(10.00 am) 3 Housekeeping 4 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Good morning. 5 Before we start, I am sure that most, if not all of 6 you have seen the events of the weekend, and in 7 particular, the disclosure, prematurely, of a statement 8 from a witness who is due to give evidence on Wednesday 9 of this week on a website. I am obviously concerned 10 about the security of the information that is available 11 and to maintain the integrity of the Inquiry as we move 12 forward. As a result, I am intending to enquire, to 13 such extent as I can, into the circumstances in which 14 this statement came to be made available for 15 publication. 16 There are two features to that. First, 17 retrospectively, and making absolutely no allegation of 18 any sort, I would be grateful if core participants who 19 have access to statements for the vital purpose of 20 preparing questions would re-examine their own 21 arrangements to ensure that the statements are kept 22 confidential, confirm that they are in order and prevent 23 obviously not only deliberate leaking but accidental 24 leaking. I repeat, I am not alleging against anyone 25 that they have done so in this case but I'm obviously Page 2 1 concerned for the future. 2 The second step I intend to take, subject to any 3 representations that might be made to the contrary, is 4 to make an order under Section 19 of the Inquiries Act 5 restricting the publication or disclosure, whether in 6 whole or in part, outside the confidentiality circle 7 which comprises me, my assessors, the Inquiry team, the 8 core participants and their legal representatives, of 9 any statement prior to the maker of the statement giving 10 oral evidence to the Inquiry. 11 So that I explain the meaning of that, it is this: 12 any person who acts in breach of an order made under 13 Section 19, which binds everybody, is potentially liable 14 for breach of the order and can be referred to the High 15 Court for appropriate action. In that way, for the 16 future, howsoever the document has come into the 17 possession of the person who puts it into the public 18 domain, that person will potentially be liable. 19 Does anybody have any representations to make about 20 my making an order in those broad terms? Silence, in 21 these circumstances, I think, connotes assent. 22 MR CAPLAN: Can I just say one thing. It might follow on 23 from what you have said. Because of this leak, I don't 24 know whether there would be any intention by the Inquiry 25 to publish Mr Campbell's statement earlier than usual. Page 3 1 If that was to happen, I would wish to make 2 representations that it should not. 3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Mr Caplan, you better had. I'll tell 4 you why: because I am absolutely not prepared to allow 5 the gentleman who has this statement on his website at 6 the moment the oxygen of additional publicity so that 7 all can see it there but nowhere else. 8 MR CAPLAN: Yes. 9 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: So my view last night was that it 10 should be published today, two days in advance. I mean, 11 this has afforded people 72 hours' notice, which is, in 12 the great scheme of things, not itself the gravest but 13 it has consequences that concern me, so that I recognise 14 the position. 15 Now, if you don't think that's appropriate, then of 16 course you must make submissions. 17 MR CAPLAN: Thank you. 18 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: And I haven't done it as yet. 19 MR CAPLAN: Thank you. Can I just say this? I do not know 20 if it still is on his website. I'm sure it would be 21 extremely unwise if it still was. 22 MR SHERBORNE: Sir, can I just tell you that it is on his 23 website still. 24 MR CAPLAN: The three reasons that we would advance against 25 taking that step really are these. Firstly, the fact is Page 4 1 that although the leak itself has been widely published, 2 the fact of the leak, the contents of Mr Campbell's 3 statement, it appears, have not been widely 4 disseminated. 5 Secondly, the contents of Mr Campbell's statement, 6 when we get to it, clearly make a number of points 7 against a number of different organisations and possibly 8 individuals, and if it is widely published now, those 9 organisations and individuals will not be able to 10 respond obviously within the Inquiry until he gives his 11 evidence, and that is highly undesirable. 12 Thirdly, the principle of confidentiality, which you 13 have quite rightly insisted upon and done all you can to 14 maintain, we suggest should be maintained and a leak 15 should not compromise that principle by, in effect, 16 recognising the inevitable and having advance disclosure 17 of the evidence which witnesses will not give for 18 another 48 hours. 19 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. I'd be very interested if you 20 have a submission to make about the mechanism whereby 21 I can require the statement presently on this website to 22 be removed. 23 MR CAPLAN: Yes. Well, it is confidential information, of 24 course. It should be confidential. But I'd need to, if 25 I may, just ponder that. Day 8 AM Leveson Inquiry 28 November 2011 (+44) 207 404 1400 London EC4A 2DY Merrill Legal Solutions www.merrillcorp/mls.com 8th Floor 165 Fleet Street 2 (Pages 5 to 8) Page 5 1 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. It wasn't how I intended to 2 spend Sunday evening either. 3 MR CAPLAN: No. 4 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Well, I won't publish it until you've 5 had a chance to think about that. 6 MR CAPLAN: Thank you very much. 7 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But I am concerned to deprive the 8 particular website of that oxygen, for reasons which 9 I am sure you will readily understand. 10 MR CAPLAN: I do understand. 11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I ought to say that I intend to issue 12 a notice under section 21 of the 2005 Act addressed to 13 Mr Paul Staines, requiring him to provide information as 14 to the circumstances in which he came by this statement, 15 and I intend to require him to give evidence to the 16 Inquiry during the course of this week. 17 Right, Mr Jay. Observations upon Mr Caplan's point, 18 which I understand and I recognise? 19 MR JAY: The first point is that the version of 20 Mr Campbell's statement which is on the website you 21 referred to is not the same as the version which the 22 core participants have. 23 The reason for that has been explained to me but I'd 24 wish, before making it public, to give further 25 consideration to it, and I can take that matter forward Page 6 1 formally at 2 o'clock. 2 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank you very much. If that is 3 right, then although I still ask everybody to review 4 their arrangements, I'm very pleased to hear it. 5 MR JAY: Yes. 6 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: In one sense. Where it leads is 7 something else. 8 MR JAY: The second point: as to whether Mr Campbell's 9 statement should be published now, it's not in a form 10 where it could be published now, because one very small 11 change needs to be made to it. 12 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. I'm very conscious that 13 I understand that Mr Campbell actually, in the light of 14 some evidence that was disclosed to him, himself asked 15 the statement to be changed in a particular -- and so 16 therefore it's not the final version. It was only the 17 final version I ever was expecting that we should 18 disclose. 19 MR JAY: Yes, and that change I would wish to check 20 personally before it were disseminated. 21 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I understand that. 22 MR JAY: The third point is that, musing aloud, the question 23 you put to Mr Caplan, what can we do about it now in 24 terms of further or continued publication by Mr Staines 25 on his website or blog -- it may be possible to make an Page 7 1 order under Section 19 which prevents any further 2 publication. Before I elevate that into a submission 3 rather than just a musing, may we give thought to that 4 over the course of the morning? 5 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. Of course, I then have to 6 ensure that he has notice of it, and presumably the 7 opportunity to argue to the contrary. 8 MR JAY: Yes. He can always pick it up at 2 o'clock and 9 tell us what he thinks. 10 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: That's entirely right. I don't want 11 to dignify this with more time -- 12 MR JAY: No. 13 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: -- than is absolutely necessary. All 14 right. 15 MR JAY: Those are my submissions and thoughts at the 16 moment. 17 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: All right, thank you. 18 MR JAY: Subject to your view, may I move to the first 19 witness of the day? 20 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Before you do, does anybody else have 21 anything to say on that exchange? 22 Right. I make an order under Section 19. It will 23 be published on the website as soon as possible, but is 24 effective immediately, and I will read out what I'm 25 presently minded to say: Page 8 1 "No witness statement provided to the Inquiry, 2 whether voluntarily or under compulsion, nor any exhibit 3 to such statement, nor any other document provided to 4 the Inquiry shall be published or disclosed, whether in 5 whole or in part, outside the confidentiality circle 6 comprising of the chairman, his assessors, the Inquiry 7 team, the core participants and their legal 8 representatives, prior to the maker of the statement 9 giving oral evidence to the Inquiry or the statement 10 being read into evidence or summarised into evidence by 11 a member of the Inquiry team as the case may be, without 12 the express permission of the chairman. 13 "2. This order is made under Section 19(2)(b) of the 14 Inquiries Act 2005 and binds all persons, including 15 witnesses and core participants to the Inquiry and their 16 legal representatives and companies, whether acting 17 personally or through their agents, servants, directors, 18 officers or in any other way. 19 "3. Any person, including any company, affected by 20 this order may apply for it to be varied pursuant to 21 section 20 of the Inquiries Act 2005. 22 "4. In the case of any public authority, 23 restrictions specified in this order take effect subject 24 to section 20, subsection 6 of the Inquiries Act 2005." 25 Thank you very much. Day 8 AM Leveson Inquiry 28 November 2011 (+44) 207 404 1400 London EC4A 2DY Merrill Legal Solutions www.merrillcorp/mls.com 8th Floor 165 Fleet Street 3 (Pages 9 to 12) Page 9 1 Right, let's get on with the business of the day. 2 MR JAY: Sir, may I call now Mr Christopher Jefferies. 3 MR CHRISTOPHER JEFFERIES (sworn) 4 Questions from MR JAY 5 MR JAY: Your full name please, Mr Jefferies? 6 A. Christopher Jonathan Edward Jefferies. 7 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Mr Jefferies, thank you very much 8 indeed for coming and for making the effort to prepare 9 a statement for me. It must be singularly unpleasant to 10 have to revisit the events through which you lived and 11 then to have to recount them in public for all to hear, 12 thereby giving further oxygen to the unpleasantness that 13 you have suffered. I'm very grateful to you for having 14 done so. I'm sure you appreciate the importance that 15 I attach to trying to get to the issues that I have to 16 resolve, but I do recognise the imposition of a breach 17 of your privacy that it involves. Thank you. 18 A. Thank you. 19 MR JAY: Mr Jefferies, you provided the Inquiry with 20 a witness statement. It's dated 4 November of this 21 year. You've signed it. There's also a statement of 22 truth. Subject to one minor correction, which has been 23 drawn to your attention, is that your evidence, 24 Mr Jefferies? 25 A. It is, yes. Page 10 1 Q. The minor correction relates to paragraph 44, please, 2 where you deal with the fines for contempt of court 3 imposed by the Divisional Court presided over by the 4 Lord Chief Justice in relation to two newspapers, the 5 Sun and the Daily Mirror. We believe that the fines are 6 the wrong way around. The Sun was fined £18,000 and the 7 Daily Mirror £50,000. 8 A. Yes. That is indeed the case and I apologise for that 9 slip. 10 Q. Mr Jefferies, you are a retired school master. For 34 11 years, you taught English -- in particular, English 12 literature -- at Clifton College in Bristol. You 13 retired in 2001. Could you just tell us, please, 14 a little bit about your career as an English teacher? 15 A. Yes. I initially spent a term teaching at Clifton 16 College in the early part of 1967, as a result of which 17 I was asked to join the staff full-time. While I was 18 there, I first of all was responsible for setting up 19 a new department which dealt with a quarter of the 20 teaching time of all pupils in the sixth form in 21 an attempt to broaden the A level curriculum. 22 I was, for most of my time there, deputy head of 23 English, with one or two spells when I was head of 24 English. I was also responsible for the commercial 25 running of the college theatre. Page 11 1 Q. What is your proudest achievement, would you say, in 2 relation to your career? 3 A. I suppose I'd sake two things. One would be setting up 4 the department which I have just mentioned, and the 5 other is having the opportunity to fire pupils with the 6 same sort of enthusiasm for English literature that 7 I have myself. 8 Q. Are you in contact with any of your former pupils -- 9 A. Oh yes, quite a number, several of whom are now personal 10 friends. 11 Q. Thank you. You tell us in paragraph 4 of your statement 12 that you own three flats within one building in Bristol. 13 You live in one of them and rent the remaining two flats 14 to tenants. 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. We, of course, know about the horrific murder of Joanna 17 Yeates which led to the conviction for murder of Vincent 18 Tabak in July this year. Joanna Yeates disappeared, so 19 we have our bearings, on 17 December of last year; is 20 that right? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Equally, so we have our bearings in terms of the 23 chronology, you were arrested by the police on 24 30 December? 25 A. I was. Page 12 1 Q. And not released on police bail until 1 January; is that 2 right? 3 A. That's correct, yes. 4 Q. Before your arrest, did you provide any statements to 5 the police? 6 A. Yes, I provided two statements, one at the same time 7 that everybody else in the locality was being asked to 8 give detailed statements, and the second short statement 9 because it occurred to me there was something material 10 which hadn't occurred to me at the time I was giving 11 that original statement, which I thought it important 12 for the police to be aware of. 13 Q. You explain in your statement the circumstances of your 14 arrest. It was 7.00 in the morning of 30 December. 15 Those circumstances must have been extremely disquieting 16 at the time. You were taken into custody and then 17 questioned. Is that, broadly speaking, right? 18 A. That's right, yes. 19 Q. Of course, there's litigation surrounding those 20 circumstances and for that reason it's not appropriate 21 for this Inquiry to go into that particular aspect of 22 the case. 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. But can I ask you about the press coverage. Before you 25 were arrested, was there any press interest in you, Day 8 AM Leveson Inquiry 28 November 2011 (+44) 207 404 1400 London EC4A 2DY Merrill Legal Solutions www.merrillcorp/mls.com 8th Floor 165 Fleet Street 4 (Pages 13 to 16) Page 13 1 Mr Jefferies? 2 A. Yes, there was. I think it was the day immediately 3 before I was arrested, I was greeted by a large number 4 of reporters and photographers as I was leaving the 5 house one day, who seemed particularly interested to 6 question me about the details of the second subsidiary 7 statement that I had given to the police. 8 Q. Is the Inquiry to draw the inference from that last 9 answer that the press in some way knew the contents of 10 your second statement? 11 A. The press had certainly, I think, acquired a somewhat 12 garbled version of what that second statement contained, 13 yes. 14 Q. At that time, do you believe or know whether the press 15 were making contact with your neighbours or former 16 pupils? 17 A. Oh yes. They were certainly, I think, talking to some 18 of the neighbours. I do not think that at that time 19 they were trying to contact any former pupils or indeed, 20 as far as I'm aware, any relatives. 21 Q. Thank you. The first article which you draw to the 22 Inquiry's attention is dated 30 December. We'll come to 23 that in a moment. You tell us in your statement that 24 the Attorney General issued a public statement warning 25 newspapers of the impact of the Contempt of Court Act Page 14 1 1981. Are you able to recall when that was, 2 Mr Jefferies? 3 A. I believe it was during the time that I was in custody. 4 I wasn't aware of it at the time, as indeed I was 5 entirely unaware of the nature of any of the reporting 6 while I was in custody. 7 Q. For obvious reasons, you weren't reading those articles 8 until you, as it were, were released on police bail, 9 which was on new year's day 2011. Can you tell us, 10 please, the circumstances in which you were made aware 11 of some of the reporting? 12 A. Well, when I was released from custody, both the 13 solicitor who had represented me and friends with whom 14 I was staying outlined in very general terms the sort of 15 press coverage that there had been. They did suggest 16 that it would probably be good for my psychological 17 health if I didn't, at least for the time being, read 18 any of that coverage since a great deal of it was so 19 defamatory. So it was -- I started to read some of the 20 coverage in detail only after I was asked to do so as 21 a result of the commencement of the libel action. 22 Q. At that stage, did you have a solicitor who was advising 23 you in relation to these matters? 24 A. Indeed, yes. 25 Q. In terms of you going out, did you refrain from doing so Page 15 1 in the light of -- 2 A. Oh, yes. Very much to my surprise, I have to say, 3 because the media interest was so enormous, I was very 4 strongly advised, both by friends and lawyers, not to go 5 out, and in any case, if it had been apparent where 6 I was staying, those friends would have been besieged by 7 reporters and photographers, and since some of those 8 friends had young children, that was the very last thing 9 that anybody wanted to happen. So in effect, for 10 a period after I was released, I was effectively under 11 house arrest and went from friends to friends rather as 12 if I were a recusant priest at the time of the 13 Reformation, I suppose, going from safe-house to 14 safe-house. 15 Q. Thank you, Mr Jefferies. When did that process stop? 16 We know that you ceased to be a suspect in early March. 17 A. That's right. 18 Q. When was it possible for you to lead more or less 19 a normal life? Are you able to help me? 20 A. I suppose when I returned to living in my flat, which 21 was at the very beginning of April of this year. 22 Q. You say in paragraph 20 of your statement -- I'm going 23 to read this out, Mr Jefferies: 24 "I can see now that, following my arrest, the 25 national media shamelessly vilified me. The UK press Page 16 1 set about what can only be described as a witch-hunt. 2 It was clear that the tabloid press had decided that 3 I was guilty of Ms Yeates' murder and seemed determined 4 to persuade the public of my guilt. They embarked on 5 a frenzied campaign to blacken my character by 6 publishing a series of very serious allegations about 7 me, which were completely untrue, allegations which were 8 a mixture of smear, innuendo and complete fiction." 9 So that, in summary, is your position, but we need 10 probably -- indeed certainly -- to elaborate on that, 11 Mr Jefferies. First of all, you say in paragraph 21 12 that you were told by others that extraordinary efforts 13 were made by the media to contact anyone who may have 14 had knowledge about you, including friends from school 15 days you hadn't seen for some considerable time. Do you 16 know who those individuals were? 17 A. I certainly know who some of them were because they have 18 subsequently been in contact with me. The efforts which 19 some members of the press went to to contact some of 20 these people was quite extraordinary, and indeed worthy 21 of a professional detective, I'd have thought. 22 Q. That which was attributed to your former pupils in the 23 press articles, was it true or untrue, as a general 24 statement or proposition? 25 A. Well, a number of those who were contacted by the press Day 8 AM Leveson Inquiry 28 November 2011 (+44) 207 404 1400 London EC4A 2DY Merrill Legal Solutions www.merrillcorp/mls.com 8th Floor 165 Fleet Street 5 (Pages 17 to 20) Page 17 1 very properly refused to make any statements. I'm 2 certainly aware that very many of the comments which are 3 contained in the articles which were published are not 4 attributed. Only a handful of them are attributed and 5 I certainly haven't been in contact with any of those 6 whose names have been attached to supposed quotations. 7 Q. As a matter of generality, before we look at some of the 8 detail -- and I understand you're content that the 9 Inquiry does look at some of the detail -- a number of 10 themes emerge from the material to which you make 11 reference. One of the themes was that you were 12 supposedly associated with a convicted paedophile. 13 A. Indeed, yes. 14 Q. Could you tell us a bit about that, please, 15 Mr Jefferies? 16 A. Yes. This was somebody who was not actually on the 17 staff of the establishment where I was teaching but the 18 preparatory school for that establishment. He had, at 19 one time, lived in one of the flats in the building 20 where I live. He had sold that flat to somebody else, 21 who in turn had sold it to yet another person, and it 22 was that person from whom I eventually bought the flat. 23 So there was a very, very considerable time gap between 24 his selling the flat and my buying it. I think I was 25 supposed to be a friend of his. I very, very rarely Page 18 1 came across him, and indeed only came across him on 2 a comparatively small number of professional occasions. 3 Q. You demonstrated there the entirely tenuous -- indeed, 4 fatuous, if I may say so -- association. 5 Another theme which you touch on, it's fair to say, 6 in paragraph 22 of your statement, is the portrayal of 7 you as a sexually perverted voyeur. A number of 8 suggestions were made which I think you believed to be 9 mutually contradictory in relation to that. Could you 10 help us a bit with that, Mr Jefferies? 11 A. Yes. I mean, it was certainly suggested that there may 12 well have been some sort of sexual motivation for the 13 murder of Joanna Yeates, and at the time obviously I was 14 suspected of that murder. On the other hand, it was 15 suggested in some of the articles that I was gay, so 16 that created a bit of a problem as far as that 17 particular line was concerned. I think it was then 18 suggested in another article that the answer might be 19 that I was bisexual, so the press were trying to have it 20 every possible way. 21 Q. A feature of the press reporting -- there was copious 22 use of photographs, namely of you, on the front pages of 23 quite a few publications. The answer to this question 24 is obvious, but what was the impact of that? 25 A. The impact of these photographs was that I was instantly Page 19 1 recognisable. I suppose it would be fair to say that 2 I had a distinctive appearance and it was as a result of 3 the entire world, apparently, knowing what I looked like 4 that it was suggested to me that really I ought to 5 change my appearance so that I wouldn't be immediately 6 recognised and potentially harassed by the media. 7 Q. What you describe as the worst offending articles you 8 list in paragraph 25 of your statement. 9 A. Mm-hm. 10 Q. I'd just like to identify these, first of all to make it 11 clear or to ask you whether these eight were the subject 12 of proceedings in defamation brought by you in due 13 course? 14 A. Yes, they certainly were. 15 Q. You tell us in paragraph 26 that ultimately -- there 16 will be evidence in due course as to when that was -- 17 you brought legal proceedings for libel against eight 18 newspapers in relation to allegations contained in 40 19 articles. Now, we don't by any means have all 40. 20 A. No, this is a comparatively small selection, yes. 21 Q. That is the defamation. There's an additional feature 22 of this case, namely that the Attorney General brought 23 proceedings for contempt in relation to three articles 24 and these are the articles, if you go back to 25 paragraph 25, which are numbered 4, 6 and 7. So to be Page 20 1 clear, paragraph 4, an article in the Daily Mirror on 2 31 December, headlined: 3 "Jo suspect is peeping tom." 4 That was held in due course in July of this year to 5 be a contempt of court. 6 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Is that right? 7 MR JAY: I sincerely hope it is. 8 A. Yes, there were -- 9 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes, sorry, yes. 10 MR JAY: Yes, it's paragraph 4 of the Lord Chief 11 Justice's -- 12 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes, thank you. 13 MR JAY: The summaries that the Lord Chief Justice gives of 14 each of these articles cannot, if I may say on so, be 15 improved on. I'm not going to read them out, but seek 16 to bring out the evidence economically in a different 17 way. 18 The next article which was deemed to be a contempt 19 of court is number 6 in your list on paragraph 25: 20 "Jo suspect scared kids -- obsessed by death." 21 That's the Sun on new year's day, 1 January 2011. 22 Then item 7: 23 "Was killer waiting in Jo's flat?" 24 Daily Mirror, 1 January 2011. Those are the three 25 comments. Day 8 AM Leveson Inquiry 28 November 2011 (+44) 207 404 1400 London EC4A 2DY Merrill Legal Solutions www.merrillcorp/mls.com 8th Floor 165 Fleet Street 6 (Pages 21 to 24) Page 21 1 A. Mm-hm. 2 Q. You draw attention to the headlines on some of the other 3 articles and we have them available. If I just read out 4 some of the headlines, making it clear that these are 5 only -- I don't diminish it in that way -- the subject 6 of successful libel action, not contempt of court. 7 Item 1: 8 "The strange Mr Jefferies." 9 The Sun, 31 December. 10 Item 2: 11 "Murder police quiz 'nutty professor' with a blue 12 rinse. Was Jo's body hidden next to her flat?" 13 Daily Mail, 31 December 2010. 14 Item 3: 15 "The strange Mr Jefferies, creepy." 16 Daily Record, 31 December. 17 Then item 8 I'm going to come to separately, because 18 a separate point arises there. 19 You have provided in paragraph 28 extracts from -- 20 or maybe the bullet points which could be derived from 21 the articles to which you refer. 22 A. Mm-hm. 23 Q. We have the articles themselves. It's probably not 24 necessary to go through much of this, Mr Jefferies, but 25 you'd probably like me to alight on a few highlights. Page 22 1 Tell me, please, if there are any additional highlights. 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. The first article in paragraph 28 is the first page of 4 the exhibit CJ1. I'm not going to ask for it to be put 5 on the screen. The headline is: 6 "The strange Mr Jefferies." 7 Then there's a photograph of you which seems to be 8 possibly of some antiquity, if I may say so. 9 A. Considerable antiquity, I think. 10 Q. Apparently -- well, we can see from the next page: 11 "weird", "strange talk, strange walk". You were 12 described as "posh, loved culture and poetry". You 13 probably do still love culture and poetry. "Lewd", 14 "made sexual remarks" and "creepy". Then you are 15 described -- you were branded "a creepy oddball" by 16 ex-pupils. 17 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: If you love culture and poetry, does 18 that make you posh? 19 MR JAY: No. Two separate propositions. I wasn't trying to 20 make them -- 21 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: No, all right. 22 MR JAY: You're described there as "very flamboyant", and 23 then in the next sentence: 24 "We were convinced he was gay." 25 I'm not going to ask you to comment on that. But in Page 23 1 that article, it also says: 2 "He was fascinated by making lewd sexual remarks. 3 It was really disturbing." 4 A. Extraordinary comment to make. I would imagine that had 5 that been true, I would have instantly been dismissed. 6 Q. Yes. The Daily Mirror article of 31 December, which is 7 page 10 of this bundle. This was one of the articles 8 the subject of contempt proceedings, the emblazoned 9 headline: 10 "Jo suspect is peeping Tom." 11 Possibly a more recent photograph, but then there's 12 the old photograph at the top right-hand side. 13 A. Mm-hm. 14 Q. It appears to be linking you in some way to an old 15 murder and to paedophile crimes. 16 A. The paedophile reference we referred to a few moments 17 ago. I believe at one point the police were considering 18 reopening an unsolved murder case of some 30 plus years 19 earlier and considering whether there was any common DNA 20 evidence between the two. 21 Q. Yes. Another article in the Daily Mail -- this one is 22 page 4, 31 December: 23 "Was Jo's body hidden next to her flat?" 24 In that article, it's said that you had an obsession 25 Christina Rosetti -- Page 24 1 A. If I have anything that could remotely be described as 2 an obsession, it would be my dislike of Christina 3 Rosetti, at least Christina Rosetti's verse. Certainly 4 I never taught it and wouldn't dream of encouraging 5 other people to read it. 6 Q. Mr Jefferies, clearly I have never read it, as my 7 ignorance of her name is demonstrated. 8 If I move to page 19 another one of the articles 9 which was the subject of contempt proceedings in the Sun 10 on 1 January 2011. I think this one is one you're 11 particularly concerned about. The headline is: 12 "What do you think I am ... a pervert?" 13 A. Yes. This is the most extraordinary article. The 14 episode that is described is one of which I have 15 absolutely no knowledge. Certainly I was never involved 16 in any such episode, any such event. Now, whether, to 17 put the most charitable construction on it, the person 18 who's described as the victim in this article, having 19 seen me on television or in the media or whatever, 20 genuinely believed that I was the same person who had 21 harassed her I have absolutely no idea, or whether 22 somebody was paid to say this or whether she voluntarily 23 came forward wanting some sort of attention -- there's 24 obviously no end to the speculation, but it is 25 100 per cent fabrication as far as I'm concerned. Day 8 AM Leveson Inquiry 28 November 2011 (+44) 207 404 1400 London EC4A 2DY Merrill Legal Solutions www.merrillcorp/mls.com 8th Floor 165 Fleet Street 7 (Pages 25 to 28) Page 25 1 Q. Yes. The article is also objectionable in other 2 respects because it refers to some sort of nickname 3 which apparently was applied to you, probably 4 entirely -- 5 A. Of which I have no knowledge. 6 Q. Yes. On the next page -- we're still in the Sun 7 article. In our internal numbering, it's page 20. What 8 is attributed to one of your students is that you 9 apparently had an academic obsession with death and you 10 were particularly fascinated by Victorian murder 11 novel -- is that "The Moonstone"? 12 A. On one or two occasions, I did teach the Wilkie Collins 13 novel "The Moonstone" and it is a Victorian novel, but 14 it's not a murder novel. It's quite well-known as being 15 the first significant detective novel in English. 16 Q. Thank you, and then in the same bracket, as it were, 17 what's described as "disturbing Holocaust documentary 18 'Night and Fog'", which, of course -- 19 A. Which is an extremely important and extremely moving and 20 in no way exploitative film. It's a documentary that 21 Alain Resnais was asked to make by the Allied 22 governments following the liberation of the 23 concentration camps. It's probably one of the most 24 important films made in the 20th century and a film 25 which as many people as possible should be encouraged to Page 26 1 see. It's perhaps worth noting that a number of years 2 ago, when France experienced the desecration of a number 3 of Jewish cemeteries, the French television channels 4 entirely broke from their -- what they were televising 5 and showed this particular film. 6 Q. The final article which attracted contempt 7 proceedings -- I merely refer to it but it does deserve 8 to be bracketed with the other articles -- is at 9 page 21, Daily Mirror, new year's day: 10 "Was killer waiting in Jo's flat?" 11 The suggestion being that it was or may have been 12 you because you were nearby and equally, the suggestion 13 is, well, you had the wherewithal. 14 A. Because I was the landlord, I had therefore keys to the 15 flat. I must have been or quite possibly I was waiting 16 there for her when she returned, yes. 17 Q. The final article I'd like to refer to -- it is right to 18 say that the material you draw to our attention is all 19 equally important, but the same sort of defamatory and 20 scandalous themes come out of each of them, with varying 21 degrees of intensity, I suppose. We know that Mr Greg 22 Reardon gave a public statement. This is paragraph 29 23 of your witness statement on new year's day. This was 24 read out by Mr Sherborne when he opened the case but 25 it's important to see how one publication -- one organ Page 27 1 of the press, I should say -- how they reported on this 2 statement. 3 What the statement said is: 4 "Jo's life was cut short tragically but the 5 finger-pointing and character assassination by social 6 and news media of as yet an innocent men has been 7 shameful. It has made me lose a lot of faith in the 8 morality of the British press and those who spend their 9 time fixed to the Internet in this modern age." 10 Then he asks for a more sensitive and impartial 11 view. 12 Go to page 25 of the exhibits bundle, CJ1. The way 13 that that's reported in the Sunday Mirror is on the 14 left-hand side. I've read it twice now, but I see no 15 reference in that report to the important point 16 Mr Reardon was making, "the finger-pointing and 17 character assassination by social and news media of as 18 yet an innocent man has been shameful". 19 A. Indeed. 20 Q. They reported other things, but not that important 21 statement. 22 A. That particular aspect of the statement was very largely 23 ignored for, I suppose, obvious reasons. 24 Q. You refer in paragraph 30 to this inaccurate reporting. 25 So that we're clear about it, the exhibit bundle Page 28 1 contains the Sunday Mirror. It doesn't contain the 2 other two publications you refer to, so I haven't been, 3 as it were, able to satisfy myself. I'm not doubting 4 for one moment you're wrong, but the reporting -- 5 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: You're not doubting that he's right. 6 MR JAY: I just haven't read it -- 7 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: No, you said you're not doubting he's 8 wrong. You're actually saying he's right. 9 MR JAY: Yes. 10 A. I think the only reason that those particular newspapers 11 are not in the bundle is that copies weren't readily 12 available at the time that the photocopying was being 13 compiled. 14 Q. Yes, thank you. You've already told us, Mr Jefferies, 15 about what happened in relation to your experiences 16 after you were released, what must have been an 17 extremely difficult time. You describe it in your own 18 words as surreal, at least in part. On 4 March, 19 I probably said earlier, the police lifted your bail 20 conditions and you were no longer a suspect, but -- 21 A. But certainly the couple of months immediately preceding 22 that, while I was still under suspicion, without doubt, 23 were the most difficult period I think I have spent, 24 living this hole-in-corner existence and with my life, 25 in effect, being in abeyance. Day 8 AM Leveson Inquiry 28 November 2011 (+44) 207 404 1400 London EC4A 2DY Merrill Legal Solutions www.merrillcorp/mls.com 8th Floor 165 Fleet Street 8 (Pages 29 to 32) Page 29 1 Q. What happened then is that contempt proceedings were 2 started by the Attorney General, and we know that 3 judgment was handed down at the end of July of this 4 year, but at about the same time, you commenced libel 5 actions against eight separate publications. 6 A. Mm-hm. 7 Q. I think the exact chronology is that letters before 8 claim were sent on 28 April of in year. Does that sound 9 about right? 10 A. That sounds about right, yes. 11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Is there anywhere listed the titles 12 against which proceedings were commenced? 13 MR JAY: They include the eight listed in paragraph 25, but 14 we don't have a list of all of them, Mr Jefferies; is 15 that right? 16 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: All I ask is that at some stage -- 17 I just want to know the names of the titles. I'm not 18 asking -- 19 A. There were eight titles -- eight newspapers, 20 therefore -- which were the subject of legal 21 proceedings, and those eight are indeed listed in the 22 witness statement. 23 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Are they? 24 MR JAY: We have some separate evidence which covers this, 25 which you've provided to us and I can provide the eight Page 30 1 now. They're the Sun, the Daily Express, the 2 Daily Mirror, the Daily Mail, the Scotsman, the 3 Daily Record, the Star and the Sunday Mirror. 4 A. That's right. 5 Q. Unfortunately, that's nine. 6 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank you. 7 MR JAY: So that we understand the sequence of events, did 8 the newspapers contest the libel claims, Mr Jefferies? 9 A. No, they didn't. 10 Q. How quickly did they admit the libel claim? Can you 11 give us a sense of the chronology? 12 A. I suppose I don't need to remind those in this room that 13 legal proceedings are never speedy, or rarely speedy, 14 but I suppose we're talking about a period of three 15 months or so between the original letters being sent out 16 and an agreement as to settlement being arrived at. 17 Q. We know there was a statement in open court on 29 July 18 of this year. 19 A. Mm-hm. 20 Q. The newspapers admitted liability, gave the standard 21 apologies on these occasions -- 22 A. Mm-hm. 23 Q. -- and agreed to pay you substantial damages. 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. So in that three-month period, following, presumably, Page 31 1 quite early admissions of liability -- we needn't go 2 into the details -- there were discussions between your 3 legal advisers and the eight newspapers as to the amount 4 of damages? 5 A. That is true, yes. 6 Q. I'm not going to give evidence, but I think in the 7 experience we have of defamation, that is pretty fast, 8 Mr Jefferies, but whether that observation -- 9 A. Yes, obviously I have no other experience of bringing 10 defamation proceedings. 11 Q. No, I'm sure you haven't. I be sincerely hope you have 12 no future experience of it either. Thank you. 13 You tell us in your witness statement that there was 14 one interview you gave and that was to the 15 Financial Times, Mr Brian Cathcart. 16 A. Indeed, Professor Brian Cathcart. 17 Q. Pardon me, you're absolutely right. His article is in 18 our bundle CJ1 at page 27. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. It was published in the Financial Times on 8 October 21 2011. This followed an interview with you; is that 22 right, Mr Jefferies? 23 A. That's right, yes. I think that Professor Cathcart does 24 a particularly good job in distilling the essence of the 25 allegations that were made in the various newspapers. Page 32 1 If I could just take the opportunity to draw 2 people's attention to one particular part of that 3 article, which is page 31 of the bundle -- 4 Q. Thank you? 5 A. -- and page 5 of the article itself, in which he says: 6 "This hostile evidence was founded almost entirely 7 on unnamed witnesses, with some of the most contentious 8 quotations reproduced in several papers. The careful 9 reader who relied only on quotes from people who were 10 identified by name would probably have seen a very 11 different picture." 12 He then lists one or two of those and goes on to 13 say: 14 "They described in various papers, although usually 15 towards the end of articles, a man who was a dedicated 16 teacher, a responsible landlord and an active member of 17 his community. Several expressed amazement at his 18 arrest or downright disbelief at the idea of his killing 19 anyone. Put these together with some readily available 20 facts and it would have been possible to flip the 21 picture entirely." 22 And it continues to the end of the paragraph. 23 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But ending: 24 "... but editors did not give prominence to that 25 interpretation." Day 8 AM Leveson Inquiry 28 November 2011 (+44) 207 404 1400 London EC4A 2DY Merrill Legal Solutions www.merrillcorp/mls.com 8th Floor 165 Fleet Street 9 (Pages 33 to 36) Page 33 1 A. Indeed, yes. 2 MR JAY: Another flight of understatement. There was 3 absolutely no reference to that interpretation. 4 A. No, it's -- 5 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Some of the facts were in fact 6 reported, weren't they? 7 A. Oh yes. 8 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Some of the positive facts were 9 reported? 10 A. Yes, that's entirely true. But it is, I think, 11 incontestable that the whole slanting of the reporting 12 was intended to be as sensational, as exploitative, as 13 titillating and to appeal in every possible way to 14 people's voyeuristic instincts. 15 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: It's worse than that, because besides 16 doing that, it was creating a picture of you which was 17 extremely damaging and potentially abusive to any 18 proceedings. 19 A. Oh, indeed, yes. Yes. 20 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Besides being entirely false. 21 A. Mm. 22 MR JAY: Is that to date the only interview you've given, 23 Mr Jefferies? 24 A. No. I did give an interview for ITN News. One of the 25 reasons that I gave that was that the interviewer Page 34 1 happened to be somebody whom at one stage I taught. 2 Q. Thank you. In terms of the legal process, the contempt 3 proceedings have been determined. There's ongoing 4 litigation against the police. 5 May I deal with the issue of the Press Complaints 6 Commission? 7 A. Oh yes. 8 Q. You tell us in paragraph 47 that one of your relatives 9 was so concerned about the press hounding that she 10 contacted the PCC. Were you involved ultimately in 11 correspondence with the PCC? 12 A. Yes, I was, because on 2 August this year, the director 13 of the Press Complaints Commission wrote to my solicitor 14 indicating that the PCC would now wish to examine -- I'm 15 quoting from the letter -- how the problems within the 16 newspapers arose and what could be done in future in 17 order to prevent recurrence. I offered to write a reply 18 to the Press Complaints Commission, which I duly did on 19 10 August, and that letter is part of the bundle. 20 Q. Maybe you should read it out in full, Mr Jefferies. We 21 have a transcript which is at the very end of our tab 1 22 bundle we have caused to be prepared for you. It's 23 addressed to the director of the PCC. 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Could you read it all out, beginning with the second Page 35 1 paragraph: 2 "It may well be that ..." 3 A. Yes: 4 "It may well be that had I chosen to make 5 representations to the PCC concerning my treatment by 6 the press over the new year period, they would have 7 found in my favour. However, such redress as you are 8 able to provide would have been wholly inadequate as 9 a remedy for the wrongs committed. You have no powers 10 to fine newspapers, nor to order them to make financial 11 compensation to their victims, and it is, to my mind, 12 entirely improper that those against whom complaints are 13 being made -- in this case, newspaper editors -- should 14 be in the position of assessing the validity of those 15 complaints. It is no wonder that the PCC is held in 16 such low esteem. Indeed, I would suggest that the 17 shocking and reckless irresponsibility displayed by 18 sections of the media is in part attributable to the 19 failure of the current regulatory system and the 20 weakness of the voluntary code of practice. I was 21 startled to hear the editor of the Scotsman, one of the 22 papers sued by me for libel and himself a member of the 23 PCC, describe his paper's coverage of my arrest as 24 a mistake. Plainly that was the case, but the word does 25 not begin to describe the journalistic failures which Page 36 1 allowed the dissemination of allegations, suggestions 2 and innuendos that were entirely untrue. Unless 3 a regulatory body is in possession of powers so severe 4 that they act as a genuine deterrent, there seems little 5 prospect of any real reform in press standards. The 6 sacred cow of press freedom has been allowed to excuse 7 licence, irresponsibility and, in the coverage of my 8 case, flagrant lawlessness. As things stand, it seems 9 that newspapers, in the search for sensation and 10 increased sales, will take almost any risks, knowing 11 that the penalties available are unlikely seriously to 12 hurt them. That has nothing whatever to do with public 13 service journalism. If the PCC wishes to show itself at 14 all concerned to uphold the standards of responsible 15 journalism, it will publish a strongly worded statement 16 welcoming the Attorney General's prosecution of the Sun 17 and the Daily Mirror for contempt of court and 18 condemning the libellous and scurrilous reporting that 19 accompanied the arrest of an innocent man." 20 It may be worth adding that I didn't actually 21 receive an acknowledgment. 22 Q. Thank you, Mr Jefferies. 23 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Do you know whether anything was in 24 fact published by the PCC? 25 A. I am not aware of anything published by the PCC. Day 8 AM Leveson Inquiry 28 November 2011 (+44) 207 404 1400 London EC4A 2DY Merrill Legal Solutions www.merrillcorp/mls.com 8th Floor 165 Fleet Street 10 (Pages 37 to 40) Page 37 1 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank you. 2 MR JAY: I don't believe there was, but we will check. 3 A. Right. 4 Q. We've heard, in relation to some evidence we heard last 5 week, that there were front-page apologies in the case 6 of the McCanns, of course. Were there apologies in any 7 of the eight or nine newspapers -- 8 A. There were indeed apologies printed, although not front 9 page apologies. My memory is that they were printed on 10 page 2, towards the top of the page. 11 Q. Did you receive any communication from the editors of 12 any of those papers or -- 13 A. No communication whatsoever, no. 14 Perhaps there is just one other thing I could say at 15 this stage. Obviously we are -- we have been concerned 16 so far with tabloid titles, but there was some concern 17 about the coverage of my arrest in at least one of the 18 broadsheet titles. I don't intend to refer to that 19 specifically, but I am aware that quite a large number 20 of people wrote to that particular newspaper to complain 21 about its coverage of my arrest because they got in 22 touch with me and in some cases sent me copies of their 23 letters. None of those letters were published in that 24 broadsheet and there was no response to those letters, 25 even when one of their own columnists brought the Page 38 1 attention of those letters to one of the editors. 2 Q. Deal with the impact on you, particularly in the context 3 of the libel and the overall context. 4 Because by the time the libel actions were 5 settled -- indeed, before then -- it was conclusively 6 established that you were not guilty of the murder of 7 Joanna Yeates because someone else was. At that stage 8 the someone else, who of course has now been convicted, 9 the possibilities were only murder or manslaughter, but 10 his involvement was definitively established. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. We also know that you received substantial libel 13 damages. Do you feel -- 14 A. If I could just interrupt you for one moment, it wasn't 15 just a question of it being conclusively established 16 that I had been in no way implicated in the murder of 17 Joanna Yeates. It was also accepted, for example, that 18 I had never behaved improperly towards any pupil at any 19 stage in my career, which obviously had been part of the 20 defamatory allegations. 21 Q. Indeed. Do you feel that the existing system which 22 enables you to bring proceedings for libel, that system 23 has effectively cleared your reputation or reinstated 24 your reputation? 25 A. Certainly so far as those specific original allegations Page 39 1 are concerned, but when coverage is so widespread, as it 2 was in my case, and the smears were so extensive then 3 I suppose it's true to say that there will always be 4 people who don't know me, people who don't know anybody 5 that I know, who will retain the impression that I am 6 some sort of very weird character indeed, who is 7 probably best avoided, even if they were not guilty of 8 those specific criminal activities. 9 Q. In terms of the funding of the libel actions, we're 10 naturally aware that these proceedings are capable of 11 being extremely expensive. 12 A. That's right. 13 Q. You obtained the services of solicitors on a conditional 14 fee agreement? 15 A. Indeed, yes, without which it would really not have been 16 possible to bring the actions. 17 Q. In terms of the longer term -- this is paragraph 57, 18 Mr Jefferies -- you say this: 19 "I will never fully recover from the events of last 20 year. The incalculable effect of what was written about 21 me by these highly influential tabloid newspapers is 22 something from which it would be difficult ever to 23 escape. The purpose of my agreeing to give this 24 statement is that I hope it may prevent the same fate 25 befalling someone else." Page 40 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Does that remain the position? 3 A. Indeed it does, and I very much hope that as a result of 4 the present Inquiry, it will be possible to put in place 5 arrangements whereby it will be very difficult indeed 6 for newspapers to behave in the future in the way in 7 which they behaved in my case. 8 Q. I've been asked to put this question to you by another 9 core participant. Do you follow me, Mr Jefferies? 10 A. Mm. 11 Q. It's this: do you recall if anyone on your behalf 12 offered to sell your exclusive story to any newspaper? 13 A. I certainly have an agent who is in contact with all 14 those media organisations who are interested in what 15 happened to me. As you will appreciate, there are 16 a very large number of contacts which were made 17 following my release from custody and it certainly would 18 not have been possible for me to deal myself with all 19 those approaches, and I have left it entirely up to him 20 to deal with those approaches as he feels fit, or indeed 21 to approach any organisations, should he so see it as 22 being fit on my behalf. 23 Q. In terms of the timing, might that have been as early 24 as February of this year? 25 A. Certainly he was acting on my behalf in February of this Day 8 AM Leveson Inquiry 28 November 2011 (+44) 207 404 1400 London EC4A 2DY Merrill Legal Solutions www.merrillcorp/mls.com 8th Floor 165 Fleet Street 11 (Pages 41 to 44) Page 41 1 year, yes. 2 MR JAY: Mr Jefferies, I have no further questions for you, 3 save to reserve and thank you for the way in which 4 you've given your evidence. 5 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank you very much. I would be 6 grateful if you would supply me with a copy of the 7 broadsheet newspaper article to which you've referred. 8 I'm not asking you to go into further detail, but I'd 9 just like to see it. 10 I repeat my thanks to you for the reasons that 11 I gave as you started your evidence. 12 A. Thank you very much indeed. 13 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Right. That's a convenient moment to 14 have five minutes and some of the things that we've 15 spoken about this morning prior to Mr Jefferies' 16 evidence could be thought about. Thank you. Five 17 minutes. 18 (11.12 am) 19 (A short break)