Culture C'ttee gets distracted. Fails to probe managerial & police failures

James Murdoch knows no more than one rogue?


Both Tom Crone (legal chief of 26 years) and Colin Myler (last editor, NoW) who urged James Murdoch to 'settle' Gordon Taylor's phone hacking suit (£700,000 incl. legal costs), said they briefed James on the "for Neville" email.




This now notorious email listed more phone-hacking activity beyond Royal reporter Clive Goodman and private investigator Glen Mulcaire (both jailed, legal fees borne by News Int'l till recently).

Impossible James cannot recall. We briefed him.

They said the meeting with James lasted about fifteen minutes. In their minds it was "inconceivable" that he would not be aware of the hacking practice being widespread. They did not show him the incriminating email. They did not send him a separate memo on it.


Culture committee fails to ask obvious questions


When having to sign serially for pay-offs and gagging agreements, any chief executive would want to know the full extent of his company's exposure. He would want his legal chief to assure him that there are no more time-bombs waiting to explode. He would not be lackadaisical about the legal implications.


If James Murdoch's total denial of knowledge is to be believed, he is either too immature, too disinterested or too irresponsible. It is his business to know everything that may threaten his organization! In the end his negligence cost the company the closure of the 168 year old newspaper, severance payments for hundreds of staff and a mounting list of litigants.


The Culture Committee seems to have got lost in the detail. They did not ask the obvious questions which should be asked of any chief executive and top management. Looking for the 'smoking gun' is less relevant in this case than the failure of a chief executive to thoroughly clean the stables after the first conviction. 


Was Clive Goodman incentivized to take the fall, save his bosses and remain silent thereafter?


The "for Neville" email was passed to Gordon Taylor's lawyer by the Metropolitan Police from investigations. So the police knew that the practice went well beyond Clive Goodman. 

The police chiefs were close buddies of senior News International executives. Why did the police and News International not act on that? Was there collusion between them to suppress this evidence?

Caution letter warns of 'powerful & ruthless' individuals

Why would someone warn us?

Tom Crone was asked by Jim Sheridan, a member of the 13-person investigation committee, why an ex-News International staffer would send them a caution letter. Tom had no idea. The writer of the letter was not named.


Mr Sheridan read an extract from the letter for the benefit of the hearing, warning of "incredibly powerful, well-connected and ruthless individuals who will do anything to keep the truth under wraps because the truth could well blow the empire apart".


Crone admits sight of  'dirty tricks' file on lawyer 


When asked if News International put lawyers representing phone-hacking litigants under surveillance, Tom Crone admitted he saw one file on a lawyer relating to his personal life.


Mr Crone attributed that work to a freelance journalist engaged by the company. He did not reveal who commissioned the assignment.


Mark Lewis, who represents many phone-hacking litigants, claimed he was shown a file compiled by News International about his medical and personal data "much of which was wrong". Mr Lewis was also threatened by News International lawyers in 2009 with an injunction to stop him representing more phone-hacking victims.




ENDS