Dial M for Murdoch: News Corporation and the Corruption of Britain (40 page)

Farrelly turned to the unfair dismissal claims by Goodman and Mulcaire: ‘Do you know what sorts of allegations they were making? We can only imagine that they were saying that such-and-such a person knew and such-and-such a person knew. Have you satisfied yourself about what allegations they were making?’

‘As to Glenn Mulcaire,’ James replied, ‘I am not aware of allegations at the time and other things. As to Goodman – again, this was in 2007, before I was there – it is my understanding that that is what Harbottle & Lewis were helping to deal with, and that that opinion did satisfy the company at the time and we, the company, rested on that [Harbottle & Lewis’s] opinion for a period of time.’

James had skipped out of trouble, but Farrelly asked if he would give the committee the instructions given to Harbottle & Lewis in 2007.

‘If additional detail is required around those legal instructions,’ James responded, ‘we will consult and come back to the chairman with a way to satisfy you with the information that you’d like to have.’

Asked whether it was ‘remotely possible’ that the
News of the World’
s editors had not known about illegality at the paper, Rupert replied: ‘I can’t say that, because of the police inquiries and, I presume, coming judicial proceedings. That is all I can tell you, except it was my understanding … that Mr Myler was appointed there by Mr Hinton to find out what the hell was going on, and that he commissioned that Harbottle & Lewis inquiry.’

Simple questions elicited bland, or uninformative replies; for instance, this from Farrelly: ‘Can you tell us why Jon Chapman has left the organization?’

James: ‘Jon Chapman and the organization decided it was in mutual interest to part ways. I think one of the pieces here as well is for the company to move forward – I think this is important – and even if there is no evidence of wrongdoing or anything like that and no evidence of impropriety, many individuals have chosen that it is time to part ways. I was not involved with the discussions with Mr Chapman.’

Asked about his relationship with prime ministers and presidents, Rupert joked: ‘I wish they would leave me alone.’ He was disappointed that his relationship with Gordon Brown had foundered, he said. ‘His wife and my wife struck up quite a friendship, and our children played together on many occasions. I am very sorry that I am no longer – I thought he had great values, which I shared with him, and I am sorry that we have come apart.’ He added: ‘I hope one day that we’ll be able to put it together again.’

At 4.54 p.m., two hours and twenty minutes into the session, Jonathan May-Bowles rose from his chair and shoved a shaving foam plate into the face of News Corp’s octogenarian chief executive. Leaping from her chair with quicker reactions than anyone else (including his karate black belt son James) Wendi Deng slapped the attacker and threw his plate back at him, smearing him with his own shaving cream.
*

The proceedings were called to a halt for ten minutes. Tom Watson strolled over to the Murdochs and passed the time of day with them, pouring a drink of water for James. At 5.08 p.m. the hearing resumed.

The Conservative MP Louise Mensch, better known as the chick-lit author Louise Bagshawe, focused on other newspaper groups and read out a passage from Piers Morgan’s book
The Insider
(actually it was not a passage from the book, but an extract from a newspaper article by Morgan), apparently referring to phone hacking at the
Daily Mirror
. Mensch added: ‘Yesterday, Paul Dacre of Associated Newspapers said to a committee of Parliament, in my view risibly, that the
Daily Mail
has never in its history run a story based on phone hacking or blagging in any way.’ The Murdochs did not want to be drawn on the misbehaviour of other newspaper groups, though they may have been grateful for the reference.

As the session came to a close, after two long, sometimes extraordinary and sometimes dull hours, Whittingdale allowed Watson a final question. ‘James – sorry, if I may call you James, to differentiate,’ he began. ‘When you signed off the Taylor payment, did you see or were you made aware of the “For Neville” email, the transcript of the hacked voicemail messages?’

James replied: ‘No, I was not aware of that at the time.’ It was an important answer.

The session finished at 5.31 p.m., after two hours and forty-three minutes of questioning. The committee had failed to land any killer blows. Rupert Murdoch seemed to be a doddery, proud old man and his son had intelligently evaded making any serious admissions. But the answers they gave had stored up trouble for the future. First, they had admitted that they were still paying Glenn Mulcaire’s fees despite publicly decrying his behaviour, and secondly they had suggested Harbottle & Lewis had failed to identify the wrongdoing. Thirdly, and most importantly, James Murdoch said he did not know about the ‘For Neville’ email, the document which indicated widespread wrongdoing at the company years before the truth was admitted.

At 5.43 p.m. the same day, Rebekah Brooks made her first appearance before the Culture Committee since 2003, this time accompanied by her solicitor, Stephen Parkinson of Kingsley Napley. Unnoticed by most of the public, Alison Clark, the former public affairs director of News International, slipped into a seat at the back of the room.

John Whittingdale started off by referring to News International’s statement in July 2009 which denied point-blank that
News of the World
reporters had hacked the phones of anybody apart from the eight victims named in court and Gordon Taylor, or that there ‘was systemic corporate illegality by News International’. Whittingdale asked Brooks: ‘Would you accept now that that is not correct?’

Brooks sang the Murdochs’ song: the documentation from the Sienna Miller case was ‘the first time that we, the senior management of the company at the time, had actually seen some documentary evidence actually relating to a current employee’. She added: ‘I think that we acted quickly and decisively then, when we had that information.’

Taking his turn to interrogate NI’s recently departed chief executive – who had threatened to pursue him – Watson looked directly at her and said slowly: ‘There are many questions I would like to ask you, but I will not be able to do so today because you are facing criminal proceedings, so I am going to be narrow in my questioning … Why did you sack Tom Crone?’

The company had not sacked Tom Crone, she said; the closure of the
News of the World
had deprived him of a job.

‘As a journalist and editor of
News of the World
and the
Sun
,’ Watson asked, ‘how extensively did you work with private detectives?’

Not at all on the
Sun
, Brooks replied, but there had been questions at the
News of the World
about Steve Whittamore. Among his customers, she continued: ‘Certainly in the top five were the
Observer
, the
Guardian
,
News of the World
,
Daily Mail
–’
*

So, she had worked with private detectives?

What she had said, she corrected Watson, was that the use of private detectives in the late 1990s and 2000s ‘was a practice of Fleet Street’.

The MP asked: ‘For the third time, how extensively did you work with private detectives?’

‘The
News of the World
employed private detectives, like most newspapers in Fleet Street.’

She could not remember authorizing payments; they would have gone through Stuart Kuttner’s office.

‘You can’t remember whether Kuttner ever discussed it with you?’

Brooks: ‘Sorry. What?’

‘You can’t remember whether Kuttner ever discussed it with you?’

‘I can’t remember if we ever discussed an individual payment, no,’ she said.

Had she ever met Glenn Mulcaire?

No.

Would he claim that he had met her?

She replied: ‘I am sure he would, although – yes it’s the truth [that she had not met him].’

‘One last question,’ Watson said. ‘Do you have any regrets?’

‘Of course I have regrets,’ Brooks replied. ‘The idea that Milly Dowler’s phone was accessed by someone being paid by the
News of the World
– or even worse, authorized by someone at the
News of the World
– is as abhorrent to me as it is to everyone in this room.’

Louise Mensch again raised Paul Dacre’s evidence to Parliament that the
Daily Mail
had never published a story based on hacking or blagging despite Associated Newspapers requesting 1,387 searches from Steve Whittamore.

‘I am not here in a position to comment on other newspaper groups,’ Brooks replied. ‘Like I said at the beginning, things went badly wrong at the
News of the World
, and we are doing our best now to sort it out.’

Regarding the Culture Committee’s withering report in 2010, Brooks sounded contrite. ‘Everyone at News International has great respect for Parliament and for this Committee,’ she said, sounding pained. ‘Of course, to be criticized by your report was something that we responded to. We looked at the report. It was only when we had the information in December 2010 that we did something about it. But I think you heard today from Rupert Murdoch, who said that this was, you know, the most humble day. We come before this committee to try and explain, openly and honestly, what happened. Of course we were very unhappy with the criticisms that this committee found against the company.’ In her mind still working for the company, she added: ‘We aspire daily to have a great company, and your criticisms were felt.’

She denied that she had a particularly close relationship with David Cameron: ‘I have read many, many allegations about my current relationship with the Prime Minister, with David Cameron, including my extensive horseriding with him every weekend up in Oxfordshire. I have never been horseriding with the Prime Minister … The truth is that he is a neighbour and a friend, but I deem the relationship to be wholly appropriate, and at no time have I ever had any conversation with the Prime Minister that you in the room would disapprove of.’ George Osborne had suggested that Cameron hire Andy Coulson as his communications director.

Adrian Sanders pressed the point: ‘So you had no conversation with David Cameron about Andy Coulson being suitable for that position?’

‘No.’

‘None whatsoever?’

‘No.’

Sanders changed tack: ‘Did you approve the subsidizing of Andy Coulson’s salary after he left the
News of the World
?’

‘Again, that’s not true,’ Brooks replied, ‘so I didn’t approve it.’

Sanders double-checked: ‘So the
New Statesman
report is inaccurate? His salary is not being subsidized by News International.’

‘That is correct. They are incorrect.’

The session ended at 7.20 p.m. Brooks had been questioned for one hour and thirty-seven minutes. Like the Murdochs, she had not made any embarrassing disclosures, but the committee had been relatively gentle: she had been arrested and was in enough trouble already.

Watson was inundated with requests for media interviews, but he was exhausted from a fortnight with no more than four hours’ sleep a night, and wanted to decompress. He jumped into a cab with his researcher Katie Murphy, the general secretary of the Unite union, Len McClusky, and another Unite official, Jim Mowatt, to Claridge’s, where he ordered a bottle of pink champagne.

19

Assault on the Establishment

If it turns out that he knew about hacking, he will have lied to a select committee, he will have lied to the police, he will have lied to a court of law and he will have lied to me

– David Cameron, 20 July 2011

The Home Affairs Committee worked through the night of the Murdochs’ appearance to publish its report, ‘Unauthorised Tapping or Hacking of Mobile Communications’ at 5 a.m. on 20 July. The committee knew that it could not give a definitive account of affairs, but it was highly critical of News International and the Metropolitan Police. Even without knowing that NI staff had obstructed the police during their search of the building in 2006, the MPs concluded:

We deplore the response of News International to the original investigation into hacking. It is almost impossible to escape the conclusion voiced by [Deputy Assistant Commissioner] Mr Clarke that they were deliberately trying to thwart a criminal investigation. We are astounded at the length of time it has taken News International to cooperate with the police but we are appalled that this is advanced as a reason for failing to mount a robust investigation.

Even taking into account the large number of anti-terrorist operations under way in 2006, the police’s failure to investigate the Mulcaire evidence properly had led to ‘serious wrongdoing’. Andy Hayman, the officer who had dined with the
News of the World
while formally overseeing the inquiry, had an ‘apparently lackadaisical attitude’ towards contacts with those under investigation and the committee was ‘appalled’ at Scotland Yard’s employment of Neil Wallis. Dick Fedorcio, its director of public affairs, had apparently failed to carry out due diligence on Wallis and had ‘attempted to deflect all blame on to [Assistant Commissioner] Mr Yates when he himself was responsible for letting the contract’. At a broader level, the MPs wrote:

We are concerned about the level of social interaction which took place between senior Metropolitan Police Officers and executives at News International while investigations were or should have been being undertaken into the allegations of phone hacking carried out by the
News of the World
.

Intriguingly, the committee also wondered why the Crown Prosecution Service had not in its early consultations with the police placed more emphasis on Section 2 of RIPA, which stated that it was a crime to hack messages even if they had already been listened to by their intended recipient and were merely being stored. The committee concluded: ‘Section 2 (7) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is particularly important and not enough attention has been paid to its significance.’