News

Mail on Sunday editor 'rebuked' managing editor for concealing use of private eyes

11/01/2012

Newspaper
✕ Press claim

✓ The truth

Reach
Up to
people misled
Help us fight back

Join 71,384 others who are taking action to share the truth & raise standards in the press

1. Share the truth
Post this rebuttal on social media
2. Fund the fightback
Help us challenge more stories like this
Donate
3. Tell your MP
Send a ready-written email in 30 seconds
Email your MP

The editor of the Mail on Sunday "rebuked” the newspaper's managing editor for not telling him about the use of “inquiry agents”.

Editor Peter Wright answered questions on private investigator Steve Whittamore, whose files were investigated by the Information Commissioner Office's Operation Motorman, at the Leveson Inquiry today.

Wright told the inquiry he rebuked managing editor John Wellington because he had been filing invoices for the use of "inquiry agents" as accommodation expenses.

Rober Jay, the inquiry counsel, pointed out that even after Wright new Wellington had been concealing the use of private eyes, he was sent by Wright to examine evidence produced by the Information Commissioner’s Office on Operation Motorman last year, and might have been “overanxious” to check it.

Wright claimed Wellington was not someone “who deliberately hides things” and, at the time, it had not been suspected that Whittamore was engaged in illegal activities.

A 2006 ICO report showed 266 transactions for allegedly illegally-obtained information between Whittamore and the Mail on Sunday, who was commissioned by 33 journalists.

In his statement to the inquiry Wright said that he wasn’t aware of the practice until Operation Motorman, when he imposed restrictions. Whittamore continued to work for the paper until late 2004, following his arrest in 2003. He was paid a total of £20,000.

Leveson told Wright: “[There was] something going on in your newsroom that you clearly weren't aware of".

He pointed out that Whittamore, found guilty of obtaining and disclosing information under the Data Protection Act in 2005, may not have been commissioned for all the data he supplied to journalists. He said journalists may have been offered some of the data by the investigator.

Wright also said he had “absolutely no evidence” to suggest phone-hacking had taken place at the paper.

Hacked Off is funded by supporters, not newspaper owners. Help us take this to Parliament: give £10 a month.

Give £10 a month

Download the full report:

Download report

Queries: campaign@hackinginquiry.org

related Posts

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
When media abuse of academics becomes the norm in HE
Following the death of Jason Arday, Corinne Fowler writes on the toll of media abuse on academics and what universities must do to protect their staff.
8/19/26
News
IPSO ties itself in knots over Telegraph complaint
Media lawyer Jonathan Coad complained to IPSO about a Telegraph article claiming Hacked Off wants "state control" of the press. IPSO's response contradicted itself within the space of a few paragraphs.
8/14/26
News