief details about the ongoing inquiries and investigations associated with phone hacking and the various reports produced. It also gives details of the legislation regarding relevant offences and provides links to timelines of events.

A new piece by a regular contributor on Paul Dacre's problem with Operation Motorman and Lord Leveson. Lord Justice Leveson announced a Hearings respite for this week, earmarked for taking stock, reading and reflection.  The respite did not even last the weekend.  Without fanfare, on Friday evening, the Leveson web site quietly published his new Ruling on Operation Motorman. Brian Leveson's appetite for Sunday breakfast was doubtless blunted by the Mail on Sunday front page - blaring his alleged displeasure with Michael Gove as expressed in a phone call to the Cabinet Secretary.  Brian Cathcart has pinpointed this as the start of 'Operation Megaphone', a blast of shrill trumpets from sections of the press, sounding their battle cry against the Leveson Inquiry in the hope that the walls will come tumbling down. These two weekend stories are not unconnected as it is the Mail on Sunday (and Daily Mail) which arguably have most to fear from the Motorman files.  And it is Paul Dacre, Editor-in-Chief, who has throughout resented Leveson's Inquiry the most. When Dacre was first called to give evidence, in the week scheduled for Editors, he was apparently not available. As Robert Jay reported, ..."some people may be wondering why Mr Paul Dacre is not on the list for today. The answer is he's not available for the rest of this month, and indeed for today, but we have lined him up, as it were, for 6 February".  Dacre duly appeared that day to give his evidence (more below) but - because of the spat over Hugh Grant and the 'mendacious smear' allegation - he was required by Leveson to return for a second appearance. Mr Caplan QC (Counsel for Associated Newspapers) first argued against Dacre having to appear again, and then seemed less than confident that Dacre would even comply. The exchanges are interesting:

LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: We, of course, as you know, fitted in to Mr Dacre's timetable....  We WILL find some short period of time for this to be the subject of further evidence and we shall do that this week. And there it is. MR CAPLAN: Sir, I obviously will have to make enquiries of -- LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. MR CAPLAN: I have no idea of Mr Dacre's whereabouts. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Mr Caplan, I'm very sorry. I know that Mr Dacre is busy. We have worked very hard to fit ourselves around his commitments. I cannot believe that in the next three days it is not possible to find a few minutes. We shall fit ourselves around him to such extent as we can but I beg you not to ask me to go further.

Dacre's main evidence on 6th Feb could be characterised as resentful and defensive.  He was questioned by Robert Jay and attempted several times to cross-question him back. He gave the distinct impression that he regarded being questioned by the Inquiry as inconvenient and a gross impertinence. This was most marked when questioned about Daily Mail journalists topping the table of taskings given to Steve Whittamore (p9)

JAY: May I move on to Operation Motorman...You say this: "Until the Information Commissioner's 2006 reports, I was not personally aware of the extent that our journalists were using search agencies." By using the term "extent", were you intending to accept there that you were aware that the Daily Mail was at least using these search agencies? DACRE: Yes. JAY: But you weren't aware of the scale of the problem -- DACRE: The numbers. The numbers I wasn't aware of. ... JAY: The Inquiry received evidence from Mr Peter Wright, the Mail on Sunday editor, and he said that he was aware of Operation Motorman at the beginning of 2004, in view of the Bob Crow story, which of course was published in the Mail on Sunday....Were you aware of Operation Motorman as a result of that particular issue? DACRE:  I suppose I must have been, yes. I don't recall it exactly, but I must have been aware. JAY: Yes, because the -- I think the journalist involved was interviewed and it was going to be part of Operation Glade, if not Operation Motorman. Operation Glade was the Metropolitan Police operation... DACRE: This was a Mail on Sunday journalist? JAY:  Yes, it was. So you were aware of it from that route, as it were.

This exchange above is particularly interesting as it pinpoints an identifiable story leading to an identifiable Mail on Sunday journalist being questioned by the Met - one of seven journalists interviewed by Operation Glade but not prosecuted.  Each of the seven protested they were unaware of Whittamore's illegal methods:

DACRE:  ...They said they were only getting phone numbers and addresses and they didn't seem to think they were behaving illegally. ... JAY: But you accept that you didn't carry out an investigation in 2006 or earlier to ascertain the facts, don't you? DACRE: Because, as I say, we didn't know then what we now know. JAY:  But what was set out in the Information Commissioner's second report was quite clear, wasn't it, in relation to the Daily Mail: 958 transactions --

Robert Jay was pressing the point that no conceivable 'failure of corporate governance' was countenanced, and no individual disciplinary investigations mounted.  Whilst some Motorman-implicated journalists moved on, others stayed, thrived - perhaps even rewarded by career progression.  The identifiable Bob Crow story might serve as a case in point.  From Crow's witness statement, there is this:

On the 2nd February 2003 there appeared an article in the Mail on Sunday written by Christopher Leake which showed a photograph of me going to work on the back of a scooter owned by my Personal Assistant.

Crow was puzzled how Christopher Leake could have identified his movements and the scooter driver until "it was subsequently revealed to me as a result of a Court case involing a Mr. S. Whittamore and others around police corruption." Crow believes the Mail on Sunday identified the scooter driver through DVLA or Police National Computer data abuses via Whittamore, and that his whereabouts were obtained by phone hacking. Clearly, Paul Dacre has reason to be rattled at Leveson's new Ruling which may allow more of the Motorman files into the public domain; those of journalists still in employment - as Christopher Leake was, until just two weeks ago. Lord Justice Leveson did make reference to Dacre specifically in his Motorman Ruling, on the question of whether or not Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday retained (and possibly still used) information illegally obtained by Whittamore.  He reminded:

Although on 9 March, I raised with Mr Caplan the question addressed to Mr Paul Dacre concerning storage of information to which he undertook to provide an answer (see 6 February pm page 60, line 12), he overlooked his failure to do so and has not responded to a subsequent reminder (leading to the delay in ruling on this submission): suffice to say, this evidence continues to remain outstanding

As rebukes go, this seems polite and understated. Yet the timing of the Mail on Sunday 'Gove v Leveson' story demonstrates that Dacre has shifted from defensive to attack mode, intending to deter any more inconvenient and impertinent enquiries. Dacre has raised the megaphone for the press and, as Brian Cathcart puts it:

...cover your ears as you may, from now on you will not be able to block out the howling fury of an industry that never accepted anything was wrong with the way it operated, and which will now vent its sense of injustice at maximum volume...  We do not have to let them swamp us with their self-serving noise.

Now for an excellent contribution from a regular reader regarding Operation Motorman: On Monday 11th June, Lord Justice Leveson lit a slow-burning fuse with a few words in his opening remark:

I am today handing down rulings in relation to the application made concerning Operation Motorman and in relation to costs.

The week's high-profile hearings then moved swiftly on to Gordon Brown, George Osborne, John Major, Ed Milliband and David Cameron et al. No wonder then that this mention of Operation Motorman has been overlooked in the cacophony. Leveson's new Ruling on Operation Motorman was quietly published on the Inquiry web site on Friday evening. Motorman is the pivotal investigation in a sorry succession of ineffectual probes into press abuses through invasions of privacy, phone hacking, corruption of police and public officials and so on. The narrative starts with Operation Reproof and continues to the current police investigations, Operations Weeting, Elvedon and Tuleta.  For more background, see Hackgate for Beginners - Past Police Operations. Two key pieces of witness evidence mentioned in Lord Justice Leveson' s new Ruling are those of Alex Owens and DCI Gilmour of the Metropolitan Police Service. Alex Owens was a lead investigator on Operation Motorman, which was an Information Commissioner's (ICO) investigation (therefore not a police investigation) into 'industrial scale' illegal information-gathering practices by 'enquiry agent' Steve Whittamore who kept records of hundreds of transactions that he and three associates carried out, commissioned by multiple journalists for national newspaper titles.  These records are collectively known the Motorman Files and were summarised in table form in the ICO publication 'What Price Privacy Now', p9 In short, the Motorman Files comprise several note books which are colour coded.  The Red Book refers to Trinity Mirror Group journalists, Yellow and Green Books mainly to the Mail and Express (and related titles), and the notorious Blue Book deals solely with News International titles. Collated into spreadsheets by the ICO, these Whittamore notebooks contain a wealth of information on commissioning journalists' names, their targets, personal details, type of information sought (eg criminal records, County Court judgements, mobile phone numbers), and the substantial fees invoiced by Whittamore. None of the Motorman files has been officially released into the public domain, but Leveson did earlier rule their circulation - under conditions of strict confidentiality - to Core Participants only. A partially redacted version of the Blue Book has however been leaked and there are rumoured to be a few unredacted copies around. DCI Gilmour's evidence revealed that information gleaned by Operation Motorman was used in the Met's parallel Operation Glade and that seven unnamed journalists were interviewed by police:

Freelance journalist Journalist for News of the World Journalist for News of the World, Scotland Journalist for the Daily Mirror Journalist for the Sunday Mirror Freelance Journalist Journalist for the Mail on Sunday 

None of these were prosecuted as - identically - their legal representation  argued a) their ignorance of Whittamore's illegal methods and b) the possibility of having 'public interest' defence.  It may or may not be fair to assume these are a representative sample of  'worst offenders' in sheer volume of requests to Whittamore, but it is certain that these seven bear witness to the range of major national newspaper titles.  This why Leveson's June 11th new Ruling on Motorman is likely to lead to explosive revelations, as he has now ruled that more information WILL be released from Operation Motorman - and not just the News Int related Blue Book.

At the end of February 2012, an application was made other than by a core participant to make public the submissions that I had heard in private. On 13 March, I ruled against that application for two reasons. First, I concluded that this private information was within the purview of the Information Commissioner whose decision as to appropriate disclosure deserved respect and, secondly, this Inquiry was not concerned with ‘who did what to whom’ but rather with the culture, practices and ethics of the press as a whole...I then said that Mr Sherborne, on behalf of core participants who were his clients was at liberty to argue that the details should be made public consistent with the Terms of Reference of the Inquiry and my observations about fairness.

David Sherborne duly made representations on 9th May, based on a variety of arguments which make interesting reading, whilst pressing that release of the Motorman Files was essential "to demonstrate the prevailing and continuing culture, practices and ethics of the press."  Counter-arguments were presented on 11th May by other leading newspaper groups - the Core Participants most likely to suffer a high degree of 'reputational damage'. As one would expect, these arguments covered the 'too historical', 'no longer employed by us', 'public interest', 'information was available legally elsewhere', 'trivial in nature' variety - and are essential reading.  In addition, Leveson's Ruling makes specific reference to the evidence of Pia Samar, Editorial Legal Director of Times Newspapers Ltd, who had robustly defended News International by stating that insufficient evidence had been provided by the ICO in 2006, some of it was erroneous, it was impractical to look into the issue further and that, in any event, no prosecutions had to mean presumption of innocence. In his considerations Leveson observes,

When I saw the identity of some of those who had been targeted and the nature of the information sought, it seemed to me clear not only that much information had been obtained in breach of the Data Protection Act 1988 but also that the potential to deploy the statutory defence was limited in the extreme. I was reluctant to disclose the details and put them into the public domain not least because of the consequent publicity, probably unwelcome, that would attach to the targets who would suffer a further invasion of privacy nine or ten years after Mr Whittamore had first undertaken the task.

Arguably, these are very damning observations and Leveson has also taken the unusual and sensitive step of consulting with some target-victims to glean their views. He goes on to question whether the press were perhaps slow or reluctant to learn any lessons from Operation Motorman and 'What Price Privacy Now' - one newspaper group had even continued to employ the services of Steven Whittamore after his conviction. Adhering to his 'who did what to whom' self-denying principle, Leveson notes that David Sherborne's main argument was focused on establishing  subsequent rewards and career trajectories of journalists named in the Motorman spreadsheets, as well as "the lack of disciplinary action and the fact that at least a number of the involved journalists had been promoted to senior editorial positions. I agree that these are potentially relevant considerations."

... I can express my conclusions quite shortly. If Mr Sherborne’s clients wish to provide the Inquiry with such information as they have collated from the Whittamore records where a continuous link to the present day can be established, they should do that without further delay... it is only intended to address the specific journalists that Mr Sherborne’s clients have identified who are still in their [the individual newspaper titles] employment. .....I will, of course, consider anything that emerges from the exercise... ...for public purposes, names will be redacted...names of targets and journalists will (when in redacted form) be referenced by letters so that it will be possible for the public to track any answer that might be provided in connection with any allegation.