CORRESPONDENCE WITH MORRISON FOERSTER 2014‐16 Part 1
Letter from Morrison Foerster to the Chair of the Committee of Privileges, 30/10/2014
Letter from the Acting Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Morrison Foerster, 12/12/2014
Letter from Morrison Foerster to the Chair of the Committee of Privileges, 19/12/2014
Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Morrison Foerster, 23/12/2014
Letter from Morrison Foerster to the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, 24/12/2014
Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Morrison Foerster, 19/01/2015
Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Morrison Foerster, 23/01/2015
Letter from Morrison Foerster to the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, 26/01/2015
Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Morrison Foerster, 28/01/2015
Letter from Morrison Foerster to the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, 28/01/2015
Letter from Morrison Foerster to the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, 2/02/2015
Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Morrison Foerster, 3/02/2015
Letter from Morrison Foerster to the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges and evidence, 5/02/2015
Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Morrison Foerster, 12/02/2015
Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Morrison Foerster, 13/02/2015
Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Morrison Foerster, 19/02/2015
Letter from Morrison Foerster to the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, 24/02/2015
Letter from Morrison Foerster to the Chair of the Committee of Privileges, 24/02/2015
Letter from the Chair of the Committee of Privileges to Morrison Foerster, 25/02/2015
Letter from Morrison Foerster to the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, 25/02/2015
Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Morrison Foerster, 26/02/2015
Letter from Morrison Foerster to the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, 27/02/2015
Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Morrison Foerster, 2/03/2015
Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Morrison Foerster, 3/03/2015
Letter from Morrison Foerster to the Chair of the Committee of Privileges, 6/03/2015
CITYPOINT MORRISON & F OE R STER (UK) LLP MORRISON I FOERSTER ONE ROPEMAKER SfREET N R W YORK, S A N F RANClSCO, LOS ANGE LES, PA LO A LTO, LONDON EC2Y 9AW A LIMITED LIABILIT Y PARTNERSHIP S A N DI EGO, WAS HI N G TON, D .C. UNITED KINGDOM TOKYO, LON D ON , BRUSSE LS , B EIJ ING , S H ANG HAI, HON G KONG TELEPHONE: +44 20 7920 4000 FACSIMILE: +44 20 7496 8500
WWW.MOFO.COM
30 October 2014
Our ref:
Rt Hon Kevin Barron MP Chair of the Committee of Privileges Journal Office House of Commons London SWlAOAA
By post and email ([email protected]; [email protected])
Dear Sir,
Eleventh Report of Session 2010-2012 from the Culture Media and Sport Committee
We refer to your letter of 20 November 2013 which set out, amongst other things, the reasons why the Committee of Privileges had decided to suspend its inquiry and certain advice that it had taken.
You will be aware of the outcomes of some of the relevant criminal investigations and prosecutions that have occurred since your letter and you may be aware of recent media speculation in respect of the inquiry. In particular, we noted The Guardian piece of the 20 October 2014 and the comments by a fellow MP in relation to future actions and appropriate procedure.
We should be grateful if you would confirm whether the inquiry remains suspended or whether the Committee now intends to move forward.
If the inquiry remains suspended it would be helpful to understand the reasons for the continuing suspension and we ask that such reasons are addressed in any response.
Alternatively, if the Committee does intend to proceed in any way we would ask for appropriate notice of any proposed procedural steps and we reserve our client's rights to make further representations in respect of any matters ofprocedure, law or fact.
Autho rised and regulated by the Solicito rs Reg ulation Authority
A list o f P artners o f Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP, a D elaware Limited Liability Partnership, (registered number 4569482 8100 080747141) is available at o ur offices. lns247851 MORRISON I FOERSTER
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
Rt Hon Kevin Barron MP 30 October 2014 Page Two
We look forward to hearing from you.
Yours faithfully i\Mvr~ t ~r« Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP
ln-247851 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 C0mmittee
12 December 2014
Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP CityPoint One Ropemaker Street London EC2Y9AW
Dear Sirs
Re: News International and Phone-hacking Your client: Mr Les Hinton Your ref:
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 lt is minded to make, and give your client a further opportunity to co.mment.
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 ifthey 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 your client expects to take the opportunity to make oral submissions in January. YIIW) ~I RBJ Alda Barry Acting Clerk of the Committee of Privileges CITYPOINI' MORRISON FOE.RSTE.R (UK) LLP MORRISON I FOERSTER ONE ROPEMAKER STREET NEW YORK, SAN FRANCISCO, LOS ANGE.LE.S, PALO ALTO, LONDON EC2Y 9AW SAN DIE.GO, WASHING'l'ON, D.C. A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP UNITED KlNGDOM 'tOKYO, LONDON, :&RUSSE.LS, BEIJING, SHANGHAI, HONG KONG TELEPHONE +44 20 7920 4000 FACSIJy[[LE +44 20 7496 8500
W\XI\X/.MOFOCOM
19 December 2014
Our ref
Rt Hon Kevin Banon MP Chair ofthe Committee ofPii.vileges Journal Office House ofCommons London SWlAOAA
By post and email ([email protected]; [email protected])
Dear Sir
Eleventh Report of Session 2010-2012 from the Culture Media and Sport Committee
We are surprised by the Committee's approach to the inquiry. We do not understand how the Committee can consider itself to be in a position to continue with its inquiry and progress to an oral hearing before it first addresses and responds to the most basic questions about, inter alia, the nature, function, role and scope of the Committee's inquiry. Such fundamental p1i.nciples go to the transparency, fairness and due process of the Committee's inquiry and the Select Committee process as a whole, which 1s particulady important where such committees purport to exercise a penal j mi.sdiction.
We wish to understand whether all members of the Committee have considered our submission of 15 August 2012 and, ifso, whether it intends to respond to the impo1tant points made therein. To assist the Committee, we have set out below a number ofissues that we invite the Committee to consider and respond to in full as a matter ofurgency. (Please note that the list is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all the issues that we submit the Committee must address before proceeding to an oral hearing and we reserve the 1i.ght to raise additional questions as may be necessaiy.) Ifthe Committee does not consider that it needs to respond to these issues, please explain why not, giving reasons.
Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority
A list of Pattners of Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP, a Delaware Limited Liability Partnership, (registered number 4569482 8100 080747141) is available at our offices.
In-250862 A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
Rt Hon Kevin Barron MP 19 December 2014 Page Two
1. The Nature of the ‘Charge’ against Mr Hinton
It is important that we understand precisely what you say Mr Hinton is ‘charged’ with so that he can fully understand the case he has to meet. This is a basic tenet of the rule of law. Accordingly, please could you let us know:
1.1 Precisely what you say Mr Hinton is ‘charged’ with and the jurisdictional basis for the charge.
1.2 The question that the Committee must decide in coming to its determination.
1.3 Whether the House can impose sanctions other than admonishment in the event that the ‘charges’ against Mr Hinton are proven and, if so, what those sanctions are and how they will they operate in practice.
1.4 What Mr Hinton’s redress will be in the event that the ‘charges’ are not proven, particularly in light of the significant reputational harm already caused by the CMS Committee’s report.
2. The Role of the Committee
The Committee has not addressed our questions over what it perceives its role to be. In particular:
2.1 Does the Committee have the power to depart from the CMS Committee’s decision, or are its powers more limited?
2.2 In what way does the Committee believe it is capable of curing any fundamental flaws inherent in the CMS Committee’s original process (assuming any such flaws be accepted)?
2.3 What is the Committee’s position on the Clerk of the House’s paper dated 24 July 2012 on Select Committee inquiries and how does the Committee propose to address the concerns raised therein?
2.4 What is the Committee’s position in relation to the incompatibility between its approach (and that of the CMS Committee) with the common law and ECHR fair trial standards?
3. The Standard of Proof
We should be grateful if the Committee could address our concerns over the standard of proof to be applied to the Committee’s inquiry. For the reasons set out at paragraphs 19 to 29 of our August 2012 submission, we do not believe it is appropriate for the
ln-250862 A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
Rt Hon Kevin Barron MP 19 December 2014 Page Three
Committee to apply “the same standard of proof as applied to allegations against Members” (para. 13 of the procedure set out in the Committee’s minute dated 12 June 2012). The Standard of Proof should simply be beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Evidence
In her letter dated 12 December 2014, Ms Barry indicated that the Committee intended to consider a range of evidence, including “the evidence given to the [CMS] Committee, and other evidence in the public domain, particularly that given to the Leveson inquiry”. Please could you address the following questions:
4.1 What evidential rules will be applied by the Committee? For example, what is the position in relation to hearsay evidence?
4.2 Please list all of the evidence that the Committee intends to consider.
4.3 What is the basis for the Committee’s assertion that it will consider evidence from the Leveson inquiry when that evidence was not available to the CMS Committee and therefore impossible for Mr Hinton to respond to? That the Committee might consider such evidence is not suggested in the procedural note of 12 June 2012, despite the fact that the Leveson inquiry had been underway for eight months at that stage.
4.4 Will the Committee consider any other evidence that was not available to the CMS Committee and, if so, does the Committee consider that to be appropriate?
5. Procedure for the Hearing
The Committee has set aside one afternoon and one morning for any oral hearings, but it has not explained what the purpose of such hearings will be or the procedure to be followed at them. Please could you address the following questions:
5.1 What is the purpose of requesting an oral hearing? Is it the Committee’s intention to question Mr Hinton, or is it an opportunity for Mr Hinton to make a statement of his own?
5.2 What will be the structure of the hearings? For example, will the Committee permit opening and closing submissions?
5.3 At paragraph 2 of the Committee’s procedural note, “key witnesses” are defined as “the witnesses on whom the CMS Committee relied in reaching its findings.” Please identify each such “key witness” and state whether or not they will be present at the Committee’s oral hearing.
ln-250862 A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
Rt Hon Kevin Barron MP 19 December 2014 Page Four
5.4 Is Mr Hinton or any other witness entitled to call witnesses? If so, what procedure will apply in respect of witnesses appearing on behalf of Mr Hinton?
5.5 Will legal representatives be permitted to question witnesses?
5.6 What will happen if there is insufficient time for the Committee to complete the proceedings in the time it has set aside?
5.7 Will the hearing be open to the public?
6. The Decision
Please could you clarify the following the matters:
6.1 What is the Committee’s decision-making procedure? For example, must decisions be unanimous or by a majority (and if so what division)?
6.2 Will the Committee’s set out full written reasons for its decision?
6.3 Will the Committee’s decision be published?
6.4 Once the Committee has made its decision, is there any further right of appeal to any other Parliamentary body?
We look forward to receiving your response to the above questions and the questions in our letter of 12 December 2014 as soon as possible. In light of the very short timetable that the Committee has set before the oral hearings in January, we should be grateful to receive your response by no later than 2 January 2015. If it is unlikely that the Committee will be in a position to consider the points that we raise fully within that timeframe please confirm whether you would consider meeting with us to address the issues and the concerns that we outline in this letter.
Yours faithfully
Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP
cc. Eve Samson, Clerk of the Committee of Privileges
ln-250862 Committee of Privileges Tel 020 7219 4432 Fax 020 7219 5952 Email samsone@parliament. uk Website www.parliament.uk/privileges
From Eve Samson, Clerk of the Committee
23 December 2014
Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP CltyPoint One Ropemaker Street London EC2Y9AW
Dear Sirs
Re: News International and Phone-hacking Your client: Mr Les Hinton Your ref:
I am responding to your letter of 19 December 2014 on behalf of the Chair of the Committee of Privileges.
The Committee is not meeting between now and 2 January. I can deal with some ofthe points you raise now.
I can confirm that all your correspondence to date has been placed before the Committee and that your most recent letter will be circulated with this response.
My letter of 03 July 2012 enclosed the Resolution governing the Committee's procedures, and I have nothing to add to what it contains on legal representation and standard of proof.
That letter also contained a digest of the CMS Committee's conclusions relating to Mr Hinton, and the parts of the Report most closely supporting those conclusions.
As the Resolution set out, inquiry subjects may include suggestions as to additional questions the Committee should explore with key witnesses and others at the written submissions stage ofthe inquiry.
As the letter from Alda Barry, Acting Clerk of the Committee, of 9 December indicated, further information about evidence the Committee considers relevant will be sent in due course, and there will be an opportunity to respond.
The Committee's preliminary view is that it is likely to be able to deal with this matter by correspondence, but that inquiry subjects are entitled to give oral evidence ifthey so wish. It follows I cannot indicate whether particular witnesses will be present at any hearings. For similar reasons the timings for evidence are indicative only. The key witnesses to date should be readily identifiable, since their written submissions have already been shared with you.
You raise the question of the then Clerk of the House's memorandum to the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. That Committee reported on 3 July 2013, and the report is available on the Parliamentary website. It noted that each House's penal powers were part of United Kingdom law, and had been so for centuries. This is a parliamentary process. While the Committee of Privileges is committed to ensuring it is fair, it does not proceed in the same way as a court. The Joint Committee noted the procedures agreed in this case and was of the opinion that they were fair.
The decision making procedure will be that the Committee will agree a Report, which will be published, setting out its views, and giving the reasons why it has come to them. The Committee need not take decisions unanimously, but the Formal Minutes of the Report, published together with the Report, will record any votes taken by the Committee on amendments to the Report or any other matters.
CLERK OF THE COMMITTEE CITYPOINT MORRISON FOERSTE R [U K) lLP MORRISON I FOERSTER ONE ROPEMAKER STREET Nil'.'(' YORK, SAN FRANC ISC O , LOS AN G ELES~ PALO A. L1'0, LONDON EC2Y 9AW S A N D IDGO, WASH IN GTON, D.C. A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP UNITED KINGDOM 'I'OKYO, LONOON, BR USSE LSJ BEI J JNG, SHANGH AI, HONG KO NG TELEPHONE: +44 20 7920 4000 FACSIMILE: +44 20 7496 8500
WWW.MOFO.COM
24 December 2014
Our ref:
Eve Samson, Cl.erk ofthe Committee Committee ofPrivileges Journal Office House of Commons London SWlAOAA
By post and email ([email protected])
Dear Sirs
News International and Phone-hacking Our client: Mr Les Hinton
Thank you for your letter. We understand the House has now risen and the Committee will not meet until the week of January 5th. As your letter does not address the most significant points raised in our recent letters of 16 and 19 December, we remain unable to advise whether Mr Hinton intends to make oral submissions at the January hearing within the timetable you set out. Of particular significance is the fact that you have not clarified the role and function of the Committee, what evidence it intends to consider in the hearing and what material has ·been made available to it. You indicate that Alda Barry will provide copies of material but do not indicate the volume of such material or say when we are likely to receive it. Your response that it should be obvious who the relevant witnesses are likely to be from the material served to date is unfortunately not helpful to us, even if it is intended to be. Our preliminary view is that the time currently allowed for the hearing ofthis matter is unlikely to be sufficient in light ofthe issues involved and the further material that the Committee has said it intends to consider.
In light ofthe tight timetable set by the Committee and the number of outstanding issues, we respectfully suggest that some form of procedural or directions hearing take place before the substantive hearing. We believe that such a hearing can only aid the transparency of the process and assist all parties in resolving the outstanding issues. Our
Authoris ed and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Auth o rity
A lis t of Partnero of Motrison & Foerster (U K) LLP, a Delaware L imited Liability Partn ers hip, (regist ered number 4569482 8100 080747141) is available at our o ffices. ln-251072 MORRISON I FOERSTER
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
Eve Samson, Clerk of the Committee 24 December 2014 Page Two suggestion is that such a hearing takes place on 26 January before the Committee with legal representatives present and that the date for the substantive hearing is set following the resolution ofany procedural and timetabling issues.
We would be grateful for a response after the next Committee meeting. As time is clearly of the essence, perhaps you could respond to the issues we have raised by Friday 9th January.
Yours faithfully
Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP
ln-251072 Committee of Privileges Tel 020 7219 4432 Fax 020 7219 5952 Email [email protected] fl Website www.parliament.uk/privileges From Eve Samson, Clerk of the Committee
Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP CityPoint One Ropemaker Street London EC2Y9AW
19 January 2015
-Dear Sirs
Your client: Mr Les Hinton
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 into your client 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 ("CMS Committee"), Session 2010-12, 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 allegations against your client (split for the purposes of clarity):
1. Les Hinton 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 fee.
2. He also misled the Committee about the extent of his knowledge of allegations that phone-hacking extended beyond Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire to others at the News of the World (see paragraphs 84, 85 and 91).
The Committee of Privileges is aware of the Order made pursuant to section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 made by the Hon. Mr Justice Saunders on 31 October 2014. In the light of that Order and having reconsidered the oral evidence given by your client 3 to the CMS Committee in 20071, 20092 and 2011 , and your letter of 15 August 2012 to the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, the Committee of Privileges has decided at this stage to examine only the second allegation, and not to examine the first allegation that your client misled the CMS Committee in 2009 in not telling the truth about payments to Clive Goodman. The Committee is, however, satisfied that Mr Hinton did not mislead the CMS Committee in relation to the fact of his authorisation of payments and legal fees. We have not provided further disclosure of documents, save for Mr Justice Gross' sentencing remarks of 26 January 2007. in the case of R v Goodmon and Mulcaire, which are provided by email. Any other documents referred to in this letter have references provided and are public documents available online. Allegation to be examined • Les Hinton misled the Committee about the extent of his knowledge of allegations that phone-hacking extended beyond Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire to others at the News of the World.
The Committee of Privileges will look continue to look at the whole of the oral evidence provided by your client and evidence provided to the CMS Committee for its three reports. However, the Committee draws your client's particular attention to the following sections of his oral evidence: 2009: a. Q2106 Mr Hinton: [Myler] never delivered any evidence that there had been anyone else involved. (... ) but, no, there was never any evidence delivered to me that suggested that the conduct of Clive Goodman spread beyond him. b. Q2109 Mr Hinton: Look, I obviously did not look at those emails personally but I know that that scrutiny went on and no emails that raised any further suspicion were brought to my attention. c. Q2115 Mr Hinton: (...) and there was never any substantive additional evidence produced. (... ) in the two months since its [The Guardian's article] publication no new evidence had arisen. I think it is fair to say that since no evidence has come up it would be hard to find any because there are lots of very capable people I am sure from establishments such as the Guardian looking for it and it has never been presented. We were in a situation where there was no clear evidence, there was lots of gossip(...). d. Q2116 Mr Hinton:( ... ), but there was a lot of gossip, there was a lot of speculation, there were a lot of accusations that we could never find any firm foundation for, so in the light of them we went, I promise you, to extraordinary lengths both within the News of the World itself and from my own position at the time-I was also Chairman of the Editors' Code Committee-we clarified the Code.( ... ) e. Q2125: Mr Hinton: I can only tell you what I have told you and that is that we found no evidence and nor did the police to take any action against anybody else. We took every measure we could both in taking care of what had happened in the past, and we tried to discover whether there had been any misconduct, and to make certain, above all, that it was not going to happen again. f. Q2154 Mr Hinton: (... ) There was never any suggestion by [the Police] or anyone else other than the media that the place was a ferment of telephone hackers.
I Report and Ev 2 Report and Ev 3 Report and Ev g. Q2155 Mr Hinton: I do not know who else's phones were tapped by reporters from the News of the World. h. Q2160 Mr Hinton:( ... ) but whether he was doing it on behalf of News of the World we never had that evidence provided to us." i. Q2168 Mr Hinton: (..) There was never firm evidence provided or suspicion provided that I am aware of that implicated anybody else other than Clive within the staff of the News of the World. It just did not happen, ( ... ) There were two things I wanted Colin to do: (a) (...) and (b) to settle the staff down because most of them of course had had no involvement in this at all, (... ) j. Q2171 Mr Hinton: [re: activities of Colin Myler before Mr Hinton took up his post in New York in December 2007] (:-·l finding out just what kind of conduct may or may not have been going on (... ) k. Q2172 Mr Hinton: (...) as I am sure you know, because you have very diligently more than I have studied the transcript, the judge did recognise that Mulcaire, although he was guilty of misconduct for which he was imprisoned, had in fact also overwhelmingly been working on legitimate and legal forms of investigations for the News of the World and for other newspapers I think. I. Q2178 Mr Hinton: (...) in a climate where there was no suggestion by the police that there were loads of guilty men lurking around the News of the World. That just was not the climate. m. Q2180 Mr Hinton: I am, yes. I am trying to think but Andy and Tom and then Colin Myler were the trilogy of investigators and I think they worked very hard to see if there was any tangible evidence that they could act upon. There was none. They had no suspicions that they relayed to me and I wanted them to make certain that we got on with life.
2011: n. Ql333 Les Hinton: I think it is clear, based on events, in particular, I suppose, over the last 12 months or so, that some of the answers that you were given were not accurate. Whether they were-whether calling them "untruthful" is the appropriate word, I don't know. o. Ql333 Les Hinton: I think it became very clear in the last couple of years, I guess, that there was much more to this affair than seemed apparent when I left, but pinpointing anything beyond that, Mr Farelly, is difficult for me to do. p. Q1338 Les Hinton: That's a good question. I am not 100% certain, but I do not believe that I was aware of Goodman's complaints when I appeared before you in 2007. q. Ql339 Paul Farrelly: But you were certainly aware of them when you appeared on 15 September 2009, having gone through the whole process. Les Hinton: Yes. r. Ql340 Les Hinton: I don't think that I would regard Mr Goodman's letter as evidence of anything. There were accusations and allegations by an employee who had been dismissed for gross misconduct. s. Ql341 Paul Farrelly: We can quibble about what constitutes evidence, but you use the words, "or suspicion provided". Clive Goodman provided you with plenty of suspicion, didn't he? Les Hinton: We reacted very responsibly-and you have heard more detail than you are going to get from me about it-to what Mr Goodman claimed. At the end of it, we could discover no basis for what he was claiming. I think, therefore, my statement is valid. t. Q1351 Les Hinton: Until I am clear on what it is that happened, it is a perfectly proper question but it really isn't at this moment one I can properly answer. I really look forward to the day I can. u. Q1380 Les Hinton: If I clearly had substantive evidence of wrongdoing, then you are going to consider a reaction to it, but I really don't know what happened in the case of Mr Pike's letter. v. Q1402 Les Hinton: When I spoke to the Chairman in 2007, a long time ago, we had an exchange, and by the way I was one of four panellists. It was a very broad-ranging discussion about all matters involving the press, and this came up a couple of times. The issue was about knowledge within the company and within the newspaper of Clive Goodman's activities. And it was my understanding then that there had been an inquiry internally into whether or not others knew. w. Q1404 Les Hinton: (... ), but what I am telling you is that there was other evidence given and my information at the time-this is very recent- was that they had been involved in looking at the activities of Clive in relation to other people. x. Q1421 Les Hinton: But I was never provided with any evidence of suspicion against· people, either, so that was the important issue for me. y. Q1422: answer: Les Hinton: Well, I will leave that to your judgement. Just to give you some context, this is a very important matter, which has taken on a greater scale than any of us could have imagined. I was, at the same time as dealing with this, relying on others, because we had a company with 4,000 people, numerous newspapers, digital businesses and offices all over Europe and in Britain; I did have a lot of other things to do. You can, in retrospect, challenge whether I was sufficiently inquiring, and it is a fair point, but I did not think I was less inquiring than I needed to be at the time. z. Q1451 Les Hinton: At the time that the initial arrests happened, Andy Coulson was the Editor there and he was overseeing the entire reaction to it, and my conversations and the conversations which led me to tell you what I did-and I think Mr Coulson, in his own evidence, reiterated it-that was the basis on which I believed there had been an internal inquiry into who was aware of Clive's activity. aa. Q1452 Les Hinton: Andy was the man in charge of the newspaper when all this happened, yes.
The Committee of Privileges also notes the remarks made by Mr Justice Gross at the sentencing hearing for Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire on 26 January 2007, in particular: "As to Counts 16 to 20, you [Mulcaire] had not dealt with Goodman but with others at News lnternational."4 and during Clive Goodman's plea in mitigation, the comments of John Kelsey-Fry QC:
MR KELSEY-FRY: ...Count 1 is specifically confined to the royal household. MR JUSTICE GROSS: Yes. MR KELSEY-FRY: The Crown accept thereby that he had nothing whatsoever to do with the other interceptions reflected in those further substantive counts.5
4 Please note that the transcript has three sets ofpage numbering. This quote is taken from p.566/p.2 l 7 /p. l 79(pdfnumbering) 5 This passage is found at p.466/p.l 17/p.79(also pdfnumber) And continuing: MR KELSEY-FRY: ...as I say, with Count 1 of Mr Goodman. So it is important to recognise his involvement. Whoever else may be involved at the News of the World, his involvement is so limited. MR JUSTICE GROSS: Yes. As far as I am concerned, Mr Goodman has nothing to do with Counts 16 to 20.6
Preliminary inferences: The Committee of Privileges has drawn the following preliminary inferences from your client's evidence, and in particular, from the evidence cited above: i. When he appeared in front of the CMS Committee in 2009, your client knew the following: a. The contents of the letter from Clive Goodman of 2 March 2007,7 and the allegations contained therein that his actions were undertaken with "full knowledge and support" and that other members of staff were carrying out the "same illegal procedures" - confirmed in your client's 2011 answers to Qq1338-1339; b. Mr Justice Gross' sentencing remarks of 26 January 2007 - confirmed in your client's 2009 answer to Q2172; ii. In answers to questions put to him in 2009, in particular Q2115, 2116, 2154 and 2168, your client failed to mention, when asked, material within his knowledge which did indicate that phone hacking was more extensive than one rogue reporter, namely Clive Goodman. iii. Comparing what your client knew (i) and his answers (ii), the following points can be made: a. The letter from Clive Goodman made clear allegations of wrongdoing by named individuals; b. The sentencing remarks of Mr Justice Gross could not be described as "gossip" or "speculation" (2009, Q2116) nor "accusations and allegations" (2011, Q1340). This is supported by the sentencing remarks of Mr Justice Saunders on 4 July 2014 in the case of R v Coulson and others that: "Anyone who read the transcript of the proceedings in front of Gross 8 J would have been put on enquiry that others at the News of the World were involved." ; c. That in answering Q2168, by stating "There was never firm evidence provided or suspicion provided that I am aware of that implicated anybody else other than Clive within the staff of the News of the World", your client was drawing a distinction between what he describes throughout his evidence as "firm" or "substantive" evidence, and information that could not be described as firm or substantive, but was accurately described as suspicious. Allegations raised in letter of appeal in an employment matter by a member of staff convicted of the offence in question, leading to a tens of thousands of pounds settlement, and judicial remarks made in sentencing, fall clearly within the "suspicion" category; they are clearly not mere "gossip" nor "speculation" -they come from two convincing sources -the wrongdoer and the sentencer. iv. These inferences are reinforced by the following answers given by your client, suggestive of wider involvement by staff at the News of the World: a. Q2155: "I do not know who else's phones were tapped by reporters from the News of the World"; b. Q2168: " ... most of them of course had had no involvement in this at all."
6 Ibid. 7 CMS 2010-12 Ev 177 and fuller version at http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/culture-media-and sport/PH20-2.pdf 8 The sentencing remarks are publicly available at: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sentencing re,narks- n1r-j-sau nders-r-v-co u1 son-others. pd f v. Comparing what your client knew (i) and his answers (ii), the following inference can be drawn: That on 15 September 2009 when giving evidence to the Committee, your client knew that suspicions had been raised that illegal phone hacking activities extended to other staff, but he did not inform the Committee of these suspicions.
In giving oral evidence Mr Hinton omitted to mention to the CMS Committee that suspicions had been raised that illegal phone hacking activities extended to other staff, and made positive statements to the contrary. The Committee takes into account that a proportion of the information provided to Mr Hinton as to what had happened, what was being investigated and how, was provided by individuals who have now been convicted of phone hacking offences. However, if a matter is within the exclusive knowledge of a witness then Parliament can properly expect a witness to be forthcoming. Mr Hinton was not forthcoming in providing his evidence, and made positive statements to the contrary.
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 your client the opportunity to make further written submissions in relation to this letter. In addition, your client 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. The primary purpose of any oral evidence session will be for your client to make further submissions. Nevertheless, the Committee of Privileges reserves the right to ask questions of your client in order to further its investigation. Please notify me by Monday 26 January if you wish to make oral submissions. Any written submission should be received by Monday 2 February.
Eve Samson Clerk of the Committee of Privileges 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.
• Transcript of Rv Goodman and Mulcaire, sentencing hearing 26 January 2007 [PDF file]. Committee of Privileges Tel 020 7219 3259 Fax 020 7219 5952 Email [email protected] 11 Website www.parliament.uk/privileges From Eve Samson, Clerk of the Committee
Morrison Foerster Uk (LLP) Citypoint One Ropemaker Street London EC2Y9AW
23 January 2015
Dear Sirs
Your client: Mr Les Hinton
The legal representatives of another of the inquiry subjects have raised a number of questions. I thought it would be helpful to share points of general applicability with you. Questions were raised about the confidentiality of documents used by the Committee, and the nature of proceedings.
The Committee's concern with confidentiality principally relates to the reporting restrictions imposed in an order pursuant to 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 made by the Hon Mr Justice Saunders on 31 October 2014. While the Committee is not itself bound by the order, it considers it good practice to ensure that its proceedings do not lead others to breach the order.
Your client is at liberty to refer to the material supplied in any written or oral submissions. The Committee will redact any material therein which appears likely to breach the order referred to above, or which would raise issues of privacy, if that is necessary.
While the Committee's resolution on the procedure to be followed has a presumption that hearings will take place in public, the Committee will entertain requests from inquiry subjects for hearings to be held in private. In that case, the transcripts will subsequently be published, with redactions as necessary. Any redactions will be kept to the minimum.
As the Resolution previously provided makes clear, the Committee will hear from inquiry subjects in person. They may be supported by a legal adviser, but the Committee will expect to hear from them directly. The Committee would expect to listen to the inquiry subject, and to put questions to them Members considered it necessary. The Committee procedures do not allow for cross examination by inquiry subjects' counsel, but if there are questions which you or your client believes should be posed to other inquiry subjects please let us know as soon as possible.
Unless strong arguments are made to the contrary, the Committee will treat each hearing separately, although it is possible that all hearings may be held on the same day.
In addition to the reporting restrictions order noted above, the Committee understands that the question of proceedings relating to corporate criminal liability is still under active consideration. It is not proceeding with that part of the inquiry relating to the corporate responsibility of News International at this time.
Eve Samson Clerk of the Committee of Privileges
2 CITYPOINI' MORRISON FOE.RSTE.R (UK) LLP MORRISON I FOERSTER ONE ROPEMAKER STREET NEW YORK, SAN FRANCISCO, LOS ANGE.LE.S, PALO ALTO, LONDON EC2Y 9AW SAN DIE.GO, WASHING'l'ON, D.C. A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP UNITED KlNGDOM 'tOKYO, LONDON, :&RUSSE.LS, BEIJING, SHANGHAI, HONG KONG TELEPHONE +44 20 7920 4000 FACSIJy[[LE +44 20 7496 8500
W\XI\X/.MOFOCOM
26 Januaiy 2015
Our ref
Eve Samson Clerk ofthe Committee ofPlivileges Journal Office House ofCommons London SWlAOAA
By post and email ([email protected])
Dear Madam
Eleventh Report of Session 2010-2012 from the Culture Media and Sport Committee
We refer to your letter dated 23 J anuaiy 2015 in which you say that, because the "question of proceedings relating to corporate criminal liability is still under active consideration," the Committee has decided not to proceed with the pait of its inqui1y related to the corporate responsibility ofNews International at this time. Tiris decision to adjomn no doubt reflects the stance, consistently adopted since the Committee became seised ofthis matter, not to prejudice or otherwise interfere with the ordinary process of c1iminal investigation/prosecution.
As the Committee must be aware, om client was Executive Chairman of News International from 1995-2007 and, at the same time, a Director ofNews International. In these circumstances, his position is indistinguishable from that of the company in teims ofpotential cmporate c1iminal liability. It is also ve1y diffei·ent from that ofTom Crone and Colin Myler who never held positions at Board level and whose potential criminal responsibility could only ever be based on their actions as individuals rather than as potential directing minds of the company. To proceed with an inquiry into our client's case while postponing any inquiiy into News Inteinational (as it then was) would plainly be irrational and at odds with the considered view of the Committee as recently expressed.
Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority
A list of Pattners of Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP, a Delaware Limited Liability Partnership, (registered number 4569482 8100 080747141) is available at our offices.
In-252237 A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
Committee of Privileges 26 January 2015 Page Two
We therefore invite you to confirm that consideration of Mr Hinton’s case will be postponed for the same reasons that the Committee is postponing its consideration of the case concerning News International. For obvious reasons, given the timetable you have identified, we ask you to respond to this letter on an urgent basis.
Yours faithfully
Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP
ln-252237 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
28 January 2015
Your ref: By post and email
Dear Sirs
Eleventh Report of Session 2010-2012 from the Culture Media and Sport Committee
I have received your letter of 26 January. We are seeking a view on the points you raise from the Crown Prosecution Service, and the Committee will consider the matter when it meets on 3 February.
In the meantime, the timetable outlined in my letter of 19 January stands. Unless I hear from you by noon on Thursday 29 January, the Committee will proceed on the basis that your client does not wish to make oral submissions.,
t'\ .2~ - ~. . . .·. \i . . 7J ~~ Eve Samson Clerk of the Committee of Privileges CI'IYPOINT M ORRISO N F O ERSTER (UK) L LP MORRISON I FOERSTER ONE ROPEMAKER STREET NE-W YORK, SA N FRANCISCO, LOS ANGELE S, P ALO ALTO, LONDON EC2Y 9AW S AN D IEG O , WAS H I N GTON, D.C. A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP UNITED KI NGDOM T OK Y O , L O NDO N , BRUSS ELS, B E IJING, S H A N G H A I, HONG K O N G TELEPHONE: +44 20 7920 4000 FACSIMILE: +44 20 7496 8500
WWW.MOFO.COM
28 January 2015
Our ref:
Eve Samson Clerk ofthe Committee of Privileges Journal Office House ofCommons London SWlAOAA
By post and email ([email protected])
Dear Madam
Eleventh Report of Session 2010-2012 from the Culture Media and Sport Committee
We refer to your letter oftoday's date.
Until such time as the Committee has determined whether a stay is appropriate and answered our substantive and procedural questions, Mr Hinton reserves his positon in respect of whether or not he will give oral evidence. The deadline that you have set is arbitrary and irrational: you have not yet even specified beyond a general window when the hearing will take place or its likely length, nor provided us with a definitive list ofthe material that the committee will be considering or which other witnesses will be attending. It was for this reason that we suggested that a preparatory hearing of some sort would be of assistance to the Committee and to the parties. We repeat that request. Our points to date are simply requests for fairness and transparency which we hope is appreciated by all members ofthe Committee.
Yours faithfully N\,{)vr5<0vl t ~r-cr Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP
Autho rise d a nd regulate d by the Solicitors Regulatio n A uthority
A list of P artners of Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP, a Delaware Limited Liability Partnership, (registered number 4569482 8 100 080747141) is available at our offices.
ln-252430 CIT'r1'0INT !\H)RR I S O !\I F O E RST ER ( l 1 K ) Lt. P MORRISON I FOERSTER ONE ROPEMAKER STREET NEW Y O Rt-:: , S.\ N FRAN C~ I S C: O , l.l)S 1\N G f~I. E !-i , P A LO .\ l. T O , LON IX)N EC2Y 9.\ W S .'\ N DIEGO, W ,'\S Hl :-.. lfTI..JS , D . C . .\ l.l ~I ITED l.1.\lll l.lTY I' \ RT:s/ERS II IP UNJ'!1<:D KINGDO M T Ob. YO , LU SD O!\r , BRl'SS EI. S , B E IJ ISG, S l! \ :,,.i<. i HA ! , H O:,..: G ~o:,...c; ·mu :PI IONE: +44 20 7920 40(Xl FN:SJMI LI ~: +44 20 7496 85(X l
WWW.MOH).C()M
2 February 2015
Our ref:
Rt. Hon. Kevin Barron MP 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"
1. The Clerk's letter of 28 January 2015 stated that the Committee of Privileges (the "Committee") will consider the contents of our letter dated 26 January in the course of its meeting on 3 February but that in the meantime the timetable outlined in your letter of 19 January 2015 stands so that any further written submissions we may wish to make must be lodged by 2 February.
2. Without prejudice to our reasoned explanation as to why it is inappropriate to proceed with the Committee's inquiry into the allegation against our client pending the conclusion of the continuing investigation of potential corporate criminal liability on the part of News International, we advance these further submissions for the Committee's consideration in the event that it decides to proceed with the case against Mr Hinton on the charge of misleading the Culture, Media and Sport Committee (the ''CMSC") about the extent of his knowledge of allegations that phone-hacking extended beyond Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire to others at the News of the World. 1
3. In making these further written submissions we make clear that in view of the Committee's apparent unwillingness to engage with and to provide a reasoned response to our earlier submissions (most importantly our ori ginal, detailed
I We note that the Committee in its letter of 19 January 2015 has found that Mr Hinton did not mislead the CMSC in relation to the payment and authorisation of payment of legal fees to Mr Goodman. Au th o ri sed and regul ated by t he Solici to rs Regul ati on Au t hortty
A list of Pa rtners of Mo rris on & Foe rste r (l'K) 1. 1.P, a Delaware Limited Liability Partne rship, (rcgis tcrcu n um b er 4569482 8 11111 081174 7 141) is avatl ablc at our offices. ln-252551 MORRISON I FOERSTER
A Ll~HTED LI \ lllLIT\' P \ RT ~ERSl!IP
The Committee of Privileges 2 February 2015 Page Two
submission dated 15 August 2012), we repeat the request made in our letter of 24 December 2014 that a procedural or directions hearing be arranged so that we may have an opportunity to make oral submissions to the full Committee on the points we have sought to raise concerning jurisdiction, powers and procedural fairness relevant to the Committee's current inquiry. We expand on the reasons for this request below as well as making further submissions of fact and law in light of the so-called "preliminary inferences" set out in Eve Samson's letter dated 19 January 2015.
Further submissions on jurisdiction and due process
4. Our letter to the Committee dated 15 August 2012 sought to advance a wide range of submissions concerning the jurisdictional basis for the Committee's current contempt inquiry, the nature of that process, the incompatibility of the CMSC's proceedings with common law and European Convention of Human Rights standards of due process and the impossibility of curing the defects in the CMSC's treatment of Mr Hinton via an alternative trial process conducted afresh by the Privileges Committee. Since lodging our original submissions the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege published its Report on Parliamentary Privilege (HL Paper 30, HC 100, 3rd July 2013). The Privileges Committee should of course be aware of the contents of the Report and the recommendations it made concerning the penal powers of the Houses (see part 3) although to date you have not confirmed whether the Committee has taken account of the Report (and, if so, on what basis) in deciding how to proceed with its current inquiry into Mr Hinton.
5. In its response to the Joint Committee's Report, the Government said as follows:
"The Government recognises the difficulties associated with criminalising contempt or legislating to confirm Parliament's penal powers and agrees that neither is the right approach.
The Government notes with interest the approach recommended by the Committee to reassert Parliament's penal rights through the establishment of a "fair process'' in Resolutions and Standing Orders of the House of Commons, as set out in Annexes 2 and 3 of the Report. We support the Committee's recommendations that the House should build on this to set out clearly how the powers would and should be exercised. The Government agrees that transparency in procedure will be critical to ensuring that any application of penal powers conforms with modern standards of natural justice." (Emphasis added.)
6. Since the Joint Committee published its report neither the House of Commons nor
ln-252551 MORRISON I FOERSTER
\ 1.1\11 n ·:1> I.I 11111 ITY P\RT~F.RSllll'
The Committee of Privileges 2 February 2015 Page Three
the House of Lords has debated the question of the extent and nature of its penal powers and nor has it "set out clearly how the powers would and should be exercised". The Joint Committee's Report is of course worthy of respect but it is no more than an expression of view on the part of twelve individual members of the Houses and plainly lacks the force of law. To the extent therefore that the Committee recommended against criminalising contempt or legislating to confirm Parliament's penal powers, recommending instead a Parliamentary re-assertion of existing powers, it did so in the context of acknowledging the perceived inability of the two Houses to exercise their penal powers and the fact that all three options identified by the Clerk of House of Commons in evidence to the House of Commons Liaison Committee "carry significant risk" (para. 57).
7. It follows that neither the CMSC at the time it conducted its inquiry into phone hacking and published its findings in 2012 nor this Committee can claim that its actions have the clear support of Parliament in terms of resolving the obvious difficulty of exercising a claimed power to try and punish a citizen for contempt of Parliament compatibly with modem standards of fairness (whether at common law or pursuant to the requirements of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights). We remind the Committee (lest any individual Member may have forgotten its detailed contents) of paragraphs 48-56 of the Joint Committee's Report which raises the question of a legal challenge to the exercise of penal powers by the House before the European Court of Human Rights and quotes the statement of the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, Rt Hon Tom Brake MP in evidence to the Joint Committee to the effect that:
"The Government does not believe that the current arrangements provide the kind of safeguards that individuals have a right to expect of any body with the power of prosecution ... in order for the defendant in any such proceedings to be given a fair hearing, the House would have to significantly change its current procedures and practices." (Para. 52.)
8. It was precisely our concern as to the fairness of the treatment of Mr Hinton by the CMSC and the impossibility of curing defects in that process by some kind of criminal trial or appeal to be conducted by the Committee which informed the detailed submissions lodged on Mr Hinton' s behalf in August 2012 and to which, to date, we have had no reasoned sensible response. In a telephone conversation with James Lloyd of this firm on 13 January 2015, Eve Samson informed him that we had "fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the inquiry" being conducted by the Privileges Committee which was, she said, a Parliamentary process rather than a court process. The same point is made in Ms Samson's letter to us dated 23 December 2014 in the context of her apparent reliance on the Joint Committee's Report as if it constitutes a complete endorsement of the House's ability to exercise penal powers against non-members - ''This is a parliamentary
ln-252551 MORRISON I FOERSTER
The Committee of Privileges 2 February 2015 Page Four
process. While the Committee of Privileges is committed to ensuring it is fair, it does not proceed in the same way as a court. The Joint Committee noted the procedures agreed in this case and was of the opinion that they were fair."
9. With great respect to Ms Samson, it'is she who has fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the problem that confronts the Committee in its determination to proceed with its inquiry into whether Mr Hinton is guilty of contempt of Parliament as alleged in the single charge which the Committee says it is considering. The idea that it is a sufficient answer to the points we sought to advance in our letter dated 15 August 2012 that what is currently underway is a Parliamentary rather than a court process is frankly absurd. Such a defence did not avail the Maltese House of Representatives when it sought to defend itself before the European Court of Human Rights against a claim by a Mr Demicoli of a violation of Article 6 ECHR following a Parliamentary finding of a breach of privilege allegedly committed by Mr Demicoli's publication of an article in a weekly satirical newspaper (Demicoli v. Malta Application no 13057/87, 27 August 1991 ). In finding a violation of Article 6 ECHR by the Maltese House of Representatives, the European Court reviewed the nature of the proceedings conducted by the House pursuant to the House of Representatives (Privileges and Powers) Ordinance (chapter 179 Revised edition of the Laws of Malta) and concluded that "in the circumstances of the present case the House of Representatives undoubtedly exercised a judicial function in determining the applicant's guilt' (para. 40). Accordingly, and as we explained in our 15 August 2012 submissions, the issue is plainly not how the process is described Parliamentary as opposed to judicial - but, rather, what is the nature of the power being exercised and what are the consequences of its exercise? It follows that Ms Samson's apparent belief that the Committee is immune from legal challenge because it is exercising a Parliamentary power is utterly misconceived and betrays a worrying lack of understanding of the reach of Article 6 ECHR under our legal system.
10. For the reasons we have sought to explain in some detail in our 15 August 2012 submission, it is self-evidently the case that in proceeding to deal with Mr Hinton as a citizen potentially guilty of the charge of misleading the CMSC when giving evidence in 2007, 2009 and 2011, the Committee is purporting to discharge a criminal jurisdiction regardless of the fact that it has declared that the Committee (though not necessarily the House, which bears ultimate responsibility for any finding of guilt) will limit any punishment to one of admonishment. In light of our concern as to the nature of the advice that the Committee has received as to its powers and procedures in dispensing criminal justice in the context of an assumed power to find a non-Member guilty of the crime of contempt of Parliament, we therefore urge the Committee to set aside time for an oral hearing before the full Committee so that we may have an opportunity via Counsel to address oral argument and to answer any questions that the Committee may have. These
ln-252551 MORRISON I FOERSTER
\ LI\!! !' Ell l. l. \ll!l.!TY P,\ RT:-.; J'. RS l!! P
The Committee of Privileges 2 February 2015 Page Five
submissions would focus both on the irreparably flawed process before the CMSC (in particular the obvious problem of bias tainting the Committee's findings) and the impossibility of seeking to cure the defects in the trial process via the procedure set out in the Committee's Resolution of 3 July 2012. For the avoidance of doubt, we do not accept that the procedure identified in Annex 3 to the Joint Committee' s Report satisfies the requirements of Article 6 ECHR in the context of an inquiry into a charge of contempt of Parliament by lying to a Select Committee.
11. To proceed to determine the issue of Mr Hinton' s guilt without affording him an opportunity via Counsel to address the Committee would, we suggest, be the most obvious violation of Article 6 ECHR in the context of the requirements of a fair criminal trial. To date, and consistent with its apparent refusal to provide any kind of reasoned response to our previous detailed submissions, the Committee has not explained whether it accepts that it is discharging a criminal jurisdiction in the context of its current inquiry into Mr Hinton and whether or not it accepts that it is bound to act in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 ECHR (as applicable in the criminal sphere). It is precisely issues such as this - going to the heart of the problem of the House's claimed penal powers - that we would wish to address in an oral hearing, conducted in private should the Committee so prefer.
Mr Hinton 's knowledge ofallegations ofphone-hacking at the News ofthe World
12. In your letter of 19 January 2015 you state that the Committee will consider the following "allegation" made by the CMSC against Mr Hinton:
''[Mr Hinton] misled the Committee about the extent of his knowledge of allegations that phone-hacking extended beyond Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire to others at the News of the World.'
13 . You go on to li st certain facts and documents that you say the Committee has considered in examining the CMSC' s "allegation" which, in chronological order, may be summarised as follows:
a. That Mr Hinton had read the transcript of Mr Justice Gross's sentencing remarks made on 26 January 2007;
b. That Mr Hinton had read a letter from Clive Goodman dated 2 March 2007; and
c. Certain responses given by Mr Hinton to questions before the CMSC in 2009 and 2011.
14. We note that at no point do you set out the totality of material that has been
ln-252551 MORRISON I FOERSTER
I 1. 1\111 1 I) 1.1.11111.lT Y P .IRT:S l·.RSIIII'
The Committee of Privileges 2 February 2015 Page Six
considered by the Committee. The excerpts from the oral testimony that you provide do not include the actual questions asked of Mr Hinton or the context in which the replies were given.
15. You state that the Committee has drawn certain "preliminary inferences" from this material. We do not understand what you mean by the phrase "preliminary inferences," but it strongly suggests that the Committee has already made a decision and now invites Mr Hinton to persuade it to change its collective mind. Reaching a decision before having heard all of the evidence is clearly incompatible with principles of modem justice in this country and suggests that the Committee was never truly concerned with carrying out a proper and full examination of the CMSC's findings. At this point we do not know specifically what material the Committee itself has considered, what material it has not considered and what weight it attaches or does not attach to the evidence overall because you will not tell us. Please provide us with a list of all the material that is available to the Committee identifying which material it has relied on and which it has not.
16. The "preliminary inferences" drawn by the Committee are that Mr Hinton:
a. "omitted to mention" to the CMSC that "suspicions" had been raised that other staff at the News ofthe World were involved in phone hacking; and
b. "made positive statements to the contrary" (i. e., said that no suspicions had been raised).
17. The issue of a "suspicion'' of wider involvement of News ofthe World reporters in phone hacking was addressed at paragraphs 64 to 69 of our submission dated 15 August 2012 (a copy of which is enclosed for the convenience of the current constitution of the Committee). Your letter of 19 January 2015 does not indicate whether or not those submissions were taken into account in determining the Committee's "preliminary inferences''. To the extent they were not, we invite the Committee to do so, state whether it disagrees with any part of those submissions and, if so, provide reasons.
18. The "preliminary inferences" are wrong and demonstrate a selective and partial reading of the evidence, which is clearly not the approach that any fair tribunal should adopt. The points you have made in support of the "preliminary inferences" are, at best, semantics supported by a selective and narrow reading of Mr Hinton's evidence to the CMSC in 2009 and 2011. For example, Mr Hinton was plainly not referring to the sentencing remarks of Mr Justice Gross when he made reference to "gossip'' or "speculation" of wider involvement in phone hacking. He was clearly referring to media reports and similar sources. Your attempt to suggest otherwise suggests an alarming desire to justify a conclusion
ln-252551 MORRISON I FOERSTER
\ 1.1 \ffl Ell LI \ BII.ITY P.\RTS F.RS IIIP
The Committee of Privileges 2 February 2015 Page Seven
that is not supported by a fair reading of the facts.
19. It is obvious from any fair reading of the full transcript of Mr Hinton' s evidence to the CMSC in 2009 and 2011 that Mr Hinton did not (and does not) deny that there were suspicions of wider abuses. By way of example, the question that introduced the word "suspicion" was Q2115 by Philip Davies in 2009:
Q2115 Philip Davies: Can I ask you about your suspicions about other people being involved at the time when many of the phone tapping incidents had nothing to do with the Royal Family, and so given that Clive Goodman was the Royal Reporter did you or anybody else think to yourself if people who were not part of the Royal Family were being tapped then surely this must go beyond Clive Goodman?
Mr Hinton: That is a good question but you have to put yourself in the position that we were in at the time remembering that the police had conducted an exhaustive inquiry that went on for many months, even before the charges were laid against Goodman and the private investigator, and I think it is reasonable, when we are looking at the work carried out by some of the best brains at Scotland Yard, for us to accept that that had found no evidence beyond speculation and there was a great deal of speculation in other newspapers, as you know, some of it perhaps (but probably not) malicious and there was never any substantive additional evidence produced. Although I have not followed meticulously all the proceedings since the summer I did look at the evidence that John Yates of the Yard provided to you only a couple of weeks ago and I think he said rather pointedly that the Guardian story that has so excited this Committee and certain parts of the media contained no new evidence and in the two months since its publication no new evidence has arisen. I think it is fair to say that since no evidence has come up it would be hard to find any because there are lots of very capable people I am sure from establishments such as the Guardian looking for it and it has never been presented. We were in a situation where there was no clear evidence, there was lots of gossip but the most important thing at that point having gone through this really difficult period-and the News of the World is populated, I promise you, overwhelmingly by decent hard-working people-they did not deserve the difficulty they had gone through and I was attaching a lot of importance to getting things back to normal with Colin's appointment." (Emphasis added.)
ln-252551 MORRISON I FOERSTER
A l.l\11TED I.IA BII .ITY P.\RT S l-: RS HI P
The Committee of Privileges 2 February 2015 Page Eight
20. Mr Hinton made the obvious point-time and again-that News International and the News of the World had been at great pains to investigate those suspicions in order to determine whether anyone else was involved. In particular:
a. In 2006, following Mr Goodman's arrests, News International retained Burton Copeland, a leading UK white collar firm, to investigate. Burton Copeland reviewed thousands of emails and other documents.
b. In 2007, and not long after receipt of Mr Goodman's 2 March 2007 letter, Daniel Cloke (News International's Group HR Director) and Jonathan Chapman (News International' s Director of Legal Affairs) undertook an email review to determine whether the individuals specified in Mr Goodman' s letter had engaged in phone hacking activities, as alleged by Mr Goodman. Colin Myler and Mr Cloke both then interviewed the individuals mentioned by Mr Goodman.
c. In May 2007, News International retained external lawyers Harbottle & Lewis to carry out an independent review of the emails considered by Mr Chapman and Mr Cloke. The review at Harbottle & Lewis was overseen by Lawrence Abramson.
21. Mr Hinton also explained to the CMSC that, in addition to the efforts made by News International, there was a long-running investigation by the police into allegations of phone hacking at the News of the World. That investigation was opened as long ago as November 2005 and continued up until Mr Goodman's conviction in January 2007.
22. As Mr Hinton explained to the CMSC, he believed that those investigations had been thorough and that they had not found any evidence of other abuses at the News of the World beyond Clive Goodman. The fact that Mr Hinton authorised those investigations in the first place plainly demonstrates that he was aware of the possibility that others at the News ofthe World were involved. That must have been obvious to the CMSC and equally to you. Although the CMS Committee has with the benefit of hindsight criticised the work of everyone, including the Metropolitan Police, who in 2006 and 2007 investigated phone-hacking at News of the World, Mr Hinton had no reason at the time to doubt the good faith or competence of those who had conducted such investigations.
23. Further, the fact that Mr Hinton did not set out to list to the CMSC every source of information, such as Mr Goodman' s 2 March 2007 letter or Mr Justice Gross's sentencing remarks, that led him to investigate such suspicions can hardly be criticised as an "omission". The fact that there was "suspicion" of wider involvement was general knowledge-not least amongst the CMSC-and, as a result, News International carried out an investigation. It was for that reason that
ln-252551 MORRISON I FOERSTER
I 1.1 \ tl 11·: D I.I 1111 1 IT \' P 1aT:-.;t-:RSI Ill'
The Committee of Privileges 2 February 2015 Page Nine
the CMSC asked Mr Hinton about it and recalled him (and numerous other witnesses) on a number of occasions. In replying, Mr Hinton referred to the results of the investigation, which were that there was no firm evidence to support the allegations or suspicions. Indeed, the Metropolitan Police investigation reached the same conclusion
24. The CMSC plainly knew of the sentencing remarks because they refer to them during the course of questioning.2 In the circumstances, it is difficult to see what harm or wrong the CMSC or Parliament can have suffered through Mr Hinton's so-called "omission".
25 . We do not understand how a ''preliminary inference" can have been reached that Mr Hinton denied that any suspicion had been raised. Many of Mr Hinton' s responses cited in your letter of 19 January 2015 refer explicitly to allegations, suspicions and gossip (or however the Committee wish to characterise it). Again, the fact that News International and the News of the World conducted investigations into the matter is an explicit recognition of such concerns. We can only assume that this "preliminary inference" is in some way based on Mr Hinton' s response to Q2 l 68 where he states that:
"We brought in a firm of solicitors and there were many, many conversations with the police not involving me. There was never firm evidence provided or suspicion provided that I am aware of that implicated anybody else other than Clive within the Staff of the News of the World." (Emphasis added.)
26. The section in emphasis has been inexplicably omitted from the quotation in your letter of 19 January 2015. Read in context, it is obvious that the reference to "suspicion provided'' is a reference to the investigations of Harbottle & Lewis and the police, neither of which discovered evidence (or gave rise to a suspicion) that implicated anyone other than Clive Goodman. That is what Mr Hinton was at pains to point out to the CMSC in 2009 and 2011, which was a full and truthful answer and was certainly not made with the intention of misleading anyone.
27. Moreover, as we set out at paragraph 67 of our ubmission dated 15 August 2012:
" ... it is difficult not to conclude that the CMS Committee was ignoring inconvenient evidence when the Report failed to note that Mr Hinton had testified only moments prior to the single supposedly misleading statement (there was "never firm evidence provided or suspicion provided'' [ ... ]) as follows: "there was a lot
2 Paul Farrelly at Q1399 specifically asked Mr Crone about Counts 16-20 of the Goodman Indictment on 21 July 2009; Mr Hinton's evidence on the matter took place almost two months later on I September 2009.
ln-252551 MORRISON I FOERSTER
\ l.l\llTF!l l.l.\llll.ITY P.\RT:--1".R:ilfll'
The Committee of Privileges 2 February 2015 Page Ten
of gossip, there was a lot of speculation, there were a lot of accusations that we could never find any firm foundation for ... ." (Q. 2116.) This passage told the Committee exactly what had happened. Goodman had made "a lot of accusations.'' Those accusations were investigated. At the time, Mr Hinton had no reason to doubt the thoroughness or good faith of the investigations. The investigations did not find any "firm foundation" for the "accusations." Having provided this explanation, it was appropriate to state later in the same testimony that Mr Hinton had not seen any firm evidence or suspicion. Taken as a whole, and read fairly, there is nothing misleading in Mr Hinton's testimony, or anything to suggest that Mr Hinton was "complicit in a cover-up."" (Emphasis added.)
28. As an executive in a large media company such as News International, it was perfectly proper for Mr Hinton to rely on the advice of, inter alia, Harbottle & Lewis in determining whether others at the News of the World were involved in phone hacking. As the Committee is aware, Mr Abramson reported to News International that his firm's review had found nothing to support Mr Goodman's assertions. Mr Abramson was subsequently criticised for failing to identify other concerns apparent from the emails his firm reviewed. You are surely aware of the Mr Abramson's admission in the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal's proceedings and the fine he received. You will also be aware of Mr Abramson's second witness statement to the Leveson Inquiry dated 8 December 2011 in which he accepted that he had failed to review certain emails. We note that the Committee has determined that it will review material that was not available to the CMSC including material submitted in the Leveson Inquiry. We strongly question the procedural or legal basis for such an approach and its compatibility with any notion of a fair trial but, without prejudice to that general point, we invite the Committee also to acknowledge the obvious relevance of the Abramson material to any inquiry into the charge that Mr Hinton gave misleading evidence to the CMSC.
29. Given the importance of the underlying issues that have received so much public attention and the importance to Mr Hinton of correcting the CMSC's improper and unfounded findings about him, it is remarkable that this Committee has decided to fasten upon a semantic distinction between "suspicion" and "evidence' in an effort to bless the CMSC's flawed process and outcome. Mr Hinton made abundantly clear in his appearances before the CMSC that he was - as were all members of the Committee - well aware of the suspicions, the accusations, the allegations that phone hacking at the News of the World went beyond Goodman and Mulcaire. He was equally clear in emphasising time and again that News International had thoroughly investigated the allegations and suspicions, but had found no evidence to support them. It turns out that Mr Hinton and his employer
ln-252551 MORRISON I FOERSTER
.\ l.l~ffl ED 1.1.\BII.ITY P.\RTSERSlllP
The Committee of Privileges 2 February 2015 Page Eleven
were ill-served by tb external law firm that failed in its assigned task, through no fault of Mr Hinton. It will reflect poorly on the Committee of Privileges and its members if it tries to take out of context an isolated instance of Mr Hinton's use of the term "suspicion" when the core of his testimony on all relevant points was completely accurate, based on his knowledge at the time.
30. Finally, we are astonished by the Committee's attempt to place upon witnesses an obligation well beyond the recognised duty to provide truthful answers to questions put to them - which Mr Hinton certainly did - in the form of some unspecified, vague duty to be "forthcoming". You stated that " ... if a matter is within the exclusive knowledge ofa witness then Parliament can properly expect a witness to be forthcoming. ' That is plainly absurd. It is an assertion that has no basis in law, is contrary to the principle of legal certainty/doubtful penalisation and appears to have no basis in Parliamentary procedure either. It is certainly not something that is explained in the 'Guide for witnesses giving written or oral evidence to a House of Commons select Committee.'
31. In any event, the matters to which you refer in support were not within Mr Hinton's "exclusive knowledge". The CMSC had plainly read the transcript of Mr Justice Grass's remarks. 3 In what way then, can Mr Hinton be said to have misled the Committee by failing to mention matters about which they were already well aware?
32. Given the importance of these matters and in the interests of fairness and transparency, we have, as a courtesy, copied this correspondence to all Members of the Committee.
Conclusion
33. In light of all of the above, we repeat our request for the Committee to stay its inquiry in relation to Mr Hinton. If, however, the Committee does decide to proceed, it should dismiss the second allegation as set out on page 1 of the Clerk's letter dated 19 January 2015, as it has already done in respect of the first allegation. Finally, please tell us the process that the Committee intends to adopt in relation to its finding on the first allegation.
Yours faithfully, d / / l ~ w ,(, '7arl~ Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP
3 For example at Q2 l 23 and Q2 I 25 Philip Davies reads out an excerpt of what Mr Kelsey Fry said at the sentencing hearing.
ln-252551 MORRISON I FOERSTER
I 1.1.IIITl-.ll I.I IIIII.ITY P \RT:S:ERSII IP
The Committee of Privileges 2 February 2015 Page Twelve
cc. Kevin Barron ([email protected]) Sir Paul Beresford ([email protected]) Mr Christopher Chope ([email protected]) Mr Tom Clarke ([email protected]) Mr Geoffrey Cox ([email protected]) Mr Dominic Grieve ([email protected]) Sir Nick Harvey ([email protected]) Fiona O'Donnell ([email protected]) Sir John Randall ([email protected]) Dr Alan Whitehead ([email protected])
ln-252551 Committee of Privileges Tel 020 7219 3259 Fax 020 7219 5952 Email [email protected] • Website www. pa rl ia ment. u k/privileges
From Eve Samson, Clerk of the Committee
Morrison Foerster (UK) LLP CityPoint One Ropemaker Street London EC2Y9AW
3 February 2015
Your ref: By post and email
Dear Sirs
Eleventh Report of Session 2010-2012 from the Culture Media and Sport Committee
I am writing to inform you that at its meeting this morning the Committee considered the request in your letter of 26 January to delay its proceedings in relation to allegations against Mr Les Hinton. Having taken further advice from the Crown Prosecution Service, the Committee considers there is no reason for delay; the material it has identified relates to whether or not the Culture, Media and Sport Committee was misled, not to allegations of corporate wrongdoing.
The Committee notes that it has repeatedly offered Mr Hinton the opportunity to indicate whether he wishes to make oral submissions, and that there has been no substantive reply to those offers. The Committee is willing to hear from Mr Hinton, if he wishes to appear, on the afternoon of Wednesday 11th February (British time}, by video link if he wishes. If Mr Hinton wishes to use this opportunity, please respond by 10 am Thursday 5 February. I draw your attention to the Resolution of 3 July already supplied to you which notes that while the expectation is that evidence will be taken in public in the interests of openness, the Committee will consider requests to take such evidence in private.
Thank you for the submission sent yesterday. We do not comment on the content of your letter, which will be considered by the Committee, save that whilst aware of th_e order of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal of 4 December 2014 and the fine imposed on Mr Lawrence Abramson, it is not clear how you expect the Committee to be aware of any "admission" made at that tribunal by Mr Abramson, given that the judgment has not yet been made public; nor, we understand, has it been sent to the parties.
The Committee has been asked for an extension to the deadline for written submissions by one of the inquiry subjects and has agreed that it will receive his submission by 9 am on 9 February. ~ewk~ &t~' Eve Samson Clerk of the Committee of Privileges CJ'I YPOINT M O RRI SON F OE RSTER ( l "K) LLP MORRISON I FOERSTER ONE ROPEMAKER S'rn.EET N EW Y O RK, s.,:,.,1 F RA '.'-i CISCO, I. OS A~ G ELES , PALO ALT O, LONDON EC2Y 9i\W SA!\: D I E. GO , \'( ' .\S I-II NG T OX . D. C. A LIM ITED LIAB I LITY PART:-.:ERSHI P UN ITED KJNC,DOM TOKY O , L ONDON , BR USS EL S , BEIJ ING, S II ANG H :\I, HO N G K O!':G TELEP! IONE: +44 20 7920 4000 FACSIMILE: + 44 20 7496 8500
WWW.MOFO.COM
5 February 2015
Our ref:
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"
Thank you for your letter dated 3 February 2015.
You say that the Committee has "taken further advice from the Crown Prosecution Service" and has decided to proceed with its inquiry insofar as it relates to our client. You say this is because the Committee believes the "material it has identified relates to whether or not the Culture, Media and Sport Committee was misled, not to allegations of corporate wrongdoing." With respect, the Committee has missed the point again. The underlying facts that relate to whether or not the CMSC was misled are plainly relevant to any allegations of corporate wrongdoing. Please clarify whether that is the Crown Prosecution' s view of the matter or the Committee's.
In your letter, you go on to complain that our client is yet to indicate whether he intends to make oral submissions. However, you appear to have ignored our letter of 28 January 2015. In that letter we made it clear that, until such time as the Committee has determined whether a stay is appropriate (as it has now done) and answered our substantive and procedural questions (which it has not done), Mr Hinton is in no position to decide whether or not he should make oral submissions. That position remains unchanged, but Mr Hinton reserves the right to address the Committee should it eventually decide to address the various substantive and procedural questions we have put to it. We repeat our request for an oral directions hearing before the Committee so that the difficult and novel
Autho rised and regul ated by the Solicitors Regulation Au th o rity
A li st o f Partners o f Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP, a Delaware Limited Liability Partnership, (registered number 4569482 8100 0807471 41) is available at our o ffi ces.
ln-252648 MORRISON I FOERSTER
-~ LIMITED LI A BI L ITY P A RTNERS I-IIP
The Committee of Privileges 5 February 2015 Page Two
issues of law and procedure which we have sought to raise on our client's behalf can be ventilated.
Finally, in relation to our submission dated 2 February 2015, you say that "it is not clear how you expect the Committee to be aware of any "admission" made at [the SDT] by Mr Abramson, given that the judgment has not yet been made public; nor, we understand, has it been sent to the parties." We expected the Committee to be aware of Mr Abramson's admission because it is set out in the SDT's Order dated 4 December 2014 (filed on 5 December 2014 ), which reads in pertinent part:
"The Respondent LAWRENCE HOWARD ABRAMSON ... admitted and the Tribunal found proved one allegation, as follows:
Acted in such a way as to compromise or impair his proper standard of work, contrary to Rule l(e) of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990."
(Emphasis added.)
For the context of that admission, we refer the Committee to paragraph 28 of our submission dated 2 February 2015. As the Committee will be aware, Mr Abramson admitted at the Leveson Inquiry that he had failed to identify certain concerns from the emails his firm was instructed to review.
The Order, which we obtained from the SDT, is publicly available but we have enclosed a copy to assist you and the Committee. We also invite the Committee to contact the SDT in order to obtain a copy of the SDT' s reasoned judgment, which is clearly pertinent to the Committee's inquiry.
Yours faithfully, 7·JU\f~ Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP
Enclosure
ln-252648 MORRISON I FOERSTER
A LIMITE D LL~BILITY P A RTNERSHIP
The Committee of Privileges 5 February 2015 Page Three cc. Kevin Barron ([email protected]) Sir Paul Beresford ([email protected]) Mr Christopher Chope ([email protected]) Mr Tom Clarke ([email protected]) Mr Geoffrey Cox ([email protected]) Mr Dominic Grieve ([email protected]) Sir Nick Harvey ([email protected]) Fiona O'Donnell ([email protected]) Sir John Randall [email protected]) Dr Alan Whitehead ([email protected])
ln-252648 No. 11164-2013
IN THE MATTER OF JONATHAN ASHLEY CHAPMAN & LAWRENCE HOWARD ABRAMSON, solicitors
- AND
IN THE MATIER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974
Mr A. N. Spooner (in the chair) Mr E. Nally Mrs V. Murray-Chandra
Date ofHearing: 8-10 October 2014 & 4 December 2014
ORDER
Of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal Constituted under the Solicitors Act 1974
The Respondent LAWRENCE HOWARD ABRAMSON of , Shenley, Radlett, Hertfordshire WD7 , solicitor, admitted and the Tribunal found proved one a11egation, as follows:
Acted in such a way as to compromise or impair his proper standard of work, contrary to Rule l (e) ofthe Solicitors Practice Rules 1990.
The Tribunal ORDERS that LAWRENCE HOWARD ABRAMSON do pay a fine of £20,000.00, such penalty to be forfeit to Her Majesty the Queen, and it further ORDERS that he do pay a contribution towards the costs of and incidental to this application and enquiry summarily assessed in the sum of£15,000.00.
Two further allegations were denied by the Respondent and the Tribunal found each ofthose allegations NOT PROVED. The Tribunal therefore ORDERS that those allegations be dismissed.
DATED this 4th day ofDecember 2014
FILED WITH THE LAW SOCIETY This 5th day of December 2014 On behalf. f the Tribunal r[6ru,-( A.NSpoo~ C 1rman ..,.
NOTE: Payment (or matters relating to the payment) ofthe fine should be made to The Accountant, H.M. Treasuryt EF A Team, Room 1/29, Ground Floor, 1 Horse Guards Road, London, SWl A 2HQ. 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
Morrison Foerster (UK) LLP CityPoint One Ropemaker Street London EC2Y9AW
12 February 2015
Your ref: By post and email
Dear Sirs
Eleventh Report of Session 2010-2012 from the Culture Media and Sport Committee
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 Hackingr11to 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 Je provided in advance of publication.
The Committee expects you, any representative or other person with whom you have discussecJ the inquiry, to keep the existence of the Special Report confidential until publication, and not to r•!veal (or reveal further) the resumption of the inquiry until publication of the Special Report. v{~.f~,
Eve~ Clerk of the Committee of Privileges
[J J HC(2010-12)903 Committee of Privileges Tel 020 7219 3259 Fax 020 7219 5952 Email [email protected] Website www. pa rlia ment. uk/p rivi leges
From Eve Samson, Clerk of the Committee
Morrison Foerster {UK} LLP CityPoint One Ropemaker Street London EC2Y 9AW
13 February 2015
Your ref: By post and email
Dear Sirs
Eleventh Report of Session 2010-2012 from the Culture Media and Sport Committee
In your letter of 5 February you state you do not know specifically what material "the Committee itself has considered, what material it has not considered, and what weight it attaches or does not attach to the evidence overall." As indicated in earlier correspondence, the Committee has considered evidence from the original CMS Committee inquiry, relevant evidence from the Leveson inquiry, material from R v Coulson and others. The preliminary inferences sent to you on 19 January set out the evidence on which those inferences were based. It is possible that the responses to those submissions may lead the Committee to consider further evidence, which will be disclosed. As indicated in the Resolution of 3 July, any paragraphs critical of your client will be disclosed in advance and those will contain references to the evidence on which they are based.
Most of the evidence considered by the Committee is in the public domain, and where it is not, it has been supplied to inquiry subjects. The Committee has disclosed to you all of the evidence upon which it seeks to rely in relation to your client, and has not withheld anything which might be supportive of your client. In relation to the inquiry into the allegations made against Mr Crone and Mr Myler, the Committee has provided to them documents which have been disclosed to the Committee by the CPS and which arise from the R v Brooks, Coulson and others trial. The position of Mr Crone and Mr Myler is different to your client because they are not former directors of News International and they gave evidence together as one panel. The Committee has not disclosed this information to you, because it does not seek to rely upon that disclosure in relation to your client, and most importantly, the Committee is also mindful to avoid any breach of privacy of individuals (arising from the content of the disclosure), and to prevent any risk to your client or the CPS in relation to any potential future charges or criminal trials. There is nothing within the CPS disclosure that could be described as supportive of your client. Nonetheless, I enclose two documents which either mention your client or are generated by him, in the interests of completeness, although the Committee does not intend to rely on these. The points raised in your letter of S February mean that the Thirteenth Report of Session 2010-12 from the Home Affairs Committee, Unauthorised tapping into or hacking of mobile communications, HC 907, and associated evidence, in particular the evidence given by Mr Peter Clarke on 12 July 2011, may also be relevant. This material is, again, in the public domain.
Ev son Clerk of the Committee of Privileges
2 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
19 February 2015
Your ref: By post and email
Dear Sirs
Eleventh Report of Session 2010-2012 from the Culture Media and Sport Committee
l enclose draft paragraphs from the Committee of Privileges, setting out the matters on which the Committee is minded to criticise your client.
(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 documents below which the CPS has released to the Committee. On further examination we have identified further references to Mr Hinton. • 018726 • 026464 • 025262 • 018768 • 030638 • Email from Andy Coulson to Tom Crone, 03/01/2007 16:16
You will see they are not referred to in the material enclosed. The deadline for any further submissions is 9am on Friday 6 March.
Eve Sa Clerk of the Co ittee of Privileges
2 CIT\1'(>LNT MORRISON I FOERSTER ( >NI\ ROl'Et\l;\KJrn $'1TtElff :,..4w ,t,ttK, 511 :.-. t-,t!\,t,l:.c.n, LC)S .\~ \H. J I.!- . 1• \It, \1 ro. LONDON EC2Y WWW.MC lFO.COt--1 24 February 2015 Our ref: Eve Samson Clerk ofThe Committee of Privileges Journal Office House of Commons London SWIA OAA By post and email Dear Madam. Eleventh Report of Session 2010-2012 from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee We refer to your letter of 19 February 2015. We will respond substantively to that letter in due course but in the interim raise a specific point in relation to paragraph 28 of the draft criticisms and the Abramson SDT issue. The draft currently states, " Having considered the available evidence, namely the Leveson Inquiry evidence, this point is irrelevant: it goes nowhere near the scope of the Inquiry commissioned by Mr. Hinton, which is amply evidenced as being narrow. Further ii invites us lo elide two separate pieces ofinformation, without further information or publishedjudgment upon which to do so. We consider this to be inappropriate. " We again respectfully invite the Committee to write immediately to the SDT and request a copy of itS report. This evidence is "available'' to the Com mittee upon request. We believe that the report will confirm who commissioned Harbottle & Lewis and the scope of its Inquiry. It is incumbent upon any fair and transparent tribunal to follow such a reasonable line of enquiry. We do not think that it would be fair, just or appropriate for the Committee to dismiss th is important material without having seen it or to deliberately ignore material that is available to it. As Mr. Hinton is not party to those proceedings he is not entitled to a copy of it at this stage. We understand that the SDT has confirmed that a Committee ofthe Houses of Par Iiament is entitled to a copy upon request. We understand that the Clerk at the SDT dealing with the matter is Ms. Humble. The full address is: .\u,lwris:t"cl :rn d rq~uht<'d b f d u.• Soltc11to r~ Rc·1-i.-i1 l:::i 110n ~\udu>rH} ,\ li !-t t of Pa rtner!- or ~lornson & Fou~tcr ( L' I-:) I.I.I>. :i l)claw:trc J.1m11etl l.1:;ib1l 11y l':tnnc ri-lup, (rc~i>tcr \ 1.1.\1 1'1 En 1.1.11\I J.I T\' l'.\ RT:-:E R~IIII' The Committee of Privileges 5 February 2015 Page Two Susan Humble Chief Executive Officer and Clerk Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal Administration Limited Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal I Farringdon Street London EC4M 7LG Tel: 0207 329 4808 Email: [email protected] Please confirm that you will now write to the SOT. If you do not intend to do so please set out clearly the basis for such an approach. Yours faithfully. , / fl(!mt-uf1 cl&riff Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP cc. Kevin Barron ([email protected]) Sir Paul Beresford ([email protected]) Mr Christopher Chope ([email protected]) Mr Tom Clarke ([email protected]) Mr Geoffrey Cox ([email protected]) Mr Dominic Grieve ([email protected]) Sir Nick Harvey ([email protected]) Fiona O'Donnell ([email protected]) Sir John Randall [email protected]) Dr Alan Wh itehead ([email protected]) ln-253494 v I crrYPOlNT \I O KRl;-;O t,.. HlJ kS:1 ~R l°K) 1 1 1• MORRISON I FOERSTER <>NI\ ROl'l(t\lAKER S'IREl'.T ~I.\\ YO RK , ~.,:,.. IRJ\ N < lS <: (1, I OS \ NC.fl, Lhll= , l';\ I (.) .\I Tf\, LONDON EC2Y 9i\W ~A!\. IH l·.c;o. \\ \~t11~ c , u,, t> .r:~ \ 1. 1~11 1 hi> 1,1 \1111.11 Y 11' \RT'.',:Hll~IIII' UNITED KIN \'tl\'VW~'-IOl'O.C:Ol\l 24 February 2015 Our ref: Kevin Barron Clerk of The Committee of Privileges Journal Office House of Commons London SWIA OAA By post and email Dear Sir, Eleventh Report of Session 2010-2012 from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee We have previously written to you in relation to comments made by Members of Parliament in respect of our client Mr. Hinton, during the conduct ofyour Committee's investigation. Paul Farrelly MP said in a question to Sir Alan Moses at a CMS hearing today, "We pursued phone hacking because Les Hinton at News International told us there had been investigations when there hadn't been. So he had misled us, and it appears from the recent record that Paul Vickers is the Les Hinton if not the Torn Crone ofTrinity Mirror ..." Jt is frankly intolerable and unfair that our client is required to keep the matters currently under consideration by your Committee confidential whilst members of Parliament engage in character assassination in this manner. You will recall saying the following; "Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab): If the House decides to refer this matter to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, we will ensure that all our processes are rigorously fair and impartial. It is likely that there wi II be widespread speculation before we are in a position to say more about the Committee's plans, but we will not be rushing into making any hasty decisions and will consider our actions carefully, thoughtfully, and with professional advice from the appropriate sources. At its meeting this morning, the Committee agreed that none of its members would discuss this matter outside the Comm ittee, whether \ h~l o f PU111l" (1. or ~lo rrni:(111 & h >C' r$h.' r ( L" J..: ) I.I.(>• .a D,·bwar <- l.im1t('d l.1:1b1l11r l'arrnrr1h1p. (n·,-;1>1er<·d numb« H<,9·1~2 8 11111 ORIIH 7 1-11 ) i, •,·o,l ablo a, o ur orr.cc;. ln-253504 v I MORRISON I FOERSTER \ I.I \ II Tl,1> 1.1 ·11111.1 rY I' \ H'I :S. loll,1111' The Committee of Priv iJeges 5 February 2015 Page Two with colleagues or other third parties. I trust that Members and others will respect the Committee's decision, and will not try to engage Committee members in discussions about this inquiry." Please confirm by return that our client is 1110 longer bound by the requirements of confidentiality requested by you in light of the continued and flagrant breaches of any confidentiality by Members of the House. Yours faithfully, /I r/7/ / I {6uu@JJkc1k Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP ln-253504 v I Committee of Privileges Tel 020 7219 5952 Email [email protected] Ii Website www.parliament.uk/privileges From Rt Hon Kevin Barron, Chair of the Committee 25 February 2015 Morrison Foerster (UK) LLP CityPoint One Ropemaker Street London EC2Y 9AW Thank you for your letter. I am not responsible for what Mr Farelly said, but I see no breach of confidentiality in his remarks, which clearly refer to the Culture. Media and Sport Committee Report which has long been in the public domain. CHAIR CITYPOINT ,\ IO RR I SOS F OE H.STl· R ( l l J..:: ) I.LI' MORRISON I FOERSTER ON I·: ROl'l ·:i'vL\Kl ·:Jl S'I1ll.:1·:T t'\' E \'' YO RI-: , S :\S rR .\~ C I SCO , LU.'> :\1':(;EJ.ES. !':\LO :\I.T O , LO N DON l·:C:2Y 9,\W S :\:-,.: D IEGO, W:\ S II ISGTO;,,.;, D.C. ·I 1.l ~I ITED 1. 1.IBII.IT\' 1' .IRT~ER,1111' UN ITED KINGDOM TOl-:YO, 1. 0 :,...:n o:,.;, Bl{ l ' SS EI. S , I\E IJ I N(i, S ll :\ .\:G ll :\1 , H () :,,..: (_j KO ~(; TEIJ·:I'l lONI-:: +44 2U 792114000 F.\ CSIWI.I ·:: +44 20 7496 8500 \VWW.1'f01'0.C0i\l 25 February 2015 Our ref: Eve Samson 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 At Paragraph 14 of the draft report reference is made to procedural failings and it is stated that 'we have discussed submissions on those matters earlier in this report.' Please may we have copies of the draft report's comments on procedural matters by return. Yours faithfully / Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP Aut h o rised an d n:gul ate A li s t o f Partners of /Vfo rrison & Foerster (UK) LLP , a Delaware Limited Liability P artnership, (registered numbe r 4569482 8 11 Hl 080747141) is a\'ail able at o u r offices. ln-253547 vl Committee of Privileges Tel 020 7219 3259 Fax 020 7219 5952 Email [email protected] • Website www.pa rl ia ment.uk/privi leges From Eve Samson, Clerk of the Committee Morrison Foerster (UK} LLP CityPoint One Ropemaker Street London EC2Y9AW 26 February 2015 Your ref: By post and email Dear Sirs Eleventh Report of Session 2010-2012 from the Culture Media and Sport Committee In' my letter of 19 February I made clear that "The procedural points raised in earlier submissions will be d~alt with in the report, but do not form part of the criticisms." They are therefore not being released. on Clerk of the Committee of Privileges Cl'IYl'OINT ~!ORRISON F OE R STER (l' i-.: ) 1..1.P MORRISON I FOERSTER ONE ROPI ·:iv!J\Kfll S'lllEET !'.: EW Y O RI..:, S :\1'-: FR :\:-.;;c 1scn. LOS :\t--:GELES, P :\1.0 .-\I.TO, LONDON EC:2Y 9!\W S :\'.'..: DIE CO, \'(':\ S III XG T O~. D .C. !\ LI \I ITl' LJ 1.1 :11\11. IT\' l' ,IRT'IERSII II' UNITl·:D KINGDOM TO;..:YO, 1. 0:,..;no:,..;, BRPSSELS, Bl~ IJ1:,...'Ci, S H A1'G ll :\ 1, 11 0:\"G K()~G Tl·:1.1·:PI IONI·:: +44 20 7920 40lKl Ft\CSl i\ llLI ·:: +44 20 7496 8500 WWW.MOl'O.COM 27 February 2015 Our ref: Eve Samson 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" We refer to your letter to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ("SDT") dated 25 February 2015 and the SDT's response dated 26 February 2015. Please provide us with a copy of the SDT's decision so that we may fully consider its relevance to our client and the Committee' s inquiry. The SOT decision is, of course, evidence and we will therefore hold it in confidence pursuant to the terms of paragraph 20 of the Committee's Resolution dated 3 July 2012. For the avoidance of doubt, we will not disclose the SOT decision to any third party without the consent of the Committee and will only refer to it for the purposes of the Committee's inquiry. We assume that this request is not controversial given (a) the importance of this document to our client, (b) your approach to date in providing documents that are relevant to our client (see, for example, your letter dated 13 February 2015), and (c) the Committee' s purported commitment to a fair and transparent process. While we note the SDT's reason for not providing us with a copy of its decision, we anticipate that the Committee does not feel bound by that given, as acknowledged by the SOT, the wide powers that the Committee asserts it has. If you do not agree to provide us with a copy of the SDT's decision, please explain why not giving full and detailed reasoning. Au thorised and regulated by th l· SolicitllrS Rt:gulation Authority t\ list of Partners of Morrison & Foerster (L'K) LI.I\ a Ddawarc l.imitc .\ 1.1\IITl'.D l.l :\llll.lTY l'.\I\T:S: I.RSIIII' The Committee of Privileges 5 February 2015 Page Two Yours faithfully, ~·~f~ Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP cc. Kevin Barron ([email protected]) Sir Paul Beresford ([email protected]) Mr Christopher Chope ([email protected]) Mr Tom Clarke ([email protected]) Mr Geoffrey Cox ([email protected]) Mr Dominic Grieve ([email protected]) Sir Nick Harvey ([email protected]) Fiona O'Donnell ([email protected]) Sir John Randall ([email protected]) Dr Alan Whitehead ([email protected]) ln-253687 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 2 March 2015 Your ref: By post and email Dear Sirs Eleventh Report of Session 2010-2012 from the Culture Media and Sport Committee This letter is to inform you that, after consulting the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, I will supply you, by email, with the documents disclosed by the SOT. As the judgement remains embargoed, I'm sending them on a confidential basis. Eve Samson Clerk of the Committee of Privileges Committee of Privileges Tel 0207219 3259 Fax 020 7219 5952 Email samsone@parliament. uk • Website www. parliament. uk/privi leges From Eve Samson, Clerk of the Committee Morrison Foerster (UK) LLP CityPoint One Ropemaker Street London EC2Y9AW 3 March 2015 Your ref: By post and email Dear Sirs Eleventh Report of Session 2010-2012 from the Culture Media and Sport Committee Further to our earlier correspondence, I am writing to draw your attention to the fact an unredacted version of the 2 March appeal letter from Mr Goodman was read in open court in R v Rebekah Brooks and others on 19 March 2014. It appears at page 106 of the transcript. The letter is as follows: "l·am appealing against this decision on the following grounds: (1) The decision is perverse in that the actions leading to this criminal charge were carried out with the full knowledge and support of The News of the World's editor, Andy Coulson and deputy editor, Neil Wallace. Payment for Glen Mulcaire's services was arranged by the managing editor, Stuart Kuttner. "(2) The decision is inconsistent because the paper's news editor, Ian Edmondson, and other members of staff were carrying out the same illegal procedures. Prosecution counsel, the counsel for Glen Mulcaire and the judge at the sentencing hearing agreed that other News of the World employees were the clients for Mulcaire's five solo substantive charges. This practice was widely discussed at the daily editorial conference until explicit reference to it was banned by the editor. As far as I am aware, no other member of staff has faced disciplinary action, much less dismissal. "(3) My conviction and imprisonment cannot be the real reason for my dismissal. The legal manager, Tom Crone, attended virtually every meeting of my legal team and was given full access to the Crown Prosecution Service's evidence files. He and other senior staff of the paper had long advanced knowledge that I would plead guilty. Despite this, the paper continued to employ me. Throughout my suspension I was given book serialisations to write and was consulted on several occasions about the royal stories they needed to check. The paper continued to employ me for a substantial part of my custodial sentence. "(4) Tom Crone and the editor promised on many occasions that I could come back to a job at the newspaper if I did not implicate the paper or any of its staff in my mitigation plea. I did not and I expect the paper to honour its promise to me. "(5) The dismissal is automatically unfair as the company failed to go through the minimum required statutory dismissal procedures. Copies to Mr Kuttner and Les Hinton". You may also wish to note that an unredacted version of the letter from Mr Abramson was published by the CMS Committee in 2010, at HC(2009-10)362-11, Ev 467. The last two names listed are covered by reporting restrictions. 1~·~·~, Ot~. amson Clerk of the Committee of Privileges 2 CJ'1)1)0JNT MOR RIS()>< FOERSTER(~!;) I. LI' MORRISON I FOERSTER ONE ROPEMAKER S'lllliET 1'R\'(' \'()R ..: , SAN FR A:-.:CISCO, I.OS /l~CELES , P 1\ I.O A L.TO , LONDON EC2Y 9;\\V SAN 1)111GO , WAS111:-.:c,·o:,.; . o.c. :\ 1. IMl'fF.D 1. 1.\Ull. l'fY f>.~ 1\TNl, ftSll ll' UNITED KINGDOM T O KYO , 1.0K CH>~ . OR l'SSEI.S , 0.HIJl~G . Sll;\:,,.J'GIIA I , HO.'iiG t-:O~G 'Jl,:J .EJ>I IONE: +44 20 7920 40()() Ft\CSIMILI·:: +44 2U 7496 8500 W\V\V.i\101'<).C()I\I 6 March 2015 Our ref: Rt. Hon. Kevin Barron MP The Committee of Privileges Journal Office House of Commons London SWIA 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" 1. We refer to your letter dated 19 February 2015 enclosing the draft paragraphs setting out the matters on which the Committee of Privileges (the "Committee") is minded to criticise our client. 1 2. Executive Summary • In his September 2009 appearance before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee ("CMSC") and in numerous submissions to this Committee, Mr Hinton has consistently stated that while he was aware of allegations, accusations, and suspicions that phone hacking at News of the World extended further than Clive Goodman, he was not aware of any evidence in September 2009 to support such allegations, accusations, and suspicions. • In a single sentence in his 2009 appearance, Mr Hinton stated that he was not aware of evidence or suspicion that phone hacking extended beyond Mr Goodman. The CMSC and this Committee seek to make much of this one sentence. But when viewed fairly in the context of all of Mr Hinton's statements that day, it is obvious that Mr Hinton was drawing a distinction I References to paragraph numbers in this letter refer to paragraphs in the Committee's draft criticisms unless stated otherwise. Authorised a nd regulated by the Solicito rs Regulatio n Authority J\ list or Partners or ~lorrison & Foerster (CK) LLP, a Delaware Li mited l.iabilitr Partnership, (ccgistcrcd number 4569482 81 Oil 08074714 1) is a"ailable at our offices. ln-253580 MORRISON I FOERSTER .\ 1. 1.\II TEI) 1.1 :\111 1.ITY P.\RTNERSII IP The Committee of Privileges 6 March 2015 Page Two between suspicions - of which he was well aware - and evidence, which was lacking. At the time of his 2009 appearance, Mr Hinton had been informed that prior investigations - by (I) the police, (2) Burton Copeland, (3) successive-editors Andy Coulson and Colin Myler, (4) Jonathan Chapman and Daniel Cloke, and (5) Harbottle & Lewis - had found no evidence that phone hacking at News of the World extended beyond Mr Goodman. In 2009, Mr Hinton had no reason to doubt the reasonableness of the scope of each investigation or the competence or good faith of the investigators. • The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ("SDT") Judgment dated 3 February 2015 concerning Harbottle & Lewis partner Lawrence Abramson2 (the "SDT Judgment") makes clear that Mr Abramson, unbeknownst to Mr Hinton, signally failed in his assignment to review the emails of the five individuals specified by Mr Goodman. Mr Hinton and others at News International had reasonably relied on Mr Abramson to check the work of the Cloke/Chapman review of the emails called out by Mr Goodman. • Had Mr Abramson done his job properly, the history of this entire saga would have been very different, and it is inconceivable that we would now be writing this letter on Mr Hinton's behalf. • The 100-page single-spaced SDT Judgment that details Mr Abramson's culpability calls into question many of the findings about the Harbottle & Lewis investigation at the core of the CMSC report. • The proper focus of thfa Committee's inquiry about whether Mr Hinton misled the CMSC should be on Mr Hinton's knowledge and state of mind as of his September 2009 appearance before the CMSC. Instead, the Committee appears prepared to rely impermissibly on hindsight to call into question the scope and competence of certain investigations. But all significant evidence on which the Committee relies became known to Mr Hinton (and to the rest of the world) only after his September 2009 CMSC appearance. 3. As invited, we have set out below our further submissions following receipt of the draft criticisms. We do so while reserving our client's position in relation to the grave concerns we have over the Committee's repeated failure to answer our questions over the purpose, scope and jurisdictional basis for the Committee's inquiry. We assume from the fact that the Committee has decided to proceed with its inquiry and only intends to address our concerns in its final report that the Committee has dismissed all of our submissions and remains wholly unwilling to entertain further oral argument on Mr Hinton's behalf. If that is correct, we 2 SRA v Chapman and Abramson, Case No. I I I 64-20 I 3. ln-253580 MORRISON I FOERSTER ;\ 1.1.\IITl'.l) 1.1 :\lll l.lTY P:\RT:-:ERSIII P The Committee of Privileges 6 March 2015 Page Three respectfully suggest that it is a truly astonishing approach given the constitutional novelty, gravity and complexity of the issues generated by this investigation and the potentially damaging consequences for our client. To the extent the Committee has not yet considered or is unwilling to acknowledge the extensive flaws in its investigative process, we again invite it to consider our previous submissions carefully and to accede to our request for an oral hearing in the event that the Committee is not minded to withdraw all of the identified criticisms of Mr Hinton. 4. The seismic impact of the SDT Judgment on the CMSC's reasoning and the draft criticisms of the Committee simply serves to underline the fundamental concerns we have consistently expressed as to the grossly inadequate due process protections afforded to Mr Hinton by both the CMSC in preparing its report and now by your Committee in producing its draft findings of "guilt" against him on the serious "charge" of misleading a Select Committee. It was only our persistent efforts at persuading the Committee to seek access to this plainly critical document that resulted in it becoming available at all, a fact which reflects poorly on the Committee's concern to ensure a fair hearing for Mr Hinton. The SDT Judgment is an extremely lengthy and detailed document and contains reference to a mass of other relevant evidence, much of which will presumably not have been placed before the Committee as primary relevant evidence. We trust we have your assurance that each and every member of the Committee will be required to set aside sufficient time to read for themselves the full SDT Judgment and all necessary accompanying evidence rather than rely on a summary prepared by others. Nothing less will do in light of its obvious impact on the Committee's draft findings. 5. The SDT Judgment is still confidential per order of the Tribunal pending the completion of certain criminal matters. But some day the SDT Judgment will become public. The detailed fact-finding of the SDT Judgment makes clear that the CMSC erred in its surmise and inference about the Harbottle & Lewis investigation. Failure by this Committee to correct the mistakes of the CMSC including its ill-considered conclusions about Mr Hinton - will embarrass this Committee and its members when the SDT Judgment sees the light ofday. Response to the Draft Criticisms 6. The Committee's draft criticisms of Mr Hinton rely extensively on impermissible hindsight in reaching the conclusion that Mr Hinton misled the CMSC about the extent of his knowledge of allegations that phone hacking extended beyond Clive Goodman. The central issue before the Committee is the state of Mr Hinton's knowledge when he gave evidence to the CMSC on 15 September 2009. The draft conclusions of the Committee place considerable weight on evidence and material that came to light only after that date and accordingly can have no relevance to ln-253580 MORRISON I FOERSTER ,\ l.l~IITED 1.1 :lllll,IT\' P,IRT :s; E RSIIIP The Committee of Privileges 6 March 2015 Page Four Mr Hinton' s state of mind when he made the statements at issue. 7. In particular, the Committee's lengthy parsing (paras. 16-31) of the scope of the various investigations in 2006 and 2007 completely ignores that Mr Hinton of course was not aware - nor could he have been aware in 2009 - ofthe many later self-serving statements that contended that the investigations to which Mr Hinton referred in his 2009 statements were more limited than Mr Hinton had been led to believe. An ex post facto attempt to judge the state of Mr Hinton's mind by reference to subsequent testimony from witnesses with an obvious interest oftheir own and in circumstances where their accounts were incapable of effective challenge by Mr Hinton is the antithesis ofa fair hearing. 8. We refer to and commend the approach taken by the SOT, which was acutely aware ofthe dangers ofhindsight bias. The SDT noted that it was: '' ...mindful of the danger of looking at the factual matrix with the crystal clear vision ofhindsight. As at October 2014 when this case was heard, the Tribunal, the parties and their legal representatives, the solicitor's profession and the general public knew considerably more about phone hacking and associated criminal activity than anyone did in 2007. The Tribunal therefore put hindsight very firmly out of its mind when considering these allegations. What the Tribunal had to do was put itself in the minds of the Respondents in May 2007."3 9. This Committee also continues to brush aside the obvious evidence that, in 2009, Mr Hinton made clear time and again - with the one exception ofa sentence taken out of context by the Committee - that, while he was aware of suspicions, accusations, and allegations, no one had presented to him evidence that phone hacking at News of the World extended beyond the conduct of Mr Goodman. Viewed fairly and in context, Mr Hinton's statements on this topic are accurate and consistent. By no stretch of the imagination can they be judged to be deliberately misleading or betraying a "lack of candour". It is not relevant to a fair consideration of whether Mr Hinton misled the CMSC that we all now know that there is evidence that persons at News ofthe World other than Mr Goodman were engaged in phone hacking, because there is no evidence that Mr Hinton knew of any such evidence at the time ofhis appearance before the CMSC. Allegations 10. Paragraph 13 of the Committee's draft report focuses on Mr Hinton's awareness ofthe sentencing remarks ofMr Justice Gross and Mr Goodman's letter: 3 SOT Judgment, para. 35.3. ln-253580 MORRISO N I F O E R S T E R ,\ 1.1.\ll'J'EI) 1.1 /\lll l.lT\' 1' :\RT:SERSIIIP The Committee of Privileges 6 March 2015 Page Five "In answers to questions put to him in 2009, in particular Q2115, 2116, 2154 and 2168, Mr Hinton failed to mention, when asked, material suggesting that phone hacking was more extensive than one rogue reporter, namely Clive Goodman. Mr Hinton attempted to discriminate between 'gossip and speculation' and evidence, but the sentencing remarks and Goodman's letter were not gossip or speculation. [ ...] The Committee considered that if a matter is within the exclusive knowledge of a witness then Parliament can properly expect a witness to be forthcoming. Mr Hinton was not forthcoming in his evidence and made positive statements to the contrary." 11. We deal with these specific allegations in detail below. Mr Justice Gross's Sentencing Remarks 12. In relation to the sentencing remarks of Mr Justice Gross, the Committee appears to have completely ignored the points raised in paragraphs 23 and 24 of our letter dated 2 February 2015. The sentencing remarks of Mr Justice Gross were not within the exclusive knowledge of Mr Hinton when he appeared before the Committee on 15 September 2009. As the Committee concedes (para. 36), the CMSC was well aware of the Judge's remarks and had seen the transcript. Indeed, Paul Farrelly had specifically asked Mr Crone about it on 21 July 2009 at Q1399. 13. Thus, even though the CMSC attempted to draw every possible inference against Mr Hinton, nowhere in its 121 -page report does the CMSC once mention anything about the sentencing remarks of Mr Justice Gross, for the simple reason that Mr Justice Gross's remarks were well known to everyone in the Select Committee hearing room. Further, at Q2134 of the 15 September 2009 testimony, Adam Price said that Mr Justice Gross had accepted that Mr Mulcaire was acting with others at News ofthe World and asked why the judge would say that. Mr Hinton replied as follows : "I do not know but you have had the principal investigating officers from Scotland Yard saying that they found no evidence to warrant further charges and I do not know. I do not remember that particular passage. I am sure that you are quoting it correctly but all I can tell you is that Yates of the Yard said that there was no basis for making further charges." ln-253580 MORRISON I FOERSTER I 1.1.IIITED l.l.ll!I I.IT\' P:IRT:-.:ERSI IIP The Committee ofPrivileges 6 March 2015 Page Six 14. We fail to see how this response can in any way be construed as misleading. Mr Hinton was asked to comment on the remarks of a Judge made at a hearing at which he was not present. He answered that he did not know why the Judge made those remarks and sought to assist the CMSC by referring to the comments made by the police. Q2115 15. Philip Davies asked Mr Hinton about his susp1c1ons of other people being involved in phone hacking and whether it went beyond Clive Goodman. Mr Hinton in his reply referred to the police inquiry that had gone on even before the arrests of Messrs Goodman and Mulcaire and to the evidence given by John Yates to the CMSC earlier that year. 16. In 2009 Mr Hinton was obviously not aware ofthe subsequent evidence given by the police about the deficiencies in the initial investigation and the limited nature of the review carried out by Mr Yates. Neither was he aware of any suggestion that News International had not co-operated with the police in their investigation. There is no evidence that Mr Hinton was aware ofany complaints from the police about News International's cooperation with the police investigation. There is no evidence that the police had contacted Mr Hinton or that he was involved in any way in any alleged lack ofcooperation. 17. Subsequent police testimony to the CMSC suggested that the police had insufficient manpower to review the approximately 11,000 documents that had been seized from Mr Mulcaire and that the review undertaken by Mr Yates was limited in scope. Accordingly, there is nothing in Mr Hinton's answer to Q2115 in 2009 that was misleading and, as Mr Yates himself told the CMSC in 2009, no new evidence had been produced at that time. Q2116 18. Philip Davies asked Mr Hinton whether he accepted that other people at News of the World must have been involved. Mr Hinton's reply was that he had no reason to believe that. As of 15 September 2009 Mr Hinton did not believe that others were involved. His answer was not misleading: it was truthful based upon his knowledge at that time. A contrary conclusion can be based only on an assumption - unsupported by any actual evidence - that Mr Hinton simply must have known what all News International journalists were up to. 19. The basis for the suggestion by the CMSC and now the Committee that Mr Hinton was being misleading is Mr Goodman's letter of2 March 2007. Although Mr Hinton was not directly involved in the matter, by 2009 Mr Hinton knew that Mr Goodman had named certain individuals in his letter dated 2 March 2007 and ln-253580 MORRISON I FOERSTER .I 1.1.IIITEI) 1.1 :\llll.lTY l'.lllT:-;ERSIIII' The Committee of Privileges 6 March 2015 Page Seven alleged that other members of staff were carrying out the same illegal procedures. Mr Hinton also knew that by letter dated 14 March 2007, Mr Goodman had requested copies of emails in relation to specific individuals. After Messrs Cloke and Chapman reported to Mr Hinton that they had found no evidence of wrongdoing in the emails of the individuals identified by Mr Goodman, Mr Hinton insisted that an outside law firm conduct its own independent analysis. As Mr Chapman has noted, "Chairman [Mr Hinton] said words to the effect of 'all very well but I want a second opinion from external counsel"'.4 His decision to bring in a respected outside firm is flatly inconsistent with the theory (for that is all it is, unsupported as it is by any evidence) that Mr Hinton participated in any effort to cover up phone hacking. Mr Chapman said that he chose Mr Abramson as a sharp, robust commercial litigator. Mr Chapman confirmed that had he found evidence of serious misconduct he would have taken that evidence to Mr Hinton, then the Executive Chairman ofNews International. 5 20. What is apparent from the SDT Judgment is that News International on the authorisation of Mr Hinton made available to Harbottle & Lewis emails over a greater time scale than those identified in Mr Goodman's letter of 14 March 2007. The available emails went back to 2003 and included evidence of phone hacking and payments to police officers. In his testimony to the SDT, Mr Chapman accepted that those emails demonstrated wider knowledge of wrongdoing,6 but explained that he either did not review those emails or overlooked them. The SDT accepted his evidence and found that there was no evidence to suggest that Messrs Chapman and Abramson or others were involved in any wider-ranging conspiracy to ignore incriminating evidence. 7 On 29 May 2007, Mr Abramson confirmed in writing to Mr Chapman that his firm had reviewed the emails identified by Mr Goodman and that they did not find 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 CMSC in 2009. 2 1. The Committee's draft criticisms suggest that the scope of the Harbottle & Lewis investigation was somehow too narrow or that it has been mischaracterized. On the evidence before the CMSC and the Committee, this is plainly not the case. Mr Goodman alleged that certain named individuals and others were involved in phone hacking. Mr Chapman accepted in his testimony to the SDT that he knew in 2007 that gaining access to a mobile phone might be a criminal offence and paying a police officer for information was a criminal offence. He also confirmed 4 SDT Judgment, para. 28.8. 5 SDT Judgment, para. 28. I 0. 6 SDT Judgment, para. 28.28. 7 SDT Judgment, para. 35.6. ln-253580 MORRISON I FOERSTER I 1.l~IITEI> LIAllll.lT\' P:IRT:',;ERSIIIP The Committee of Privileges 6 March 2015 Page Eight that if he had come across such evidence, it would have been a serious concern that he would have felt bound to report and would have expected Mr Abramson to do the same.8 Mr Abramson had told the investigative team at his firm that they should not limit their review to phone hacking but should also note evidence that put the company in a bad light. He also told his team that they should look at all of the emails back to 2003, not just those emails in the date range specified by Mr Goodman.9 Messrs Chapman and Cloke and subsequently Mr Abramson all reported that there was no evidence to support Mr Goodman's allegations. That was the information available to Mr Hinton at the time of his September 2009 CMSC appearance. Although certain parties later sought to minimise the scope of their investigative roles, the fact remains that Mr Chapman and Mr Cloke reviewed 2,500 emails over a six-week period to consider the allegation made by Mr Goodman that hacking was more widespread at News ofthe World. Mr Myler and Mr Cloke also interviewed the individuals identified by Mr Goodman as involved in wrongdoing. Mr Hinton did not review those emails and he was not present at those interviews. He relied on the reports given to him by In-House Counsel Mr Chapman and the HR Director Mr Cloke. 22. As you know, Mr Abramson has since admitted that he was negligent in his duties. He makes the scope of the task carried out and his role very clear in his second statement to the Leveson Inquiry dated 8 December 2011 at paragraph 11 : "My task related to a request made by Mr Goodman as part of his internal appeal. He had asked to be provided with copies of emails passing between certain named individuals over a range of dates from 2005 onwards. He claimed it showed knowledge of, or participation in, his phone hacking and/or showed that other News ofthe World staff were carrying out the same illegal activity. I was told that Mr Chapman and Mr Cloke had examined the emails requested and concluded that there was nothing that amounted to reasonable evidence of Mr Goodman's allegations in the emails he had requested. I was asked to determine whether the conclusion reached by Mr Chapman and Mr Cloke was sustainable. Harbottle & Lewis was given access to the emails on the News server to carry out that exercise." 23. While Mr Abramson was instructed in the context of an employment claim, it is clear that he was instructed to consider whether there was evidence that "showed knowledge of, or participation in, [Mr Goodman's] phone hacking and/or showed that other News ofthe World staff were carrying out the same illegal activity." He was at that time an experienced commercial litigator and managing partner of his 8 SOT Judgment, para. 28.23 . 9 SOT Judgment, para. 29.10. ln-253580 MORRISON I FOERSTER ·\ L l ~I ITED 1. 11\JIII.ITY P:\RT:-:l(RSI I II' The Committee of Privileges 6 March 2015 Page Nine firm. While Harbottle & Lewis, Mr Chapman, and now the Committee have attempted to minimise the scope of the Harbottle & Lewis and Chapman/Cloke investigations, those investigations went to the heart of the central allegation of wrongdoing at the time: a reporter who had entered a plea of guilty to phone hacking was making specific allegations against named individuals and claimed that their emails would support his charges. The next investigative step is an obvious one: review those emails to determine if they provide support for the admitted felon's allegations. There is no evidence that Mr Hinton placed any limitations on the investigations carried out by Messrs Cloke and Chapman or by Harbottle & Lewis. Indeed, he authorised the release of emails over a greater date range than those requested by Mr Goodman. Further, even after Messrs Cloke and Chapman had reported that their review turned up no evidence to support Mr Goodman's allegations, Mr Hinton insisted that they obtain an independent review from an outside law firm. 10 This is hardly the action of a person conplicit in a cover up. There is also no evidence that anyone informed Mr Hinton or that Mr Hinton believed at any time up to and including his statements to the CMSC in September 2009 that these investigations were somehow deficient or overly narrow m scope. 24. The investigative exercise called for in Mr Goodman's letters of 2 March and 14 March 2007, while limited, matches precisely the question on which this Committee is now focused and as to which the CMSC alleges that Mr Hinton misled the CMSC: Did phone hacking at News ofthe World extend beyond Mr Goodman? Mr Goodman pointed to what he claimed was definitive proof: the emails of specific employees. Mr Abramson and his firm were given those very same emails. Junior members of the Harbottle & Lewis team identified a number of emails that supported Mr Goodman' s claims. A member of the Harbottle & Lewis team told Abramson on 21 May 2007 that she had lots of questions on the emails that she had reviewed and that she left a copy of the relevant emails for Mr Abramson with a date range starting at 2 January 2003 and ending at 9 September 2006. 11 She went on to state: "I cannot say that I agree there is no evidence that [relevant individuals] knew that CG, [relevant individual] or any other journalists at the [newspaper] were engaged in illegal activities prior to their arrest in January 2007. However, if you have reviewed the emails I flagged as being of concern and you are happy to make this statement then that is your call (of course)." 12 10 SOT Judgment, paras. 28.8, 28.29, 28.41. 11 SOT Judgment, para. 16. 12 SOT Judgment, para. 18. ln-253580 MORRISON I FOERSTER .I 1.l)IITED 1.1 :IIJII.ITY P:IRT>;E R~III P The Committee of Privileges 6 March 2015 Page Ten 25. For the reasons that Mr Abramson admitted and which are set out in exhaustive detail in the SDT Judgment, 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. The scope of the Harbottle & Lewis investigation authorised by Mr Hinton, while undertaken only in the context ofMr Goodman's employment claim, was more than sufficient to show that phone hacking at News ofthe World extended beyond Mr Goodman. The truth did not emerge in 2007 because Mr Abramson failed to do his job, not because the investigation was too narrow. Had Mr Abramson done his job correctly, we would not be writing this Jetter. 26. The Committee notes in its draft cnt1c1sms (para. 22) that the scope of the Harbottle & Lewis email review did not include the emails of Neville Thurlbeck or Greg Miskiw. But this investigation was prompted by Mr Goodman's specific, detailed allegations about phone hacking at News ofthe World, which provided a roadmap and identified five individuals he alleged were involved. Mr Goodman did not identify either Mr Thurlbeck or Mr Miskiw and therefore Harbottle & Lewis had no reason to review their emails. Furthermore, there was no indication at this time - or at the time of Mr Hinton's CMSC appearance in 2009 - that Mr Hinton was aware of any allegations of any hacking-related conduct by Messrs Thurlbeck or Miskiw. Only years later would both be charged and convicted for hacking-related offenses. 27. 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."13 In the SDT's view, the tragic consequences resulted from Mr Abramson 's "unprofessional, incompetent, and unacceptable" conduct. 14 "People were depending on [Mr Abramson], and he let them down." 15 Mr Hinton is among those who were depending on Mr Abramson, and Mr Hinton is among those who have suffered the consequences ofMr Abramson's failures. 28. The thrust of the CMSC report is that the Harbottle & Lewis investigation was no more than a cover-up, intended to provide illegitimate support for News International in its battle to keep the lid on the extent of illegal activity within the company. The evidence now shows beyond any doubt that it was not. As the SDT noted, "[t]here was a mistaken belief before that Committee [the CMSC] that the Firm's review had been full and thorough." 16 It is clear that if the CMSC had been in possession of all relevant facts, it would inevitably have concluded that it was 13 SDT Judgment, para. 35.15. 14 SOT Judgment, para. 35.23. 15 SOT Judgment, para. 38.6. 16 SOT Judgment, para. 38.3. ln-253580 MORRISON I FOERSTER I 1.l)IITl( D 1.1,IHll.lTY f> :ll!T~ER~llll' The Committee of Privileges 6 March 2015 Page Eleven the admitted failings of Mr Abramson that resulted in matters not coming to light in 2007 and that the answers given by Mr Hinton in 2009 fairly reflected his honest understanding at that time. 29. The Committee should be surprised and disturbed that the fullness and rigour of the CMSC's own inquiry did not extend to obtaining oral testimony from Mr Abramson before publishing its I May 2012 report. On 8 December 2011, almost five months before the CMSC report was published, Mr Abramson submitted his second sworn statement to the Leveson inquiry admitting that he failed to review certain emails. Mr Abramson's statement, carefully worded though it was, must have put the CMSC on inquiry. Yet the CMSC report does not even make reference to Mr Abramson's sworn statement in the Leveson inquiry, and the significant passages in which he confesses his failure, including the obtuse but telling comment at paragraph 31 : "I should make it clear that if that batch of emails had come to my attention I would have considered their contents carefully, contacted Mr Chapman, and advised appropriately." 30. Importantly, three months before Mr Abramson's Leveson statement - on September 6 2011 - the CMSC published written evidence from Mr Abramson dated 24 August 2011. Mr Abramson's letter makes absolutely no reference to the emails he admits to missing in his sworn Leveson statement the following Oecember. 17 31. This sequence of events makes baffling the CMSC report's conclusions about the Harbottle & Lewis review, in particular paragraph 61, which is a wild concoction of ill-based supposition and includes the sentence: "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." 32. Since both inquiries were running in parallel, CMSC was no doubt paying close attention to events unfolding during Leveson. Indeed, repeated references to Leveson in its report makes clear it was. 33. The failure to seek an explanation from Mr Abramson demonstrates at best a haphazard approach and provides powerful support for the conclusion that not only did the CMSC fail to conduct a fair process, but it manifestly lacked the necessary forensic skills and experience to conduct this kind of investigation. We also suggest it reveals that at least some members of the CMSC were determined to produce a report that reflected their own pre-conceived views. It is relevant here to note again that, on 19 April 2012 - before the report was even published 17 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm20 I O12 /cmselect/cmcumeds/903/903 ii.pdf and http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140 I 22 I 45147/http:/www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp content/uploads/20 I 1/ 12/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Lawrence-Abramson.pdf ln-253580 MORRISON I FOERSTER \ l.l~IITEJ) 1.1 .\ 1111. IT Y l':\RT>; ERSIIII' The Committee of Privileges 6 March 2015 Page Twelve Tom Watson MP, a prominent and highly vocal CMSC member, published a book - "Dial M for Murdoch" - which seemed to anticipate much of the report's conclusions, including the charge that Mr Hinton "misled" Parliament. 18 34. Mr Hinton's understanding as of 15 September 2009 was that, in 2007, Mr Abramson had been instructed to consider material and advise whether other News of the World staff were carrying out the same illegal activity as Mr Goodman. Mr Goodman could not have provided a better roadmap for an investigation, as he submitted detailed allegations of the conduct and the names of those individuals involved. Mr Goodman suggested that a review of emails of the specified individuals would confirm his allegations. After following Mr Goodman's roadmap for investigation, Mr Abramson advised that there was no evidence to support the allegations. Mr Hinton relied on that advice. The position taken by the Committee appears to be that Mr Hinton was not entitled to rely on the advice ofa qualified solicitor acting for a reputable law firm, whose reputation at that time was unblemished. 35. It is untenable to suggest that the Harbottle & Lewis investigation was too narrow in scope and part of a cover-up. The material to which Harbottle & Lewis had access did in fact show that others at News of the World were involved in wrongdoing. News International asked Mr Abramson to determine whether others were involved. It gave him access to the relevant material. It turns out that, unbeknownst to Mr Hinton at the time, Mr Abramson did not carry out his task in a proper professional manner. When Lord Macdonald subsequently considered this material, he said that it took him no more than five minutes to reach that conclusion. 36. As far as Mr Hinton was aware in 2009, the Harbottle & Lewis investigation confirmed the findings of the Cloke/Chapman investigation: that there was no evidence of hacking amongst other staff members. There was no evidence available to Mr Hinton in 2009 to suggest otherwise. If the Committee believes that such evidence exists, we invite the Committee to identify it. Q2154 37. Mr Hall stated that the police investigation did not have a remit to do a broad investigation into the wider practices of News ofthe World and asked if that was correct. Mr Hinton' s answer was that he did not know. 38. It is difficult to see how Mr Hinton's answer to this question can be characterized as in any way misleading. It is also difficult to see how Mr Hinton could have known the remit of the 2007 police investigation when he was giving evidence in 18 http://www.penguin.eo.uk/books/dial-m-for-murdoch/9780241961056/. ln-253580 MORRISON I FOERSTER ·\ I.IMITED 1.1 :\Ufl.lTY P.\RT:S:l' R:\1 111' The Committee of Privileges 6 March 2015 Page Thirteen 2009. The police do not normally share such information with third parties and there is no evidence to suggest that they did so in this case. What was in the public domain at that time was an article by former Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman (Peter Clarke's superior officer) published in The Times on 11 July 2009 in which he stated: "This was no time for a half-hearted investigation - we put our best detectives on the case and left no stone unturned as officials breathed down our necks." 39. The police subsequently gave evidence to the CMSC in 2011 about the remit of their evidence. They did not publicly disclose their remit before then and there is no evidence that they disclosed it to Mr Hinton prior to that date. Nor is there any evidence before the Committee to suggest that Mr Hinton had any reason to believe that the police had not done a proper job. Mr Hinton stated plainly in his answer that he had not spoken with the police and they had not spoken to him. None of the police witnesses who gave evidence before the Home Affairs Committee in respect of its 13th Report of Session criticised Mr Hinton or suggested that they had engaged in communications with him personally. What is 1 clear from paragraph 48 of the l3 h Report of Session is that Peter Clarke confirmed that "[t]he investigation would also attempt to find who else, other than Goodman and Mulcaire, was responsible for the interceptions." Q2168 40. This Committee continues to refer to Mr Hinton's answer to Paul Farrelly's question 2168 on 15 September 2009 as being misleading. In the key passage, Mr Hinton stated: "We brought in a firm of solicitors and there were many, many conversations with the police, and not involving me. There was never firm evidence provided or suspicion provided that I am aware of that implicated anybody else other than Clive within the staff of the News ofthe World." 41. This Committee's draft criticism inexplicably alleges that our firm claimed that "the answer at Q2168 'We brought in a firm of solicitors to liaise with the police' is a reference to the Harbottle & Lewis inquiry." The Committee's draft criticism (para. 21) has misread our letter of 2 February 20 15, in which we referred to the second quoted sentence in our paragraph 40 above ("There was never firm evidence provided or suspicion provided ..."), not the first quoted sentence ("We brought in a firm of solicitors ..."). 19 19 This Committee's draft also misquotes Mr Hinton's statement and our letter. Paragraph 21 of this Committee's draft criticism purports to quote Mr Hinton's statement as follows: " We brought in a firm of solicitors to liaise with the police." The Committee has simply added the words "to liaise with the police" to the ln-253580 MORRISON I FOERSTER ·\ L l~IIT l(I) L l.\1\1 1. ITY 1' .IRT:-:1rns1111• The Committee of Privileges 6 March 2015 Page Fourteen Our Jetter of2 February 2015 clearly stated: "Read in context, it is obvious that the reference to 'suspicion provided' is a reference to the investigation of Harbottle & Lewis and the police, neither of which discovered evidence ( or gave rise to a suspicion) that implicated anyone other than Clive Goodman." We never stated that the "firm ofsolicitors" brought in to deal with the police was Harbottle & Lewis. It has always been clear that Burton Copeland was the only firm of solicitors brought in to deal with the police. This occurred in 2006, immediately after the arrest of Mr Goodman. It is accepted fact that Harbottle & Lewis did not begin its work until May 2007, and there has never been any evidence or argument from us or anyone else that Harbottle & Lewis liaised with the police in this matter. That was Burton Copeland's role. If nothing else, this Committee should strike this misconception from its draH criticism at paragraph 21. 42. If this Committee is still trying to make something of the one sentence in which Mr Hinton stated that "there was never firm evidence provided or suspicion provided that I am aware of that implicated anybody else other the Clive with the staff of the News ofthe World' (Q2168), we can do no better than to repeat what we set out in our submission dated 15 August 2012 at paragraph 67 and again in our letter of2 February 2015 at paragraph 27: " ... it is difficult not to conclude that the CMS Committee was ignoring inconvenient evidence when the Report failed to note that Mr. Hinton had testified only moments prior to the single supposedly misleading statement (there was 'never firm evidence provided or suspicion provided' [ ...] as follows: 'there was a lot of gossip, there was a lot of speculation, there were a lot of accusations that we could never find any firm foundation for ....' (Q. 2116) This passage told the Committee exactly what had happened. Goodman had made a 'lot of accusations.' Those accusations were investigated. At the time, Mr Hinton had no reason to doubt the thoroughness or good faith of the investigations. The investigations did not find any 'firm foundation' for the 'accusations.' Having provided this explanation, it was appropriate to state later in the same testimony that Mr Hinton had not seen any firm evidence or suspicion. Taken as a whole, and read fairly, there is nothing misleading in Mr sente nce. They do not appear in the transcript of Mr Hinton's 15 September 2009 appearance or in any letter from our firm. ln-253580 MORRISON I FOERSTER I l.l)IJTEl) 1.1.11\ II.IT\' 1' 1\RT:S: Jm;:1111' The Committee of Privileges 6 March 2015 Page Fifteen Hinton's testimony, or anything to suggest that Mr Hinton was complicit in a cover-up." Draft Report Analysis and Conclusion 43. You also suggest (para. 14) that we did not deal with the points raised in respect of Q2 l 55 to Q2168. We believe that we did in general terms, but for the sake of completeness we address these questions specifically below. Q2155 44. Mr Hall asked who was responsible for tapping the phones of other individuals . The suggestion appears to be that Mr Goodman was responsible for hacking the phones of the royal family and that hacking of other named celebrities must have been done by someone else. Mr Hinton replied that he did not know who was responsible for any such hacking. There followed a discussion about the extent to which Mr Mulcaire had hacked the telephones of various celebrities. Mr Hinton pointed out that he was not involved in the civil settlements, which occurred after he had left the company. We fail to see how Mr Hinton's answers can be construed as any sort of admission by him or in any way be misleading. His answers clearly and accurately set out the state of his knowledge at that time. Q2168 45. As to your point in respect of Mr Hinton's answer in Q2168, you appear to be suggesting that his answer that most of the staff had no involvement in this at all is some form of admissjon. Plainly it is not. Mr Hinton in his answer was explaining the remedial and investigative steps being taken and was distinguishing those involved in that process from those outside that group which was most of the staff. Investigations 46. It is simply incorrect to state that Burton Copeland "den[ies] that their role was to investigate in any way." (Para. 23.) Burton Copeland was instructed by News Group Newspapers following the arrest of Mr Goodman. As you note, Burton Copeland describes its role as assisting in dealing with requests from the Metropolitan Police for information relating to its investigation. 47. Burton Copeland accepts that it provided information and documentation to the Metropolitan Police in response to its requests. That role, by its nature, involved investigation by Burton Copeland. Burton Copeland has never stated in its testimony that its role was not to investigate in any way. Those words are not found in the evidence that it has submitted. Mr Hinton did not state in 2009 that ln-253580 MORRISON I FOERSTER -\ 1. l ~IITED 1. 1.\0 11. ITY l';\RT;-.:ER$111 P The Committee of Privileges 6 March 2015 Page Sixteen Burton Copeland carried out an investigation into phone hacking at News ofthe World. He said at Q2 l 68 concerning Burton Copeland: " [w ]e brought in a firm of solicitors and there were many, many conversations with the police not involving me." 48. As an executive, Mr Hinton reasonably expected to be advised by Andy Coulson and Tom Crone of any issues arising as part of this process. No issues in relation to wider hacking were brought to Mr Hinton's attention. He was briefed on the matter primarily by Mr Coulson, who stated in his appearance before the CMSC in 2009, "Obviously we wanted to know internally very quickly what the hell had gone on. Then I brought in Burton Copeland, an independent firm of solicitors, to carry out an investigation. We opened up the files as much as we could. There was nothing that they asked for that they were not given." 49. As we now know, Mr Coulson may have had his own reasons for not being candid with Mr Hinton in 2007 but, at the time, Mr Hinton believed that Mr Coulson was accurately reporting the position. Before he was Prime Minister, David Cameron formed a similar view in appointing Mr Coulson to the role of his press spokesman, no doubt because he had formed a favourable view of Mr Coulson's reliability and trustworthiness. 50. In 2011, Peter Clarke, in testimony to the Home Affairs Select Committee, complained that very little material was produced by News International, but he does not quantify the amount of material. He stated that the police were unable to spread the inquiry further because of News International's failure to co-operate more broadly, but again we make the important point that the police did not contact Mr Hinton in any way during their investigation. The police did not ask to speak with Mr Hinton about phone hacking. They did not ask him for further disclosure. There is no evidence that Mr Hinton was aware in 2009 that the police had any complaints regarding the nature and extent ofNews Group Newspapers' cooperation with the police investigation. If the Committee believes it has evidence that they did, and that Mr Hinton rebuffed them, we invite the Committee to identify this. 51. It is significant that it was only in 2011 that Mr Clarke pointed to the "complete lack of co-operation from News International" when answering a question about the decision not to undertake an exhaustive analysis of the material that was seized from Mr Mulcaire. Again, we suggest that the Committee treat such testimony with a degree of caution and scepticism. The 11,000 documents that the police had seized from Mr Mulcaire were entirely in their custody and control from 2006. As subsequently became apparent, it was these documents - sitting under the noses of a team ofexperienced police officers - that revealed the extent ofMr Mulcaire's hacking activities and his contacts with wider personnel at News ofthe World. News International's action or inaction had no bearing on the police ln-253580 MORRISON I FOERSTER .I I.Dll'l'li l) 1.1,111 11 .rrr P,11n:-:"1( $III P The Committee ofPrivileges 6 March 2015 Page Seventeen decision not to review this material. Mr Clarke went on to give a series of other excuses as to why this material had not been considered. In fact it is now known that the police and the CPS took a series of decisions entirely independent of the extent ofcooperation from News International. 52. On 8 August 2006, when Messrs Goodman and Mulcaire were arrested, the police seized from Mr Mulcaire's residence notebooks that detailed extensive phone hacking on behalf of a number of reporters at News ofthe World. For their own reasons, through at least the date of Mr Hinton's appearance before the CMSC in September 2009, the police chose not to pursue many of the investigative leads contained in the abundant material the police had in their possession. The key point for present purposes is the complete lack ofany evidence indicating that Mr Hinton was aware in 2009 of the treasure trove of incriminating evidence that the police possessed but did not act upon. 53. At paragraph 29 it is suggested that Mr Hinton could have asked for particular information to assist him in answering the CMSC's questions. The focus of interest in 2009 was The Guardian articles and Gordon Taylor. Mr Hinton, of course, was not aware of what questions the CMSC was proposing to ask him in advance and therefore was not able to ask for such information. In any event, whether Mr Hinton ''could have asked for particular information to assist him in responding to the Committee' s questions" has nothing to do with the one remaining charge by the CMSC - namely whether Mr Hinton "misled the [CMSC] about the extent of his knowledge of allegations that phone-hacking extended beyond Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire to others at the News ofthe World." 54. Your paragraph 31 faults Mr Hinton for relying on the investigations that had occurred up to the date of his 2009 appearance, when "(t]here is ample evidence that there was no proper investigation of Mr Goodman's allegations." Mr Hinton (and the rest of the world) agrees with the Committee's view that the investigations turned out to be deficient. But Mr Hinton's answers in 2009 must be judged by his knowledge at the time, not with the benefit of what we all know today. The Committee's Kafkaesque approach to fact finding simply confirms the process concerns we attempted to communicate in our August 2012 submission and why we have maintained our request to be able to address the Committee directly at an oral hearing. 55. Mr Hinton's understanding in 2009 was that Mr Goodman's allegations had been investigated by Messrs Chapman and Cloke and reinvestigated by Mr Abramson. The fact that these investigations were subsequently shown to be flawed was not a fact known to Mr Hinton in 2009. The investigation and re-investigation of Mr Goodman's allegations were entirely appropriate based on evidence available to Mr Hinton at the time. Mr Goodman had made specific allegations in his March ln-253580 MORRISON I FOERSTER ,1 1. l~II T ED 1.1 ,\IIII.IT Y PART:-.:E RSIII P The Committee of Privileges 6 March 2015 Page Eighteen 2007 letters and, as far as Mr Hinton knew, Messrs Chapman and Cloke (followed by Mr Abramson) did what any reasonable investigator would do: review the emails of all of the persons whom Mr Goodman claimed knew about and were involved in misconduct. There is no evidence that Mr Hinton asked the investigators to do any less than a thorough, conscientious job, and there is no evidence that he believed that the investigators had done so. The SDT's observation that the Harbottle & Lewis investigation was not a full-scope internal investigation, but rather a narrowly focused response to an allegation in an employment matter, makes no difference here. The scope of the assignment was a proper response to Mr Goodman's detailed allegations and was more than sufficient to place before Mr Abramson clear evidence to support those allegations. From Mr Hinton's perspective at the time, if there was evidence of wrongdoing, as alleged by Mr Goodman, then the investigators would have found it. The material that was made available would have exposed evidence of wrongdoing had it been properly considered. The investigations in the spring of 2007 were not part of a cover-up. Rather, Mr Hinton had authorised inquiries that would have uncovered wrongdoing by others had the investigators capably accomplished their task. Authorisation ofPayments to Mr Goodman 56. The Committee's decision to reject the findings of the CMSC concerning whether Mr Hinton "misled the [CMSC] in 2009 in not telling the truth about payments to Clive Goodman and his role in authorising them" is significant for several reasons. First, the CMSC used unusually strong language in accusing Mr Hinton of having "misled the [CMSC] in 2009 regarding the extent of the pay-off to Clive Goodman and his own role in making it happen" (30 April 2012 Report at para. 84) and a "deliberate effort to mislead the Committee" (id. para. 91 ). But in fact, as this Committee has found, there was "no evidence" (para. 12) to support the CMSC's strong language. The problems underlying the CMSC's conclusions with respect to the payments made to Mr Goodman are the same problems that infect the CMSC's findings concerning the one remaining charge about the extent of Mr Hinton's knowledge of allegations that phone-hacking extended beyond Messrs Goodman and Mulcaire to others at News ofthe World. 57. Second, the two issues on which the Committee has focused - Mr Hinton's knowledge of payments to Mr Goodman and Mr Hinton's knowledge of whether phone-hacking extended beyond Messrs Goodman and Mulcaire - are closely linked. The CMSC apparently believed - despite the absence of evidence - that Mr Hinton authorised a "pay-off' (the CMSC's term) to Mr Goodman as hush money to prevent Mr Goodman from telling the world what he knew about the wider extent of phone hacking at News ofthe World. Ifthere is "no evidence" that Mr Hinton in fact misled the CMSC about his knowledge of payments to Mr ln-253580 MORRISON I FOERSTER :\ 1.1.II ITED l.li\llll.lT\' P,I RT:>-ERSIIIP The Committee of Privileges 6 March 2015 Page Nineteen Goodman, such absence of evidence on that point also casts significant doubt upon the CMSC's related conclusion that Mr Hinton did not tell what he knew about the extent of phone hacking. The draft report nowhere acknowledges this obvious implication. Request/or Notice 58. As outlined in the House of Commons "Guide for witnesses: giving written or oral evidence to a House of Commons select committee," a committee "may decide to issue embargoed copies of [any] report up to 72 hours in advance of publication. "20 Pursuant to this guide, we respectfully request that we be provided advance notice of any public report by the Committee. Mr Hinton was given no notice of the CMSC's report, or its allegation that he had "misled" it, until he was notified that the report had been leaked to a media outlet. Mr Hinton wishes to avoid such a surprise with respect to this Committee's findings. Yours faithfully, /!iv~h- Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP cc. Eve Samson ([email protected]) Sir Paul Beresford ([email protected]) Mr Christopher Chope ([email protected]) Mr Tom Clarke ([email protected]) Mr Geoffrey Cox ([email protected]) Mr Dominic Grieve ([email protected]) Sir Nick Harvey ([email protected]) Fiona O'Donnell ([email protected]) Sir John Randall ([email protected]) Dr Alan Whitehead ([email protected]) 20 http://www.rywu.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/20 I 0/1 1/witnessguide.pdf. ln-253580