The horse and cart problem of the hacking inquiry
Lord Justice Leveson launched his media inquiry with a “look but don’t touch” no questions press conference. I wonder if he was influenced by Sir John Chilcot’s experience launching the Iraq Inquiry.
I remember one question at their opening press conference asking the members of the inquiry team to put their hand up if they’d opposed the Iraq war. Anyway, LJL set out how he intends to go about the complicated business of reporting on the media before the police have finished investigating what went wrong.
The “initial” inquiry report originally scheduled for within 12 months may take longer because the government has expanded the terms of reference. The second inquiry, absorbing what the police have found out, could follow after a gap. The first public session of the inquiry will be held in September.
There will be “seminars” as with the Gibson inquiry into detainees. A key phrase in his opening statement was: “I believe that it should be possible to focus on the extent of the problem (of utterly inappropriate behaviour in the press) which would not prejudice an investigation without examining who did what to whom.”
And that’s the heart of the horse and cart problem of the inquiry. It must come up with recommendations without being able to probe into the “who did what to whom” of phone hacking et al.
There are declarations of interest from Lord Justice Leveson and his team – here are the highlights:
- LJL himself admits to accepting Matthew Freud’s offer of pro bono assistance in improving public confidence in sentencing policy and attended “two large evening events at Mr Freud’s London home” (the most recent of them on 25 January). People like Mr Freud thrive on looking connected and you might think it a touch unworldly of LJL to go to such events.
- LJL told the Lord Chief Justice of this before his appointment to the inquiry.
- LJL is close to the new Acting Commissioner of the Met, Tim Godwin, and attended his 50th birthday party – but TG isn’t involved in the Met’s past engagement or lack of it with phone hacking.
- Other inquiry panel member Elinor Goodman, late of this parish, declares that she “played tennis with David Cameron on holiday … many years ago” proving yet again how good she was at spotting political talent early.
- George Jones, former Political Editor of the Daily Telegraph, makes what reads more like a declaration of intent than interest – he says the former Daily Telegraph editor Will Lewis (who will probably be a witness at the inquiry) is the man who “dispensed” with George’s services as political editor on the paper.
LJL has a vested interest in getting this inquiry (in both parts) done as quickly as possible. At 62 he is a senior judge whose career is regarded as still climbing. If he can wrap up the whole business in 3 years he will still be in with a chance of a shot at one of the very top jobs like Lord Chief Justice (retirement age 70). If this drags on or in any way becomes an object of ridicule his chances of promotion will be severely damaged.
LJL made some surprising remarks in his opening statement. He repeatedly talked about his inquiry focusing on “the press” even though his remit has been widened to include broadcasting and the web. He says that “no action was taken” after the 2006 Information Commissioner’s report on media organisation’s use of private investigators.
I’m not sure how he can be sure “no action was taken” and I have heard from someone steeped in all of this that several newsrooms may have tidied up their operations after that report even though the News of the World may have ramped up their dodgy activities around this time. LJL also refers to “utterly inappropriate behaviour of small sections of the press.” I’m not sure how he can be sure it is small sections of the press.
More from Channel 4 News: phone-hacking – directory of inquiries
LJL says he will use his powers to demand documents from everyone, not wait to see what comes to him voluntarily and then ask for the stuff that couldn’t be extracted. But that won’t preclude “waves” of requests for evidence as the panel’s understanding of what is relevant and available takes shape.
Follow @GaryGibbonBlog on Twitter.
There are 10 comments on this post
I wonder who and how a decision was made to select Paul Scott-lee was selected to be part of the panel.
It appears no one looked into his background;
1. He had applied for the commissioner’s post and was not selected for the 2nd round interviews.
2. He was the chief constable of West Midlands Police when Gordon Fraser was ACC and turned a blind-eye when it came to light that a number of investers had put in a complaint against Fraser. Such was the case that the Force covered it up and Fraser successfully applied to Leicestershire as Deputy ACC.
I don’t believe Scott-Lee would act appropriately during such a high profile investigation and should be replaced with Sir Edward Crew
Doesn’t this all make you realise how the ruling classes (politicians, judiciary, media, police,etc) are all part of a linked coterie (I prefer that to the more neutral “network”) in which information and favours are handed around over select dinners, drinkie-poos, etc. This is actually how supposedly democratic Britain is really run. Why, for example, didn’t Leveson or the Government seek some ordinary people for this work? It’s all “Yes Minister” – get your cvhums in, the people you can trust to come up with the answer you want.
I think we can rely on Elinor Goodman to get at the truth and to make sure that it is not suppressed.
Has Leveson declared whether or not he is a mason?
Gary,
Of course, the Terms of Reference are always used to deflect attention from the heart of the matter.
The classic example is the Terms of Reference that defined Peter Taylor’s Hillsborough Inquiry. Quietly tacked on to the end was a requirement to consider anti-hooliganism measures. This enabled an impression that hooliganism was one of the causes of the disaster when it had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Peter Taylor was a good man who did a first rate job within the Terms of Reference. He placed responsibility precisely where it lay, in neglectful police crowd direction and reaction. Specifically, he named Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield in the report.
But the Final Report also included anti-hooliganism measures which allowed Murdoch’s disgusting propaganda-makers off the hook, particularly the editorial thugs Kelvin Mackenzie and Andrew Neil. All of Taylor’s good work in the INTERIM Report went mostly unremarked.
Now we are getting a whiff of the same thing. For one thing, it will let the “intelligence” services off the hook. You can bet our very own home grown spooks are in there somewhere…all in the interests of “national security” of…
You say: “People like Mr Freud thrive on looking connected and you might think it a touch unworldly of LJL to go to such events.”
There has been a lot of talk about Robert Peston. Is it true that Jon Snow attended one such recent event hosted by the Freuds? I believe this was reported in the Daily Mail.
So what if he did? It is ludicrous to suggest that highly placed media professionals should not associate with one and other – akin to suggesting that it would be a scandal if an MP talked to a PR – it goes with the territory. You’re cooking a conspiracy out of nothing.
Police in the Met don’t have the skilled manpower to review all of the Hacking evidence quickly enough. Especially with the security priority of protecting the Olympics from potential outrages.
Yet we need to inform potential victims about both their status and what was done to their messages and by whom.
Why can’t the bundles of evidence be divided up amongst other police forces or government departments to review the evidence more quickly?
Or maybe some bundles of notes could be out-sourced to University Law Departments?
Of course that’s expensive. But the delay to justice is even more costly.
Great article, LJL seems to make a number of statements which makes me concerned that he has already come to some conclusions before the inquiry has even started properly. How indeed does he know that hacking involves only a small section of the press without investigating properly?
For me, this “hacking” scandal is no longer about listening in to voice mails, it is now more about apparent corruption involving the media, the Met, Politicians etc. and that is what I hoped this inquiry would investigate as well. I am concerned that this inquiry will sweep under the carpet anything that damages this current government, the previous government, individual politicians, the Met, the CPS and others, turning the whole inquiry in to a whitewash.
We deserve better than this and, with supreme irony, the only way that our interests as voters will be protected is if the press itself puts the inquiry under intense scrutiny and holds it to account.
The other issue we need to be careful of is any intention by politicians to use the outcome of the inquiry as an excuse to muzzle and emasculate the press and wider media. I trust politicians less than I trust journalists and the media at large
Will there be penalties for misleading the enquiry even ‘though at this stage it is deemed to be without knowing who did what to who. We had the spectacle of Tony Blair being recalled to the Iraq Enquiry.
Perjury is a serious crime. It will be interesting to see whether misleading the enquiry about the methods used will be a strategy in order to protect the future actions of the press and the future outcomes of those involved as the enquiry progresses.