Morning Hearing on 15 March 2012

DCI Clive Driscoll , Michael Sullivan and Stephen Wright gave statements at this hearing

Hearing Transcript

(10.08 am) Discussion LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Yes, Mr Garnham? MR GARNHAM Sir, I apologise to you and the other core participants that the statement of Mr Driscoll was circulated very late yesterday evening. It was, however, the result of a great deal of hard work by those who instruct me and Ms Allen of Bindmans who prepared this statement with Mr Driscoll during the course of yesterday afternoon and yesterday evening. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Yes, I understand. Thank you. Mr Caplan, yes, if you want to say this is timing that verges on the unacceptable, you don't need to say it; I agree. MR CAPLAN Thank you. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON The real question is what you want to do about it. MR CAPLAN Sir, I was going to say that. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON There you are. MR CAPLAN Thank you for saying it first. The position as you know obviously is I'm back again today because the crime correspondent of the Daily Mail, Mr Wright, is here and some of what Mr Driscoll says touches very much on Mr Wright's reporting of the Stephen Lawrence matter. He's been reporting about it for the last 15 years. I will say this: the Daily Mail and his reporting has been the subject of a lot of positive comment and awards, and he will deal with it, but it comes very late, he does not want to come back, he'd rather deal with his evidence today. It's extremely unfortunate that it's come as late as it has. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Yes, Mr Caplan, to some extent I'm responding to a criticism that I got yesterday that material comes into the Inquiry after witnesses have been and they haven't dealt with it. So I understand why there was an anxiety that we should do it the right way round. If you want more time, then you shall have it and I will make sure it happens. I can understand why Mr Wright wouldn't want to come back; that was the complaint I got yesterday. I can't win, or the Inquiry can't win, whatever we do. We're trying to cope with a fast-moving Inquiry in circumstances where evidence is being generated which we don't know about, we don't know what is out there, so when it's provided, it's inevitable that it's going to cause difficulty. I intend to be very careful about this in the light of what happened yesterday. I've now reviewed with care what the particular witness who was the subject of yesterday's complaint said and I'm not entirely sure that he is really addressing many of my terms of reference, but again it's all a question of trying to find out what people say, because it's only on investigation that one really learns who advances the work of the Inquiry and who provides a diversion from it. Your point is well made. Now, having made it, what do you want me to do? MR CAPLAN I wish the matter to proceed. Mr Wright can say a lot of positive things about his own reporting and how this matter has been dealt with. The only thing I would say, please, is this: I have not had an opportunity to put questions to Inquiry counsel in advance in relation to Mr Driscoll's evidence. If something arises, then I may well want to ask for leave under Rule 10. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Mr Caplan, that's entirely reasonable. MR CAPLAN Thank you very much. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON But there's nothing else in this that you are concerned about? MR CAPLAN Well, I think we'll just have to see how it goes, if I may say so. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON I was actually thinking of the sort of point that Mr Garnham was making yesterday, but I can't remember whether Ms Hartley was here at that moment. It doesn't really matter. Right, Mr Jay, let's crack on. MR JAY Sir, I omitted to ask for a statement from yesterday to be read into the record. It's Mr Mark Hughes, the Daily Telegraph. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Very good, thank you. MR JAY The first witness today is Mr Clive Driscoll, please. MR CLIVE DRISCOLL (sworn) Questions by MR JAY LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Please sit down. Thank you very much for doing this work. It's at something of a pace. It's important that we try and keep these things in order so that people can deal with it appropriately. Yes. MR JAY First of all, Mr Driscoll, I'm going to ask that a copy of your witness statement is placed in front of you, there is a spare copy to my left, so that you can confirm it's true. There is of course a statement of truth on it and your signed statement. This is your formal evidence to the Inquiry; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. In relation to your professional career, you're currently a Detective Chief Inspector of the crime department of the Metropolitan Police Service. You joined that service in May 1979. You've obviously worked your way up through the ranks and you've occupied a number of important and difficult positions, for example you have been in charge of policy for sexual offences, domestic violence, child protection and the paedophile unit; is that right?
A. That is correct, sir.
Q. Thank you. But what is material to your evidence is your involvement in the Stephen Lawrence murder inquiry. You, I think, were the senior investigating officer of Operation Fishpool, which was the reopened investigation into the murder of Mr Lawrence; is that correct?
A. That is correct. On 20 June 2006, I assumed the role of senior investigating officer in what started as a forensic review and then blossomed into an investigation.
Q. Thank you. You tell us in paragraph 4 of your statement that you made a decision that you would not speak to journalists direct. Before I ask you to explain why not, can we just understand the context, please, in paragraph 3, when you tell us in relation to an earlier investigation, Operation Yewland, you had contact with a journalist from the Sunday Mirror.
A. That's correct, sir.
Q. Were there any difficulties about those contacts which caused you to adopt a different strategy, as it were?
A. No, not at all, sir. In fact, I would say that the way they actually dealt with that particular witness that was going to deliver their story was impeccable, really. They treated her with great respect and I was actually very impressed with the way they dealt with the witness, so I had no issues at all.
Q. Thank you. So this is Mr Justin Penrose who is the journalist you spoke to?
A. That's correct.
Q. Notwithstanding that positive experience, as it were, why did you adopt a different strategy in relation to the reopened Lawrence investigation?
A. I think young Stephen's investigation has always had a degree of press interest, because of the type of murder that it was, indeed certainly previous investigations had suffered from what are described as leaks, which had made the investigation somewhat difficult, and what I actually found was that whenever there was an article in the newspaper, it almost set a ball rolling, so there became like a bit of a frenzy. There was normally articles on the television, there was radio articles, and I felt that that was not conducive to a good investigation and not helpful when witnesses were making the decision whether to come forward and assist us or not. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON You're probably understating it somewhat when you say there's a degree of press interest in that murder. It was probably one of the defining murders of its time.
A. Absolutely correct. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON There's always press interest in murder investigations.
A. Absolutely correct, sir. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Therefore the real point is that because of the extent of press involvement and commitment to the inquiry and all the trouble that it created for the Metropolitan Police, this case was different. Is that the point?
A. It is the point, sir. I think that yes, I do believe it is different and I do believe that as a result, whenever Stephen's name is mentioned, it does generate a great deal of press interest. MR JAY So although some journalists had your work mobile number, and you explain how that happened, you did not respond substantively to any requests for information they gave you; is that correct?
A. No, in the initial we actually tried to stay completely under the radar. I couldn't say it was a secret operation because it wasn't, but we didn't wish publicity, we didn't feel that would be in any way helpful to us.
Q. You were appointed the senior investigating officer on 20 June 2006. Of course we know the outcome, the successful outcome, and the commendation you received in open court by the judge at the conclusion of the trial. But if I can sort of rewind the tape, chronologically at least, and ask you to look at paragraph 8 of your statement, Mr Driscoll, you say: "For all of these reasons [many of which are patent] we decided to keep information about the progress of the investigation very close and disseminate information only on a 'need to know' basis."
A. That's correct, sir.
Q. It's clear in your mind that the Assistant Commissioner who assumed gold responsibility as head of the serious crime directorate would not have discussed these matters with the management board, is that so?
A. Absolutely not, sir. I'm under no illusion, my team's under no illusion, if it wasn't for the dedication, hard work and support of AC Dick we wouldn't have got across the finish line, so I have no doubt that ma'am would not have done anything to jeopardise the investigation and the decision wasn't to go outside the inclusion zone. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON You'd better just explain for those who don't understand what you mean by "gold responsibility".
A. It was her responsibility, sir. The actual investigation, if in fact I needed extra resources, the investigation, when significant moments occurred, would be a matter of discussion I would have had with Cressida Dick. She also had an input with the wider political matters around Stephen, and it was really I suppose her role was to shield me, as the senior investigating officer, to allow me to focus entirely on trying to solve young Stephen's murder. So the role of gold is quite pivotal, I believe, in high-profile and sensitive cases, because it allows the SIO to get on with what everybody would expect of us, which is to try and solve the matter, rather than be going on matters which are equally as important but don't really if you focus on the core investigation that will eventually go before the Crown Court. MR JAY In terms of the forensic evidence, and of course we now know what it was since it was fully ventilated at the trial, in terms of the Metropolitan Police Service, could you identify, without naming names, the limited number of people who had this information?
A. It would have been within my team, we formed a forensic team to deal with the continuity and the integrity of the exhibits, because we knew that would be important to the court, so they would have been aware of it. It would have been myself, it would have been DI Keep, who was my deputy. Then I did have probably three supervisors prior to the last supervisor, which was Detective Superintendent Jill Bailey, and it would have been then Cressida Dick and Mr Gary Pugh, who was head of our forensic department in the Metropolitan Police Service, and Mr Alan Tribe, who was attached to me as my forensic adviser.
Q. In due course the forensic exhibits were passed to scientists, this is April 2007, and therefore the range of people who had access to this material broadened; is that correct?
A. That would be correct, sir.
Q. You make it clear in paragraph 9 that the forensics press officer, the MPS press officer and the CPS, you say, would have known what progress was being made in general terms, but not all of these people would have known the sensitive detail, which suggests that some of them did know the sensitive detail; is that right?
A. No. To manage the press interest we put all of the press departments together, so the Crown Prosecution Service and LGC Forensics, but there was no need for the press officers to know the intricate detail of the forensic advance that was being made.
Q. You say in paragraph 10 that the forensic scientists were aware of the nature of the forensic evidence, self-evidently, but they were not told about other developments in the investigation. So you're saying that their knowledge was limited to the scientific analysis of the blood on the jacket; is that right?
A. And we would tell them what they needed to know to allow them to make the investigations we were asking, so they would know that we were taking saliva samples off the witnesses, because that was one of the tests they performed, but other non-related scientific matters we wouldn't have talked to them about at all. There was no need to.
Q. In your decision log it indicates that you took a positive decision not to share findings with the press, but you say in paragraph 11 of your statement: "On 18 October 2007 a significant amount of information about the investigation was leaked to the media." And you name the paper, it was the News of the World. We don't have the article in the News of the World to hand, but can you remember anything about it which might assist?
A. It identified that there was a forensic review going on, it identified the fact that we had a team working on Stephen's case, which up until then we'd managed to keep fairly quiet. It was never I think they talked about a secret location. It was never that secret, but it identified that the Metropolitan Police Service had moved on and were moving on within Stephen's investigation.
Q. Does it follow that that which appeared in the News of the World was unauthorised inasmuch as no one had been permitted to disclose it to the media?
A. There was no permission for disclosure on the investigation we were doing at all.
Q. Then two or three weeks later, there was a meeting at New Scotland Yard on 7 November 2007, paragraph 12 of your statement. You say who was there: Mrs Lawrence, her solicitor and barrister. In relation to the MPS, it was you, Assistant Commissioner Dick, two members from your team and a representative from the CPS?
A. That is correct.
Q. And that was it, was it?
A. That was correct, sir, yes.
Q. And the purpose of the meeting was to update
A. We had at that stage, I think to progress this case, we always needed new and compelling evidence, and it might well, we did have new evidence that we wanted to share with Mrs Lawrence just to keep them abreast, and also her legal team, to show the advancement that we had made.
Q. You say the meeting ended at 8.30 pm. You were astonished to find out less than two hours later that press enquiries were being made about the meeting?
A. It was actually before I got home. I received a phone call whilst I was on the train that there was an article that was going to be printed the following day which followed the meeting that we'd just had, or appeared to follow the meeting we'd just had.
Q. The fact, however, that the meeting was taking place, that was known to a wider group of people than those you've mentioned in paragraph 12, is that fair?
A. Well, it would have been known. Obviously, you do lose a degree of control once you invite other people into a meeting, but the people that were coming are, I think, well-known, I think people would recognise them. So when they came in to New Scotland Yard, the people who saw them would recognise them, and, yes, I think that the people within that meeting on the prosecution side would have been who knew on the prosecution side, the police side, but I couldn't say how many people outside, after we'd started the invites, would have known.
Q. Then the piece in the Daily Mail, 8 November 2007. Of course, the very next day. That's an exhibit to your statement, the online version, that is, CD1. We don't have the paper version. To the best of your recollection, are we looking at Mail Online or are we looking at the online version of the Daily Mail?
A. No, my understanding that's the Mail Online, so the Daily Mail article was slightly it appears on the Mail Online to have one line as opposed to like a narrative story. So that is the Mail Online, but I think there would be others far better than myself to fully judge what the Mail would actually put on its onliner now.
Q. For our purposes it's not going to matter whether it's the Mail Online, Daily Mail or whoever.
A. It outlines what was discussed in the newspaper, certainly.
Q. Is there information in what we read in this paper which came out of that meeting on 7 November?
A. The information within the Mail certainly was the information we gave at that meeting. So with the exception of the terminology used, we did discuss the scientific progress of the case and therefore some of the earlier scientific findings which had involved the very tapings that eventually formed a major part of my trial being looked at by earlier scientists.
Q. Can I ask you just a couple of points on the text of the article. Apparently, it says: "The discovery so long after the killing is said to have 'horrified' senior officers at Scotland Yard." Were you or any of your colleagues horrified?
A. No, we were actually delighted, sir. We felt that we were making progress, so that's not a term I would use. In fact, I felt nothing but optimism, and I think the people within the inclusion zone felt the same optimism. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Well, you might be horrified for a slightly different reason. Not horrified with the discovery of the information, but horrified that it had been missed.
A. Sir, I don't believe it was missed. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON I see.
A. I never believed it was missed, and I think that's quite unkind to the scientists LORD JUSTICE LEVESON I'm only trying to explain
A. I understand that, sir, but I think it's quite an important point because they didn't find it, I would agree with you 100 per cent they never found it. What I wouldn't agree with you is that they missed it because they didn't have the technology, they didn't have the technology available to them. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Okay.
A. So I did feel and that caused us a slight problem, because in young Stephen's case, there are quite a few people who feel quite badly damaged by it and we were trying to encourage people to have the belief and confidence in us to come forward and tell their story in court. That's my duty. And I think people it's a human reaction that people can go very defensive and people can then not tell you the full story, and that damages an investigation. For me, Stephen Lawrence is a word which is synonymous with improvement and learning, and I suppose the only way I can describe this, sir, is if and I believe the press can learn, but if I, one of my officers wrote down that you know, wrote down the forensic findings, wrote down the fact we might have new witnesses, then wrote down that we were going to arrest in two days' time, put that in an envelope and went out and handed that to the suspects, how would the press report that? How would the criminal justice view that? I think they view that as corruption. But place it in the newspaper, that isn't any different. It's just to get a wider reader. What we were trying to do, and I have nothing but respect for Mr Wright, and I echo with what the gentleman said. No one has tried harder, no one no organisation has tried to bring justice to Stephen's parents, but we were getting there, and it was undermining that inquiry, and I can't understand that, because after almost winning that battle to get the police to you know, to use all of the resources we can to bring justice, it almost seemed that that was being undermined, and that's the part I would never you know, to agree with what sir put when he stood up, I have admiration for what the paper did in supporting the family, I have admiration in Mr Wright pursuing it. The bit I can't understand is why, when you get there, you would then do anything to undermine it. That's the part I can't understand, sir, and I'd like to think that maybe there's a lesson learnt in the memory and honour of Stephen. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON I now understand precisely why you are concerned about that word. But could you explain the impact that it had on your inquiry?
A. Yes, because, your Honour, without confidence and I'm not being flippant the police are probably about as much use as a chocolate teapot, because we need people to feel confident to come to us, we need people to be able to tell us their story, and if it's intimate details or mistakes they may or may not have made, we need people to do that to allow us to give to the court a very factual so that people can make very difficult decisions. If people feel threatened and it is a fact that after this report that a witness was visited by one of the suspects. Now, that could have been a coincidence, that could have been a complete and utter coincidence, but I'm a police officer so I'm cynical at birth, I suppose, and we would worry about that, and so it had a negative effect on the investigation. It had a negative effect on my team. It had a negative effect on how we react to our partners, because one of the things I don't know who leaked this, so therefore everyone becomes a suspect, and that is the negative effect that it has, because we have to work with our partners, and any SIO, not just Stephen's, would have to work with his partners and have a degree of trust, they have to trust you, so that it all works. Otherwise it just stops. Everyone thinks, "Oh, I can't tell him that", and it just stops. So for me the lesson learnt here is that if you think I'm going down the pub and if you think I'm playing golf, the press have an absolute duty to expose that because I'm paid by the public, but if I'm investigating, as you'd all expect me to, a criminal investigation, then I think that to try and find out what we're doing, to try and chance guess what we're doing undermines that criminal prosecution and I guess nobody would want that because we all want an ordered society. MR JAY Thank you. The other point which arises on this piece, it says: "Sources insisted that forensic experts rather than police appeared to be to blame for the errors and an internal investigation is likely." Is that
A. What paragraph?
Q. Sorry, immediately after the "horrified" sentence. The line underneath.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Could that be right?
A. That sources insisted forensic experts rather than police appeared, is that what you're talking about?
Q. Yes.
A. No. No, sir. No, sir. Because, as I've already explained, it's always been the view of our investigation that they never missed it. They didn't find it, that's accepted, but they never missed it. They didn't really have the technology, and I suppose, with everything, you move on in method as well, and they couldn't have found it, actually, with the way it was in 1993. So I don't believe no, that isn't right.
Q. As you say in paragraph 13 of your statement, there was a "media frenzy" thereafter?
A. That's correct, sir.
Q. There was I don't know whether you call it a leak inquiry or a review, and you understand that Mr Wright was spoken to; is that correct?
A. That is correct, and once again, I mean I would pay tribute to Mr Wright, because he didn't publish the second story. I know that he didn't publish the second story, I know that. So he was spoken to and certainly on the correspondence that I've read he gave an explanation of how it happened.
Q. But he confirmed apparently that no police source had been involved?
A. That's what he confirmed, yes, sir.
Q. And the reference to "sources" in the article was apparently an assumption by a junior copy writer; is that right?
A. That was certainly what Mr Wright said.
Q. We can follow that up in due course a bit later this morning, actually. In terms of relations between the police and the Lawrence family, it's self-evident that relations would be harmed, but can you in your own words explain that to us, please?
A. I've enjoyed total support from Mr and Mrs Lawrence, but along the way there has been moments where I've really felt for them, because they felt that it was just same old, same old, that in fact the police were deliberately releasing information, therefore slowing down their investigation. So on several occasions that I had some meetings with Mrs Lawrence and Mr Lawrence, and I can only pay tribute to them, because they've always supported me, but the upset that was caused was evident, and really it just reinforced our belief, as Mrs Lawrence has just recently commented, that it was corruption that played a part in her having had 18 years prior to getting partial justice now.
Q. In paragraph 17 you make it clear that there was some reporting in the Sunday Times in February 2008 that resulted from a genuinely mistaken release of information by LGC?
A. That is correct. We went straight into leak mode and believed it was a leak, but upon investigation, it was an error by the press office a genuine, an innocent error. Whilst briefing the Sunday Times of what LGC Forensics could offer as a company, they drifted into talking about what they had done on Stephen's murder. That was obviously outside the agreement that we'd had with them. That was dealt with by Mr Gary Pugh, and I think it was a learning curve for the press officer involved. I know there was no deliberate intention to in any way be disrespectful to the investigation. It was a genuine mistake.
Q. When you say in paragraph 18 you became convinced that someone was deliberately attempting to disrupt the investigation, and you recorded that in the decision log, why did you draw that inference?
A. Because there was a considerable amount of information being put in which was correct, but there was an awful lot of information that wasn't, and that information would have made it difficult for witnesses, as I've already spoken about, to have the confidence to come forward. That would have put a strain upon a relationship which we had ongoing, which was the Forensic Science Service who originally had Stephen's investigation, to LGC Forensics, who had it now, and it generally was placing quite a difficulty on everybody that we were requiring to give evidence at court to have confidence that we were trying our hardest and in fact we were going towards where we wanted to do, which was to place the evidence before the Crown Court to allow them to make a decision. But I felt what other reason would you do it? I suppose if he was a suspect, why cases are eventually discontinued is of no great interest to you, as long as they are, and I just couldn't see the reporting, it wasn't as if they were exposing wrongdoing by police or wrongdoing by anyone else, it was actually focusing on what would always be evidence in the Crown Court and maybe evidence that we would have liked to put to suspects in a controlled way, because it's a search for the truth. Any investigation's a search for the truth, and you try to put disclosure in a controlled way, and that was being thwarted if you'd already walked in knowing full well what the police may have or may be going to do.
Q. It might not be deliberate, though, it might be a journalist seeking to do his or her job, but of course in so doing it will interrupt the police investigations?
A. That was included within my decision log that I had considered poetic licence, I'd considered a genuine mistake, but as the police officer in charge of a murder investigation, you also have to consider that it could be an act designed to undermine the path of justice.
Q. You eventually obtained the formal order from the court?
A. That's correct, sir.
Q. Under the Criminal Justice Act. That was on 7 September 2010.
A. That's correct, sir.
Q. I think two days before this is paragraph 21 of your statement, Mr Driscoll you received information that Mr Wright had got hold of some information which he proposed to publish, including information about the forthcoming arrest/charges and the fact that you were making an application for an order for reporting restrictions. Did you speak to Mr Wright personally about this?
A. No. That was significant because it was only two days after the Director of Public Prosecutions had given us permission to move forward, so 48 hours later it was the Press Bureau that contacted me on a Sunday and told me that there would be this article appearing in the Daily Mail the following day, which would have had a the effect and again I thank the Daily Mail, because they didn't print the article, but if they had, that would have had quite a serious consequence on the operation we were planning.
Q. Okay. Paragraph 22, Mr Driscoll. You tell us that in the lead-up to the trial
A. That's correct.
Q. Can you remind us when the trial was?
A. The trial started on 14 November 2010 and was concluded on 5 January 2012.
Q. I think it was 14 November 2011 then, wasn't it?
A. My apologies, sir.
Q. But at all events you say a contact who had provided information to the investigation asked you to keep their name and address secret because they were concerned about what the defendants might do now that they had been arrested, so this was obviously in the period before November 2011?
A. It was January actually that I was contacted and that was when he asked me to keep the name of a very senior member of the Metropolitan Police Service, that well, I wasn't to share any information about that individual at all with the other individual.
Q. And the contact asked you to give him or her your word that this person that's the senior member of the Metropolitan Police Service would not have any involvement and would not be told. So you're referring to there the fact of the contact speaking to you; is that correct?
A. That is correct, and also the fact that potentially that contact could have been a witness in the trial.
Q. And the contact originally said it was well-known in Fleet Street that this person that's the senior person briefed outside official meetings and later added a more serious allegation?
A. That is correct.
Q. You have no wish today, presumably, to identify that senior member of the MPS?
A. My understanding is that an investigation did take place and that in fact that information has been passed across to the Independent Police Complaints Commission and indeed also to Operation Elveden, so I would respectfully ask that I don't give that name for fear of undermining what could be an ongoing investigation. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON I wouldn't want it anyway, because I'm not concerned with the individual specifics, but a rather wider question.
A. I'm very grateful, sir. MR JAY For the avoidance of doubt, it's not being suggested, is it, that this senior member of the MPS was the source of the leaks in 2007, or is it?
A. Regrettably, sir, I don't know who leaked, so I could not say one way or the other.
Q. As you say, the matter has been taken up through formal channels and there's nothing more that we could or should say about it. Is there anything, Mr Driscoll, you'd wish to add to the evidence you've given?
A. No, only that I do think it's essential that the police enjoy the confidence of the public, because we are not as effective as we should be without it, and I do believe that maybe lessons could be learned which would benefit other investigations and other families that have tragically lost children.
Q. Apart from the matters you draw attention to in your statement, your opinion of the role of the Daily Mail probably since 1997 is clear, isn't it?
A. No, I think the Daily Mail and recently I know that Mr Wright was a guest of Mr Lawrence and I know how much Mr Lawrence respects the support that Mr Wright gave him. I also know that I was at a criminal justice lecture, which was sponsored by the Daily Mail, and how they're helping that excellent charity the 1818 Charity, so I have respect for the Daily Mail. I would just ask it to reflect on what I said. It's once having got the police to be in a position where we were conducting an investigation, which I'm delighted to say resulted in some justice for Mr and Mrs Lawrence, just to reflect on how reporting can affect the family, how reporting can affect witnesses and how it can, even though I would be 100 per cent sure this was not the intention from the Daily Mail, it can undermine a good investigation. MR JAY Thank you very much, Mr Driscoll. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Thank you. Just one moment. MR CAPLAN I wonder, sir, could I possibly have five minutes? LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Yes, you could. MR CAPLAN There may be a few questions I would like to put to him. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Yes, you could, certainly. (10.46 am) (A short break) (10.56 am) LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Please sit down. MR CAPLAN Thank you very much for the time and, sir, I have no questions. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Thank you very much indeed. Right, thank you very much indeed, Detective Chief Inspector. MR JAY May we move on to Mr Sullivan, please. MR MICHAEL JOHN SULLIVAN (sworn) Questions by MR JAY MR JAY Mr Sullivan, your full name, please?
A. Michael John Sullivan.
Q. Thank you. Mr Sullivan, you've provided the Inquiry with a witness statement with a standard statement of truth, signed and dated by you on 28 February 2012. Is this your formal evidence to the Inquiry?
A. It is.
Q. You're currently the crime editor of the Sun. You have been working at the Sun newspaper since 1990. September 1990 you were made a crime reporter and in 2001 you were promoted to crime editor. Is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. So we understand some important background and therefore the necessary parameters of any questions I might ask you, have you been arrested pursuant to Operation Elveden?
A. I have.
Q. Can I ask you first of all about the CRA? You are a committee member, I think, of the CRA; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Does that not the fact that you're a committee member, but the fact you're a member, does that in your view give you any form of privileged access to the police?
A. I suppose yes. I mean you are one would hope that you are regarded as being a reporter who is trustworthy. The purpose of the CRA is really a group of journalists who specialise in crime reporting. Through the group, as it were, we would hope to be trusted with information perhaps brought in on not sensitive information, but could be told things in confidence which might put context to a story, might not necessarily be for publication, but would influence what we've what we're writing in the newspaper, or indeed broadcasting through radio or television. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON But it's self-selecting, isn't it? It's a group of reporters appointed by the committee, if you like?
A. Well, sir, it's if you become a crime reporter, a dedicated crime reporter, it is in your interests and in the interests of others you are working with, including the police and other law enforcement agencies, to be a member of the Crime Reporters Association. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON No, I understand and I see the value in it, but I just wanted to understand. The police have no input into who is a member of the association?
A. No. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON That's controlled within the association?
A. Yes. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON It's a peer review thing rather than anything else?
A. It is, but there's a caveat there, sir, in the sense that a few years ago it was mainly crime reporters. Not every news organisation had a dedicated crime correspondent, so some newspapers, particularly Sunday papers, had home affairs correspondents who would be required to cover crime material or police material, so there were some questions amongst our own organisation: do you accept home affairs correspondents to become members of the Crime Reporters Association? This took a little while to sort out, a period of years, in fact, but the common consensus on that was as a result of police making their argument that we should accept a wider group of people who are covering these issues, common consensus in the end was to broaden out and accept home affairs and people who may not specifically cover just crime, but people whose jobs actually involved reporting crime. MR JAY You mentioned the build-up of trust, because confidential information is provided by the police. Have there ever been situations over the years where the police have complained that a trust has been broken, to your knowledge?
A. There was one occasion, sir, and that was I hadn't long been a crime reporter, but there was a briefing given by actually it was the head of the counter-terrorism unit, or anti-terrorist squad, as they were in those days, and I can't remember or recall the actual details of the briefing, I'm not even sure I was present, actually, but there was a reporter from one newspaper who hadn't long been a member, who went back to his office, presumably told his news desk what he'd heard, and was then required to write the story. This caused a lot of problems, as you can probably imagine, sir, and this particular reporter was excluded from the CRA and we obviously offered our sincerest apologies to the Metropolitan Police and particularly the senior officer who gave that briefing. That's the only occasion, sir, I can recall.
Q. It might be said that one of the advantages of having an experienced group of journalists in an association such as this is that they over the years understand the rules and do not violate them.
A. That's correct, sir.
Q. You make a general point, Mr Sullivan, about the change in culture in relations between the MPS and the media, and this is really to do with the growth of electronic media and 24/7 reporting, particularly the broadcast media; is that right?
A. Yes, sir. It's obvious, self-evident, really, that the media has mushroomed, hugely so, since when I first started. Typically back in the early 1990s, before satellite television had really taken off and before the advent of the Internet, you would have even a big story would only be a press conference would typically be attended by reporters from the national newspapers. There would be an agency reporter or two, perhaps one or two people from the BBC and independent television and radio. The same type of story now would be attended by perhaps three, four times as many people. The BBC in particular would have an Internet, they would have a national television crew, they would have a local television crew. So in that sense, you've also added to that got the 24-hour news dimension, so back in the early 1990s most of us would be covering a conference perhaps in the morning and you'd then have all day to develop the story or all day to file it, to file a finalised version of it. Nowadays a version is required for online and a version is required for the newspaper. That's as a newspaper point of view. If you're a broadcaster, then you'll be going on air very, very shortly afterwards, if it's not live.
Q. You make it clear Mr Sullivan that as a matter of policy, and for obvious reasons, really, you would wish to speak to the investigating officer or the police officer at the coalface rather than the press office; is that right?
A. That's the ideal situation, sir, but in reality, if you're a crime correspondent, you're in it for the long run, it's a marathon, it's not a sprint, and that's what we abide by. Over a period of time, you become aware of the workings of the police and how if, say, for instance, you have an incident that occurred overnight, you would realise that the following morning they would be busy in holding meetings, office meetings, and doing the job, as it were, of investigating. There are so many journalists now that you also have to have an appreciation, I think, that it is impossible for an officer, dealing with an incident, to talk to any journalist on some occasions. Most of the time you won't even know the officers, so it's sort of academic, but ideally you would want some kind of access to an officer who was investigating at some point, just to give texture, colour to a story, and get it from the horse's mouth, as it were, rather than the third party, which carries which most press officers, particularly at the Metropolitan Police and other police forces are very good, but there is only so much detail they'll be aware of.
Q. It's common sense, really, but is it your experience that if you do speak to the horse's mouth, as it were, you get a more reliable account?
A. Yes, you do. On most occasions, sir. And sometimes and having listened through some of the evidence in this Inquiry, it's become evident as well that you do get different types of police officers. Some are very happy, sir, to engage with the media and others aren't. The austere or the expansive approach. And that perhaps, sir, I would suggest is as much to do with personality as anything else.
Q. In paragraph 16, please, Mr Sullivan LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Just before you go there, you actually describe the expansion of the media means that press officers you used the word constitute an "essential barrier" between journalists and investigating officers.
A. I would say so. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON You put it as high as that?
A. I would say so, sir, because there's simply so many of us, the media has simply become so big that there is no possible way that a police officer would have enough time to deal with media queries. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Right. Sorry, Mr Jay. MR JAY Paragraph 16 gives us the flavour of your daily interactions, although they have changed over the years. You refer to an email system. Another witness has referred to that as well. This puts out information on, is this right, high-profile cases on a daily basis?
A. I wouldn't necessary say high-profile cases, sir. It puts out what the Met want put out. If there were significant developments on a case which was high profile, it may well be that an email would go out with the barest of lines. I would say again the email system, where you have got a story of interest, will contain mainly the bare skeleton of the story, so it would then be incumbent upon the journalists to try and develop that. That would mean in the first instance contacting the press office, and if it were then possible and there were enough time and the officer an officer was willing, it could mean talking to the police officer who was investigating whatever it was that, you know, whatever the subject material was.
Q. In terms of your professional/social interactions with senior officers, you cover this at various points in your statement. First of all, paragraph 26, you say you: attended dinners with two of those commissioners on three or four occasions, but always in the presence of other crime reporters and directorate of public affairs staff." I think those commissioners, from our analysis of the records, were probably Lord Stevens and Sir Paul Stephenson; is that correct?
A. That's correct, sir, and Lord Condon.
Q. Would you say that your professional relationship between the must be about six or seven commissioners now since when you started was it the same with each commissioner or did you get on better with some rather than others?
A. As I mentioned just a short while ago, it's a matter of personal style, and so and also, I suppose, in my own instance as you mature and one hopes you mature, but as you get a bit older and more experienced, then you become aware, sir, of broader policing issues and so in terms of engaging with commissioners, when I first became a crime correspondent, Lord Imbert was the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police. I never had any personal engagement with him, or interaction. At that time Kelvin McKenzie was the editor and I think it's perhaps a point of interest worth noting that Mr McKenzie's approach to the police was that he respected Lord Imbert, but he didn't want to socially engage with him on the grounds that if he had to be critical, he would feel in an awkward position to do so. So moving on, Lord Condon was somebody who well, we had a change of editor, so the new editor who came in, Stuart Higgins, was more engaging and had a more I mean, we had perhaps a softer focused approach at the Sun to be more user-friendly and more engaging in the wider community or wider outside circles, so Mr Higgins, I think, met up I don't know this for absolutely sure, but there was an interaction of sorts between him and Neil Wallis, who was the deputy, I think, editor at the time or went from head of news to deputy editor. Mr Wallis, I think, became friends with or struck up a reasonable relationship with Sarah Cullum, who was the head of the DPA at the time, and Lord Condon it's quite ironic actually in some ways some might suggest, but it was Mr Wallis who wrote a story announcing the Metropolitan Police or the Metropolitan Police Commission, at the time, his belief that there were 250 corrupt officers in the police. So there was a reasonable relationship there obviously. Moving on from there, from Lord Condon, Lord Stevens became Commissioner, who had a very engaging style. The Metropolitan Police at that point were had been on the back foot over Stephen Lawrence, when there was a charm offensive by the Met, so that Lord Condon, Dick Fedorcio visited newspaper offices but not just one newspaper office, not just one group, but as many as possible to try and get their message across, because there was a real concern that Lord Condon, Sir Paul as he was then, might be forced to resign if the politics and public opinion went against him over the Lawrence Inquiry.
Q. Then Lord Blair?
A. Lord Blair, well, Lord Blair the Sun, and I can really only answer for the Sun, had a fairly ambivalent approach to Sir Ian, as he then was. I don't think he was our cup of tea and I dare say we wouldn't have been his cup of tea, but there was a pragmatic working relationship, which I say that, we weren't overtly critical of him for the sake of it.
Q. Okay. Paragraph 27 of your statement. On internal numbering, page 5, our page 09841. You refer to a dinner attended by Dick Fedorcio, Lord Stevens was there as well, another member of the CRA. We think it probably was a dinner which took place on 21 January 2002, from records we've looked at, but it might not matter exactly when it was. Do you think that may be right?
A. It could well be, sir. In that case I was under the impression he was still Lord Stevens was still Deputy Commissioner, but I could have been wrong in my assumption there.
Q. You say in your statement that it was to discuss: what we needed as a group from the Met and vice versa." What did you need as a group from the Met?
A. Can I just put that into context, sir? I mean, the two people who were there, present from the CRA, I was secretary at the time and John Steele, who was the Daily Telegraph crime correspondent, was chairman. So we were invited along purely with regards our status within the CRA to that particular dinner. We were their guests. The Metropolitan Police, or Lord Stevens, they wanted to move forward from the problems around the Lawrence scenario, and or Stephen Lawrence scenario, my apologies for that they wanted to move forward and they wanted to engage with the community, and a very good way of doing that is obviously through the media. So in that sense they were trying to ask us, you know, ideas on the best way forward, and those ideas are still basically applied to best practice today, and that is for the Metropolitan Police to try and promote itself on the good work it does by having the confidence to engage with the media, and that's easier said than done, because at the time, at that particular time when Lord Stevens took over as Commissioner, the Metropolitan Police were on the back foot, it had been heavily criticised and there was a degree of scepticism, I suppose is the best word, about cynicism, even, about any about the media in general and perhaps even, to a certain degree, the wider public, because they felt that they'd been hung out to dry on many occasions and criticised, scathingly so, for issues which were perhaps wider than just the police.
Q. We also know from the records that you had a number of one-to-one meetings with Mr Fedorcio, about five, over the years between 2004 and 2008. What was the purpose of those meetings?
A. Purely, really, to keep myself in the loop of information, sir. And, you know, from also to offer him the opportunity, any concerns he may have about coverage of Metropolitan Police matters in our newspaper and to maintain a good relationship. There was no there was no overriding, you know, aim, as it were, from any of those social engagements.
Q. The information you referred to, was it gossip, ever?
A. I wouldn't put it down to gossip, sir, I really wouldn't, but it could involve some discussion around internal politics within the Met, but not gossip, I wouldn't use that word, or tittle-tattle. It might be I mean, Dick and I became fairly you know, we had a reasonably close working relationship forged over many years and I felt he felt on occasions that he could be not necessarily open up with any great personal detail on anyone, but talk about his concerns, I suppose, and use me in some ways, as I used him, as sounding boards. Obviously under Lord Stevens' regime I think for the people, for the Metropolitan Police, they found it easy to work and it seemed to be, particularly with the media as well, things ran pretty smoothly. When Sir Ian or Lord Blair took over, there were difficulties.
Q. Were you made aware by Mr Fedorcio of tensions and frictions within the management board?
A. Not specifically, other than I could tell through not just speaking to Mr Fedorcio but others that there were some frictions, but, I mean, these weren't things I was particularly interested in writing a story about, sir, because there was no appetite for that kind of information within my office. It wasn't work we, as a newspaper, we weren't particularly interested in getting involved in recording internal police politics.
Q. So what was meat and drink for the Sun newspaper when it came to crime reporting?
A. I wouldn't say, sir, that meat and drink, is that the right phrase? If we're going to put it that way, we would just simply cover events of the day, and we'd be looking for anything which we saw as being of interest to our readers. Mostly this involved covering robberies, murders, crimes, and doing those in a pretty straightforward manner. On occasions, and these are where problems could arise, they could be around issues of personalities and involvement with the law, so celebrity arrests, that kind of thing, which I must admit from a personal point of view I never got any real satisfaction from professionally, but in common with the rest of the media, there does seem to be more of a focus on celebrity stories, certainly in the last few years, and so some of those type of instants would obviously be as you described, Mr Jay, meat and drink. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON But let me just understand, as the crime reporter, is it just a matter of stories that are straightforward reporting, or isn't it rather more than that, with some pretty aggressive crime-related campaigns?
A. Yes. I mean, the Sun in particular, sir, campaigned against knife crime. 2008 or "2000 and hate", as it was billed in our newspaper, was a year when there were 27 teenagers murdered in London. It was an issue which I didn't think the Metropolitan Police got to grips with until fairly late on in the year. When they did so, they did apply resources, it was one that was then picked up politically, but so yes, it has formed crime has formed the basis of campaigns organised by the Sun, and that will probably be a good example of that, sir. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Yes, and you have very strong views about sentencing.
A. The paper certainly does, sir. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Yes, but is that through you or is that through some other
A. This would be through the editor or LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Oh, obviously the editor is ultimately responsible.
A. It would also, sir, be through perception of what the readers would require, but it would depend really what the sentencing was for, sir. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Yes, but I'm sorry, I'm not making myself clear. I'm trying to get to grips with what you're doing. You're writing these stories, presumably?
A. Yes. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON As the crime reporter, editor.
A. I'm the crime editor, but there are other people within the organisation, within the paper, who cover crime stories, but yes, I mean in the back of your mind you know what you have to you know what the audience is, you know what the paper requires, so you are working to get those type of stories or put them in those that type of light that LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Mr Sullivan, I'm not being critical
A. I understand, sir. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON The Sun is entitled to maintain whatever profile it likes on the issues of the day, I have no difficulty with that at all.
A. Yes. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON That's what free speech is all about.
A. Thank you, sir. MR JAY Do you think you were part of Mr Fedorcio's inner circle of favoured journalists?
A. I would probably say I was, sir, yes. If "favoured journalists"? I don't know that that was that wouldn't necessarily tell the whole story, sir. I think Dick, if I can call him that since he's a friend as well as professional contact, over a period of time you get to know someone well and therefore you would normally expect to perhaps have more contact with that person, not just Dick, but with plenty of others, rather than someone arriving say, for instance, another newspaper has appointed a crime reporter. In the same way that I didn't know Mike Brammett(?) or Sarah Cullum, because I was an inexperienced reporter at the time, there would perhaps be reporters arriving or being made crime reporters who would then take it does take a number of years to build up a good working relationship, so I think that would "favour" is perhaps not totally applicable but perhaps I would regard myself as part of a group of crime long-serving crime reporters who would have been in a circle of trusted journalists for Mr Fedorcio to talk to.
Q. In terms of what you might have been trying to get out of him I'm not suggesting anything improper now were you expecting him to tip you off, for example, if celebrities were going to be arrested? Is it that sort of thing?
A. Certainly not, sir. And I no, certainly not.
Q. Because you told us about five minutes ago about celebrities, and this may or may not tie in with paragraph 57 of your statement. You tell us there that you've been invited on mass raids with other journalists. The Inquiry has received evidence of photographers turning up when celebrities are of interest to the police. Do you know anything about that?
A. Well, I am not aware of any stories or in terms of turning up home addresses. There was only one I can recall, and that was actually not a tip from a police officer, it was a tip from a journalist, and that was a few years ago. That was the only one I can recall where we were present when the police arrived. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON It's not uncommon, though, is it?
A. No, I think there's a misconception here, sir. I think what you're seeing on television and in the newspapers where there are photographs of celebrities or well-known people who have been arrested then coming out of a police station, what will happen is if the newspapers become aware through whichever means that somebody is under arrest, a group of photographers, reporters from all papers and camera crews may well go to try and go to the police station where that person is being held. They won't necessarily be told where they're being held by the police. In fact, in my experience it's quite rare that they would. But you would split it up in a practical working, practical way, split up the work of one paper or one photographer goes to this police station, another goes to that police station. I mean I've known occasions in our own office where we've had teams of three, perhaps four photographers going out to different police stations trying to find out LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Which one.
A. which one they're being held at, sir. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON But you got some information about the fact that it is at one. It's come from somebody.
A. Well, there are various different means, sir, for LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Okay.
A. information about the arrest of people to come out, and very often it might be released by that person or the arrested person's own PR. MR JAY You say in paragraph 59: "There have been one or two occasions where I have also been told informally by contacts that they are going out on a raid by way of conversation, but I have never tried to utilise that." Are the contacts you're referring to there journalist contacts?
A. Mixture of both, really, sir, but it would be by way of conversation. It wouldn't be necessarily as anything for a story, but that's happened on a couple of occasions. But it wouldn't be for me to act on. I mean you know, there are cases I don't think it would have perhaps been of any interest anyway to the paper, sir, but I just was trying to be explain that sometimes as a crime correspondent you might be in a social setting where somebody mentions that there could be something of that they might be doing some work related to whatever subject. If that was a police officer, rarely the case. Or that you might have knowledge from even I don't know, I don't want to get too specific, but a lawyer, for instance, who might be told they were going to perhaps recommend somebody or so you might have advance knowledge that there could be some kind of police action, sir, but you wouldn't necessarily act on it.
Q. I've been asked to raise this with you, back to paragraph 57, where you refer to "increasing political involvement in policing". What do you mean by that?
A. I've noticed over the last few years that certainly Mayor Johnson and Kit Malthouse while he was chair of the MPA had gone out on operations with the police. To my mind it was potentially crossing over a barrier there from being, if you like, the political guardians of the police to getting directly involved with operations. I must admit I didn't feel that it was particularly appropriate.
Q. Can I go back to your social or semi-professional interactions. Assistant commissioners. We haven't found any evidence of you lunching or having dinners with AC Yates, but there's one with AC Hayman. Do you think we have it right from our analysis of the records? Does that accord with your memory, in other words?
A. I met both those on rare social engagements, but on John Yates, I'd known I think it's probably worth putting it into context. I knew I first met John back in 1995, and that was a dreadful murder of a police mechanic by the name of Alan Holmes. At the time he was working in the north west London area murder command. He invited two or three reporters, I think there were three of us, who were aware of what had happened, I think it had happened over a Christmas period. We were invited up to Hendon and it was the first time I'd met him. As it transpired, we were given a little briefing by Mr Yates. The two other reporters I was relatively new to crime reporting went away and wrote up the story, even though it had been strictly off the record and not for publication, so I lost out, as it were, but in a different sort of way the fact that I didn't break that trust probably stood me in good stead later with Mr Yates, and I think it's a mark I've heard lots of things said about Mr Yates during this Inquiry, but it's a mark of his true character, I would say, that when we did ever meet socially, Mr Yates always brought up the subject of Alan Holmes and his regrets about not finding the killers of Mr Holmes and the hope that he would eventually still find them. I don't know if that particularly answers your question, Mr Jay. There would be with you mentioned those two ACs by name. I think I had social interaction perhaps once a year with both of them, and mainly again, if I may expand on this, there's been a lot of mention in this Inquiry about long lunches and reporters or journalists entertaining lavishly, bottles of champagne. My experience actually is that those lunching and buying dinners have become an increasing rarity over the last few years, and that was really perhaps as Fleet Street sobered up or perhaps as the police became more professional with alcohol taken during working hours. The normal social setting would be in a pub, or possibly a wine bar, but more likely a pub, and it wouldn't be a case of the reporter handing over a credit card behind the bill and let's all go and drink as much as possible. It would be a case of the journalist buying a round of drinks and the police officer buying a round of drinks in those social settings. And I don't know whether they would be whether a note would be made of those. I don't know. I mean, I'm not that's one that would be one for those officers.
Q. When witnesses speak of drinking at a wine bar near New Scotland Yard, this links in with your evidence, it's just a couple of drinks is it?
A. It does. I think, sir, you may be referring to the evidence given by Bob Quick, when he said that he noticed myself, Lucy Panton and, I can't remember, it may have been Stephen Wright, drinking at this wine bar, which is a Davy's Wine Bar, around the corner from Scotland Yard, and in fact I referred to that in my statement because it was one of the occasions I met Sir Paul Stephenson when he was Deputy Commissioner, and from memory, I can't recall exactly, but I think there had been a leaving reception held at the Yard that night. A number of people including press officers and a number of journalists had gone across the road to the wine bar, which is fairly near to New Scotland Yard. That was the only time I can ever recall meeting John Yates late at night, or later in the evening. I think there may have been one other occasion where we bumped into each other earlier in the evening. So I rather took exception to Mr Quick's assertion that we were there specifically for one purpose, and haven't we got homes and families to go to, because he was talking about one incident there, which I recorded faithfully in this statement, and completely making the wrong interpretation.
Q. You made it clear, Mr Sullivan, that you weren't particularly close to Mr Hayman and Mr Yates. Who were the assistant commissioners who you were closer to?
A. I didn't say I wasn't close to them. I don't think Mr I knew Mr Hayman and Mr Yates relatively well. Going back in time, I can't recall being particularly close to any assistant commissioners.
Q. Yes. May I move forward, please, to paragraph 39. I've been asked to put this to you. You say: "The Sun is largely supportive of the Met and police in general." Do you think that that's right, or should the Sun be neutral?
A. It's generally supportive of the police position, and particularly of what we would regard well, what are described as rank and file officers. I think the Sun, back in the mid-1990s, identified that it was a paper that was widely read in police canteens, as it is in army NAAFIs, et cetera, so we saw rank and file officers as being part of our core readership, and therefore we tried to be largely supportive to in their interests you know, of their interests. But that is not to say that we were blind in our support, and there were plenty of occasions where, you know, when required, we were well, rightly critical of police actions or the behaviour of police officers. But in general terms, we were supportive.
Q. Okay. Paragraph 60, off-the-record briefings. You've attended a substantial number of those over the years, although they're much less frequent nowadays, you say. There may be a distinction between off-the-record briefings, as it were, which are authorised, they come from someone of inspector level or above, and within that person's bailiwick, and off-the-record briefings where unauthorised information is provided. Were you ever the recipient of information which fell into the second category?
A. I don't think I was, sir, actually. I mean off-the-record briefings, there has always been a problem understanding what the term "off the record" means. To some people it can mean "not for attributation". For others it can mean "not to be used at any cost, Chatham House rules". I would understand "off-the-record briefings" in the way the question was put to mean: typically you've been I might give one well, an example where there is a press conference held about a high-profile murder, and this is a general press conference with everybody invited. It's held on camera, and there could be reasons why investigating officers want to put their inquiry into context. There will be specific operational reasons. So on those occasions, when the cameras have been switched off and the crews have gone away, journalists will be will remain in the press room typically at New Scotland Yard, in reference to the Met, but other forces have used the same tactic, I suppose you could say. So journalists would remain and then there would be an off-camera section where you could put questions and senior officers would try and put a context into the investigation. So, for instance, if you if one newspaper or TV company had been speculating rather unhelpfully about suspects, you might be given sort of detail around that.
Q. You say in paragraph 65 you were led to understand that analysts this is analysts within either the DPS or the DPA are used to scan stories looking for potential leaks.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know from the information you've received who within the police is carrying out these scanning exercises?
A. Well, I've just been told on reasonable authority that it refers to the director of the DPA as one of his tasks. I mean, this is where I've written the this particular part of the statement in answer to that question. One of his jobs is to look out for potential leaks. I have additionally been told that there is a system whereby reporters are graded in terms of whether they're favourable to the Metropolitan Police or not, and I don't know how they do that, on what basis they make their judgment, but I'm told that I don't suggest it's a top 20, who's the person that's going to be more favourable to the Met than others, but I was told that that system existed and I quite believe it.
Q. From the way you phrased that answer, you're probably unwilling to tell us who it was who told you that; is that right?
A. I think
Q. Or if you are willing, perhaps you could share it with us?
A. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to say so, sir.
Q. Hm. So the marking's on the basis of who's been favourable or not towards the Met, rather than which journalists are more likely to be the recipients of leaked information; have I correctly understood it?
A. I don't think you have understood it properly. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON These are separate things.
A. No, it's got nothing to do with who's likely to receive leaks. MR JAY No, no.
A. It's everything to do with a set of circumstances happen, there is a story around it, and I think this marking system is and I'm not quite sure what the criteria for the marking system is, but it's done on the number of presumably the number of stories journalists ask which are critical of the Met and the number of stories which they do which are praising of the Met. I don't think it my understanding was that it didn't have anything to do with the number of leaks a journalist might receive, sir. MR JAY No, no. No, I didn't think it did, but I was just making sure that that's the way your evidence is to be understood. It's direct hearsay or multiple hearsay. You understand the difference, Mr Sullivan? Have you been told by someone who has direct knowledge of this marking system, or have you been told by someone who
A. I believe so sir. I believe so.
Q. There have been leak inquiries, you tell us about those in paragraph 75.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You personally have received a number of calls from the Met DPS?
A. Mm. This is, to put it into context, sir, since last summer and the events subsequent to the events of last July, the DPS called where we've run stories using the term "police source", and also where there have been stories which they might perceive to have come from within the police, originated within the police. I do stress that.
Q. Is this the right inference then, that you often use the term "police source" when in fact the source is not a police officer?
A. I've been aware for some time, since last summer, about the issues of "police source". It is a very difficult one for me to answer, actually, because there could be ramifications around the police investigation which I'm currently subject to. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON I don't want you in any sense to embarrass yourself, Mr Sullivan. That's not the purpose of this Inquiry at all. But are you able to say what you understand by the phrase, just using neutral language, "police source"?
A. Well, sir, I mean "police source" could be anything, it really could. There is a lack of clarity around that, and I think that's about as far as I could possibly go. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Very good. MR JAY So you say that when the MPS had made enquiry of you in relation to particular stories, you make it clear at the end of paragraph 75: "On none of these occasions was the information I received given to me by a police officer."
A. That's correct, sir.
Q. You just deal with the point in paragraph 76 and 77 that you disfavour acceptance of the HMIC recommendation that police officers should record all meetings with journalists. I don't quite follow your reasoning there, Mr Sullivan. Could you help us?
A. Okay. As a sir, as I mentioned earlier, I wrote this statement in January, and I don't think I mentioned it here, but having heard some of the evidence that's come out of this Inquiry, sir, I have changed my stance on several points. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON I'd be very interested to learn each point that you'd like to moderate to such extent as you're able to share it with me.
A. Well, if I could perhaps just start firstly with the this particular sentence: runs the risk of a journalist meeting somebody who notifies their line manager and then getting information for a story later in the day which casts unfair suspicion on that officer." What I meant there, sir, was that there was one occasion, it happened a number of years ago, and it involved a high-profile murder, where a reporter got quite a good story on this particular high-profile murder investigation and he deliberately took out the press officer who was dealing with that particular investigation or stories on the day before he then published his story around that investigation. And of course the press officer got the blame for that from police officers who were investigating, but I subsequently learnt that it wasn't the press officer who had leaked that story. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON So the press officer had been set up by the reporter?
A. He'd been set up by the reporter. So I've always borne that in mind to be very careful around any kind of engagement with somebody who's working on an inquiry which I might be doing a story on, lest they should be blamed for being the source of the leak. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON That's a problem, isn't it? But what you've just described was duplicitous by the reporter.
A. It was, sir, yes, it was. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON You won't be surprised to hear that that doesn't enormously impress me.
A. I'm not surprised at all, sir, but I only mention it to put it into context, sir. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON No, I understand the point, I understand the point.
A. It was a rare occasion, sir, and I'm not aware of any other I mean, they may well have happened, but I'm just saying that made that particular press officer very vulnerable, well, to being accused of being the source of the leak. So that's why notifying could run some kind of notification could run some kind of risk that somebody who you'd perhaps met the night before and who faithfully recorded as required that they met with a particular journalist, sir, then that particular journalist writes a story and it's that person they've seen the night before, perhaps in a group situation or whatever, but from the particular inquiry team he gets the blame, when he could be somebody entirely different. MR JAY It might be said that a notification requirement would have a stultifying effect on unauthorised disclosures by police officers on journalists, but would have no impact on authorised off-the-record disclosures. Do you see the point?
A. I do see the point, sir. It really is clearly, I mean listening to this evidence, I accept that there is a need for to protect journalists and police officers alike, you need a framework of some sort, a system. I personally recognise that. But it's then if you like, it's how do you go about that, how do you find that middle ground or the drunken clairvoyant, as it were, the happy medium, to use that analogy, which is the crux of it, in my opinion. I mean, I can move on at this point, Mr Jay, to the HMIC report, ask this question in the context of that, and the Elizabeth Filkin report, both of which seem to recognise that there is a requirement for a framework LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Well, can you tell me of a framework that might work? You've knocked around this area forever, as it were.
A. I think if there were clear guidelines, sir, on what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, it would be helpful. What it needs to be is practical, so for instance every now and again I am invited to a mostly these days, because of my age, retirement party from a police officer who I may have known, or press officer, for many years. If I were to turn up, or indeed any other journalist could turn up to such a social occasion, would everybody present then have to record the presence my own presence or the presence of any other journalist? I think you're getting into realms of layers of bureaucracy which would be impossible to manage. If I were to have a one-to-one or any other journalist were to have a one-to-one meeting, a cup of tea, a drink, to discuss any particular case or incident which a police officer may be or press officer might be trying to promote or promote some good work, then if there was a record of that, I personally couldn't really see any harm of that, sir. At this point in time, looking back and having heard the evidence in this Inquiry, I think it might be the best thing, all ways around. But it's different from a group situation. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON I suppose the professionals involved, that is both the reporters and the police, on your retirement party example, would have to accept that you simply don't mix business with pleasure, and if you're going along to see somebody because you've retired, then the one thing you don't do under any circumstances is talk business.
A. It very rarely is, sir. The most that you're most likely to hear is, "I've got an interesting case, I'll be in touch, or a press officer will", and that's the reality. That's the working reality. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Yes, that may be, but provided everybody understood the framework, the ground rules, then that might be sufficient to cope with your everybody having to report presence at the retirement party. I'm not saying it would be, I'm merely just trying to deal with your example.
A. Where you do have a problem, though, sir, and it is worth mentioning this in terms of the Metropolitan Police, like any other or any police force, like any other organisation, wants to protect its own interests, and where there is a story or something which is quite critical of that police force, you're hardly going to expect them to open up. So if somebody wants to come forward to a journalist and tell a true story, something that is in the public interest that needs to be known about, then guidelines such as ones we're talking about would make that very difficult, if not impossible. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Well, you might have to have some whistle-blowing policy that's rather more effective than whatever whistle-blowing policy presently exists, but that's a slightly different point, isn't it?
A. I understand that, sir, but it does I mean, the point being it needs to be part of the equation, I would argue, sir. MR JAY Let me ask you a couple of some more general questions now that have been put by others. Did you learn in 2006 that the Metropolitan Police had discovered that it was possible to intercept mobile phone voicemails?
A. The first I knew anybody was able to intercept messages on a mobile phone was when Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire were arrested.
Q. So it follows from that answer you didn't know anything about it before 8 August 2006, then?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you hear rumours that these activities were going on at the News of the World?
A. No, sir, not at all.
Q. Can I ask you, please, about the Daniel Morgan murder. There was, I think, a photograph in the Sun, it was an horrific murder. I think it was I don't know the precise details, but it involved an axe. Do you know anything about how that photograph came to be in the Sun?
A. That photograph was provided by the best put it as a member of the public, or a a journalistic source would be as far as I could go on that, sir. It is an investigation case which I know very well, actually, and again in relation to Mr Quick's statement, if I can go back to that and I don't mean it personally to Mr Quick, but he did say in his statement or in his evidence to this Inquiry that Southern Investigations, which Mr Morgan was a partner of, an investigation agency which was used by some of the media, he mentioned that it was used by News of the World and the Sun. I would like it to be absolutely crystal clear that I am not aware of the Sun ever having used Southern Investigations for any purposes, and given my knowledge on that particular case, I think I would know that, sir.
Q. In terms of the photograph, which you say was provided to you by a journalistic source, do you know who took the decision that the photograph should be published?
A. Presumably it would have been our editor or perhaps someone on our back bench at the time, sir.
Q. Were you involved in that decision-making?
A. I wasn't, sir. MR JAY Okay, I think that's as far as I can take that issue. Indeed, those are all the questions I have for you, Mr Sullivan. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON During the course of your evidence, Mr Sullivan, you said that reflecting on your statement, which actually is dated the signed version is dated 28 February, but you said you prepared it in January in the light of what you'd heard, there were a number of things that you'd thought again about.
A. I have LORD JUSTICE LEVESON You mentioned one of them, but I would be very keen to know if there's any other aspect of your statement, whether it's a fact or an expression of opinion that's contained within it, that we have perhaps not covered, that you'd like to modify.
A. I was thinking more around Elizabeth Filkin's report, sir, which I think I described the HMIC report to media/police relations as being more reasonable, and on reflection I would like to take that back. I do accept that Elizabeth Filkin's report was an honest and decent attempt to grasp what was obviously a very complex issues, and issues, I hasten to add, which could have some impact on democracy, because if we get to a position in this period of austerity, as it's so been described, the police period of austerity, if you get to a position where police officers become agents of the state, I do think there's a real risk that they would lose the political independence and could be, who knows, potentially utilised by any government of the day for its own purposes, which might not be in the interests of its of the general position, so that there are some I mean, taking it forward even more, I think some real crucial points around the public profile of the police. I felt that the Filkin report, in particular, was naive in the sense that it required absolute openness to work, and we've heard from Mr Paddick, or this Inquiry has heard from Mr Paddick about his report on rape and the quality of rape investigations. I thought it was an interesting point because subsequent to that you had two absolute scandals, in my opinion, John Worboys and Kirk Reid, where it could be argued, certainly more than argued, that the Met had been culpable and had failed in apprehending those rapists. Had that report who knows. Had that report from Mr Paddick been released earlier, perhaps it might have had an effect, a political effect, in beefing up the or reinforcing resources for rape investigation, sexual offenders investigation, which has always been a Cinderella of policing anyway, and come secondary to political considerations of the day. So I have concerns about the Filkin report in that sense, and I also felt that it was let down by a patronising tone, sir, towards journalists, that journalists do not practice abstinence well. Nor do the police in my experience and nor, if I may be so bold to say, nor do lawyers. We're picked out there as people, and I'm talking about journalists in general, who go along to buy a lunch and pour as much wine down somebody's throat to get a story, and I don't know any reporters that have ever operated like that, not crime reporters. There's a warning to police officers: be careful because journalists could be tape recording everything you say. I don't know any crime reporters that would ever have tape-recorded conversations between themselves and police officers, and so I felt there was a negative approach to moving forward. At least the HMIC report does accept that the media is part of police life, that there needs to be openness and a maturity around engaging with the media, and so in that sense I just wanted to make the point, clarify that I felt that the HMIC approach was a more mature one and perhaps one that might be we might be LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Yes, you actually said that in paragraph 74.
A. Right, all right, okay. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON All right. MR GARNHAM Sir? LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Yes, Mr Garnham? MR GARNHAM Sir, I would apply either to ask a question of this witness or alternatively to indicate openly the Met's position in respect of one allegation made by this witness, namely that in paragraph 65, to the effect that the Met either have charts on individual reporters with a system of marking to show if they're regarded as being favourable or not towards the Met. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON If you want to ask a couple of questions about that, you can do so. MR GARNHAM Thank you, sir. Questions by MR GARNHAM MR GARNHAM You mentioned in answer to Mr Jay, Mr Sullivan, that it was your understanding that the Met had such a system?
A. That's correct, sir.
Q. Can I suggest to you that there is no such system by which the Met grade journalists according to how favourable their stories are towards the Met and ask you whether you're able to give us any indication as to how you think you know that?
A. As I mentioned earlier, sir, I can't give you tell you who told me, but there may not be such a system now, but I can certainly tell you that I was reliably informed, perhaps three or four years ago, could be five years ago, sir, that there was such a system.
Q. Might it be possible that you or your source are confusing arrangements to detect policing themes in the media, although even that didn't isolate particular journalists?
A. No, it's not possible at all. I'm quite confident that what I said is correct.
Q. Then I formally suggest to you that your source is inaccurate.
A. I hope that LORD JUSTICE LEVESON That's the problem about unnamed sources.
A. Absolutely, sir. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Right. Thank you. Well, shall we have five minutes? We did have a slight break before, but we need another five minutes before we go to the next witness. (12.08 pm) (A short break) (12.16 pm) MR JAY The next witness is Mr Stephen Wright, please. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Yes. MR STEPHEN JOHN WRIGHT (sworn) Questions by MR JAY MR JAY Your full name, please, Mr Wright.
A. Stephen John Wright.
Q. Thank you. You provided the Inquiry with a witness statement which you have signed and dated, 21 February 2012. There isn't a statement of truth on it but is this your formal evidence to the Inquiry?
A. It is.
Q. Mr Wright, you currently are associated news editor at the Daily Mail?
A. Associate news editor.
Q. And you were promoted to that position in September 2010. But before then for about 15 years you were the crime editor; is that right?
A. I was crime editor at the end, Mr Jay.
Q. Yes, pardon me. You joined the crime desk in January 1996 and you were promoted to crime editor, I don't think you say when, but when was that?
A. I think it was around 2006.
Q. Thank you. Your statement makes it clear that you received a significant number of awards. Reporter of the year in 2007, that's BBC, "What the Papers Say" specialist writer of the year in 2009 at the British Press Awards and joint winner of the Cudlipp award, that's twice, for excellence in journalism, and then you've been shortlisted and runner up for various other prestigious awards. Can you tell us a small amount about the stories which secured you those awards?
A. In 2007, reporter of the year I'm just looking at the screen here I can't
Q. It's an unfair question, I didn't give you warning of it.
A. I don't actually remember, but I think what those stories were, I think one was to do with Bob Woolmer, and that investigation into the murder that never was, I think it was something to do with the cash for honours investigation, and I believe it may have been something to do with the Rachel Nickell case, but please don't hold me to that because I didn't look it up before I came. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON It's across the range of crime?
A. That's right, sir. MR JAY I think it probably follows from your evidence for the 14 or 15-year period when you were working in crime, if I can put it in those terms, you were a member of the Crime Reporters Association?
A. I was indeed.
Q. This is a general question about the Crime Reporters Association. Does it give you privileged access to the police?
A. I wouldn't actually say it does, actually.
Q. Well, you hesitated, but
A. No, because I think it's a definition of what it projected or not, because I don't actually go into a CRA briefing, I didn't necessarily believe that I should believe what I'm being told, so, you know, whether that's privileged or not is a matter for debate. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON With great respect, that's a quite different point, isn't it? Whether you believe it or not is a matter for you. The question is whether you're being given access to briefings which weren't generally given to everybody else.
A. Oh, I see, perhaps I didn't understand the question properly. Well, clearly, yes, there were some briefings. There would be a situation, particularly during 2005, the terror attacks, situations, if I remember rightly, where there would be a general press conference and then there would be a CRA meeting afterwards where crime reporters would be able to ask additional questions. To the best of my knowledge, those additional questions didn't result in any further sort of any additional lines in newspaper copy, which disadvantaged people who weren't in the CRA. MR JAY It gave you background context
A. Yes.
Q. which you couldn't use directly because of the nature of the briefing, but gave you a deeper understanding of some of the issues, would you agree?
A. Yes. Yes. Yes. And of course you're aware of the monthly CRA briefings with the Commissioner as well, which, to use your words, might be a sort of privileged situation.
Q. You also suggested though that you didn't always accept everything that you were being told during these briefings. You're the first witness who has said that.
A. No, I think in 1999, a couple years after I'd started working on the Stephen Lawrence case, there was a briefing, CRA briefing of Lord Condon, and I was asked at the end of that just a monthly briefing at Scotland Yard, crime reporters, and at the end of that briefing the questions were open to the floor, "Anything you'd like to ask Lord Condon?", and I asked Lord Condon, Sir Paul as he was then: "If the MacPherson Inquiry is critical of you, personally, will you resign?" And jaws dropped amongst Metropolitan Police personnel there. I thought it was a perfectly legitimate question. After the meeting, one of Sir Paul's aides came up to me and asked why I was asking that question, which I thought was a legitimate question, so I said, "Actually, I asked that question because it's an important question, not because I have anything personally against Sir Paul Condon. I'm an independent journalist and that's the question I wanted to ask". He answered the question, but I felt uncomfortable that it was a cosy situation where you couldn't ask difficult questions.
Q. I understand that. It's different, though, from being given misleading or incorrect information during such briefings, would you agree?
A. I think perhaps I was unfair there, but what I was getting at was sometimes I felt that the CRA briefings were a way for some senior officers to control the flow of information, which just went against my principles.
Q. Okay. May I ask you, please, about paragraph 7 of your statement, our page 07729, when you're covering the West case. You say towards the end of that paragraph that you looked into the backgrounds of the Wests and spoke to a number of family members and then, I paraphrase, you did some research. It's implicit in what you're saying, Mr Wright, that you avoided in your reporting the sort of problems this Inquiry has seen in relation to the Jefferies case. Do you understand the question?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. How do you feel that you were successful in doing that?
A. Well, I hadn't really thought about my answer on that, on the West case in relation to the Jefferies case, until this morning. The only reason I mentioned that was because I was a young reporter at the time at the Mail, it was a highly competitive Fleet Street bun fight, you could say, really. That's what it was. It was chaotic down in Gloucester during the first few weeks of the developing story. A lot of competition. I even had a situation where the senior investigating officer, Mr Bennett, rang me to ask me to withdraw from someone's a witness's address, and I said to Mr Bennett, "I'm actually in London at the moment, could you please give a description of someone who is saying they are Stephen Wright and write for the Daily Mail?" I hadn't met Mr Bennett at that stage, and it's fair to say that the description of that individual proved it wasn't me, but there was some real skullduggery going on there in that story. As I said in my statement, a number of media organisations, broadcasters, not just newspapers, were found to have been paying witnesses, and I'm very proud that the Daily Mail wasn't amongst those. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON It's a trial about which I know really quite a lot.
A. I remember you very well, sir. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON But I'm going to ask a slightly different question, which is this: you've described what you did in relation to that trial, that case. Has the way in which crime investigation has changed in the last 16 years meant that this sort of background work is no longer possible?
A. Do you mind me asking what you mean by "background work"? LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Well, you explain that you spent
A. Oh, I see, yes. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON three or four months researching the case, you spent the entire trial, seven weeks, in Winchester, and therefore you got a picture.
A. Yes, I would say yes, I get your question now. I would say most definitely yes, and sadly, with the exception of one or two papers, my newspaper included, the resources aren't there now to do that type of thorough background investigations. It's very sad. Very sad. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON But that may be part of the problem about the resource implications of what's happened.
A. Yes. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON But the question then arises: how are such stories being developed and are corners being cut because you can't do the sort of work that you did in that trial?
A. I would agree, I would agree. I would agree. I can't agree enough. I find it very sad, I find it very sad that, you know, actually I enjoyed having rivalry with other journalists and other news organisations. Very if you had a Rose West an appalling, appalling crime, some of the stuff which we heard in that trial, which wasn't printed, I will never ever forget. But it was appalling, but it was also very important to investigate all aspects of that case, not just the grisly details of what happened in that house, but obviously the failures by the various sort of government departments, but I don't think if that was a similar case today, I don't think any most newspapers would put any real resources into it. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON I understand, but my question doesn't permit of you to say "I agree".
A. I beg your pardon. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Much as I'm very happy for you to agree with me. My question was: how are such stories being developed and are corners being cut because you can't do the sort of work that you did in that trial?
A. All I can do is talk for my newspaper and say that we still can devote the sort of resources we devoted 20 years ago. It may well be I don't want to be in a situation where I am criticising other newspapers. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Well, Mr Wright, that's very noble of you, but I'm looking at the culture, practices and ethics of the press as a whole.
A. Yes. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON I'm not going to spend a great deal of time focusing on individual titles
A. Fine. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON as I've made clear. I'm very keen to understand what's happening.
A. Yes. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON I won't ask you to name names
A. Yes. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON But here you are, you have an enormous amount of experience in the area. I'd be very grateful for your help.
A. Right. Well, I think, yes, definitely some newspapers resources aren't there and inevitably corners could be cut. The quality of journalism is not what it may have been 20 years ago. I think that's LORD JUSTICE LEVESON And how might that happen? How would you go about collecting this sort of story?
A. I would say it's more about research, sir, having the time. You know, when I was sorry to talk about myself, but in terms of what I did down there, I was you know, in the old days you would knock on hundreds of doors, you wouldn't have mobile phones really in those days. You knocked on lots of doors, you pieced you approached the relatives and victims in a very organised way, and that's very, very time-consuming, to get the whole story. MR JAY So in terms of your practice, Mr Wright, the position has remained constant because the resources are available, but if one was going to look more widely, particularly in the context of crime reporting, the stringency of resources has meant, is this right, a lowering in standards?
A. I'm thinking carefully about this. (Pause). I think there's a danger, yes. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now paragraph 8, you tell us you covered the Soham murders, the Shipman case and the murder of Milly Dowler, all of which brought you into contact with different police forces. Self-evidently different police forces will have different styles of dealing with the press. It's an open question: is there anything you can draw to the Inquiry's attention which would assist us in relation to differing police/press contacts over the different police forces who covered or were responsible for those different murders?
A. I think it's not a secret in the Police Service that the Soham murders, Cambridgeshire police found it very difficult in the first week to deal with the huge press interest in that case. It was really the first case I covered where 24-hour news really gave a domestic high-profile crime real, real publicity. That was unprecedented. So they were deluged and I think within a week they sort of got extra help from the Metropolitan Police press officers and stuff like that, so I think they were as a result of not being able to field some questions, you know, they were just completely inundated, there was there were dangers in terms of press accuracy, I would say. The Shipman case well, Manchester police is obviously a big force and I think they're able to deal very able to deal with that quite easily. And also it wasn't it didn't have the intensity the story didn't have the intensity that the murders of Holly and Jessica had. Milly Dowler, as well, I think let me think, that was 2002, wasn't it? Surrey's a small force. I think at the start of that case, there was quite a lot of publicity in the first two or three days and it drifted off after a while, so it wasn't that intense, the coverage or the media interest in it, after a few days. So they were able to handle the sort of media interest.
Q. You tell us in paragraph 9 that it's self-evidently necessary to build up relationships of trust with police officers so that you have a reputation of being trusted. How do you achieve that, Mr Wright?
A. I think it's as a as a crime reporter, it's not just what you are told and print which makes an impression on police officers, it's what you were told and don't print, and that's a sign of trust. Obviously the normal human traits of integrity and honesty are important. What I have discovered over the last 18, 19 years is that in the Police Service nationally, a lot of word gets around quite quickly if you are perceived to be a good journalist someone who can be trusted and obviously the opposite applies too. So what I'm saying is if you get a reputation for being someone who's unprofessional, word gets round quickly and your career may not progress.
Q. Are these issues which are discussed either privately or formally within the Crime Reporters Association? In particular, journalists who are perhaps regarded as not as trustworthy, for whatever reason?
A. I must say that in my time when I was a crime reporter I'm not any more I thought all the crime reporters were people who were trustworthy, definitely. I wouldn't they were rivals, they were competitors, and it would be very easy for me to say to other officers or press officers, "Oh, this person can't be trusted", but that would be completely self-serving and completely wrong, because they were honest, decent people.
Q. You've correctly told us that you're no longer a member, the reason being that on your promotion, you're no longer crime editor?
A. Yes.
Q. So you lose the credentials, as it were?
A. Yes.
Q. But looking back at or on the Crime Reporters Association, is it a positive force or not, in your opinion?
A. What, the Crime Reporters Association?
Q. Yes, does it work in the public interest, if I can ask it more widely? (Pause).
A. Yes, I would say it does. It can. It has on occasions. I'm thinking about 2005, that momentous month in July, particularly the July 21 attacks, when there were four very dangerous men on the run, and the obviously a time of unprecedented national security concerns, and the Crime Reporters Association worked quite closely with the press officers and the Scotland Yard officers to be I think there's I believe there's at that time the CRA was slightly extended because it was an unprecedented situation, but there were confidential briefings about the case, about the hunt, which were massively in the public interest, information about what the police were doing which could be reported and, more importantly, what they might be doing but couldn't talk about, which can't be reported. So I think it was an excellent example of teamwork between the press and the police. And the CRA was at the heart of that.
Q. Okay. Speaking more widely about the relationships you built up over the years, paragraph 10 of your statement, Mr Wright, you say the officers: tended to be those of senior and middling ranks as they were given discretion to talk to the media." So you're looking at those at inspector level and above
A. That's correct.
Q. on the policies we've seen. "Who would initiate contact would depend on the circumstances." So there's circumstances when police officers would contact you; is that right?
A. Yes, on occasion. I mean, I think if a murder squad officer was looking for some publicity on an unsolved murder, I might get a call. I can't think of any case off the top of my head. I'm not being awkward, but I just can't think I guess conversely I might contact officers on occasions as well. It would depend on the circumstances, as I said in my statement.
Q. From a journalist's perspective, the journalist just listened to the information he or she received. That information can either be authorised, in the sense that the police authorises its dissemination, even off the record, or unauthorised.
A. Yes.
Q. So it's information which is leaked. Do you draw any distinction between the two? (Pause).
A. Well, clearly I'm aware of what might be in the Scotland Yard press release, and what isn't in the Scotland Yard press release, so my job as a journalist is to probe beyond the press release to find out what's going on.
Q. Your probing may just be to obtain information which hasn't publicly been disseminated but is still authorised, in other words it's coming from an inspector rank officer or above, and it's within his or her area of responsibility.
A. That's right.
Q. Do you follow me?
A. Yes.
Q. But there may be circumstances where you're receiving information which is unauthorised, either because it's coming from the wrong rank or because it's outside that person's area of responsibility. Do you accept that?
A. There would be occasions.
Q. Because you say at the end of paragraph 10: "However, at all times what they decided to tell me was a matter for them."
A. Absolutely.
Q. Which, of course, is strictly speaking 100 per cent right, but implicit in that is the assertion that on occasions you might be being given information which the person who was providing it to you ought not really to have provided to you. Do you follow me?
A. I follow your argument, yes.
Q. Over the years, have I correctly understood it, you were in receipt from time to time of unauthorised information, namely leaked information?
A. I received information from people of a certain rank who were authorised to speak to me. Are you thinking about a particular case or
Q. No, I'm speaking generally, that I'm sure most of the information you received, Mr Wright and I'm not suggesting for one moment any impropriety in what you're doing, because a journalist has to act on information the journalist receives most of the information you got was authorised in the sense that it was from an officer of inspector level or above
A. Yes.
Q. and it was within their area of competence?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. But there must have been circumstances, situations, when you received information either from junior officers below inspector rank level, or from officers at inspector rank level and above but it was outside their area of expertise or competence; is that correct?
A. On your former point I'd say no, that I can't think of occasions when I've spoken to anyone below inspector rank.
Q. Fair enough.
A. My only dealings with constables normally are family liaison officers, and that's dealing with setting up interviews with victims and that's organised through LORD JUSTICE LEVESON The big working rank, certainly when I was a junior barrister, was the detective sergeant.
A. Right. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON They were the ones that locked up the burglars and the people. You didn't have conversations with the detective sergeant in your local
A. Well, I was conscious of the media guidelines in the Met, which gave authority to inspectors and above. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON But you're entitled, as Mr Jay has just said to you you can listen to anyone, you're not doing anything wrong, and if somebody wants to say something to you which that's their problem, it's not your problem.
A. Yes. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON I think all he's trying to ask you is whether actually people did go behind what they should have done, perhaps because they trusted you, perhaps because they had a wonderful relationship with you and they knew you wouldn't misuse the information
A. Yes. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON but you were aware that actually really you shouldn't be getting the information. I think that's what Mr Jay is asking you. MR JAY I hope he was.
A. Yes. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Right. MR JAY That's really what you're saying, isn't it, in the last clause in paragraph 10?
A. I am a journalist.
Q. Yes.
A. And I'll be wanting to gather information. But what we hear and whether we use it is a completely different matter.
Q. Of course. Well, let's see how this plays out in the individual cases in a moment, but can I move forward to paragraph 14. You deal with the Rachel Nickell case, and you say about a third of the way down through that paragraph that in 2001 you conducted a five-page interview with Rachel Nickell's partner, in which he issued an emotional appeal for the police to catch her killer. It was a very poignant article, as you were the first journalist to meet Rachel's son, who had witnessed her murder. "I later alerted a very senior police officer to the article which, I believe, may have helped restart the inquiry." What was it in the article which reignited the investigation?
A. Can I make this clear. I don't want anyone here in this room to think that I restarted the Rachel Nickell inquiry, because I didn't. That was obviously a decision for officers at the Met to decide. I showed my the article was deemed by other people to be very poignant. A young father bringing up a son alone, crying out for justice. And I said to Rachel's partner, Mr Hanscombe, that I would try and find out or try and use any influence I could to get some sort of new investigation launched. The big difference between that and actually me being responsible, I just want to make that absolutely clear. But I did show my article to a very senior officer, left it with him and just said this, "Please read this, this man and this son need justice." LORD JUSTICE LEVESON So would it be right if we crossed out the word "helped" because I'm very conscious that this sort of thing is very sensitive.
A. Yes of course. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON So if we crossed out the word "helped" and put "contributed to the decision by the Metropolitan Police"?
A. I think, sir, that might even be a bit too strong. The reason I put this in my statement was because there's been a lot of emphasis on the negative side of the relationship between a journalist and a police officer. In this case, I was doing I wanted to do I wanted to, if I could at all, just raise this issue with a senior officer who had a lot of influence at the Yard and to say, "Is there anything can be done to get justice for this family?" That is it, I don't want anyone to think it's anything beyond that. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON I am very comfortable with that proposition. I think I've given the example before in the Inquiry, I am happy to repeat it, that the Sun newspaper found a photograph of Charmaine West, which was extremely important in dating the time of her death.
A. Right. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON So that hadn't been found by the police, that was found by the Sun, and the police then got hold of it. So you do not need to convince me
A. No. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON that there are enormously powerful tools available to the press that can and do dramatically help the pursuit of criminal justice in this country.
A. Yes. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON It's something I've talked about with some of the very senior police officers. Everybody must be harnessed to encourage people to come forward, otherwise we don't solve crimes.
A. Yes. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON You can't do it at one remove.
A. Yes. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON And I repeat the story now, just so that again, as I have said about the value of other journalism, I am not seeking to place the concerns that have been expressed out of context, and I'm not seeking to redefine the context at all.
A. Thank you. I just say the Metropolitan Police solved Rachel Nickell's murder. I want to make that clear and I congratulate them. MR JAY Yes, en route to that, though, in chronological terms, there was a piece in the Mail on 6 September 2003, which you wrote under the headline "Hope of DNA breakthrough in search for Rachel's killer". You said in that piece: "Detectives have made a potentially vital breakthrough in their hunt for the killer of Rachel Nickell." It was finding a DNA sample.
A. Mm.
Q. And apparently police sources made a comment about that. Was this information which was leaked to you by the police?
A. I only became aware of this article being the subject of scrutiny in this Inquiry last night, and I have been thinking about where it came from, that information. It either came from a police source in the speaking to me in a police source in the generic sense the definition mentioned by Sandra Laville yesterday is one which I would agree with or it came from a freelance journalist, and I cannot say for sure, I'm afraid.
Q. In this case, though, it's likely to have been within the police, owing to the nature of the investigation, would you agree?
A. Yes. Oh, the origins of it, yes, definitely, but I'm just saying I can't be certain whether it was something which I picked up myself or whether it was a freelance journalist.
Q. It's going to be very difficult for you now to remember the details of what occurred seven or eight years ago.
A. Yes.
Q. But I think the suggestion is, and this may well be right, that the disclosure to you was unauthorised in a sense that it's not something that the police would have wanted to enter the public domain at this stage. Would you agree with that?
A. What I would say is this, is that I've covered the Rachel Nickell case since 1996. It was a horrific murder and I had written a number of articles chronicling developments in the case. It was my job to find out what was going on, but also a case hugely in the public interest. It wasn't my job to jeopardise the inquiry, and I don't think that story jeopardised the inquiry in any way.
Q. One can accept that because of the general way in which you were speaking in the article, it would not have prejudiced a police investigation, nor indeed would it have fallen with the Contempt of Court Act because no one had been arrested. It's just whether you felt that you were being provided with information which you knew that the police would not have wanted to enter the public domain at that stage?
A. Mr Jay, I didn't actually before writing that article, my main concern was: would this jeopardise would the my main concern was whether the article would jeopardise the police investigation. Just to repeat, it's a story hugely in the public interest, and as crime reporters we act ethically but we are soon out of work if we rely on press releases for our stories.
Q. There was another piece, as you know, the following year: "Police refuse Stagg DNA test." Again was that information which was provided to you by a police source?
A. That information came from Mr Stagg turning up at a police station with a Sky News TV crew in attendance. I made some enquiries in the last 24 hours. I understand Mr Stagg's publicist may have had a role in that situation.
Q. That disposes of that one. The last one is 10 January 2007, which relates to Mr Stagg's award of compensation from the Home Office. Again, the suggestion is that you obtained that information from a source, but perhaps, though, within or close to the Home Office. Is that correct?
A. Is it correct it came from the Home Office?
Q. Mm.
A. It did not come from the Home Office.
Q. Do you
A. I'm not, I'm afraid, able to go into any more detail, but Mr Stagg's solicitor is making assumptions there, and perhaps his assumptions are flawed because of the passage of time.
Q. I think the point may be made in this way, Mr Wright, that provided that there's no prejudice to an ongoing police investigation, number one, and provided that self-evidently you haven't paid for this information, well, then you say it's in the public interest to publish it so you'll go ahead and publish it, provided your editors agree, of course?
A. We think very carefully about what we write and what we publish. There's a lot of things to take into consideration on sensitive inquiries, on less sensitive ones. As I said earlier, you know, I'm a reporter and I don't we don't rely on press releases for our stories, and it's getting that balance right. It's about judgment. It's about judgment, but and occasionally we get it wrong, we get it wrong, but I think certainly the Daily Mail crime desk and the fantastically talented colleagues I work with, we get it right most of the times. We get it right most of the times. Nothing worse for me as a journalist a crime editor, nothing worse for the editor than to be accused of of of genuinely, and I stress the word genuinely jeopardising a successful outcome in a police investigation.
Q. Although reliance on this type of source, there's nothing inherently proper in that for the reasons I've explained
A. Yes, I know, I am not being too defensive, but in terms of Mr Stagg's solicitor's assertions, they are wrong. They are wrong, okay?
Q. If you're relying on a source which may or may not be providing you with unauthorised information, of course self-evidently you're taking a risk as to whether the source is accurate. Would you agree with that?
A. Absolutely, yes.
Q. And there's little way of substantiating what the source is saying, is that also right?
A. Well, it's it's it's very rare that you would write a story based on unofficial sources and not put it to the police force in some way or another, give them an opportunity to comment or, if they wish, to make strong representations for us not to write it, because any strong representations for us not to write something would be taken very seriously by me and the editor.
Q. This may not be an altogether fair question, but do you recall in the cases of the three articles I've been taking you to whether you did seek formal the formal police view on those stories as to whether they should be published and whether they were accurate?
A. I think well, certainly, Mr Jay, the first story about the DNA breakthrough, yes, I did. And I think they decided to comment they're not prepared to give a running commentary. If they had said, "Please don't run this, it will cause us a problem", it would have been taken very seriously. I can't say what the outcome would be, but certainly it would be really unprofessional to ignore it. The second story, well obviously it's self-evident, with the Sky TV camera, I was just following up that story. So I don't know if we spoke to the Yard. And the third case, I did speak I did put in a call to the Home Office and they gave me a full statement. MR JAY Thank you. I'm moving on to another topic. Would it be convenient to break now? LORD JUSTICE LEVESON Certainly. Thank you very much. 2 o'clock. (12.57 pm)


Gave a statement at the hearing on 15 March 2012 (AM) ; and submitted 4 pieces of evidence
Gave a statement at the hearing on 15 March 2012 (AM) ; and submitted 1 pieces of evidence
Gave statements at the hearings on 15 March 2012 (AM) and 15 March 2012 (PM) ; and submitted 2 pieces of evidence


Understand all the key topics and the context behind the Inquiry's findings

Journalism & society
View more
View more
View more
Future of journalism
View more
Background & history
View more
Subsequent developments
View more
Ethics & abuses
View more