1 Wednesday, 25 January 2012 2 (10.05 am) 3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I think you've been here under oath, 4 Mr Mahmood, so it remains extant. 5 MR MAZHER MAHMOOD (on former oath) 6 MR BARR: Good morning, sir. Before I commence my 7 questioning of Mr Mahmood, it perhaps would be sensible 8 if I adduce by summary the evidence of Mr Greenslade, 9 who has provided a witness statement and exhibits which 10 are relevant to Mr Mahmood's evidence. 11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. 12 MR BARR: The witness statement is dated 17 December of last 13 year, and it was provided to the Inquiry after 14 Mr Mahmood gave evidence last year. 15 Mr Greenslade tells us that in 1988 he was the 16 managing editor, news, of the Sunday Times, the person 17 in overall charge of the news gathering and news 18 production department. He tells us that in December 19 1988 the paper received a complaint from a police 20 officer about a story written by one of the reporting 21 staff, Mr Mahmood, which had been published in the 22 Sunday Times some months before. That story alleged 23 that a chief inspector had been demoted to constable 24 following a conviction for drink driving. The complaint 25 was that the chief inspector had in fact been demoted 1 1 only to the rank of inspector. 2 Mr Greenslade asked his news editor, 3 Michael Williams, to look into the complaint. 4 Mr Williams had told him that Mr Mahmood had informed 5 him that the error was due to a mistake by the news 6 agency that had filed the original story. That's to 7 say, the Devon News Agency. So Mr Greenslade asked 8 Mr Williams to get in touch with the agency in order to 9 ascertain how the mistake had been made. 10 Mr Williams reported back that the agency had 11 checked its transmission; it showed that its story had 12 correctly stated that the demotion was to inspector, 13 rather than constable. The agency sent a copy of its 14 original to Mr Williams. 15 Mr Williams then contacted the Sunday Times' 16 computer room to ask for a copy of the file sent by 17 Devon News. He noted that it says "constable" rather 18 than "inspector", in contrast to the file which had been 19 sent to him directly by the agency. During Mr Williams' 20 conversation with the computer room operative, he was 21 told that Mr Mahmood had recently visited the computer 22 room, which was off limits to editorial staff. 23 After checking once more with the Devon News, 24 Mr Williams and Mr Greenslade suspected that Mr Mahmood 25 may have tampered with the file. The matter was 2 1 reported to Mr Peter Roberts, the managing editor, and 2 he ordered the paper's systems editor, Mr Bryan Silcock, 3 to investigate further. He ran an audit check to trace 4 the origin of the file, and he wrote a report to 5 Mr Roberts dated 17 December 1988, a copy of that report 6 is attached. 7 The report relates how Mr Mahmood had entered the 8 computer room and, assisted by the systems operator, had 9 retrieved versions of the agency file. Mr Silcock 10 managed to find versions of the original report, that 11 showed they had correctly stated the demotion was to 12 inspector. The conclusion of Mr Silcock's report was 13 that he could not see any explanation for the 14 differences, except that the audit file was altered, and 15 there could be no doubt that the reports from the Devon 16 News Agency were correct. 17 On receiving Mr Silcock's report, Mr Greenslade 18 asked Mr Williams to question Mr Mahmood. He admitted 19 going to the computer room, but denied having tampered 20 with the file. 21 Mr Greenslade did not have the power to fire a staff 22 member, so he asked the editor, who was then 23 Mr Andrew Neil, to convene a meeting of senior 24 executives to discuss the case, and such a meeting was 25 convened. Mr Roberts and Mr Greenslade explained the 3 1 details of the case and were asked to make 2 recommendations. They recommended dismissal. That 3 recommendation was accepted and it was decided that 4 Mr Roberts would inform Mr Mahmood. 5 However, when they emerged from the meeting, they 6 found that Mr Mahmood had already resigned. There were 7 envelopes on Mr Greenslade's desk and Mr Williams'. 8 In that event, no further action was taken. 9 Mr Greenslade tells us that in his mind, Mr Mahmood had 10 resigned to avoid the embarrassment of being officially 11 dismissed. 12 The exhibits are not only the report but also 13 Mr Mahmood's letter of resignation. 14 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Which says: 15 "Because of the nature of my work, I am only able to 16 operate with the absolute support and trust of my senior 17 colleagues and lawyers, but now that my honesty and 18 integrity as a journalist is in question, I feel that 19 there is no longer a place for me on the paper." 20 MR BARR: That's right. 21 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. 22 MR BARR: Can I confirm that the cameras are off? Thank 23 you. 24 Questions by MR BARR 25 MR BARR: Mr Mahmood, you've provided the Inquiry with 4 1 a third witness statement. Are the contents of your 2 witness statement true and correct to the best of your 3 knowledge and belief? 4 A. Yes, they are. 5 Q. Dealing first with the circumstances in which you left 6 the Sunday Times in 1988, you deal with those from 7 paragraph 23 onwards in your most recent statement, and 8 you tell us that you've considered your letter of 9 resignation and the newspaper's internal report at the 10 time and you accept the contents of the report now, as 11 you did in 1988. You say that you did not challenge the 12 report at the time, but chose to leave before you were 13 disciplined because you would resign rather than be 14 dismissed. 15 You say you regret your actions in 1988 when you 16 were a very junior reporter, keen to impress. You say 17 you realise that you'd acted improperly and that this 18 would be unacceptable at the newspaper. Is that right? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. At that time, you were 25 years old, weren't you? 21 A. 24, actually. 22 Q. 24 years old, and you'd been practising as a journalist 23 since your teens? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. Tampering with the computer file in order to pass the 5 1 mistake from yourself to the Devon News Agency was 2 wrong, wasn't it? 3 A. Absolutely. Look, I was a young reporter and I'd had 4 a series of run-ins with Mr Greenslade while at the 5 paper, and, you know, I'd made a mistake, I acknowledge 6 that, and rather an incur the wrath of an executive 7 I didn't get on with, I foolishly thought the best way 8 would be to cover my mistake. It was the wrong thing to 9 do, and I resigned. 10 Having said that, it was a quarter of a decade 11 ago -- 12 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: It was actually 23 years ago, wasn't 13 it? 14 A. Well -- 15 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But my concern is what you said to 16 me, which wasn't 23 years ago, or indeed much more than 17 23 days ago, and I think we could just look at that, 18 please. 19 MR BARR: Indeed we will, because -- and just before we do, 20 you say "mistake"; we are talking about an act of 21 dishonesty, aren't we? 22 A. Sure. Absolutely. 23 Q. When I asked you about it, the transcript starts on 24 page 3 and runs over to page 4. 25 A. Sorry, what tab is that? 6 1 Q. Tab 13, I'm told. Right at the back. 2 A. Okay. 3 Q. If you look on page 4, line 11, my question which I was 4 putting was: 5 "Is it right that you left the Sunday Times under 6 something of a cloud the first time around?" 7 And you replied: 8 "We had a disagreement; correct." 9 A. Absolutely. I was acknowledging that I did leave under 10 a cloud and hinting at the disagreement -- you didn't 11 ask any supplementary questions and, you know, it wasn't 12 a highlight of my career, obviously, it's not something 13 that I elaborated on, you know. 14 Q. Can we explore, first of all, whether or not there was 15 in fact a disagreement, because your current witness 16 statement, your third witness statement, says that you 17 accept the contents of the report now, as you did in 18 1988. 19 A. Absolutely. What I was referring to by "disagreement" 20 was that I had a disagreement with Mr Greenslade, who 21 didn't like the way that I worked, you know, didn't 22 like -- I felt he didn't like me, and ever since has 23 displayed obsessive hostility towards me. There were 24 a number of run-ins I had with him. There were 25 disagreements over several stories. 7 1 Q. We'll come to that in a moment, but isn't the position 2 that your answer to me was disingenuous because the true 3 position was that you had left the Sunday Times because 4 you had committed an act of dishonesty -- 5 A. Correct, absolutely -- 6 Q. -- which you were ashamed of, ashamed of then and now? 7 A. I accept that very much so. I accept that. But the 8 background to it is that I had a history of 9 disagreements with one executive on the paper. As you 10 noted my resignation letter, I was referring to other 11 stories as well where I'd been questioned, you know, so 12 it was an ongoing thing. But that was the final straw. 13 And I acknowledge it was wrong, I was young, I was 14 naive, it was a foolish thing to do, I acknowledge that. 15 Q. You say you were young and naive. You'd been working as 16 a journalist for several years? 17 A. Sure. 18 Q. What you did was plainly wrong, wasn't it? 19 A. I acknowledge that. I acknowledge that, absolutely, but 20 you know there was intense pressure at the time. It was 21 a tough time, my first with the Sunday Times. 22 Q. There has been some recent writing on this issue, and 23 there's an article which has been brought to the 24 Inquiry's attention in the British Journalism Review. 25 The article was published in December of last year by 8 1 Mr Michael Williams and has a slightly unseemly title of 2 "I've seen the future and it's crap." 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. If we turn to page 39 of that article -- 5 A. What tab? Which tab is that? 6 Q. Tab 12, I'm told. It's right at the very back of my 7 bundle. 8 A. Right. 9 Q. Mr Williams says towards the bottom of that page: 10 "At the very least there was a great deal of 11 reckless risk-taking -- not exactly discouraged by the 12 News International corporate ethos. I summarily 13 dismissed a reporter who was caught trying to cover his 14 mistakes by offering a financial bribe to the staff in 15 a newspaper computer room to falsify his copy (something 16 he has never subsequently denied). Shortly afterwards 17 he went seamlessly on to a senior job at our sister 18 paper, the News of the World, where his 'scoops' were 19 celebrated. This autumn he was rehired by the 20 Sunday Times as an 'undercover reporter'. All corporate 21 memory of scandal had been erased." 22 There's no doubt, is there, that Mr Williams is 23 referring in that article to you? 24 A. Absolutely, and it's a completely untrue allegation, and 25 can I also point out Mr Williams himself left the 9 1 Sunday Times under somewhat of a cloud. I don't know 2 the precise details, but his employment was terminated 3 in 1994 and I think the reasons are shrouded in secrecy 4 because of some deal he struck through his solicitor 5 Schillings. 6 But that allegation is completely untrue and even 7 Mr Greenslade, who is known to be very critical of my 8 work, yesterday in his blog said that was news to him. 9 He found it surprising. It's simply untrue. 10 Q. I want to be specific. We know from the documents that 11 Professor Greenslade has provided, and which you have 12 not disputed, that you resigned before being dismissed, 13 but the specific allegation there is there was an offer 14 of a financial bribe to staff in the computer room to 15 falsify copy. Is that true? 16 A. That's completely untrue. I did not bribe anybody. 17 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Just before we leave that page, do 18 you recognise how he describes working at the newspaper 19 further up the sheet: 20 "Take the story to breaking point and then ratchet 21 it back a notch. Unfortunately many journalists at 22 Wapping conveniently forgot about the last bit, as they 23 got carried away in the Wild West atmosphere." 24 A. No, I don't recognise that at all. I mean, the 25 Sunday Times is very, very strict, they're very 10 1 thorough, as they are now. It's just completely untrue. 2 Q. I want to now move to your relationship with 3 Professor Greenslade, as he now is, back in the 1980s 4 when you were working on the Sunday Times. You say that 5 there were several disagreements. The Inquiry has been 6 provided with information which suggests that 7 Professor Greenslade doesn't accept that. He can't 8 recall any disagreements. 9 A. Well, I say -- 10 Q. Might you be mistaken in your recollection? 11 A. No, definitely not mistaken. This is a man who has 12 written articles saying "Why I'm out to nail 13 Mazher Mahmood". I think his agenda is very clear. He 14 didn't like me then, doesn't like me now. 15 Q. It's certainly right to say that Professor Greenslade 16 has published a number of articles critical of some of 17 your work. It's also right, though, that he has on 18 other occasions praised your work, isn't it? 19 A. Right. I don't know what the proportion is, but the 20 majority of his work is very critical. 21 Q. He praised your work in exposing the Pakistani cricket 22 match-fixing, didn't he? 23 A. Yes, he did. Hard not to, to be honest. 24 Q. And your expose involving the Duchess of York? 25 A. I don't know whether he praised that or not. 11 1 Q. Can we move now to the evidence which you gave about the 2 Turcu case? We learnt at the end of your oral evidence 3 that there had been an appeal against the judgment which 4 you had exhibited to your second witness statement, and 5 that the appeal had been compromised. There was no 6 mention of the appeal in your witness statement, was 7 there? 8 A. Well, if you look at my second witness statement, in 9 paragraph 22, I think it was, I think I hinted at it. 10 In fact, it's something that should be heard. I think 11 it's something that the Inquiry should hear about, 12 because it illustrates how ludicrous the conditional fee 13 arrangement is. It's ludicrous. 14 Alin Turcu is a man that we said was involved in the 15 Beckham kidnap plot. Transpired that in fact it's not 16 Alin Turcu at all. That was a name he'd stolen. His 17 real name is Bogdan Maris, a name that he'd taken from 18 somebody he'd met in prison while in Romania. So in 19 a sense we'd libelled an imposter. 20 He then takes us to court for libel on a conditional 21 fee basis. During the trial he was not in touch, 22 I understand, with his barrister, David Price, and we 23 win, Lord Justice Eady ruled that there definitely was 24 a plot, and we won. Despite the fact we won, it cost us 25 so much money, it was an absolutely fortune despite 12 1 having won. I think Mr Justice Eady said at the time 2 that the position of the News of the World was wholly 3 unenviable, which indeed it was. 4 Following that, one of the informants on that story 5 had turned against me and the paper and, encouraged by 6 Mr Greenslade -- Mr Greenslade introduced him to 7 David Price and he then made a statement and eventually 8 an appeal was launched. 9 I was told that purely on the grounds of cost -- you 10 know, it made economic sense not to pursue this, easier 11 to give Bogdan Maris or Turcu or whatever his name was, 12 better to pay him off than go back into court and incur 13 costs yet again. 14 Q. I want to explore some of that reply a step at a time. 15 Can we start first of all with paragraph 22 of your 16 second witness statement. 17 A. Where is that in the bundle? 18 Q. It should be in the original bundle. 19 A. And it's on the screen. 20 Q. Sure. You say: 21 "In a related libel trial [this is related to the 22 Victoria Beckham kidnap story] (brought by a member of 23 the gang who had been reported to have been involved in 24 the discussions -- the newspaper apologised to him) 25 Mr Justice Eady said ..." 13 1 I'm going to read on in a moment, but before I do 2 that, that's the apology you're referring to in your 3 third witness statement? 4 A. That's right, that we apologised to him, so obviously it 5 follows that we had settled with him in some way. 6 Q. Does it, Mr Mahmood? Because in the judgment at first 7 instance, although the judgment was for 8 News International, News International had not won every 9 factual dispute, had it? In particular, the judge had 10 not found that there was a gang, only a loose 11 association of criminals prepared to take whatever 12 opportunities presented themselves? 13 A. Right, but we won the libel action. 14 Q. And so what apology were you there referring to? Was it 15 a -- 16 A. This was following the appeal that we thought we don't 17 want to go ahead with this appeal, we don't want to go 18 back to court and incur further costs, so the newspaper 19 apologised to Turcu or Bogdan Maris. I was only told 20 about it after it happened, actually. 21 Q. It's singularly unclear in your witness statement, isn't 22 it, that there was an appeal, that there was a great 23 deal of fresh evidence on the appeal and the appeal was 24 compromised? 25 A. Paragraph 22 was under the subheading "Fabrication" and 14 1 what I was referring to there was that allegations of 2 fabrication of stories was simply not true, and this 3 was -- this case was illustrating that, that 4 Mr Justice Eady had ruled that our evidence was valid, 5 having gone through every tape of every conversation. 6 So it was in that context I mentioned it. 7 But as I say, it's something that I should have 8 mentioned, because I feel it's something the Inquiry 9 should be aware of, that you can get petty criminals 10 like Bogdan Maris or Alin Turcu and they walk away with 11 money, despite being villains. 12 Q. Let's explore what the appeal involved. As you've 13 pointed out a moment ago, at the first trial the 14 claimant did not give evidence? 15 A. He was not in touch with his brief. 16 Q. It's right, isn't it, that part of the appeal involved 17 the service of a witness statement from Mr Turcu and 18 assertions by Mr Turcu that he was going to come and 19 attend any retrial of the matter? 20 A. Right. The first time I've seen these documents have 21 been recently. I was not privy to these. It was all 22 dealt with by our legal department. I was only told 23 about the apology afterwards and it was explained to me 24 that it wasn't viable on commercial grounds. Perhaps 25 these are questions best addressed to our legal team. 15 1 Q. Well, you've seen the documents now? 2 A. I have. 3 Q. So I think you can answer the questions on the basis of 4 what you've seen -- 5 A. What tab are they? 6 Q. We can go through them if you wish, but I can put 7 them -- 8 A. Okay. 9 Q. -- more quickly. 10 A. Sure. 11 Q. In addition to Mr Turcu's witness statement, there was 12 also a statement from Mr Gashi, wasn't there? 13 A. That's correct. As I said, Mr Greenslade had put 14 Mr Gashi in touch with David Price. 15 Q. And Mr Gashi's witness statement, the substance of it 16 was that the whole story had been a set-up? 17 A. That's right. Mr Gashi is -- made numerous allegations, 18 but clearly his statement doesn't tally with the 19 findings of Mr Justice Eady, and the background to Gashi 20 is that he was an informant of mine, provided 21 information, and was always vetted by myself and always 22 found to be accurate at the time. 23 I fell out with him after he was deported as an 24 illegal immigrant, and he turned against me because he 25 felt that I should in some way have assisted him in 16 1 gaining stay in this country. He said, "Look, I've 2 helped you, you have connections with the Home Office, 3 you should have helped me stay in this country." 4 So having landed back in Albania, he turned against 5 me and made phone calls to Mr Greenslade. 6 Mr Greenslade -- made a series of allegations. 7 Greenslade advised him to talk to police. He also put 8 him in touch with Mr Price. So that's the background to 9 Gashi. 10 Q. Mr Gashi also alleged, didn't he, that not only was the 11 story a set-up, but also it was a set-up at your 12 instigation? 13 A. It doesn't -- as I say, Mr Justice Eady went through all 14 the evidence, and I think it's very clear, his 15 conclusion is very clear. So Mr Gashi is lying. 16 Q. But the point is, Mr Mahmood, that Mr Justice Eady 17 didn't have Mr Gashi's evidence, did he? This was fresh 18 evidence that the appellant wished to use. 19 A. No, but Mr Justice Eady had access to every single tape. 20 Q. Mr Gashi went so far, didn't he, as to allege that there 21 was no plot? 22 A. As I say, Mr Gashi has -- since his deportation has made 23 a variety of bizarre and ludicrous allegations. 24 Q. In addition to the statement -- 25 A. And that, I think that during the cricket trial he 17 1 approached them, spoke to police, police disregarded 2 him, said that he was unreliable, he was mentally 3 unstable, he's attempted suicide twice, so they didn't 4 regard him as a credible witness. 5 Q. Could you please listen to the question: in addition to 6 the statements of Mr Turcu and Mr Gashi, the appellant 7 also served for the purposes of the appeal three 8 statements about the gun which had featured in films 9 that had been taken covertly, including a statement from 10 Mr Turcu's old employer saying that one of its employees 11 had said the gun had been supplied by the employee to 12 Mr Gashi, but was not a real gun; it was a replica. 13 A. I've seen that, but what's the evidence that that was 14 the gun that was on the video? 15 Q. And there was a statement from the man who supplied the 16 gun to Mr Gashi confirming that and saying, having seen 17 the film, that he thought it was the same gun. 18 A. Mr Barr, these guys involved in the Beckham kidnap plot 19 were serious Eastern Bloc criminals, they were jailed 20 for other offences. These were serious villains. For 21 them to obtain a weapon was not a big deal. The 22 assertion that it had to be a gun supplied by Gashi, 23 that simply doesn't hold any water. 24 Q. You say it's an assertion that doesn't hold any water. 25 Do you have any personal knowledge of who supplied the 18 1 gun or not? 2 A. No, I do not, no. 3 Q. So you -- 4 A. But we are aware that one of the members of the gang had 5 a weapon, we're certainly aware of that, and our 6 evidence showed that. Where it came from, I don't know. 7 Q. The third witness on that subject was the girlfriend of 8 the owner of the gun, who said that she had hidden the 9 gun. 10 A. Sorry, she was the girlfriend of who? Of Gashi, 11 I think. 12 Q. We can look that up. 13 A. No, it was Gashi's girlfriend. 14 Q. Gashi's girlfriend said -- Dominique Maurice(?), yes, 15 you're right, said that she had hidden the gun. 16 A. She would say whatever Gashi told her to say. As I say, 17 you're going off on a tangent here, the gun thing. We 18 saw a gun on the video, one of the gang had a gun. For 19 Gashi to claim that it was his gun, it was a replica, 20 you know, it's a matter for him. 21 Q. It's quite important, isn't it, because Mr Gashi is 22 saying it was all a set-up which he had instigated, and 23 he was the person who had provided the replica gun; 24 that's an important fact, isn't it? 25 A. Not at all. As I say, Mr Justice Eady went through 19 1 every single tape, scanned -- I mean, the police went 2 through all our tapes first of all, the CPS went through 3 all our tapes and all our evidence, the police were 4 satisfied with our evidence, the CPS was satisfied with 5 our evidence when they brought charges and 6 Mr Justice Eady was satisfied with the evidence. So, 7 you know, the only person now, after having turned 8 against me, Mr Gashi's making his allegations, he's the 9 only one that says that the evidence isn't up to 10 scratch. Everybody else seems to think it is. 11 Q. Wasn't the true position that in addition to whatever 12 concerns there might have been about legal costs, the 13 evidential landscape had changed dramatically by the 14 time that the appeal was compromised, and that there was 15 evidence from a number of witnesses which was adverse to 16 the News International case and which News International 17 was poorly placed to challenge? 18 A. I don't think that was the case and that's not how our 19 legal team presented it to me. Mr Gashi would be shown 20 to be discredited in seconds if he appeared in court. 21 I think in one court case -- he even turned up in 22 a court case to do with a story about red mercury where 23 he stood in the witness box and admitted that he'd lied, 24 made up a false allegation about me. When he was 25 challenged why he had lied, he said, "Look, I don't 20 1 know." 2 So on the basis of Gashi, it's a bit unfair to 3 criticise that story. In essence you're saying the 4 police got it wrong, CPS got it wrong, Mr Justice Eady 5 got it wrong but Gashi's right. That's essentially what 6 you're saying to me. 7 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I'm not concerned about the story in 8 itself. That's part of, if you like, legal history. 9 I'm concerned with the custom, practice and ethics of 10 the press, and I'd like your help on this: Mr Gashi was 11 your informant. He provided you, as I understand what 12 you've said, with much useful information, which had led 13 to investigations which you'd conducted. 14 A. Correct. 15 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: And you'd relied upon him for the 16 purpose of your work? 17 A. Well, relied on him in that he provided tips. We would 18 investigate each tip, independently gather evidence. We 19 get tips from all kinds of people. 20 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes, but in particular you'd relied 21 upon him for tips and for information over some time? 22 A. Correct. 23 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. 24 A. And each tip that he presented we vetted thoroughly. 25 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Just bear with me, please. I will 21 1 get there. However dishonest he might be, he was now 2 saying, in a statement which was going to be put before 3 the court, that you'd put him up to this particular 4 story. That's what he was saying. 5 A. Correct. 6 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Are you telling me that nobody 7 discussed that with you or warned you about it or told 8 you about it at all? So that you had no knowledge of 9 this? 10 A. I can't recall that, but what I can recall is that he 11 was also encouraged by Mr Greenslade to speak to police 12 and I was called in and interviewed by police over 13 a whole range of allegations that he'd made, and each of 14 them were later proved to be false, so -- 15 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But -- 16 A. -- we knew that the man's a liar. 17 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: -- you misunderstand my point, 18 Mr Mahmood. I am concerned to know whether your 19 newspaper, who clearly knew about all this, they were 20 seeing the papers, raised with you issues or put into 21 train measures arising out of the fact that this man who 22 provided you with tips was now alleging that you'd set 23 him up to it. There was no such discussion with you? 24 A. I can't recall. I can't recall a specific discussion. 25 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Because one might think that however 22 1 much one dismisses this man -- and I'm not here to 2 support Mr Gashi at all -- a newspaper would be 3 concerned to find itself in this position and would want 4 to put into place measures to protect itself, not least 5 because, quite right, you say Mr Justice Eady saw the 6 tapes, but he only saw the tapes that he got, and the 7 risk is that you are then put into a difficult position, 8 and I'm sure you can't have been pleased to be 9 interviewed by the police. That's itself a concerning 10 position. So I'm just interested to know what your view 11 is about the fact that nothing seems to have been 12 discussed with you, nothing seems to have been put into 13 place to ensure your position was protected. 14 A. I don't quite follow what you mean by nothing was put in 15 place. I mean, what do you mean should have been put in 16 place? 17 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I'm surprised that you weren't told 18 immediately about this statement, not merely so that you 19 could say it's rubbish, or whatever view you took about 20 it -- 21 A. Sure. 22 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: -- but also so that you could think 23 how you could protect yourself in the future if tipsters 24 were going to do this to you. 25 A. No, I'm sure it was mentioned. I cannot recall. It's 23 1 the nature of my work that we are dealing with these 2 kinds of criminals. You know, it's inevitable we have 3 to deal with these unreliable people. 4 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Could I express some concern, 5 Mr Mahmood, that you can't recall what I would have 6 thought, speaking for myself, would be quite an 7 important discussion for your protection, which wasn't 8 that long ago in history. 9 A. I can certainly recall having a conversation with 10 Tom Crone about allegations he'd made to the police. 11 I can recall that. 12 MR BARR: Mr Gashi -- 13 A. Mahmood. 14 Q. Terribly sorry. Mr Mahmood, perhaps I could help you 15 with that. Could you turn to tab 10 of the bundle. 16 A. Right. 17 Q. You should have there a statement of yours. Do you have 18 it? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. It was one of the exhibits to the statement that you 21 filed late on Monday of this week. A statement of 22 yours, it's made for the purposes of the appeal, you can 23 see that from the heading? 24 A. That's right. 25 Q. And it says at paragraph 2: 24 1 "I have recently [it's dated 4 July 2006] read the 2 witness statement relied upon by the appellant given by 3 Florim Gashi dated 21 September 2005. The purpose of 4 this statement is to answer various allegations raised 5 by Mr Gashi in his statement. This is intended to be 6 a brief statement in response, and if this appeal 7 progresses any further, as the appellant wishes, then 8 I can produce a fuller statement in due course if 9 required." 10 Then your statement goes on to rebut the various 11 allegations in the main and to accept one or two of 12 them. 13 A. Well -- 14 Q. Having drawn your attention to that document, it's 15 right, isn't it, that your earlier evidence that you 16 knew nothing about this appeal until after it had been 17 settled -- 18 A. No, I didn't know that we'd -- 19 Q. -- must have been wrong? 20 A. No, it's not wrong. I didn't know that we'd settled. 21 I had no idea that we'd settled. Thanks for alerting me 22 to this. It clearly was discussed with me because I've 23 written a statement of response to the allegations that 24 you made so I think that answers that question but I was 25 certainly not aware that we'd settled and I still don't 25 1 know what the amount of the settlement was or what the 2 terms of the settlement were. 3 Q. I would like to know how it is that you're telling us on 4 Wednesday morning that you didn't know about the appeal 5 until after it had settled when -- 6 A. No, what I'm saying about the appeal -- 7 Q. -- your exhibit on Monday makes clear that you did. 8 A. As I said to you, I was unaware of the terms of the 9 settlement or they'd reached a settlement. I was told 10 about that afterwards. Clearly I was aware of the fact 11 there was an appeal. 12 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: You appreciate that I'm not concerned 13 with the facts of the case, that's merely the 14 background. I'm concerned about a slightly different 15 point, about discussions arising out of the fact that 16 one of your tipsters had said all this very damaging 17 material or statements about you. 18 Anyway, I've understood what you have said. 19 MR BARR: Can we go back to paragraph 22 of your original 20 witness statement, Mr Mahmood, your second statement. 21 This may need to be brought to the screen again. It's 22 the paragraph we looked at a moment ago. I've read the 23 introductory sentence already. The quotation of 24 Mr Justice Eady says: 25 "'Mr Mahmood may be hard bitten and cynical, but 26 1 I found no support for the proposition that he had made 2 the whole thing up.' 3 "He also said: 4 "'There was clearly a plan to kidnap 5 Victoria Beckham, however desultory some of the 6 discussions may have been' and 'It is clear that real 7 crimes were regularly discussed ... There is no 8 reliable way to determine that the Beckham discussions 9 are to be distinguished from the others as not real.'" 10 Then you go to to say: 11 "I think this answers the criticisms that I had in 12 some way concocted the story, that there was no truth in 13 it, or that I had exaggerated it ..." 14 So it's plain, isn't it, that one of the reasons why 15 you included that quotation in your witness statement 16 was because you wanted to draw attention to 17 Mr Justice Eady's finding that there was clearly a plan 18 to kidnap Victoria Beckham? 19 A. That's right. As I said, it was under the subheading 20 "Fabrication". 21 Q. As well as -- 22 A. Absolutely, no, I agree. 23 Q. -- the additional allegation that you'd fabricated it? 24 A. Of course. 25 Q. If we look at paragraph 8 of your third statement -- 27 1 A. Is that coming up? 2 Q. -- which says: 3 "I had also thought and still think that the fact of 4 the appeal and settlement did not change the effect of 5 the words in the judgment which I quoted in my second 6 statement. The words of Mr Justice Eady which I quoted 7 were about an additional point that had arisen in the 8 proceedings, which was an attack on my character, 9 suggesting that I knew that this story was false and 10 that I had picked on vulnerable asylum seekers." 11 The point is, Mr Mahmood, not only was the quote 12 relevant to the fabrication issue, the appeal was also 13 relevant to the question of whether or not there was 14 a plot at all, wasn't it? 15 A. Sure. 16 Q. And so this is really no excuse at all, is it, for not 17 mentioning the appeal more fully in your second witness 18 statement? 19 A. As I say, it's an oversight and it's an issue that 20 I would want aired because it's an issue that I'm 21 concerned about, how people like this can go to court 22 and walk away with money purely on economic grounds. 23 It's an issue that I'm concerned about. 24 Q. Can we move now to what you tell us about the PCC. You 25 tell us that there was an investigation by the PCC into 28 1 the payments which had been made by the News of the 2 World to Mr Gashi. 3 A. Correct, there was. 4 Q. It's right, isn't it, that the PCC found in the News of 5 the World's favour? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. And it did that because it interpreted the PCC code in 8 relation to payments to witnesses as only applying once 9 charges were laid? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. And not in accordance with the wider meaning of legal 12 proceedings, which is applied in contempt of court 13 cases. 14 A. Right, okay. 15 Q. The third matter which I'd like to ask you about today, 16 Mr Mahmood, is your use of Florim Gashi after the 17 Beckham kidnap plot. 18 A. Right. 19 Q. It is right, isn't it, that you continued to use 20 Mr Gashi to provide you with tips for stories after the 21 Beckham plot? 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. Even though he was regarded by the police as an 24 unreliable witness? 25 A. Most of the people I deal with would be regarded as 29 1 unreliable witnesses. I've had front page splashes from 2 crack addicts. A story I did about a footballer's 3 father who was running a crack den in Nottingham, that 4 came from a crack addict who even stole my tape 5 recorder. We deal with unreliable people all the time 6 but it's information that's important, that we vet and 7 check thoroughly. So it can't be said that because 8 Gashi had been described as unreliable by police that we 9 thought he was unreliable. 10 Q. It does put at risk, though, doesn't it, the potential 11 integrity of your investigations if you're relying upon 12 a man whose credibility issues were as significant as 13 Mr Gashi's? 14 A. As I said, we get stories from crack addicts, 15 prostitutes, all kinds of sources. Our job is to test 16 the tip that they're providing, gather information, and 17 only if our lawyers are satisfied does it appear in the 18 paper. 19 Q. You tell us at paragraph 19 that Mr Gashi made 20 allegations about you in the red mercury trial and then 21 in the cricket match-fixing trial, a matter which you 22 touched upon a little earlier in your evidence. You 23 also say that in the red mercury trial, he admitted in 24 court that he had made false accusations about you and 25 withdrew them. Which allegations are you saying he 30 1 withdrew? 2 A. I can't recall that. I did ask our lawyers to try and 3 get a transcript of the case, but they've not been able 4 to do that in time, but I do recall being told by our 5 legal team that he'd stood up in court and admitted that 6 he'd lied and was not -- unable to explain why he'd 7 lied. 8 Q. You tell us that when you joined the Sunday Times last 9 year the editor asked you to confirm that you no longer 10 used Mr Gashi nor would you in the future use Mr Gashi 11 and you gave him that assurance? 12 A. Absolutely. This is a man who's made allegations 13 against me to the police, so it wouldn't even -- the 14 question doesn't even arise, really. 15 Q. Did -- 16 A. We fell out after he was deported so I've not spoken to 17 him or dealt with him since. In fact, he was ringing me 18 up threatening me from Albania. 19 Q. Did the Sunday Times require any other conditions on the 20 way in which you conducted your investigations when they 21 employed you last year? 22 A. No, they did not. 23 MR BARR: Thank you. Those were all my questions. 24 A. Thank you. 25 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Is there a risk that if you use an 31 1 informant who you know to be unreliable as the basis to 2 start investigation, that you're then really embarking 3 upon what is little more than a fishing expedition? 4 A. No, it's not true at all. I mean, with Gashi, I mean at 5 the time all the information that he'd provided me was 6 accurate. I didn't regard him as an unreliable witness, 7 even after the Beckham case. I believed and still do 8 that the information he provided at the time was 9 correct. But the nature the work is, as I explained, 10 that you have to deal with people who are simply 11 unreliable, untrustworthy. You have to. 12 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I understand the point. And I also 13 understand your point about conditional fee agreements, 14 but its place in this discussion we will have to think 15 about. 16 All right, thank you very much. I will rise.