An interesting Independent story on the Mirror's Hacking travails has the barrister for the claimants, David Sherborne, making an allegation in open court that earlier public statements relating to phone hacking made by senior Trinity Mirror individuals were “knowingly false”. The Independent lists a whole set of statements including these ones: "I am not aware of any … Continue reading In-house media lawyer heading for the spotlight?
Allegations that lawyers are at the forefront of illegal hacking have provided the majority of the press with (another) Leveson bashing story. The extent of the scoop, and the problem with the Leveson failed to investigate stories, are covered here on Inforrm's blog. The basic point is that such allegations were beyond Leveson's remit. The … Continue reading Hackgate and SOCA: time to look at the lawyers?
I have written a number of posts on the lawyers' roles in the Hacking saga. Rather than re-rehearse the ins and outs, interested readers can read those posts by clicking here. Lord Justice Leveson's analysis of two aspects of the involvement of Tom Crone are below. His analysis is constrained somewhat by ongoing investigation of … Continue reading Crone, Myler, Murdoch and the What the Hell was Going on Question
There's a very interesting story from Roy Greenslade on the Guardian about journalists arrested in the ongoing hacking investigations. If his informants are right then there is a serious risk that News International funding of employee defences is compromising the administration of justice in these cases. He reports that some of the journalists, "would like … Continue reading Hacking*: Is Litigation Funding Compromising the Lawyer Client Relationship?
One would have hoped by now that lawyers connected with the hacking saga would have learned to be a bit more careful about how they review emails and yet, somewhat surprisingly, comes the news that Linklaters appear to have omitted to disclose a significant email to Leveson and the claimants in civil proceedings for about … Continue reading Hackgate IX: Discovery Problems
At Leveson today, Rupert Murdoch, somewhat surprisingly, denied knowing that Burton Copeland could not disclose the fruits of their investigation because their clients (NI/NGN) had not waived professional privilege. Surprising because he had a very clear grasp of what he thought the other lawyers had done wrong when instructed by his company and, in particular, … Continue reading Leveson, Murdoch and Burton Copeland: One more smoking gun?
The Guardian has run an interesting story on the deletion of apparently relevant evidence in the Hackgate cases: the Mysteries of Data Pool 3. Key points appear to be: "...Murdoch's Management and Standards Committee has now handed them what may be the largest cache of evidence ever gathered by a police operation in this country, … Continue reading Hackgate VII: Some more questions…
So Julian Pike, Partner at Farrers, is in the news again following a Newsnight scoop which suggests that he has had a role in the surveillance of lawyers opposing him in Hacking related claims. The Lawyer puts it like this: Farrers contentious media partner Julian Pike, who is no longer instructed by News International on … Continue reading Hackgate VI: The Plot Thickens, Like Concrete
There’s another story in the Guardian about Hackgate, suggesting a deepening of concern over Julian Pike (of Farrers) revelations to the DCMS Select Committee (see my post on that here). The key allegation appears to be this: In correspondence seen by the Guardian, the BBC had alleged: "NI executives made statements, that have subsequently shown … Continue reading Hackgate V: Lawyers – a duty not to mislead?
According to the Guardian report of yesterday’s DCMS select committee hearing, a partner in Farrer & Co, Julian Pike has admitted that he knew his client, News International was misleading Parliament but has indicated that he could do nothing about it because of client confidentiality. The crucial passage is here. He conceded that: "he hadn't … Continue reading Hackgate IV: Farrers – an ethical error?