CORRESPONDENCE WITH TOM CRONE 2014‐16

Letter from the Acting Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Tom Crone, 12/12/2014

Letter from Tom Crone to the Acting Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, 3/01/2015

Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Tom Crone, 20/01/2015

Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Tom Crone, 28/01/2015

Letter from Tom Crone to the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, 30/01/2015

Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Tom Crone, 30/01/2015

Email from Tom Crone to the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, 31/01/2015

Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Tom Crone, 3/02/2015

Email from Tom Crone to the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, 9/02/2015

Letter from Tom Crone to the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, 10/02/2015

Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Tom Crone, 12/02/2015

Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Tom Crone, 19/02/2015

Email from Tom Crone to the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, 5/03/2015

Email from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Tom Crone, 06/03/2015

Letter from Tom Crone to the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, 13/03/2015

Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Tom Crone, 23/03/2015

Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Tom Crone, 24/02/2016

Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Tom Crone, 9/03/2016

Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Tom Crone, 16/03/2016

Letter from Tom Crone to the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, 12/04/2016

Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Tom Crone, 22/04/2016

Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Tom Crone, 30/06/2016

Letter from Tom Crone to the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, 15/07/2016

Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Tom Crone, 21/07/2016

Committee of Privileges Tel 020 7219 4432 Fax 020 7219 5952 Email [email protected] Website www.parliament.uk/privileges

From Alda Barry, Acting Clerk of the Committee

12 December 2014

Mr Tom Crone

The Committee of Privileges has decided to resume its inquiry into the allegations that the Culture Media and Sport Committee was misled, as set out in its Eleventh Report of 2010‐ 12.

I enclose the evidence received so far in the Committee’s inquiry. The Committee will write to you shortly, setting out the key points from that evidence, the evidence given to the Culture Media and Sport Committee, and other evidence in the public domain, particularly that given to the Leveson inquiry, and will invite your comments thereon. The Committee will then, as set out in the previously published procedure, warn you of any criticisms it is minded to make, and give you a further opportunity to comment.

After a preliminary review of the evidence, the Committee is of the view that it is likely to be content to consider the matter on the basis of written material. However, inquiry subjects have the right to request oral hearings if they wish, and the Committee has provisionally set aside the afternoon of Monday 26 January and the morning of Tuesday 27 January for such hearings. These dates will be confirmed in January. To assist us with planning, I would be grateful if you could indicate by 12pm on Monday 5 January 2015 whether or not you expect to take the opportunity to make oral submissions in January.

Alda Barry Acting Clerk of the Committee of Privileges

3 January, 2015

I am replying to your letter of 12th December, 2014.

In that letter you promised to write to me “shortly” setting out key points of evidence from various sources and requested me to indicate by 12pm on January 5th, 2015, whether or not I would “take the opportunity” to make oral submissions to the Committee on the days they have set aside for such hearings, i.e. January 26 and 27.

Unfortunately, we are now 48 hours from the expiry of the January 5th deadIine the Committee has set me and I have seen no sign of the promised “key points” or the “other evidence” promised in your letter 23 days ago. This is despite the fact that, according to that letter, The Committee has obviously had possession of and “reviewed” the evidence well before December 12th. Clearly, I am completely unable make any sort of decision about oral hearings by January 5th and, since I will be out of the country from tomorrow until January 11, the oral hearing dates you have identified would be virtually impossible for me in these circumstances.

I hope the Committee will now agree that, because of their delay in providing me with the case I am supposed to answer, the timetable they have set is hopelessly unworkable.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,

Tom Crone

Committee of Privileges Tel 020 7219 3259 Email [email protected] Website www.parIia ment.uk/privileges

From Eve Samson, Clerk of the Committee

Mr Tom Crone

20 January 2015

~ \{.-~ ) On 12 December 2014 the acting Clerk of the Committee of Privileges wrote to you, to inform you of the reopening of the Committee's inquiry arising from the Resolution of the House of Commons on 22 May 2012, which noted the conclusions set out in chapter 8 of the Eleventh Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Session 2010-12 ('the Committee'}, on News International and Phone-hacking, HC 903-1 {"the 2011 CMS Report"}and ordered that the matter be referred to the Committee on Standards and Privileges,. now the Committee of Privileges.

Chapter 8 of the 2011 CMS Report made the following all~gations against you (split for the purposes of clarity}:

(i} That you misled the Committee by giving a 'counter-impression' of the significance of confidentiality in the Gordon Taylor settlement.

(ii) That you (and Colin Myler) misled the Committee by answering questions falsely about your knowledge of evidence that other News of the World employees had been involved in phone-hacking and other wrongdoing.

{iii) That you sought to mislead the Committee about the commissioning of surveillance.

1. Misleading the Committee by g1vmg a 'counter-impression' of the significance of confidentiality in the Gordon Taylor settlement

The basis for this conclusion is set out in paragraphs 108 to 119 of the 2011 CMS Report. These paragraphs refer in turn to the oral evidence given by you on 21 July 2009 and on 6 September 2011. On 21 July 2009 Mr Myler confirmed in your presence that a payment had been made to settle the action by Gordon Taylor and two others (Ev 306, Q1332). The Chairman of the Committee then asked;

"Was the size of that payment greater in order that the proceedings should be kept secret?

Mr Myler: Absolutely not as far as I am aware. Mr Crone: No." (Ev. 306, Q1333).

You were then asked by the Chairman on what basis it was decided to keep the proceedings secret. You replied:

Mr Crone: "Secret" is not the word I would use. This was an action against us for breach of confidence and privacy. We get quite a lot of those now since the privacy law has expanded somewhat in the last five years. Every single case against us for breach of privacy-unless the information is already out within the public domain­ results in a very strict term of confidentiality at the end of the case. When you think about it, there would be absolutely no point in anyone suing us to stop their privacy being revealed if they did not at the end of the case tack on an absolutely strict and binding confidentiality term, and that is what happened in this case.

Q1335 Chairman: Was it at Gordon Taylor's request?

Mr Crone: Actually I think he mentioned it first.

Q1336 Chairman: He mentioned it first?

Mr Crone: It was raised by him before it was raised by us, but we fell in with it. We always fall in with it, being privacy, because if the litigant goes in front of the judge the judge will order the injunction immediately-so certainly when we have accepted that there was a breach."

On 2 September 2011 Farrer & Co (who were then instructed by News Group Newspapers Ltd in relation to the claim brought by Gordon Taylor) wrote to the Committee to inform it that, "as regards confidentiality [the firm's] recollection was that both parties were interested in confidentiality provisions .....An element of the sum paid to Mr Taylor would have reflected the agreement to keep the matter confidential but no precise figure was attributed to that element that we are aware of". (Ev 226)

On 6 September 2011 you were asked about the terms of the Gordon Taylor settlement, in particular as to the reason for making an offer of £415,000 (or £425,000). The passage which appears relevant is as follows:

Q785 Mr Watson: In this case it was the defendant, was it not, who required confidentiality? That is quite unusual.

2 Tom Crone: That is not my recollection, no. I think, as I said last time, that it was raised by the other side first.

Q786 Mr Watson: Did you require confidentiality?

Tom Crone: We were quite happy with it.

Q787 Mr Watson: Did you discuss that with anyone?

Tom Crone: The terms of the settlement would have been discussed internally and with our outside lawyers, yes.

Q788 Mr Watson: Was it not the case that Taylor's solicitors knew that you would want confidentiality, which is why they asked for an unprecedented £1 million plus costs?

Tom Crone: I don't know where you got that figure from, Mr Watson.

Q789 Mr Watson: From Farrer.

Tom Crone: Well, I did not know that.

Q790 Mr Watson: You did not know that they asked for £1 million.

Tom Crone: No, I did not know that you got it from Farrer.

Q791 Mr Watson: Well, did you know they asked for £1 million?

Tom Crone: Yes. But normally I would say that that is obviously part of the whole confidentiality­

Q792 Mr Watson: So would it be reasonable for Taylor's lawyers to assume that you wanted confidentiality and then ask for an astronomical sum like £1 million from you?

Tom Crone: They would certainly assume that we would want confidentiality and I think it is fair to say we assumed they wanted confidentiality.

Q793 Mr Watson: So despite this demand, and having received advice from leading counsel that the most Mr Taylor could possibly hope to recover was £250,000, you agreed to pay Mr Taylor £425,000 in damages, plus his costs.

Tom Crone: I don't think so. Was it £425,000 or was it £415,000?

Q794 Mr Watson: Well, Farrer tells us £425,000, but it could have been £415,000. You remember that figure, do you?

Tom Crone: I thought it was £415,000, is all I'm saying. 3 Q795 Mr Watson: Right, but despite the fact that a leading counsel had told you that the maximum they could get was quarter of a million, you settled at nearly double that.

Tom Crone: Leading counsel can advise about that, but I think he had a huge range of potential damages, so there's nothing written in stone about that.

Q796 Mr Watson: So if you were not concerned about the adverse publicity that would result from the facts of the case becoming public, i.e. that phone hacking at News of the World extended beyond the rogue reporter, you would not have increased it to £425,000, would you?

Tom Crone: The context of the Taylor case was that during the prosecution sentencing of Goodman and Mulcaire, when they pleaded guilty, five more charges were levelled against Mulcaire, and Taylor was one of those charges. Mulcaire subsequently pleaded guilty to all five of those as well as to the hacking of royal employees. In the aftermath of the sentencing hearing, only one of the five issued civil proceedings against News Group Newspapers, and that was Mr Taylor. My job at News Group and News International was to manage litigation in the most cost­ effective and efficient manner: Part of that management is that if you can avoid litigation coming in, then you take steps to avoid litigation coming in. Mr Taylor was one case. If it all went public with Mr Taylor, we were at risk of four other litigants coming straight in on top of us, with enormous cost. If we have to pay way over the odds for Mr Taylor, especially if there is a confidentiality clause, which was asked for by him and agreed by us-or mutually asked for-that is a good course of action. If it is £415,000 or £425,000 to settle one case, thereby avoiding being sued by four other people who might have similarly high demands and huge legal costs, that is the right decision to take from my point of view."

Preliminary inferences:

The Committee of Privileges has drawn the following preliminary inferences from your evidence, and in particular, from the evidence cited above.

It seems to the Committee that the Chairman's question on 21 July 2009 (Q 1333) was directed at the existence or not of an additional payment to Mr Taylor in order that he might keep the proceedings 'secret' (or confidential). It was not concerned with the question of keeping Mr Taylor's personal information confidential. Mr Myler said it was 'absolutely' not the case that the payment was greater in order that the proceedings should be kept secret, and you agreed. Your subsequent answer (to Q1336) was concerned with the confidentiality sought by Mr Taylor as to his personal information, as may be inferred from your references to the fact that your client 'fell in with it' and to the ability of Mr Taylor being able to obtain an injunction. You did not take the opportunity to explain that your client also sought confidentiality, not in relation to Mr Taylor's information, but in relation to the role your client had played in the matter, specifically the involvement of News of the World employees or agents in phone hacking .

4 Farrer & Co subsequently confirmed in 2011 that confidentiality was of interest to both parties, and that an additional (although not precisely quantified) sum was attributable to an agreement to keep the 'matter' confidential.

In the oral evidence you gave on 6 September 2011 you admitted (Q 796) that "If it all went public with Mr Taylor, we were at risk of four other litigants coming straight in on top of us, with enormous cost" and that If we have to pay way over the odds for Mr Taylor, especially if there is a confidentiality clause, which was asked for by him and agreed by us-or mutually asked for-that is a good course of action".

The Committee also notes that in your written evidence of 1 December 2011 you referred to the Gordon Taylor settlement as being widely publicised as a "direct result of confidential document and information being improperly leaked to The Guardian". (Ev 268) In your evidence to the Leveson inquiry on 14 December 2011, Counsel to the inquiry put it to you that the strategy was to 'a;oid reputational damage, settle cases at an overvalue and hope that it all goes away'. You agreed that this was 'not far off' and that it was certainly the thinking that "the problem was trying to be contained".

It therefore appears to the Committee that the answers you gave on 21 July 2009 were not as full as they should have been and did not represent the whole truth relating to the confidentiality provisions contained in the Gordon Taylor settlement. It appears to this Committee that you encouraged the CMS Committee to believe that the provisions were sought by Mr Taylor and concerned his interest in keeping his information confidential, whereas in fact (as you later conceded) you were prepared to 'pay way over the odds' (2011, Q796) to keep your client's role in the matter confidential.

2. Answering questions falsely about your knowledge of evidence that other News of the World employees had been involved in phone-hacking and other wrongdoing.

The basis for this conclusion is set out in paragraphs 130 and 140 of the CMS Report. These refer in turn to paragraphs 120 to 129 and 131 to 139 respectively which concern the oral evidence given by you on 21 July 2009 and on 6 September 2011. You were asked by the Chairman of the CMS Committee on 21 July 2009:

"Q1339 Chairman: If the position was that, as you have previously said, Clive Goodman was acting entirely alone and that nobody else had knowledge, why did News International agree to settle with such a large sum?

Mr Crone: In the aftermath of Clive Goodman and Mulcaire's arrest and subsequent conviction various internal investigations were conducted by us. This was against the background of a nine month massively intense police investigation prior to arrest and then a continuing investigation in the five months up until conviction. The police raided Mulcaire's premises; they raided Goodman's premises; and they raided the News of the World offices. They seized every available document; they searched all the computers, the files, the emails et cetera. Subsequent to the arrests they came to us, the News Group Newspapers Ltd, and made various requests to us to produce documents which they felt may be relevant. At no stage during their investigation or our investigation did any evidence arise that the 5 problem of accessing by our reporters, or complicity of accessing by our reporters, went beyond the Goodman/Mulcaire situation. The first piece of evidence we saw of that, in terms of the management investigating, was in April 2008 when Mr Taylor's lawyers produced two documents: the first was a February 2005 holding contract and the second was the email that was discussed here last week.

Q1340 Chairman: Those two documents were both supplied to us last week by the Guardian; so you were unaware of either of those until 2008?

Mr Crone: Yes. It is possible actually that the first one. had been mentioned in the Old Bailey hearing in January 2007-mentioned; but I certainly did not have knowledge beyond that."

The CMS Committee noted that Julian Pike of Farrer & Co said in his 2011 evidence (Qq1157-1164} that in November 2007 the Metropolitan Police had told Farrer & Co of the existence of documentary proof that implicated News Group Newspapers Limited in the Gordon Taylor case, and that he had discussed with you in or around November 2007.

The CMS Committee concluded that you were aware of the email for five months before April 2008.

In ,2009 you were also asked about the "for Neville" email and the transcript attached thereto (Qq 1344-7)

When asked by Mr Farrelly MP whether anyone else was involved with Mr Mulcaire (in phone hacking) you replied "No evidence was found" (Q1398).

On 6 September 2011 you were asked by the Chairman about the evidence you had given in 2009 to the effect that there was no evidence which went beyond Mr Goodman. The relevant exchange is as follows:

"Q835 Chairman: I have reviewed what you told us, but there is no question in my mind but that the evidence from you and other witnesses from News of the World in 2009 suggested to us that there was no real evidence to suggest anybody other than Clive Goodman was involved. That was what we heard repeatedly.

Mr Crone: But there is the clearest possible answer I gave you very early on in the proceedings that until the 'for Neville' email there was no evidence that went beyond Goodman. Clearly, when the 'for Neville' email came through, that evidence existed. You asked me what I did as a result, and I said we settled the case. ,,

In your submission of 20 August 2012 you argue that the CMS Committee made findings that you attempted to mislead that Committee by not revealing matters which you say you were under a legal obligation not to reveal. It is, however, the case that you made three positive assertions before that Committee, first that "At no stage during ...... our investigation did any evidence arise that the problem of accessing by our reporters, or complicity of accessing by our reporters, went beyond the Goodman/Mulcaire situation" 6 (2009, 01339), secondly that "until the 'for Neville' email there was no evidence that went beyond Goodman" (0835 of 6 September 2011) and thirdly that "The first piece of evidence we saw of that, in terms of the management investigating, was in April 2008 when Mr Taylor's lawyers produced two documents: the first was a February 2005 holding contract and the second was the email that was discussed here last week" (2009, 01339).

Other evidence, not available to the CMS Committee, but arising from the Leveson Inquiry and subsequent criminal trials of Mr Andy Coulson and others shows that your knowledge of illegal activity at the News of the World was considerably greater, and extended over a longer period, than you indicated to that Committee and that the three positive assertions made by you were not true.

In your second witness statement to the Leveson Inquiry, responding to questions put to you in a letter of 25 November 2011, you said:

"Having attended throughout the Goodman-Mulcaire sentencing/hearing, I formed a strong impression that was said about others at News International commissioning Mulcaire's accessing in relation to the non-royal victims was based upon more than circumstantial evidence."

In your oral evidence to the Inquiry on 13 December 2011 (p94, 95) you said;" ...! came away from the sentencing hearing thinking that the reference to others at News International was likely to be based on real evidence, rather than conjecture."

In your reply of 25 November 2011 to the further notice under section 21(2) of the Inquiries Act 2005 and when questioned on 13 December 2011, you told Lord Justice Leveson that you could not remember "when and by whom the rogue reporter explanation was first put out, but I was of the view that it was erroneous from the outset". You also agreed with Counsel to the Inquiry that this was a view you had in your mind in the early part of 2007 (p.97-98).

In his evidence in the trial of R v. Edmondson and others on 28 April 2014 (day 104) Mr Coulson refers to a note made by you of a meeting with Mr Coulson on 13 August 2004 to discuss the publication of a story relating to the then Home Secretary, Mr David Blunkett. Mr Coulson explains that the tapes of Mr Blunkett's voicemails together with transcripts were found in your safe and that you explained to Mr Coulson that to reveal the existence of the taped voicemail 'would exacerbate the privacy risk from Kimberly Fortier'. Mr Coulson went on to explain to the jury that he took the decision to hide the origin of the story in part on your advice. It was put to Mr Coulson that you did not want anyone to know the News of the World was hacking phones. In reply, Mr Coulson said "I think he was also concerned the story wouldn't get published in the first place, there may be a risk of injunctions".

In that trial, it had been agreed (agreed fact 77) by the defence that an envelope containing five microcassettes and written material written by Neville Thurlbeck were found in your safe by police on 20 September 2011.

7 In his evidence on 23 April 2014 in the same trial Mr Coulson explained to the jury that he had asked shortly after Clive Goodman had been arrested whether Glenn Mulcaire and 'Nine Consultancy' had been involved in any way in the Blunkett story and 'the answer came back no'.

Preliminary inferences

The Committee of Privileges considers that it calls for explanation as to why you told the CMS Committee that there was no evidence before 2008 that the problem of accessing by our reporters or complicity therein went beyond the 'Goodman/Mulcaire situation', when you had in your possession and control the product of such accessing, and had done so for a matter of years before 2008. It also calls for explanation as to why you said to the CMS Committee on 21 July 2009 that 'no evidence was found' that anyone other than Mr Mulcaire had been involved in phone hacking, when you had been in possession and control of the microcassettes and the transcripts on the Blunkett story for some years.

On 15 September 2006 you sent an email to Mr Coulson recording what Mrs Brooks had told you of her recent visit by the police. In this you stated 'In terms of in terms of the News of the World, they suggested they were not widening the case to include other News of the World people but would do so if they got direct evidence say News of the World journos directly accessing the voicemail'. Furthermore, in an email dated 25 November 2006 to Mr Coulson, you said: "The potential problem with the News of the World, you apologizing to specific individuals, the 3 involved in Clive's charges, is that it leads to the question, well, are you going to apologize to all the others? It would be a very difficult question for us to ignore. We could say that those five people are nothing to do with us which could tilt Mulcaire into reacting".

On 10 November 2006 you sent an email to Mr Coulson, in which you explained that you had spent an hour examining the prosecution papers in the Goodman case before the conference with Counsel which you attended, and this in the following terms: "Not all 5 lever arch files but I spent an hour going through them before the conf. Clive is referring, I think, to the fact that Greg, Ian Edmondson and Neville's names are in there. Greg is on the Gordon Taylor confid'y undertakings ...."

On 12 December 2006 you attended a conference with Counsel to consider the plea in mitigation which would be made on behalf of Clive Goodman. According to Mr Goodman's evidence at the R v. Edmondson and others trial you said that Mr Goodman would not be sacked by the News of the World and 'that will only happen if you blame others, if you do that you can't really expect Andy to take you back.' (transcript 19 March 2014, p.94-95)

You were aware from your examination of the prosecution papers in 2006 that Greg Miskiw, Ian Edmondson and Neville Thurlbeck were mentioned as being involved. According to your evidence to the Leveson Inquiry you had formed the view in the early part of 2007 that the 'rogue reporter explanation' then being put out was erroneous. Notwithstanding this state of mind and your knowledge of the prosecution papers, you still made a positive assertion to the CMS Committee that until the 'for Neville' email there was no evidence that went beyond Goodman" and that the first you saw of such evidence was

8 in 2008. Both assertions appear to be false, in the light of evidence given under oath in the R v.Edmondson trial, and by you to the Leveson Inquiry.

Moreover, in relation to your knowledge when you appeared before the CMS Committee on 21 July 2009, you were aware that other employees of News of the World had been involved in phone hacking because on or around 11 July 2009 Neville Thurlbeck had told you that he had hacked into the Rt. Hon. David Blunkett MP's voicemail messages.

This is confirmed in Mr Myler's statement to the Metropolitan Police of 21 December 2011 which he states that in or around July 2009 he had a meeting with Neville Thurlbeck, which you also attended, and that "the discussion was significant". At the meeting Neville Thurlbeck said that he had hacked the voicemails of David Blunkett. Following the meeting Mr Myler asked the Deputy Editor, Jane Johnson, to take a note in which Mr Myler recorded what he (and you} had been told; we disclose the three pages of handwritten notes, which are dated 11 July 2009. Those notes include "Neville Thurlbeck's recollection of the Gordon Taylor situation" including "He can't remember if they emailed the transcript. He thinks he talked them through it." Mr Myler also arranged a meeting with a News International executive on 14 July 2009 (at which you were also present}, to relay the information that Neville Thurlbeck had provided.

The Committee of Privileges draws the following preliminary inferences from this information. First, at the time you gave evidence to the CMS Committee you were aware of illegal activity at News of the World conducted by a senior reporter, and had attended a meeting with My Myler to report the matter to a News International executive.

Secondly, at the time you gave evidence to the CMS Committee you were in fact aware that a journalist other than Clive Goodman, namely Neville Thurlbeck, had worked with Glenn Mulcaire on at least one story (David Blunkett} in which information had been obtained by illegal means.

At the CMS Committee evidence session on 21 July 2009, both these matters were fresh in your mind, since you had attended the meeting only ten days before your appearance before the CMS Committee. You were asked by the Chairman (Q1339} "If the position was that, as you have previously said, Clive Goodman was acting entirely alone and that nobody else had knowledge, why did News International agree to settle with such a large sum?". You knew at the time that Clive Goodman was not acting 'entirely alone' in relation to phone hacking, but you did not take the opportunity to correct the Chairman's comment. In reply to Mr Farrelly's question (2009, Q 1398} as to whether anyone else was involved in phone-hacking, you confined your answer to saying 'No evidence was found'. It appears to the Committee that you chose to side-step these questions, rather than telling the Committee that you knew that Neville Thurlbeck had engaged in phone-hacking. Your answers were not as candid as they should have been.

In choosing to evade the questions, you misled the Committee as to your knowledge of evidence that other News of the World employees were involved in phone-hacking.

9 3. Seeking to mislead the Committee about the commissioning of surveillance

The basis for this conclusion is set out in paragraph 271 of the CMS Report. This refers in turn to the oral evidence given by you on 6 September 2011. Your evidence is as follows:

Q883 : Mr Watson : Did you ever order surveillance? Did you ever commission private investigations to do any surveillance at all?

Mr Crone: No, I don't think I did actually.

Q884 : Mr Watson : Have you ever received or commissioned reports on the civil case lawyers that involved private investigators?

Mr Crone : Let me just think about that last question. I may have in litigation ­ certainly not in the last few years, but a long time ago maybe- I might well have used, I probably did in fact use private investigators on various things like tracing, maybe a bit of surveillance and something else, I cannot remember. It is not unusual for lawyers to use private investigators.

Mr James Murdoch said in evidence to the CMS Committee on 10 November 2011 that you and another News of the World employee at the time did engage certain private investigators to surveil plaintiffs' lawyers (Q16S2). Mr Murdoch said that this was 'appalling' and that it was something he would never condone. He added (Q1653) that you and the other employee did not do that with any authority or any knowledge by him. The Management and Standards Committee of News Corporation told the CMS Committee in 2011 (Ev 263) that there was information that Mr Watson was under surveillance by Mr Derek Webb between 28 September 2009 and 2 October 2009 and that its understanding was that three employees were involved in commissioning the surveillance.

By letter of 16 November 2011 you were invited to comment on Mr Murdoch's evidence. You replied on 1 December 2011 (Ev 268-269). In that letter you accepted that you raised the case of Mr Lewis (who was then acting for a number of phone hacking claimants) with the head of the News of the World newsdesk "with a view to seeing whether it was practicable or possible for him to assign one of his journalists to ascertaining the nature of the relationship [between Mr Lewis and another lawyer acting for another group of claimants]". You sought to distinguish between asking the newspaper's news desk for help in gathering facts and commissioning private detectives.

Preliminary inferences

It appears to the Committee of Privileges that the distinction you seek to draw is a distinction without a difference. You were asked a general question as to whether you had ever ordered surveillance, and said you had not. On any reasonable construction of the word, the engagement of Mr Derek Webb to 'have a look at Mr Lewis and Ms Harris' (to use your words) amounted to 'surveillance', and Mr Murdoch clearly thought the same. Your answer to the first part of Mr Watson's question therefore appears to be false and that the CMS Committee correctly concluded that you· sought to mislead it about the commissioning by you of surveillance. 10 Your answer to the second part of Mr Watson's question also appears to be false in as much as Mr Webb was in practice a private investigator. You were questioned about this point before the Leveson inquiry. In your oral evidence on 14 December 2011, p57 you said that you knew Mr Webb's duties included surveillance and accepted that Mr Webb's investigation into Mr Lewis and Ms Harris was not journalism, and that what he was doing was discreet surveillance. You said that you did not remember an email of 29 July 2009 in which Mr Kuttner had sent the file on the Derek Webb case described as the 'Silent Shadow' file to Mr Nichols for future safekeeping, but you accepted that you did not call the NofW journalists 'Silent Shadow'.

In his report Lord Justice Leveson concluded (at Part F):

"4.34 Mr Crone continued to maintain, despite being the only witness before the Inquiry to believe it, that Mr Webb was employed as a freelance journalist, though he did accept that in undertaking the specific task of surveillance of Mr Lewis and Ms Harris he was "doing something for the legal department." This whole saga reflects poorly on all involved. The use of covert surveillance against solicitors representing the opposition in damaging litigation is dubious at best, particularly when it seems clear that the surveillance was commissioned in order to put pressure on the solicitors to withdraw from the litigation. It is a case of attacking the man and not the ball. Mr Crone must, ultimately, take final responsibility. Despite his efforts to persuade the Inquiry to the contrary, in my judgment he well knew that Mr Webb was not carrying out proper journalistic functions."

It appears to the Committee of Privileges that it is entitled to draw the same conclusion as did Lord Justice Leveson on this point by taking the view that Mr Webb was engaged by you as a private investigator to carry out surveillance. You are invited to show cause why the Committee should not conclude that you did seek to mislead the CMS Committee about the commissioning of surveillance.

Further submissions

The Committee of Standards and Privileges wrote at the outset of the inquiry identifying the charges expressed by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the relevant paragraphs of that Committee's report. It has shared all evidence received so far, to ensure that the effect of evidence given by one party on another is not overlooked. This letter further identifies the scope of material which is relevant in the letters to be sent to Inquiry subjects.

The Committee has received a number of submissions as to process. The Committee's Resolution of 3 July 2012 sets out the process and answers matters relating to procedural fairness. The Committee is conducting a Parliamentary inquiry, which is a distinct process from that of a court or tribunal. The Committee of Privileges offers you the opportunity to make further written submissions in relation to this letter. In addition, you may choose to make oral submissions to the Committee. The precise dates will be decided shortly, but any such hearing is expected to take place in the first two weeks of February.

11 The primary purpose of any oral evidence session will be for you to make further submissions. Nevertheless, the Committee of Privileges reserves the right to ask questions of you in order to further its investigation.

Please notify me by Monday 26 January if you wish to make oral submissions. Any written s,bm;~;oo,ho,ld be,=Nedq:day~

1 (!5}9-. ~

Eve Samson Clerk of the Committee of Privileges

12 Annex

I attach material which has been disclosed to the Committee. As not all of this material is publicly available, and as some parts of the material may be covered by reporting restrictions and raise issues of privacy, the material is disclosed to you in the strictest confidence, and must not be disseminated. The Committee will decide if, and if so, how, to publish this material as part of its Report.

Where the main letters refer to publicly available material which the Committee has taken into account, for example, material from the Leveson inquiry and the various enquiries of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, these materials are available on the internet and references are provided, as such and they have not been included here.

• Colin Myler statement made to the Metropolitan Police, 21/12/2011 and Ms note disclosed with that statement [hard copy and PDF file named "statement and note", password protected] • Transcript of r v Brooks Coulson and others,19 March, 23 and 28 April [hard copy and PDF] • Transcript of R v Goodman and Mulcaire, sentencing hearing 26 January 2007 [PDF file] • Copies of email and documents disclosed in the proceedings R v Brooks, Coulson and others-See list below [hard copies only]

1 document recovered from Mr Tom Crone's office at News International (2 pages)

2 Email from Tom Crone to Henri Brandman & Co. 03/11/2006 10:51 3 Email from Tom Crone to Henri Brandman & Co. 02/12/2006 12:50 4 NOW budget cuts for 05 06 @ 8th March 20105 (3 pages) 5 NOW budget 2005_2006 SK notes @ 10/03/05 Revised 12/05/05 (3 pages) 6 Email from Colin Myler to Daniel Cloke 06/05/2009 10:35 (2 pages) 7 Email from Tom Crone to Andy Coulson 15/09/2006 10:34 (2 pages) 8 Email from Tom Crone to Andy Coulson 03/11/2006 16:11 9 Email from Tom Crone to Andy Coulson 16/11/2006 17:03 10 Email from Tom Crone to Andy Coulson 22/11/2006 10:42

13 11 Email from Tom Crone to Andy Coulson 25/11/2006 14:27 12 Email from Andy Coulson to Les Hinton 27/11/2006 12:55 13 Email from Neil Wallis to Andy Coulson 28/11/2006 10:32 14 Email from Les Hinton to Andy Coulson 28/11/2006 16:25 15 Email from Andy Coulson to Rebekah Wade 29/11/2006 15:04

16 Email from Andy Coulson to Rebekah Wade 29/11/2006 15:15 17 Email from Hayley Barlow to Andy Coulson 01/12/2006 10:02 18 Email from Andy Coulson to Hayley Barlow and Tom Crone 01/12/2006 15:03 19 Email from Andy Coulson to Tom Crone 02/12/2006 12:34 20 Email from Andy Coulson to Tom Crone 02/12/2006 12:34 21 Email from Tom Crone to Andy Coulson 30/12/2006 15:36 22 Email from Tom Crone to Andy Coulson 15/09/2006 10:33 23 Email from Tom Crone to Andy Coulson 15/09/2006 10:33 24 Email from Tom Crone to Andy Coulson 15/09/2006. 10:34 25 ~ Email from Tom Crone to Andy Coulson 10/11/2006 11:16 26 Email from Andy Coulson to Tom Crone 10/11/2006 11:21 27 Email from Tom Crone to Andy Coulson 25/11/2006 14:27 28 Email from Andy Coulson to Tom Crone 03/01/200716:16 29 Email from Andy Coulson to Tom Crone 04/01/2007 10:45 30 Email from Andy Coulson to Tom Crone 04/01/2007 10:50 31 Email from Tom Crone to Andy Coulson 15/09/2006 10:34 (2 pages)

14 Committee of Privileges Tel 020 7219 3259 Email [email protected] • Website www.parliament.uk/privileges .

From Eve Samson, Clerk of the Committee

Mr Tom Crone

28 January 2015

~-~-~ Following correspondence from other inquiry subjects, this letter is to confirm that the Committee will proceed according to the timetable already indicated. Unless I hear from you to the contrary by 12:00 midday on Thursday 29 January 2015, the Committee will proceed on the basis that you does not wish to make oral submissions.

Eve Sa Clerk of the C

30th January, 2015

Dear Ms Samson,

Thank you for your letter of January 28th.

I am afraid that I will not be able to complete my written submissions by February 2nd. In fairness, I did not receive your bundle of documents until late on January 20th and, because of other commitments, I simply have not had time to complete this task.

I will be away […] but anticipate that I will be able to let you have my written submissions before I depart. Hopefully, this 14‐day extension will not inconvenience you or your Committee.

Yours sincerely,

Tom Crone

Committee of Privileges Tel 020 7219 3259 Email [email protected] fl Website www.parliament.uk/privileges From Eve Samson, Clerk of the Committee

Mr Tom Crone

30 January 2015

~~'~l Thank you for your letter of today's date. I will put your request for an extension before the Committee at its next meeting 3 February. Given that this is the earliest the Committee will be able to consider it, I am confident that there will be no adverse consequences if you delay your submission until 6 February. If the Committee agrees to a longer extension, I will inform you as quickly as possible.

~Ctvl\A~ ~~ ------Eve Samson Clerk of the. Committee of Privileges From: tom crone Sent: 31 January LUD 1U:.L3 To: Committee Of Privileges Subject: RE: letter form the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges

FOR THE ATTENTION OF MS SAMSON.

Dear Ms Samson,

Thank you for your letter of January 30th.

In case it is a misunderstanding (it probably isn't), I will need a little longer than February 6th but am confident I can complete the task by February 16th.

Best regards,

Tom Crone

1 Committee of Privileges Tel 020 7219 3259 Email [email protected] • Website www.parliament.uk/privileges

From Eve Samson, Clerk of the Committee

Mr Tom Crone

3 February 2015

: !''-./'}' _)2. c...,- I r· li-Ch.c , The Committee considered your request for an extension to deadline for submissions at its meeting this morning and is willing to grant an extension until 9 am on Monday 9 February, but is unable to grant the longer extension that you seek.

You have not indicated that you wish to make oral submfssions; if this is an oversight, please let me know by noon tomorrow.

Please note that, should it be necessary to send you draft paragraphs in which you are criticised, we will do so by email, and it will be your responsibility to ensure any response you wish to make is received by the deadline given (a fortnight after the papers are sent).

The document will be password protected; the password will be written below on the hard copy of this letter. From: tom crone Sent: 09 February 2015 17:20 To: Committee Of Privileges Subject: RE: Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges

FOR THE ATTENTION OF MS SAMSON,

Dear Ms Samson,

I regret that I am unable to let you have my submissions by the end of today. I anticipate being able to send them to you tomorrow.

Best regards,

Tom Crone

1

10 February, 2015

Dear Ms Samson,

I am writing in response to the various matters raised in your letter of 20 January, 2012. In doing so I will take your three main allegations in the order you have set out but, first, would like to revisit the issue of fair process and to reiterate a few general points of principle.

Fair and Just Process

1. I have read the submissions on behalf of Les Hinton which were submitted to you on 15 august, 2012. I agree with and hereby adopt his reasoning and argument on fair and just process set out therein under the following headings:

Unanswered Questions concerning powers and jurisdiction.

The incompatibility of the CMS Committee’s approach with common law and ECHR fair trial standards.

The appropriate standard of proof.

The Report is irreparably tainted by apparent bias.

The appearance of bias is cause to set aside the Report.

Incontrovertible evidence of apparent bias exists.

Conclusion.

2. I have also read the submissions concerning fair and just process submitted to your Committee Chairman on behalf of Colin Myler on 15 August, 2012. I agree with and hereby adopt his reasoning and argument set out therein under the following headings:

The conduct of the CM&S Committee.

The conduct of the House of Commons on 22 May 2012.

The conduct of the Standards and Privileges Committee since 22 May 2012.

Lack of independence and impartiality.

The requirements of independence and impartiality.

Procedures of the Standards and Privileges Committee.

Parliamentary privilege.

Conclusions.

3. My own submissions on fair and just process were made in pages 1 – 5 of my 20 August 2012 letter to your Chairman and in my earlier letter to him, undated but sent on June 28th.

4. Please correct me if I am wrong but the response of the Committee of Privileges to these submissions on process seems to have been as follows: a) to completely ignore our complaints about the long and detailed list of abusive practices by the CMS Committee which have brought us to where we are and which are inextricably linked to the continuing process, and b) to dismiss our serious concerns about fair process going forward with the following terse response: “The Committee has received a number of submissions as to process. The Committee’s Resolution of 3 July 2012 sets out the process and answers matters relating to procedural fairness. The Committee is conducting a Parliamentary inquiry, which is a distinct process from that of a court or tribunal”

5. The inextricable link between CMS and Privileges practice and process (obvious in any case) was accepted by your Committee in your letter of July 3 enclosing the Resolution which you say sets out the “process and answers matters relating to procedural fairness”. There you declare the function of the Privileges Committee in this matter as follows:

“Please note that the Committee has been charged with considering the conclusions set out in chapter 8 of the report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. The Committee is concerned with these conclusions and those parts of the relevant Committee Reports and associated evidence on which they rely.”

Unfortunately, although it identifies your Committee’s primary purpose to be consideration of the CMS conclusions and the evidence on which they relied, the Resolution on procedure goes nowhere meeting your claim to provide “answers” on the “matters relating to procedural fairness” raised by Mr Hinton, Mr Myler and by me. It focuses for the most part upon timetable, and procedural steps. It makes no provision to allow the lodging by subjects of submissions and argument about fair process and the abuse of basic principles of justice by the CMS Committee nor does it suggest that this Committee will be required to consider and decide upon such complaints.

6. I would be grateful for some clarity on the following. Does your Committee intend to consider and decide upon the long list of genuine grievances Mr Hinton, Mr Myler and I have voiced about the past and future conduct of this Parliamentary inquiry? Or does the 3‐sentence reply set out in your 20 January 2015 letter close this matter so far as the Committee is concerned?

General Points of Principle

1. A) Essential Standards of Fairness: In the correspondence you have on more than one occasion made the point that your Committee are

conducting “a Parliamentary inquiry, which is a distinct process from that of a court or a tribunal”.

2. That is not in dispute but, especially in the light of points made above, I reiterate the point made in my earlier submissions that the same essential standards of fairness and justice must apply to both processes. This was recognised (though not practised) by the CMS Committee in paragraph 11 of its Report:

“11. The allegation that witnesses have misled the Committee is a grave one and the awareness of the potentially serious consequences of our conclusions for individuals concerned has been an important consideration to us in our work. A select committee inquiry is not a judicial process but the same principles of fairness and impartiality should apply, particularly where so much is at stake for individuals….”

The Clerk of the House, Robert Rogers, made the same point (and another which is directly relevant to arguments made above) in his July 9th 2012 paper entitled Select Committee Powers and Effectiveness:

“..it will not be enough to have high standards of fairness at what one might see as the appeal stage; in other words, when the matter is referred to the Committee of Privileges (although fairness at that stage might reduce the ECHR challenge). The standards of fairness – possibly even adversarial process – would need to be there from the start, if a prosecution were to be successful”

3. Responsibilty for Answers Given: Although I appeared in front of the CMS Committee on two occasions alongside Colin Myler and on the same days as other News International/News of the World executives, I am responsible only for answers I gave and not for statements made by others. I say this because there is a recognisable tendency in the Report for the Committee to use phrases like “A

number of senior executives from News International lined up to tell the Committee..” (par 120), Tom Crone “maintained the same line” (again, par 120), “in evidence Tom Crone and Colin Myler gave repeated assurances” (par 130). If the Committee wishes to describe my evidence or attribute views or stances to me they should point to specific evidence I gave.

4. Answers are Dictated by Questions: Like every other witness in every other tribunal, my appearance at the Committee was to answer whatever questions its members put to me. The evidence given is dictated by the questions asked and my role is to remain in the Committee room until the last question. Criticism is levelled at me in the CMS Report in terms such as “None of this came to light in evidence” (par 139) and “Tom Crone….made no mention” (par 140). In many instances, if things did not come to light or no mention was made about them it was because I was not asked about them. That is not a matter about which I can be fairly criticised. It is not for me to suggest appropriate questions to the Committee or to address the Committee other than by reply to questioning.

I turn now to the three allegations dealt with in your letter of 20 January, 2015.

1. The Significance of confidentiality in the Gordon Taylor Settlement.

1. In your “Preliminary inferences” on this subject you justify the “counter‐impression” allegation against me with “You did not take the opportunity to explain that your client also sought confidentiality” and “…the answers you gave in July 2009 were not as full as they should have been and did not represent the whole truth relating to the confidentiality provisions”.

2 In terms of this allegation and the reasons why the damages figure was what it was, I refer you to the submissions I made to you on this subject in August 2012. I also refer to the five possible

explanations for the high settlement figure which were apparently given by News International and Julian Pike and are rehearsed in paragraph 110 of the CMS Report. All five explanations are correct in the sense that each of them was “in play” to a greater or lesser extent in the decision to settle at that figure.

3 In terms of me “failing to take the opportunity” and answers not being “as full as they should have been”, may I point, with respect, to the specific questions asked on this subject in 2009. The first, Q1333, was partly premised on “keeping” the proceedings “secret”. That premise was clearly inaccurate because the proceedings were never secret. The commencement and service of the proceedings, the names of the parties and, I believe, the specific cause of action were a matter of public record in the Writs Office of the High Court. If the record of proceedings is available for public inspection, and in this case Mr Taylor’s proceedings were publicly available for, I believe, over a year in 2007 – 2008, then those proceedings cannot ever become or be “kept” secret and the correct answer to Q1333 is “no”. Immediately after this, the first sentence of my answer to Q1334 to the CMS Chairman explains that “ “Secret” is not a word I would use”.

4. After Q1333 there are, so far as I can recall, only three further questions on this subject in 2009 to which none of the answers were inaccurate. I refer you to the point I made above: witnesses are there to answer the specific questions asked. It is not for me to suggest appropriate questions to the Committee or to address the Committee other than by reply to questioning. The witness follows the questions put to him or her by the inquisitor and if the inquisitor moves onto a different subject, as the CMS Chairman did at Q1337, the witness follows him/her to the new subject.

5. Your Preliminary inferences suggest that I “encouraged the Committee to believe that the (confidentiality) provisions were

sought by Mr Taylor and concerned his interest in keeping his information confidential”. With respect, your reasoning makes no sense at all. I had made clear in Q1334 that “Every single case against us for breach of privacy – unless the information is already out within the public domain ‐ results in a very strict term of confidentiality” in favour of the Claimant. In saying that, how could I possibly be suggesting that conceding to his requirement for a confidentiality clause meant we paid him a greater, as opposed, more likely, to a lesser sum in damages.

2. Knowledge that other News of the World employees had been involved in phone hacking or other wrongdoing.

1. In relation to me, the primary conclusion of the CMS Report on this subject appears in paragraph 130, namely that I misled the Committee by giving: “repeated assurances that there was no evidence that any further News of the World employee beyond Clive Goodman was involved in phone‐hacking” ..and that.. “I am one of a number of senior executives from News International” who in 2009 “lined up to tell the Committee that, as far as they were concerned, Clive Goodman had been “a single rogue reporter” entirely responsible for phone‐ hacking at the News of the World”.

2. Further conclusions about me under this heading are set out in paragraph 140. As pointed out in my submissions of 20 August 2012, I find these conclusions and the reasoning upon which they purport to rely very confusing and quite illogical.

3. In relation to the paragraph 140 conclusions, the CMS seem to have relied heavily on the following matter which appears at the end of paragraph 139.

“ During his appearance on 19 October 2011, indeed, Mr Pike made it clear that he knew their evidence in 2009 to have been untruthful the moment it was given: Paul Farrelly: At what stage did it become clear to you that the line that we were being given was not the truth? Julian Pike: It would have been at the point it was given to you.”

The CMS Committee wrongly suggest that his comment is aimed at me. I refer you to paragraph 10 on page 14 of my 2015 submissions which points out that Mr Pike’s comment could not have been aimed at me and to Mr Pike’s letter to your Committee of 3 August 2012 which confirms it was not aimed at me.

4. I have fully dealt with all of the conclusions set out in paragraphs 130 and 140 in my 20 August 2012 submissions. The central allegation of maintaining the “single rogue reporter” line before the Committee in 2009 is manifestly untrue and ultimately based upon the “doctoring” of an answer I gave to the Committee which they quote and deploy in its doctored form in paragraphs 22 and 23 falsely to justify the above allegations (please see pages 3 ‐4 and 7‐8 of my August, 2012 submissions).

5. The other conclusions in those paragraphs and the reasoning upon which they rely is a mixture of allegations dressed up as statements of fact but without any supporting evidence or purportedly supported by evidence taken completely out of context. There are a number of instances (listed in my submissions) where evidence I gave is presented as false when

proper examination of the surrounding evidence and facts show the opposite.

6. Your letter of 20 January 2015 specifically refers to Julian Pike’s 2011 evidence regarding a Metropolitan police communication in November and the CMS Committee conclusion that as a result of this I was aware of the “for Neville” email 5 months before April 2008. This is dealt with at the bottom of page 9 and the top of page 10 of my August 2012 submissions. Neither Mr Pike nor I had any idea until April 2008 what was in the document, whether it was reliable and whether it was relevant to the specific matters which were the subject of the Gordon Taylor litigation. Mr Pike’s evidence to the CMS Committee confirms we did not know “what was actually in the document”.

7. Your letter also refers to Q1398 in 2009 from Mr Farrelly. Again, I have fully dealt with this in my August 2012 submission on pages 13 and 14.

8. Given that, on behalf of the Privileges Committee, you wrote to all subjects on 3 July 2012 to declare its remit and purpose in the following terms:

“Please note that the Committee has been charged with considering the conclusions set out in chapter 8 of the report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. The Committee is concerned with these conclusions and those parts of the relevant Committee Reports and associated evidence on which they rely.”

.. and given that my August 2012 submissions amount to a full rebuttal of the conclusions set out in paragraphs 130 and 140 of the CMS Committee and the reasoning upon which those allegations are based, I submit that in relation to these specific

matters there is nothing further for you to consider beyond the report and my 2012 submissions.

9. Despite the clear statement of remit and purpose made by you near the outset of this inquiry, your 20 January 2015 letter, from pages 6 to 9, seeks to present a case against me which is entirely different from the one set out in “the conclusions and those parts of the relevant Committee Reports and associated evidence on which they rely.”

10. You have raised entirely fresh allegations which form no part of the CMS conclusions or evidence. In doing so, I respectfully submit you are clearly going beyond the powers with which you are charged. What follows is without prejudice to that submission.

11. On 13 December, 2011, I was asked at the Leveson Inquiry whether I had ever advised “News International or its employees on issues of phone hacking”. I replied that I had done so on one occasion prior to the arrest of Clive Goodman in August 2006 and “probably on several occasions after the arrests”. In relation to the pre‐arrest advice a discussion followed between counsel and Lord Justice Leveson in which it was recognised by both that Legal Professional Privilege prevented me from revealing “to whom or the context” or the content of the advice but I was directed that I could say that the advice was given in 2004 and that it involved me looking at the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

12. That evidence was widely publicised by the media and was obviously known to the CMS Committee five months before they published its Report which makes no mention of or reference to it.

13. At the time of and in relation to giving the advice in 2004 I opened a file which was placed in the legal department safe. The occasion of the advice involved discussion of a proposed story in the News of the World which was subsequently published (possibly over two weeks). To the best of my recollection, the accuracy of the story was not at any stage challenged and in the aftermath there was no legal comeback.

14. Sometime after final publication, material concerning the story was delivered to the legal department for safekeeping. I was out of the office at the time and one of our secretaries placed the material in the relevant file which was already in the safe. Upon my return to the office she told me of the delivery which, again to the best of my recollection, she described as tapes and notes. This is the material described as “microcasettes and written material” referred to at the bottom of page 7 of your 20 January 2015 letter.

15. I have never seen or listened to the microcassette recordings and I have not, to the best of my knowledge, read the accompanying notes. In the absence of legal challenge or trouble arising from the story there was no requirement for me to do so.

16. In your Preliminary inferences on this subject you “call for an explanation”. Legal Professional Privilege prevents me from revealing to any person the context, the matters I was told and/or asked about, the person I spoke to and the advice I delivered. In the circumstances I am afraid I cannot give you any explanation beyond that.

17. In relation to the other matters you have raised on page 7 of your 20 January 2015 letter:

a) The Leveson Committee evidence to which you refer does not show that my “knowledge of illegal activity at the News of the World was considerably greater, and extended over a longer period, than …. indicated to the Committee”. Each of the answers you rely upon refers to my thoughts on matters which were public and widely reported, i.e. the Goodman/Mulcaire sentencing hearing and the “rogue reporter explanation”. In relation to the former I describe “my strong impression”, my “thinking” that certain matters “were likely to be based on real evidence rather than conjecture”. In relation to the latter I describe being “of the view” and you refer to me describing “a view I had in my mind”. With respect “views” and “impressions” do not amount to “knowledge” in relation to factual matters. I believe I made it clear at the Leveson Inquiry that I was not sure about any of these things and was simply forming opinions, albeit fairly strong ones. b) You refer to Mr Coulson’s description at his trial of a meeting with me in August 2004. I am unable to talk about this because of Legal Professional Privilege. c) Neither my 15 September 2006 email to Mr Coulson referring to what I was told by Ms Brookes nor my 25 November 2006 email advance this matter. The former sets out what she said the police had which seemed to amount to inconclusive circumstantial evidence at best. The latter is conjectural – as far as I knew (as opposed to “impression”) at the time, i.e. November 2006, the other five Mulcaire victims were indeed “nothing to do with us”. d) You refer to the 10 November 2006 email to Mr Coulson. In the time available, I was not able to learn very much from looking through the files simply because of the vast amount of material in them. From memory, the only references I saw to “Greg, Ian Edmondson and Neville”

were their signatures on Mulcaire contract renewals and, for “Greg” only on the confidentiality undertaking with Paul Williams in, I believe, either 2004 or 2005. I had no idea who Paul Williams was at the time. e) The Clive Goodman allegation to which you refer is not true. I did not make that statement to which he refers (or anything similar) at the relevant conference with counsel or at any other time. Part of his evidence at his trial referred to a lunch meeting he and I had in a restaurant in Putney at around the same time which he secretly recorded. As I understand it there is no record on the tape of me saying anything like that during the lunch despite the fact that this meeting went on for over an hour and nobody else was present to overhear our conversation. f) On page 9 you refer to what Mr Thurlbeck told Mr Myler and me at a meeting on 11 July 2009 and in relation to Q1339 from the Chairman you suggest I misled the Committee because I “did not take the opportunity to correct the Chairman’s comment.” With respect, I did correct the Chairman’s comment. My answer to Q1339, as I have set out in my 2012 submissions and in this submission clearly accepted that at the time we “settled for such a large sum” we had seen evidence that Clive Goodman was not “acting entirely alone” and that “the problem of accessing by our reporters ….went beyond the Goodman/Mulcaire situation.” I did correct the Chairman’s comment. I did not evade the questions.

Surveillance

1. I reiterate and refer you to the submissions I made on this subject in my 20 August, 2012 letter and the letter of 1 December.

2. Your opening sentence on this matter says: “the Basis for this conclusion is set out in paragraph 271 of the CMS Report. With respect, there is nothing in paragraph 271 which sets out the basis for the conclusion. In this respect, I refer you to paragraphs 1 and 2 on page 16 of my August 2012 submissions. Since the CMS Committee gives no explanation whatsoever in its report for the conclusion, I do not see how this matter can possibly be taken any further by your Committee.

3. In your Preliminary inferences you say “You were asked a general question about whether I had ordered surveillance, and you said you had not”. I refer you paragraph 5 on page of 16 of my August 2012 submissions which says as follows:

“In relation to the first question on this subject, i.e. Q883, I invite your Committee to watch and listen to the video. One sees that what seems in the transcript to be two questions is, in fact, Mr Watson starting to phrase a question and then re‐ phrasing it to produce the following: “Did you ever commission private investigators to do any surveillance at all?” My truthful answer to that is the one I give in the answer to Q884 which corrects my instant and inaccurate answer in Q883.”

It may be that you have not yet taken the opportunity to view the relevant part of the video of the Hearing. If you do, you will see that there is not a “first part” and “second part”. In fact he seems to rephrase the question which I then answer. My instant answer is not correct but I immediately correct it in the following answer. I invite you again to watch this bit of the video. I am not aware of any other instance during his CMS questioning where Mr Watson breaks a question into two parts, which, incidentally, is likely to be very confusing if, as here, a single answer is given.

4. In relation to Lord Justice Leveson’s conclusion that I “knew that Mr Webb was not carrying out proper journalistic functions”, I agree entirely. I have never said to him or to the CMS Committee that Mr Webb was carrying out “proper journalistic functions” I have consistently said to everyone who has asked me that he was asked to ascertain the nature of the relationship between the two solicitors for the purposes of litigation in which we were a party. It was not a journalistic purpose but was a function which many journalists can perform. Please remember that I sought assistance in this matter from the news desk not from a firm of investigators. I asked that a journalist be assigned to the task and the News Editor said he would put Derek Webb onto it. I had previously been told that he carried an NUJ press card (something I understand which is not issued without checks) and as far as I was concerned he worked for the newspaper as a freelance journalist. The suggestion was made at the Leveson Inquiry that discreet surveillance cannot be a journalistic function. I wholly reject this. A vast number of media stories have been produced by journalists (or others) watching and following the possible subjects of stories.

Those are my submissions.

Yours sincerely,

Tom Crone

Committee of Privileges Tel 020 7219 3259 Fax 020 7219 5952 Email [email protected] • Website www.parliament.uk/privileges

From Eve Samson, Clerk of the Committee

Mr Tom Crone

12 February 2015

On 11 February the Committee of Privileges agreed a Special Report, Matter of Privilege referred to the Committee on 22 May 2012 (HC 1068}. The Special Report provides details of the reopening of the Committee of Privilege's inquiry arising from the Resolution of the House of Commons on 22 May 2012, which referred the matter of privilege raised in Chapter 8 of the Eleventh Report from the Culture Media and Sport Committee of Session 2010-12, News International and Phone Hacking[11to this Committee.

The Special Report does not provide commentary on any submissions received, and nor does it comment on the content of the allegations.

The Special Report will be published at 0.01 on Saturday 14 February. No embargoed copies will be provided in advance of publication.

The Committee expects you, any representative or other person with whom you have discussed the inquiry, to keep the existence of the Special Report confidential until publication, and not to reveal (or reveal further) the resumption of the inquiry until publication of the Special Report.

Eve Sa Clerk of the Committee of Privileges

[tJ HC(2010-12)903 Committee of Privileges Tel 020 7219 3259 Fax 020 7219 5952 Email samsone@parliament. uk Website www.parliament.uk/privileges

From Eve Samson, Clerk of the Committee

Mr Tom Crone

19 February 2015

I enclose draft paragraphs from the Committee of Privileges, setting out the matters on which the Committee is minded to criticise you.

(Resolution of 3 July

9) If the Committee intends to criticise a subject of the inquiry it will first send a warning letter, and such a letter will: (a) state what the criticism is; {b) contain a statement of the facts that the Committee considers substantiate the criticism; and (c) refer to any evidence which supports those facts.)

These paragraphs are very full, to assist you. They will.be revised after the Committee has considered any submissions you may make. The procedural points raised in earlier submissions will be dealt with in the report, but do not form part of the criticisms. I also enclose the following further documents which the CPS has released to the Committee.

1. D26464 2. D30642 You will see they are not referred to in the material enclosed. The deadline for any further submissions is 9 am on Friday 6 March.

E~~ Clerk of the Committee of Privileges

2 From: tom crone Sent: 05 March 2015 10:29 To: Committee Of Privileges Subject: Tom Crone

Dear Ms Samson,

From I have been on holiday . Because of that, I have not read your letter of February 19 and its enclosures until this morning. I should also add that I am committed to being away from home and actively involved elsewhere from until

The draft paragraphs from the Committee of Privileges run to 33 pages and cross-refer to numerous other documents. In fairness, I have to say there is no possibility of me being able to fully consider the material and respond by way of further submissions before the deadline you have set, i.e. tomorrow. I believe that, in order to accomplish this I will need a 7-day extension of the deadline and respectfully request that you allow me to have until Friday, March 13th?

Yours sincerely,

Tom Crone

1 From: SAMSON, Eve Sent: 06 March 2015 18:07 To: tom crone Cc: SANTIO DESANTI, Cecilia Subject: Re Committee of Privileges

Dear Mr Crone

As the Committee is not meeting this week I cannot grant you a formal extension, although I will raise your request at the Committee's next meeting on Wednesday afternoon. I can say that anything submitted by 3pm on Tuesday will be circulated to the Committee in time for that meeting. Although I cannot guarantee the Committee w ill accept out of time submissions, I think it likely it will in fact consider it.

If the Committee agrees to an extension until Friday, I expect it will regard any submission sent earlier in the week as a draft and permit you to withdraw it.

Eve Samson Clerk of the Committee on Standards Clerk of the Committee of Privileges

1

13 March, 2015

Dear Ms Samson,

I write further to my emailed letter to you of 5 March, 2015 and to your reply. Your letter of 19 February enclosed the draft paragraphs from the Committee of Privileges which you described as “very full” to “assist” me. In the sense that they run to 33 pages, they are indeed very full.

With respect, and accepting that you have indeed tried to help me, I have, however, found the “fullness” to be confusing rather than of “assistance”. You have, for the most part, broken the material into sections under the headings of “preliminary inferences” and “analysis and conclusions” but in most places it is impossible to differentiate between the two. The “preliminary inferences” sections are full of what seems to be analysis and conclusions and there are masses of loose inferences presented as fact in the “analysis and conclusions” sections.

You say the paragraphs will be revised by the Committee but in their present format I found them difficult to follow and not always coherent. What can be no more than the writer’s opinion about my motivation or intentions in answering questions is frequently presented as a factual conclusion (which, incidentally, is usually wrong) and the “argument” presented by the Committee is frequently based on illogical non‐sequiturs. Like the CMS Committee you level a great deal of criticism at me for failing to provide information in answer to questions which, in fact, were not asked.

As far as I can tell, there are no allegations in your Committee’s draft paragraphs which were not already in your letter of 20 January 2015. That being the case, apart from the above comments, I have nothing to add to those matters set out in my 13 February, 2015 reply to that letter together with my submissions of 20 August 2012 and the various submissions on fairness of process raised by Mr Hinton and Mr Myler.

For the record, I do not accept the criticisms set out in your letter.

Yours sincerely,

Tom Crone

Committee of Privileges Tel 020 7219 3259 Fax020 7219 5952 Email [email protected] • Website www.parliament.uk/privileges

From Eve Samson, Clerk of the Committee

Mr Tom Crone

23 March 2015

The matters contained in this letter and enclosure are to be kept in strict confidence.

On 4 March 2015, we were made aware of the involvement of one of the inquiry subjects in criminal proceedings being brought against Mr Andy Coulson in Scotland. Upon receipt of this information we wrote forthwith to the relevant authorities to seek furth.er information. This has now been received and was considered by the Committee at its meeting on Wednesday 11 March 2015. Due to the sensitive nature of the information contained therein, and the involvement ofthe said inquiry subject, we will not disclose this information.

In addition, on 6 March 2015, the Committee received a written submission which raised for the first time, a number of detailed arguments. The Committee considered this submission at the meeting on Wednesday 11 March 2015 and decided that in accordance with paragraph 3 of the Resolution of 3 July 2012, the matters raised should be investigated further, including giving consideration to seeking further evidence.

In the light of these two matters, and the forthcoming dissolution of Parliament, the Committee has decided not to Report before the end of this Parliament, and to report this fact and the evidence to the House but without an order for printing. In doing so, this allows the evidence to be referred to and considered by the Committee of Privileges as constituted in the next Parliament. All further decisions in relation to this inquiry, will be for that Committee.

On 17 March the Committee of Privileges approved a Special Report, an advance embargoed copy of which is enclosed with this letter. This advance copy is to be regarded as strictly confidential until publication. We draw the provisions in relation to contempt for communication or publication during the embargo to your attention.

Eve Samson Clerk of the Com · e of Privileges Committee of Privileges Tel 020 7219 4432 Email [email protected] Website www.parliament.uk/privileges

From Dr Lynn Gardner, Clerk of the Committee

24 February 2016

Mr Tom Crone

Dear Mr Crone

Eleventh Report of Session 2010-12 from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, News International and Phone-hacking

Further to previous correspondence from the then Clerk of the Committee of Privileges in March 2015, I am writing to let you know that the Committee of Privileges held its first meeting of this Parliament last month and has decided to proceed with the inquiry into the above matter. The Committee has agreed a resolution on its course of proceeding in the same terms as that adopted by its predecessor Committee in 2012.

All evidence gathered by the previous Committee has been made available to its successor but the new Committee is considering whether to seek further evidence and will reach its own conclusions on the matters under consideration. We shall be in touch as soon as possible, should the Committee require additional information from you. In the meantime, the Committee extends a further opportunity to you to give oral evidence or suggest lines of investigation for the Committee's inquiry.

CLERK OF THE COMMITTEE Committee of Privileges Tel 020 7219 3259 Email [email protected] Website www.parliament.uk/privileges

From Dr Lynn Gardner, Clerk of the Committee

9 March 2016

Mr Tom Crone

Dear Mr Crone

Eleventh Report of Session 2010-12 from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, News International and Phone-hacking

Further to my letter of 24 February 2016, the Committee of Privileges has now reviewed the evidence relating to the above matter and has determined that it requires further information from you in order to conclude its investigations.

The Committee asks you whether there is anything that you wish to explain, or to change, add or amend in your oral or written evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in 2009 and 2011, or to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, or Committee of Privileges.

The Committee also requests your response to the following specific questions. The references to Q or Qq are to the oral evidence taken before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in the years shown; other documents referred to are attached electronically. If you prefer hard copies, please contact us.

December 2006 Memo

As can be seen on page 42 of the transcript from the case of R v Brooks for 10 June 2014, in summing up Mr Justice Saunders referred to a briefing note (hereafter "December 2006 Memo") drafted by you to report to Les Hinton. A copy of the December 2006 Memo is enclosed. The content of the December 2006 Memo dates it to the period between the entering of guilty pleas by Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire on 29 November 2006 and their sentencing hearing on 26 January 2007.

1. Do you accept that you are the author of the December 2006 Memo? 2. By reference to emails of 30.12.2006 15:36 (you to Andy Coulson) and 04.01.2007 16:16 (Andy Coulson to you) do you accept that you showed a draft of the December 2006 Memo to Andy Coulson? 3. Did you send a copy of the December 2006 Memo as enclosed or with amendments to Les Hinton? If amended, please specify the amendments. 4. Did you at any time discuss the December 2006 Memo with Les Hinton, and if so, when, and please provide a summary of your discussion? In particular, did you discuss it prior to Les Hinton appearing before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on 6 March 2007 and/or 15 September 2009? 5. Please consider the content of the December 2006 Memo, the transcript from the sentencing hearing of Goodman and Mulcaire (which we will email to you upon request), and your evidence to Lord Justice Leveson's inquiry, especially 13 December 2011 pp94-95: "I came away from the sentencing hearing thinking that the reference to others at News International was likely to be based on real evidence, rather than conjecture."

Is there anything that you wish to explain, or to change, add or amend in your oral or written evidence to the Culture Media and Sport Committee in 2009 and 2011, or to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, or Committee of Privileges?

Your attention is drawn in particular to the following matters:

a. 2009 - Opening statement as presented by Colin Myler at Ql331 (and as relied upon by you in 2011, e.g. Q739), and in particular "No evidence or information had emerged to suggest to senior executives at News International that others at the News of the World knew of these activities or were complicit in them."

b. 2009: i. Qq1339-1340 ii. Q1352 iii. Qq1354-1356 iv. Qq1395-1398 v. Qq1398-1400 vi. Q1403 vii. Q1411 viii. Qq1414-1415

c. 2011 i. Q746 ii. Q750 iii. Q835 Email of 15.09.2006

In your email to Andy Coulson of 15.09.2006 you set out what Rebekah Brooks had told you the Police had said to her. At point number 3. you stated "there seemed to be over £1M of payments". In his Report, (at Volume 1, p.301, para 3.26), Lord Justice Leveson records that in evidence DCS Williams said that this figure was not known to him or his investigation team.

In giving evidence on 5th March 2014 during the trial of R v Brooks and others, Rebekah Brooks was asked whether the Police told her this figure, and she answered: "I think they mentioned a figure of£1 million, yes, they did."

6. Did you provide this figure and if not, who provided this figure to you? 7. Do you accept that this figure was not known to the investigation team?

Email of 02.12.2006 12:15

8. Please explain what the "preferred line" was from which it was worried that Clive Goodman would stray. What did you mean by using the term "preferred line"?

Contracts with Mulcaire

We enclose copies of contracts between Glenn Mulcaire and News of the World, signed by Greg Miskiw and Neville Thurlbeck. The contracts appear to be in standard form and include a clause by which Glenn Mulcaire agreed not to "undertake assignments from, work for or provide any research or information to any other UK or Eire media outlet or freelance journalist". During the sentencing hearing for Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire, references were made by the prosecution, defence and the Judge to the fact that Glenn Mulcaire had agreed to provide information only to News of the World.

Your email to Andy Coulson of 15.09.2006 also refers to the only payment records found by the Police being from News International. The December 2006 Memo also refers to the exclusive nature of the Mulcaire contract. We also enclose an email between you and Andy Coulson dated 10 November 2006 11:11, with reference to the Nine Consultancy contract "(entirely safe dco. simply saying "research work" or whatever neutral term we used)."

9. In relation to these documents, is there anything that you wish to explain, or to change, add or amend in your oral or written evidence to the Culture Media and Sport Committee in 2009 and 2011, or to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, or Committee of Privileges?

Your attention is drawn in particular to the following matters:

a. 2009: i. Qq1339-1340 ii. Q1352 iii. Q1356 iv. Qq1399-1400 v. Oq1414-1415 vi. 01421 vii. 01448 viii. 01500 ix. 01517-1521 b. 2011: i. 0957 ii. 0979 iii. 01015

Evidence to the Leveson Inquiry

In your first witness statement to the Leveson Inquiry, at p.3, you state that you were one of the primary points of contact for Burton Copeland and that they would report to you. On p.304, paragraph 3.37 of volume 1 of his Report, Lord Justice Leveson quotes from a letter dated 14 September 2006 given by Burton Copeland to the Metropolitan Police.

10. What was your involvement in that letter? 11. Who instructed Burton Copeland to "produce documentation or other material in the possession of an individual"? 12. Were you aware that the scope of the documentation etc. provided did not extend to other journalists, the News of the World or beyond? 13. In their letter of 14 September 2006 Burton Copeland state: "Newsgroup Newspapers wishes fully to assist your investigation and does not require any formal Court Order for the provision of any material. They are, however, entirely satisfied that the material to which you are entitled is limited... " a. What was your role in the decision that the material the Police was entitled to was "limited". b. What was the reasoning behind that decision? 14. Is there anything that you wish to explain, or to change, add or amend in your evidence to the Culture Media and Sport Committee in 2009 and 2011, or to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, or Committee of Privileges?

Your attention is drawn in particular to the following matters: a. 2009: i. Oq1339 ii. Oq 1395-1397

b. 2011: i. 0873 ii. 0981 iii. 01028

Email of 10.11.2006 15. In your email to Andy Coulson you report on what you have read from the Goodman case, with reference to not all five lever arch files. In 2011 at Q927 you stated that Clive Goodman had refused you access to the files. We note the information you provided in your letter to this Committee of 10 February 2015 that, "In the time available, I was not able to learn very much from looking through the files simply because of the vast amount of material in them. 11 In relation to your answer to Q927, is there anything you wish to correct, add or amend?

We also enclose a Record of Attendance for a meeting attended by you on 20 January 2010. The CPS have confirmed that your name is the name that has been redacted from the list of attendees and throughout the document.

Your response should be sent to the Committee by 24 March 2016. Any final submissions you wish to make should meet the same deadline.

CLERK OF THE COMMITTEE Committee of Privileges Tel 020 7219 3259 Email [email protected] Website www.parliament.uk/privileges

From Dr Lynn Gardner, Clerk of the Committee

16 March 2016

Mr Tom Crone

Dear Mr Crone

Eleventh Report of Session 2010-12 from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, News International and Phone-hacking

Further to my letter of 9 March 2016, in the light of representations received, I am pleased to be able to tell you that the Committee of Privileges will extend the deadline for receipt of your response to Monday 11 April 2016.

CLERK OF THE COMMITTEE

To: Dr Lynn Gardner,

Clerk of the Committee of Privileges

12/04/2016

Dear Dr Gardner,

I apologise for the delay in responding to your letter of 9 March.

As you know, I have been corresponding with the Committee of Privileges since late 2011. At every stage in the process I have answered the Committee’s questions and provided it with the information it required. Those answers and the information contained within them were always full and very detailed. My responses of 20 August, 2012, ran to 29 pages and those sent to you on 10 February, 2015, filled 15 pages. There were a number of other detailed but shorter responses.

In contrast, I have on various occasions sought answers from the Committee on points of fairness and procedure which, for the most part, have been ignored or brushed aside. It is a matter of irony that the points of fairness and procedure which the Committee has failed properly to address or answer largely concern past (and possibly future) abuses of fair process, natural justice and Article 6 ECHR principles under the Human Rights Act by the CMS Committee and by the Privileges Committee.

Against that context the Committee has written to me after a full year of silence to ask me about a mixture of:

i) matters I have already dealt with in previous submissions; ii) documents which were both public and available to be raised with me by the Committee long before it concluded its inquiries in early 2015, and iii) matters on which I am unable to speak because of legal professional privilege.

Your latest inquisition suggests the process being adopted in this matter by your Committee remains deeply flawed. You seem once again to be raising all sorts of issues which are not connected to the CMS process. Documents are being produced (without being formally proved or adduced) from agencies unconnected to these parliamentary proceedings and your Committee seems to have adopted the roles of investigator and prosecutor as well as judge.

I do not have the benefit of professional legal advice or representation in dealing with these matters and suspect that, if I had, I would be telling you that my co‐operation in answering your questions is at an end.

However, taking your headings in turn:

1. December 2006 Memo.

My recollection of this document is that it was under cover of a notice saying “Strictly private and confidential and legally privileged”. Even if I am wrong about this (I don’t think I am), it is clearly a document created in circumstances attracting legal professional privilege which prevents me from discussing it. Your point 5 under this heading was dealt with by me in my 13 February, 2015, submission as, in broad terms, were the other matters raised by you here.

2. Email of 15.09.2006.

The opening line describes what the email is, i.e. “what Rebekah told me about info relayed to her by the cops”. I simply set out what she said was said to her by the police.

3. Email of 02.12.2006.

This is clearly covered by legal professional privilege.

4. Contracts with Mulcaire.

As stated above, 15.09.2006 email simply repeats what I was told by Ms Brookes about what she was told by the police and the December 2006 memo is a matter of legal professional privilege. So, also, is the 10.11.2206 email to which you refer.

5. Evidence to the Leveson Inquiry.

As far as I can remember, I had no involvement in the Burton Copeland letter. I cannot recall ever seeing it. They were instructed by others immediately after the Goodman arrest. I was on holiday abroad at the time and did not get involved in this matter until my return a week after the arrest. My role after that was simply to facilitate, if possible, the production of some of the information or documents they required. They were brought in as criminal law experts (which I was not) and I did not instruct them in any way as to specific communications with the police or as to strategy.

6. Email of 10.11.2006.

I have no recollection now (5 years after) of what I understood by Question 927. It asks whether I “had full access to the files held by the CPS giving evidence of phone hacking”. Since I did not have any access to the files held by the CPS it is a correct answer. But, if I then understood it to be referring to the prosecution files served upon Mr Goodman’s solicitor, then I apologise for forgetting at the time that I had a very brief access to the 5 lever arch files before the first conference with counsel after Mr Goodman’s arrest. In the time available I gleaned very little from them and certainly saw no “evidence of phone hacking”. Immediately after that conference Mr Goodman instructed his solicitor not to give me any further access to the files.

For the record and in the hope they might be answered, I refer you again to the submissions on fair and just process both at the CMS stage and under your Committee made in my letters of 20 August 2012 and 10 February 2015 and to submissions of Mr Hinton and Mr Myler on the same subjects which I adopted in my letter of 10 February 2015.

Yours sincerely,

Tom Crone

Committee of Privileges Tel oio 7219 3259 Email [email protected] Website www.parliament.uk/privileges

From Dr Lynn Gardner, Clerk of the Committee

22 April 2016

Mr Tom Crone

Dear Mr Crone

Eleventh Report of Session 2010-12 from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, News International and Phone-hacking

On behalf of the Committee of Privileges, I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 12 April 2016. The Committee will meet shortly to consider the next steps in its inquiry.

PP LYNN GARDNER CLERK OF THE COMMITIEE Committee of Privileges Tel 020 7219 3259 Fax 020 7219 5952 Email [email protected] Website www.parliament.uk/privileges

From Lynn Gardner, Clerk of the Committee

Mr Tom Crone

30 June 2016

By post and email

Dear Mr Crone

Eleventh Report of Session 2010-2012 from the Culture Media and Sport Committee

The matters contained in this letter and enclosures are to be kept in strict confidence. I enclose draft paragraphs from the Committee of Privileges, setting out the matters on which the Committee is minded to criticise you. This is accordance with the Committee's Resolution of 12 January 2016, adopting that of the previous Committee of 3 July 2012, that:

9) If the Committee intends to criticise a subject of the inquiry it will first send a warning letter, and such a letter will:

(a) state what the criticism is;

(b) contain a statement of the facts that the Committee considers substantiate the criticism; and

(c) refer to any evidence which supports those facts.

These paragraphs set out the allegations made in the CMS report, the evidence before the CMS Committee and made available since, this Committee's analysis of that evidence and the findings the Committee is minded to make. The Committee will consider responses to the warning letters before reporting to the House. The procedural points raised in earlier submissions will be dealt with in the final report, but do not form part of the criticisms. They are therefore not covered by paragraph 9 of the resolution and so will not be shared with you in draft in advance of the report's publication. Following a request from one of the inquiry subjects, the Committee approached the CPS for further documents which the CPS subsequently released to the Committee. I enclose this additional material in accordance with our policy on disclosure but you will see that the Committee draws no further inference from this evidence in its conclusions. The Resolution allows two weeks for any further submissions. The deadline for any response from you is therefore 5.00 pm on Thursday 14 July.

Lynn Gardner Clerk of the Committee of Privileges

2 Ms Lynn Gardner

Committee of Privileges

15th July, 2016

Dear Ms Gardner,

Thank you for your letter of June 30th enclosing “draft paragraphs from the Committee of Privileges setting out the matters on which the Committee is minded to criticise” me.

Paragraph 3 of the enclosure summarises the “the sting of the CMS conclusions” in 5 allegations, i.e. that I:

a) Gave a counter‐impression of the significance of confidentiality in the Gordon Taylor settlement. b) Sought to mislead the Committee about the commissioning of surveillance. c) Gave repeated assurances that there was no evidence that any further NOTW employee, beyond Clive Goodman, had been involved in phone‐hacking (and deliberately avoided disclosing crucial information) d) Attempted to downplay the significance of the “For Neville” email, and portray it merely as evidence that Glen Mulcaire’s activities had passed through the NOTW newsroom. e) Failed to mention that they had obtained a legal opinion.

As far as I can tell from what you have sent me, they seem to be intent on making two criticisms of me, namely:

i)….that it is significantly more likely than not that Tom Crone did mislead the CMS in 2009 by giving a counter‐impression of the significance of confidentiality in the Gordon Taylor settlement, and

ii)….that the allegations (presumably c), d) and e) above) are significantly more likely than not to be true and that Tom Crone did mislead the Committee by “answering questions falsely about his knowledge of evidence that other News of the World employees had been involved in phone‐hacking and other wrongdoing”.

I do not accept either of the paragraphs of criticism or the frequently confusing and illogical reasoning which purports to justify those criticisms. I have extensively addressed these criticisms in previous submissions, notably my letter of 20 August, 2012, to Mr Barron.

In relation to the issue of confidentiality, I have nothing further to add to my previous submissions except to say that none of the answers I gave the CMS Committee on this subject were inaccurate.

On the other matter the final section of your enclosure is headed “Our conclusion – involvement of others”

The Privileges Committee argues that the fundamental acceptance by me in Q1339 to the effect that the documents showed that “the problem of accessing by our reporters, or complicity of accessing by our reporters, went beyond the Goodman/Mulcaire situation”… “was not intended to be heard as an admission that NOTW staff other than Clive Goodman had been involved in phone‐hacking”

With respect, that is nonsense.

I made that statement right at the beginning of our evidence (7 questions in). It can be found on the first page of the official transcript and everything that follows is in the context of that clear and unequivocal admission. I went on to state that the significance of the documents was such that we immediately had to settle the Gordon Taylor litigation (Q1341). I also accepted that the hacked voicemail messages in the “For Neville” email must have been used as the basis for at least part of the Gordon Taylor story (Q1346) i.e. that “the problem of accessing by our reporters, or complicity of accessing by our reporters, went beyond” Clive Goodman.

My response clearly answers the specific question posed by the Chairman at Q1339, i.e. Clive Goodman “was not acting entirely alone”, others “had knowledge” and we “settled for such a large sum” because this new evidence in April 2008 meant that “the problem of accessing by our reporters, or complicity of accessing by our reporters, went beyond the Goodman/Mulcaire situation” and therefore we could no longer defend the case.

In Q1342 the CMS Chairman shows that he has clearly got the point “Beside settling the case, what did you do about the fact that there appeared to be two documents which suggested that others beside Clive Goodman were involved?”

In Paragraphs 22 and 23 of its 11th report “News International and Phone‐ hacking” in April 2012, The CMS Committee uses my answer to Q1339 to demonstrate that the “basis for News International’s lone “rogue reporter” defence was based upon the stated thoroughness of two allegedly independent investigations…” However, in order to make this point they had to “doctor” my quoted answer by omitting the final sentence, i.e. “The first piece of evidence we saw of that in terms of the management investigating was in April 2008 when Mr Taylor’s lawyers produced two documents: the first was a February 2005 holding contract and the second was the email that was disclosed here last week” (the “For Neville”) email.

Apart from shameful dishonesty on the CMS Committee’s part, what this action clearly showed was that the intended point about the “lone rogue reporter” defence could not be made had my answer been quoted accurately. In fact, had it been quoted accurately any reader of this part of the Report would have come to the opposite conclusion, i.e. that from April 2008 there was evidence of “accessing by our reporters, or complicity of accessing by our reporters, went beyond the Goodman/Mulcaire situation”.

That is the natural and ordinary meaning of my Q1339 answer and I do not accept that any other answer I gave to the CMS Committee detracts from or dilutes that meaning.

In respect of allegation d) above, i.e. that I “attempted to downplay the significance of the “For Neville” email, and portray it merely as evidence that Glen Mulcaire’s activities had passed through the NOTW newsroom”, I refer you to page 11, paragraph 11, of my 20 August 2012 letter to your committee which states: 1. The Committee claims that my 24 May 2008 email noting that the “for Neville” email “proves we actively made use of a large number of extremely private voicemails from Taylor’s telephone” is “in direct contradiction to statements made to the Committee a year later”. That is not true. What should be clear from the evidence I gave is:

a) That the “for Neville” email was evidence that involvement in illegal phone‐hacking among News of the World reporters went beyond Clive Goodman (Q1339); b) That Ross Hall accepted that he transcribed and emailed the Gordon Taylor voicemails to Glenn Mulcaire (Q1342), and c) That the transcript was used as a source for the proposed story about Gordon Taylor (Q1346). d) That the transcript contained a large number of extremely private voicemails. (The Committee knew from the evidence of Nick Davies and because they had a redacted copy of the transcript which ran to many pages).

Taken together the above evidence clearly accepts that the News of the World “actively made use of a large number of extremely private emails from Gordon Taylor’s telephone.” Far from being “directly contradictory” my evidence was wholly consistent with the statement in the 24 May 2007 memorandum.

In relation to allegation e) above, i.e. that I “failed to mention that they had obtained a legal opinion”, I refer you to page 14, paragraph 11, of my 20 August, 2012, letter which states:

“The rest of the “reasoning” i.e. paragraphs 136 – 139 concern views expressed by Mr Silverleaf in his Opinion. The Committee conclude that Mr Myler and I “made no mention of the legal opinion that they had obtained. In itself this amounts to an attempt to mislead the Committee about the import of a crucial piece of evidence and the failure of the company to act on it”. In response to that:

a) I do not accept that the views of counsel expressed in an Opinion can possibly be evidence and certainly not “a crucial piece of evidence”. b) Until sometime in 2011 (I am not exactly sure when) Mr Silverleaf’s Opinion, as is every counsel’s opinion in litigation, was the subject of strict legal professional privilege and could not be disclosed. c) On both occasions I gave evidence before the Committee I attempted to properly answer every question but I can only answer the questions I am asked. It is not for me to suggest appropriate questions to the Committee or to address the Committee other than by reply to questioning. On neither occasion was I asked about the contents of counsel’s opinion in the Taylor case. We did not hide it – we simply were not asked about it. d) As it happens, when I appeared in front of the Committee in 2011 I do not think I had read or had sight of Mr Silverleaf’s Opinion since at least 2009. It is not likely, therefore, that in 2011 my memory of its contents would be particularly strong or particularly vivid. A great deal else in the phone‐ hacking saga had occurred in my working life since the Taylor settlement.

For the record, I should say I do not accept that “making no mention” of a matter when you are never asked about it can possibly, in law or in justice, amount to a punishable or “admonishable” Contempt by “attempting to mislead”.”

Those are my submissions.

Yours sincerely,

Tom Crone

Committee of Privileges Tel 020 7219 3259 Fax 020 7219 5952 Email [email protected] Website www.parliament.uk/privileges

From Lynn Gardner, Clerk of the Committee

Mr Tom Crone

21July 2016

By post and email

Dear Mr Crone

Eleventh Report of Session 2010-2012 from the Culture Media and Sport Committee

The Committee on Privileges has asked me to acknowledge your submission of 15 July, the contents of which it has considered carefully. I shall write to you again in early September to let you know when the Committee expects to conclude its inquiry.

feb-­ Lynn Gardner Clerk of the Committee of Privileges