Missing Milly Dowler's voicemail "hacked by News of the World"

[DexterTCN]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ernational-faces-FBI-phone-hacking-probe.html

FBI now seem to have something specific to investigate.

 

[Dan U]

Andy Coulson sells his house and takes his kids out of private school

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2012/jan/20/andy-coulson-newsoftheworld

story is from here originally, with pics of his house

http://order-order.com/2012/01/19/exclusive-look-inside-the-world-of-andy-coulson/

 

[London_Calling]

And he can't even grass up NI without incriminating himself; couldn't happen to a nicer feller.

 

[1%er]

This represents another step down the accessing computers avenue because NI have now paid out on it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/19/harold-shipman-son-now-email

Is this the first time email interception has been confirmed?

 

[London_Calling]

In my knowledge it's the first time they've paid out on it (and by implication, though not expressly, admitted to it).

It's a little curious as there is potential for a criminal case here, as well. With a tariff greater than a fine and slapped hand.

 

[butchersapron]

It was admitted last tuesday at Leenson by the Times editor - presuming we're not restricting this to NOTW?

 

[teqniq]

Is this the first time email interception has been confirmed?

Complete confirmation as in admission by NI then yes but it's been talked about for quite some time (mentioned on this thread ages ago) and also been on Newsnight specials.

The case below was part of an investigation by Newsnight as well:

The Independent has previously revealed that the Metropolitan Police's ongoing investigation into computer hacking, Operation Tuleta, has uncovered evidence that the former British intelligence officer Ian Hurst had his emails hacked as part of a NOTW commission. ....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/we-hacked-emails-too--news-international-6292245.html

 

[London_Calling]

The Times employed one rogue email hacker, and he was disciplined.

That's alright then, we can all move along now.

 

[Streathamite]

In my knowledge it's the first time they've paid out on it (and by implication, though not expressly, admitted to it).

It's a little curious as there is potential for a criminal case here, as well. With a tariff greater than a fine and slapped hand.

It looks like your slight fixation over PC hacking is paying off....

 

[1%er]

It was admitted last tuesday at Leenson by the Times editor - presuming we're not restricting this to NOTW?

I'm not but I can't speak for others. Thanks for the link.

Complete confirmation as in admission by NI then yes but it's been talked about for quite some time (mentioned on this thread ages ago) and also been on Newsnight specials.

The case below was part of an investigation by Newsnight as well:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/we-hacked-emails-too--news-international-6292245.html

Thanks for the link, I only get newsnight on a weekend morning on BBC world if I'm awake I think Christmas made me forget this thread is dealing with Leveson, I'll keep an eye on it from now on.

 

[London_Calling]

The Daily Mail publisher, Associated Newspapers, has lost its high court challenge to the Leveson inquiry over anonymous evidence from journalists.

On Friday the high court ruled that it would not grant a judicial review to Associated Newspapers in a bid to stop the Leveson inquiry accepting anonymous submissions from journalists. The application was supported by Telegraph Media Group.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/20/daily-mail-leveson-inquiry-anonymity

LOL. High Court judges being somewhat junior to Levenson (in his day job) and presumably not overly keen to step on his toes. The Mail could appeal it but it reads, you know, dead sensible like.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm not but I can't speak for others. Thanks for the link.

More

 

[laptop]

More

Hmmm...

It would appear that a decision must have been made by a senior manager at the Times not to tell the High Court and the defence about what was clearly a relevant and material matter to the injunction case. Even if the computer hacking was not known about on the date of the hearing of 4 June 2009 it was known by the date of the judgment of 17 June 2009, the day before the Times published its story.

Since Night Jack can't be unnamed, what would be the remedy?

Ah, yes, possibly nothing for failing to inform the injunction proceedings - but criminal sanctions under Computer Misuse Act?

 

[London_Calling]

I don't know who the author is or who he's relying on for his legal input, but I stumbled early on in his reasoning:

First, the blogger's barrister was forced to concede crucially that the application would proceed on the basis that there had been no breach of any confidentiality or privacy right in the investigation

That clearly reads that the basis of the Application in the first place was flawed, quite possibly because of a non-discloure (of hacking) by The Times.

I just think, judicially, the complexion of the whole Application changes with that knowledge, with the possible consequence of something probably not worth appealing becoming something else. Quite how much the complexion changes hinges on whether the hacking is deemed a criminal act - and I'm out of touch with how that's developed. If it is deemed criminal then, imo, the next stage would be for NightJack to go back to the High Court with the admission from The Times and the criminal act.

 

[butchersapron]

I don't know who the author is or who he's relying on for his legal input, but I stumbled early on in his reasoning:...

He's one of the most high-profile lawyers in the country.

 

[London_Calling]

Then he's just mischief making. The non-committal...

 

[butchersapron]

What do you mean?

 

[London_Calling]

The tone:

You would have thought...

It is not clear if this actually was the case

Perhaps we will never know.

But what makes this entire incident especially problematic

Would the Times still have won the case had the computer hacking been disclosed? This is possible

It may well be that there was no strict legal duty to disclose that information

But no sensible person would dispute...

For one of "the most high-profile lawyers in the country" he seems a little coy.

 

[two sheds]

the word 'squirming' comes to mind

 

[butchersapron]

The tone:

For one of "the most high-profile lawyers in the country" he seems a little coy.

So why is that mischief making rather than point-making? He pretty clearly makes a series of argued and supported points in order to defend a wider conclusion

Do you think this is why he's been called to appear before Leveson over this issue? Because of his mischief-making?

 

[butchersapron]

The tone:

For one of "the most high-profile lawyers in the country" he seems a little coy.

You know that thing where clever people couch strong arguments in a way designed not to get them in trouble?

 

[London_Calling]

Indeed. As per my post at #8926.

 

[butchersapron]

Indeed. As per my post at #8926.

No not indeed. You argued that he was merely mischief making - i.e that there were no substantive points that he was making and used the above excerpts as supporting examples. Problem being (for you at least) is that these were devices used to enable him to make a series of points and arguments. Which you seem to have missed entirely. Maybe he was too clever.

 

[London_Calling]

It's really not that complicated. He can't criticise the judgment and he can only do so much to have what he sees an a possible/probable injustice reconsidered.

All in all, we know The Times management either lied or was economical with the truth.

 

[laptop]

So the complaint against Jack of Kent is that he didn't write it "they're all cunts, obv!" online-stylee?

 

[butchersapron]

Oi don't like all that clever talk.

 

[butchersapron]

More coyness on nightjack - this time he suggests that reading between the lines might be useful. Good advice for some of our posters.

A NightJack - and computer hacking - timeline

 

[laptop]

More coyness on nightjack - this time he suggests that reading between the lines might be useful. Good advice for some of our posters.

A NightJack - and computer hacking - timeline

Aye, and he's writing for lawyers now:

16 June 2009

The judgment is handed down.

The injunction application by the blogger fails.

The judge decides, on the basis of the evidence put before him, that the blogger had no expectation of privacy (para 33).


17 June 2009

The Times publishes identity of the author of NightJack

The Times later admit they were aware of the hacking at the time of publication.

At some point the journalist is disciplined for the hack and receives a formal warning.

While one cannot say that Mr Justice Eady was wrong, Hizonner himself may have reason to conclude that he decided the case on the basis of incomplete facts, even of lies by omission.

 

[butchersapron]

Delayed surry plod report now released:

News of the World journalists who hacked Milly Dowler's phone told a string of lies and interfered with the investigation into her disappearance in 2002, according to a Surrey police report released by a parliamentary committee.

Today's published Surrey timeline, based on police logs from 2002, depicts a news organisation that tried to bully detectives into backing its own misguided theories, as police searched desperately for clues about the girl who went missing on March 21 2002.

According to the file, the reporters were so confident of their own power that they openly admitted the paper had obtained tapes of the voicemails on Dowler's phone. Their misinterpretation of the messages then made them mistakenly believe she was still alive.

Rather than tell her family and police of this important information, however, it appears they concentrated on getting a scoop. Reporters made calls to an employment agency with which they thought she had registered, and sent what the agency called "hordes" of reporters to harass them. Only on the Saturday immediately before publication, did they contact the authorities.

 

[Streathamite]

when I read that report, my disgust with NI reached new levels