13 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank you very much. 14 I am very conscious that Deputy Assistant 15 Commissioner Akers has interrupted her other entirely 16 appropriate activities to be available this morning to 17 provide an update on her enquiries and those of her 18 team, which I think do a great deal to provide the 19 context within which a great deal of this will be 20 considered. Normally I would hear Mr Garnham and then 21 Mr Phillips, but I want to make sure that we have 22 sufficient time to hear the Deputy Assistant 23 Commissioner without further inconveniencing her. 24 I don't say "inconveniencing her" because I already 25 have. 38 1 I don't think it would be inappropriate to hear her 2 evidence now, because it might indeed provide some 3 context for Mr Garnham and Mr Phillips, but I'm prepared 4 to reconsider that. Mr Garnham? 5 MR GARNHAM: Sir, I would urge you to hear her now. 6 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Mr Phillips, do you have a complaint 7 about that? Right, let's do that and then we'll hear 8 Mr Garnham and Mr Phillips before carrying on with the 9 next evidence. 10 DAC SUE AKERS (recalled) 11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank you very much, I'm very 12 grateful to you, Ms Akers. 13 A. Thank you, sir. We thought it was important. 14 Questions by MR JAY 15 MR JAY: Bear with me one moment. I have to find your 16 statement. My apologies, I've put it somewhere too 17 safe. 18 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Only if you have a spare one, 19 Mr Garnham. 20 MR GARNHAM: I know it by heart. 21 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: You know it by heart? 22 No, take that one. I don't want to trust 23 Mr Garnham's memory. Right. 24 MR JAY: You have kindly provided a second witness 25 statement, Deputy Assistant Commissioner. It's dated 39 1 24 February. The Inquiry is very grateful for it. 2 There is a statement of truth in the usual form and 3 you've signed the statement and this is your formal 4 further evidence to the Inquiry; is that right? 5 A. Yes, it is. I wonder, before we begin, whether I could, 6 having had the opportunity to read over the statement 7 again last night -- it was a rushed statement, as you 8 know, at the end of last week -- whether I might just 9 make a few amendments now? 10 Q. Please do. 11 A. Some corrections. Firstly, there are some reference to 12 "cash payments". I'd like that word "cash" to be 13 interpreted more widely to incorporate, as it does 14 occasionally, cheques. 15 Secondly, on paragraph 21, when we talk about 16 assessment of public interest, I'd like the second line 17 to read: 18 "Essentially, it is first for the CPS and then for 19 a judge to make the final assessment in relation to 20 whether there is a public interest in a specific 21 disclosure." 22 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. 23 A. At paragraph 5, there's just a simple typo. The last 24 line: 25 "Given the issues raised by Article 10 of the Human 40 1 Rights Convention ..." 2 Comma, "legal advice", not full stop. 3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. 4 A. A more general point. Although I haven't specifically 5 stated throughout the statement, wherever payments or 6 offences are referred to, it should be read, obviously, 7 as alleged, as nothing is yet proved. 8 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. 9 A. And finally, when you come to paragraph 16, I'd like to 10 explain what I mean by "network", in case it isn't 11 obvious. 12 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank you. The individual 13 typographical changes should be made to the statement 14 before it is put online, so that we can correct that. 15 The other matters we'll take into account as Ms Akers 16 gives evidence. Thank you. 17 MR JAY: Deputy Assistant Commissioner, you told us earlier 18 in the month, I think it was 6 February, what the scope 19 of Operation Elveden is, and you deal with that again in 20 paragraph 2 of your statement. 21 The role of the Management and Standards Committee, 22 an independent body outside of News International, have 23 they been of great assistance to you in taking 24 Operation Elveden forward? 25 A. They have. That's because of their independence from 41 1 News International, and it's that set-up that I hope 2 goes a long way to allay some criticisms that have been 3 made about how it's perceived that it can't be 4 necessarily an independent inquiry. The fact that we 5 are dealing with the MSC directly and not 6 News International I think should make any contention 7 that it isn't independent without foundation. 8 Q. Thank you. You touch on that specifically under 9 paragraph 46 your statement. 10 A. I do. 11 Q. In paragraph 5, you make it clear that the terms of 12 reference of Elveden were initially set in relation to 13 payments to police officers by News International staff 14 only, but it's always been your intention to follow the 15 evidence where it takes us, and we're about to hear that 16 the evidence has taken you further. Can you just 17 identify, please, the possible criminal offences which 18 are involved here? Corruption under the Prevention of 19 Corruption Act 1906? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Misconduct in public office, which I think is a common 22 law offence; is that right? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And then there's the conspiracy -- 25 A. Conspiracy to -- 42 1 Q. Which I think is probably under the Criminal Law Act; is 2 that correct? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And the effect of Article 10 of the Convention means 5 that there are public interest considerations which you 6 are taking into account at all stages; is that right? 7 A. That's correct, yes. 8 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Have you passed by paragraph 3, 9 Mr Jay? Because if you have, there's a question I'd 10 like to ask about it. 11 You make the point that the MSC respond to requests 12 for information from the police which are relevant to 13 your enquiries, but it's not to uncover legitimate 14 sources. I'd just like to understand how that works, if 15 I could. Under PACE, before you're entitled to obtain 16 a warrant, you have to have tried other methods of 17 obtaining the information. I'd just like to understand 18 the context and the MO, if you like, given the 19 suggestion that actually the MSC are simply dumping all 20 sorts of material, irrespective of Article 10 21 considerations, on the police, or the extent to which 22 it's actually responsive to police enquiries. Do if you 23 understand what I'm trying to investigate? 24 A. Yes, absolutely. The whole objective is to identify 25 criminality and it's not to identify legitimate sources 43 1 from journalists, and as such, the MSC don't provide us 2 with any material that would indeed do that. So they 3 seek to protect journalistic sources, legitimate ones, 4 at all times. 5 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: And they are responsive to you rather 6 than proactive towards you or what? 7 A. Both, sir. They are conducting their own review 8 internally, and when they come across material, they 9 will produce it to us and then we conduct our own 10 enquiries, and as a result of which we will then make 11 demands of them. 12 MR JAY: You explain in paragraph 7 that in relation to 13 certain categories of information, it comes to you 14 unredacted, but in relation to other categories of 15 information, specifically the system by which cash 16 payments are made, it's provided to you redacted, but 17 then you, on further request, if there's evidence which 18 can justify identifying the source, they're then 19 provided to you unredacted; is that right? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. In paragraph 8, you begin to deal with the way in which 22 Operation Elveden has progressed. 20 June 2011, 23 material was disclosed which identified an 24 ex-News of the World journalist, who may have paid the 25 police for information. In your own words, what has 44 1 happened to that line of enquiry? 2 A. We've identified a number of ex-senior managers who 3 were -- and indeed arrested them -- for authorising or 4 facilitating the payments, but we haven't yet identified 5 the police officers. 6 Q. In paragraph 9 you deal with the arrest of a journalist 7 in December 2011. Again, in your own words, how did 8 that arise, please? 9 A. That came, again, through disclosure of a large quantity 10 of material which was volumes of business records that 11 we went through. Very time-consuming, and again, we 12 haven't as yet arrested any police officers or police 13 staff as a result of that analysis. 14 Q. Then in paragraph 10, following email searches, a police 15 officer from the MPS specialist operations directorate 16 was identified, and he or she was seeking payments from 17 journalists within the News of the World. That officer 18 was arrested in December? 19 A. Arrested in December. 20 Q. Thank you. You-make it clear in paragraph 11 the 21 searches of News of the World emails continues. Is this 22 the 300 -- it's billion, I think, emails in all; is that 23 right? 24 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: 300 million, I think. 25 A. 300 million. 45 1 Q. Sorry. One order of magnitude too many. 2 A. I think it's News International, not just exclusively 3 News of the World. 4 Q. Thank you. At paragraph 12, you say that last year the 5 MCS initiated of their own volition an internal review 6 of the Sun newspaper. This review had not been 7 requested by the MPS, and to paraphrase, they found some 8 suspicious emails, which were provided to you and then 9 there were some arrests? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. In terms of the sequence of arrests, could you identify 12 those for us, please? 13 A. One Sun journalist arrested in November last year. We 14 then had further disclosure from the MSC on the 18th and 15 24 January this year, and these disclosures led to 16 arrests made on 28 January of four Sun or 17 News International employees and one serving police 18 officer, and then a further operation on Saturday, 19 11 February this year, led to the arrest of a further 20 five Sun employees, another serving police officer, one 21 member of the MOD and an army officer. There was also 22 a relative of one of the public officials who was 23 arrested acting as a conduit to hide the cheque payment 24 to that person. 25 Q. Thank you. Paragraph 13, please. This explains, in 46 1 part at least, why the arrests were carried out. You, 2 of course, had sufficient information to justify the 3 arrests but you were seeking further information, or 4 possibly further information; is that right? 5 A. Yes, it was, yes. 6 Q. Paragraph 14: 7 "The purpose of police action to date has been 8 proactively to investigate the criminality which has 9 been identified. The aim has never been to threaten the 10 existence of the Sun. To this end, there has been 11 liaison with the MSC to take account of business risks 12 to the Sun newspaper, hence searches being made at the 13 Sun offices on a Saturday when the office would be 14 empty." 15 A. Empty. 16 Q. Of course, the position has changed a bit with the 17 publication of the Sun on Sunday. 18 A. That's true. 19 Q. But it was certainly true at the time -- 20 A. That was true at the time. 21 Q. -- this was being considered. 22 Paragraph 16, please. Could you paraphrase that to 23 us in your own words. 24 A. Yes. The payments have been made not only to police 25 officers but to a wide range of public officials. So 47 1 there are categories as well as police: military, 2 health, government, prison and others. This suggests 3 that payments were being made to public officials who 4 were in all areas of public life. 5 I have said that the current assessment is that it 6 reveals a network of corrupted officials. When I say 7 "network", I don't necessarily mean -- and I don't 8 mean -- that the officials are in contact with each 9 other; more that the journalists had a network upon 10 which to call at various strategic places across public 11 life. 12 There also appears to have been a culture at the Sun 13 of illegal payments, and systems have been created to 14 facilitate those payments, whilst hiding the identity of 15 the officials receiving the money. The emails indicate 16 that payments to sources were openly referred to within 17 the Sun, in which case the source is not named, but 18 rather the category "public official" is identified, 19 rather than the name. 20 Q. Yes. In paragraph 17, you set out material which 21 indicates that the journalists involved were well aware 22 that what they were doing was unlawful according to the 23 criminal law; is that right? 24 A. Yes, and that's really by reference to comments being 25 made in staff risking losing their pension or their job, 48 1 the need for care and the need for cash payments. 2 There's also an indication of what we would describe 3 as "tradecraft"; in other words, hiding the cash 4 payments to sources by making them to a friend or 5 relative of the source, and I have referred to that 6 earlier when I said we've arrested an individual who'd 7 acted as a conduit. 8 Further evidence is that the authority level for 9 these type of payments was made at a very senior 10 level -- or a senior level within the newspaper. 11 Q. Yes. In paragraph 18, you fairly make the point -- it 12 was touched on in your earlier evidence -- that it's 13 much easier to identify the journalist than the public 14 official and that's why more journalists have been 15 arrested than public officials; is that right? 16 A. Exactly. It is hoped that as we progress and do more 17 enquiries that we will identify corrupt public 18 officials, but at the moment certainly that's true. 19 Q. Thank you. 20 Obviously you're not going to set out your future 21 strategy so the that it's emblazoned in the public 22 domain, but in paragraph 20 you've set out general 23 examples of the sort of criminality that we are 24 concerned with here, and again, because this is very 25 important -- 49 1 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Or the inferences that you think are 2 possible to draw. That's the fair approach to this, 3 isn't it? Ultimately, it's not your decision, as you 4 made clear in the beginning of your evidence, but to 5 provide a context -- I think that's what you're doing in 6 paragraph 20? 7 A. Yes, I am. 8 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Right. 9 MR JAY: Thank you. So in paragraph 20, Deputy Assistant 10 Commissioner, is the material you're drawing to the 11 Inquiry's attention? 12 A. They're certainly not ones which involved just the odd 13 drink or a meal to police officers or other public 14 officials. These are cases in which arrests have been 15 made involving the delivery of regular, frequent and 16 sometimes significant sums of money to small numbers of 17 public officials by journalists. Some of the initial 18 emails reveal, upon analysis, that multiple payments 19 have been made to individuals amounting to thousands of 20 pounds. In one case, over a period of several years, 21 this amounts to in excess of £80,000. 22 There's also mention in some emails of public 23 officials being placed on retainers, and this is also 24 a line of enquiry that we're exploring. One of the 25 arrested journalists, for example, has, over several 50 1 year, received over £150,000 in cash to pay his sources, 2 a number of whom were public officials. Not all, but 3 a number. 4 Q. Thank you. This gives us an idea of the seriousness of 5 these matters. 6 At paragraph 21, you deal with public interest 7 issues. Again, because this is important, could we have 8 this in your own words, please, Deputy Assistant 9 Commissioner? 10 A. As we said earlier, we're very mindful of Article 10 and 11 the issues regarding public interest, and we work very 12 closely with the CPS to look at every strand of our 13 investigation and assess the public interest. 14 Ultimately, it's not for me. It is first for the CPS 15 and then for a judge to make the final assessment, but 16 we are looking at public interest at the earlier stages 17 as well as the later stages. 18 What I can indicate is that the vast majority of the 19 disclosures that have been made have led to stories 20 which I would describe as salacious gossip, rather than 21 anything that could be remotely regarded as in the 22 public interest, and they often involve a breach of 23 trust by the public official and an invasion into the 24 privacy of the subject of the newspaper article. 25 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Is that because you're able to link 51 1 particular payments to particular articles? 2 A. Yes, we can, sir. That's the -- that goes really to the 3 heart of the investigation. 4 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank you. 5 MR JAY: In paragraph 22, you reemphasise a point you've 6 made earlier, but again it's important: mindful of the 7 need to protect genuine journalistic sources but in 8 seeking to identify corrupt relationships, it is 9 necessary to probe this sensitive area. 10 A. Yes, absolutely, and again, the MSC make sure they 11 manage the disclosures for that reason and we don't seek 12 to act against such sources. 13 MR JAY: Thank you very much, Ms Akers. 14 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank you very much. What you do is 15 you provide a context within which I must now consider 16 the rest of this part of the Inquiry. I appreciate that 17 this context is fast-changing, and I therefore would be 18 grateful if, as we progress and as you progress, to such 19 extent as it is not, in any sense, damaging to your 20 investigation or to any subsequent prosecution, you 21 would be prepared to keep me informed as to what's going 22 on. 23 A. Of course, of course. 24 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Because the more that I can provide 25 the context and understand the context, then the better 52 1 to help devise mechanisms to put in place that avoid the 2 risk of this happening in the future. 3 So number one, I absolutely do not wish to prejudice 4 your investigations or a prosecution, if there is to be 5 one. But number two, the more that you can keep us 6 informed, for me, the better. 7 A. I understand. 8 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank you very much and thank you 9 again for being prepared to come this morning. 10 A. Thank you, sir. 11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank you.