Commenting on newspaper reports criticising the Leveson Inquiry for not investigating allegations of phone hacking in industries other than the press, Dr Evan Harris, Associate Director of the victims' campaign group, Hacked Off said:"Hacked Off is opposed to illegal information gathering in all forms, whoever is doing it. Any criminal conduct, by lawyers, insurance companies or anyone else, should be rigorously pursued by the police."However, it is wrong to criticise Lord Justice Leveson, as some newspapers have done, for not focusing on phone-hacking by people outside the press. Papers cannot be allowed to muddy the waters in this way and to excuse large-scale wrongdoing by journalists on the basis that 'everybody was doing it'."The Leveson remit, laid down by the Prime Minister, was clearly limited to the culture, practices and ethics of the press, so the judge was not free to range over a variety of industries. The inquiry's investigations, moreover, exposed a great variety of press abuses besides phone-hacking, including the theft of personal data, surveillance, intrusion, the fabrication of stories and bullying.“In fact the inquiry's discussion of phone-hacking was restricted because of ongoing criminal investigations and civil claims. Hacked Off is confident that the full story of press phone-hacking, and of the corruption of public officials, will be thoroughly investigated in Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry, which the Prime Minister has pledged will begin once the current court cases have run their course.“The recommendations and conclusions of the inquiry thus stand, no matter how many other industries or professions engaged in phone-hacking or similar activities. To suggest otherwise is like suggesting that no one may be convicted of tax fraud because 'lots of people are doing it'.”Key links(Press reports cite a SOCA document published in 2012, but dating from 2008, which explains that blagging, data-mining, bribing, phone-hacking and computer-hacking were fuelled by demand from other industries - such as insurance companies and divorcing couples - beyond the press. This duplicates information set out earlier by the Information Commissioner in his report, What Price Privacy? What Price Privacy was extensively cited in the Leveson Report, in a section over 100 pages long, and he recommended urgent action to tackle the illegal trade in private data, whoever the perpetrators.)1) What Price Privacy (ICO, May 2006) details where illegal data-mining took place.2) What Price Privacy Now (ICO, December 2006) sets out the scale of the press use of one blagger (whose work was exclusively for the press): over 300 journalists from numerous papers, commissioning several thousand illegal searches.3) The six-page report published by SOCA in 2012 on which most of the weekend's news reports were based. It mirrors much of what is in What Price Privacy. One section makes a fleeting reference to the media “seeking material for ‘scoops’ about high profile figures (p4)4) LJ Leveson made a ruling about the admissibility of the evidence referred to in press reports, which has been mentioned in the press, which has been published for well over a year which made clear that specific allegations were outside the scope of part 1 of the inquiry. Leveson ruling on Ian Hurst evidence.5) Leveson Terms of Reference6) Leveson report Volume 3 pp997-1115 dealing with blagging and data mining and referring to What Price Privacy7) Leveson executive summary and recommendations including stronger sentencing for section 55 breaches.