Press inquiry chief issues clear warning to editors

The Leveson Inquiry into hacking in the press faced the possibility yesterday that it had been hacked itself, writes MARK HENNESSY…

The Leveson Inquiry into hacking in the press faced the possibility yesterday that it had been hacked itself, writes MARK HENNESSY

BARRISTER DAVID Sherborne represents known and alleged victims of the News of the World's phone hacking – the event that prompted the establishment of the Leveson Inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the British press, which began yesterday. Shortly after 3pm, Sherborne rose to warn Judge Brian Leveson that his computer, one of dozens in Court 73 in the Royal Courts of Justice, was displaying a warning that it had been infected with a "Trojan horse" virus, often used by hackers.

His PC contained lots of confidential information, he warned the judge. Leveson, an unflappable type, was clearly disconcerted, saying that he would “be grateful if it could looked into quickly and by that I mean today”.

The rows of barristers, legal staff, journalists and observers, including Labour MP Chris Bryant chuckled, however, when Sherborne said the virus warning had come in "very large red lettering rather similar to the News of the World".

READ MORE

Later, inquiry staff said the virus had been blocked before it “caused any damage” and that it was not a deliberately targeting, but it led the judge to comment: “I am not often thrown but Sherborne has managed to do that very early in this inquiry.”

Leveson’s work is expected to last until September next year, but the Metropolitan Police’s barrister, Neil Garnham, indicated that the criminal investigation and prosecutions, if any, are unlikely to be completed before then.

However, the opening day illustrated that the hearings, let alone the recommendations that will flow from the judge in time, hold catastrophic dangers for Rupert Murdoch, his son James and News Corporation. Counsel for the inquiry, Robert Jay, alleged that 28 News of the Worldjournalists are named in files seized from private investigator Glenn Mulcaire – who earned nearly £100,000 in just one year from the paper a decade ago, and was subsequently jailed for hacking. Either News International senior management knew, Jay said, "what was going on at the time and therefore, at the very least, condoned this illegal activity", or else they failed to manage their operation properly. "In either version, we have clear evidence of a generic, systematic or cultural problem," said Jay, adding later: "I suggest that it would not be unfair to comment that it was at the very least a thriving cottage industry."

Indicating that the figures told their own story, Jay said its management sanctioned the payment of £420,000 damages to one hacking victim, Gordon Taylor – even though they had been told by a senior lawyer that it would cost £200,000 if it went to court.

So far, Leveson has kept his own counsel, spending time in newsrooms in London and Southampton in recent weeks as he has endeavoured to understand a culture far removed from the Royal Courts of Justice. However, he is not prepared to be taken for granted. The Daily Telegraphwas clipped after its barrister inaccurately, in the judge's eyes, interpreted a past judgment of his to suggest that he did not favour state regulation lest it have "a chilling effect on responsible journalism". Fears exist that press critics will be targeted – a worry that has grown since actor Hugh Grant was subjected to unflattering coverage after he fathered a child; while MPs on a Commons media inquiry now believe that all of them were put under surveillance by the News of the Worldthis year for up to 10 days, before the paper took fright. Dealing with this point, Leveson issued a legalistic, but none the less clear warning: "I have absolutely no wish to stifle freedom of speech and expression, but I anticipate that monitoring will take place of press coverage over the months to come. And if it appears that those concerns are made out, without objective justification, it might be appropriate to draw the conclusion that these vital rights are being abused, which itself would provide evidence of culture, practice and ethics which could be relevant to my ultimate recommendations."