14 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes, Mr Jay. 15 MR JAY: Sir, the next witness is Mr Neville Thurlbeck, 16 please. 17 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Can we confirm, please, that we are 18 back online visually? 19 THE TECHNICIAN: We're told we are, sir. 20 MR NEVILLE THURLBECK (sworn) 21 Questions by MR JAY 22 MR JAY: Mr Thurlbeck, please sit down and make yourself 23 comfortable. There's a glass of water there for you. 24 Could you please confirm your full name? 25 A. Neville Thurlbeck. 58 1 Q. You have provided the Inquiry with a witness statement 2 which is currently in draft. Would you confirm, please, 3 subject to one change I know you wish to make, that that 4 statement is both truthful and the evidence you would 5 like to give to this Inquiry? 6 A. It is. 7 Q. The change you would like to make -- the statement is 8 not paginated, but it relates to a decision in the 9 French jurisdiction in October of this year where you 10 say in your statement as currently constituted -- 11 I think it's the fifth page. You say: 12 "In October this year, the French courts appeared to 13 disagree with him [the 'him' in is that sentence is 14 Mr Justice Eady]. Although he has accepted his privacy 15 had been invaded, they ruled that I did not defame him, 16 thereby supporting the truth of the article." 17 First of all, have you now read a translation of the 18 judgment of French court? 19 A. Yes, I have. 20 Q. Had you read a translation of the judgment of the French 21 court when you gave that draft witness statement? 22 A. No, I'd requested it but hadn't received it from 23 Farrers. 24 Q. What is your position now, Mr Thurlbeck, in relation to 25 the French judgment? 59 1 A. My position is that the defamation matter -- although 2 I was acquitted of defaming Mr Mosley, this was on the 3 basis that I hadn't been responsible for distributing 4 the newspapers in France. 5 Q. That's correct. The French courts, if I can put it in 6 these terms, were loyal to the findings of 7 Mr Justice Eady, but the defamation claim against you 8 was rejected on grounds of jurisdiction? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. May I deal, first of all, with your career in 11 journalism. You cover this in your witness statement of 12 course. You started off at the News of the World as 13 a crime correspondent, I think, and your career 14 culminated as chief reporter between 2003 and 2011; is 15 that right? 16 A. Almost. I started off as a general news reporter, 17 a senior news reporter. 18 Q. Yes. Now, chief reporter, 2003 and 2011 -- can you tell 19 us a bit about that? What were the range of things you 20 were reporting on? 21 A. I wasn't a specialist anymore, so it would cover the 22 whole spectrum of news events. 23 Q. News events? Does that cover or exclude features, 24 showbiz? Could you be more specific? 25 A. Yes. Well, it would include investigations, it would 60 1 include interviews, it would include showbiz stories, 2 crime stories. Right across the spectrum, really. 3 There was no specific specialisation for me. 4 Q. Thank you. Two other matters by way of context to your 5 evidence. Is it right that you are in litigation with 6 News International over employment issues before 7 an employment tribunal? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. Is it also right that you have been arrested in 10 connection with Operation Weeting? 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. And it follows from that that you are not going to give 13 evidence to this Inquiry about phone hacking issues; 14 have I understood that correctly? As is your 15 entitlement. 16 A. Yes. I've requested specifically that the Leveson 17 Inquiry does not question me on any matters concerning 18 phone hacking, and I've received an assurance from your 19 team of solicitors, to use their words, that phone 20 hacking is off limits. 21 Q. Yes. 22 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: The position is very simple, 23 Mr Thurlbeck. I am determined not to prejudice any 24 investigation being conducted by the Metropolitan Police 25 or any possible prosecution that might follow. You have 61 1 an absolute right to claim privilege against 2 self-incrimination where you know that you are under 3 investigation, and I am not going to allow the Inquiry 4 to ask a series of questions which require you to claim 5 privilege so that it might be suggested that in some way 6 you shouldn't be doing that. You are entitled to claim 7 privilege, you have that privilege, and it would be 8 quite wrong for anybody to draw any conclusion or 9 inference about the fact that you wish to exercise it, 10 and therefore I have decided that the better course is 11 that on the topic of phone hacking, there should be no 12 questions at all of those who are under investigation. 13 So you are correct, but I want to put the context 14 quite clearly in the public domain. 15 A. Thank you. 16 MR JAY: Mr Thurlbeck, if I may go back to your witness 17 statement at the bottom of the first page, where you 18 identify your awards and nominations. The 2005 British 19 Press Awards for scoop of the year, was that for the 20 Rebecca Loos story? 21 A. 2005? 22 Q. Yes? 23 A. Yes, it was, yes, sir. 24 Q. In your statement, you cover a range of investigations 25 you undertook which led to the jailing of criminals and 62 1 you list those. You also say that those investigations 2 often placed you a in a position of personal danger. 3 Would you like to tell us more about that in your own 4 words, Mr Thurlbeck? 5 A. Well, any undercover investigation involving criminals 6 had its inherent dangers. In the 1990s and the early 7 2000s, my main job was as an undercover reporter and 8 specifically crime. So the people I was exposing would 9 be gun runners, paedophiles, drug dealers, and in order 10 to expose them, you would have to equip yourself, 11 obviously, with recording devices to record their 12 admissions and write about it in the newspaper without 13 fear of being sued for libel. But there was always the 14 ever-present risk that you would reveal yourself as 15 a journalist to the person you were exposing and 16 thereby, you know, confront possible danger. 17 Q. Yes. You deal with one or two close shaves in your 18 statement, don't you? 19 A. Well, I don't really want to go into too much detail -- 20 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: No, all Mr Jay was saying was that 21 you mentioned them. You answered yes, then fine. We'll 22 move on. 23 MR JAY: We're moving on to the next question. Something 24 rather different, actually. It's kiss-and-tell stories. 25 A. Yes. 63 1 Q. Were you involved in the arrangement, if I can so 2 describe it, of writing such stories? 3 A. The journalists had to get pigeonholed quite early in 4 their careers. My pigeonhole, if you like, was 5 undercover work, originally, and that stayed with me 6 right throughout my career there. I wasn't really 7 pigeonholed as a kiss-and-tell journalist. That's not 8 to say that I didn't do some kiss-and-tell stories, but 9 by and large, they sort of passed me by and went 10 elsewhere. 11 Q. You did some; is that your evidence? 12 A. I did some, yes. 13 Q. Can you give us some idea of the costs? I mean, 14 kiss-and-tell, there's always a financial incentive for 15 the kisser, as it were, to provide the story; that is 16 correct, isn't it? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Give us an idea of how much these stories cost, please? 19 A. Well, it would vary. It depends, really, on where in 20 the newspaper the article would be placed. So, for 21 example, a front-page lead -- what we in industry call 22 a splash or front page splash -- would cost 23 significantly more than a page 45 lead, for example, so 24 there would be a kind of a sliding scale, and then the 25 story would be then judged on its merits as to how much 64 1 of an impact it would make, how important we thought the 2 story was to the newspaper and then a figure would be 3 arrived at. 4 Q. So it would be a question of calibrating the value of 5 the story to the newspaper in terms, perhaps, of 6 increased circulation or similar matters, wouldn't? 7 A. Obviously, circulation would be an issue, but then you 8 have to match the price with the person's expectations. 9 They might come in with a completely unrealistic set of 10 financial expectations, which may sort of play our hand 11 a bit higher and the stakes would be raised. It wasn't 12 a precise science. 13 Q. Market forces then; is that it? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. What's the most, to your knowledge, that the 16 News of the World has ever paid for such a story? 17 A. I wasn't privy to how much we would be paying on 18 a weekly basis. I can only speak from my own 19 experience. There were six figure sums paid, but 20 rarely. I would say the average would be -- for a front 21 page story, an average price I would say would be about 22 £15,000. £15-20,000. Less, sometimes, depending how 23 the negotiations had gone. 24 Q. Given that money was changing hands and therefore there 25 was, at the lowest, a risk of elaboration, if not a risk 65 1 of fabrication, what steps, if any, did you take to 2 verify the accuracy of such stories? 3 A. What stories are we talking about? 4 Q. Kiss-and-tell stories. 5 A. Kiss-and-tell stories? A great deal of activity went 6 into establishing the truth of what people were telling 7 us. There was a -- there was always a myth attached to 8 News of the World stories and the myth was that we made 9 it all up. That still prevails, I think. 10 We didn't. We went to enormous lengths to satisfy 11 our team of lawyers that what we had was factually 12 correct, but most importantly, demonstrably correct, and 13 we would verify people's claims in all sorts of ways. 14 We would ask them to provide documentary evidence, 15 photographic evidence, perhaps a message left, you know, 16 on a post card or a birthday card or some sort of gift. 17 A telephone call made to the person in question would 18 often verify their claim. Without these, we couldn't 19 run a story. 20 For every kiss-and-tell that made the 21 News of the World, because it was prudent to be accurate 22 and correct, I would estimate there would be another 23 six, ten that fell by the wayside because that standard 24 of proof wasn't obtained. Even if we believed their 25 story, it wasn't sufficient. We had to persuade our 66 1 legal manager, a barrister, and his team, that what we 2 had was true. 3 Q. But what weight, if any, was given to privacy issues 4 before such stories were published? 5 A. Well, as we know, privacy has become a huge matter over 6 the last three years, and I would say the kiss-and-tell 7 story now is largely dead as a genre. 8 So I would say in the last three years we'd taken 9 great note of privacy matters and that was almost the 10 first question after "Is it true?" The second question 11 would always be, "Buts are we intruding into privacy? 12 Is there any justification for it?" 13 There would be lengthy debates about this. There 14 would be lengthy conversations with the editor. The 15 editor would demand to know what level of public 16 interest there was in order to, you know, avoid any 17 possible privacy issues. Colin Myler was absolutely 18 fastidious about this. It was something that we talked 19 about literally every day. It was an important matter 20 that we had to get right and we did everything we could 21 to ensure that we didn't step over those boundary marks. 22 Q. Can I just explore that last remark and ask two 23 follow-up questions. Does one fairly deduce from your 24 evidence that this is something which you say has 25 happened for punctiliously over the last three years, 67 1 but before, say, 2008, a different principle applied, 2 perhaps a laxer principle; is that correct? 3 A. I have to be honest and say the answer to that is yes. 4 This is industry-wide, where -- I don't think we were 5 unique in this position. Before the privacy ruling on 6 Mr Mosley came into place and various other injunctions 7 taken out by celebrities and so forth, there was less 8 regard to privacy, more regard to whether the story was 9 true or not. There's always been that regard. The 10 facts were always important to establish. But then it 11 became very important to establish whether or not 12 privacy issues were at stake. 13 Q. The discussions which you had described in general terms 14 with the editor at the time, what sort of considerations 15 went into the balance in deciding whether or not to 16 publish a story on public interest grounds? 17 A. Well, one would look at exposing potential hypocrisy or 18 lies. I can give an example of how that occurred 19 recently. I exposed a politician for having an affair. 20 I don't particularly want to name that politician now in 21 fairness, but it made a very big story in our newspaper 22 last year. We thought long and hard about whether or 23 not we should run this story. It became apparent that 24 there was a public interest justification because the 25 man in question had used his family and his happy 68 1 marriage in his election literature, so we felt that we 2 had an important justification to run the story. But 3 without matters such as that, stories would fall by the 4 wayside on a regular basis. 5 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: So does that mean that you do not 6 consider now, whatever you might have considered before, 7 that there would be a public interest in exposing an 8 extramarital affair simply because somebody was 9 a politician? 10 A. There was less regard to the privacy issues. You know, 11 we were always aware that we hadn't to be gratuitous 12 about these things because as a newspaper you wouldn't 13 want to be in the middle of a public backlash because 14 you were seen to be too gratuitous about these things. 15 There had to be an element of justification behind it 16 and it was, generally speaking, hypocrisy, that we could 17 demonstrate on behalf of a politician, for example. Or 18 a celebrity. 19 I can give you a classic example of this -- and this 20 is going back before the privacy matters became so 21 relevant to us. That was in 2005, when I exposed David 22 Beckham's extramarital affair. We decided there was 23 huge public interest in that matter because the Beckhams 24 had been using their marriage in order to endorse 25 products. They were openly presenting themselves as 69 1 a very happy, married, a very close-knit family, and 2 were making millions of pounds on the back of that 3 image, promoting themselves as a fairy tale marriage. 4 They even got married on thrones. 5 We thought it was important that we exposed that the 6 fairy tale was a sham, and therefore we decided there 7 was huge public interest in that kiss-and-tell and 8 I don't think anybody has sort of disputed that. 9 So even before privacy issues came in, we did look 10 very carefully -- very, very carefully -- as to whether 11 or not there was a justification there, and we did in 12 that case. 13 Q. What sort of products do you say the Beckhams sold on 14 the basis of this particular image? Can you be more 15 specific, please, Mr Thurlbeck? 16 A. Yes. He was a leading -- he was promoting Brylcreem at 17 the time. He had a host of other products. I don't 18 have the list here but he was sponsored left, right and 19 centre. He was always promoting himself in front o his 20 family as a happily married man. It was a wholesome 21 image that he cultivated, that the family cultivated and 22 the public bought into on a massive scale and we exposed 23 that to be a sham. I don't have a list of the products 24 in front of me at the moment, of course, but it's fairly 25 well documented that that is what the brand Beckham was 70 1 all about. 2 Q. I might be wrong -- of course I'm not an expert, 3 Mr Thurlbeck -- but the individual products you're 4 talking about, Brylcreem, usually there's an image of 5 Mr Beckham and that is associated with the product. 6 Where is the image of the Beckhams en famille producing 7 or fostering a particular product? 8 A. The Beckhams were always very keen to encourage 9 publicity of their happy marriage. It was part of their 10 sort of -- one of the building bricks of their business 11 was their happy family marriage. They talked about it, 12 they had photographs taken at their wedding, they 13 introduced their children to us. It was one of great 14 wholesomeness. They were always saying what a happily 15 married family they were and they were making an awful 16 lot of money because they were considered to be 17 a perfect wholesome family unit. And what we saw 18 happening outside of the marriage was in direct contrast 19 to the image they were cultivating and we said they were 20 making millions of pounds on the back of that wholesome 21 image and we thought it very important at the time to 22 expose that as being a sham. 23 Q. But wasn't it an example, though, of what the lawyers 24 might choose to call an implied representation? The 25 example of a politician who platforms on the basis of 71 1 family values and makes that an explicit part of his or 2 her political image one can understand. That's an 3 express representation. But in relation to the 4 particular case we're discussing now, isn't it all about 5 implied representation, Mr Thurlbeck? 6 A. We thought there was as very strong justification for 7 running it on the basis of what I've just said. 8 Q. I'm not sure that quite couples with the point I'm 9 making. Do you understand the distinction I'm trying 10 to -- 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. -- draw between something being made explicit? 13 A. Well, it was explicit to us, and I suspect it was 14 explicit to all the people who had bought into that 15 image of the Beckhams being, you know, a wholesome 16 family unit. 17 Q. Okay. Did you take steps to verify the accuracy of 18 Ms Loos's story? 19 A. I did, yes. I spent five months on the story in total. 20 I spent six weeks in Australia and five or weeks in 21 Spain and it was very hard to prove, you know, the 22 validity of what the girl was saying to me. 23 We established it eventually by -- 24 Q. I'm not sure I need ask you how you proved it. The 25 question was confined to: did you take steps? 72 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And your answer, I think, was yes. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Are we talking about a six-figure sum here for Ms Loos? 5 A. I don't think we've ever declared exactly how much we 6 paid Ms loos. 7 Q. No, but the question was: are we talking about 8 a six-figure sum? 9 A. I'm trying to think of a good reason why I shouldn't 10 tell you how much we paid her. There may be issues of 11 confidentiality that we had with Ms Loos at the time -- 12 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I'm not really concerned, I don't 13 think, about your issues of confidentiality with 14 Ms Loos. I don't want to the know the precise sum, but 15 I am interested in the order of magnitude, I think, 16 following Mr Jay's question. Unless somebody wants to 17 suggest I shouldn't be? No. Right, order of magnitude, 18 please. 19 A. Okay. We are talking about a six-figure sum. It was 20 the most I think I've ever paid for a story. We're 21 talking about a six-figure sum, just. 22 MR JAY: Not quite seven figures, Mr Thurlbeck -- 23 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: All right, all right, we've got the 24 message. Move on. 25 MR JAY: Move on to Mr Mosley's case. Would you agree, 73 1 Mr Thurlbeck, that without the Nazi theme allegation 2 there wasn't a public interest in publishing the story? 3 A. Yes, I would agree with that. 4 Q. Would you also agree that it follows from that that it 5 was important to demonstrate that there was a Nazi 6 theme? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. When you started on the story after, I believe, an 9 initial approach, you, of course, knew from your general 10 knowledge about Mr Mosley's father, Sir Oswald Mosley; 11 am I correct? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. The initial tipster, he was a man named Jason; is that 14 correct? 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. Can I just deal with some of the evidence there? It's 17 not my task or purpose to relitigate this litigation 18 since it's a matter of record and we simply can't in any 19 way undermine the findings of Mr Justice Eady, nor do we 20 wish to, since his findings were not appealed, but if 21 I could just look at a document which is number 31344. 22 I hope in the bundle you have, Mr Thurlbeck, it's 23 underneath tab 4. It's part of your witness statement 24 in the High Court proceedings. It's paragraph 23, where 25 you deal with the issue of payment for the story, that 74 1 Jason asked for, £25,000. 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. "I agreed to this amount on the condition that this 4 story was selected to be the splash." 5 That's the front page; is that right? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. "I told Jason that if this was not the case, I would 8 only be able to offer him less money and an inside story 9 would be £6,000." 10 In the result, I think, Woman E got £12,000; is that 11 correct? 12 A. I think so, yes. 13 Q. In paragraph 24: 14 "I explained to Jason that I would need to meet with 15 Michelle to arrange for her clothes to be fitted with 16 a hidden camera and show her how to operate it. It was 17 important for Michelle to video the orgy to ensure that 18 we had sufficient evidence should Mr Mosley threaten to 19 sue the News of the World for libel." 20 That suggests, rather, that the purpose of the video 21 was only to obtain evidence in order to defeat 22 a possible libel claim; is that correct? 23 A. Normally that would be the case. But in recent years, 24 with the development of the News of the World website, 25 there was always the possibility there that the video 75 1 could be used on the website. 2 Q. Why was the video ever put on the website, Mr Thurlbeck? 3 A. I can't answer that question because I don't know. 4 I had no involvement ever with the uploading of videos 5 onto the website. 6 Q. Were you not aware, given your close participation in 7 the assembly of this story, that the video was going to 8 be placed on the News of the World website? 9 A. It was always going to be a possibility, yes. 10 Q. When did you know that it was going to happen? 11 A. I can't remember. 12 Q. We know that the story itself was published on 28 March 13 2008, I believe. Sorry, it's 30 March 2008. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. In relation to that date, how long before was the 16 decision made to publish the video on the website? 17 A. I really don't know. In fact, the first I probably, 18 probably knew about it going on the website I think 19 would be when I saw it myself the following day. 20 I think, from memory. I had -- my recollection is that 21 there were no discussions with me about, you know, it 22 being uploaded to the website. That was a completely 23 different department. It was literally in another 24 office somewhere. They'd get the video and up it would 25 go. 76 1 Q. Who took the decision? 2 A. To upload it? It would always be the editor's decision. 3 Q. Of course, you were handing over the film -- 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. -- to the relevant person. Wasn't there some sort of 6 discussion as to what would happen to it? 7 A. I didn't hand it over. I left the video in the office. 8 It was there to be looked at by our barrister, our 9 editor, our news editor, deputy news editor; all the 10 people who were deciding the validity of the story, 11 where it was going to go in the newspaper and whether 12 the words I had written corresponded to what they'd seen 13 on the video. So I kind of relinquished control of the 14 video when I brought it to the office. 15 Q. You didn't relinquish control of the story, since you 16 wrote it on 30 March. 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Are you saying that at the time you wrote the story -- 19 and you must have, as it were, perfected it probably on 20 the Saturday; is that right? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. -- you were unaware that there would be an associated 23 video? Is that your evidence? 24 A. No, I can't -- I'm not going to be gauche about this. 25 I was always aware there with a was a direct possibility 77 1 of that being uploaded onto the website, providing, you 2 know, it was visible. Sometimes these things are poor 3 quality and may be evidential but not sort of 4 broadcastable. 5 Q. I need to look again at the story itself. I don't have 6 it immediately available, but did not the story say, "If 7 you want to look at the details, go to our website", or 8 words to that effect? 9 A. Yes, it probably would, yes. 10 Q. So you put that in the story, did you? 11 A. No. No, I didn't. When the story leaves my computer, 12 it would then go to the subeditors, who would lay it out 13 on the page, maybe change a word here or two and put 14 a headline on it and so on, and they would have put on 15 the -- that sort of information at the bottom. I can 16 never remember ever putting that on the bottom because 17 I wouldn't know that, you know, the video was going on 18 the website. When that decision had been made by the 19 editor, he would then speak to the subeditor or the 20 chief sub, and say, "It's going on the website, can you 21 put a paragraph on the bottom saying that this is so?" 22 Q. Did you not view the video yourself before you wrote the 23 story? 24 A. Yes, I -- no, I viewed it. I did. 25 Q. So you must have known that the video was not merely of 78 1 reasonable quality but that it, as it were, corroborated 2 what you were going to write? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Can I ask you, please, about the setting up of the 5 camera, as it were. This is paragraph 37 of your 6 witness statement. 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. At page 31347. This, of course, remains your evidence 9 to Mr Justice Eady. You refer to it in your witness 10 statement. You say: 11 "I did not, at any point, coach Michelle ..." 12 Michelle is Woman E; is that right? 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q. "... as to what she should do during the S&M party. 15 I instructed her on how to use the camera and I told her 16 how she should stand and what would be video'd from 17 a certain distance and how she should turn to ensure 18 that she would be able to obtain footage for us. I did 19 not ask Michelle to perform in any particular way or to 20 say anything in particular at the party. When showing 21 Michelle how to use the hidden camera, I said to her: 22 'When you want to get him doing the Sieg Heil, it's 23 about 2.5 to 3 metres away from him and then you'll get 24 him in no problem.' The video footage of me showing 25 Michelle how to use the hidden camera records this and 79 1 shows me making the Sieg Heil gesture with my arm in the 2 air and showing Michelle the sort of distance needed to 3 film it properly and get it in shot. When I said this 4 to Michelle, I was not in any sense trying to persuade 5 her to make that gesture when she was with the claimant 6 or persuade her to try and get the claimant to make that 7 gesture." 8 The question is, Mr Thurlbeck: weren't you trying to 9 do that? 10 A. No, absolutely not. I'm grateful for the opportunity to 11 correct this, and I did so, actually, at the High Court 12 hearing in 2008. If I could just refer you to what 13 Mr Mosley says in his evidence to you. He said: 14 "It was very clear to me that Thurlbeck was trying 15 to set the whole thing up from the beginning as a Nazi 16 thing." 17 But Mr Mosley misquoted me. What I actually said 18 was: 19 "When you want to get him doing the Sieg Heil, it's 20 about 2.5 to 3 metres away from him and then you'll get 21 him in no problem." 22 And I think it's clear from that statement that the 23 word "get" is a kind of a shorthand for the verb "to 24 video", "to capture". So what I'm saying to Woman E is: 25 when you want to capture him, when you want to video him 80 1 doing the Seig Heil, stand back 2.5 metres, otherwise 2 you won't get him in the frame. And in a rather 3 torturous way, this has now been interpreted as me 4 saying, "Get him to do the Sieg Heil", but an analysis 5 of the words that I use make it clear that that is not 6 my meaning at all. 7 Q. Mr Justice Eady touches on this at paragraph 164 of his 8 judgment at page 31249. It may be fair to say that he 9 doesn't make an express finding either way as to whether 10 that explanation is right. 11 Did Woman E say anything to you which led you to 12 believe expressly that there would a Sieg Heil gesture? 13 A. No. She said there was going to be a Nazi theme. 14 Obviously the most iconic image one would expect to 15 capture would be a Sieg Heil salute. She didn't mention 16 that; nor did I encourage her to make that happen. 17 Q. Woman E did not, of course, give evidence, did they -- 18 A. No, she -- she didn't. 19 Q. Can I deal with the run-up to the story a little bit 20 more. Were there discussions with the editor about 21 whether there was a public interest in publishing this 22 story, given the obvious privacy issues? 23 A. We -- it was very clear to all of us that the 24 implication that there was a Nazi theme to this party 25 was sufficient public interest to run a story -- 81 1 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: That's not, with respect, an answer 2 to the question. Was there as discussion about the 3 public interest? Because you're making an assumption 4 about the story, which itself requires evaluation. 5 A. Yes. 6 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: So was there a discussion? 7 A. There was a discussion. There was a discussion 8 certainly between myself and the news desk. 9 MR JAY: Did it involve the editor, Mr Myler? 10 A. I didn't speak to Mr Myler, but I'm assuming -- I don't 11 know -- that the news desk did. But I don't know. 12 I can't answer for them. 13 Q. Can I ask you with whom did you have the discussion at 14 the news desk? 15 A. Do you want me to name the individual? 16 Q. Yes. 17 A. It was the deputy news editor, James Mellor. 18 Q. Can you remember when that was? 19 A. No. Not now. 20 Q. Can you remember approximately how long before the 21 publication of the story it was? 22 A. It was probably, I would imagine, the day I commenced 23 the investigation, which from memory -- I can't 24 remember. It was a week or so before publication. 25 Maybe more. 82 1 Q. Can I be clear when you mean by that? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Was this before or after your first meeting with Jason? 4 A. It was before, because Jason -- I have to -- it's an 5 awful long time ago, it's difficult to remember, but 6 I think Jason got in touch with us -- I spoke to him on 7 the phone first and then relayed what he was telling me 8 to the news desk and we had a conversation then about 9 whether or not this would be in the public interest, and 10 it was the suggestion of the Nazi theme which initially 11 persuaded us that it was in the public interest. 12 Q. The first contact which Jason made with the 13 News of the World was on 13 March. You then had 14 a conversation with him on the phone on 14 March and 15 then you met with Jason first of all at Waterloo station 16 on 19 March. Does that jog your memory? 17 A. Yes, that's about right, yeah. 18 Q. So is it your evidence that the discussion about the 19 public interest was likely to have been before at least 20 19 March? 21 A. I think so, but I can't remember, I'm afraid. I really 22 can't remember that. 23 Q. This was before you had much detail about the case in 24 your mind, Mr Thurlbeck, wasn't it? 25 A. No, it was -- I think, from memory, the first 83 1 conversation with Jason indicated that there was a Nazi 2 theme, so it was very firmly in our minds by the time we 3 went down to meet him. 4 Q. But you had no detail by that stage? 5 A. No, no great detail. 6 Q. Didn't you think it appropriate, given the importance of 7 this story, once all information had been obtained, 8 including the video, to have a proper discussion with at 9 least the editor about privacy issues in the context of 10 the public interest? 11 A. With the editor? In the normal course of events, 12 I would talk to the news editor. 13 Q. Didn't you think it appropriate to have such 14 a discussion with the news editor at that point? 15 A. Well, we did. We talked about this from the beginning. 16 Q. You've told us that the discussion was before the first 17 meeting with Jason, which was on 19 March. Are you 18 telling us that there was a later discussion? 19 A. There with -- there were many discussions about it. 20 Q. But were there discussions about public interest in the 21 story, in the context of the privacy, or were there 22 discussions simply about the progress of the story and 23 how juicy a story it was go to be? 24 A. I would say it included all those ingredients. 25 Q. Are you sure about that, Mr Thurlbeck? 84 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Were you aware of decisions taken within the 3 News of the World to maintain as much secrecy as 4 possible over the story? 5 A. In what sense? 6 Q. To ensure that it didn't leak out and possibly enable -- 7 or certainly enable, I can put it higher than that -- 8 Mr Mosley to take out an application for an injunction 9 against the News of the World? 10 A. Those decisions are made only by the editor. 11 Q. That wasn't the question. 12 A. Was I aware that he'd made that decision? 13 Q. Yes. 14 A. In other words, was I aware that we weren't going to go 15 to Mr Mosley and put the allegations to him? 16 Q. Mm. 17 A. All I can say is I would always wait for an instruction 18 from the news desk before revealing our hand, if you 19 like, to anybody who was the subject of an investigation 20 at the News of the World and I didn't receive the go 21 ahead to do that. I would never ask to do it; I would 22 wait to be told to do it, and on this occasion I wasn't 23 told, therefore I assumed that had we weren't putting 24 the allegations to him, but at no time was I told that 25 we weren't. 85 1 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Did you have a view about that? 2 A. That I wasn't requested to confront Mr Mosley -- 3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: About whether Mr Mosley should be 4 given the chance to deal with it in whatever way he 5 thought fit? 6 A. Well, my view at the time was that we had a perfectly 7 legitimate story that we needed to run. Therefore, 8 I would have taken the view that we had to protect that 9 story and ensure that Mr Mosley didn't unjustifiably 10 prevent us from running it. 11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: What do you mean by the word 12 "unjustifiably", please? 13 A. Right. We firmly believed at the time that we had 14 a story that was massively in the public interest. You 15 might find that strange now, that this story has been, 16 you know, rubbished on so many quarters, but all of us 17 at the News of the World at the time, all of us, and 18 many of us still -- 19 MR JAY: Do you mind answering the question, Mr Thurlbeck? 20 A. I am answering it, I promise you. We thought we had 21 every justification in running it and I imagine that the 22 editor feared that this story could be prevented from 23 coming out by Mr Mosley if we went to him. But I don't 24 make the decisions. But that's what I imagine happened. 25 MR JAY: It's a bit higher than that, Mr Thurlbeck. You 86 1 well knew that if Mr Mosley was warned in advance of the 2 story (a) he would make an immediate application for an 3 injunction -- that's correct, isn't it? 4 A. Yes, but this wasn't -- I was not part of that 5 decision-making process. 6 Q. You also knew that everybody at the News of the World, 7 especially the editor, feared that the application would 8 be successful; you knew that, didn't you? 9 A. Again, that didn't come across my radar. I was not 10 involved in that part of the decision-making process. 11 Therefore, I didn't really need to consider it. What 12 I had to consider was whether or not I had got what 13 I was writing -- what I was writing in the paper was 14 accurate. That was my task. These decisions as to 15 whether or not it went on the website, whether or not we 16 should confront Mr Mosley with the evidence did not come 17 on my radar. 18 Q. Hold on, Mr Thurlbeck. There was a cloak of secrecy put 19 around this story. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Only a few people within the News of the World knew 22 about it at all; is that correct? 23 A. That is correct, but that wasn't unique. That happened 24 on every story we did. 25 Q. So we're agreed thus far. Are we also agreed that the 87 1 story came out in, I think, the second edition, no the 2 first? 3 A. I think that's correct, yes. 4 Q. So this was all part and parcel of a strategy, is that 5 right, to try and get this below the radar, which radar 6 would include any antennae that Mr Mosley had available 7 to him; are we agreed? 8 A. Right. I will answer this question in this way: you're 9 assuming that I'm part of this strategy, as you call it. 10 I'm not. I'm not part of the strategy to upload the 11 video onto the website, to decide whether or not we go 12 to Mr Mosley with the evidence. I'm not part of that 13 strategy. I am just a person who is writing the 14 story -- investigating it, meeting the contacts, writing 15 it and making sure what I write is accurate. Beyond 16 that, the strategy is not mine. 17 I can only make assumptions about what that strategy 18 was and why, and you're asking me what that strategy 19 was. I was never part of the discussions on that 20 strategy. 21 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Aren't you being a bit unkind to 22 yourself, Mr Thurlbeck? You weren't just the reporter. 23 You were the chief reporter for the paper, who had been 24 the news editor, who had been the investigation news 25 editor. You weren't party to any of this? 88 1 A. No, I wasn't. This was -- the strategy -- you might 2 find this hard to believe, but this is the way the 3 newspaper worked. I can only tell you what I know to be 4 true and what happened. 5 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: That's all I ask. 6 A. And that's what I'm giving you, I promise you. This is 7 the way decisions were made. Decisions on whether or 8 not we'd confront people before we publish never ever -- 9 it was an editor's decision, always an editor's 10 decision. Not even the news editor's decision. 11 Especially not the chief reporter's decision. These 12 matters, the strategy, are all taken at the very highest 13 level on our newspaper, and I suspect on every other 14 newspaper in Fleet Street too. The chief reporter and 15 news editor, they're very grand-sounding titles but they 16 don't really call any shots at all. These decisions are 17 made at the very highest levels. 18 MR JAY: Is it your evidence, therefore, to this Inquiry 19 that you weren't even aware of what Mr Myler's decision 20 was? 21 A. In relation to what? 22 Q. The failure or rather the decision not to notify 23 Mr Mosley and get his comment before publication? 24 A. As I said to you before, I assumed that was his decision 25 because I'd been -- I hadn't been instructed to go and 89 1 speaking to Mr Mosley. 2 Q. Okay. Let me ask you about what happened subsequently. 3 I think I can take this up in the judgment of 4 Mr Justice Eady at our page 31228. Still under tab 4. 5 The heading: 6 "Mr Thurlbeck's behaviour following publication on 7 30 March." 8 This, of course, deals with the follow-up story, 9 which I think in your statement you call part 2; is that 10 correct? 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. That's common journalistic phraseology, maybe, in 13 relation to what follows the main story? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. As Mr Justice Eady explains at paragraph 80: 16 "In order to firm up the story, therefore, 17 Mr Thurlbeck decided that he would like to publish an 18 interview with at least one of the participants and, if 19 possible, contributions." 20 Then he says: 21 "In pursuit of this objective, therefore, he sent 22 a number of emails." 23 And the emails went tout to Women A v B in these 24 terms: 25 "Hope you're well. I'm Neville Thurlbeck, the chief 90 1 reporter of the News of the World, the journalist who 2 wrote the story about Max Mosley's party with you and 3 your girls on Friday. Please take a breath before you 4 get angry with me!" 5 Do you know why that sentence was in the email? 6 A. I can't remember why. Now. 7 Q. Maybe it's obvious from what follows: 8 "I did ensure that all your faces were blocked out 9 to spare you any grief and soon the story will become 10 history, as life and the news agenda move on very 11 quickly. There is a substantial sum of money available 12 to you or any of the girls in return for an exclusive 13 interview with us. The interview can be done 14 anonymously and your face can be blacked out too. So 15 it's pretty straightforward. Shall we meet/talk?" 16 Then the following day another email: 17 "I'm just about to send you a series of pictures 18 which will form the basis of our article this week. We 19 want to reveal the identities of the girls involved in 20 the orgy with Max, as this is the only follow up we have 21 to the story. Our preferred story, however, would be 22 you speaking to us directly about your dealings with Max 23 and for that we would be extremely grateful. In return 24 for this, we would grant you full anonymity, pixelate 25 your faces in all photographs and secure a substantial 91 1 sum of money for you. This puts you firmly in the 2 driving seat and allows you much greater control ..." 3 Et cetera. So it's pretty clear that there were two 4 choices available to the women. Either they agreed your 5 terms, which would involve anonymity, pixelation and 6 a sum of money, or they wouldn't be in the driving seat 7 and you would publish photographs with their faces; is 8 that correct? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. Can I understand, please, what your evidence to this 11 Inquiry is about these emails? Is it your evidence that 12 you didn't draft the emails? 13 A. That's true, yes. 14 Q. Who did? 15 A. The -- it was somebody on the news desk who had been on 16 holiday when the part 1 story was broken. When he 17 returned from holiday, he realised that he'd been on 18 holiday when, at that time, we believed we had one of 19 the biggest stories we'd broken for many years. He was 20 determined that in week two he would get a better story 21 than the part 1, and therefore we had to get the girls 22 on side to help us and to give us their testimony. 23 So it's true to say that those emails were dictated 24 to me. However, they were sent by me, and willingly, 25 and in my name. That was the process that we got to, 92 1 but ultimately I sent those emails, yes. 2 Q. You had continuing carriage of the story? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And you were going to meet or talk with the women if 5 they agreed to your terms; is that correct? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. So why would someone else have to draft emails for you 8 as chief reporter, Mr Thurlbeck? 9 A. No. I'm not -- I'm giving you the process that arrived 10 at these emails being sent and I'm telling you exactly 11 how it happened. 12 Now, as to why it happened that way, you'd have to 13 ask the person who dictated those emails to me. 14 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Who is ...? 15 A. He was a man on the news desk and I don't see that 16 there's any benefit, surely, to me naming him, is there? 17 MR JAY: You see, we could always ask him or require him to 18 give evidence. Do you understand, Mr Thurlbeck, where 19 this might be leading? 20 A. All right. It was the news editor, who at the time was 21 Ian Edmondson. 22 Q. Okay. One theme which is coming strongly across, if 23 I may say so, preparing for this week's evidence, is 24 that he's getting blamed for everything, Mr Thurlbeck. 25 The buck doesn't stop with Mr A -- in this case, you. 93 1 It's being passed to Mr Edmondson. Are you sure about 2 this? 3 A. What I'm saying to you -- this is the process that was 4 involved in these emails being sent. But I did say -- 5 and I take full responsibility for this, and I did say 6 to you just a minute ago that it was me who sent them, 7 and I sent them in my name. I could have said no, and 8 I didn't. I sent them. So I'm prepared to accept full 9 responsibility for those emails being sent. I hope 10 I make myself clear on that. I am not blaming anybody 11 for these emails being sent. I am merely outlining the 12 process involved. 13 Q. Right, and it's a process which wasn't adumbrated to or 14 in front of Mr Justice Eady when you gave your evidence, 15 was it? 16 A. No, no, it wasn't. 17 Q. Why not, if it was the truth? 18 A. I don't see any point -- I didn't see any point then in 19 basically, you know, going into elaborate detail as to 20 how these emails were sent, and perhaps I -- perhaps 21 even now it's an irrelevance. I'm just giving you the 22 benefit -- 23 Q. Can I ask what's the point now? 24 A. I'm just giving you the process. If you don't want to 25 know the process, then -- 94 1 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I do, and it is relevant, isn't it, 2 because if I am looking, as you well know, at the 3 culture, practices and ethics of the press -- these 4 aren't unthought-out approaches. These are clearly 5 approaches that have been thought about. 6 A. Yes. 7 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: And it's not just somebody who's 8 knocked off an email. Did you discuss them with 9 Mr Edmondson before -- 10 A. We had a brief conversation on the telephone about them 11 and that was it. 12 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: So you decided with him -- I'm only 13 trying to understand it. 14 A. Yes. 15 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: And therefore I welcome your 16 explaining the process because it's very important -- 17 that this was an appropriate approach to follow up the 18 story? 19 A. Yes, and I'm quite happy to accept for responsibility 20 for this. 21 MR JAY: Did you say to Mr Edmondson: "This comes close to 22 threatening the women"? 23 A. Um ... you see, what we were doing here is we were 24 offering them -- in the course of normal journalistic 25 practice, if you have a very good story and you want to 95 1 follow it up, you would seek to get more evidence about 2 the story that you published the week before. On this 3 particular week, it was, we believed, imperative to 4 speak to the girls who were involved. We found out who 5 they were, we identified them, and we were offering them 6 an opportunity, if you like, to remove their identities 7 from what would be a natural part 2. A natural part 2 8 would be "Here are the girls, this is who they are", and 9 in return for withholding their identities, we hoped to 10 get a more detailed testimony from them. We didn't see 11 it as a threat. We saw it as an offer -- a deal to do 12 with the girls. In order for them to help us, we would 13 respond by helping them too by removing that you are 14 identities. 15 Q. Two follow-up questions to that. Was this done in the 16 course of normal journalistic practice, to use your own 17 term? 18 A. Was what done, sorry? 19 Q. This sort of offer to the women concerned? 20 A. Very seldom. I can't remember many occasions, but, you 21 know, people would often be reluctant to help 22 a newspaper because of their identities coming out, and 23 often deals would be done to protect their identities. 24 We would say, "Look, if you talk to us anonymously, then 25 we can write a story about this." This happens all the 96 1 time. The broadsheet newspapers do this as well, you 2 know. I know -- they've spoken to me. They want to 3 speak to me and get my story and, you know, "We'll do it 4 off the record", and all the rest of it. TV stations 5 have done the same. This is the course of a normal 6 journalistic practice, if you like, offering people 7 a degree of anonymity in return for evidence that could 8 support a story. 9 Q. Can I just explore, then, the value of the story if you 10 just printed the women's faces, if you'd just had their 11 photographs but no interview? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. It was a useless story, wasn't it? 14 A. Well, it wouldn't be as good, but it wouldn't be 15 entirely useless. 16 Q. But you didn't in fact proceed down that road because 17 when the women concerned, to use the language of 18 Mr Justice Eady, resisted these blandishments, did you 19 publish a story with their faces exposed? 20 A. No, we didn't, but again, that wouldn't be my decision. 21 That would be the editor's decision. 22 Q. Because it was a useless story, wasn't it? 23 A. I don't know what the reason was behind him not printing 24 the story. 25 Q. It's pretty obvious it was a useless story and that's 97 1 why it wasn't published. What you wanted was the much 2 better story, which it's true would involve pixelation 3 and an interview. That's what you really wanted? 4 A. That's true, yes. 5 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Choose a convenient moment, Mr Jay. 6 MR JAY: Yes. I think we'll take it now. 7 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Right. 2 o'clock, please. 8 (1.00 pm) 9 (The luncheon adjournment) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 98 1 2 (2.00 pm) 3 MR JAY: Mr Thurlbeck, may I take you back quickly to 4 paragraph 81 of the judgment of Mr Justice Eady, which 5 is page 31228 of our bundle. It might be easier if you 6 turn it up in the file. 7 A. I have it on the screen here. 8 Q. Just in the email five lines down, the sentence: 9 "Please take a breath before you get angry with me!" 10 It's quite a sort of personal touch. That's not 11 your language, is it, rather than Mr Edmondson's? 12 A. I can't remember. I can't remember now this particular 13 phrase. 14 Q. Okay. 15 A. I can't remember why it was put in. 16 Q. It might be because you were striving to find a degree 17 of apparent empathy as part and parcel of an email which 18 was all yours. Would you accept that possibility? 19 A. I can't remember the precise circumstances of the 20 wording, how the email became to be worded. 21 Q. But you were telling us before lunch, I thought, that it 22 was Mr Edmondson's -- 23 A. Yes, well, you know, I'm telling you the process by 24 which we arrived at the email. Ultimately, as I've 25 said, I accept responsibility for sending it. I accept 1 1 responsibility for discussing how it should be phrased. 2 I accept that. So going forward from that, I put my 3 name to it and I'm quite prepared to hold my hands up to 4 it. 5 Q. Okay. You were asked questions about the email and the 6 surrounding circumstances by leading counsel for 7 Mr Mosley and they're recorded in the judgment at 8 paragraph 87, page 31231. You probably remember this 9 part of the judgment, Mr Thurlbeck, but the answer you 10 gave Mr Justice Eady in answer to cross-examination is, 11 perhaps unsurprisingly, similar if not identical in 12 purport to the answer you've given this Inquiry about 13 the choices you were giving the women. Do you see that? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. At the end of the citation at page 31232, 16 Mr Justice Eady says: 17 "It seems that Mr Thurlbeck genuinely did not see 18 the point that it is elementary that blackmail can be 19 committed by the threat to do something which would not 20 in itself be unlawful." 21 So Mr Justice Eady is making it clear here that his 22 interpretation of the email -- and perhaps it was, 23 frankly, the only reasonable interpretation -- is that 24 this was blackmail. You didn't follow that at the time 25 when Mr Price, Queen's Counsel, was asking you 2 1 questions, but do you see it now? 2 A. Look, I've explained before the break precisely what the 3 logical reasoning was behind sending that email. It was 4 offering the girls a choice. A decision had been made, 5 not by me but by others, that the part 2 was going to be 6 the girls' testimony. We knew who they were, we had 7 photographs of them, and at that time, even though it 8 wasn't published ultimately, at that time, the intention 9 was to publish that story. However poor story that 10 might have been, that was the intention. 11 So to that end I was asked to communicate with the 12 girls and draw to their attention the fact that this 13 would be the story, they would be named, they would be 14 pictured. However, my newspaper wanted to give them the 15 opportunity of giving us full testimony and in return we 16 would be willing to grant them anonymity. That was the 17 reason behind it. 18 Now, Mr Justice Eady and others might indeed 19 interpret that as being a blackmail attempt. 20 Q. Mm. 21 A. We didn't feel it was that at all. We were offering 22 them a way of presenting us with their testimony in an 23 anonymous fashion. 24 Q. I think what you're saying is you still don't genuinely 25 see the point; is that right? 3 1 A. The point that Mr Justice Eady makes is that it could be 2 interpreted as being blackmail. I don't interpret it 3 that way, and we didn't at the News of the World. 4 Nobody at the News of the World -- nobody, from the 5 editor down -- has discussed or accused me of 6 blackmailing these girls. Now, if I had, I would have 7 expected Mr Myler, who was a very fair-minded man, to 8 have reprimanded me severely. We didn't have 9 a conversation about it because it simply was not the 10 case. 11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: This may be very, very important 12 evidence about custom, practice and approach to ethics. 13 Did anybody or did you give any thought to the Article 8 14 rights of the women? 15 A. As I say, we -- the newspaper -- 16 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: No, no, Mr Thurlbeck, I'm sure that 17 question can be answered "yes" or "no". 18 A. There was no discussion about that. 19 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I'm sorry. Did you personally give 20 any thought to the Article 8 rights of the women? 21 A. We didn't -- we were offering them a choice. The 22 Article 8 rights were never discussed, were never 23 mentioned in any discussions that I had. I was asked to 24 communicate with them, ask them to come on board, give 25 us a testimony in return for anonymity. That is what 4 1 I did. 2 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: And you intended -- this was the 3 idea -- you were going to publish the names, the faces, 4 all the detail about these women? That's what you 5 intended? 6 A. You're saying it's what I intended. I didn't intend to 7 publish. It is not my decision to publish. I am asked 8 to report, and in reporting, I was asked to communicate 9 with the girls to get their testimony in return for 10 anonymity. But it wasn't my intention to publish, but 11 my intention was to speak to them and write an article. 12 There is a big distinction. 13 MR JAY: You had to do all the necessary legwork and 14 additional work to set in chain a process without which 15 no one could publish; isn't that right? 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. The general attitude in News of the World, if one is 18 trying to identify culture, practice and ethics, was 19 that following the judgment of Mr Justice Eady, there 20 was nothing wrong with what you did or anybody else did; 21 is that correct? 22 A. We analysed the story. We wondered whether we'd missed 23 something. We looked at the evidence again. We saw 24 what we believed then and many believe now to have been 25 very strong Nazi overtones in the evidence that we were 5 1 provided with. So during our sort of post-mortem, if 2 you like -- unofficial post-mortem -- we were still 3 convinced, not in a spirit of self-righteousness but in 4 a spirit of what the evidence presented to us, and the 5 evidence was -- the facts spoke for themselves, we 6 thought then and we think now. There was a lice 7 inspection. There was simulated rape. There was 8 beatings of the prisoners. There was the chanting of 9 "We are the Arian blondes". These things, then and now, 10 led to believe that this was strongly influenced by 11 a Nazi theme. 12 Q. Mr Thurlbeck, I've allowed you to give that answer 13 without interrupting, but I must say you haven't 14 answered the question. The question was: 15 "The general attitude in News of the World, if one 16 is trying to identify culture, practice and ethics, is 17 that following the judgment of Mr Justice Eady, there 18 was nothing wrong with what you did or anybody else did; 19 is that correct?" 20 A. It is correct, yes, and nobody questioned me about what 21 I did or how I did it. 22 Q. The attitude, really, was that Mr Justice Eady does not 23 represent a sensible, right-thinking view of the common 24 man, he is out on a limb, we can ignore his judgment. 25 Is that also true? 6 1 A. No, that wasn't the case. We didn't ignore his judgment 2 and we didn't appeal against it. We took his judgment 3 on board. 4 It's fair to say, however, that there was a feeling 5 at the News of the World and there was and is a feeling 6 even across a cross-section of the media that -- and 7 certainly the journalists -- all the journalists that 8 I've spoken to on rival newspapers, broadsheet or 9 tabloid, as well as the man in the street, they've all 10 concluded that there was, in their opinions, a strong 11 Nazi theme. 12 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Mr Thurlbeck, Mr Justice Eady reached 13 a conclusion. 14 A. Yes. 15 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: You, your paper, whether you were 16 involved in the decision or not, decided not to appeal 17 it. 18 A. Yes. 19 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: You could have appealed it. 20 A. Yes. 21 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: The Court of Appeal would have 22 reviewed the facts and would have examined the law. 23 That was open to you. 24 A. Yes. 25 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Right. 7 1 A. I accept that. 2 MR JAY: Instead, there was an application by the 3 News of the World for scoop of the year, wasn't there? 4 A. I understand Mr Myler put the story forward for that 5 award, yes. 6 Q. But as you were the chief reporter and you'd penned the 7 story, he must have raised it with you before he made 8 the application, didn't he? 9 A. Actually, he didn't. 10 Q. He didn't? 11 A. No. 12 Q. It was another decision he made without reference to 13 you? 14 A. No, he didn't consult me on it. The editor decides what 15 stories he's putting forward for awards and he didn't 16 mention it. 17 Q. But maybe it doesn't or didn't surprise you that he made 18 such an application because, from what you're saying, 19 you remain quite proud of this story; is that fair? 20 A. I make no comment on whether I'm proud of it or not. 21 All I say is this: I think we got the facts correct. 22 The facts are indisputable, and I think therefore they 23 speak for themselves. 24 Q. Let's look a little bit more at what Mr Justice Eady 25 said about the facts being correct, because he 8 1 criticises you not merely in relation to those emails 2 I refer to, but also in relation to a transcript of an 3 interview which you asked Woman E to sign. This is 4 paragraph 88 of the judgment at 31232, please, 5 Mr Thurlbeck. 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. The circumstances here is that there was a meeting with 8 Woman E in Milton Keynes on the day before publication 9 of the follow-up article. So that, I think, takes us to 10 5 April 2008; is that right? It's a Saturday, anyway, 11 is it not? 12 A. I believe so. 13 Q. And you presented her with what purported to be 14 a transcript of an interview which you asked her to 15 sign? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Didn't you? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Had there been an interview? 20 A. There had been numerous sort of conversations over the 21 course of a week or so, which had been -- hadn't been 22 recorded because they were done sort of ad hoc as and 23 when. Perhaps in a haphazard unexpected way, she would 24 reveal facts. So I correlated all these facts that 25 I could from memory, put them into a memo and asked her 9 1 if this was a true and accurate reflection of what she'd 2 been telling me, and if so, would she sign it, and she 3 agreed and she did. 4 Q. She signed it, is this right, as Mr Justice Eady 5 records, making no adjustments or corrections? 6 A. I can't remember if she made any corrections. 7 Q. That's what the judgment says. Do you see it? About 8 six lines into paragraph 88? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Then Mr Justice Eady continues: 11 "He [that's you] then subsequently added further 12 material to it, some of which was attributed to Woman E 13 on the article. When challenged by Mr Price about this, 14 he responded that it was all based on telephone 15 exchanges with her over several days and that the 16 interview represented a genuine reflection of what she 17 had told him." 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. "There are unhappily no written notes to confirm this 20 claim, which may be thought surprising for a journalist 21 of Mr Thurlbeck's experience." 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. That's true, isn't it? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Paragraph 89: 10 1 "The interview contained one sentence, however, 2 which was demonstrably false. He attributed to her the 3 following remarks: 'It wasn't a one-off. Max has been 4 hiring us to do this for years. He's addicted to 5 sado-masochistic sex involving Nazis and beatings." This 6 contrasts [I'm reading Mr Justice Eady again] with the 7 contents of paragraph 38 of Mr Thurlbeck's witness 8 statement, in which he said: 9 "'It was clear to me from speaking to Woman E on 10 27 March that the party the next day was the first time 11 she herself was involved with the claimant in a party 12 with any Nazi or military theme.'" 13 So there was a massive discrepancy there, wasn't 14 there? 15 A. I think this is what Woman E told me when I first met 16 her and I'm not quite certain about the second part. 17 I think I'm incorrect, that it wasn't the first time, 18 because she had referred to it before. I think my 19 second statement there is inaccurate. 20 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: The witness statement? 21 A. I think the witness statement is inaccurate. My 22 statement there -- it should not have been "the first 23 time", because she had mentioned to me before that this 24 had happened in the past. 25 MR JAY: One shouldn't overlook, and maybe you are 11 1 overlooking, paragraph 90 of the judgment, 31233, where 2 Mr Justice Eady deals with all of this very carefully, 3 as one would expect an experienced High Court judge to 4 do and that's precisely what he's done. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. "Mr Thurlbeck explained this by saying that Woman E had 7 changed her story between 27 March and the signing of 8 this draft article on Saturday, 5 April." 9 So pausing there, do you remember giving that 10 explanation in court? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. "Such a fundamental shift would surely have rung loud 13 warning bells as to her reliability as a source. 14 Whether this was so or not, he undoubtedly knew that she 15 had known the claimant only for a very short time 16 (a matter of months). It could not, therefore, possibly 17 be true that 'Max has been hiring us to do this for 18 years'. Mr Thurlbeck thought it would be wrong to 19 construe the word 'us' as including Woman E. He thought 20 it should be taken only to convey the impression that 21 the claimant had been employing the group as a whole for 22 years. This seems, in me, to be a disingenuous 23 interpretation of the words. The allegation was plainly 24 false and he must have known it to be false when it was 25 put into the article." 12 1 So you know what Mr Justice Eady is saying. He's 2 saying that you made it up. 3 A. No, I -- 4 Q. Deliberately. 5 A. I didn't make it up at all. If Woman E changed her 6 version of events slightly, you know, this was not an 7 uncommon feature of most people who went through very 8 detailed interviews with me. They would -- some details 9 would change sometimes in the telling, and they would 10 revise what they'd said before, for accuracy. I wasn't 11 overly concerned, from memory -- I mean, it's so long 12 ago I can't precisely remember now, I have to say, but 13 I wasn't overly concerned that there may have been 14 a shifting of emphasis. What I was more concerned about 15 with was what was on the tape when it actually took 16 place, when it actually happened. 17 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But when you've compiled your witness 18 statement, you were doing it for High Court proceedings, 19 which were incredibly important to you and your 20 newspaper. 21 A. Yes. 22 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: So you'd want that to be 110 per cent 23 accurate. 24 A. Yes. 25 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Now you're saying to me it's wrong? 13 1 A. Well, I can't remember the circumstances of why they 2 might differ, you know, from the -- it being the first 3 time to it have happened before. My memory is that 4 she'd said it had happened before. 5 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: And not only is it wrong; you didn't 6 say that to Mr Justice Eady. 7 A. I can't remember now. 8 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I think he probably would have noted 9 it if you had, Mr Thurlbeck. 10 A. Yes. 11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: All right. 12 MR JAY: Mr Justice Eady refers to your journalism, 13 paragraph 170 of the judgment -- you probably remember 14 this -- as "at least casual and cavalier". 15 A. My journalism? 16 Q. In this respect, this story. 17 A. All right. 18 Q. Fair judgment, isn't it, page 31521? 19 A. Mr Justice Eady is entitled to his opinion, but my -- 20 all I would say is this, in defence of this particular 21 story: we were absolutely certain that we got the facts 22 right and nobody has come forward to show me that what 23 I said had happened did not happen. You know, it was 24 a factual account of what went on between those four 25 walls. 14 1 Q. You say "nobody", but the one individual who counts, the 2 individual who'd heard the evidence, seen the tape, 3 judged the credibility and reliability of witnesses, 4 including you, did come to that considered conclusion, 5 didn't he? 6 A. Yes, he did. 7 Q. May I ask you whether you have read and considered the 8 evidence of Mr McMullan, which the Inquiry heard about 9 13 days ago now? Do you have the transcript? 10 A. I read the transcript and I saw it live. 11 Q. The picture he paints, is it one with which you are 12 familiar? 13 A. Which particular aspect? 14 Q. Perhaps I can ask the general question: any of it? Then 15 I'll ask particular questions. You might say, "Well, it 16 completely resonates with my experience", or you might 17 say, "It completely conflicts with my experience." So 18 help us, please. Or maybe it's a bit of both? 19 A. It doesn't reflect my experience of the 20 News of the World at all. My experience of the 21 News of the World is that it was a highly professional 22 organisation. It was staffed by some of the best 23 journalists on Fleet Street, who worked with great 24 diligence and integrity, and continue to do so. 25 I don't -- I was proud to work alongside all of my 15 1 colleagues. I have enormous respect for all of them. 2 You know, there may have been a small caucus of people 3 who gave us a bad reputation now. Unfortunately, the 4 bulk of those very decent journalists have been tainted 5 by that and are now finding it extremely difficult to 6 get work. But I have to say that my experience of 7 working with the vast majority of the people on the 8 News of the World was wonderful. They are an exemplary 9 bunch of people who could work on any newspaper of the 10 world. 11 It has to be said that the News of the World wasn't 12 the biggest selling newspaper in the world for nothing. 13 It was there because it was put together by some of the 14 most gifted journalists of their generation. That might 15 seem a very unfashionable thing to say in the light of 16 what's going on now and the light of recent events, but 17 that was a tiny part of the News of the World's 18 168-year-old history, and I was privileged to be part of 19 that organisation, and I don't recognise the picture 20 that was painted by Paul McMullan. 21 Q. May I seek to draw out different aspects of the picture 22 so that you can comment? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. One point he made -- and this is in transcript for Day 9 25 at page 32. We can make it available to you if you wish 16 1 to see it but let me paraphrase it for you. He said 2 that you had to have published a number of stories 3 a year -- I think he said it was 12 stories -- but if 4 you didn't get enough bylines, the consequence was that 5 you got fired. Is that correct or was that correct -- 6 A. It wasn't part of the News of the World rule book, but 7 there was a kind of an unofficial recognition that 8 bylines were a reasonable performance indicator, and if 9 your byline count was low, then obviously your job would 10 be in jeopardy, but I think that happens on every 11 newspaper. In fact, it does. 12 Q. Public interest, which he deals with first of all at 13 page 39. The question which was asked at line 12 of 14 page 39 in relation to blagging -- the answer was more 15 general. Question: 16 "When you did that, did you give any consideration 17 as to whether or not it would be in the public interest 18 to blag?" 19 Answer: Yes, it was always in the public interest. 20 I mean, circulation defines what is the public interest. 21 I see no distinction between what the public is 22 interested in and the public interest. Surely they're 23 clever enough to make a decision whether or not they 24 want to put their hand in their pocket and bring out 25 a pound and buy it." 17 1 Now, does that represent common thinking at the 2 News of the World? 3 A. No. 4 Q. And why not? 5 A. Well, it's plainly, you know, a travesty of what the 6 public interest is all about. I mean, we all understand 7 that there is a vast difference between the public 8 interest and what the public are interested in. They're 9 two completely different things. 10 The public interest was always something that we 11 would be aware of, that we would discuss. I don't 12 recognise that at all. 13 Q. Although you told us before 2008 it was a consideration 14 which was less punctiliously adhered to? 15 A. No, we were talking about privacy then, weren't we, not 16 the public interest? But no, the public interest 17 features very, very highly on a sort of -- on the 18 yardstick of how we judge whether or not a story goes in 19 the paper. I don't recognise that at all, and frankly 20 it's a million miles away from the truth. 21 Q. So what considerations then did you take into account in 22 assessing the public interest balance? 23 A. In the Mosley case? 24 Q. No, I'm talking more generally. 25 A. More generally? Well, we would look at -- you'd have to 18 1 really give me a kind of specific example of a story 2 here but -- you know, if we were exposing a drug dealer, 3 then we'd have to decide whether or not there was 4 evidence of a crime being committed, and if there was, 5 then clearly it would be in the public interest to 6 reveal the fact that a crime was taking place in 7 a school or a public place or wherever. We'd have to 8 look -- you know, before somebody appeared in the 9 News of the World, there would invariably be a public 10 interest discussion about it. 11 Q. Mr McMullan continued at page 40, line 9: 12 "The reason why the News of the World sold 5 million 13 copies is that there were 5 million thinking people and 14 that's what they wanted to read. That's what drove the 15 paper. We were the mirror to society, the daily mirror 16 in fact." 17 Did that represent your and other people's thinking 18 at the News of the World? 19 A. The readers were very important to us. There's no 20 question about that. But they were important to us in 21 the sense of we had to decide or find out, we had to 22 discover what particular stories they were interested 23 in. In the 1960s/70s, it was crime. In the 1990s, it 24 was royals. In 2000s, it was showbusiness. So we'd be 25 responsive, obviously, to what the public were 19 1 interested in. There's no question about that. 2 But, you know, to say that there was a -- that the 3 public interest and what the public were interested in 4 were somehow blurred is completely false. 5 Q. But you were acutely aware at all material times of the 6 matters which did interest the public, weren't you? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. In that respect, you were a mirror to society, weren't 9 you? 10 A. We had to respond to what our customers, if you like, 11 our readers, wanted to read. But that doesn't mean 12 because they wanted to read it, it gave us carte blanche 13 to publish anything they were interested in. 14 Q. But subject be libel, which you've clearly explained -- 15 the News of the World did not want to get sued for 16 libel -- the only real and practical constraint before 17 the outcome of the Mosley case was whether you assessed 18 whether or not the story was true. That was where your 19 enquiry began and ended, wasn't it? 20 A. No, that's certainly one criteria and one of the most 21 important criteria that we would use, but not the sole 22 criteria. You know, one had to decide whether or not it 23 would be in good taste, for example. Many stories came 24 out where that simply didn't cross that threshold. So 25 regardless of whether or not the public would be 20 1 interested in it or whether it was in the public 2 interest, it simply wouldn't end up on the news list 3 because it was a matter of bad taste or it was unfair, 4 unjust or whatever. But it wasn't the sole criteria 5 that we used. The libel laws weren't the sole sort of 6 barrier to publication, if you like. 7 Q. Did these good taste considerations enter into the 8 equation at all in Mr Mosley's story? 9 A. We felt that it was -- many aspects of it were 10 distasteful, especially what we believed was the 11 sexualisation of the plight of the Jews, and we thought 12 that it was vital that Mr Mosley, who was an elected 13 representative of 100 million people, many of whom could 14 have come from the Jewish faith -- that they had a right 15 to know, regardless of whether the information was 16 tasteful or distasteful. 17 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But, you see, that's a very fine 18 stand, Mr Thurlbeck. What I don't understand, 19 therefore, is why you didn't put it to him, because if 20 it was an unanswerable story, that each one of you was 21 satisfied was rock solid, why make a decision -- and 22 I appreciate you didn't, but why should it not go to 23 him? 24 A. I'm afraid that is really a question you need to address 25 with the editor. 21 1 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Well, I'm asking -- 2 A. Because it wasn't my decision. 3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Do you think it should have been put 4 to him? 5 A. Right. If we'd put it to Mr Mosley, we all know that 6 Mr Mosley would have sought an injunction. 7 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes? 8 A. The likelihood is that there would have been an interim 9 injunction granted until the event -- until the matter 10 had been considered properly by the judge. 11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes, maybe. 12 A. In that event, the story would have leaked out and 13 become the currency and property of our rivals. 14 So this, I imagine, is a decision that an editor would 15 have when he's deciding what to do with regard to 16 presenting, you know, potential -- people who are 17 potentially appearing in the newspaper, but as I say, 18 it's not my -- this is not my opinion. This is not my 19 decision. They were made by others. But you're asking 20 me what my opinion is of what process of thinking they 21 might have gone through -- 22 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: No, no, I actually asked you what you 23 would have done. 24 A. What I would have done? I really don't know. I don't 25 know. Under the circumstances, it's a difficult call. 22 1 If my newspaper had spent a lot of time and maybe 2 thousands of pounds on an investigation and the legal 3 process was going to ensure that my property was going 4 to become the property of a rival, what would I do? 5 It's a very difficult judgment call. If we did that 6 every time, we would simply be handing our rival 7 newspapers with the property that we'd paid very dearly 8 for. 9 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But you had the video. Nobody else 10 had it. 11 A. Yes, but they'd have the -- if this was the matter of an 12 injunction, the newspapers wouldn't need the video 13 because they would have the qualified privilege it would 14 take from a court hearing. They could report it as 15 fact. 16 MR JAY: The injunction hearing would have been in private, 17 wouldn't it? 18 A. Yes, but these things always leak out. 19 Q. That's why your newspaper took such careful steps to 20 limit the people who knew about the story? 21 A. You'll have to ask Mr Myler about that. As I keep 22 referring you back, this is not part of my 23 decision-making process. 24 Q. Although you are fully aware, it seems, from your last 25 series of answers, what the decision-making process was 23 1 in Mr Myler's mind? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. That's true, isn't it? 4 A. I don't know what his decision-making process was. 5 You'll have to ask him. I'm saying this is probably the 6 thought process that he would have gone through. 7 Q. I want to go a little bit further than that, 8 Mr Thurlbeck. I appreciate your apparent diffidence, 9 but had you been the editor it would have been precisely 10 your decision-making process because you wouldn't have 11 wanted to run the risk of losing such a glorious story. 12 That's the truth, isn't it? 13 A. I really don't understand why you want to find out what 14 my opinion would have been if I was the editor because 15 I wasn't the editor. 16 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I'm actually thinking about your 17 ethical approach, Mr Thurlbeck, because you represent 18 one of a number of journalists who are giving evidence 19 from News of the World and that's what I'm required to 20 consider. 21 A. Yes. 22 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: That's the terms of my reference. 23 A. Mm. 24 MR JAY: Humour me to that limited extent and try and 25 extrapolate and enter the world of more generalised 24 1 debate. What would your decision have been? 2 A. On the Mosley case? 3 Q. Mm. 4 A. I don't know. I haven't sat down and seriously 5 considered what I would have done if I was the editor. 6 Q. Okay, Mr Thurlbeck, I'll move on to another point. 7 We've heard that answer. 8 Back to Mr McMullan at page 97 of the transcript, 9 where he talks about the culture in relation to 10 expenses. His evidence was, page 98, line 5: 11 "In some regards, we weren't that well paid. My 12 leaving salary as the deputy features editor was only 13 £60,000 and as a way to bump up salaries, we were given 14 a certain amount of leeway. So I claim, I don't know, 15 another 15, 20 a year, of which 3 was legitimate. Is 16 that what you mean? Is that legal? It's not. I mean, 17 that was just the general ethos." 18 Does that chime well your experience? 19 A. No, it most certainly doesn't. The managing editor at 20 the time, Stuart Kuttner, was the man who signed all our 21 expenses, and a more forensic examiner of newspaper 22 expenses I don't know of. Everything had to be 23 receipted. If there was anything that looked as if it 24 might not be legitimate, it would be returned with 25 a question mark in black felt tip on it and a demand for 25 1 an explanation. I don't know who was signing 2 Mr McMullan's expenses, but it certainly wasn't 3 Mr Kuttner. 4 Q. He gives us one example -- this is page 99 -- where 5 Mr Kuttner himself -- you probably don't know about 6 it -- on getting back from Kosovo and Swiss Air flying 7 out the last plane, so there was a five star hotel in 8 Greece and a first class Swiss air flight. But you may 9 not know much about that; is that correct? 10 The picture you're painting, is this right, is 11 entirely different? It's 180 degrees in the other 12 direction, as it were, from Mr McMullan's? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Doesn't chime at all? 15 A. Correct, absolutely. 16 Q. Can I ask you next, please, about the use of private 17 investigators. 18 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Just before you leave Mr McMullan, 19 I'm going to ask, because I think it's only fair: do you 20 know of a reason why Mr McMullan should come along and 21 tell me what you describe is a complete tissue of fairy 22 tale? 23 A. I have no idea whatsoever. It was an enormous surprise 24 to me and my colleagues. It's not a place I recognise. 25 MR JAY: Okay. Use of private investigators. 26 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Can I ask you about Mr Derek Webb. What was your 3 involvement, if any, with him? 4 A. He would be employed to observe people, report back to 5 journalists on activities that we might be investigating 6 for the paper. He would compile a report. A journalist 7 would then act on that report and investigate further 8 with him or alone. 9 Q. The question was: what was your involvement with him? 10 And your answer was: he would be employed. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. I think the question was more directed to you. did you 13 employ him? 14 A. I did, yes. 15 Q. Do you remember approximately when you first started 16 engaging him? 17 A. I think it was at the beginning of 2002 or 2003, 18 something like that. I'm not quite sure. 19 Q. That matches up with the witness statement he has 20 provided. Can you remember approximately how many 21 assignments you gave him? 22 A. Dozens. I can't put a number on it, but several dozen, 23 I would think. 24 Q. Can you assist us with the type of assignments in 25 general terms? 27 1 A. Yes. We would -- the newspapers, for decades, have been 2 involved in observing human behaviour and reporting on 3 it. Derek Webb was especially good at observing and he 4 would observe and he would compile evidence on all sorts 5 of activities, illegal or otherwise, and he would come 6 back to us and we would act upon whatever he was 7 reporting on. 8 Q. Were your primary surveillance targets politicians and 9 celebrities? 10 A. I would say they formed a large percentage, yes. 11 Q. In relation to celebrities -- take them first -- were 12 the assignments in the main directed to finding out 13 about their private lives? 14 A. Only if their private life came into conflict with their 15 public life. 16 Q. That wasn't the question. 17 A. It was -- 18 Q. Did the assignments in the main relate to their private 19 lives? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. In other words -- 22 A. Their activities. 23 Q. -- their intimate relationships? 24 A. Not always. 25 Q. But usually; is that right? 28 1 A. I wouldn't say usually. Sometimes it could be their 2 intimate relationships or sometimes it could be 3 drug-taking or sometimes it could be maybe fraternising 4 with undesirables, but it was right across the spectrum. 5 Q. Can I take those three in turn. Drug-taking. In cases 6 where Mr Webb was put onto a celebrity in relation to 7 drug-taking, did you usually have evidence that 8 suggested that drug-taking might be involved? 9 A. We'd receive a tip-off and then research it. 10 Q. Is that your usual practice or occasion practice? That 11 you had a tip-off? 12 A. It was always -- 99 per cent of the time, I would say we 13 had -- it was a tip-off to the news desk or to me 14 directly from a contact and then we would research -- 15 you know, we would research that information. 16 Q. In relation to the second category, which I think was 17 personal relationships, what information did you have, 18 in advance of putting the private investigator onto 19 a case, that there was anything worse examining or 20 exploring in relation to the personal relationship of 21 the particular celebrity? 22 A. Well, the information would normally come either to the 23 news desk from an informant on the outside, somebody 24 knowledgeable about the person's life, or it would come 25 direct to me from a contact or a source that I'd 29 1 established over the years. So it would either come 2 from the news desk or from one of my contacts. 3 Q. You didn't, as it were, go on any fishing expeditions? 4 Is that the position, Mr Thurlbeck? 5 A. It was too expensive to go on fishing expeditions, as 6 you say, and it's just not something we would do. 7 Fishing expeditions weren't part of our sort of make-up. 8 We would get information from contacts. That's the way 9 it worked. 10 Q. So fishing expeditions, wholly anathema to the culture 11 and ethos of the News of the World? Is that your 12 evidence? 13 A. Well, it wasn't something that we did, to my knowledge. 14 I certainly received information from contacts and acted 15 upon it, but I can only speak for myself. 16 Q. How often did Mr Webb's activities substantiate the tips 17 that you received, in relation in particular to snippets 18 about sex? 19 A. I can't put a percentage figure on how many ended up in 20 the newspaper. 21 Q. Again, that's not quite the question. How often did his 22 activities substantiate the snippet? 23 A. I would say very often. He was as very, very effective 24 operator. 25 Q. Do you have any idea how often? You're not making this 30 1 up as you go along on that point, are you? 2 A. How many times did I use him? 3 Q. No, how often he actually yielded anything for you. 4 A. Well, it was considerable. I mean Derek Webb's 5 assistance was considerable, so it was a considerable 6 number of times. 7 Q. How many stories, then, approximately, were you able to 8 publish as substantiated by his work? 9 A. I can't put a figure on it, I really can't. Several 10 dozen maybe? Or -- I don't know. I don't have a log of 11 the stories that Derek Webb helped me out on over the 12 years. 13 Q. Does it follow that often he wasn't able to substantiate 14 your story? 15 A. Sometimes he would be put on a story and then, for 16 whatever reason, after two days or a day -- in other 17 words far too soon -- he would be called off in order to 18 do something else for somebody else. So very often the 19 story -- his investigation would not be completed. It 20 would barely be started. 21 Q. What about your third category, which I believe was 22 fraternising with undesirables, in relation to setting 23 Mr Webb onto a case. What do you mean by that? 24 A. An example might be a police officer maybe consorting 25 with known criminals or a teacher consorting with a drug 31 1 dealer or whatever. That sort of basis might be the 2 start of an investigation, but not necessarily the end 3 of it. You know, we'd need to establish the facts. 4 Q. In deciding whether or not to set Mr Webb or someone 5 like him onto a case, what consideration did you give to 6 the public interest? 7 A. Well, we'd have to, you know, decide whether or not the 8 activity that was alleged was worthy of reporting 9 because it was in the public interest. You know, 10 sometimes we might have to investigate further in order 11 to establish whether or not there was a public interest 12 justification. But these are decisions that are made as 13 you're going through an investigation, at the beginning 14 and ultimately at the end. 15 Q. Were these decisions ever documented? The public 16 interest decisions, that is. 17 A. I don't think they were. 18 Q. You don't -- 19 A. No, no, I don't think so. 20 Q. Did you use other private investigators? That's to 21 say -- well, did you use other private investigators as 22 well as Mr Webb? 23 A. Mr Webb was the main private -- I think several had been 24 used over the years by different people at the 25 newspaper, but my -- the person that I dealt with most 32 1 of all was Derek Webb. 2 Q. Do you remember using Mr Whittamore? 3 A. I don't remember but I understand my name is there as 4 having called him several times, many, many years ago, 5 I believe. So yes, I think it's safe to say that I have 6 used him, yes. 7 Q. It's a long time ago now. You probably don't remember 8 the circumstances -- 9 A. I really don't, I don't. 10 Q. Was there any uneasiness in the News of the World -- I'm 11 speaking generally now -- about the use of private 12 investigators, particularly looking at the private lives 13 of celebrities and, on occasion, politicians? 14 A. Well, specifically the use of private eyes was merely an 15 extension of what journalists always do anyway, and that 16 is to observe and report on human behaviour. It so 17 happens that Derek Webb had very specialised skills in 18 this area, which is why he was used as an extension of 19 the journalistic process, if you like. So we didn't 20 have any objections to using Derek Webb. He was -- or 21 concerns. To my knowledge, he didn't do anything 22 illegal, he didn't do anything that would cause us or 23 him to be embarrassed. He was a very, very effective 24 former detective and we were very grateful for his 25 services. He was a particularly good operator and very 33 1 genuine and very above board. 2 Q. There must have been occasions, though, where Mr Webb 3 truly struck gold and came out with an extremely 4 confidential and potentially salacious piece of 5 information which you and others in the office would 6 read before making a decision whether or not to publish 7 the story. Did you never feel any uneasiness about the 8 ethics of doing that? 9 A. About the ethics of what? 10 Q. Reading the type of information I've referred to. 11 Highly confidential. When I say "salacious", I mean 12 intimate. Usually involving sex, to be more explicit. 13 A. Well, you know, if, for example, a trade union leader 14 was being followed by Derek Webb and that trade union 15 leader was having an affair and he was married with 16 another woman and he was staying at a hotel and that 17 hotel was being paid for by his union members, then 18 clearly we would be in a very great public interest 19 scenario. And the salaciousness of it, as you put it, 20 is -- gives us no concern. What we were concerned about 21 is the public interest justification, and that example 22 I've just given you is actually a very real one. So 23 we'd have to weigh up one against the other. The 24 salaciousness in itself is not the justification for 25 writing the story. That is the detail of the story. 34 1 Q. It's sure enough what sells a story, though, isn't it? 2 A. Well, as I say, you know, you'll -- the 5 million, 3 6 million readers of the News of the World, more, you 4 know, obviously bought it for these reasons. They liked 5 the mixture of the stories that went in. 6 Q. If I were to ask you in your own words to define the 7 culture of the News of the World at all material times, 8 give us four or five key bullet points, please. 9 A. The culture was one of thoroughness. There was -- the 10 first thing that struck me when I joined the 11 News of the World in 1988 was -- when I first started 12 working there, was how thorough their journalism was. 13 There was no stone left unturned. They were extremely 14 fastidious journalists and I entered that culture with 15 the belief that we had to make sure the story was 16 correct, and in 26 years in journalism, I've never been 17 successfully sued for libel and I have never had a PCC 18 ruling against me. Our newspaper had it instilled in us 19 that we had to be thorough, that we had to be extremely 20 rigorous in the stories we wrote because the reputation 21 of the newspaper rested upon us getting it absolutely 22 right. That was the overwhelming -- that was the 23 culture there. All my colleagues were off the same 24 breed. They were, by and large, by and large -- 25 I accept that this is not, by any manner of means, 35 1 100 per cent, but it's rather like saying because Nick 2 Leeson brought down Barings, then Barings was therefore 3 a toxic institution. The News of the World was not 4 a toxic institution at all. The people who were there 5 when it was closed were some of the finest journalists, 6 as I've said, that I've ever had the privilege of 7 working with. I did not recognise Paul McMullan's 8 evidence at all, and I think if you were to call before 9 this Inquiry every other journalist on the 10 News of the World, they would say more or less what I am 11 telling you now. That was the culture, one of rigour. 12 Q. We'll take up that offer in part, I think, Mr Thurlbeck, 13 but not obviously in full. You are, I understand, very 14 concerned that I don't go into the detail of the Bob and 15 Sue Firth story; is that right? 16 A. All I would say on this matter is that the PCC 17 investigated the allegations made by this couple -- 18 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Mr Thurlbeck, I think I've said this 19 to you twice. I am looking at the customs, practice and 20 ethics of the press. 21 A. Yes. 22 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: One of the questions I have to 23 consider is whether the PCC provided an effective remedy 24 for those who complained about stories. 25 A. Yes. 36 1 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: So the PCC endorsement is not 2 definitive. 3 A. No, I understand that. All I can say is this: that the 4 adjudicator of these matters in our industry, the only 5 adjudicator, the PCC, did adjudicate in this matter in 6 1998. It examined all their evidence and it examined 7 all my evidence. It exonerated me. It declared that 8 the article was "justified" and in the public interest, 9 end quotes. My editor, deputy editor and managing 10 editor went to review all the Firths' evidence and the 11 conclusion from those three people was that there was no 12 impropriety. 13 Now, beyond that, for the reasons that I've 14 explained today you privately and to your team, I intend 15 to say no more on the matter, with respect. 16 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Well, you can -- I'm not going to 17 force you to respond, but you must understand -- 18 A. I understand, sir. 19 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: -- that I am looking at this issue, 20 along with many, many others, and I want to make sure 21 that you do have an opportunity to respond -- 22 A. Yes. 23 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: -- to complaints and criticisms and 24 concerns that have been articulated to me because I want 25 to be fair. 37 1 A. Yes, I understand. 2 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Now, if you don't want to take the 3 opportunity to do so, then that's up to you. But I do 4 want to give you the chance. 5 MR JAY: So would you like to answer questions on this issue 6 or not? 7 A. I've given you my full statement on the matter, Mr Jay. 8 Q. So that we see the full position, I will read out the 9 PCC adjudication. Whether or not you have an objection 10 to that -- 11 A. No, please go right ahead. 12 Q. It's addressed to Mrs Firth, who was the complainant, 13 obviously. It's dated 13 November 1998. We can make 14 copies available if necessary. 15 "The Commission took the view from the evidence you 16 had provided that the bulk of the article appeared to be 17 accurate and that a sexual service was provided for 18 guests. Under these circumstances, the Commission did 19 not consider that the main allegation in the article 20 referring to sexual services was significantly 21 misleading, though the sexual service referred to was 22 hand relief. However, it made no finding on the 23 complaints regarding the allegations that you had 24 offered full sex or that your husband had had sex with 25 clients." 38 1 Then they go on to say that the use of subterfuge by 2 you was in the public interest. But wouldn't it be fair 3 to say that the Commission ducked the principal 4 allegation, namely that relating to full sex, which you 5 had made in your article? 6 A. As I say, I'm not going to go any further on the 7 statement I've made. My position is clear. I was 8 exonerated by the PCC -- that is the main adjudicator of 9 these matters -- by my editor, my deputy editor and my 10 managing editor. 11 MR JAY: Well, I'm not going to press that any further. 12 Thank you very much for your patience, Mr Thurlbeck. 13 MR SHERBORNE: Sir, there are a number of points to correct 14 in Mr Thurlbeck's evidence. I'll stick to the more 15 significant ones. 16 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Just hold on. Are you applying to 17 ask him any questions? 18 MR SHERBORNE: I'm not, sir, no, but there are a number of 19 factual points that I need to raise. 20 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: By all means, you can do that, as 21 I've allowed others to do. But Mr Thurlbeck needn't 22 stay there. 23 MR SHERBORNE: It's a matter for Mr Thurlbeck. 24 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: No, he's no longer giving evidence. 25 Therefore it's not a matter for him; it's a matter for 39 1 me. Thank you. 2 (The witness withdrew)