CORRESPONDENCE WITH MORRISON FOERSTER 2014‐16 Part 2
Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Morrison Foerster, 23/03/2015
Letter from Morrison Foerster to the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, 31/03/2015
Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Morrison Foerster, 8/04/2015
Letter from Morrison Foerster to the Chair of the Committee of Privileges, 30/09/2015
Letter from the Chair of the Committee of Privileges to Morrison Foerster, 8/10/2015
Letter from Morrison Foerster to the Chair of the Committee of Privileges, 19/11/2015
Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Morrison Foerster, 23/11/2015
Letter from Morrison Foerster to the Chair of the Committee of Privileges, 17/02/2016
Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Morrison Foerster, 23/02/2016
Letter from Morrison Foerster to the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, 4/03/2016
Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Morrison Foerster, 9/03/2016
Letter from Morrison Foerster to the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, 16/03/2016
Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Morrison Foerster, 16/03/2016
Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Morrison Foerster, 23/03/2016
Letter from Morrison Foerster to the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, 11/04/2016
Letter from Morrison Foerster to the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, 14/04/2016
Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Morrison Foerster, 30/06/2016
Letter from Morrison Foester to the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, 13/07/2016
Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Morrison Foerster, 21/07/2016
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
Morrison Foerster (UK) LLP CityPoint One Ropemaker Street London EC2Y9AW
23 March 2015
Your ref: By post and email
Dear Sirs
Eleventh Report of Session 2010-2012 from the Culture Media and Sport Committee
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 further 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 of the 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. ln 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. In the course of the inquiry, Mr Hinton raised the question of the authorisation of the scope of the email review carried out in connection with Clive Goodman's appeal against dismissal. The Committee in the next Parliament may wish to consider this matter further. This Committee accordingly requests that any documents relating to the review, and in particular to the commissioning of that review, are retained by your clients, even if they would otherwise have been destroyed under normal records management policy.
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 Committee of Privileges
2 CITYPOINT MORRISO N FOERSTE R (UK) LLP MORRISON I FOERSTER ONE ROPE1\-1AKER STREET NE \\" YORK, S :\" FR .\ N C I SC O , LO S A N G E LES, PALO :\LTO, LONDON EC2Y 91\ W S:\ N DI E G O , \V :\ S HI NGTO N , D . C . .• \ LIMITED Ll :\1311.ITY P:\RT:-SERSHIP UNITED KINGDOM T O KY O , L ON D O'> , flRL"SSE L S, ll E 1.J I 1\ G , S H .'\ 1\ G 11 :\! , II O 1' G K O N G TELEP!·IONE: +44 20 7920 4000 FACSIMILE: +44 20 7496 8500
\XIW\V.MOFO.CO:M
31 March 2015
Our ref:
Ms. Eve Samson Clerk of the Committee of Privileges Journal Office House of Commons London SWlAOAA
By post and email
Dear Madam,
Eleventh Report of Session 2010-2012 from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee: "News International and Phone-hacking"
We refer to your letter dated 23 March 2015 enclosing the Second Special Report of Session 2014-2015.
As a result of the Committee's decision not to Report before the end of this Parliament, please confirm that the newly-constituted Committee in the next Parliament will need to start this inquiry afresh. It must be obvious to the current Committee that it is impossible for the Committee in the next Parliament to simply approve or 'rubber stamp' the provisional adverse findings of the current Committee.
Please also confirm the finality of the Committee's acquittal of our client in relation to the issue of the payment of Mr Goodman's legal settlement. There is plainly no proper basis on which this issue could be passed on to the Committee in the next Parliament because the current Committee has already made a final decision communicated to our client that he has been cleared of the charge relating to his evidence concerning the Goodman settlement.
Finally, please confirm that we may share the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal Judgment dated 3 February 2015 concerning Mr Abramson with legal representatives acting for other
Authoris ed and regulated b r the Solicitors Regul ati o n Authority
A li s t of P artners of Morrison & Foerster (L:K) LLP, a Delaware Limited Liability Partnership, (registered number 4569482 81011 0811747141) is available at ou r offices. ln-254965 MORRISON I FOERSTER
.\ Ll:\IITF.D l.l:\BII.ITY P.\RT~E RSIIIP
The Committee of Privileges 31 March 2015 Page Two
subjects of this inquiry. We assume that this will not be controversial given that they are also subject to the duty of confidence set out in the Committee's Resolution dated 3 July 2012.
Yours faithfully, /'
~ .q?.;\ c;;J {ow{)q , Morrison & Foerstl (UK) LLP
ln-254965 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
Morrison Foerster (UK) LLP CityPoint One Ropemaker Street London EC2Y 9AW
8 April 2015
Your ref: By post and email
Dear Sirs
Eleventh Report of Session 2010-2012 from the Culture Media and Sport Committee
Thank you for your letter of 31 March 2015. The newly constituted Committee in the next Parliament will have access to the papers of the previous Committee, and will proceed as it sees fit. It will come to its own view on the basis of that evidence, and any further evidence it considers will assist it to reach a conclusion. As the Committee in this Parliament was unable to report, no final decision has been made on any-- of the matters related to the referral. Since Parliament is dissolved, and no committee is currently in existence, I cannot authorise you to share the SDT judgement.
amson Clerk oft e Committee of Privileges CITYPOINT i\lORIUSON FOERSTER (UK) LLP MORRISON I FOERSTER ONE ROPEMAKER STREET NEW YORK, SAN FRANCJSCO, LOS ANGEL[;;S, PALO ALTO, LONDON EC2Y9AW SAN DLEGO, WASJIINGTON ~ D . C ~ :\ LI Mn ED LIAllTLITY PARTNERSHIP UNITED KINGDOM TOKYO, LONDON, BRUSSELS, BEJJING, S/-IANGH,\1, HONG KONG TELEPHONE: +44 20 7920 4000 FACSIMILE: +44 20 7496 8500
WWW.MOFO.COM
30 September 2015
Our ref:
Rt. Hon. Kevin Barron MP Clerk of the Committee of Privileges Journal Office House of Commons London SWlAOAA
By post and email
Dear Sir,
Eleventh Report of Session 2010-2012 from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee: "News International and Phone-hacking"
As you know, we act for Mr. Les Hinton in relation to the Committee's inquiry into the above report. We write to set out our concerns over the further delays to the inquiry as a result of the failure to appoint any new members to the Committee.
It has now been three years and four months since "the matter" was referred to the (then) Standards and Privileges Committee by the House. The Committee is yet to report to the House and, as emphasised by Eve Samson in her letter of 8 April 2015, "no final decision has been made on any ofthe matters related to the referral." (Ms. Samson's emphasis.)
The extraordinary length of the Committee's inquiry is to be contrasted with the relative speed of the Committee of Standard's investigation into Jack Straw and Sir Malcolm Rifkind for 'cash-for-access' misconduct. That investigation took a 'mere' seven months, during which time the subjects of the inquiry were free to defend themselves publicly. In contrast, our client is required-under threat of contempt-to keep the inquiry confidential while Members, including (i) the current shadow leader of the House, (ii) members of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and (iii) the current Secretary of State for Culture, have in public referred to Mr. Hinton as a liar.
Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority
A list of Partners of Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP, a Delaware Limited Liability Partnership 1 (registered number 4569482 8100 080747141) is available at our offices. ln-262021 MORRISON I FOERSTER
A Ll~l!TED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
The Committee of Privileges 30 September 2015 Page Two
The situation is plainly unfair and is made worse by the Committee's endless delays. Please clarify:
i) when the inquiry will resume; and
ii) what the approach of the newly-constituted Committee will be since it surely cannot be bound to approve the provisional adverse findings of the previous Committee.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Yours faithfully, ~·~ f {oJw- Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP
cc: Rt. Hon. John Bercow, Speaker of the House of Commons
Eve Samson, Clerk of the Committee of Privileges
ln-262021 Committee of Privileges Tel 020 7219 4432 Email [email protected] Website www.parliament.uk/privileges
From Rt Hon Kevin Barron, Chair of the Committee
8 October 2015
Morrison Foerster (UK) LLP CityPoint One Ropemaker Street London EC2Y9AW
Thank you for your letter. The Committee of Privileges has not yet been nominated in this Parliament. The only standing I have is as its former Chair.
As the Committee made clear in its public statements, the length of the inquiry has been influenced by a desire not to interfere with court proceedings, and decisions on this matter were taken after consultation with the proper authorities. Investigations into MPs' conduct have been similarly postponed when criminal investigations and legal proceedings were taking place, as court proceedings would be in similar circumstances.
In answer to your two questions, both these will be for the newly constituted Committee to answer. They will doubtless take account of any active proceedings or potential proceedings under consideration when deciding their(J course~s of action. ~~ ~ ~ ---·------ ~ CHAIR CITYl'OlNT MORRISON FOERSTER (UK) l~LP MORRISON I FOERSTER ONf\ ROPl~MJ\KER STREET Nr~\1;' YORK, SAN PRANCISCO, LOS ANGEL.ES, PAl. O IIL 'l' O, LONDON EC2Y 91\W SAN DIP-C0 Wt\5HING'l'ON, O,C . A I.IMITI\O 1.11\BILl'I'\' PAI\TNEllSIIII' 1 UNl'l'RD KINGDOM TOK\'O, LONDON, l\RLISSELS, 111!1 .J ING, s•J1\NGIIAl .IONG KONG TELEl'I-IONI~: +44 20 7920 4{)00 1 F1\CSIMILE: +-44 20 7496 8500
\XNN/.MOFO.COM
19 November 2015
Our ref:
Rt. Hon. Kevin Ban-on MP Chair of the Committee of Privileges Journal Office House of Commons London SWlA OAA
By post and email
Dear Sir,
Eleventh Report of Session 2010-2012 from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee; "News International and Phone-hacking"
We refer to our letter dated 30 September 2015 and your response of 8 October 2015.
We note that the Members of the Committee were appointed on 29 October 2015 and that you have been appointed Chair of the newly constituted Committee.
According, please could you now clarify: i) when the inquiry will resume; and ii) what the approach of the newly-constituted Committee will be. As set out in our letter to the Clerk of the Committee dated 31 March 2015 ( enclosed), it surely cannot be bound to approve the provisional adverse findings of the previous Committee.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Yours faithfully,
cc: Eve Samson, Clerk of the Committee of Privileges Authorised and regulated br the Solicitors Regulation Authorit)'
A list of Partners of Morrison & f'ocrster (UK) J.LP, • Delaware Limited Liability Partnership, (registered number 4569482 8100 080747141) is •vail•ble at our offices. ln-264092 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
Morrison Foerster (UK) LLP CityPoint One Ropemaker Street London EC2Y9AW
23 November 2015
·l)e#tr~ I I am replying to your letter of 19 November 2015 to Kevin Barron MP, Chair of the Committee of Privileges. When the Committee has decided how it will proceed in the matter it will, of course, communicate this to the inquiry subjects and their legal representatives.
Please note that as from 30 November the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges will by Lynn Gardner. Telephone and comm•ttee email details remain unaltered. CJ'JYPOINT ,\ ! ORRISON FO E RSTER {UK) L I.I' MORRISON I FOERSTER ONE ROPEMAKER S'lllEET NL·:\V YORK, SAN FR .o\NC I SCO, LOS ,\N GEI.ES , P :\ LO A Ll"O, LONDON EC2Y 9AW SA N Dlf:'.GO, \VA SII/ NG TO N D . C . A LI MITl·:D LI ABILIT\' PA RTNERSH IP 1 UNITED KINGDOM l'OKYO, L ON D ON, ORUSS ELS, BEIJ I NG, $ H ANG II AI, I IONG KONG TELEPHONE: +44 20 7920 4000 f-ACSIMI LE: +44 20 7496 8500
WWW.MOFO.COM
17 February 2016
Our ref:
Rt. Hon. Kevin Barron MP Chair of the Committee of Privileges Journal Office House of Commons London SWlA OAA
By post and email
Dear Sir,
Eleventh Report of Session 2010-2012 from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee: "News International and Phone-hacking"
We refer to our letter dated 30 September 2015, your reply of 8 October 2015, our letter of 19 November 2015 and the Clerk's reply of23 November 2015.
The Clerk's letter of23 November 2015 stated that "[w]hen the Committee has decided how it will proceed in the matter it will, ofcourse, communicate this to the inquiry subjects and their legal representatives."
We understand that the Committee held its first meeting of the new Parliament at the end of January 2016. To the extent the Committee discussed the inquiry at that meeting, has it now decided on when and how it will proceed?
Please may we also have a response to our letter to the Clerk dated 31 March 2015 (enclosed) concerning the extent to which the new Committee considers itself bound by the previous Committee?
Yours faithfully,
Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP cc: Lynn Gardner, Clerk of the Committee of Privileges Au th o ri sed an d reg ul a ted by the So licitors Regulation Autho rity
A list of Partners of Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP, a Delaware Limited L iabili ty Partn ersh ip, (registe red number 4569482 8100 08074 71 4 1) is avai lable at our o ffices. ln-266985 Committee of Privileges Tel 020 7219 4432 Email [email protected] Website www.parliament.uk/privileges
From Dr Lynn Gardner, Clerk of the Committee
23 February 2016
Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP CityPoint One Ropemaker Street London EC2Y9AW
Dear Sir
Eleventh Report of Session 2010-12 from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, News International and Phone-hacking
Thank you for your letter of 17 February 2016 addressed to the Chair of the Committee of Privileges. I am replying on his behalf.
I can confirm that the Committee of Privileges held its first meeting of this Parliament in January 2016. I can also confirm that the Committee has decided to proceed with the inquiry into the above matter and 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 your client. In the meantime, the Committee extends a further opportunity to your client to give oral evidence or suggest lines of investigation for the Committee's inquiry.
CLERK OF THE COMMITTEE CTJYPOJNT ,\IORRISON FOERSTER (UK) LLP MORRISON I FOERSTER ONE ROPEM/\KER S'DlEET NE.\'V \'ORK, SAN rRI\NCISCO, LOS ANGELES, PALO ALTO, LONDON EC2Y 9AW SAN DIEGO~ WASHINGTON. D . C, A 1.IMJ"I ED I.IAJ31l.lTY PARTNERSHIP UNITED KINGDOM 1· 0KY0 1 LONDON, BRUSSELS, AEIJING, SHANGHAI, HONG KONG TELEPHONE: +44 20 7920 4000 FACSIMILE: +44 20 7496 8500
WWW.MOFO.COM
4 March 2016
Our ref:
Dr Lynn Gardner Clerk of the Committee of Privileges Journal Office House of Commons London SWlA OAA
By post and email
Dear Madam,
Eleventh Report of Session 2010-2012 from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee: "News International and Phone-hacking"
Thank you for your letter dated 23 February 2016. We are taking our client's instructions and will respond substantively in due course.
In the meantime, we should be grateful if you would provide us with a copy of the resolution agreed by the Committee at its January 2016 meeting.
Authorised and regulated b)' the Solicitors Regulation Authority
A list of Partners of Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP, a Delaware Limited Liability Partnership, (registered number 4569482 8100 080747141) is available at our offices. ln-267566 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
Morrison & Foerster {UK) LLP CityPoint One Ropemaker Street London EC2Y9AW
Dear Sirs
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 your client in order to conclude its investigations.
The Committee asks your client whether there is anything that he wishes to explain, or to change, add or amend in his 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 client's 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.
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 {"December 2006 Memo") drafted by Tom Crone to report to your client. A copy of the December 2006 Memo is enclosed, and we also enclose for your reference, emails of 30.12.2006 15:36 and 04.01.2007 16:16 regarding the drafting of the December 2006 Memo.
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. Does your client accept that he was sent the December 2006 Memo? 2. Does your client accept that he received the December 2006 Memo? 3. Did your client read the December 2006 Memo? 4. Did your client at any time discuss the December 2006 Memo with any other person, and if so, with whom, when, and ple:>se provide a summary of your client's discussion. In particular, did the discussion take place prior to your client's appearance 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. Is there anything that your client wishes to explain, or to change, add or amend in his 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 client's attention is drawn in particular to the following matters:
a. 2007 - 091, 095 b. 2009 a. 02107 b. 02115 c. 02116 d. 02132 e. Oq2134-2135 f. 02138 g. Oq2154-2157 h. 02160 i. 02168 j. 02172 k. Oq2173-2180 I. 02196 m. 02213 n. 02215 o. Oq2227-2228 c. 2011 a. 01325 b. 01335 c. 01346 d. Oq1402-1408 e. 01421 f. Ev229-230 d. Letter of 15 August 2012 from Morrison & Foerster containing submissions on behalf of Les Hinton - paragraph 48.
Evidence of Rebekah Brooks in the case of R v Brooks and others
In giving oral evidence during her trial, Rebekah Brooks was shown an expenses form for lunch at the RAC Club on 12 April 2007 (enclosed). At this point she was Editor of The Sun. She told the Court that this lunch had been arranged in order to assist News International to settle Mr Goodman's employment tribunal claim. She stated that your client had approved this idea. We enclose an extract from the transcript of her oral evidence, and part of the Prosecution opening speech as released to the media.
6. Did your client discuss Clive Goodman's dismissal with Rebekah Brooks in or around March and April 2007? 7. In giving oral evidence during her trial, Rebekah Brooks was shown an expenses form for lunch at the RAC Club on 12 April 2007. She said that this was for a lunch meeting she had with Clive Goodman: a. Did your client know that she was meeting with Clive Goodman, in or around March and April 2007? b. Had your client discussed this meeting with Rebekah Brooks before the meeting took place? If yes, what was the content of the discussion? c. Did your client agree to or authorise this meeting taking place? d. Did your client know that Rebekah Brooks was to offer work to Clive Goodman at this meeting? e. Does your client accept Rebekah Brooks' oral evidence regarding this meeting? f. Does one of the signatures on the Sun Staff Expense Form belong to your client? If it is within your client's knowledge, please identify the signatures. g. Does your client accept that the reason this meeting took place was to attempt to prevent an embarrassing employment tribunal and/or more negative damaging headlines? 8. In the light of Rebekah Brooks' evidence, is there anything that your client wishes to explain, or to change, add or amend in his 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 client's attention is drawn in particular to the following matters: a. 2009 i. 02132 ii. 02138 iii. 02196 iv. 02213 v. 02227 b. 2011 i. 01327, ii. Oq 1348-1349 Ill. 0q1396-1399 c. Letter of 15 August 2012 from Morrison & Foerster containing submissions on behalf of Les Hinton - paragraph 48.
9. The obvious inference from the facts in the Committee's possession is that your client desired to prevent a public airing of Clive Goodman's claims that others at News of the World were involved in phone hacking. Is there any reason why this inference should not be drawn? Your client's response should be sent to the Committee by 24 March 2016. Any final submissions your client wishes to make should meet the same deadline.
In response to your letter of 4 March, I attach a copy of the Committee's resolution relating to this inquiry.
CLERK OF THE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE RESOLUTION OF 3 JULY 2012, RECONFIRMED BY THE COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES ON 12 JANUARY 2016
Matter of Privilege referred on 22 May 2012
Resolved, That the Committee notes the that the House has decided "its penal jurisdiction should be exercised ( a) as sparingly as possible and (b) only when the House is satisfied that to exercise it is essential in order to provide reasonable protection for the House, its Members or its officers, from such improper obstruction or attempt at or threat of obstruction as is causing, or is likely to cause, substantial interference with the performance of their respective functions" .1
The Committee will not recommend that the House exercise any power of committal to prison in the matter of privilege referred to it on 22nd May 2012.
Should the Committee find any of the allegations arising from the matter of privilege referred to it on 22nd May 2012 to be proved, the maximum penalty it will recommend the House to impose is admonishment.
The Committee will conduct its inquiry into the matter of privilege referred to it on 22nd May 2012 according to the procedure set out below.
Stage 1- written evidence 1) The Committee will write to Mr Crone, Mr Hinton, Mr Myler and News International (the subjects of the inquiry) inviting them to make submissions in response to the conclusions in Chapter 8 and the evidence adduced elsewhere in the Report to support those conclusions. Such submissions may include additional questions which the subjects of the inquiry consider should be explored with key witnesses (see below) or other relevant parties.
2) The Committee will write to the witnesses on whom the CMS Committee relied in reaching its findings (the key witnesses) to ask them to confirm the accuracy of their evidence. Should they make additional comments, these will be shared with the subjects of the inquiry.
3) The Committee may explore issues raised by the subjects of the inquiry in writing with key witnesses or other relevant parties.
Stage 2- oral evidence 4) The Committee may offer witnesses or other relevant parties the opportunity to give oral evidence, as it thinks fit, and may invite oral evidence at any stage.
5) The Committee will offer the subjects of the inquiry the opportunity to give oral evidence, if they so wish.
1 See Erskine May, p 218, Third Report from the Committee of Privileges, Session 1976-77, Recommendations ofthe Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, HC 417, and the Resolution ofthe House, 6 February 1978 6) At evidence sessions, the subjects of the inquiry, witnesses and other relevant parties may be accompanied by a legal or other adviser, and may take advice from them, but shall answer in person.
7) All transcripts will be made available to the subjects of the inquiry and to witnesses and other relevant parties.
8) The Committee will invite final submissions from the subjects of the inquiry, and may, if necessary, seek further evidence, either oral or in writing.
Stage 3 - Determination 9) Ifthe 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.
10) The Committee will expect to receive responses to warning letters within 14 days.
11) The Committee will consider responses to warning letters before reporting to the House.
12) The Committee will report to the House.
General 13) When considering the allegations against the subjects of the inquiry, the Committee will apply the same standard of proof as applied to allegations against Members, as set out in the Procedural Note of 24 April 2012 from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
14) Requests for information shall be made in writing.
15) Submissions to the Committee shall be made in writing to the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, Journal Office, House of Commons, London SWlA OAA.
16) Responses received from witnesses or other relevant parties will be shared with the subjects of the inquiry.
17) If a subject of the inquiry wishes to be supported by a legal or other adviser, the details of that adviser must be notified to the Committee. 18) The expectation is that oral evidence will be taken in public, in the interests of openness. It will not be broadcast. The Committee will consider requests to take such evidence in private, and rule on them.
19) Oral evidence will be taken on oath.
20) Evidence submitted to the Committee (oral or written) is to be held in confidence until such time as the Committee orders or gives permission for its publication, save that the subjects of the inquiry and witnesses or other relevant parties may disclose it to any adviser or legal representative notified to the Committee. Where evidence is given in public the transcripts will be published as quickly as possible, and may be referred to.
21) The cost of legal representation will be borne by the clients of any legal representatives, not the Committee.
The Committee will suspend its inquiry if requested to do so by the Director of Public Prosecutions on the grounds that to continue might prejudice any pending legal proceedings or criminal investigations. CITYPOINT MORRIS ON l"OERSTER (UK) LLP MORRISON I FOERSTER ONE ROPEMAKER STREET NEW YORK, SAN FRANCISCO, LOS ANGE.LES, PALO AL'I'O, WNDONEC2Y 9AW SAN DIEGO, WASHINGTON, D .C. A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP UNITED I W\XIW.MOFO.COM 16 March 2016 Our ref: Dr Lynn Gardner Clerk ofthe Committee ofPrivileges Journal Office House ofCommons London SWlAOAA By post and email Dear Madam, Eleventh Report of Session 2010-2012 from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee: "News International and Phone-hacking" We refer to your letter dated 9 March 2016. We are taking our client's instructions on the matters you have raised. In the meantime, however, we write to express our and our client's shock, bemusement and frustration at the Committee's approach, particularly given the considerable delay in raising the issues set out in your letter. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Committee has abandoned any commitment to proceeding with its inquiry in a fair and just manner in favour ofbringing the matter to a pre-determined conclusion in as short a time as possible. Once more, we request a meeting with you and the members of the Committee in order to address fundamental questions relating to the inquiry to date and to express our very serious concerns over the manner in which the Committee continues to undermine basic principles of due process and the rule of law. Please propose a suitable date for a meeting at the earliest opportunity. We are further astonished that you have included with your letter materials that you appear to believe can be relied upon without providing full disclosure of all relevant materials in your possession. The materials you have now disclosed suggest that you have had access to the material disclosed in the criminal proceedings against, inter alia, Rebekah Brooks and Andrew Coulson. We do not have those materials because we were not a party to the Autho,ised and tegulated by the Solicitots Regulation Autho,ity A list of Pattnets of Mouis on & Foetste r (UK) LLP, a Delaware Limited Liability Partnetship, (tegisteted numbet 4569482 8100 080747141) is available at our offices. ln-267833 A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP The Committee of Privileges 16 March 2016 Page Two proceedings and there are, naturally, strict rules concerning the confidentiality of such proceedings. The partial and piecemeal disclosure of material apparently in support of a conclusion that the committee appears to have already reached is entirely at odds with the Committee’s stated desire for a “fair” process. Indeed, until we requested it, you did not disclose the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision in relation to Lawrence Abramson, which undermines the conclusions of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and obviously provides crucial support for Mr Hinton. It is extraordinary that any body purporting to discharge quasi-judicial powers in the context of an allegation of “contempt of Parliament” could act with such casual contempt for basic principles of fairness. In the circumstances, we require you to provide us with a full list of all materials in the Committee’s possession as soon as possible. We will review the list and inform you which documents, if any, we require you to disclose to us. We will then be in a position to prepare our client’s detailed response to your letter of 9 March 2016. Finally, we note that the Committee’s Chairman and another member of the Committee have had to stand down pending inquiries into their own conduct. Please let us know whether and, if so, how this will affect the inquiry. Yours faithfully, Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP ln-267833 Committee of Privileges Tel 020 72 i 9 3259 Email [email protected] Website www.parliament.uk/privileges From Dr Lynn Gardner, Clerk of the Committee 16 March 2016 Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP CityPoint One Ropemaker Street London EC2Y9AW Dear Sirs 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. I shall reply separately in relation to the issues about disclosure and process raised during our telephone conversation last week. 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 23 March 2016 Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP CityPoint One Ropemaker Street London EC2Y9AW Dear Sirs Eleventh Report of Session 2010-12 from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, News International and Phone-hacking Thank you for your letter of 16 March 2016. As my predecessor has stressed on a number of occasions, this is a parliamentary process and it would be inappropriate for the Committee to hold a meeting with legal representatives to discuss case management. The procedure to be followed by the Committee is a matter for the Committee and Parliament to determine. The resolution demonstrates the Committee's determination to be fair and transparent and to bring matters to a conclusion, based on the evidence, as quickly as due process will allow. On disclosure of documents, the Committee has adopted the policy of sharing with inquiry subjects all evidence of relevance to their individual positions, including any evidence which tends or might tend to suggest that an individual did not mislead the CMS Committee as they concluded in their Report. Confidentiality issues mean that it would not be appropriate to share all evidence received with all correspondents where not relevant to the matters concerning them. Finally, you refer in your letter to the current position of the Chair and the Committee. I can confirm that Sir Kevin Barron has stood aside from the Committee of Privileges temporarily. The Committee is still able to meet in his absence and there is no impact on the inquiry. I look forward to receiving the responses requested from your client by the revised deadline of Monday 11 April 2016. 1ov.s .µ\.CLS ~ CLERK OF THE COMMITTEE Cl1YPOINT MORRISON&. FOBRSTER (UK) LLP MORRISON I FOERSTER ONE ROPEMAKER STREET UEIJING, BERLIN, HRUSSHLS. DENVER, HONG KONG, LONDON, LOS ANGELES, LONDON EC2Y 9AW NEW YORK, NORTHERN VIRGINIA, A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP UNITED KINGDOM PALO ALTO, SACRAMENTO, SAN DIEGO, SAN FRANCISCO, SHANGHAI, SINGAPORE, TELEPHONE: +44 20 7920 4000 TOKYO, WASHINGTON, D . C . FACSIMILE: +44 20 7496 8500 WWW.MOFO.COM 11 April 2016 Dr Lynn Gardner Clerk to the Committee ofPrivileges Journal Office House of Commons London SWlAOAA BY POST AND E-MAIL Dear Madam Eleventh Report of Session 2010-12 from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, News International and Phone-hacking We confirm that we will respond to your letter of 9 March 2016 on Thursday 14 April. Yours faithfully Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority A list of Partners of Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP, a Delaware Limited Liability Partnership, (registered number 4569482 8100 080747141) is available at our offices. ln-268813 vl CITYPOINT MORRIS ON l"OERSTER (UK) LLP MORRISON I FOERSTER ONE ROPEMAKER STREET NEW YORK, SAN FRANCISCO, LOS ANGE.LES, PALO AL'I'O, WNDONEC2Y 9AW SAN DIEGO, WASHINGTON, D .C. A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP UNITED I W\XIW.MOFO.COM 14 April 2016 Our ref: Dr Lynn Gardner Clerk ofthe Committee ofPrivileges Journal Office House ofCommons London SWlAOAA By post and email Dear Madam, Eleventh Report of Session 2010-2012 from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee: "News International and Phone-hacking" 1. We refer to your letter dated 9 March 2016 setting out, for the first time, requests for further information that you say the Committee requires in order to conclude its investigations. 2. Notwithstanding the Committee's determined refusal to respond to our repeated expressions of concern, we ask once more for clarification of the Committee's jurisdiction, powers and scope in accordance with our detailed submissions dated 15/08/12 (see in particular paragraphs 5-14). For the reasons set out below, we do not accept that the issues you have now raised and the questions you have asked are relevant to the matter that the Committee has been asked to decide. Without prejudice to that general objection, the purpose of this letter is to address issues arising from your questions in the context ofgrave concern that the Committee has, yet again, pre-judged the outcome ofits inquiry on the basis ofa selective and partial reading ofthe material in its possession. The Remit ofthe Inquiry 3. As you are aware, Parliament referred this matter of privilege to the Committee on 22 May 2012. In the minutes of the Committee meeting of 12 June 2012, it was noted that you would write to the subjects of the inquiry inviting them to make Autho,ised and tegulated by the Solicitots Regulation Autho,ity A list of Pattnets of Mouis on & Foetste r (UK) LLP, a Delaware Limited Liability Partnetship, (tegisteted numbet 4569482 8100 080747141) is available at our offices. ln-268973 A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP The Committee of Privileges 14 April 2016 Page Two submissions in response to the conclusions of Chapter 8 of the Report of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee (the “Report”) and the evidence adduced elsewhere in the Report to support its conclusions. Therefore, as stated in the Clerk of this Committee’s letter of 3 July 2012, this Committee is required to consider: “the matters set out in Chapter 8 of the 11th Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee of Session 2010-2012, News International and Phone- hacking (HC 903), namely that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee had been misled, and consequently contempt of the House had been committed.” 4. The Clerk went on to say 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 Report and associated evidence on which they rely.” (Emphasis added.) 5. Your letter of 9 March 2016 refers to numerous documents that were not before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee when it produced its Report. Those documents were not, therefore, part of the “associated evidence” on which that Committee relied when reaching its conclusions in Chapter 8 of the Report. Insofar as the Committee has apparently expanded the scope of its “inquiry”, it is plainly straying well beyond its remit as previously announced on the basis that it can conduct a fresh investigation of the entire matter. It was of course a concern to understand the asserted role and jurisdiction which the Committee understood it was exercising (appellate, de novo re-hearing or merely review on quasi-public law principles) that informed much of what we sought to advance in our 15/08/12 submission. 6. Additionally, in your letter to us of 13 February 2015 you stated: “The Committee has disclosed to you all of the evidence on which it seeks to rely and it has not withheld anything which might be supportive of your client.” This is plainly not the case. Not only is the Committee departing without explanation from its remit, it is also taking an iterative approach to scope and disclosure. No doubt your response to these points will again be that this is all a matter of “Parliamentary procedure” as if this mantra justifies the abandonment of basic standards of procedural fairness that any court-like body would be required to adopt. If this be the case then we can only repeat once more our request for a meeting so that the Committee can explain to us its bewildering approach to fairness and transparency and so that we may have an opportunity to address the Committee on the issues we have been seeking to raise for the past 4 years. If the Committee refuses to permit such a meeting, we ask that we be given reasons for such refusal so that, in the event that you uphold the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s findings, we and the European Court of Human Rights (to which Court an application alleging multiple violations of Article 6 of the Convention would immediately be made) may understand the reasoned basis for ln-268973 A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP The Committee of Privileges 14 April 2016 Page Three your unwillingness to permit something as basic as a meeting involving legal representatives to take place. The “December 2006 Memo” 7. We now turn to address your questions concerning the document entitled “Re: CLIVE GOODMAN” that you say was “drafted by Tom Crone to report to your client.” For the avoidance of doubt, the information below is provided without prejudice to our contention that the questions are outside the scope of the Committee’s inquiry. 8. Our client has no recollection of having been sent, having received or having read the December 2006 Memo. While we accept that the emails you have provided from Andy Coulson and Tom Crone refer to an intention to send the December 2006 Memo to Mr Hinton, we are aware of no evidence showing that Mr Crone ever provided a copy to Mr Hinton or otherwise conveyed the substance of the Memo to Mr Hinton. In a matter as exhaustively investigated as this one, if such evidence existed, presumably it would have been found and you would have considered it. Do you possess such evidence? If so, may we be allowed to see it? 9. You also refer to an extract of the transcript of the summing up of Mr Justice Saunders where, with apparent reference to the December 2006 Memo, he states that “Mr Crone reports to Les Hinton on what is going on…”. In your letter dated 23 March 2016, you declined our request to provide us with full disclosure of all the materials in your possession and, as a result, it is impossible to read this sentence within the full context of the Judge’s summing up. As you will be aware, all judges in criminal trials point out at the beginning of their summing up that what they say is not itself evidence. In circumstances where Mr Crone was not, as we understand it, a witness at the trial, it is unclear to us the basis upon which the Committee is relying on the cited extract from the Judge’s summing up and whether you have fully disclosed all relevant material in relation to this document. We note the December 2006 Memo appears to have come from Andy Coulson’s defence bundle. Inexplicably, you justify your refusal to provide a full copy of the summing up (amongst other documents) on the basis of “confidentiality issues” despite the fact that a judge’s summing up is plainly not confidential. It was made in open court. Please provide a full copy by return. 10. In the absence of full disclosure of the trial transcripts, we cannot understand why the Judge has speculated that Mr Crone reported to Mr Hinton “on what is going on,” whatever that means. Clearly, the emails from Mr Crone and Mr Coulson do not support such a conclusion. Please let us know whether there are other documents or evidence that you have not disclosed that do support such a conclusion. 11. Further, the Judge’s remarks cannot amount to evidence because the Judge obviously ln-268973 A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP The Committee of Privileges 14 April 2016 Page Four did not possess the necessary personal knowledge as to the circumstances surrounding the December 2006 Memo. The Judge appears to have made a passing remark on an unimportant fact in the Brooks/Coulson trial in which Mr Hinton was not a party or witness. The Judge’s comment has no relevance to the issues before this Committee. 12. In any event, even assuming that Mr Hinton had received and read a copy of the December 2006 Memo, the briefing contains nothing beyond what Clive Goodman wrote in his letter of 2 March 2007. This Committee is aware that Mr Hinton took the decision to dismiss Mr Goodman. That decision contradicts any suggestion of a cover-up by Mr Hinton – which is no doubt why you have conveniently decided to ignore it and the following facts. In his letter, which was extensively dealt with by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Mr Goodman names six employees whose emails he claimed would reveal evidence of widespread phone hacking done with the knowledge and approval of Mr Coulson. (In the December 2006 Memo, Mr Crone makes clear that “Andy” denies Mr Goodman’s allegations and Mr Crone opines that he is “certain” that this allegation is false and makes no sense.) 13. Following receipt of Mr Goodman’s letter of 2 March 2007, our client took extensive steps to investigate Mr Goodman’s accusations. These steps are described in our letter of 6 March 2015, a copy of which is enclosed for your convenience, and we draw your specific attention to paragraphs 18 to 36. In summary: a. Mr Hinton first instructed Daniel Cloke and Jonathan Chapman to investigate Mr Goodman’s allegations by reviewing the emails of every individual whom Mr Goodman claimed had engaged in the conduct in question.1 Messrs. Cloke and Chapman found nothing to support what Mr Goodman had claimed, but Mr Hinton nevertheless insisted that an external law firm conduct its own independent analysis. Accordingly, Mr Chapman instructed Lawrence Abramson of Harbottle & Lewis to carry out a further review of the email accounts. b. The results of the work performed by Cloke/Chapman and then Harbottle & Lewis informed Mr Hinton that there was no evidence to support Mr Goodman’s allegations. In particular: i. On the authorisation of Mr Hinton, News International made available to Harbottle & Lewis emails over a greater timescale than those identified in Mr Goodman’s letter of 14 March 2007, including emails dating back to 2003. What we now know about the content of those emails proves that Mr Hinton was not trying to hide anything. Mr Hinton’s decision to provide the full set of emails to a respected 1 The investigation by Messrs Cloke and Chapman followed, of course, the investigations already carried out by the police. ln-268973 A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP The Committee of Privileges 14 April 2016 Page Five outside law firm is flatly inconsistent with the notion that Mr Hinton knew or even suspected that there was anything to hide. ii. On 29 May 2007, Mr Abramson wrote to Mr Chapman that his firm had reviewed the emails of the six individuals identified by Mr Goodman and that Mr Abramson’s firm had not found anything that appeared to them to be reasonable evidence that Mr Goodman’s illegal actions were known about by individuals named by Mr Goodman and/or that others were carrying out similar illegal procedures. Mr Hinton was made aware of these conclusions, and these conclusions formed the basis for his answers to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in 2009. Mr Hinton reasonably relied on the work of Harbottle & Lewis. He had no reason to suspect that Harbottle & Lewis had not completed its assignment in a thorough, competent manner. c. As you are aware, however, it is now indisputable – although wholly unknown to Mr Hinton at the time – that Mr Abramson failed to carry out his assignment properly. In particular: i. Junior members of the Harbottle & Lewis team identified a number of emails that appeared to support Mr Goodman’s claims and contained evidence of phone hacking and payments to police officers. ii. As Mr Abramson admitted to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (the “SDT”), Mr Abramson failed in his professional obligations and did not bring the relevant emails to the attention of Mr Chapman, Mr Hinton or anyone else at News International. d. The SDT concluded that Mr Abramson’s “failure to review all of the material identified by his team was due to a genuine, major, but inadvertent oversight…[His errors] were major in nature and caused consequences, which were there for all to see.” In the SDT’s view, the tragic consequences resulted from Mr Abramson’s “unprofessional, incompetent, and unacceptable” conduct.2 “People were depending on [Mr Abramson], and he let them down.”3 Mr Hinton is among those who were depending on Mr Abramson, and Mr Hinton is among those who have suffered the consequences of Mr Abramson’s failures. 14. The detailed judgment of the SDT dated 3 February 2015 concerning Mr Abramson4 demonstrates that the attempt by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee to portray 2 SDT Judgment, para. 38.6. 3 SDT Judgment, para. 38.3. 4 SRA v Chapman and Abramson, Case No. 11164-2013. ln-268973 A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP The Committee of Privileges 14 April 2016 Page Six the review carried out by Mr Abramson as somehow narrow in scope was a wild concoction of ill-based supposition. Indeed, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s Report even went as far as to say: “Lawrence Abramson was undoubtedly simply doing his job as a lawyer. Indeed, he seems to have made some effort to alert News International to problems that he uncovered.” (See paragraph 61.) In light of the SDT’s ruling, this finding is self-evidently unsustainable and fatally undermines the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s conclusions in relation to Mr Hinton. 15. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s speculation was flatly contradicted by the abundant evidence presented to the SDT, as set out in the detailed Judgment of the Tribunal. Even assuming that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee was acting in good faith and without bias5, later evidence makes clear beyond any doubt that the Committee’s conclusions in 2012 were simply wrong. We note that the Committee disclosed to us the SDT material that it had in its possession only after a number of requests. We fail to understand why no mention is made of Mr Abramson’s admitted failings when considering the answers given by Mr Hinton and no consideration of this evidence appears to have been undertaken by the Committee. Evidence of Rebekah Brooks in R v Brooks & Others 16. The second set of questions in your letter of 9 March 2016 concerns a meeting between Rebekah Brooks and Clive Goodman in April 2007. The questions are based on evidence given by Ms Brooks during her trial, which of course was not available to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and therefore cannot have formed the basis for the conclusions in Chapter 8 of the Report. Given the limited remit of this Committee, we can see no justifiable basis for these questions. They do raise further areas of considerable concern about the approach being undertaken by the Committee. 17. Remarkably, on a selective reading of material not relevant to the scope of this Committee’s limited inquiry, you appear to have already decided that Mr Hinton did instruct Ms Brooks to meet with Mr Goodman in order to offer Mr Goodman a job. That much is clear from paragraph 9 of your letter where you draw an “obvious inference” that Mr Hinton had tried to ensure Mr Goodman’s silence. Again, to pre judge this matter is entirely at odds with the fair and balanced approach to this inquiry that the Committee claims it wants. 5 As set out at paragraphs 74 to 91 of our letter of 15 August 2012, incontrovertible evidence of bias exists, particularly given Mr Thomas Watson’s decision to publish the book Dial M for Murdoch: News Corporation and the Corruption of Britain. Mr Watson cannot be considered an impartial trier of fact in any sense, and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s collective failure to appreciate this obvious fact is a grave indictment of both its competence and its understanding of basic principles of due process. ln-268973 A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP The Committee of Privileges 14 April 2016 Page Seven 18. In fact, we understand that testimony on this issue was not limited to the single instance you have chosen to provide. In particular: a. In her evidence on 26 February 2014 we understand that Ms Brooks gave evidence that although she could not be certain she was prepared to say that it was her idea to offer Mr Goodman a freelance job. b. During cross-examination on behalf of Mr Goodman on 5 March 2014, Ms Brooks conceded that she could not be certain whose idea it had been to offer Mr Goodman a job and it was therefore unfair to say that it was Mr Hinton’s idea. c. Further, during his cross-examination by the prosecution on 16 May 2014, Mr Goodman was questioned about the meeting with Ms Brooks. Mr Goodman had apparently made a note of the meeting, and that note recorded that Ms Brooks had said that she had not consulted Mr Hinton regarding offering Mr Goodman a job. 19. If our understanding of the trial testimony is correct, then it demonstrates that Ms Brooks was uncertain whether or not Mr Hinton had suggested that Ms Brooks offer Mr Goodman a job. Ms Brooks admitted that she did not have a clear recollection about many events leading up to the lunch. Mr Goodman’s note, the only contemporaneous record of the lunch conversation, states that Ms Brooks had told Mr Goodman that she had made the job offer without Mr Hinton’s knowledge. So not only has this Committee apparently pre-judged this matter by drawing “obvious inferences,” the pre-judgment is not supported by the evidence. 20. In your letter of 23 March 2016 you declined our request for copies of, inter alia, the trial transcripts on the basis that the Committee “has adopted the policy of sharing with inquiry subjects all evidence of relevance to their individual positions, including any evidence which tends or might tend to suggest that an individual did not mislead the CMS Committee as they concluded in their Report.” The Committee is plainly not following its own policy as our points above in relation to the evidence of Ms Brooks and Mr Goodman demonstrate. 21. Assuming that our understanding of Ms Brooks’ and Mr Goodman’s testimony is correct, the material is plainly relevant where the Committee has decided to widen the scope of its inquiry without notice and should have been disclosed in full. Your failure to disclose it is a further apt example of why your partial and selective interpretation of the evidence is unfair and dangerous. 22. We invite you to review the trial transcripts again with particular reference to the evidence summarised above. We also restate our request for copies of all transcripts from the trial of R v Brooks. Procedural Unfairness ln-268973 A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP The Committee of Privileges 14 April 2016 Page Eight 23. We continue to be alarmed by the Committee’s casual disregard for basic principles of procedural fairness in conducting the current “inquiry”. The Committee continues to press ahead without first addressing and responding to the most basic questions about, inter alia, the nature, function, role and scope of the Committee’s inquiry. We have set out these questions time and again, particularly in our submissions of 15 August 2012 and 2 February 2015 (copies enclosed) but are yet to receive a considered, reasoned response. 24. As we stated in our letter of 19 December 2014, such fundamental principles go to the transparency and fairness of the Committee’s inquiry and the Select Committee process as a whole, which is particularly important where any judicial or quasi- judicial body purport to exercise a penal jurisdiction. At no point in nearly four years has the Committee even attempted to address these concerns, relying instead on an archaic, utterly misplaced assertion that the inquiry is a “parliamentary process”—as if that might somehow excuse the Committee’s shocking disregard for basic principles of due process. 25. Indeed, your latest letter of 23 March 2016 states that the procedure to be followed by the Committee is a matter for the Committee and Parliament to determine and it would therefore “be inappropriate for the Committee to hold a meeting with legal representatives to discuss case management.” With respect, this logic is flawed.6 The Committee cannot close its eyes to the concerns we have raised and blindly press ahead with its grossly unfair procedure simply because of some misplaced faith in Erskine May and “the law of Parliament”. A key purpose of our detailed submissions dated 15/08/12 was to draw your attention, amongst other things, to the (then) recently published paper by the Constitution Society and the equally illuminating paper published by the Clerk of the House dated 24/07/12 concerning the powers of Select Committees. Paragraphs 10-11 of our submission cited from the Clerk’s paper in order to highlight the problems of power, legitimacy and jurisdiction affecting the Privileges Committee’s “inquiry” into Mr Hinton. If the Committee were truly committed to holding a fair inquiry, it would surely welcome a constructive discussion with the legal representatives of the inquiry’s subjects to determine how the concerns might be addressed. To blithely ignore those concerns, as this Committee and the previous Committee has apparently chosen to do, only highlights the unfairness of the process. 26. It is important to emphasise that the concerns we have raised on behalf of our client are not intended to undermine or disrupt the inquiry. They are legitimate and reasonable concerns—recognised by Parliament itself7—that deserve to be addressed and indeed must be addressed sooner or later. In failing to do so, the “obvious 6 It is also at odds with the initial approach of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, which invited our client in a letter from Kevin Barron dated 19 June 2012, to give his “views on what would be an appropriate process before [the Committee] comes to a final decision.” 7 See, for example, the paper published by the Clerk of the House on 24 July 2012. ln-268973 A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP The Committee of Privileges 14 April 2016 Page Nine inference” (to use your phrase) is that the Committee intends to keep its head firmly wedged in the sand because it has no answer and simply does not care, possibly because of a misplaced belief that any finding it makes is immune from review or challenge. While the Bill of Rights 1689 may prevent a challenge before the domestic courts, the European Court of Human Rights undoubtedly does have jurisdiction to review the Committee’s conduct and findings in the event that it decides to uphold the findings of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee concerning Mr Hinton (and on the basis that he is thereby guilty of “contempt of Parliament”). We make clear that an application to the ECtHR will certainly be made should such a finding be made following the Committee’s apparently intended process. The Previous Committee’s Provisional Findings 27. Finally, we wish to take this opportunity to seek the Committee’s clarification on the provisional findings that were reached by the previous Committee but not ultimately reported to the House. 28. On 19 February 2015, and pursuant to paragraph 9 of the 3 July 2012 Resolution, the previous Committee provided us with draft paragraphs setting out the matters on which it was “minded to criticise” Mr Hinton. Paragraphs 1 to 12 of the draft paragraphs addressed the Committee’s allegation that Mr Hinton had: “misled the Committee in 2009 in not telling the truth about payments to Clive Goodman and his role in authorising them, including the payment of his legal fees.” 29. Paragraph 12 of the draft paragraphs concluded—correctly, in our view—that: “While the Culture, Media and Sport Committee was sceptical about Mr Hinton’s memory, there is no evidence that he misled the Committee in relation to this role in the payment of legal fees or the fact that he authorised the payments to Mr Goodman to settle his Employment Tribunal claim.” 30. However, on 8 April 2015, the previous Clerk to the Committee, Eve Samson, wrote: “As the Committee in this Parliament was unable to report, no final decision has been made on any of the matters related to the referral.” 31. In the circumstances, we invite you to clarify the effect of the draft paragraphs of the previous Committee and particularly those that exonerate Mr Hinton in respect of both (i) the payment of Mr Goodman’s legal fees and (ii) Mr Hinton’s authorisation of payments to Mr Goodman in settlement of Mr Goodman’s employment tribunal claim. It would plainly be both absurd and grossly unfair if the Members of the current Committee (some of whom were part of the previous Committee) were to abandon its provisional conclusion in the absence of any new evidence. ln-268973 A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP The Committee of Privileges 14 April 2016 Page Ten We look forward to hearing from you. Yours faithfully, Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP Enclosures ln-268973 Committee of Privileges Tel 020 7219 3259 Fa x 020 7219 5952 Email [email protected] Website www.parliarnent.uk/privileges From Lynn Gardner, Clerk of the Committee Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP CityPoint One Ropemaker Street London EC2Y 9AW 30 June 2016 Your client: Mr Les Hinton By post and email Dear Sirs 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 your client. 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 ofthe 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 ~ubsequently released to the Committee. I enclose this additional material in accordance with our policy on disclosure. You will see that the Committee briefly refers to this evidence but draws no further inference from it 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. ,~ µtl.1S L/v\Y,-- Lynn Gardner Clerk of the Committee of Privileges 2 U !Yl'(ll"-il MORRISON I FOERSTER !< i ; t 'q ;_ :- ii \ ', , , I ! \ ? , I J! "- h l -~ u TI J.I 1' 11( )\.!-:: + .\-1 211 ' 1)2!1.\J IIM ' I C. \C:-:I \ 11 :J ·:: +.\-I 2i l 7-l% X511il \\ '\\'\\'. \[( )],'( )<:( )\! 13July2016 Our ref: Dr Lynn Gardner Clerk of the Committee of Privileges Journal Office House of Commons London SWlA OAA By post and email Dear Madam. Eleventh Report of Session 2010-2012 from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee: "~ews International and Phone-hacking" Thank you for your letter dated 30 June 2016 and the attached extract from the draft Report setting out the findings that the Committee is minded to make in relation to Mr Hinton. Vv'e acknowledge (and plainly hm·e no comment on) the Committ ee·s conclusion that Mr Hinton committed no acts that would support a finding of a contempt of the House. The purpose of this letter is to invite the Committee to review three particular passages in the draft Report on the basis that they are inconsistent with the evidence. incompatible with the Committce·s findings that no contempt is made out or. in one case. apt to mislead. Paragraphs 56 to 67 set out the Committee's conclu sions in relation to Mr Hinton's knowledge of the extent of the phone hacking at Xews <~lthe World. While the Committee concludes that the evidence does not support a finding of contempt on this issue. the Committee nonetheless states in paragraph 64 (in the context of Mr Hinton's responses to the CMS in 2009) that "the failure to disclose tends to create a suspicion that Les Hinton's answers were grossly misleading and designed to be so··. Bearing in mind the Committee's (plainly correct) statement immediately after this observation that "for a finding of contempt there needs to be something concrete upon which to fix that contempt'", we invite the Committee to re,·isit paragraph 64 as a whole and to delete in particular the passage referring to the suspicion that Mr Hinton·s ansv.:ers were ..grossly misleading and designed to be so". \u: h r, r1:-.1.;J :1.nJ rcgu!.u ..-J tr. tfH: :" ,d !CH (l r" H.1.:gu'..1!1 (,n .\uthll flt ! \ !t,t , t P::t rtnt.:r.., ,i t \ : (, rr1 ... \1n '-\: !·, 1cr-. rcr l 1' LI. P, .1 Dcl aw.Hc L1 1n1 tcJ Luh il 1t ~ Parrn i.: r -.h1 p, ; n:g1..,tcrt.: 1..I n u mht.:r -fj(i (J ..l,'-(2 ~! ,i.• 1, 1.i. , -4- 141 1 , ,\\· ,11 i.1blc .1c i,u r ,, if1..::t.: :-. . ln -272713 MORRISON I FOERSTER \ J./\1111 l/ l.l\HIJ 11\ P\Rl"\.l·H'-f[IP The Committee of Privileges 13 July 2016 Page Two We do so because the Committee's conclusion is that there is no proper evidential basis for a finding of contempt. It is therefore v,:holly inappropriate and grossly unfair to suggest that notv,,ithstanding the acquittal of Mr Hinton on the charge of contempt. there remains a swpicion that he may be guilty. No court of law would countenance such an offensi\·e, contra ictory and indeed wholly speculative approach to the expression of its findings on an issue such as this and we respectfully submit that no Committee of the House should adopt such an approach where it is dealing with an allegation as serious as ..contempt'' of Parliament. The simple fact is that having re\·iewed the evidence as a whole. the Committee has concluded that the ..charge"' is not made out and any reference to a tendency ··to create a suspicion·· should have no place in a Report from a body that is discharging a quasi-judicial function. To similar effect. the Committee comments in paragraph 66 that Mr Hinton·s evidence was ..misleading"' because he did not tell the Committee that a source for the allegations and accusations of widespread phone hacking was Clive Goodman. The use of the word ..misleading'' is. we respectfully suggest. both unfounded and once again arguably inconsistent with the Committee's own conclusion. In the course of three lengthy appearances befor~ the Culture. Yledia and Sport Committee. Mr Hinton was never asked to identify the source of the many rumours. allegations. and accusations about the extent of phone hacking at XeH·s ofthe World. Had any member of the Committee - many of whom asked detailed questions of Mr Hinton - considered this issue to be important. s/he could have done so. Moreover. by the time of Mr Hinton· s September 2009 appearance. those specific allegations had. as far as Mr Hinton was aware. been properly investigated (including by a reputable fim1 of Solicitors) and not substantiated. We will not repeat here our earlier detailed submissions. which are referred to in the Committee's draft findings at paragraphs 53 to 55. Suffice it to say that the Committee might. on reflection. consider that it is illogical to assert that Mr Hinton misled the Culture. Media and Sport Committee on an issue (1) about which he was never asked. and ( 2) in circumstances where he had been told that there was no evidence to support the allegations by the source (Mr Goodman) who. the Committee now apparently concludes. should have been voluntarily disclosed by Mr Hinton. We suggest that the Committee might conclude that it is simply inappropriate to describe Mr Hinton·s evidence as '·misleading .. (which implies an intent to deceive) given the finding that no contempt is made out. Consistent with the Committee's conclusion and the undisputed evidence. the highest the matter can be put is that Mr Hinton·s answers \Vere incomplete and we invite the Committee to substitute this adjective for ..misleading"' in the second line of paragraph 66. This one-word edit is also consistent with this Committee's observation on the first count of alleged contempt (para. 24) that "without any direct lie as opposed to omissions that \Ve can point to within his evidence:· there is not sufficient evidence for a finding of contempt. This acknowledged distinction between a .. li e·· and an ·'omission" is critical and pro\·ides a further reason for the amendment we suggest. Finally. please note that paragraph 52 states that ''Les Hinton did not provide oral or \vritten evidence to the Leveson Inquiry ... As drafted. that sentence might suggest to the uninfom1ed ln-272713 MORRISON I FOERSTER \ l l \11 ! I P I i \ !q ! l J Y P \ R ! °\.. ! R...; 11 I P The Committee of Privileges 13July2016 Page Three reader that \1r Hinton declined to provide e\·idence to the Leveson Inquiry. However. as the Committee must know, Mr Hinton was not invited to give evidence. Therefore. to avoid this unintended implication. we ask the Committee to amend the relevant sentence to read: '"Les Hinton was not invited to. and therefore did not provide. oral or written evidence to the Leveson Inquiry:· Yours faithfully. Morrison & Foerster (l'K) LLP ln-272713 Committee of Privileges Tel 020 7219 3259 Email [email protected] Website www.parliament.uk/privileges From Lynn Gardner, Clerk of the Committee Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP CityPoint One Ropemaker Street London EC2Y 9AW 21 July 2016 Your client: Mr Les Hinton By post and email Dear Sirs 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 13 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. Lynn Gardner Clerk of the Committee of Privileges