After quite a search last year, Baroness Betty Buxom turned out to be the only individual desperate enough to take on the chairmanship of the tainted Press Complaints Commission, from erratic wind & waffle wallah, Sir Christopher Meyer. She has done little since to dispel the sense of toothless futility which prevailed under her predecessor.
In one of her first big public pronouncements, to the Society of Editors Annual Conference last November, she told them that in the light of new evidence recently presented to the Commons Culture Media & Sport Committee, the PCC had re-examined the facts relating to the News of the World phone-hacking scandal. They had concluded, she said, that none of this evidence altered their previous conclusion – that Clive Goodman (Royal editor, jailed for his admitted phone-hacking) was a one-off, a rogue reporter and that only he, of all the other hacks on the Screws, had used this illegal method to invade privacy and acquire stories.
Nick Davies of the Guardian (who unearthed fresh evidence last year) had presented irrefutable evidence that the Screws’ senior Shag’n’Brag reporter, Neville “Onan the Barbarian” Thurlbeck had been using Mulcaire’s phone hacking services.
On 2 September 2009 Mark Lewis, the solicitor acting for Gordon Taylor whose extraction of some £700,000 in damages from the paper had sparked the story, was questioned by the committee. He told them that whilst conducting Mr Taylor’s claim he had attended court in order to make an application for the disclosure of documents from the police. Outside court he had spoken to DS Mark Maberly.
Lewis told the committee, “DS Mark Maberly said to me: “You are not having everything but we will give you enough on Taylor to hang them.” Those were his words: “to hang them”. . . He also mentioned the number of people whose phones had been hacked. Whether that was an aside . . . but they said that there was evidence about, or they had found there were something like 6,000 people who were involved. It was not clear to me whether that was 6,000 phones which had been hacked or 6,000 people including the people who had left messages.”
This evidence and the blatantly mendacious delivery of Screws management when trying to explain away these inconvenient facts, left no one in doubt that phone-hacking had been systemic within the paper across a wide range of reporters, and that it was very unlikely that any members of the management would not have known of the practice.
In her statement to the editors, however, Baroness Buxom claimed new further contrary evidence had come to light.
“Those of you who are familiar with the case will recall the significance that was attached to the apparent evidence of a then Detective Sergeant from the Metropolitan Police called Mark Maberly. It was he who was alleged to have said that around 6,000 people had had their phone messages hacked or intercepted.
The allegation was made in oral evidence to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, and has also been published in the press. It was repeated just last Monday in some coverage questioning our report.
Since the publication of our report last Monday, the PCC has heard from Detective Inspector (as he now is) Maberly through lawyers for the Metropolitan Police.
This letter says that Mr Maberly has in fact been wrongly quoted on the 6,000 figure. The reliable evidence, we were told in an e-mail confirming the contents of the letter, is that given by Assistant Commissioner John Yates to the Select Committee, who referred to only a “handful” of people being potential victims.
In light of this, I am doing two things.
First, I am of course putting this new evidence to my colleagues in the Press Complaints Commission, because they will want to update our report to take account of this development.
Second, I have just spoken to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, John Whittingdale, to draw this to his attention. Any suggestion that a Parliamentary Inquiry has been misled is of course an extremely serious matter.”

When Guardian reporter Chris Tryhorn asked whether the letter from the police “had effectively withdrawn Maberly’s evidence”, she replied:
“Maberly has been wrongly quoted in saying that 6,000 people were involved. He didn’t say it. He is said to have said it.”

This claim by the baroness was widely reported and, not surprisingly, Mark Lewis was incensed. He’d nothing to gain by appearing before the Culture Media & Sport Committee, other than the satisfaction of doing a public service, and now he had been widely branded a liar. He has now issued a claim against the Baroness, the PCC and the MPS for damages inrespect of a clear libel. 
The PCC, in response to a critical reference in the Committee’s report last February, decided to backtrack from this clearly articulated position by issuing a statement in April in which they attempt to eat the Baroness’s words…..
“Baroness Buscombe has never suggested – and does not believe – that Mr Lewis misled the Select Committee and her statement, which made no reference to Mr Lewis, was not intended as a criticism of him or the evidence which he gave to the Select Committee. Baroness Buscombe regrets that her statement may have been misunderstood and that this has been of concern to Mr Lewis. Baroness Buscombe and the Commission therefore wish to make the position entirely clear.”
Oh dear. That’s very clear – she said it, but then she didn’t say it.
I think Mark Lewis may succeed in his suit.

Popularity: 6% [?]

 Would a new Tory government defy the wishes of the Murdochs and press ahead with introducing custodial sentences for convictions under the Data Protection Act?
       In early 2008, when the Labour government was about to enact a new Criminal Justice and Immigration bill, they were heavily leaned on by newspaper bosses, principally News International, to strike out Clause 77, which made persons found guilty of offences under the 1998 DPA liable to a term of imprisonment. The papers claimed that this would unreasonably restrain their journalists (despite the important provision of a public interest defence for bona fide investigative journalists).
       Mr Brown, whom the Sun newspaper still purported to support at the time, caved in quickly and the clause, while not entirely removed from the bill, was relegated to the status of a mere order-making power, which simply gives the Justice Secretary the power ask Parliament (and other interested parties) at some later date if they wanted it activated.
Since the Sun declared last September for the other side (for all the help that may be), Mr Brown’s Justice Department announced the following month that it was launching a consultation paper with a view to reporting its conclusions on January 31st, and, if positive, putting the new DPA custodial penalties in place in April – this month. The results of the consultation have not been published and there is no sign that this important deterrent to data theft, especially by tabloid journalists seeking private details of celebrities’ lives, will ever be put on the statute book. In any case, in a month’s time there may be a Conservative Justice Secretary in place.
How easy would it be for him to pick up where Jack Straw left off and ignore the wishes of the Conservatives’ friends in Fleet Street?
The Shadow Justice Secretary since January 2009 has been Dominic Grieve. His relationship with News International is unclear. A rumour surfaced in the Observer last year that News International boss, Rebekah Brooks told her old chum and the Tories’ Director of Communications, Andy Coulson that they wouldn’t support the Tories unless Grieve was replaced as Home Secretary. “There is little doubt that the Sun’s support will give Murdoch leverage over a Conservative government, and that power is already being used,” the Observer added. This is a fuzzy story, since Grieve left the Shadow Home Office job in January ’09 when he became Shadow Justice Secretary, and Rebekah Brooks wasn’t elevated to her job as CEO of News International until September ’09 – unless, of course, Rebekah and the Tories had been pow-wowing for over 9 months before the deal was done.
However, there is clearly some lack of harmony between NI and the potential new Justice Secretary. In response to my enquiry as to whether, if he is the New Justice Secretary after May 6^th, he would continue the consultation process over Clause 77 or abandon it, he said: “We agree with the Information Commissioner that custodial penalties should be available for deliberate or reckless misuse of personal data. The law provides the possibility of a defence for responsible journalism undertaken in the public interest and the Information Commissioner has advised that this defence should be made available.”
It looks as though under a new Tory government, there is at least one piece of the News International agenda that won’t be adhered to, if Grieve is given the Justice Department – in spite of the Murdoch’s wishes.

Popularity: 7% [?]

 Max Clifford has accepted £1m in what is described not as compensation for invasion of privacy (which is what it is) but as “costs” and a “personal payment” from the News of the World. A Court Order rescinding the Feb 3rd request for disclosure by Mulcaire and of the Screws’ settlement with Gordon Taylor, also states that there shall be no order as to costs, and makes no mention of a settlement, which effectively allows the Screws to deny any wrongdoing, despite this massive pay out to avoid having to make the potentially catastrophic disclosures ordered at the request of Clifford’s lawyers.

No wonder the deal has taken so long to work out, with all this give and take, though it seems likely, with Max holding the whip hand, and Ol’ Rumplechops hopping around in New York, worried shitless about the truth coming out, that he could have held out for a great deal more. After all, Les Hinton was in charge of News International at the time of their Royal phone hacking debacle, and there are few who doubt he knew what was going on, at leat as much as managing editor Stuart Kuttner (who master-minded the scheme), head of legals, Tom Crone and Andy Coulson, who was editor at the time. This is a big problem for Murdoch who is desperate to be perceived as a respectable, major player in New York, as the proprietor of the pre-eminent Wall Street Journal, which Les Hinton now fronts up for Rupert.

I understand that everyone has their price, as Rupert knows well. Since the Royal phone-hacking prosecution revealed five more victims, the Screws have already paid off Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire, the hacks who’d been hung out to dry. They have also given a fat fee to Elle Macpherson for an interview (by Sarah Brown, for heaven’s sake!) in their “Crapulous!” magazine, in which pages are devoted to plugging her range of knickers. They’ve paid Gordon Taylor and his minions c £1m in costs and damages.

But a lot of us were hoping Max would abide by his pledge, issued when he launched his claim against the Screws, that his principal aim was to uncover the Truth. He didn’t especially need the money (and anyway said he would give any proceeds of the suit to children’s health charities.)  If he hadn’t take Rupert’s tainted money and  persisted with his claim, and won (which he almost certainly would have done), he’d have been lucky to be awarded  £30K – £50K, but the News of the World, the Metropolitan Police and Glenn Mulcaire would have been forced to produce details which would have had disastrous effects, possibly leading to widened charges over the original phone-hacking crimes.

So, the Murdoch’s have sort of got away with it this time (for a £1m + their own costs), but the temptation for the growing number of confirmed Screws’ targets to ask for more of the same has been magnified. It only needs one whose sense of public duty outstrips their own greed to go all the way, and force them to throw into the public domain details of endemic illegal news-gathering.   

And back in Romania, Albania, and probably still in London,too, is a band of men who have been falsely accused, imprisoned on remand and subsequently acquitted as a result of fabricated stories cobbled together by disgraced Screws Investigations Editor, Mazher Mahmood. In the currrent climate, these victims of the Screws’ outrageous attitude to Truth and Justice could offer a profitable project for a good, hungry lawyer.

Popularity: 10% [?]

Tomorrow, Thursday 18th, Max Clifford’s lawyers were due in the High Court to request disclosure by the Metropolitan Police of all documents seized by them as they raided the offices of Screws’ investigator, Glenn Mulcaire when they arrested him in Aug 2006.
BUT, the hearing is not now listed.
Nor has the paper complied with an order in the High Court to disclose (by earlier this week) the terms of their agreement with Gordon Taylor when  they gave him £700k+ after he pursued them for invasion of privacy by hacking his phones (although they still deny anyone in the paper knew). Nor has co-defendant, Glenn Mulcaire, as ordered by the court, disclosed the names of the paper’s management who ordered him to hack into Clifford’s voicemail (for which he has already been convicted.)
Could it be that the Screws would rather sign a very large cheque then reveal precisely who in the paper knew about the extensive phone hacking that’s come to light? After all….. how much can it be worth to avoid the risk of former editors going to jail for conspiring to offend under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000)?
And they’d have to pay Max Clifford a great deal more than the Court would award to make him drop a claim which he’s looking forward to pursuing.

Just as alarming is the demeanour of the Met, who seem determined not to assist anyone in establishing the truth, including the Commons CMS Committee. To say that Asst. Commissioner John Yates was economical with the truth when being questioned by the committee, would be to put it politely.
AND NOW… after all the rubbish press – the ShagRags and Arse-Wipers  – have said they were cleaning up their act in the wake of the Screws’ blatant misbehaviour, someone’s been at it again. A Certain Footballer’s former lover has been told officially within the last fortnight that her voicemail and that of sympathetic friends have been accessed …….

WAS IT THE SCREWS, AGAIN?
Watch out for stories this Sunday with signs of phone hacking (as well as the usual hackery).
I hope to reveal more soon……..

Popularity: 4% [?]

Max Clifford’s legal team, barrister Jeremy Reed, and solicitor Charlotte Harris (bright and sexy in six inch heels) on Wednesday gave the News of the World a good trouncing in the first skirmish of a High Court battle over the paper’s (one is supposed to say “alleged”) raid on the formidable publicist’s voicemail. This represents another step closer to the truth, which the paper has been desperately trying to hide, about the way their journalists have been systemically, and with the full knowledge of management, breaking the law to discover personal details of celebrities and thereby create invasive, damaging stories about them which are of no public interest. Significantly, so far, only the Guardian has chosen to report this result.
Clifford’s lawyers had asked for and were granted by Mr Justice Vos three specific orders for disclosure – despite the Screws’ peevish objections.
       First, they required Glenn Mulcaire, the investigator responsible for accessing Clifford’s voicemails, to disclose which individual or individuals (editor at the time: slippery spinner, Andy Coulson) asked/ suggested/ ordered him to perform this illegal act, which was included in his conviciton after he pleaded guilty 3 years ago to hacking into the Royal Household phones.
       Mulcaire, second defendant, has also already admitted Max Clifford’s claim, but, as his counsel explained, the father of five children under 16 is out of work (having made known his intention not to return to the snooping game) and living on job-seekers’ allowance. Even taking that with a hefty helping of sodium chloride, the judge might well have asked who was paying his legal bills, and how he would pay any damages awarded against him. But then, it’s not inconceivable that the paper is picking up these tabs – especially if it was they who got him into trouble in the first place by pressurising him to do what he did. If this is so, though, it would undoubtedly make some people think that the way he frames his responses might be influenced by News Group’s support. The paper’s bosses would probably like him to say that he was on a fishing expedition on his own account, and luckily stumbled across messages left by (and the mobile nos. of) several of Mr C’s hapless, high profile clients, and passed them to the lucky hacks without saying where or how he found them.
       He’s also been asked to reveal to whom he passed the contents of any voicemails acquired by him from this source, and to name anyone whom he might have instructed on how to access the voicemails themselves. The judge accepted the absolute necessity of this, and ordered that this information be made available to the claimants within 14 days.

Clifford’s counsel also requested that the News of the World release details of the secret settlement they reached out of court with Professional Footballers’ Association boss, Gordon Taylor for invading his privacy by accessing his voicemails (to which Mulcaire had also pleaded guilty).  And the court was treated to the strange sight of Taylors’ brief, Manual Barker standing alongside counsel for the Screws, who only last year had to pay Taylor £700k+ for their crimes. Now both parties were intent – for their differing reasons – on not letting the public see what they had agreed. The judge sensibly granted that while private details of Gordon Taylor’s messages which the paper had illegally acquired should remain secret, the terms and conditions and, significantly – the sums paid by the paper in recompense should be released to the claimant’s lawyers under strict terms of confidentiality.
Thirdly he ordered that the Information Commissioner’s Office should be allowed to release (which they have asserted they are happy to do) all data, files and documents accumulated during their investigation into illicit information  gathering which resulted in the 2006 report, What Price Privacy, specifically those relating to News of the World journalists. The Screws claimed this was irrelevant, because it contained no information on phone hacking; Clifford’s lawyers said it would help to establish that there was an endemic culture of illegal information gathering at the newspaper, and how phone hacking was a natural extension of the activities in which they’d been engaged for years.
 
Next time….
Clifford asks the Metropolitan Police to release the stack of documents they took from Mulcaire’s office when they arrested him in August 2006.

Popularity: 7% [?]