The Leveson Inquiry

*From InforrmLord Justice Leveson today heard an application by Associated Newspapers Limited, the publishers of the “Daily Mail”, concerning the composition of his advisory panel. Concerns were expressed that these individuals lacked tabloid or regional newspaper experience. The application was supported by Trinity Mirror Limited, the Newspaper Publishers’ Association, and Guardian News and Media Limited.

Lord Justice Leveson has six advisers, appointed by the Prime Minister: Sir David Bell, former chairman of the Financial Times; Shami Chakribati, director Liberty; Lord David Currie, the former chairman of Ofcom; Elinor Goodman, the former political editor of Channel 4 News; George Jones, former political editor of the Daily Telegraph; and Sir Paul Scott-Lee, former chief constable of West Midlands police.

Associated’s counsel, Jonathan Caplan QC, said it did not wish to be “confrontational”, but there were concerns at the lack of anyone among the six assessors who represented the tabloid, mid-market, regional press.

Gillian Phillips, director of editorial legal services for The Guardian, said: “Our view is that tabloid and mid-market papers, as well as regional papers, will play a vital part in the story and we believe it is important that those assisting the inquiry reflect the plurality and divergence of the wider UK media.”

Lord Justice Leveson stressed the role of the six individuals was only advisory one. He said that the conclusion of the inquiry “will be mine and mine alone.”

In the course of the hearing Lord Justice Leveson said: “It is of critical importance throughout this inquiry that I have the help of everybody. I have a vast and difficult task to address within a comparatively short period of time. I accept the importance that it holds for your clients and for the industry, the profession."

I will only start to be able to achieve a sensible resolution of these issues if everybody is pulling in the same direction, albeit from their different standpoints."

I am not asking people to compromise their views or beliefs but I will want to make sure that I have everyone’s point of view and, if there is any perspective which it is thought I have missed from the evidence that I propose to call or in any other way, then I would be grateful if your clients, and indeed every other core participant, ensure the team are aware of the gap.”

He added: “I am very conscious that I am stepping into a profession that is not the one that I spent 40 years of life in. It is critiical that I obtain advice from those who have made their life in this area, not least because I would be keen to understand any flaws that I might have because of lack of experience.”

At the conclusion of the hearing, Lord Justice Leveson said that he would consider whether to appoint extra panellists. His decision was reserved.

Details were given about the dates and potential subject areas of the seminars which the Inquiry is planning to hold.

The first seminar on 6 October 2011 will be chaired by Sir David Bell, the former chairman of Financial Times, and will explore issues relating to privacy and the press. A second seminar has been scheduled for 12 October 2011. Lord Justice Leveson said a list of witnesses had been drawn up to appear at the seminars but the letters had not been posted because of Associated Newspapers’ application.

In his ruling, released today, Lord Justice Leveson explains his decision on the several applications made before him at the Royal Courts of Justice on September 6.

Victims represented by lawyers David Sherborne and Jeremy Reed (see full list below) were all accepted as core participants, except for individual HJK (who was granted anonymity in a High Court civil claim) as Lord Justice Leveson would like to learn the individual's identity before considering the application.

Former chief executive of News International Rebekah Brooks, private investigator Jonathan Rees (William Rees), and campaigning groups English PEN and Index on Censorship were all refused core participant status for Part 1 of the inquiry.

About Mrs Brooks, Lord Justice Leveson wrote: "Although I can understand the reason for this application, in my judgment, it does not pay sufficient attention to the terms of Part I of the Inquiry which is to analyse the way forward in the light of the broad experience (not descending into the detail required by Part 2 of the Inquiry) of the past."

Mrs Brooks has very considerable knowledge and experience; I hope and believe that her input into the Inquiry will be of enormous value but, at this stage and in the context of what I am presently required to do, I do not consider that it is necessary or appropriate to designate her as a core participant."

The Metropolitan Police Service and Acting Commissioner Tim Godwin have also been named as core participants and will be assisting the inquiry.

Guardian News and Media, News International Group Ltd, and Shell Network Ltd (the holding company of the publishing group that includes the Daily Express, the Sunday Express, the Daily Star and the Daily Star Sunday), successfully applied and will be entitled to legal representation during the inquiry.

Lord Justice Leveson's ruling read: "Every aspect of Part 1 touches upon the press and its outcome will inevitably be relevant to (if not impact upon) the approach to certain types of news gathering and its dissemination, along with the relationship between the press and the public, the police, potential regulators and politicians."

Thus, if the culture and practices of the press require change, the effect will be upon all. In the circumstances, I have no doubt that each of these media groups is entitled to core participant status for each module of this Part."

Read Lord Justice Leveson's ruling in full hereIndividuals who have been granted core participants status:Chris Bryant MPTessa Jowell MPDenis MacShane MPThe Rt Hon Lord Prescott of Kingston upon HullJoan SmithChristopher ShipmanTom RowlandMark LewisMark ThomsonGerry McCannKate McCannChristopher JefferiesMax MoseleyBrian PaddickPaul GascoigneDavid MillsSienna MillerHugh GrantBen JacksonCiara ParkesSimon Hughes MPMax CliffordSky AndrewUlrika JonssonMark OatenMichele MilburnAbi TitmussCalum BestClaire WardMary-Ellen FieldGary FlitcroftIan HurstShobna GulatiMike HollingsworthKieron FallonAshvini SharmaTim BlackstoneValatina SemenenkoSally DowlerBob DowlerGemma DowlerSheryl GascoigneGraham ShearJK RowlingJames WatsonMargaret Watson

- The inquiry is divided into two parts - each part divided into modules- Module 1 of part 1 of the inquiry will be looking into the relationship between press and public- The following modules will be looking into the relationship between the press and politicians and the press and the police- Seminars on topics such as the law, media regulation, ethics of journalism and the practice and pressures of investigative reporting are due to be held in October

Solicitors will make the case for their clients to become core participants in the Leveson Inquiry in the Royal Courts of Justice on Tuesday, September 6, at 10.30am.

The hearing will be for those who applied before the August 31 deadline and received an invitation to make their submissions in court.

According to Rule 5 of the Inquiries Rules 2006, core participants will have "played, or may have played, a direct and significant role in relation to the matters to which the inquiry relates", will have had "a significant interest in an important aspect of the matters to which the inquiry relates" or "may be subject to explicit or significant criticism during the inquiry proceedings or in the report, or in any interim report".

The decision on who qualifies to be a core participant lies with Lord Justice Leveson.

*Piece published on Politics.co.ukIt took a huge effort to get a public inquiry with the right terms and powers to the truth. It will take an even bigger effort to make sure the inquiry is a success in changing parts of the press for the better.

A broad judicial inquiry looking at the press, police and politicians would not have happened without the firestorm that followed the Milly Dowler story. Hacked Off went with the Dowlers to see Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband, the leaders of the key parliamentary select committees, and the prime minister, David Cameron, where we were able to push for strong terms of reference for the inquiry. The inquiry is now happening, with broad terms and with powers, under the 2005 Inquiries Act, to subpoena witnesses and require documents. But the success of the inquiry will be as much in how it proceeds as in its conclusions.

The inquiry ought to be - needs to be - cathartic. Unearthing and making public evidence of phone hacking, other illegal forms of information gathering, police bribery and political corruption should continue to generate public outrage, and with it fundamental change in the practices and cultures of certain newsrooms. At the same time it has to provoke a stout defence of journalism. Not a justification for what was happening at the News of the World, rather a re-thinking and re-defining of what reporting in the public interest actually means. Only by better defining the public interest can we establish journalism's distinct place in democratic society, and protect it from the state and from the law - even when that means doing things that are uncomfortable and, in some circumstances, illegal. This sort of change does not happen in a fortnight, no matter how intense the firestorm following the news about Milly Dowler.

Problems that are so embedded cannot be changed by two weeks of headlines and a change in command at the top. There is no question that Rebekah Brooks was right to take responsibility - eventually - and step down as chief executive of News Group Newspapers, but this will not solve the problems at News International at a stroke. Nor will the resignations of Sir Paul Stephenson or John Yates solve the problems at the Metropolitan police service. There is evidence to suggest that paying police for information, and using inducements such as expensive stays at health spas, had become part and parcel of news gathering in certain news organisations.

Similarly there is reason to believe that hacking phones, accessing medical records, securing DVLA and criminal records and looking at personal bank account details, had become routine for some journalists when preparing a story. This will take years to unpick and unravel. A judicial inquiry will be central to this. As it calls witnesses, analyses evidence, and publishes its findings, so these issues will stay in the limelight. News outlets, reluctant as many might be to cover the inquiry, will find it difficult to resist reporting Gordon Brown's evidence on the witness stand, or David Cameron's. But a judicial inquiry is not enough on its own.

News organisations have to be intimately involved in the process of reform. This means actively considering alternatives - not just being obstructive. At the same time someone has to tell the stories of the victims of hacking as they emerge, as well as those of journalists in newsrooms where a culture of hacking prevailed. Hacked Off will help tell these stories. It will speak to hacking victims. It will speak to journalists. It will report them as objectively and fairly as it can. It will try to connect some of the victims with some of the journalists involved in hacking. Though it is not realistic to do truth and reconciliation, we can try to make the process of change positive and distinguish public interest journalism from the trade in personal privacy.

We all have a responsibility to make sure that journalism emerges from this process stronger and more self-aware than when it started. The alternative is a regulated press and a cynical public, neither of which any of us want

“I conclude with a reference to procedural issues. I intend to hold a preliminary hearing in September which will address key aspects of the way in which this Inquiry will be undertaken. Anyone who wishes to be identified as a core participant within the meaning of Rule 5 of the Inquiries Rules 2006 should do so before 31 August 2011 to the Secretary to the Inquiry c/o the Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London WC2A 2LL or by e mail to solicitor.levesoninquiry@tsol.gsi.gov.uk. Contact details will change when the Inquiry team have established a web site and e-mail links.”

Transcripts are available on the Leveson Inquiry website.

Leveson Inquiry website

The official website of the Leveson Inquiry has been launched this week, with information for participants and the public.

Terms of reference for judge-led Inquiry

Part 1

1. To inquire into the culture, practices, and ethics of the press, including:

1. contacts and the relationships between national newspapers and politicians, and the conduct of each
2. contacts and the relationship between the press and the police, and the conduct of each
3. the extent to which the current policy and regulatory framework has failed including in relation to data protection
4. the extent to which there was a failure to act on previous warnings about media misconduct.

2. To make recommendations:

1. for a new more effective policy and regulatory regime which supports the integrity and freedom of the press, the plurality of the media, and its independence, including from Government, while encouraging the highest ethical and professional standards
2. for how future concerns about press behaviour, media policy, regulation and cross-media ownership should be dealt with by all the relevant authorities, including Parliament, Government, the prosecuting authorities and the police
3. the future conduct of relations between politicians and the press
4. the future conduct of relations between the police and the press.

Part 2

3. To inquire into the extent of unlawful or improper conduct within News International, other newspaper organisations and, as appropriate, other organisations within the media, and by those responsible for holding personal data.

4. To inquire into the way in which any relevant police force investigated allegations or evidence of unlawful conduct by persons within or connected with News International, the review by the Metropolitan Police of their initial investigation, and the conduct of the prosecuting authorities.

5. To inquire into the extent to which the police received corrupt payments or other inducements, or were otherwise complicit in such misconduct or in suppressing its proper investigation, and how this was allowed to happen.

6. To inquire into the extent of corporate governance and management failures at News International and other newspaper organisations, and the role, if any, of politicians, public servants and others in relation to any failure to investigate wrongdoing at News International7. In the light of these inquiries, to consider the implications for the relationships between newspaper organisations and the police, prosecuting authorities, and relevant regulatory bodies – and to recommend what actions, if any, should be taken.

The panel members assisting Lord Justice Leveson with his inquiry

Shami Chakrabarti CBE – the civil liberties campaigner and Director of LibertySir Paul Scott-Lee – former Chief Constable of the West MidlandsLord (David) Currie – former Chairman of OFCOMElinor Goodman – radio presenter and former Political Editor of Channel 4 NewsGeorge Jones - former Political Editor of The Daily TelegraphSir David Bell – former Chairman of the Financial Times and former Chairman of the Media Standards Trust.

Individual Declarations

The individual members of the Leveson Inquiry Panel has each made their own declaration. However they are agreed that the following statement is common to them all.

“I do not believe I have any conflicts of interest that would prevent me from looking at the evidence dispassionately and fairly. However I will declare any conflicts should they arise in the future and willingly withdraw from any necessary hearings”

Lord Justice Leveson

Information placed before the Home Secretary and Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sports prior to their approval of the instruments of appointment under sections 4(1) and 11(1) of the Inquiries Act 2005Prior to my appointment, in addition to being a Lord Justice of Appeal, for three years I was the Senior Presiding Judge for England and Wales responsible to the Lord Chief Justice, among many other duties, for seeking ways to improve efficiency in the criminal justice system and specifically in the criminal courts. I am also Chairman of the Criminal Justice Council and had a seat on the National Criminal Justice Board, which had similar aims. Finally, I am presently Chairman of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, which is required by law to have regard to ways it might promote public confidence in the criminal justice system and, as has been noted in the press, I have been critical of the way in which sentencing issues have been reported.

As I explained following an enquiry by the Evening Standard, when, by chance at a dinner in February 2010, I met Mr Matthew Freud of Freud Communications, I took the opportunity to discuss the issue of public confidence. Mr Freud then offered to assist the Council, on a pro bono basis, by considering ways in which this issue might be addressed. To that end, in my capacity as Chairman of the Sentencing Council, and to the knowledge of the Lord Chief Justice, I attended two large evening events at Mr Freud's London home: these were on 29 July 2010 and 25 January 2011. More recently, although there has been a meeting between officials of the Council and of Freud Communications, there is no continuing relationship. In any event, I was not involved in that meeting and I have neither met nor spoken to anyone from Freud Communications since January 2011.

My duties have brought be into contact with representatives of each of the areas covered by the inquiry. Thus, in these capacities, at a strategic level, I have had dealings with the then Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and have worked closely with Mr Tim Godwin, now Acting Commissioner, who has been the ACPO lead on criminal justice. We have sat on boards which developed improvements to the efficiency of the magistrates courts, (colloquially known as CJSSS), as well as other schemes such as virtual courts, community justice and split shift sittings in the Crown Court. More recently, Mr Godwin has been a member of the Sentencing Council.

On a very few occasions, we have dined along with others in our official capacities and I attended a celebration of his 50th birthday. We have never discussed operational matters of any sort. I add, for completeness, that Deputy Assistant Commissioner Akers has confirmed that there is no suggestion that Mr Godwin was involved in any way in the police investigation or initial review which forms part of this Inquiry. As far as I am aware, I have never met the former Assistant Commissioner, Mr John Yates.

Prior to my appointment to the Inquiry, I reminded the Lord Chief Justice of these matters and ensured that both my contact with Mr Freud and the fact that I had had dealings with the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police were brought to the attention of the Prime Minister.

Since my appointment, the terms of reference have been altered to include prosecuting authorities and politicians. In relation to the former, as Senior Presiding Judge, I also worked with Keir Starmer Q.C., the present Director of Public Prosecutions (on whose selection committee I sat and who is also a member of the Sentencing Council). I also worked on the same basis with his predecessor (now Lord Macdonald of River Glaven Q.C.). Again, I have not discussed operational issues with either.

As for politicians, I have worked with the present Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, the Rt Hon Kenneth Clark, Q.C., along with his predecessors, the Rt Hon Jack Straw M.P. (whom I first met on holiday some 20 years ago, although we lost touch with each other in the late 1990s, until his appointment as Lord Chancellor) and the Rt Hon Lord Falconer of Thoroton. I have also worked with their ministers.

None of my close family has any connection with the matters I am likely to investigate.

David Bell

I have spent my life in and around newspapers and believe passionately in them and the enormous importance of a free press. I believe that the remit of the Inquiry is broad enough to be able to focus effectively on relations between politicians, the press and the police.

I am, or have been, connected to a number of organisations which have direct or indirect links with the media and communications industries and want to offer some background and context.

I was founder Chair of the Media Standards Trust which was set up in 2006 to foster high standards in British journalism and has, among other things, done several major pieces of work on the effectiveness of press regulation in the UK and on the provenance of news on the internet. It is a registered charity funded almost entirely by Foundations from both sides of the Atlantic. The Trust has also been one of the members of the Hacked Off campaign.

I stepped down as Chair of the Media Standards Trust on my appointment to the Inquiry and have been succeeded by Roger Graef who has been a member since the start.

I have a number of roles connected to media organisations. I am paid in my non-executive role on the Economist, the other work is unpaid. I have never asked for and have no influence over any editorial material they may produce. These organisations include:•The Bureau of Investigative Journalism•Institute of War and Peace Reporting Europe•The EconomistI am Chairman of Common Purpose, a registered charity which operates in the UK and some ten other countries and runs leadership and other courses which mix people from the public, private and NGO sectors. Common Purpose has had several dealings in the past few years with the office of the Information Commissioner in connection with comments that have been made repeatedly about it on the web without, in Common Purpose's view, any foundation at all.

I am Chair of Crisis, and one of the trustees is Jane Furniss who runs the Independent Police Complaints Commission. I am a member of Liberty whose Chief Executive is also on the panel. I have never been to a meeting nor voted in any Liberty election.

I do not belong to any political party, but in the past have given some money at election time to the Liberal Democrats.

I have family connections with the media too. My son is an editor who works for BBC Radio 4 News and my son-in-law is the Britain Editor of the Economist magazine.

David Currie

My background and previous employment means that I have met a large number of people connected to the media and the broadcast industry in particular and had interactions with a number of politicians. I want to be specific in connection to members of the Murdoch family and say that I have met Mr Rupert Murdoch once at a News International Party some years ago. We had a brief conversation which lasted about one minute and contained nothing of significance.

I met Mr James Murdoch several times, again some years ago. On one or two occasions it was when I briefly was Executive Chairman of Ofcom – a period which lasted two to three months following the resignation of the then Chief Executive Stephen Carter.

At that time I made a point of meeting the chairmen and chief executives of all the major businesses which we regulated at Ofcom. I recall one specific conversation in which James asked whether Ofcom had an anti-Sky bias and I explained why I thought not.

Finally I would state that there may be a perception that because Ofcom is a statutory regulator I must, as a past chairman, favour statutory regulation. That is not the case. I believe that self-regulation, with good governance in place, can be superior. Each case needs to be judged on its merits.

For example, I drove the move of television advertising from statutory regulation by Ofcom to self-regulation through the Advertising Standard Authority, with an Ofcom backstop.

Shami Chakrabarti

I am the Director of Liberty (the National Council for Civil Liberties), a cross-party and non-party organisation that campaigns fearlessly for personal privacy, media freedom and the Rule of Law. Previously I was a Home Office Lawyer, serving Governments of Conservative and Labour persuasions, and prior to that I spent a short while at the independent bar. During my time at Liberty (nearly ten years) my salary has been my sole income, as was my Home Office salary (in the five or so years previous).

My work has involved copious dealings with the media, politicians and the police, and whilst I consider myself a critical friend of all three of these vital pillars to our democracy, neither I nor Liberty are beholden to any of them.

I also count many practising lawyers amongst my friends and associates and my husband Martyn Hopper is a partner specialising in financial services regulation at the international law firm Herbert Smith LLP. Whilst this is not his area of practice, other partners in the firm have acted for BSkyB and other media interests.

Elinor Goodman

I believe I can be a totally independent assessor as I have never been in close contact with any of the people we are likely to interview, and I have always been known for my independence.

My contacts with politicians have been very largely professional, though I was married to Tony Blair’s former economic adviser. I cannot think of any conflict of interest that might arise.

As a political journalist, I did know ministers in the last Labour administration and the two Tory Governments before that. I used to have lunch occasionally with ministers and went to some parties at the party conferences. However, I never socialised regularly with Ministers or knowingly met any of the current proprietors of newspapers, or their editors, except very fleetingly Alan Rusbridger. I once had lunch with Tony Blair at Chequers. I was also a guest at a Downing Street dinner hosted by John Major. Many years ago, I played tennis with David Cameron on holiday. The only close friend who might be a witness is the former permanent secretary at the Department of Culture, Sir Hayden Phillips.

Over the last four years I have been working as a freelance journalist for the BBC and the Mail on Sunday, but I had no dealings with the management.

George Jones

I have been a newspaper journalist most of my working life and have reported parliament and politics for more than 40 years. This has brought me into contact with politicians of all parties, but on a strictly professional footing. I am not a member of any political party and I believe I can approach the inquiry on a totally impartial basis.

I have been to Chequers twice as a guest of Sir John Major when he was Prime Minister. I have attended numerous receptions at No 10 Downing Street and the Treasury for political correspondents hosted by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. I retired from the Westminster lobby shortly after the 2010 general election, so I have not received any hospitality from David Cameron as Prime Minister.

After the Barclay brothers took over The Daily Telegraph my services as political editor were dispensed with by the then editor, Will Lewis (now a senior executive at News International, who may be one of the potential witnesses) along with many other senior editorial staff. After that I worked for the Press Association news agency for two years.

My brother Nicholas Jones, a former BBC industrial and political correspondent, is a well known expert on political spin doctoring, the way politicians interact with the media and seek to influence press and broadcast coverage, and the way newspapers, TV and radio report politics. He has written several books on the subject.

Paul Scott-Lee

I am a retired Chief Constable and was in charge of the Suffolk force followed by West Midlands. During my career I also served in Northamptonshire and Kent.

I have not served in the Metropolitan Police Force. Because of the positions I held I was a member of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and latterly the Vice Chairman. I am now a life member of the Association. I was also the Vice Chairman of the ACPO Terrorism and Allied Matters Committee. Work in this area bought me into close contact with a number of Metropolitan Police senior officers.

Due to the nature of policing I know and I am known to a large proportion of the senior police officers of this country.

I have had little contact with the national media other than when their representatives attended press conferences in my area. I had contact with local media wherever I served. In the main this was through formal press conferences and interviews about specific issues.

My wife, Rosemary Susan Scott-Lee, worked in the telecommunications industry. Firstly for Hutchison Telecom, which later became Orange, before being acquired by France Telecom. She held a number of senior positions, operating mainly in the security and fraud areas. She retired in 2009. In 2010 Rosemary and I established a consulting company 'P&R Consulting Limited'. Since that time Rosemary has provided some consultancy for France Telecom.

Their story outraged the whole nation. Three months ago, it was revealed that Milly Dowler, who was murdered by nightclub bouncer Levi Bellfield* in 2002, had her mobile phone hacked after her disappearance. The Dowler family and their solicitor Mark Lewis teamed up with the Hacked Off campaign to meet the leaders of the three main political parties, to push for a full public inquiry into phone hacking and other questionable practices by the press.

It was the callousness of what News of the World journalists did to their daughter and family that drove them to call for a public inquiry, to show how other people have also been affected by newspapers’ dubious and criminal activities. The family told the Hacked Off campaign this week: “It was very hard to see something good coming out of this, but we are very pleased that there is now going to be a full inquiry that shows the effect that the press can have on the lives of ordinary people.”

Bob and Sally Dowler lost their daughter Milly when she was 13. Her older sister, Gemma, was 16 at the time. Milly disappeared on her way home from school, in Walton-on-Thames, on March 21, 2002 and was found six months later, on September 18, when Surrey Police launched a murder investigation. During the time Milly was missing, the family tried to call her and left messages on her mobile’s voicemail pleading for her to come back home. At one point, hopes that Milly was still alive were raised by the fact that her - then full - voicemail inbox seemed to be receiving messages again.

The Dowler family even agreed to an exclusive interview with the News of the World, to talk about their hope of finding Milly alive. Her mother, Sally, told the paper: "If Milly walked through the door, I don't think we'd be able to speak. We'd just weep tears of joy and give her a great big hug."

‍

This year, the Guardian revealed how journalists from the News of the World had intercepted and deleted messages left on Milly’s voicemail, in the first few days after her disappearance, giving the impression that the teenager was still alive. They had hired private investigators Steve Whittamore and Glenn Mulcaire to find details of the family, including Milly’s phone number, according to the Guardian investigation.

Last week, three months after the revelations, News International confirmed a £2m settlement with the Dowler family for the phone hacking claims and a personal £1m donation by Rupert Murdoch to six charities of their choice.*Levi Bellfield was sentenced to life imprisonment for Milly’s murder on June 23, 2011.

His written statement read: “The whole website was removed on 4th July 2012 after an article appeared on ExaroNews relating to our business. The website had been ‘broken’ since March 2010 when the database editor software became corrupted an we were no longer able to change the content.”

Sprake was questioned by Robert Jay QC, inquiry counsel, on the practices of photographers working for the agency. He said he had fired two “good” photographers for breaching the Press Complaints Commission code – one for harassing a former Big Brother contestant by following her down the street and backing her into a doorway, the other for refusing to call off an arranged job photographing a celebrity couple and their respective parents after the couple had a change of heart. He called the latter “a blatant breach of privacy”, adding: "I can't have people doing that."

A redacted list of commissions undertaken by the agency for publications including the People, Daily Mail and the News of the World was shown to the inquiry, documenting jobs carried out between July 2010 and June 2012. Sprake said the agency was used by newspapers to verify tip-offs for stories.

“If the story’s not true then nobody would ever know that we were there working on a story anyway. And if the story is proved to be true, then that’s a matter for the newspaper to decide whether to publish it or not,” he said.

Sprake was asked about several cases, including the surveillance in 2007 of a former senior Metropolitan Police officer and a married woman who was working for the Independent Police Complaints Commission.  The photographer said he had been asked by the People to trail the woman and take pictures of her with her husband, and had then followed her to a meeting with the officer in a Liverpool Street pub on two consecutive evenings.

He said the story had been dropped after the couple left separately on both occasions, but was picked up months later when the affair was confirmed on a TV programme. The People and the Mail on Sunday then jointly used the pictures after the latter bid £10,000 to buy them up. Sprake said the story had been in the public interest as the IPCC were investigating the officer's unit at the time. He admitted to using a body-worn camera to capture bankers “spending their bonuses on a big booze up” in 2011, but said the accusations had turned out to be false.

He was also asked about a job on September 23, 2010 to expose “a drug-taking prostitute” using a hidden camera during an interview but he said the subject agreed to participate with an article and was paid for the story.

He said: “It was a full proper features job, it turned into in the end, where that person admitted to her mistakes, admitted to her remorsefulness about what she had done, and the story went in that direction other than what it could have gone into.”

Questioned by Jay about the ethics of hidden cameras, he explained: “If I went to interview you and I sat and I had a camera in my tie and I video’d everything that we said, the only thing that’s different between that and a dictaphone is that I have pictures of you. A reporter in the normal course of his duties would be expected to record an audio of the conversation, so all I’m adding is video footage to that.“

He continued: "If I leave a camera in that room after we’ve finished our chat, and that video camera is transmitting imagines to my van, to me, to wherever – I haven’t even got that kit – but if that happened, that is blatantly breaking the law under RIPA [Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act] but we don’t do that. We’re only gathering the evidence."

He said photographers faced many hazards. “I’ve been beaten up in the street by having a camera out because members of the public think that we are some sort of criminals, because we’re photographers. It is that bad. Security men think they can throw us in bushes and up against walls, and beat us up just for having a camera out. I feel far safer in the back of my van with a hidden camera, I really, really do. And at the end of the day, all were trying to do is prove the truth, because someone is phoning in a false story.”

On Wednesday morning, Lord Justice Leveson addressed an application sent to the inquiry by non-profit organisations, asking the judge to consider a ruling allowing government advisors early access to confidential inquiry documents. Full Fact, The Media Standards Trust, Index on Censorship and English PEN made the application on Tuesday, urging Leveson LJ to publish the names of any senior civil servants who will be able to see this material, to make sure the process remains transparent. It followed a ruling made in the previous week, granting core participant status to David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Vince Cable, Jeremy Hunt, Michael Gove, Theresa May, Ken Clarke and George Osborne.

The chairman said he would not publish names but expected government ministers granted core participant status to restrict their “confidentiality circle” to a minimum. He also said requests for redactions to evidence by ministers would be treated in the same way as those of other core participants. He added:“I do not doubt the good faith of those who have raised these issues although in the light of the way that I have tried to conduct this inquiry throughout, I am somewhat concerned that it is thought that I might be party to reducing its transparency. Suffice to say I will not, and I would be surprised if I were asked to be.”

Neil Garnham QC, representing the Metropolitan Police at the inquiry, then read a statement from DCI John MacDonald, the officer leading the investigation into the potential deletions of Milly Dowler’s voicemail messages.

DCI MacDonald said it was impossible to conclude how messages from Milly Dowler’s voicemail were deleted, which created a moment of “false hope” for her family.. He said it was possible an illegal intercept had resulted in messages being deleted, but could also have been done automatically by the phone service. The lack of call data, and the amount of time that has passed since the teenager’s disappearance in 2002, means there is not enough evidence to prove whether or not the News of the World was responsible.

As a result of Milly’s voicemail becoming freed up by the deletion of messages, her mother Sally Dowler described a moment of “false hope” in 2002, believing her daughter could still be alive if the messages had been accessed. The Dowlers had previously said the moment occurred in April or May 2002 but the Met now say they have proved it to be on March 24.

David Sherborne, representing core participant victims, read a short statement from the Dowler family, which thanked MacDonald as his team for investigating the matter. It continued:“If Surrey Police had prosecuted this activity in 2002 then the position would have been very different and perhaps countless others might also have been avoided having their private messages hacked into by the News of the World. Police neglect and deference meant that it took the relentless efforts of one journalist to uncover what the police knew had gone on, and whilst we would never have wished to have been thrust into the middle of this extraordinary scandal on top of what we have already had to deal with as a family, we continue to have faith that his efforts and the efforts of the inquiry and Operation Weeting will have a lasting positive impact.”

The Met said they have been working to discover whether the messages had been accessed before the 26 March 2002, but call data and Surrey Police logs on the missing teenager’s phone did not match up, and a message marked as saved on the service could have been accessed by a third party. The statement added:“The fact that this message was marked as saved could mean that someone had listened to Milly’s voicemail after her disappearance and prior to the police obtaining access to her voicemail facility later on 26 March 2002.”

DCI MacDonald said he could not rule out that someone had accessed the service and listened to the message during this period, but incomplete call data meant the accuracy of the theory could never be proved. He added:“In summary we cannot conclusively say whether any voicemails were or were not manually deleted, however there do appear to have been two messages missing that should have been present when Surrey Police carried out their second recorded download of 17 April. It is not known why that happened and it will not now be possible to provide an explanation. In light of the NoW revelation that they or a third party has accessed the voicemail it is possible that the messages had previously been listened to by unknown persons and deleted.”

Mr Sherborne suggested a “lethal cocktail of three potential ingredients – the failure of Surrey Police, the decision of the Met to close the 2006 hacking investigation and concealment by News of the World senior staff – was responsible for the uncertainty around how the voicemails were deleted”. He added:“While some questions stay and may always remain unanswered there are some to which we do know the answer. The News of the World did hack into Milly Dowler’s phone searching for a scoop at a time when she had already been murdered. That fact alone is horrifying enough. We also know that the newspaper interfered seriously with the police investigation trying to use the information they had illegally obtained to get an exclusive on Milly’s movements. Thirdly this inquiry investigating as it has done the practices, culture and ethics of the press would have happened regardless of the question which arose at the start of the evidence that Sally Dowler’s false hope moment may have been the result of activity of someone at or working for the newspaper.”

Guardian lawyer Gill Phillips said the statement clearly showed Surrey Police linked the potential deletions to the News of the World in 2002, but admitted her paper had made an error in reporting the cause of the deletions as fact rather than the belief of several people involved in the case. The newspaper provided the inquiry with a timeline of events as they believe them to be true.

The first witness of the day, DCI Brendan Gilmour, told the inquiry seven journalists were interviewed under caution in 2004 after evidence suggested they had been commissioning private investigators to obtain information illegally.

The senior officer who worked on Operation Glade, investigating police corruption from 2002 to 2005, said all of the journalists – two working for the News of the World, one for the Mirror, one for the Sunday Mirror, one for the Mail on Sunday and two freelancers – had said they would not have used private investigator Steve Whittamore, or other agencies, if they had known how information had been accessed.

He said there was clear evidence that civilian employee Paul Marshall was providing information from the police national computer to private investigators at the request of a number of reporters. He added:“It was put to the journalists that the speed with which the checks were being turned around would suggest they weren’t being obtained through the courts or court records but that said we couldn’t establish guilty knowledge of the part of the journalists as to where that information was coming from.”

Mr Jay QC pointed out the journalists were sent written invitations to attend places to be interviewed under caution, and had legal advice, meaning answers could have been orchestrated in advance. In March 2004, the Crown Prosecution Service advised there was insufficient evidence to charge any of the journalists. Gilmour told the inquiry:“I accepted the decision on the basis that we couldn’t prove guilty knowledge. I wasn’t disappointed with the CPS taking that decision; I was disappointed that we couldn’t prove guilty knowledge.”Russell Middleton, an acting chief constable and deputy senior investigating officer on Operation Reproof, examining corruption at Devon and Cornwall police, said he had discovered a flow of information from an officer to a private investigator, who then passed it on to various companies. The police never found evidence of requests from journalists, but he confirmed it would have been included in the scope of the inquiry. 37 people were investigated under Reproof, and two serving police officer, two former officers and two private investigators were charged in 2004. Middleton said two senior politicians had been named in the evidence retrieved.

In the afternoon hearing, the inquiry heard evidence from Mail Online editor Martin Clarke, who answered questions on the business model of the website. He said the site had mistakenly reported Amanda Knox had been found guilty of murder because of“human error and overzealousness” .The Mail was one of several news outlets criticised for publishing a story immediately after a verdict was announced during the trial last year, stating Knox had been found guilty of killing student Meredith Kercher in Italy. Martin Clarke said the site had prepared two stories in advance and accidentally published the wrong one because of confusion over the verdict. He told the inquiry:“The thing than made me angriest was that there was no need for it… We had a thorough inquiry, as you can tell, advice was issued, firm advice, to people, and I’ll be very displeased if any of those things happen again.”

Clarke, who said the Mail Online publishes 400-500 stories a day, was asked about his editorial and commercial control. He said the site has become popular worldwide because of it responds to the demands of the audience. He added:“Millions and millions of people enjoy popular culture and thank goodness for showbiz stars that they do, otherwise they’d all be out of business. There’s nothing wrong with watching X Factor or reading about it. I have to produce a website which makes a profit because profit is the only real way of having any freedom in journalism. Most [celebrities], their biggest concern in life is not appearing on it. This is a very good example of a nexus between PR, freelance pictures agencies and newspapers and websites. And quite often I think the inquiry has to guard against pictures that might to the man in the street seem to be intrusive were in fact taken with the celebrity’s full consent.”

The editor said a picture set of an actress from the popular television show ’The Only Way is Essex’ on holiday was not intrusive. He said:“It was self-evident to me that those pictures were taken with consent. You can see the photographer, its on a very short lens, right in front of her… I would stake my year’s salary on it being taken with consent.”

He echoed evidence given by Paul Silva, the Daily Mail’s picture editor, earlier this year, saying the site abided by an unofficial embargo of pictures showing Pippa Middleton going about her day-to-day business. He insisted the Mail Online had a good track record with complaints and called its sister paper “an ethical and decent newspaper run by decent people”. He added: “Quite often [celebrities] will ring up and say ‘you didn’t get that quite right’, or ‘I’d rather you didn’t say that’ or ‘actually the truth is this’, so quite often we’ll just correct content as we go along.”

David Barr, junior inquiry counsel, pointed out the Mail Online has had 205 legal complaints – 35 for privacy issues – in the last three years, compared to six privacy complaints through the Press Complaints Commission.

On regulation, Clarke expressed concern that tightening restrictions would leave news websites with a disadvantage compared to US competitors. He said:“My question is: do you need to regulate the internet anymore than you need to have a policeman standing in the corner of very pub watching what everyone says?” Now we’re obsessing over an industry that is, as I say, becoming less important, and in the course of fighting the last war, we’re going to stop newspaper websites from winning the next one, quite frankly, if we place the British press and British websites under a regulatory environment that is too strict.”

The hearing ended with David Sherborne asking Lord Justice Leveson to consider information uncovered by Operation Motorman, which examined the mining of private information by private investigator Steve Whittamore. The lawyer said the investigation uncovered a widespread practice of buying information from private investigators and asked the judge to look at steps taken against journalist clients of Whittamore and whether information obtained by the investigator is still being retained and used by newspaper publishers. He said:“[Whether] this is more or less serious than hacking is irrelevant, because both were the unlawful tricks of a very tawdry trade in people’s private information.. these newspapers continued to use Mr Whittamore after his offices were raided, after he was arrested, after their journalists were interviewed, after Mr Whittamore was convicted and even after [ICO report] ‘What Price Privacy Now’ was published.”

He later added: “I apologise for being colloquial, but the question for you is: was it cover-up or clean-up once Operation Motorman had revealed what it revealed?” Lord Justice Leveson said he would consider investigating whether information accessed by Whittamore was being held by newspapers as it was relevant to the “here and now” of the inquiry.

The Thursday morning hearing began evidence from Lord Rothermere, executive chairman of the Daily Mail and General Trust. He said he believed it was his job to remain politically neutral and not interfere with the running of his newspapers, denying his publications had political allegiances.

He admitted visiting Chequers two months after the 2010 general elections for a weekend with David and Samantha Cameron among others, but said Rupert Murdoch’s BSkyB bid had not been discussed. Rothermere said media topics had barely come up in conversation despite the attendance of education secretary Michael Gove and Jeremey Hunt. He added:“At Chequers it was a friendly weekend. We were getting on … I didn’t want to bring up business. It’s sort of rude to do that if you’re invited to someone else, even if it is the prime minister, on a friendly basis. The only conversation I had with any minister about media issues was when Jeremy Hunt arrived. We talked a bit about local TV. Jeremy was very passionate about his ideas for local TV and wanted us to be a core participant of that.”Daily Mail and General Trust joined the publishers of the Telegraph, Guardian and Mirror in opposing the News Corporation BSkyB takeover bid.

The peer said he rarely sent text messages to politicians, but admitted texting David Cameron to congratulate him after one of the leaders’ debates preceding the general election. His diary showed regular meetings with Gove and a dinner and a lunch with George Osborne in late 2010.

Lord Rothermere then told the inquiry that Murdoch MacLennan, a former executive at his company, had asked Richard Desmond to stop attacking him in the Express, 2001. He added:“I wasn’t that offended by it. He seemed to think the fact that I have an illegitimate son is of some concern … I’m very proud of my son, he’s a member of my family, we go on holiday together and my children are very proud to call them their brother and I don’t make a secret of it and the idea that I’m offended by it is slightly offensive.”On regulation, he said: “It’s hard to imagine, though, a free press that isn’t run by commercial interests. We try to be as fair as we possibly can, we believe in ethics, that good journalism is ethical journalism, in putting our faith in journalists – most journalists on the whole are good people and want to find the truth.”

Following Rothermere’s evidence, module three began with an opening statement by Mr Jay QC. He said module three will ask whether the relationship between politicians and press has “got out of hand” and whether it needs to be recalibrated. He said informal contact between politicians and the media can be a part of a healthy democracy, but said the relationship changes when the public is mislead or politicians pay more attention to press coverage than polices, or the perception is that is the case.

The inquiry counsel said News International has the greatest potential influence over politics, and Associated Newspapers has important links with the middle classes. He made it clear the inquiry will not allow Leveson LJ to decide over the future of Jeremy Hunt, but is concerned with how close he was to News Corp at the time of the BSkyB bid. On emails between Fred Michel and News Corp he added:“If the emails were direct communication between the culture secretary and James Murdoch the case would be relatively clear cut. They are not. What we see is light refracted through two intermediate prisms. Inevitably what we are seeing is not white light but many colours of the rainbow.”The inquiry then moved on to Independent on Sunday editor John Mullin, called by the chairman to answer questions on an article on Andy Coulson. The story was apparently based on information included in Coulson’s witness statement, which had not been released in the public domain. Mr Mullin told David Barr, inquiry counsel, he was involved in the decision to publish the story, and said although the paper had received the statement from an undisclosed source, it had confirmed the details of the story – that Coulson had shares in News Corp when working at Number 10 – beforehand. Mullin said the paper had three separate sources on the article. He added:“Had we been a daily newspaper we would have been perfectly able to publish the story we published in the Independent on Sunday on Thursday before even receiving the statement…Nothing that appeared in our story didn’t come from the three sources that I’ve outlined. My job as editor is to put in the public domain the key question that has to be answered. I think putting that in the public mind before Andy Coulson gives evidence is perfectly defensible journalism.”Mullin apologised for causing trouble to the inquiry, saying the paper’s intention was to “get to the bottom of this issue”.

The only witness of the afternoon hearing was Andy Coulson, former editor of the News of the World and former communications director to David Cameron.

He said he told Cameron he had no knowledge of phone hacking at the News of the World, during a conversation in 2007, and the prime minster sought no further assurances over his links to the scandal after July 2009. He added:“I was able to repeat to him what I had said publicly, that I knew nothing about the Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire case in terms of what they did.”Coulson said Tony Blair and Gordon Brown sent him text messages of support following his resignation from the paper, but could not remember receiving one from Cameron. He said he may have discussed News International with George Osborne in early talks for the Number 10 position.

He was also asked about shares in News Corporation, as revealed by the Independent on Sunday last week, saying they were part of his severance deal and had held them throughout his time as communications director. He said he had a busy job but should have “take[n] the time to pay close attention to my own circumstances in this regard.” He admitted not disclosing the existence of the shares to anyone in the Conservative Party.

Coulson said it was clear the Conservatives were interested in hiring him for the job. He told the inquiry:“In truth it didn’t feel like an interview at all. I think it was clear from the off that they were interested in hiring me … And he said that they were going to make changes to the professional setup and that he would like me to meet Mr Cameron.”

Mr Coulson went on to say:“The route from journalism to politics, you know – I was hardly the pioneer. There had been several people through the history of politics who had gone from newspapers into politics. There may well have been a conversation about, you know, the fact that I worked on the News of the World and maybe we discussed some individuals in that regard.”Mr Coulson said Rupert Murdoch was “warm and supportive” but he was not particularly close to the proprietor. He said they spoke twice a month to discuss the paper. He said he had no knowledge of the BSkyB bid before it was announced, and did not discuss it with Rebekah Brooks or Jeremy Hunt.

He was also asked about Matt Driscoll, the former News of the World sports reporter who described a culture of bullying at the paper under Coulson. Driscoll was awarded £800,000 for unfair dismissal. He said:“I’m not sure I knew about it in advance but it attracted media attention when it was under way. I have no recollection of knowing about it in advance. I was working with the Conservatives at that point, I took the view it would only make it worse if I tried to intervene. I didn’t have the view I could impose myself on the hearing and I’m not sure at what point what I consider the damaging points in the judgment were made. Probably the damaging comments came at the conclusion, by then it was too late anyway.”The Friday morning and afternoon hearings were taken up with evidence from Rebekah Brooks. The former News International chief executive said she had spoken about the phone hacking scandal with the Prime Minister on a few occasions between 2009 and 2011 in general terms, and after the Guardian reported Milly Dowler’s phone had been hacked.

Ms Brooks told the inquiry Cameron, George Osborne and Tony Blair had commiserated her following her resignation from the company last year. Both Cameron and Blair attended Brooks’ 40th birthday party, thrown by Rupert Murdoch. She said:“The phone hacking story was a sort if constant, or it kept coming up. We would bring it up but in the most general terms. Maybe in 2010 we had a more specific conversation about it. I think it was nothing particularly that he wouldn’t have said publicly, but he was interested in the latest developments and asked me about them and I said to him what I say to everybody when they asked me for an update on it. It was to do with the amount of civil cases coming in around 2010 and we had a conversation about it.”

She denied reports Cameron texted her 12 times a day, saying it was around once a week – twice a week during the 2010 election campaign – and said the messages concerned organising meetings, social occasions and occasionally personal comments. She added:“[Cameron] would sign them off “DC” in the main. Occasionally he would sign them off “LOL”, actually until I told him it meant “laugh out loud” and then he didn’t sign them like that anymore.”

When asked about News Corporation’s BSkyB bid, Ms Brooks said she had an informal role in lobbying but was not involved in the proposed deal or the strategy behind it. She confirmed evidence given by James Murdoch, who said the bid had been briefly discussed at a dinner with Cameron in 2010, and admitted personally discussing the bid with both the Prime Minister and Osborne.

Ms Brooks admitted having a close personal relationship with Rupert Murdoch, but denied politicians sought access to the proprietor by getting close to her, saying her personal relationships were all appropriate. She told the inquiry:“I mean we all have lots of different friendships. Old friends, new friends, work colleagues, associates. And through the decade that I was a national newspaper editor, the years I was a CEO and the ten years I was a journalist, some friendships were made. But I don’t think I ever forgot I was a journalist and I don’t think they ever forgot they were a politician.”

Ms Brooks was asked about former prime minister Gordon Brown, who she claimed called to complain after the Sun criticised him for sending a poorly-spelled letter to the mother of a recently deceased soldier. Rupert Murdoch has previously told the inquiry Brown rang him to discuss the Sun’s decision to support the Conservatives in the 2010 election.

Ms Brooks said Brown had shown “extraordinary levels of aggression” as she reassured him she had spoken to Sun editor Dominic Mohan and the Sun’s coverage would not be a series of personal attacks. She told the inquiry earlier Brown “was probably getting the bunting out” when her resignation was announced.

She said:“Previous to that conversation, I had also indirectly had similar – not threats made but similar sorts of comments made about the Sun abandoning Labour after 12, 13 years – hostile comments. So when Mr Murdoch told me his conversation, it didn’t surprise me. … I don’t think its fair to say that politicians live in fear of newspapers, they are highly-motivated, ambitious people, and MPs don’t scare easily.”

Ms Brooks said her relationship with Brown became fraught after the Sun took the side of Blair over the infamous “curry shop coup”, the attempt of some Labour politicians to out Blair as prime minister. She told the Inquiry:“It wasn’t a playground spat, they were the Prime Minster and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We were a newspaper who was looking after the real serious concern of our readers. So it wasn’t that I would stand on one corner of the playground and [Guardian editor] Alan Rusbridger would stand on the other… and it would be he was on Gordon’s side and I was on Tony Blair’s, it just didn’t work like that.”

Ms Brooks said the timing of the Sun’s decision to back the Conservative Party in 2009 was decided between her, Mohan, the paper’s political team, and James and Rupert Murdoch, denying Cameron and his advisors had a role in the timing of when the support would be announced. James Murdoch told Cameron of the shift in September 2009.

She admitted disagreeing with Murdoch during her time as editor of the Sun, on several issues including the amount of celebrity coverage in the paper, but said they spoke “very frequently”. She added:“You only have to look at the viewing figure of the BBC or ITV to see that it’s the celebrity programs, the reality programs that do so well, and I took from those figures that our readers were quite interested in that. He thought there was too much of it, although he liked the X Factor.”

Asked about Rupert Murdoch’s comment to reporters that the CEO was his priority in the hacking scandal, Ms Brooks said she was not embarrassed at the time because she believed he was referring to the issue rather than her personally. She told the inquiry:“He was being asked by many reporters lots of different questions, and I think someone said ‘what is your priority’ and he looked towards me and said ‘this one’. I took that to mean he meant as in this issue. It was only the next day when I saw how it could have also been interpreted in the papers that I realised that was the interpretation that had been put on it. I wasn’t embarrassed at the time because I didn’t know that that’s what he meant.”

Ms Brooks provided the inquiry with an email sent to her by News Corp’s head of communications, Frederic Michel. The message claimed Jeremy Hunt wanted advice on his position on the hacking allegations. Michel wrote to Brooks: “JH is now starting to look into phone hacking practices more thoroughly and has asked me to advise him privately in the coming weeks and guide his and No 10’s positioning.”

The email, sent on 27 June 2010, said Hunt would make reference to hacking in a statement on Rubicon, the name for News Corp’s BSkyB bid proposal, calling the knowledge “extremely helpful”. A spokesman for Hunt, then in charge of overseeing the bid, called the claim “completely inaccurate”.Brooks said she suspected Michel had exaggerated his contact with the minister’s office. She added:“I think the truth is at the time of the BSkyB bid, I suppose, like most journalists, I viewed public affairs and lobbyists with slight scepticism and I often thought that Mr Michel perhaps over-egged his position. However, he was doing his job. He was passing on information as lobbyist do… I always thought the level of access that seemed to come out was pretty good, really.”

The former CEO admitted to discussing the bid with George Osborne in 2010 but said any comments made to David Cameron at a private dinner in the same year were “not to be dwelled on”. James Murdoch previously told the inquiry he raised the matter with Cameron at the dinner hosted at Brook’s home. On the conversation with Osborne, she said:“I think it was an entirely appropriate conversation. I was re-reflecting the opposite view to the view that he had heard by that stage from pretty much every member of the anti-Sky bid alliance on many occasions, so I think for one three minute conversation at the beginning of the dinner, I got the opportunity to give our view, I don’t see why that’s inappropriate.”

Ms Brooks told the inquiry she may have spoken to former assistant commissioner John Yates about phone hacking, the 2009 Police Bravery Awards coincided with the Guardian article alleging the practice at News International, but said she had not sat down with the Metropolitan Police officer to discuss it at length.

She refused to disclose the Sun’s source for a 2006 article revealing Gordon Brown’s son had cystic fibrosis, telling Jay QC that it had come from the father of a fellow patient, with links to a charity. She said the story had been run with the permission of Brown and his wife, and said the couple had remained friendly after it was published. She added: “I was very friendly with Mrs Brown she had been through a hell of a lot. First thing I would have said would have been much more considerate and caring. I was very sad for them.”

Ms Brooks admitted the News of the World had mishandled the Sarah’s Law campaign by naming and shaming known sex offenders, but said she could not have predicted reprisals, including one incident where a paediatrician was mistakenly attacked by a group believing the doctor was a paedophile. She added:“I felt that although there were some aspects to the campaign – and there always risk with any kind of public interest journalism and t

During the Monday morning hearing, Chief Constable Simon Ash told the inquiry Sunday Mirror journalists picked up a suspect to be interviewed at a hotel during the Ipswich murders investigation. He contradicted Desmond Browne QC, representing Trinity Mirror, who told the inquiry last week journalists had picked up Tom Stephens, later cleared of the murders in 2006, but had driven to a car park to interview him. Ash said:“I’ve not been able to find any information to support the first assertion, namely that the News of the World were deploying surveillance teams against police surveillance teams that were following suspects. On the second assertion, that a newspaper picked up a suspect and took them to a hotel and interviewed them whilst they were under police surveillance, I have been able to find information to support that.”

The Chief Constable of Suffolk Police said he could not confirm the Sunday Mirror team had evaded a police team by using anti-surveillance techniques. The allegations came from Dave Harrison, a former Serious Organised Crime Agency officer, who gave evidence to the inquiry two weeks ago.

Ash went on to say he had a good working relationship with the local media in Suffolk, and said hospitality between parties was usually restricted to “light refreshments”. He said a new system for recording police contact with the press, called Spotlight, archived the date, time, place and purpose of meetings between officers and journalists. He added:“I think there’s an acceptance that the mere fact of this inquiry that maybe things need to change. Our officers seem to be working with it and following the spirit of what is intended.”

Ash told the inquiry Suffolk police policy states staff and officers should give their name and rank to media and the attribution “police spokesperson” should not be used.Anne Campbell, head of corporate communications for Norfolk and Suffolk police, also gave evidence. She said leaks from the police were damaging to the force in the “eyes of the public”. She said:“I actually don’t think the public interest is being best served there if [people] don’t have the opportunity to understand the wider context. … It’s not about controlling information, there’s just far too much information swimming about the system, so we do have to exercise some judgments as to what is most appropriate… There has to be caution but I think a lot of it falls into that area of common sense.”

Campbell called the “drip of information” from the police press office to the press during the Ipswich murder investigation a “benchmark” for efficient contact with the media. She added:“I don’t actually believe it’s acceptable to purchase alcohol [when meeting journalists] but I think for low-level refreshments, then those expenses are justifiable.”

The second witness statement of Anne Campbell can be read here.The inquiry also heard from both the editor and crime reporter of the East Anglian Daily Times, which covers an area under the jurisdiction of the Suffolk force. ReporterColin Adwent said he generally had a good relationship with the police. He said:“Many officers may well see me around an over the years and come to understand the way I work, or the type of way we deal with things. It helps break down barriers in that regard.”

He expressed concern that requiring officers to log all contact with journalists would inhibit the flow of information to the press, and said officers had seemed “slightly more nervous “ about speaking to him.

Editor Terry Hunt said it was important for the public good that information is passed on from the police to the press immediately. He said a case in which three dangerous inmates escaped from a mental health unit in the early hours had resulted in the local press not being informed until lunchtime. He added:“I thought was a matter of significant public concern… I would have hoped and expected that Suffolk police would have decided to put some information on that into the public domain as quickly as possible so that when Suffolk awoke that morning, the members of the public were forewarned that there was a possibility of these three being in the local area and not to approach them, or indeed if they saw them, obviously to contact the police. I felt it very unfortunate that that information didn’t reach us until lunchtime that Sunday.”

Hunt said he was concerned logging contact with the press “when enshrined will be a step backwards”. He criticised the national press for coverage of the Ipswich murders, saying some papers had printed misleading pictures of the town centre, describing it as unusually quiet. He said:“My recollection, or perception at the time, was not that everyone was going home and locking their doors… it wasn’t anything exceptional. … There was a great deal of concern about what was going on in a very fast moving and frankly horrifying story.”

In the afternoon hearing, the inquiry heard from Anne Pickles, associate editor of the Carlisle News and Star, said her paper was consulted by the chief constable when Crime Reporters Association reporters asked for off-the-record briefings, following a murder spree by local man Derrick Bird. Bird shot and killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in June 2010.

Pickles said her editor had reinforced the police’s decision that information should be made available to all media outlets at the same time. The police later briefed the local press on the 13 inquests into the incident to ensure coverage was sensitive to grieving families in the area.Gillian Shearer, head of marketing and communications for Cumbria Police, told the inquiry the national press had been “aggressive and very difficult to please” when approaching the press office for information after the tragedy. She added:“We took an informed view in regard to it and I also spoke to [then Chief Constable Craig Mackey] about what our decision was going to be.”

Shearer said the press office had issued two statements to the media urging reporters not to harass family members who had been affected, but she had personally rung several journalists after they continued to use unauthorised photographs of the victims. The Cumbria force contacted the Press Complaints Commission, who said individuals would have to approach them before they could step in. She added:“It was very difficult and the families were forced into the public eye through no choice of their own.”Craig Mackey, former Chief Constable of Cumbria and now deputy commissioner at the Metropolitan Police, told the inquiry families had been able to identify bodies shown on rolling news channels before police had informed them. He said:“The overwhelming feelings of much of the local community and the families is one of anger and dismay at the way they were perceived, they were treated, and the long-term presence of the media during this incident.”

Pickles, who gave evidence with the Carlisle News and Star’s crime reporter Nick Griffiths, said the national media often “sweep in and out” of local communities when reporting on major incidents. She added:“We have to live with the people on whose lives we are reporting.”

Griffiths told the inquiry he had a face-to-face meeting at the police station every morning to gather news for the day, and submitted all expenses to the editor to be authorised. He said he would accept pints of beer from officers at social events “out of politeness” but would not discuss work. He said:“I’m not there saying “give me a list of all the drug busts yore going to do in the next three weeks.”

Pickles added:“I don’t see what purpose can be served by a police officer filling in a form every time he or she speaks to a journalist… I don’t know why the rogue miscreants weren’t just dealt with existing law and without having to hall the rest of the industry over the coals for it. The stain from what has happened to trigger this inquiry and a number of reports tends to spread across all sections of the media… We’ve had ‘I ’ve been watching the Leveson Inquiry, I know how you people work’.”

Lord Justice Leveson replied:“I can only say to those who telephone your office and say ‘well we know what you’re like’, it’s far more nuanced than that.”

Mackey told the inquiry new interim media guidelines under consultation at the Met would be signed off in April this year. He advocated a system where meetings and the general purpose of contact is logged, and said all management board meetings with press should be published online. He added:“It’s easier to bring the bar back down than it is to raise the bar at a later stage, so I do think it’s almost inevitable, given the coverage of what’s been going on.”

The witness statement of DCS Iain Goulding was taken as read.

The first witness of the Tuesday morning hearing was Assistant Chief Constable Jerry Kirkby, who said the press have “damaged and hindered” the work of Surrey Police during the investigation into the disappearance. He said journalists were a “degree of distraction” when carrying out the investigation in 2002, but said the majority of his dealings with the press had been positive. Kirkby told the inquiry:“It meant diverting resources to actually look at being about to respond in an accurate way to the press.”

He said senior officers involved in the case had described elements of press interest as being “immense” and “mischievous”, and officers were forced to cooperate with the Sun and News of the World offering money for information, after the papers threatened to go ahead without police backing.

Kirkby said an investigation into the hacking of Milly Dowler’s voicemail by the News of the World will be completed by the end of May and presented to the inquiry. He also pointed out two newspapers are potentially facing contempt of court charges over reporting of Levi Bellfield, who was convicted of the teenager’s murder in 2011.

The chief constable confirmed five of eight formal briefings given to the Crime Reporters Association between 2002 and 2010 concerned the Dowler case. He said six or seven informal briefings had taken place in a restaurant bar in Guildford, and while the force paid for food, the journalists paid for any alcohol consumed. He added:“There’s one thing about doing an event with a large number and establish an association, and I think there’s something quite different between having social encounters with individual journalists.”

Kirkby was asked about the arrest of television presenter Matthew Kelly in 2003, saying it had been brought forward after the press became aware of the case. Kelly was arrested over alleged child abuse claims but was never charged. He added:“It necessitated us bringing forward a planned arrest because we knew there was going to be coverage and publication material the next day.”

He said Piers Morgan, then editor of the Daily Mirror, sent the force a note saying:“These stories are hideously difficulty for both you guys and us. Fame and crime sends most of the usual rules out of the window.”

Kirkby also told the inquiry an office had been suspended over suspected leaks to the media, under Operation Elveden. The incident was one of five investigated by the force.

The second statement of Assistant Chief Constable Jerry Kirkby can be read here.Chief Constable Colin Port said evidence from Richard Wallace, editor of the Daily Mail, heard at the Leveson Inquiry earlier this year, including claims that the force had given off-the-record briefings on Yeates’ landlord Chris Jefferies, were incorrect. Jefferies was arrested on suspicion of the murder in December 2010, and later cleared. Wallace had said a spokesman for Avon and Somerset Police told journalists Jefferies “was their man”. Port said:“It’s absolutely outrageous… I’ve never done that; it’s not my job to pass opinion on these issues. We don’t give off-the-record briefings and to behave in a collusive manner is just abhorrent.”

Port said Jefferies’ name had been accidently revealed to a journalist but that no on or off-the-record conversations had been given to the press during the investigation. He also said the retired teacher had not correctly remember how many people he told about seeing three people leaving Yeates’s flat, a key factor in the decision to arrest him. Port added:“I’ve counted eight people, including some people who were paid by the media for information… His recollection is flawed, unfortunately.”

Jefferies claims the police leaked his statement to the media, and is in the process of suing the force for wrongful arrest.

The chief constable denied further police leaks, saying speculation on theories being considered by officers came from retired Metropolitan Police detective Peter Kirkham rather than from his force. He said a Sun article on a delivery from home store Ikea to Yeates’ flat had not come from police.DCI Philip Jones called the media response to the Yeates’ case a “scattergun approach”and explained he refused to individually brief journalists until the trial of Vincent Tabak, found guilty of the murder last year, was complete to ensure proceedings were not prejudiced.

He told the inquiry Rebecca Scott, the best friend of Yeates, received over 160 calls and messages from the media and the Hampshire Police had been called after journalists camped out outside her home. Jones confirmed there was evidence to show neighbours of Jefferies may have received money from certain sections of the media.

He said he had a “feeling of deflation” after the force was contacted by the Daily Mail over information about DNA found on Yeates’ body, which was known to the investigating team and third-parties involved in forensic analysis. He added:“This had a massive impact on the family because every time there was something speculative reported, in particular in relation to the Sun with the sock and also with the low copy DNA [in the Mail], then it would require us to make contact with the family, to make them aware of the fact this article was going to be published.”

Port admitted that the force could have released more information on Jefferies’ innocence but said the most important thing was to clarify he was not longer a suspect and had been released without charge. He added:“There were a pair of trainers which we found in Mr Jefferies’ house which were hidden underneath a kitchen unit, behind a kick board. Those trainers had a blood spot on them, that was initially analysed… eventually a DNA profile was found and Mr Jefferies could be eliminated.”

During the afternoon hearing, the officer who headed an independent police review of the phone hacking investigation has said he had “absolute support” from the Metropolitan Police.Chief Constable Jonathan Stoddart of Durham Police told the inquiry he was asked to carry out an independent review of Operation Weeting, the police investigation into phone hacking, by Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe. He said:“It was about the process, the staffing and the resourcing, the appropriateness of the lines of investigation and inquiry, the priorities and the large number of victims, to make sure that we could provide some reassurance to the executives of the force that the inquiry was going far enough. … Clearly there were huge issues in relation to the number of potential victims, as you well know, but the matter was being thoroughly and proportionality investigated.”

Stoddart provided an interim report last September, and a final version in December but was unable to elaborate on the details.

Stoddart appeared with colleague Barbara Brewis, media and marketing manager at Durham, who said the concerns of the inquiry seemed “a little bit remote” from her force. She said:“It’s business as usual. We hope we’ve always operated with integrity and from and ethical standpoint, so we will continues to do that.”

Stoddart added:“We operate on a high trust basis with out staff and a high trust basis with the local written media… I don’t want breaches and any kind of allegations being made, but similarly I don’t want to inhibit the democratic principles of free speech.”

The chief constable said he had been disappointed by evidence given to the inquiry by other senior officers. He said:“I have very grave concerns about overfamiliarity with police officers from each and every rank. I would hope that we can establish something from this what would go some way eliminating that. I think the culture, just by this very challenge, will change throughout the service.”Amanda Hirst, head of corporate communications at Avon and Somerset Police, said members of the press deliberately flooded the press office with “speculative media enquires” to get information on the Joanna Yeates investigation. She said:“In the context of Joanna Yeates in particular, one of the constant refrains that we had from some journalists was that it was in the public interest, they had a right to know, and I think certainly our perception was very much that they wanted to be inside the investigation, which clearly was never going to be tenable.”

She later added:“Whether it was a deliberate tactic, it certainly felt at the time as though it was, and certainly I think the point of it was very much to get to the heart of the investigation. We had multiple questions from many newspapers… they weren’t general, they weren’t ‘how is the progress of the investigation’. They were focusing on very particular themes.”

Hirst told the inquiry it was known Vincent Tabak, convicted of Yeates’ murder last year, had been following media coverage on the case on social media and the force’s website before his arrest. She added:“It was very, very important for us to preserve the integrity of that investigation and ensure that anything that was inappropriate that shouldn’t get out into the public domain was contained.”

She said the press office had been approached by several journalists requesting interviews with Yeates’ parents, and said one feature writer wanted to spend a day with the investigation team.

The witness statement of Ian Marratt was taken as read, and the second statement of Chief Constable Jonathan Stoddart can be read here.During the Wednesday morning hearing, the inquiry heard from Jane Furniss, the chief executive of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, said she had prepared a report on investigating corruption in the police for the Home Secretary that would be ready “imminently”, and said it could be provided to the inquiry before publication. She said:“It doesn’t reveal endemic corruption between police officers and journalists. It’s much wider… it will provide a lot of context.”

Furniss said between 2010 and 2011 there had been 1,279 complaints about improper disclosures of information by police, but said some would have been “someone who’s looking to see whether his daughter’s new boyfriend is a suitable young man”. She added:“There are often times when people believe that information has found its way into the press as a result of leaking when actually it’s the result of people both in the police, in the IPCC, in public bodies having information and other members of families, friends, individuals providing information, and journalists – who are good at this – add it all together and then it looks as if someone has leaked information.”

Furniss told the inquiry hospitality between press and police was appropriate as long as it is not frequent, regular or lavish, and said guidelines reflected that journalists meet with officers because they want information. She added: “I don’t think alcohol and work mix, generally, and certainly not when you’re dealing with very sensitive issues.”

The second witness statement of Jane Furniss can be read here.Sir Hugh Orde, president of ACPO and former chief constable of the Northern Ireland Police Service, said chief constables would gather to discuss new national media and hospitality next month. He said the Met was different from regional forces, and officers need more support in in dealing with the media due to the “sheer intensity and scale”of the force, but said standards should apply across the police service. He added:“We need to be careful not to become so rigid and so bound by rules that we actually spoil what is a crucial relationship with the media and that officers don’t feel too fettered in having sensible, professional conversations across all ranks.”

Orde said a “silly story” he had designed his own uniform had left him with a sense the Press Complaints Commission and the press had a “powerful/powerless relationship”. He added:“The current system of redress did not do anything satisfactory in terms of getting the story withdrawn, or indeed any sort of apology issued, my sense was that the commission didn’t really have the powers that would have influenced an editor in a way to change the story.”Chief Constable Andrew Trotter, of the British Transport Police and head of the Association of Chief Police Officers communication advisory group, said he had several discussions with officers dealing with press in the Milly Dowler murder investigation, and high-profile serial murders carried out by Derrick Bird and Raoul Moat. He said:“The sheer volume of the national media descending upon a small community can have quite an impact, in all sorts of ways. … The pursuing of witnesses, the pursuing of subjects, castings doubt on the ability of the local force to cope with this particular challenge, casting doubt on the ability of the senior investigating officer, putting up the long-retired police officers and other experts to comment upon a police investigation … There are a range of concerns raised by colleagues around the country about the conduct of the press in various major investigations and operations over the last couple of years.”

Trotter appeared alongside colleague Joanne Bird, head of media and marketing for the force, who said journalists sometimes obtained the names of individuals killed on public transport from social networking sites or witness, before the family has been notified.

During the afternoon hearing, Oliver Cattermole, director of communications for ACPO, said had occasionally accepted a meal or coffee from journalists in the context of work meetings. He told the inquiry:“It’s perhaps just to provide an environment where you can take more time over a more detailed discussion to provide the kind of background that previous witnesses have discussed.”

He said communications were a critical part of policing, and the sections of the Filkin report on openness are important.Chief Constable Matthew Baggott of the Police Service Northern Ireland appeared with the force’s head of corporate communications, Liz Young, who said national journalists could be ignorant of sensitive issues around Northern Ireland’s history. She said:“Sometimes just actually using a word in the wrong context, a phrase in the wrong way, can actually be translated in a very different way than its actually meant… the national media aren’t aware.”

Baggott added: “[There are] consequences of creating a sound but without developing the context.” Baggott, previously chief constable for Leicestershire Police, told the inquiry he had written two letters to national newspaper editors urging them to stop printing speculative reports on the Madeleine McCann case. The second letter stated:“We have an extensive audit trail of both headlines and reporting which have no apparent basis in reality.”

Baggott said he had not received a “hugely positive” response as stories had continued to be published. He said local residents had complained about the press intrusion. He added:“There was a variety of complaints around disruption to daily life, which was caused by a large international media descending for the long term and the disruption that caused to peoples businesses. Secondly if I recall, [there was] the intrusiveness of asking residents about their thoughts, what had happened, and a degree of speculation… the media going in and asking questions.”

Several witness statements and submissions were taken as read, and can be foundhere.The Thursday morning hearing began with a statement from Lord Justice Leveson, who warned core participants not to leak information to journalists, after a controversial ITN programme on alleged data breaches by newspaper groups was broadcast on Wednesday night. The programme made several allegations about the Operation Motorman files, detailing the use of private investigator Steve Whittamore by journalists from a range of newspapers and broadcasters.

The judge declined to comment on the accuracy of the programme, and reiterated his earlier statements made after the Hacked Off campaign called for the files to be published. He said he would consider publishing the files if there were any submissions made to him, but that information of victims of Whittamore should remain private, as the terms of reference of the inquiry are not concerned with “who did what to whom”.Leveson said he was not interested in the possible source of the leak to ITN as several people have access to the Operation Motorman files outside of the inquiry, but reminded the core participants and their legal teams about their stringent confidentiality undertakings. He added:“This is not because it is not important but not necessary to terms of reference… Having said that for avoidance of all doubt, the orders which I have made remain in full force.”

The files had been shown to the inquiry team and lawyers acting for core participants so submissions could be made over the course of the inquiry.

Deputy London mayor for policing Kit Malthouse said the number of staff working on Operation Weeting and other relevant investigations was expected to rise to 200 next year. He told the inquiry the total amount spent would reach £40 million, compared to the £36 million spent on preventing child abuse in the capitol this year.

Malthouse, former chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority, said he had continually questioned the drain on resources caused by the investigation, and was keen to make sure officers were not “overplaying it”. He said:“I was keen to ensure that they were not undertaking this investigation to the detriment of, for instance, rape victims… I don’t think at any stage I indicated that I thought they shouldn’t be investigation. It was just a matter of speed and resources.”

Earlier this month acting Deputy Commissioner Cressida Dick told the inquiry she had reminded Malthouse it was up to her to make decisions on the investigation, as the police are operationally independent.

The deputy mayor said he remembered how former assistant commissioner John Yates, responsible for a review into the original 2006 hacking investigation, would “throw in”references to the investigation at the end of briefings on terrorist threats, usually as a response to further allegations in the media. He referred to a letter from Yates in 2009, which reassured executives he did not believe there was any new evidence to reopen the investigation. He added:“In essence, to summarise the conversations it would be ‘there’s been something in the newspaper, you might wonder why we’re not reopening the investigation and this is why, because we’re satisfied there’s no new evidence’. I suppose it all came to a head in the July following the revisions abut the Chamy Media [company of former News of the World deputy editor Neil Wallis] contract but the whole thing then kind of snapped into place, if you like, in the public perception, and the rest is history.”

As Malthouse gave evidence, it was announced that Dick Fedorcio, head of Press at the Met, had resigned over allegations of an improper relationship with Wallis. Fedorcio was responsible for hiring Chamy Media to work with the directorate of public affairs after his deputy fell ill, and resigned after the Me