The New York Times has a big scoop tonight on the Murdoch hacking scandal, reporting that News International and its law firm knew back in 2007 that News of the World had bribed the police—and proceeded to cover it up.
Both Harbottle & Lewis and News International took notice of the e-mails to and from Mr. Goodman containing those initial indications of payoffs in 2007, according to the two people knowledgeable about the events. News International’s chief lawyer set them aside for a second look and they were among the e-mails retained in the files of the law firm. Yet they were not turned over to the police until last month, and no hint of their existence made its way into the firm’s single-paragraph letter four years ago.
More on that:
The correspondence between the company and the firm over framing the letter does not make reference to the e-mails on police payments, a source familiar with the exchanges said, but it does reflect “huge anxiety” about the wording.
The final version of the letter, dated May 29, 2007, sent by the firm’s managing partner to Jon Chapman, who was head of the legal department for News International, read: “I can confirm that we did not find anything in those e-mails which appeared to us to be reasonable evidence that Clive Goodman’s illegal actions were known about and supported by both or either of Andy Coulson, the editor, and Neil Wallis, the deputy editor, and/or that Ian Edmondson, the news editor, and others were carrying out similar procedures.”
The company rejected earlier drafts by Harbottle & Lewis that were not as broad, according to the two people with access to the correspondence. One of them said that lawyers on both sides seemed to struggle to find language that said the review had found no evidence of wrongdoing.
In a hilarious side note, the Times says John Chapman, News International’s former top lawyer—and the guy who last week said James Murdoch misled Parliament—plans to testify “that while he noticed the e-mails in question, he did not realize that paying the police was a criminal offense.”
Good luck with that one!
— In other News Corporation news, Glenn Mulcaire, one of the private investigators NotW paid hundreds of thousands of pounds to hack phones, and the one who may have hacked the phone the paper gave a murder victim’s mother, released a statement today saying that “As an employee he acted on the instructions of others.”
It should be noted that it was just a week ago that News International “decided to terminate the arrangement to pay the legal fees of Glenn Mulcaire with immediate effect.”
That News Corp. would pay for a convicted criminal’s expensive legal defense, was one of the foulest smelling facts of the whole affair before the Milly Dowler story broke it wide open. Mulcaire had been awfully quiet up to this point and was appealing “a High Court order that would force him to give more information about hacking to his alleged victims.”
In other words, News Corp. was paying to help Mulcaire keep his mouth shut.
It’s worth recalling James Murdoch’s testimony on that:
The move follows evidence given by James Murdoch to the Commons culture, media and sport select committee, when he told MPs he was “as surprised as you are” when he discovered “certain legal fees were paid to Mr Mulcaire” by News of the World publisher.
— The Financial Times is on a tear with its paywall, reporting that online subscriptions jumped 34 percent over the last year to 230,000. And those suckers are not cheap.
The pinkish paper has all but doubled its paying online subscribers in just two years, jumping from 117,000 in July 2009.
That’s changing the company’s revenue makeup:
Pearson says “digital subscriptions (are) now the engine of the FT Group’s growth”.
Digital and services now make up 46 percent of FT Group revenue, content-related revenue (ie. not advertising) makes up 57 percent. Advertising grew “modestly” but is something the FT is happy not to rely on.
The FT is a specialty paper with a high-end readership, but it’s still good news, particularly for business journalism.
For me, at least, the News Corp story explains the FT subscription story....
I dropped my Wall Street Journal subscription when Rupert Murdoch bought the WSJ -- and instead began subscribing to the Financial Times.
#1 Posted by BachFan, CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 08:29 PM
[The New York Times has a big scoop tonight on the Murdoch hacking scandal, reporting that News International and its law firm knew back in 2007 that News of the World had bribed the police—and proceeded to cover it up.]
Phone hacking: royal law firm Harbottle & Lewis in negotiations with police over News International emails
The royal law firm at the centre of the phone hacking scandal is in negotiations with police about handing over a cache of confidential News International emails.
By Christopher Hope, Whitehall Editor 9:10PM BST 27 Jul 2011 Telegraph
[Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, the former director of public prosecutions who reviewed evidence of police payments in the Harbottle & Lewis file, said last week that evidence of criminality in the file was “blindingly obvious”.]
#2 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 09:18 PM
NYT: [In one e-mail, from 2003, the paper’s royal reporter, Clive Goodman, complained to the top editor, Andy Coulson, about a management push to cut back on cash payments to sources, saying he needed to pay his contacts in the Scotland Yard unit that protects the royal family.]
Cash records, email suggest Coulson knew of bribes: source
By Mark Hosenball Thu Jul 21, 2011 8:15am EDT
[LONDON (Reuters)- Scotland Yard investigators have cryptic financial records corroborating suspicions that former News of the World editor Andy Coulson knew about illegal payments to police officers, a source with knowledge of the matter told Reuters.
The existence of the "smoking gun" emails has already been reported in the UK media. According to Reuters' source, who has been briefed on internal News International discussions, the message traffic shows Coulson and Goodman corresponded about paying a police contact for restricted information, including phone numbers, of members of the British royal family.]
#3 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 11:18 PM
There is an important development at the end of the story:
Glenn Mulcaire 'acted under instructions' over voicemails
Private investigator denies acting on his own...
Lisa O'Carroll and Nicholas Watt
guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 July 2011 21.01 BST
[Mulcaire's solictors wrote to News International earlier this week warning the publisher they were still legally liable to indemnify him against legal costs until the appeal case was resolved.]
#4 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 11:50 PM
NYT: [Like Mr. Chapman, Harbottle & Lewis has been asked to give its account to a select committee of Parliament, and it has said it will cooperate as long as the police say it will not harm the criminal investigation. News International recently released the firm from its client confidentiality obligations so it can talk to the authorities. While it is unclear what the firm’s opinion on the e-mails was in 2007, client confidentiality would have prevented it from unilaterally reporting them to authorities.]
How far can legal professional privilege go? Legal professional privilege meant Harbottle & Lewis had to secure a waiver to discuss Murdoch's claim about phone hacking claims. Neil Rose guardian.co.uk, Friday 22 July 2011 13.11 BST
[However, there is one exception to the privilege rule: if the lawyer is used, knowingly or unknowingly, to commit or cover up a crime or serious fraud, then he can disclose what he knows.
So if it turned out, hypothetically, that News International deliberately withheld information so that Harbottles came to the conclusion it did, allowing News International to trumpet that finding in a bid to mislead investigators about the extent of wrongdoing at the company, then the privilege could be broken. There is no suggestion, of course, that the company did do this.
But lawyer regulation expert Tony Guise says deciding the exception applies is a tricky judgment to make.]
#5 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 11:59 PM
NYT: [Like Mr. Chapman, Harbottle & Lewis has been asked to give its account to a select committee of Parliament, and it has said it will cooperate as long as the police say it will not harm the criminal investigation. News International recently released the firm from its client confidentiality obligations so it can talk to the authorities. While it is unclear what the firm’s opinion on the e-mails was in 2007, client confidentiality would have prevented it from unilaterally reporting them to authorities.]
How far can legal professional privilege go? Legal professional privilege meant Harbottle & Lewis had to secure a waiver to discuss Murdoch's claim about phone hacking claims. Neil Rose guardian.co.uk, Friday 22 July 2011 13.11 BST
[However, there is one exception to the privilege rule: if the lawyer is used, knowingly or unknowingly, to commit or cover up a crime or serious fraud, then he can disclose what he knows.
So if it turned out, hypothetically, that News International deliberately withheld information so that Harbottles came to the conclusion it did, allowing News International to trumpet that finding in a bid to mislead investigators about the extent of wrongdoing at the company, then the privilege could be broken. There is no suggestion, of course, that the company did do this.
But lawyer regulation expert Tony Guise says deciding the exception applies is a tricky judgment to make.]
#6 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Sat 30 Jul 2011 at 12:02 AM
Oh dear. Hai Fox News!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8650631/Rupert-Murdochs-Fox-News-ran-black-ops-department-former-executive-claims.html
h/t
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEeGR0vRi1w
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 30 Jul 2011 at 01:00 AM
Friday 29 July 2011 Exclusive: Channel 4 has learnt that the Metropolitan Police is launching a new formal investigation into computer hacking.
[Former army intelligence officer Ian Hurst told Channel 4 that he had been informed by the Met this week.
A private investigator working for News of the World allegedly hacked into Mr Hurst's computer in 2006 and retrieved sensitive emails regarding Northern Ireland security matters.
"Police officers working for Operation Tuleta have informed me that they have identified information of evidential value in regards to my family's computer being illegally accessed over a sustained period of 2006."
Ian Hurst, Former army intelligence officer
"The decision by the Metropolitan Police to proceed to a full criminal investigation was conveyed to me this week by Tuleta police officers."]
#8 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Sat 30 Jul 2011 at 01:31 AM
The Independent on Sunday: Lawyers 'furious' over criticism in hacking scandal
By James Hanning and Matt Chorley 31 July 2011
[The Murdoch claims have infuriated Harbottle & Lewis so much that some senior figures at the firm are understood to have discussed taking legal action for defamation...
Yesterday, The New York Times (NYT) reported that both NI and Harbottle were clearly aware of the contents of the emails when the exculpatory letter was written. According to the paper, in one email Clive Goodman warns that those involved could "go to prison for this"...
There was, according to The NYT, citing sources familiar with the incidents, "huge anxiety" about the precise wording. NI urged the law firm to write a letter giving it a clean bill of health in the strongest possible terms. Jon Chapman, NI's head of legal affairs, reportedly rejected two earlier drafts as being insufficiently broad... Another Harbottle source added: "If we made any mistakes, we will hold our hands up, but we are extremely keen to protect our reputation and we will vigorously challenge any suggestion that we were in any sort of cahoots with News International."]
#9 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Sat 30 Jul 2011 at 07:48 PM
from Clayton Burns claytonburns@gmail.com
to laurence.harbottle@harbottle.co.uk,
claytonburns
date Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 6:21 PM
subject Harbottle--NYT--Independent.
mailed-by gmail.com
hide details 6:21 PM (2 minutes ago)
My comment at cjr.org: [#9 Posted by Clayton Burns on Sat 30 Jul 2011 at 07:48 PM]...
READERS' COMMENTS NYT
2007 Letter Clearing a Tabloid Comes Under Scrutiny
By JO BECKER and DON VAN NATTA Jr.
39.
July 30th, 2011
8:41 pm
This comment has been removed. Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.
My same comment may have been posted by a website moderation editor at The NYT, and then removed. If so, that is nervous behavior about a somewhat weird story to begin with. If the editors were not worried about the story, they would not have removed my comment, if they did in fact do so.
Clayton Burns PhD Vancouver Canada.
#10 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Sat 30 Jul 2011 at 09:30 PM