The policeman who was in charge of Scotland Yard’s phone hacking inquiry until last month has old MPs more could have been done to identify celebrity victims and that “huge resources” were now being poured into “putting that right”.
Assistant Commissioner John Yates, who took over the department responsible in 2009, two years after the original investigation ended, admitted on Thursday that the furore over phone hacking by News of the World journalists had been “challenging” for the reputation of the Metropolitan Police.
In July 2009, The Guardian published stories alleging that many other journalists were involved in phone hacking and that there were thousands of potential victims including politicians, entertainers, show business figures and ordinary people involved in tragic news events.
Mr Yates was criticised by members of the Commons select committee on culture, media and sport for having assured them, and the public, at the time that there very few cases and that The Guardian had not produced new evidence warranting a revived inquiry.
It was only in January, after continuing publicity and a host of civil privacy actions bought by victims, that News International, parent of the News of the World, suspended and then sacked one of the newspaper’s senior editors and sent new information to the police.
Mr Yates told the committee that this new information had “radically changed” the attitude of the Yard to the case and led directly to a new inquiry under Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers.
But Mr Yates, who is currently acting deputy commissioner, maintained that the original inquiry was an appropriate use of police resources. He reminded MPs that the day after Goodman and Mulcaire were arrested by officers connected to the antiterrorist branch, who had responsibility for protection of the royal family, a plot to blow up airliners was uncovered.
“The officers in charge of the investigation had to make the best use of resources,” he said.
Occasionally looking uncomfortable under questioning from a number of MPs, Mr Yates rejected flatly the idea that he and his fellow Met officers had suppressed evidence or tried to shield News International journalists.
He admitted that some people had been told they were not victims earlier in the inquiry, only to discover later that their phones had been hacked. Mr Yates said he could not comment on the particular case of Lord Prescott because it formed part of DAC Akers’s investigation.
The original inquiry had not codified the “two or three bin liners” of material seized from Mulcaire, but after The Guardian’s 2009 articles, 10 officers had spent more than three months putting the material on to computer files, Mr Yates said.
Answering questions from Jim Sheridan, a Labour member of the committee, he said it was quite normal for him to have lunch with senior editorial figures of the News of the World and conceded he had many acquaintances among tabloid journalists.
But he said that was part of his job, and he also had many acquaintances among MPs. After some prodding, he conceded that he had lunched with Neil Wallis, former deputy editor of the paper, as recently as last month.
But Mr Yates was adamant that the original investigation, and he himself when he took over, had received strong and unequivocal guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service on what constituted an offence that could be prosecuted.
Until very recently, he said, the director of public prosecutions had made it clear that it was only an offence if a voicemail message was hacked before it had been heard by the intended recipient. That advice had now changed, and tactics used by the investigating officers had changed with it, he said.
Mr Yates submitted a letter to the MPs in which he laid out what he said was the original legal advice from the CPS.
He said that in his own evidence to the committee in 2009, he had told MPs that there were only a few potential victims of phone hacking based on cases that could be proved under that legal strategy. Therefore, he had not misled them, Mr Yates said.
Asked about evidence given to the same committee in 2003 by Rebekah Wade, now Brooks, who was then editor of The Sun, that her newspaper had paid police officers for information in the past, Mr Yates said there was “possible evidence there” of an offence, but did not suggest that there should be an investigation
Source: Taken from ... Tickle my wire
In 2006 and 2007 a police inquiry led to the prosecution of two people, Clive Goodman, royal editor of Rupert Murdoch’s Sunday tabloid, and Glenn Mulcaire, a private investigator contracted to the paper. Both men were jailed after admitting hacking into the mobile phone voicemail of members of the royal household.
Mr Yates was criticised by members of the Commons select committee on culture, media and sport for having assured them, and the public, at the time that there very few cases and that The Guardian had not produced new evidence warranting a revived inquiry.
It was only in January, after continuing publicity and a host of civil privacy actions bought by victims, that News International, parent of the News of the World, suspended and then sacked one of the newspaper’s senior editors and sent new information to the police.
Mr Yates told the committee that this new information had “radically changed” the attitude of the Yard to the case and led directly to a new inquiry under Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers.
But Mr Yates, who is currently acting deputy commissioner, maintained that the original inquiry was an appropriate use of police resources. He reminded MPs that the day after Goodman and Mulcaire were arrested by officers connected to the antiterrorist branch, who had responsibility for protection of the royal family, a plot to blow up airliners was uncovered.
“The officers in charge of the investigation had to make the best use of resources,” he said.
Occasionally looking uncomfortable under questioning from a number of MPs, Mr Yates rejected flatly the idea that he and his fellow Met officers had suppressed evidence or tried to shield News International journalists.
He admitted that some people had been told they were not victims earlier in the inquiry, only to discover later that their phones had been hacked. Mr Yates said he could not comment on the particular case of Lord Prescott because it formed part of DAC Akers’s investigation.
The original inquiry had not codified the “two or three bin liners” of material seized from Mulcaire, but after The Guardian’s 2009 articles, 10 officers had spent more than three months putting the material on to computer files, Mr Yates said.
Answering questions from Jim Sheridan, a Labour member of the committee, he said it was quite normal for him to have lunch with senior editorial figures of the News of the World and conceded he had many acquaintances among tabloid journalists.
But he said that was part of his job, and he also had many acquaintances among MPs. After some prodding, he conceded that he had lunched with Neil Wallis, former deputy editor of the paper, as recently as last month.
But Mr Yates was adamant that the original investigation, and he himself when he took over, had received strong and unequivocal guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service on what constituted an offence that could be prosecuted.
Until very recently, he said, the director of public prosecutions had made it clear that it was only an offence if a voicemail message was hacked before it had been heard by the intended recipient. That advice had now changed, and tactics used by the investigating officers had changed with it, he said.
Mr Yates submitted a letter to the MPs in which he laid out what he said was the original legal advice from the CPS.
He said that in his own evidence to the committee in 2009, he had told MPs that there were only a few potential victims of phone hacking based on cases that could be proved under that legal strategy. Therefore, he had not misled them, Mr Yates said.
Asked about evidence given to the same committee in 2003 by Rebekah Wade, now Brooks, who was then editor of The Sun, that her newspaper had paid police officers for information in the past, Mr Yates said there was “possible evidence there” of an offence, but did not suggest that there should be an investigation
Source: Taken from ... Tickle my wire
