I want to know the answer to the following question:
What did Rumfit state that the defendants should have been informed about?
All the background I'm provided with is that "Defence counsel for the four journalists threatened to take the decision to judicial review, with the barrister representing Pharo, Nigel Rumfitt QC, saying: "The way this has come about gives rise to the impression that something has been going on behind the scenes which should not have been going on behind the scenes and which should have been dealt with transparently".". Is that enough to answer the question?