Leveson Inquiry

[[File:Lord-Justice-Leveson.jpg|165px|thumb|<center>'''Lord Justice Leveson'''<br> ''Curam Gerens Negotium''</center>]]{{media}}
Established by an announcement by the then [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|Prime Minister]], [[David Cameron]], on 6<sup>th</sup> July 2011, the '''Leveson Inquiry'''<ref>[http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ The Leveson Inquiry] (Official website).</ref> was a {{wpl|public inquiry}}, founded under the authority granted by the {{wpl|Inquiries Act 2005}}, tasked with exploring the [[culture]], practices and [[ethics]] of the British press, following further revelations in regards to the News International phone hacking scandal. {{wpl|Lord Justice Leveson}} was appointed as the Chairman of the Inquiry on the 13<sup>th</sup> July 2011 with a specific remit to look into the claims of phone hacking at the [[News of the World]].  Lord Justice Leveson was also required to look at the initial police inquiry and allegations of illicit payments to police by the press.  These specific areas of inquiry would be in addition to examining culture, ethics and practises of the press.

The inquiry proved highly critical of the press, but there were few lasting consequences. The existing press regulator, the Press Complaints Commission, was replaced by a new regulator IPSO, which had similar powers but even fewer newspapers were willing to submit to it, and it failed to meet Leveson's recommendations for a how a press regulator should operate. Another, more stringent regulator was established, called Impress, but none of the big news companies were interested. Libel law reforms that were designed to encourage newspapers to sign up to an effective regulator were dropped. There were plans for a second part of the inquiry to look at the relationship between newspapers and the police, but this never happened.

==History and background to the setting up of the public inquiry==

Original allegations of illegal information and data gathering techniques occurred in 2005 when the ''News of the World'' published an article about Prince William containing details that were known by only two people, neither of which had given that information to anyone else.  It was determined by Prince William that the most likely explanation was that both his, and others', voicemails were being illegally accessed.<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-399814/Moment-Prince-William-discovered-voicemail-scam.html Moment Prince William discovered 'voicemail scam']</ref><ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/aug/09/royalsandthemedia.themonarchy Phone tap investigation widens]</ref>

Following this, the Metropolitan Police opened an investigation into the allegations.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/29/july7.duncancampbell The Guardian profile: Peter Clarke]</ref>  The investigation led to the ''News of the World'' offices being searched, and the material gathered led the investigative team to conclude that the voicemail accounts of Prince William's aides had been illegally accessed.  This led to Clive Goodman, ''News of the World'' Royal Editor and author of the original article that started the investigation, and Glenn Mulcaire, a private investigator paid by the ''News of the World'', being arrested in August 2006.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4778159.stm  Two charged in 'phone-tap' probe]</ref>  Both Goodman and Mulcaire were charged under section 79 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and, on 26<sup>th</sup> January 2007, both pled guilty to the charges.  Clive Goodman received a sentence of six-months imprisonment, whilst Glenn Mulcaire was gaoled for four months.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6301243.stm Pair jailed over royal phone taps]</ref>

In addition to the evidence gathered in regards to the hacking of Royal aide's voicemails, evidence was also gathered that others had also had their voicemails illegally accessed.  These people included Sky Andrew, Sienna Miller, Steve Coogan, Chris Tarrant, and Andy Gray.  However, no new criminal prosecutions were made on the basis of this evidence and so these people, along with others, began civil litigation against the ''News of the World''.

In response to the gaoling of Goodman and Mulcaire, both the Press Complaints Commission (or PCC) and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, launched investigations into how widespread phone hacking was at the ''News of the World''.  The PCC, a non-regulatory, voluntary, self-proclaimed regulatory body for those bits of the press that could be bothered with it, and pretty much run and controlled by the very editors that were supposed to be regulated by it, came to the extraordinarily contrary conclusion that there was "no evidence" that nobody else at the ''News of the World'' was aware of, or took part in, phone hacking.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/may/18/newsoftheworld.pressandpublishing?INTCMP=SRCH News of the World in the clear over Goodman case]</ref>.  Given the haphazard way that the PCC went about gathering evidence<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2007/feb/02/phonehackingpccletsnowoff?INTCMP=SRCH Phone-hacking: PCC lets NoW off the hook]</ref> certain members of the press, media, politicians and the public greeted this conclusion with a certain amount of sceptiscism.<ref>[http://mediastandardstrust.org/blog/did-the-pcc-turn-a-blind-eye-to-evidence-that-phone-hacking-went-beyond-one-rogue-reporter/ Did the PCC turn a blind eye to evidence that phone hacking went beyond one rogue reporter?]</ref>  The Culture, Media and Sport Committee also came to the conclusion that phone hacking was not widespread at the ''News of the World'', based on non-sworn evidence from those people who were willing, but not compelled, to appear in front of the committee.

===''The Guardian'' puts on its steel toe cap boots===
Starting July 2009 ''[[The Guardian]]'' released a series of articles that contained allegations that the hacking of voicemail accounts was much more widespread than the ''News of the World'' was admitting, that a number of staff, including the then editor Andy Coulson, knew that phone hacking went on, and that the hacking of voicemails went beyond the Royal household.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/14/news-of-the-world-phone-hacking?INTCMP=SRCH News of the World phone hacking more widespread than claimed, MPs told]</ref>  The ''News of the World'' denied these claims, clinging to the line they had been using ever since Goodman had pled guilty - that the phone hacking activities were restricted to one rogue reporter at the paper,<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/10/editorial-phone-hacking-news-international?INTCMP=SRCH News International: Scandal met with silence]</ref> and Andy Coulson, now director of [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative Party]] communications and planning, also refuted these allegations, with some within the political establishment claiming that the allegations and articles by ''The Guardian'' were politically motivated.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/12/coulson-murdoch-sky-phone-hacking This is about revenge, not phone taps]</ref> Both the Conservative Party and David Cameron stood by Andy Coulson.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8143893.stm Cameron standing by press chief]</ref>

Amongst the allegations made by ''The Guardian'', were the allegations that the phones of John Prescott,<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8141615.stm Prescott calls for hacking probe]</ref> Alex Ferguson, Tessa Jowell,<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/feb/01/now-phone-hacking-scandal News of the World pair hacked into 100 mobile accounts]</ref> [[Boris Johnson|Boris 'BoJo' Johnson]],<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson#Personal Boris Johnson - Personal]</ref> Max Clifford, and Brooks.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8143552.stm Stars 'may sue' over phone claims]</ref>  ''The Guardian'' further reported that, in addition to this, the ''News of the World's'' parent company paid out more than £1m in out-of-court settlements to end legal cases that threatened to reveal evidence of ''News of the World'' journalists using criminal methods to obtain stories, and that staff used private investigators to access several thousand mobile phone accounts.<ref>Nick Davies, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/08/murdoch-papers-phone-hacking "Murdoch papers paid £1m to gag phone-hacking victims",] ''The Guardian'', 8 July 2009</ref>.

Of particular annoyance to many of those who discovered that their phones may have been hacked were the revelations that the Metropolitan Police did have evidence that other voicemail accounts had been hacked, but had made no effort to contact the victims.  Prescott was particularly aggrieved by this, but the former Assistant Commissioner John Yates stated that there was no actual evidence that Prescott's, or other people's phones had been tapped, beyond the information that had already been made public.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8143656.stm "Prescott: Police decision 'so quick'"]. [[BBC|BBC News]].</ref>

As a result of these allegations the Metropolitan Police Service commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson asked the assistant commissioner John Yates to review the original 2006 investigation for new evidence. In a single 8-hour meeting, Yates reviewed the investigation and decided not to take any further action. Yates, after this cursory re-examining of the evidence, stated that he "found [the original investigation] to be satisfactory."<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/john-yatess-confession-prompts-calls-for-him-to-step-down-2311634.html John Yates's confession prompts calls for him to step down]</ref> In specific response to John Prescott, Yates stated "that there was no material evidence that Prescott's phone had been hacked."<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8143656.stm  Prescott: Police decision 'so quick']</ref> Determining that no further action need be taken, Yates declared that the case need not be re-opened.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/09/john-yates-massive-regret-phone-hacking-investigation John Yates expresses 'massive regret' over phone hacking investigation]</ref> Following on from that recommendation, the Metropolitan Police declined to re-open their hacking inquiry, stating that "no additional evidence has come to light" and it "therefore consider[ed] that no further investigation is required".<ref>[http://cms.met.police.uk/met/news/major_operational_announcements/statement_from_ac_john_yates Statement from AC John Yates]</ref>

Later that year, [[Private Eye]] revealed that, to "avoid all-out-war" with the ''News of the World'', it had chosen to to tell the Culture, Media and Sport Committee that £700,000 had been paid to Gordon Taylor in an out-of-court settlement in regards to phone hacking, and this settlement was signed off by the directors of News Group Newspapers.  This agreement to the settlement showed awareness that phone hacking wasn't just confined to Clive Goodman at the highest levels of News Group and, by extension, News International.  In response to these new allegations the PCC reopened the original investigation into the phone-hacking scandal, as did the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.  Although the Culture, Media and Sport Committee's investigation would run into 2010, the PCC's investigations were concluded a lot quicker, working on a basis that they weren't going to bother overly much with that annoying evidence and witness stuff, because it wasn't going to be necessary.  Reporting in November 2009 the PCC reiterated its earlier position, that there was no evidence that phone-hacking was the work of more than one person at the ''News of the World'' and, bizarrely, attacking ''The Guardian'' for the articles it had released detailing the findings of the investigations that the journalists working on the story had discovered for themselves.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/nov/09/pcc-phone-hacking-inquiry PCC finds no evidence that it was misled in phone hacking inquiry]</ref><ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/nov/22/peta-buscombe-pcc?INTCMP=SRCH Buscombe explains why PCC failed to interview phone hacker Mulcaire]</ref><ref>[http://www.nickdavies.net/2009/11/08/boxing-stupid-with-the-pcc/ The PCC give themselves a black eye]</ref>  In response to this report the International Federation of Journalists launched its own investigation into the conduct and role of the PCC during its inquiry into the phone hacking affair.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/nov/17/journalist-body-phone-hacking?INTCMP=SRCH Journalist body to investigate PCC inquiry into phone-hacking affair]</ref>

In January, 2010 ''The Guardian'' broke the story that Clive Goodman had a received an out-of-court settlement from News International to settle an unfair dismissal claim.  Glenn Mulcaire also received a payment from News International in exchange for stopping employment tribunal proceedings against the ''News of the World''.  As a result of this article and other follow on articles, the Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport sent further written questions to both News International and its executives.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jan/08/news-international-clive-goodman News International admits payout to phone-hacker was for unfair dismissal]</ref>

In February, 2010 ''The Guardian'' then broke the news that three mobile phone companies had discovered that over a hundred of their customers had had their voicemails hacked whilst the police had obtained 91 PIN codes through their investigations into the phone hacking affair,<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/feb/01/now-phone-hacking-scandal News of the World pair hacked into 100 mobile accounts]</ref> and that, although the police had only named eight victims when giving testimony in court, there was in fact 4,000 names or partial names and nearly 3,000 full or partial telephone numbers that had been obtained from the materials seized from Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/04/police-ignored-news-world-evidence Police 'ignored News of the World phone hacking evidence']</ref>  ''The Guardian'' also revealed that, whilst Coulson was Editor at the ''News of the World'', the ''News of the World'' had rehired Jonathan Rees, a private investigator, shortly after his release from a seven-year prison sentence for blackmail.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/feb/24/andy-coulson-news-of-the-world Andy Coulson hit by new tabloid trick charges]</ref>

At the same time as ''The Guardian'' was breaking the news regarding the amount of evidence the police had at their fingertips the Culture, Media and Sport Committee issued their report, condemning the testimony of the ''News of the World'' witnesses, referring to "collective amnesia" and "deliberate obfuscation", and noted News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks' refusal to appear at all.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/feb/24/phone-hacking-scandal-mps-verdicts News of the World phone-hacking scandal: the verdicts]</ref> The Committee concluded:

{{quotebox|We strongly condemn this behaviour which reinforces the widely held impression that the press generally regard themselves as unaccountable and that News International in particular has sought to conceal the truth about what really occurred.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/feb/24/phone-hacking-scandal-mps-report MPs' verdict on News of the World phone-hacking scandal: Amnesia, obfuscation and hush money]</ref>}}

A few months later ''The Guardian'' revealed that in 2009 the Home Office had planned to ask Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary to review the police investigation into the phone hacking scandal, but those plans were cancelled "after intense internal lobbying", with a senior Home Office official warning that the Metropolitan Police would "deeply resent" an inquiry.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/06/phone-hacking-home-office-police Phone-hacking inquiry was abandoned to avoid upsetting police]</ref> ''The Guardian'' then went on to reveal comments by former ''News of the World'' journalist Paul McMullan that revealed how widespread phone hacking had been under Coulson<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/08/phone-hacking-news-of-the-world-witness Phone hacking was rife at News of the World, claims new witness]</ref>

At the same time as ''The Guardian'' was revealing the internal pressure used to drop a review of the police investigation, ''[[The New York Times]]'' published the results of an investigation it had begun in March which revealed further details about the extent of the ''News of the World'''s phone hacking.  This investigation also alleged that Coulson not only knew of the practice, but also knew the depth of the practice, citing Sean Hoare as saying that Coulson had "actively encouraged" phone hacking.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/magazine/05hacking-t.html Tabloid Hack Attack on Royals, and Beyond]</ref>

As a result of these allegations the Home Affairs Select Committee started a new inquiry into phone hacking.<ref>[http://www.mediaspy.org/report/2010/09/08/uk-new-inquiry-into-phone-hacking-at-news-of-the-world/ New inquiry into phone-hacking at News of the World]</ref> Two days later the {{wpl|House of Commons|House of Commons}} voted to refer allegations of hacking against politicians to the Standards and Privileges Committee, who would have the power to compel witnesses to give evidence.<ref>[http://www.mediaspy.org/report/2010/09/10/uk-parliamentary-inquiry-into-phone-hacking-scandal-to-begin/ Parliamentary inquiry into phone-hacking scandal to begin]</ref><ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/commons-declares-war-on-media-barons-and-their-redtopped-assassins-2075474.html Commons declares war on 'media barons and their red-topped assassins']</ref>

====Interlude: When celebrity turns journalist ''aka'' The Worm Turns====

Following an encounter with Paul McMullan, Hugh Grant (who, for some strange, unknown reason, doesn't have a huge amount of respect for tabloid papers) managed to secretly record McMullan stating that editors at the ''[[Daily Mail]]'' and ''News of the World'', including Coulson, had ordered journalists to engage in phone hacking. McMullan also claimed that every Prime Minister from [[Margaret Thatcher|Thatcher]] onwards had deliberately gone out of their way to form a close relationship with [[Rupert Murdoch]] and his senior executives. McMullan stressed the friendship between [[David Cameron]] and Rebekah Brooks, and agreed that both of them must have been aware of illegal phone tapping.  McMullan went on to claim that Cameron's inaction, especially in regards to Coulson's position within the Conservative Party, could be explained by self-interest:

{{quotebox|"Cameron is very much in debt to Rebekah Wade for helping him not quite win the election... So that was my submission to parliament – that Cameron's either a liar or an idiot.}}

McMullan also asserted that Cameron had encouraged the Metropolitan Police to "drag their feet" on investigating illegal activities by journalists employed in Murdock owned newspapers.  McMullan but also stated that the police themselves had taken bribes from tabloid journalists, so had a motive to be less than enthusiastic about any investigation:

{{quotebox|"20 per cent of the Met has taken backhanders from tabloid hacks. So why would they want to open up that can of worms?... And what's wrong with that, anyway? It doesn't hurt anyone particularly."}}

Hugh Grant published this in an article in the ''New Statesman''.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/newspapers/2011/04/phone-yeah-cameron-murdoch The bugger, bugged]</ref>

===Milly Dowler's voicemail===

On the 4<sup>th</sup> July 2011, ''The Guardian'' reported that the police had evidence that Glenn Mulcaire had hacked the phone messages of the murdered schoolgirl, {{wpl|Milly Dowler}} before the discovery of her body six months after her disappearance.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/04/milly-dowler-voicemail-hacked-news-of-world Missing Milly Dowler's voicemail was hacked by News of the World]</ref>  ''The Guardian'' alleged that during the process of hacking her voicemail the private investigators deleted Milly Dowler's existing voice messages to free up room so more could be left.  As both the police and Milly Dowler's family had been actively monitoring the voice message service they took the deletion of messages as a sign that Milly Dowler was still alive and, as the investigation was still active, the deletion of the messages could have been the deletion of potentially crucial evidence.  ''The Guardian'' also commented that the ''News of the World'', in an article on 14<sup>th</sup> April, 2002, hadn't concealed from its readers that it had intercepted Milly Dowler's telephone messages and had informed Surrey Police of this fact on 27<sup>th</sup> March, 2002.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/04/milly-dowler-family-phone-hacking Milly Dowler phone hacking: Family shocked by NoW revelations]</ref>

In response to this report David Cameron said that "the alleged hacking, if true, was truly dreadful" and that the police needed to undertake a "vigorous investigation" to determine what had happened.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/05/milly-dowler-phone-hacking-cameron Milly Dowler phone hacking: Cameron condemns News of the World]</ref>  The Leader of the Opposition [[Ed Miliband]] called on Rebekah Brooks to "consider her conscience and consider her position".  Meanwhile, many other politicians began to openly discuss and ask for the then ongoing takeover of BSkyB by News Corporation to be blocked from going ahead.  Questions were also raised about whether the Murdochs now met the 'fit and proper persons' test to hold a broadcast license in the UK, with Lord Prescott raising the matter with Ofcom.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/04/milly-dowler-phone-hacking-politicians Milly Dowler phone hacking: Politicians hit out over revelations]</ref><ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/05/milly-dowler-phone-hacking-key-quotes?INTCMP=SRCH Milly Dowler phone hacking: what key figures have said]</ref>

In addition to the furore within the Westminster Village, the Media Standards Trust formed the pressure group ''Hacked Off'' to campaign for a public inquiry. The campaign gained the support of Hugh Grant, who during appearances on ''Question Time'' and ''Newsnight'' became a public spokesperson about phone hacking and the need for an independent public inquiry into the matter.<ref>[http://mediastandardstrust.org/mst-news/hacked-off-campaign-for-a-public-inquiry-into-phone-hacking/  Hacked Off: Campaign for a Public Inquiry into Phone Hacking]</ref>  The end result was the formation of the Leveson inquiry.

In a rather shocking admission during January 2012 it was revealed that Surrey Police, and other police forces, knew soon after Milly Dowler's death that ''News of the World'' staff had accessed her voicemail messages, but did not take issue with this. Instead a senior Surrey officer invited ''News of the World'' staff to a meeting to discuss the case.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9032994/News-of-the-World-reporter-played-police-Milly-Dowler-voicemail.html News of the World reporter played police Milly Dowler voicemail]</ref>

== The Leveson Inquiry ==

===Divisions and terms of reference===

The Leveson Inquiry has been divided into two parts.  Part 1 of the inquiry would explore and address:

{{quotebox|the culture, practices and ethics of the press, including contacts between the press and politicians and the press and the police; it is to consider the extent to which the current regulatory regime has failed and whether there has been a failure to act upon any previous warnings about media misconduct.}}

whilst Part 2 would explore and address:

{{quotebox|the extent of unlawful or improper conduct within News International, other media organisations or other organisations. It will also consider the extent to which any relevant police force investigated allegations relating to News International, and whether the police received corrupt payments or were otherwise complicit in misconduct."<ref>[http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Core-Participants-final-14.09.11.pdf Ruling on Core Participants]</ref>}}

{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em; width:100%; border: solid 1px silver;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; text-align:center;" | Specifics of Terms of Reference
|-
| style="padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
The terms of reference for Part 1 were:

1. To inquire into the culture, practices, and ethics of the press, including:

a. contacts and the relationships between national newspapers and politicians, and the conduct of each;

b. contacts and the relationship between the press and the police, and the conduct of each;

c. the extent to which the current policy and regulatory framework has failed including in relation to data protection; and

d. the extent to which there was a failure to act on previous warnings about media misconduct.

2. To make recommendations:

a. for a new more effective policy and regulatory regime which supports the integrity and freedom of the press, the  plurality of the media, and its independence, including from Government, while encouraging the highest ethical and professional standards;

b. for how future concerns about press behaviour, media policy, regulation and cross-media ownership should be dealt with by all the relevant authorities, including Parliament, Government, the prosecuting authorities and the police;

c. the future conduct of relations between politicians and the press; and

d. the future conduct of relations between the police and the press.

whilst Part 2 had the following terms of reference:

3. To inquire into the extent of unlawful or improper conduct within News International, other newspaper organisations and, as appropriate, other organisations within the media, and by those responsible for holding personal data.

4. To inquire into the way in which any relevant police force investigated allegations or evidence of unlawful conduct by persons within or connected with News International, the review by the Metropolitan Police of their initial investigation, and the conduct of the prosecuting authorities.

5. To inquire into the extent to which the police received corrupt payments or other inducements, or were otherwise complicit in such misconduct or in suppressing its proper investigation, and how this was allowed to happen.

6. To inquire into the extent of corporate governance and management failures at News International and other newspaper organisations, and the role, if any, of politicians, public servants and others in relation to any failure to investigate wrongdoing at News International

7. In the light of these inquiries, to consider the implications for the relationships between newspaper organisations and the police, prosecuting authorities, and relevant regulatory bodies – and to recommend what actions, if any, should be taken.<ref>[http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/about/terms-of-reference/ About the Inquiry /Terms of Reference]</ref>

Part 1 was then further divided into four modules:

* Module 1 -  The Press and the Public: The relationship between the press and the public and looks at phone-hacking and other potentially illegal behaviour
* Module 2 - The Press and the Police: The relationships between the press and police and the extent to which that has operated in the public interest
* Module 3 - The Press and Politicians: The relationship between press and politicians
* Module 4 - The Future: Recommendations for a more effective policy and regulation that supports the integrity and freedom of the press while encouraging the highest ethical standards.

After a series of seminars during September and October, 2011, formal sworn evidence hearings started on 14<sup>th</sup> November, 2011 at the {{wpl|Royal Courts of Justice|Royal Courts of Justice}}, with the final formal evidence session occurring on 24<sup>th</sup> July, 2012 with closing statements from the core participants.<ref>[http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ The Leveson Inquiry] (Official website).</ref>

Part 2 of the inquiry has yet to start due to ongoing criminal investigations and criminal legal proceedings.<ref>[http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ The Leveson Inquiry] (Official website).</ref>
|}

===Part 1 - Module 1: The press and the public===

In total 226 witness statements were taken for Module 1, out of which 184 witnesses gave oral evidence to the inquiry.

:Monday 21<sup>st</sup> November, 2011 - Bob Dowler, Sally Dowler, {{wpl|Joan Smith|Joan Smith}}, Graham Shear, {{wpl|Hugh Grant|Hugh Grant}}
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em; width:100%; border: solid 1px silver;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; text-align:center;" | Evidence given to the inquiry
|-
| style="padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
The taking of formal, sworn evidence started with testimony from the parents of Milly Dowler.  David Sherborne, barrister for the victims, questioned them on various aspects surrounding their treatment by the press, particularly the ''News of the World'', during and after the investigation into Milly Dowler's disappearance and murder.  Bob Dowler, on both the revelations that his daughter's phone had been hacked, and on the press' treatment of his family started by saying:<br><br>

{{cquote|"I think the gravity of what had happened need to be investigated. It's part of a much bigger picture but given we learnt about those hacking revelations just before the trial it was extremely important that we understood exactly what went on in terms of practices to uncover this information ... It's a deep concern that our private life became public"  <ref name="Guardian Blog 211111">[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/nov/21/leveson-inquiry-hugh-grant-dowlers-live Guardian News Blog:Leveson inquiry: Hugh Grant and the Dowlers give evidence]</ref>}}<br>

The Dowlers' then went on to further expand on their treatment by the press.  Deciding to reconstruct the walk that their daughter had taken prior to her disappearance, and choosing a time when the press interest had quieted down Sally Dowler testified that:
<br><br>
{{cquote|"No one was around, it was very much like the day she had gone missing. We put out missing leaflets and a telephone number. That number had changed and I was checking to see if the right poster was up and I was touching ghte''(sic)'' posters to see if they were they were the right ones.<br>That Sunday, that photo appeared in the News of the World. I remember seeing it wand I was really cross. They had obviously taken the photo with some sort of telephoto lens.<br>It felt like such an intrusion into a really really private grief moment." <ref name="Guardian Blog 211111" />}}
<br>
Sally Dowler went on to say that, in response to the photo appearing in the ''News of the World'', she had a rant at the family liaison officer and that;
<br><br>
{{cquote|"I asked how did they get this picture. In the scheme of things at the time, more important was the fact that Milly was missing. That was more mind consuming"<ref name="Guardian Blog 211111" />}}
although, in hindsight, Mrs Dowler believed that the photo had been most likely taken by a ''News of a World'' photographer "camped out in a car".

The Dowlers also claimed that their own phones had been hacked, as the walk was private and that the organisation of "the walk had nothing to do with Milly Dowler's phone", and  "That was our own home phone or own mobile phones."<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/21/leveson-inquiry-phone-hacking-dowlers?INTCMP=SRCH Leveson inquiry: phone hacking 'made Dowlers think Milly was alive']</ref>

When asked what it was like to live surrounded by that level of press attention Mrs Dowler replied that;
<br><br>
{{cquote|"You had to be on guard outside your front door because someone would come up to you when least expect it. They'd fire a question at you without introducing themselves,"<ref name="Guardian Blog 211111" />}}
whilst Mr Dowler replied:
<br><br>
{{cquote|"It's quite concerning because however polite people are you really are afraid to open front door, because you're faced with a question and then however you respond to that question might lead to a headline of one line or two."<ref name="Guardian Blog 211111" />}}<br>
Mrs Dowler spoke of being unable to leave messages on her daughter's voicemail service because it was full, and then her euphoria at discovering that some of her daughter;s voicemails had been deleted, noting that she had turned to her husband and said;<br><br>
{{cquote|"She's picked up her voice mails Bob, she's alive,"<ref name="Guardian Blog 211111" />}}
and that;<br><br>
{{cquote|"My immediate reaction was to phone Gemma [Milly's siste].<br>I told my friends 'She's picked up her voicemail, she's picked up her voicemail.'<br>All I can remember is that they told us she had put some credit on her phone. She was very low or had no credit on her phone. "<ref name="Guardian Blog 211111" />}}<br>

Mrs Dowler went on to explain that, when she had been informed that Milly Dowler's phone had been hacked that her first immediate thought was that whoever had hacked the phone may have deleted the messages and that she didn't sleep for three nights as she attempted understand and accept the news given to her by the police that her daughter's phone had been hacked.<ref name="Guardian Blog 211111" /><br><br>

After the Dowlers finished giving evidence Joan Smith, author, broadcaster, journalist and former partner of the MP {{wpl|Denis MacShane|Denis MacShane}} was sworn in.  Joan Smith testified to her own experiences of phone hacking, especially during the time when her partner, Denis MacShane, had just lost his daughter.  In response to questioning Joan Smith stated that she had been informed by police working on Operation Weeting that her phone had not only been hacked by Glenn Mulcaire, but that Mulcaire had kept a file on her that the police invited her too see.  In testimony Ms. Smith said that the first page of the file contained her name, address, etc; and that:
<br><br>
{{cquote|"As the pages go by Mulcaire made a note of the fact she wrote for the Independent and the Times.<br>  He seems to have been a very obsessive note taker. He also made an note of dates and my name and address May 5, 2004. That's approximately six weeks after Denis's daughter had died in a sky diving accident in Australia.<br>  I was particularly shocked that in that period when Denis was bereaved. It's not an easy time for anyone...that the NOW [News of the World] had been interested enough to ask Mr Mulcaire to listen to our voice mails.<br>&hellip;<br>I'm amazed at how shocked I was&hellip;I saw all these notes, Mr Mulcaire had made a note w were going to Spain. I was going to a Pen conference, I was going to Barcelona and Denis was coming out the following weekend and we were arranging to meet up and I was amazed by the details of notes that Mulcaire had.<br>  The police said to me is there any way Mr Mulcaire could have got this information legitimately?"<ref name="Guardian Blog 211111" />}}<br>

When asked what she felt about having her phone accessed illegally Ms. Smith said that the tabloid press gave every appearance of "living in a 1950s world and anything outside that seems to be a story," and that tabloids themselves seemed to have few morals:<br><br>
{{cquote|"It seems to me that tabloid culture is so remorseless that the people involved have lost any sense that they are human beings&hellip;Everything has become a story, we are all caricatures.<br>  To the tabloid press we are just two dimensional, we are just fodder."<ref name="Guardian Blog 211111" />}}<br>

In response to being asked if she had thought about complaining to the PCC, Ms. Smith replied:<br><br>
{{cquote|"No, it never even crossed my mind [to complain to PCC about articles]. Because I've seen too many version of press regulation in this country and don't think that they are adequate bodies to deal with this kind of problem by time complain articles out there anyway and all friends have read it so not going to get much in way of redress.<ref name="Guardian Blog 211111" />}}<br><br>

Next to give evidence was Graham Shear, a solicitor who had worked on a number of high profile cases, and had a number of footballers as clients.  In his testimony Mr Shear testified that many of his clients, from about 2004 onwards, believed that private communications had been illegally accessed by the press.<ref name="Guardian Blog 211111" />  Mr Shear detailed some of the relevant cases he had taken on, including the obtaining of injunctions to stop the press reporting certain matters, and also stated that the police had informed him that he, himself, was the victim of phone hacking by Glenn Mulcaire.<ref name="Guardian Blog 211111" />  When asked what he thought of the PCC, Mr Shear replied that the PCC was more of a mediator than a regulator, and when asked what he thought drove the tabloids to act the way they did stated that "tabloid business model has become dependent and infatuated with sensational and titillating stories," and that:
{{cquote|"The facility that phone hacking or unlawful surveillance provided allowed those that were utilising it not only to build the story but to pad it out," says Shear.<br>"This provided easily digestible, sensationalist fodder on a regular basis. It's been a progression of sort of fairly. I suppose privacy-invading, but interesting to a section of the public, intrusion not the private lives of rich and famous and powerful which has created this self-generating process that people want to see or hear of the next event."<br>"It was not quite as prevalent in the same sort of guise in the mid 1990s. It became more organised, more orchestrated as to turned into the early 2000s, certainly the NOW moved into the most effective story-gatherer."<br>"I think the type of surveillance that were undertaken were unlikely to have been isolated to one newspaper."<ref name="Guardian Blog 211111" />}}<br><br>

The last person of the day to be sworn in was Hugh Grant.  Included in his testimony was the evidence he had gathered from Paul McMullan about the illegal methods that tabloid journalists and editors used to find and stand up stories.  He pointed at the fact that information contained in Glenn Mulcaire's notes appeared in Daily Mirror and Mail stories, even though Mulcaire was working on commission for the ''News of the World'' at the time.  Mr Grant also alleged that both the ''Daily Mail'' and ''Mail on Sunday'' illegally obtained private information in regards to two stories, one regarding the birth of his daughter, where he alleged that the ''Daily Mail'' had illegal access to medical records via a source at the hospital whilst the ''Mail on Sunday'' illegally intercepted phone messages between himself and Jemima Khan.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/21/hugh-grant-accuses-mail-phone-hacking?INTCMP=SRCH Hugh Grant accuses Mail on Sunday of phone hacking]</ref>

Both titles denied the allegations that had been made on oath, with the ''Daily Mail'' stating;<br><br>
{{cquote|"The Daily Mail unequivocally denies Hugh Grant's allegation that it secured information about the birth of his child from a source at the hospital.<br>
In fact the information came from a source in his showbusiness circle more than two weeks AFTER the birth.<br>
We then spent a further two weeks seeking a response to the story from his publicists.<br>
None was forthcoming and indeed we did not publish anything until Grant's publicist issued a statement describing the baby as the product of a 'fleeting affair'.<br>
Throughout the Mail behaved with total journalistic propriety."<ref name="Guardian Blog 211111" />}}<br>
whilst the ''Mail on Sunday'' said:<br><br>
{{cquote|"Mail on Sunday utterly refutes Hugh Grant's claim that they got any story as a result of phone hacking. In fact in the case of the story Mr Grant refers to the information came from a freelance journalist who had been told by a source who was regularly speaking to Jemima Khan.<br>Mr Grant's allegations are mendacious smears driven by his hatred of the media.<ref name="Guardian Blog 211111" />}}<br>
However, in response to the ''Mail on Sunday's''} response Jemima Khan denied the paper's version of events, commenting on Twitter;<br><br>
{{cquote|The "source" close to me must be psychic.The MoS claim that he/she gave them a story I knew nothing about till it was in the paper. #Leveson<ref>[https://twitter.com/jemima_khan/status/138681133226393600 Twitter]</ref>}}<br>

In addition to the allegations, Mr Grant also explored what he described as 10 myths about the press, and tabloids in particular:

* '''Myth No 1. Fleet Street just targets celebrities - this isn't true'''
* '''Myth No 2. Privacy breaches only happened at the News of the World'''
* '''Myth No 3. Cracking down on proper journalism would muzzle good reporting''':
{{cquote|It is a commonly voiced opinion that you cannot in any way regulate, or improve, or legislate for the worst practices for the worst of journalists in this country without damaging free speech; without muzzling proper journalism and the phrase that is always used is 'don't throw the baby out with the baby'.<br>  I have always said I don't think it is that difficult to tell what is bath water and what is a baby. To most people it is pretty obvious.}}
* '''Myth No 4: Any press regulation will lead to a Zimbabwe-like state''':
{{cquote|If you take state regulation and other end self regulation - there are various gradations in between, including co-regulation which would be regulation by a panel comprised of{{sic}} journalists, non journalists and experts in the field who would draw up code with proper sanctions, fines as well as apologies.<br>  But to have any teeth, it would have to have as a backstop some kind of regulation. Otherwise would be easy for Express group - as they have - to walk away from it. Somewhere there has to be a bit of statute right at the back to make it work.}}
* '''Myth No 5: The press will be muzzled by statutory regulation.'''  Having pointed out that nobody had taken out a privacy case against ''The Guardian'', Mr Grant went on to say:
{{cquote|All this fuzz from the tabloid end about these [super] injunctions are bogus and convenient}}
* '''Myth No 6: Judges always find against the press - not so'''
* '''Myth No 7: You have to be rich to afford privacy.''' Pointing out that if there was a proper regulator this wouldn't be the case but at the moment people without great means were denied justice, Mr Grant added:
{{cquote|If you look at the Dowlers, they would not have been able to prosecute that case without a CFA (a "no win, no fee" arrangement with their solicitor).<br>  Christopher Jefferies had to use a CFA, Sara Payne the same.<br>  This whole campaign to restrict CFA's has been very heavily pushed by the tabloid press}}
* '''Myth No 8: All sex exposés have a public interest.'''  Pointing out that "people like Ryan Giggs don't trade on anything other than their profession", Mr Grant said that in his case:
{{cquote|I wasn't aware I was trading on my good name, I've never had a good name at all. I'm a man who was arrested with a prostitite and the film still made loads of money. It doesn't matter}}
* '''Myth No 9: People like Grant need the papers, so complaints are hypocritical''':
{{cquote|What made me attractive to other film-makers was the gazillions Four Weddings and a Funeral made [not publicity]<br>  A couple of months later I was arrested with a prostitute , not very positive press and I was still very hirable.}}
* '''Myth No 10: The press are just loveable rogues''':
{{cquote|I am the reverse of a muzzler, but I feel the licence that the tabloid press has had to steal British citizen's privacy, especially vulnerable citizens, for profit is a scandal that weak governments for too long have allowed to pass.<br>  When the story has been obtained by hacking the phones of a schoolgirl or a soldier from Afghanistan I don't find that loveable and naughty - I find that cowardly, bullying and shocking.}}<ref name="Guardian Blog 211111" /><br>
Mr Grant ended his testimony by stating:<br><br>
{{cquote|I don't want to see the end of popular print journalism. A free press is the cornerstone of democracy there is no question about that. I just think there is a section of our press that has allowed to become toxic over the last 30 years.<br>  The main tactic seems to be bullying and blackmail and it takes courage to stand up to. I think it's time this country found the courage to stand up [to it now].<ref name="Guardian Blog 211111" />}}	
|}




:Tuesday 22 November - {{wpl|Steve Coogan|Steve Coogan}}, Mary-Ellen Field, {{wpl|Garry Flitcroft|Garry Flitcroft}}, Margaret Watson
:Wednesday 23 November - {{wpl|Sheryl Gascoigne|Sheryl Gascoigne}}, Mark Lewis, {{wpl|Gerry McCann|Gerry McCann}}, Tom Rowland
:Thursday 24 November - HJK, {{wpl|Sienna Miller|Sienna Miller}}, {{wpl|Max Mosley|Max Mosley}}, {{wpl|JK Rowling|JK Rowling}}, Mark Thomson

:Monday 28 November - {{wpl|Charlotte Church|Charlotte Church}}, {{wpl|Anne Diamond|Anne Diamond}}, Ian Hurst, Chris Jefferies, Jane Winter<ref>[http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-List-wc-21.11.11.pdf Leveson Inquiry]</ref>
:Tuesday 29 November - Richard Peppiatt, {{wpl|Nick Davies|Nick Davies}}, {{wpl|Paul McMullan (journalist)|Paul McMullan}}
:Wednesday 30 November - {{wpl|Alastair Campbell|Alastair Campbell}}, Alex Owens<ref>[http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-List-w.c.-28.11.11.pdf Leveson Inquiry]</ref>

:Monday 5 December - Alex Owens, Francis Aldhouse, Peter Burden<ref name="Hearings list">[http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/hearings/ Leveson Inquiry]</ref><ref name=Robinson-5-12-2011>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/dec/05/leveson-inquiry-witnesses Leveson inquiry into phone hacking: who's appearing on Monday]</ref>
:Tuesday 6 December - Charlotte Harris, {{wpl|David Leigh|David Leigh}}, Steven Nott, Chris Atkins<ref name="Hearings list" />
:Thursday 8 December - Professor Steven Barnett, {{wpl|George Brock (journalist)|Professor George Brock}}, Professor Brian Cathcart, Angela Phillips, {{wpl|Ian Hargreaves|Professor Ian Hargreaves}}, Professor Julian Petley, Dr Daithí Mac Síthigh<ref name="Hearings list" />
:Friday 9 December - {{wpl|Richard Thomas (lawyer)|Richard Thomas}}<ref name="Hearings list" />

:Monday 12 December - {{wpl|Mazher Mahmoud|Mazher Mahmoud}}, {{wpl|Neville Thurlbeck|Neville Thurlbeck}}, {{wpl|Neil Wallis|Neil Wallis}}<ref name="Hearings list" />
:Tuesday 13 December - Lawrence Abramson, Julian Pike, {{wpl|Tom Crone|Tom Crone}}<ref name="Hearings list" />
:Wednesday 14 December  - Tom Crone (continued), Jonathan Chapman, {{wpl|Colin Myler|Colin Myler}}<ref name="Hearings list" />
:Thursday 15 December - Colin Myler (continued), Daniel Sanderson, Derek Webb<ref name="Hearings list" />

:Monday 19 December - Stuart Hoare, James Hanning, Matthew Driscoll<ref name="Hearings list" />
:Tuesday 20 December - Julian Pike, {{wpl|Steve Turner (writer)|Steve Turner}}, {{wpl|Sharon Marshall|Sharon Marshall}}, Matthew Bell, Christopher Johnson, [[Piers Morgan]]<ref name="Hearings list" />
:Wednesday 21 December - {{wpl|James Hipwell|James Hipwell}}, David Pilditch, Nick Fagge, Padriac Flanagan<ref name="Hearings list" />

;2012:
:Monday 9 January - John Edwards, Duncan Larcombe, {{wpl|Kelvin Mackenzie|Kelvin Mackenzie}}, {{wpl|Dominic Mohan|Dominic Mohan}}, {{wpl|Gordon Smart|Gordon Smart}} and Justin Walford<ref name="Hearings list" />
:Tuesday 10 January -  {{wpl|Lionel Barber|Lionel Barber}}, {{wpl|Chris Blackhurst|Chris Blackhurst}}, {{wpl|Tony Gallagher|Tony Gallagher}}, {{wpl|William Lewis (journalist)|William Lewis}}, {{wpl|Murdoch MacLennan|Murdoch MacLennan}}, Manish Malhotra, Andrew Mullins, Finbarr Ronayne<ref name="Hearings list" />
:Wednesday 11 January -  William Lewis (continued), Paul Silva, {{wpl|Peter Wright (journalist)|Peter Wright}}<ref name="Hearings list" />
:Thursday 12 January - Paul Ashford, {{wpl|Richard Desmond|Richard Desmond}}, {{wpl|Peter Hill (journalist)|Peter Hill}}, {{wpl|Dawn Neesom|Dawn Neesom}}, Nicole Patterson, {{wpl|Hugh Whittow||Hugh Whittow}}<ref name="Hearings list" />

:Monday 16 January - {{wpl|Richard Wallace (journalist)|Richard Wallace}}, {{wpl|Tina Weaver|Tina Weaver}}, Andrew Penman, {{wpl|Lloyd Embley|Lloyd Embley}}, {{wpl|Sly Bailey|Sly Bailey}}<ref name="Hearings list" />
:Tuesday 17 January - {{wpl|Ian Hislop|Ian Hislop}}, Thomas Mockridge, Susan Panuccio, {{wpl|Rupert Pennant-Rea|Rupert Pennant-Rea}}, {{wpl|James Harding (journalist)|James Harding}}, {{wpl|John Witherow|John Witherow}}, Chris Elliott, {{wpl|Alan Rusbridger|Alan Rusbridger}}<ref name="Hearings list" />
:Wednesday 18 January - Rosie Nixon, Lisa Byrne, {{wpl|Lucie Cave|Lucie Cave}}, Peter Charlton, Noel Doran, Spencer Feeney, Mike Gilson, Marie McGeoghan, John McLellan, Nigel Pickover, Jonathan Russell<ref name="Hearings list" />

:Monday 23 January - {{wpl|Mark Thompson (television executive)|Mark Thompson}}, {{wpl|Chris Patten|Lord Patten}}, Jim Gray, John Battle<ref name="Hearings list" />
:Tuesday 24 January - {{wpl|Jonathan Heawood|Jonathan Heawood}}, {{wpl|John Kampfner|John Kampfner}}, Jacqui Hunt, Marai Larasi, Anna Van Heeswijk, Heather Harvey, {{wpl|Inayat Bunglawala|Inayat Bunglawala}}, {{wpl|Fiona Fox (UK press officer)|Fiona Fox}}, Ryan Parry, Gary O'Shea, Stephen Waring<ref name="Hearings list" />
:Wednesday 25 January - {{wpl|Mazher Mahmood|Mazher Mahmood}} (recalled), {{wpl|Bob Crow|Bob Crow}}, {{wpl|David Allen Green|David Allen Green}}, Jonathan Grun<ref name="Hearings list" />
:Thursday 26 January - {{wpl|Christopher Graham|Christopher Graham}}, Daphne Keller, David-John Collins, {{wpl|Camilla Wright|Camilla Wright}}, {{wpl|Richard Allan, Baron Allan of Hallam|Richard Allan}}<ref name="Hearings list" />

:Monday 30 January - Tim Toulmin, Stephen Abell<ref name="Hearings list" />
:Tuesday 31 January - {{wpl|Christopher Meyer|Sir Christopher Meyer}}, {{wpl|Michael Grade|Lord Grade}}, {{wpl|David Hunt, Baron Hunt of Wirral|Lord Hunt}}<ref name="Hearings list" />
:Wednesday 1 February - Collette Bowe, {{wpl|Ed Richards (chief executive)|Ed Richards}}, {{wpl|Guy Black, Baron Black of Brentwood|Lord Black}}, Guy Parker<ref name="Hearings list" />
:Thursday 2 February - Adrian Graham, David Palmer, James Blendis, Mark Hughes, Tony Imossi, Tony Smith, {{wpl|Sheila Hollins, Baroness Hollins|Baroness Hollins}}<ref name="Hearings list" />

:Monday 6 February - {{wpl|Sue Akers|Sue Akers}}, Dan Wooton, Nick Owens, {{wpl|Paul Dacre|Paul Dacre}}<ref name="Hearings list" />
:Tuesday 7 February - Ronald Zink, {{wpl|Peta Buscombe, Baroness Buscombe|Baroness Buscombe}}, {{wpl|Colin Crowell|Colin Crowell}}, Neil Turner, {{wpl|James Harding (journalist)|James Harding}} (recalled), {{wpl|Dominic Mohan|Dominic Mohan}} (recalled), Gary Morgan<ref name="Hearings list" />
:Wednesday 8 February - Martin Moore, Will Moy, Carla Buzasi, {{wpl|Paul Staines|Paul Staines}}, {{wpl|Keir Starmer|Keir Starmer}}, Helen Belcher, Pam Surphlis<ref name="Hearings list" />
:Thursday 9 February - {{wpl|Darryn Lyons|Darryn Lyons}}, {{wpl|Ian Edmondson|Ian Edmondson}}, {{wpl|Heather Mills|Heather Mills}}, Michelle Stanistreet, {{wpl|Max Clifford|Max Clifford}}, {{wpl|Paul Dacre|Paul Dacre}} (recalled)<ref name="Hearings list" />
:Wednesday 9 May - DCI Brendan Gilmour, Temporary Assistant Chief Constable (T/ACC) Russell Middleton, Martin Clarke<ref name="Hearings list" />

==The Beginning of the End.  No, the End of the Middle. No, the Beginning of the End of the Middle, with a lot more to come==

As required under Rule 13 of the Inquiry Rules 2006 Lord Justice Leveson published a letter detailing his criticisms as findings of the inquiry to all those facing criticism, giving each party a right to reply to the criticisms before publication of the report pertaining to Part 1 of the inquiry.  The letter, over a hundred pages long, and in theory being confidential has, nonetheless, had various details about it leaked.  Amongst these details are:

{{quotebox|It throws the book at the industry. The best way I can describe it is he's loading a gun, and this document&hellip;is all the ammunition. And believe you me, there is plenty of ammunition, you read the ammunition and you just gulp.<ref name=loading>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/29/leveson-letter-press-chris-blackhurst?INTCMP=SRCH Leveson 'loading a gun' against papers, warns Independent's editor]</ref>}}

{{quotebox|It is excoriating<ref name=loading />}}

and that:

{{quotebox|Presented as an overall picture, it is a damning indictment of my industry<ref name=loading />}}

A number of arrests have also been made in regards to the phone hacking scandal, with 25 alone being made in relation to Operation Weeting.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/31/former-now-legal-chief-denies-phone-hacking?INTCMP=SRCH Former NoW legal chief Tom Crone denies involvement in phone hacking]</ref>

==Press regulation after Leveson==
Since the 1990s, the British press was in theory regulated by the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), which was funded and had its terms of operation decided by the newspaper industry. In the wake of Leveson, this was closed down and replaced by a new press industry regulator, IPSO. The PCC had some authority to criticise the press, particularly in the area of intrusive and unethical behaviour by reporters, but some newspapers (notably Richard Desmond's ''[[Daily Express]]'' and ''Daily Star'') had refused to acknowledge its authority - which in any case didn't extend beyond producing critical judgments to anything like fines or other interference with selling papers.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/mar/08/press-complaints-commission-close-phone-hacking Press Complaints Commission to close in wake of phone-hacking scandal], The Guardian, 8 March 2012</ref>

In theory an effective regulator would be good for everyone. Newspapers wouldn't have to defend lots of expensive libel actions, and members of the public would be able to get corrections without spending huge sums of money on a lawyer. And the public would benefit from a press that was more accurate and fairer. The Leveson inquiry had set out criteria for a press regulator, which both the PCC and IPSO failed to meet. Leveson proposed that a newspaper which did not have an approved regulator would be at a serious disadvantage when it came to assessing legal costs for libel cases, being forced to pay all the fees of complainants regardless of who won the case. To avoid this, a newspaper would need a regulator compliant with Leveson's recommendations.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/nov/29/leveson-inquiry-report-qanda How Lord Leveson's proposed regulatory system would work], The Guardian, 29 Nov 2012</ref> IPSO failed on several grounds: lack of independence, lack of transparency, failure to allow equal membership to all would-be members, not following the Leveson definition of public interest reporting, and more.<ref>[https://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/ipso-continues-to-fail-most-leveson-recommendations-finds-media-standards-trust IPSO continues to fail most Leveson recommendations, finds Media Standards Trust], Transparency Project, Nov 7, 2019</ref> Leveson initially proposed that OFCOM, the state media regulator with power over areas including commercial television, would approve a regulator, but in a compromise it was agreed that a panel appointed by the Privy Council (a group of politicians which advises the Queen) would instead judge if a regulator was "Leveson compliant" and award it a Royal Charter.<ref name=parliament2015>[https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/key-issues-parliament-2015/media/press-regulation/ Press regulation after Leveson: Key issues for the 2015 Parliament], UK Parliament 2015</ref>

IPSO had slightly greater powers than the old PCC but not much. It had been largely conceived before the Leveson inquiry reported, in the wake of the growing scandal over press behaviour, and therefore did not meet the needs of Leveson.<ref>[https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/download/f02b748765eb80a3919a38da346716889e0474e29e37176ade7aff78e3dcfe11/153737/IPSO_CAMRI_Report_Online_SUMMARY.pdf Ipso: Regulator or Complaints Handler], University of Westminster</ref> Although slightly more independent, with the theoretical power to launch its own investigations and even to fine papers, since its launch IPSO has shown little inclination to use any of its powers. It refused to launch any meaningful action against the major newspaper groups that were the subject of most of its upheld complaints: News UK (''The Times'' and ''The Sun''), Associated (The ''[[Daily Mail]]''), Reach (''The Mirror'' and a lot of local newspapers), and (much smaller in circulation but equal in number of complaints) the ''Jewish Chronicle''.<ref>[https://bylinetimes.com/2021/08/04/will-the-independent-press-standards-organisation-ever-uphold-any-standards/ Will the Independent Press Standards Organisation Ever Uphold Any Standards?], Byline Times, 4 August 2021</ref><ref>[https://bylinetimes.com/2021/09/24/the-ipso-jewish-chronicle-car-crash-just-gets-worse/ The IPSO Jewish Chronicle Car Crash Just Gets Worse], Byline Times, 24 September 2021</ref>

In addition to Ipso, another regulator was set up, called Impress, which did comply with the Leveson findings and was awarded the Royal Charter. It was funded not by the newspapers but largely by donors, including press privacy campaigner {{wpl|Max Mosley||,}} author [[J.K. Rowling]], and a charitable trust, the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust.<ref name=parliament2015/><ref>[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37758497 First official UK press regulator, Impress, approved], BBC, 25 Oct 2016</ref> However it proved much less popular with the newspaper industry, only regulating a few small, independent publishers, including investigative publications Belingcat and The Ferret, but none of the major national newspapers.<ref>[https://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2019/09/26/press-regulator-impress-seeks-enhanced-role-the-champion-independent-publishers Press regulator Impress seeks enhanced role as the champion of independent publishers], The Drum, 26 September 2019</ref>

Other newspapers chose their own systems of regulation: the ''[[Guardian]]'' has a Readers' Editor, appointed by the paper's owners but supposed to be independent; the ''Financial Times'' and ''Independent'' also set up their own complaints procedures, while others like ''[[Private Eye]]'' did nothing.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/info/2013/sep/23/guardian-readers-editor Guardian global readers' editor], The Guardian, 23 Sept 2013</ref><ref>[https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/data-protection-and-journalism/complaining-about-a-media-organisation-that-is-not-a-member-of-ipso-or-impress/ Complaining about a media organisation that is not a member of IPSO or IMPRESS], Information Commissioner's Office (UK)</ref>

The "Section 40" provisions, which would force newspapers to pay costs in a libel case even if they won unless they signed up to an approved regulator, proved very controversial. In theory this would encourage newspapers to sign up to a regulator, but organisations including Index on Censorship complained, saying that the rules would allow malicious libel actions to bankrupt newspapers. While it was passed in parliament, the rule was never brought into force, and the Conservative Party decided they would rather do without it.<ref>[https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/conservatives-repeat-pledge-to-scrap-section-40-cost-penalties-on-newspapers/ Conservatives repeat pledge to scrap Section 40 cost penalties on newspapers], Press Gazette, 25 November 2019</ref><ref>[https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2017/01/section-40-crime-courts-act-2013/ What is Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013?], Index on Censorship, 2017</ref> Those of a [[conspiracy theory|conspiratorial]] bent have noted that the government minister in charge of press regulation at this critical period was the Culture Secretary John Whittingdale (previously chair of the parliamentary Culture, Media and Sport Committee), a man who had for some time been dating a professional dominatrix, a fact which was known to all the major newspaper groups but which they were curiously reluctant to reveal. You might hypothesize that Whittingdale was being blackmailed by the press in exchange for the cover-up, but we will never know.<ref>[https://byline.com/2016/04/10/the-real-whittingdale-scandal-cover-up-by-the-press/ The Real Whittingdale Scandal: Cover Up By The Press], James Cusick, ''Byline'', April 10, 2016</ref>

==Leveson part 2==

There was supposed to be a separate part 2 of Leveson, looking at the relationship between the press and the [[police]], such as sharing of information and payments by newspapers to the police. However successive Conservative Governments decided they didn't want to proceed with this, and it never happened.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/mar/01/leveson-2-explained-what-was-it-meant-to-achieve Leveson 2 explained: what was it meant to achieve?], The Guardian, 1 Mar 2018</ref>

==''Dramatis personæ''==
{|
|
===Inquiry team===
====Chairman====
The {{wpl|Brian Leveson|Right Honourable Lord Justice Leveson}}

====Assessors====
A panel of six people who will work alongside the Chairman on the inquiry:
* {{wpl|David Bell (publisher)|Sir David Bell}}
* {{wpl|Shami Chakrabarti|Shami Chakrabarti}}
* {{wpl|David Currie, Baron Currie of Marylebone|Lord Currie}}
* {{wpl|Elinor Goodman|Elinor Goodman}}
* {{wpl|George Jones (journalist)|George Jones}}
* {{wpl|Paul Scott-Lee|Sir Paul Scott-Lee QPM}}

====Counsel to inquiry====
* Robert Jay {{wpl|QC|QC}}<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/apr/22/robert-jay-leveson-rupert-murdoch?INTCMP=SRCH "Robert Jay, Leveson's forensic inquirer, prepares to face Rupert Murdoch"]</ref>
* David Barr
* Toby Fisher
* Carine Patry Hoskins
* William Irwin
* Josephine Norris
|
===Core participants===

* Associated Newspapers Ltd
* Guardian News and Media Ltd
* The Metropolitan Police
* National Union of Journalists.
* News International
* Northern and Shell Network Ltd
* Victims
* Telegraph Media Group
* Trinity Mirror

In January 2012 Surrey Police were added to the list of Core Participants.<ref>http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/about/core-participants/</ref>
|

===Victims===

* {{wpl|Sky Andrew|Sky Andrew}}, sports agent
* {{wpl|Calum Best|Calum Best}}, model and celebrity
* {{wpl|Tim Blackstone|Tim Blackstone}}
* {{wpl|Chris Bryant|Chris Bryant}} MP
* {{wpl|Charlotte Church|Charlotte Church}}, singer
* {{wpl|Max Clifford|Max Clifford}}, 
parasite
 publicist
* {{wpl|Anne Diamond|Anne Diamond}}, television presenter
* {{wpl|Milly Dowler|Sally Dowler}}, mother of Milly Dowler
* {{wpl|Milly Dowler|Bob Dowler}}, father of Milly Dowler
* {{wpl|Milly Dowler|Gemma Dowler}}, sister of Milly Dowler
* {{wpl|Kieron Fallon|Kieron Fallon}}, professional jockey
* {{wpl|Mary-Ellen Field|Mary-Ellen Field}}, former advisor to {{wpl|Elle Macpherson|Elle Macpherson}}
* Gary Flitcroft, former footballer
* {{wpl|Paul Gascoigne|Paul Gascoigne}}, former footballer
* {{wpl|Sheryl Gascoigne|Sheryl Gascoigne}}, ex-wife of Paul Gascoigne
* {{wpl|Hugh Grant|Hugh Grant}}, actor
* {{wpl|Shobna Gulati|Shobna Gulati}}, actress, writer
* {{wpl|Jacqui Hames|Jacqui Hames}}, former police officer and {{wpl|Crimewatch|Crimewatch}} presenter
* HJK, anonymous witness
|
* {{wpl|Mike Hollingsworth (TV executive)|Mike Hollingsworth}}, TV executive
* {{wpl|Simon Hughes}} MP
* Ian Hurst (aka {{wpl|Martin Ingram|Martin Ingram}}) former army intelligence officer
* Ben Jackson, personal assistant to {{wpl|Jude Law|Jude Law}}
* Christopher Jefferies, former landlord of {{wpl|Joanna Yeates|Joanna Yeates}}
* {{wpl|Ulrika Jonsson|Ulrika Jonsson}}, television presenter
* {{wpl|Tessa Jowell|Tessa Jowell}}, MP
* {{wpl|Mark Lewis (solicitor)|Mark Lewis}}, solicitor
* {{wpl|Denis MacShane|Denis MacShane}}, MP
* {{wpl|Gerry McCann|Gerry McCann}}, father of {{wpl|Madeleine McCann|Madeleine McCann}}
* {{wpl|Kate McCann|Kate McCann}}, mother of Madeleine McCann
* {{wpl|Michele Milburn|Michele Milburn}}, theatrical agent
* {{wpl|David Mills (lawyer)|David Mills}}, estranged husband of former Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell
* {{wpl|Sienna Miller|Sienna Miller}}, actress
* {{wpl|Max Mosley|Max Mosley}}, former president of the {{wpl|Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile|FIA}}
* {{wpl|Mark Oaten|Mark Oaten}}, former [[Liberal Democrats|Liberal Democrat]] MP
* {{wpl|Brian Paddick|Brian Paddick}}, [[Liberal Democrats|Liberal Democrat]] politician and former senior police officer
* {{wpl|Ciara Parkes|Ciara Parkes}}, publicist
* {{wpl|John Prescott|The Rt Hon Lord Prescott of Kingston upon Hull}}, former deputy prime minister
|
* {{wpl|Tom Rowland|Tom Rowland}}, freelance journalist
* {{wpl|J. K. Rowling|JK Rowling}}, author
* {{wpl|Valatina Semenenko|Valatina Semenenko}}, artist
* {{wpl|Ashvini Sharma|Ashvini Sharma}}, former Air India chief executive
* {{wpl|Graham Shear|Graham Shear}}, lawyer
* {{wpl|Christopher Shipman|Christopher Shipman}}, son of the late {{wpl|Harold Shipman|Harold Shipman}}
* {{wpl|Joan Smith|Joan Smith}}, journalist
* {{wpl|Abi Titmuss|Abi Titmuss}}, celebrity & video star
* Mark Thomson, lawyer
* James Watson, father of stabbing victim Diane Watson
* Margaret Watson, mother of Diane Watson
* {{wpl|Jane Winter|Jane Winter}}, Northern Ireland human rights charity boss
* {{wpl|Claire Ward|Claire Ward}}, former [[Labour Party|Labour]] MP<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14917056 Hacking inquiry: Core participant status for dozens]</ref>
|
|}

==References==
{{reflist|3|80%}}
[[Category:United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Media]]

Categories: United Kingdom, Media