A lawyer and a reporter working at The Times misled the High Court over the unmasking of an anonymous blogger, the Leveson Inquiry has heard.Alastair Brett, in-house lawyer for Times Newspapers Limited until 2010, told the inquiry how information that reporter Patrick Foster had illegally hacked into the email account of DC Richard Horton, author of the "NightJack" blog, was not disclosed during legal action in 2009.Horton tried to injunct the paper to prevent them revealing his identity. The Times failed to disclose that the information had been obtained by hacking, as Foster "stood up" his story with information from the public domain after discovering Horton's identity. Brett said he had acted in the belief the blogger would not take the matter to court.Brett told the inquiry he did not believe the court had been misled over the unmasking of Horton, which he said had been obtained "entirely legitimately".Lord Justice Leveson, visibly angered, replied: "No he hadn't, with great respect. [Foster] couldn't put out of his mind that which he already knew."Foster approached Brett with the story in 2009 and admitted hacking into the officer's email account to establish his identity. Foster had previously hacked email accounts at Oxford University while a student in 2004.The lawyer admitted an email to barrister Jonathan Barnes, referring to Foster's past hacking at Oxford but not the Horton incident, was "oblique to an extent which is embarrassing".When asked by Horton's lawyers whether his email account had been unlawfully accessed, Brett told Foster not to engage with the question.He said he told the reporter: "You have done this legitimately now – because you have done this legitimately now we don't have to engage on that subject."Lord Justice Leveson pressed Brett over the misleading nature of the information provided to the High Court. Brett eventually conceded it was "not entirely accurate".Brett told the inquiry: "Perhaps I was making a wrong decision but I was compartmentalising things. I put the earlier email hacking into a compartment."Brett said he told the journalist he had acted in a highly unethical and considered reporting the matter to managing editor David Chappell.He added: "I was told it was a one-off occasion... and I thought 'I've got to tell him you cannot behave like this at a proper newspaper'."Stephen Wright, now associate news editor for the Daily Mail, said he felt CRA briefings had been used by senior officers to "control the flow of information". He described asking Lord Condon an uncomfortable question at a briefing in 1999 and being reprimanded by a press officer afterwards. He said he received information senior officers but did not speak to anyone below inspector rank.He said: "I am a journalist and we want to gather information. What we hear and whether we use it is an entirely different matter."He added: "We are soon out of work if we rely on press releases for our stories."Wright told the inquiry he had a good relationship with the family of Stephen Lawrence, and said the Mail would not have published a story about the investigation if the police objected or thought it would jeopardise the investigation.He said his 2007 article on a meeting between the family and police officers, mentioned by DCI Clive Driscoll, had come from a source but not from anyone on the investigation team.He went on to tell the inquiry: "I am concerned in the current climate... I have current colleagues in the CRA who have been receiving intimidating phone calls from a certain department in the Met Police Service about who sources are."Wright also said he is happy to meet police officers "for coffee, breakfast or a drink", and said there had been an overemphasis on hospitality arrangements between police officers and press, although the "closeness and intensity" of some relationships was a concern.