CORRESPONDENCE WITH TOM CRONE 2014‐16 Letter from the Acting Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Tom Crone, 12/12/2014 Letter from Tom Crone to the Acting Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, 3/01/2015 Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Tom Crone, 20/01/2015 Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Tom Crone, 28/01/2015 Letter from Tom Crone to the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, 30/01/2015 Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Tom Crone, 30/01/2015 Email from Tom Crone to the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, 31/01/2015 Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Tom Crone, 3/02/2015 Email from Tom Crone to the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, 9/02/2015 Letter from Tom Crone to the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, 10/02/2015 Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Tom Crone, 12/02/2015 Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Tom Crone, 19/02/2015 Email from Tom Crone to the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, 5/03/2015 Email from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Tom Crone, 06/03/2015 Letter from Tom Crone to the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, 13/03/2015 Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Tom Crone, 23/03/2015 Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Tom Crone, 24/02/2016 Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Tom Crone, 9/03/2016 Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Tom Crone, 16/03/2016 Letter from Tom Crone to the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, 12/04/2016 Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Tom Crone, 22/04/2016 Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Tom Crone, 30/06/2016 Letter from Tom Crone to the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges, 15/07/2016 Letter from the Clerk of the Committee of Privileges to Tom Crone, 21/07/2016 Committee of Privileges Tel 020 7219 4432 Fax 020 7219 5952 Email [email protected] Website www.parliament.uk/privileges From Alda Barry, Acting Clerk of the Committee 12 December 2014 Mr Tom Crone The Committee of Privileges has decided to resume its inquiry into the allegations that the Culture Media and Sport Committee was misled, as set out in its Eleventh Report of 2010‐ 12. I enclose the evidence received so far in the Committee’s inquiry. The Committee will write to you shortly, setting out the key points from that evidence, the evidence given to the Culture Media and Sport Committee, and other evidence in the public domain, particularly that given to the Leveson inquiry, and will invite your comments thereon. The Committee will then, as set out in the previously published procedure, warn you of any criticisms it is minded to make, and give you a further opportunity to comment. After a preliminary review of the evidence, the Committee is of the view that it is likely to be content to consider the matter on the basis of written material. However, inquiry subjects have the right to request oral hearings if they wish, and the Committee has provisionally set aside the afternoon of Monday 26 January and the morning of Tuesday 27 January for such hearings. These dates will be confirmed in January. To assist us with planning, I would be grateful if you could indicate by 12pm on Monday 5 January 2015 whether or not you expect to take the opportunity to make oral submissions in January. Alda Barry Acting Clerk of the Committee of Privileges 3 January, 2015 I am replying to your letter of 12th December, 2014. In that letter you promised to write to me “shortly” setting out key points of evidence from various sources and requested me to indicate by 12pm on January 5th, 2015, whether or not I would “take the opportunity” to make oral submissions to the Committee on the days they have set aside for such hearings, i.e. January 26 and 27. Unfortunately, we are now 48 hours from the expiry of the January 5th deadIine the Committee has set me and I have seen no sign of the promised “key points” or the “other evidence” promised in your letter 23 days ago. This is despite the fact that, according to that letter, The Committee has obviously had possession of and “reviewed” the evidence well before December 12th. Clearly, I am completely unable make any sort of decision about oral hearings by January 5th and, since I will be out of the country from tomorrow until January 11, the oral hearing dates you have identified would be virtually impossible for me in these circumstances. I hope the Committee will now agree that, because of their delay in providing me with the case I am supposed to answer, the timetable they have set is hopelessly unworkable. I look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Tom Crone Committee of Privileges Tel 020 7219 3259 Email [email protected] Website www.parIia ment.uk/privileges From Eve Samson, Clerk of the Committee Mr Tom Crone 20 January 2015 ~ \{.-~ ) On 12 December 2014 the acting Clerk of the Committee of Privileges wrote to you, to inform you of the reopening of the Committee's inquiry arising from the Resolution of the House of Commons on 22 May 2012, which noted the conclusions set out in chapter 8 of the Eleventh Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Session 2010-12 ('the Committee'}, on News International and Phone-hacking, HC 903-1 {"the 2011 CMS Report"}and ordered that the matter be referred to the Committee on Standards and Privileges,. now the Committee of Privileges. Chapter 8 of the 2011 CMS Report made the following all~gations against you (split for the purposes of clarity}: (i} That you misled the Committee by giving a 'counter-impression' of the significance of confidentiality in the Gordon Taylor settlement. (ii) That you (and Colin Myler) misled the Committee by answering questions falsely about your knowledge of evidence that other News of the World employees had been involved in phone-hacking and other wrongdoing. {iii) That you sought to mislead the Committee about the commissioning of surveillance. 1. Misleading the Committee by g1vmg a 'counter-impression' of the significance of confidentiality in the Gordon Taylor settlement The basis for this conclusion is set out in paragraphs 108 to 119 of the 2011 CMS Report. These paragraphs refer in turn to the oral evidence given by you on 21 July 2009 and on 6 September 2011. On 21 July 2009 Mr Myler confirmed in your presence that a payment had been made to settle the action by Gordon Taylor and two others (Ev 306, Q1332). The Chairman of the Committee then asked; "Was the size of that payment greater in order that the proceedings should be kept secret? Mr Myler: Absolutely not as far as I am aware. Mr Crone: No." (Ev. 306, Q1333). You were then asked by the Chairman on what basis it was decided to keep the proceedings secret. You replied: Mr Crone: "Secret" is not the word I would use. This was an action against us for breach of confidence and privacy. We get quite a lot of those now since the privacy law has expanded somewhat in the last five years. Every single case against us for breach of privacy-unless the information is already out within the public domain­ results in a very strict term of confidentiality at the end of the case. When you think about it, there would be absolutely no point in anyone suing us to stop their privacy being revealed if they did not at the end of the case tack on an absolutely strict and binding confidentiality term, and that is what happened in this case. Q1335 Chairman: Was it at Gordon Taylor's request? Mr Crone: Actually I think he mentioned it first. Q1336 Chairman: He mentioned it first? Mr Crone: It was raised by him before it was raised by us, but we fell in with it. We always fall in with it, being privacy, because if the litigant goes in front of the judge the judge will order the injunction immediately-so certainly when we have accepted that there was a breach." On 2 September 2011 Farrer & Co (who were then instructed by News Group Newspapers Ltd in relation to the claim brought by Gordon Taylor) wrote to the Committee to inform it that, "as regards confidentiality [the firm's] recollection was that both parties were interested in confidentiality provisions .....An element of the sum paid to Mr Taylor would have reflected the agreement to keep the matter confidential but no precise figure was attributed to that element that we are aware of". (Ev 226) On 6 September 2011 you were asked about the terms of the Gordon Taylor settlement, in particular as to the reason for making an offer of £415,000 (or £425,000). The passage which appears relevant is as follows: Q785 Mr Watson: In this case it was the defendant, was it not, who required confidentiality? That is quite unusual. 2 Tom Crone: That is not my recollection, no. I think, as I said last time, that it was raised by the other side first. Q786 Mr Watson: Did you require confidentiality? Tom Crone: We were quite happy with it.