(4.14 pm)
15 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank you very much indeed, Mr Dacre.
16 I'm sorry you've been inconvenienced, but I'm sure you
17 understand why. Thank you.
18 MR PAUL DACRE (recalled)
19 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Right, yes.
20 Questions by MR SHERBORNE
21 MR SHERBORNE: Good afternoon, Mr Dacre.
22 Can I begin by taking a minute to explain why you're
23 back here, as there may be some misunderstanding about
24 it, given some of the reporting. As you know, the
25 reason is not, and I repeat not, because of some sort of
88
1 personal score between you and your newspaper on the one
2 hand and Mr Grant on the other. That's obviously not of
3 primary interest to the Inquiry. You understand that,
4 don't you?
5 A. (Nods head).
6 Q. And this is really about the bigger picture, as it were.
7 Can I start then by telling you what I'm not going to
8 deal with? I'm not going to deal with the events
9 surrounding the reporting of the birth of Mr Grant's
10 child, how journalists obtained private information from
11 the registry office and so on --
12 MR CAPLAN: It's very clear the two topics that are going to
13 be dealt with. We raised it in front of you yesterday.
14 They are the two topics which were raised with you, and
15 I'm sorry to say but Mr Sherborne is rehearsing other
16 topics which never were in the purview of this further
17 evidence.
18 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I think the probable answer,
19 Mr Sherborne, is to just crack on with the two topics.
20 MR SHERBORNE: I am going to deal with the article about the
21 "plummy-voiced woman" that was published by
22 Associated Newspapers in February of 2007.
23 Can we begin with the article itself? We've
24 prepared a small bundle of documents for you; none of
25 them should be a surprise. Do you have a copy of that
89
1 bundle, Mr Dacre?
2 A. Yes, right.
3 Q. You should find at tab 2, I think, page 13, although you
4 may, I think, have taken the article itself out of that
5 bundle, you may have a separate copy of it, but if you
6 could find a copy of that article, page 13, and can you
7 see there's the sub-headline on the right-hand side
8 talking about the flirtation with the glamorous film
9 executive?
10 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Mr Sherborne, do I have a copy of
11 this?
12 MR SHERBORNE: I would hope that your Lordship does.
13 I don't know, sir, whether you have the bundles that
14 were prepared by the Inquiry --
15 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I have the bundle prepared by the
16 Inquiry.
17 MR SHERBORNE: It should be in that bundle. If you give me
18 a moment, I can find which tab. I'm sorry, I've already
19 handed my copy of the little bundle we prepared for
20 Mr Dacre away. I think you will find it --
21 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I'm keen to follow what you're
22 asking, that's all.
23 MR SHERBORNE: And I'm keen that you're able to follow it as
24 well, sir. I think it's probably an exhibit to the
25 witness statement of Mr Grant, is it? To the second
90
1 supplementary statement. You see, I'm not sure you will
2 have that in your bundle. Can I hand up a copy?
3 I think I have a spare copy somewhere that I can hand
4 up. I have a very marked copy. (Handed).
5 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I can ignore the markings as long as
6 I can follow what's going on. Thank you. Right.
7 MR SHERBORNE: The real thrust of the story that we're
8 concerned about is to be found, Mr Dacre, in about four
9 paragraphs in the third column. Do you see?
10 A. Yeah.
11 Q. Starting with:
12 "Jemima has become convinced her 46-year-old
13 boyfriend is involved with a glamorous, young
14 Cambridge-educated film executive."
15 Now --
16 A. Yes, fine, got it here.
17 Q. I'm grateful. We don't have much time, so can
18 I summarise those four paragraphs. I think there's one
19 at the top there, then there's a second one and then
20 there's -- you can miss out the following ones because
21 they're about Drew Barrymore, and then the theme is
22 picked up again with the paragraph "But the truth is
23 Jemima was far more concerned".
24 Can I summarise those paragraphs in this way and see
25 if you accept it: there are two outstanding feature to
91
1 this story. One is the repeated reference to Mr Grant's
2 use of mobile phones and mobile phone contacts between
3 him and this woman, and the second outstanding feature
4 is the repeated reference to the fact that this woman,
5 with whom he's accused of having a flirtation, sounded
6 posh or plummy. Would you take that from me?
7 A. Yes, that's a very rough and ready shorthand version of
8 it, yes.
9 Q. There are no fewer, I think, than eight references to
10 phones or phoning, and three or four references to this
11 other woman having a plummy voice of some description in
12 those four paragraphs. You see my point, Mr Dacre, is
13 this, that the clear emphasis of this story is on the
14 telephone contact that was taking place with this other
15 woman and what she sounded like. Do you follow?
16 A. I'd rather put my own word on it. What are you going to
17 ask me, please?
18 Q. Do you accept that those are the two outstanding
19 features --
20 A. No, no, I mean this is three or four paragraphs in
21 a 2,000-word piece, so I can't really accept that that's
22 the summary.
23 Q. But in relation to what is said about this film
24 executive, who, it is said, destroyed the relationship
25 between Jemima Khan and Hugh Grant, will you accept
92
1 those are the two key features?
2 A. No, I won't. I'd rather you ask me questions and I will
3 answer them. I'm not going to characterise them using
4 your words.
5 Q. Do you want me to take you through the article and show
6 you each and every reference to a phone and a plummy
7 voice?
8 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I don't think it matters,
9 Mr Sherborne. I think that I can read the article in
10 its entirety and I would like the whole of the article
11 so that I can read it, and then I will make a decision,
12 if it's important, about the points that you're making,
13 but they come out of the article rather than anything
14 else, don't they?
15 MR SHERBORNE: They do, sir, yes.
16 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Right.
17 MR SHERBORNE: Let's deal with what we know, Mr Dacre. We
18 know that no such woman as described in your article
19 existed, don't we?
20 A. Firstly, let me just put it in some kind of context.
21 This article was in the Mail on Sunday, all right? It
22 has its own autonomous editor, as I made clear to the
23 Inquiry earlier in the week, and I think you already
24 spent a great deal of time with our legal director and,
25 indeed, him discussing this. I, however, am now
93
1 prepared to talk about it.
2 I think the central thing we have to say about this,
3 whatever is in the article and whatever is in those four
4 paragraphs, we admitted at the time we got it wrong, we
5 paid your client modest damages, so in that sense
6 anything referring to this article, it's already been
7 acceded that it's wrong.
8 Q. Exactly. It's been conceded that there was no such
9 executive at Warner Brothers --
10 A. And at the time we conceded it was wrong, Mr Hugh Grant
11 insisted that he didn't know at all any woman of this
12 description, and that was the basis on which our
13 settlement was made.
14 Q. Why do you say that, Mr Dacre?
15 A. Well, because that's what happened.
16 Q. Isn't it right, Mr Dacre, that at the time that he
17 complained about this article, he did refer to
18 a personal assistant --
19 A. No, I don't think so. At that time he insisted that he
20 knew of no such woman and that no woman existed of that
21 kind.
22 Q. Can I hand you up a letter before action that was sent
23 by his solicitors --
24 MR CAPLAN: I'm sorry to interrupt. This is exactly the
25 type of situation I wanted to forestall yesterday,
94
1 putting in documents which Mr Dacre hasn't seen and he's
2 now being shown for the first time while giving his
3 evidence. That was the whole point of agreeing that any
4 further documentation would come to Mr Dacre by
5 lunchtime yesterday so that if any further research was
6 needed to be done, he needed to acquaint himself with
7 any archived information, he could do so.
8 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: All right. I'm not sure it's going
9 to help. I don't mind seeing a letter, I don't think
10 it's necessarily appropriate to put it to Mr Dacre
11 because it's going to a slightly different issue.
12 MR SHERBORNE: Well, it is, because what Mr Dacre is
13 suggesting is that Mr Grant didn't make any point about
14 this at this time. That's what I was dealing with. It
15 wasn't meant to be part of the examination of Mr Dacre,
16 but I'll move on.
17 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: All right, yes.
18 MR SHERBORNE: So you accepted, as part of the settlement,
19 that there was no such woman at Warner Brothers;
20 correct?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Correct. What we do know now, because we've had
23 a statement from Patricia Owens, who was the
24 plummy-voiced film production company assistant that
25 Mr Grant referred to in his evidence, who was leaving
95
1 messages for him at the time, we do know that there was
2 that person, don't we?
3 A. Well, I repeat, in our settlement at that time, it is my
4 understanding that Mr Grant's position was that he knew
5 no woman of any kind as described in this piece.
6 For the life of me, I can't understand the
7 consistency of your argument. Seems to me you're saying
8 that the true woman that eventually he realised we're
9 referring to, even though he hadn't remembered at the
10 time of our settlement, at this Inquiry, hey presto, he
11 conveniently remembers that it could have been, it could
12 have been a plummy-voiced woman in California, a PA of
13 middle age. If we'd been hacking into his phone, why,
14 in this article, even though we've said it wasn't true
15 and it accepted it wasn't true, why was the woman who
16 referred to a Cheltenham Ladies School educated lady
17 who'd been to Cambridge, she was now a senior executive
18 at Warners in London. It doesn't make sense, with all
19 possible respect.
20 Q. I really don't have a lot of time, Mr Dacre, so I'd
21 prefer it, if you can, to restrict your answers to the
22 questions that I've put to you as opposed to questions
23 that I might put to you. So can we come back to my
24 question: have you seen Ms Owens' witness statement or
25 not?
96
1 A. This is the PA in California?
2 Q. This is the executive assistant in the film production
3 company in California, yes.
4 A. Yes, I've seen that, yes.
5 Q. And you've seen that she confirms that she was leaving
6 messages late at night about meetings and that they
7 might have been understood by someone who had been
8 listening in, who didn't know the context, as being
9 a bit flirtatious, a bit jokey. You've seen she said
10 that, yes?
11 A. Mm.
12 Q. Okay, so we know there was no woman at Warner Brothers,
13 there was no source to this story, but there does happen
14 to have been a woman who was leaving messages at the
15 time on Mr Grant's phone; correct?
16 A. That is what you are saying, yes. I am saying that, as
17 editor-in-chief of Associated Newspapers, who had looked
18 into this matter -- I wasn't the editor of the paper
19 concerned -- I've spoken to the editor who assures me --
20 and I know what you're trying to say, that he was using
21 phone hacking. He categorically denies it, as I
22 categorically denied it the other day. He assures me
23 that this piece was obtained by legitimate journalistic
24 methods. He has explained to you and it's been
25 explained to this Inquiry that the author of the piece,
97
1 Katie Nicholl, the diary editor of the Mail on Sunday,
2 wrote this piece drawing on evidence provided to her by
3 Sharon Feinstein, a long-time, very experienced senior
4 showbusiness writer expert, who in turn drew some of her
5 material from a source in the Grant camp, who she had
6 used before and had always found to be impeccably
7 accurate. In this instance it wasn't, and that was the
8 basis of this article, or these three paragraphs in the
9 article.
10 Q. Mr Dacre, we're going to get through this much quicker
11 if you just answer my questions.
12 A. I can't --
13 Q. I promise you there'll be plenty of time to make the
14 points that you want to make.
15 So let's come back to the details which you say
16 don't quite match the description of Ms Owens in the
17 article, because I think you mentioned one or two in one
18 of your previous answers. Let's take them very quickly
19 in turn, if I may.
20 You say that the woman in the article is said to
21 work for Warner Brothers and Mrs Owens doesn't work for
22 Warner Brothers. That's right? Well, technically she
23 doesn't, but you accept, don't you, Mr Dacre, that she
24 does work with a production company associated with
25 Warner Brothers that was making a film --
98
1 A. I've no idea.
2 Q. -- with Mr Grant at the time.
3 A. Frankly, I have absolutely no idea and I don't know what
4 you're trying get at, I really honestly don't, with
5 great respect.
6 Q. Rather than look at what I'm trying to get at, why don't
7 you answer the question, Mr Dacre? Have you read her
8 statement in which she says exactly what I just put to
9 you?
10 A. I haven't got it to hand. I did read it a couple of
11 nights ago. I can't actually recall the exact --
12 Q. You read it a couple of nights ago?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You didn't read it today at all?
15 A. I know this may astonish you, but I'm editor-in-chief of
16 a major publishing group, I've had major board meetings,
17 I've had very considerable staffing issues to do and I'm
18 trying to edit my paper. So yes, I read it two nights
19 ago, but I have actually done some homework today on
20 this subject.
21 Q. So what I'm putting to you, Mr Dacre, is that although
22 she didn't work for Warner Brothers, she did work for a
23 film production company associated with Warner Brothers.
24 Do you just accept that?
25 A. If you say it's in the statement, I will accept it.
99
1 Q. Indeed. And the other point you make, and Ms Hartley
2 makes in, I think, one of her statements, is that
3 Mrs Owens is not a senior executive in the film
4 industry. That's one of your points as well, as is
5 described in the article.
6 A. Yeah, okay, then.
7 Q. But you do accept, don't you, that she was executive
8 assistant to the president of the film production
9 company? Will you accept that?
10 A. Is this in her statement?
11 Q. Yes.
12 A. I must take your assurance for it then.
13 Q. The one point you mentioned only moments ago is you say
14 that the woman in the article is described as having
15 been educated at Cheltenham's Ladies College in
16 Cambridge, whereas Mrs Owens wasn't. That's your point,
17 isn't it?
18 A. It says in the article, that she was, yes, that the lady
19 who we accepted didn't exist, and who Mr Grant said
20 didn't exist, and we accepted we got it wrong and paid
21 modest damages.
22 Q. Mr Owens tells us in her statement that she obviously is
23 English, she was educated at college in Surrey and,
24 critically, she has what people might describe as a posh
25 or plummy voice.
100
1 A. But it didn't originally -- it didn't exist originally
2 when we paid the damages, the modest damages to
3 Mr Grant.
4 Q. I think the last point that is made by
5 Associated Newspapers trying to distance itself from
6 Mrs Owens is that the article itself doesn't mention any
7 voicemail messages. Do you remember Ms Hartley said
8 that?
9 A. Mm.
10 Q. Can I just deal with that point? There are two answers
11 to that, aren't there, Mr Dacre? First is this: you
12 wouldn't expect the article to mention voicemails
13 explicitly, would you, even if they'd been listened to?
14 A. I don't know where this conversation is leading to,
15 Mr Sherborne, but --
16 Q. If you can just answer the questions, maybe we'll get to
17 where it's leading much quicker.
18 A. I've told you already that this lady, either of your
19 ladies, Mr Grant denied existed when we paid him
20 damages. At this Inquiry, he suddenly, hey presto, out
21 of a hat produces a rabbit that it must have been this
22 lady.
23 Q. Will you answer my question now?
24 A. Sorry, could you remind me what it was?
25 Q. Of course I can.
101
1 A. Yeah.
2 Q. Isn't the answer to your suggestion that there is no
3 reference in this article to voicemail messages at all
4 that you wouldn't expect there to be because, of course,
5 listening to voicemail messages is a criminal offence?
6 A. Well, clearly, yes, Mr Sherborne.
7 Q. And it's precisely the answer that there's no reference
8 to voicemail messages here that Mr Mohan gave when he
9 was recalled on Tuesday to deal with similar pieces in
10 the Sun which looked like the product of phone hacking.
11 Did you hear his evidence?
12 A. I didn't hear his editor -- his evidence, and I deeply
13 resent your comparison to my paper.
14 Q. You see, isn't the truth this, as Mr Jay put to
15 Mr Mohan, and I'll quote him faithfully:
16 "The article doesn't refer to voicemails, but there
17 is a lot of information in it obtained in or around
18 knowing what is happening in telephone calls, isn't
19 there?"
20 A. I can't answer this question. I don't understand it,
21 I don't know where you're getting to. I'm not prepared
22 to comment on Mr Mohan's evidence. I haven't read it,
23 I haven't examined it --
24 Q. I'm not asking you --
25 A. -- and I don't -- I don't see --
102
1 Q. -- to comment on Mr Mohan's evidence.
2 A. -- I don't see the relevance to this -- the three
3 paragraphs in this article, with the greatest of
4 respect.
5 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I understand the point, Mr Sherborne,
6 but actually you're simply asking Mr Dacre to comment,
7 and this is really a speech, with respect.
8 MR SHERBORNE: What I'm asking Mr Dacre to do is to consider
9 the source of this article, because what I'm going to
10 come on to do is to ask him about how he was able to
11 publish the statement that he did on 22 November that
12 Mr Grant (overspeaking) --
13 A. I did not publish it! It was in the Mail on Sunday, it
14 was the Mail on Sunday --
15 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: No, no, Mr Dacre, actually I think
16 this article you did.
17 A. Oh, we've moved on? I apologise, I apologise to you.
18 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I understand the point, but it's very
19 important that Mr Dacre be asked to deal with the facts
20 and then you can argue the inferences to such extent as
21 it matters and we can do that at leisure.
22 MR SHERBORNE: You see, Mr Dacre, the short point is this
23 isn't it a coincidence that at the very time of this
24 article --
25 A. Which article are we talking about now?
103
1 Q. The one that should still be --
2 A. Not in the Sun?
3 Q. The one that should still be in front of you.
4 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I think everything is back to the
5 Mail on Sunday.
6 A. Right. So, as I said, not an article I placed in the
7 paper.
8 MR SHERBORNE: I understand that, but you have explained now
9 more than once that you've investigated it and that
10 you've had people investigate these matters for the
11 purposes of the statement that was put out in November
12 of last year.
13 So perhaps I can ask you again: isn't it a bit much
14 of a coincidence that at the very time of this article
15 about the flirtation with a posh film industry woman
16 that there was a plummy-voiced Englishwoman, who was an
17 executive assistant in the film industry, who was
18 leaving Mr Grant silly or flirtatious messages on his
19 voicemail late at night about meeting up about a Warner
20 Brothers film? Do you understand what I mean by that?
21 A. I'm not going to comment on coincidences.
22 Q. But in these circumstances, Mr Dacre, can you honestly
23 be 100 per cent certain, having looked into it, that
24 this story was not based on information which had
25 somehow been accessed from Mr Grant's voicemails?
104
1 A. I can be as confident as any editor, having made
2 extensive enquiries into his newspaper's practices and
3 held an inquiry, that phone hacking was not practised by
4 the Daily Mail or the Mail on Sunday. You know that
5 because I gave my unequivocal, unequivocal assurances
6 earlier in this week.
7 Q. You see, Mr Mohan, the editor of the Sun -- you
8 mentioned other editors -- had to accept that he
9 couldn't be 100 per cent sure that none of his
10 journalists or freelancers -- remember this is
11 a freelance story -- that none of his journalists --
12 A. No, it was a freelance story that was written by a staff
13 person talking to senior freelancers, yes.
14 Q. That none of his journalists or freelancers hadn't
15 obtained any of their stories?
16 A. Yes, I can be very confident because those journalists
17 are journalists of integrity, we've used them in our
18 group for years and the source I have told you of
19 Ms Feinstein had been impeccably accurate in the past.
20 Q. And Mr Wallis also said he couldn't be sure.
21 A. I'm not going to speak for other newspapers. I will
22 speak for Associated Newspapers and I've told this
23 Inquiry, I cannot be any more unequivocal, that all my
24 enquiries and all the evidence I've received, and having
25 spoken to the editor of my group: our group did not hack
105
1 phones, and I rather resent your continued insinuations
2 that we did.
3 Q. Can we come on to Ms Khan? You'll remember that
4 Jemima Khan was forced to make a statement because when
5 you put out the press release in November of last year,
6 which contained the "mendacious smears" allegation, you
7 suggested that the source of the story had come from
8 Ms Khan herself. Do you remember that?
9 A. I didn't suggest, no.
10 Q. Do you want to have a look at the statement that, as
11 I understand it, you authorised being put out in
12 November.
13 A. What, in the paper?
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. I'm sorry, I thought you meant in our witness
16 statements. Yes, I recall, yes.
17 Q. And you've seen that she's sworn a statement denying
18 that she was the source?
19 A. But look, it is absolutely irrelevant. I'm sorry. We
20 got this bit of the story wrong. We apologised in open
21 court. We paid, we paid modest damages to rectify the
22 situation, very quickly, as it happens. Therefore
23 Ms Khan, much as I respect her, is swearing on a story
24 that we had conceded was wrong.
25 Q. But do you accept there are only two -- what I'm
106
1 concerned with is how you can have satisfied yourself so
2 that you could be 100 per cent sure, as you say you are,
3 that there was nothing tainted about the source of this
4 story. That's what I'm asking you about.
5 A. I told you, having spoken at length to the editor of the
6 Mail on Sunday, who has spoken to this Inquiry -- I'm
7 not quite sure why you didn't grill him as much on
8 this -- that I am satisfied that legitimate journalistic
9 methods were used to obtain the source for the basis of
10 these three paragraphs.
11 Q. But do you see why I ask you this, because there are
12 only two options, Mr Dacre.
13 A. I'm not going to speculate. I'm not going to be drawn
14 by your innuendo. I've made clear my position and I'm
15 not going to deviate from that.
16 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I'd like to ask a different question,
17 because I am not going to make a decision, I think,
18 about the precise source of this story. I am not going
19 to make a finding of any sort about where this story
20 came from. At least that's my present view.
21 The concern that I had and the only real concern
22 that I had was that Mr Grant came here and said --
23 I think he used the word "speculate", I think he meant
24 "infer", having had an idea that this might have come
25 from hacking. That's how he put it, and I think he
107
1 said, "I'd love to hear the different explanation."
2 A. Mm-hm.
3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: And you on behalf of the Mail were
4 absolutely entitled to say, "He can think, he can infer
5 what he wishes, he can think what he likes, he's
6 entitled to, but he's wrong. It didn't; it came from
7 another source." Fine. If that's what had been said,
8 then I for one would have pushed the whole thing away.
9 But the story that came out contained within it
10 "Mr Grant is guilty of a mendacious smear". He is
11 deliberately lying, that's what it means. In other
12 words, he's made a conscious decision, knowing perfectly
13 well it's not true, to say it on oath.
14 I was concerned about that word, that's all. For
15 me, that's the only thing here.
16 A. Could I then respond to that?
17 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Please.
18 A. This needs to be put in a context and I thought I'd done
19 some of it the other day and I'd like to amplify it, I'm
20 grateful for the time.
21 First of all, let's go back to that first day of the
22 Inquiry. It was an extraordinary occasion, an
23 extraordinary day. There's never been an inquiry like
24 this before, it was being televised, it was being beamed
25 around the world. It was a unique occasion.
108
1 Mr Grant, the poster boy for Hacked Off, is giving
2 evidence on the first day, an international film star.
3 He makes his allegation. It wasn't an innocent piece of
4 evidence; it had been drawn out of him by the Inquiry.
5 He makes it. He hadn't included it in his witness
6 statement. He knew, I would suggest, the damage it
7 would cause.
8 After all, allegations of phone hacking have closed
9 down a newspaper and has resulted in the loss of work by
10 hundreds and hundreds of journalists. It was explosive
11 and it was toxic and he, as a very sophisticated
12 communicator, he deals with the press all his life, knew
13 the damage it would cause.
14 What he omitted to tell this court, what he omitted
15 to tell you, was that he had made these allegations in
16 a much firmer form before and our legal department had
17 put him on notice that they were not accurate and that
18 we'd written to his representatives making that clear.
19 That is why I used the word "mendacious" statement.
20 I'd now like to take on the context of the actual
21 day. I think I explod -- I explained to you that I was
22 driving back from an appointment, the lead item on the
23 four o'clock news on the BBC was that another newspaper
24 group had been dragged into the phone hacking scandal.
25 Actor Hugh Grant had accused -- accused, not speculated,
109
1 not suggested, not inferred -- this is modern journalism
2 shorthand -- had been accused -- I'm sorry, had accused
3 my group of being involved in phone hacking. I cannot
4 tell you how damaging that was to our group.
5 But, as I said, he made this statement before so if
6 you just bear with me because it's very important. On
7 7 July 2011 Mr Grant told the House of Lords that the
8 Hacked Off -- at the launch of the Hacked Off campaign:
9 "Private investigator Glenn Mulcaire worked
10 70 per cent of his time for the News of the World and
11 30 per cent for the Daily Mail."
12 That is untrue and false. I have carried out
13 a major internal inquiry into our payments and our
14 computers. We have never paid any payments to
15 Mr Mulcaire. I repeat, Ms Hartley rang Mr Grant's
16 representative, told him of this, and denied that we as
17 a company hacked phones.
18 Then another quote, 6 July 2011:
19 "Well, according to Paul McMullan, the ex News of
20 the World features editor, who I interviewed
21 surreptitiously and I published the article in the
22 newspapers, he says it was every tabloid on Fleet Street
23 who were enthusiastic phone hackers, going right up to
24 the ones with the highest moral standards like the
25 Daily Mail" --
110
1 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Mr Dacre, I wouldn't go down this
2 particular route, because I'll make my own judgment
3 about the transcript of Mr McMullan's phone call. I'm
4 going to have to read that.
5 A. All right, but fair enough, but Mr McMullan told the
6 Inquiry later, as I'm sure you know, that he wasn't
7 referring to phone hacking in the Daily Mail, the fact
8 we were one the highest payers --
9 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I know. I know what he said and
10 I have to read --
11 A. Okay, well I just wish that Mr Grant had checked with
12 Mr McMullan as to what he meant. You've read that,
13 we've heard it, and it was certainly my hearing that he
14 rebutted quite satisfactorily that would suggest it was
15 dealing with phone hacking.
16 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: All right.
17 A. Number 3:
18 "We need a full public inquiry into all the methods
19 and cultures of the British tabloid press because one of
20 the things that will emerge is that it wasn't just the
21 News of the World; it was all the tabloids ..."
22 This is a man who's been put on notice by our legal
23 department that we deny this categorically.
24 "... including the ones that purport to have family
25 values, shorthand the Daily Mail, have been enthusiastic
111
1 and rabid phone hackers. That was an interview on the
2 Radio 4 World at One.
3 And lastly, this was to the Prime Minister, a report
4 in the Financial Times:
5 "The actor, meeting the Prime Minister for the first
6 time since the phone hacking scandal blew up over the
7 summer, said he 'knew for a fact' that 'six or seven
8 newspapers had been involved in phone hacking'."
9 Clearly that would by implication have included the
10 Daily Mail. That is untrue and false. So it was in
11 that background we'd already told him it wasn't true,
12 that we felt we had to respond even more robustly.
13 I say I'd heard that on the 4 o'clock news, I had
14 a consultation with my legal department, the editor of
15 the Mail on Sunday, we agreed that we'd tried to be
16 reasonable, we'd tried to explain to him that this was
17 not true and that we needed to fight fire with fire on
18 this.
19 Now, your Honour's made the very good point -- could
20 I have a glass of water?
21 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Please.
22 A. Your Honour made the point, rather than rushing out that
23 press statement -- and I want to explain in a minute,
24 I felt we had to be as robust as possible and fight fire
25 with fire because it was such a damaging accusation --
112
1 your Honour said, "Well look, why didn't you go back,
2 you know, listen to -- read the evidence and come out
3 with a more reasoned response?" I think you just
4 repeated that.
5 With the greatest possible respect, I don't think
6 you understand the speed of and the ability to set the
7 agenda and create a firestorm of 24-hourly bulletin
8 instant news. If we had allowed that to get traction,
9 it would have taken off. The implications for that
10 story would have gone down that the Daily Mail had been
11 accused of fucking -- of hacking phones. As it was, we
12 put that statement out, by the 6 o'clock television
13 news, the news which actually sets the agenda, a much
14 more balanced version was being presented using our very
15 strong rebuttal, high in the news, and it was no longer
16 leading the news, and we were happy with that balance.
17 That's why I felt we had to act in the robust way we
18 did.
19 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Mr Dacre, I might follow all that --
20 and I'm not taking this time off Mr Sherborne -- I might
21 follow all that and I could quite understand it, but
22 I raised the matter and I identified my concern, and
23 I can see the point you make, I understand that and I'll
24 look at the correspondence if you want me to look at it,
25 but even then, even weeks later when Ms Hartley gave
113
1 evidence and we went back onto the word "mendacious",
2 which is the only word in it which actually somebody is
3 going to argue to me is reflective of there isn't
4 a reverse gear here, there's only a forward gear,
5 Ms Hartley was abundantly clear that the Mail did not
6 retract that word or reduce the impact of that word at
7 all, and that's why I've been concerned about it.
8 A. I do understand that, I really do understand that, but
9 one of the definitions of the word "mendacious" is
10 "false", and I can't help but feel that in the context
11 of those four occasions when Mr Grant had slandered the
12 Daily Mail, and we'd made it clear to him that we hadn't
13 been up to the activities he was alleging, that he knew
14 it was false. He must have read our witness statements,
15 which we again repeated there was no phone hacking at
16 our group --
17 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I know what the argument is going to
18 be. The argument may be that this might easily have
19 come that way without necessarily the knowledge of the
20 writer of your article. I'm not going to resolve that
21 issue. I've tried to explain to you -- and I'm not
22 going to take the time off Mr Sherborne -- what bothered
23 me, what caused me to feel that it was right to allow
24 this issue to be ventilated, because it's whether
25 I derived something from it on the wider picture. I'm
114
1 not going to descend into the micro detail, because if
2 I did that, I would never finish in relation to every
3 single story for every single newspaper. It is, in any
4 event, part 2 of the Inquiry.
5 A. I accept the point your Honour makes.
6 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: All right.
7 MR CAPLAN: Could I just invite you to consider the time?
8 I understand that Mr Sherborne should have some more,
9 but before your conversation with Mr Dacre started, it
10 was 4.40 pm. I was about to --
11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: With great respect, Mr Caplan,
12 Mr Sherborne asked a question, Mr Dacre was very keen to
13 make quite a lengthy statement. I understand that, and
14 I wasn't going to stop him and Mr Sherborne didn't stop
15 him, but this is why I didn't tie it down. There has to
16 be the fair chance for Mr Sherborne to put what he wants
17 to put to him and I'm sorry, I understand the point but
18 I'm not going to let it just dribble away.
19 Right, yes, Mr Sherborne.
20 MR SHERBORNE: Perhaps I can return to my point. Very
21 quickly, can I deal with one thing, Mr Dacre.
22 In your investigations into this article, can you
23 explain whether you discovered the reason that no
24 contact was made with either Mr Grant or Jemima Khan
25 prior to the article being published?
115
1 A. I can't remember. Did it carry an answer from a quote,
2 a representative in the piece?
3 Q. It didn't. Mr Grant's already explained in his witness
4 statement there is no contact with either him or
5 Ms Khan. The reason I ask you is this: as you know,
6 you're well-known for having said to the Select
7 Committee in I think April 2009 that in 99 out of 100
8 cases newspapers contact the subject of a story prior to
9 it, and I'm asking you this, Mr Dacre. I hope you won't
10 disagree that that's what you said. I'm asking you
11 this: do you know the reason why contact was not made
12 with Ms Khan or Mr Grant prior to the article?
13 A. I don't want to be evasive. I don't know that it
14 wasn't. I know I perhaps should know that, but I don't
15 know that it wasn't.
16 MR CAPLAN: I'm not going to keep rising up, it's very
17 unattractive, but the paragraph says halfway through the
18 article "a spokesman for the couple would make no
19 comment".
20 A. Exactly, I thought I'd read that. Sorry.
21 MR SHERBORNE: In your settlement of this action, your
22 newspaper group agreed to the fact that no attempt was
23 made to contact either Mr Grant or Ms Khan prior to the
24 story being published.
25 A. Well --
116
1 Q. I'm simply --
2 A. -- I don't know whether it said that. I haven't seen
3 that, as --
4 Q. Mr Dacre, please let me get to the end of a question
5 before you answer it. Did you or did you not
6 investigate whether or not contact had been made and why
7 it was --
8 A. I will do what -- Mr Caplan just read out the relevant
9 quote which I just said "A spokesman for the couple
10 would make no comment on their relationship last night,
11 saying neither party is prepared to make a statement.
12 This is a private matter."
13 And that's quite high up in the copy so I'm very
14 happy that correct journalistic procedures were carried
15 out.
16 MR SHERBORNE: Rather than seeking the assistance of
17 Mr Caplan, perhaps I can take you to the small bundle
18 that is in front of you. Turn to tab 2, please. Can
19 you look at page 8.
20 A. You're not going to believe this, but I don't have
21 a tab 2. I have a tab 3.
22 Q. Let me hand you --
23 A. Hang on. Could it be this?
24 Q. Page 8. This is a statement which was read out with the
25 consent of your newspaper group. Two paragraphs up from
117
1 the bottom, can I read you this:
2 "At no stage were any of the above allegations or
3 factual assertions put to the claimant prior to
4 publication."
5 A. Yes, well, they clearly literally and technically
6 weren't. They went through his spokesman who said they
7 weren't prepared to comment.
8 Q. They weren't put to him and as Mr Grant has said they
9 weren't put to Ms Khan. Have you investigated that?
10 Rather than rely on Mr Caplan --
11 A. I'm not going to answer any more questions on this
12 particular point. We quite clearly state quite high up
13 in the copy that the journalist concerned put these
14 allegations to the spokesman for the couple and it
15 quotes that neither party -- she or he is quoted as
16 saying neither party is prepared to make a statement.
17 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Actually, that's not quite right,
18 Mr Dacre, because what the spokesman was asked about was
19 to comment on their relationship. That's the
20 relationship between Jemima Khan and Hugh Grant, not
21 whether or not Hugh Grant was speaking to a woman --
22 I'll look at the documentation.
23 A. It comes two paragraphs after that, with respect, your
24 Honour. On their relationship, comment on their
25 relationship, ie their relationship which was seemingly
118
1 under threat because of this mystery woman who didn't
2 exist when we put it to Mr Grant later --
3 MR SHERBORNE: The question is not whether you can read the
4 article, Mr Dacre. I asked you whether you investigated
5 this. Yes or no, please.
6 A. Yes, of course, I investigated it and I said to you
7 before Mr Caplan got up I thought a spokesman had spoken
8 to our newspaper.
9 MR SHERBORNE: You said you didn't know. You said you
10 didn't know.
11 Can I ask you this. This is all about Mr Grant's
12 belief, do you understand? Mr Grant's belief at the
13 time that he gave the evidence. Can I just remind you
14 of something? You said in one of the statements that
15 you made to Lord Justice Leveson a short while ago that
16 this was not referred to in Mr Grant's witness
17 statement. We know it was. Will you accept from me
18 that that was why Mr Jay asked him questions about the
19 plummy-voiced woman story?
20 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: All right.
21 MR SHERBORNE: Will you accept that?
22 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Let's move on. I'll see.
23 MR SHERBORNE: I can give you --
24 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: No, not know.
25 MR SHERBORNE: I can give you the note, sir, in the
119
1 statement, paragraph 17.
2 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank you very much indeed, I'll
3 certainly find that.
4 MR SHERBORNE: You see, Mr Grant made it clear that the
5 basis for his speculation as to whether the story might
6 have been the product of listening to his voicemails was
7 the fact, as I've explained, about the plummy-voiced
8 woman that he knew about and about what Mr McMullan said
9 to him, in the conversation that he taped without
10 Mr McMullan knowing it. Do you remember? Will you
11 accept now that that was his basis for the speculation?
12 A. I can accept that, but I find it very difficult in the
13 context of the previous statements he made in which we
14 had categorically refuted to his spokesman, sent him an
15 email, that he would know that that couldn't be so.
16 MR SHERBORNE: So you accept, though, that that was his
17 basis, that that was his honest basis for inferring that
18 there may have been some listening in to his voicemail?
19 A. I think Mr Grant was obsessed by trying to drag the
20 Daily Mail into another newspaper's scandal, and that
21 his strategy was to try to do that.
22 Q. Isn't this just an example, Mr Dacre, of attack being
23 the best form of defence?
24 A. With the greatest respect, you're attacking my group
25 rather unpleasantly and I'm going to defend it. I love
120
1 it, I've worked very hard for it for 20 years of my life
2 and I'm proud of our newspapers. When people attack
3 them, I defend them.
4 Q. You see, this is the point, Mr Dacre. If rather than
5 listen to what was put out on the radio you had actually
6 read the transcripts of what Mr Grant had said, you
7 would have realised that he was not attacking the
8 Daily Mail or the Mail on Sunday --
9 A. I cannot agree with that. It was being reported on the
10 airwaves --
11 Q. Mr Dacre, it is 5 to 5, please let me finish my
12 question. You would have realised that he was not
13 attacking your newspaper group; he was simply in
14 response to Mr Jay's question explaining what his
15 speculation was?
16 A. With great respect, I suggest that's a disingenuous
17 interpretation of events. He knew very well how toxic
18 that allegation would be made, that suggestion. I tried
19 to explain that at some length.
20 Q. It was your newspaper group, Mr Dacre, that made the
21 allegation, one that was picked up and repeated
22 throughout the media that he had lied on oath. Will you
23 accept that?
24 A. I accept that the mendacious smear was, yes, it was
25 reported.
121
1 Q. Will you not withdraw it even now, Mr Dacre, and
2 apologise for the "mendacious smears" lie?
3 A. I will withdraw it, as I said the other day to this
4 Inquiry, if Mr Grant withdraws his repeated statements
5 about the Daily Mail, I will withdraw my "mendacious
6 smear", sir, without hesitation, yes.
7 Q. Mr Dacre, I'll give you one last opportunity --
8 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: No, we --
9 MR SHERBORNE: I already explained that Mr Grant shared with
10 this Inquiry his speculation, because he was asked to do
11 so by Mr Jay. Will you now withdraw your allegation of
12 mendacious smears?
13 A. I've said what I will do. I'm very happy to withdraw it
14 if Mr Grant withdraws his -- not allegations, not
15 suggestions, but his repeated statements about the
16 Daily Mail.
17 Q. I think that tells us something, doesn't it, Mr Dacre,
18 about the culture, practices and ethics of the press?
19 A. Well that's ...
20 MR CAPLAN: Just for the record --
21 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: You're entitled to ask Mr Dacre some
22 questions, if you want to.
23 MR CAPLAN: I don't propose to.
24 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Very good.
25 MR CAPLAN: Mr Sherborne referred to paragraph 17 of
122
1 Mr Grant's statement. Can I just say I'm not going to
2 go to it now, could I please for the record and for your
3 note invite you to look at paragraph 11, because
4 I believe --
5 MR SHERBORNE: Sorry, it's 11.
6 MR CAPLAN: It's under the libel section of Mr Grant's
7 statement.
8 MR SHERBORNE: Yes, sorry, it's 11 not 17.
9 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank you very much indeed.
10 Right, I have that. Yes, I've seen it. Thank you.
11 Thank you very much, Mr Dacre. Thank you.
12 A. Thank you very much.
13 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: What I'm about to say may not cause
14 you pleasure, but it's a consequence of what you've said
15 a couple of times, once at the seminar and then again
16 during the course of your evidence.
17 I shall be returning to the question of how the
18 press should move forward, and it will be the constant
19 theme of my Inquiry until the end, because I see it as
20 an iterative process. I think it's very important that
21 it is iterative, because I will ask questions and make
22 suggestions that people think about things in order
23 specifically so that the industry can do so, and then
24 respond. In that way, we may get somewhere that
25 satisfies all the requirements that I believe will be in
123
1 the public interest and that others believe the press
2 will embrace.
3 Therefore, it may be that some of those ideas will
4 require or would benefit from your input, and I hope
5 that you will be prepared to provide it.
6 A. Your Honour, I think I've shown this week that I'm
7 prepared to devote a lot of time to this issue.
8 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I'm very grateful.
9 A. I've spent a lot of time with it.
10 May I just make one additional observation, do you
11 mind, just to finish off?
12 Very quickly. Many American websites have been
13 carrying stories about Mr Grant and other celebrities
14 because -- that Mail Online can't carry because it
15 adheres to the code. This is quite an important point.
16 Last week saw the announcement of potentially the
17 biggest floatation in the stock market history, that of
18 Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg, the owner of Facebook, has
19 gone on record by saying that people no longer expect
20 privacy in the Internet age. If the mainstream media in
21 Britain is unable to address news stories that are
22 freely available elsewhere, we will look increasingly
23 irrelevant especially to younger people.
24 I only say this because I said to you earlier that
25 this week Mail Online became the world's biggest website
124
1 with over 100 million unique users and that's eloquent
2 evidence that there is a huge demand for British
3 journalism globally.
4 The fact that it is called the World Wide Web is
5 literally true, and the centre of the global newspaper
6 business is the not the UK now, it's no longer the UK,
7 but the US. In that sense the Internet is the
8 embodiment of the first empire and I would ask that the
9 editor of the Mail Online put in a paper to this Inquiry
10 to outline the huge problems that the Internet poses
11 both for the printed press and regulation.
12 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: If the editor of the Mail Online
13 wants to submit some evidence to the Inquiry, I'd be
14 perfectly willing to receive it and to take it on board
15 and possibly to call him --
16 A. I do think it's one of the fundamental problems.
17 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: And possibly to call him.
18 A. That would be very valuable. We would welcome that.
19 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I do understand the different
20 position of Twitter, which of course has a different
21 dynamic for all sorts of reasons. Your stories couldn't
22 be conveyed in 140 characters.
23 A. That's a matter of opinion.
24 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: And that alters the dynamic, and
25 there is a very interesting distinction to be drawn
125
1 between a conversation that two people might have in
2 a pub or in a private place on the one hand and
3 a newspaper always, and the question is: is
4 communicating with friends on Twitter nearer the
5 conversation in the pub or with friends or in a hall in
6 a debate with friends or the journalistic product of
7 a newspaper, which carries with it a kitemark of
8 integrity, honesty, accuracy, or should do, and how you
9 try and --
10 A. But that would be competing with American websites that
11 don't observe that kitemark.
12 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Well --
13 A. I'd ask you to call the editor of the Mail Online, he'd
14 relish answering these questions. I would only say that
15 it was Twitter that fuelled the Jan Moir debate and some
16 of the vicious and vile things that were said on that
17 would distress you, I suspect. In that sense, it's not
18 an innocent conversation between friends in a pub. It's
19 used -- some celebrities have Twitter followings of 3, 4
20 million.
21 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I understand the problem.
22 A. Okay, I'm sorry.
23 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I have my own problems without trying
24 to solve everybody else's. I take the point,
25 I understand it, and I'm very pleased to receive any
126
1 assistance that I can get to ensure that the most
2 satisfactory solution is available to everybody.
3 A. Excellent. Thank you for your time. Thank you.
4 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank you very much.
5 There is something that I want to say before we
6 conclude.
7 Today is I think, according to the records I have,
8 the 40th day of hearings, and this marks, at least
9 provisionally, the end of module one. I say
10 provisionally, because it's quite clear that there will
11 be some further material that enters the Inquiry record
12 and may require oral evidence to deal with this crucial
13 relationship between the press and the public, not least
14 of which the whole issue of regulation to which we have
15 just been referring.
16 For those who are interested, I would like to
17 recognise the progress we've made so far. We have
18 actually heard from 184 witnesses, and the statements of
19 42 other witnesses have been read into the record.
20 In the circumstances, I would like to pay tribute to
21 all those who have allowed us to do that. It's
22 obviously a tribute to the co-operation which the
23 Inquiry has received from those who are core
24 participants. It's my personal gratitude for the
25 assistance we've received from the Inquiry's legal team
127
1 and the support staff that has done so much to ensure
2 that we have the right papers, usually, in the right
3 place at the right time. Everybody working to very
4 tight deadlines.
5 I'm grateful for the work done by the assessors, who
6 continue to fulfil their role by providing thoughtful
7 advice and comment in their areas of expertise, and so
8 help inform the questions that are asked.
9 I'm conscious that I've kept my foot very firmly on
10 the accelerator and that that's caused difficulty to all
11 manner of people. Our work will progress in the next
12 two weeks and we'll look at the contributions that have
13 been received from others, including the many
14 contributions, I think something approaching 600
15 contributions, onto the general enquiries website, all
16 of which will be analysed, some of which will be put
17 into statement form and put into the records. In other
18 words, I am seeking still to obtain as much evidence as
19 I can from as many people as I can.
20 The foot will continue to be applied to the
21 accelerator. We'll start module two in two weeks' time,
22 and then proceed ultimately to module three, but as
23 I say, we are likely to come back to various of the
24 issues that we've identified.
25 I'll end by also thanking all those who have
128
1 contributed to the work of the Inquiry by giving
2 evidence, and the obvious work that's been put into the
3 statements that have been prepared, whether voluntarily
4 or with some encouragement under the relevant statute.
5 Thank you all very much.
6 (5.06 pm)