The allegations of illegal mobile phone hacking by the News of the World should have shocked no one.
In July last year, I commented Max Mosley's privacy action against the News of the World.
In a little publicised section of the judgement Counsel for Mosley, James Price Q.C.,was cross examining Colin Myler, the paper's editor.
You can still read the judgement here, (pdf). The importance of paragraphs 82 -87 seem to have been missed.
There's no need to go over the facts of Mosley's case, but at this part of the judgement, Price is interested in how the witnesses to Mosley's sex sessions were persuaded to cooperate with the paper. He, Price, suggests that they were blackmailed.
Q This was a naked threat, wasn’t it, Mr Myler?
A I think it could be interpreted as a threat. I’m not so sure …
Q Come on, Mr Myler, please.
A Well, clearly it could be interpreted as a threat, but I think by this time the girls who took part would have known that the News of the World had the photographs anyway.
Q What’s it called when you threaten to reveal publicly the identity of somebody who has done something embarrassing which they do not wish to become public unless they cooperate with you? What’s it called?
A I think you know what it’s called. You’re talking about the potential use of blackmail.
Q I am.
Later, Price cross examines the paper's chief reporter,Neville Thurlbeck. This time the wretched Thurlbeck was at the end of a devastating intervention by Mr Justice Eady.
Q Let’s be direct about this. There is a clear threat here that if they don’t cooperate they will expose them in the News of the World?
A No, I don’t accept that. I think there was a clear choice here but there was no attempt to threaten them.
Q Let’s get this straight. If the blackmailer says to the victim, ‘Either you pay up or I’ll put your picture in the newspaper’ he’s offering him a very fair choice?
A No.
Q There’s no threat?
A No, because I’m asking for something here. Your example states that I’m asking for something in return for issuing a threat.
Q Yes, indeed you are.
A No, I’m offering to give them something. I’m offering to pay them money for an anonymous interview. I’m offering to pay them, not to take anything from them, so in that sense I’m not blackmailing them at all. That thought never crossed my mind. I’m offering them a choice.”
Q Let’s be direct about this. There is a clear threat here that if they don’t cooperate they will expose them in the News of the World?
A No, I don’t accept that. I think there was a clear choice here but there was no attempt to threaten them.
Q Let’s get this straight. If the blackmailer says to the victim, ‘Either you pay up or I’ll put your picture in the newspaper’ he’s offering him a very fair choice?
A No.
Q There’s no threat?
A No, because I’m asking for something here. Your example states that I’m asking for something in return for issuing a threat.
Q Yes, indeed you are.
A No, I’m offering to give them something. I’m offering to pay them money for an anonymous interview. I’m offering to pay them, not to take anything from them, so in that sense I’m not blackmailing them at all. That thought never crossed my mind. I’m offering them a choice.”
Mr Justice Eady.
And that was precisely what the News of the World had done!
The most interesting part of today's Guardian allegations is just why our prosecuting authorities dropped a prima facie case of criminal activity by the News of the World.
But it's equally difficult to understand why the allegations of blackmail made against the paper's editor and chief reporter were not followed through!
Difficult to understand? Perhaps they just didn't want to be on the wrong side of the most powerful man in the country!
Posted by: Peter Harvey | 10 July 2009 at 10:47 AM