1 Friday, 11 May 2012 2 (10.00 am) 3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes, Mr Jay. 4 MR JAY: Sir, the witness today is Mrs Rebekah Brooks, 5 please. 6 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank you. 7 MRS REBEKAH MARY BROOKS (sworn) 8 Questions by MR JAY 9 MR JAY: Your full name, please, Mrs Brooks? 10 A. Rebekah Mary Brooks. 11 Q. May I ask you, please, to look at the large file in 12 front of you and identify the two witness statements you 13 have provided us with. The first is under tab 1, 14 a statement dated 14 October of last year, and secondly 15 under tab 2, a statement dated 2 May of this year. The 16 principal focus today will be on the second statement, 17 but are you content to confirm the truth of both 18 statements? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. I'll attempt a timeline of your career, Mrs Brooks. 21 Tell me if I make any mistakes. You joined 22 News International on the Sunday magazine of the News of 23 the World in 1989; is that right? 24 A. That's right. 25 Q. In 1995 you were appointed deputy editor of the News of 1 1 the World under Mr Hall, in 1998 appointed deputy editor 2 of the Sun under Mr Yelland, and in May 2000, editor of 3 the News of the World, aged 31; is that right? 4 A. Yes, that's right. 5 Q. Editor of the Sun, January, I think, 2003. 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. CEO of News International -- can we be clear of the 8 dates here, because there's been some doubt about it. 9 Was the announcement of your appointment in June 2009 10 but you took up the job formally on 2 September 2009? 11 A. That's correct, yes. 12 Q. Then you resigned on 17 July 2011 -- 13 A. 15th. 14 Q. 15 July. 15 A. (Nods head) 16 Q. So we're completely clear about the constraints bearing 17 on your evidence, you are under police investigation in 18 the context of Operation Weeting, Operation Elveden and 19 also for allegedly perverting the course of justice; is 20 that true? 21 A. It is. 22 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Mrs Brooks, I'm grateful to you for 23 the obvious care you've put into the statements that 24 you've made, and I'm conscious of the difficulty the 25 time must be for you. 2 1 A. Thank you, sir. 2 MR JAY: The other constraints which are borne upon you may 3 relate to documents, including emails and texts, or more 4 particularly their absence. Would you please look at 5 paragraph 30 of your second witness statement, which is 6 our page 02577. 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. You make it clear there that you have had reference to 9 a diary which was kept by your former PA. May we be 10 clear what sort of diary we're talking about? Is it an 11 ordinary desk diary or is it an Alastair Campbell-type 12 diary? 13 A. No, it's definitely not an Alastair Campbell diary. 14 It's my PA's old desk diaries, so the appointments in 15 there are not the complete picture and it's difficult to 16 know whether actually some of the meetings took place. 17 So I've done my best to give you a schedule but it's 18 more of a flavour than precise diary. 19 Q. There's a schedule of appointments but it's not 20 a narrative of what was discussed on any particular 21 occasion? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Is that fair? At paragraph 31, Mrs Brooks, you say that 24 since your departure from News International, you've had 25 no access to your work emails: 3 1 "However, the emails and texts that were on my 2 BlackBerry at the time I left News International were 3 imaged and saved." 4 So does it follow that your work email account was 5 blocked to you in some way or did something different 6 happen? 7 A. No, I think it was blocked on the day I left. 8 Q. When you say the BlackBerry emails and texts were imaged 9 and saved, can you tell us approximately when those 10 events occurred? 11 A. So my BlackBerry was imaged by my legal team when it was 12 returned from the MPS and it contained, I think, about 13 six weeks of emails and less so of texts, but about 14 a month of texts. But we had to image them and we had 15 some problems with that. 16 Q. So approximately when was your BlackBerry returned by 17 the MPS? 18 A. I think about three weeks later, maybe longer. 19 Q. Can you give us a month, please, so that we -- 20 A. Oh sorry, in July. 21 Q. 2011, obviously? 22 A. 2011. 23 Q. So we have, as you explain, emails and texts which only 24 cover a limited period, from the beginning of June 2011 25 until, you say, 17 July. Maybe 15 July or 17 July -- 4 1 A. I think it was the 17th. 2 Q. You also confirm that there is nothing of relevance to 3 this Inquiry in your private accounts, by which of 4 course you're referring to private email accounts; is 5 that right? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. Does it follow then that any emails you might have had 8 with politicians would only have been through your NI 9 email account? 10 A. That's correct. 11 Q. And any text message contact with politicians would only 12 have been on your BlackBerry, which was a work 13 BlackBerry? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. There was no other mobile phone? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Okay. I've been asked to put to you this question: were 18 there any emails or texts from either Mr Cameron or 19 Mr Osborne on your BlackBerry at the time you left 20 News International? 21 A. No, although when we got the image back, there was one 22 from Mr Cameron that was compressed, so -- in June, but 23 there's no content in it. 24 Q. So it's a complete mystery what, if anything, it might 25 contain; is that right? 5 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Did you receive messages of commiseration or support 3 from politicians, in July 2011 in particular? 4 A. Some. 5 Q. Either directly or indirectly; is that right? 6 A. Mainly indirectly. 7 Q. Yes. In order to get a fair picture, since if we focus 8 on one individual alone the picture will logically be 9 distorted, are you able to assist us with from whom you 10 received such messages? 11 A. I had some indirect messages from some politicians, but 12 nothing direct. 13 Q. The indirect ones, who were the politicians? 14 A. A variety, really, but -- some Tories, a couple of 15 Labour politicians. Very few Labour politicians. 16 Q. Can we be a bit more specific, Mrs Brooks? 17 A. Sorry, I'm not trying to be evasive. I received some 18 indirect messages from Number 10, Number 11, Home 19 Office, Foreign Office. 20 Q. So you're talking about secretaries of state, 21 Prime Minister, chancellor of the Exchequer, obviously, 22 aren't you? 23 A. And also people who worked in those offices as well. 24 Q. Labour politicians? How about them? 25 A. Like I say, there were very few Labour politicians that 6 1 sent commiserations. 2 Q. Okay. Mr Blair, did he send you one? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Probably not Mr Brown? 5 A. No. He was probably getting the bunting out. 6 Q. It has been reported in relation to Mr Cameron -- but 7 who knows whether it's true -- that you received 8 a message along the lines of: "Keep your head up." Is 9 that true or not? 10 A. From? 11 Q. From Mr Cameron, indirectly. You'll have seen that in 12 the Times. 13 A. Yes, I did see it in the Times. Along those lines. It 14 was more -- I don't think they were the exact words but 15 along those lines. 16 Q. Is the gist right, at least? 17 A. Yes, I would say so. But it was indirect. It wasn't 18 a direct text message. 19 Q. Did you also receive a message from him via an 20 intermediary along these lines: 21 "Sorry I could not have been as loyal to you as 22 I have been, but Ed Miliband had me on the run." 23 Or words to that effect? 24 A. Similar, but again, very indirectly. 25 Q. So, broadly speaking, that message was transmitted to 7 1 you, was it? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Out of interest, do you happen to know how these 4 messages do enter the public domain? 5 A. We have a very strong free press, who have great access 6 to politicians, so ... 7 Q. We may be coming back to that, but you can't be of any 8 more particularity than that, can you? 9 A. Journalists doing their job. 10 Q. Mr Cameron also said publicly: 11 "We all got too close to News International." 12 Or words to that effect. Was that a view he ever 13 communicated to you personally? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Can I ask you, please, about Mr Murdoch, by way of 16 background. We know he told the House of Lords 17 communications committee -- this was back in 2007 when 18 he was spoken to, I think, in New York -- that he was 19 a traditional proprietor who exercises editorial control 20 on major issues, like which party to back in a General 21 Election or policy on Europe. Do you agree with that or 22 not? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Does it apply as much to the News of the World as the 25 Sun or does that only apply to the Sun? 8 1 A. I think Mr Murdoch is probably more interested in the 2 Sun in terms of political issues, but it also applied to 3 the News of the World as well when I was there. 4 Q. Your evidence to the self-same committee, question 1461: 5 "I think it would be fair to say that, before any 6 appointment, he knew me pretty well." 7 You'd presumably stand by that, would you? 8 A. Well, particularly before my appointment to editor of 9 the Sun. 10 Q. Yes, 2003, and probably in 2000 when you were appointed 11 editor of the News of the World or not? 12 A. Less so. 13 Q. Then question 1462: 14 "He would be aware of my views, both social views, 15 cultural views and political views." 16 Again, presumably you stand by that or not? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Then you said: 19 "Take Europe, for example. Mr Murdoch was 20 absolutely aware of my views on Europe. I think even 21 before I became editor of the News of the World, maybe 22 even deputy editor." 23 Is that right? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Without delving into this in any great detail, 9 1 presumably you are a Eurosceptic; correct? 2 A. Yes, I suppose so. 3 Q. And politically, your position is fairly similar to 4 Mr Murdoch's, is it? 5 A. In some areas, yes. 6 Q. Which areas do they differ? 7 A. Well, we disagreed about quite a few things, more in 8 margins of it rather than the principles. So, I don't 9 know: the environment, DNA database, immigration, top-up 10 fees, the amount of celebrity in the paper versus 11 serious issues, columnists, the design, the headline, 12 size, the font size, the point -- I mean, you know, we 13 had a lot of disagreements, but in the main, on the big 14 issues, we had similar views. 15 Q. Yes. So on the issue of celebrity against serious 16 issues, where did each of you stand on that? 17 A. I liked more celebrity and he wanted more serious 18 issues. 19 Q. Why did you want more celebrity? 20 A. Well, I liked -- I thought the readers were quite 21 interested in -- you only have to look at the viewing 22 figures of BBC or ITV to see that it's the celebrity 23 programmes, the real life -- the reality programmes that 24 do so well, and I took from those figures that our 25 readers were quite interested in that. He thought there 10 1 was too much of it, although he liked X Factor. 2 Q. In terms of your social and cultural views -- I'm not 3 going to pry into that too much, but are you a strong 4 believer in human rights and the Human Rights Act? 5 A. Not particularly, no. I mean, in its form. Obviously 6 its existence, absolutely, but there were parts of the 7 Human Rights Act that we campaigned against in the Sun 8 when I was there. At one point, the Conservative Party, 9 I think, were going to repeal it and replace it with 10 a British bill of rights. I think that was the case, 11 but I think that's now been dropped. 12 Q. We may come back to that issue in a more specific 13 context. 14 When you were appointed editor of the News of the 15 World in 2000, was that Mr Murdoch's decision? 16 A. I was actually told by Les Hinton that I was going to be 17 made editor of the News of the World and I didn't speak 18 to Mr Murdoch until after that. 19 Q. But was it his decision? 20 A. I think it was Mr Hinton's strong recommendation and -- 21 like I said, I didn't speak to Mr Murdoch until I'd 22 actually taken the job. 23 Q. There was some discussion at the seminars we had 24 in October in relation to the departure of Mr Hall. Are 25 you able to enlighten us as to that at all? 11 1 A. No, I'm sorry. I was at the Sun at the time. 2 Q. Would the editorial line you took, in particular in 3 relation to the Sun, reflect Mr Murdoch's thinking? 4 A. I think, as I say in my witness statement, it really is 5 important to differentiate between Mr Murdoch's 6 thinking, my thinking, the political team's thinking and 7 the thinking of the readers. I mean, I know I spend 8 a lot of time on it in my witness statement but it's to 9 get across the point that it was -- the readers' views 10 were always reflected in any policy or politician or 11 political party. So I know Mr Murdoch, when he gave 12 evidence, he said, "If they want to know what I think, 13 read the Sun editorials", but I don't think he was being 14 totally literal about that. 15 Q. What his evidence was exactly: 16 "If you want to judge my thinking, look at the Sun." 17 Those were the exact words he used. 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Whether it was an ill-guarded remark or not, it's not 20 for me to say, but some might think it was a considered 21 response to a question in fact from Lord Justice 22 Leveson. You'll recall that, won't you? 23 A. I don't think it was ill-guarded. I'm just saying I 24 don't think was literal. 25 Q. Why not, though? 12 1 A. Because there were lots of things in the Sun that 2 wouldn't reflect his views. 3 Q. I think he meant on the big points, not on the minutiae. 4 A. Okay. 5 Q. Would you agree with that? 6 A. I accept that. 7 Q. At paragraph 12 of your witness statement -- I'm now on 8 your second statement -- you give us a thumbnail sketch 9 of what the Sun is, what it represents, what its 10 cultural values are. It embodies an attitude, you say, 11 rather than a particular social class, et cetera. Then 12 you say: 13 "It is sometimes said that the relationship between 14 the Sun and its readers reflects the national 15 conversation. If you wanted to know what the nation was 16 talking about, you would look at the Sun." 17 We have a contrast here. Some would say: if you 18 want to know what Mr Murdoch is thinking, look at the 19 Sun, and then you're saying: if you want to know what 20 the nation's talking about, look at the Sun. Which is 21 correct? 22 A. The one in my witness statement. 23 Q. Why do you say that? 24 A. Because I wrote it and I believe it. 25 Q. What do you mean by "the nation" here? 13 1 A. Well, I think if you accept that the Sun, for many, many 2 years, has been the biggest-selling newspaper in the 3 country and that the Saturday Sun overtook the News of 4 the World, I think, about five years ago, maybe longer 5 actually, in circulation terms. So you have this huge 6 readership. I don't know what the exact figure is 7 today, but we always used a sort of 8 million. The 8 paper next to that is the Daily Mail, which is 9 6 million. So I think I'm basing it on such a large 10 percentage of the British population who would come in 11 contact with the Sun. They might not read it every day, 12 but they would come in contact with the Sun at some 13 point or other. 14 Q. You're addressing a different point, because it assumes 15 that the nation is monolithic or homogeneous, which it 16 isn't. The bigger the readership is, it might be said 17 the more diverse its views are rather than the more 18 singular its views are. Do you see that point? 19 A. I do see that point, and I make it later on again in my 20 witness statement, which is -- and this has been touched 21 on throughout this Inquiry -- actually broadcast media 22 has become more and more influential and more and more 23 important over newspapers, because it's a fact that 24 newspaper circulations in the printed form are 25 declining. So I do accept that. 14 1 It was meant to really say -- if -- for example, you 2 know, the conversation in the pub or the conversation at 3 work. So during the Manchester City/Manchester United 4 clash, you know, that conversation -- the incident that 5 happened there, that would be talked about in the pub 6 and that's what I meant by "national conversation". It 7 wasn't meant to be taken any more literally than that. 8 Q. A reflection then of the sort of debate which you would 9 hear in any pub, dining room table or whatever, but not 10 a reflection of the individual collective views of the 11 readership. Is that a fair description? 12 A. No, not particularly. I think -- no. 13 Q. I'm really leading into paragraph 15, Mrs Brooks, and 14 the myth, which you seek to explode, that newspaper 15 editors or proprietors are an unelected force. Well, 16 pausing there, that's true, isn't it? 17 A. I don't think it is, no. 18 Q. Who elects you, apart from Mr Murdoch? 19 A. We're not elected officials. 20 Q. You're saying it's a myth. But it's a truth, isn't it? 21 Newspaper editors or appropriates are an unelected 22 force, aren't they? 23 A. If you view them as that. I don't view editors as 24 unelected forces. 25 Q. So how do you view them then? 15 1 A. Journalists. 2 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But isn't the point you're really 3 making in paragraph 15 not so much about the unelected 4 force? One could talk about unelected, undemocratic, 5 whatever, if it's relevant. It's that you are shaping 6 and changing government policy to suit your own 7 interests. 8 A. Yes. 9 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Isn't that the myth you're really 10 talking about? 11 A. That was also what I was addressing there, yes. 12 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But there is no doubt -- or perhaps 13 you would disagree? -- that newspaper editors and 14 proprietors are a powerful force. They have a voice, 15 they have a megaphone. 16 A. I think I understand, sir, what you're saying. I think 17 what I'm trying to say is that, particularly for 18 newspapers like the Sun, you have to -- your power is 19 your readership. It's not an individual power. You 20 know, it's a readership power and I think that's really 21 important. 22 I think Tony Gallagher, the editor of the Telegraph, 23 said that if he fell under a bus, you know, the power of 24 his office would go, and I think -- just adding to his 25 point, I think at the Sun, the readers are the most 16 1 powerful. It is their voice that we try and reflect, 2 their injustices, their concerns that we try and tackle, 3 their interests we try and engage in. So I just don't 4 see -- I think -- I can't remember what the question was 5 but I was more reacting to the fact that every day the 6 readers can unelect us as newspapers. 7 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes, we've heard that several times, 8 but I think we discussed yesterday, or certainly in the 9 recent past, the extent to which editors are reactive 10 and the extent to which they can in fact lead opinion. 11 They have to reflect the overall position of their 12 readership; I understand that. They can't suddenly go 13 out on a limb when they know their readers won't follow 14 them, but they are in a position to lead opinion. Would 15 you agree with that? 16 A. I think you can present issues to the readership, yes, 17 and that's part of being an editor. 18 MR JAY: And you present issues with a certain spin, 19 a certain slant, don't you? 20 A. Well, depending on the paper, yes. I mean, you can do. 21 Q. Your paper -- 22 A. I wouldn't say "spin". I would say "attitude". 23 Q. Or perspective then? 24 A. Okay. 25 Q. You mentioned that the Sun, I think, was an attitude 17 1 rather than a particular social class, but maybe that 2 permeates all the way through. 3 When you were editor of the News of the World -- we 4 heard evidence yesterday from Mr Coulson of the degree 5 of contact Mr Murdoch had with his editor then. Would 6 your evidence be similar to Mr Coulson's or different, 7 if I can short circuit it in that way? The amount of 8 contacts or discussions. 9 A. What did Mr Coulson say, sorry? 10 Q. Well, that he phoned -- it varied, but it was on 11 Saturday evenings, if at all. It might be twice 12 a month, it might be less often than that. 13 A. I'm sure that's right at the News of the World, yes. 14 Q. And he was interested in the big stories, was he? 15 A. Occasionally, yeah. I mean, Mr Murdoch's contact with 16 the News of the World was much more limited than the Sun 17 or other newspapers. 18 Q. And when you become editor of the Sun, which is 2003, 19 paragraph 256 your statement, you say you believe that 20 Mr Murdoch was instrumental in your appointment; is that 21 right? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Do you know that to be true or you believe it to be 24 true? 25 A. I know that to be true. 18 1 Q. How often would he speak to you when you were editor of 2 the Sun? 3 A. Very frequently. 4 Q. Give us an idea, Mrs Brooks. 5 A. Well, it wasn't a sort of -- it wasn't a regular 6 pattern. Sometimes it could be every day. Sometimes, 7 if something else was going on around the world, it 8 would be less than that, but very frequently. 9 Q. Even, evidently, when he wasn't in this country; is that 10 right? 11 A. Mainly when he wasn't in the country, yes. 12 Q. It's said that you had a close relationship with 13 Mr Murdoch. Various stories abound. Let's see whether 14 any of them are true. It's said that you used to swim 15 together when he was in London. Is that true? 16 A. No, it isn't. 17 Q. November 2005, we recall that you were arrested for 18 alleged assault on your ex-husband. You recall that, no 19 doubt? 20 A. I do recall it, yes. 21 Q. I think that you'd been to the 42nd birthday party of 22 Matthew Freud that evening, had you? 23 A. I don't know if that was the birth date, but yeah, it 24 was a party, yeah. 25 Q. So, evidently, other members of the Murdoch family would 19 1 have been there, wouldn't they? 2 A. I -- I can't remember. Not particularly, but ... 3 Q. Mr Rupert Murdoch was there, wasn't he? 4 A. No, he wasn't. 5 Q. It's said that you kept him waiting for a breakfast 6 meeting the following morning. Is that bit true? 7 A. No. 8 Q. And that he sent a dress to the police station. Is that 9 bit true? 10 A. No. 11 Q. So this is all fiction then? 12 A. Completely. I don't know -- where is it from? 13 Q. Various sources, but ... 14 A. You need better sources, Mr Jay. 15 Q. Well, confidential sources. They're all in the public 16 domain, actually, but I'm not expressing a view on their 17 reliability. 18 A. I'm sorry -- 19 Q. It may be leading up to a question much later on in 20 relation to all of this. 21 A. Okay. 22 Q. There is evidence, though, I've seen that there was 23 a 40th birthday party for you at Mr Rupert Murdoch's 24 house. Is that correct? 25 A. That is correct. 20 1 Q. Were politicians present on that occasion? 2 A. Yes, some. 3 Q. Mr Cameron and Mr Blair were presumably present, were 4 they? 5 A. It was a surprise party for me, so I'm pretty -- I know 6 Mr Blair was there. I'm not sure if Mr Cameron was. 7 Possibly. 8 Q. There are all sorts of stories as to what the birthday 9 present was, but I'm not going to ask you because it's 10 outside the -- 11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Oh, please. 12 A. You've asked me if I've been swimming with Mr Murdoch. 13 Please ask me about the birthday present. 14 MR JAY: No, I won't. In 2006, you were appointed chief 15 executive officer of News International. 16 A. 2009. 17 Q. 2009. Paragraph 26, pardon me. Was that Mr Murdoch's 18 idea? 19 A. I discussed that appointment with James and 20 Rupert Murdoch. 21 Q. Was it Rupert Murdoch's idea? 22 A. I think it was more James Murdoch's idea in the 23 beginning, but both of them, both of their ideas. 24 Q. Why was that job of interest to you? 25 A. I think I'd been editing the Sun for seven years by 21 1 then, and I was interested in -- very interested, like 2 most journalists are, in looking at the future economic 3 models of journalism and basically how you continue to 4 financially keep, you know, high quality journalism 5 going, and I think the digital age and the iPad and the 6 paywalls, they were all of interest to me and something 7 that I was looking forward to doing. 8 Q. Okay. Now, Mr Mohan was your replacement as editor and 9 I think he was your strong recommendation; is that 10 right? 11 A. He was, yes. 12 Q. Why? 13 A. He'd been my deputy for a few years, so I'd seen the 14 paper that he'd edited in my absence, and also I'd 15 attended a few more business management programmes in 16 the last year of my editorship of the Sun -- a couple of 17 modules at the LSE, some internal management 18 programmes -- and Dominic had had much more time to edit 19 the paper on his own, and I thought he was doing a very 20 good job. 21 Q. In terms of the general political perspective I've 22 mentioned earlier, where you stood vis-a-vis Mr Murdoch, 23 does Mr Mohan stand in more or less the same place or 24 a different place? 25 A. Not entirely -- Dominic is not entirely the same as I am 22 1 or Mr Murdoch, but then none of us are -- you know, we 2 all have different shades of grey. 3 Q. The same colour though; is that right? 4 A. Not necessarily. 5 Q. Okay. July 2011. Were you embarrassed when Mr Murdoch 6 indicated that you were his priority? 7 A. Are you referring to the -- when we -- in the street? 8 Q. Indeed. 9 A. I wasn't at the time, because I didn't think that's what 10 he was saying. I -- he was being asked by many 11 reporters lots of different questions, and I think 12 someone said, "What's your priority", and he looked 13 towards me and said, "This one." I took that to mean he 14 meant as in this issue. It was only the next day when 15 I saw how it could have also been interpreted in the 16 papers that I realised that was the interpretation that 17 had been put on it. So I wasn't embarrassed at the time 18 because I didn't know that that's what he meant. 19 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Oh. 20 MR JAY: Your relationships with politicians. Can we go 21 back to Mr Blair, and we'll do this chronologically. 22 Paragraph 53 of your statement of claim. You say you 23 met him on numerous political and social occasions and 24 these meetings increased in frequency throughout his 25 decade as Prime Minister. You had many formal, informal 23 1 and social meetings with him, "some of which I have been 2 able to detail", and you have also spoken on the 3 telephone on a number of issues. 4 You're giving a picture here of contact which became 5 very frequent; is that fair? 6 A. I think it became more frequent when I became editor of 7 the Sun, but that probably would go for most 8 politicians, although obviously, as you heard from 9 Mr Murdoch, Mr Blair flew out to a News Corp conference, 10 I think in around 1995, and I probably met him shortly 11 after that. So it's -- and then he obviously -- they 12 were in power for ten years, so it's over a very long 13 period of time. 14 Q. I'm sure there wasn't a key moment but an important date 15 was 2003 when you became editor of the Sun. Did you 16 find that your contacts with politicians generally 17 increased from that point in time? 18 A. Yes, I would say so. 19 Q. It's also clear that -- tell me if this is wrong -- that 20 you became friendly with Mr Blair? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Were there text and email exchanges with him or not? 23 A. No, he didn't have a phone or -- mobile phone, or in 24 fact, I think, use a computer when he was 25 Prime Minister. 24 1 Q. So all the telephone contact is logically then only on 2 a landline, is it? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. From his perspective. You say in paragraph 54: 5 "Tony Blair, his senior cabinet, advisers and press 6 secretaries were a constant presence in my life for many 7 years." 8 A. Mm. 9 Q. Why do you think that was? 10 A. I think they made sure it was, and I wasn't unique in 11 that. 12 Q. Why do you think they made sure it was? 13 A. I think you have to look particularly at 14 Alastair Campbell's appointment. I mean, he came from 15 being political editor of the Daily Mirror, and 16 Tony Blair's advisers put a huge store on certain 17 newspapers and I think that they made -- shall we say 18 a shift change from the John Major government into 19 trying to get as much access to the press as possible. 20 I mean, millions of books have been written about this, 21 so it's not a particularly insightful comment but 22 relevant to that question. 23 Q. It's just like the Sun, then, reacting to its readers' 24 wishes. It's you, as an editor, reacting to the 25 politicians' wishes; is that correct? 25 1 A. No, not at all. 2 Q. But the impetus on your narrative is coming from the 3 politicians, not from the press. 4 A. I think -- 5 Q. Which is correct? 6 A. I think the point of New Labour, if you like, embracing 7 the media in a different way was because they felt they 8 had a very big story to tell, at its best, shall we say. 9 They had a very big story to tell about the changes they 10 wanted to make or had made to the Labour Party. On the 11 press' side, me included, were journalists, and access 12 to politicians who can tell us things that we don't 13 know, explain things that are going on, tell us policy 14 that's being developed, all those things that we can 15 report back to our readers -- I mean, that's 16 a journalist's job. 17 Q. Your job, you tell us, is to hold politicians to 18 account. 19 A. Absolutely. 20 Q. How can you do that if they are a constant presence? 21 A. Well, very easily, because you can find out quite easily 22 what's going on and hold them to account for it. 23 A constant presence doesn't mean that you don't hold 24 politicians to account. I think every journalist and 25 every newspaper does that all the time on behalf of its 26 1 readers. 2 Q. It depends if at all the line is crossed, because if 3 a friendship developed or an antipathy develops, then 4 the constant presence is in danger of being abused, 5 isn't it? 6 A. Well, I think if a politician or a Prime Minister ever 7 put a friendship with a media executive or a media 8 company in front of his or her abilities to do their 9 professional duties properly, then that is their 10 failing, and I think if a journalist ever compromised 11 their readership or their role as a journalist through 12 friendship, then that is their failing. So I think it's 13 simply put. 14 Q. Tony Blair and New Labour were arguably masters of spin. 15 What steps, if any, did you take to counteract that? 16 A. First of all, I actually think that Gordon Brown and 17 Charlie Whelan were masters of spin more than Alastair 18 Campbell and Tony Blair. I don't think -- it's often 19 reported that it was Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell, 20 but I think the whole of New Labour engaged in a new 21 way, a more intense way, with the media when they came 22 to power. 23 Q. The question was: what steps, if any, did you take to 24 counteract that? 25 A. Well, I don't think any journalist takes a story from 27 1 a politician or a line from a politician and repeats it 2 verbatim in their newspaper without checking it or 3 analysing it. I mean, the role of a journalist is not 4 to just gather information; it's also to analyse and 5 prove that information. 6 Q. But you weren't disinterested in this, Mrs Brooks, 7 because you were on Mr Blair's side. You just made that 8 clear in the answer you gave a minute ago. Wouldn't you 9 agree? 10 A. I think when you back a political party in the way that 11 the Sun did in 1997 -- I wasn't on the Sun then, but, 12 you know, I was a close observer -- I don't think you 13 back them wholeheartedly. In fact, I think if you look 14 at the Sun's front pages from 1997 to when Tony Blair 15 left in 2007, you would at some point be quite confused 16 that it was actually supporting that party, particularly 17 on Europe but on other issues as well. 18 Q. On the level of personality, the clash that there was 19 between Mr Blair and Mr Brown, which you speak to in 20 your statement, you were on Mr Blair's side, weren't 21 you? 22 A. I think that -- are you talking about the hostilities 23 between Gordon Brown and Tony Blair? 24 Q. Yes, you were talking about it in the first sentence of 25 paragraph 61 your statement. 28 1 A. Right. And what was the question, sorry, Mr Jay? 2 Q. You were on Mr Blair's side, not Mr Brown's side, 3 weren't you? 4 A. What I said in the statement was that in the latter 5 years -- and again, there's been much better political 6 commentary on this from actually many of the books 7 you've asked me to read for this Inquiry, but in the 8 latter years of Tony Blair's prime ministership, the 9 hostilities between him and Gordon Brown got 10 increasingly worse and there did become a sort of 11 Tony Blair camp and a Gordon Brown camp, and on 12 particular issues -- say, for example, the welfare 13 reform bill, which I think they first tried to get 14 through in 2004 -- hostilities between Gordon Brown and 15 Tony Blair were such that it didn't get through that 16 time. We tried again. It was very important for Sun 17 readers. 18 So you would have an insight how those hostilities 19 were affecting the way to govern. So you would have an 20 opinion on them. 21 Q. But whose side were you on, Mrs Brooks? 22 A. Neither. On the side of the readers. It wasn't an 23 automatic given that Alastair Campbell or Charlie Whelan 24 were telling you the truth. It was our job to judge and 25 analyse it. 29 1 Q. You told us you were friends with Mr Blair. Was your 2 relationship with Mr Brown at the same level? Were you 3 friends with him? 4 A. I was actually friends with Sarah Brown, his amazing 5 lady, and -- that was the friendship. So probably not. 6 Q. So you were more friendly with Mr Blair than you were 7 with Mr Brown, weren't you? 8 A. By the end, yes, but not at the beginning. Actually, as 9 Mr Murdoch said in his testimony, he had a very warm 10 relationship with Mr Brown and I would see him -- 11 I would see Gordon Brown quite regularly too. 12 Q. But all the commentators say -- and we make come back to 13 this -- that in relation to this feud, you took the side 14 of Mr Blair and not Mr Brown. Did you or didn't you? 15 A. I think you have to say which part of the feud. There 16 were many, many elements to the feud. For example, in 17 the famous curry house coup, I think we did in fact take 18 Mr Blair's side because the country hadn't been -- was 19 almost on ice because of the hostilities and I felt an 20 injustice on behalf of our readers because policy wasn't 21 getting through. But not always. No, not always. 22 Q. But most of the time, Mrs Brooks? 23 A. I think -- 24 Q. Can we agree on that that? 25 A. I'm reluctant to agree to that because I'm not quite 30 1 sure it's true. You know, let's say 50/50. But at the 2 end, particularly, we were on the side of Mr Blair. 3 Q. So totally disinterestedly, in the fair interests of 4 your readers, you maintained impartiality between them? 5 Is that what you're trying to tell us? 6 A. Impartialities between ... sorry? 7 Q. Mr Brown and Mr Blair. 8 A. I'm sorry, I don't quite -- what is the question? That 9 I ...? 10 Q. That in fact you didn't take either person's side? You 11 played this with an entirely neutral bat, or however you 12 want to put it? 13 A. It wasn't a playground spat. They were the 14 Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We 15 were a newspaper who was looking after the real serious 16 concerns of our readers, so it wasn't that we were -- 17 I would stand in one corner of the playground and 18 Alan Rusbridger would stand on the other and it would be 19 he was on Gordon's side and I was on Tony Blair's. It 20 just didn't work like that. Every story, every feud, 21 every, you know, mediation by John Prescott or Peter 22 Mandelson at the time was analysed by the media in 23 a just and proper way. So I just don't think you can 24 couch it like that. 25 Q. Is it true that in exchange for, generally speaking, 31 1 supporting Mr Blair, the Sun would often be the first to 2 receive scoops, or at least the stories the New Labour 3 government and its spin doctors wished to put out? 4 A. I'd like to think that we were the first to receive 5 scoops, but I think that's down to Trevor Kavanagh and 6 what a great political journalist he is and then Tom 7 Newton Dunn, but we did get a lot of scoops. 8 Q. They weren't fed to you, you think? 9 A. Not all of them were particularly pleasant, so no. 10 Q. Some of them were fed to you, though, weren't they? 11 A. Well, Trevor and I had some good sources. 12 Q. Those close to Mr Blair himself, those were your good 13 sources, weren't they? 14 A. As you said, you don't reveal your sources. 15 Q. Okay. Look at the schedule of meetings with British 16 prime ministers, which is RMB1. 17 A. Would you know what tab that is in, sorry? 18 Q. Yes. 19 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Number 3. 20 A. Thank you. 21 MR JAY: Tab 3. You put in a revised version so -- 22 A. Have we? Okay. 23 Q. I think we need to be absolutely clear about this. 24 You're not putting this forward necessarily as 25 100 per cent complete? 32 1 A. No. 2 Q. Owing to the documents you've told us about, the 3 existence only of a desk diary -- 4 A. It's not even my own desk diary, so ... 5 Q. Some meetings may have been cancelled, some meetings may 6 not have within included. So this should not be seen as 7 other than indicative; is that the way you wish to put 8 it? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. We know that from Alastair Campbell's diary that there 11 was a dinner on 27 April 1997 -- you, your ex-husband, 12 Mr Blair, Mr Campbell -- which was four days before the 13 famous election of 1 May 1997. Do you recall that? 14 A. Not particularly, but I'm sure it's correct. We were 15 following Mr Blair's conference or last conference on 16 education, or we were doing a big number on education in 17 the paper. So I think it was to do with that, but 18 I can't remember. Is it in Alastair's book? I'm 19 sure -- 20 Q. Yes, page 733 of the first volume. Obviously you were 21 going to be discussing what was then 99 per cent likely 22 to happen, namely a huge victory for the Labour Party. 23 Self-evident, isn't it? 24 A. Well, this is 14 years ago. I know there was -- I know 25 there was a meeting at an education rally, so it might 33 1 be the same -- one and the same thing. 2 Q. Okay. When we see an entry such as "Tony Blair lunch", 3 does that mean just Mr Blair or can it mean "and others 4 present as well"? 5 A. I would say that up until quite late in my editorship of 6 the Sun, that most of those dinners will have been 7 attended by political editor and particularly lunches 8 would have been -- and all prime ministers do this to 9 newspaper groups and senior cabinet visitors, is they 10 come into the newsroom and sit down with the editor and 11 the most senior executives and discuss issues of the 12 day. So I think a lot of those would have been that 13 format. 14 Q. Dinners in restaurants? How does that work? 15 A. You see -- 16 Q. Just Mr Blair or other people there? 17 A. In 1999? I doubt that very much. But again, I'm sorry, 18 that is literally what it says in the desk diary. 19 I have probably better notes at News International, but 20 I -- 21 Q. It's just your memory, Mrs Brooks, particularly if you 22 look at the period 2003 to 2007. You'll have memories 23 not of particular events but whether other people were 24 there on occasion or not. 25 A. I mean, like everybody, I'll probably have a better 34 1 recollection of 2003 to 2007 than 1999, which is 13, 14 2 years ago, so. 3 Q. I was asking you about 2003 to 2007. Can you -- 4 A. Which -- 5 Q. I'm not asking you about a particular entry. 6 A. Right. 7 Q. I'm just asking whether a dinner with the Prime Minister 8 in a restaurant might have been one-to-one, or would it 9 always have been with someone else there? 10 A. I think from in that period I, from memory, had about 11 three dinners with Mr Blair on my own. 12 Q. We see one dinner at the home of Matthew Freud and 13 Elisabeth Murdoch. Again, if one reads material online, 14 one would be led to believe that there were frequent 15 occasions when Mr Blair went with you to the home of 16 Mr Freud and Elisabeth Murdoch. Is that correct or not? 17 A. No; once. 18 Q. You can only remember one or you are sure there was only 19 one? 20 A. I'm sorry, I thought your question was that I took 21 Mr Blair to the home of Matthew -- 22 Q. You were there on the same occasion. Whether you're 23 taking him or not, I'm not sure -- 24 A. No, sorry, I will have seen Mr Blair probably much more 25 since he left office in their company, but on occasion, 35 1 yes, he was there. 2 Q. Informally, spontaneously? Did that ever happen? 3 A. No. 4 Q. You say "on occasion". Can you give us a feel for the 5 number of occasions when he was at the home of Matthew 6 Freud and Elisabeth Murdoch when he was Prime Minister? 7 A. I actually think quite few. 8 Q. Quite a few? 9 A. No, few. As in very few. 10 Q. A handful then. Is that what you're telling us? 11 A. Maximum, yes. 12 Q. Can we look at the elections of 1997, 2001 and 2005 as 13 of one piece. Was the support of your newspaper, 14 whether it be the News of the World or the Sun -- I know 15 you weren't editor in 1997 -- the subject of prior 16 discussion with Mr Blair or his advisers? 17 A. I have no idea for 1997. Not in 2001 that I can 18 remember. But in 2005, it was a very difficult time for 19 the Labour Party, and I think -- I am pretty sure it was 20 Michael Howard who was leader of the opposition at that 21 time, and so the Sun newspaper, at the time under my 22 editorship, we were very even-handed during that 23 election process, giving both equal weight to all party 24 policies. So I'm not sure we particularly had 25 a conversation with the Labour Party about access -- 36 1 support. 2 Q. In 2005, though, the Sun did support the Labour Party. 3 That's a matter of record. 4 A. That's right. 5 Q. It changed, of course, in September 2009. 6 A. Mm. 7 Q. But the question was: was the fact of the Sun's support 8 the subject of prior discussion with Mr Blair or his 9 advisors? 10 A. Not that I can remember, no. It wouldn't be -- it 11 wouldn't be that way. In fact, I think in 2005 -- 12 again, it's very difficult. I wish I'd had some access 13 to my notes, but I think in 2005 the Sun -- we left it 14 right to the day, and I think we erected a sort of 15 a Vatican-style chimney on the roof of Wapping and 16 whatever coloured smoke -- sorry, it was funny at the 17 time. It's clearly lost in translation now, but anyway, 18 whatever smoke at the time came up. So we had red smoke 19 and blue smoke. 20 Q. You'd run out of yellow smoke? You made that note to 21 the Select Committee. 22 A. I'm not sure we could have found any yellow smoke at the 23 time. We clearly would have needed it now. I think we 24 left it to that minute. I remember being on the roof of 25 Wapping and looking down and seeing all the press guys 37 1 there waiting for the colour to come out. And -- 2 I didn't see Mr Blair standing there with them, though, 3 waiting. 4 Q. That wasn't the question. The question was a more 5 straightforward one: was the Sun's support the subject 6 of prior discussion -- 7 A. No, sorry, I keep thinking -- I keep saying the same 8 thing. No, I don't remember having a prior discussion 9 with him about it. But I think, if I'm correct in the 10 2005 Vatican chimney, we didn't tell anyone, until we 11 got to the roof of Wapping, what colour was coming out. 12 Q. Did you at least make it clear to Mr Blair and his 13 advisers before that election which aspects of Labour 14 Party policy would be less or more acceptable to your 15 readers? 16 A. There was not a particular discussion about policy but 17 it would be fair to say that leading up to the 2005 18 General Election, there was a huge debate on the next 19 stage of the European constitution and the Sun, the 20 Daily Mail and, I think, the Telegraph were all 21 campaigning quite hard to have a referendum put in the 22 2005 manifesto. And so, yes, that would have been 23 subject of discussion, you know, if there were any 24 meetings pre the 2005 -- I'm not sure if there are any, 25 but ... 38 1 Q. Okay. Just look at one particular article, which is 2 tab 27 in this bundle we've prepared, which was the 3 piece in the Sun in 2005. Do you remember this one, 4 Mrs Brooks? 5 A. Sorry, I'm just trying to -- yes, sorry, I have it now. 6 Q. "Hopes dashed. News is crushing blow to Gordon Brown's 7 chances of becoming prime minister." 8 A. Is there a date on this? 9 Q. No, there isn't because it's printed online. 10 A. Right. 11 Q. But it's printed in 2005. 12 "Mr Blair has confided to close allies over the last 13 two weeks that he intends to lead Labour for five more 14 years and may even fight a fourth election." 15 Was that piece the outcome of a conversation between 16 you and Mr Blair? 17 A. I think the byline will be Trevor Kavanagh, and as I -- 18 but it's not printed on here, and as I said, Trevor and 19 I had some good sources, but I don't think it's fair to 20 reveal who they were. 21 Q. Well, I think you can tell me whether it was Mr Blair 22 himself, whether he'd, as it were, planted this in the 23 Sun with your help. Can you tell us that or not? 24 A. I don't think I can tell you that at all. 25 Q. Okay. 39 1 A. Although I do remember this story, that -- I think some 2 time in 2004 -- and this is going from memory -- 3 Gordon Brown had felt that he had come to an 4 agreement -- I think this is in Andrew Rawnsley's book, 5 I think -- an agreement that he would step down before 6 the 2005 election, and at some point between that 7 agreement in 2004, which I think was during the summer, 8 when they all came back from recess, I think Tony Blair 9 changed his mind and Trevor and I had heard about this 10 and we asked everybody and we got that story. 11 Q. It's also suggested that you passed on material, 12 intelligence -- call it what you will -- gained from 13 your few dinners with Gordon Brown -- you passed that on 14 to Tony Blair. Is that true or not? 15 A. Who suggested that, sorry? 16 Q. It doesn't matter. In the same way as you're not 17 telling me your source, I'm certainly not going to share 18 mine with you. Is it true or not? 19 A. Okay, we'll play that game all day. No, it isn't, and 20 I think your source might be John Prescott. And it's 21 not true. 22 Q. Completely untrue, is it? 23 A. Not true. 24 Q. We can see from this schedule at RMB1 that you had much 25 less contact with Mr Brown when he was Prime Minister 40 1 than you had had with Mr Blair when he was 2 Prime Minister. Would you agree? 3 A. Well, he wasn't Prime Minister for very long, and in 4 2009, the Sun came out for the Tories and contact was 5 very limited after that. 6 Q. It stopped on 30 March 2009. There was a telephone 7 call, and that's the last contact you've recorded. 8 A. When, sorry? Can I just check that date? 9 Q. Yes, 30 March 2009. Do you see that one? 10 A. I can't, but anyway, I know -- I'm not sure that's true. 11 Q. Well, unless the diary is incomplete, it is true, isn't 12 it? 13 A. The diaries are very incomplete, and -- you know, I do 14 want to make this point. They are very incomplete. 15 I will have seen Gordon Brown between 30 March 2009 16 and -- I saw him at the Labour Party Conference 17 in September 2009, so -- but I -- and I remember at 18 least one occasion going to Downing Street. Again, I'm 19 sorry for these diaries that are incomplete, but they're 20 just my PA's desk diaries, so they perhaps won't have 21 everything in. 22 Q. But after 30 March 2009, the Sun was moving inexorably 23 towards supporting the Conservative Party, wasn't it? 24 A. I think the position at the Sun at the time was not an 25 overwhelming support for the Tory Party, but more that 41 1 we had had a few major issues in which we had, on behalf 2 of our readers, particularly on Afghanistan, fallen out 3 with Gordon Brown's government, and I think around March 4 2009 -- it may have been a bit later -- I think that's 5 when Gordon Brown announced that the referendum that had 6 been many promised in the 2005 manifesto on the European 7 constitution, they were going to renege on that promise, 8 and again, I think it was the Mail and the Telegraph and 9 the Sun who -- particularly at the Sun, so I'll just 10 speak to the Sun -- called then for a snap election in 11 the autumn of 2009 because this referendum was 12 a hard-fought battle. The population by far wanted that 13 referendum on the European constitution, and so we had 14 fallen out with each other, but I still saw him from 15 that date. 16 Q. Again, that wasn't really the question at all. By 17 30 March 2009, the Sun was moving inexorably towards 18 supporting the Conservative Party. Is that true or not? 19 A. Sorry, I thought I had said at the beginning, in answer 20 to that question, that I don't think that was quite the 21 way I would describe it, more that we were running out 22 of ways to support Mr Brown's government. 23 Q. Moving inexorably towards withdrawing its support for 24 the Labour Party. Could we agree on that formulation? 25 A. We could. 42 1 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Could I just ask about one sentence 2 in what you've just said? Let me just find it. You 3 spoke of pursuing matters "on behalf of your readers". 4 I'm just wondering what you did to discover the views of 5 your readers, save for those that communicated with you. 6 In other words, if you have millions of readers, how are 7 you identifying their views or are you reading the runes 8 of what you believed the correct approach is, supported 9 by those who are vigorous enough to correspond with you 10 and taking that forward? I'm trying the find the 11 balance here. 12 A. Yes, no, I think on Europe we -- on our European 13 campaign, which had been a long tradition at the Sun way 14 before I became editor but believed in it too -- on 15 particularly the European constitution, we had spent 16 probably since 2005 -- and the sentence that I said then 17 was in 2009 -- we were pretty sure of where our readers 18 stood on that matter. We'd had lots of polls that we'd 19 been done. We'd run petitions in the newspaper. 20 I think both the Mail and the Sun ran phone lines 21 saying, "Call in if you feel this promise should be kept 22 to about the referendum." So there was a lot of 23 feedback from the readers on that particular issue. 24 And on Afghanistan, I think it's fair, through our 25 Help for Heroes campaign, that we are considered to be 43 1 a very pro-armed forces paper and some of the failings 2 in Afghanistan, we were getting an incredible amount of 3 feedback on, not just from the troops on the ground but 4 also from the military here. So we had a pretty good 5 idea on those issues. 6 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes, I've found the sentence now. 7 You said: 8 "We had a few major issues on which we had, on 9 behalf of our readers ..." 10 I'm just wondering whether you are merely a conduit 11 or whether there is a fair amount of what is 12 Rebekah Brooks and/or Trevor Kavanagh and/or some others 13 that's thrown into the mix of deciding how you're going 14 to pursue the matter. 15 A. I think every editor uses his or her own judgment in 16 putting together the paper and what stories or campaigns 17 we should follow and hopefully we get it right. But 18 that is -- it's an instinct but it's also -- and I refer 19 to it in my witness statement, and I don't know if it's 20 the same on other newspapers but we have a particular 21 close interaction with Sun readers. I mean, for the 22 last 11 years, every year I go on holiday on a £9.50 23 caravan park with Sun readers. I take all my executive 24 team. We go through their emails. The post room at the 25 Sun is sort of legendary. It's now an email room, or 44 1 inbox, but the letters that we get through them are 2 always looked at. There's a great sort of culture at 3 the Sun newsroom that the reader is always to be 4 respected. I mean, it's almost a sackable offence to be 5 rude to a reader. We get readers ringing us up asking 6 for directions if they're lost somewhere. We have quite 7 a close -- and I'm sure it's the same on other papers, 8 but I remember when I moved from the News of the World 9 to the Sun, it was one of the things that I noticed the 10 difference in. 11 MR JAY: Can I ask you about your social circle, I hope not 12 intrusively. Is it fair to say that there was a close 13 social circle in existence here: you, Wendi Murdoch, 14 Elisabeth Murdoch, and at one stage Sarah Brown? 15 A. We all knew each other, but we didn't meet as a group 16 like that very often. In fact, I think probably once. 17 Q. Okay. I'm doing this chronologically, so we're onto 18 Mr Cameron now. 19 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Is that convenient just to have five 20 minutes? 21 MR JAY: Yes. 22 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: All right. 23 (11.09 am) 24 (A short break) 25 (11.21 am) 45 1 MR JAY: Mrs Brooks, we're onto Mr Cameron now. According 2 to his biography, in 2005, you actually supported 3 Mr Liam Fox for the Conservative leadership. Is that 4 correct or not? 5 A. I don't think that is correct. I can't -- I don't think 6 the Sun came out for a particular candidate in the 7 leadership. We probably didn't support Ken Clarke 8 because of Europe, but I don't remember actually having 9 a particular line in the paper for the leadership. 10 Q. Okay. Mr Coulson is appointed Director of 11 Communications in or about May 2007. Did you have any 12 involvement in that event? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Can you recall when you first got to hear about it? 15 A. Yes, I can. I think I've written it in my witness 16 statement. I heard about it from Andy Coulson after he 17 had met with George Osborne and I then was told by Andy 18 again that he'd got the job. 19 Q. What was your reaction to that piece of news? 20 A. I probably said, "Well done." 21 Q. That's what you said, but what was your reaction to it? 22 How did you feel about it? 23 A. Well, he'd had to resign from the News of the World and, 24 you know, he'd found another job, a good job, so as 25 a friend I was very pleased for him. 46 1 Q. Were you at all surprised? 2 A. I'd already had the -- I wasn't surprised when he 3 finally got the job because he'd called me with George 4 Osborne, but -- 5 Q. At a slightly earlier stage, when you first heard of it, 6 were you at all surprised that the Conservative Party 7 wanted to appoint Mr Coulson? 8 A. Not really. I mean, journalists are good communicators 9 and Alastair Campbell went to the Mirror. 10 Amanda Platell I think worked for William Hague, Iain 11 Duncan Smith. So there's a long history of journalists 12 going into politics, so it didn't occur to me this was 13 any different. 14 Q. I think your answer is: you weren't surprised at all? 15 A. No. 16 Q. The list of your meetings, which is RMB1. It's a list 17 of meetings with members or leaders of political 18 parties. Do you have that page, Mrs Brooks? 19 A. Yes, I have, yes. 20 Q. For the meeting at Santorini, Greece, which is the 21 bottom of the first page of this list, you put an 22 asterisk by it. You say you don't have a record of this 23 meeting although you do recall meeting Mr Cameron while 24 on holiday with the Murdoch family in Santorini, Greece, 25 in 2008. That's why you've included it in the list, is 47 1 it? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Whose idea was it that Mr Cameron meet with the Murdochs 4 in Greece on this occasion? 5 A. I'm not sure who came up with the idea. I think it was 6 borne out of the fact that Mr Murdoch -- 7 Mr Rupert Murdoch was in Europe that summer, and 8 Mr Cameron was travelling to Europe, and I think the 9 idea came up -- but it was organised through Number 10. 10 Q. There must have been initiatives, though, within 11 News International to make arrangements. Did you know 12 anything about those? 13 A. I knew he was coming, but I think the arrangements were 14 made through Mr Murdoch's office and Number 10. 15 Q. Were you consulted at all in relation to those 16 arrangements? 17 A. No. 18 Q. You were there in Greece, presumably on holiday, with 19 the Murdoch family and there was nothing more to it than 20 that; is that right? 21 A. Yes, it was for Elisabeth Murdoch's birthday. 22 Q. And you presumably met with Mr Cameron on that occasion 23 when he was in Greece, did you? 24 A. I did, yes. 25 Q. Do you remember how long he stayed? 48 1 A. I think it was an afternoon and an evening. I think 2 that's all. 3 Q. Were you witness to any of the conversations which took 4 place, or not? 5 A. Yes, I was witness to one with him and Mr Murdoch about 6 Europe, because we were in Europe. Very general terms. 7 But then he had subsequent other conversations where 8 I wasn't around. 9 Q. So there were a number of conversations, possibly on 10 a number of topics. Is that the picture? 11 A. Well, it wasn't a sort of formal sit-down conversation. 12 However, the one I was witness to was a sort -- 13 I happened to be there when they were talking about 14 Europe. I was brought into the conversation because 15 they were talking about Europe. 16 Q. Was this an occasion you were pleased about or not? 17 A. Well, it seemed to -- it was a very cordial meeting and 18 it went well. Like I say, it lasted for either an 19 afternoon or an evening, so it wasn't particularly long. 20 Q. Because by that point you were quite friendly with 21 Mr Cameron, weren't you? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Because we know from your list that on new year's eve 24 2008, he attended a new year's eve party at your farm, 25 didn't he? Your husband's farm. 49 1 A. Yes, but not at our home. It was my sister-in-law's 2 party. 3 Q. So her home nearby; is that it? 4 A. No, the point I was just trying to make was the Brooks 5 family had a family connection with the Camerons before 6 I came along, so I just wanted to make that distinction. 7 Q. Is the distinction that Mr Cameron is only a friend of 8 the Brooks family, or are you accepting that Mr Cameron 9 became your friend? 10 A. Yes. No, of course I'm accepting that. 11 Q. Looking further down this list, 3 May 2009, lunch at the 12 home of James and Kathryn Murdoch. From that point, of 13 course, there's no evidence that you're meeting with 14 Mr Brown; is that fair? Although you did say that your 15 list may not be complete in relation to Mr Brown. 16 A. I know my list isn't complete. I'm not sure -- I'm sure 17 Gordon Brown and Tony Blair have had to release their 18 social and formal and informal meetings, haven't they? 19 With -- and I'm pretty sure if they have, there will be 20 meetings at Downing Street with Mr Brown from that 21 period in May right up until September. I don't know 22 how many, though. 23 Q. The topic of conversation on 3 May 2009. It's difficult 24 to remember any specific events, of course I understand, 25 but did it cover political issues? 50 1 A. It will have done in general terms. I mean, there were 2 probably lots of other people there at the lunch, but 3 again, May 2009 -- like I say, I'm not quite sure that 4 my memory's correct, but I'm pretty sure that the 5 European constitution debate was, shall we say, at 6 large, as was Afghanistan at the time. So they may have 7 been two of the issues. 8 Q. We know that on 9 September 2009, Mr James Murdoch told 9 Mr Cameron at a drink at the George that the Sun would 10 support the Conservative Party at the next election. 11 The headline on the front page, I think, was on 12 30 September 2009. 13 A. Mm-hm. 14 Q. When did you first know that that shift would take 15 place? 16 A. To the -- to the Conservative party? 17 Q. Yes. I've given you the date when Mr James Murdoch told 18 Mr Cameron that it would happen: 9 September 2009. When 19 did you first know that that shift would take place? 20 A. Well, if we put aside the timing of it, I think probably 21 in the June 2009. Me and Rupert Murdoch and 22 James Murdoch had started to have discussions, because 23 I think by that stage -- and that was post the reneging 24 on the referendum, it was post a campaign for a snap 25 election, and it was -- I think one of my last front 51 1 pages that I edited of the Sun was "Don't you know 2 there's a bloody war on?" The point of it was there 3 didn't seem to be one senior politician, including the 4 Prime Minister, who was willing to address the issues 5 the military were facing out there, and so I think that 6 was around June -- 7 Q. You're moving off the question now. The question was 8 a simple one: when did you first know? You gave me the 9 answer. It was June 2009. You kindly expanded upon it. 10 There were conversations: you, the two Murdochs and 11 Mr Kavanagh. Is that is in a nutshell? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Was any part of the discussion about who was likely to 14 win the next election? 15 A. I think back in June, the main discussion, which is why 16 I tried to give you a little bit of background, so you 17 could understand the context, was that it was more that 18 we had lost things to support Gordon Brown's government 19 on and what did that mean. So there were very initial 20 discussions in June. 21 Q. When those discussions coalesced into a fixed position, 22 which must have arisen by 9 September 2009 by the 23 latest, was any part of the decision based on who was 24 likely to win the next election? 25 A. I'm not sure what the polls were at the time. It was 52 1 much more, in that summer, about our readership and 2 where they stood in terms of the policies that the 3 Labour government -- the bank bailout had been the year 4 before. The debt, the rising debt, so -- the recession. 5 There were lots of issues that our readers were 6 concerned about, and like I say, the main point of 7 summer was the fact that we probably hadn't written one 8 editorial in support of the Labour government for quite 9 some time. So it wasn't as clearcut as -- as the 10 question. 11 Q. I'm not saying it was. The question was: was any part 12 of the discussion related to who was likely to win the 13 next election? 14 A. Well, in general terms, it would have been, but not -- 15 but only a part of it, because I can't remember what the 16 polls were at the time. I think the Tories were in the 17 lead then. But polls are polls. 18 Q. But from your perspective, if it's true that you're 19 mirroring the views of your readers, then by definition 20 you would be interested in how they were going to vote 21 at the next election. Do you see the logic of that? 22 A. I do, and the issue with the Sun, which I think is 23 probably one of the most interesting things about its 24 readership, is the amount of floating voters. So if 25 you're a Mirror reader or a Mirror journalist, you're 53 1 pretty much tied to Labour -- 2 Q. We know all this, Mrs Brooks. 3 A. Yes. So I think that in the Sun the floating voters are 4 quite important. So we would do internal polls and 5 research to where our readers were changing, but the 6 overwhelming feedback from the readership at that time 7 was that they were very unhappy with the lot they had. 8 Q. So we're back to the wider point, whether you are simply 9 the mirror of the opinion of your readers or whether you 10 have any influence at all on the formation of their 11 opinion, which may be a point I'll come back to you. 12 If you look at the list of meetings, there's also 13 a meeting, a dinner, with David Cameron, 21 January 14 2010, again at the home of James and Kathryn Murdoch. 15 Can you remember if anyone else was present? 16 A. I can't, I am afraid. There will have been other people 17 present, maybe people from the office. But not 18 particularly that one. I think we had one dinner where 19 there were some military chiefs there. I'm not sure if 20 that was the one. 21 Q. At that dinner, was there any discussion as to the 22 timing of the Sun's change of support? 23 A. No, we didn't tell anyone the timing. 24 Q. Did Mr Cameron at any stage know the timing? 25 A. Probably he knew it was within a period of time from the 54 1 drink that you referred to that he had with 2 James Murdoch that it would happen, but absolutely not 3 on the timing. 4 Q. Can we see how specific we can be? 5 A. Mm-hm. 6 Q. Was he told that it would be within the party conference 7 season? 8 A. No. I don't think so. 9 Q. What was he told? 10 A. Well, I wasn't there at the drink that he had with 11 James Murdoch, but I think from -- James Murdoch's own 12 evidence is that they had a discussion, which is: "This 13 is what the Sun will probably do." 14 The timing was a matter of discussion with me and 15 the editor of the Sun, Dominic Mohan, and the political 16 team there, and James and Rupert Murdoch. So the timing 17 conversation was not with David Cameron or his advisers. 18 Q. So the News International team, really from the top to 19 editorial level -- 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. -- with you in the middle as CEO, were responsible for 22 the timing of the decision; is that right? 23 A. In terms of the party conference season, yes. 24 Q. Did you play the major role here, Mrs Brooks? 25 A. I was certainly instrumental in it. I mean, ultimately, 55 1 Rupert Murdoch's the boss, but I was instrumental in it, 2 as was Trevor Kavanagh, Tom Newton Dunn and the editor, 3 Dominic Mohan. 4 Q. Final decision made by Rupert Murdoch, but you are the 5 driving force behind it, or not? 6 A. No, I was instrumental rather than the driving force. 7 It was pretty collective in terms of everyone's view, 8 particularly the readership's view, but everyone's view 9 that we were going to sort of distance ourselves from 10 the Labour Party that we'd supported for many years, but 11 as in terms of the timing, it was probably quite a small 12 group. 13 Q. And you were part of that small group? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Of course, the timing was careful inasmuch as it 16 succeeded Mr Brown's speech at that conference, didn't 17 it? 18 A. It did. 19 Q. And so designed, rightly or wrongly, to cause him 20 maximum political damage. Would you agree? 21 A. Well, the discussion on the timing was this, which is it 22 would be terribly unfair at the start of a party 23 conference to say that before hearing what Mr Brown and 24 the senior cabinet ministers had to say. For all we 25 knew, they could have come up with a fantastic policy 56 1 for Sun readers, some taxation -- any -- I mean 2 anything. So I think it was unfair for us to go before. 3 Q. Are you seriously saying that Mr Brown might have said 4 something which caused you, the Sun, to change their 5 minds and go back to plan A? 6 A. No, I'm not seriously saying that. What I'm saying is 7 we felt it was unfair to cloud a party conference in 8 that way. So that was the reason for the timing not 9 being before. I think you heard from Mr Coulson 10 yesterday that the Conservative part, if they'd had 11 their way, they would have liked the endorsement at the 12 beginning of their conference. But the reason -- the 13 main -- the sole reason for -- we knew it was going to 14 be -- we absolutely were ready to do this in that party 15 conference season, but the reason for that night is 16 because Mr Brown's speech, which I can't remember how 17 long it lasted, but the key was that he spent less than 18 two minutes on Afghanistan, and we felt that was the 19 right timing in order to distance ourselves from -- 20 Q. But you must have made this decision before you heard 21 his speech. 22 A. Oh, yes. I'm not -- 23 Q. There was nothing in his speech which made a difference 24 to the timing, was there? 25 A. I was talking more about fairness rather than it was 57 1 going to affect the decision. I thought or we thought 2 it was fair not to do it at the beginning of their party 3 conference. They probably wouldn't see it like that, 4 but at the time it was thought to be the right thing. 5 Q. All these considerations, including, you say, the 6 consideration of fairness, are an indication of how 7 important this decision you were taking was. Would you 8 agree? 9 A. I think from the Sun's point of view it was an 10 incredibly important decision that the Sun made in 1997, 11 after many, many years of Tory support -- 12 Q. Please just keep to the question, Mrs Brooks. The 13 question was about this decision in 2009. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Don't give us ancient history. Focus on this, please. 16 A. No, but ancient history is quite important in this 17 manner because I think you're asking for an explanation. 18 So I think that it was a very important decision and we 19 did give it careful consideration after many years of 20 Labour support. 21 Q. And you knew that the decision would anger certain 22 people, didn't you? 23 A. Well, the Labour Party. 24 Q. Well, obviously, Mrs Brooks. 25 A. Well, who did you mean then? 58 1 Q. I mean individuals within the Labour Party as well. You 2 knew that, didn't you? 3 A. Well, yes. 4 Q. Did you sense in any way that this was the exercise of 5 power concentrated, if not in you personally, at least 6 in a small group of people within News International, 7 who of course you've named? 8 A. I think -- I don't think we ever saw it in those terms, 9 no. 10 Q. But I'm asking you to think about it now and perhaps see 11 it in those terms. 12 A. But I don't think we've ever seen it in those terms. 13 Q. Why not? 14 A. Because rightly or wrongly, I believe and have believed 15 throughout my career that I was -- my main 16 responsibility was to a readership, and that any 17 influence that we could come to bear on their behalf or 18 for their concerns was the most important thing, and 19 that's just the way it was. So I don't think we saw it 20 like that. Yes, in answer to your question, we knew 21 there would be certain individuals in the Labour Party 22 that would not be happy with that decision. 23 Q. This is a decision taken -- you've identified who took 24 it? 25 A. Yes. 59 1 Q. Ultimate responsibility, Mr Rupert Murdoch. 2 Mr James Murdoch was a party to it. You were 3 instrumental, to use your term, and Mr Kavanagh was 4 there as well. Effectively it was those four people, 5 wasn't it? 6 A. And Mr Mohan, the editor. 7 Q. Yes. Was he contributing much to this debate or not? 8 A. Yes, he was. 9 Q. Five of you then, add him as well. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. All five of you in different ways exercising 12 considerable power. Would you agree? 13 A. I think that we were -- the part of me, Mr Kavanagh and 14 Tom Newton Dunn, who was the political editor, and 15 Dominic Mohan, the journalists, I think we were all of 16 a mind that this was the right thing to do for the paper 17 and for our readership. We just didn't see it in those 18 terms, so I'm -- I'm sorry. 19 Q. You don't see the intrusion -- I'll use a different 20 word -- the dissemination of power from within a few 21 people capable of impacting on the opinions of many 22 people? You don't see that as being at least 23 a possibility? 24 A. Well, I can see how you can phrase it like that, and 25 many other critics do so too, but from your own 60 1 perspective, the Sun newspaper has in its history always 2 done sort of quite dramatic endorsements. It's like the 3 paper. It's strong, it's punchy. It tells it as it is. 4 When you reach an opinion, it's pretty obvious. And, 5 you know, from the Vatican chimney of smoke to Kelvin's 6 "Will the last person turn out the lights?", we have had 7 a tradition and a history of being bold and dramatic in 8 our timing when it came to politics. So we just didn't 9 see it in the terms that you're couching it at, although 10 I know that critics did. 11 Q. Mm. We know you had conversations with those close to 12 Mr Brown in relation to the decision. Before I ask you 13 about those, did you try to speak to Mr Cameron before 14 the headline went out? 15 A. No, I didn't. I was busy. 16 Q. Too busy to try and speak to him. Is that it? 17 A. My main concern was to try and speak to Mr Brown. 18 Q. Why was he a higher priority than Mr Cameron here? 19 A. Because I felt it was the right thing to do, to speak to 20 Mr Brown before anybody else. 21 Q. Out of what motive? 22 A. Well, I think general courtesy, but I thought it was the 23 right thing to do, and also Mr Brown and his wife were 24 due to come to the News International party that night 25 and I wanted to get hold of them beforehand. 61 1 Q. Did you leave a series of voicemail and text messages on 2 the mobile phones of Mr Brown and Lord Mandelson? 3 A. I think "a series" is too strong a word. I left 4 a message for both of them, yes. 5 Q. For Mr Brown to speak to you urgently. Was that it? 6 A. Well, I certainly put a request earlier in the afternoon 7 to speak to him. Later in the afternoon, sorry. 8 Q. I know you've seen Lord Mandelson's account, but he 9 eventually did speak to you, didn't he? 10 A. Yes, he did. 11 Q. And there's a slight difference as to, I think, one word 12 which was used, which we'd better not go into. 13 A. What, the "chump" word? 14 Q. Yes. 15 A. That was what he claimed to have said, yes. 16 Q. Was he angry or not? 17 A. Well, depending on how you heard it, "chump" could be 18 quite an offensive word. So he seemed quite angry, but 19 not surprised. 20 Q. No, because, as you said, the tone of your coverage had 21 been unfavourable to the government for some time, 22 hadn't it? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Did you have any conversation with Mr Brown on or 25 shortly after 30 September 2009? 62 1 A. I did have a conversation with Mr Brown, and I think it 2 was in October, rather than that night or that week. 3 Q. So within a week of the -- 4 A. No, I think it was a few weeks after. 5 Q. Why did it take you so long to speak to him? 6 A. Well, I had tried to speak to him on the night, and then 7 I'd spoken to Lord Mandelson instead, and it was clear 8 that there was nothing more to say at that point. 9 Q. Why? 10 A. I don't think he wanted to talk to me. 11 Q. So when you did speak to him eventually, can you 12 remember anything about that conversation? 13 A. I do. I remember it quite clearly because it was in 14 response to -- the Sun had splashed on a letter that 15 Gordon Brown had written to a bereaved mum whose son had 16 died in Afghanistan and he had got some spelling 17 mistakes and addressed the wrong name or something, but 18 the Sun had been particularly harsh to him over it, and 19 I spoke to him either that day or the next day, I can't 20 remember. 21 Q. What, at his instigation or yours? Can you recall? 22 A. He rang me. 23 Q. Can you remember anything about the conversation? 24 A. Yes, I can, because it was -- it was quite tense. 25 Q. Okay, so what was said then? 63 1 A. Well, it was a private conversation, but the tone of it 2 was very aggressive and, quite rightly, he was hurt by 3 the projection and the headline that had been put on the 4 story, and I think, also quite rightly in his defence, 5 he suspected or thought that this may be a way in which 6 the Sun was going to behave, and I assured him that it 7 wasn't, that it was a mistake, the headline was too 8 harsh and this was not the way the paper was going to 9 behave. 10 Q. But you were no longer the editor, of course, were you? 11 A. No, but I had spoken to the editor that morning, very 12 early on, when I saw the headline, and we had discussed 13 it at length and come to that conclusion. 14 Q. So you told Mr Mohan not to repeat that sort of thing, 15 did you? 16 A. I thought that Mr Brown's concerns that the Sun coverage 17 was going to be a personal attack was understandable and 18 I thought that would be wrong. 19 Q. That's what politicians fear most from the Sun, isn't 20 it; personal attack? And it's what the Sun has quite 21 often indulged in, would you agree? 22 A. No. 23 Q. This is a one-off, is it? 24 A. I think the fact that it resulted in such an 25 extraordinarily aggressive conversation between me and 64 1 Mr Brown shows that it actually doesn't happen all the 2 time. I mean, I remember it very clearly for the nature 3 of it and -- no, sorry, I don't accept that. 4 Q. But fear of personal attack from the Sun has been 5 a factor in what politicians do or don't do. You well 6 know that, Mrs Brooks, don't you? 7 A. I think that Neil Kinnock may feel that about the Sun. 8 But I'm not sure that the paper has been like that for 9 a while. 10 Q. For how long? 11 A. I just don't think it concentrated on the personal -- in 12 the main. Occasionally, obviously, depending on the 13 story, that would happen, but in the main, I think the 14 Sun concentrated on the issues and the policy and the 15 campaigns, rather than attacking just for the sake of 16 personal attacks, and I think Mr Brown felt that letter 17 was purely personal attack. 18 Q. Fear of personal attack and a fear of allegedly holding 19 politicians to account by prying intrusively into their 20 personal lives. That has been part of the métier of the 21 Sun, hasn't it? 22 A. Obviously I'm going to object to "prying intrusively". 23 The whole point that newspapers or the press in general, 24 shall we say, hold politicians to account on occasion 25 has been found to be intrusive, but that is not the 65 1 policy. 2 Q. These are aberrations then? Is that what it amount to? 3 A. I think that when a newspaper oversteps the line, 4 that -- I have heard criticism of papers that I have 5 edited and others -- that privacy is a hugely debated 6 topic in every newsroom, but your question, your 7 premise, was that this was the culture, and I was just 8 disputing that. 9 Q. I think as well it's also a manifestation of the power 10 that the Sun and other high circulation newspapers can 11 exercise, often through the personality of the editors. 12 Would you accept that or not? 13 A. Sorry, what was the question? 14 Q. A manifestation of the power high circulation newspapers 15 can exercise, often through the personality of their 16 editors. It is the fear that if the politician departs 17 from what the paper wants, there may be a personal 18 attack. 19 A. I -- I don't think it's fair to say that politicians 20 live in fear of newspapers. They are highly motivated, 21 ambitious people, and MPs don't scare easily. So 22 I don't think that's fair that they live in fear of 23 power and because I believe that the power of a paper is 24 its readership -- I know, but that's what I believe, and 25 that it's its readership -- then that would be like 66 1 saying they're fearful of the leadership or the 2 electoral. 3 Q. This is a sort of recurring theme in what you're saying, 4 that the roots here are the readership, it all flows up 5 through the tree, which is you, and then emitted out, 6 but you have no role in any of this? 7 A. But the reader -- 8 Q. Is that right? 9 A. I suppose that the point of me being here is to give the 10 Inquiry some explanation of how the newspapers I edited 11 worked, and it was true that the readership was at the 12 very centre of that paper, and so going against that 13 readership -- that's why I'm saying that it's not 14 a particular individual editor that has a power; it is 15 the paper. 16 Q. How one can test this: after you have a piece which some 17 would say is personal -- and we're talking about 18 Mr Brown's piece -- what happens? Does your inbox fill 19 up with emails of approbation or is there a deathly 20 silence? What happens? Can you help us? 21 A. Well, in extreme circumstances, going over history, 22 numbers of people can stop by the newspaper. In terms 23 of that particular story, I think I -- I wasn't on the 24 paper at the time, so I think I do remember that being 25 a negative reaction from the readers, although they felt 67 1 that, you know, the Prime Minister should probably take 2 the time to spell the name of a grieving widow 3 correctly, and certainly the bereaved son, and there was 4 some sort of -- overall, they felt that, you know, at 5 least he'd taken the time to do it, and I think that's 6 probably fair. It wasn't an overwhelming reaction but 7 yes, you do get reactions. 8 Q. The one extreme reaction, of course, was Hillsborough, 9 but since then there's never been anything equivalent, 10 has there? Where people actually voted with their feet 11 and didn't buy the paper? 12 A. And Princess Diana's death, actually. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. For the majority -- for a lot of newspapers, yes. So 15 there have been other occasions. 16 Q. Can I just go back to this conversation with Mr Brown. 17 You said it was tense, he was angry. No doubt you say 18 it was also a private conversation. I don't really want 19 to lead you on this, if you understand me, but did he 20 say anything which is relevant to this Inquiry, 21 particularly in the context of evidence we've heard from 22 Mr Murdoch? 23 A. Sorry, what particular piece of evidence from 24 Mr Murdoch? 25 Q. Well, then I'm leading you. I just thought that putting 68 1 it in those terms you'd follow what I was referring to. 2 You followed Mr Murdoch's evidence, did you? 3 A. I did follow Mr Murdoch's evidence. I think Mr Brown 4 was very angry, and I'm not sure there was anything 5 particularly relevant to this Inquiry, although when 6 Mr Murdoch relayed his conversation with Mr Brown -- 7 I cannot remember when that was -- Mr Murdoch also told 8 me the same story that he told you. 9 Q. Okay, well that is of some assistance, but can we be 10 clear: when did Mr Murdoch relay that conversation to 11 you? 12 A. The reason I can't remember the timing is because 13 obviously I had my own rather angry and intense 14 conversation with Mr Brown. However, previous to that 15 conversation, I had also indirectly, again, had 16 similar -- not threats made, but similar sort of veins 17 of reaction -- sorry, similar sort of comments made 18 about the Sun abandoning Labour after 12, 13 years. 19 Hostile comments. So when Mr Murdoch told me his 20 conversation, it didn't surprise me. 21 Q. What did Mr Murdoch tell you? 22 A. Exactly what he told the Inquiry. 23 Q. And the conversation you had with Mr Brown, was that 24 issue returned to or not? 25 A. It was -- like I said, I feel that the content probably 69 1 was a private conversation, but the tone of it -- 2 unless, of course, Mr Brown would like to tell you about 3 it, but he was incredibly aggressive and very angry. 4 Q. It's relevant in this sense, Mrs Brooks. I doubt 5 whether in the end this Inquiry will resolve questions 6 of fine detail, but you were chief executive officer of 7 News International. You might have been fearful that if 8 Mr Brown did win at the next election, of course against 9 the odds, he had it in his power to harm the interests 10 of your company. Do you see that? 11 A. I don't accept it. I see the question, but I -- 12 Q. Which part don't you accept? 13 A. That I didn't think that. 14 Q. So that obvious point didn't cross your radar at all, 15 did it? 16 A. That at not any point in the conversation with Mr Brown 17 did I think: "If he wins, he will go against the 18 commercial interests of credit company"? He was just 19 incredibly aggressive and angry. 20 Q. I'm sure it wasn't a thought which flashed through your 21 mind during the conversation, but when you reflected on 22 the conversation, it would immediately spring to mind, 23 wouldn't it? 24 A. It didn't, no. 25 Q. At no stage in the run-up to the 2010 election did you 70 1 harbour any such fear or concern; is that it? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Why not? 4 A. Because although Mr Brown had said those things to 5 Mr Murdoch and although I had heard similar insinuations 6 from others close to Mr Brown, that there was a sort of 7 a tone of threat about it, the fact is that it just 8 didn't occur to me that they were real or proper or -- 9 I just -- I would just dismiss them, I suppose. 10 Q. Some would say that an elected government, either 11 through executive power conferred on it by mandate or 12 through Parliament in due course, would be quite 13 entitled to bring in media policies which it thought to 14 be in the public interest but which nonetheless did 15 impact on the commercial interests of media companies. 16 Would you agree? 17 A. I'm sure that it is absolute -- of course it's proper 18 for all governments to debate and introduce regulation 19 and policy on the media. Of course I agree with that. 20 Q. I'm just trying to explore your thinking in 2010. You 21 have here Mr Brown allegedly, on your evidence, hostile 22 to News International, and you have Mr Cameron, who 23 isn't. Is that right? I'm not saying he's favourable 24 to News International but he's certainly not hostile, is 25 he? 71 1 A. He wasn't hostile to the Sun. 2 Q. No. It's just how this would weigh in your thinking. 3 After all, you're the chief executive officer now. 4 A. Mm-hm. 5 Q. So that's something that you should be thinking about. 6 Wouldn't you agree? 7 A. It depends if you -- I mean, Gordon Brown is -- if you 8 accept the premise that Gordon Brown is a responsible 9 politician that doesn't put personal prejudice or 10 bitterness before his policy-making decisions -- so if 11 you accept that premise, then the threats are pointless 12 and should be dismissed. However, if he's not that 13 person and he does put those things, then that's 14 a failing in his duty because it's not -- it shouldn't 15 be about his personal prejudices. The Sun supported the 16 Labour Party for many, many years, and then decided to 17 make a change. So it didn't occur to me at the time 18 that Mr Brown and his colleagues would devote their time 19 in -- into carrying out those threats. 20 Q. Of course, it might have been part of the implied 21 settlement between the Sun and the Labour Party, who, 22 after all, were in power for 10 years, that the quid pro 23 quo for support is that the Labour Party would not 24 intrude into areas media policy which could harm the 25 interests of News International and other similar 72 1 organisations. Did that thought process ever pass 2 through your mind? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Okay. I'm going to come back to Mr Cameron. There's an 5 absence, isn't there, of text messages which might have 6 existed? 7 A. Yes, that is correct. 8 Q. Can we see, however, how far we get? It is said that he 9 texted you at certain times, up to a dozen times a day. 10 Is that true? 11 A. No, thankfully. 12 Q. Okay. A handful of times a day? 13 A. No. I mean, I have read this as well, 12 times a day. 14 I mean, it's preposterous. One would hope as leader of 15 the opposition or Prime Minister, he had better things 16 to do and I hope that as chief executive I did. I mean, 17 I would text Mr Cameron and vice versa, on occasion, 18 like a lot of people. 19 Q. Can you give us an idea of frequency? 20 A. Probably more -- between January 2010, maybe -- during 21 the election campaign, maybe slightly more, but on 22 average, once a week. 23 Q. The critical time, as you say, is the election campaign, 24 March to May 2010. 25 A. Yes. 73 1 Q. Can you give us an idea of frequency in relation to that 2 period? 3 A. Well, maybe twice a week. 4 Q. Can you assist us with the content of any of these text 5 messages? 6 A. Some, if not the majority, were to do with organisation, 7 so meeting up or arranging to speak. Some were about 8 a social occasion, and occasionally some would be my own 9 personal comment on perhaps the TV debates, something 10 like that. 11 Q. How often do you think you met with him socially during 12 this period? Let's take the first five months of 2010. 13 Ignore the record, because we agree -- 14 A. No, I'm ignoring the record, but at least it gives me 15 a sort of memory refresh. Sorry, what was the period of 16 time? 17 Q. Let's just take the run-up to the 2010 election, which 18 was, I think, on 6 May 2010. I may be wrong about the 19 exact date. The four or five months before then. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. How often would you meet with him or did you meet with 22 him socially? 23 A. I did meet with him between January 2010 and the 24 election. As you can see, I have no record of it, so -- 25 I think we will have met about -- I mean, obviously it's 74 1 incredibly busy time -- I'd say probably about three or 2 four times. 3 Q. What comments, if any, did you make on his performance 4 in the television debates? Can you remember those? 5 A. Not a particular great length. I think, like everybody, 6 I felt the first one wasn't very good. That was it. 7 Q. Did you text the other two party leaders or not? 8 A. I didn't text Gordon Brown, no. 9 Q. No. 10 A. That would have been -- 11 Q. Not evidently Mr Clegg either, from your demeanour? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Everybody wants to know how his texts are signed off. 14 Can you help? 15 A. In the main -- 16 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Do I? 17 MR JAY: Well, you probably don't, actually, but if I don't 18 ask, people will enquire why the question wasn't asked. 19 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: All right. 20 MR JAY: But I'm happy to be overruled, frankly. 21 A. What was the decision? 22 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Answer the question. 23 A. Oh right, sorry, sir. He would sign them off "DC" in 24 the main. 25 MR JAY: Anything else? 75 1 A. Occasionally he would sign them off "LOL", "lots of 2 love", actually until I told him it meant "laugh out 3 loud", then he didn't sign them like that any more. But 4 in the main, "DC", I would have thought. 5 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Right. We've done that. Move on. 6 MR JAY: We'll move on, okay. Did he make or did you make, 7 rather, phone calls to his constituency home? 8 A. No, actually, no. 9 Q. Did you often pop around to each other's houses in south 10 Oxfordshire? 11 A. No, I think often popping around is definitely 12 overstating the case. 13 Q. How would you put it? 14 A. We occasionally met in the countryside if it was -- 15 because I was there every weekend and he was there in 16 his constituency. 17 Q. It's also said -- and I think this is still in the 18 Times -- was there a meeting at the Heythrop 19 point-to-point ahead of which you texted each other to 20 make sure that you would not be seen together? 21 A. I just thought there might be a -- I have been to the 22 Heythrop point-to-point, because my husband is chairman, 23 and I think Mr Cameron has been too, because it's in his 24 constituency. Was the question did we meet there, 25 sorry? 76 1 Q. Did you text each other beforehand? Do you remember 2 that? 3 A. There have been many point-to-points over the years. 4 Well, it's annual. Was this a particular one? 5 Q. Can you remember this or not, Mrs Brooks? 6 A. Which -- 7 Q. A date has not been put on this. Of course it will be 8 an annual event. 9 A. Where did you say you read it, sorry? 10 Q. It was in the Times on Tuesday. 11 A. Oh, right. I did read that. It was a suggestion in the 12 Times that we -- both were at the same point-to-point 13 but we didn't meet up and there was some reason why that 14 was significant, but it is true that we didn't meet up. 15 I was there very briefly and I think -- but he did meet 16 up with my husband. 17 Q. Did you attend his private birthday party in October 18 2010? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Can I ask you these questions. Others have asked me to 21 put them. Did you have any communication with 22 Mr Cameron following the publication of the Guardian's 23 Milly Dowler hacking story, which was on 5 July 2011? 24 The communication would be about that story. 25 A. I'm sure we discussed it between July 2009 and July 77 1 2011. 2 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: No, Mr Jay didn't ask about 2009. 3 A. Oh, sorry. 4 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: He asked about 2011. In other words, 5 this is the story which came out of the Guardian, which 6 generated the -- 7 A. Right. No, I don't think I did have any direct 8 contact -- sorry, sir, yes, you're right -- on those 9 dates. 10 MR JAY: The other question, which in fact is the question 11 which I think you thought I was asking, but I am going 12 to ask it now: did you discuss the phone hacking 13 allegations against News International with Mr Cameron 14 at any time between the July 2009 Guardian story and 15 your departure from News International? 16 A. Yes, I did. 17 Q. I wouldn't want you to say anything which bears on the 18 current police investigations, you understand -- in 19 other words which relates to anybody in particular -- 20 but in general terms, can you assist us as to the 21 content of those discussions? 22 A. I think on occasion -- you know, not very often, so 23 maybe once or twice, because of the news and because, 24 you know, the phone hacking story was a sort of 25 a constant, or it kept coming up. We would bring it up, 78 1 but in the most general terms. Maybe in 2010, we had 2 a more specific conversation about it, which I think 3 is -- yeah, that's about right. 4 Q. Can you tell us about that one? 5 A. It was what I remember, rather than it being -- the 6 general terms of the story being around or what had 7 happened that day. I'm just very concerned because 8 you -- I thought you were warning me in -- 9 Q. Well, I don't know what you're going to say, Mrs Brooks, 10 but if it's a general conversation and it may relate 11 more to Mr Cameron's state of mind rather than any 12 underlying fact, I think you can probably tell us about 13 it. 14 A. No, I think it was nothing particularly that he wouldn't 15 have said publicly, but he was interested in the latest 16 developments and asked me about them and I said to him 17 what I say to everybody when they asked me for an update 18 on it. It was to do with the amount of civil cases 19 coming in around 2010 and we had a conversation about 20 it. I just particularly remember that. 21 Q. I think the context must be that he was concerned that 22 this went beyond Goodman and Mulcaire; is that fair, 23 without being any more specific than that? 24 A. Probably, yes. It was a general conversation with 25 the -- in late 2010 about the increase in the civil 79 1 cases. 2 Q. The increase in civil cases can only be an indication 3 that this phenomenon is not limited to Messrs Goodman 4 and Mulcaire, or at least that's a very strong 5 inference. Are we agreed about that, without being any 6 more precise than that? 7 A. I think News International has acknowledged that 8 publicly anyway, yes. 9 Q. Can you help us with what Mr Cameron said? 10 A. It was a couple of years ago. It was a general 11 discussion about -- I think he asked me what the update 12 was. I think it had been on the news that day, and 13 I think I explained the story behind the news. No 14 secret information, no privileged information; just 15 a general update. I'm sorry, I can't remember the date, 16 but I just don't have my records. 17 Q. You're focusing on what you told him, which I'm not 18 really interested in -- 19 A. Oh, right. 20 Q. -- with respect. I'm just concerned with what he might 21 have said. That's all. 22 A. I think he asked me -- I think it had been in the news 23 that day -- I think it was about the civil cases. Maybe 24 a new civil case had come out, and he asked me about it 25 and I responded accordingly. 80 1 Q. Was it related to his hiring of Mr Coulson and possibly 2 having second thoughts about that? 3 A. No, not in that instance, no. 4 Q. On any other instance? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Are you sure about that? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. We're really in the dark then as to what these 9 conversations were about, apart from a general -- 10 A. Well, because they were very general. He -- they 11 weren't a sort of -- it was particularly around the 12 civil cases in 2010. Your question was: did we ever 13 speak about it in those two years, and my answer is: 14 yes, we did, very generally, but I do remember in late 15 2010 having a particular -- perhaps a more detailed 16 conversation, because if you go back in the chronology 17 of the phone hacking situation, that was when the civil 18 cases were coming in and being made newsworthy. 19 Q. Okay, can I just ask you about a different topic: the 20 role of the Freuds. We'll just touch on this. You've 21 been a close friend of Elisabeth Freud nee Murdoch for 22 over ten years; is that right? 23 A. Longer, actually, but yes. 24 Q. They have a country house in Oxfordshire as well, don't 25 they? 81 1 A. Yes, they do. 2 Q. About how often have you been in the Freuds' home in the 3 country, your home in the country or the Camerons' 4 constituency home in the company of other politicians? 5 A. So just to distill that to make it easier to answer, how 6 many times I've been in David Cameron's home with other 7 politicians? 8 Q. Yes, or the Freuds' country home or your home. 9 Approximately. 10 A. I'm pretty sure never, David Cameron's home in the 11 countryside. I think once, maybe, George Osborne may 12 have been present at a dinner at my own and I think the 13 only time at Elisabeth Murdoch and Matthew Freud's house 14 was her 40th in -- a couple of years ago. 15 Q. Yes, the 40th party we've got under tab 40, haven't we? 16 It's the last tab. It was in August 2008. 17 A. Oh, sorry. 18 Q. It actually was held at somewhere called Burford Priory. 19 I don't know where that's it, although I detect it might 20 be in Oxfordshire. 21 A. It's in Burford. 22 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Well done. 23 MR JAY: We can see who was there. To be fair, a range of 24 politicians across all parties, but I don't spot many 25 Liberal Democrats. 82 1 A. Are there no Liberal Democrats? No. Right. Yes, I can 2 see the list. 3 Q. Do you know if BSkyB is still a client of Freud 4 Communications? 5 A. I don't. I'm sure -- I mean, you know, Freud 6 Communications is a huge company. I don't know their 7 full client list. I'm pretty sure they haven't 8 represented BSkyB on a corporate level, but I'm sure 9 they will have represented lots of other areas of Sky. 10 I don't know currently, but probably. 11 Q. Can I just ask you some general questions about that 12 bid. When were you made aware that the bid would be 13 made? 14 A. I think before the public announcement, shortly before 15 the public announcement. 16 Q. Before the General Election or after, do you think? 17 A. I think it was before -- yeah, before. I actually can't 18 remember when the public announcement was, but it was 19 shortly before. 20 Q. This was obviously a big moment for News Corp. 21 I appreciate that you're CEO of News International and 22 not News Corp and that distinction is understood, but 23 were there not discussions with either of the Murdochs 24 about the timing of the bid? 25 A. I -- I played no formal role in the BSkyB transaction 83 1 and certainly not the strategy of timing and all that 2 kind of thing. I was made aware that it was on the 3 cards, so to speak, before the public announcement. 4 Maybe six weeks, a couple of months beforehand. 5 Q. Because it would obviously have knock-on effects for 6 News International as well, wouldn't it? 7 A. Well, not particularly, no. No. 8 Q. If News International had no interest in it, why were 9 you told about it? 10 A. It wasn't that we had no interest. Obviously, as part 11 of News Corp, we were interested, but at the time, the 12 way it was presented to me was -- I didn't think it was 13 going to have an effect on News International. 14 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: You've said that you had no formal 15 role in the BSkyB bid, and I quite understand that, 16 because there's no reason why you should, but what about 17 informally? I mean, here, as we've been discussing, you 18 are extremely well connected to very, very senior 19 politicians across the range, and that's part of your 20 job, as you've described. Wouldn't your view as to how 21 it might work out, how it might play, be of extreme 22 value informally, not formally? 23 A. Extreme value to News Corp? 24 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: To News Corp. To your ultimate boss, 25 to Mr Murdoch. 84 1 A. It was never quite put in those terms, but I did have an 2 informal role, as you suggest, mainly after the 3 formation of the -- if you want to call it this for 4 a better word -- the anti-Sky bid alliance, because that 5 directly in some ways brought News International into 6 what was a News Corp transaction because -- the anti-Sky 7 bid alliance was I think the BBC, the Guardian, the FT, 8 the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, British Telecom, 9 Independent -- well, everyone else probably, and once 10 they had formed that alliance and were using their own 11 news outlets to promote their view and also to lobby 12 politicians, then I suppose I probably did get involved, 13 but again, not in the deal or the transaction or the 14 strategy behind it. 15 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: No, it's not the deal or the strategy 16 behind it; it's perhaps the public presentation, perhaps 17 the way in which the criticisms could be countered, 18 perhaps using all your experience borne out of the 19 relationships you've been careful to develop for 20 professional reasons -- and doubtless coincidentally for 21 personal reasons -- over the years. 22 A. I mean, I think in some circumstances that may be true, 23 but in this one it was a quasi-judicial decision and 24 I don't think my input or, as you say, using that was of 25 relevance. Obviously, in light of the anti-Sky bid 85 1 alliance lobbying, that I would waste no opportunity in 2 putting what was probably our case on the deal -- not 3 ours, News International, but ours, News Corp -- but 4 because of the nature of the decision, I'm not sure 5 I was of any -- it was of any value, particularly, apart 6 from a counter voice in a very large opposition. 7 MR JAY: When were you first made aware of the code name 8 Rubicon? Can you recall? 9 A. I think when I was -- I was told about it. I may have 10 heard it in the ether before, but I think I was told 11 what that was. 12 Q. I'm sure you were aware when you were told about it, but 13 I asked when that was. 14 A. Around the same time. 15 Q. A few weeks before; is that it? 16 A. No, maybe a couple of months before. Six, eight weeks 17 before. 18 Q. Do you know who chose that code name? 19 A. No, I don't, but I think it -- I think it might have 20 been James Murdoch, but I don't know that. 21 Q. Obviously someone who enjoys classical allusions. Was 22 it a code name which anybody in government knew about? 23 A. No, I don't think so. 24 Q. Mr Osborne, Mr Hunt, did they know about it? 25 A. No, I never heard them acknowledge that, no. 86 1 Q. If you could look at the list again of RMB1, the 2 meetings with prime ministers, and identify whether the 3 BSkyB bid was discussed on any relevant occasion. On 4 9 October 2010, there was dinner at Chequers with 5 Mr Cameron. 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Might you have raised the bid on that occasion? 8 A. No. I'm pretty sure that was his birthday party. 9 Q. That's the private party we'd covered about 15 minutes 10 ago. 11 A. I -- 12 Q. What about 23 December 2010, which we've already had 13 some evidence about? 14 A. It was -- rather than discussed at that dinner, it was 15 mentioned and I think James Murdoch's testimony said 16 that, and I was aware that it was mentioned, but it was 17 not by any means widely discussed at that dinner. It 18 was mentioned because it was in the news because of -- 19 because obviously Dr Cable had resigned from that role. 20 Q. Were you party to any conversations along the lines of: 21 "Dr Cable has acted in breach of duty. Let's hope the 22 next one, Mr Hunt, does not"? 23 A. Not necessarily, but clearly that was our view, that we 24 hoped that having been always put to us that it would be 25 a very fair process and -- which, of course, we were 87 1 happy with, that it would be fair and democratic, to 2 find out that perhaps some personal prejudice had come 3 into that decision was quite disappointing, so it would 4 have been along those lines, yes, that at least now the 5 decision would be fair. 6 Q. Fair or favourable, do you think? 7 A. Fair. 8 Q. You knew Mr Hunt quite well, didn't you? 9 A. Not as well as others, no. I mean, I'd seen him 10 occasionally, but not particularly. 11 Q. Even informally, you weren't putting out feelers, 12 soundings, to find out whether he'd be onside or not? 13 A. I think he had -- I think he'd posted something on his 14 website saying that he was quite favourable earlier on 15 in the process, before he'd had the -- before the 16 decision went to him. I'm pretty sure that's -- 17 Q. So maybe you knew it anyway? 18 A. Maybe I knew from then, but I don't -- but not from 19 a direct conversation with Mr Hunt. 20 Q. People are also curious -- it may be nothing turns on 21 this, I don't know -- about a further occasion when you 22 may have met with Mr Cameron on Boxing Day 2010. Can 23 you enlighten us there, Mrs Brooks? 24 A. Yes, no, it's -- I've been asked about it before. 25 Mr Cameron attended a Boxing Day mulled wine, mince pie 88 1 party at my sister-in-laws, and I popped in on my way to 2 another dinner and I actually don't have any memory, 3 because I don't think I did even speak to him or 4 Samantha that night, but my sister-in-law tells me they 5 were definitely there for the party, so I would have 6 seen them, but not even to have a proper conversation. 7 Q. So as to the scope of any conversation, which you say 8 wasn't a proper conversation, are you sure it would not 9 have covered the BSkyB issue? 10 A. On? 11 Q. Boxing Day. 12 A. Definitely. Absolutely not. I mean, I don't think 13 there was a conversation. 14 Q. I will come back to certain aspects of BSkyB in due 15 course, but I'd like to cover some general questions now 16 about the subject matter of conversations with 17 politicians, seeking to ignore, to the extent which one 18 can, private and social matters. It's self-evident that 19 your conversations with politicians would embrace the 20 issues of the day; is that fair? 21 A. Sometimes, yes. 22 Q. Would they also embrace issues such as press regulation 23 and media policy? 24 A. Very rarely. I mean, there are some examples of when 25 I have met with a politician particularly to discuss 89 1 that, but they were very infrequent. 2 Q. And the role of the BBC, was that often the subject or 3 sometimes the subject of conversation? 4 A. Not particularly. I mean, from my perspective, Sun 5 readers are pretty pro-BBC. I think in general, wasting 6 in any public sector or taxpayer's money was something 7 that we would address with the BBC on occasions and 8 others, but not in a sort of -- I never really had 9 a conversation with a politician about the sort of 10 top-slicing the licence fee or all that kind of -- just 11 not ... 12 Q. What about issues such as self-regulation of the press 13 and the Press Complaints Commission? Were those ever 14 discussed with politicians? 15 A. Again, probably not enough, but no. 16 Q. Why do you say "not enough"? 17 A. Well, when you asked me the question, I was just 18 reflecting on the fact that I couldn't remember 19 a conversation with a politician where we did discuss 20 the PCC, which is -- 21 Q. What about press ethics? Was that ever the subject of 22 conversations with politicians? 23 A. Well, obviously because of the last couple of years it 24 has been the subject, but -- 25 Q. Can we go back before then? 90 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Because I think the last couple of years is in danger 3 of -- 4 A. Overwhelming -- 5 Q. -- muddying the waters, and I want to speak for 6 generally. Can you help us with that? 7 A. Okay. I think after Operation Motorman and "What price 8 privacy?", there was a sort of a general debate going on 9 in the media in terms of -- particularly in 2003, which 10 pretty much saw the end of the use of private 11 detectives, certainly in the way that they had been for 12 the last decade, and I think that that was something -- 13 Operation Motorman and "What price privacy now?" will 14 have been discussed with the relevant politician at the 15 time. 16 I suppose press ethics particularly came up with 17 Jack Straw. I know that Mr Les Hinton and Mr Murdoch 18 MacLennan and Mr Dacre had spent some time, as well as 19 the rest of the industry, discussing the Data Protection 20 Act and in particular the custodial sentence assigned to 21 journalists. I remember that being a big conversation 22 with politicians and I probably only got involved in 23 that again quite late on. So there was some discussion 24 but not a great deal. 25 Q. You were friends with Mr Blair. Mr Blair we know often 91 1 felt that the Daily Mail was hostile to him and his 2 wife. Was that something that he discussed with you? 3 A. On occasion, yes. 4 Q. Quite often, perhaps? 5 A. Not quite often. It was probably more Cherie Blair that 6 would discuss it with me. 7 Q. I'm not interested in private discussions, but I'm 8 interested in the wider picture of press ethics. What 9 was the concern that was being conveyed to you in this 10 context? 11 A. Well, it wasn't, if you like, press ethics in its most 12 altruistic form, but it was the tone. I think Cherie 13 Blair was concerned that she felt a lot of her coverage 14 was quite sexist, you know, but she's not the first 15 high-profile female to think that about the UK media, 16 and so that would come up on occasion. And she 17 sometimes felt it was quite cruel and personal about her 18 weight and that it sort of concentrated on those things 19 rather than, in her eyes, her charity and the things 20 that she was going to do. But I'm not sure that's what 21 you're asking me because it's not really press ethics; 22 it's more tone. 23 Q. It may be part of the overall picture. We know that 24 Mr Blair described the press as "feral beasts" in 2007. 25 A. Yes. 92 1 Q. Was that a discussion in like vein which he had with 2 you? 3 A. No. Although I think that post Iraq, I think there was 4 some conversations about the 24-hour media, which is, 5 I think, what he was referring to, the sort of the fact 6 that we, the press, have become feral beasts because 7 there was always a constant need for a new story. So 8 occasionally 24-hour news was mentioned in terms of 9 Iraq, but not really. I was surprised when he said 10 that. 11 Q. Well, his speech speaks for itself, but "feral beasts" 12 I think went further than just a temporal point, that 13 the press is there 24 hours a day. It's also to do with 14 the way they behave. Sometimes they're a bit wild and 15 off their leashes. Do you see the analogy? 16 A. I see the analogy, yes. 17 Q. He didn't communicate any of those concerns to you? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Did politicians ever complain to you privately about 20 coverage in the Sun of them? 21 A. Yes, occasionally. You know, there was a -- if 22 people -- if someone felt it was unfair -- I mean, you 23 asked me a question earlier about -- I can't remember 24 how you phrased it, but if I had passed information from 25 Gordon Brown to Tony Blair, I think it was something 93 1 like that, and which I said wasn't true. There's plenty 2 of people doing that, but on occasion they would 3 complain. Tony Blair would often complain about our 4 attitude to Europe and him on Europe, regularly. Many, 5 many Home Secretaries would regularly complain about 6 campaigns or -- that we were doing in the paper. So 7 yes, they did. I think our role was -- I think that was 8 correct because our role was to hold them to account on 9 certain issues. 10 Q. Okay. Some further general questions. Let's see if we 11 can analyse the power play which may or may not be in 12 issue here. It would be fair to say, wouldn't it, that 13 you were very close to Mr Rupert Murdoch, who trusted 14 you implicitly; are we agreed? 15 A. I was close to him, yes. 16 Q. And he trusted you implicitly -- 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Would you also agree that politicians, for whatever 19 reason, wanted to get close to Mr Murdoch to advance 20 their own interests? Are we agreed? 21 A. I think that a lot of politicians wanted to put their 22 case to Mr Murdoch. "Advance their own interests" is 23 probably -- I'm sure most politicians have a higher view 24 of what they were doing, but yes. 25 Q. I'm not suggesting this is wholly selfish, but I think 94 1 we can agree more or less where we are. 2 A. Mm. 3 Q. This may be the more important point: that in order to 4 get close to Mr Murdoch, in practice they had to get 5 close to you. Would you agree with that? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Why not? 8 A. Because it's not true. 9 Q. Would you agree that politicians might perceive that you 10 had influence over Mr Murdoch? 11 A. No, I certainly don't think that, no. I think they -- 12 I was an editor of a newspaper, a very large circulation 13 newspaper, with a wide readership with an exceptional 14 percentage of floating voters, and I do believe that, 15 like other editors in similar situations, politicians 16 did want to get access to the editor of the Sun and his 17 or her team as much as possible. But I don't think that 18 people ever thought to get to Mr Murdoch they had to go 19 through me. I don't think that's correct. 20 Q. Let's see if we can break that down. Politicians 21 certainly wanted to get close to you, to have access to 22 you, didn't they? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And you were someone who Mr Murdoch trusted implicitly, 25 were you not? 95 1 A. Yes. I hope so. 2 Q. And that was well understood by any politician who cared 3 to look. Would we agree? 4 A. Well, I think they thought we had a close working 5 relationship, yes. 6 Q. Didn't you ever examine the motives or thought processes 7 of politicians, why they were wanting to get close to 8 you, and just, even as a piece of self-indulgence, 9 pondered to yourself: "Well, what's going on here? Why 10 are they trying to get close to me?" 11 A. I think I always examined the ulterior motivates of 12 politicians, but I thought it was pretty obvious that 13 they wanted to get to -- I don't know a politician that 14 would turn down a meeting with a senior journalist from 15 any broadcast or any newspaper. So it wasn't -- it 16 didn't need a lot of thinking that politicians wanted to 17 get access to journalists. I mean, that's been the same 18 case for decades, as you -- as you pointed out in your 19 opening statement in this module. 20 Q. But you were in possession of the megaphone which would 21 be of utility to them, and which, if they had access to, 22 logically and self-evidently, might have influence over 23 your readership. That's the truth, isn't it? 24 A. I think the politicians were very keen to put their case 25 to me and my team at the Sun because of the large 96 1 readership of the Sun. 2 Q. Did you regard it as part of your role -- or, if you 3 didn't, perhaps it was an accidental by-product of your 4 role as editor in particular -- to build up friendships 5 with politicians? 6 A. I think some friendships did occur, but I think it's 7 important to put it in the context of friendships. 8 I mean, we all have lots of different friendships. Old 9 friends, new friends, work colleagues, associates. And, 10 you know, through the decade that I was a national 11 newspaper editor and the years I was CEO and the ten 12 years I was a journalist, some friendships were made. 13 But I don't think I ever forgot I was a journalist and 14 I don't think they ever forgot they were a politician. 15 Q. Did you not understand that you did have a degree of 16 personal power over politicians? 17 A. No. Again, I just didn't see it like that. I saw my 18 role as editor of the Sun as a very responsible one and 19 I enjoyed my job and every part of that job, but 20 particularly, as I've said in my witness statement, 21 I enjoyed campaigns and I enjoyed bridging a gap between 22 public opinion and public policy, taking on concerns of 23 the readers. So I don't accept it in the power terms 24 that you keep describing it as. 25 Q. But your real interest is people, isn't it, Mr Brooks? 97 1 You're a very empathetic person. You understand how 2 human beings think and feel, don't you? 3 A. I do like people, yes, and journalists, as a main, do 4 try and be empathetic, otherwise no one would tell them 5 anything. 6 Q. But you understand the potential of, if I can put it in 7 this way, personal alchemy, how you with get people to 8 do or might get people to do what you want, and indeed 9 what they are trying to do with you. Don't you get any 10 of that? 11 A. I'm not sure quite what you mean. 12 Q. I'm not suggest anything sinister here. I'm talking 13 about really the power of human empathy. Some people 14 are empathetic and it's completely lost on them. But 15 it's not lost on you, is it? 16 A. Well, I hope to be empathetic in life to people, yes. 17 Q. I just wonder whether you sense or sensed -- because 18 we're talking about the past now -- the effect you might 19 have had on politicians. Some of them may even have 20 been afraid of you. Is that true? 21 A. I literally -- like I say, I don't see politicians as 22 these sort of easily scared people. Like I say, most of 23 them are pretty strong, ambitious and highly motivated, 24 so ... 25 Q. Let's see if we can just take one case study and see 98 1 whether there's any validity in that case study. 2 A. Okay, right. 3 Q. You remember the McCanns serialisation case? 4 A. Yes, I do. 5 Q. Actually, we have Dr McCann's evidence in relation to 6 this in the bundle at page 57 under tab 6. Do you have 7 that there? We're working from the transcript of the 8 evidence this Inquiry received on 23 November 2011. 9 A. Right, yes. 10 Q. If you look at page 57, line 11, the question I asked 11 was: 12 "You talk about a meeting with Rebekah Brooks ..." 13 Are you on the right page? 14 A. They're not numbered in that way. 15 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: They are, actually. 16 A. 57, is it? At the bottom? 17 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: No, it says 15 at the bottom, but 18 each page has four pages on it. 19 A. Yes, right. I have it, sorry. Thank you, sir. Yes? 20 MR JAY: The question was: 21 "You talk about a meeting with Rebekah Brooks which 22 led to a review of your case, a formal review. Just to 23 assist us a little bit with that, can you recall when 24 that was?" 25 Dr McCann's answer was: 99 1 "I think it's probably worth just elaborating a 2 little bit because it's quite a complex decision-making 3 process. News International actually bid for the rights 4 to the book along with HarperCollins, and one of their 5 pitches was the fact that they would serialise the book 6 across all their titles. We were somewhat horrified at 7 the prospect of that, given the way we had been treated 8 in the past and the deal was actually done with the 9 publishers, Transworld, that excluded serialisation. 10 "Now, we were subsequently approached by 11 News International and Associated to serialise the book, 12 and after much deliberation, we had a couple of meetings 13 with the general manager and -- Will Lewis and 14 Rebekah Brooks and others, and what swung the decision 15 to serialise was News International committed to backing 16 the campaign and the search for Madeleine." 17 Pausing there, there was going to be serialisation 18 in both the Sunday Times and the Sun, I believe. Do you 19 recall that? 20 A. I do. 21 Q. I think this is the year 2010, by which time you were 22 chief executive officer, weren't you? 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. What was the price that you paid for the serialisation? 25 Can you remember? 100 1 A. I can't remember, actually. I -- it's hundreds of 2 thousands of pounds. 3 Q. A million, we've been told. 4 A. No, it wasn't. It wasn't a million. Half a million, 5 maybe. I can't remember. I mean, I can -- there are 6 ways to find out, but I'm not sure it was a million. 7 Q. Okay. I paraphrase the rest of what Dr McCann said, 8 because he couldn't take this issue much further. Your 9 intervention was successful in securing a review of the 10 case. Do you understand that? 11 A. I -- you asked if it was successful and he says it was, 12 yes. 13 Q. Yes. Can you remember anything about that intervention? 14 A. Actually, to just go back, the reason I was involved as 15 chief executive was because it concerned two newspapers, 16 the Sunday Times and the Sun. So if you like, I did the 17 deal with HarperCollins from the corporate point of 18 view, and then left it to the two editors, John Witherow 19 and Dominic Mohan, to decide the different approaches. 20 I had always got on very well with Dr McCann and 21 Kate McCann throughout their incredible traumatic time, 22 and in fact I think they, if asked, would be very 23 positive about the Sun, actually, and in this case, 24 I thought that Dominic Mohan's idea to run the campaign 25 for this review of Madeleine's case by the Home 101 1 Secretary was the right thing for the Sun to do, and 2 I think the Sunday Times did the book. So my 3 intervention was at that point, as in: was the original 4 discussion with Dr McCann. I don't think I spoke to 5 Theresa May directly, but I am pretty sure that Dominic 6 Mohan may have done. 7 Q. Let's see whether we can agree or disagree on what may 8 have happened. When you were discussing the 9 arrangements with the McCanns, you asked if there was 10 anything more they wanted. Do you recall that? 11 A. Maybe, yes. 12 Q. And Dr Gerry McCann said that he wanted a UK police 13 review of the case. Do you remember him saying? 14 A. That I do, yes. 15 Q. Do you remember your answer being: "Is that all?" 16 A. I may have said it slightly more politely: "Is there 17 anything else before we conclude this meeting?", but -- 18 I don't particularly remember saying that, but maybe 19 I did, yes. 20 Q. I'm not suggesting to you that it was impolite; I'm just 21 summarising the gist of what you said. 22 A. Maybe, yes. We had been going through a list of issues 23 that Dr McCann and Kate McCann wanted to be assured of 24 before we went forward with the serialisation, so 25 possibly. 102 1 Q. Did you then take the matter up with Downing Street 2 direct? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Did you not tell Downing Street that the Sun was going 5 to demand a review and the Prime Minister should agree 6 to the request because the Sun had supported him at the 7 last election? 8 A. No, in fact I didn't speak to Downing Street or the Home 9 Secretary about this, but I know that Dominic Mohan or 10 Tom Newton Dunn will have spoken to them. 11 Q. Pardon me? 12 A. They would have spoken directly to either Number 10 or 13 the Home Office. I'm not sure. You'll have to ask 14 them. Probably the Home Office, I would have thought. 15 Q. That the Sun wanted an immediate result and that 16 a letter would be posted all over the front page from 17 the McCanns to the Prime Minister asking for a review, 18 unless Downing Street agreed. Did that happen? 19 A. I think that's how the Sun launched the campaign from 20 memory. It was with a letter, yes. 21 Q. The Home Secretary was told that if she agreed to the 22 review, the page 1 letter would not run. Do you 23 remember that? 24 A. No, I don't. 25 Q. But as the Secretary of State did not respond in time, 103 1 you did publish the letter on the front page. Do you 2 remember that? 3 A. I do remember the Sun kicking off the campaign with 4 a letter, yes. 5 Q. But you don't believe there was any conversation or 6 indeed threat to the Secretary of State? Is that right? 7 A. I'm pretty sure there would have not been a threat, but 8 you'll have to -- we'll have to ask Dominic Mohan, 9 because, like I said, my involvement was to discuss the 10 campaign in the continued search for Madeleine with the 11 McCanns and to do the deal on the book and to -- they -- 12 because I had done so many campaigns in the past, they 13 wanted my opinion, but after that I left it to both 14 editors to execute the campaign. 15 Q. What I've been told is that you then intervened 16 personally, Mrs Brooks. You told Number 10 that unless 17 the Prime Minister ordered the review by the 18 Metropolitan Police, the Sun would put the Home 19 Secretary, Theresa May, on the front page every day 20 until the Sun's demands were met. Is that true or not? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Is any part of that true? 23 A. I didn't speak to Number 10 or the Home Office about the 24 McCanns until, I think, after the campaign had been won, 25 and then it came up in a conversation that I had -- and 104 1 I don't even think directly with the Prime Minister. 2 I think it was one of his team. 3 Q. We can find out in due course whether this is true or 4 not, but I must repeat it to you. It is said that you 5 directly intervened with the Prime Minister and warned 6 him that unless there was a review by the Metropolitan 7 Police, the Sun would put the Home Secretary, 8 Theresa May, on the front page every day until the Sun's 9 demands were met. Is that true or not? 10 A. I did not say to the Prime Minister: "I will put 11 Theresa May on the front page of the Sun every day 12 unless you give me a review." I did not say that. If 13 I'd had any conversations with Number 10 directly, they 14 wouldn't have been particularly about that, but they 15 would have been, if I'd been having a conversation, that 16 the Sun was leading a major campaign with a very strong 17 letter on page 1 to start the campaign, and anyone who 18 knew me would have talked to me -- any politician would 19 have talked to me about it. But I did not say that. 20 I don't know who said I said that, but we're going back 21 to sources again. 22 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Could we ask this: were you part of 23 a strategy that involved your paper putting pressure on 24 the government with this sort of implied or express 25 threat? 105 1 A. I was certainly part of a strategy to launch the 2 campaign in order to get the review for the McCanns, 3 yes. But I think the word "threat", sir, is -- is too 4 strong. 5 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Well, give me another word then for 6 "threat", could you? 7 A. Persuade them? 8 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Persuasion. All right. 9 MR JAY: In your own words, Mrs Brooks, define for us what 10 the strategy was. 11 A. So the McCanns were deeply upset that there hadn't been 12 a review. It seemed incredibly unfair that they hadn't 13 got this review. You only have to read their book to 14 understand the trauma that they go through. So we said, 15 "We'll join forces with you", and Dominic Mohan and his 16 team went away and constructed a campaign. I cannot 17 remember when the idea of the letter came up. It may 18 have even been my idea to do the letter. I can't 19 remember. But the campaign was launched in order to try 20 and convince the government or convince the Home 21 Secretary that a review would be the right thing to do. 22 Q. Do you know how it came about that the review was 23 ordered? 24 A. No, I -- I can't remember, I'm sorry. Such a lot has 25 happened since then, but -- 106 1 Q. You must have been told, Mrs Brooks? 2 A. I remember Dominic Mohan telling me that the review was 3 going ahead. 4 Q. That the Sun had won, in other words? 5 A. He didn't put it in those terms, but he said -- well, 6 actually, I think he said, "The McCanns have won." 7 Q. The Sun headline on 14 May, front page, was that as 8 a result of its campaign, the Prime Minister was 9 "opening the Maddie files". Do you remember that one? 10 A. I remember the Sun winning the campaign, the McCanns 11 winning the campaign, yes. 12 Q. So this is not, you say, a case study then in the 13 exercise of power by you? I'm not suggesting that the 14 end result was right or wrong. Many would say it was 15 right, that there should be a review. I'm just saying 16 the means by which you achieved the objective -- 17 A. But it could be said that a review of Madeleine McCann's 18 case, with everything that had gone on, was the right 19 thing to do. We presented the issue. We supported the 20 McCanns in their determination to get a review. It 21 wasn't new. They'd tried before, before the election, 22 and the election had come into -- and the Sun -- and the 23 Home Secretary clearly thought it was a good idea too, 24 because I'm pretty sure there wasn't -- it wasn't a long 25 campaign. It wasn't like Sarah's Law over ten years. 107 1 I think it was very short. 2 Q. Yes, it didn't take very long because the government 3 yielded to your pressure, didn't they? It took all of 4 about a day. 5 A. Or perhaps they were convinced by our argument. 6 Q. There are always two sides to the coin here, that of 7 course everybody would say, on one level, money should 8 be spent, but the campaign to date, I'm told, has cost 9 £2 million and some would say maybe that money might 10 have gone somewhere else. It's never clearcut, is it? 11 A. What, the Madeleine McCann campaign? 12 Q. No, the operation which started up the review, which was 13 called Operation Grange, I understand. 14 A. Right, sorry. 15 Q. Perhaps you would say all you were doing was reflecting 16 the views of your readers. Is that it? 17 A. I think in that case, it was an issue that we brought to 18 the readers, that we explained to the readers that 19 a review hadn't taken place and that -- we presented the 20 McCanns' story as in the reason why they wanted the 21 review. I think that absolutely chimed with our 22 readership and the campaign was started with a very 23 heartfelt letter and the politicians were convinced our 24 argument, or the McCanns' argument, was correct. 25 Q. It also chimes with the commercial interests of your 108 1 papers because this sells copy, doesn't it? 2 A. Well, campaigns can sell newspapers. I think the 3 serialisation of the book actually was good for 4 circulation for the Sunday Times. I'm not sure how well 5 the campaign was in circulation terms, but they would be 6 a matter of record. It may have been. 7 Q. Can I deal, finally before lunch, with one other example 8 just to get your evidence on this. Mr Dominic Grieve at 9 one point was the Shadow Home Secretary, wasn't he? 10 A. Yes, he was. 11 Q. Do you remember a conversation with him over dinner 12 which you discussed the Human Rights Act? 13 A. I do, yes. 14 Q. To cut to the quick, his position was in favour of the 15 Act and your position was not, if one wanted to distill 16 it into one sentence; is that correct? 17 A. I don't think that's quite right. Similar. His 18 position was that it was -- it was a shadow cabinet 19 dinner, and his position was that David Cameron's 20 promise or, shall we say, the Tory Party's promise to 21 repeal the HRA and replace it with a British bill of 22 rights, I think was the plan at the time, was not -- 23 should not be so easily promised to papers like the Sun 24 and the Mail and the Telegraph, and so it wasn't that he 25 was pro it or against it. He was just making the legal 109 1 point that it was very difficult to do. 2 Q. Were you impressed with him after that conversation? 3 A. Well, as it turned out, he was absolutely right, but at 4 the time -- it was more his colleagues around the table, 5 because I think they'd put out a policy announcement 6 that it was going to be in the manifesto they would 7 repeal the HRA. David Cameron had written for the Sun 8 explaining this. And so the dinner conversation was 9 quite heated, as he was the only one at the table 10 saying, "Actually ..." I admired him standing up to his 11 shadow colleagues like that, and as I say, in the end 12 he's turned out to be correct. 13 Q. Didn't you tell Mr Cameron, after that conversation you 14 had with Mr Grieve, words to this effect: "You can't 15 have someone like that as Home Secretary. He won't 16 appeal on our readers. Move him"? And that's indeed 17 what happened. 18 A. No, I did not tell Mr Cameron to move him. What -- the 19 conversation -- as I say, it was a very heated 20 conversation, borne out by -- his colleagues were trying 21 to almost silence him at the table because he was, in 22 effect, saying one of the promises the Conservatives had 23 made to the electorate was they were going to repeal -- 24 and it was almost the opposite way around, that they 25 were concerned that his view was not to be taken 110 1 seriously, and as it turned out, he was entirely 2 correct. 3 Q. Did you give any advice to Mr Cameron as to whether 4 Mr Grieve might move on? 5 A. No, no. In fact, after that conversation -- sorry, it 6 is important to remember Mr Cameron wasn't at that 7 dinner. 8 Q. That's right. Did you indicate to Mr Cameron in any way 9 what your view was about Mr Grieve? 10 A. No. In fact, Mr Osborne and Mr Cameron did the opposite 11 to me, where they were at pains to explain that 12 Mr Grieve's view, which has now proved to be entirely 13 correct, was absolutely not their view and they were 14 going to repeal the HRA and replace it with a British 15 bill of rights, and that Mr Grieve was mistaken. 16 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Just before we break, could I take 17 you back to this issue that we've bounced around several 18 times, which is who is leading who. 19 A. Yes. 20 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Do you think that at least in part, 21 what you were in fact doing, to use your own words, was 22 bringing issues to your readers as opposed merely to 23 responding to your readers' interests? 24 A. I think that's correct, yes. 25 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I'm sure we'll come back to it this 111 1 afternoon, but I would like your view, which you can 2 reflect upon, on this: everybody's entitled to be 3 a friend of whomsoever they want to be a friend. That's 4 part of life. But can you understand why it might be 5 a matter of public concern that a very close 6 relationship between journalists and politicians might 7 create subtle pressures on the press, who have the 8 megaphone, and on the politicians, who have the policy 9 decisions? 10 A. Yes, I can understand that. 11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: All right. 2 o'clock. 12 (1.02 pm) 13 (The luncheon adjournment) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 112 1 2 (2.00 pm) 3 MR JAY: Mrs Brooks, may we move to what a couple of Labour 4 politicians would say. Do you recall an occasion at the 5 time of the Labour Party Conference in Brighton 6 in September 2004 where Mr Chris Bryant MP had been 7 speaking at a fringe meeting and argued that 8 Rupert Murdoch should not be allowed a monopoly in the 9 UK? Do you recall that? 10 A. I don't, I'm afraid. No, I'm sorry. What year was it? 11 Q. 2004. As he arrived at a News International reception, 12 you approached Mr Bryant. Do you recall that? 13 A. I think I know what anecdote you're referring to. 14 Q. It's not an anecdote. It's in a witness statement I've 15 seen. You said, "Ah, Mr Bryant, it's dark, isn't it? 16 Shouldn't you be out of Clapham Common by now", or 17 something like that. Did you say that? 18 A. I don't remember saying that, no. 19 Q. Do you remember what your then husband said? 20 A. I remember what Mr Bryant said my then husband said. 21 Q. He was extremely rude, wasn't he? 22 A. Mr Bryant? 23 Q. No, Mr Kemp, your then husband. 24 A. I don't think he said that. 25 Q. Mr Watson. You had it in for Mr Watson, Mr Watson would 1 1 say -- indeed, will say -- following Mr Watson's 2 resignation in 2006. Is that true? 3 A. That that's what Mr Watson would say? 4 Q. No, not merely that that's what he's going to say but 5 there's the underlying truth to it. You had it in for 6 him and you have encouraged the Sun to write adverse 7 material about him. Is that true? 8 A. No. Well, sorry, the Sun has covered -- has written 9 adverse things about Mr Watson. I think Mr Watson is 10 referring to an incident -- and I can't remember when it 11 is, I think 2006 -- when he galvanised the troops, as in 12 backbench rebellion, in order to force Mr Blair to 13 resign. It was called the curry house coup at the time 14 and there was a situation where the night before 15 Mr Watson published the letter, which Mr Bryant was also 16 on, I believe, calling for Tony Blair to step down, he'd 17 driven halfway across Scotland to see Mr Brown, and when 18 the newspapers confronted Mr Watson and said, "You 19 clearly did tell Mr Brown", he famously said, "No, I was 20 just delivering a Thomas the Tank DVD." And I think the 21 subsequent coverage, not just in the Sun but the Times 22 and lots of newspapers, were very critical of Mr Watson. 23 I think that's where it originates from. 24 Q. Did you force Mr Passcoe-Watson, or another Sun 25 journalist, to write stories about Mr Watson that he 2 1 knew were completely untrue? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Did you tell Mr Nick Robinson -- of course, the 4 political editor of the BBC -- in August 2011 -- or 5 rather, did you speak to him at a Labour Party 6 Conference 2009, along the lines: "What am I going to do 7 about this Tom Watson?" 8 A. May have done, yes, but I can't remember saying that 9 exactly. 10 Q. Do you feel that you might have used the Sun as perhaps 11 an unfair means of disparaging politicians you did not 12 particularly like? 13 A. No, I don't think that. 14 Q. I go back to the BSkyB issue and paragraphs 90 to 92 of 15 your witness statement, please, Mrs Brooks. 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Paragraph 90. This is our page 02587. You say in the 18 fourth line or third line: 19 "As might be expected, many people sought to raise 20 the issue with me and I became involved in defending the 21 bid to them." 22 So you're suggesting there you were always adopting 23 a defensive position; is that right? 24 A. I include lots of people who were members of the 25 anti-Sky bid as well, so not necessarily just 3 1 politicians. The fact is that it was a common 2 misconception and often reported that News International 3 was trying to buy the remainder of the shares in BSkyB 4 rather than News Corp, and that subtle distinction, 5 therefore, because it was in the UK territory was -- 6 perhaps understandably got confused. And so, yes, there 7 were occasions when I defended the bid. 8 Q. You do say in paragraph 90, on the next page: 9 "When the matter arose in conversation, I am sure 10 that I would have expressed my views forcefully, 11 particularly given the vocal opposition." 12 So it might be said the stronger the opposition, in 13 your eyes, the more forceful you needed to be. Would 14 you agree? 15 A. I think the anti-Sky bid alliance had so many different 16 members from all over the media and lots of other 17 commercial rivals of Sky that -- and that they, I knew, 18 were seeing politicians and I think Dr Cable had 19 a dinner with them in -- early on in 2010. 20 So, I think, yes, I did. When I met people, if 21 I had the chance to put our side of the story, so to 22 speak, I would. 23 Q. And those people included Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne, 24 didn't they? 25 A. Not Mr Cameron. I did have a conversation with 4 1 Mr Osborne. I may have mentioned it to Mr Cameron, but 2 it's not to be dwelled on because it wasn't 3 a particularly long conversation. But I did have 4 a conversation with Mr Osborne about it, I think some 5 time in 2010, where I put my views that were contrary to 6 the ones that he had heard from everyone else in the -- 7 Q. We'll come back to that in a short time. In 8 paragraph 92 of your statement, you say: 9 "With regard to the suggestion that I had 10 'discussions' [and you put that term in inverted commas] 11 with David Cameron and George Osborne, I am sure I did 12 refer to the issue generally." 13 So is that statement relevant to both Mr Cameron and 14 Mr Osborne? 15 A. Yes, but -- in general discussion in terms of -- always 16 in relation to the -- usually in relation to something 17 I'd heard that the anti-Sky bid had put forward, but 18 I remember better conversation with George Osborne some 19 time in 2010, but obviously as discussed, the BSkyB bid 20 was mentioned at dinner at our home in December, but 21 I don't remember having a particularly forceful 22 conversation with Mr Cameron will about it, although our 23 views on the BSkyB bid -- News Corp views and the 24 News International views and my views -- were pretty 25 clear. 5 1 Q. Were they shared by Mr Cameron? 2 A. Mr Cameron always made it very clear that it was -- that 3 he turned it into or it was a quasi-judicial decision 4 and it wasn't him and it was off his remit and he, 5 I think, had been lobbied by lots of other people, so it 6 wasn't -- I would say no, it wasn't particularly shared. 7 He was always very even-handed about it. 8 Q. Was Mr Cameron supportive of the BSkyB bid, to your 9 knowledge? 10 A. Not particularly, no. 11 Q. Was he at all supportive of it? 12 A. No, but I think it would be fair to say that he 13 understood why we wanted to present our view in relation 14 to the other lobbying he was getting. 15 Q. Was Mr Osborne supportive of the BSkyB bid? 16 A. I think -- he never said so. He never said explicitly 17 that. However, I think one of the points that we were 18 trying to make about the bid was if that kind of level 19 of investment was coming into the UK, that contrary to 20 what the anti-Sky bid alliance were saying, in that it 21 would be a bad thing, that actually we thought in the 22 call centres around the country, the creation of jobs, 23 that it would -- that we would try and put those 24 arguments to Mr Osborne. But again, they would all say 25 the same thing: "It's not my decision." 6 1 Q. I think my question was only: was he supportive of the 2 bid or not? 3 A. And as I say, he never explicitly said so. 4 Q. But could you infer whether he was supportive or not? 5 A. No. He was interested in our arguments. I think that's 6 probably at its best. 7 Q. Were you aware of the role Mr Fred Michel was occupying 8 in relation to the bid? 9 A. Well, I was aware at the time, but not to the extent 10 that I've now seen. But I was aware, yes. 11 Q. So when you say to the extent that you have now seen, 12 are you referring to the 163-odd emails? 13 A. Yes. I hadn't realised there were that many emails, but 14 yes, I was aware of his role in the BSkyB bid. 15 Q. When did you read those emails? 16 A. I actually still haven't read them all. 17 Q. You've sampled them? 18 A. I saw some during the evidence given by James Murdoch. 19 Q. And when they were drawn to your attention in that way, 20 did they surprise you in any way? 21 A. I think the truth is at the time -- at the time of the 22 BSkyB bid, I suppose, like most journalists, I viewed 23 public affairs and lobbyists with slight scepticism, and 24 I often thought that Mr Michel perhaps overegged his 25 position. However, he was doing his job. He was 7 1 passing on information as lobbyists do. 2 Q. How do you know he was overegging his position? 3 A. I always thought -- I suppose because, as journalists, 4 we would have quite direct contact with ministers and 5 prime ministers and -- you know, in the course of our 6 work, but I always thought it was slightly strange that 7 he had that level -- not slightly strange, actually. 8 That's not fair. Fred was very good at his job. 9 I always thought the level of access that seemed to come 10 out was -- was pretty good, really. 11 Q. Okay. A couple of documents in these 163 emails feature 12 you. Only a couple. This is KRM18. We've got one of 13 them under tab 17 in the bundle. 14 A. Tab 17, okay. 15 Q. We can probably put it up on the screen. I'm not sure 16 it's going to be available to anybody else. From the 17 PROP file, 100001657. You may have it as a separate 18 piece of paper, Mrs Brooks. I don't know. 19 A. I do. Thank you, Mr Jay. 20 Q. It relates to 12 October 2010. You were copied in on an 21 email from Mr Michel to Mr Anderson. 22 A. Mm. 23 Q. Are you with me? Mr Anderson we heard with 24 Mr James Murdoch, but I've clean forgotten who he is. 25 Could you remind me? 8 1 A. He it is -- so Fred Michel is public affairs for 2 News Corp Europe and Asia, and Matthew Anderson is 3 corporate communications for News Corp. 4 Q. The generals gist of this email is that -- the bid is 5 still with Dr Cable. This is before 21 December -- 6 A. Right, okay. 7 Q. "It's necessary to keep briefing senior Lib Dems and key 8 cabinet ministers." 9 Why do you think you were copied into this email? 10 A. I'm not sure, because I wasn't copied in to many of 11 them. 12 Q. No. 13 A. So I don't know. There would be regular meetings 14 between the News Corp people who were in charge of the 15 bid and occasionally -- maybe I was in that meeting? 16 I don't know why I'm copied in to this one particularly, 17 but -- 18 Q. You were copied into the next one, which is the same 19 part file, PROP100001679 -- 20 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Hang on, just before -- sorry, are 21 you going to 1679? 22 MR JAY: Yes. Sir, that's probably the only one you have in 23 that file. 24 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: It is, yes. All three emails are on 25 the same sheet. 9 1 MR JAY: Yes, I'd found an earlier one, ploughing through 2 KRM18 as I did a few days ago so, just to see if there 3 was anything else relevant. The most relevant one is 4 1679, which you'll have, Mrs Brooks, in tab 17. 5 A. Right, the one that starts: 6 "Very good debrief with Hunt"? 7 Q. That's right. 8 A. Yeah. 9 Q. It's dated 14 December 2010. It's sent from Mr Michel 10 to Mr James Murdoch and you're copied in. Are you with 11 me? 12 A. Yes, I am. 13 Q. The issues letter, I think, was the Ofcom issues letter, 14 wasn't it? 15 A. Was that the time? I mean, you obviously have the 16 chronology, but I accept that. 17 Q. Scan up the page, though. Three minutes later, you 18 reply to Mr Michel, don't you: 19 "Same from GO -- total bafflement at response." 20 The reason why you were able to reply so quickly, 21 I think, is that you had had dinner with Mr Osborne the 22 night before, hadn't you? 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. So you had discussed the issues letter with Mr Osborne 25 the night before, hadn't you? 10 1 A. I must have done, yes. 2 Q. Yes, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to reply so 3 quickly? 4 A. Quite rightly. 5 Q. And the reference to "GO" is not including his special 6 advisor; it is to GO personally, isn't it? 7 A. It is, yes. 8 Q. Why were you discussing the issues letter with 9 Mr Osborne at all? 10 A. Well, I don't -- you're telling me now that it was at 11 the time of the issues letter so I accept that. My 12 memory from the dinner was that it was with my husband 13 and I, Mr Osborne and his wife, and Mr Lewis and his 14 wife. So it was the six of us. It was in a restaurant, 15 more of a social occasion, but like I said in my witness 16 statement, I -- I probably brought it up, but I can't 17 remember, but there would have been a part of the dinner 18 I would have discussed our frustration, perhaps, at the 19 time, of what was going on. So I don't know whether 20 I brought it up or George, but we did discuss it at that 21 dinner. Not at any great length, because -- 22 Q. It's a point of detail, this, isn't it, what's in an 23 Ofcom issues letter? You'd agree with me? 24 A. Yes, but that wouldn't have been -- I mean, that 25 wouldn't have been my stance on it, because I probably 11 1 wasn't all over the complexities of an Ofcom issues 2 letter, as chief executive of News International. 3 Literally, my main focus of -- my main involvement in 4 the BSkyB bid, if you like, was informal, as in nothing 5 to do with the transaction, but was generally in 6 response to the huge amount of opposition and lobbying 7 that was going on by the anti-Sky bid alliance. 8 Q. You told us that already. 9 A. Yes, but -- 10 Q. What this dinner must have encompassed was a discussion 11 about the issues letter, because the email makes that 12 clear. Would you agree? 13 A. I agree with you. That's exactly what the email says. 14 But I don't remember a detailed conversation at a social 15 dinner about the complexities of an issues letter at 16 Ofcom. It may have been precisely three minutes of me 17 saying, "Can you believe that that has happened?" and 18 George Osborne looking slightly perplexed and me 19 responding to Fred Michel the next day. I mean, it was 20 a very brief conversation, but it did happen. 21 Q. Plainly it did happen, but it's not Mr Osborne looking 22 slightly perplexed. He's "totally baffled" according to 23 you. 24 A. "Totally baffled", then, was my interpretation of his -- 25 Q. The conversation must have been initiated by you, 12 1 Mrs Brooks. You don't hold back on these occasions, do 2 you? 3 A. I just can't remember whether I brought it up or not. 4 That's at all. 5 Q. There are two possibilities: either Mr Osborne did or 6 you did. 7 A. Let's say I brought it up then. 8 Q. Yes. 9 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I don't want you to guess. 10 A. I'm being forced to guess, sir, I'm sorry. 11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: No, I promise you, you're not being 12 forced to guess. 13 A. Well, I can't remember who brought it up, but I'm happy, 14 for argument's sake, Mr Jay, to accept that I did. But 15 I'm not sure that's the case. 16 MR JAY: Do you think it's an appropriate conversation with 17 Mr Osborne? 18 A. I think it -- 19 Q. Or not? 20 A. I think it was an entirely appropriate conversation. 21 I was reflecting the opposite view to the view that he 22 had hard by that stage from pretty much every member of 23 the anti-Sky bid alliance on many occasions. So I think 24 for one three-minute conversation at the beginning of 25 dinner, I got the opportunity to give our view. I don't 13 1 see why that's inappropriate. 2 Q. If you remember the length of the conversation, you 3 might be able to assist us as to who initiated it. 4 Couldn't you agree? 5 A. Accepting for the sake of argument that I brought it up, 6 I just can't remember if this is absolutely true. 7 Q. Another reason you're diffident about it: it's obvious 8 from your one-line email that we know what Mr Osborne's 9 thinking is about the bid generally, don't we? 10 A. Well, I obviously remembered from the conversation, 11 which -- I can't remember exactly how long it took, but 12 from the limited conversation that we'd had the night 13 before, that he was baffled at the response. That's 14 what I say. I'm not -- I'm agreeing with you on the 15 email. 16 Q. Yes, but it's also obvious that he was supportive of 17 your bid, wasn't he? 18 A. No. Bafflement. Or he was perplexed at the -- 19 whatever -- you're telling me it was the issues letter. 20 I'm -- fine. He was baffled at the response. 21 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Hang on, Mr Jay isn't quite telling 22 you that. Paragraph 92 of your statement proceeds on 23 that premise. 24 A. That it was the issues letter? 25 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. 14 1 A. Yes, well, he was baffled at the response. It's 2 still -- I'm not sure what the question is, Mr Jay. 3 MR JAY: At this stage, of course, Mrs Brooks, you knew 4 where everybody in the cabinet and this Coalition 5 government stood in relation to support or otherwise for 6 the BSkyB bid, didn't you? 7 A. No, I didn't. I particularly didn't know Mr Cable's 8 view -- personal view. 9 Q. You didn't have any suspicions at all as to what his 10 view was? 11 A. No. In fact, I'd assumed Mr Cable would carry out that 12 responsibility as any minister would, you know, as -- 13 properly, without personal prejudice. 14 Q. By the time you'd read the email, the first in the 15 chain, if not before, you were well aware what Mr Hunt's 16 view was about the merits of the BSkyB bid vis-a-vis 17 News Corp, weren't you? 18 A. I said to you earlier: I don't remember hearing anything 19 from Mr Hunt directly on the bid particularly, but 20 I have a recollection that he put something on his 21 website. I think it came up in this Inquiry. So -- 22 that he put something positive on his website, wasn't 23 it, or -- 24 Q. Didn't you have conversations with Mr James and 25 Mr Rupert Murdoch about how the bid was getting on and 15 1 who was supporting it? 2 A. I think my conversations with Mr James Murdoch and 3 Mr Rupert Murdoch about the bid were in essence probably 4 discussing the latest move of the anti-Sky bid alliance. 5 So I remember having to call Mr James Murdoch when the 6 anti-Sky bid alliance commissioned a poll through their 7 PR agency they'd hired -- I think Webber Shandwick -- 8 and their poll had discovered that 80 per cent of people 9 didn't want us to buy the rest of Sky shares. So 10 I would probably update -- because the anti-Sky bid 11 alliance was, of course, working in the UK territory, so 12 there would be occasions when I would update Rupert or 13 James Murdoch and there were internal meetings that went 14 on inside News International that occasionally I would 15 attend too. 16 Q. News Corp or News International regarded it as important 17 to lobby government generally in relation to this bid. 18 Are we agreed? 19 A. I don't think that was a strategy. I think it was 20 a response. 21 Q. Regardless of what originated it, it is what happened in 22 the event, isn't it? 23 A. Certainly from what we've seen from Fred Michel's 24 emails, there was a lot of lobbying going on from our 25 side, yes. 16 1 Q. You could assist the Murdochs to this extent: that you 2 knew the personalities involved at least as well as them 3 and you could advise them in relation to Mr Osborne, 4 Mr Cameron and Mr Hunt in a way in which perhaps they 5 couldn't. Isn't that what you brought to the table 6 here? 7 A. No, I don't think so. I think this was a very -- 8 I mean, first of all the strategy behind the bid was set 9 by News Corp and I had nothing to do with that and had, 10 again, no formal role. And secondly, this was 11 a quasi-judicial decision, which is nothing to do with 12 the personalities and preferences of particular -- of 13 the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 14 this case, or Mr Hunt before he took over from Dr Cable. 15 Q. But you weren't so naive, were you, to believe that this 16 quasi-judicial decision would be carried out necessarily 17 wholly properly? You would naturally fear that personal 18 prejudices might intrude. You knew that, didn't you? 19 A. No, actually, I -- maybe it was naive of me to think 20 that, you know, the procedure would be dealt with 21 properly, but I did believe that. I had no reason not 22 to until Dr Cable's comments came out in the December. 23 Q. Okay. We do have one email, don't we, which you have 24 found. It's RMB2, under tab 4. You kindly disclosed 25 this one to us. 17 1 A. Yes, this email, yes. Tab 4, isn't it? 2 Q. It's under tab 4. 3 A. I have got it. 4 Q. Before we look at it, I think people would be interested 5 to know how it is that this one email has survived and 6 others might not have done. Can you assist us? 7 A. Well, in the period of between beginning of June 8 and July 17, when my BlackBerry was imaged, there were 9 certain emails on there and some text messages, and for 10 the purpose of the Section 21 notice for this Inquiry, 11 my legal team went through all those in order to 12 disclose anything that fell into the Inquiry, and this 13 was the only email that I had in that period that was 14 relevant to the BSkyB questions I'd been asked in my 15 witness statement. 16 Q. Go first -- because we have to look at it in this 17 order -- to the bottom of page 02606, which is going to 18 be the first page of this document. We can see, at 19 16.29 hours on 27 June 2011 -- are you with me? 20 A. I am, sorry, yes. It came on the screen -- 21 Q. Frederic Michel sends an email and it goes to just you, 22 I think, although it's not altogether clear. Is that 23 your understanding? 24 A. I would be surprised if it just came to me. As you've 25 seen from the previous emails, they were always copied 18 1 in to the same -- almost the same group of people, but 2 perhaps it was directly to me. 3 Q. The text of the email is on the next page, 02607: 4 "Hunt will be making references to phone hacking in 5 his statement on Rubicon this week. He will be 6 repeating the same narrative as the one he gave in 7 Parliament a few weeks ago. This is based on his belief 8 that the police are pursuing things thoroughly and phone 9 hacking has nothing to do with the media plurality 10 issue." 11 There's something gone wrong with the printing 12 there. 13 A. That's a corruption there. 14 Q. It's corrupted. 15 "It's extremely helpful." 16 So you are being told what the Secretary of State is 17 going to be saying in his Rubicon statement -- not, of 18 course, that the Secretary of State would have used that 19 code name, no doubt -- in his statement to Parliament. 20 Is that it? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. That bit speaks for itself. 23 "On the issue of privacy committee, he supports 24 the widening of its remit to the future of the press and 25 evidence from all newspaper groups on the regulatory 19 1 regime. He wants to prevent a public enquiry. For 2 this, the committee will need to come up with a strong 3 report in the autumn and put enough pressure on the PCC 4 to strengthen itself and take recommendations forward." 5 Was any of this news to you, Mrs Brooks? 6 A. Yes, I think it was. 7 Q. Was any of it surprising to you? 8 A. I think -- I think it was -- it was -- it was news to me 9 and therefore could be surprising, yes. Probably. 10 Q. The next paragraph: 11 "JH is now starting to look into phone 12 hacking/practices more thoroughly and has asked me [the 13 pronoun 'me' is Mr Michel] to advise him privately in 14 the coming weeks and guide his and Number 10's 15 positioning." 16 Do you know what that was about? 17 A. Well, I think it speaks for itself. 18 Q. Does that surprise you? 19 A. Well, at the time -- the date of this email I think 20 is -- 21 Q. 27 June. 22 A. -- 27 June, and at the time at News International, it 23 was a particularly -- I had a lot of my own concerns. 24 We'd just handed over the Harbottle & Lewis file to the 25 MPS. It was probably my focus, more than anything else. 20 1 I obviously got this email in a million others. 2 I obviously read it at the time and I responded, 3 I think, to find out when the Rubicon statement was. So 4 I think the email and my response speak for themselves, 5 really. 6 Q. Your response was, at 17.20 hours -- we have to go back 7 to the previous page: 8 "When is the Rubicon statement?" 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And then the answer came back: 11 "Probably Wednesday." 12 A. Mm-hm. 13 Q. Can you assist us further from your memory as to 14 Mr Michel's dealings with Mr Hunt and/or Number 10 at 15 this time? 16 A. Probably not any further than the evidence that 17 James Murdoch gave, really. I mean, Fred Michel worked 18 for News Corp and not News International. So he didn't 19 work for me. So my interactions with him were not as 20 frequent, so I'm not sure I can add anything 21 particularly. 22 I know Fred Michel's own statement was that 23 sometimes he overstated his case, but for all I know, 24 this could be directly from Jeremy Hunt or, as he says, 25 Number 10 here. So I just don't know. 21 1 Q. You say in paragraph 28 of your statement, talking 2 generally of your time as CEO of News International, 3 that your time became increasingly occupied with the 4 phone hacking issue. Do you remember saying that? 5 A. I do remember. Sorry, where am I going to now? 6 Q. Paragraph 28 of your statement, page 02576. I'm 7 (inaudible) concerned with the detail of your 8 investigation or your knowledge, Mrs Brooks. Were 9 relations between Murdoch father and son increasingly 10 fraught as this issue developed? 11 A. I -- I don't think it was between father and son. It 12 was -- I mean, the situation was fraught. 13 Q. Because you've been described in one article -- 14 Vanity Fair, this time -- as being the go-between in an 15 increasingly fraught father/son relationship. Is that 16 true? 17 A. Well, Vanity Fair spend a lot of time covering the 18 Murdoch family dynamics and they're just like any normal 19 family. They have dynamics and they change. I wouldn't 20 put any store by Vanity Fair. 21 Q. Maybe one shouldn't, but just listen to the question. 22 Were you the go-between in an increasingly fraught 23 father/son relationship? 24 A. No, they could speak to each other. 25 Q. I didn't hear that. 22 1 A. I said no, they were very happy to speak to each other. 2 Q. It's also suggested that James was passing blame on to 3 subordinates. Is that what was happening? 4 A. No. 5 Q. He wasn't? 6 A. What is the context of the Vanity Fair piece? I'm 7 sorry, I don't -- 8 Q. You've seen the piece. It alleges that you were now 9 under pressure to please and protect not only Rupert but 10 also James, who had both taken the position they had no 11 idea what was going on inside their company, and 12 particularly James, passing blame on to subordinates. 13 Is that what was happening? 14 A. No. 15 Q. So you can't throw any light on the truth or otherwise 16 of the -- well, you are throwing light on the truth of 17 this piece. You say it's untrue? 18 A. It's saying that I'm the go-between between father and 19 son in an increasingly fraught situation, I think the 20 paragraph was. 21 Q. Relationship? 22 A. Relationship. So what I'm saying to you is that 23 I reported both to James and Rupert Murdoch and I would 24 talk to them both about the issues unfolding at 25 News International. James and I had offices next door 23 1 to each other. I would be talking to Mr Murdoch every 2 day. So if Vanity Fair want to couch that as 3 a go-between, then fine, but I don't accept the premise 4 of what they're insinuating. 5 Secondly, the Vanity Fair piece, whenever it came 6 out, is saying that James tried to -- started to pass 7 blame onto subordinates and I'm not sure if that Vanity 8 Fair piece is -- is it referring to James Murdoch's 9 testimony at the Select Committee or his testimony here? 10 I just don't even know when the Vanity Fair piece ran, 11 so it's difficult for me to answer the question without 12 some context. 13 Q. Can I ask about the police and your meetings with senior 14 police officers. 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. RMB1 again, this schedule you've prepared. It's towards 17 the back of it, I think. You've kindly provided 18 a schedule of meetings with senior police officers in 19 the Metropolitan Police Service. 20 A. Yes. Got it. 21 Q. The second page of that, it appears that you did not 22 meet with John Yates, Assistant Commissioner, 23 after December 2006. Is that, to the best of your 24 recollection, correct? 25 A. I -- I'm -- I don't think that's correct. I think I did 24 1 meet him, but I -- I mean, we hosted the -- we hosted 2 the Police Bravery Awards every year, for a start, and 3 I was always in attendance, and so I'm sure that he 4 would have been there, so I really do not think these 5 diary entries are the full picture. 6 Q. There's likely to be a difference, Mrs Brooks, between 7 a large function in which you might bump into people and 8 any conversation might be snatched, and a dinner in 9 a restaurant where they may only be a few of you and the 10 conversation would be expansive. 11 A. No, I do -- I do remember having a meeting with 12 John Yates in Wapping, a lunch, around -- I think around 13 the time of the cash for honours situation. 14 Q. We're back in 2005 -- 15 A. Is that 2006? Oh right, okay. Well, then this diary 16 may be correct then. I didn't see much of John Yates. 17 Q. Are you able to say whether or not you discussed phone 18 hacking issues with him? 19 A. Because I don't remember a one-to-one meeting. I'm 20 pretty sure, though, I attended the Police Bravery 21 Awards right up until -- as you can imagine, right up 22 until 2011, and he was always there. And I can't 23 remember when the Guardian first -- I think the Guardian 24 broke their story in July 2009, and there was a Police 25 Bravery Awards -- it's usually in July. So I don't want 25 1 to absolutely rule out the fact that I may have 2 mentioned it to him, because he was often around, but 3 I don't remember a sitdown conversation where we 4 discussed it at any length. 5 Q. So you're admitting of the possibility -- 6 A. I'm saying that it might quite probably have happened, 7 if those sequence of events -- if my memory serves me 8 well and those are the sequence of events, that the 9 Guardian story broke in July 2009, but I can't remember 10 what date, and the Police Bravery Awards was afterwards. 11 It could have been the other way around. 12 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I think the Guardian story was 5th or 13 6th, wasn't it? 14 MR JAY: 8 July in the evening, and then into the print 15 edition on the 9th. 16 A. Right. 17 Q. The meetings with Mr Fedorcio which were more frequent, 18 what was the purpose of those meetings in your own 19 words, Mrs Brooks? 20 A. They would often be attended -- usually he would 21 accompany a Commissioner or a senior officer, or if he 22 came in on his own, it would be to discuss things with 23 me and my crime editor and senior team and it could be 24 a variety of issues. 25 There was also -- although it was an annual event 26 1 and, if you like, a well-oiled machine, there was always 2 quite a lot of organisation for the Police Bravery 3 Awards because the process continued for many months -- 4 sorry, started many months before, and he would have 5 been involved in that, as I would. 6 But mainly the issues of the day or introducing 7 a new Commissioner or coming along with an update with 8 a Commissioner. 9 Q. Did you ever obtain information from him which formed 10 the basis of a story in the Sun? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Did he put you in contact with police officers who could 13 provide the basis and did provide the basis of a story? 14 A. Well, I think most crime journalists would -- you know, 15 I wasn't a crime journalist or a crime editor, but 16 I think the process was that we would often ring 17 Dick Fedorcio if we had a story that we'd got from our 18 own sources that involved the Metropolitan Police and he 19 was in a position to steer us away from it or give us 20 a comment if we'd got it right. So there was a sort of, 21 if you like, exchange of information, but it was -- in 22 the way you put it, it sounded like he'd come into me in 23 these meetings and give me a story. Sadly not. 24 Q. Mr Wallis, of course, was an employee of 25 News International until 2009. Were you aware of the 27 1 nature of his relationship with police officers? 2 A. No, only -- only insofar as -- I never worked directly 3 with Mr Wallis, but when I took over his position as 4 deputy editor of the Sun in 1998, I then assumed his 5 responsibilities in owning, if you like, the Police 6 Bravery Awards. So I was aware that he had started 7 those in the previous year. 8 Q. Okay, one general question about the nature of 9 hospitality. It has to be a very general question. In 10 terms of the nature of the hospitality you were 11 offering -- I'm talking about lunches, dinners -- did 12 you regard police officers really in the same way as 13 politicians -- in other words, it was appropriate to 14 take them to a restaurant of a certain stature or 15 distinction -- or did you see there to be any difference 16 between police officers and politicians? 17 A. Well, there are definitely distinctions between the two. 18 I think it would be fair to say that senior police 19 officers were more inclined to want to go to a neutral 20 venue like a restaurant, whereas a lot of meetings with 21 politicians took place either in Wapping HQ or at party 22 conferences or at Downing Street or various ministries. 23 So that was in my experience. 24 Q. Okay. The Inquiry has very little interest in the 25 retired police horse, you understand -- that's September 28 1 2007 -- but I should ask you this question so we're 2 clear about it: was there any exchange, as it were, 3 between the work experience offered for Mr Fedorcio's 4 son, which was also in the autumn of 2007, and the 5 acquisition by you of this horse? 6 A. Absolutely not. 7 Q. I move on to a different issue now. 8 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Are you moving away from police 9 officers, Mr Jay? 10 MR JAY: Yes. 11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: There's a balance here as well, isn't 12 there? On the one hand, the need to keep an eye on the 13 stories that are coming out, but on the other, an 14 appropriate professional distance. Do you think there's 15 a risk there? 16 A. I think it's always up to individual conduct in these 17 matters, and so I felt that the contact I had with 18 police officers, particularly commissioners and senior 19 police officers, in that kind of context was always 20 appropriate. I never saw any of my dealings with the 21 police -- I never saw any inappropriate either 22 conversations or -- take place. 23 So my experience of it was relatively good and 24 particularly at the Police Bravery Awards, where we 25 would come into -- the Sun journalism team would come 29 1 into contact with police officers not just from the 2 Metropolitan Police but from all over the country, and 3 I always thought they were very useful for both sides 4 rather than inappropriate. But there is always a risk 5 that that is not the case. 6 Q. The Gordon Brown cystic fibrosis story. You did have 7 some involvement there, didn't you? 8 A. Yes, I did. 9 Q. The piece in the Sun is under tab 29. It's part of the 10 narrative, as it were. This is an article in 2006, 11 I believe. 12 "The Sun today exposes the allegation that we hacked 13 into Gordon Brown's family medical records as false and 14 a smear. We discovered the ex-PM's four-year-old son 15 Fraser had cystic fibrosis months after his birth. We 16 can reveal the source of our information was a shattered 17 dad whose own son also has the crippling disease and he 18 wanted to highlight the plight of sufferers." 19 Is that true? 20 A. Yes. I think, Mr Jay, you said 2006? The article came 21 out in 2006 but this was written in 2011. 22 Q. Yes, I think you're right there. The article 23 is November 2006. Did you have any involvement in this 24 article, although you were, of course, no longer editor? 25 A. No, I didn't. I think I may have even left the company. 30 1 Q. I don't have the exact date of this article -- 2 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Published 13 July 2011, according to 3 what's on the screen now. 4 A. Then no, sorry, I was still there. 5 MR JAY: Do you know where the "shattered dad" that is 6 referred to there got his information from? 7 A. I think we do, yes. Yes. 8 Q. Where did he get his information from? 9 A. He got it from the fact that he -- his own child had 10 cystic fibrosis and he was given this information when 11 information was sought about cystic fibrosis. I'm being 12 very careful to try and not reveal his identity, that's 13 all, hence the hesitation, but I think we sort of -- we 14 know what happened. 15 Q. That's all very vague, Mrs Brooks. 16 A. It is vague, but purposely so because I think when we 17 wrote this article -- I mean, although, like I say, 18 I was chief executive at the time, I remember the Sun 19 absolutely putting this together to refute 20 Gordon Brown's allegations, and we were incredibly clear 21 on it. We have an affidavit from the father where he 22 explains the story but I don't think that affidavit is 23 public, so I'm just being slightly hesitant not to 24 reveal his identity. 25 Q. We're not concerned with his identity. That wasn't my 31 1 question. The father's version is -- and we can see 2 this in the article: 3 "I have not had access to the medical records of the 4 child at any time. All of which is the truth as I shall 5 answer to God." 6 Apparently is what his affidavit says, is it? 7 A. I think it's longer than that, but that will be part of 8 it, yes. 9 Q. So how did the father get the information? 10 A. If I sort of put that back to reassure you -- we, at the 11 time, and again in July 2012, were absolutely satisfied 12 that the father had got the information from legitimate 13 means and we were very sure about that. 14 Q. How had he got the information? 15 A. He'd got the information because his own child had 16 cystic fibrosis and he'd got the information, I should 17 say, through a very small -- it's not a small charity, 18 but there is a charity aspect to the Cystic Fibrosis 19 Society, and he got it slightly by involvement through 20 there. 21 Q. What sort of involvement? 22 A. Mr Jay, I'm not going to tell you any more about the 23 source because I don't want to reveal his identity. 24 Q. But you're not. 25 A. Well, I feel uncomfortable answering that because 32 1 I think it could lead to his identity. You're asking me 2 where information came from and the source, and I think 3 they are matters that I have to respect in a source 4 coming to the newspaper. The main point of this issue 5 is Mr Brown accused the Sun of hacking into his son's 6 medical records to get this story and that wasn't true. 7 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: It wasn't accurate? 8 A. No, sorry, it wasn't accurate. 9 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But actually that's quite important, 10 because it plays into something else that is concerning 11 me, which I am just going to dwell upon. If I've taken 12 a question from Mr Jay, it's just too bad. 13 Mr Brown was concerned that information which he 14 thought was private had entered the public domain, and 15 he felt that the way that that must have happened is 16 that the Sun had got hold of his records in some way. 17 That's what he was saying; is that right? 18 A. That's what he said in July 2011. 19 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. Now, you knew that -- well, go 20 back one step. First of all, if you don't know anything 21 of how you got the story, it's not unreasonable, is it, 22 to believe that if private details of your child's 23 condition are being put into the public domain, they can 24 only have come from medical records? Because it's 25 diagnosis, it's medical detail. So it's not an 33 1 unreasonable view for him to form? 2 A. He formed that view or came to that assumption in 2011. 3 In 2006 -- in November 2006, way before the Sun 4 published the story, we discussed the story directly 5 with the Browns before publication, and the first time 6 I'd heard that he had a concern of that nature was when 7 he gave an interview to the BBC in 2011. 8 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: All right. 9 A. So it wasn't something that he felt at the time. 10 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Well, it may be, but until it went 11 into the public domain -- I'm not I'm not actually 12 focusing so much on that point. I'll come to the point 13 I want to make. You didn't explain to him, presumably 14 because you wanted to protect your source: "No, no, no, 15 we got all this from somebody whose son also has the 16 same condition, whose child has the same condition." 17 You just didn't discuss the source; is that right? 18 A. That is right, at the time. 19 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Now, my question. Would you look, 20 please, at the first line of the Sun article: 21 "The Sun today exposes the allegation that we hacked 22 into Gordon Brown's family medical records as false and 23 a smear." 24 My concern is whether it's fair to describe that 25 as -- it may be incorrect, but as "false and a smear". 34 1 A. In the general point, I can absolutely see what you're 2 saying, sir, is correct, but this was not -- this was 3 a particular journey that the Sun had been involved in 4 since the beginning of the information coming into the 5 Sun newsroom and what happened after that and subsequent 6 to that. 7 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But if he never knew how you got it, 8 all you can say -- and you're entitled to say, "He's 9 just got it wrong." 10 A. He came to the wrong assumption in 2011. 11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: And that's absolutely fair. So the 12 issue is whether it's part of the culture of the press 13 that actually attack is the best form of defence. So 14 people don't just get it wrong; it's "false", in 15 capitals, and "a smear". Do you see the point I'm 16 making? 17 A. I do see the point you're making, but, sir, the context 18 of that article was written after Gordon Brown had -- 19 first of all, I think his first appearance in Parliament 20 since he stepped down as Prime Minister was to come to 21 the House and speak incredibly critically and, in some 22 cases, made wrong assumptions through his testimony to 23 the House, and then the second thing he did, he then 24 went on, I think, the BBC -- I can't remember -- to do 25 an interview with another wrong assumption that the Sun 35 1 had got the story from Fraser Brown's medical records, 2 and I think combining the two, if you like, attacks from 3 Mr Brown that had never ever been raised by him in any 4 shape or form with any of us at News International or 5 Mr Murdoch -- he never once mentioned press ethics or 6 practices in his -- in our entire relationship -- that 7 the Sun felt that it was a smear, that he was doing it 8 five years later for a particular reason, and I think 9 that's why they wrote the story that they did. 10 Now, I was chief executive at the time. I didn't 11 write the story but I'm defending their right to write 12 the story like that. 13 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: All right. You've provided an 14 answer, but actually what you've demonstrated is that 15 the Sun believed -- and they may be right or wrong, 16 I don't know -- that Mr Brown had added two and two and 17 two and got 27, whereas in fact, if you took each one of 18 the incidents on their own, it may have been he may have 19 made a mistake, he may be wrong to reach the 20 conclusion -- that's all fair enough, entirely proper, 21 but it goes a bit further than that. 22 A. I accept that this story does, but if you imagine for 23 the Sun, the Sun -- and I know I keep mentioning this, 24 but the Sun has a trust with its readership. 25 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. 36 1 A. And it's a very important trust and if that trust is 2 broken, then -- and a former Prime Minister had claimed, 3 I think harshly -- he'd come to the misconception that 4 we had got the story from Fraser's medical records. He 5 accepted -- and I think whoever broke the story -- 6 I can't remember who it was -- the Guardian, probably -- 7 that that was false, and there was a correction 8 subsequently published in the Guardian and I think the 9 Sun felt on that that they had to stand up -- because it 10 is a terrible accusation for a former Prime Minister to 11 make of a newspaper without being in possession of the 12 facts, that we had hacked into his medical records, and 13 I think that's why you are seeing the strong tone of the 14 rebuttal in the paper. 15 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Well, I've asked the question. Thank 16 you. 17 MR JAY: You're suffusing the Sun with virtue, Mrs Brooks. 18 Let's see how far I can get with this. Where did the 19 father's information come from? 20 A. I'm not going to say, Mr Jay. 21 Q. But why not, Mrs Brooks? 22 A. Because if you knew where the father's information came 23 from, it would identify the source, and I'm not going to 24 do that. 25 Q. Are you saying that the information came from a charity? 37 1 A. No, I'm not. I'm saying that because the source also 2 had a child with cystic fibrosis, he was aware and in 3 the -- it was the fact that he had a child with cystic 4 fibrosis is how he came to know. 5 Q. That would indicate that the father might, at some 6 point, have been quite close to the Browns, perhaps in 7 a particular hospital, but it wouldn't, without more, 8 demonstrate how the father got hold of the relevant 9 information. Do you understand me? 10 A. I understand your point. 11 Q. Did he gain the information by subterfuge? 12 A. No, he didn't. 13 Q. Did he gain the information directly from the Browns? 14 A. No, he didn't. 15 Q. Did he gain the information from a third party? 16 A. I suppose you could describe it as that. 17 Q. Was that third party an employee of the NHS? 18 A. No, it wasn't. 19 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Well, did the third party have a duty 20 of confidence to hold the information? Let's just go as 21 simple as that. 22 A. No, I don't think so. I'm sorry, without revealing the 23 source, the Sun was satisfied that the information came 24 from legitimate means and I felt that that covered all 25 those questions, but -- 38 1 MR JAY: Was the father paid for his time? 2 A. I think there was a donation made, but I can't be sure. 3 Q. To a charity, then? 4 A. I think he asked for it to be given to the cystic 5 fibrosis charity, which is why I have the charity in my 6 head, but I can't be sure. We can check with the Sun. 7 Q. How can the Inquiry assess whether or not the father's 8 source owed a duty of confidence without knowing not the 9 identity of the source but the nature of the duties that 10 source was discharging? Surely you can assist us to 11 that extent? 12 A. I can assist you to the extent, as I think Mr Lewis did 13 when he came here and you asked him a similar question 14 about the source for the MPs' expenses -- I can assist 15 you to the point that it was a legitimate source and in 16 any case, the way we conducted ourselves after receipt 17 of the information towards the sensitivity of that 18 information and how we handled that with Number 10 and 19 with the Browns was also exemplary. 20 MR JAY: Was it exemplary, Mrs Brooks? Did you have the 21 express agreement of the Browns, freely given, to 22 publish this story about their son? 23 A. Absolutely. 24 Q. And so they were entirely relaxed about it? This was 25 personal information in relation to a four-year-old boy. 39 1 They were entirely satisfied that this could be placed 2 on the front page of the Sun in November 2006? Is that 3 your position? 4 A. I think you used the word "relaxed", and I think, to be 5 fair to the Browns, you have to consider how traumatic, 6 clearly, for any parent this was. 7 Q. What was, Mrs Brooks? 8 A. The diagnosis. 9 Q. And what about including it on the front page of the 10 Sun? Is that helping or not? 11 A. So Fraser Brown was -- 12 Q. Can you answer my question? 13 A. The question is ...? 14 Q. Obviously, there's the tragedy and pain of the diagnosis 15 but emblazoning this on the front page of the Sun is not 16 helping, is it? 17 A. Should I put it back to you, that if the Browns had 18 asked me not to run it, I wouldn't have done. There are 19 many examples where -- very tragic situations in 20 people's lives where people have asked me not to run the 21 story and I haven't and I wouldn't have done, and not 22 only was I -- they gave me permission to run it; it is 23 the only way we would have put that in the public 24 domain. 25 Q. Mr Brown's statement was: 40 1 "I can't remember of any way that the medical 2 condition of a child can be put into the public arena 3 legitimately unless the doctor makes a statement or the 4 family makes a statement." 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Do you agree with that? 7 A. I agree with that, yes. 8 Q. Was the conversation you had with Mrs Brown or Mr Brown 9 regarding consent for this story? 10 A. I think in the period of time of receiving the 11 information and publishing the information, which is -- 12 which, by the way, went to all newspapers -- all 13 newspapers published it around the same day -- I spoke 14 to the Browns. I will have spoken probably to people 15 around them but I definitely had more of a communication 16 with Sarah Brown, as she was my friend, and I probably 17 discussed it with her more. 18 The sequence of events were: Fraser Brown was born 19 in July. I think the information came to the Sun in the 20 late October. I think the Browns' position at the time 21 was very much that they had had the tests confirmed, and 22 as Prime Minister and his wife, they felt that there 23 were many, many people in the UK whose children suffered 24 with cystic fibrosis. They were absolutely committed to 25 making this public and they were also -- one of the most 41 1 overwhelming memories of that time for me was the 2 Browns' insistence that when the story was published, 3 that we absolutely highlighted the positives in 4 association with the cystic fibrosis association. 5 Q. The story was published in November, when the child was 6 four months old -- I said four years old; that's 7 incorrect -- and before, I think, the diagnosis was 8 confirmed. Is that true? 9 A. No. I think -- and this is again from my conversations 10 back in 2006 with the Browns and people who advised 11 them -- I'm pretty sure we ran the story in the November 12 and the tests were confirmed some time in the October. 13 Q. When you spoke to Mrs Brown -- that's your evidence, 14 Mrs Brooks -- was it on the basis that: "Look, we've got 15 this story, we're going to run with it, let's see how we 16 can run with it in a way which is least harmful to you", 17 or something like that? 18 A. Absolutely not, and I think that -- as you've seen in my 19 witness statement, I was quite friendly with Sarah Brown 20 at the time. Very friendly. She'd been through a hell 21 of a lot already. I think my first thing I would have 22 said to both of them was -- would have been a much more 23 considerate and caring response to hearing the news 24 myself. I was very -- I was very sad for them. 25 I didn't know much about it and I wanted to find out 42 1 what had gone on. 2 You have to remember that the -- this is 2006. This 3 is only five years later that Mr Brown had ever said 4 anything -- that he was in any way concerned about my 5 behaviour, the behaviour of the Sun, how we handled it. 6 Indeed, after 2006, I continued to see them both 7 regularly. They held a 40th birthday celebration party 8 for me. They attended my wedding. I have many letters 9 and kind notes. Sarah and I were good friends. And so 10 I felt -- hence the story in the Sun in 2012 was quite 11 tough -- was that Mr Brown's recollections of that time 12 weren't the same as my own. 13 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Actually, I've been reading it in the 14 print version, our tab 29, but if one looks at it on the 15 screen, which everybody can do if you have a screen near 16 you, there's an interesting comparison, isn't there? On 17 the left-hand side, it talks about the falsity of the 18 allegation and the fact it's a smear, but on the 19 right-hand side, there is a statement, and that 20 statement simply tells the facts. In other words, 21 saying, "They've got it wrong." So you're actually 22 there putting the side of the story that is purely 23 defensive: 24 "We're very sorry. You, Mr Brown, have got it 25 wrong." 43 1 So you didn't need the subedited line in the first 2 paragraph in bold on the left-hand column, did you? 3 Anyway. 4 A. It's difficult -- I don't have the print version. 5 I only have the online -- 6 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: You don't have the -- 7 A. I have the online version here. 8 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Do you not have on the screen the 9 version that has the Sun's statement? 10 A. I see it now. Sorry, yes. 11 MR JAY: Was there any correspondence with the Browns after 12 you published the first story in November 2006? 13 A. I saw them regularly after that and indeed discussed the 14 situation with them on many occasions. 15 Q. I move on to the Baby P story and the campaign against 16 the social workers involved, including at the top, of 17 course, Sharon Shoesmith, who was director of education 18 and children's services in Haringey. You remember all 19 of that, presumably? 20 A. I do, yes. 21 Q. Can I just give you the chronology so we understand the 22 dates. Baby P was killed on 3 August 2007. Two people 23 were convicted in relation to that crime on 11 November 24 2008 and Sharon Shoesmith was sacked by Mr Balls, the 25 then Secretary of State, on 1 December 2008. As it 44 1 happens that decision was subsequently held to be 2 unlawful by the Court of Appeal but that's a detail. 3 Did the Sun launch an e-petition calling for people 4 to be sacked? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Was a similar e-petition launched in the Sunday Times? 7 A. I can't remember so. 8 Q. Okay. Did you telephone Mr Balls during the week 9 commencing 17 November 2008 telling him to get rid of 10 Sharon Shoesmith or they would "turn this thing on him"? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Did you have any conversation with Mr Balls at about 13 that time? 14 A. I'm sure I did, yes. 15 Q. What was the conversation about? 16 A. Just discussing the contents, I think, of the crime 17 review, or perhaps it was the Haringey's own review into 18 what had happened to Baby P, but certainly not that 19 sentence you've just said. 20 Q. Did you say anything which came close to that? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Was it the Sun's view that Sharon Shoesmith should be 23 got rid of? 24 A. It wasn't particularly Sharon Shoesmith; it was 25 a variety of people. I think in the eight months that 45 1 Baby P was under Haringey Social Services -- Baby Peter, 2 sorry -- he was seen by Social Services and NHS 3 officials in that time where he sustained the 50 or so 4 injuries that he died of in the end, but also more 5 importantly -- and I'm not sure the public were allowed 6 to know this at this time, but in the review it was 7 revealed that the Social Services had allowed the 8 boyfriend, if you like, to live with Baby Peter, even 9 though he was on a charge of raping a two-year-old. So 10 there were serious failings, but it wasn't just Sharon 11 Shoesmith -- 12 Q. We're moving well away from the subject matter of my 13 question, which was whether it was the Sun's wish to get 14 rid of Sharon Shoesmith. "Yes" or "no"? 15 A. I think we called for her and others to resign, yes. 16 Q. So you called for her to resign. Was that call the 17 subject matter of a conversation which you had with 18 Mr Balls? 19 A. I think he was well aware we'd called for the 20 resignation. It was all over the paper. 21 Q. Yes, but did you have a conversation with Mr Balls about 22 it specifically? 23 A. I can't remember when my call was with Mr Balls. 24 I think it was after he had -- I think in the end he 25 ended up firing Sharon Shoesmith. 46 1 Q. I told you that. On live television it was, on 2 1 December 2008. But I'm looking two weeks beforehand, 3 the week commencing 17 November 2008. Did you have 4 a conversation with Mr Balls about Sharon Shoesmith? 5 A. Yes, it will have been discussed. 6 Q. It would have been or was discussed? 7 A. Yes, it was discussed. 8 Q. Was the purpose of the call specifically to discuss 9 Sharon Shoesmith? 10 A. No, it wasn't. It was to discuss the case and also to 11 try and understand why Haringey Social Services were 12 allowed to do their own review into their own conduct 13 over Baby Peter. 14 Q. During the course of the discussion you had in relation 15 to Sharon Shoesmith, did you indicate to Ed Balls that 16 you wanted her sacked? 17 A. Mr Jay, I didn't tell Ed Balls to fire Sharon Shoesmith. 18 It was very obvious from the coverage in our paper that 19 we had launched a petition because the government were 20 refusing to do anything about the situation. So yes, 21 I had conversations with Ed Balls. I think I also spoke 22 to the shadow minister, who I think was Michael Gove at 23 the time, but I can't quite remember that. We were -- 24 I would have spoken to anybody, basically, to try and 25 get some justice for Baby P, which was the point of the 47 1 campaign. 2 Q. Yes, but the person who could deliver justice for Baby P 3 in this way was the person who could make the relevant 4 decision. That was Mr Balls, wasn't it? 5 A. Ed Balls obviously had influence on that decision and -- 6 but the paper was the main form of lobbying -- 7 Q. No, he was the decision maker, wasn't he? He was the 8 person who could effect the sacking by direct 9 instruction to Haringey. That's the correct position, 10 isn't it? 11 A. I'm just picking up that I think the premise of your 12 questioning is that -- did I tell Ed because to sack 13 Sharon Shoesmith? And in fact in the newspaper, from 14 the day we broke -- the day we covered the Baby P story, 15 it was very clear that that was the Sun's editorial line 16 on it, so Mr Balls was under no illusion that that was 17 the point of our campaign. 18 Q. Yes, and you also -- he was also under no illusion that 19 that was the point of your telephone call as well. 20 Isn't that the case? 21 A. No, the telephone call was in part the petition. We 22 were also -- we also wanted to deliver the petitions to 23 Downing Street because nothing was moving on the 24 campaign, and we ourselves at the Sun were very 25 surprised by the level -- I mean, 1.5 million of 48 1 a percentage of a readership is a huge reaction. So it 2 will have been to feed back that. It would not just 3 be -- I don't think was -- it was a point of reference 4 because the editorial line of the Sun was very obvious 5 to Mr Balls. He only had to read the paper. 6 Q. If you were frustrated by his apparent inaction and you 7 had a mass of signatories on your petition, all the more 8 reason to bend Mr Balls' ear? Would you not agree? 9 A. Yes, but your premise of your question was: did I ring 10 up Mr Balls and say -- I can't remember how you put it, 11 but it was in a tone and a language that I wouldn't use, 12 but you said did I say, "Get rid of her or else", or 13 whatever you said, and I'm saying I did not say that. 14 The point of the campaign was pretty obvious to Ed Balls 15 because he only had to read the paper. I was actually 16 asking Mr Ed Balls for much more subtle information, 17 like the contents of the review that we weren't allowed 18 to see and the whitewash that I felt Haringey council 19 had done on their own review. 20 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I think we'd better give the 21 shorthand writer a break. Just five minutes. 22 (3.15 pm) 23 (A short break) 24 (3.24 pm) 25 MR JAY: Mrs Brooks, we're on to some general points now to 49 1 conclude your evidence, if that's okay. Paragraph 6, 2 please, of your second statement. You set out your 3 credo on accountability. Our page 02573: 4 "I've seen at first hand the importance of the press 5 as a means of holding politicians and other public 6 figures to account and of influencing policies for the 7 public good." 8 Would you agree that editors, subject only to any 9 review by the PCC, have sole discretion as to what 10 constitutes the public good? 11 A. No, not -- no, I don't. I think editors do have some 12 discretion. As we discussed earlier, that it is 13 a combination of reacting to the readers, understanding 14 the readers, but also putting issues and stories in 15 front of the readers for their reaction. So not sole 16 responsibility, no. There's a huge team at newspapers, 17 all of which contribute through conference, through 18 ideas. I think sole responsibility is not right. 19 Q. In terms of assessing what the public good is, that 20 resides with the newspaper and ultimate responsibility 21 resides with the editor. Are we agreed? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. I think I was right in saying that in terms of this 24 particular assessment, subject only to review by the 25 PCC, responsibility resides with the editor. That's 50 1 correct, isn't it? 2 A. I don't think sole responsibility -- 3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: No, the ultimate responsibility, 4 because you look to everybody else for advice and then 5 everybody looks towards you and you decide: "This is 6 what we're going to do." 7 A. Ultimately, everything that's published in the paper is 8 the editor's responsibility, yes. 9 MR JAY: Do you feel that that is a satisfactory state of 10 affairs, given that the editor is bound to be parti pris 11 in assessing the public good because the editor needs to 12 have an eye on matters such as circulation figures? 13 A. Well, that is a role of an editor. An editor's judgment 14 is part of their -- is a big part of their role. 15 Q. And holding public figures to account in your lexicon 16 would include exposing the private weaknesses of public 17 figures; is that right? 18 A. I think I was referring there more to campaigns, which 19 I discuss a lot in my witness statement. 20 Q. Yes, but I'm not discussing that. I'm discussing the 21 issue of exposing the private weaknesses of public 22 figures. You would regard that as completely within the 23 bound of the public good, wouldn't you? 24 A. Not necessarily, no. 25 Q. So when would you not expose the private weaknesses of 51 1 public figures? 2 A. When there didn't seem to be a public interest in doing 3 so. 4 Q. And when would such circumstances arise? 5 A. Well, I think there are many stories that newspapers 6 haven't run about personal circumstances about public 7 figures. 8 Q. What are the sort of circumstances which would militate 9 against publication without, of course, giving us 10 details of individual stories which weren't published? 11 A. So if, perhaps, there had been no trust broken between 12 them and their constituents or -- where in fact, I think 13 you discussed yesterday, although that story was 14 published, maybe George Osborne could have argued that 15 it was before he became an MP. I mean, each editor's 16 judgment is their own in this. 17 Q. Which goes back to the point that it's a matter of 18 editorial discretion at the end of the day, isn't it? 19 A. You said "sole" and I just wanted to convey -- I'm sure, 20 you know, you're pretty au fait now with the workings of 21 a newsroom, but it is important to understand the 22 collective discussions that go on. 23 Q. Can I just take one particular campaign. Some would 24 say -- there are arguments both ways, but naturally no 25 view is expressed here. The murder of Sarah Payne and 52 1 Sarah's Law, which featured in the News of the World for 2 a number of years. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Is right that the News of the World published the names 5 and photographs of sex offenders in order to "protect 6 other children from them"? 7 A. Correct. 8 Q. Was that the editorial decision of someone like you? 9 A. Yes, it was. 10 Q. What do you say to the criticism made by the 11 Chief Constable of Gloucestershire that this was grossly 12 irresponsible journalism? 13 A. Well, I disagreed with it at the time. 14 Q. For what reason? 15 A. Because I felt that although there were some aspects to 16 the campaign that -- and there's always risk with any 17 kind of public interest journalism and there's always 18 risk with campaigns -- although there were some issues 19 with the campaign, I was -- I think the mechanic, in 20 a way to try and explain to the public what the point of 21 the campaign was, was effective, and I think there were 22 about 13 or 14 pieces of legislation brought in 23 subsequently on the back of it. 24 Q. Why did you need to publish the names and photographs of 25 known sex offenders in order to bring home what was 53 1 otherwise a legitimate point? 2 A. Because it was -- it was the point about information. 3 When Sarah Payne went missing, I was surprised that the 4 police team around the inquiry were pretty sure who they 5 thought the perpetrator might be because he was 6 a convicted paedophile living in the community, who had 7 just been released, having abducted another 8 eight-year-old girl in almost identical circumstances, 9 and it was news to me that convicted paedophiles of that 10 serious nature were allowed to live unchecked in the 11 community and parents didn't have any information on 12 that, and when I checked, back in America, after the 13 murder of Megan Kanka in 1994, President Clinton had 14 brought in a Megan's law, which had been working very 15 well, and so that's why I thought the mechanic was 16 right. 17 Q. One can understand the argument to this extent. Let's 18 agree that the criminal law might need to be 19 strengthened. Why is it necessary, as part of that 20 legitimate campaign, to publish the names and 21 photographs of known sex offenders? 22 A. Because in 2000 when we did it -- and I think it was 23 over a period of just two weeks -- it was a way of 24 highlighting the central issue of the campaign to try 25 and explain to the readers the huge gap between what 54 1 they thought was the situation and what was the 2 situation. 3 Q. Why couldn't you just explain it to your readers in 4 clear and simple language? Why sensationalise it and 5 create the obvious risk of reprisals? 6 A. Well, actually before we did it, having looked at 7 Megan's law, there was very, very limited -- there is 8 very limited vigilanteism. I wasn't predicting those 9 reprisals and I felt it was the best way to highlight 10 the central point of the campaign. 11 Q. Were there any reprisals? 12 A. There were two that are written about. 13 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Does that include the paediatrician? 14 A. It does, sir, yes. 15 MR JAY: The natural and foreseeable consequence of 16 a sensationalised campaign, wouldn't you agree, 17 Mrs Brooks? 18 A. No, I think the -- I don't think anyone could have 19 predicted the paediatrician situation. And secondly, 20 I think on Paul's Grove estate, I think the residents 21 were quite shocked to discover that Victor Burnett had 22 been living there unchecked when his last words in 23 prison were: "I'm going to offend again", although 24 again, I didn't predict the outcome. 25 Q. It's been a recurring theme in the questioning over the 55 1 course of the day that I put to you a proposition which 2 might seem obvious as a matter of common sense and you 3 reject it each time. I'm going to try again with this 4 one. Is it not evidently inflammatory to publish in the 5 News of the World the names and photographs of known sex 6 offenders, with the foreseeable consequence that there 7 might be physical violence? 8 A. Well, if you published it on the basis that you knew 9 that that would happen, yes. But it was not the 10 intention. The incidents I can explain, as I've tried 11 to. The fact is that it was a very serious -- there 12 were very serious loopholes that needed to be closed and 13 it was a bold -- some people disagreed with it, some 14 people agreed with it in terms of press, but 98 per cent 15 of the British public continue to agree with the 16 campaign probably up until this day. 17 Q. It might not have been your motive, Mrs Brooks, but it 18 was the natural and probable consequence of your 19 actions, wasn't it? 20 A. No. 21 Q. If it wasn't, it means that you banished from your mind, 22 I would suggest to you, that which would be patently 23 obvious to anyone else and which ought to have been 24 obvious to an editor exercising your position, role and 25 power. Would you not agree? 56 1 A. No, I won't agree because I did not predict there was 2 going to to be a riot in Paul's Grove and I didn't 3 predict that somebody, a member of the public, would 4 mistake a paedophile for a paediatrician. I don't think 5 anybody could have predicted that. 6 Q. In many things, though, Mrs Brooks, one can't predict 7 the exact sequence of events which would lead to an 8 outcome, but you could certainly predict the outcome in 9 general terms. What I'm suggesting to you is that it's 10 plain as a pikestaff that this sort of outcome would or 11 at least might arise. Would you not agree? 12 A. No, and you have the benefit of hindsight, which 13 I didn't have at the time. I was merely constructing a 14 very bold campaign in order to change the sex offenders 15 act of 1997. 16 Q. Not just bold, Mrs Brooks, but sensationalised, designed 17 to inflame and designed to improve the standing of you 18 and the standing of the News of the World with those 19 crude objectives in mind. Is that not true? 20 A. Mr Jay, you seem to have taken the opinion of -- the 21 Guardian, I think, had that at the time. I disagree 22 with you. It is not my opinion, and I'm not going to 23 agree with you. 24 Q. Okay. 25 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Let me make it clear that I have 57 1 absolutely no concern about the policy objectives of 2 a campaign that News of the World or anybody else wishes 3 to run. That's what freedom in our society means. 4 I have no problem about that at all. The only question 5 I might ask, following up on Mr Jay's question, is: if 6 you had appreciated that the public might react in the 7 way in which it did in the two incidents, do you think 8 you would have rethought whether that aspect of the 9 campaign should be run? 10 A. I do have some regrets about the campaign, particularly 11 the list of convicted paedophiles that we put into the 12 paper, because I felt that we'd made some mistakes by 13 just going on an appearance on the Sex Offenders Act, 14 which wasn't necessarily the right criteria. However, 15 I still thought that the mechanic that we used was the 16 right thing to do. 17 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Right. 18 MR JAY: Paragraphs 99 and 100 of your second statement, 19 02589, when you refer to a wider point. Do you remember 20 that? 21 A. What paragraph, sorry? 22 Q. Paragraph 99. 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. You moved off the Andy Coulson issue and you have 25 scotched the myth there, do you follow me, and then 58 1 you're moving on to your wider point. 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. You say in the second line: 4 "It is one thing to be a passionate advocate of 5 a free press but if you seek to defend an inaccurate 6 free press, you lose the moral high ground." 7 Are you intending to say there that there are some 8 aspects of our free press which might give rise to 9 criticism because our free press can be inaccurate? 10 A. I think that -- and you've discussed this in the first 11 module of the Inquiry -- that when a newspaper gets it 12 wrong -- one of the biggest complaints I used to get, 13 not necessarily about my own newspaper but about the 14 press in general, was the prominence of apologies when 15 an inaccuracy had taken place, and that's what I'm 16 referring to. The page 37, one paragraph type thing. 17 Q. In some respects -- and this is perhaps an ironical 18 aspect of your evidence. In the course of the day, I've 19 put to you stories which are said to be reliably 20 sourced, whether they are in the Times or Vanity Fair or 21 elsewhere, and very often you've said, "It's untrue", 22 but that, in a funny sort of way, is the sort of debate 23 we've been having at this Inquiry. If your evidence is 24 right, that is, so often sources don't stand up, based 25 on myth or half truth or a garbled version of the truth. 59 1 Do you see the irony there? 2 A. Yes, I do. 3 Q. What do you think the reason for it all is? 4 A. Well, Mr Jay, today you've put to me quite a few, shall 5 we say, gossipy items, for want of a better word -- 6 Q. Same sort of stuff one reads or did read in the News of 7 the World -- 8 A. And the Sun. 9 Q. -- and continues to read in the Sun. Isn't that true? 10 A. Yes, but we're not in a tabloid newsroom now, are we? 11 Q. No, we're not. 12 A. We're in an Inquiry. So you put a personal few 13 things -- my personal alchemy, my -- did Rupert Murdoch 14 and I swim? Where did I get the horse from? Did 15 Mr Murdoch buy me a suit? The list is endless and I've 16 had to refute a lot of those allegations because -- 17 "allegations" is overstating the case -- they're wrong. 18 But I do feel that that is merely a systematic issue 19 that -- you know, I think a lot of it's gender-based. 20 I think that my relationship with Mr Murdoch -- if I was 21 a grumpy old man of Fleet Street, no one would write the 22 first thing about it, but perhaps otherwise I get a lot 23 of this criticism and gossip. But I wasn't complaining 24 and I wasn't making -- it would be the height of 25 hypocrisy for that last paragraph to mean that. All 60 1 I was saying is that in my experience as a journalist, 2 it is one of the biggest complaints I get where people 3 say that the apology never matches the inaccuracy. 4 Q. The systematic issue you referred to may not relate to 5 you, although I understand naturally you would have 6 particular concerns in relation to yourself. The 7 systematic issue as regards inaccuracy may be a function 8 of the commercial pressures the press is under, its 9 reliance on sources which do not always stand up, its 10 tendency to rely on stories which ring true but which 11 don't happen to be true, and finally the story itself 12 being more important than the truth. In microcosm 13 today, we have seen demonstrated the sort of phenomenon 14 which has occupied the life of the press for decades in 15 this country. Is that fair or not? 16 A. I don't think it's fair and I don't think any journalist 17 in the room would agree with the final summing up of 18 that statement, where you say the story's more important 19 than the truth. 20 Q. Are there other aspects of the culture, practice and 21 ethics of the press which you're looking at in 22 paragraph 99, such as harassment and intrusion, or are 23 these issues which you would either prefer not to 24 address or don't think are particularly important? 25 A. Well, no. Of course I think they're important. I mean, 61 1 I'm happy to discuss them, but just for the purposes of 2 this module, which was meant to be about the discussion 3 of the appropriate relationship between press and 4 politicians, I haven't gone into them in my witness 5 statement. 6 Q. Okay. 7 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I understand that, Mrs Brooks, but 8 one couldn't have listened for the day -- and indeed 9 read the material that has been published and written 10 about you that forms this lever-arch file -- without 11 wondering a little bit about the extent to which the 12 press have intruded rather beyond your public position 13 into your private life, and I wonder whether you have a 14 comment, speaking with all the experience that you have 15 as an editor of the News of the World and the Sun, as to 16 the extent to which the press does now get further and 17 further into issues of privacy? 18 A. Well, look, for a start, I consider myself to be 19 a journalist and therefore I -- as I said to Mr Jay, it 20 would be, I think the height of hypocrisy for me to 21 complain. However, I have had those complaints from 22 people in my career as journalism and I've always tried 23 to understand and always tried to use my judgment to 24 where that line fell. 25 As to my own situation, well, you know, it's been 62 1 a difficult year and -- but a lot of the questions that 2 I've had from Mr Jay I felt concentrated on quite 3 a trivial side. I was happy to discuss them, but it was 4 all -- you know, I'm not sure it helps this Inquiry 5 whether Mr Murdoch bought me a suit or not, or I went 6 swimming with him. 7 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: What might help is the nature of the 8 relationship and the influence that it generates, and 9 they're all bits and pieces. I wasn't asking you to 10 complain, because you've said in terms that it would be 11 hypocritical of you to do so in the light of your past 12 experience, but because I'm trying to find the way 13 through the various modules, including the political 14 one, I wanted to give you the opportunity of saying 15 anything you wanted to say on the subject. 16 A. Well, I think -- I think on the -- on the politicians, 17 I do think much has been made of cosy relationships and 18 informal contact, and I believe that if journalists meet 19 politicians, the -- it's going to be incredibly hard to 20 be -- the journalist to be transparent about that or be 21 forced to be transparent because often they are exactly 22 the ways that we get information. So if you see an MP 23 for a drink and then have to print your schedules the 24 next day, that's quite difficult. 25 On the other hand, I understand from this government 63 1 that they have improved their transparency from their 2 part, and so I suppose it was to urge you that actually 3 there really shouldn't be -- there shouldn't be, if 4 everyone's individual contact is correct -- I have 5 a never compromised my position as a journalist by 6 having a friendly relationship with a politician. I've 7 never known a politician compromise their position 8 particularly with their friendship with me or with 9 another executive. 10 So I'm not saying the system is perfect, far from 11 it, but a review and understanding of the current laws 12 might be a start, or enforcing of the current laws, 13 before we put any more restrictions into it. 14 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: In relation to a press and the 15 politicians, I don't know that it's a question of law. 16 A. I'm talking about the Ministerial Code, which is 17 changing all the time, and it changed in July last year. 18 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But you said to me before lunch -- 19 when I asked you: can you understand why it might be 20 a matter of public concern that the very close 21 relationship between journalists and politicians might 22 create subtle pressures on the press, who have 23 a megaphone on the politicians who have the policy 24 decision, you agreed that you could understand that. 25 A. I could understand your point very clearly, sir, because 64 1 I think in every walk of life and every kind of 2 relationship you have, there are subtle pressures. 3 I think that's human nature. And it is up to 4 individuals' conduct and how you respond to those 5 pressures. So I accept what you're saying as a fact, 6 but I do think that both the press and politicians need 7 to make sure that they have their professional life in 8 front of anything else so they don't compromise. 9 I mean, the big point about sort of 10 a prime minister -- if a prime minister ever had put 11 a friendship or a relationship or a cosiness with 12 a media group before their duties to the electorate, 13 then that would be a terrible failing. 14 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Of course. But it might be that 15 they're convinced that it is consistent with their 16 duties to the electorate. In other words, the nature of 17 the relationship is such that they become honestly and 18 completely convinced, because of the respect they hold 19 the people that they're dealing with, who may be their 20 friends -- and therefore they're not doing anything that 21 is improper but they are slightly, perhaps, less guarded 22 with people in the press, particularly those who may be 23 their friends, than they will be when they know there's 24 a lobby group coming. The example I gave to Mr Coulson 25 yesterday was from the coal industry, and then there's 65 1 a lobby industry from Greenpeace to talk about a new 2 colliery. That's a part of our process that different 3 interest groups get the opportunity to make their point. 4 But I don't suppose many colliery owners get the 5 opportunity to make as many points as the most senior 6 journalists get to make, and the colliery owners don't 7 quite have the same ability to provide -- if I use the 8 word "something in return", I don't want you to 9 misunderstand me. I'm not saying there's a Faustian 10 bargain necessarily, but it is, as I think has been said 11 at this Inquiry before, rather more subtle than that. 12 It's just a recognition that actually, if two people -- 13 a journalist on the one hand and a politician on the 14 other -- are on the same page and therefore support each 15 other, they might generally support each other. Not 16 improperly, not because they've made a deal, not because 17 they've been given cash or anything like that, but 18 because people can be persuaded. 19 Now, that may be fair enough, but the question is 20 how one can ensure there is sufficient openness and 21 transparency about that so that everybody is satisfied, 22 in this day of mass media communication, that all 23 decisions are being made openly and transparently, 24 without influence that people don't know about. That's 25 my point. 66 1 A. And that would be -- that's correct in terms of business 2 and commercial interests, which is, I think, where the 3 coal manufacturing comes in. All I would say -- I'm not 4 disagreeing with that point -- is that from 5 a journalist's perspective, you're not trying to get to 6 see a politician for your own personal or even your 7 company's commercial interests; you're trying to gather 8 information -- to put it, you know, at its lowest, 9 you're trying to get a good story. 10 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But you might be doing it for your 11 commercial considerations. We've talked enough about 12 the BSkyB bid or the anti-bSkyB bid. It doesn't really 13 matter which. That's where the whole thing gets just 14 a little bit fuzzy, doesn't it? 15 A. I have never known anything like the anti-Sky bid 16 alliance and indeed our natural reaction to it -- but 17 I've never heard of every media group in the country and 18 British Telecom and the BBC getting together against one 19 commercial bid. 20 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: You could take another example. You 21 could take the example of the meeting in 19 -- I have to 22 get the year right. 23 A. '80? 24 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: The meeting between Rupert Murdoch 25 and Mrs Thatcher, thank you, about the takeover of the 67 1 Times. I'm not suggesting that that's improper. I'm 2 not reaching any conclusion about any of it, but it is 3 another example. The anti-bSkyB bid alliance not merely 4 had the ability to lobby; it had the ability to use its 5 press interests. News International had the ability to 6 use its press interests. 7 A. Well, we didn't, actually, but yes. 8 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Whether you did or you didn't is not 9 my point, as you understand. 10 A. Yes, I do. 11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: So it's a question of ensuring for 12 the public that that pressure, the megaphone on the one 13 hand and the policy decisions on the other, does not get 14 out of hand. 15 A. That's correct, but I really do believe -- I know I keep 16 going on about it, but it's the ordinary people's views 17 that make a newspaper powerful, and if I can just give 18 you one example, where the Daily Mirror ran a very good 19 campaign that chimed with the readership at the 20 beginning, anti the war in Iraq. I think it was called 21 "Not in our name". And the Sun, being pro-military, 22 always kept a very sort of supportive -- you know, 23 backing our troops on the ground. Once the war started, 24 the Mirror continued with the campaign, and I think ran 25 a headline saying, "Why Mirror readers are wrong", and I 68 1 think it's in Piers Morgan's book that I was asked to 2 read again for this inquiry -- he talks about how the 3 circulation of the Mirror plummeted because in fact he'd 4 continued to drive an editorial line in the paper which 5 was against the readership, and they reacted pretty 6 swiftly. 7 I accept that's an extreme example and you were 8 asking me about subtleties in these kind of pressures -- 9 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: And that's why we spoke earlier 10 before about: is it responsiveness or leadership? And 11 there's a bit of both. 12 A. There is absolutely both. I mean, on Sarah's law, for 13 example, although many people questioned the mechanic -- 14 and I completely understand that, it was 15 controversial -- the fact is that it was again -- I put 16 a piece of information in front of the readers that 17 I found astonishing when I heard it, was that, for 18 whatever reason in the system, that convicted 19 paedophiles could live in the community unchecked, and 20 that was something I just didn't know and I presented it 21 to the readers in the way I did, and so that was 22 a situation of me putting something in front of them. 23 However, I did know that they were incredibly moved by 24 what happened to the Payne family from their reactions 25 earlier on, so I knew they would be responsive to it. 69 1 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: It's all a bit like that, isn't it? 2 A. It is. It makes it very difficult. 3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. Thank you. Is there anything 4 else that you want to add on the subject? 5 A. No, that's fine. Thank you. 6 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Right. All right, thank you. 7 A. Thank you. 8 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Right. There's something else we 9 have to deal with, but I'll let Mrs Brooks and anybody 10 who wants to leave. (Pause). 11 Right. Well, we have a little time to continue the 12 issues that were raised by Mr Sherborne. I appreciate 13 he's not here, but he will have the opportunity of 14 reading what everybody says and replying shortly when we 15 next get an opportunity. As long as we're working hard 16 and keeping to the timetable, I don't mind. 17 Right, Mr White, do you want to start? 18 Response to Mr Sherborne's Application 19 MR WHITE: May I? May I also raise one other matter that 20 Mr Jay's mentioned to you, which is on behalf of 21 News International. We would greatly appreciate an 22 opportunity to make a short opening statement on 23 Module 3 on Monday morning. Mr Jay's opening of this 24 module was focused to a very large extent on 25 News International and its conduct and that was, as one 70 1 would expect, widely reported, and we would be very 2 grateful indeed for the opportunity to make a short 3 opening statement. 4 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. In principle, I have no 5 objection to that, Mr White, except I'd need to know 6 where it was going to get me to. I mean, I did ask some 7 weeks ago whether anybody wanted to make opening 8 statements and indeed I think at one stage the Guardian 9 wanted to, and then decided that it wasn't necessary. 10 I'm just a little bit troubled that once I open the door 11 again, then everybody will decide that it's about time 12 they marched through. In one sense, I don't mind that 13 either, except that I have a timetable to deliver and 14 I'm going to deliver it. 15 Have you discussed that with any of your fellow core 16 participants? 17 MR WHITE: I haven't, but may I make this observation: that 18 there was little attention on anybody else and their 19 interaction with politicians in Mr Jay's opening, and 20 therefore I suspect that our desire to say something in 21 response may be somewhat more pressing than other 22 parties'. 23 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I understand the point. All right, 24 briefly you have that opportunity. 25 MR WHITE: Thank you very much. 71 1 May I then turn to Mr Sherborne's application on 2 Wednesday afternoon? Transcript pages 74 to 5, 3 Mr Sherborne sought a direction. It was be a 4 application of which there had been no advance warning. 5 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes, I know. That's one of the 6 reasons why I was very happy to give everybody the 7 chance to think about it. I'm the only one that should 8 get things thrown at them without knowledge. You should 9 at least have some forewarning. It's one of the perils 10 of judicial life. Yes? 11 MR WHITE: It's a very minor grumble. The application was, 12 as I understand it, for a direction that the newspaper 13 core participants should answer two questions in 14 relation to the Operation Motorman data, if I can use 15 that compendious term. The first we question was what 16 happened to the journalists who used Mr Whittamore's 17 services, in terms of whether they were disciplined or 18 any other action. The second was what steps had been 19 taken to identify whether any information from that data 20 is still being retained or used, and the closing words 21 Mr Sherborne used were: "If it is still being used, this 22 must stop." 23 May I say first of all we were surprised that that 24 application was made more than five months after 25 News International filed its very detailed evidence in 72 1 relation to the Operation Motorman data. That was in 2 the second witness statement of Pia Sarma, the editorial 3 legal director of the Times, which was read into the 4 record of the Inquiry without objection or response from 5 Mr Sherborne's clients, I think five months and two days 6 ago. 7 The first question, what happens to the journalist, 8 seems to us to break down logically into two questions 9 in fact. Firstly, what happened to them back in 2006, 10 when the report "What price privacy now?" was published, 11 and secondly, what might have happened to them at any 12 later stage. 13 Sir, the first question or the first part that, 14 namely what happened in 2006, proceeds, I think it's 15 necessary to remind the Inquiry, on a false premise. 16 The false premise is that the individual journalists in 17 question were either identified or identifiable from 18 "What price privacy now?". In fact, that report, when 19 published in December 2006, simply contained a table 20 which set out names of publications -- 21 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes, I have the point. 22 MR WHITE: Yes. 23 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: So they couldn't do anything then and 24 indeed they contended that they were wrongly identified 25 anyway. At least certain of the entries in relation to 73 1 clients of yours were challenged. 2 MR WHITE: Yes. 3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: So I understand that. Yes? 4 MR WHITE: You have in mind the Sunday Times was said to 5 have 52 transactions involving seven journalists. When 6 we asked who those were and what they were, it was 7 "corrected" to four transactions involving one 8 journalist. 9 But we also expressly asked for the information to 10 enable us to investigate it and were refused it, and all 11 that is set out in detail in Pia Sarma's witness 12 statement. The MOD reference is MOD10049133, 13 particularly at paragraph 12. I don't think we need to 14 get it up on the screen. But we couldn't do anything in 15 2006. 16 Ms Sarma's witness statement also addresses whether 17 we could have done anything from our own records to try 18 and see whether we could match the table and she 19 explains later in the witness statement, I think at 20 paragraph 16, why, given the age of the data -- which, 21 as you may recall, by December 2006 was between about 22 four and seven years old already -- that simply wasn't 23 practical. 24 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I remember. I had forgotten, but 25 I remember now, yes. 74 1 MR WHITE: All of what I'm saying is essentially by way much 2 reminder. Ms Sarma also explained why the unidentified 3 journalists may well have not have been aware of 4 any illegality and what I did want to remind you of was 5 that the vast majority of the Operation Motorman data in 6 relation to my clients consisted simply of ex-directory 7 telephone numbers and our evidence was that those were 8 obtainable through legitimate sources. Indeed, we 9 exhibited some websites providing exactly that service 10 which continue to operate, and one of them claims with 11 the approval of the ICO. 12 So that's one point about whether there was any 13 actual wrongdoing disclosed even against the 14 unidentified journalists but Ms Sarma went further and 15 explained that without knowing the particular 16 transaction, it is was impossible to see whether there 17 was a public interest defence -- an apparent offence or 18 prima facie offence -- under section 55. She did so not 19 in the abstract but by exhibiting at PS6 certain stories 20 which we linked to particular lines in the data, where 21 we said there was a public interest. It's 22 a confidential exhibit but it's in evidence. We didn't 23 do the exercise for every line but doing it for some was 24 an indication of how difficult it is to oversimplify the 25 problem and suggest that any journalist using the 75 1 services should have been disciplined. 2 Then one asks: should we have done something at 3 a later date? I suppose the first question is when, but 4 let us take the example of you when all the participants 5 obtained, through the Inquiry, the relevant data. The 6 position at that stage, sir, is the transactions were by 7 then at least nine years old and since some of them were 8 probably much older, it would have been difficult at 9 that stage to look into them. More difficult. 10 More importantly, I think we had only one or perhaps 11 two journalists named in the data still in employment at 12 any of our titles. But we also took the view that to 13 take disciplinary action against employees for 14 transactions more than nine years old would have been 15 completely indefensible in employment law terms and they 16 were far too stale to start disciplining people. 17 There's a further point that we wanted to emphasise 18 which is that both the former Information Commissioner, 19 Mr Thomas, and the present one, Mr Graham, confirmed at 20 your seminar on 12 October last year, and again in their 21 evidence, that they didn't perceive any problem of the 22 press purchasing illegally obtained information had 23 persisted after 2006. So the problem those gentlemen 24 both identified and the earlier one brought out in the 25 report they saw as historical. 76 1 In those circumstances, we suggest that disciplinary 2 action, either in 2006 or in 2011, wasn't actually 3 realistic against individual journalists and exploring 4 the issue of why it did or didn't happen won't assist 5 your Inquiry at all. 6 As far as the second question is concerned -- 7 namely, the retention and possible current processing of 8 the data -- the first point is similar to the one I have 9 been putting forward, namely that in 2006 we couldn't do 10 anything because we didn't know what the data was. By 11 2011, the data is very old. It's got to be at least 12 nine years old. It would be a huge effort, 13 a disproportionate effort, to try and identify what in 14 most cases is this low grade personal information, 15 ex-directory numbers, see if they're on the systems 16 separately from their presence on the systems through 17 other avenues, and again, we question how much you'll be 18 assisted by exploring that issue, certainly now that 19 we're well downstream from Module 1. 20 There's a final point I wanted to make, which is 21 a harder edged point. You have a lot on your plate in 22 this Inquiry, as you say from time to time, and 23 I certainly recognise it myself. There are other 24 officials under the Data Protection Act who have the 25 duty of seeing whether our current processing is lawful, 77 1 fair, appropriate. Any individual who is concerned can 2 make a complaint under the Data Processing Act. The 3 High Court as jurisdiction to rule. The ICO has 4 jurisdiction to rule. Fortunately, you may think, you 5 don't. 6 If our current processing, such as it is, is lawful 7 under the Data Processing Act, the press can't be 8 criticised for any retention and continuing processing 9 and I'd respectfully invite you to put aside this 10 invitation to add yet more to your workload, largely 11 because it won't take you anywhere but also for the 12 reasons I've given. 13 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes, I understand. Thank you very 14 much. Right. 15 MR BROWNE: In cricket I'd be called the nightwatchman. 16 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I would never describe you in that 17 way, Mr Browne. Other ways, yes, but not that way. 18 MR BROWNE: The first point I want to make -- and I have 19 five -- is the issue, as Mr White says, is now 20 historical. The search warrant which seized the 21 Whittamore documents was executed as long ago as 8 March 22 2003. Subsequently, as we heard from Mr Gilmour, the 23 seven journalists are interviewed under caution. None 24 of them were ever arrested. Within a matter of, weeks 25 on 6 March 2004, the Crown Prosecution Service had 78 1 concluded that there was insufficient evidence to charge 2 any of them. Mr Gilmour explained in his oral evidence 3 that that was because they couldn't establish guilty 4 knowledge on the part of any one of the journalists. 5 You'll recall from exhibit RJT49 to Mr Thomas' first 6 witness statement that when Mr Whittamore and two others 7 appeared in front of Judge Samuels at Blackfriars Crown 8 Court, the judge made it clear that there was no halfway 9 house in the matter and the presumption of innocence 10 applied in relation to each of the journalists in 11 respect of whom a decision had been taken that there was 12 insufficient evidence to charge them. 13 Secondly -- I can take this quickly too; it's a 14 point made by Mr White -- such alleged misbehaviour as 15 had taken place prior to 2006 appears to have ceased in 16 the view of not merely the current Information 17 Commissioner but also his predecessor, Mr Thomas, and 18 indeed you'll recall that in your ruling at the end of 19 last year on access to the evidence submitted by 20 Alexander Owens, you said at paragraph 3 that there was 21 no basis for suggesting that the conduct that had given 22 rise to Operation Motorman had been repeated, and 23 doubtless you derived that from two passages in 24 Mr Thomas' first witness statement at paragraphs 44 and 25 46, where he said that what he was getting from his team 79 1 was that press misconduct of the type that had led to 2 the two ICO reports in the second half of 2006 had 3 largely ceased thereafter and that the allegations that 4 had surfaced since July 2011 appeared to predate 2006. 5 Mr Thomas confirmed all of that when cross-examine by 6 Mr Caplan, Day 14, page 117. 7 More recently -- and we can hand up a copy of this 8 if it is necessary -- Mr Graham, the current Information 9 Commissioner, told the Commons Justice Committee 10 in September last year that so far as the ICO's office 11 was concerned, the activities of the press recently have 12 not particularly come to their attention and the concern 13 that he had about Section 55 was really not very much to 14 do with the press as opposed to those in the financial 15 services sector. 16 Thirdly, when the Inquiry comes to consider culture 17 practices and ethics of the press in relation to my 18 client, a relevant consideration will no doubt be that 19 the editors of the Daily and Sunday Mirror accepted in 20 cross-examination by Mr Barr that given the sheer volume 21 of requests, it would be surprising if every request to 22 Mr Whittamore by their journalists was covered by 23 a public interest defence. That, we say, is really as 24 far as you need to go, and when the question arose on 25 day 37 during the evidence of Mr Dacre of much the same 80 1 question, you indicated that what interested you and the 2 Inquiry was whether it was accepted that there was 3 a possibility that some the inquiries could not be 4 justified. If I can just quote a sentence from what you 5 said. At page 56 of Day 37 in the afternoon, you said 6 this: 7 "I'm not concerned to ask how many or who because 8 that's a detail which, for the purposes of my Inquiry, 9 I don't believe I need to go into." 10 You said something very similar in response to 11 Mr Sherborne on Wednesday afternoon at page 76 when you 12 said that the purpose of the Inquiry cannot be to answer 13 all the factual issues and you said this: 14 "It would be quite impossible to look at ten years 15 of journalistic endeavour across a wide range of titles 16 and do balanced and fair justice to individual 17 incidents." 18 Fourth point -- 19 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Sometimes I say things which appeal 20 to me even now. 21 MR BROWNE: That comes as much comfort. 22 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I'm not so sure, Mr Brown. 23 MR BROWNE: I think (inaudible) is the adjective that comes 24 into my mind. 25 Fourthly, the requests which Mr Sherborne made, 81 1 which are effectively to reopen and extend the ambit of 2 Module 1, come far, far too late in the day. I had to 3 ask somebody to tell me but I had to be reminded that 4 hearings in Module 1 ended as long ago as Thursday, 5 9 February, and I wish Mr Sherborne was here so I didn't 6 have to say this behind his back, but it really is 7 disingenuous to suggest, as he did when he opened this 8 application, that it was made in the light of 9 DCI Gilmour's evidence. The detective chief inspector 10 had said nothing in his oral evidence or in his witness 11 statement to suggest, for example, that offending 12 journalists had been promoted to senior positions, a 13 point that Mr Sherborne wishes to pursue in the first 14 set of questions. 15 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: You haven't said it behind his back. 16 He'll read it. 17 MR BROWNE: Good. He may even be watching me live. 18 Indeed, just reverting to DCI Gilmour, he was at 19 pains not to mention the names of the journalists 20 questioned, in accordance not only with your 21 self-denying ordinance but also the stance adopted by 22 Mr Thomas and the ICO. You'll recall that Mr Thomas, in 23 his second witness statement, said that the ICO had 24 always regarded the names as personal data and he 25 emphasised the sensitive nature of that data by reason 82 1 of the fact that the names had been obtained by reason 2 of the exercise of the search warrant in March 2004, the 3 journalists had not been prosecuted, let alone convicted 4 and they'd had no chance to defend themselves. 5 The other point in relation to delay is this. Back 6 on 13 March 2012 at the beginning of Day 49 in the 7 morning, you, sir, made a ruling declining to make 8 public the submissions received in private on 2 December 9 last year in relation to Mr Owens' evidence and you 10 added to that, as one sees between pages 2 and 3 of Day 11 49 in the morning, that if Mr Sherborne wished to argue 12 that it was appropriate that the Inquiry should publish 13 the documents seized in Operation Motorman in 2003, you 14 would set aside time formally and in public to consider 15 the issue, but in the same ruling, having emphasised yet 16 again that the Inquiry was not concerned with individual 17 conduct, you said it would be unfair to name the 18 reporters identified in the Whittamore records seized 19 during Operation Motorman. 20 Finally on this issue, the sheer volume of 21 information would make answering these enquiries 22 impossibly burdensome at any time, let alone so late in 23 the day. There are, on any footing, a large number of 24 transactions, a large number of journalists who would 25 have to be investigated, and there is no easy way into 83 1 that process because there's no database as such of the 2 information from the Whittamore documents. 3 My fifth and final point, turning to the detail of 4 the questions as applicable to Trinity Mirror -- 5 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I've got up to six points, Mr Browne, 6 but never mind. Yes. 7 I found I couldn't count yesterday, I counted the 8 wrong number of families, as somebody was quick to 9 correct me. Yes? 10 MR BROWNE: First of all, the group in questions one, we 11 already know the answers to the majority of those 12 questions. They were covered in the evidence of the 13 editors and of Sly Bailey, our chief executive, on 14 16 January. No one at the Mirror was fired, no one was 15 disciplined, and just to summarise very shortly, what 16 Mrs Bailey said was that in 2006, following the 17 publication of the ICO report "What price privacy?", 18 Trinity Mirror had adopted what she described as 19 a forward-looking approach, not declaring an amnesty and 20 making very, very, very clear, she said, what was 21 acceptable and what was completely and absolutely 22 unacceptable. If, back then in January, there had been 23 relevant additional questions to ask, they should have 24 been submitted then. 25 In relation to the last of the four subsidiary 84 1 questions in question one, namely are the journalists 2 still working for the newspaper and even being 3 appropriated to senior positions, the Inquiry's 4 consistent approach, rightly in our submission, has been 5 not to identify individual journalists. 6 In relation to question 2, the procedure of this 7 Inquiry is, we submit, not a Trojan horse to fish for 8 disclosure which cannot be obtained by other means. 9 I think that's a terrible mixed metaphor, but I hope my 10 meaning is clear. You will doubtless be aware that the 11 ICO has established, I believe since the commencement of 12 this Inquiry, a fast-track service whereby individuals 13 can find out, by means of a subject access request under 14 the DPA, if the Whittamore notebooks contain any 15 information about them. That is route that is open, and 16 there was certainly nothing in Mr Gilmour's evidence to 17 suggest that information was still being retained, let 18 alone used, nine years after it had been seized. 19 Indeed, very much the contrary, in the light of what 20 Mr Thomas and Mr Graham have said. 21 My final, final point is this. Following the 22 hearing on 2 December last year, the data sticks with 23 the Whittamore information on them were released to the 24 core participants, including Mr Sherborne and his 25 client. They were released precisely so that, having 85 1 analysed them, they could make submissions on the 2 contents. It appears that that is an option that they 3 have declined to take. They have chosen not to do so, 4 and now, very, very late in the day, nearly six months 5 later, they adopt this procedure, which will involve 6 going back over Module 1 and involve a massive exercise 7 both for the participants, if they are ordered to 8 undertake it, but also for the Inquiry subsequently to 9 analyse it. In my submission, it is a simply hopeless 10 application. 11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank you. 12 MR CAPLAN: I adopt all of that. I don't know whether I can 13 usefully add anything, but I think it's all been said, 14 if I may say so. 15 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank you very much. I'll let 16 Mr Sherborne read it all and at some stage when we next 17 have a break and I feel we need to do some more work, 18 he'll get the chance to respond. 19 Anybody else want to say anything else on this 20 topic? 21 Thank you very much. 10 o'clock on Monday morning. 22 (4.22 pm) 23 (The hearing adjourned until 10 o'clock 24 on Monday, 14 May 2012) 25 86