The Leveson Inquiry

The editor of Private Eye has told the Leveson Inquiry he does not believe in a regulated press.

Ian Hislop, who gave evidence this morning, said papers should obey the law and be accountable to the public.

He said: "I do hope you'll call some members of the public, and ask them why they bought the News of the World".

Hislop said his magazine is “unique” and he did not want to be “tarred with the same brush” as Northern & Shell owner Richard Desmond.

He admitted it was “embarrassing” that Desmond’s publications were the only other papers not in the PCC. He said he could “reconsider” joining regulation if the body was to change but was against being forced into arbitration.

Hislop pointed out Private Eye publishes “two pages a week attacking individuals and newspapers” and he would not expect to get a “fair hearing” from fellow editors. He made it clear Private Eye worked in line with the PCC code, and the principles and ethics of journalism should be “self evident”.

He added Desmond was the “worst” example of a proprietor setting the agenda for his newspapers, and comments he made on ethics before Lord Justice Leveson should not be taken as a “rule of thumb” for the industry.

Hislop said press coverage of the inquiry had been selective, and journalists had not reported “critical” information about their publications.

The editor was also asked about public interest and gave the example of Sir Fred Goodwin, who took out an injunction to prevent details of an affair with a senior colleague, as a “grey area” that should be judged by editors. He said that any “reasonable editor” would not have thought it acceptable to “hack into a murdered girl’s phone”.

Hislop told the inquiry that he had been personally targeted by private investigator Steve Whittamore, who obtained numbers of his family and bank manager.

Executives, editors and journalists from the Trinity Mirror Group have appeared before Leveson today.

Richard Wallace, editor of the Daily Mirror, was questioned over the paper's libellous coverage of Chris Jefferies. He said it was a "black mark on his editing record” and that “Mr Jefferies’ name will be imprinted on my brain forever more”. The Mirror was one of eight papers to pay damages to Jefferies last year.

Wallace said the paper received off-the-record information from a police source, claiming Avon and Somerset police were certain they had “got their man” when Jefferies was arrested in December 2010. He was later cleared as a suspect in the murder of Joanna Yeates.

Wallace told the inquiry that ethics were “embedded in the culture of his newsroom”, and he did not believe the Mirror had broken the criminal law under his editorship. He addressed a article raised when Sienna Miller gave evidence last year, which she claimed portrayed her as drunk when in fact playing with sick children at a charity event. He said it was a mistake to use a single source for the story and the accompanying picture was not meant to be misleading, but had been cropped as the paper did not have permission to print images of the child present.

Wallace said he could not recall the source of a story revealing a relationship between Ulrika Johnson and Sven Goran Erikson. He added that there “might well have been phone-hacking at the Mirror, although not to his knowledge.

The editor of the Sunday Mirror, Tina Weaver, said she was not aware of phone-hacking at Trinity Mirror publications, and rebutted claims made by Newsnight in 2011 that hacking took place at her paper.

She agreed that the PCC does not have “teeth” but said it was an effective mediator, and discussed a story on the private life of footballer Rio Ferdinand published in the Sunday Mirror last year. Ferdinand took the paper to court for misuse of private information but lost on the grounds of public interest. She added that a “series of injunctions rained down on us like confetti about a year ago” and the public interest and what interests the public often overlap.

Andrew Penman, Mirror investigations editor, spoke briefly about prior notification. He warned that compulsory notification could alert “crooks and fraudsters” to investigatory work, but that he generally put stories to his subjects in order to elicit information.

Lloyd Embley, editor of the People, was asked about a story claiming Charlotte Church had proposed to a boyfriend in a karaoke bar. He said the singer is currently seeking damages for defamation.

He told the inquiry that he saw two to five sets of pictures a week that are not published “simply on the grounds of intrusion”, and that he turned down pictures of Kate Middleton after palace sources expressed concern that she was being stalked by the press.

Embley said Sly Bailey, CEO of Trinity Mirror, had been “completely supportive” of his decision to make the paper politically independent.

Bailey was last to the stand. She told the inquiry that the board had decided to fire Piers Morgan, following the publishing of hoax photographs in the Mirror, because they “lost confidence” in him as an editor. She said she had not heard about Morgan allegedly listening to a voicemail left by Paul McCartney for Heather Mills, echoing other Trinity Mirror witnesses.

She said Richard Wallace had assured her “how very sorry he is” over the Jefferies coverage and said he had made “thousands and thousands” of good decisions. She added: “Sometimes our editors do get it wrong”.

Bailey said there had not been a detailed investigation into phone-hacking at TMG as there was “no evidence” to suggest it had taken place in the company and had taken a “forward-thinking approach”.

She was questioned over the Chris Atkins documentary Starsuckers, which showed the filmmaker offering celebrity stories he had fabricated to newspapers, and replied she “took comfort” from the fact her journalists had not paid for or published the information.

Bailey told Lord Justice Leveson that she agreed with the “three pillar” model of regulation emerging from the inquiry, referring to elements of compliance, standards and arbitration.

Statements from Paul Vickers, Vijay Vaghela, Kevin O’Sullivan and Vincent Moss, taken as read, are available on the inquiry website.

Express and Star Newspapers were still using the services of a private investigator until 2010, the Leveson Inquiry heard today.

Nicole Patterson, head of legal at the group, was questioned over invoices from J.J. Services, a company run by Steve Whittamore.

She told inquiry counsel Robert Jay she did not know whether Whittamore, found guilty of obtaining and disclosing information under the Data Protection Act in 2005, was still used by her newspapers.

Jay said this was surprising, given the “cloud hanging over” the private investigator.

The documents shown in court mentioned celebrities including Charlotte Church, Davina McCall, and the late Jade Goody. Patterson said the invoices had been reviewed but it was “impossible to marry up a story with a source” in most cases.

They also showed a project under the name "Rothermere".

The inquiry heard that payments made to J.J. Services ranged from £176 to £2687. Patterson said the total amount spent on information services from 2000 to 2010 was £115,000, and payments for “basic computer searches for names and addresses” were “very small amounts for very little work”.

She added: "More often than not it was £75, £80, £100. It's very little money compared to our total spend."

Patterson told the inquiry that Express titles had used Whittamore about 65 times, and the Star four times.

Express Newspapers launched an internal investigation into phone-hacking and “blagging” in 2011. Patterson said she had seen “no evidence” to suggest phone-hacking had taken place.

The coverage of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann has been compared to coverage of reality show Big Brother by former Daily Express editor Peter Hill.

He denied being “obsessed with the McCann story” and dismissed claims made by Nick Fagge, a former Express reporter, who has also given evidence to the Leveson Inquiry.

Hill defended the coverage, and said: "It was nothing to do with an obsession, it was more to do with a method of working".

Fagge told the inquiry last year: “The Madeleine story was on the front page of the Daily Express more than any other newspaper, because he decided it would sell newspapers, it became an obsession of his”.

Hill said the reporter had “misunderstood” the reasons why he repeatedly used the story, and that the paper had been reflecting the interest of the readers. He said this was also the case with numerous articles on Big Brother and Princess Diana.

Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, questioned whether coverage of the McCanns could be compared to stories about a reality programme and caused Hill became angry when it was suggested he encouraged "whacking the story" into the paper.

He accused Jay of using "judgmental" language and said: "The fact of the matter is this is a public inquiry and I do not believe that I'm on trial".

Hill denied accusing the McCanns of killing their child, and said: "The story that I ran were the people that did accuse them and those were the Portuguese police".

He added that checking allegations made against the McCanns was difficult, saying the Express "did the best we could do which was not very much".

The editor confirmed that he had not been disciplined by Express Newspapers following a libel payout of £550,000 to the McCanns.

The editor of the Daily Star admitted sometimes headlines “go too far” at the Leveson Inquiry today.

Dawn Neesom, who has edited the paper since 2003, was presented with front-page stories from the paper, including “Telly king Cowell is dead” and “Terror as plane hits ashcloud”.

She claimed to be unaware that the latter was removed from sale at airports in 2010. Neesom agreed that the story was “overegging the pudding” and could have been interpreted as reporting a real event. The headline actually referred to a fictional event portrayed on a television programme.

Neesom was also questioned on the article "English Defence League to Become Political Party", claiming the story had been run due to concern about the EDL from the paper's "Jewish-owned company".

The editor said she would provide the inquiry with pro-Islamic stories published in the Star, after it was put to her that the paper had an anti-Islamic agenda. She added: "We are not biased against Muslims".

She described the Star as a “young tabloid” that relied on “eye catching” front pages to sell copies, and said the paper had a “certain style of writing which appeals to the readers”. She answered questions on the paper's coverage of Chris Jefferies and the McCann family. An apology issued to the McCanns apology was printed on the front pages of the Star and Express in 2008.

Robert Jay QC asked the editor about the Star’s coverage of Katie Price, after former reporter Richard Peppiatt told the inquiry that the paper was “obsessed” with the glamour model.

She said: “I’ve known Kate since she was 17… believe me, she doesn't need any help embroidering her life. She does that for herself.”

Neesom told Lord Justice Leveson that it was a "dangerous area" to have editors on a self-regulatory panel because of personal agendas.

She said the judge was "far more intelligent" her and added: "I know you're going to come up with something very good".

Controversial proprietor Richard Desmond has supported the libellous coverage of his newspapers over the McCanns.

Robert Jay QC accused him as he gave evidence to the Leveson Inquiry of “grotesque characterisation” over the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. This came after Desmond questioned the length of time it took for the McCanns to take legal action against the press.

Desmond said newspapers should be allowed to report on opinions as well as fact, and added: "There are views about the McCanns and what happened".

The owner of Northern & Shell, which includes the Express and Star, apologised to the McCanns several times when giving evidence but said the PCC had scapegoated Express Newspapers over national coverage of the story. He said if 38 articles had been labelled defamatory, then many more printed in the paper must have been acceptable.

Desmond tried to defend Express and Star coverage by comparing rumours over Madeleine's disappearance to conspiracy theories about the death of Princess Diana.

He also told the inquiry he didn't know what the word "ethical" meant. He said: "We do not talk about ethics or morals because it’s a very fine line".

Desmond said he would "get rid" of the inquiry, which he called "probably the worst thing that’s happened to newspapers in my lifetime”, and focus on prosecuting people guilty of phone-hacking.

He described a new regulator called the “RCD board” to replace the PCC. When Lord Justice Leveson asked what this stood for, he said: “Richard Clive Desmond”. Jay became visibly irritated when Desmond later said he thought it was “a good name”.

Desmond also said he felt he had betrayed Tony Blair "as a mate" when the Express switched to supporting the Conservatives in 2004, but backed the decision of editor Peter Hill.

He met Blair after buying Express Newspapers in 2000 and the pair talked about "music and drums" before the then Prime Minster asked about politics. Desmond said he took the decision to back Labour because Blair "seemed a nice fellow".

A day of evidence from Northern & Shell culminated in a long-awaited appearance by owner Richard Desmond.

He appeared alongside executives from Express Newspapers and the current editors of the Daily Star and Daily Express at the Leveson Inquiry.

First up was Nicole Patterson, head of legal at Express Newspapers. She answered questions over the use of private investigator Steve Whittamore, and ran through a series of invoices paid to his company, J.J. Services. Patterson said Whittamore had been used 65 times by the Express and four times by the Star. It was revealed that the private investigator was contracted by the papers until 2010, despite being convicted of information theft in 2005.

Dawn Neesom, editor of the Daily Star, told the inquiry that some of her paper's headlines had gone “too far”. This included a front-page story – “Terror as plane hits ashcloud” - which resulted in copies of the Star being removed from sale in airports. She was questioned over the paper’s alleged anti-Islamic agenda but said: “We are not biased against Muslims”. She described the Star as a “young tabloid” that relied on “eye catching” front pages to sell copies, and said the paper had a “certain style of writing which appeals to the readers”.

When asked about regulation she told Lord Justice Leveson: “I know you are going to come up with something very good”. She added it was a “dangerous area” to have editors on a self-regulatory panel.

Daily Express editor Hugh Whittow claimed that the PCC could have stepped in over coverage of the McCanns, saying that the body “should have intervened”. He said it was one of the reasons why Northern & Shell pulled out of the PCC in 2011. Express Newspapers was ordered to pay £550,000 to the McCanns in 2008 after the Express and Star published libellous articles about the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine.

Whittow said: “I regret what happened in the McCann case and all I can do is repeat the apology on page one for the hurt and distress we caused them”.

Peter Hill, former editor of the Express, told the inquiry that it was his decision to switch the paper to supporting the Conservative Party in 2005 and added that: “An enormous number of readers who had abandoned it in despair”. He denied being “obsessed with the McCann story”, dismissing claims made by former Express reporter Nick Fagge before the inquiry last year.

He said: “It was nothing to do with an obsession, it was more to do with a method of working”.

Hill said the reporter had “misunderstood” the reasons why he repeatedly used the story, and that the paper had been reflecting the interest of the readers. He compared the coverage to articles about Big Brother and Princess Diana.

The editor became angry when Robert Jay QC suggested he encouraged “whacking the story” into the paper. He accused Jay of using “judgmental” language and said: “The fact of the matter is this is a public inquiry and I do not believe that I’m on trial”.

Paul Ashford, group editorial director of Northern & Shell, said he "found the behaviour of the PCC to be wholly hypocritical and unhelpful" in relation to the McCanns, and like Neesom favoured a regulatory body with no serving editors.

Richard Desmond started his evidence by referring to a rival paper as “the Daily Malicious”, later referring to Paul Dacre at “the fat butcher”. He went on to tell the inquiry that he didn’t know what the word “ethical meant” and said: “We do not talk about ethics or morals because it’s a very fine line”.

Desmond also said he felt he had betrayed Tony Blair “as a mate” when the Express switched to supporting the Conservatives in 2004, but backed the decision of editor Peter Hill.

He described a meeting with Blair after buying Express Newspapers in 2000 and the pair talked about “music and drums” before the then Prime Minster asked about politics, and said he took the decision to back Labour because Blair “seemed a nice fellow”.

Desmond tried to defend Express and Star coverage of the McCanns by comparing rumours over Madeleine’s disappearance to conspiracy theories about the death of Princess Diana.

Jay accused Desmond of “grotesque characterisation” after he said newspapers should be allowed to report on opinions as well as fact. Desmond added: “There are views about the McCanns and what happened”.

He apologised to the McCanns several times but said the PCC had scapegoated Express Newspapers over national coverage of the story, saying that if 38 articles had been labelled defamatory, then many more printed in the paper must have been acceptable.

Desmond said he would “get rid” of the inquiry, which he called ”probably the worst thing that’s happened to newspapers in my lifetime”.

He described a new regulator called the “RCD board” to replace the PCC. When Leveson asked what this stood for, he said: “Richard Clive Desmond”. Jay became visibly irritated when Desmond later said he thought it was “a good name”.

As-read statements from Robert Sanderson (group finance director at Northern & Shell), Gareth Morgan (editor of the Daily Star Sunday), Martin Ellice (joint managing director at Northern & Shell) and Martin Townsend (editor of the Sunday Express) are available on the inquiry website.

An additional witness has been added to the Leveson Inquiry line-up this morning.

Paul Silva, picture editor at the Daily Mail, appeared to give evidence on the paper's use of paparazzi photographs. He was questioned over complaints made by Hugh Grant, that he and Tinglan Hong, the mother of his baby daughter, had been harassed by photographers.

He told the inquiry the actor should have publicly issued a picture of the child to avoid being pursued by the press and interest in the birth was "normal".

Silva was asked about celebrities including Sandra Bullock and Sienna Miller, and said the Mail's picture desk received 300-400 images of Pippa Middleton, sister of the Duchess of Cambridge, every day. He said the desk received over 300,000 images a day in total and explained the process of selection, also used by the Mail Online picture desk, in deciding whether photographs intrude on an individual's privacy.

In response to this Leveson replied: “I understand where the line is drawn, the question is whether it’s reasonably drawn.”

Silva also commented on pictures taken of the McCann family outside their home in Leicestershire. He said paparazzi were continuing to photograph Madeline's twin siblings in line with consent granted by the family in Portugal.

He said "a change in culture" was responsible for increased checks on how pictures are obtained and added: “I always want to satisfy myself that they are taken in the proper way".

Questions directed to Mail on Sunday editor Peter Wright revolved around the paper's use of private investigators. Jay, counsel to the inquiry, asked the editor about Steve Whittamore who was still used by the Mail on Sunday following his arrest in 2003.

In his witness statement Wright said managing editor John Wellington was "rebuked" for misfiling invoices from "inquiry agents":“Early in 2004 we discovered from the Operation Motorman inquiry that we were regularly using the services of the inquiry agent, Steven Whittamore," he said. "We issued an instruction to all staff in February that year that inquiry agents were not to be used without clearance from department heads, who had to be satisfied that other means of obtaining information had been exhausted.”

Wright was further questioned on Operation Motorman and the Information Commissioner's Office 2006 report 'What Price Privacy?'. He defended Wellington, sent by Associated News to examine Motorman evidence at the ICO, not someone who would "deliberately hide things".'

What Price Privacy?' showed 266 transactions for allegedly illegally-obtained information between Whittamore and the Mail on Sunday, who was commissioned by 33 journalists.

Whittamore continued to work for the paper until late 2004 and was paid a total of £20,000.

Leveson told Wright: “[There was] something going on in your newsroom that you clearly weren’t aware of”.

He ended with a discussion of press regulation and said: “I think there is a strong indication that all major publishers will join a reformed PCC.”

Liz Hartley, head of editorial legal at Associated News, was last to give evidence. She was heavily questioned over a statement issued by the company following Hugh Grant's evidence to the inquiry in November 2011.

She revealed Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre, appearing before Leveson in February, was partly responsible for the statement accusing Grant of "mendacious smears".

Grant had speculated that Associated News titles hacked his phone and obtained information about the birth of his daughter from a hospital source.

Hartley told the inquiry that Associated News already had communication from Grant on phone hacking when the Hacked Off campaign was launched in July 2011. He alleged that his voicemails had been hacked when the Mail on Sunday reported the breakdown of his relationship with Jemima Khan, after receiving phone calls from a "plummy-voiced woman", in 2007.

Hartley repeated the Mail on Sunday's claimed that their source was a "freelance journalist who had been told by a source who was regularly speaking to Jemima Khan". Khan flatly denied this on Twitter at the time and wrote: "The "source" close to me must be psychic. The MoS claim that he/she gave them a story I knew nothing about till it was in the paper".

She added Grant should have issued a statement that the mother of his child did not wish to speak to the media, and the Mail "held off" publishing a story about the birth to get direct confirmation from the actor. Hartley said she believed the medical information to have come from Westminster Registry Office rather than being leaked from the hospital.

Lord Justice Leveson wanted to know whether information passed by the hospital to the registry office is public and added: "Because if it isn't, it would be rather interesting to know how the information is obtained".

He questioned whether it was fair to characterise Grant's evidence as "knowingly dishonest".

When Hartley pointed out he had accused Associated News of phone hacking, he replied: "And you're responding by accusing him of perjury".

Caplan QC, representing Associated News in the inquiry, told Leveson that he blamed himself for the lack of witnesses from the group, and said he had been trying to fall in line with the judge's request for a broad approach.

Barrister David Sherborne then asked for Mail on Sunday showbiz journalists Sharon Feinstein and Katie Nicholl to be called before the inquiry, and pressed Associated News to provide evidence promised on "Plummygate".

The editor of the Mail on Sunday "rebuked” the newspaper's managing editor for not telling him about the use of “inquiry agents”.

Editor Peter Wright answered questions on private investigator Steve Whittamore, whose files were investigated by the Information Commissioner Office's Operation Motorman, at the Leveson Inquiry today.

Wright told the inquiry he rebuked managing editor John Wellington because he had been filing invoices for the use of "inquiry agents" as accommodation expenses.

Rober Jay, the inquiry counsel, pointed out that even after Wright new Wellington had been concealing the use of private eyes, he was sent by Wright to examine evidence produced by the Information Commissioner’s Office on Operation Motorman last year, and might have been “overanxious” to check it.

Wright claimed Wellington was not someone “who deliberately hides things” and, at the time, it had not been suspected that Whittamore was engaged in illegal activities.

A 2006 ICO report showed 266 transactions for allegedly illegally-obtained information between Whittamore and the Mail on Sunday, who was commissioned by 33 journalists.

In his statement to the inquiry Wright said that he wasn’t aware of the practice until Operation Motorman, when he imposed restrictions. Whittamore continued to work for the paper until late 2004, following his arrest in 2003. He was paid a total of £20,000.

Leveson told Wright: “[There was] something going on in your newsroom that you clearly weren't aware of".

He pointed out that Whittamore, found guilty of obtaining and disclosing information under the Data Protection Act in 2005, may not have been commissioned for all the data he supplied to journalists. He said journalists may have been offered some of the data by the investigator.

Wright also said he had “absolutely no evidence” to suggest phone-hacking had taken place at the paper.

The picture editor at the Daily Mail appeared before the Leveson Inquiry today to answer questions on the alleged harassment of Hugh Grant.

In November, Grant gave the inquiry a supplementary witness statement, explaining the intrusion he and Tinglan Hong, the mother of his baby daughter, had suffered at the hands of photographers following the birth.

Paul Silva, who has worked for the Daily Mail for over 20 years, suggested Grant should have issued a picture of the child to the press and that interest in the birth was “normal”.

Silva answered questions on the treatment of other celebrities including Sienna Miller, who he said the Mail were not “interested in”, and Pippa Middleton. He said the picture desk receives 300 to 400 images of Middleton every day and most are not printed.

He was asked about pictures taken of the McCann family after they returned to the UK in 2007. He said consent had been given to photograph twins Sean and Amelia, aged two when Madeline was abducted, in Portugal and paparazzi continued under this premise when stationed outside the family’s home in Leicestershire.

Silva said the Mail receives over 30,000 images from around the world everyday and has to make quick decisions over which pictures to print in the paper. He explained his approach to privacy, saying that pictures should not be taken in private places but were acceptable in public.

Leveson replied: “I understand where the line is drawn, the question is whether it’s reasonably drawn."

The picture editor said he does not deal with pictures for Mail Online, which has come under criticism for using intrusive paparazzi photographs, but picture editor Elliot Wagland follows the same standards as the print edition.

The Daily Mail is going to court on Friday to press its case that the Leveson Inquiry should be barred from taking evidence from anonymous witnesses on the grounds that this is a departure from natural justice.

Here are four ways in which the paper is being hypocritical.

Hyprocrisy 1. Imagine this was a public inquiry into gross failures at a leading bank and well-placed witnesses offered to give evidence anonymously because they thought their careers would be damaged if they were named. The bank, however, has objected and demanded that all witnesses be named.

In those circumstances, whose side would the Mail be on? My bet is that it would lambast any bank that behaved in this way. It would accuse it of bullying and intimidation and call on the courts to reject its case out of hand.

Yet when it comes to anonymous whistleblowers in its own industry, the Mail is on the side of the intimidators. (It may be worth recalling that the Mail is an intimidator itself when it chooses: ask anybody it has monstered in its pages.)Hypocrisy 2. Like almost every organisation in the news business, the Mail itself relies sometimes on anonymous sources.

In public interest journalism these are people who have important information to share but have good reason to fear being identified. In such cases a responsible journalist will often agree not to name them as sources in an article, and sometimes should even be prepared to go to jail rather than breach that anonymity.

No doubt Daily Mail journalists occasionally find themselves in this position and no doubt their editor stands by them in protecting anonymous sources. Now, however, in a case where a legally-constituted public inquiry wants to adopt a similar approach, the paper wants to deny anonymity.

Hypocrisy 3. The Mail does not reserve anonymity in its reporting for public interest cases. It allows its reporters to grant anonymity pretty freely. Think of those “onlookers” who always have a marvellously pithy quote about celebrities photographed by paparazzi in the street (“She’s put on a lot of weight, hasn’t she? Must have been at the pies”). Those onlooker are always anonymous. I wonder why.

More significantly, take the Mail’s coverage of Christopher Jefferies at the time of his arrest a year ago (for a crime he did not commit). It would be wrong to repeat the many libels for which the Mail later apologised in open court and paid damages, but it is safe to say that the great majority of them were anonymous. Many false suggestions about Jefferies’s character and behaviour, some of them presented as quotations and some merely reported, were published without named sources.

Hypocrisy 4. The Mail is claiming that, if anonymous witnesses are allowed to testify before Leveson, the newspaper’s rights under the Human Rights Act would be breached. That right, the Daily Mail is using the Human Rights Act. Does Richard Littlejohn know?

The Mail complaining about anonymity is like a pornographer complaining about decency. It should be laughed out of court. But it is worse than that, because it is also intimidation. Who can doubt that the Mail’s real motivation here is to deter people who fear the paper’s huge power to destroy reputations from telling Leveson what they know?

Lord Justice Leveson revealed his personal feelings on press reform today, telling the inquiry he "would be surprised if government regulation ever even entered my mind”.

The judge was speaking to TMG chief executive Murdoch MacLennan, who gave oral evidence to the inquiry. MacLennan had expressed concern over the affordability of future regulation, especially in regard to privacy and libel actions.

Leveson also expressed his desire for change, telling the inquiry that he does not wish his eventual report to be something “everybody likes or rubbishes” and that ends up just sitting "on a shelf”.

The inquiry also heard from Financial Times editor Lionel Barber, who put forward ideas on independent regulation. He advocated a regulatory body with new powers – including the power to investigate – that would ensure compliance from all newspapers and some online organisations.

He said "for too long, the PCC was dominated by insiders”, adding that “outsiders”, including experienced journalists and other professionals, should have a seat on the body.

Barber expressed relief when Leveson said he was not interested in setting up a body “full of lawyers” but was interested in a low-cost libel mediation system.

Both MacLennan and Barber confirmed that PCC chairman Lord Hunt is consulting newspapers over press reform and plans to announce his suggestions before the inquiry ends later this year.

It was the turn of the broadsheets at the Leveson today, as the inquiry heard from editors and employees from the Independent, Financial Times and the Telegraph.

First to the stand was Financial Times editor Lionel Barber, who has worked for the paper for 26 years. Barber gave his views on the FT’s internal code of practice, as well as the PCC. He emphasised the need for a “credible and robust” system of press regulation and said the PCC code should be “enforced before it is substantially amended”.

He told inquiry counsel that he is quoted on “we don’t want to be first and get it wrong’ at the FT to “the point of being boring” and said in his witness statement:“The aim of a journalist must be to supply the public with solid, reliable information and to gather that information in a professional manner.”

Next up was the Independent’s managing editor Andrew Mullins, who addressed the inquiry briefly on the separation of commercial and editorial sides of the paper.

Manish Malhotra, Independent finance director and company secretary for IPL also gave succinct evidence on drafting the company’s new code of conduct in 2011.

The editor of the Independent, Chris Blackhurst, gave a long sigh before tackling questions on Johann Hari. Blackhurst, who replaced Simon Kelner in the role, had only been editing the paper for two days when allegations of Hari’s plagiarism entered the public domain.

He revealed that the journalist would return to the Independent in “four or five weeks” after and unpaid absence. Hari has been in New York completing ethics training at prestigious universities Columbia and NYU and will resume his job as columnist but not conduct interviews.

Blackhurst described the “shock” felt by Independent staff over the plagiarism, and the revelation that Hari had assumed an online pseudonym in order to edit the Wikipedia profiles of his rivals. He went on to defend Hari, saying:“He should have known what he was doing was wrong but nobody told him. In terms of plagiarism it wasn’t as stark and severe as the Jayson Blair case. He wasn’t fabricating hard news as far as I was aware.”

The inquiry heard from Murdoch MacLennan, chief executive of the Telegraph Media Group, who told the inquiry that Telegraph journalists “live” by the PCC code and that he was astonished by the News of the World phone-hacking scandal. When discussing regulation with MacLennan, Lord Justice Leveson revealed his feelings over press reform, which he had hinted at over the course of the day, saying:“I would be surprised if government regulation ever even entered my mind.”

Leveson also repeated an earlier that the final report from the inquiry must be useful to the press and the public rather than something that everybody “likes or rubbishes and then “sits on a shelf”.

Telegraph finance director Finbarr Ronayne’s written statement revealed the cost of the MPs’ expenses computer disk to be £110,000. He spoke briefly on his role at the paper.

Will Lewis, former editor of the Telegraph, defended the story in his evidence, telling the inquiry:“Ultimately I was obliged… to bring this profound wrongdoing at the heart of the House of Commons into the public domain…”Lewis’s witness statement elaborated on the transaction between the paper and a private investigator:“A sum in the order of £150,000 (the precise figure can no doubt be obtained from TMG) was paid to John Wick in connection with the DT’s investigation into MPs’ expenses. Mr Wick could be described as a private investigator, although I believe he prefers to describe himself as an intelligence expert and security consultant (he has a background in the armed forces).”

Last to give evidence was Telegraph editor Tony Gallagher. He commented on the nature of public interest when in conflict with the private lives of MPs, giving the example of Chris Huhne’s wife allegedly taking driving penalty points for her husband. He also commented on the “chilling effect” of libel, and discussed with Leveson whether and “arbitral” system for resolving complaints would be suitable – and that future press regulation was likely to be independent.

Several read-only witness statements will be available on the inquiry website, bar a submission from Telegraph journalist Peter Oborne who is likely to be called to give evidence at a later date.

Johann Hari will return to the Independent as a columnist in “four to five weeks”, according to editor Chris Blackhurst.

He told the Leveson Inquiry that everything written by Hari will be “heavily looked at” by editorial staff and members of the public, and that he will no longer interview individuals for the paper.

The disgraced journalist will return to the publication after four months of unpaid leave and a self-funded trip to study ethics at universities Columbia and NYU in New York.

It was discovered last year that Hari had been fabricating details of interviews, including lifting quotes from other interviews and work published by his subjects, and editing profiles of professional rivals on Wikipedia.

“He should have known what he was doing was wrong but nobody told him,” said Blackhurst. “In terms of plagiarism it wasn’t as stark and severe as the Jayson Blair case. He wasn’t fabricating hard news as far as I was aware.”

He described the “shock” caused by the scandal on Independent staff and the impact on the paper’s reputation but said: “I don’t think we covered it up at all”. He added “nobody had complained” to the paper before Hari’s actions were outed by several bloggers and online commentators.

An internal investigation into Hari’s conduct was carried out by Independent founding editor Andres Whittam Smith but will not be made available to the public as it is considered to be a disciplinary review.

Blackhurst pointed out that he had only been appointed as editor of the Independent two days before Hari’s plagiarism allegations were made public, moving from the Evening Standard where he had been city editor since 2002.

Duncan Larcombe has claimed that the Sun does not publish “more than fifty percent” of paparazzi photographs showing the royal family.

The evidence submitted by Larcombe, who has been royal editor at the Sun since 2011, included several examples of refusing pictures of the royals for publication.

He described a member of the public calling the Sun newdesk in 2009, claiming to have “explosive” pictures of Prince William and Kate Middleton. After asking for £25,000 the individual was arrested with the paper's cooperation after it was discovered that the pictures were obtained from a camera stolen from Pippa Middleton.

Larcombe also said he checks exclusive stories about the royals “every time” with the palace or Clarence House press office to make sure they are “100 percent” right.

He added: “If we get royal stories wrong then readers may well be on the prince’s side rather than ours.”

The discussion over paparazzi pictures was continued in the evidence of John Edwards, the Sun’s picture editor, who told the inquiry that pictures of a heavily-pregnant Lily Allen shopping in London were not run in the paper after a discussion with the singer’s agent.

Edwards also mentioned the harassment of Hugh Grant and Tinglan Hong following the birth of their child last year, but claimed photographers working on behalf of the Sun moved on from Hong's house before a PCC letter was issued to the press.

Edwards went on to defend photographers, saying: "I do think paparazzi is not a great name – we all think of it as a nasty word – but they are effectively freelance photographers.”

Dominic Mohan was questioned at the Leveson Inquiry over comments made at an awards ceremony alluding to phone-hacking.

When speaking at the 2002 Princess Margaret Awards - also known as the 'Shaftas' - the Sun editor was reported as thanking event sponser Vodafone's "lack of security" for Mirror showbiz exclusives.

Mohan said he couldn't remember his exact words but that he had said something "along those lines" to undermine the journalism of the rival publication. "I said it as a joke," he said. "It was a cheap shot at the Mirror."

Questioned by inquiry counsel Mr Jay, Mohan said that there had been rumours in the industry and allegations had been printed in several publications at the time.

The editor added: "I am proud that as editor I have only partial PCC complaint upheld against the paper." It was then pointed out by Jay that the correction relating to this complaint, about two front page stories, had been published on page six of a later issue. This is despite Mohan's evidence stating that corrections relating to a front page story should appear on page two.

Mohan admitted that the Sun had become more cautious in its approach to certain stories since last year, putting this down to the effects of the inquiry and the introduction of the Bribery Act. He referred to the paper as "vibrant and humorous" in a difficult social and economic time for its readers.

He also said that he had "seen mistakes made over the years" and had learnt from them, and urged Lord Justice Leveson to exercise caution when considering how to reform press regulation.

Kelvin MacKenzie has told the Leveson Inquiry that the Sun would have come "very, very, very close to being shut down" if they had "got the Milly Dowler story wrong".

The former Sun editor was referring to a series of Guardian articles stating that private investigator Glenn Mulcaire was responsible for deleting messages from the missing teenager’s voicemail while working for the News of the World.

Lord Justice Leveson reacted by saying it was an "interesting assertion" to call the Guardian stories "completely wrong".

MacKenzie added: "People view the Sun at the bottom of the pile and for as long as it exists I think they view papers like the Guardian as the top of the pile."

He also referred to "snobbery" in the industry and press standards are "really defined by outcome, not by the income".

Sally Dowler told the Inquiry in November 2011 that her family had been given false hope after voicemail messages were deleted from her daughter’s phone, believing they could have been accessed by Milly.

She said: "I rang her phone and it clicked through on to her voicemail and I just jumped and said: 'She’s picked up her phone. Bob, she’s alive'. When we heard about the hacking that was the first thing I thought."

The Guardian published a correction on 13 December last year stating that "new evidence" had led the Metropolitan police to conclude the original theory to be incorrect and that "while the News of the World hacked Milly Dowler’s phone the newspaper is unlikely to have been responsible for the deletion of a set of emails from the phone that caused her parents to have false hope that she was alive". A footnote was appended to 37 stories dating from July to November 2011 on the Guardian website.

A Sun article containing private information about Hugh Grant rushing to hospital has been defended by showbiz editor Gordon Smart.

He told the Leveson Inquiry that he had discussed the story - published in March 2011 - with his team and decided that it was in the public interest given Grant’s celebrity status and the fact that he was in a public place.

The article described Grant as feeling faint and short of breath and sat “without making any fuss” in a hospital waiting room. It also states that a spokesman for the actor was approached for comment but that this was declined.

Smart said that he had a “duty to his readers” to publish the story. He added: “I’m not passing the buck - I handled it very sensitively…It appeared on page three as a six-par story. It was probably the least important story on that page.”

He agreed with Mr Jay, counsel to the inquiry, when the point of Grant’s level of celebrity was raised, admitting that this tipped the balance in publishing the story.

Grant described how details of his medical records had been published in the Sun and Daily Express when he gave evidence to the inquiry in November last year.

He told Lord Justice Leveson that he had suffered from years of press invasion into his private life, included intrusion into his relationship with Tinglan Hong, the mother of his baby daughter, and being chased by paparazzi photographers on numerous occasions.

Grant also told the inquiry that he believed members of the press was responsible for a break-in at his London flat in 1995, after details of the interior were described in a national paper.