Tuesday, 4 October 2011 (10.30 am) We will have a break in the mid-morning to give the pressed shorthand writers an opportunity to recover their strength. This is the second hearing intended to identify the way forward for the conduct of this Inquiry. There has been some concern expressed about the adequacy of notice. I am sorry about that and I have no doubt that, as we get into the Inquiry, the dissemination of knowledge will become rather swifter and more timeous, but while we are all trying to find our way it is inevitable that things have to be done at rather shorter notice than might otherwise be desirable. I am grateful to those who have raised further issues beyond those identified by Mr Jay. What I think we will do is we will go through the issues that he has identified and then deal with anything else that might arise. I will at some stage want to identify the need for further of these hearings but I am keen to underline that the process, which I am determined should be open, transparent and fair, is not intended to generate satellite issues which, with the greatest of respect, seem more designed to pin me down than really to take forward the issues with which I have to grapple. In some regards, it may be worthwhile pinning issues down but that is a different matter. I intend to conduct this Inquiry fairly. I am going to consider the issues fairly. Analysis of previous decisions of mine in the Court of Appeal criminal division, the Court of Appeal civil division or, indeed, the House of Lords will not assist in the ultimate view that I take because I have identified from the outset the issues with which I have to grapple and the way in which I intend to approach them. Everybody will have to take that on board, and they will then have to see whether the way in which I deal with the evidence and the ultimate report that I write fits the description that I have just provided. So with that general observation which is not intended to be a prescriptive analysis but merely to reflect my concern as I have read the various letters that have passed between different people, let us start. Mr Jay Submissions by Sir, I have circulated a note and some draft protocols. I have a checklist, as it were, or agenda for you today. The first issue is the status of those who have not been designated core participants but who, nonetheless, wish to receive the same documents as core participants at the same time as they receive them. So those who fall into that category at the moment are Trinity Mirror, Mrs Rebekah Brooks, the Metropolitan Police Authority and the Telegraph Media Group. We have received correspondence and submissions from them and those have been provided to you. This refers back to my observation that I did not intend there to be a bright line between those who were core participants and those who were not. Yes. What I was there referring to was the ability of anyone to suggest questions to you which you, as counsel to the Inquiry, might wish to pursue, and the ability of others to ask if I will receive submissions at the conclusion of the Inquiry -- Yes. -- which I made clear, certainly to a number of those who applied for core participant status, will likely be received favourably. Yes. But there is a limit to that if the Inquiry is not to become entirely unwieldy. Yes. It is clear from the rules that the core participants enjoy a certain status, of course they are designated under Rule 5, but in terms of their status in respect of which the rules make this explicit, they have certain rights or privileges in the context of oral evidence, this is Rule 10, and they also have rights, subject to your controlling that right, to make oral and closing statements under Rule 11. Yes. The rules do not state whether core participants can make submissions on draft protocols, whether they can see witness statements in advance, whether they can see documents in advance, but that is a matter for you. There is, as it were, an overriding objective in the Act under Section 17 that you act fairly, and that is the guiding principle of course. It appears -- Therefore, do I understand that inquiries conducted under this legislation before have arranged for core participants to receive all these documents in advance -- Yes. -- in order the better to prepare for the Inquiry. Yes. The question arises, I suppose, whether you have power in relation to other persons and entities who are not core participants in the strict sense, either because they haven't applied or because you have already decided that they are not, whether you have power to say that they should, nonetheless, receive advance notice of documents, et cetera, and witness statements. It appears too to us, but it is a matter for your discretion, that you are master of your own procedure and you could, if you so chose, say, in relation to perhaps a limited number of persons, Yes, they may receive documents in advance. There is nothing, as we see it, in the rules which prevents that course, but nor is there anything which mandates that course. Doubtless, you will receive submissions about it but those are, insofar as there are any principles the principles which will determine your decision once you have heard those submissions. So that is the first issue which arises today. So the second issue, perhaps more prosaically, the draft protocols, because we have received submissions as we sought them on the protocols, of which there are three now in draft, the assessor's protocol, which was subject to some debate at the last hearing, but it was expressly agreed that it would not be finalised until you heard submissions today. Yes. So you indicated on that occasion that you were minded to make an addition to paragraph 3(b) of the assessor's protocol. In an area of their expertise -- Yes. -- which really came into -- because 3 is subject to paragraph 2, then it is really for the purpose of avoiding doubt. Yes. The proof of the pudding on all this will be in the eating, won't it Very much so. News International, paragraph 2 of their submissions, they enquire whether advice from assessors includes oral advice Advice is dealt with, sir, under paragraph 5 of the draft protocol and, as drafted, it certainly does not exclude oral advice. Then News International raise a point, but they will no doubt develop it will the parties be given advance notice of your intention to seek a report from an assessor under clause 4 of the protocol It wasn't News International. It may have been the Guardian, actually. My note is faulty. It doesn't matter from whom it emanates. We will hear who makes the submission. Yes, well, we will, won't we I am identifying the substance rather than the messenger but the point is made, will you be giving advance notice of your intention to seek a report We say that is entirely a matter for you. Then it is the Guardian, paragraph 7 of their submissions, this point will you be defining the specific nature and ambit of an assessor's expertise Our only observation on that is that it is a matter for your judgment as to whether an assessor is -- This is one of the issues that does cause me concern that I am going to start getting myself into all sorts of arguments about whether I have asked for something that does fall or doesn't fall within the expertise, whereas, actually, at the end of the day, I have to get on with it and be fair. Yes. When I have sat with other assessors in other jurisdictions nobody has ever asked me the question about what question I asked an assessor and what answer I gave. Ultimately, provided I am fair and I make it clear that if I have received some expert view which is different to the evidence, that people have a chance to deal with it, that seems to me where I ought to be going. Paragraph 4.3 of the draft protocol specifically contemplates, as must be right, consistent with obligations of fairness, that you receive submissions or observations on any report submitted by an assessor. There is nothing to stop the party from saying Well, you shouldn't have solicited that report because a particular assessor is simply not competent to provide it to you. Let us see whether that happens, but whether you need to do it in an anticipatory way and define nature and ambit of an assessor's expertise in advance, is a matter for you, but your provisional view is that that would probably be unnecessary. I am just concerned that, as I say, we are going to move off the main track -- Yes. -- into sidings which can be extremely tortious. Yes, with an Inquiry which has to complete within a year, we need to keep to a motorway but keep to the speed limit because the speed limit will define whether we are acting fairly. That is a very challenging assertion, these days. If we go at 150 miles an hour we may not be acting fairly but if we, as you rightly say, get diverted, we will take three years and defeat the purpose of this Inquiry. We do have to get on with it. So I move on having identified the issues which others will adumbrate in advance, perhaps in greater detail, to deal with the documents protocol which has excited only one observation on my reckoning and this is uncontroversial really. In paragraph 15 of the documents protocol which is in your bundle page 14D, sir, Associated Newspapers have suggested that we have a third category after the or, what is going to be a second or Confirm in writing that no redactions in respect of the documents or information provided are sought. That is an acceptable amendment and we will make that amendment subject to your confirmation and anybody else's contrary submission. The funding protocol has -- Just before you move from that protocol, we did receive a communication which dealt with the document management system. Yes, we did. I have no doubt that has been taken on board. It has. Are you satisfied that the point can be sufficiently addressed of the concerns I think it can. To be absolutely frank, I haven't applied my mind to all the technicalities, but I will check during the course of the morning that there is no point I need to specifically draw to your attention about the practical proposals which are there suggested. I think it is Trinity Mirror, isn't it, who made those suggestions Yes, but using their expertise from another Inquiry. So it was the MP
A. It is page 108. I am grateful. Thank you very much. Yes, it is Eversheds. Yes. I have no doubt that members of the Inquiry team will talk to solicitors who obviously have expertise in the document management system and make sure we can take whatever benefit that can be obtained from their expertise. Thank you. The next issue, and this time I am sure I have got it right, it is News International who have made the point, paragraph 3 of their submissions. They enquire as to the time for making submissions on the subjects covered by the -- We have finished the protocols, have we Yes, we have. Nobody has commented on the draft funding protocol. No. Right, okay. So this is now Comment on briefing seminars. Yes, or the subjects covered by the briefing seminars, as News International put it. So the position, as you know, under Rule 11 is that there is express provision for making opening statements. At the moment, it should probably be most appropriately made at the commencement of the formal segment of the Inquiry itself. The way it is likely to work, subject to your view, is that I will make an opening submission which would take, as presently advised, about half a day. I won't hold myself to that but that is my current thinking. Then the core participants can make submissions, both in writing and orally. The submissions in writing can cover, frankly, any matter which any particular core participant wishes to cover. Naturally, they have a second bite of the cherry at the end in the closing statements and they also are likely to be able to make oral submissions, but you may wish to control, restrict the length of time for the making of oral submissions. I am going to be restricting quite a lot of time and put lots of stuff into writing. Yes. Yes. So, in answer to News International's question, well they can say precisely what they like at that point and it need not be limited, of course, to the subjects covered by the briefings and seminars, it can be as wide ranging as they see fit. You also, it seems to us, have power, at any stage of the Inquiry, to invite submissions from counsel to the Inquiry or any core participants on any specific issue. Let me just give you some thinking on that -- Yes. -- and test out what I have previously said. The purpose of the briefings was to provide both the background in relation to the general law and in relation to the regulatory framework so that everybody understood the broad situation as it exists now. Yes. The briefing provided by Mr Warby last week was an example, and there is to be another one tomorrow, the other of the two, and there are some notes available and we will doubtless put something out about it, because it is not just to tell everybody here, most of whom know a great deal about these areas of law and perhaps rather less about regulation, but also the wider public, so that people can understand where we presently are. The purpose of the seminars is equally to spark off a discussion of the issues. Yes. I certainly intend, not only that the seminars will be capable of being watched subsequently but also the transcripts and summaries are available to raise the issues and invite what would, I suppose, strictly be the submission of evidence from the public but really engage the wider community and journalists who aren't involved in this particular Inquiry personally -- Yes. -- in the debate. Therefore, anything that anybody has to say, if anybody suggests that, for example, I don't believe anybody will, but if they did, that Mr Warby got the law wrong, then, by all means, they should do so and they can make a submission about that at any time. Yes. If they think that the way in which we ultimately invite public views on the seminars is unbalanced, without trying to weigh these to a nicety, then again, they can make submissions. Yes. I have no problem about that at all. Yes. Subject to your view, the right time to make submissions on the subject of the briefings and seminars and more generally is likely to be in the opening statement contemplated by Rule 11, so we have them in one piece. There is unlikely to be a burning need for anybody to comment in the interregnum between closing seminars and starting the evidence gathering sessions of the Inquiry. It depends, doesn't it, because people will doubtless listen to the seminars and, if there is some concern before we put something out, I mean the seminars will go out as they are, we can't change them. Yes. But, as we seek to reflect them, then I don't mind when that comes, because that is not evidence. It is part of the record of the enquiries, as I think I have said before, but will not be evidence. The evidence will be what one hears, actually, downstairs, rather than in this room, from the large range of witnesses who will be called. Yes. Anyway, we will hear what people say. Right. The next issue, and this is a further point from News International, paragraph 4 of their submissions, they raise a query as to the level of detail into which we are going to go in establishing the narrative for the purposes of part 1 of your Inquiry. Yes. I say nothing more about that, save to note that the Inquiry, at this stage, is into the culture, practices and ethics of the press. Culture is as detailed or as general as one chooses to make it, but we have already indicated we have to have regard to other considerations. I have no further submissions to make about that matter. We will hear what Mr Rhodri Davies has to say about that. List of issues, this is a point from Associated Newspapers. They would like a list of issues to clarify and explain the terms of reference. It is right that in some inquiries, in many inquiries, indeed, there has been such a list of issues. Whether it is necessary in this particular Inquiry is, we say, entirely a matter for you. But this Inquiry, as I think I have said before, is different to many inquiries. An Inquiry might be set up to investigate some disaster, the King's Cross fire, the Hillsborough, the Mid Staffs, all these inquiries are generated by events and the Inquiry will generally be to find out what happened and to learn lessons. The first problem is that a lot of the precise detail, which is normally the starting point for an Inquiry and is naturally the starting point, is or may be tied up in the investigation being undertaken by the police. Therefore, to some extent, as has been observed and as I have said, the Inquiry puts the cart before the horse because, if one were to wait for the end of the police investigation, we wouldn't start for a time to be measured in, well, not weeks and probably not months. I don't know. I simply don't know. That shouldn't be taken as my providing some indication of knowledge which I don't have, because I don't have the knowledge. Absolutely. Therefore, I am required by the terms of reference, which are far more detailed than in other inquiries, to look at some specific issues now, before the investigation can go into the sort of detail that would be necessary, which would have to await the conclusion of any police investigation. Yes. To try to go into further explanation seems to me to be rather difficult and, to some extent, I have to wait and see what evidence is generated and what I can get to grips with and how far I can go without causing that prejudice. Yes. I think I made clear that I had invited the Director of Public Prosecutions to make submissions as to how far I can go before I run the risk of potentially causing prejudice to a current criminal investigation. Yes. The next matter or series of matters concerns the handling of the Inquiry itself and the production of witness evidence. I think these points all come from the Guardian. The first point will there be advance notice of the order in which witnesses will be called and, if so, how much notice Well, the answer is we will give as much notice as we can. It goes without saying we won't be telling witnesses the night before that they are on the stand, as it were, the following morning. I don't think we have stands in this country, Mr Jay. That is true. Nobody should draw inferences about the way in which we will try to organise the time from the way we have organised these hearings. The fact is that I will want to set out a broad way forward with some identification of the time available, not least so that people can understand the restraints that will inevitably have to follow from that available time. Yes. That will include, not merely the skeleton of how we will break up the next nine months, but also, I hope, an identification of the witnesses and how long we think they will take, but that inevitably must wait the collection of the evidence because we can't make decisions until we know where we are. Yes. Not all the evidence is in, so the precise witnesses who are going to be called to give oral evidence and their sequence -- although we may have some ideas, but those ideas certainly aren't going to solidify until we have the complete picture. Where are we on responses to the notices for evidence and the requests for evidence, because there are two things. It would be right to say that all recipients, on my understanding of Section 21 notices, have engaged with the Inquiry. Some have asked for an extension of time, which have been granted. There are no specific matters which cause us concern and which we need to draw to your attention at this stage. Okay. I should say that some newspapers did not ask for extensions of time and provided their evidence on the date we originally sought and worked extremely hard to do so. I am not saying for one moment that other newspapers are not working equally hard. No, let me make it abundantly clear, I am very grateful to everybody. I am particularly grateful to those who hit the deadline, not because I am trying to be macho about this, but because we have to get on and, absent the material, we can't get on. Yes. So I am very grateful to those who have done so and I am equally grateful to whose who are working to do so within extended times and I am very keen to receive things as and when they are ready, rather than have it all bundled up in one great pile if that is not inconvenient. Yes. Unless I hear otherwise, during the course of the morning, on that specific matter, namely compliance with the Section 21 notices, there is nothing I need to bring specifically to your attention. It is all being dealt with behind the scenes and on an amicable basis, but if that is wrong I will be told. I hope if it ceases to be amicable I will be told. Yes. Everybody has to help. I am very sorry, that is the nature of the beast and it isn't in anybody's interests that this takes longer than it need take, whatever. There are issues that have to be addressed and we all have to address them and, to that extent, if different groups have different ways of working and want to suggest approaches, then I am very prepared to receive them. Yes. So thank you. The next issue is will there be advance notice of the lines of questions which, in particular, counsel to the Inquiry will be posing of witnesses Our provisional view, again, subject to further submissions and your view, is that there won't. Rule 9 of the Inquiry Rules 2006, in Mr Beer's book is at page 477, makes it clear that the areas of evidence must be addressed in witness statements. This Inquiry has chosen to use the Section 21 procedure but the principles are the same. Subject to Rule 9, the Inquiry is not presently minded to give advance notice of lines of questions, nor -- and this is a related point but slightly separate -- advance notice of documents to be put to witnesses. There is a practical issue here that, if we are to identify on a rolling basis lines of questions and documents to be put to each witness, that task is likely to prove extremely difficult to the Inquiry as presently constituted and, frankly, we are going to get bogged down and we need to be fleet of foot, frankly, and we are not minded to submit to you that this is a request which should be acceded to. Yes. It is always open to anybody to suggest questions to you -- Yes. -- which is a rather different proposition. Equally, it is open to a core participant to apply for permission to ask questions, although subject to Rule 10.1. Yes. Subject to that provision, it makes it clear that only counsel to the Inquiry and the Inquiry panel, which in that case is me and me alone, may ask questions of that witness. Yes, that is right and this leads to the final point, I suppose, that is made in this context will there be advance notice of applications by other counsel under Rule 10 to put questions to witnesses Well, the answer is given that you must rule on the application by other counsel to put questions to witnesses, notice will have to be given. But the length of that notice will depend on the nature of the application being made and a range of other factors. That also applies to the representative of a witness who is not a core participant. Yes. Rule 10.3. It is not impossible, if I can give you a hypothetical example, that counsel to the Inquiry conclude their questions of a witness and then someone else immediately makes an application to you orally and says, Well, I would like to pursue the following lines of question which counsel to the Inquiry, for whatever reason, decided not to pursue. So it would be an application made on the hoof which, with the witness there, you will have to determine on the hoof. So the advance notice, which will be given to everyone else in those circumstances, will be very short notice. One can't rule out that possibility. No, I understand that, but obviously it would be sensible if, when we have declared who is going to be called to give evidence and given appropriate notice, that, if anybody has any burning issues that they think you might miss, that they should, first of all, alert you Will you be dealing with that, this and the other You will simply be able to look down the list and say yes, no, yes, no, yes, no or yes, yes, yes or whatever. Exactly. So the length of the notice is going to be a bit of a movable feast depending on when the issue is being addressed, but as I have said, one can't rule out the possibility of applications being made at the last moment. No, I see that. The next issue, and this is likely to be uncontroversial today, the standard of proof which you should be applying to your determinations of fact under section 24 of the Act. I put forward some suggestions based on what was determined in another enquiry, the Baha Mousa Inquiry, and the ruling of Sir William Gage is available on his website, the matter is subject to detailed submissions and then a detailed ruling. We have made some suggestions really on the back of that, but a number of people have said it's not necessary or appropriate that you decide that issue today. Let us return to it another day. I am very comfortable about that. What I have done is alert everybody to the way in which I may have to approach certain issues. Yes. Whether there is to be argument about whether I can or can't or whether it is appropriate or not, to some extent, perhaps, needs to await events. I think the reason for mentioning it at this stage was merely to put it on the table. Yes. So it is on the table. We will leave it there for consideration. I know that was a matter that Mr Caplan was concerned about, not that Ms Palin wouldn't have dealt with the problem entirely appropriately. Yes. The final point which I think I have to raise, and this is another uncontroversial point, is that we said in the note that it was the Inquiry's present intention that the evidence gathering session will be televised and, subject to the view of the broadcaster, simultaneously broadcast. We invited submissions and observations about that and no one has expressed any objection to that proposed course. Yes. At that stage and in a neutral and, I hope, expository fashion those are my submissions. All right. Let us see where we go to from here. With such a bewildering array of talent, where to start I think I am going to leave Mr Sherborne towards the end because he can hear what everybody else has had to say and then deal with points where he may take a different view to some of the other core participants as it emerges, so that doesn't intend to show you any discourtesy. I am grateful. Similarly, I think, probably, with the police. Right. Mr Rhodri Davies, you are on. Submissions by Thank you, sir. Could I say at the beginning that, in view of what you said earlier, we, of course, don't doubt the commitment of the Inquiry to be open, fair and on time and it is our hope and intention that we will assist not hinder that process. If I just take the points that were raised in the note that we put in. Yes. The first one was a very short one on paragraph 5 of the assessor protocol, and Mr Jay helpfully said that oral advice was certainly not excluded and all we are really looking for is an understanding that that includes any advice that is given orally as well as advice given in writing. Yes, let me make it abundantly clear, I am not going to start -- I can't start trying to reduce every word I speak to the assessors into writing so that everybody knows everything that has been said. To that extent, I understand the concern that has been expressed but I am looking at the experts for their expertise and, in large part, that is going to be to help identify what lines of Inquiry should be sought with the witnesses and then give me the benefit of their years of expertise, when I think about specific issues. Now, nothing that I say, that I conclude, will not be available to you and I have already made it clear that I intend to hold seminars or, in other ways, discuss emerging findings. So there will be ample opportunity for you and the other core participants to comment on the direction in which I am minded to travel and to make submissions if you think that I need to tilt the rudder so many degrees to the left or right or go in the opposite direction. I don't mind that, but to start to unpick otherwise creates a satellite area of work, which I am sure you will understand, is simply not practical. Yes. As I said, it is a small point. Paragraph 5 is governed by the extent to which you consider it necessary and proportionate and we entirely understand that. Absolutely. That is the first point. The reason I am saying what I am saying is because, the more reassurance I can give everybody about how I am trying to do this and how I want to make as much open as I can make open, how I want to be as transparent as I can and how I want everybody's help and I absolutely will be fair, then the better and then perhaps people will stop chipping away, but maybe they won't. Well, if I move on from that point, sir. Yes. The next point and, in fact, this goes for quite a lot of the rest, might really be headed Timetable because the next point we have raised, and I know it is a point that has been raised by other core participants, is the point at which we should make sustained submissions, which may, in due course, be revised but at least start, on the areas which you are covering in the seminars and the briefings, as to the state of the law, regulation, the shape that future regulation might take and so on. I see. Then I have misunderstood and that is fair enough. It is not that you are very keen to make submissions that somebody has made a mistake. Not specifically, no. It is that you want to be able to make submissions in the general area. Yes. So, actually, Mr Jay is right that we are really talking about what you would say in opening submissions. That was the point which we were looking for some clarification on, as to how and when we can best help the Inquiry. I mean, there are points which we might want to elucidate on the law but, as we have understood it, and I think this follows from what you said this morning as well, the object of the seminars and certainly the briefings is not from anyone from one of the core participants, certainly not from the newspaper side anyway, to get up and make a great speech about how they see the future. It is to stimulate debate and get lots of contributions. Absolutely. Nonetheless, there has to come a point at which we say, This is the way we think it should go. Absolutely, and I am happy for that whenever you wish. Certainly, it will be helpful to have it set out at the beginning, not least because one can then examine the evidence against the possible solutions if there is a problem. Yes. To the extent that the representatives of the media have a common view about areas, then -- whether or not I agree with it, that is not quite the point -- I am very, very pleased to learn it, because I am very conscious that, whatever I do come up with, if it is different, has to work and it is not merely the assessors that will tell me Well, that idea is hopeless. You also will tell me what you think will work in the spirit of trying to use the opportunity to protect article 10 but mindful of everybody's obligations under article 8. Yes, that is certainly the balance we would want to explore. It sounds as if we should treat opening submissions as at least an initial deadline or target for those sorts of submissions. Yes. That, of course, I am afraid, immediately raises in my mind the question as to when that is going to occur. When, that has been the subject of great debate because my anxiety to start sooner rather than later is being temporised by the reality of those who advise me of the nature and extent of the task that everybody has to face, dealing with the evidence as it comes in and ensuring that the thing can be presented coherently and of a piece, and the point is made that, as days pass, different things are being said and different evidence is emerging which actually may cast a different light, and my attempt to underline the ever approaching end of this tunnel met with concerns that, if we start travelling down it too soon, we may come off the rails. So the present thinking is -- and I am not committing myself to this -- but the present thinking is that we are unlikely to be able to start before the second week in November. I would be very interested to hear whether anybody thinks that is too soon, too far away or what. The purpose being that five weeks or whatever time that is going to be taken up reading, assimilating, preparing a detailed plan and ensuring that, when we start, we start and don't stop. In other words, we keep going so that we would move straight from opening submissions into evidence. Yes. Now, that is not a timeframe that you have been told before because, to some extent, it has been one that I don't say has been forced upon me because, as those who help me have learnt, forcing things on me doesn't normally work, but it is suggested as a realistic timeframe, so I would be grateful for your view about that and indeed, everybody else's view about that. I think it would be premature for me to comment on the hoof on that, except that, certainly, I would be surprised if it was too soon and I am not going to say anything beyond that spontaneously. In a few minutes I will give the shorthand writers a break and you will have the chance to think about that. Yes. Perhaps I could raise another point which is, in a way, related to that which I am afraid is not in my note, because it hadn't struck me earlier, but you have made it clear, sir, that the Inquiry is starting with relations between the press and the public. That is entirely understandable. However, there are other aspects of the terms of reference, particularly in relation to press and police and press and politicians. Some of the witnesses, particularly from the media, will be relevant, one imagines, to all three areas. Thinking, as we have been, about matters of concern to witnesses and of fairness to them, that raises the question, which maybe there isn't an immediate answer to, as to whether people may be expected to give evidence more than once or whether the evidential phase when it starts will deal with all those aspects in one go. They won't necessarily deal with all of them because I think you will probably know that the Section 21 notices have not been addressed to the issues, as I understand it, in relation to the police or the politicians. Yes, that is right. Therefore, we have to get on with doing that but it was critical that people addressed how we were going to start. So there may be some witnesses but not, I think, many who may be asked to come again. What I hope to do, shortly, is to, as it were, start the next phase off so that there may be some degree of, as it were, concurrent rather than consecutive evidence. For the principal, most significant witnesses I would hope to avoid requesting multiple appearances -- Yes. -- but I do not exclude the possibility because, otherwise, the plan of action will just lose its momentum. Yes. Would that cause your clients any difficulty It will cause, I am sure, the obvious difficulties that busy people would prefer to prepare things once and do them once but those are probably not difficulties which weigh very heavily in the scales as against the importance of the Inquiry. Yes, but the preparation would be different, wouldn't it It will. I take the point and, indeed, people have busy lives. I am very, very conscious of that and the people who are most concerned with some of these issues are those at the very top of very important enterprises. Yes. So I am alert to it and I will do what I can to minimise inconvenience but I won't prejudice the way in which we can do the thing coherently to that end. Yes. We wouldn't suggest that matters of inconvenience should obstruct the process of the Inquiry. That is very important. No. Then the next point we have raised, which Mr Jay referred to and, again, refers really to the evidence, is how far the tribunal is minded to go at this stage in creating the narrative of events. Now, I fully understand this may be a very difficult question to answer but, as you have mentioned this morning, there is the difficulty that the police enquiries are ongoing and no one can trample over the ground which they are covering in a fashion which could prejudice their enquiries. On the other hand, as you also mentioned, the Inquiry has to have a narrative of events in order to provide the background and context for the recommendations which it makes in due course. Now, we would we welcome any guidance that it is possible to give as to how the Inquiry is intending to attain that. Obviously, there is a lot of material already in the public domain in one way or another but putting it all together is an enormous task, but there is a lot out there. So at one end, the tribunal can no doubt work with that. At the other end, it could hear fresh evidence of primary facts and make findings of primary fact as to what happened when. Then there is obviously a great deal of territory in between. As a party who is necessarily quite closely engaged in some of the history it would help us to know, if at all possible, at what level the Inquiry intends to pitch its enquiry into the narrative. Your question contains within it the answer to your question. It is impossible to identify the level of detail and certainly impossible until I have had submissions from the Director of Public Prosecutions as to the extent to which he is concerned that what I might do could prejudice proceedings. I think I identified the need for that very early on. All I can say is that I am mindful of the issue, but equally until I have the evidence, until I know what is out there and how best I can tell the story, it is quite difficult to see the detail. So I take your point. I understand it. I do not intend to prejudice any criminal investigation or prosecution. That has been a touchstone which I have identified from the very beginning, but how far I can go before I enter into forbidden territory, without knowing what is out there, and how far the Director thinks I can go, is very difficult to go further. Sorry about that. Not at all. I appreciate it is a difficult question. The last point we raised, I think, hardly needs to be made in the context of what has been said already this morning. It is really just the question of the extent of notice to individual witnesses because, even for those at the top of their profession, giving evidence in this Inquiry will be a fairly daunting experience, because there will be a Lord Justice of Appeal chairing it, six assessors, live television, documents flashing up on screens with no prior notice and, perhaps, witnesses being asked to comment immediately, and it will be quite stressful. I think as much notice as can be given, this, I am sure, applies to all witnesses, will be welcome. On the other hand, having heard you and Mr Jay, I am sure that fairness is going to be the right way -- As much notice that can be given will be given. Yes. You can rest assured that my expertise may not extend to all aspects of the work of the press but it certainly does extend to the pressures of giving evidence in any forum and I well understand the difficulties that even the most robust might face. So such assistance as can be provided to allow witnesses to prepare appropriately will be given, but there are limits to that, obviously. Then the last point is really the reverse side of that coin. Mr Jay's note at paragraph 18.2, in relation to witness evidence, raises two objectives the need to conduct the Inquiry searchingly and expeditiously and overriding considerations of fairness to the witness. Now, again, this probably hardly needs to be said but, since those two have been singled out, we were a little concerned that there is a third consideration which is fairness to anyone who may be adversely affected by the evidence given by the witness. So I am sure this will happen, but that embraces things, like suggesting lines of questioning to counsel to the Inquiry and also the opportunity to ask questions directly. Yes, I ought just to deal with that. The rules make it abundantly clear that If the evidence of a witness directly relates to the evidence of another witness, the recognised legal representative of the witness to whom the evidence relates may apply to the chairman for permission to question the witness. I will follow that, but all questioning is going to have to be very tightly curtailed. Yes. I won't let unfairness creep in but the idea that there is going to be a free-for-all should not gain credence, because there isn't. No. We are very conscious that this is an Inquiry not an adversarial litigation. That is the point and, whereas I will want to be fair to the competing interests, I have to keep very focused on what I am doing. Yes. Thank you. Unless I am told there is anything I have missed, that is all I wanted to raise. All right. I will give you a chance to ask that question and to ask about any submission you want to make about the starting date by having -- is five minutes sufficient -- just to provide a break, and I have taken you quite slowly because a number of the issues are raised by a number of the others, so hopefully, the answers that we have discussed, that we have analysed, help some of them too. We will just take five minutes. (11.35 am) (A short break) (11.40 am) You will be pleased to know I don't have anything to add and there is nothing that I can sensibly say now about the date. We will have to discuss it with our clients and see if they have any particular comments and, of course, if they do we will come back. Of course, but there is nothing that your solicitors say My God, that's impossible or Too late or too soon for any reason Nobody has said it is too soon, but nobody has yet told me that it is impossible. Thank you very much, indeed. That is very useful, thank you. Let us carry on going down the core participants who are newspaper groups. Ms Palin Submissions by Sir, may I first apologise for the late filing of our written representations yesterday morning and any inconvenience caused thereby I am grateful for the guidance that Mr Jay has set out in his note for the clarifications that the Inquiry has given this morning. In the light of what has been said, I am not sure that there is anything that I need to add, save perhaps for a small observation in relation to our request for a list of issues. I hope that that wasn't seen as an improper or inappropriate pinning down. Ms Palin, if I think you do something inappropriate there won't be any coded message about that. No, I quite understand why, in this difficult area, people are trying to pin down a number of issues, and I don't take that as inappropriate or improper, but everybody has to appreciate the problems that I face -- and that if I face, you face -- in trying to address the rather widespread nature of the issues that are identified in terms of reference, which are rather more comprehensive than might be the case if one is investigating the death of somebody in custody, which won't identify in itself where the issues that are relevant to the investigation of that death in custody will arise. Do you see the point Yes, sir. I hope it was apparent from my submissions that we recognise that it may be a premature exercise, at this stage before you have had an opportunity to review the evidence. I am not going to press it today. I simply flag that it would be a document that my clients would find useful or of great assistance in understanding how you interpret your terms of reference. I think that is, I am afraid that is it, unless there is anything else I can assist you with. That is fine. Submissions by Sir, can I just address three matters The first is topics or partly picking up the list of issues matter. We entirely accept that this is a wide ranging Inquiry and different in type from those investigating a specific incident, but the need, therefore, for parties, especially core participants and witnesses to know the topics that are being addressed is increased. It is not intended to create further work for the Inquiry, but if the Inquiry identifies topics as it goes along, it is then very helpful for those to be shared with the core participants because, otherwise, we would be like ships in the night and may miss particular areas. That is a different point entirely. I hope that all those involved in this Inquiry will liaise very closely with counsel to the Inquiry to ensure that this particular vessel proceeds in an orderly fashion. I anticipate that there may be real value in meetings outside the formal hearings of the Inquiry between counsel to try to identify the best ways forward in specific areas and I take the view, I hope accurately, that everybody sees the value in getting a result from this Inquiry which moves this debate on and, therefore, that everybody will work to try to find that solution and, therefore, the more that can be done collusively, collaboratively, the better and that applies to the Inquiry team, and I hope applies to all of you and to counsel to the Inquiry. We respectfully agree but do make the proposition that knowing topics will certainly assist and that is not, in any sense, meant to require anybody to waste time. What do you mean by knowing topics For example, if one is dealing with issues on the relationship of the press and the public, then there are a number of different issues that are raised. For example, there is the phone hacking, which gave rise to the terms of reference but there is the practice of doorstepping. Unless doorstepping is identified as a specific topic, it is not covered by your terms of reference, in the sense that doorstepping isn't picked up, it is plainly included within that. And we respectfully submit that it would be helpful if the Inquiry has developed any thinking along those lines to say, it would be helpful to address these following points, simply to share that. Let me share my immediate reaction to your question, albeit at the risk of travelling on virgin snow, which is to say this that the Inquiry covers the ethics of the press and, therefore, what is appropriate and what is not appropriate is very much within the terms of reference. So you mention doorstepping. I could mention -- is the phrase blagging -- and other mechanisms whereby information is obtained. One might talk about a number of issues, all of which fall within the code of practice which require to be considered as part of the picture that leads to the creation of an approach to the interests of the public. Again, sir, we respectfully agree -- I am pleased about that. -- but the proposition is that it is helpful to identify, for example, those specific matters which have occurred to the Inquiry, which has access to materials that the core participants don't, because it is collating all the material, it will then share it, and in those circumstances, the collaboration that you ask for is likely to be more readily available. I quite agree. We will hear what Mr Jay has to say about that at the end but my immediate reaction is that that is exactly the sort of thing that I would expect to happen without it being a formal identification of a list which then everybody has to comment on and grows barnacles. It is not intended to be a hindrance to your discharge of duties. Okay, good. The second area is lines of questioning. My learned friend Mr Jay said it wasn't proposed to give lines of questions to witnesses. We respectfully submit that there are two overarching principles in the Inquiries Act 2005. The first is fairness and the second is structures designed to elicit the truth. Not giving notice of lines of enquiry to witnesses, we submit, would be about as unfair a procedure as could possibly be imagined and it was plainly, sir, not your intention to adopt an unfair procedure because when you were having exchanges with my learned friend for News International you immediately said the aim was to give as much notice as possible. But to call witnesses who receive notices on the 8 August, who prepared statements and who are then going to be put -- and I will come finally to television cameras in a minute -- but they are then put on public display, without any notice of the areas on which they are going to be questioned, we respectfully submit would be simply wrong and it would not enable you, sir, to get at the truth because you are very likely to have a whole series of witnesses terrified by the experience, anxious to avoid causing any problems, et cetera, and in circumstances where they will not know what they are dealing with. I hope nobody is going to be terrified by the experience. Sir, you will have seen enough witnesses in your time to realise some enjoy it, some play to the gallery and some are terrified by the experience. Yes, I am not suggesting many will fall into the first category, I will stop anybody falling into the second category. Yes, I suppose it is a question of the granularity of the information. If there is to be none and, sir, you are to rule that we are to have none, we respectfully submit that would infringe all of the principles of the Act and it is plainly not your intention to be unfair and, of course, no one is trying to add to the immense burdens on my learned friend, but to put a witness up who has provided a statement dated 16 September at some stage in the future, with no idea about the areas that they are going to be asked, what might occur overnight in the bath or might have been suggested informally by someone else, we respectfully suggest would be plainly wrong. It depends on the level of detail that one is talking about. If somebody has made a very, very lengthy statement, covering a wide ranging number of issues, then it may be -- I am not deciding it, I will think about it -- appropriate to say, Well, actually, as far as we are concerned, 60 per cent of this statement can be taken as read or 80 per cent of the statement can be taken as read. The areas upon which we are interested to ask questions are A, B, C, D, the general areas of the statement. I would have to think about that. On the other hand, some witnesses will have given very focused evidence on specific issues, in which case that isn't going to be necessary. But even to that witness the proposition that you are going to be asked -- I am going to ask you questions on your witness statement, is a substantial comfort and one which, we respectfully submit, is implicit in the structures within the Inquiries Act. How unfair is it for the witness to think that they are coming to give evidence on a detailed witness statement to be met with a whole series of different questions about which they have had no notice Well, it depends again the level at which you are talking. Again, I entirely accept that and my aim is not to add to my learned friend's burdens. It is certainly not, but it is to protect people who are going to give witness statements and I represent some witnesses but my learned friends around the tables will represent others, but to call a person who thinks it may be the witness statement only, even telling them that is likely to provide massive reassurance. Then to say, And also topics, for example, doorstepping, if that has been identified as a topic or something else, we respectfully submit is so obvious that it almost goes without saying, which is why this is my second point. Why doesn't it appear in the Act Because the Act says fairness. The Act says fairness and the proposition that you would call a person to be subjected to public questioning, without any notice, we respectfully submit would infringe all the principles of -- It happens all the time in crime. Even in crime people have at least some idea of the broad areas. They have made a witness statement and they are cross-examined on a wide range of issues and, indeed, I was personally involved in an Inquiry, acting for a witness in that case, in which the word I used to describe what had happened to him was hijacked. The potential unfairness of that has been mitigated by the Criminal Procedure Rules, which require notice now if your character is going to be assassinated and you are a third party. Is it not, in a situation which is not adversarial, even more important to discharge duties of fairness to witnesses I am actually more interested to make sure that I get considered evidence, which is a slightly different point. I hear what you say. My third submission is -- You are going to be told to say something else now. Hang on. Sorry, may I just ... (Pause) My third point has now gone. Splendid. Right. We have a very interesting submission or representative who -- no, Mr Glen must be next. He is the next core participant, Mr Glen. Submissions by I am grateful, sir. I think the Guardian had three points in our letter on Friday. Several of those have fallen by the wayside. The standard of proof point, I think our concern, at this stage, was this, that it was potentially premature. I am very comfortable to defer that. What I wanted to do was to put on the table some of the issues that are involved, right I am grateful. It may be that the civil standard is appropriate. It is just, at this stage, until the level of the detail of the Inquiry -- It is not just whether it is civil or criminal, it is also to what extent it is appropriate for me to be able to approach issues on the basis that, without making a finding of fact, that X has happened in Y circumstances, it is appropriate for me -- I am not prepared to say it hasn't happened and it is appropriate for me to approach issues, such as recommendations, on the basis that I must guard against that risk. You see the different point Absolutely. Our concern was that the notion of suspicion, or the Inquiry were raising concerns based on suspicions should be used in relatively tightly confined circumstances, as the Baha Mousa ruling. Yes, but Baha Mousa is -- it is a different sort of Inquiry and very different circumstances, which is of the traditional sort, rather than the type that I have, and recommendations as to how individuals should be treated are themselves different from the wide ranging issue that must encompass areas which, inevitably, aren't specifically the subject of complaint, create different problems. Yes. That may be a submission for another day when we know more about the -- Yes. Sir, can I just pick up on this advance notice to witness point that Mr Dingemans has been making submissions in relation to It is a submission which we would support. Obviously, there is a need for flexibility in how the Inquiry goes about its work. One can see the instance of a witness being recalled at relatively short notice or a new witness being, having to come in and fill in a gap in evidence, in which case notice requirements may have to be amended or just the best that can be done in the circumstances, and we are grateful for the steer that your Lordship will give as much notice as possible on that regard. But in terms of lines of questioning and indications of documents, again, I don't think what we were contemplating in our letter was a bulleted list of questions, as one may be prepared by counsel for the Inquiry the night before they come into the hearing, but we would submit that this is an area where the witness should be provided with at least the outline areas or subject or issues which he or she is likely to face questioning on. Similarly, in relation to documents, particularly given in this case, as I understand it, the witness will be -- the document concerned will be flashed up on screen electronically, and so, just in terms of recognition of documents, as much as anything else, and again, it may not be possible to provide a universal or a completely comprehensive list, but if there are particular documents which the Inquiry wants to speak to a particular witness about or obtain evidence in relation to, we would say that would be helpful, in these circumstances, as things are said. It is a relatively pressurised environment for a witness to walk into. A lot of the witnesses, as your Lordship has said, are busy people. The Section 21 notices themselves are relatively wide ranging in a number of cases. They cover quite a lot of ground. Some of it relatively historical, in terms of it goes back -- several dates are given in 2005 as the starting point. I wonder why that is. I wouldn't want to speculate, sir. Yes. But to that extent, and witnesses may be giving evidence, which is in some respects secondhand, that people in their organisation know about but which they are providing the evidence to the Inquiry for, and in those circumstances we would say, in terms of the appearance of the evidence which those witnesses give to the Inquiry, indications of the issues which they are likely to face questioning on is going to enhance the evidence gathering process. It is not a question of witnesses being tripped up or hijacked, as your Lordship said. The woe would be, if a witness was hijacked, they would give partial or incomplete evidence which doesn't actually make sense or wasn't correct, and that can't be in the interests of the Inquiry going forward. As I said, sir, it is not a question of -- we are not seeking a bulleted list of questions, but issues which a particular witness is likely to face questioning on, and indications to whatever level of particularity the counsel to the Inquiry feel able to give, we would say, would be beneficial to the Inquiry as well as the witness. The second point in relation to that, sir, is in relation to this idea of suggestions to counsel to the Inquiry of supplemental areas of questioning, areas which counsel to the Inquiry may not be intending to go. If issues have been provided to the witness and the other core participants, as to what the witness is likely to face, we would say that process is likely to be enhanced as well, in the sense that you will be able to identify immediately if there is a particular issue which counsel to the Inquiry are not intending to pursue but which another core participant considers relevant or believes would be helpful for the witness to answer questions in relation to. The alternative, I guess, is that -- One can't have a system whereby everybody is exchanging details about what the witnesses may deal with because, otherwise, we would never get anything done. You are not really suggesting, or are you suggesting, that counsel should be telling all the core participants, that, Well, we are going to call this witness on this topic, or these topics, or are you saying that they ought to say, Well, it's going to be that area, that area or the other area and these are the documents we are going to be referring to, what are you talking about To a degree on that front, we would say that there should be an element of transparency in the process, in the extent that there is the power or the ability for another core participant to ask counsel to the Inquiry to ask questions of a particular witness, not their witness. Yes, I understand. Indeed, that is open not merely to core participants. I have made that clear, but that need be no more than once the witness's statement has been seen and it will be clear which general area the witness is going to be coping with, for core participants to say, Well, I hope you are going to be dealing with subjects A, B and C, and then you will listen to the evidence and, if you think there is something really pressing to add, then you will be able to ask me or have a word with counsel, because I don't suppose these things will go without breaks and, if necessary, then say to me, Well, actually, there's this area additionally, to which I will say All right, you have five minutes to cover that topic. That sort of ruling, if one dignifies what I have just said by that word, retains flexibility but equally keeps the momentum of the Inquiry moving forward. I am grateful. If it is going to be that flexible in terms of this supplemental questioning process, which may not arise very much at all. It won't. No. It may arise but I won't necessarily say it will happen. Not because I am wanting to shut people out. It is because of what we have to cover. I quite understand. Yes. Sir, I would just reiterate the point about advance notice. If issues can be highlighted, even in their broad sense to witnesses -- I understand the point. Sir, I think that is everything. Fine. Thank you. Submissions by Now, before one moves off from the press, Mr Vinall, you are in the rather interesting position that you are not a core participant, presumably having taken a decision on part of Trinity Mirror not to be a core participant. That is right, sir. It may be you or it may be another non-core participant has made the point that they relied upon my observation that there isn't a bright line and that was to do with suggesting lines of Inquiry and possibly arguing for the right to be able to put in closing submissions, and that's where I intended to make the thing rather more open and I was particularly addressing there interest groups such as PEN, but there must be a limit and, whereas I am happy to hear you now, I think it quite difficult to see -- or I would be interested to hear how you put the proposition that you should have all the benefits of core participant status by seeing all the documents, by being able to make submissions on protocols and the like and not become a core participant. There is a slightly different argument for somebody who had refused core participant status to, or whose core participant status will be clear later but isn't now, that is why I put those off, but you are in a rather different position. Sir, I certainly don't want to attempt to take out of context your remark about the bright line and you did make it clear -- I did. -- first of all that -- plainly, sir, there is a continuum of degrees of interest that various people, various parties and nonparties to this Inquiry have and indeed. You did make it clear, sir, in your opening remarks that one does not need to be a core participant to have one's point of view heard by the Inquiry -- Yes. That is right. -- which is -- as I am demonstrating now. I am not sure how far, but to have your point of view in the ultimate issues, of course, that's why I say making submissions at the end in writing would be fine, but the level of participation is a slightly different question. Sir, you asked me how I put it. I do, yes I will let you. As both Mr Jay and you have already noted this morning, the overriding criteria for this Inquiry is fairness and it is my submission that there are certain classes of documents, clearly not every document that the Inquiry has, but there are certain classes of documents where, in my submission, fairness to my client does require that it should have notice of what is being said by the core participants and by the Inquiry team. I am not so sure about that because you could have applied to be core participants. Now, you didn't and that's fair enough, because core participants don't need to turn up every day. They will turn up when they want to turn up and they won't turn up when they don't feel it is in their interests to do so. I won't be asking everyone in turn, do you want to say anything, do you want to say anything I expect core participants, if they have something to say, at some stage, to find a way of saying it, which I think they will. Now, I am a bit concerned as to how far your submission goes because a consequence might be that a member of the public says Well, I'm also very interested in this. I am absolutely fascinated by the problem of the relationship between the press and the public or the press and the police. Therefore, I would like the opportunity to comment on the protocols and to see the documents. A reporter could easily take that view. A professor of journalism may take that view. This Inquiry has interested a vast range of people, as the press releases that I read demonstrate, many with very different views. Now, are they to say, Well, we're interested, we would like to know Am I then to listen to them Where does it end Let me, first of all, explain why I say that my client is in a different position from the examples that you have given and then I will move on to why I say that it is both fair to my client and in the interests of the official disposal of the Inquiry's business that we should be allowed to see the material and have an opportunity of commenting on it without having to become a core participant. The reason we are different from the various examples that you have given, sir, is that, plainly, the interest of Trinity Mirror doesn't need any further elaboration. It goes beyond that. We have an interest not only in the outcome of the enquiry but in the Inquiry's processes. Then all you are saying, Mr Vinall, is very clear. What you are saying is, We actually qualify to be core participants and that makes us different. Well, if you do, do it. Sir, it is not so much that we qualify to be core participants, that will be a matter for you, sir, but what we are undoubtedly, is we have been served with Section 21 notices requiring documents to be provided by Trinity Mirror. So when there is discussion about the protocol for how documents of that kind are to be handled, then the interest -- they are our documents too. But there are 130-odd people who have been served with such notices. Are each one of them entitled to come along and say I want to say something about this protocol Sir, in my submission, I don't want to deal with -- I don't know who the 130 people are. No. I am not going to seek to identify where the line should be drawn. I simply seek to persuade you, that, sir, wherever the line is to be drawn, we are on the right side of it. You probably need to persuade me where the line ought to be drawn, don't you If you want to say that you are on the right side of it Sir, we -- I have dealt with the question of documents and the fact that our documents are going to be provided to the Inquiry. Similarly, a number of Trinity Mirror's employees are going to be called to give evidence, and so whatever -- a number of issues have been raised before you today about how witnesses are going to be dealt with. Trinity Mirror has an interest in how those issues are resolved and it is not, it is not -- we are not going to be making submissions on every point but there may be points which are made, either being raised by the Inquiry team, or raised in submissions made to the Inquiry by other parties, which do affect Trinity Mirror's interests and, in my submission, it is appropriate that Trinity Mirror should see those submissions where they affect its interest. Sir, if you accept that, there is then a decision to be made as to whether one considers what fairness requires, case by case, document by document, or whether it is not easier for everybody, if you simply add my clients to the list of those parties who are to receive the documents, which are provided to core participants, so that where there is an issue -- and it may not arise very often -- where there is an issue where Trinity Mirror can help the Inquiry, can move the process -- So you are saying this doesn't relate to evidence because, of course, you won't be involved in that. This relates to issues of procedure. It certainly relates to issues of procedure. Are you saying it relates to the evidence as well It is too early to say but certainly my application, the examples I have given to you, sir, relate to matters of procedure, because those are the matters which the Inquiry has been dealing with today. When it moves on to the evidence, no doubt there will be matters of evidence as well so, yes, the relief I seek from you, sir, does cover -- Then what is the difference between you and a core participant Sir, the difference is that we are not seeking, for example, to make an opening statement. We are not seeking the other benefits of core participation. We are simply asking to be kept in this loop, so that where perusal of the material, what other people are saying does raise an issue where we have a distinct perspective or a distinct interest, that we are able to bring that perspective to the Inquiry's attention. We say that is fair to my client and it is also likely to help the Inquiry to do its business. Now, obviously, the Inquiry hears matters in public. It would, in my submission, be open to Trinity Mirror to come along to a hearing like this to sit at the back and listen and, where something is raised, to write a letter to the Inquiry team saying This was said in court by Mr Jay today. Here is what we would like to say about it. In my submission, that is not the most efficient way of going about things, nor is it necessarily the most transparent because, plainly, there has been a significant amount of dialogue between the parties which has then fed into the submissions that Mr Jay has made to you today. Everybody else in the room knows what those submissions have been and what that dialogue -- So you want to see the submissions by other core participants Yes, sir, certainly we do. They may have something to say about that. Perhaps my understanding was, sir, that those submissions were being disclosed to other core participants. Yes, but they may have something to say about whether they are disclosed to somebody who isn't a core participant. Well, they may be, sir, but certainly, in my submission, insofar as Trinity Mirror was to seek to make submissions to the Inquiry about how certain somethings should be done, then we would expect that to be circulated to other interested parties and we don't see why the converse should not apply. Sir, going back for a moment to the point about floodgates and what is it that makes us different from that sort of general point or whatever, I think I noted from Mr Jay's submissions that, so far at least, there are only three other parties who have made a submission to you along the same lines as I am making. Insofar as other people want to make that submission then, no doubt, the Inquiry will consider it. But my submission to you would be that this is an Inquiry into the press. Trinity Mirror is a very significant player in that market. I agree. I agree. So what you are going to say, sir, is, well, why don't we become a core participant Sir, certainly the flavour that one gets from reading the opening remarks that you made at the hearing and also, to some extent, that you made on the core participation was that the Inquiry was keen not to have a proliferation of core participants with a separate representation and to try to streamline the Inquiry. You are absolutely right, but I am not sure that doing what you want me to do achieves that aim because the core participants will be restricted in what they can do, not because I want to cut anybody off but because I have to maintain a momentum and I am just not sure where we are on a hybrid. I am not saying the rules prohibit it. But I do think that there is a hybrid position which is going to get us into potentially difficult areas. I was keen, for example, and the individual groups like PEN were a very, very good example. They have a very clear focus. They have a very important contribution to make but it is not a contribution which needs core participant status and that is why I was keen to emphasise that you would be able to suggest questions to counsel when you know who the witnesses are, that you would be able to ask to put in written submissions at the end, having heard whatever you have wanted to hear or read it online. That is why there is no bright line, but I just wonder whether you are not pushing that to say, Well, actually it is not that there is no bright line, there is no line at all. Sir, plainly there is a line and as I say, we are not seeking the full panoply of benefits that core participation gets. We are not seeking to come along to all of these hearings with representation. What we are seeking is simply to be informed, not only of the material that appears on the website, as and when it appears, but to be called on the issues at a time when we can meaningfully comment on them. I think that is core participant status. If you want to be -- do you see Because the submissions at the end will be in the light of everybody who has read all the evidence and the evidence will be going contemporaneously, streamed for people to follow and you will listen to such witnesses as you want but the extra thing you want to do is to be able to proactively to engage, rather than reactively to suggest, and I am not sure that is not the difference. I don't rule on it. I am merely saying that is what concerns me. Sir, just to summarise really and perhaps put in slightly different words the point that I would make. I would respectfully adopt the distinction that you have drawn between engaging proactively and reactively, but also to say that there is the, sort of, public face documents that appear on the website, that it is becoming increasingly clear that there are also -- the inner workings that are going on behind the scenes, submissions that are being made and correspondence with the Inquiry, the iterative process by which Mr Jay's note for this hearing was produced, for example, drafts of documents being circulated, and these are things which affect my client, the way its documents will be handled, the way its witnesses will be treated and which, unless it is given an opportunity to see those documents, it has no opportunity of influencing. In my submission, you shouldn't, with respect, say to a participant you have to either jump one way or the other. You have to either be a core participant with all that that entails or essentially be shut out of this process entirely. It need not entail much at all. It need not entail your coming on every day if you don't want to. There won't be any compulsion or register. It is simply a matter of how you want to engage in the process. Anyway, obviously, once I have decided this you will decide whether or not you want to make an application depending on how I decide. I am -- those are my submissions. Thank you very much indeed, thank you. Have I run the line of the media Before I do, does anybody want to say anything from the media about submissions being shared with those who are not core participants Sir, before that happens can I just raise the submission I make, because that may touch upon the view that is expressed All right, I will come back and ask people again. Mr Chawla, I understand that and maybe I should deal with you and Mr Phillips next and see where we are. Submissions by Sir, I can be quite short but can I preface my remarks with this, this is not a review of your decision as to core participation. Yes. But as a preface, I ought to set out that Mrs Brooks, whom I represent, is determined to assist this Inquiry, not because she is required to do so but because she believes she has both important evidence and information which will substantially inform and assist this process, and she brings to it a unique and important perspective. Sir, in the notice that she was served with, she has been asked to deal with 19 specific topics. That may be a standard list, I don't know. Neither she, nor I suspect the Inquiry, regard that as an exhaustive list but those are triggers, effectively to assist the Inquiry. But within part 1 of the Inquiry, which of course is what we are concerned with at the moment, and within the three -- the first three modules, the public, the police and the politicians, there will inevitably be occasions when the Inquiry will be making decisions and forming considerations about matters on which Mrs Brooks has a direct and substantial interest. For example, the proposed approach towards standard of proof may be one of those. I am not going to say anything more about that at the moment, conscious as I am that the topic is going to be deferred. Equally, the question of putting in the report concern arising out of a suspicion is another topic upon which we are likely to have submissions. But equally, there are other areas upon which she has no special interest or particular contribution to make, such as -- broadcasting of these proceedings or public funding, being two examples on which she has no representations to make, with the result that our request is this -- and it is not quite the request that has just been made -- but, where issues arise on which Mrs Brooks has a direct interest, and those will probably be evident to the Inquiry team, that she is given the opportunity through us to make whatever representations are appropriate and to see the documents or the classes of documents touching upon that issue. For our part, we are entirely content -- Are you talking here about procedural issues or evidential issues I am talking about both, both procedural issues and evidential issues. So far as procedural issues, such as the approach that the Inquiry should take to standard of proof, for example, we certainly will have a contribution to make. But also, in terms of evidential issues, there are likely to be, both within News International and outside News International, substantial contributions which touch directly on her. Some may name her directly. Some may not. But where she is going to be assisting the Inquiry then if she, for example, has no knowledge of those, her assistance is likely to be limited to the point of being negligible. We don't envisage that this is an exercise which will consume additional time, so far as the Inquiry is concerned. If anything, the objective is simply to more clearly focus upon what matters and what doesn't. Therefore, what we ask for both, in terms of procedural and evidential issues, is for her to be given the opportunity through disclosure of such information as may be appropriate, and by that, I don't mean necessarily all of the information that is going to the core participants, but such information that affects her position in the modules that the Inquiry is dealing with and for her to be able to make whatever representation is appropriate on that material. There is a slightly wider issue that you raise, which is specifically addressed in 10.3 of the rules and you may make the point, and I haven't thought about it, that, absent your being present or somebody on behalf of your client being present on every day, how will you know if the witness gives evidence directly relating to your client The answer, actually, is simple we wouldn't know. We wouldn't know until we saw the transcript unless we were here every day, unless, of course, we had advance notice of issues that may touch upon that. We have no -- The problem is we won't necessarily know, will we No, that is the difficulty, but what I am seeking to do is -- frankly, what I am seeking to do is to prevent the needless expenditure on attendance and work which is completely unnecessary by trying to focus on what we need to focus upon, and it is only if we can do that, and I don't say this in terrorem, and I hope you understand that, that we or she is in the best position to assist the Inquiry. On any view, she has significant material to provide to the Inquiry, even of her own recollection of events. Yes. But the difficulty that arises is that, unless she or I or my solicitor are present throughout the Inquiry or every moment of it, and in a position to say to Mr Jay, Can we invite you to deal with this or that or the other, our contribution is -- I was going to say meaningless, it is almost meaningless. No, it is not but I say that it is impacted. Yes, it is diminished very substantially. So the position is this that while we do not make the request that has just been made, that we should have necessarily all of the materials supplied to the core participants, bearing in mind her position, we do ask that consideration be given that, where material touches upon her and, as I say, that may be self-evident to counsel to the Inquiry, that we are provided with it. For our part, and I make this clear, in the knowledge of meetings that have already occurred with the Inquiry team and those who instruct me, that we are perfectly content for the Inquiry team to make that judgment as to what the team, who, of course, will be in the best position to judge, believe that it is in our interests to have. All right. The position essentially is this that, as is apparent, she is likely to have a very particular perspective to offer, which is different to the core participants who, after all, are either, in terms of individuals, victims, as they have been described, or organisations. Yes. But, I mean, that flows back to one of the reasons that is relevant to my decision, that the individual victims provide a perspective which impacts on the wider consideration of the balance between article 8 and article 10, whereas your perspective is rather different and is much more relevant in relation to the individual who did what to whom, as opposed to the wider philosophical issues which I have to address. Sir, I don't want to go back to the submissions that I have previously made and upon which you have ruled. I don't quite agree with that approach -- No, I know. There it is. -- I am afraid, but that is water under the bridge. Yes. There has already, and it is unfortunately, in our submission, been a default position adopted, for example, in relation to today's hearing, which is unfortunate, which is simply this we were provided with Mr Jay's helpful note for today's hearing very shortly before it went on the web yesterday. We asked for the attachments to it, the protocols and we were told we couldn't have those. I understand that because there hasn't yet been a decision as to a hybrid position and, so that's not an adverse side effect. You have actually picked up the point really quite early. This is the second directions hearing that I have held, so I am not prepared to say that is adverse. I am prepared to say that it identifies the point. It does, but we would be concerned if that had become -- and I am sure it hasn't -- but if that had become a de facto default position because, in our submission, that would not, in fact, enable the Inquiry to get the assistance that it deserves. Okay, thank you. I understand. Mr Phillips, you are in a different position -- Yes. -- because you have accepted the position of the MPA is different, but you make the point, well, because these protocols are likely to impact on everything then I am going to march back in at some stage, I think, or I will try to, I should have a chance to say something about them. Yes. Our position is that we are in a distinct situation from Mrs Brooks from Trinity Mirror. I now know for example that we were given the attachments to the note that Mr Chawla was not, but the point we are relying on is exactly the same fairness. In my submission, our position is even more obvious, if I can put it that way. We came to the last hearing expecting to make an application for core status and accepted what you said to me, which that this wasn't the moment for module 2. We are then slightly surprised to discover that our regulated force had been given CP status for all modules of part 1 but there we go. What we did, very clearly, was to flag up, as you just indicated, that we would be making an application for module 2, because as the regulators the whole issue of the relationship between the police, our force, the Metropolitan Police Service and the press is directly within our sphere of interest. I understand that, and I recognise that, but I won't rise to the bait that you should be surprised about the position of the police, which is rather different, but the regulatory position of those affecting the police specifically touches the second limb. I recognise that and I think the point is well made that, if I am devising protocols that actually cover the whole Inquiry, then you ought to have a chance to say it. If the likelihood is that you will be there -- Indeed. -- and I take the point. It is simple fairness, and what we would say, going forward, is again very simple. If there is something which will or might affect our interests then, given that the Inquiry is plainly on notice of our position, we ought to be told about it and involved in it. So far as these protocols are concerned, it is obvious that they affect all of the modules of part 1, at the very least they may extend, in due course, beyond it, but Mr Jay's note is very clear on that. So they affect us, and we made points on them but actually, sir, what has happened today makes our submission on this the more urgent, because you have confirmed today what you said on 6 September that it is possible that module 1 and module 2 will run concurrently. At some stage, yes. Yes. Also you have said, as I understood it, that there would be openings at the beginnings of modules and closings at the end, so that the difficulty my clients have is this at the moment they are outside the pail. They are told, however, that their bit or the bit in which they claim to have a significant interest might start before the current module has ended and, at that point, they will at least be invited, if they get CP status, to make an opening. In other words, sir, they will have to run very, very, very fast to catch up with everybody else, if they have been -- I don't suppose they will be running fast because I think they will be running alongside us, given the amount of stuff that will be in the public domain, so I don't think you will be having to play catch up. But what it may mean, and I am prepared to say this, that I think that I ought to revisit the moment that I invite people to apply for core participant status for the other modules, if only so that there is a degree of clarity in the position, and I do recognise, and I do accept that, in relation to the protocols, it will be worthwhile having your input into them. Yes. Sir, I have one or two specific points to make on that, if I may. May I just come back to this point about the timing of any application for CP status for module 2, because we were slightly disturbed to be told by one of your legal team that the moment for such applications was at the end of module 1. You will see already how that would cause very considerable difficulties. No, I won't embark upon any aspect of module 2 without making sure that those who may be core participants in module 2 have had ample opportunity (a) to make applications; and (b) to participate effectively in that part of the Inquiry. That much, I would hope, would be self-evident. Yes. Sir, that's the concern. As I say, in the intervening period, however long it is, our concern is to ensure that anything that might affect our interests is shared with us, so that we can make our own contribution. Now, I am not asking, exactly the same way as my learned friend Mr Chawla, I am not asking for some formal system but I am asking, please, that the Inquiry and its legal team keep that in mind. Again, we are happy to rely on their judgment, but this is not some new development in the world of inquiries. It is very common in public inquiries, I can say, from my own experience, that certain documents, certain draft protocols are shared more widely than simply with the core participants, precisely with these future points or other points in mind. We are not, we hope, adding significantly to the burden here. No, I take the point and I am sure you are right and, for what it is worth, as I probably made clear in our exchanges, I agree with you. Sir, can I just touch on two specific points on the protocols. The first is to repeat the offer we made in correspondence, that if we can assist the Inquiry legal team with the technical issues on the document management system, we are very ready to do that, as indeed we are to assist on all aspects of your work. But the reason for raising it now is that the relevant solicitor with the experience on the Mid Staffs Inquiry is here, sitting behind me, and I know she would be happy to talk to your team if that would assist today. That is wonderful. The second point -- I will find the person to whom she should speak. Thank you, sir. The second point, and it is a quick point, again, made in Eversheds' email of 30 September, but I don't think it is something that anybody has mentioned so far and it may be we have simply misread the document, but it relates to paragraphs 15 and then 18.2 of Mr Jay's note. 15 begins with the words The chairman will decide which witnesses will be called to give oral evidence and which evidence may be read out, et cetera. 8.2 says Counsel to the Inquiry will use their judgment on a case-by-case basis as to whether a witness will be required to give oral evidence to the Inquiry on all or some of the matters covered in a witness statement. All of the part of the statement will be taken as read or some or all of the statement will be summarised. To us, there seemed to be an inconsistency there between the chairman having the decision on 15 and counsel to the Inquiry having the judgment decision or judgment call, if I can put it that way, under 18.2. It may be, as I say, that we have misread it but that is the way we saw those two paragraphs and we saw there being an inconsistency. If we are right, then some minor amendment is presumably required. I don't think we have a strong view one way or another. There is an inconsistency, but it might be something worth looking at. Sir, so far as -- if I can just go back to the beginning and the question of fairness and our position now. As you can probably tell, it was with some degree of self restraint that I didn't press on to make an application for CP status last time. We are, I should repeat, ready to make that application for module 2, as and when the Inquiry asks us to. We very much hope that it will be early enough in your process so that we are not prejudiced when and if, as I hope we will, we join the Inquiry as a CP for module 2. But in the meanwhile we ask, please, that there be no repeat of what happened in the run-up to this hearing -- we appreciate that the Inquiry is getting going, there are many, many things on your agenda and your team's agenda -- to have in mind fairness in relation to us, our declared position in relation to module 2 and to include us if our interests might be affected. Yes, I would have to formally ask for those who were interested in module 2, because it may be that other police bodies may be, I am not saying there will be but there may be. Sir, all I can say is I am ready to apply now but I can see that that is not what you want. All I am then saying is, if it is to be later, then let it not be too late, ie so as to prejudice -- I take that point and it may be that there is no harm to be done in getting on with it. But I will think about that. Thank you. Thank you. Right. Mr Garnham Submissions by Sir, we make no submission on the draft protocols. Save in respect of two matters, we make no submission on what Mr Jay said in opening at this hearing. Those two exceptions are this firstly, as to start time for the oral evidence stage. Sir, you suggested a provisional view as to when it might start. We would like to reflect on that and take instructions. Yes. If we have anything to say we will communicate in writing what that is. The second exception is the point raised by Mr Dingemans about notice of the issues to be covered in questioning. We would respectfully agree with you, sir, that it is a matter of degree or, to use your word, of granularity, but we would support what Mr Dingemans says as to the need to indicate at least the broad topics upon which witnesses are going to be asked questions, if a fair procedure is to be adopted which we know is your aim. Finally, sir -- I never thought of the use of the word fair as a club. Club to beat or club to join, sir No, a club to beat me with, yes. I would rather use it as a club to join. Yes. So finally, we would have submissions to make were it to be proposed that material that we submitted to the Inquiry was to be circulated other than to core participants. The submission has been made by a number of those making submissions recently to that effect and we are a little guarded about the consequences of that. One obvious example is that there may come a time when you require confidentiality undertakings from core participants. There is no doubt that I am going to require confidentiality from everybody who sees anything that doesn't enter the public domain. Sir, that then tests this point rather well. If it is going to be proposed that material goes outside the confidentiality circle, then that would be of considerable concern to us. It may be, however, that you broaden the circle to include some of my learned friends, who anticipate receiving material on a basis other than the fact that they are core participants. Yes, the question is whether I ought to create a new category of, one could call them -- I know the word is used in the Act, but in a different context -- interested parties who can see certain material but who are not core participants. It may be that that is what you are being invited to do, sir, and I wouldn't want to say anything about that on my feet off the cuff, but it might simply be that we might want to make submissions about that because I can see a possibility that such an arrangement would bring with it only benefits and no obligations and we would want to be careful to make sure that that is not the effect. I take your point. In other words, sir, I simply seek to reserve the Met Police's position on that newly floated proposal and it would need to be a two way street, sir, in this sense that we were given -- we, like all the core participants, were given sight of the submissions made by other core participants for the purposes of this morning's hearing. We were not given sight of submissions made by non-core participants, so, for example, I was not aware of Mr Phillips's submissions until this morning, nor those from Trinity Mirror and, one can see the logic of that. In the form of letters. Yes, and one can see the logic of that, if this was intended to be mutual disclosure between core participants, but if it is to be something wider than -- No, I agree with you. That is why I am concerned about the width and the breadth of what Mr Vinall has suggested. Yes, all I submit is it needs to be thought through carefully and we would want to make submissions on it. Yes, in my effort to want to make sure that I heard all those who were interested in those areas where they were interested, I may have created an issue, which I just have to grapple with and say -- You may say no, sir, but if you are contemplating saying yes, then we may have submissions. All right, I have it, thank you very much, Mr Garnham. I think we have come to Mr Sherborne. Submissions by I am very conscious of the time and I am also conscious of the fact that Mr Jay needs to speak after I do. So I will keep this very brief, if I may. If I go over, I will go over. Do you know that has happened to me before I am sure it has, sir, I am sure it has happened to me as well. If I can help you, I will try. Sir, you have had the written submissions that I have put in. Yes. Can I take you very briefly through a few points we have made There is the familiar cri de coeur, as regards warning. I am not going to repeat that, we have all dealt with that this morning. But coming specifically, if I may, to the start date for the oral hearing, I am not seeking to pin you down, but I am seeking to deter you from entering the tunnel that you referred to, quite as quickly as may be envisaged, because once we are in, I agree, we are in until we get to the glorious light at the other end. Now, in terms of specific dates, perhaps like other representatives here, I can take further instructions but I would not be doing my duty if I didn't point out to you, sir, something I hope is already obvious, which is that we are unique. Unique in lots of different ways, no doubt I will address you, but unique, particularly, in relation to the number of individuals that I represent, which does create, as you will have seen from my note, and I hope it is self-explanatory, a number of logistical difficulties, if nothing else, in preparing for hearings in witness statements and so on, all of which -- Mr Sherborne, what I would hope is all the witnesses who -- all the core participants who wish to make witness statements should have the opportunity to but there is no reason why, in discussion with the team, you shouldn't focus on a number of specific witnesses who illustrate the different problems and allow us to start with, perhaps, a comparatively small number and, if others then want at some later stage to come into the picture and it is appropriate that they give oral evidence, as opposed merely to having their statements put in, then that can be organised as well. You don't have to have proved every single one of your clients before we can press the button. No, sir, we anticipated that and we have spoken to the Inquiry team. We are putting together a number of individuals. I think a comparatively smaller number, certainly, than 46 but, of course, that does take time and, therefore, what I would urge at this stage is that, if a provisional date is going to be fixed, at least, as I say, in provisional terms, it is one that is later on in November rather than earlier. So you won't be impressed to know that my original anxiety was to press for slightly earlier No, I am sure that will fill everyone behind me and who represents the victims with a certain amount of fear. Only because you know as much and as well as everybody else the territory that has to be travelled before next summer. I am not going to be overly constrained but I am very keen to keep the focus because I am conscious that whatever I come up with is likely to generate a debate, a debate among the media who may or may not be polite, a debate among the political groupings, and a reconsideration of the way, perhaps, I don't know, in which regulation, self regulation, whatever comes out, is organised, which everybody is going to want to get on with, which is why this part of the Inquiry has to be before the normal timing, which would wait until all the police had finished whatever they wanted to do. So it strikes me, and I would be grateful if anybody wanted to disagree with me, that the imperative is not merely a pressure to do what I have been asked to do, it is because it is actually very important to achieve something broadly within, from what is now about a year on, the basis that the summer is not going to overconcern those who will want to think about what I say but that, once we get back to next autumn, then I would have thought this was a topic that remained on the agenda that we have to address. So it is easy to say, well, another week here or another week there, but it is the knock on consequences that trouble me. The reason I have gone into that is not to be definitive but to encourage everybody to be aware of the reasons for the pressure, to such extent as they are not already aware and to say this is not just a question of my wanting to demonstrate that I can do it quicker than anybody else. It isn't that at all. There is no doubt that if I spend three years on it, I would perhaps do it slightly differently, perhaps produce a result that was slightly different, probably not extensively different but slightly different. If I spent five years on it, again, one could turn every single stone over and look at everything, but I am not sure that serves the interests of the public. No, it is certainly appreciated, as far as my clients are concerned, that the Inquiry is pressing on with this, given the amount of public concern there is about the matters which are being inquired into it. All I am simply saying is that, whilst I understand the principle about one week here and one week there, I do know that one week here and there at this stage, before we start the process, will certainly assist, as far as my clients are concerned, in being prepared. Because once we do start and I presume, without necessarily knowledge, that it will be the core participant victims who will be giving evidence first. That would be my wish, because I think it is probably the right way to start. Of course. But I am not suggesting that, if they don't, they have missed the bus, another one will come along, but I am worried about time. I understand that. I understand that. Shall I move on then very -- I would have thought the opening submissions would take some time, in any event, not overly. You have heard from what Mr Jay has said, but if there are going to be comments on general things, then we will have to read things and be elaborated upon so there may be a day or so that you will have in addition. I am sure I will be very busy during that day. That moves me very neatly on to the next point which was in relation to the briefings and the seminars. I think, sir, you and Mr Jay have really addressed this in the context of News Group Newspapers or News International, whichever corporate body it is, which is represented here but we, as you will have seen from the note, wish to make detailed submissions in relation to various subjects which are covered by the briefings and the seminars. I understand that the appropriate time to do that will be at the beginning of the oral hearing. That is a perfectly appropriate time or at any stage that you could put something into writing. I do hope that the voice of those who may have criticisms in the way the press has operated will not be silent during the seminars. Sir, I hope not but the speed with which they have been arranged makes it difficult to gather voices as quickly as effectively as one would like. I am not going to repeat the familiar refrain. No. On the protocol, sir, you will have seen, the only point I raise, and I am very conscious, sir, you will appreciate I am involved in the litigation in the Chancery Division, Mr Justice Vos is conducting in relation to hacking claims, again, sir, you raised on the 16th -- or I raised on 6 September, sir, that you have well in mind that there should be no treatment of documents or information in any way inconsistent with the way that Mr Justice Vos has dealt with it. I know the Inquiry team is very clear on that. I am not -- And the protocol certainly reflects that. Good. Then finally, I think it is simply the question which goes beyond anything that is in Mr Jay's note and that is, as you will have seen from my note, that there are two further individuals who wish to apply for core participant status. I don't know whether you wish me to deal with that before the adjournment or whether you would rather hear from Mr Jay in response to everyone's submissions and that I come back once again and deal with the point on my own and perhaps with very few people here. I leave that to you, sir. The applicants for core participant status need not be within the wider group because that is just a matter for me. Nobody else would have an interest in that. I am happy to make that then after Mr Jay has responded. All right. Is there anything else you want to say, Mr Sherborne No, sir, not unless you wish me to do so. Mr Jay, do you have very much to say on the various topics that have been raised this morning. 10 or 15 minutes. I think we had probably better say 2 o'clock then. Thank you very much. (1.05 pm) (Luncheon Adjournment) (2.00 pm) Right. I wonder if I could just deal with the point which was raised this morning about whether material put in by a core participant should go outside the core participant's group. Yes. So far as we are concerned, we are proceeding on the basis that the Inquiry is transparent and anything we say to the Inquiry either is or will become public, with the exception that there may be things which we specifically say we think ought to be confidential to the Inquiry team, not to the circle of core participants but to the Inquiry team, and there is a model for that in the protocol about redacting documents, both in relation to the documents themselves and to submissions. So our position is that, unless we specifically ask for confidentiality for something, we don't mind who it goes to. We regard it as public. That is very helpful. Thank you very much. Does anybody else want to say anything on that topic Right. I was going to come back to deal with the question of other applications for core participant status later. So, Mr Jay, let us hear what you have to say about these various matters. You choose your order and then we will see where we get to. Reply submissions by Mr Jay. The big point is prior notice, advance notice, either of questions put by counsel to the Inquiry or by anybody else or documents which are going to be put to witnesses. There are two considerations here. First of all, what basic standards of fairness require as vouched by the Inquiry Rules 2006 because there are some clues there as to what fairness requires and then, secondly, what prudence and common sense requires. May I deal with the latter first because it may be more straightforward, that one can see that there may be difficulties if points are put to witnesses which are new to them, in other words, points which have not arisen in their witness statements or which do not arise out of their documents. If a document is put to the witness which is someone else's document, no advance notice has been given, time may be taken while the witness injests the document. More than that, because it is one thing to be required to read a document in the context of a room of this size with lots of people watching you -- Yes. -- and it is quite another to be able to consider its ramifications, work out where it fits in the great scheme of things and decide what one can say of one's own knowledge or otherwise about that document. Yes. So that would lead you to say that, if there are documents to be put to a witness which did not emanate from the witness, the witness ought to have had the opportunity to see them. Yes. That is fair for the witness but also important for a slightly different reason, that the only reaction could be Well, this is very interesting, I have seen this document, I will have to go away and think about it or research it, or whatever, and it is inconceivable that one could say, I'm very sorry, you can't research it, you can't think about it, you have to answer now, because, even if one did say that, and I am not suggesting that I would, the answer becomes valueless if the evidence is later undermined by research that does take place on the document. So it is in the spirit of a sensible resolution that people do know broadly the areas about which the question is being asked and that covers both documents then, doesn't it, and areas, not the questions themselves, but -- Yes, topics or areas. May I deal with that because there may be a difference between topics and areas which are covered already in a witness statement and topics and areas which have not been covered in a witness statement. Matters which are outside the scope of a witness statement and which counsel to the Inquiry or anyone else wishes to ask a witness about, the rules probably require that advance notice of those matters should be given to the witness. That is implicit in Rule 9. That is an identical point to the point you just made about the witness. Yes. Because how could you expect the witness to be able to deal -- the truth is, I suppose, although there might be exceptions, that if the statement from the witness doesn't deal with something that the Inquiry wishes it to deal with, then the rules really provide for the panel to say -- for me to ask the witness, would you like to deal with this topic please Yes, notice of that should be given. That is what the rules require. But you do that, hopefully, in good time. Yes. Matters -- topics or areas which are already covered in a witness statement, and after all, the model which this Inquiry is using under Section 21 of the Act is to require witnesses to answer a list of questions. The list of questions constitute the topics or areas. Basic standards of fairness do not require, in our submission, that the witness be told which paragraphs in the witness statement he or she is going to be asked about. However, there may be a different reason for warning a witness of matters which will be covered in oral evidence, notwithstanding that they are in a witness statement. In other words, the witness should be focusing on paragraphs 3, 7 and 9 and should not be too concerned about other paragraphs in the witness statement, since that will enable the witness to prepare more effectively the night before or whenever to answer the questions. But that is not a fairness consideration. It is a prudential consideration. I take the point, but if you have asked someone to deal, and I take Mr Chawla's example, 19 topics, and 15 of them, we are content, simply form part of the evidence to the Inquiry -- Yes. -- they may or may not be contentious in any way but they are not features upon which the Inquiry want to focus and focus is the watch word for all the reasons that I have been talking about. Yes. Then we get the best value out of the witness if we say, actually, the specific topics that we want to ask are going to be topics 13, 15 and 17. Yes. So that would not be to say that a witness couldn't be asked about other areas, not least because another core participant might apply to do so. Yes. So it couldn't be taken as a guarantee that you should ignore the rest of the statement, but that, as far as the tribunal, the Inquiry is concerned, we would be focusing on that. Yes. If you have learnt that, because you have been asked that, actually, we would like to ask questions on topic 16 as well, well that can be transmitted in addition. Yes, that is right. So the Inquiry then will be giving advance notice -- how much advance notice is going to depend, but as much as possible is all I can say at this stage -- be giving advance notice on topics and areas to be covered by a witness in oral evidence arising out of his or her witness statement. If that advance notice is also given to the other core participants then the other core participants can say whether or not there are other areas which they may wish to be covered with a particular witness. Then you have to make a decision, as I understand the rules, do you want to do it or not Yes. If you say not then they have to make a decision -- Absolutely. -- whether they want to take up the time by asking me and explaining why it is so critical to the Inquiry. Yes. Absolutely. There is nothing to stop and, indeed, I would invite it, core participants at any stage and as early as possible, in relation to any witness, identifying the topics or areas which, they say, should be covered with or by a witness, indicating to us the, as it were, the subject matters which should be covered because then that will start the ball rolling. Yes. We won't necessarily come back to them immediately but it will ensure that in good time the relevant ground is covered. My concern is that, whether I accept the language used, I think it was by Mr Dingemans, about witnesses or not, that for some the giving of evidence is, indeed, a difficult exercise and I will want to make that exercise as easy an experience as possible on the basis that this isn't a trial. I am simply looking at a series of issues to obtain a series of recommendations. To that extent, possibly I ought to say that if counsel is aware that a particular witness is particularly anxious or nervous, although I would not wish to take very long, I would not have an objection, whether or not it is within the rules, to a request to introduce the witness through his or her own counsel -- Yes. -- simply to get used to talking in court and answering questions. So I wouldn't have a problem about that. It is not a request to make for every single witness but I can well understand there could be some witnesses for whom that would be an important way of trying to allow the witness to relax to such extent, if possible. Yes. I am not unmindful of the pressures of giving evidence. Yes. It is the role of counsel to the Inquiry, to the best it can, not to unsettle witnesses. I wasn't for a moment suggesting that you would approach it differently, but with the best will in the world, you will not have quite the same relationship with the witnesses -- No, no. -- as his or her counsel has and I am not suggesting that it should be taken as a tactic -- No. -- that as a matter of routine every single witness should be introduced by his own counsel so that there can be some slow easy runs scored. I am not saying that. No. But I am actually recognising the humanity of the position. I am sure that everyone who is acting for a core participant understands the point I am making. So I would be surprised if Mr Garnham was making the application. Sir, I wasn't contradicting what you were saying. I was endorsing it. But I was also hoping to reassure people that, although searching questions will, I hope, be posed by counsel to the Inquiry, otherwise one's job will not have been fulfilled, it is fully understood that, with some witnesses, care will be taken, at least, in the initial parts of a piece of questioning. Mr Jay, I have no doubt about it and I am not at all concerned about the approach that any counsel adopt, not least because, if I think they have gone too far, I will stop them. Yes. So that covers advance notice. I should make it clear, if it isn't already obvious, that Rule 10 and feeding lines of questions to counsel to the Inquiry by core participants, or anyone else, that serves a rather different role than the role of having to act fairly towards witnesses and giving them advance notice of questions. Counsel to the Inquiry will benefit from well directed lines of enquiry, pointing us in the direction of documents, if they aren't already obvious to us, better to enhance the discharge of our duties under the rules in the Act. Yes. Perhaps that is so obvious it goes without saying. That is the advance notice point, and it may be the best way forward is for me to finalise the note which is still, I suppose, in draft form, to incorporate the advance notice points so that they are made explicit and then a final version of the note, which was provided to the parties at the beginning of last week can then be placed on the website. The same will apply, of course, to the protocol. They will cease to be draft protocols. I will ask everybody about that in a moment. I think that might be the way forward. It will be understood that the note and the protocols can always be amended at any stage. Yes, I would equally hope it would be understood that, if there was a particular concern, that informal discussions with the Inquiry team should always be used. Yes. So if a specific problem arose then I would hope that it would be resolved within the spirit of the concepts we have been discussing without it necessarily having to be considered as a matter of construction of the document. Yes. The note and the protocols are just guides, as you are indicating then, that they shouldn't be construed as black letter law. Then the point made on behalf of Mrs Brooks, when there is material which touches on her, it is said that her team should be provided with it. It does place practical burdens on the Inquiry but we will do the best we can to address -- Is the answer to this -- there is an obligation under 10.3 to -- perhaps it is not an obligation on me, it is merely an ability of the legal representative, but the only way a legal representative of a witness to whom evidence relates will know that the witness has given evidence directly relating to that evidence of the other witness is if they are in court, unless they have been alerted. Yes. Or unless, and this is not altogether desirable, the transcript, which will be publicly available, in any event is drawn to the attention of Mrs Brooks' legal team and then they make an application to recall the witness for the purpose of exercising. It is not a right under Rule 10.3, but inviting you to exercise your discretion in their favour under Rule 10.3 for further questions to be posed, in order to avoid that uncomfortable state of affairs because we do not want witnesses to be recalled if possible some form of advance notice may be given. Yes. Merely to alert of the risk. Of the risk, yes. The point being that that risk does not arise if, for example, there is generic evidence of what was happening in a particular news room of which Mrs Brooks was the editor, unless it impacts on her, but if it does impact on her, because somebody says she did something or she authorised something, I am inventing it, I am not making any allegation, then that is something that is specific about which her legal representatives may have a right to apply under 10.3. Yes. Again, as long as that is broadly understood, then I don't want to create a structure which is formalistic, time consuming and potentially difficult to operate. But if, speaking entirely hypothetically, there were a document which touches on Mrs Brooks, which document should be put to her in cross-examination, well then we have already, as it were, agreed that advance notice would be given to her of documents which aren't her own documents. So it is already catered for. That bit is catered for, yes. So the final point is whether there is an inconsistency in the note between paragraph 15 and paragraph 18 and subparagraph 2. There isn't or at least there wasn't intended to be because paragraph 15 is dealing with the issue of whether witnesses will be asked to give oral evidence at all or to whether their witness statements will simply be taken as read or summarised. Paragraph 18 is designed to cater for the situation where the witness is giving oral evidence but how is that oral evidence to be adduced Because in some witnesses it is being suggested the evidence will be led in the -- if I can say the old-fashioned way -- with other witnesses, much of their evidence will be taken as read and that will be a judgment call for counsel to the Inquiry. Yes, I hadn't read them as being inconsistent. I had read it as making the broad decision as to oral or not oral, once it is oral it is down to you. Yes. That does raise the question about a witness in respect of whom I make a decision not necessary to give oral evidence. Of course, once it is put on the web and everybody can read it, it would be possible for somebody to say, Well, actually there are issues that this witness ought to deal with, and then one can deal with those, as and when. Exactly. All right. Finally, can I endorse from our perspective a point you made before lunch, that it already appears to us that this Inquiry could take, in an ideal world in which we do not live, three or four years. That is not what your terms of reference require. Your terms of references, as you know, and have said several times now, quite rightly, mandate that a report is prepared within about a year. The difference between a one year and three year Inquiry, in terms of contents of your report is not likely to add to very much. You are going to be able to do, one would hope, 90 or 95 per cent of the job in terms of its quality in one year as you could in three years and the extra 10 per cent. I might disagree with the percentages. The point I am making is that the extra two years, by which time, not merely will we all be exhausted but the drivers -- if change is required -- the drivers for such change may well be diminished. It will render the exercise largely self defeating, so there is that -- Certainly altered if not diminished. So there is that concern. Of course, we understand that fairness has to be a touchstone of this Inquiry and that fairness cannot be ignored or short circuited, but, again, we don't live in an ideal world and I do ask the core participants to allow us a degree of latitude. But against that background we hope that the Inquiry will be concluded within the timetable which has been ordained. Yes. There was a submission that we ought to change something we said in the protocols. I suggested an agreed amendment to paragraph 15 of the documents protocol and paragraph 3(b) of the assessor's protocol. I wasn't aware that there were any other points which hadn't been covered. We don't think there were any other points. Do you say anything about the position of Trinity Mirror, Mr Vinall's application, specifically I could but whether I should is another matter. There are no submissions of law which I need make. I am concerned that I am removing the line, not merely seeking to define it as blurred rather than bright. Thank you. Now, this isn't contentious litigation. It might be contentious but it's not litigation, so if anyone wants to add anything to that which we have just said they are free to do so. The area that has been the subject of the greatest discussion just now has been the point that, I think, Mr Dingemans, you raised. Others adopted it and took it on board. It seems to me that, if we amend the note in the way that Mr Jay has just suggested, I would not want to become formalistic about it, but does that essentially address the concern that you were raising My Lord, sir, yes, it does and I am very grateful to both you, sir, and my learned friend Mr Jay for addressing our concerns in that way. I want to address everybody's concerns. Good. Thank you. Ruling I will make a series of decisions. I don't believe this needs a judgment. I will announce that we shall, sooner rather than later, invite applications for core participant status in relation to the remaining modules of this part of the Inquiry. Where we believe a prenotified direct interest may be engaged, we will seek to engage with it, but I think in relation to Mr Chawla's submissions, in reality now we have moved past the stage of the protocols, that really deals with the evidential matters to which we have just been referring. I am grateful to Mr Vinall for Trinity Mirror and, indeed, for those representing the Telegraph for writing about the generic issues which concern them. I do intend to take such steps as it is open to me to ensure that those who wish to make closing submissions can at least put something in to the Inquiry in writing and the Inquiry will also be prepared to engage if specific requests are made, but I believe that for Trinity Mirror to have the role that it seeks, it is, in all but name, becoming a core participant. I would be prepared to consider an application for that status, accepting that, by becoming a core participant, any person is not necessarily required to attend at any time or to take any part in the Inquiry that it does not wish to take. But I believe to have the extensive involvement that Mr Vinall sought requires the position to be regularised, not least because, otherwise, I have to create another set of rules in relation to disclosure of documents for a third group. That is not the public and not the core participants and that adds a layer of complexity, which I think is appropriate to avoid. No pressure, Mr Vinall, but you will just have to think about that and decide what your clients -- or your clients will decide what they want to do. Sir, I am very grateful. I am certainly not in a position to give you the answer today. I am certainly not expecting you to. That is why I said no pressure. But I would be very grateful, sir, for an indication whether such a application, if I were to be expected to make, could be made in writing -- No, that could be made in writing but everyone will have to understand there is only a certain amount of room in the room downstairs and, therefore, people have to be, work close, cheek by jowl, if we increase the numbers, but I am sure that we will manage whatever we have to do. What I said about any new core participant applies to any -- nobody need attend at a time when they don't think it is going to be significant to them. It is just not that sort of investigation. I am not sure you will be able to miss much, Mr Phillips -- Mr Davies, but that is a different point. Is there anything else that anybody wants to raise generally I now have some applications to listen to and I will listen to them but if nobody else wants to raise anything. Yes, Mr Chawla Just this, I raised two issues in terms of what I might generally call disclosure, the evidential and the procedural. We are anxious when any procedural questions arise, so for example, matters such as standard of proof, that we have an opportunity to be heard and if there are draft protocols we would wish to be included within those. Well, what I will do is, as we develop those ideas, I put those on a case-by-case basis. Yes, thank you very much. I don't know if you are aware, but I have asked to be a core participant. I didn't know about the hearing on September 6th until two days before. You want to be a core participant Yes. I will deal with that in a moment but not now because there is no need for everybody else to attend, because it is essentially a discussion between the core participant potential and the Inquiry, so it is not necessary for all the other core participants to be present to listen to that because they won't have a voice in whether I am satisfied within the meaning of the Act. But because I flew here and I have been in correspondence with the Inquiry, I just thought I would show myself. Okay. Don't go. Right. Is there -- anybody who now no longer wishes to take part or listen may depart without any discourtesy. What can I do for you Application to become a core participant Well, I had submitted evidence to the press standards Inquiry for the culture -- that was held by the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, and I had hoped because of that I would be made aware of what was going on here, because I live in Massachusetts and they did have my email but, as I said, I found out about the hearing on 6 September only two days before, otherwise, I would have appeared and asked. I currently don't have a solicitor and your team asked me to contact Collyer Bristow to see if they would represent me. On what basis do you seek to be a core participant Because I have been libelled by nearly all of the core participants, with the exception of the Trinity and the Guardian, and I was first libelled across the Scottish press including all the editions -- the Scottish editions of the English papers, over litigation commenced in Scotland, and then it was in England -- harassment litigation and it was essentially commenced because the police didn't investigate my allegations about the other parties. So, actually, my application is a little bit with the police, in that their failure to investigate caused me to be defamed and libelled. Also when it started in Scotland the issue was taken under common law, under harassment common law, and under the rules of the Scottish court nothing should have gotten in the press unless the other party was present, so I was taken to court without notice and I believed somebody -- something funny happened. In Scotland is this Yes, this started in Scotland. This does cover Scotland as well, doesn't it I think so. Yes, but only in a very limited way because Scottish law is different to English law and lots of people have pointed out my lack of expertise in relation to media law, if they wanted to include Scottish law I would agree with them. It also covers the English law as well. They actually have the law in America because I have issued a claim in Boston because of all of these -- In America In America. So you now have claims in Scotland. No, I don't have a claim in Scotland. The litigation in Scotland has finished Yes. In England and in America Right, but the litigation in America is over -- if I just go back for a minute to Scotland where it started -- so what happened was, I was taken to court without notice using false allegations and false evidence by the other parties and it got in the press. Hang on. So I am trying to understand. The person who commenced proceedings against you in Scotland was not a member of the press. No. I see. So it is the way in which it was reported. Right. Right, I understand. Which was horrible because that is how it got into the public domain and under the rules of the Scottish court, that wasn't meant to happen. I went to Scotland later but, of course, I could get no information, but these articles remain on the internet, on the Scotsmen, on the Times, on the Telegraph, they are all over to this day. Then these people commenced litigation in England here under the Harassment Act 1997. That is, again, not a member of the press. Again, not a member of the press. So your complaint is about the way in which your proceedings have been reported -- Exactly. -- in Scotland and England Exactly, which were then syndicated to America. I don't know if it is because I am American or the other party is well known but that is what my claim in America is about, because I am in all the databases in America and there are libellous articles and, because of that, I think the Inquiry -- I think, what people have to understand here is that wherever the English language is spoken around the world, particularly because of the internet, you know, the bad practices of the British press are everywhere. I understand that, and the impact of the internet is something which I should be considering in the context of this Inquiry but I am not quite sure why that brings you within the definition contained within paragraph 5.2 of the Inquiry Rules 2006, such that I should designate you as a core participant because, although I understand you have an interest, it doesn't immediately strike me that you are a person who has played a direct and significant role in relation to the matters to which the Inquiry relates or whether you have a significant interest in the important aspect of the matters to which the Inquiry relates, because I am not considering specifically the law of libel, as far as I'm aware, or that you are going to be criticised. I am sure you are not going to be criticised in the course of my proceedings. So I understand why you are asking. I am just not sure you fit; do you see No, I see, because I know this all started as a phone hacking issue. However, as, sort of, the Press Standards Inquiry from the culture minister of the Select Committee started at looking at the bad standards of the press, it became something about phone hacking and I have noticed that the core participants aren't just phone hacking victims. There are the McCanns and there's Max Mosley and I am probably most similar to the McCanns because they have been libelled and they were libelled over an investigation but I have actually been libelled over court proceedings, which is a very serious matter. I mean, you know -- and I put -- and I am representing myself most of this time and I put a lot of time into it and to get libelled over the outcome of proceedings right here in the Queens Bench, which then gets syndicated to America. This is a very serious issue. I understand the point but the involvement of the other people you mention strikes me does have slightly different ramifications. Well, obviously, I would have to -- you know, I believe otherwise and the fact that I have been libelled by nearly all the core participants with very little -- But the one thing I am not going to be doing is deciding that sort of issue because I am forbidden from the terms of my reference in going into areas which are the subject of the police investigation and, therefore, it is unlikely that I would be devoting time and attention to specific complaints. There are the generic issues that those who are already designated core participants generate and it may be that one subset of one subset of those also hits you, but that's slightly different. Okay. But I believe, from everything I read of the people who submitted evidence to the Culture Media and Sport Committees Inquiry, it appears I am the only one and it is quite a unique case that I have. I was libelled in court proceedings by nearly all members of the press. I think there are a fair number of people who complain they have been libelled in court proceedings, but the problem about that is what is said in court is privileged -- anyway. I don't mean that -- the privilege. I mean the outcome of the proceedings, certainly with no right of reply. But my Inquiry is rather different from that being conducted by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport Committee in the House of Commons and I am absolutely -- I have taken over a great part of their remit but not necessarily all of it. But I must say from module 1 that you were looking at the culture standards and ethics to the press. What has happened to me completely fits. All right. But that is not to say you can't submit evidence to the Inquiry and we will consider it and, if necessary, if I consider it is sensible, I can require you to come and give evidence and it strikes me that that is probably the better thing for you to do. So for you to submit a statement to the Inquiry and we will then decide whether it is worthwhile your coming to speak about it. But I don't quite understand then why my situation is different than the McCanns, for instance. Well, I think there are a number of differences because I think the interplay between the McCanns and the press may very well go beyond the assertions within certain sections of the press that impact upon what happened to the McCanns' daughter, and I think it goes beyond that and quite a distance beyond it. The issue is that, at the end of the day, I have to make a series of decisions. There have been a number of people who have complained about their treatment at the hands of the press. If I were to make every single one of them a core participant well, it would not be possible, sensibly, to do so. No, I understand that but this is really a public interest issue. You know, I am having court proceedings here and I can't get a correction in the paper. I mean, what is the point -- and to tell you I was served these papers in Massachusetts, dragged back here, defamed and libelled. I cleared up and that's it. I just keep on getting libelled. This Inquiry has to look at why in this country it is impossible to get a right of reply and I have said this many times that, you know, in America you are less likely to get libelled and everybody knows this, even though there is a first amendment and the first amendment gives you a lot of freedom but with that freedom the press is more responsible. They will give everybody a right of reply. It doesn't matter who you are and in this country I get defamed and libelled, no right of reply and then they syndicate the articles and I get defamed and libelled in my own country. It is really outrageous and I really think the Inquiry has to look at this. I actually repeat what I have said before. I think that you raise an interesting and possibly significant matter. I would suggest that you put your account -- I am sure you probably have done -- into writing in some way and send it to the Inquiry team and, as I have said, anybody is entitled to submit evidence to the Inquiry and then I will consider it and if I feel that it fits, it fits a hole, then I will ask you to give evidence if I think it right. But your concern is a specific one, which I understand. I have a far more generic series of issues to resolve. So if you need -- you have the address of the Inquiry (Nodded) Well, I encourage you to make a statement and we will see where it goes from there. I see, so does that -- can I submit something else to them or are you making a ruling about my application Yes. I will make a ruling about your application. Not just yet because I will hear Mr Jay first, but then I will make a ruling and then you can deal with it as you think is appropriate. It is a matter for your discretion under Rule 5, in my submission. Yes. You have heard what I have-said. Yes. It is not said this lady -- she hasn't played a direct or significant role, it doesn't seem. She may have an interest in an aspect of matters to which the Inquiry relates, but she is obviously not going to be the subject of explicit criticism. Is that right Is that analysis fair Yes, it is. Thank you. Do you want to say anything else I will give you the last word, you see. It is the last word I know your team is aware that my opponent has been Mr Sherborne. So I hope this isn't influencing -- No, it is not at all. All I knew was that there was a reason why the team of core participants couldn't act for you. I didn't know why and I am not enquiring, it doesn't matter. I would have to consider each case on its merits in relation to the rules and I am not allowing anything else to influence me. Do I have a right of appeal Of appeal Yes. I have not ruled yet, but you can apply to the Divisional Court or to the Administrative Court by way of judicial review if you consider that I have made an error of law or exercised my discretion in a way in which it could never be reasonable for me to exercise it. That is the only basis upon which you can challenge a decision if it is adverse to you. I hope you understand why I believe I should be a core participant. No, actually, I don't think that you really need to be a core participant at all. I think you do need to provide evidence to the Inquiry which we will then consider, but I don't think that that gives rise to a necessity on your part to be a core participant to the enormous number of overarching issues with which this Inquiry is concerned. (Judgment given) You don't need to stay if you don't want to or you can stay or whatever. I always like to hear what Mr Sherborne has to say. Application by Sir, as I indicated I have an application on behalf of two further individuals for core participant status. Both of whom are victims of hacking by News Group Newspapers as well as other media wrongdoing. Can I simply name them The first is Charlotte Church and the second is Jacqui Hames. I can provide further details, if necessary, but I hope that, given what I have said about their experiences, their suitability as core participants is self-explanatory under the Rule 5.2 of the Inquiry rules. That takes the group of core participant victims to 48. Yes. What I think I will ask you to do, Mr Sherborne, is to reduce in writing in a short letter the particular details touching upon those two persons. I am more than happy to do so. We would have done it in advance, except this, unfortunately, had to be done at very short notice, but I can deal with it in writing. I am not being critical but I think some further and better particulars are appropriate. Yes, sir. Yes, I understand. Anything else Can I just ask one thing The Inquiry -- in the first module for press -- you were looking at the rights of the press, nearly all of the victims are phone hacking victims and I know that is how the Inquiry started but I just, you know, wondered why there isn't a broader spectrum of victims. I think there is a broader spectrum of victims, actually, because not all those who have been designated core participants are phone hacking victims. There are none who are simply victims of libel, I don't believe. I think it goes beyond that but I have no doubt, as I cast my memory back to the list that there are, indeed, a number who interplay with the media in different ways. I haven't declined your application on the basis that you weren't a phone hacking victim. Thank you all very much indeed. (3.05 pm) (The hearing concluded)