17 MR BARR: Sir, good morning. Can I just confirm that the
18 audio feed is coming through? Thank you.
19 Can Mr Mahmood be sworn, please.
20 MR MAZHER MAHMOOD (sworn)
21 Questions by MR BARR
22 MR BARR: Mr Mahmood, could you give the Inquiry your full
23 name, please?
24 A. Mazher Mahmood.
25 Q. You've provided the Inquiry with two witness statements.
1
1 The first was signed on 14 October of this year and the
2 second on 8 December. Are you familiar with the
3 contents of your witness statements?
4 A. Yes, I am.
5 Q. Are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge
6 and belief?
7 A. Yes, they are.
8 Q. Thank you. We will take those as read and so I shall
9 ask questions only arising from certain parts of your
10 statements.
11 You tell us that you are currently working as an
12 investigative journalist at the Sunday Times?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. That you have over 20 years' experience with -- or about
15 20 years' experience with the News of the World before
16 that?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. Where you worked also as an investigative journalist,
19 exposing, as you put it, criminal and moral wrongdoing?
20 A. That's right.
21 Q. You have overall been working as a journalist for 30
22 years and you list, at paragraph 2 of your witness
23 statement, the titles that you've worked for.
24 A. Sure.
25 Q. The Sunday People, the Daily Mail, the BBC, ITV, the
2
1 Sunday Times and TV-am.
2 You tell us that work that you have done has led to
3 253 successful criminal prosecutions.
4 A. It's incorrect, actually. The total has now gone up to
5 261, and as we sit here at the moment, at Southwark
6 Crown Court, two more women are being sentenced as
7 a result of my work.
8 Q. I see, so perhaps we ought to keep a running tally.
9 You've won several awards including news reporter of
10 the year at the British Press Awards this year and
11 reporter of the year in 1999. I think perhaps the most
12 high profile of your recent cases has been the case of
13 the Pakistani cricketers convicted for match-fixing
14 recently?
15 A. That's right.
16 Q. You tell us at paragraph 31 of your statement -- we
17 needn't turn that up -- that your other cases have, for
18 example, included the exposure of paedophiles, people
19 traffickers, drug dealers, pimps and even a doctor who
20 tried to hire you as a hitman?
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. Can I ask you, before we move any further, about your
23 work for the Sunday Times, not now but when you first
24 worked for them?
25 A. Primarily the same role, investigative journalism.
3
1 That's what I've done.
2 Q. The point I want to put to you is in a book called Fake
3 Sheiks & Royal Trappings, Mr Peter Burden suggests that
4 you left that employment under something of a cloud?
5 A. Well, I'm working there again now. I have to say, I've
6 listened to Mr Burden's statement here last week and it
7 is riddled with inaccuracies.
8 Q. We'll come to some of the cases that he raised and your
9 response to them shortly.
10 A. Sure.
11 Q. But my question at this stage is: is it right that you
12 left the Sunday Times under something of a cloud the
13 first time around?
14 A. We had a disagreement; correct.
15 Q. You tell us something of the way in which corporate
16 governance worked at the News of the World and the way
17 in which your investigations were considered and
18 approved. At this stage, I'd like to concentrate very
19 much on your time at the News of the World. We'll come
20 to your current employment with the Sunday Times in due
21 course.
22 Concentrating now on the News of the World, can you
23 tell us a little bit, first of all, about how much
24 information you would need to consider starting
25 a full-scale investigation?
4
1 A. Well, I'd receive information from informants and some
2 were just people who would phone in with a lead, but
3 more often than not, it was informants I'd known for
4 many years who had provided reliable, credible
5 information in the past.
6 So first and foremost, I'd have to form the opinion
7 that the information they were providing was credible.
8 I'd have to establish that it was worthy of a story for
9 the News of the World newspaper. I'd have to establish
10 myself that it was in the public interest. I had to
11 establish there was justification for using subterfuge
12 and only then would I present the story to the news
13 desk, who would then go through the same process and ask
14 me loads and questions and at the next stage, the
15 lawyers would get involved, whether or not the modus
16 operandi was justified and then often the approval of
17 the editor was required and only then would I embark on
18 any investigation. So it was quite a thorough process.
19 Q. If I could just explore some of that in a little more
20 detail. At the News of the World, was this a process
21 that was largely done orally or was it committed to
22 writing?
23 A. Some of it was committed to writing. I'd always submit
24 my initial proposal by email and provide in that email
25 justifications for why I felt this story was in the
5
1 public interest and why I felt the use of subterfuge was
2 justified, and I assume that would also go on to our
3 lawyers. That would be forwarded to them for their
4 approval.
5 Q. Can you give us --
6 A. But much of the conversation was oral.
7 Q. I see. Can you give us some indication of the
8 proportion of your investigations that involved the
9 editor taking a view on whether or not you should
10 proceed?
11 A. Ultimately, the editor made a decision on nearly all the
12 stories, but he was hands-on on obviously the more high
13 profile ones. But the run-of-the-mill stories I'd
14 liaise with the news desk.
15 Q. We'll come in a little more detail later on to the
16 public interest tests and the question of the ends
17 justified the means. At this stage, I'm just interested
18 in the process.
19 You talk about logistics and costings being
20 considered and approved before you proceeded to
21 investigate. Was there also consideration of the
22 specific methods that you were going to use or was that
23 left to you and your experience?
24 A. No, they were discussed -- everything was discussed with
25 the legal team. I couldn't go off piste and do what
6
1 I wanted. I had to take legal advice and throughout the
2 investigation I remained in constant touch with our
3 lawyers.
4 Q. On the question of process, can I ask you to compare the
5 processes that were in place and which you have just
6 described at the News of the World with those which are
7 in place at the Sunday Times? Are there differences?
8 A. Essentially they're the same, but at the Sunday Times
9 it's a lot more stringent and it's more formalised.
10 I can give you an example, if you wish, of an
11 investigation I did recently. I received information
12 that a gang were involved in insurance fraud. They were
13 staging car crashes, an accident claims firm.
14 So the first thing I did was to speak to the
15 informant who I'd known for many years. He's provided
16 reliable information in the past. I knew his
17 background, I knew that the information was credible.
18 The first stage is that I assessed it and felt it
19 justified -- satisfied the test of public interest,
20 satisfied the test for use of subterfuge. I then
21 prepared a memo which I sent to the news desk, so that
22 was then vetted by Steve Bowan(?), the news editor, and
23 James Mellor, the deputy news editor. They then asked
24 various questions and approved it. It then went to the
25 head of news, Charles Hymas, who then rang me up and
7
1 gave me a grilling on sources and the modus operandi,
2 and then it went to the editor, and I was invited to
3 a meeting where -- it was attended by John Witherow, the
4 editor, went through it. Pia Sarma(?), our legal
5 director, was present. Charles Hymas was present and
6 there was a formal meeting where every aspect of the
7 story was discussed, minutes were kept of the meeting,
8 notes were taken, a very rigorous process. You know, is
9 the use of subterfuge justified in this case? Is there
10 a public interest argument? There's a formal debate.
11 That's happened for every single investigation that
12 I've done at the Sunday Times. So there's no question
13 of it not being regulated. It's a very, very formal
14 procedure and a very thorough procedure.
15 Q. Is it your evidence that that thorough, formal procedure
16 was more than took place at the News of the World?
17 A. Yes, it is. It was a lot more informal at the
18 News of the World newspaper, but -- in essence, we still
19 had to satisfy the same criteria, but it was a lot less
20 formal, chats with the news desk. You know, there were
21 no meetings. It was a lot more informal.
22 Q. Was that informality a cultural thing that connected
23 with the News of the World as a newspaper?
24 A. I think it was, yes, it was a cultural thing. But
25 having said that, as I say, I remained in constant touch
8
1 with Tom Crone, the lawyer. There were times when
2 I rang him 2, 3 in the morning for advice. You know,
3 can I say this, do this, do that? So it's not that it
4 was not regulated. It was, but there were no formal
5 meetings, there was no kind of open discussions about
6 the matters I've just outlined.
7 Q. I understand. You say at paragraph 10 of your first
8 witness statement that there might be instances when you
9 were told by the news editor or the editor to look at
10 a particular individual for wrongdoing. So is it right
11 that your stories sometimes started with leads which you
12 obtained, but on other occasions you were fed leads by
13 the editorial hierarchy?
14 A. 95 per cent of all the stories I did, I'd say, were my
15 own stories from my own sources, but there were
16 occasions when I was given stories by the news desk or
17 directly by the editor who had received information and
18 felt it formed the basis of an investigation for me.
19 Q. And if the editor wanted a particular matter
20 investigated, did that mean that some of the process
21 that you described earlier was avoided and you would
22 just automatically investigate, or was there an analysis
23 of the strength of the information that you were being
24 provided by the editor?
25 A. No, there was always analysis, always. I mean, the
9
1 editor would not give me a story that he'd not
2 considered these factors.
3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Sorry, how do you know that? Is that
4 because you were party to those discussions?
5 A. I was occasionally party to the discussions. I'd have
6 a meeting with the editor and he would say, "Look,
7 I think we should go undercover on this one. I have
8 reasonable belief that this person's involved in this
9 particular crime. I have a reliable source." So we'd
10 go through the same process.
11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: You say you were occasionally party
12 to such discussions, but if you weren't, then you
13 presumably just accepted what was provided for you?
14 A. Correct, correct.
15 MR BARR: Can you recall any occasion when you were provided
16 with a lead by an editor and you found yourself turning
17 around to him and saying, "No, I'm sorry, this is not
18 enough to go on"?
19 A. No, but I mean, there would always be discussion about
20 the source. You know, can I speak to the source? How
21 reliable is the information? There was always that
22 discussion. It wasn't glossed over just because it's
23 come from the editor. There was always a discussion, if
24 not directly with the editor, then certainly with the
25 news desk.
10
1 Q. Can I now delve into a little bit more detail about the
2 sorts of cases that you were investigating? You
3 provided some exhibits of very recent stories -- and
4 you've just mentioned one of them -- whilst you've been
5 at the Sunday Times. If I may say, so they all seem to
6 be cases where there is a clear public interest and
7 we've mentioned some of the stories you did earlier in
8 your career, which again seem to be clearly in the
9 public interest.
10 I'd like to perhaps ask a little bit about some of
11 the choices which have been a little bit more
12 controversial.
13 A. Right.
14 Q. First of all, in terms of choice of subject, it's right,
15 isn't it, that a lot of your stories have been about
16 public figures and they have on some occasions included
17 celebrities?
18 A. I wrote more than 500 stories for the News of the World
19 newspaper. Of those, a very, very small fraction
20 involved celebrities. Very small fraction.
21 Q. Understanding your evidence that it was a small
22 fraction, can I now ask you about what sort of thing did
23 you consider would make a celebrity story a matter of
24 public interest?
25 A. Clearly criminality was the main factor. Are they
11
1 involved in criminality? Are they involved in moral
2 wrongdoing? Are they involved in hypocrisy? Those were
3 the factors. I mean, the parameters were set very
4 clearly by the PCC code that we adhere to very strongly
5 at the News of the World.
6 Q. So just to look at those, you mentioned three things.
7 Illegality, I think, speaks for itself.
8 A. Sure.
9 Q. We need not consider that any further. Hypocrisy,
10 similarly. Can we focus on the moral wrongdoing? Was
11 it your view that any form of moral wrongdoing was
12 sufficient to pass the public interest test and
13 investigate a celebrity or was there a boundary line
14 somewhere?
15 A. Each case was on its own merits. I mean, if you had
16 a member of Parliament who was cheating on his wife with
17 a mistress, then clearly on moral grounds, you know,
18 I felt that was justified. Each one was assessed --
19 each story was assessed on its own merits. But we had
20 to be satisfied that it met the public interest
21 argument.
22 Q. I'd like to ask you about two cases which are mentioned
23 in your own autobiographical book. They are both
24 concerning supermodels and they both concern both drugs
25 and allegations of prostitution. One is the supermodel
12
1 Sophie Anderton and the other is a woman who is named
2 only in your book at X.
3 A. Right.
4 Q. If we deal with the drugs side of things first, what was
5 your view in terms of a supermodel taking drugs? Why
6 was that a matter of public interest, in your opinion?
7 A. Not taking drugs. She was selling drugs. She was
8 working as a prostitute and selling drugs to clients.
9 Clear case of criminality. The same applies for the
10 Ms X. The information that we received was that she too
11 was involved in supplying drugs. We spent a fortune on
12 that story and she did not supply us with drugs. The
13 story never made the paper.
14 Q. Moving on from the drugs to the prostitution, in both
15 cases it involved offering the woman concerned
16 a considerable sum of money to see if she would agree to
17 supply sex in return. In the first case,
18 Sophie Anderton, I think the figure was £10,000 and in
19 the case of X, it was $60,000 for six hours.
20 A. Sorry, I think your assertion is wrong there. It's not
21 us offering her the money. They were working with
22 escort agencies. That was their price. They were
23 demanding that figure. It's not us offering the money.
24 It's them demanding that figure, which I think is a very
25 important distinction to make. It's not as if we lured
13
1 them into prostitution or lured them into a hotel room.
2 It's a common misconception. We do not engage in
3 entrapment of that sort. They were working as
4 prostitutes with an escort agency. They had their set
5 fees.
6 Q. I see. What was it about the fact that they were
7 offering sex in return for money that you thought made
8 it a matter of legitimate public interest, not just to
9 expose an agency but to expose the woman herself?
10 A. Well, as I said to you, the primary focus of both those
11 stories was illegality. They were dealing drugs to
12 clients. I mean, sure, the only way to infiltrate them
13 was to pose as a client and then the offer would be made
14 to us. So that was the main focus of that story.
15 I mean, the morality of them being a prostitute was not
16 the main focus for those stories. The justification was
17 criminality.
18 Q. Are you saying that if it had been just prostitution,
19 you would not have pursued the story?
20 A. Then it would have been a call. Sure, then it would be
21 a close call. I mean, Ms X was a married within woman,
22 so she was cheating on her husband. Let's not forget,
23 these people are, sadly, role models for our kids.
24 A lot of children aspire to be models, to have the fame
25 and fortune and the privileges afforded by that fame.
14
1 So in a sense, they're abusing that position.
2 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: So you say if somebody's famous, that
3 means anything goes?
4 A. That's what they believe.
5 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: No, that's what you believe. If
6 they're famous, anything goes?
7 A. No, that is a position that they take, that -- people
8 like Sophie Anderton feel that they are above the law,
9 they're immune from prosecution and quite frankly, if
10 I'd not exposed her, there is absolutely no way that
11 she'd have been caught dealing drugs.
12 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: No, I'm sorry, it's a slightly
13 different point that I was asking you. You were saying
14 if it's just prostitution, it's a close call, but it's
15 moral grounds, these people are role models. So do
16 I gather from what you're saying that if people are
17 famous, any conflict between what you perceive is their
18 public persona and what is the public persona is worth
19 investigating?
20 A. Absolutely. If it's hypocrisy, then very much. If they
21 present themselves as wholesome characters and trade on
22 that status, then privately betray that, then I think
23 that's totally justified.
24 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: So they have to trade on being
25 wholesome characters?
15
1 A. Sure, but as I say, in both these stories you've
2 mentioned, the justification was criminality. If
3 they're posing in Hello magazine, happy family snaps,
4 yet secretly working as prostitutes, I think there's --
5 the moral justification for exposing them is quite
6 clear, in my view.
7 MR BARR: I'd like to ask you now about whether or not
8 there's a difference between what is in the public
9 interest and what interests the public. In your mind,
10 is there a difference or not?
11 A. Of course there is. I mean, the public are very
12 interested in gossip and tittle-tattle and showbiz
13 stuff, but for me, as I said, the premise is very, very
14 clear. Public interest is, for me, moral wrongdoing,
15 obviously criminal acts, hypocrisy, with the public
16 being deceived, all aspects that are encompassed by the
17 PCC code.
18 Q. When you were discussing with your subeditors and
19 editors whether or not to pursue an investigation, was
20 the interest of the story to the readership a factor
21 that was taken into account?
22 A. I mean, there was a lot of tension at the
23 News of the World. We were always being criticised, so
24 we were extra cautious to comply with the PCC code. The
25 emphasis was always, you know: does this pass the public
16
1 interest test? Is there justification for using
2 subterfuge? Is there any other way that we could obtain
3 the same information without using subterfuge? Those
4 were the primary factors.
5 Q. I understand that answer, but it doesn't quite respond
6 to the question that I put, which is: when you were
7 discussing stories and whether to proceed or not, was
8 the interest of the story to the public ever a factor
9 that was --
10 A. It wasn't discussed. As I say, that was never a factor.
11 The public would love to hear about this was never -- it
12 was never put in those terms.
13 Q. Can I ask you about the PCC for a moment, please?
14 You've explained how you've often had to respond to
15 complaints and that you put a lot of effort into doing
16 so. In fact, you've even described being taken off
17 investigations in order to respond to complaints.
18 A. That's right.
19 Q. The Inquiry has heard evidence of at least some
20 journalists taking a far less serious attitude towards
21 the PCC and putting particular emphasis on the fact that
22 the PCC isn't, for example, able to impose a fine. But
23 was the attitude that you describe in your statement to
24 the PCC unusual at the News of the World?
25 A. I can only speak for my own work. I mean, whenever
17
1 a complaint came in to the PCC, it was treated very
2 seriously. As I've explained, it required a lot of
3 effort, and in 20 years, I didn't have a single PCC
4 complaint upheld against me. Numerous came in and it
5 was quite a laborious task answering PCC complaints but
6 we did. It was a priority. That was my experience.
7 As I said, even though the paper is now closed,
8 there are currently two complaints pending, and I've
9 spent hours doing transcripts and answering those
10 complaints, even though no sanctions can now obviously
11 be imposed. So it shows how seriously we take the PCC
12 code.
13 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: We or I?
14 A. I. And the paper. As I say, I was pulled off
15 investigations, which was quite annoying actually.
16 I was working on an investigation, and they'd say, "No,
17 sorry, you have to reply to this PCC complaint, get that
18 out of the way first and then go out on the road." So
19 it's not just myself. It was the lawyers to the paper
20 to the editor.
21 MR BARR: You described the lawyer and the editor taking the
22 matter seriously. Can I ask you about the attitude of
23 your colleagues, your fellow reporters? What was the
24 feeling amongst your colleagues?
25 A. I didn't have a great deal of dealings with other
18
1 reporters on the paper. I had my own little team that
2 I worked with and we certainly took it very seriously,
3 but I didn't have a lot of interaction with other
4 reporters on the paper.
5 Q. It's right, according to Mr McMullan, who gave evidence
6 here recently, that he worked for a time with you; is
7 that right?
8 A. Again, this was -- this came as news to me. I may have
9 seen him in the office. I've never worked with the
10 chap. I can't even recall talking to him. Completely
11 untrue. He's never worked with me on a single
12 investigation. As I say, I don't know him.
13 Q. Can I move now to the question of private investigators,
14 please? You explain in your statement that there was
15 a time early on in your career with the
16 News of the World when you did use private investigators
17 and your statement sets out the way in which they were
18 used. Can I ask you now, though, whether you can recall
19 ever working with Mr Derek Webb?
20 A. On private investigators -- can I just stress very
21 clearly that I never ever commissioned a private
22 detective to do any work for me. I never paid a private
23 detective, contrary to the report in this morning's
24 Independent. It's simply not true.
25 Derek Webb is a man that I came across I think on
19
1 one or two occasions. He may have worked on one or two
2 of my investigations, and again, he was assigned to my
3 stories by the news desk. I can't remember what stories
4 they were but I think only on a couple of occasions.
5 Q. Can I now move to the question of chequebook journalism?
6 I've put to you a moment ago examples where really very
7 considerable sums of money were in play on the
8 supermodel investigations that you did. What was your
9 approach on the News of the World to the use of
10 payments, first of all to sources?
11 A. Well, to sources, obviously people came to us because
12 they wanted to sell stories and we made no bones about
13 the fact that we paid for stories. We advertised it.
14 I don't think there's anything wrong with that, as long
15 as the individuals are not profiting from their crimes
16 by doing so. I mean, if they were whistle-blowing and
17 helping us expose drug rings and paedophile rings and
18 expecting a fee for that, then I see nothing wrong with
19 that.
20 Q. Is there a difficulty that if you offer money and you
21 advertise for stories, that it's going to tempt people
22 to embellish or, even worse, simply to fabricate?
23 A. Sure. That's what we're here for. It is our job to
24 assess the credibility of the information we receive.
25 Nothing would get in the paper unless its were
20
1 thoroughly checked and went through our lawyers. That
2 is our role, to check the information.
3 Q. We've again heard evidence of an investigative
4 journalist who, with his colleagues, presented stories
5 to tabloid newspapers which had these lines open for
6 people to come forward with stories and it seemed from
7 the evidence he adduced that getting the stories
8 published, even when they were fictitious, was very easy
9 indeed. Can I ask you, what checks did you apply when
10 you received a lead?
11 A. That certainly isn't my experience, not at all. I mean,
12 we'd end up paying heavy fees if we got it wrong. As
13 I've said, the majority of my stories came from
14 informants who provided me credible information in the
15 past but we'd make every check that we could before
16 embarking on investigation and I have to tell you that
17 a lot of the investigations are quite expensive, they
18 involve quite an investment, so we have to be sure
19 ourselves that the information sounds credible. So
20 depending on obviously what the story was, we'd try and
21 make as many checks prior to embarking on the
22 investigation. We'd have to have a belief that the
23 information was genuine and if it wasn't, we'd soon find
24 out.
25 Q. Are you saying that because of the nature of the sort of
21
1 investigations that you got involved in, there might
2 have been a difference between your experience and that
3 of your colleagues doing other work on the
4 News of the World?
5 A. Perhaps, but I don't believe that fabricated stories
6 could get into the paper.
7 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: You don't believe that?
8 A. I don't believe that as a matter of course, people could
9 phone in with fabricated stories and they would end up
10 in the paper. There were stringent checks in place.
11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Did you happen to see the film
12 Starseekers(sic)?
13 A. No, I've not seen that.
14 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: The evidence that we heard last week?
15 A. No, I didn't see that.
16 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Mr Atkins?
17 A. No, I didn't see that, I'm sorry.
18 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: You've never heard about this work
19 that was done whereby he placed false stories in
20 newspapers?
21 A. I didn't see that. No, I didn't, no.
22 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: It's some time ago. I would have
23 thought that it would be something that all those
24 involved in journalism would have been fascinated by.
25 A. No, I didn't see it. I'm sorry.
22
1 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Very good.
2 A. It's certainly not my experience.
3 MR BARR: You explain at paragraph 29 of your witness
4 statement that in your experience there were very few
5 formal contracts between the person coming forward to
6 the newspaper and the newspaper for money to be paid and
7 that it was largely done on trust.
8 A. Again, this is based on my experience with my contacts
9 and my informants.
10 Q. The Inquiry has heard some evidence of bargains being
11 made on trust and then not being honoured by newspapers.
12 Were there any circumstances in which you would not pay
13 a source, having promised money?
14 A. No, not in my experience. Again, you know, as a result
15 of my investigations, obviously I have criminals after
16 me, people I have exposed. The last thing I want is my
17 informant being disgruntled as well. So I'd make sure
18 they were paid what we'd agreed to pay them.
19 Q. Is it your evidence that that was invariably the
20 practice?
21 A. That was -- that's right.
22 Q. I'm not going to ask you any detailed questions about
23 phone hacking, but could I just ask you this -- and when
24 you answer, please don't name any names: were you aware
25 that phone hacking was going on at any time during your
23
1 work with the News of the World?
2 A. No, I was not. As I said in my statement, the first
3 time I heard about it was following an arrest.
4 Q. Was that the arrest of Clive Goodman?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. After Clive Goodman was arrested, did it become the talk
7 of the office?
8 A. Of course.
9 Q. And at that point, did you hear anything about whether
10 anybody else -- and again no names, please -- had been
11 involved?
12 A. No, but I mean all the fingers were pointed towards the
13 news desk.
14 Q. And at any time between Mr Goodman's arrest and
15 conviction until the close of the News of the World, did
16 you hear from anyone within the News of the World that
17 anybody else apart from Clive Goodman had been hacking
18 mobile phones?
19 A. No. I mean, clearly rumours were about, of course, but
20 there was no firm evidence.
21 Q. Mr Mahmood, can we move now to your second statement?
22 Again, I'm going to deal with it only by picking up
23 certain matters you raised. The rest is formally in
24 evidence and can be read by others.
25 Can I ask you first of all about the case of the
24
1 Crown v Shannon? This involved a man who I think was
2 a television actor and you had done an investigation
3 which led to him being convicted of a drugs offence.
4 A. That's right.
5 Q. And you exhibit the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
6 For the technician, it's tab 5. Then if we could have
7 the first page of the judgment on the screen, please.
8 If we could have the paragraph which starts with the
9 word "held" up in the centre, please. We see here, in
10 summary form, the way in which the court decided
11 Mr Shannon's appeal against conviction. I'm interested
12 in the passage which starts about halfway down, once
13 it's come into focus -- thank you -- at paragraph E. It
14 says:
15 "... there was no general rule requiring a court on
16 grounds of fundamental fairness not to entertain
17 a prosecution at all in cases of incitement or
18 instigation by an agent provocateur, regardless of
19 whether the trial as a whole could be a fair one in the
20 procedural sense; that the judge found correctly that
21 the evidence fell short of establishing actual
22 incitement or instigation of the offences concerned and
23 that in any event, the admission of the evidence would
24 not have an adverse effect on the procedural fairness of
25 the trial."
25
1 So is the point of exhibiting this case to point out
2 that a court held that you and your team had not in fact
3 incited or instigated an offence at all?
4 A. Absolutely. Besides this, he then went to the European
5 Court, went to Strasbourg, where once again the judges
6 there ruled that there was no entrapment. It's quite
7 annoying, this myth of entrapment. We do not entrap
8 people. Frankly, I don't believe you can entrap people
9 in the manner they suggest.
10 Q. I see. In the same case, could we now have up on the
11 screen page 54, please? It's the top of the page that
12 I would like to have brought up. Thank you.
13 Here I want to concentrate on essentially the
14 flavour of what it was that you did in order to execute
15 the sting. Starting from the second line, it reads:
16 "He said that because his (Mahmood's) name was
17 well-known in showbusiness circles, he decided that it
18 was necessary to set up an operation in which he posed
19 as a sheik, invited the defendant to the Savoy Hotel,
20 collecting him in a Rolls Royce and giving him dinner in
21 the River Restaurant, all on the basis of a fictitious
22 offer and intention to invite him out to Dubai as
23 a celebrity to participate in the opening of a nightclub
24 out there. Mahmood, who had booked a suite at the Savoy
25 in the name of His Royal Highness Sheik
26
1 Mohammed al Kareem justified his representing himself as
2 a sheik moving in royal circles by saying: 'The only way
3 to get into [the defendant's] circle is to pose as
4 somebody who he would want to come out and meet and want
5 to relax with. Get him to feel, if anything, we are
6 above him and he will be himself.'"
7 So it's right, isn't it, that effectively what was
8 being dangled in front of him was the prospect of a very
9 lucrative and attractive trip to Dubai?
10 A. Sure, but again, can I make very clear that we were
11 acting on reliable information. We knew that Mr Shannon
12 was actively involved in dealing drugs, so we acted on
13 that information, and yes, this was the only way to get
14 him to -- of course we provided the environment for him
15 to commit the crime, a crime that he was predisposed to
16 committing.
17 Q. My question is this: accepting, as the judges found,
18 that this was not a case of instigation or incitement,
19 what it is, though, is a question where a very
20 considerable carrot was dangled in front of the target?
21 A. Well, if you think that opening a nightclub in Dubai and
22 being a celebrity attending that function is
23 a considerable carrot, then so be it. But once again,
24 as I say, if I dangle a big carrot in front of you,
25 would you be able to supply me with cocaine or a fake
27
1 passport or a firearm? You would not, and even if you
2 wanted to, you wouldn't know where to begin, you
3 wouldn't know where to go. These are people that are
4 pre-disposed to commit these crimes anyway, and all I'm
5 providing is a snapshot of what they're doing anyway.
6 Q. In fairness to you, it's right that you point out very
7 often that ordinary law-abiding people wouldn't know
8 where to start with supplying drugs, for example, or
9 whatever you are investigating, but my question is this:
10 from an ethical point of view, did you think that there
11 was any ethical limit as to the size of the carrot that
12 you could dangle in front of a target to tempt them into
13 committing a criminal offence?
14 A. Well, as I said, just being a -- making a personal
15 appearance at the opening of a nightclub is not a huge
16 carrot to dangle.
17 Q. If we move from the specific to the general, to the
18 theoretical, then: is there a point at which you would
19 think: "That's too big a carrot, it's just not fair or
20 ethical to offer this person such a big incentive to
21 commit a criminal offence"?
22 A. This was one of the earlier investigations. I think
23 1993, was it? It was one of the early investigations we
24 did. As time went on, we did refine our modus operandi,
25 and of course it was a consideration. I mean, our
28
1 lawyers would be very careful in determining our
2 methods. They would scrutinise us very carefully. Yes,
3 it was a considerable.
4 Q. So if it was a consideration -- I'm trying here to tease
5 out, in the mind of a very experienced investigator,
6 where the ethical lines are. So where is the ethical
7 line, in your view, about the size of the carrot?
8 A. As I've said to you repeatedly, no matter what the size
9 of the carrot, you cannot entrap people into committing
10 these crimes. However, the public perception is that
11 because they've offered a huge carrot, that has resulted
12 in the crime taking place.
13 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I'm not sure about that. Let's just
14 test it. Assume you get somebody who himself takes
15 illegal drugs. So they are guilty of possession of
16 drugs, so they do know where they can get hold of drugs.
17 And you provide a picture or paint a story which makes
18 it extremely attractive for them to go to the next
19 step --
20 A. No, that is not the case. I mean, first of all --
21 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But that's the question you're being
22 asked.
23 A. No, that's not the case at all.
24 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But that's because of the reliability
25 of your information?
29
1 A. The reliability of the information and we do not dangle
2 huge carrots.
3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Then it's a question of what's a huge
4 carrot.
5 A. Exactly, and I don't want to go into modus operandi
6 because I --
7 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I understand that and I'm not trying
8 to, but I'm trying to test the proposition, because I'm
9 sure you would agree that somebody who did use drugs,
10 who was given a large carrot, might very well go the
11 extra stage to then supply rather than simply possess.
12 Of course, supplying drugs, I don't need to be told, is
13 a very, very much more serious offence.
14 A. Sure, I understand that. But I have to say that our
15 methods have been tested time and time again in the
16 courts.
17 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Oh, it wouldn't necessarily provide
18 a defence.
19 A. Sure.
20 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I'm not suggesting it would. It's
21 a question of what the ethical limits are for you, not
22 what the legal limits are for the criminal law.
23 A. Sure. No, it's something we are conscious of.
24 MR BARR: Can I ask you to turn to page 58 of the judgment.
25 If we could have that up on the screen, please.
30
1 I'm interested in the passage which starts at (c).
2 This is where the court is dealing with one of the
3 points raised by the defendant:
4 "It was suggested that this might have given
5 employees of the News of the World grudge motives rather
6 than a motive simply to expose criminal activity on the
7 part of the defendant. In this respect, the defence
8 relied inter alia on passages from the video prior to
9 the defendant's entry onto the scene which were said to
10 demonstrate animosity towards the defendant, in
11 particular a reference by Mr Mahmood to the defendant as
12 a 'toerag', coupled with laughter at the prospect that
13 'if He supplies, his career is over", and, "He could get
14 banged up tomorrow'."
15 I'm not interested in whether or not there was
16 a grudge motive. You can put that out of your mind.
17 What I'm interested in is the way in which you desirable
18 Mr Shannon and the prospect of ending his career. Is it
19 right that you regarded him as a "toerag"?
20 A. That's right, because -- let's not forget I was acting
21 on information. I don't want to use the privacy of this
22 room to disclose the informant, but the way he treated
23 the informant was particularly despicable and, as I say,
24 he was regularly dealing cocaine. He had scales. He
25 was measuring cocaine up and dealing cocaine. So this
31
1 was in relation to his treatment of the informant.
2 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Was that adduced in evidence in the
3 court?
4 A. I think it was mentioned in court.
5 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: That he had scales?
6 A. I think it was mentioned in court. I'm not sure, but
7 I think it was mentioned.
8 MR BARR: There seems to be a certain amount of relish in
9 the phrase "coupled with laughter at the prospect that
10 if he supplies, his career is over". Are you, when you
11 conduct these investigations, looking forward to the
12 prospect of the target actually committing the offence
13 which you're approaching him about?
14 A. Not at all, no. I think there have been instances where
15 we've exposed celebrities, Johnny Walker being one of
16 them, who have thanked me for exposing them. This was
17 a celebrity who I received information was involved in
18 drug taking and supplying drugs to his colleagues. He
19 turned up at a hotel room with a bag of cocaine in his
20 pocket. I subsequently exposed him, he pleaded guilty
21 and then thanked me for helping him resolve the demons
22 that were possessing him at the time. He was grateful
23 for my intervention.
24 Q. So what is it that motivates you, then?
25 A. Well, it is the public duty. I mean, there have been
32
1 cases where we've embarked on investigations that have
2 not even been for the newspaper. I mean, last month
3 there's a man called John Batty(?) who was jailed. He
4 pleaded guilty to sexually abusing a child who I think
5 was about 11 or 12 at the time. Again, this was never
6 going to be a story for the paper. The young girl rang
7 me up and told me what had happened to her and could
8 I assist? She said, "If I go to the police, there's no
9 evidence. Will you be able to help?" Myself and
10 a colleague helped to gather the evidence, it went to
11 court and at Chelmsford Crown Court he pleaded guilty.
12 We risk our lives on a daily basis. You know,
13 I live under the shadow of death threats. The
14 motivation is very clear. Yes, exposing criminality
15 gives me great satisfaction and I'm proud to have jailed
16 paedophiles and arms dealers and drug dealers and the
17 likes. That's my motivation.
18 Q. I see. We may return to that topic in a little while.
19 Can we move on to the next case that you've drawn to our
20 attention in tab 6. We don't need anything on the
21 screen just yet. It's a case of the Crown v Hardwicke
22 and Thwaites. This was another drugs sting which led to
23 the conviction of two people.
24 Now, A feature of this case was that the jury said
25 that had they been allowed to take what described as the
33
1 extreme provocation into account, they would undoubtedly
2 have reached a different verdict. I understand from
3 your second witness statement that the point you would
4 like to make is that the jury didn't have the full facts
5 before them because certain matters had been withheld
6 from evidence; is that right?
7 A. That's right. The jury were not allowed to see the
8 entire video in which they were confessing to previous
9 crimes and extensive drug dealing in the past. I'm sure
10 that had the jury seen those elements, they would have
11 reached a different conclusion.
12 However, they did appeal the sentence, which was
13 upheld.
14 Q. This decision also had some other interesting passages
15 in it that we might look at. Could we have up on the
16 screen, please, paragraph 27. I'm afraid there aren't
17 page numbers. We have, at paragraph 27, the court
18 dealing with arguments about your behaviour and that of
19 your colleagues and whether or not it was illegal. If
20 we look at the quotation, it says:
21 "The way in which such investigations are pursued,
22 albeit they may rightly or wrongly be described by some
23 as distasteful, is not, in my view, judicially to be
24 condemned where it is not unlawful. Thus, when
25 I examine the facts of this case and, in particular, the
34
1 acts of these particular journalists on the 2nd and
2 3 September 1998, and set those against the offences
3 with which the defendants are in consequence charged
4 before this court, I readily conclude, borrowing and
5 adapting the words of Lord Steyn in the case of
6 R v Latif once more, the conduct of Mr Mahmood and his
7 colleagues was not so unworthy or shameful that it would
8 be an affront to the public conscience to allow the
9 prosecution to proceed. Realistically, any criminal
10 behaviour, if any has been established, by these
11 journalists was venial compared to that of the
12 defendants."
13 That takes me to the question of whether there are
14 circumstances where you consider it is ethical to break
15 the law in order to get a story in the public interest.
16 What do you say to that proposition?
17 A. Yes, there are. There certainly are. The public
18 interest is the overriding factor. I've purchased child
19 pornography, for example, which clearly is an illegal
20 act, and that led to a conviction. So yes, there are
21 times when we do cross the line, but the overriding
22 factor is the public interest. I've never been
23 prosecuted so for drugs or offences relating to work
24 that I've done.
25 Q. I'm not suggesting that it's wrong to do that. What
35
1 I want to explore with you is where do you draw the
2 line? Because this goes straight into the question of:
3 when does the end justify the means? Where do you draw
4 the line?
5 A. Certainly in the example I've just given you, buying
6 child pornography, clearly the end justifies the
7 meaning. Clearly. And exposing drug dealers. If we
8 buy drugs, we expose drug dealers and that's our
9 intention. Clearly the end justifies the means. Does
10 that mean we'd go out and rob a bank to show that banks
11 could be robbed? No, we would not.
12 Q. You're coming on to what I was just going to ask you.
13 At what point is it unacceptable? We had a witness
14 earlier who gave the very extreme example that you
15 wouldn't murder someone to get a story in the paper.
16 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: More particularly, he wouldn't murder
17 a High Court judge, to be fair.
18 MR BARR: You wouldn't rob a bank to get a story. Can you
19 think of an example, from all your years of experience,
20 of something which was right on the line? What are the
21 sorts of decisions that made you sweat?
22 A. I can't think of an example. I think I'm perfectly
23 happy with all the 500 investigations that I've done,
24 all 500 of them. They fulfil the criteria, in my view,
25 that they satisfied the public interest.
36
1 Q. The final point I'd like to deal with from this judgment
2 is at paragraph 31, please. Here we're coming back to
3 the question of what your motives are. If I pick up at
4 paragraph 31, the second sentence:
5 "The decision as to publication [and this was
6 a story that was published just before the police,
7 I think, made arrests] did have some significance
8 because it showed beyond argument what were the real
9 priorities so far as the journalists and the newspaper
10 were concerned. When the time had clearly come for the
11 police to be informed, but if that step were taken the
12 newspaper was likely to be unable to publish its story,
13 it was the needs of the newspaper rather than the
14 interests of justice which were regarded as paramount.
15 But the judge's refusal to consider the priorities of
16 the investigators was of no great significance because,
17 as we have already said, he gave full weight to what the
18 journalists in fact did."
19 So there we have the Court of Appeal finding that
20 your real priorities were as a journalist, wanting to
21 publish a story. Was that a fair finding you would
22 accept?
23 A. Very much so. I mean, I'm a journalist. That's what we
24 do. We publish stories, we sell newspapers. That's
25 what we do. But at the same time, the public interest
37
1 is of paramount importance too. I mean, we always
2 liaise with the police so that they can make arrests and
3 secure the evidence and we're happy to co-operate fully
4 when we can. Of course, our motive is to publish an
5 article in the newspaper. I'm not a police officer, I'm
6 not a social worker; I'm a journalist.
7 Q. The cases we've gone to so far are cases in which the
8 convictions have been upheld. That's not always been
9 the case, has it? We can look now at some of the cases
10 you draw our attention to in which the conviction has
11 not been upheld. The first, at tab 7, is the case of
12 Mr Kramer(?), and you tell us that he initially was
13 convicted, I think on a guilty plea?
14 A. That's right. This is a man who provided me with a fake
15 passport and provided me with a quantity of drugs, and
16 then offered to supply me an even larger quantity of
17 drugs. He was arrested as a result of our work and
18 pleaded guilty, sentenced to four and a half years. He
19 then appealed and the conviction was reduced by a period
20 of nine months. Later down the line, he discovered that
21 one of the informants involved in this investigation had
22 been discredited and appealed again and the conviction
23 was quashed. I was not even made aware of the fact that
24 this appeal was taking place or in fact that it had been
25 quashed until I read about it in the paper.
38
1 Q. This is Mr Gashi, is it?
2 A. That's right, Gashi, who has now been described as an
3 unreliable witness and has mental health problems.
4 Q. It's fair to say that Mr Gashi has caused problems in
5 a number of the cases you've been involved in?
6 A. That's right.
7 Q. Mr Kramer's case is now the subject of civil
8 proceedings, isn't it?
9 A. That's right. I think he's taking action against us for
10 malicious prosecution, which is bizarre, because we
11 don't bring the prosecutions, but nevertheless it's
12 ongoing litigation.
13 Q. I see. I won't go into the details for that reason, but
14 perhaps we could have up on the screen the document at
15 tab 7 because I'd just like to draw attention to the
16 text almost at the bottom of the page, where we see the
17 way in which advertisements were made for things to
18 investigate. It reads, three lines up from the bottom
19 of the penultimate paragraph:
20 "Do you know a scandal that Maz should expose? If
21 so, you can ring him any time."
22 And then there was a telephone number and an email
23 address at the News of the World.
24 What sort of percentage of your investigations arose
25 from advertising of that kind?
39
1 A. A very, very small proportion. Very small. The
2 majority were people ringing up to say, "My neighbour is
3 claiming dole when he shouldn't be", just minor
4 offences.
5 Q. I see. Perhaps we can go to tab 8, where you draw our
6 attention to the case of Alin Turku(?) against News
7 Group Newspapers Limited. This is a judgment in civil
8 proceedings, isn't it, proceedings which were brought
9 for defamation --
10 A. That's right.
11 Q. -- by Mr Turku. But the subject matter was the plot
12 that you uncovered to kidnap a very famous footballer's
13 wife?
14 A. That's right, Victoria Beckham.
15 Q. And that investigation has been the subject of
16 criticism, hasn't it, from various quarters?
17 A. That's right. I mean, last week you were told, one,
18 that it was a figment of my imagination, the entire
19 plot, by one of the witnesses here. And you were also
20 told that the entire story rested on one taped
21 conversation in a snooker hall. Well, your witness was
22 wrong on both counts. It was not a figment of my
23 imagination and it did not rely on one conversation and
24 there was no snooker hall involved.
25 We received information that we believed to be
40
1 credible, collated a lot of evidence, taped evidence,
2 a series of meetings that all pointed to -- and let's
3 not forget, these were eastern bloc criminals, serious
4 criminals who were convicted, as a result of my work, of
5 stealing works of art from the Sotherby's vault, which
6 in itself is no mean feat.
7 We presented our evidence to the police. They
8 vetted it all, went through our tapes, forensically
9 examined it all. The CPS, some months later, decided to
10 charge these individuals. The case was -- in fact, it
11 was dropped, I think, didn't get to court, was dropped
12 on the basis that the informant you mentioned, Gashi,
13 had failed to disclose to the CPS and the police that
14 he'd received a payment in connection with this story.
15 However, as you mentioned, it did go to court in
16 this defamation case, where Mr Justice Eady went
17 through --
18 Q. If I can just stop you there, Mr Mahmood, because I'm
19 going to take you through it.
20 A. All right.
21 Q. Because in the light of the evidence we've heard about
22 this, it's right that I should. We don't need to have
23 the first page up on the screen. It suffices for me to
24 say that what the judgment does at the start is explain
25 that the claimant was described in Romania as a very
41
1 intelligent criminal. He'd secured political asylum in
2 this country on a completely false basis and even when
3 that was uncovered, he'd been able to stay here because
4 he'd also lied about his age.
5 A. Right.
6 Q. He was arrested with forged identity documents and it
7 transpired that not only had he deceived the immigration
8 authorities, he'd also deceived his employers, getting
9 a job despite his immigration status.
10 Perhaps now I can ask for page 2, paragraphs 6 and
11 7, to go up on the screen. Let's take an excursion off
12 to another subject of interest to the Inquiry, and
13 that's the subject of conditional fee agreements. In
14 this case, it's right, isn't it, the claimant was
15 represented by a solicitor advocate acting on a CFA?
16 A. That's right.
17 Q. And the consequence of that was because the claimant was
18 impecunious, even a win to the News of the World would
19 leave it out of pocket in terms of costs?
20 A. That's right. I think we won the case, and I can't
21 remember what the figure was, but it wasn't much change
22 from £500,000. So it was an expensive win.
23 Q. That was recognised in the judgment, looking at the last
24 sentence of paragraph 6. Having summarised the
25 position, Mr Justice Eady concluded:
42
1 "The defendant's position is thus wholly
2 unenviable."
3 And this, of course, is a case which, as you say,
4 the News of the World won?
5 A. That's right.
6 Q. Having pause just to look at the CFA figure, can we now
7 move and have up on the screen, please, paragraphs 41
8 and 42. Thank you. This is the matter you adverted to
9 a moment ago, the point at which the Crown offered no
10 evidence in the criminal prosecution relating to the
11 kidnap plot. It explains the problem that there was
12 with Mr Gashi at paragraph 41.
13 Moving on to 42, it refers to the details of the
14 problem:
15 "The new information to which counsel referred
16 related to another News of the World investigation in
17 which Mr Gashi had been the informant. It concerned
18 alleged drug dealing by Wandsworth parking attendants,
19 on which an article had been published on 1 September
20 2002. Mr Altman, counsel for the prosecution, told the
21 court on 2 June 2003: 'Whatever the true position about
22 the source of the drugs, the evidence reveals that Gashi
23 had set up Z and others [ie the parking attendants] into
24 committing the offences when there was simply no
25 evidence that they had been committing such offences
43
1 previously.' The prosecution in the current case was
2 now in possession of information first indicating that
3 Gashi had set up individuals for an earlier
4 investigation by the News of the World. Secondly, it
5 confirms that he was in financial difficulty before the
6 current investigation got under way, and thirdly, that
7 he had lied about the history of the matter in the
8 witness statement that he had made for the purposes of
9 the potential prosecution. One other matter which came
10 to light and which has caused us great concern was
11 evidence that Gashi had unquestionably lied to the
12 police in this investigation about the receipt of money
13 for his information. Of course, the receipt of reward
14 money necessarily impacts upon the perception one may
15 have about his motives."
16 I should clarify straight away that it's right,
17 isn't it, that later in the judgment the court made
18 a finding that you had told the police all about the
19 payment to Mr Gashi. So there's no criticism of you in
20 that regard.
21 What I would like to ask you is: in relation to this
22 Wandsworth parking attendant story, did you have any
23 involvement in that story at all?
24 A. Yes, I did. I think I wrote the story. I can't
25 remember the details of it, but certainly there were
44
1 parking attendants that had sold me drugs. I can
2 remember one chap selling me -- he had a whole bag of
3 cannabis in his car, took me to his car and gave me some
4 cocaine -- cannabis, rather. And I think there was
5 somebody else that sold cocaine. From memory. It was
6 a long time ago; I don't recall the details.
7 Q. I don't really need the details. What I'd like to ask
8 you next is: it's right, isn't it, as we see from the
9 judgment, that there was plainly a real problem with the
10 way Mr Gashi behaved during the course of that
11 investigation?
12 A. I think that later transpired. I don't think it went to
13 court, actually. I don't think there was -- I certainly
14 didn't give evidence in that case.
15 Q. I see. What I want to ask now, what arises from that:
16 if there was a problem with Mr Gashi's behaviour because
17 he'd set up Z and the others into committing the
18 offences, it calls into question the supervision on
19 these investigations. You say in your first witness
20 statement that it's your responsibility --
21 A. Sure.
22 Q. -- to supervise and make sure everybody stays on the
23 right side of the ethical line.
24 A. Sure.
25 Q. Obviously something went wrong on this case. Can you
45
1 help us with what supervisory arrangements were in place
2 on this investigation?
3 A. As I say, I can't remember the details of that
4 investigation, but the very nature of my work means
5 that, you know, I'm dealing with the bottom echelons of
6 society quite often. We're dealing with some pretty
7 obnoxious people. That's the only way you can expose
8 crack dens and drug dealers. We have to deal with
9 people of this ilk. And as I've said, what counts is
10 the reliability of their evidence, which we test. In
11 the Beckham case, there was clear evidence -- and
12 Mr Justice Eady agreed with me on that -- that there was
13 a plot to kidnap Victoria Beckham. I mean, you may get
14 information coming from very undesirable cases and it is
15 our role to check the information.
16 Certainly in the case you're referring to, these
17 guys did sell me drugs. It didn't go to court. I can't
18 remember the full details.
19 Q. I understand all of that, but my question was about
20 supervisory arrangements. I think your answer, if
21 anything, demonstrates the need, when working in these
22 murky worlds, to have particularly good supervisory
23 arrangements. Are you able to help us with what
24 supervision there was on this --
25 A. Yes, there was supervision. On the Beckham Inquiry
46
1 there was complete and utter supervision.
2 Q. I'm not asking you about --
3 A. That story -- I can't recall the details of that story.
4 Q. I see.
5 A. It was a long time ago. As I say, I've written more
6 than 500 stories for the paper.
7 Q. In general terms, what sort of supervisory arrangements
8 would you have to ensure that somebody who was working
9 on your team didn't cross the line?
10 A. The purpose of informants is that -- I mean, these are
11 people that are embedded in that criminal world. Their
12 role is largely to introduce us in. Quite often they're
13 not required at all. They can just give us the
14 information and we act alone. But in cases where they
15 are involved, they are very closely supervised, well
16 briefed on what they can and cannot say, and you know,
17 everything's on tape, so there's no scope for them to go
18 off piste, as it were.
19 Q. You say no scope to go off piste. Plainly, Mr Gashi
20 managed to do just that in the parking case.
21 Can I ask you this: as a very experienced
22 investigative reporter, are there any particular
23 supervisory measures that you would recommend are
24 essential for investigative journalists?
25 A. Well, it all comes back to the PCC code. I mean,
47
1 I think the code sets the parameters very firmly of what
2 we can and cannot do.
3 Q. If the code tells you what you can and can't do,
4 I suppose my question is more about how do you make sure
5 that those working with you stay on the "can" side of
6 the line?
7 A. Certainly when they're working with us, invariably I'm
8 present or one of my colleagues is present and dictating
9 the terms of the way they behave.
10 Q. Mr Mahmood, I'm not at this stage trying to criticise
11 events from the past. What I'm trying to do is tease
12 out from your experience if there are particular
13 safeguards that you think are important to ensuring that
14 journalists in the future, working in these murky
15 worlds, stay on the right side of the line?
16 A. Absolutely. There should be full briefings for anybody
17 involved in any investigation. They must be aware of
18 the PCC code and must also abide by any advice we get
19 from our lawyers. As I say, on every investigation,
20 we're constantly in touch with our lawyers.
21 Q. We can move on now to -- if we can have up on the
22 screen, please, a page which has paragraph 94 at the
23 top. Thank you.
24 I need to tell everyone that on the page before,
25 paragraph 93 is dealing with the question of whether
48
1 there was or was not a plot, which, as you pointed out,
2 has been the matter of some criticism. We see at the
3 very top of the page, last sentence in the paragraph:
4 "On the evidence before this court, therefore, the
5 balance of probabilities lies firmly in favour of the
6 defendant."
7 That's the News of the World, the judicial finding
8 of the plot.
9 In paragraph 94, the finding was, wasn't it, that
10 there wasn't a gang but there was a group of loose
11 associates prepared to take part in any criminal
12 activity that suited them?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. Then paragraph 95, there it is some criticism of the
15 reporting. The criticism is of the attribution of
16 a surveillance role to the claimant in the action, isn't
17 it?
18 A. That's right.
19 Q. And the court found that that was an invention? Is that
20 criticism a criticism which you accept?
21 A. Of course, we accept the criticism by Mr Justice Eady,
22 but having said that, that was information that I was
23 provided and I relied on the information given to me by
24 Gashi.
25 Q. I see. So you would say, would you, that this was
49
1 a case of an inaccuracy which was regrettable, but in
2 the circumstances one for which the newspaper was not
3 culpable?
4 A. Absolutely.
5 Q. Can we go on to another criticism, on paragraph 104. At
6 paragraph 104, we see the way in which Mr Justice Eady
7 summarises matters:
8 "There may be a good deal of sloppiness and
9 inaccuracy in what was published. There was no plot to
10 kidnap the Beckham children as such. Gashi managed to
11 extract comments to the effect that they would be
12 kidnapped if they happened to be with their mother but
13 that was as far as it went. Nor could the gang be said
14 to be on the brink of the kidnap. Nor was there any
15 evidence that the Beckhams' Cheshire home was being kept
16 under surveillance. The claimant was not allotted
17 a surveillance role; nor had he done or said anything to
18 support the allegation, at least anything which the
19 News of the World journalists knew about. There was
20 nothing to justify the assertion that he was in charge
21 of surveillance. The only conclusion I can draw is that
22 it was a bit of creativity on the part of Mr Mahmood or
23 one of the subeditors."
24 It doesn't matter for the Inquiry's purposes quite
25 what the source of the inaccuracy was, but my question
50
1 to you: it must be a matter of regret, mustn't it, that
2 on such a high profile and important story, there was
3 a good deal of sloppiness and inaccuracy when it was
4 published?
5 A. That I don't agree with. I think it might be worth your
6 while looking at the taped evidence on this. The
7 assertion that there was not a plot to kidnap the
8 children -- I mean, very clearly you see one of the
9 members of the gang saying that's precisely what they
10 intend to do. So I think that on that point I would
11 disagree.
12 Q. I see. So on the facts --
13 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But actually, Mr Justice Eady said
14 that Gashi managed to extract comments to the effect
15 that they'd be kidnapped, but that was as far as it
16 went.
17 A. Sure.
18 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: That's what he says, the judge says.
19 A. That's right.
20 MR BARR: So he seems to have that point and is still
21 critical. Do you accept these criticisms?
22 A. I don't, no.
23 Q. If you don't accept the criticisms, I'm not going to
24 explore them further here, but can I put this general
25 point to you: you would accept, wouldn't you, that it's
51
1 very important for an investigative journalist to be as
2 accurate as possible?
3 A. Absolutely. We try our best.
4 Q. We needn't have it up. You set out the material parts
5 in your witness statement which everyone can read.
6 A. Right.
7 Q. In paragraph 113, you're described as hard-bitten and
8 cynical, but the proposition that you'd made the story
9 up is roundly rejected by the judge, isn't it?
10 A. That's right.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 Can we move now very briefly to the red mercury case
13 or dirty bomb plot. Here, as I understand it, the point
14 you wish to make in response to the criticisms that had
15 had made is that the defendants were acquitted by the
16 jury and that the trial ran the distance?
17 A. No, that's not just the criticism I'd wish to make.
18 I think it goes a lot further than that. I received
19 information from a source that appeared to be very
20 reliable, a businessman, that some people -- he'd been
21 approached to supply some material for a dirty bomb and
22 the people that had approached him -- again, this was
23 a businessman who worked in the city -- that approached
24 him seemed very credible. I had a meeting with that
25 individual that was seeking to buy red mercury. As soon
52
1 as I'd had that meeting, I saw that this was a potential
2 serious threat here, even though I was sceptical about
3 the whole notion of red mercury.
4 We did the right thing. We went straight to the
5 police, to the anti-terror squad, said, "This is what
6 we've been approached, this is what we've collated
7 evidence-wise", and then they started the investigation.
8 I was signed up for that job alone as a participating
9 informant so they dictated my entire role in that
10 investigation. All subsequent meetings were controlled
11 by the anti-terror squad because obviously this was
12 a matter of national security.
13 So I think it's unfair to criticise me over that.
14 We did what any responsible journalist or any
15 responsible citizen would do when told about a potential
16 terrorist plot. You go straight to the police. That's
17 what we did. The decision to prosecute was made by the
18 CPS, who obviously felt the evidence was sufficient and
19 I think even after the trial collapsed, they issued
20 a statement saying that the case had been properly
21 brought and they felt it was the right thing to do.
22 Q. I see. Moving now to the final matter I want to put to
23 you. It's the question of your investigation of the
24 snooker player, Mr John Higgins. You've exhibited to
25 your statement a copy of the decision in relation to the
53
1 way in which his professional body dealt with him and
2 his manager, and as I understand it, the points that you
3 want to bring out is that for all the criticisms that
4 have been made of your work on this story, the fact
5 remains that Mr Higgins was disciplined for two serious
6 offences of misconduct and his manager was banned for
7 life; is that right?
8 A. It goes beyond that. I think that the criticism is
9 completely unfounded. It's been suggested that we
10 doctored videos. In fact, your witness also suggested
11 that we doctored videos in the cricket case. That's an
12 allegation even the defendants haven't made.
13 So you have all these people making suppositions and
14 wild accusations, but the Higgins case is a case in
15 point. This was a man I was told was involved in fixing
16 matches, had done it previously. We had meetings with
17 him and his manager. His manager confirmed that he
18 would throw games and there was a discussion with
19 Higgins in which he even discussed how we should pay him
20 the money for fixing a frame, how he wanted us to pay
21 off his villa in Spain.
22 The investigation was praised by the governing body
23 of snooker, Barry Hearne, who introduced new regulations
24 as a result of our investigation. These guys were found
25 guilty -- pleaded guilty to the charges brought by they
54
1 are professional association.
2 So on that one -- you know, it bemuses me how anyone
3 could criticise us over that one.
4 MR BARR: Thank you very much, Mr Mahmood.
5 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Could I just ask a couple of
6 questions?
7 Questions by the Judge
8 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: It's not directed to your
9 investigations that expose criminality at all. It goes
10 back to two features. First of all, the moral
11 investigations which you say were only a very, very
12 small part of your work, but which actually are rather
13 more significant part of what I'm considering. Do you
14 take the view that somebody who is, say, a member of
15 Parliament, if involved in an extramarital affair, is
16 justifiably the subject of a public investigation and
17 exposure simply because he's a member of Parliament?
18 A. That's right. I mean, we vote for these people. They
19 hold public office. We expect a certain code of
20 behaviour from them. I don't think I'd vote for my MP
21 if I knew that he was cheating on his wife. How could I
22 trust him to represent me? That's my personal opinion.
23 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: So there's no privacy for such
24 a person at all?
25 A. I don't think there should be. If you hold public
55
1 offence, you should be open to scrutiny.
2 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: And the same would be so for anybody
3 who may be an actor or an author, anybody who's made
4 money from the public?
5 A. No, no, no. We're talking about -- I mean, MPs are
6 people who are elected and they hold public office.
7 I think it would be slightly different for actors and
8 the likes.
9 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: So you wouldn't --
10 A. There would have to be grounds. If they are appearing,
11 as I said, in Hello magazine as happy families and
12 cashing in on their status as, you know, happily married
13 individuals, family men, and then are cheating, then
14 sure, they should be exposed for hypocrisy, if there's
15 a degree of hypocrisy about it.
16 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But the mere fact of celebrity would
17 not be sufficient?
18 A. No, not in my opinion.
19 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. Did you work day by day in the
20 offices of the News of the World or were you detached?
21 A. I was detached. I'd seldom come into the office.
22 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I see. Have you seen on the
23 recording or read the evidence that Mr McMullan gave to
24 the Inquiry?
25 A. Yes, I have. He hasn't worked for a paper for many,
56
1 many years and it certainly doesn't --
2 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I'm not interested in when he worked
3 for a paper.
4 A. Sure.
5 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: What I want to know is this: does he
6 give an account that you recognise?
7 A. Not at all.
8 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Not at all?
9 A. Not in the least, no.
10 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: So it should carry no credence at
11 all? That's why I asked you whether you went into the
12 office, because you could say, "Well, actually,
13 I couldn't tell you", but if you're saying it doesn't,
14 that I would like to know.
15 A. Sure. Well, no, it doesn't. It certainly doesn't
16 reflect my experience at News of the World.
17 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But you didn't go into the office.
18 A. I was in and out of the office, of course, you know,
19 but -- I mostly worked away from the office, but I was
20 in constant touch with the news desk.
21 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I see. Thank you very much.
22 MR DAVIES: Might I just complete one point of fact, if
23 I may?
24 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes.
25 Questions by MR DAVIES
57
1 MR DAVIES: Mr Mahmood, you were asked about
2 Mr Justice Eady's judgment in the Turku case. Do you
3 know whether there was an appeal in that case?
4 A. Yes, I think there was.
5 MR DAVIES: Can you tell us what happened?
6 A. I think we decided to settle, largely on commercial
7 grounds. It's a question to put to the lawyers, really.
8 MR DAVIES: Thank you very much.
9 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank you very much. We'll have
10 a short break.
11 (11.50 am)
12 (A short break)
13 (12.01 pm)
14 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes, Mr Jay.
15 MR JAY: Sir, the next witness is Mr Neville Thurlbeck,
16 please.