The News of the World revealed the early pregnancy of a stabbing victim when she was still in hospital, the Leveson Inquiry has heard.Abigail Witchalls did not know she was pregnant when she was stabbed in Surrey in April 2005, yet the NoW printed the story just four days after the family was informed of the pregnancy, her mother Baroness Sheila Hollins told the inquiry.She said: “No woman tells the world she's pregnant when she’s five weeks pregnant.”Hollins, a crossbench peer, appeared before the inquiry to describe the press intrusion suffered by her family after her daughter was stabbed in front of her son in 2005. Abigail was left paralysed by the attack.She said the huge amount of media attention was “incredibly intrusive”.She said: “The press coverage of my daughter’s injury was just everywhere, every day. Her story was on the News at Ten for a month.”Hollins said police had mounted a guard on each door of her daughter’s hospital ward to protect her privacy and a journalist who had visited her terminally ill mother-in-law, refused to leave the house without a picture of Abigail.The inquiry was shown a series of articles written about the family, published between 2005 and 2010, including a story in the Sun about a house built next door to the home of Hollins.The paper alleged that the house, which Abigail moved into with her husband and children, had been designed specifically and would be called “Hope Cottage”. Hollins said the article was full of inaccurate details and showed pictures of the wrong building.She added: “It's distressing when a fabrication is made, which of course then people believe.“The only good thing that came out of that was journalists would come to my house thinking they were coming to my daughter’s house, so she didn't quite as many people knocking on her door.”The baroness described journalists arriving at her mother’s funeral in 2005 hoping to see Abigail, who at the time was still in intensive care. She told the inquiry that more recently a journalist had to be asked to leave her grandson’s school sports day and photographers had been stationed outside Abigail's house following the birth of her daughter in 2010.She said: “They all parked in the same place and each car we saw had copies of the [Daily] Mail in the back.“[The PCC] said to me that in order to take any action they would need to know the name of the journalists and evidence of anything that's been published.”She told Lord Justice Leveson that she had only contacted the PCC twice.She added: “What they seemed to be interested in was my detailing one specific incident, and the point is that our distress about press intrusion was not about one particular incident - it was about hundreds of incidents. It was about the whole culture of the press.“It didn't really seem to us that it was going to be a fruitful avenue of direction.”Hollins discussed a Daily Mail article linking Abigail’s attack with that of her son Nigel, a vulnerable adult, who was brutally beaten by two men in 2000. The piece also claimed Nigel had spent a great deal of time with his sister while she recovered from her attack.The Baroness said: “It wasn't a great experience and actually he saw much less of her than we would have liked him to see, because of the difficulties of getting him [to the hospital].”Jonathan Caplan QC, representing Associated Newspapers, apologised to Hollins on behalf of the Mail on Sunday, who she said had re-published a photograph given to the paper on the understanding it was to be used once.Hollins told the inquiry: “The intrusion seems not really to have any sensitivity to the fact we were not seeking publicity. We were dealing with something very difficult for everybody to cope with. Here we had this intrusion into our lives. It felt like that intrusion was insensitive.“My daughter was not a celebrity and we were dealing with something that was very difficult for everybody... A lot of emotion was caused by this kind of public exposure, which had an effect far wider than my daughter... I don’t think that’s right. I think we had more right to privacy than we were entitled to.”She added: “People wanted to know what was happening to [Abigail], but part of that was that it had become a big story.“I don't know what you can do in terms of regulation to prevent something being of public interest, but, of course, some of the reason for the public interest was because of exaggeration and inaccuracies.”She told Lord Justice Leveson: “I think the reason I did write to you in the end was because I thought that what we would say was a little different to what had been said already, and members of the family thought it was important."