1 MR JAY: The next witness it is Mr Max Mosley, please. 2 MR MAX MOSLEY (sworn) 3 Questions from MR JAY 4 MR JAY: Make yourself comfortable, please, Mr Mosley and 5 your full name for the record. 6 A. Is Max Rufus Mosley. 7 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Mr Mosley can I thank you as well for 8 the effort you've put into assisting the Inquiry. You 9 must be heartily sick of lawyers, even if you are one 10 yourself. But I'm very grateful. 11 A. Thank you. 12 MR JAY: Mr Mosley, there is a lengthy witness statement 13 which you have signed. I'm going to ask you, please, to 14 turn it up in that large forbidding bundle in front of 15 you under tab 1 and confirm, please, on the 29th page, 16 that that is your signature that bears the date 17 31 October this year, and that you have signed 18 a statement of truth; is that correct? 19 A. Yes, I have. 20 Q. In relation to yourself, you were born in 1940, you are 21 fluent in French and German, you went to Christchurch, 22 Oxford, to read physics and you then qualified as 23 a barrister? 24 A. That is correct. 25 Q. In terms of your professional career, you didn't in fact 71 1 practice full-time in the Bar, you did something else 2 altogether, Formula 1. Tell us a little bit about that. 3 A. While I was at the Bar, I used to race in club races as 4 a sort of hobby and that grew and eventually I moved up 5 into Formula 2, which is just the category below 6 Formula 1, and met people I'd been at Oxford with and we 7 decided to start a company making racing cars, so I gave 8 up the Bar after five years and entered the world of 9 motor racing. 10 Q. What happened, to cut a very long story short, because 11 it was a very distinguished career, is that at one point 12 you were president of FISA, which is part of the FIA, 13 but then in 1993, you were elected present of the FIA, 14 which is the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile, 15 the governing body of Formula 1? 16 A. That is correct. 17 Q. And you remained in that role until your retirement in 18 2009. Please give us a thumbnail sketch of what might 19 be said were your achievements in that role. 20 A. Obviously the FIA is known because of motorsport, 21 because it particularly governs Formula 1, but it is 22 actually the world federation of all the big motoring 23 clubs, and so during the time I was there, we expanded 24 enormously the amount of activity concerning ordinary 25 motoring, and I had a great deal of activity, 72 1 particularly in Brussels, to do with road safety and the 2 environment, and the main thing I did was I started, 3 with other people, the European new car assessment 4 programme, which was a crash test programme to improve 5 the safety of vehicles, and that led to really what can 6 be called a revolution in the safety of road vehicles, 7 and I think has contributed to saving a very great 8 number of lives, hundreds in this country, thousands in 9 Europe. 10 Of course it wasn't just me, it was the organisation 11 which I headed, but it's the side of it that nobody 12 talks about, they talk more about Formula 1 motorsport, 13 but it was actually the road safety plus the 14 environmental things, things like improving the 15 emissions legislation so it was more effective. There 16 was an endless list of things to do. 17 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: This is road safety across the piece, 18 nothing to do with trying to drive fast, but simply 19 trying to drive safely on the roads of countries 20 throughout Europe? 21 A. Exactly, sir, yes. It was -- deaths on the roads for 22 example in this country has halved in the last 15 years 23 and about 30 per cent of that, according to Transport 24 Research Laboratory, is due to improved vehicle safety, 25 and I think what we did is probably responsible for 73 1 most, if not all, of that. So it's significant. 2 MR JAY: The world of Formula 1, of course, is a glamorous 3 world. Would you say that you were someone who courted 4 publicity, Mr Mosley? 5 A. No, never. I tried to get on and do my job. I felt 6 that if you're running something like Formula 1, it's 7 a bit like running a hotel. If it's done properly, you 8 never see the manager. The people who were the stars 9 and the publicity were the drivers. My job really was 10 to try and run it and make sure first of all that nobody 11 got killed and secondly that it was run as fairly as it 12 possibly could be in a very, very difficult 13 technological environment. 14 Q. We should note that you received a Legion d'honneur in 15 Paris, the only public function, I think, that your wife 16 attended; is that correct? 17 A. It is correct. That was entirely to do with road safety 18 rather than Formula 1. 19 Q. One might be forgiven for observing on a personal note 20 that this world is a long way removed from the world 21 which your parents inhabited. Is that a fair way of 22 describing it? 23 A. It is. There was an element of deliberateness about 24 that. The first time that I took part in a club race 25 and got somewhere up the grid, people were standing 74 1 around talking about the list of people, and somebody 2 said, "Mosley, Max Mosley, he must be some relation of 3 Alf Mosley the coach builder from Leicester", and 4 I thought I'd found a world where things are slightly 5 different. 6 Q. Thank you. I'm going to move straight to paragraph 10 7 of your witness statement, and the date is 30 March 8 2008, Mr Mosley. It's an article published in the 9 News of the World. I'm just going to give the heading, 10 we're not going to look at the text, I'm going to 11 paraphrase one matter, and we're certainly not going to 12 look further than that. 13 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: And there's no question of this 14 article appearing -- 15 MR JAY: No. 16 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: -- Anywhere. Good. 17 MR JAY: "Formula 1 boss has sick Nazi orgy with five 18 hookers." 19 The article itself links you with your father, 20 doesn't it? 21 A. It does. 22 Q. The article appeared on the front page and then on pages 23 4 and 5 of the newspaper, and photographs appear which 24 were the result of I think a covert camera in the lapel 25 of Woman E, as she was called; is that correct? 75 1 A. That is correct. 2 Q. Can you tell us, please, about the timing? The article 3 was not in the first edition of the News of the World, 4 it was in the second edition. Why do you think that was 5 the case? 6 A. I think that was to avoid any danger of me finding out 7 about the article and asking for an injunction to stop 8 it being published. 9 Q. So it's implicit in what you've said that the first you 10 knew about the article is when it was drawn to your 11 attention, you were given no forewarning by anyone? 12 A. That is correct. I first learnt of it about 10 o'clock 13 on the Sunday morning. 14 Q. The article had two aspects. There was a personal 15 aspect, it goes without saying, but then overlaid on 16 that there was the Nazi theme aspect. 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And both must have caused you concern, but the Nazi 19 theme was particularly damaging; is that right? 20 A. Well, yes. I mean the other theme was a straightforward 21 invasion of privacy, which I thought was outrageous and 22 illegal, but the Nazi allegation was completely untrue 23 and to me, particularly, enormously damaging. And I was 24 outraged by that. 25 Q. Yes. What happened, tell me if I've got this right, on 76 1 the News of the World website, video footage was placed? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. Was it put there in a way in which it could be copied by 4 others, to your knowledge, or not? 5 A. Yes, my understanding is that there is software which 6 prevents videos being copied, but they did not, for 7 whatever reason, employ that software, so the video was 8 then copied all over the world. 9 Q. I think initially the video footage was removed by the 10 News of the World at the request of your lawyers. 11 However they then notified you that they were going to 12 put it back online, and that prompted you to apply for 13 an emergency injunction; have I got that right? 14 A. I think that's right, from memory. We asked them to 15 take it down, and then we applied for an injunction, but 16 they put it up again I think over the weekend, even. 17 Q. Just moving ahead a little bit, Mr Mosley, the precise 18 chronology is that the application for an emergency 19 injunction was heard by Mr Justice Eady the Friday 20 afternoon, which was 4 April? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. And his Lordship indicated that he would reserve his 23 judgment over the weekend, and presumably deliver it on 24 Monday morning. Do I have that right? 25 A. That's correct. 77 1 Q. But what happened over the weekend in relation to the 2 footage? 3 A. As I understand it, they then -- well, they then 4 published a second story on 6 April. 5 Q. Yes. 6 A. Which purported to be an interview with Woman E, the one 7 who had worn the camera, but we found out subsequently 8 at the trial that Mr Thurlbeck who wrote the article had 9 written it beforehand, took it up to her at Milton 10 Keynes and said "I want you to sign this, here's £8,000" 11 and intimated that if she didn't sign it, her picture 12 would be published unpixelated. 13 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: So let me understand this. The 14 article is the previous weekend. 15 A. Yes, sir. 16 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: It comes on for an injunction before 17 Mr Justice Eady on the Friday. 18 A. Yes. 19 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: He reserves without granting relief 20 over the weekend; is that right? 21 A. Yes, that is right. 22 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: And that is when you learned of these 23 other activities? 24 A. Yes. 25 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank you. 78 1 MR JAY: The second article is over that weekend, on 2 6 April, and you told us the circumstances in which it 3 was published and the evidence, inverted commas, on 4 which it was based. In other words, no evidence at all. 5 A. No. I mean what happened subsequently is that the woman 6 who was supposed to have given the interview appeared on 7 Sky Television and said that there was no truth in the 8 Nazi allegation at all. I should have said that the 9 main purpose of the story on 6 April was to try and 10 stand up the Nazi allegation, but she actually first of 11 all didn't turn up to give evidence at the trial because 12 she wasn't prepared to perjure herself, and secondly 13 actually went on, as I say, television and said that 14 there was no truth whatever in the story. 15 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Hang on, I'm losing the chronology 16 because the trial is much later on. 17 A. Indeed, sir, yes. 18 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But the Sky News, was that -- 19 A. Sky News -- I'm sorry, I've made a muddle there. The 20 Sky News came after the trial. I'm so sorry. 21 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: No, no. 22 A. She didn't turn up at the trial and then -- 23 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: The facts are very much in your mind 24 and I have them, I think, but I just want to be clear. 25 A. Even I'm getting a bit muddled. It's three years ago. 79 1 MR JAY: Let's take it slowly because it's important to keep 2 the chronology in mind and not rush too far ahead to the 3 next bend or chicane -- 4 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I think we can do without that, 5 Mr Jay. 6 MR JAY: One aspect of the second article which you draw 7 attention to in paragraph 15 of your witness statement 8 at the end -- we don't have the article available even 9 to us -- made it clear that the tape was being sent to 10 Formula 1 chiefs; is that correct? 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. Your feeling was, and you develop this in paragraph 16, 13 that the purpose of the second article was to threaten 14 you; is that correct? 15 A. That is correct. 16 Q. The judgment was given by Mr Justice Eady on 9 April, 17 which I think must have been the Wednesday. 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. It doesn't matter, but in terms of summarising its 20 outcome, you were unsuccessful principally because the 21 material was already so far into the public domain that 22 there was no practical purpose, Mr Justice Eady felt, in 23 granting future injunctive relief. Is that a fair 24 summary? 25 A. He said the dam had burst and in another place he said 80 1 he didn't want to be King Canute, but he was really 2 saying there was no point giving the injunction, it was 3 everywhere. 4 Q. What he did order was that there should be an expedited 5 trial of your privacy claim; is that correct? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. And the matter was very considerably expedited because 8 the trial itself -- 9 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: You're going a bit too fast, Mr Jay. 10 Let me just understand it. Mr Justice Eady took the 11 view that there was no point in coping with something 12 that had already happened, and therefore he refused you 13 relief, but he did, as I understand your evidence, 14 observe there was no legitimate interest, element of 15 public interest which would be served by the additional 16 disclosure of the edited footage at this stage? 17 A. That's correct. 18 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But he didn't grant relief in 19 relation to that, but as I understand what you've said, 20 that didn't stop the News of the World just reposting 21 everything again? 22 A. Yes. That's exactly correct. 23 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Then -- 24 MR JAY: That's paragraph 36 of the judgment. 25 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Paragraph 36. 81 1 MR JAY: On the internal numbering, page 11. On the longer 2 number, 31208. His Lordship made precisely those 3 points. 4 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Right. So then he orders an 5 expedited trial. 6 MR JAY: The hearing dates -- it took place over five days, 7 7 to 10 and 14 July 2008. 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Judgment itself was handed down on 24 July 2008. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. We know that from page 14, which is the judgment, to 12 which I will come in a moment. So this was all 13 happening very rapidly in terms of the usual course of 14 litigation, if I can so describe it. Can I deal with 15 one point, though. Was it explained to you that if you 16 decided to take defamation proceedings rather than 17 proceedings in breach of privacy or breach of 18 confidence, that the legal process would be much longer? 19 A. It was. I was told that would be about 18 months, and 20 that for me would have been really then academic, 21 because what I needed to do was to establish very, very 22 quickly that the Nazi allegation was completely untrue. 23 Q. In terms of the choices which were available to you, on 24 the one hand you were facing expensive litigation, that 25 is obvious. 82 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Were you given any idea -- I'm not going to ask you to 3 talk about what you advised in terms of whether you 4 would win or lose, but were you given any idea about how 5 much the litigation might cost before you embarked on 6 it? 7 A. Yes. I mean, when I had my first meeting with counsel, 8 they explained to me very carefully that first of all 9 there's no such thing as certainty in litigation, which 10 I was already aware of, obviously. That if I lost, it 11 would cost £1 million or more. If I won, it would still 12 cost tens of thousands of pounds. By taking the matter 13 to court, the entire private information which I was 14 complaining about would be rehearsed again in public, 15 with all the press there, with the benefit of absolute 16 privilege for anything that was said, and that at the 17 end of all of that, no judge could remove the private 18 information from the public mind. Indeed, by going to 19 court, I was augmenting the degree to which the public 20 were aware of it. 21 But taking all that into account, I thought what 22 they'd done was so outrageous I wanted to get these 23 people into the witness box and demonstrate that they 24 were liars. And the only way to do that was to put up 25 with this extremely risky and unpleasant process, which 83 1 I then decided to do. 2 Q. The only other choice was to pack up your tent and beat 3 a retreat, presumably? 4 A. Indeed, and of course first of all I felt that was the 5 wrong thing to do, because even if I went to some 6 obscure village in the Andes, within a week or two 7 people would know about it, thanks to the 8 News of the World putting it on the Internet, but I also 9 felt that this was typical of some of the things they 10 do, and I was somebody who fortunately had the means and 11 a little bit of legal knowledge, and within 18 months 12 would be free to concentrate anyway. I felt if I don't 13 do it, I don't know who's going to, because the number 14 of people they pick on with a really bad case who have 15 the means to fight it is infinitesimally small. It 16 really -- one of the terrible things is that unless 17 you're very fortunate and happen to have a bit of money, 18 you simply can't take this on, as things stand at the 19 moment. 20 Q. I'll deal with a number of contextual points before we 21 come to the proceedings. The first point is the breadth 22 of dissemination around the world with the Internet. Of 23 course it's obvious but you touch on this in 24 paragraph 22 of your witness statement. Indeed, you 25 point out, is that right, in terms of the print media 84 1 alone, there were 790 separate articles written in 2 various UK newspapers and online between 30 March 2008 3 and 3 June 2008, so these articles were all commenting 4 on the underlying substratum article in the 5 News of the World, presumably? 6 A. Indeed. And, of course, on the Internet it was even 7 more extensive. I mean, one example, I have a very good 8 and energetic lawyer in Germany, and I think they've so 9 far shut down 193 different sites which were repeating 10 the News of the World story. Not shut down the sites, 11 but got it removed from the site, I should say. 12 Q. And the matter itself is obviously of interest to the 13 FIA, but they commissioned a report from distinguished 14 leading counsel here, Mr Anthony Scrivener, and his 15 report, as you made clear in your evidence, exonerated 16 you? 17 A. Yes, he said there was no basis whatever for the Nazi 18 allegation. 19 Q. One matter however I would like to deal with -- this is 20 paragraph 25 -- is that an edited video or copy of it 21 was sent to the president of the FIA senate? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. By solicitors acting for the News of the World on their 24 instructions; is that correct? 25 A. It's correct. They sent this and that was a matter for 85 1 complaint actually in the French courts at a certain 2 point because it was potentially criminal, what they 3 did. But they sent the -- deliberately sent the entire 4 video, inviting the FIA to show it to all the members. 5 Q. And the inference which may be drawn is that they were 6 putting some sort of political or other pressure on the 7 FIA to vote you off, is that what you're saying? 8 A. Absolutely. I had the impression from the outset that 9 as soon as I challenged the original story, that the 10 entire resources of News International, News Group 11 Newspapers, were then deployed effectively to try and 12 destroy me, and obviously one way of attacking would be 13 to send this thing to the FIA and try and get them all 14 to look at it and hope that they get rid of me. 15 Q. There was a vote of confidence, but you won it? 16 A. Yes. One of the things I did at the outset was 17 I suggested to the body that deals with these things 18 that we should have an extraordinary general assembly 19 and invite the membership to vote, because it seemed to 20 me they'd voted me into the position and they were the 21 ones who were entitled to tell me I should resign or 22 I shouldn't resign, and so I called a general assembly, 23 everybody who wanted to say something was allowed to do 24 so. At the end of it they voted and I won by 25 a substantial majority. 86 1 Q. In relation to the evidence adduced at the civil 2 trial -- 3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Before you go on to that new topic, 4 Mr Jay, can I just ask a question arising out of 5 something you said two minutes ago, Mr Mosley. You said 6 your energetic lawyers in Germany had shut down 193 7 different stories on different sites. 8 A. Yes. 9 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Is it only in Germany you've taken 10 such action? 11 A. No, sir, I've done it in a number of different 12 countries. I think we have litigation going on in 22 or 13 23 countries at the moment, and it's just an ongoing 14 process because -- I mean I'm trying to do everything 15 I can to get this material removed from the web and it's 16 not easy, it's ongoing, it's very expensive, but Germany 17 is actually the number one example. Because of the Nazi 18 thing, it got very much picked up in Germany. 19 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: How many sites have you been able to 20 close down? If you don't know exactly -- I'm just 21 trying to get a feel for the size of the exercise. 22 A. It's in the hundreds. My lawyers would probably produce 23 an exact figure. One of the difficulties is that Google 24 have these automatic search machines so if somebody puts 25 something up somewhere, if you Google my name, it will 87 1 appear. We've been saying to Google, you shouldn't do 2 this, this material is illegal, these pictures have been 3 ruled illegal in the English High Court. They say we're 4 not obliged to police the web and we don't want to 5 police the web, so we have brought proceedings against 6 them in France and Germany where the jurisprudence is 7 favourable. We're also considering bringing proceedings 8 against them in California. 9 But the fundamental point is that Google could stop 10 this material appearing, but they don't, or they won't 11 as a matter of principle. My position is that if the 12 search engines -- if somebody were to stop the search 13 engines producing the material, the actual sites don't 14 really matter because without a search engine, nobody 15 will find it, it would be just a few friends of the 16 person who posts it. The really dangerous thing are the 17 search engines. 18 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. Well, that's part of the 19 problem. 20 A. Indeed. 21 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. 22 MR JAY: The evidence before Mr Justice Eady -- of course, 23 this is quite complicated and I'm going to just, if 24 I may, identify some highlights, otherwise there's 25 a danger we'll get bogged down in detail which people 88 1 will not understand because they haven't pre-read your 2 witness statement. There are just a number of points 3 I'd like to bring out. The first point is the hidden 4 pinhead camera, which was on the lapel of Woman E. Had 5 she been given any instructions by the News of the World 6 which you can assist us about, please, Mr Mosley? 7 A. Well, she was, because they had a rehearsal where 8 Thurlbeck showed her how to fit it and wear it and this 9 rehearsal was recorded on the tape. I don't think they 10 knew this, to be fair to them. The beginning of the 11 tape is Thurlbeck saying to her, "When you get him to do 12 the sieg heil, get him to stand back about 3 metres so 13 you get it in the shot". It was quite clear to me when 14 I saw this that Thurlbeck was trying to set the whole 15 thing up from the beginning as a Nazi episode. She, of 16 course, never mentioned anything to do with Nazi. She 17 knew that had she done so, everyone would have been 18 horrified. Particularly the German girl, because being 19 a modern German person, she would have been horrified. 20 But it's absolutely clearly there, Thurlbeck telling her 21 to try and get me doing a sieg heil. 22 Q. To be clear about it, you obtain a copy of the video 23 footage as part and parcel of the disclosure in the 24 civil proceedings? 25 A. Indeed. 89 1 Q. Then the second point, and you've already dealt with 2 this, Mr Mosley, this is paragraph 33, and this relates 3 to the second article on 6 April, the follow-up article, 4 Woman E was offered some more money, £8,000, you told 5 us. So we understand it in sequence, what is the 6 significance of this point? What are you driving at 7 here? 8 A. What to me at least is significant is that they wanted 9 a follow-up article because I'd said that this was 10 untrue, they wanted to really, really put the boot in, 11 and so they wrote this article purporting to be by the 12 lady and completely composed by Thurlbeck, got her to 13 sign it, then went back and rewrote parts of it. 14 During the trial, he was saying this was the result 15 of numerous telephone conversations with her, which 16 I don't think anybody really believes. The judge asked 17 him if he'd kept a note, which of course he hadn't. 18 It's not surprising, I don't think the conversations 19 ever took place. He simply invented the entire article. 20 Q. In paragraphs 34 and 35, you explain that within the 21 News of the World this story was very tightly kept, in 22 other words to a limited number of people to avoid the 23 possibility of leaks, because the risk of leaks would 24 obviously cause a consequent risk that you might take 25 proceedings for an injunction; is that right? 90 1 A. I think that's right. I think they realised that 2 publishing this article was completely illegal, and 3 therefore if I found out about it and went to a judge, 4 it would be stopped. But, therefore, knowing it was 5 illegal, they took elaborate precautions, including the 6 spoof first edition, which you mentioned earlier, to 7 make sure that nobody in my camp, as it were, would find 8 out. 9 Q. The last evidential point I'd like to deal with, and 10 this is quite a detailed point, but it's under the 11 heading "Blackmail", and I'm afraid it does relate to 12 Mr Thurlbeck. Could you tell us about this in your own 13 words? Maybe we can start, I'll read it out, with an 14 email which was sent on 2 April 2008, which is three or 15 four days after the publication of the first article. 16 The email reads: 17 "I hope you're well. I'm Neville Thurlbeck, the 18 chief reporter at the News of the World, the journalist 19 who wrote the story about Max Mosley's party with you 20 and your girls on Friday. Please take a breath before 21 you get angry with me! I did ensure that all your faces 22 were blocked out to spare you any grief, and soon the 23 story will become history, as life and the news agenda 24 move on very quickly. There's a substantial sum of 25 money available to you or any of the girls in return for 91 1 an exclusive interview with us. The interview can be 2 done anonymously and your face can be blacked out too. 3 So it's pretty straightforward. Shall we meet/talk?" 4 Will you comment on that? But before you do, can 5 I read out the email which was sent the following day, 6 paragraph 37 of your witness statement: 7 "I'm just about to send you a series of pictures 8 which will form the basis of our article this week. We 9 want to reveal the identities of the girls involved in 10 the orgy with Max, as this is the only follow-up we have 11 to our story. Our preferred story, however, would be 12 you speaking to us directly about your dealings with Max 13 and for that we would be extremely grateful. In return 14 for this we would grant you full anonymity, pixelate 15 your faces on all photographs and secure a substantial 16 sum of money for you. This puts you firmly in the 17 driving seat and allows you much greater control as well 18 as preserving your anonymities (your names won't be used 19 or your pictures). Please don't hesitate to call me or 20 email me with any thoughts." 21 And then finally there was an email with an offer of 22 money. 23 Anybody reading that, indeed, this was 24 Mr Justice Eady's conclusion, might think this was close 25 to being blackmail. Is that fair, Mr Mosley? 92 1 A. I think so. What he was saying to them, particularly in 2 the last email, was: if you don't co-operate, we will 3 publish your pictures unpixelated. If you do, we'll 4 give you £8,000 and pixelate them. 5 For these women, that was terrifying, because they 6 would all dread the idea of any of their family finding 7 out, or their work. Three of them had really 8 significant positions. One was a very serious 9 scientist, another one had a major position in 10 healthcare, another one ran an office. Very 11 significant. Only one of them was what you might call 12 fairly anonymous, and they were all terribly at risk. 13 And the thought of this being published in the 14 News of the World was terrifying for them. 15 But the really admirable thing is that they did not 16 succumb to it. 17 Q. Thank you, Mr Mosley. I'm not going to deal with what 18 happened at the trial itself. What I am going to deal 19 with is the judgment of Mr Justice Eady and navigate my 20 way through it so that one can understand his findings 21 and his reasoning, because his reasoning is important in 22 terms of Article 8. 23 In our bundle, the judgment starts at the internal 24 numbering at page 14. It is a lengthy judgment. 25 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: It's certainly a judgment that repays 93 1 reading in full. 2 MR JAY: Yes. 3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. 4 MR JAY: Mr Justice Eady first of all, having set the scene, 5 and I'm at paragraph 44 on the little internal numbers 6 page 24, considers the factual question: was there 7 a Nazi theme? And his conclusion was that there was 8 not, although his conclusion comes at a slightly later 9 point in the judgment. 10 At paragraph 79, this is page 31, Mr Justice Eady 11 deals with the blackmail allegation and he's absolutely 12 clear about it, Mr Mosley. At paragraph 82 at page 32, 13 Mr Justice Eady says: 14 "This would appear to contain a clear threat to the 15 women involved that unless they co-operated with 16 Mr Thurlbeck, their identities would be revealed." 17 There was then some cross-examination of Mr Myler on 18 this issue at paragraph 85, and Mr Myler accepted that 19 these emails could be interpreted as a threat. 20 Mr Justice Eady's observation in relation to Mr Myler at 21 the very end of paragraph 85: 22 "This seemed to fall short of a wholesale 23 endorsement of his chief report's behaviour." 24 A. He has a wonderful way of understatement. 25 Q. Yes, it's a nice flight of myosis, I suppose. 94 1 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: It's the witness, Mr Myler works out 2 that the cross-examiner is talking about blackmail and 3 he said, "I'm not so sure it is", and he's asked: 4 "Do you think there's a justification about threats? 5 "I've already accepted that clearly looking at this 6 it could be interpreted as a threat and I accept that." 7 I would love to know how else it could be 8 interpreted. 9 MR JAY: Yes. Mr Justice Eady then asked his own questions 10 at paragraph 86. His questions were directed to the 11 obvious point: well, why wasn't this raised with 12 Mr Thurlbeck? Because here was Mr Thurlbeck possibly 13 blackmailing people. Why didn't Mr Myler raise that 14 with him? The answer was not, in Mr Justice Eady's 15 view, or perhaps the view of any objective reader, 16 satisfactory. What Mr Justice Eady says at the bottom 17 of page 33: 18 "That is effectively a non-answer, from which it 19 would appear that Mr Myler did not consider that there 20 was anything at all objectionable about Mr Thurlbeck's 21 approach to the two women, as he didn't query it at any 22 stage. This discloses a remarkable state of affairs." 23 So it's a matter for others to judge, but arguably 24 quite a strong judicial criticism there. 25 A. Well, I mean coming from a High Court judge, I think 95 1 that's quite impressive, but almost sort of more 2 impressive is that a few months later they applied for 3 the title of newspaper of the year based on their 4 groundbreaking year, they said, the Mosley legal: 5 "We believe the impact of our experience and our way 6 forward, following the Max Mosley legal ruling, have 7 helped define the nature of modern tabloid reporting in 8 Britain. The Mosley case itself ... [et cetera] was 9 among the most fiercely debated stories of 2008." 10 They go on to say what a wonderful job they've done, 11 when a High Court judge has practically told them that 12 they should have done something about this reporter. 13 But I think that's -- it's completely symptomatic of 14 their entire attitude. 15 Q. In paragraph 87, his Lordship records the sequence of 16 cross-examination of Mr Thurlbeck on this point. I'm 17 not going to go through it with you, but the upshot was 18 at the end of paragraph 87 that Mr Thurlbeck either 19 didn't understand the point that was being put to him in 20 cross-examination or possibly pretended not to 21 understand the point that was put to him in 22 cross-examination. We're not sure exactly which. 23 A. Yes. His line was: but I was giving them a choice. But 24 of course that's what blackmailers always do. They give 25 you a choice between doing what they're blackmailing you 96 1 into doing ... 2 Q. Those are all the facts we need, and to be absolutely 3 clear, the judge makes a finding there was no Nazi 4 theme. 5 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Just before you leave that, there is 6 a point here, because I go back to the words that ring 7 in my ears all the time: culture, practice and ethics. 8 Mr Justice Eady said, when it was being put to him that 9 it's blackmailing, he said: 10 "No, I'm offering to give them something, I'm 11 offering to pay them money for an anonymous interview. 12 I'm offering to pay them, not to take anything from 13 them, so in that sense I'm not blackmailing them at all. 14 That thought never crossed my mind. I'm offering the 15 choice." 16 And the judge goes on: 17 "It seems that Mr Thurlbeck genuinely did not see 18 the point yet it is elementary that blackmail can be 19 committed by the threat to do something which would not 20 in itself be unlawful." 21 So the question that's obviously going to have to be 22 asked, quite apart from any questions to Mr Thurlbeck 23 about it, is whether that state of mind was limited to 24 one reporter or one newspaper or is actually the state 25 of mind of others. 97 1 MR JAY: It's precisely a line which we have in mind, and 2 Mr Thurlbeck has been asked to deal with that. 3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. But my point is that it's not 4 just Mr Thurlbeck, because one can reach conclusions 5 about an individual which are all fine and dandy and 6 don't go very far. The question is: is this a pervasive 7 perception? If it isn't, then I want to know it. If it 8 is, then equally. 9 MR JAY: Yes. 10 Mr Justice Eady's route to his conclusion as 11 a matter of law, can we see whether we can chart a path 12 through that. Move forward to page 40 on the internal 13 numbering, paragraph 110. He's dealing here with the 14 public interest issue. Was there a public interest to 15 justify the intrusion? He deals first with a point 16 which I'm sure didn't feature in the News of the World's 17 thinking, but whether there was underlying criminality, 18 and he soundly rejected that point. It's not something 19 we need go into, Mr Mosley. 20 He then deals at paragraph 112 with the Nazi theme 21 point. There are two aspects to this. The first aspect 22 is paragraph 123, if I can take them slightly out of 23 sequence, where he finds that there wasn't a Nazi theme 24 and therefore self-evidently if there wasn't a Nazi 25 theme, it could not even classify as a possible public 98 1 interest. 2 Then in paragraph 112, he considers, well, if I had 3 come to the conclusion there was a Nazi theme, what 4 then? Maybe his conclusion was somewhat equivocal, he 5 didn't have to decide the point, but you may or may not 6 have -- or the case may or may not have followed 7 a certain path had he made a finding of fact which he 8 didn't. 9 The third public interest issue, and this I think is 10 an important one, is under the heading "Depravity and 11 adultery". It starts at paragraph 124. The argument 12 which Mr Justice Eady was addressing was whether there 13 was a public interest in revealing immoral, depraved or 14 even to an extent adulterous behaviour. 15 His Lordship found that there wasn't, really as 16 a matter of law, in particular at paragraph 127. But 17 his analysis of the Strasbourg cases and a case in the 18 House of Lords called Campbell was that given that there 19 was a human right in play here, namely a right to 20 privacy, and I quote: 21 "It's not for journalists to undermine human rights 22 or for judges to refuse to enforce them merely on 23 grounds of taste or moral disapproval. Everyone is 24 naturally entitled to espouse moral or religious beliefs 25 to the effect that certain types of sexual behaviour are 99 1 wrong or demeaning to those participating. That does 2 not mean that they're entitled to hound those who 3 practice them or to detract them from their right to 4 live life as they choose." 5 The real point he's making is that, given that we 6 are in the domain of privacy, the law does not concern 7 itself with making a moral judgment as to what occurs 8 within the domain of privacy; my understanding of what 9 Mr Justice Eady is saying. Do you follow that, 10 Mr Mosley? 11 A. I do. I think that it's entirely reasonable because the 12 problem is that if you could breach privacy merely 13 because you disapproved of what someone was doing or it 14 was not to your taste, well, we would be all over the 15 place because sexual behaviour covers a huge variety of 16 things, and when you start analysing it, what I might 17 like, somebody else might hate, and vice versa, so where 18 would it stop? And the rational thing is to say that 19 provided it's adults and provided it's in private and 20 provided everybody consents, genuinely consents, then it 21 is nobody else's business. 22 I think Mr Justice Eady, if I've understood him 23 rightly, was stating the law to be precisely that. In 24 other words, it's the sort of John Stuart Mill attitude 25 rather than the rather disapproving moralist attitude, 100 1 and I think the law recognised the John Stuart Mill, 2 that if you're not doing any harm to anybody, you should 3 be allowed to do whatever you like. I think that view 4 is the modern view, but of course once upon a time, 5 people felt completely able to pillory people because 6 they did something of which they disproved or their 7 tastes were different, but we've moved on from that, and 8 the idea that it's in some way the function of the 9 tabloid journalists to pillory people whose tastes may 10 be unusual is completely outdated. If that had not 11 disappeared, we would still be persecuting homosexuals, 12 the gay community would be at risk, or anybody else. 13 So I think he's absolutely right, and I think it's 14 extraordinary that the tabloid press don't recognise 15 that, and of course the truth of it is that they do 16 recognise it, but it doesn't suit them to admit that 17 that is actually how things should be. 18 Q. Thank you, Mr Mosley. I think one has to be careful to 19 distinguish between a philosophical position, which of 20 course you're quite entitled to give us, and we can 21 agree or disagree with that, and a legal analysis. 22 Mr Justice Eady may or may not share that philosophical 23 view, but all he was doing was saying, analysing 24 Article 8 of the Convention, the concept of privacy 25 means, and this is how the courts have interpreted it, 101 1 that you do not conduct a moral judgment of what is 2 occurring in the domain of privacy. It is just off 3 limits. Do you see that? 4 A. I see that completely, and it makes absolute sense. 5 Q. I know of no case in Strasbourg or domestically which 6 contradicts that part of Mr Justice Eady's reasoning. 7 It is core to one of the key issues involving this 8 Inquiry. 9 A. I think it is, and if I may say so, had he got that 10 wrong, that would have been a matter for the Court of 11 Appeal. The fact that it didn't go to the Court of 12 Appeal I think strongly suggests that he got it right. 13 Q. That's certainly a fair point, since we know the case 14 wasn't appealed. 15 The only other point of principle which we gather 16 from this judgment is -- and this is paragraph 135 -- 17 the point: who decides the public interest? 18 His Lordship is making it clear, and again this must be 19 right as a matter of basic law, that it's for the court 20 to decide ultimately, if the case comes before the 21 court, and journalists' perception doesn't assist. 22 A. I think, yes, that must be right as well. 23 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Well, except that the court has to 24 have regard to editorial judgment and the discretion so 25 far as tastes and modes of expression are concerned. 102 1 I'm merely just reading on. 2 MR JAY: At the end of the day, the Nazi theme allegation 3 having fallen to the ground and the immorality point 4 being a point which could be taken, there was no public 5 interest justification which could be prayed in aid and 6 you won. 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Is that right? But you weren't successful in obtaining 9 exemplary damages. It probably isn't necessary to 10 explore why, but he made findings of fact which meant 11 that whatever the law was on Cassell v Broome and the 12 second head of exemplary damages law, you weren't going 13 to obtain them in these circumstances. In a nutshell, 14 it was that? 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. In terms of damages, the award was £60,000, which was, 17 perhaps still is, the highest award of damages in 18 a privacy case. Do you happen to know whether it still 19 is the highest? 20 A. I believe it still is. 21 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Awarded by a court. 22 MR JAY: By a court. 23 A. I might perhaps add that I think I'm right in saying 24 that since my case there's only been one full privacy 25 trial, and that was the recent Rio Ferdinand case, which 103 1 he actually lost, but of course people don't sue for the 2 reasons I explained earlier, that you have to be quite 3 eccentric or very determined before you bring a privacy 4 action, because it's lose, lose, lose. 5 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: We don't know how many settled. We 6 don't know how many have settled. 7 A. No. 8 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Or maybe you do? 9 A. No, I don't know, but I think what happens is if 10 somebody find out there's an application for an 11 injunction, which then usually will be granted, if 12 there's a good case, and that's the end of the case. 13 Then, of course, if there's an application for an 14 injunction that fails, then the information will be 15 published and that's the end of the matter, so to speak. 16 So I think somebody being awarded damages, I don't 17 think there has been -- and certainly none of the 18 settlements that I've heard of, except of course the 19 famous Taylor and Clifford settlements, but that's 20 another matter, and I think there are other reasons 21 there, I've not heard of large sums of money changing 22 hands. 23 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. 24 MR JAY: Mr Justice Eady at the end of his judgment 25 recognises two obvious things. The first is, and this 104 1 always applies, that no amount of damages can fully 2 compensate you for the damage done. That will always 3 apply, whatever the context. 4 Secondly, he says, in relation to you: 5 "He is hardly exaggerating when he says that his 6 life was ruined." 7 And this is the "genie out of the bottle" point, 8 isn't it? 9 A. It is because you work all your life to try and achieve 10 something or do something useful, and I'd got to the 11 point -- when this came out, I'd got to the age of 68 12 and I had achieved things that I was proud of, anyway, 13 to do with the work I'd been doing with road safety and 14 so on, and suddenly something like this happens and 15 that's what you're remembered for, and however long 16 I live now, that is the number one thing that people 17 think of when they hear my name, and of course it really 18 matters -- 19 And sometimes, if I could just make this point, it's 20 sometimes said, yes, but it's the same with personal 21 injuries. If you have an injury, if you lose your arm, 22 the courts can do nothing, they can only compensate you 23 financially, and of course that's true. But the 24 difference, and the fundamental difference, is this: 25 that if you could go to a High Court judge and say, "I'm 105 1 about to have an accident, I'm going to lose my arm, 2 will you please stop the accident, because this is all 3 you have to do, make an order", it's inconceivable that 4 he'd refuse the order. The problem with accidents is 5 that every possible precaution is taken to try and stop 6 them happening, health and safety and so on, but in the 7 end they happen, whereas any revelation of privacy can 8 be stopped by a judge. The only thing that's absolutely 9 essential is that you should know so that you can go to 10 a judge. As soon as you know about it, it goes to an 11 independent right of assessment where the judge will 12 weigh your right to privacy against somebody's right to 13 free speech, or whatever, and he will make a decision. 14 But if they ambush you and they publish and it's out 15 there, no judge on earth can save you. That's really 16 what it comes to. 17 MR JAY: The judgment was handed down, there was not an 18 appeal, we know that as a matter of record. There was 19 a public statement or prepared statement delivered by 20 Mr Myler on the outside here accusing the courts of 21 introducing a privacy law via the back door. That's 22 paragraph 50 of your witness statement. But to be fair 23 to Mr Myler, that's his right, isn't it, to comment to 24 the judgment? Would you agree? 25 A. I think he's absolutely got a right to comment on the 106 1 judgment. 2 Q. Whether he should have commented without appealing may 3 be for others to judge, but there was some fairly -- 4 certainly bad taste, if I may be forgiven for describing 5 it in that way, reporting. Paragraph 52 of your 6 judgment. 7 A. My statement. 8 Q. Of your statement, pardon me. Some newspaper couldn't 9 resist the rather feeble crack: 10 "The day freedom got spanked." 11 A. Yes. I mean, this is sort of typical of -- there's 12 a steady stream of that sort of thing coming from the 13 gutter press, and, you know, I think one just has to put 14 up with that. Once it was out, they were going to do 15 this, but -- and it's not just the Sun. 16 Q. But again, they had the right to comment, and whether 17 they do so in a high-minded way or some different way is 18 a matter for their house style? 19 A. Indeed. I think it reflects more on them than on me. 20 MR JAY: It's 1 o'clock. 21 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I think that's a convenient moment, 22 but before we finish, you quoted, Mr Mosley, from 23 a document which you described as the News of the World 24 either putting themselves forward for or otherwise being 25 put forward for an award. Is that in the bundle of 107 1 documents? 2 A. I'm really sorry, sir, it's not, but I have a copy and 3 we can make copies available. I forgot to put it in. 4 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: No, that's fair enough, but I would 5 like to see it. Just so that I make it clear why I want 6 to see it, because it goes back to whether this is one 7 reporter or, indeed, one journal, but what is happening 8 in the industry as a whole. 9 A. Indeed. 10 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: That's the point. 11 A. Sir, as you will see, this makes it clear that they were 12 very proud of what they'd done. 13 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: All right. That's the point. I'd be 14 very grateful if you could make that available. Thank 15 you very much. 2 o'clock. 16 (1.01 pm) 17 (The luncheon adjournment) 1 1 2 (2.00 pm) 3 MR JAY: Mr Mosley, I believe I was about to take you to 4 paragraph 53 of your witness statement, please. You 5 suggest there that Mr Dacre and Ms Brooks agreed to 6 launch a campaign against Mr Justice Eady. 7 A. Yes, that's correct. 8 Q. Was that a joint campaign or a several campaign? 9 A. As my understanding is that it was several in effect, 10 but joint in agreement. My understanding is that they 11 got together, but then decided that Mr Justice Eady was 12 to be attacked. 13 Q. I am asked to put to you this, and it probably is no 14 surprise, that Associated's position is that whatever 15 stance Mr Dacre took, and he was quite entitled to take 16 it, it certainly wasn't in any collusion with Ms Brooks, 17 he did it entirely off his own bat. Do you have any 18 comment? 19 A. I would not find that surprising, but I must say in 20 general about these people, and by that I mean 21 Rebekah Brooks as well as Mr Dacre, that certainly in 22 Rebekah Brooks' case she could deny for England because 23 they denied the "for Neville" email, they denied that 24 they'd ever had more than one journalist involved in 25 hacking, they denied it again until it became absolutely 1 1 obvious and Mr Edmondson then was fired. They kept 2 denying it. Then in April of I think this year, they 3 admitted that it could have happened between (inaudible) 4 and us. I could go on and on and on. 5 Q. Fair enough, we get the picture. You are providing us 6 the commentary. 7 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I get the picture of your view, or 8 you're entitled to your view as other people are 9 entitled to their view, but the question is: does the 10 basis of your understanding have an evidential 11 foundation? 12 A. It does. I was told this by a senior -- former senior 13 employee of News International. It would be wrong for 14 me to announce his name, because obviously this was 15 confidential, but I'd be very happy to write it down for 16 you, sir, if that would be helpful. 17 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: All right. So you've got it from 18 a source and you can't go beyond it? 19 A. Correct. But I'm very confident that I was told the 20 truth. 21 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Fair enough. 22 MR JAY: Before I deal with a very serious issue, Mr Mosley, 23 paragraph 54, you refer to another piece in the 24 Daily Mail, which has a bit of a shivering title: 25 "As cold as a frozen haddock, Mr Justice Eady hands 2 1 down his views shorn of moral balance." 2 Another example though of comment, rightly or 3 wrongly, on a decision, isn't it? 4 A. One could say that. I would say this is calculated to 5 intimidate a judge. If I put myself in the position of 6 Mr Justice Eady, somebody who is a distinguished judge 7 and jurist, who is not used to being attacked in the 8 public domain, like for example I have been to do with 9 motor racing, I would find that offensive, I would find 10 it worrying. 11 If you think those sort of articles are going to 12 appear, it must influence you to some degree. You must 13 realise just the way that the so-called celebrities 14 realise that they're going to be attacked. It's highly 15 unpleasant. And I cannot believe this is done for any 16 purpose other than to intimidate. 17 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Let me assure you, Mr Mosley, that 18 although we don't hit the headlines quite so frequently, 19 we're well used to being criticised and to saying 20 nothing about it. And that may require biting one's 21 tongue occasionally, but we recognise that goes with the 22 territory and it doesn't alter anything we do. 23 A. I'm sure it has no effect, sir, no. 24 MR JAY: I must deal with the issue of impact, Mr Mosley. 25 A. Of? 3 1 Q. Impact. 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And this is the serious issue I was touching on. 4 Paragraph 57. I appreciate a personal matter, but could 5 you tell us in your own words about that, please? 6 A. Yes. My son was a drug addict, and he was one of these 7 people, extremely intelligent, had a mathematics PhD, 8 he'd co-authored a paper on economics with Lord Desai, 9 he'd written open source software with Linux and got 10 prizes, intelligent. But like a lot of intelligent 11 people, he suffered from depression and his way of 12 dealing with this, the only effective way he found, 13 despite endless doctors, was drugs. 14 He was getting to the age where he knew that if he 15 didn't get off -- he made several attempts to get off -- 16 if he didn't get off his drugs, probably this would end 17 badly. He was struggling with it. He had overcome his 18 problem and the News of the World story had the most 19 devastating effect on him. He really couldn't bear it. 20 It was just so awful. And one can imagine that. I mean 21 it's bad for me, but for my sons to see pictures of your 22 father in that sort of situation all over the 23 newspapers, all over the web, all your friends seeing 24 it, also for my wife, and he really couldn't bear it. 25 He went back on the drugs and he didn't -- it would be 4 1 wrong to say he committed suicide. He didn't. That was 2 fairly clear from all the circumstances. But like many 3 people on hard drugs, it's extremely dangerous and you 4 make a small mistake and you die, and that's what 5 happened. 6 Q. That was in May of 2009? 7 A. It was. 8 Q. You deal with some of the other effects of that in 9 paragraph 58. You went to your late son's house to sort 10 out his personal effects. There was one journalist on 11 the doorstep and then frankly a whole mob arrived within 12 a short space of time? 13 A. This is correct. What was to me -- I don't want to 14 overdo it, but what to me was so horrifying was there 15 was no sense of this matters, these are human beings, 16 these people actually mind, that is a terrible situation 17 for somebody to be in. It's oh, maybe we can write 18 a story, so let's be there, and they had these 19 photographers there, and I called my solicitor, he 20 arrived on the scene and gave them all a letter, and 21 they left, because I think they knew very -- they all 22 called their -- obviously they're all on their mobile 23 phones, I suspect to headquarters, and I think they were 24 probably told that we'd have a rerun of I think it was 25 called Hanover versus Germany in the court, we would 5 1 have had a rerun of that. I would have sued them 2 because I thought it was absolutely outrageous to come 3 and try and take pictures of somebody in that sort of 4 situation. We were in a desperate situation. They have 5 no human feeling at all. 6 Q. Thank you. We've already touched on some of the other 7 consequences of Internet publication, and the next 8 section of your witness statement deals with that in 9 some detail, Internet use in the United Kingdom through 10 the News of the World until you win your case, and then 11 there were all the knock-on effects throughout the 12 world, really, with the World Wide Web. You've already 13 told us that you have instructed, as you've had to have 14 done, firms of lawyers in 20 different jurisdictions in 15 order to try and close this down. 16 A. That is correct. We haven't succeeded. All we can 17 really do is mitigate, but we have reduced it, that must 18 be said. 19 Q. Yes. You've told us how much that has cost you. 20 A. I've never really added it up, I dread doing it, but 21 it's well over £500,000, well over, and it's ongoing. 22 Q. I'd like to deal with a related issue, namely the 23 economics of litigation, the particular case which 24 you've won in front of Mr Justice Eady. Slightly out of 25 sequence, it's paragraph 76 of your witness statement. 6 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. This is something any civil lawyer will understand 3 immediately, but the public at large would be forgiven 4 for not understanding why, if you win a case, you're, as 5 it were, not left out of pocket, but you are left out of 6 pocket because you get your £60,000 damages awarded by 7 Mr Justice Eady, your legal costs are your obligation to 8 pay your lawyers whatever they reasonably charge you, 9 and that's a matter of contract between you and them. 10 You then get an order for assessment of your costs from 11 the judge, which you got in your case, and then another 12 judge, the costs judge, assesses the costs and at the 13 end of that exercise, all by agreement, you ended up 14 with in fact a very good result. 82 per cent of all 15 your costs were then paid by the losing party, 16 News International. Is that a fair summary of what 17 happened? 18 A. That's an exact summary. Because I think the difficulty 19 is this, that you never, except in the most exceptional 20 circumstances, get all your costs. This is trivial for 21 the lawyers, but you don't. And that means there is 22 a difference between the costs the court gives you and 23 the costs that you actually have to pay. They come out 24 of your damages. In this case, they exceeded the 25 damages, and in virtually any privacy case they would 7 1 exceed the damages. 2 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: We actually learnt about this 3 yesterday because Mr Lewis was making the point in 4 connection with the settlement of one of his actions 5 that he received every single penny piece of his costs. 6 That I think was the Taylor litigation. Yes. 7 MR JAY: That may or may not have one or two unusual 8 features, but in your case where you had a good result, 9 there was a shortfall of 18 per cent, and in pounds, 10 shillings and pence, that's £30,000 out of pocket, isn't 11 it? 12 A. Exactly, exactly. I think that Mr Lewis in the Taylor 13 case was absolutely astonished at the level -- 14 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: He made that point. 15 A. He made the point. 16 MR JAY: I'd like to come back to a point which I know you 17 regard as extremely important, the argument for prior 18 notification. In your own words, as succinctly as you 19 can, give us the nutshell of the point which you wish to 20 impress on this Inquiry, please, Mr Mosley. 21 A. In a nutshell, the point is that in a privacy matter, 22 once the information has been made public, it can never 23 ever be made private again. Therefore, the only 24 effective remedy is to stop it becoming public. What is 25 needed is a mechanism to get an order to stop it 8 1 becoming public. That is completely doable if you know 2 that the information is about to be published. The only 3 gap in the law, and it is a gap in the law, is if the 4 newspaper manages to keep secret their intention to 5 publish the information, then out it comes and it's too 6 late, and there's nothing more to be done. What follows 7 from that is there should be prior notification. 8 One quick point on that is that Mr Dacre, in 9 evidence to the Select Committee, said that in 99 cases 10 out of 100, the individual has notice, because the 11 newspaper would normally approach somebody and ask them 12 for a comment. He may have been slightly exaggerating, 13 but I can't believe he would not tell the truth to 14 a Select Committee, so it's a minority of cases, but of 15 course they're the very cases where the newspaper knows 16 that if you did find out, you'd get an injunction. So 17 they keep it secret, knowing that they can -- once 18 they've published it, no one in their right mind, I say 19 that of myself, no one in their right mind would sue, 20 because it will cost you money, you'll get the 21 information published all over again and you don't solve 22 the problem because the information can't be made 23 private. 24 So it's those 1 per cent that are really dangerous, 25 but without notification, a newspaper at the moment, if 9 1 they have outrageous information or pictures, if they 2 can only publish them before the person finds out, 3 there's no remedy, unless one says, well, £30,000, 4 repetition and so on is a remedy, but really repetition 5 in court is rather like suing because you have a broken 6 leg, going to court and then they break the other leg, 7 with absolute privilege, as well, because it just makes 8 it worse. 9 Sorry, that wasn't much of a nutshell, but in 10 a nutshell, it is the very cases where there's an 11 egregious breach of privacy that are the ones where they 12 don't tell you and where prior notification is 13 essential. 14 Q. There's another argument which one might throw into the 15 melting pot and it's this, that the prior notification, 16 if it's a legal requirement, will then lead to a fairly 17 rapid hearing before a judge, and so the legal costs 18 will be kept within reasonable bounds. The second point 19 is that you'll only get the injunction as a claimant 20 unless you show on balance that your privacy has been 21 violated and there's no public interest justification. 22 So in practical terms, if you win the prior 23 notification injunction, you in effect will win the 24 case, but it works the other way around. If you lose 25 it, the newspaper will publish with impunity, perhaps 10 1 rightly, because they know they're in the right, so it's 2 all self-contained in a more rapid and cheaper process. 3 Do you agree or disagree with that? 4 A. I agree completely. My information is that to seek an 5 injunction, the costs are something less than 5 per cent 6 of the costs of a full trial. Of course, that also 7 applies to the newspaper. 8 If I may, as you say, under I think it's section 9 12(3) of the Act, you have to show that you're more 10 likely than not to win the case and you have to satisfy 11 the judge you're more likely than not. Well, what can 12 be wrong with that? Because if an independent judge 13 thinks you're more likely than not to win, then you 14 should have injunction, because if you don't have -- if 15 it's out, although you win the case, you win nothing 16 because the information is in the public domain. 17 Q. That answer is not wholly going to satisfy the Inquiry 18 to this extent, that although privacy proceedings, 19 £500,000 each side is really only for the very wealthy, 20 even these proceedings, injunction proceedings, are for 21 the wealthy and the bold. Pre-notification doesn't deal 22 with, if I may say so, the ordinary person with limited 23 means. Would you agree with that? 24 A. Completely. I very much believe that there should be an 25 alternative mechanism. There should be some form of 11 1 tribunal, some form of enhanced regulatory body, but 2 it's a very big question, but to which you could go. 3 I think it's absolutely essential that such a body 4 should be free of charge, because otherwise, however 5 cheap it is, even if you went to the county courts, as 6 some of the academics have suggested, that is beyond the 7 means of a great many people, and there is no reason why 8 it shouldn't be free. 9 If I may say this, invasion of privacy is worse than 10 burglary because if somebody burgles your house, unless 11 it's heirlooms, you can replace the things that have 12 been taken, repair the damage. But if someone breaches 13 your privacy, you can never repair the damage, never put 14 it right again. So it matters. But with burglary, if 15 you find a burglar in your house and call the police, 16 they don't say, "Are you rich? Because if you're not 17 rich, we're not going to come". They come and arrest 18 him. There should be a similar mechanism to stop people 19 breaching the privacy of an ordinary person who is not 20 in a position to find the money to ask for an 21 injunction. 22 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Of course, to say it should be free 23 of charge begs the question as to who is going to pay 24 for it. 25 A. Indeed, sir. But if you had a body that was similar to 12 1 the Press Complaints Commission, which is free, but was 2 independent both of the press and the government and 3 everybody else, and made the central division, which is 4 often not talked about, the division between making the 5 rules and enforcing the rules, and the only thing -- at 6 the moment, the rules themselves are not that bad. 7 What's missing with the PCC is the ability to enforce 8 them. If you had a body that could enforce the rules, 9 it almost -- you don't necessarily have to have 10 superqualified people. I'd prefer to have anyone 11 deciding whether my privacy should be breached or not 12 more than an editor. 13 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: The other argument is that it would 14 smack of censorship, wouldn't it? 15 A. No more than the existing procedure. The only 16 difference between that, sir, and the existing procedure 17 would be that it would be available free of charge. 18 I mean, people don't say that if I go -- if I had been 19 to Mr Justice Eady with the knowledge and asked for an 20 injunction, I suppose the News of the World might have 21 said it was censorship, but I don't think any reasonable 22 person would have. 23 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Let me now put another situation to 24 you. Forgive me if I take your example because it 25 actually allows the point to be made. Mr Justice Eady 13 1 was unsure whether, if he'd been satisfied about the 2 underlying allegation, whether that would have been in 3 the public interest or not. Now, what concerns me, just 4 thinking through the points as I was reading your 5 statement and Mr Justice Eady's judgment, was how you 6 are going to resolve that issue. You will go along to 7 the judge -- and for those who don't understand, these 8 are comparatively short hearings -- and say, "My 9 privacy's being infringed. This is what they want to 10 say about me and it's outrageously untrue". They will 11 come along and say, "Oh no, it isn't, it's absolutely 12 true." Then suddenly you have to have a trial because 13 the balance of whether you grant an injunction may 14 depend upon whether you think the allegation of truth of 15 falsity is the more accurate, which is the more 16 accurate. 17 A. Indeed. Of course, that situation already exists, and 18 as far as number one, prior notification, and number 19 two, a very inexpensive if not free of charge tribunal, 20 is perhaps a separate issue, but on the fundamental 21 issue that you've just raised, it will always be 22 difficult. Of course, in ordinary injunctions, again, 23 forgive me, in ordinary injunctions is the American 24 Cyanamid test, which is a balance of convenience, but 25 they deliberately -- from lobbying from the press -- 14 1 made the standard higher in privacy. 2 But I think those very difficult questions are 3 exactly what judges are for and what they do, and what's 4 dangerous is to allow the editor of a tabloid to weigh 5 this up, when really all he wants to do is sell 6 newspapers. 7 In the particular case you've mentioned, I think 8 probably what Mr Justice Eady would have done is said 9 that he could see no public interest in this. He did 10 actually say that in his judgment -- 11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes, maybe I have to change your 12 facts a little bit, but I want to get to a situation 13 where there is a real argument about public interest, 14 which requires a proper investigation. 15 A. My submission there would be that then the judge should 16 lean slightly against, if I may put it like that, 17 article 12(3) -- section 12(3), because it's a little 18 bit like the situation where I have a tree at the bottom 19 of my garden and Mr Jay says he's entitled to cut it 20 down. The court will normally say, "You may well be 21 right, Mr Jay, but once you've cut it down, you can't 22 put it up again so we'll leave it there pending trial". 23 I think what the judge could do in a difficult case is 24 say, "This is a difficult case, it needs a trial, I'm 25 going to grant the injunction, but I'm going to give an 15 1 expedited trial." 2 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Mr Jay might pursue this. 3 MR JAY: There will be submissions of law on it but I think 4 it's fair to say Mr Mosley, in your case, the combined 5 effect of paragraphs 22 and 36 of Mr Justice Eady's 6 judgment of 9 April 2008 is that if it weren't for the 7 dam bursting point, you would have got your injunction. 8 That's certainly my reading of it, you don't have to 9 comment whether you agree or not. 10 A. But I do. 11 Q. I'm giving you that assurance. The wider point, what 12 happens in a case where the public interest is more 13 debatable, that can be dealt with by legal submission in 14 due course. 15 I would like, however, to dwell just very briefly on 16 the reasons that the European Court of Human Rights, the 17 Fourth Chamber, gave for rejecting your prior 18 notification argument. In this very fat bundle I'm 19 going to go straight to the discussion or conclusion of 20 the European Court. It's page 410 on the small 21 numbering. This document, of course, is in the public 22 domain. I'm not going to ask for it to be put up. 23 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: For those who don't understand, in 24 relation to prior notification, you took a case to the 25 European Court of Human Rights and it went to the 16 1 Grand Chamber, all the way along the line. 2 A. It went, sir, to one of the small chambers and then we 3 tried to go to the Grand Chamber -- 4 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: And they refused. 5 A. Yes. 6 MR JAY: It was the fourth division. 7 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. 8 MR JAY: I am going to summarise this as succinctly as I can 9 without, I hope, losing the nuance. At paragraph 120, 10 they said that the general rule is that damages after 11 the event will satisfy Article 8. Do you follow me? 12 And then they considered at paragraph 121 whether, 13 notwithstanding that, there were good reasons for 14 requiring pre-notification as an adjunct to Article 8. 15 They addressed that on two levels, Mr Mosley. First 16 of all, paragraph 122, the traditional margin of 17 appreciation arguments, which mean in essence, well, the 18 European Court leaves it to the domestic court, a wide 19 margin of discretion as to how to organise its 20 procedures. 21 But then there is an interesting section of the 22 judgment which I do draw to your attention, because it 23 arguably contains a solecism which has been perpetrated 24 by others. Page 412 at the bottom, paragraph 126: 25 "However, the court is persuaded that concerns 17 1 regarding the effectiveness of a pre-notification duty 2 and practice are not unjustified. Two considerations 3 arise. First, it's generally accepted that any 4 pre-notification obligation would require some form of 5 public interest exception, thus a newspaper could opt 6 not to notify a subject if it believed that it could 7 subsequently defend its decision on the basis of the 8 public interest. The court considers that in order to 9 prevent a serious chilling effect on freedom of 10 expression, a reasonable belief that there was a public 11 interest at stake would have to be sufficient to justify 12 non-notification, even if it was subsequently held that 13 no such public interest arose." 14 May I respectfully suggest, not to you but to those 15 who wrote it, that it's arguable, at least, that two 16 matters have been conflated. First, there is the public 17 interest in not notifying you, because you might be 18 a criminal, you might destroy evidence or whatever, and 19 then there is the public interest in justifying the 20 publication in due course. What arguably the court have 21 done here is to use arguments which pertain to the 22 second consideration to the first, and they therefore 23 have entered into error, the same error which you would 24 say, perhaps, infiltrates the reasoning of the Select 25 Committee when they come to address the self-same issue. 18 1 Is that a fair summary of your position? 2 A. That's a precise summary. I think that the issue that 3 matters is: is there a prior notification argument in 4 relation to the notification itself? 5 Q. Yes. 6 A. When it gets to the subject matter, the judge will look 7 at that. 8 Q. The other point which they make strikes me, with great 9 respect, again as a thunderingly bad or surprising 10 point. They say if there were an injunction, the 11 newspaper might break it because they would be happy to 12 pay the punitive fine, which seems to me to involve 13 a bit of a misunderstanding about what the rule of law 14 entails. If you got your injunction, you would be in 15 contempt of court to break it and it would be 16 unthinkable that a newspaper would ever take that risk. 17 So that may be the complete answer to the European 18 Court's second point, or it may not. 19 A. I think that's a very strange reasoning. Apart from 20 anything else, if the fine is big enough, they won't 21 ignore it. It might be an argument for upping the fine 22 but it will never be an argument for saying it was okay 23 to breach somebody's privacy. 24 Q. Well, whatever, one respects the judgment, it is the law 25 coming out of Europe. The Grand Chamber were invited by 19 1 you to reconsider this and they have not granted you the 2 privilege to do so. The matter rests now with this 3 decision. 4 A. That's correct. 5 Q. That doesn't mean, of course, you would say, that 6 domestic law could not move further than European law 7 and provide you the protections which you say should 8 apply, namely prior notification, because it's certainly 9 within the gift of Parliament to provide for that if so 10 advised? 11 A. Indeed. The only reason that I went to Strasbourg was 12 that I thought there was no chance of convincing a UK 13 government to bring in the necessary legislation, 14 because, to put it bluntly, they were completely in the 15 thrall of Mr Murdoch and other big newspaper people who 16 would have objected. That spell has now been broken, 17 I think fairly conclusively, and I don't see any reason 18 why such a law should not be brought in. 19 The case for prior notification, to my way of 20 thinking, is unanswerable. I think it's just so 21 absolutely clear that you need it and it's the right way 22 to do it. The only outstanding issue is how you would 23 arrange your tribunal that could do this without it 24 being ruinously costly, but that's the only issue. That 25 you need prior notification, that you need an 20 1 independent person to decide in a difficult case whether 2 it be published or not seems to me unanswerable. 3 Q. Thank you. Towards the end of your statement, you deal 4 with the wider picture and your views about press 5 regulation, and we're going to come to that, but there 6 are some specific points I would like to raise with you. 7 The first point in relation to Mr Dacre, you are 8 well aware that he has stated publicly that 9 Mr Justice Eady's decision is incorrect. I think he 10 referred in a lecture in 2008 to the subjective and 11 relativistic view of Mr Justice Eady, and then in 12 evidence to the Select Committee, which we have 13 available, he expressed a similar view. 14 I don't interpret your evidence as saying other than 15 that he's quite entitled to express that opinion? 16 A. Yes, I think that's fair. 17 Q. In a nutshell what he may be saying -- of course he will 18 say it much better than me and I should not be 19 understood as paraphrasing him -- is to say, "Look, this 20 is immoral conduct, many people would judge it thus; 21 surely, therefore, there is a right as part of the 22 newspaper's right of fair comment under Article 10 or 23 whatever for these matters to come to light because of 24 the nature of the subject matter". I have expressed in 25 a way I'm sure Mr Dacre would not, but the general 21 1 sentiment I've sought to get across. May I have your 2 comment on it, please? 3 A. The thing is that what Dacre said I think in his speech 4 to the Society of Editors and in an editorial, he said 5 that I was guilty of unimaginable depravity. Well, 6 first of all, it reflects badly on his imagination, but 7 apart from that, it's not a sensible comment because 8 I wouldn't -- I have no idea what Mr Dacre's sex life 9 is. All I know is that he has this sort of 10 preoccupation with schoolboy smut in his website, with 11 Ms X in her bikini, Ms Y showing off her suntan, 12 et cetera. So he may have some sort of strange sex 13 life, but the point is it's not up to me to go into his 14 bedroom, film him and then write about it. It's his 15 business. And equally, if somebody has a slightly 16 unusual sex life, exactly the same thing applies. 17 I think the law is very clear, and I think it's 18 quite right, that if it's private, it's adult and it's 19 consensual, then it concerns nobody else. The moment 20 you go into the area where you say, "I don't really like 21 what that person's doing", lots of people do things 22 I don't like, it's not up to me to tell them not to. 23 All I can object to, I can say please don't do it in 24 front of me, please make sure everybody consents, and 25 that's an end of the matter. 22 1 I think I said this before, I'm sorry to repeat 2 myself, it's a completely old-fashioned idea. It dates 3 from the days when, for example, I was young, where it 4 was illegal to be gay, and all sorts of sexual 5 activities which some people find quite normal, I might 6 not, but some do, were actually criminal offences, even 7 between a man and a woman, and all that's been changed. 8 The world has moved on. The only person who hasn't 9 moved on is Mr Dacre. 10 Q. What he said to the Select Committee, and this is on 11 23 April 2009, he said this: 12 "With the greatest respect to you [by which he means 13 the committee], I think a lot of us were very surprised 14 at the soft time you gave him [the 'him' in that 15 sentence is you, Mr Mosley]. For Max Mosley to present 16 him as a knight in shining armour proclaiming 17 sanctimoniousness and aggrieved self-righteousness in 18 his crusade to clean up the press is an almost surreal 19 conversion of the moral values of normal civilised 20 society. Indeed for Mr Mosley to crusade against the 21 media is a bit like being the Yorkshire Ripper 22 campaigning against men who batter women." 23 A. It's really quite sad, actually, that he should say 24 things like that to the committee, because what he's 25 really saying is he doesn't like or didn't like 23 1 something that I did sexually, in private, with 2 consenting adults, and that that -- the fact that he 3 didn't like it should prevent me from saying the press 4 should not invade people's privacy. It's an absolutely 5 ludicrous argument. It's a very sad thing for Mr Dacre 6 that every time I get invited to a university to debate, 7 I'll say I'll come to the other end of England if you 8 can get Dacre on the other side. No chance. 9 Q. He crystallised his point a little bit later on: 10 "My main objection was the way he exploited and 11 humiliated and degraded women in this way. Paid women, 12 yes." 13 A. It just shows again he's completely naive obviously 14 about sex. That's not a criticism, but it's a fact. 15 The women in my -- my little party, I like to call it, 16 they are total complete enthusiasts for what they do. 17 They love what they do. They're more into it than I've 18 ever been. The idea that you're exploiting them is 19 ludicrously naive and in fact offensive to them. They 20 all do these sort of things in their private lives, with 21 their partners. That's how they are. Mr Dacre may not 22 approve of it, but the fact is we live in a civilised 23 society where grown-ups in private should be allowed to 24 do what they please. It's not up to him to decide who 25 can do what between consenting adults. 24 1 Q. Two further points, so the position is clear. First of 2 all, Mr Dacre's evidence to the Select Committee is 3 categorical to this extent, that the article that the 4 News of the World published was certainly not an article 5 that the Daily Mail would publish, because of its 6 nature, for reasons of good taste. You probably recall 7 that part of his evidence, do you? 8 A. I do well. 9 Q. Yes. 10 A. The thing is that he's in the position -- he's like the 11 crocodile's killed the animal and then the hyenas come 12 along and scavenge and he's the scavenger. 13 Q. The second matter, which I'm sure you accept as well, is 14 that Mr Dacre's agenda is that (a) this is a matter of 15 his human rights which he is entitled to pursue, and 16 it's certainly not part of his objective, he would say, 17 in any way to undermine Mr Justice Eady. What he is 18 doing is exercising his democratic rights. Would you 19 accept that much? 20 A. I can't really accept that because what he said was that 21 this is an amoral judgment, I think those were the 22 words, from an amoral man. Well it isn't. It's 23 a judgment that recognises that consenting adults are 24 allowed to do by the law of this country what they wish 25 in private. He may criticise the law, that's absolutely 25 1 possible. What he should not do is criticise a judge 2 for imposing the law or applying the law. 3 What's deeply hypocritical about the thing is that 4 if this were not the law, they could appeal -- we've had 5 this point before -- and they did not appeal. He should 6 recognise that the reason that News International did 7 not appeal was not because they agreed with the 8 judgment, it was because they knew they would lose. So 9 what he's doing is he's attacking the man, the judge, 10 he's playing the man rather than the ball. The ball is 11 the law. If he doesn't like the law, he could campaign 12 to change it. Meanwhile, all the judge can do is apply 13 it, and this Mr Justice Eady did. 14 Q. I think I've taken that point as far as I need to. Can 15 I look at the wider picture through your evidence and 16 this is the part of your witness statement which starts 17 at paragraph 100. First of all, you deal with the PCC. 18 What you say about the PCC is perhaps not unfamiliar to 19 this Inquiry, because it chimes with other evidence or 20 other opinion which the Inquiry has received. You make 21 the various points there's no power to sanction, 22 Northern & Shell have opted out, PCC wouldn't, couldn't 23 or didn't prevent the most scandalous abuses you refer 24 to, and you name them. 25 You mention some positive aspects in paragraphs 105, 26 1 106. For reasons of balance, could you tell us a little 2 bit about those matters perhaps so far as they bear on 3 you? 4 A. Absolutely. The Press Complaints Commission in my case 5 were helpful when it came to trying to stop press 6 harassment or harassment after the death of my son. 7 They did co-operate there. And I believe, but I have no 8 personal experience, that they've had some success in 9 preventing the publication of stories which shouldn't be 10 published. I think that people who know a story is 11 coming out can call them up, and I think they've done, 12 I believe, a lot in that way quite successfully, but 13 that brings us back to the fundamental point that if you 14 don't know the story's coming out, you can't ring the 15 PCC for help. That's why prior notification, once 16 again, is vital. 17 Q. Thank you. Then you make the "no teeth" point which 18 others of course have made and the conflict of interest 19 point which again others have made, but I would ask you, 20 please, to develop your point about a suggested 21 alternative to the PCC. I know you've touched on this 22 a little bit but could you in your own words help the 23 Inquiry with the contours of your suggested alternative? 24 A. It's a subject which I could talk about for hours, but 25 briefly, I think a tribunal or body of some kind is 27 1 needed, and the basic principle of the PCC that it is 2 free I think is right. That it is paid for by the press 3 I think is right. But I would give the new body -- 4 I would make it slightly different, that I would first 5 of all divide it into two sections, one which would make 6 the rules and the other which would enforce them, and 7 the rule-making, I think, doesn't need a great deal of 8 work. There are certain things like prior notification, 9 but fundamentally the rules are not that bad. 10 But what is needed is a body that can enforce them, 11 so a body that would have the power to order a story not 12 to come out, if it were justified under the law as it 13 stands, would have the power to find -- would have 14 various powers effectively rather like a judge would 15 have, and I would add to that the power to stop the 16 press harassing somebody, not ask them as the PCC does, 17 but tell them. Those points could be worked out and 18 I would be very, very happy to submit to the Inquiry 19 a detailed proposal of that. 20 But fundamentally, you should be able to go very 21 simply and say, "I think my privacy's about to be 22 invaded", and I would add to that even defamatory 23 statements. I know about the rule in Bonnard v 24 Perryman, obviously, but I think there is a case for 25 trying to mediate these things at the beginning. 28 1 I think if somebody went with their complaint, either 2 defamation or breach of privacy, and the other side were 3 made to turn up as well and you have a mediator sitting 4 there, a large proportion of these things would 5 disappear before they even started. 6 Most cases are quite simple. You would have to have 7 some mechanism for the complicated cases to go to the 8 High Court and you would have to have some mechanism for 9 paying for them, but there are various ways in which 10 that could be approached. But the overwhelming majority 11 of cases could be dealt with simply with a single 12 adjudicator, the two parties sitting there, the issue 13 explained briefly, no big expensive lawyers, pleadings 14 and all the rest of it. Most of these issues are really 15 quite simple. It's just that the capacity, with the 16 greatest respect to the legal profession, the capacity 17 for the legal profession to make things complicated, of 18 course, is great, and that's very expensive. 19 Q. Thank you, Mr Mosley. Journalistic practices now, 20 paragraph 120. This is to some extent, if I can be 21 forgiven for saying so, a commentary on evidence which 22 the Inquiry has received and will receive in due course, 23 particularly when it comes to Operation Motorman, do you 24 understand -- 25 A. Yes. 29 1 Q. -- we're dealing with in a lot of detail next week and 2 the Inquiry will be able to reach its own conclusions 3 about that. 4 But you do make one point in the context of 5 blackmail, paragraph 124. I'm sure you'd like to bring 6 this point out, that after Mr Justice Eady delivered 7 judgment on 24 July 2008, with his criticisms of 8 Mr Thurlbeck, you wrote to Mr Rupert Murdoch in New York 9 drawing your concerns to his attention. Did you receive 10 a reply to that letter? 11 A. No, I didn't. That letter was written on 10 March this 12 year and I sent it by recorded delivery and I have 13 evidence from the United States postal service that it 14 was delivered. 15 I also sent two emails, and I was astonished, 16 because all I was asking him to do was to order an 17 inquiry in his Wapping 1 per cent into this, but got no 18 reply. I have to say that I cannot imagine writing to 19 a proper international company a letter alleging serious 20 criminal conduct by a senior employee and getting no 21 reply. 22 I'm sorry to say this, but I think I will, if I may. 23 That to me is the conduct of the Mafia. It's what you 24 would expect if you wrote to the head of a Mafia family 25 complaining about one of their soldiers. You would 30 1 probably get no reply. Equally, if one of their 2 soldiers went to prison, as Mr Rees did, and was 3 promptly reemployed when he came out after serving a 4 sentence for a very serious offence, again you would 5 expect that from the Mafia, you would not expect it from 6 a serious company like News International down in 7 Wapping. 8 Q. Well, Mr Mosley, doubtless your legal team will remind 9 me in due course, it may be a few months' time, to get 10 the reply which you've been seeking, because it may be 11 possible to do that. 12 A. Thank you. 13 Q. I hope you don't mind that I leave off 14 Operation Motorman. 15 A. No, it's just my opinion. 16 Q. Thank you. The Internet is a big issue. You have 17 touched on it. Is there anything else, because of 18 course it's of great concern to this Inquiry, any 19 practical solutions, any ideas you'd wish to share with 20 us to deal with the proliferation of information 21 literally at the speed of light globally? 22 A. I think this is something that will probably require 23 certainly national laws, but it would probably better 24 require European laws and in the end an international 25 convention. 31 1 But what I think can be done at quite an early stage 2 is to -- could be done would be to require the service 3 providers and also the search engines not to proliferate 4 information which is illegal or wrong in some way. 5 I think the technology for that exists. Again, if it 6 would be helpful, I'm very happy to put together 7 a detailed proposal to submit to the Inquiry. 8 Q. Thank you. 9 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: That's actually the second time 10 you've offered to do something, Mr Mosley, and speaking 11 for myself, it's very tempting to take you up on the 12 offer, but I'm not doing that generally because I think 13 it potentially imposes an undue burden on somebody when 14 at the end of the day I've not reached a conclusion as 15 to what might work. 16 But I might make an exception in your case for this 17 reason, depending on what you say about this. You have 18 experience of international governance in motor racing, 19 so I don't know whether or not that gives you any 20 additional understanding of the potential pitfalls to be 21 faced either in trying to do something nationally, let 22 alone internationally. So if you want to submit 23 anything to the Inquiry, then you can rest assured it 24 will be considered, but you will equally understand that 25 I am making absolutely no promises. 32 1 A. I mean, what I submit, sir, may well turn out to be 2 inadequate or no good for all sorts of reasons, but we 3 have given it a great deal of thought and it would be -- 4 well, one can submit, and then it will be for the 5 Inquiry to decide whether it wants to adopt any or part 6 of it. 7 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes, as long as -- the basis upon 8 which you're doing this, and I'm conscious this takes 9 your time and is an effort, as long as the basis upon 10 which you're doing it is well understood. 11 A. I'm very happy to do that, sir. 12 MR JAY: Final point, Mr Mosley. The whole of your 13 statement has I think already gone online. Therefore 14 people may already be reading or have read 15 paragraph 131, which touches on the Daily Mail. You 16 say, and of course you're entitled to your opinion, in 17 the context of Operation Motorman, you say in the middle 18 of that paragraph: 19 "It is inconceivable that the Daily Mail and other 20 newspapers did not know that they were procuring and 21 encouraging criminal acts." 22 May I make this clear on behalf of the Daily Mail, 23 that that is strongly denied by them and they will say 24 when they have the opportunity to do that that the 25 Information Commissioner's office in September 2011 33 1 stated that there was no evidence that any journalist 2 had asked Mr Whittamore to obtain information illegally. 3 I'd like to leave the point there only for this 4 reason. One, so that the Daily Mail's position is 5 clearly set out through me, but secondly to make it 6 clear that the rights and wrongs of the issue are being 7 investigated by the Inquiry, so let's wait and see what 8 happens next week. Are you content with that? 9 A. May I say a word on that? I would just like to say that 10 of course they would say that. I'd hope they won't 11 consider this a mendacious smear. All I'm saying is the 12 fact that no journalist asked for an illegal act is not 13 the same as saying that no journalist would have 14 realised that the information they were getting had to 15 be illegally obtained. But that's a matter for the 16 Inquiry. 17 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: You're reaching your conclusions 18 based upon your study of "What price privacy"? 19 A. Indeed, sir, yes. 20 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I'll be doing that as well. 21 MR JAY: I think a very long day is in store next Thursday 22 when these issues are going to be investigated. 23 Mr Mosley, the Inquiry is extremely grateful to you. 24 Have we covered all the ground you wished to? 25 A. I think so. Some of it twice, sir. 34 1 MR JAY: If that's the case, that would be my fault. But 2 thank you very much, Mr Mosley. 3 A. Thank you. 4 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank you. 5 It's probably sensible just to have five minutes for 6 the shorthand writer and for all of us, but I repeat, 7 five minutes actually means five minutes, or perhaps in 8 this case seven minutes, but not longer. Thank you. 9 (2.52 pm) 10 (A short break)