The Leveson Inquiry

Rupert Murdoch has admitted to a cover-up of phone hacking at the News of the World.

He told the Leveson Inquiry today he was “misinformed and shielded” from the extent of hacking at the paper, owned by News International, and blamed other newspapers for turning the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone into a national scandal.

Murdoch admitted his decision to close the News of the World was made because he panicked, but blamed other newspapers for turning the hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone into a “national scandal”.

He said he was kept in the dark over the extent of phone hacking at his newspaper.

He added: “I do blame one or two people for that, who perhaps I shouldn’t name, because for all I know they may be arrested yet, but there is no question in my mind that maybe even the editor, but certainly beyond that, someone took charge of a cover-up, which we were victim to.”

The proprietor referred to “one or two very strong characters”, friends with journalists at the paper, one an unnamed lawyer described as “a drinking pal” of reporters at the paper who “forbade people to go and report to Mrs Brooks or James [Murdoch]”.

He later contradicted this, telling the inquiry: "There was no attempt, by me or several levels below me, to cover it up. We set up inquiry after inquiry, we employed legal firm after legal firm, perhaps we relied too much on the conclusions of the police."

He was asked, by Robert Jay QC, inquiry counsel, whether he had questioned the paper's decision to offer Gordon Taylor, chief executive of the Professional Footballers' Association, £100,000 after his phone was hacked.

He said his son had been advised by then editor Colin Myler and head of legal Tom Crone to offer a larger sum, despite barrister Michael Silverleaf QC, representing News International in all phone hacking claims, suggested a smaller amount.

Murdoch said the decision had been taken to avoid "the risk of an appeal and triple damages, and God knows what else" and not because of a cover up.

He said he should have personally questioned former royal editor Clive Goodman, arrested for phone hacking along with private investigator Glenn Mulcaire in 2006.

He said: “He’d been an employee for a long time, and cross-examined him myself and made up my mind... if I had come to the conclusion that he was telling the truth [about widespread hacking] I’d have torn the place apart and we wouldn’t be here today.”

Murdoch called the phone hacking scandal a “serious blot” on his reputation and admitted neglecting the paper “probably throughout all the time that I’ve owned it”, saying he regretted not closing the paper sooner and replacing it with a Sunday Sun.

He added: “I have to admit that some newspapers are closer to my heart than others, but I also have to say that I failed.”

Lord Justice Leveson questioned why Murdoch had not paid greater attention to the allegations.

He said: “This was the very core of your being, so that’s why I think you’re being asked, were you not really intensely concerned to know what was going on, quite apart from everything else, because this was you?”

Asked about his comments to journalists in 2011 that Rebekah Brooks was his main priority after the scandal broke, Murdoch said he had been "seeking to keep her self-confidence".

He added: "If you’ve got twenty journalists and paparazzi and microphones in your mouth, then you are under duress...I think it’s part of the game, [to] harass people. I mean I was being harassed, I was trying to walk all of ten yards across the street."

Rupert Murdoch has accused Gordon Brown of making misleading statements over the publication of his son's medical details in the Sun.

Giving evidence to the Leveson Inquiry, the chairman of News Corp said the former prime minister had not been in a balanced state of mind when the Sun withdrew support of the Labour Party in 2009.

He added: “When the hacking scandal broke, [Brown] made a totally outrageous statement, which he had to know was wrong, when he called us a ‘criminal organisation’, because he said that we had hacked into his personal medical records when he knew very well how the Sun had found out about his son, the condition of his son, which was very sad.”

Murdoch told the inquiry Rebekah Brooks, then chief executive of News International, had pulled the story, sent in by father of another patient at hospital where Brown's son was being treated, from the newsdesk and personally contacted Sarah Brown to ask how the story should be handled. He said Brown’s wife had later written to Brooks thanking her after the story was published, and the letter was now with police investigating alleged criminality at his company.

He contradicted evidence given to the inquiry by former Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie, who said Brown had “roared” down the phone at Murdoch for 20 minutes after the paper switched allegiance to the Conservatives.

He added: “I must stress, no voices were raised. He said ‘well, your company has declared war on my government. And we have no alternative but to make war on your company’ and I said, ‘I’m sorry about that Gordon, thank you for calling’, end of subject.”

He told Robert Jay QC, inquiry counsel: "If he wanted my opinion he only had to read editorials in the Sun”.

Following yesterday's revelations News Corp had an alleged backdoor channel to the office of culture secretary Jeremy Hunt, the proprietor said his BSkyB bid had coincidentally come a month after the 2010 general election.

This contradicted evidence from his son James, who told the inquiry the bid was held back until after the election to prevent it becoming “a political football”.

Murdoch said his main concern at the time was independent directors driving the price of the remaining shares to “something unrealistic”, adding the idea he used the influence of the Sun or supposed political power to sway decisions was a “complete myth”.

James Murdoch said yesterday the proposed price had been set at $12 million.

The proprietor was questioned over his relationships with other senior politicians, including the Sun's backing of Tony Blair before the 1997 general election. Murdoch said he had never asked Blair for anything during his time as Prime Minister and denied a link between the Sun’s endorsement of Labour and articles written by Blair for the Sun and the Times.

He added: “I think we all like to back a winning racehorse, you like to be on the winning side, but no, that was not a motivation.”

Murdoch denied being the one of the “main powers behind Thatcher’s throne” and said his desire to crush the trade unions in Wapping played no part in the success of the acquisition.

He admitted berating MacKenzie for the infamous Sun headline “It was the Sun wot won it” following Conservative success at the 1992 elections, calling it “tasteless and wrong”.

He added: “I don’t remember it. I thought it was a little overenthusiastic but my son, who is here today and was apparently beside me, said I did indeed give him a hell of a bollocking.”

The tycoon, who will continue giving evidence during tomorrow’s hearing, said he regretted the Times decision not to buy a disc containing information on MPs expenses and said he was “jealous” of the story, eventually run in the Daily Telegraph.

He said he was disappointed with Times editor James Harding for publishing the NightJack story, exposing anonymous blogger Richard Horton, and appalled at lawyer Alastair Brett for misleading the High Court as to how his identity was uncovered by journalist Patrick Foster.

Murdoch said: "I am appalled that the lawyer misled the court and disappointed that the Editor published the story."

Murdoch's witness statement revealed News International's management and standards committee is handing over information to the United States government's Department of Justice, who are investigating alleged phone hacking.

The position of culture secretary Jeremy Hunt is in jeopardy today after private emails between his office and News Corp were revealed at the Leveson Inquiry.

Sensitive information about the progress of News Corp’s takeover bid for BSkyB and private feedback was passed from the politician to James Murdoch, giving evidence before Lord Justice Leveson today.

This included details from a meeting between Hunt and David Cameron in July 2011 on proposed two phone hacking inquiries, which later merged to become the Leveson Inquiry, sent to Murdoch by News Corp's head of public affairs for Europe Frederic Michel.

He wrote: “[Bid] was not discussed at the No 10 meeting that Hunt had with the PM – discussing the two enquiries [“police“ one led by a judge; and “media practices” one not with a judge and led by DCMS].”

A series of messages between Michel, Murdoch and other News Corp staff were published on the inquiry’s website after a selection were read out in court by inquiry counsel. The emails included information sent from Hunt’s advisors, Adam Smith and John Zeff, often referred to collectively as “JH”, to Michel. A list of text message exchanges between Michel, Smith and others was published alongside the email archive.

A previous email from November 2011 informed Murdoch that Hunt had received “strong legal advice” not to meet with News Corp as the takeover process was treated as a judicial decision.

Michel added on the email: “My advice would be not to meet him today as it would be counter productive for everyone, but you could have a chat with him on his mobile which is completely fine, and I will liaise with his team privately as well.”

Murdoch replied to his email: “You must be fucking joking, fine, I will text him and find a time."

He told the inquiry he was displeased with the position, and did not believe having a formal meeting with the minister was inappropriate. Robert Jay QC, inquiry counsel, suggested Hunt may have shown News Corp preferential treatment to garner favourable coverage from the Sun.

He added: "It was clear that you were receiving information along the lines that the UK government as a whole would be supportive of News Corp."

Murdoch denied the claim, stating it was not the way he did business within the company.

An email from January 2011 showed Michel claiming to have obtained information from Hunt’s office. He told Murdoch: “Managed to so get some infos on the plans for tomorrow [although absolutely illegal >|].”

When questioned, Murdoch said the message was a joke. Hunt’s advisors apparently told Michel that Hunt shared the same objectives as News Corp but wanted Murdoch to understand he needed to “build some political cover on the process”.

In early emails from 2010, Michel describes Hunt as “amazed” by opposition to the bid from Ofcom, and says the minister he was very happy for me to his point of contact with Murdoch, to avoid giving opposition an opportunity to “attack the fairness of the process”.

Jay suggested the process had continued in Scotland, when the Sun’s coverage of Alex Salmond became supportive. Michel told Murdoch he had met with Salmond’s advisors, who said the minister would call Hunt on News Corp’s behalf. Murdoch denied the paper’s reporting had changed to gain political support.

Murdoch defended the contact, telling the inquiry: “This is a large scale transaction that was in the hands, with the respect to the decision-making process to the Department of Culture, Media, and Sport... it was entirely reasonable to try to communicate with the relevant police-makers about the merits of what you were proposing.”

On Hunt, he added: “I think throughout the process what we saw is that he consulted widely, he took advice from all sides, he followed the advice, at every decision point, of the OFT and Ofcom, and I can’t say that he didn’t.”

Hacked Off campaign statement on correspondence between Jeremy Hunt's office and James Murdoch published by the Leveson Inquiry today:"In light of the revelations at the Leveson Inquiry today about the nature of the correspondence between Culture, Media and Sport secretary Jeremy Hunt and News Corp, Hacked Off believes Mr Hunt's position within government is untenable."

The extent of the collusion between Jeremy Hunt and News Corp became clear with revelations that his office has leaked details of advice Mr Hunt received from regulator Ofcom to News Corp, and regularly leaked information relating to the BSkyB takeover bid, including Mr Hunt's statements to Parliament. It has also been revealed that information on arrangements for the setting up of the Leveson Inquiry were passed on to News Corp before being made public."

Given this close and improper relationship, we believe it will be inappropriate for Mr Hunt to be the minister in charge of implementing the changes to how the press operates in this country which will be recommended by Lord Justice Leveson at the end of Part 1 of his inquiry."

James Murdoch discussed the BSkyB takeover bid with David Cameron at a private dinner hosted by Rebekah Brooks, the Leveson Inquiry had heard.

The pair attended the dinner on December 23, 2010, just two days after Business Secretary Vince Cable was removed as minister in charge of the deal. Downing Street has previously refused to clarify whether the deal was spoken about during the occasion.

Cable was stripped of the powers after journalists from the Daily Telegraph secretly recorded him referring to a “war on Murdoch”. Jeremy Hunt MP, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, was then given responsibility for approving the takeover.

Murdoch told the inquiry the discussion had been a “tiny conversation” before the main dinner, where he expressed concerns that the bid should be handled appropriately, and accused Cable of an “acute bias” against News Corp.

He said: “I imagine I expressed the hope that things would be dealt with in way that was appropriate and judicial. It was a tiny side conversation, it was not a discussion.”

The inquiry was shown a series of 2010 emails between Murdoch, head of press Frederic Michel and others at News Corp, on the government’s approach to the takeover. They indicated Michel was in regular contact with Hunt, referred to by inquiry counsel Robert Jay QC as a “cheerleader” for Murdoch’s empire.

The messages described Cable’s concern over phone hacking at the News of the World and pressure from the Liberal Democrats and Labour over Rupert Murdoch’s political agenda.

James Murdoch denied an inappropriate relationship between Hunt and News Corp, saying the minister had acted appropriately during the bid. He also rebutted claims the Sun switched support to the Conservatives prior to the 2010 general election to garner political power.

He added: “At every turn Mr Hunt took the advice of the independent regulators, Ofcom and the OFT in particular, at every single decision point... the question of support of an individual newspaper for politicians one way or another is not something that I would ever link to a commercial transaction like this, nor would I expect that political support one way or another ever translate into a minster behaving in an inappropriate way, ever. I simply wouldn’t do business that way.”

Jay put it to Murdoch that his lack of knowledge on the phone hacking scandal at the News of the World was the result of a cover-up or lack of governance at the paper, which he denied.

Repeating evidence given to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Murdoch said he had been ill-informed by then editor Colin Myler and legal affairs manager Tom Crone. He maintained he was not shown the “For Neville” email, a document potentially implicating other NoW journalists in phone hacking.

He added: “By the time I arrived the whole issue of 2006 and 2007 was packed away, if you will and the company defence that it was a rogue report, that it had been investigated and the police had closed the case was already and had been firmly in place for a while. “Jay QC asked why Murdoch had not questioned a phone hacking settlement of £350,000 offered to PFA chief executive Gordon Taylor by Crone, when barrister Michael Silverleaf QC had advised the company the amount should be no more than £250,000. Murdoch said he was unaware of the details of the case and the suggestion Taylor had been paid “hush money” to prevent accusations of widespread hacking being made.

Murdoch said claims he had stormed into the Independent’s officers with Rebekah Brooks in 2010 were exaggerated, but admitted he confronted editor Simon Kelner after a series of billboards saying “Rupert Murdoch won’t decide this election - you will” were erected around the country before the election. He accused the paper of personalising an inappropriate agenda against his father.

He added: “I went into the front door, they didn't really have a desk, or a lock for that matter. So you’re automatically in the middle of the newsroom, which I wasn’t intending to do. I didn’t storm in anywhere.

“I told him of my concerns and I told him – whether or not I used colourful language, I wouldn’t dispute. But it wasn’t in the open in the newsroom and I was particularly upset because Mr Kelner had been availing himself to the hospitality of my family for years and I thought it was beyond the pale and not a decent way to go about his business.”

Murdoch is continuing to give evidence this afternoon.

The head of Sky News has admitted to the Leveson Inquiry he authorised one of his reporters to break the law and hack into the email account of "canoe man".

John Ryley, head of news, said journalist Gerard Tubb had accessed an alias account owned by John Darwin - who reappeared five years after faking his own death in a canoe accident - after sources close to the prosecution said email contact between Darwin and his wife would not be examined in the court case against them. He was briefed weeks after Tubb was given confirmation from then managing editor Simon Cole.

Ryley apologised to the inquiry after David Barr, junior inquiry counsel, said a statement sent from Sky News to the inquiry last year failed to mention the hacking incidents. He said the letter had been drafted with phone hacking in mind and had mistakenly not included email hacking, which was known to senior management at the time of writing.

Darwin and his wife Anne were convicted of fraud in 2008, after Mr Darwin faked his own death and lived secretly in Panama for five years before reappearing in 2007, faking amnesia. His wife had used his life insurance money to cover debts.

Emails between the pair, later passed from Sky News to the police, showed Anne Darwin had been aware of her husband’s activities, resulting in her changing her defence in court. Police statements following the conviction referred to the evidence as “pivotal” in the case.

Tubb accessed the emails on June 13 2008 after gaining authorisation from Cole and accessed further emails on June 18 and 19.

Ryley said: “Sources close to the prosecution were clearly suggesting it might be worth looking at the emails... sources close to the prosecution made clear that they weren't going to be following up on the emails.”

He denied Tubb received encouragement from the police to access the account or had started investigating the case rather than reporting it. Ryley was first briefed on the case a month after the hacking took place, in July 2008. The email account was accessed for a second time in an unsuccessful attempt to track the money received by the Darwins.

Lord Justice Leveson said: “What you were doing wasn’t merely invading somebody’s privacy, it was breach the criminal law... where does the Ofcom broadcasting code give any authority to a break of the criminal law?”

Ryley later told the judge: “I think it’s highly unlikely in the future that Sky will consider breaking the law... I am pretty much ruling it out. Journalism is at times a tough business and we need to at times shed light into wrongdoing, so there might be an occasion but I think it would be very, very rare”.

He was also asked about the hacking of an account owned by Lianne Smith, the wife of convicted pedophile Martin Smith, in 2010. The couple and their young daughter fled to Spain in 2007. After Martin Smith was extradited back to the UK in 2010, Lianne Smith killed her daughter and infant son, fearing they would be taken by social services.

Ryley said the email account had been accessed after Tubb, working on the case, suspected Lianne Smith may have had contact with local authority employees while living in Spain, believing the children could have been saved if the police were informed of their whereabouts.

He added: “The local authority, we believed, could have done more to find out the whereabouts of where the Smith family had run off to.”

He admitted the search had instead shown correspondence between Lianne Smith and several media outlets following her partner’s arrest, and said according to Tubb, the local authority had stonewalled several requests from Sky News journalists.

Sky News released a statement earlier this month admitting to email hacking but standing by the actions as "editorially justified and in the public interest". Broadcasting regulator Ofcom has announced an investigation into the incidents earlier today.

The chairman of the Telegraph Media Group exchanged text messages with David Cameron, the Leveson Inquiry has heard.

Junior inquiry counsel David Barr read out this afternoon a series of messages from Aidan Barclay to the Prime Minister.

They included a suggestion that Cameron contact editor Tony Gallagher daily during the 2010 election, and Barclay’s views on economic policy.

One said: “David, did you ring me, I’ve had a missed call from your mobile no. Aidan.”

Barclay told the inquiry: “There hasn’t been a lot of them over time. I like to think it’s more useful because it goes directly to the recipient rather than getting lost in the system... could I have equally sent an email? Probably.”

The chairman, son of Sir David Barclay who owns TMG with his brother Sir Fred Barclay, described his relationship with the Prime Minister as “friendly and cordial”. He admitted discussing Rupert Murdoch’s proposed BSkyB takeover bid with Cameron at an informal dinner but said after giving his views, the conversation moved on.

Barr referred to a handwritten note from TMG chief executive Murdoch MacLennan, sent before the general election, telling Cameron "we desperately want there to be a Conservative government and you as Prime Minister".

Barclay agreed his newspapers were conservative "with a small c and a big C" as suggested by Barr during questioning.

He said he often sent articles on economics to senior politicians, including Gordon Brown during his time at Number 10, as they do not always have time to read newspapers.

Asked about regulation, he said: “Layer on top of layer it does have a cumulative effect and I am concerned that we do not go too far with the regulatory proposals…The media industry employs about 250,000 people in this country and those who transgress are a minority.”

The inquiry also heard from Evgeny Lebedev, who manages UK media operations of Lebedev Holdings Ltd, owner of the Evening Standard, the Independent and Independent on Sunday, for media tycoon father Alexander Lebedev.

Lebedev said he championed “world class journalism” and revealed he has spent £75 million funding the Standard and the Independent titles.

He urged Lord Justice Leveson to protect freedom of the press when considering possibilities for future regulation.

He said: “If there is a creation of a system where everything is so regulated that you have to think twice about everything you do in life... it creates that tyranny of consensus I was talking about.”

He later added: “It’s a really expensive element of British democracy that needs to be protected at any cost.”

Lebedev said he would not oppose a statutory backstop for regulation if it ensured all newspaper groups were included in a regulatory system.

He said he often offers stories he has written to his newspapers, but puts editors under no obligation to publish them, and hinted to the inquiry that while his interest in politics was the result of “curiosity”, other proprietors attempt to exert influence over politicians.

He added: “I enjoy finding out what is happening in each different party, discovering new political talent and discussing the latest developments in Westminster and beyond... I think it's unfeasible to erect Chinese Walls between proprietors and newspapers.”

Nobody wants to fight a national newspaper for two years to prove libel. But that is exactly what happened after Juliet Shaw, then a freelance PR consultant, was approached to appear in a Daily Mail article on women moving from city life to the country.

Looking for a fresh start, Juliet had moved back to Walney Island in Cumbria from Manchester, with her two daughters.

In September 2003, an article – headlined ‘Sex and the Country – What happened when four singletons, fed up with shallow urban lives, upped sticks in a quest for rural romance?’ – was printed in the Femail section of the paper.

Juliet was horrified. The piece had been sold to her as good exposure for her business at a time when she needed clients in her new location, and was not meant to be about her personal life – especially not details which, she says, are completely untrue.

She tells Hacked Off: “I just remember sitting in the living room, looking at it and was a bit bemused at first. I was thinking ‘this is ridiculous, I didn’t say any of this’. It slowly started to sink as I reread it.”

Juliet had responded to an online request from a freelance journalist she met briefly when working for the Manchester Evening News, having just moved back to Cumbria with her children. She was told she suited the bill and it would be fantastic for her business. After a short interview over the phone, Juliet became suspicious when a follow-up questions over email turned to her private life.

She says: “The journalist started asking questions by email that I thought were inappropriate. I wasn’t naïve enough to think it would be free advertising, it was editorial, but I had no reason to think it was anything other than a serious piece.

“She asked me how many men I’d met since I’d been there and I said, ‘none really’. I didn’t really go out, I’m single and I’ve got two children, I was new to the area. She kept saying ‘you must go somewhere’.

“She emailed me again and said her editor had come back to her and wanted more information. I mentioned I’d been to a club with a friend and met someone who happened to be a doctor, and had a drunken kiss with him. One of her questions was ‘so, tell me more about this doctor you met’. She was trying to get information out of me that didn’t exist. I kept replying to say so. That’s when the line of questioning started to get very obvious in its intentions, but I thought as the answers were negative it wouldn’t be used.”

The journalist went on to ask Juliet about her sister’s farm and whether any “fit men” worked there. Juliet said she spoke to the farmhands, but went there to visit her family.

She was then pressured into attending photo shoot in London, a six-hour drive from Cumbria. With no childcare and limited funds, Juliet refused. Clearly under a lot of pressure herself, the journalist had repeatedly called Juliet and left messages begging her to attend the photo shoot, saying her neck would be on the line if she did not attend. Juliet eventually agreed after the paper agreed to pay her expenses and put her up in a hotel for the night.

A few months later, when the article was printed, Juliet describes the moment she saw the finished article.

“I just remember sitting in the living room, looking at it and was a bit bemused at first. I was thinking ‘this I ridiculous, I didn’t say any of this’. It slowly started to sink as I reread it.”

As the headline suggested, along with an opening sentence "Sex And The City is back on TV...", the article focused on the romantic lives of the interviews, and was a tie-in with the return of a popular programme. Juliet says she would never have agreed to be interviewed if she had realised the true angle.

The article claimed she lived in a large house with a private beach, when in fact she rented a modest property and the island is surrounded by a shoreline open to the public. The doctor with whom she had shared a drunken kiss, mentioned to the journalist after constant questioning, became "a fling with a married man during her final year in Manchester", when she was still in a relationship with her partner.

The article also said Juliet had been seeing a man who worked on her sister’s farm, and the pair often sat “cuddling on hay bales”. They had seen each other a couple of times, but two years after he had left the farm and divorced his wife.

She says: “To his wife or anyone else who knew us, if they thought I was carrying on with him when he was working at the farm then they knew that was when he was married. That was one of the things I was really worried about at the time.

“When I stopped being bemused by it I just started to feel cold thinking about the effect it could have.

“People in Walney think that I’m bragging about having my own massive house and private beach and going around having affairs with married farmhands. Later that day I went to pick up my daughter from school and popped into the newsagent. I saw a woman buying a copy of the Mail and thought, ‘oh my god, she’s going to read that’.”

After friends started making comments, Juliet says she became withdrawn.

“I still functioned but internally everything was so hard. I was suffering from depression at the time and the thought of introducing myself to someone seemed like an impossible task.

“I just wanted to make a go of it, and saw my youngest daughter starting school as a fresh start. It was an opportunity to start meeting people and start making friends. But because this came out a week after she started, I didn’t know who thought I was a liar. I didn’t speak to anybody or try to make friends. I heard ‘that’s the one’ more than once.”

After contacting the other three women interviewed in the piece, who said they were similarly horrified, Juliet complained to the Daily Mail and pointed out the misleading parts, along with several factual inaccuracies. After saying they would look into it, the paper replied standing by the article.

She says: “I was more shocked by that than the actual article. How can you state categorically that it’s all true? It’s not.”

The others decided not to pursue the complaint, but after seeing a local solicitor and paying a defamation specialist to draft a letter to the paper, Juliet was told she could take the case to court if she paid for a barrister. Instead, she decided to fight the case herself. She also wrote to the Press Complaints Commission for advice.

She says: “I only had twelve months to file a claim so I had to make the decision whether I let the PCC handle it or I do it myself. At that point I had so little faith in the industry because I knew [Mail editor-in-chief] Paul Dacre was chairman of the PCC [Editor's Code Committee] and I knew the Daily Mail were quite happy to insist black was white and not even entertain my grievances.

“I looked into the PCC, looked at the figures, and saw how many cases got adjudicated and thought I stood very little chance. At least I would have control of it if I did it myself.”

The claim was eventually referred to the High Court and heard before Mr Justice Tugendhat in 2005, after the Mail failed to have it thrown out. Luckily, Juliet had retained all of her email conversations with the journalist, despite the paper disputing her version of events. Afterwards Juliet says the opposing barrister, who said she was very impressed with her, asked her what she wanted. The paper’s solicitor later phoned her, warning the trial would be hard.

“I said I was happy to carry on. She asked me to give her an idea of what I wanted so we could settle before going to trial. I said I would have to work out how much I’d spent on fighting it. I never wanted a large sum of money. It was just stage-by-stage. There was no ulterior motive or big plan.

“I was exhausted and I did know how hard a trial would be. At this point I’d had a specialist judge agree with me. I’d had vindication from the highest point that I could have it. Even though I would have loved to take it to the end, that was enough for me.

“With lost earnings and physical costs, it came to about £7,500. They offered £5,000 and I said no, and finally they agreed. They said they would pay the full amount or just the physical costs and print an apology. I didn’t have any faith that they would print it so I took the easy option.”

Juliet has since moved back to Manchester and started a law degree. The majority of the money she received was spent repaying her mother money she had borrowed while fighting the case. She says she laughed when Paul Dacre told the Leveson Inquiry the paper corrected mistakes straight away, but is not bitter about the experience.

“I would do exactly the same thing again but I would do it now with a lot more knowledge and a lot more confidence. But it wasn’t an option not to do anything about it. I’d tell anyone in a similar situation to do something about it and not back down. I think I won.”

The Crown Prosecution Service relied on information from the police over the phone hacking investigation, the Director of Public Prosecutions has told the Leveson Inquiry.

Keir Starmer was asked about his response to allegations the CPS made a deliberate decision not to prosecute a senior executive at News of the World over phone hacking in 2006.

Starmer said his 2009 review of CPS advice to the Met during the original investigation, spanning 2006 to 2007, was based on information from the Metropolitan Police and leading prosecutor David Perry QC.

News of the World royal reporter Clive Goodman and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire received prison sentences for hacking into the voicemails of members of the royal household. At the time, the newspaper claimed it was an isolated incident and called Goodman a "rogue reporter".

The DPP said Simon Clements, head of the CPS special crime divisions, was under a huge amount of pressure at the time to provide a response to the Home Secretary, after the Guardian published a series of allegations about hacking at the News of the World in July 2009.

The CPS were unable to contact the original prosecutor, Carmen Dowd, and had limited documentation on decisions made at the time. Starmer spoke to Perry about the case, but said he had a limited recollection of the facts.

Starmer told the inquiry: "I needed to reconstruct the picture from the CPS point of view as quickly as possible. And so it was really the Guardian article that started the process and my thinking, but it was very rapidly followed by very many requests for more information, either from the press or from officials, so it was really all of that taken together that over the course of 9 July persuaded me that I needed to reconstruct the picture and do it rapidly."

He said he told the statement of John Yates, the then-Met assistant commissioner who conducted a day-long review of the original investigation, at “face value” and did not appreciate how quickly it had taken place.

When Guardian reporter Nick Davies gave evidence to the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee later in July 2009, he presented the "For Neville" email that suggested hacking could be widespread at the News of the World. Starmer sais he had not seen the email at that stage in 2009.

The inquiry also heard from David Perry QC, appearing via video link from Northern Ireland, who said he was conscious of whether hacking extended past Goodman and Mulcaire when preparing the prosecution in 2006.

He said: “I’m not sure that we had evidence in relation to other individuals and I think that what was being discussed at this stage was that the case went wider than the three original victims [from the royal household] but whether there would be evidence to establish how wide was not yet, or had not yet, been determined."

I was concerned to discover whether this went further than just the particular individual with which we were concerned and I think I was conscious in my own mind that the q question had to be whether it was journalists to the extent of the editor.”

Perry said the “door had been left open” to bring more prosecutions but the legal team had not seen any evidence with which to present a wider case.

He said he was not aware that junior Met officers involved in the investigation, including DCS Keith Surtees and DCS Philip Williams, who have both appeared before the inquiry, were concerned not all evidence had been considered.

Williams told the inquiry in February police were aware hacking could potentially be widespread in 2006. When asked whether editor Andy Coulson could have been involved, Williams said officers were aware of speculation but did not have any evidence.

Former DPP Lord Macdonald said he was visited by Nick Davies in 2009 but had limited information on the 2006 investigation. He told the inquiry he had introduced a deliberate policy of broader media engagement within the CPS.

He told the inquiry: “Contact between public bodies and journalists is strongly in the public interest, and I think we need to avoid a situation where public bodies feel that contact with journalists is something which is unprofessional or inappropriate.

“I agree with the evidence given to the inquiry by Nick Davies that its not contact with journalists that is the problem, it is whether you allow that contact to corrupt your decision making."

The inquiry heard Macdonald had regularly met with national newspaper editors, with the exception of Daily Mail editor-in-chief Paul Dacre.

Senior Met officer John Yates “pushed back” against suggestions for a new investigation into phone hacking in 2009, the Leveson Inquiry has heard.

Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer, who continued giving evidence to the Leveson Inquiry this afternoon, said he thought there should have been an examination of the “for Neville” email, potentially implicating other News of the World journalists in phone hacking. Yates, then assistant commissioner, conducted a one-day review of the original investigation, in 2009.

Starmer told the inquiry: “There was a degree of pushback against my suggestion that there should be a reinvestigation or further examination of the ‘for Neville’ email. To the best of my recollection, Mr Yates said that it was not new, it had been seen before and thus I took from that he didn’t consider at that stage there was any point for investigation of [the] email."

Starmer said he was frustrated after the email and other documentation was presented to the Culture Media and Sport select committee, investigating the hacking scandal, by journalist Nick Davies in 2009. He said he accepted the email did not prove anything alone, but flagged up the need to examine material not used in the 2006 case against royal reporter Clive Goodman and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire.

He added: “My concern then was that I had been told in July 2009, in confident terms by Mr Yates, that all of this had been looked at: ‘it’s nothing new, Mr Starmer you needn’t concern yourself’.

“When I really focused on the fact that this had all happened in a day I became increasingly concerned about the confidence with which those answers had been given. “David Perry QC, leading counsel in the Goodman and Mulcaire prosecution, was drafted in by Starmer to review the CPS advice on the case.

By 2011, when further material was revealed during civil action brought against News of the World by actress Sienna Miller, Starmer said he decided a full review of all police material on hacking was needed.

He said: “At that stage I thought nothing less that a root and branch review of all the material that we have and the police have is now going to satisfy me about this case, and that’s why I indicated in fact to Tim Godwin, who I think was then acting commissioner, that I had for my part reached the view that we could no longer approach this on a piecemeal basis - looking at bits of material - and we really had to roll our sleeves up and look at everything.”

The DPP described a 2011 meeting with Yates, saying he had made his mind up that a full review was neededHe said: “To be fair to Mr Yates, he did not seek to block that approach and in the end agreed to it, but I have to say by then I had reached the stage where I really was not in the mood for being dissuaded from my then course of action.”

Starmer said a full CPS review is currently underway, headed by Alison Levitt QC, but that findings would not be published until any charges have been brought under Operation Weeting.

The Metropolitan Police's head of media has said today the Leveson Inquiry is presenting a “partial picture” of his press office.

Ed Stearns, a former Daily Mail journalist who heads the newly renamed Directorate of Media and Communication, volunteered evidence to the inquiry.

He said: “I felt it is important to give really a full picture of the work of the directorate that I work for, and the environment and the context that the press officers that work under me work in.”

He contradicted evidence given to the inquiry by Times crime reporter Sean O’Neill, who complained about inaccurate briefings from the press office. Stearns said details on a case involving an assault on a 14-year-old boy by a police officer were contained in a statement from the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

He denied the Crime Reporters Association were a “privileged clique”, saying the journalists were experts in their field.

Stearns said the job of his colleagues was to negotiate between “cautious officers and an insatiable media”, and said there were often operational reasons for holding information back.

Chief Superintendent Derek Barnett, president of the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales (PSAEW), said it was important officer training focused on ethics and integrity when dealing with the media.

He added: “It is a question, I think, particularly with the new police professional body that will be in place in November this year, of making integrity and ethics core in all police training, and particularly in the early parts of a police officer’s career.”

“We have to be careful that we don’t introduce guidelines that constrain people’s normal relationships. It is very subjective as to what stage something becomes inappropriate, and my sense is that we should actually leave that to people’s common sense and judgment, and their professionalism but based on a very clear code of ethics and guiding principles. I think that’s the right way to hold people to account.”

The PSAEW represents the majority of the 1,170 superintendents and 268 chief superintendents in the country.

Another witness, Dr Rob Mowby, a crime specialist from the University of Leicester, described a “constant tension” between police officers and journalists.

He said: “That tension operates within a healthy framework, where the police are trying to be open and accountable and the media are trying to hold them to account, and where there’s clear channels to pass information.”

He said informal contact was now minimal and not part of the previous relationships where reporters would meet officers in “smokey pubs”.

Lord Justice Leveson said he had a “distinct impression” this was different in a local context to relationships between the Met and national media.

Mowby added: “I think it’s essential that communication – including through the media but not just through the media – is supported and championed by ACPO. “

Former News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks has applied for a third time for core participant status in the Leveson Inquiry.

Stephen Parkinson, representing Brooks, said his client was at risk of being criticised by witnesses in module three of the inquiry, examining the relationship between the press and politicians. He also confirmed Brooks is expected to give evidence before the inquiry in May.

If granted the status, Brooks will be able to see written evidence in advance and submit questions to be asked by inquiry counsel.

Parkinson added: “I also say on the basis of her experience of modules one and two that exposes her to the possibility of criticism by others we know that such criticism has been made of her in the past.”

David Sherborne, representing the core participant victims, argued that politicians Tom Watson MP and Dr Evan Harris be granted the status, as both had direct knowledge of being harassed by the press. He advocated that politicians Chris Bryant, Simon Hughes, Denis MacShane, John Prescott, Claire Ward and Tessa Jowell continue to hold their status as core participants.

Lord Justice Leveson heard from several individuals, including Elaine Decoulos and Michael Ward, also applying for core participant status, and said he would make a decision before Easter.

Newspapers represented at the inquiry, along with the National Union of Journalists and the Metropolitan Police, will continue to be core participants.

He invited newspapers to submit their top five public interest stories to the inquiry, saying he recognised the “good work” of the press.

From April 23, proprietors and media owners will give evidence to the inquiry. The judge said he would also hear “catch-up evidence” from previous modules and address the hacking of Milly Dowler’s voicemail in full, on the week of May 8. The first part of the inquiry is expected to finish before the end of July.

The judge heard submissions from lawyers representing News International and Trinity Mirror, who said any findings of fact made by the inquiry could implicate individuals in improper or unlawful activity.

Lord Justice Leveson told the court: “I can make a finding of fact that X was happening without making a finding of fact, not having investigated, who was responsible for X happening... I’ve certainly got to make a finding haven’t I, or do you say I haven’t, about whether there was unlawful interception of mobile telephones?

“I am merely what I can do and what I should do, in advance, in fairness, if I am minded to proceed in a certain direction... I’ve not made findings of fact against anybody yet.”

Sherborne told the judge: “Sir, with the greatest respect, the submissions that you've heard belong very firmly in Alice in Wonderland territory.

“If the inquiry reaches conclusions that it was well known that these unlawful or improper practices were taking place, or that those who denied knowledge did so falsely, then these are conclusions which can and should be fully addressed in the report.”

Concluding the hearing, Lord Justice Leveson said he would continue to fulfill his terms of reference without impeding on any criminal investigation.

The week commencing April 23, the inquiry will hear from proprietors and media owners, with other evidence crossing modules. From May 8, Leveson will hear evidence from more proprietors, "catch-up evidence" and will kickstart module three. The module will continue until the end of June with module four beginning in early July. Module four is expected to finish by the end of July after closing submissions are made.

A former assistant Met commissioner attended the wedding of a News of the World crime reporter, the Leveson Inquiry has heard.

Lucy Panton, who worked at the paper from 2002 until it shut down last year, said Yates was a working friend who attended her wedding, and the wedding of Jeff Edwards, chair of the Crime Reporters Association.

She added: “He was a police officer who was at my wedding, along with many other police officers.”

“There were a few people at my wedding who I would class as working friends who I didn’t socialise with outside of work, and Mr Yates falls into that category.

“I certainly got on well with him, I had a good rapport with him, but we didn’t socialise outside of work. The wedding was the only occasion. There were a lot of people at my wedding.”

Panton was arrested in relation to Operation Elveden, investigating illegal payments to police, in December 2011. She was later released on bail.

The journalist said she had a good relationship with Yates, who resigned from the force last year over criticism of his review into the 2006 phone hacking investigation.

The inquiry had previously been shown an email, sent from news editor James Mellor to Panton in 2010, asking her to get information on a suspected al-Qaeda plot from the assistant commissioner.

It finished with the line: “Really need an excl splash line so time to call in all those bottles of champagne... [sic]”Panton said Mellor had been “bantering” with her and there were “no bottles of champagne”. She admitted drinking with another former assistant commissioner, Andy Hayman, but said it would have been in a group situation.

She added: “We used to have champagne at the CRA Christmas parties, just a bottle at the beginning. Or maybe two. It didn’t flow in huge quantities. And I have to say, champagne didn’t feature although it seems to associate with me, but it didn’t feature in my day-to-day working lunches, very much at all.”

Yates told the inquiry last month the he had not been “plied with champagne” by Panton but said he may have shared a bottle with her and several other people.

Panton denied having a preferential relationship with either Hayman or Yates, and said although she found them helpful in background briefings, they were not forthcoming with “News of the World stories”, on specific child abuse cases or high profile crimes.

The journalist was asked about her relationship with Dick Fedorcio, former head of the Met’s Directorate of Public Affairs, after he revealed to the inquiry in March she had filed a crime story from his office.

Panton said should could not remember which computer she had used, but believed she had sat at Fedorcio’s desk to write the article. He claimed the journalist used a stand-alone laptop, and not a computer connected to the Met computer system, but said it may have been an “error in judgment”.

She had emailed the story to her own account from Fedorcio, and forwarded it to the news desk with the message: “Had 2 use Dick's computer 2 file. Can't seem to delete the original message details. Would not be helpful 2 him for people 2 know I was using his office so please delete that”.

She told the inquiry: “I think what my point of writing that was because I know ho these things get pinged around the office, and if someone saw a story being filed from someone within Scotland Yard, it might start people asking questions. They may not notice it has my name on it, they may just notice the email at the top.”

Panton said her relationship with Fedorcio was important, as the DPA would ask officers to hold back briefings or information for journalists working on the Sunday papers.

She added: “What I saw as my role - and I did act as the representative for the Sunday newspapers in the CRA - was to try and remind them there is another newspaper outlet that needs their assistance and could they perhaps hold back a photograph or arrange somebody, if they were arranging interviews of victims’ families, could they possibly hold something back for the Sundays.”

She denied the News of the World was in a special position with the Met, but said her role was to keep the relationship between the paper and the force running smoothly.

She added: “I don't feel I was bullied by the editors. We were all put under a lot of pressure. It comes with the job.”

Panton admitted working with private investigator Derek Webb on two stories, one on the private life of a politician and another on a celebrity imprisoned abroad for child sex offences.

The former deputy editor of the News of the World has denied having an “arm lock” on senior figures in the Metropolitan Police.

Neil Wallis, who appeared before the Leveson Inquiry in December last year, was recalled today to answer further questions on the nature of his relationships with senior officers in the force.

He added: “I have not put an arm lock on any of those people. I have built up relationships over a number of years, and I they feel that it is of use to them to have that relationship. To a certain extent, it’s not my call is it?”

His evidence follows the resignation of the Met’s head of press, Dick Fedorcio, who faced disciplinary action over his hiring of Wallis’s PR firm Chamy Media in 2009.

The former journalist denied making himself more “tantalising” to the Met, when offering his company to fill in for Fedorcio’s deputy, who was on an extended leave of absence. Wallis said he had a “good working relationship” with Fedorcio that spanned 15 years and denied any impropriety over the £24,000 contract with the Met, lasting from October 2009 to September 2010.

Fedorcio denied the contract had been set up to ensure Chamy obtained it, after he told the inquiry PR firms Bell Pottinger and Hanover submitted rival bids. Lord Justice Leveson suggested at the time he knew they would enter higher bids than Wallis' company. Wallis denied contacting Fedorcio so News of the World journalists would receive preferential treatment.

He added: “It was pretty much dealt with by the news desk, [crime reporter] Lucy Panton, they all had his phone number. They all knew Dick. He wasn’t some shrinking violet. I didn’t need to get involved in these things.

“She’s known Dick longer than I have, I think, and she had a perfectly good relationship and it benefited Dick on occasion if he wanted to call us.”

Wallis spoke of his relationships with several senior officers including former commissioners Lord Condon, Lord Blair and Sir Paul Stephenson, and assistant commissioners John Yates and Andy Hayman.

In his written statement he described having the mobile phone numbers of Stevens, Stephenson, Yates, Hayman and Fedorcio as well as the home numbers of Stevens, Yates and Fedorcio.

He said: “I would have a personal view and I would say to whoever I was talking to: ‘I think this’. If a hoofing great story came along that wasn’t convenient to that, first and foremost I’m a journalist and the hoofing great story went in the paper.”

Lord Justice Leveson questioned his evidence, saying: “We know a lot more about your friendship with some senior police officers than transpired in the hospitality register, don't we?”

Wallis said his relationship with Lord Condon, commissioner from 1993 to 2000, had grown out of meeting at functions and meals.

He added: “I’d give him my views, and if he found them interesting or if he found them useful then I was glad. We talked on a number of issues.”

He said the relationship was corporate and strategic, and beneficial to both the Met and the Sun, the paper he was then working at.

Wallis described Lord Stevens, who headed the force from 2000 to 2005, as a commissioner who “cared about the Met a lot”. He said he “did the best he could” to advance Stevens’s application as he agreed with the officer’s view on press relationships with police, and gave him public relations advice.

He said: “What I knew about John Stevens was that he had a view about how the police and press should interact... he had a view that I agreed with and was also convenient for him and was also good for newspapers. So if you like, the opposite of a perfect storm. A perfect sunburst.”

Wallis denied having a preferential relationship with Stevens, and said the commissioner frequently spoke to journalists and editors, including editor-in-chief of the Daily Mail, Paul Dacre. He said he wanted to be taken seriously by senior officers as this allowed him to alert them to criminal activity his newspaper picked up on. Wallis was not questioned over the relationships with Condon or Stevens when giving evidence last year.

On Stevens, he later added: “The suggestion is that this man of integrity, of experience, of immense crime fighting ability is going to be seduced by me taking him [for] steak and chips and a nice bottle of wine, I just can’t begin to see where this comes from.”

He described Lord Blair, commissioner from 2005 to 2008, as a bad communicator and said he took a very different view from Stevens when dealing with the tabloid press.

He added: “He was a very cerebral man. He saw himself very much as somebody who didn’t want to pursue those sorts of contacts, so, you know, didn’t.”

Wallis told the inquiry Blair had visited the News of the World offices, and told journalists Stevens, whose column for the paper, ghostwritten by Wallis, was called ‘The Chief’: “I don’t know how you can call him the chief, he’s not the chief anymore - I am.”

He said Blair had damaged his reputation by referring the shooting of Jean Charles de Menenzes in 2005 by Met officers, as a “Houston, we have a problem” moment.

Wallis said Lucy Panton and managing editor Stuart Kuttner had interviewed the commissioner following the 7/7 bombings, intended as a good public relations opportunity for the force.

He added: “It was a wonderful example of his ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. He had absolutely no work to do on this, but his arrogance and his views regarding that sort of phrase, of the killing of an innocent man – ‘Houston we have a problem’. You know, we’re journalists so we stuck that in as a headline and it didn’t go down too well.

He referred to six dinners with Sir Paul Stephenson, during his tenure from 2009 to 2011.

Wallis went on to describe former assistant commissioner John Yates as “an immensely impressive bloke”. In his previous evidence, Wallis had admitted to a personal friendship with Yates, who confirmed the relationship.

The pair maintain they struck up a friendship over their mutual love of sports, particularly football, and attended two or three matches together outside of work. He said dinners with Yates and property developer Nick Candy, previously raised while the former assistant commissioner was giving evidence earlier this year, comprised of “chit-chat” around current events.

Yates admitted last month the pair had discussed work but said their conversations had mainly been about family life and football. The inquiry went through his hospitality register, which showed several dinner meetings and drinks with Wallis during his time at the Met.

He told the inquiry: “There was a life outside the Met, and I’m sure there’s a life outside of News international for him.”

It has been suggested at the inquiry that Yates, who lead a review of the original phone hacking investigation in 2009, failed to reopen the case due to his friendship with Wallis. The former deputy editor was arrested last July under Operation Weeting.

Wallis described obtaining footage of how a failed shoe bomb attack, attempted in 2005, could have impacted if successful, from Andy Hayman to publish on the News of the World website.

In his written statement, Wallis said: “I was persistent in my advice to Hayman that this footage would have a profound effect if released into the public domain as a result of which he provided to the News of the World.

He added: “It wouldn’t have been published in any way if it hadn’t have been my newspaper’s idea... This was an asset they didn’t know they had.”

“The upshot of us publishing it was that video appeared in other newspapers, on television, and went around the world. It was a rather good idea.”

He further defended his meals with senior officers to the inquiry, saying working lunches were a successful way of doing business and he nurtured contacts “because that’s what journalists do”.

He said: “There seems to be almost a presumption that it’s somehow wrong, the idea that people like senior journalist should have access to senior opinion-formers... it’s actually quite important to a free press that a senior journalist can sit down and have off-the-record conversations with a whole variety of people.

“Whether they be judges, whether they be police officers, whether they be politicians. I have done all of those things.”

He became visibly angered when questioned over the hiring of his daughter, Amy Wallis, by the Met after he sent her CV to John Yates. He went on to claim that Met officers Catherine Crawford and Tim Godwin referred relatives and neighbours to him for work experience.

He told Robert Jay QC, inquiry counsel: “You’re name checking her, she’s trying to build a career and her name is constantly being put into the public domain over something the IPCC [Independent Police Complaints Commission] have said she has done nothing wrong whatsoever – I did nothing wrong whatsoever. John Yates did nothing wrong whatsoever.”

Yates told the inquiry last month: "As I've said before I completely equivocal about whether Amy got the job or not, and I had no influence on it at all. As has been confirmed."

Wallis had also been recalled to answer questions on journalists interacting with the police during investigations, and said it was “fair game” for papers to report on raids they had been invited on by officers.

He said former News of the World reporter Mazher Mahmood, otherwise known as the ‘Fake Sheikh’, had worked on several investigations with the police, including a case in which a drug-addicted woman had attempted to sell her baby. Wallis said in that particular case he had contacted Yates to provide information.

He added: “Sometimes storms happen and they shouldn’t but they do. The McCanns: you’ve got this perfect storms of what the port police where saying to the press out there, they were feeding this all the time... there was a feeding frenzy. And that does happen occasionally.”

Tabloid coverage of the Ipswich murders was “unhelpful”, a senior police officer has told the Leveson Inquiry.

Stewart Gull, a former assistant chief constable of Suffolk Police, said the reporting on a series of murders in the town during 2006 raised the level of fear in the local community.

He told the inquiry: “I found some of the reporting headlines, particularly in the print media, what I’d describe as sensationalist.”

The Attorney General issued a warning to the press at the time and the defence team of Steven Wright, convicted of the murders of five women, argued his fair trial rights had been undermined by some reporting.

Gull, now with the Jersey Police, described how Tom Stephens, an initial suspect in the investigation who was later cleared, “put himself on offer” to the media. He said a BBC journalist had recorded an interview with Stephens and passed it on to the police before he was named as a suspect.

He said: “I didn’t think the media were being particularly helpful. There was little that I could do about it, because I couldn’t afford to show my hand, but it was as we now understand, Tom Stephens was collected by journalists from [the Sunday Mirror] and as I understand it, taken to a hotel just outside Ipswich."

They spent some time interviewing him, and then of course the following day there was a big expose... as we now know Tom Stephens had nothing to do with those murders.”

He said the force found itself “in a place it never expected to be” and he spent between two and five hours a day briefing journalists on the investigation.

He added: “Dealing with the media can be demanding and it can be a real time-stealer, but it is necessary and I think senior investigating officers recognise the importance of that relationship - but there is a balance to be struck."

Representatives from the Association of Police Authorities (APA) also gave evidence to the inquiry. The body will be dissolved in November this year and replaced with an interim organisation, while each police authority will have an elected Police and Crime Commissioner.

Mark Burns-Williamson, chairman, said the APA hospitality register was published online for transparency, but said inappropriate relationships with the media were unacceptable.

He added: “I think all staff are aware that they shouldn’t enter into any such arrangements with the media or anybody else for that matter, without very good reasons, and we tend to conduct out business through formal events where we may put on refreshments and a few sandwiches, but that’s par for the course.”

Head of press Nathan Oley said press interest in policing will increase with the introductions of PCCs, and said clear guidance was needed to regulate media contact.

He added: “It’s absolutely crucial that the flow of information between the two is sufficient and is well managed to deliver that, and it would just be a concern if the outcome of this inquiry – I’m sure it won’t – but results in a shutdown of information. It’s all about for us identifying correct and appropriate channels of information flow.”

Paul McKeever, chairman of the Police Federation, advocated national standards across a police training, including press relations. He said leaking and bribery in the Metropolitan Police is an “absolute no-no” and is “abhorrent for the vast majority of police officers full-stop”.

The inquiry also heard from Neil Wallis, former deputy editor at News of the World, who was recalled to give further evidence on his relationship with senior Met officers. He will continue giving evidence into the afternoon.

Lord Justice Leveson said a directions hearing for module three of the inquiry, examining the relationship between the press and politicians, would address several issues tomorrow afternoon, including the remaining issues of module one, new core participant status for the module, the approach to modules three and four and a timetable for submissions from participants.

The judge said he was considering the written evidence of police officers Russell Middleton, from Devon and Cornwall Police, and Brendan Gilmour from the Met, before it is admitted formally to the record.

New police guidelines on dealing with the press, hospitality and business interests will roll out later this year, the Leveson Inquiry has heard.

Chief Constable Mike Cunningham, head of the Association of Chief Police Officers’ professional standards portfolio, said three sets of ACPO guidance would be ready in draft form next month for consultation.

He said: “We clearly, I think, acknowledge and agree with HMIC that national guidance is required in these areas. We previously haven’t had national standards in relation to the three areas I’ve discussed.

“What will be a challenge will be to phrase that guidance in such a way as it can be applied to very different circumstances, yet sufficiently detailed to be meaningful. That’s the balance were trying to strike.”

He added: “We are heartened but absolutely not complacent by the fact that HMIC , IPCC and other people who have scrutinised the police agree that corruption and malpractice is not endemic or systematic. However, the actions of individuals – particularly senior individuals – can be highly damaging.”

Cunningham, who heads the Staffordshire Police force, said unauthorised handling of information is a significant risk for the police. He told the inquiry family and friends were the highest risk in terms of unlawful disclosure of information by officers, along with former colleagues – with journalists identified as a lower risk.

Ian Fegan, head of corporate communications for Staffordshire, said less than five percent of media enquiries came from the national media, compared to 39 per cent from the three daily papers in the county.

Cunningham said he would be “very disappointed” if all press enquiries were funnelled through the press office.

He added: “I’m seeking a much more organic relationship with the press, which allows officers who are closest to the issues to be able to speak to the press about what those issues are, and what we’re doing about them. It’s part of our accountability.”

The inquiry heard from Ben Priestley, from Unison, who said officers often lacked confidence to expose wrongdoing in police forces around the country. He said working environments could be “hierarchical and authoritarian” and work needed to be done to review whistleblowing mechanisms for officers.

He said Unison, who represent approximately half the working officers in each force, bar the Met and City of London police, said the union saw no place for private dinners and hospitality within the service.

Julie Norgrove, director of audit risk and assurance for the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, said gifts and hospitality received by Met staff had been catergorised as risky in internal audits for several years.

She said the hospitality register had been reviewed five times in 11 years and staff did not always provide proper justification for gifts despite the logging systems.

The police team investigating phone hacking allegations will be the size of “eight murder squads”, it has been claimed to the Leveson 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 spend 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 Met began proceedings against him for gross misconduct.

Malthouse told the inquiry he was “deliberately boring” in his engagement with the press, to prevent them contacting him for information.

He added: “My strategy generally was to accept, be boring, or largely talk about them... and therefore not give the impression that I was a useful source of information."

He said he accepted Sir Paul Stephenson’s premise that he needed to engage with the media as commissioner, but said he was concerned over dinner meetings with News International.

He said: “My concern would be that it was fine to meet in the office over a cup of coffee at that stage, but whether it was appropriate to have dinner would be a matter of his judgment.”

The inquiry heard the MPA questioned acting commissioner Tim Godwin over other senior officers meeting with News International employees.

Malthouse added: “My judgment was that while it wasn’t necessarily the way I would have operated, Sir Paul Stephenson was a man of great integrity, the most senior police officer in the land. If I’d for one moment lost any trust in him then we had a fairly major problem and as I said earlier, our relationship had to be based on a very high degree of trust.”

Catherine Crawford, chief executive of the Mayor’s Office for Police and Crime and former head of the MPA, said Operation Weeting had to be balanced against a “whole range of activities that need to be pursued”, but said she had never witnessed any improper pressure on the Met to follow a particular line by the MPA or force commissioners.

She stressed the need for simple and easily understood policies on police and press relationships.

She said: “I have heard evidence before this inquiry which suggests that the more that you try to define and set down rules and hamper discretion, the less likely you are to change a culture in a way that accepts a standard of behavior as appropriate, rather than a rigid adherence to rules which can never define or set out every single possible contingency that you might come across.”

Participants in the Leveson Inquiry have been warned not to leak information to journalists, after a controversial programme on alleged data breaches by newspaper groups was broadcast last night.

During the morning hearing, Lord Justice Leveson responded to the ITN programme, which 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.

There is no evidence of endemic corruption between police officers and the press, the chief executive of the Independent Police Complaints Commission has said.

Jane Furniss told the Leveson Inquiry 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.”

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.

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.

Young 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.”

Claims made by the editor of the Daily Mirror over police briefings on the Joanna Yeates murder case were “outrageous”, the chief constable of Avon and Somerset police has said.

Chief Constable Colin Port said evidence from Richard Wallace 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.”

The press have “damaged and hindered” the work of Surrey Police during Milly Dowler's disappearance investigation, the Leveson Inquiry has heard.

Assistant Chief Constable Jerry Kirkby said journalists were a “degree of distraction” when carrying out the investigation into the disappearance of Milly Dowler 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 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.

Sunday Mirror journalists picked up a suspect to be interviewed at a hotel during the Ipswich murders investigation, the chief constable of Suffolk Constabulary has told the Leveson Inquiry.

Simon Ash 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.

Stephens was later cleared of the murders, in 2006.

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 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 today. 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 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.

Reporter Colin 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.”

He added: “There was a great deal of concern about what was going on in a very fast moving and frankly horrifying story.”