News

Jemima Khan denies being source of Hugh Grant's 'plummy-voiced' woman Mail on Sunday story

06/02/2012

Jemima Khan has denied any knowledge of a "plummy-voiced woman" leaving Hugh Grant messages in her written evidence to the Leveson Inquiry.Khan, who dated Grant from 2004 until 2007, categorically denied having been the source of the story about a "plummy-voiced woman" who left messages on Grant's mobile phone voicemail.The Mail on sunday claimed the story came from a source close to Khan as a defence for running the article, after Grant suggested the story might have originated from phone hacking while giving evidence to the inquiry.Khan's statement read: "I wish to make it clear that I did not talk to anyone about some 'plummy-voiced' woman calling Hugh. Indeed, the explanation given by the Mail on Sunday cannot be correct since the first I heard about any 'plummy-voiced' woman calling Hugh, or anything similar, was when I read it in the Mail on Sunday."I therefore could not have spoken to anyone about such matters prior to the article, because I knew nothing about it."Grant told Hacked Off he was in America for much of the time the messages were being left, but that his phone was still on UK time. Hence messages saying “see you soon” would have been voice-stamped as the middle of the night, even though they were left in the middle of the day in California.Khan finished her statement saying she would be "keen for the suggestion that the origin of this story was me to be publicly corrected" and that she would be "happy to give evidence to the inquiry under oath on this matter if necessary".

Download the full report:

Download report

Queries: campaign@hackinginquiry.org

related Posts

A year and two days: the story of one complaint to IPSO
Guest blog: Chris Goodall's complaint about fifteen errors in a Daily Mail article took IPSO a year and two days to decide. Here he publishes the full timeline — more than 80 emails, hundreds of hours of work, and one correction.
9/22/26
News
SLAPPs and the press: why the Anti-SLAPP Bill is the wrong answer
The private members Bill promoted by Baroness Stowell and Sir John Whittingdale would apply to any claim touching a matter of public interest, however meritorious and however properly brought. Hacked Off sets out why it would harm victims of press abuse, and why section 40 was the better answer.
9/21/26
News
Coverage of Professor Arday was not legitimate: the letter The Times refused to publish
Guest blog: Professor Paul Wragg replies to the letter published in The Times on 25 August defending the press coverage of Professor Jason Arday. The Times declined to publish his reply. We publish it here in full.
8/28/26
News
Defensive, evasive & hypocritical: The press reaction to the death of Jason Arday
The reaction of national newspapers to the death of Professor Jason Arday has exposed a brittle defensiveness at the heart of the press, and a determination to remain outside any meaningful accountability.
8/26/26
News