Monday, 31 October 2011 (10.30 am) We're in this court today for want of room rather than for any other reason. Right, this hearing is intended to deal with a number of issues that remain outstanding. They include further applications for core participant status, the issue left over from last week in relation to the submissions made by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the issue of the approach made to the Inquiry by those who would like to give evidence anonymously. Is it sensible to deal with the matters in that order, so that those who don't wish to remain for the rather more detailed analyses need not do so? Let me just start first, on that basis, with Mr Beggs. Sir, are you asking me the question or would you like me to make the application? I think that you can make the application. I've seen your detailed submissions on behalf of Surrey Police. I think it's important to appreciate the limit of the remit of this Inquiry at this stage and to emphasise that I do not anticipate that I will be going to great detail or indeed any detail about the way in which the Surrey Police investigated the murder of Milly Dowler. I have read the terms of reference really to encompass the investigation by the Metropolitan Police of phone hacking, rather than the investigation of a murder, which has, as its byproduct, the extent to which it was appropriate to run down what in that investigation would have been a side issue, namely how News of the World obtained information about Milly Dowler's mobile phone. If I were to go into the sort of detail that your submission visualises for each victim, I think I would be engaged for an extremely long time. The reason I suggested that it was sensible for you to make an application publicly was so that I could share with you the four corners of what I wanted to do, rather than allow you to proceed on a misunderstanding of where I should be going. I have no doubt that a police officer may very well feel it appropriate to give some evidence, but I would have thought that that was likely to be the limit of the extent to which I would want to go down that route, merely to identify the issue rather than to try and resolve it. Still less to embark upon anything that would be at this stage critical of the decisions made by the police during the course of that investigation. Submissions by MR BEGGS Sir, that's very helpful. It was never our intention that our core participant status or applicant status would touch upon the murder investigation itself. We've always understood that that would be far removed from your concerns. Our concern, as you probably anticipate, was the by now iconic status of the revelation on 4 July this year that Milly Dowler's mobile telephone had been -- to use the common word -- hacked, and the suggestions that have been made most vividly on 14 October, just a few days ago, by the Independent newspaper that Surrey Police were at fault for failing to investigate News of the World's activities after the Milly Dowler investigation was put on ice or whatever. That's the ambit of our concern. Naturally, I and my clients who sit behind are reassured to hear from you that you wouldn't be getting into any further detail or be likely to criticise Surrey Police, but I should say on that latter point our concern remains very live, because not only do we have national newspapers criticising Surrey Police in very strong terms, I'm not sure if you've seen the article on 14 October where one of the core participants in this case criticised Surrey Police. Mr Beggs, the interesting impact of this Inquiry into the press has caused as much press comment as the subject matter of the Inquiry. I'm afraid that everybody is going to have to get used to comment and opinion being expressed in the public domain and grin and bear it. I have been surprised by some of the things that have been put in the public domain about me, but I am prepared to accept it. That's what a free press is all about. Certainly, sir. I'm simply making the point so that you can better understand why the Chief Constable, as he now is, the acting Chief Constable, would be concerned to protect his legitimate interests in relation to the allegations being made, the byproduct, as you rightly described it. If you're saying, sir, that that byproduct, in other words what was done by Surrey Police in 2002 about the revision that News of the World agents had hacked into Milly's telephone will not surface in part one, then I probably won't have very much more to say to you. Yes. I'm not saying that I wouldn't like to know the answer to the question. Namely: was consideration given to an investigation, and, if so, how that spun out? That may be part of the general narrative, but I will not be going into the detail, I do not apprehend, and I'll ask Mr Jay whether I've understood my own responsibilities accurately. That's why I wanted it done in public, because to do so would take me down a road which would take too long and be insufficiently productive to the ultimate issue that I have to address, which is the recommendations that part one requires me to make. It may be part two would be different, and I'm not suggesting that I wouldn't be very interested if it was said -- which I don't believe for a moment it will be said -- that the Surrey Police in some way did not investigate for reasons to do with the relationship with the press, but I'd be surprised if that was suggested. It already has been suggested, explicitly, in the media. To some extent, it's now being pursued via a parliamentary route, namely the Home Affairs Committee, which I don't know the extent to which, sir, you're aware that Surrey Police are now being subject to close questioning in correspondence from Mr Keith Vaz? I'm not aware of that, but -- May I just deal with it only as a matter of courtesy? Yes. One of the other less important -- but nonetheless still important -- reasons for the Chief Constable wanting us to attend today was simply to record that if, as seems likely, we embark or continue to embark upon correspondence with Mr Vaz, as is probably the Chief Constable's public duty within limits, such as contempt and prejudiced by proceedings. Then the acting Chief Constable wants you to understand, sir, that no discourtesy is intended towards this Inquiry if another Inquiry -- which is also moving rapidly -- starts to ask us penetrating questions. That's entirely understandable, and no discourtesy will be taken at all. I well understand the enormous pressures that large numbers of different people are under, not least because of the police investigation, the Home Affairs Select Committee and the general political debate as well as the debate in the press. Sir, I don't want to take -- I will want to see evidence, not mere argument. Certainly. Sir, I don't want to take unnecessary time when you have a busy agenda, but can I focus on the limb under rule 5(2)(c), the potential for criticism of Surrey Police. More importantly, may Surrey Police be the subject of explicit or significant criticism during the proceedings or in any of your reports, final or interim? Sir, I confine my oral representations very shortly just to that one point, without prejudice to what we say are good points made in relation to 5(2)(a) and 5(2)(b), you have them in writing, I can't improve upon them. To some extent, sir, you've already identified in the exchanges we've just had that you will want to know -- you are likely to want to know the answer to the question: what Surrey Police did upon learning of News of the World's intervention. Without going into that detail, for the very good reason it's still being investigated by those who instruct me, it's not difficult to see how the test, may Surrey Police be subject to criticism, is satisfied. The reason I was citing the Independent, was not to criticise free speech in the press, or indeed that newspaper, but simply to give you an illustration of an agenda that is out there in public debate, which is likely to gain momentum. Indeed, it was heralded a few months earlier by another core participant, as I understand it, Mr Chris Bryant MP is a core participant. If I'm wrong about that, I apologise. Yes, he's a core participant in relation to the allegation that he has been the subject of phone hacking, but the Independent aren't, in fact, core participants. No, but they quoted a core participant, who is a lawyer -- Yes, but I don't believe that Mr Bryant will be coming to this Inquiry to talk about his views of other cases in which he is not personally involved. I would be very surprised if he was. No, no. That wasn't my purpose in referring to him. My purpose was to give you another illustration beyond that in the Independent. I'll hand you up the article up if you wanted to look at it for yourself, but on 18 July of this year, which coincided with the very public demise of several senior police officers from the Metropolitan Police, that member of Parliament, in questioning the Home Secretary, asked whether she would ensure that there is: "A proper investigation into the Surrey Police and what happened between the police officers in charge of the investigation following Milly Dowler's disappearance and death and News of the World and other journalists at the time." He went on to say: "I do not think that the collusion was only in the Metropolitan Police." He's using his rights in parliamentary context to allege -- make a serious allegation against my clients -- I understand that, and I will be seeking from ACPO evidence in relation to one of the limbs, which is the relationship between the press and the police. I don't limit that Inquiry to the Metropolitan Police, and I will be looking for some material. Even if I engage with Surrey Police, or Surrey Police may want to submit evidence; it doesn't have to be as a result of my using my powers under the Act, or indeed inquiring -- anybody is entitled to put evidence before me who wishes to. Whether we use it, that's the decision that I will make with the assistance of the Inquiry team. That's a very, very limited remit, and indeed, if there were to be -- first of all, if there was a witness who was going to come along to criticise the Surrey Police, the rules make it abundantly clear that anybody acting for the Surrey Police, you, would be entitled not only to suggest questions that counsel might ask, but also to apply to me to ask questions yourself, whether or not you're a core participant. If a witness for the Surrey Police were to give evidence, you would be entitled then to attend to answer questions. If you then wanted to make submissions at the end of the Inquiry, then I've made it clear that under certain circumstances I'll be prepared to receive written submissions from those who aren't core participants. In other words, it seems to me that the interests which I quite understand the acting Chief Constable wants to protect, are amply protected within the rules, without you necessarily being involved throughout, and that's a submission thats I have -- that's not a submission from me, it's a proposition which I have put to other people who have sought to become core participants, and who have a remarkable ability to use the facility of making submissions as and when they believe them appropriate. I will listen, but that's not quite the same. Sir, a number of points arising from those observations. First of all, our involvement, if you were to grant us core participant status, which I appreciate is currently looking like an uphill struggle for me, but our involvement would -- I'll think about it and I won't decide now. I'm grateful. I'll think about it. Particularly, I would invite you to decide only when you've read some of the documents that I'll hand up, because it may illuminate the debate. All right. Our involvement would be, may I stress -- indeed as you said -- very limited, principally because we have only one interest and that's the issue that you describe as the by-product, but it's an interest which has already generated interest in the House of Commons, in the media, with sensible and intelligent debate about what Surrey Police did or didn't do. It relates, it's fair to say, to the iconic revelation, which has become the iconic revelation, not just in this country but abroad, so therefore our interest is beyond that of a mere interested observer. You are not in the same position, I readily recognise, as a police force with one alleged hacking victim, because I suppose if there was a tipping point, it may be that the Dowlers provide that tipping point, and I recognise that, but that's not quite the same as saying that the role they will play in this Inquiry creates a larger issue as a result. We understand that, sir, and of course your perspective and ours is bound to differ in that regard, because we are concerned to avoid unfairness -- as are you, and as you have repeatedly said -- ensuing inadvertently towards Surrey Police as certain issues become ventilated in the media and then potentially ventilated, even if only in a relatively confined area, in your Inquiry. If we are not core participants, our ability to input evidence, our ability to participate, is undoubtedly less than if we were core participants, and I have already given you the assurance that if you grant it to us, it will be very focused indeed, to use your words from 6 September. Not only because we wish only to be focused, but also for other more prosaic reasons of public funding. I note that in paragraph 15 of your ruling of 14 September on the Metropolitan Police Service, one of the reasons you granted them readily core participant status was because they may be subject to criticism, so may we be subject to criticism, even though you at this stage anticipate -- You didn't start a wholesale Inquiry into hacking. That is the very point. Well, you didn't. Or maybe you did, but even if you did, it was in relation to one specific phone. It wasn't in relation to a complaint which then led to documents which may or may not have been appropriate to investigate further. No, but the -- You're in a very different position. I don't think that this is contentious. We are in a different position, because we're a smaller force just south of the biggest force in the country, and our involvement, I quite accept, in the Inquiry is less than the Metropolitan Police Service. However, our involvement was in the case which you have accepted as if not iconic, certainly a tipping point. It is that tipping point on 4 July which led two weeks later to two of their most senior officers in effect leaving their jobs in a hurry, and the agenda that is being pursued by some, including those as I've mentioned more than once who are participating, is the suggestion made that, I quote: "The failure by Surrey Police [I'm quoting from the Independent] to pursue the Sunday tabloid meant that phone hacking by its journalists continued for another four years until Metropolitan Police intervened with their arrest of Mulcaire and Goodman." It's not difficult, we respectfully suggest, for you to find at this stage -- if only under that one heading, whereas we advance the submission under all three headings and under general evidence -- that there is a risk that Surrey Police may be criticised. As importantly though, sir, your narrative, as you describe it on 6 September and again on 4 October, from which you launched part two, where we would have -- we say -- an even stronger application for obvious reasons, your narrative needs to be as accurate as humanly possible. Even if our involvement in your narrative was very narrow indeed -- I can do all that without making you a core participant; can't I? I accept that, sir. As a matter of fact, you're right about that. I can see that, and I could see that before I made -- Just occasionally, Mr Beggs, it happens. Yes. I'm sure it's just an accident. That, of course, is not entirely the point when it comes to exercising your discretion under rule 5(2)(c), because if on further reflection after today and when you look at one or two of the documents I hand up, you may come to the conclusion -- which we urge you to come to as the only fair conclusion -- that we are at risk of being criticised. Therefore, as a matter of fairness, the word that you repeated in all three previous hearings, it wouldn't be right for us to be denied the ability, albeit in that limited scope that I've mentioned, to participate, in just the same way as the larger force with a bigger involvement has been granted that right. There's one final point, before I try your patience any more, which is this: it's also now emerging, perhaps it was known before, but my instructions are that it is very likely that a number of Surrey Police officers themselves were victims at the time of the launch of the Milly Dowler investigation, that's in March nine years ago, themselves victims of hacking. I don't want to develop that point any further in terms of the detail for reasons that are probably obvious. It's unnecessary to do so, but based upon your previous utterances as to qualification for core participant status, when you add that into the mix, it seems to us that that's not an irrelevant consideration. It may become more relevant as time effluxes and more detail emerges. I just give you that as an additional fact. I understand, Mr Beggs, as I say, it may be -- I will look at whatever material you want. It may be that actually we're dancing a little bit on the head of a pin here, on the basis that I won't make any adverse comment about the Surrey Police without making sure that you and your clients have absolutely every opportunity to deal with it. Anything that Surrey Police can do to make sure that my narrative is accurate, Surrey Police will have the opportunity to do and I will expect and hope that they would take it, whether or not they are formally involved as core participants. Sir, in the light of that very helpful indication, I'll now sit down, having, as I say, formally made the application. Hand me whatever material you'd like me to look at, and I shall look at it. Thank you very much. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Beggs. Mr Jay, is there anything you want to say about that series of exchanges? Submissions by MR JAY Two points. First of all, as you know, the Dowlers are on the list of witnesses who will be giving evidence in the first week or second week of the Inquiry. Their witness statements aren't available, and we don't know what criticisms they may make, if any, of the Surrey Police. Yes. The second point, and the broader point: how much detail are we going to go in part one of the Inquiry? I deal with this in my written submissions starting at paragraph 28. Yes. Maybe the heart of the matter is to be found in paragraph 32. It's the difference really between a microscopic approach, which would plainly be mandated by the part two terms of reference, and what we might call the macroscopic approach, which no doubt you will be adopting for part one purposes. Yes. I have nothing to add orally to paragraphs 28 and following of my written submissions, but I draw attention to them. They are there in the public domain. All right. Thank you very much indeed. I have received other applications for core participant status. They come under slightly different headings. There has been an application by the National Union of Journalists, and there have been applications, one of which I have previously granted, but will formally grant, from the two other media groups. That is to say, the Telegraph and Trinity Mirror, not, as I understand it, the Independent. I don't think I need trouble any of the persons who make those applications to do so more formally. It's impossible to distinguish between Trinity Mirror and the Telegraph on the one hand and those whom I've granted core participant status representing publishers on the other, or editors, on the other. I do see the National Union of Journalists as having a different window on the subject matter of part one of this Inquiry. I shall deal with all those by granting them, but I shall reduce my reasons into writing so that it's clear for everybody to see. I shall look at the material that Mr Beggs has produced and has asked me to before making a decision about Surrey Police. I shall also add a comment about the role that core participants have and the role that they don't have in connection with the Inquiry. I have said that there is no bright line, and that might have been slightly misunderstood because I don't intend that those who might be affected, but who are not core participants will necessarily be given the chance to make representations at every occasion that issues arise it for me to make a decision. I will decide whether in my discretion to allow submissions on a case-by-case basis, and it may be that submissions in writing will be sufficient. But other than that, I don't think it's necessary to go. Does anybody else want to say anything else on the subject of core participant status? Thank you. Mr Beggs, you're very welcome to stay. If you wish to, and listen to the other not unimportant issues, one of which concerns the extent to which the Inquiry can use material that is presently being looked at by the police in connection with their investigation, but if you don't want to, it won't in any sense be considered discourteous. Thank you. Right. I think that we will now move on to the submissions made on behalf of the Metropolitan Police from the Crown Prosecution Service. I wonder whether -- and I'm open to suggestions -- it's not sensible to start that with Mr Garnham rather than Mr Jay, but I think that's probably easiest, and then I'll hear Mr Jay at the end. Sir, thank you. Thank you very much for the document that, as it were, put it all together in one place. I hope everybody has had the chance to read them, because it struck me that if I asked -- I mean, the reason I suggested that you should start is that Mr Jay would then feel inevitably necessary to go into what you've said, and whereas we can take what you've said as read and then get into the detail more quickly with you and then we'll work out where we are. Submissions by MR GARNHAM Thank you, sir. I should say that for too today's purpose, unlike last time, I represent both the MPS and the CPS. Right. I don't repeat the submissions that we made collectively either on the 26th or on the 28th in writing. We stand by all of the points made in those two documents, sir. Yes. Can I test that, but at some stage. I'll let you run up to the wicket first, there are some concerns I have about a number of the things you've said, but develop it as you wish first. Sir, thank you. You will understand that I am in a difficult position in one important respect. Neither the MPS nor the CPS can safely enter a debate about abuse of process and perhaps contempt by reference to the facts of the particular cases with which you're concerned. We can't be contending before you that certain actions would ground an abuse of process argument when the CPS may have to argue for the exact opposite in some other tribunal. Let me make it abundantly clear. It is not in the remotest bit surprising that the police and the CPS should wish to argue for a default position that was as minimal as could possibly be devised. It doesn't surprise me that you do that. No, sir. It does not involve, in my judgment, a concession of any sort that to exceed the minimum will give rise to the remotest possibility of a successful argument on abuse of process. Sir, I'm grateful for that indication, but our concern is that some other judge in some other court may be invited to take the submissions that I make on behalf, particularly of the CPS today, as a useful starting point for submission of -- I think that would be utterly to misunderstand what is going on. I say that publicly on the record to identify my anxiety that you do put the case as forcefully as you feel it can possibly be put, in such a way that does not in any sense suggest that less -- that a decision that I make necessarily cuts the line as to what you can argue or as to what a court may articulate. I'm grateful for that and I'm particularly grateful that you say that publicly, because that will provide some comfort, but nonetheless both the MPS at the senior level and the Director of Public Prosecutions have given careful consideration to the extent to which we can make submissions on the facts of this case without running unnecessary risks. As a result the line I am going to draw is a fairly firm one in not going into the facts of this case. Well -- I will make submissions in the generality, but not specifics. I understand that, and I don't ask for submissions on the specifics. I will test the generality. Of course, ultimately I have my own statutory responsibilities and my own statutory powers. Yes. It would be an abrogation of those responsibilities if I were simply to delegate or defer the decision-making to the police. Absolutely, and I don't for one moment invite you to do that. Nonetheless, we are in the peculiar position, because of the stance that I am on instructions taking, that you will have to do that testing against the specifics for yourself without receiving from the MPS and the Crown Prosecution Service detailed factual submissions on the circumstances of this case, because we will not do that. Well, that's -- That has to be a matter for us on this occasion, sir. Yes, yes, I can't make you say anything. I can make you do lots of things, but I can't make you say anything. No. Sir, you understand the starting point of these submissions? No, no, absolutely. The short response to the invitation you issued last time is that we say the Inquiry ought not, as a matter of principle, rehearse any evidence during part one that's likely to prove central to the criminal proceedings. We say that whether it is by way of public disclosure of key documentation or by receipt of oral evidence. We say that to do so will create a risk -- and that's the highest I'm prepared to put it -- of prejudice to the investigation and to any subsequent criminal proceedings. We say that, with respect, neither we nor you can pre-judge what another judge will make of the effects or significance of evidence that has not yet been heard, but which we're debating in the abstract. We say nonetheless that the risk is a real one. I can do a bit of pre-judging, can't I, because there's a wealth of authority on the subject? There is, sir, but as we in the note all that authority is backward-looking and you're forward-looking. Yes, I know, but even I am in a position to visualise what I might do and what I might say and put myself then in the position of a criminal judge reviewing the law as it exists to decide whether there is a risk of prejudice. Yes. What is difficult for you -- It's not my job, of course, ultimately it will be a different judge to make it, but that's what judges do all the time. What I say is difficult for you to do is to anticipate what answers your team will obtain from the questions you put based on the documentation we're talking about. Yes. You might know what they are going to put and you might be in a position -- sir, you will be in a position to control that, but you're not in a position to control the answers you receive, and it's the answers that concern us most. Yes, although everybody will be aware, won't they, of the provisions of section 22 of the Act. Yes. Absolutely. Nonetheless, sir, although they are, that still doesn't ensure that you can know what answers they'll give. You can't, with respect. However scrupulously that provision is applied, we are crystal ball gazing when it comes to determining what answers you are going to get. I absolutely agree. Somebody may say, "I exercise my right not to answer that question", or somebody might give an answer. Or somebody might say, "Not me, guv, but it was somebody else and I'll give you the chapter and verse". Yes, he might. All of which, we say, has certain risk consequences. It is for that reason that we make the submissions in the way we do. You will have seen, sir, I hope in a footnote to our submissions reference to the recent Divisional Court case of Mousa v Secretary of State for Defence. We say that captures pithily in a paragraph the caution that is normally exercised with regard to running contemporaneously public inquiries and criminal investigations. May I read just that paragraph, sir? I can pass up a copy of the authority if that helps. Yes, I don't think I have that one here. Can I pass that up to you? I'll also pass a copy of that to Mr Jay. No, Mr Jay has a copy. (Handed). Thank you. Thank you very much. This is the Divisional Court consisting of Lord Justice Richards and Mr Justice Silber deciding the application for judicial review of the Secretary of State for Defence's refusal to hold a single public Inquiry into allegations of abuse by British servicemen in Iraq. I only need to show you paragraph 129, sir, to make this general point. This is part of the reasoning why a public Inquiry was not ordered on the facts of that particular case: the court said this: "Fourthly, if a public Inquiry were established now, there is relatively little that it could achieve pending the conclusion of the IHAP." Which was the independent investigation into the events in Iraq. " ... investigations and any ensuing prosecutions. It must not be forgotten that serious accusations of criminal misconduct have been made against British soldiers, both the Baha Mousa Inquiry and the Al-Sweady Inquiry followed the conclusion of relevant criminal proceedings. There would be an obvious risk of prejudice to criminal investigations and proceedings if an active public Inquiry ran in parallel with them. "Moreover witnesses implicated in alleged abuse would be unlikely to give evidence to a public Inquiry unless they were first given immunity from prosecution." Yes, but there one has to look at the dynamic. Here an active public Inquiry is running in parallel with a criminal investigation, whether we like it or not. Absolutely, sir. The one thing I can't do is effectively shut up shop. No, and nor do I invite you to do so. I'm not so sure about that. No, I most certainly don't. I invite you to conduct part one of this Inquiry with a weather eye on the fact that there are contemporaneous prosecutions, and as a result -- No, pausing there, absolutely. As a result -- and I will be delighted if I receive a similar enthusiastic agreement to this proposition -- to introduce into the public arena new material only with great circumspection. I don't think I necessarily disagree with that. Great circumspection is what I'm trying to adopt in relation to all aspects, because there is a real public interest in the police investigation, but there is a real public interest in moving through this Inquiry to deal with the recommendations within part one. Recognising that the consequence is, as I have said before on a number of occasions, in some regards to put the cart before the horse in relation to the investigation of facts. Of course that's right, sir, but the part one was, it would appear, crafted in a manner to try and avoid the difficulties that now bubble to the surface, and we would invite you in consequence -- Not avoid; minimise, I think. Minimise. Very well, I am happy to adopt that, sir. I accept that. We would invite you to reflect that in the way in which part one is conducted, by ensuring that the level of detail to which you descend to describe your narrative is kept at a high level. I am immediately troubled by the difficulty I identified for myself of not straying into the particular facts, but I think I can probably say this much, that the sort of documentation that counsel to the Inquiry were indicating to us was likely to be opened by them raises precisely these risks. This was indicated to you when? Some weeks ago? Yes. Yes, I understand the point. Sir, I say nothing further about that. Our concern, in case there should be any doubt about this, sir, is not simply the prospect of pre-trial publicity generated as a result of this Inquiry. In other words, we are not looking simply at whether there is a risk the media might go beyond fair reporting. We are also concerned with fair reporting; in other words, with the media entirely properly reporting what happens in the course of this Inquiry because they are reporting what your team have made public. There is in some of what Mr Jay says, it seems to us with respect, an assumption that our attack is directed solely on the risk of irresponsible reporting. It isn't. It is the more difficult to advance in any public forum, the suggestion that this Inquiry itself may, by making public that sort of material, cause a risk to the police investigation and to subsequent criminal proceedings. I don't shrink from making that, but it does mean that we would invite you to consider the question at two levels: one, what's the consequence of what I as chairman of this Inquiry am going to do, and two, what's the consequence of both responsible and irresponsible reporting of what I do? Yes. Sir, we've set out in a little detail what we say about abuse of process in our written submissions and I'm not going to repeat that. It won't improve the argument by doing so. What we would say in summary is that there is, as yet, and I underline the words "as yet", no rule that pre-trial publicity is of no concern to a court considering an abuse argument. It's right, as Mr Jay points out, that in Abu Hamza, the court went a long way to suggest that it would be rare circumstances when adverse extreme publicity fans such a case. We accept that, but there is as yet no rule that it never will. No. If you've been in one of these cases, as I have. One of the ones that some people have cited, and you are presented with hundreds of pages of press reporting, you have to compare and contrast that with the way in which we conduct our criminal justice system in the country. I agree there is no rule, but the experience of those who have been involved in criminal trials -- as I have for some 40 years -- is very, very telling. I don't seek to suggest otherwise, sir. That is plainly -- Abu Hamza was a hard case for the prosecution, and they were successful, because there had been extraordinary publicity in that case. I recognise that and don't seek to invite you to do anything other than follow it, all I submit is that there is as yet no rule that it is irrelevant. Yes. You will have to, sir, with respect, consider those points against a background of the twin point I made earlier, that the concern is not just irresponsible reporting, but also responsible reporting of what you have done in the course of adducing evidence or having Mr Jay adduce evidence to you for the purposes of part one. We also refer in our written submissions to the issue of fade and fading memories and how important that often is. It's a matter for you, sir, and I say nothing more about it than these points in abstract: That the question of fade, especially when it's being considered in prospect rather than retrospect, is difficult to gauge, but one can with confidence submit that on the facts of this case the issues that are likely to be made public as a result of your Inquiry are going to stay in the public consciousness, aided, perfectly properly, by the press, for many, many months. This is not going to be a two-day wonder on the front page of a couple of tabloids. This is too important for that, and we invite you to bear that in mind -- Yes, but that runs literally counter, doesn't it? Because it's too important and therefore it will generate stuff, but you have to be very careful and not do very much because of the risk that you will create. Therefore, I am conducting this Inquiry at enormous expense not just to the state, but to everybody who is involved, and I have to be very careful to make sure that it's worthwhile; haven't I? You have, sir, but behind the decision to divide it into two parts lay recognition of that, and that's why we say in part one you have to be extremely careful as to the detail to which you go. You don't disagree with my view that part one has to create a narrative upon which I can base the recommendations, if any, that I might make. Absolutely. Otherwise, everybody will say, "Well, this is all ..." I say everybody, I don't quite mean that, but a lot of people will say, "Well, this is all hypothetical and theoretical and not grounded in reality" -- You can largely do that, we would submit, sir, by reference to material, and there's a vast amount of it, that's already public domain material. What is being contemplated by the Inquiry team is putting into open a great deal more material which is critical to the investigation the police are conducting and will be important were there to be any prosecution. The police are investigating the activity of specific individuals. I'm not asking numbers at this stage, but specific individuals. You're suggesting that every single piece of paper I or may be interested in, it's Mr Jay who is conducting the case before me, that he may be interested in, should be pass beforehand you and every single name should be filtered through you to make sure there's not a risk, whether or not that person is the subject of arrest and therefore proceedings against him are active in the Contempt of Court Act, should result in a self-denying ordinance that we can't go anywhere if you put up one of those wonderful red flags. In our 26 October written submissions we offered, for the purposes of discussion with Mr Jay, a suggestion of how this might be managed at a practical level. I don't for one moment suggest that's the only way in which it can be done. No. Your recent -- which is contained in the joint submission now, would actually lead to a risk, I appreciate you say it wouldn't really happen, but a risk that every single piece of paper would retire a separate ruling and could be the subject of a judicial review. This could be the work of a lifetime. It depends on the extent to which Mr Jay intends -- how deep he intends to go with this. I mean, our understanding was that it wasn't going to be a vast quantity of new material as yet unseen by the public that was going to go into the public domain. If that is right, the sort of proposal we advance would be an entirely practical one and it wouldn't cause swamping at all. Most of the documents, I don't suppose they're all, because I don't know what Mr Jay has, but most of the documents have come from the MPS. They are material that we are already looking at. As a result, the task of identifying whether or not releasing that into the public domain is one that can be -- if the volume is not as vast as I think it is, can be done relatively quickly and efficiently. We're not suggesting -- as you will have seen, sir -- that this is parked in the department of some small number of junior officers who may or may not get around to complying with Mr Jay's requests. Sitting in front of me is -- I know who is sitting in front of you. -- a lady who you probably recognise, sir. Yes. I'm very grateful to her for taking the time to come to listen to this when she has many other things to do. She has, but this is important to the Met Police as you will understand. She has indicated to me, to Mr Jay, that she personally will arrange that exercise to be done. That demonstrates not only the importance with which the Met regard this, but also the seriousness which we will apply to consideration of this sort of material Mr Jay wants to make public. Nothing that we have learned from the Inquiry thus far suggests that Mr Jay proposes the wholesale making public of huge quantities of material. On the contrary. He looks for the critical material and we understand why he would do that and we will help him manage that process. What I am looking for is an indication of length and breadth. I am not interested in identifying people. That certainly may require to be undertaken, but at this stage what I am looking at is a culture -- Yes. -- and practice, both of which are certainly within my terms of reference. One of the possibilities -- and I understand the argument -- is that at a senior level activity was condoned, encouraged, authorised, required. Another possibility is that there was no such behaviour at a senior level, but that more junior members of staff or otherwise decided among themselves, or individually, to take an approach to gathering evidence or gathering material which breached either the criminal law and/or an ethical code or both. One possibility might be to say that which of those two it is may not matter, because, in the one case then the senior staff are involved, and in the other -- There was a lack of supervision. -- there was a lack of supervision and oversight which permitted a slightly different culture to develop -- Yes. -- the Nelsonian eye or not. It may not matter. And for purposes of the future, that may not be the most critical decision. No. I would certainly need, if I went down that route, which would not require me to identify people, and perhaps need not require me to go into precisely what can be established about the knowledge or otherwise of individuals, but it would require a very clear enunciation of what had been learnt about the length and breadth of what had been going on. Now, within the public domain there was reference to a journal, which identified a vast number of names and may or may not, about which I say no more, link individuals. Yes. Now, do you argue that it would undermine the work that you want to protect if I were to put into the public domain (a) the fact of the journal -- no, because it's already there -- (b) the number of entries -- No. In relation to victims who have been identified, they have been identified. I am not interested in identifying people whose numbers have not been identified, or who may or may not have been the subject. Also, the reference to the individuals, not by name, but by code, to identify the length and the breadth of what I have done, of what has happened. No, we would have no objection to that. Because in that way -- you might get some more instructions. I haven't gone wrong yet, sir. The gown has not yet been tugged, metaphorically or otherwise. Yes, but I can see reaction. Yes. Just proving everybody's awake, sir. In that way, it may be that the detail doesn't actually advance part one. With that, sir, we would be entirely happy. We have been in recent communication with Mr Jay about precisely the possibilities of this. Yes, that doesn't entirely surprise me. No. Because I didn't want the possibility to take you by surprise in court. No. I am concerned to protect the integrity of the investigation. I am also concerned to protect the rights of those who may be the subject of further proceedings, not merely in relation to their evidence, should they give it, but also in relation to adverse publicity one way or the other. Yes. I'm conscious of the points you're making, but if I go down that route, then it will require the very, very greatest disclosure of length and breadth. Yes. And may require some effort, which isn't absolutely designed to further the detail that I know the police will want to further in the course of their enquiries -- Absolutely. In order to present a picture. Sir, work has already begun on that. All right. Serious work at a high level has begun on that. All right. We are keen, and we have been throughout, to find a way to meet the twin objectives of enabling you to conduct a proper part one of your investigation and for us to keep a live investigation. I recognise the point. Although I am criticised as not having been a media lawyer, it may be that my advantage of having been a criminal lawyer will actually bear some fruit. All right. I don't think I need to say anything more about abuse of process. All right. I think what I've said about contempt is clear enough from our written submissions. Yes. On Parliament and the sub judice rules, you'll see what we say. Yes, of course, you used the wrong edition of Erskin May. I'm sure you've been told it's now an out-of-date edition you have used. Somebody has said how well that part of our submissions were made and I was delighted that that was the case, I am appalled to discover we have the wrong edition. Doubtlessly I will listen to Mr Jay explain how the change in edition has affected the fundamentals of my argument. Now you're trying to tease him. Sir, nonetheless you have the point. Yes. Our concern is that the rules -- as Mr Jay himself says -- as to when proceedings are live is different for the purposes of parliamentary.privilege as compared with contempt, and the result will be that there will not be the restraint on, if I can put it that way, on what is said. Or at least there may not be. There may not be the restraint on what is said in Parliament as might be the case elsewhere. The dangers are obvious and, sir, you have the point. I don't think I need to say anything about self-incrimination beyond what we've said in writing. Yes, of course. It may be that even if some of these witnesses are not called in relation to the specifics of module one, some witnesses who may or may not be suspect could very well fall into the frame in relation to that module of part one that deals with the relationship between the press and politicians. It may. In which event there could be no concern, because that's not a feature of an investigation which you're conducting, as I understand it. That is right, sir, except there will be collateral commentary in such material that may be relevant to our investigations. Yes. I think I understand that, but that's at a different order of -- It is. -- significance. Yes. All right. Sir, I have something to say about your last topic, but I think you're going to deal with them issue by issue. Sorry, the? Fast ball, the receipt of anonymous material. Let's deal with all this first and then come to that. I'll sit down. Thank you very much. Let's turn to what some of the other core participants have to say about this. You're, if anything. I'm conscious that I've received submissions from Mr Mukul Chawla, to which I've already adverted, but I'll come back to them slightly later. Right, Mr Caplan, welcome back to jurisdiction. Submissions by MR CAPLAN Thank you very much. Sir, I apologise that our submissions were sent and distributed late. No, well, I understand that the time has been difficult for you and I'm sorry that I couldn't accede to putting off the argument, but you will understand why not. Indeed. Sir, what we attempted to do in relation to the matters which you are currently considering, the abuse of process and contempt, is to simply summarise the legal principles as we see them and to, I hope, give some assistance to you in that way, although I'm sure much of this, if not all of it, is very well-known to you. I think the conclusion which we come to, if it is of assistance, is in paragraph 6 of our submissions, where we respectfully suggest, of course, that you have a statutory Inquiry with a duty to fulfil your terms of reference as fairly and comprehensively as you can, that they raise matters of considerable public importance. When one reviews the authorities on abuse and one looks at the authorities in relation to contempt, and of course we're dealing here with statutory contempt under section 2 of the 1981 act, then we would respectfully suggest that it should not be too lightly assumed that the existence of a police investigation will necessarily require the curtailment of legitimate and relevant avenues of inquiry, although of course all the matters of caution, which your Lordship has referred to, are matters which constantly need to be borne in mind, there is no doubt about that. The issue perhaps is this: Mr Garnham really raises, as we see it, different risks. He spoke about causing a risk to the police investigation. If that is adverting to the risk of, in some way, interfering with the operation of the investigation and there is some special operational risk which arises on the facts, then obviously that is something which one would expect there to be private communication about between Mr Garnham and counsel to the Inquiry. It seemed to us that much of what Mr Garnham was addressing your Lordship about was in relation to the risk of prejudice. That is to say, either some application being made to a judge -- in the event that there are criminal proceedings -- for a permanent stay of those proceedings as a result of fair reporting of the Inquiry hearings, and as a result of prejudice coming out of that reporting. In our respectful submission, that risk is, we would respectfully suggest, overstated. When one looks at the jurisprudence on abuse of process, in our respectful submission that is a risk which is unlikely to arise. I don't think Mr Garnham would disagree with that. What he would say is: at this stage, I have to be seen to be taking every point, because otherwise somebody will say, well, you were complicit in all this, you let it all happen and therefore it's all your fault. I quite understand that. The responsibility for whatever I do will be mine, it won't be Mr Garnham's or the deputy assistant commissioner's. Yes, indeed. Of course, at the end of the day the kind of prejudice one would have to be talking about is the prejudice which Lord Phillips adverted to in Abu Hamza. It has to be so extreme, at the very far end of the spectrum, if one is to come to the conclusion that the normal processes of the criminal justice system can't accommodate it. Of course, what Mr Garnham does say, and there's something in this, is that we can control -- because the criminal law hopefully can control -- what is published in relation to those in respect of whom the proceedings are active. But it is rather more difficult to control that which enters the Internet, which is of course one of the issues that I have to address in some way, and I'm hoping that somebody will have some ideas about that, still less in private communications that then enter the public domain, still less that which actually happens within the cloak of parliamentary privilege. Yes. As far as the Internet is concerned, of course, that is accommodated by special directions of course to sitting jurors, so whatever may be on the Internet is an access which they should obviously not -- No, I agree, I agree. Of course, all of these are value judgments. Mr Garnham obviously makes this application and one cannot deal with the application on a fact-specific basis. One can, however, look at the legal principles involved, how courts traditionally deal with the presence of prejudicial publicity in the public domain when one is dealing with a current criminal trial. Our submission simply is: on the basis of considerable dicta now from courts of many different constitutions, both in this country and around the world, this is not an unusual position, it can be accommodated, and in our respectful submission, it is right, obviously, that the matter is being considered. Your Lordship, everybody, will have, I'm sure, regard to the risks involved, but they are not insurmountable. Yes. Of course, it raises another question, doesn't it, which is: to what extent in any event it is necessary to go. That is what I was just postulating to Mr Garnham, but actually, if one were doing it all together, then one would look at all the facts and be prepared to look at individual conduct and make findings of fact about individual people to get a picture. In an exercise like that, that in any event will take an extremely long time, not least because, as you become microscopic, then all sorts of other considerations arise of fairness. Whereas there is a macroscopic approach which takes me into the issues about which I'm required to report within the year, but still leaves open the microscopic for later examination, should it be necessary to do so. Yes. Do you feel -- or is it the submission of your clients -- that to adopt that latter, the macro rather than the micro approach, would undermine the validity of the work that is being undertaken in relation to the recommendations? I would need, obviously, to speak at greater length with them on that subject, but my immediate response is that it would not. That's interesting, thank you. Yes, thank you very much indeed. Mr Rhodri Davies? Submissions by MR DAVIES Sir, we would support, I think, the length and breadth approach, if I can call it that, or perhaps the macro approach, which you've mentioned just now to Mr Garnham and Mr Caplan. There are three points that I wanted to make, and I'm actually going to take them in reverse order in the view of the way the discussion has gone, but I'll just mention them in their original order. First of all, it seems to us that the terms, structure and timing of the terms of reference make it clear that the police investigation was to have primacy over part one of the Inquiry. I might add that the point mentioned just now as to the speed with which you're required to report in part one, perhaps in itself suggests that a macro approach is necessary. Yes. You're go to develop these points; aren't you? I am. Of course. Secondly, the practical point is simply this, that we've provided a schedule of those who have been arrested so far, so far as we know. I don't want to go throughout it, and perhaps not surprisingly there are versions on the Internet all over the place, but what it demonstrates, just looking at the names and the positions they held, is that it is not really going to -- Just a moment. This isn't on the Internet, is it? This is your version. No, no, this is provided by us, but there is a Wikipedia page listing everyone who has been arrested, so far as is public knowledge, under Operation Weeting, for example. All right, that's right, but I do think that we should not -- I mean, the submissions that are made to the Inquiry generally are published. Yes. Therefore I think that we should not put into the public domain your schedule. It may be other people can create the schedule, but I don't believe it's appropriate that we should be adding to it. Yes, very well. It is only, I think, taken from public knowledge. There may be other things. We simply don't know. If you tell me you obtained it from Wikipedia, Mr Davis, then it won't matter. We didn't, we didn't. Just looking at that indicates how very difficult it would be for an Inquiry to go into the question of who knew what at the News of the World at this stage, because there are just too many people who you would want to ask, who are almost bound not to answer questions, given the criminal -- understandably, in view of the criminal proceedings. There is a practical difficulty in conducting a detailed examination now. Thirdly, we would suggest that without carrying out that micro investigation, there is, or there will be, enough material available to the Inquiry to enable it to form a proper view as to the nature and extent of any problem in relations between the press and the public. Therefore, to enable it to make recommendations in part one to address any problem which it identifies. Yes. We would say, in that regard, that the Inquiry has been right in the seminars to focus on the interface between the press and the public. That is where any behaviour which is wrong or illegal makes itself felt and it is the concern of the Inquiry to make any necessary recommendations to rebalance the playing field, change the approach in future. Yes. Those are the three points I want to make. As I said, I'll take them in their reverse order. The last one is really the length and breadth point. It might be helpful just to bear in mind the material which will be available anyway and which the Inquiry has or will have. First of all, there are the two reports of the Information Commissioner in 2006, and we believe that those will be supplemented by additional evidence as to Operation Motorman. We don't know what, but we understand that there will be some such evidence. Secondly, there are the convictions of Mr Mulcaire and Mr Goodman, and what was said at the sentencing hearing by the prosecution and by the defence. I think it is at that point, really, that the journal which you referred to earlier comes into play, and we would certainly have no objection at all to the type of analysis drawn from that which was mentioned earlier. Thirdly, there is the evidence which will be given, although we do not know what it will be at the moment, by members of the public who feel they have suffered at the hands of the press. As we understand it, some 18 or 20 members of the public are going to be giving evidence at the beginning of the evidential phase of the Inquiry. Yes. Lastly there is the material generated by the civil proceedings. In that regard we have been asked by the Inquiry recently to produce the admissions which News International has made in those proceedings, and we will do that. That is no doubt not a complete list, there may be more material which emerges in the course of the evidence which is given. Mr Jay may have witnesses I know nothing of who he intends to call. It is enough, we would suggest, to indicate that the Tribunal will be able to see the length and breadth of the problem as it affects the public and as it arises at the interface between the press and the public. That is the necessary basis for recommendations in part one. Yes. Sir, that was, in the order I'm taking them, the first point I wanted to make. Then the second one, which is really very short, is just that, as I have said, there are, I think, 14 people we know of, not all of them worked at the News of the World, but most of them did, who have been arrested. They occupy or occupied some key positions at the paper, from reporter up to editor, as is well known. If one was going to find out what had happened and who knew what inside the paper, you would need to ask those people. Even if you have documents, as Mr Jay and indeed the police have pointed out, you need to check with the people who were there at the time that the documents mean what you think they mean. It is inevitable that those people are not going to be answering questions in full whilst they have been arrested and there is the prospect of criminal prosecutions. The effect of that is that we, as their ex-employers, cannot obtain a full account of what happened and nor, we would suggest, will the Inquiry get one. The risk of investigating that sort of territory is that it can only be half a job, and that is extremely dangerous and would not result in satisfactory conclusions. We would say that there are great practical difficulties in really digging into that area at all at this stage, and it is better left for the moment for the police and, if there are any, the criminal courts to deal with prosecutions. Lastly, there is the question of how that all fits with the terms of reference. It is, we think, worth putting them in their chronological context. As you know, sir, the police Inquiry which is carrying on now, Operation Weeting, began in January this year upon the delivery of further information by News International. That Inquiry had been in existence for six months when this tribunal was established, and when the Prime Minister was addressing the House of Commons on 13 July, before the terms of reference were finalised, he noted that eight people had then be arrested, including, as it happens, the government's ex-director of communications, Mr Coulson. It was on 13 July that the Prime Minister noted that the police investigation was in very competent hands and fully resourced, and he was anxious to reassure the House of Commons on those points. He said that the Inquiry into wrongdoing, that is this Inquiry, could not take place in full until the criminal proceedings had been concluded, that is why the terms of reference are in two parts, as we know. If one looks at the terms of reference, there is, we would suggest, a clear indication of the difference. Part 2, paragraphs 3 and 6, quite clearly requires a detailed Inquiry into what was going on within News International, and as appropriate, other organisations within the media. Paragraph 3 is: "To enquire into the extent of unlawful or improper conduct within News International, other newspapers organisations, and as appropriate, other organisations within media." Paragraph 6 is: "To enquire into the extent of corporate governance and management failures at News International and other newspaper organisations." There is no doubt that that is the micro level. When one goes back to part one, all one has is a general requirement to enquire into the culture of practices and ethics of the press in general. You've seen Mr Jay's analysis of that. Yes. He doesn't submit that that prohibits me, but does actually identify the corners. Yes, absolutely, and the point I'm making there is exactly the one which is raised but not decided, put it that way, by Mr Jay. You're not suggesting, are you, because nobody's actually suggested that this part one shouldn't be touching any of this? No. I think all I would suggest is that the discussion about length and breadth and the macro approach is consistent with the split in the two parts of the terms of reference. Yes. If you give me a moment, I think that's all I want to say. I have one other question to ask you. Yes. I have no doubt at all that News International have disclosed -- I haven't actually looked at them, but I understand they've disclosed their corporate governance procedures. Yes. It is also, I think, in the public domain that News International have been reviewing all that? Yes. Would it be unreasonable for me to enquire of News International whether the result of their investigation has itself revealed any shortcomings, whether or not that requires descending -- not requiring descending into people, but into systems and the way in which they operate? My initial reaction to that is I don't think so. No. It is the case that, as I indicated earlier, our own enquiries have been rather limited by things its police have asked us not to do. I understand that. In terms of, if I can call it that, at the macro level, whether it is now thought that the governance systems were unsatisfactory and in need of improvement, that -- I would think -- was an acceptable enquiry to make. It's well within the public domain that News International have appointed extremely distinguished leading counsel to conduct that independent examination. The interesting question arises, which won't have to be resolved today, whether I could not ask him -- well, I could, actually, but whether it's appropriate to ask him to provide evidence on that topic. You don't need to answer that now. Yes. But I do think it's an interesting question. Yes. We will bear that in mind, sir. Yes. I don't think -- (Pause) I have very up to the minute instructions, as it happens, sir, that the relevant committee has not at the moment reached any conclusions, but I'm sure it's working hard. Yes. It might have six months to do it. Well, possibly. I would pay attention to any concern that Lord Grabiner expressed of potential embarrassment before I decide whether to issue a notice. Yes. That's why I say you can consider it. We, and I'm sure he, will consider that. Yes. All right, thank you. Thank you. Right, I think it's logically Mr Mukul Chawla now. I think it's rather interesting, your status at this stage. You're not a core participant. Yes. Yet your contribution has been as full as anybody else. I have read your submissions. I have concerns about how far this stretches, but in the context of this particular question, it seems to me that it's sensible that I do read them and have regard to them. I don't ask you to elaborate upon them, but if there's anything that you want to say, having heard what's passed this morning, then I would listen to it. Submissions by MR CHAWLA Can I just make some supplementary submissions in that case? I don't touch, sir, if I may say so, on issues of abuse or potential abuse or contempt. It's premature at this stage. What may happen, we simply don't know, and how that may be viewed, we also simply don't know. I'm more concerned with the practicalities now, and the practicalities are that there are likely to be a number of people in a position who, like my client, possibly some who may not be like my client, who want to help, but find that the restrictions being placed upon them make it difficult for them to assist. For example, I have previously raised the fundamental importance of having documents and contextual documents from which to inform my client in relation to any topics that she is asked. There is clearly now a suggestion -- and I don't criticise this, but it obviously has practical ramifications, that if someone in my client's position does not have such documents, she or someone in that position is going to be substantially hamstrung before they even start to try and assist. That is a practical difficulty. Well, the practical difficulties for your client, as I understand what you say, however anxious she is to help, are far more fundamental than that, because she has her own position to consider. Precisely. She may have a very strong view as to what happened or didn't happen, or what is right or isn't right, but at the end of the day, she will be advised as to what's sensible for her to do and what's not. That's why I -- what I would be grateful for your views on are not the practical problems which you've actually set out in your submissions, but the approach that I have just suggested to Mr Garnham. The macroscopic and microscopic approaches, we have no difficulties with that as an approach. The difficulty is that the macroscopic approach involves a broad consideration, for example whether at different levels of the organisation the activity was encouraged or condoned in any way, or whether that activity was confined to a more junior level. If it was, whether that amounted to a lack of supervision by supervisors or not. It may be that all I have to do -- this is what I was rather suggesting to Mr Garnham. I actually was very keen to ask Mr Caplan the question, that may be sufficient, might is not, for my consideration of those topics that I must cover in part one of this Inquiry? Even those macroscopic topics cover precisely the area of, as I understand it, the various police investigations. Of course they do, but if I am not going to ask questions as to whether -- for example -- your client knew this, that or the other. If I'm not going to -- if it's not necessarily for me to go down that route, then I won't need to ask the question; will I? That's why we ask, as the conclusion of our submission, whether there are some lines drawn in terms of what is going to be asked and is not going to be asked. Well, I'll be drawing lines. I understand that, but it's a question of having notice of those lines in advance rather than having to meet them on the hoof. I understand the point, but one of the things I'll have to consider is whether on this topic -- I mean we're talking about hacking. Yes. Whether on the topic of hacking, in the present state of the nation, including the police investigation and what else I otherwise know, and what inferences I can otherwise draw, it's necessary for your client to give evidence at all I'll have to consider that, or Mr Jay will consider it. It's an area that we have specifically raised. It's interesting, your submission initially to become a core participant was that your client was so heavily involved, therefore she's bound to be the subject of intense scrutiny and therefore ought to be a core participant. Now -- My Lord, I don't resile from that. That remains the position. The difficulty that is now layered upon that is the approach being taken in terms of her ability to deal with things and also the public perception. For example, I raise this in the context, and it's not specific to her, but in the context of raising the privilege against self-incrimination. I deal with this, in fact -- I've seen what you've said. It's paragraphs 21 and 22 and 27 and 28. The difficulty, of course, arises that she, in common with a number of others, is going to be, if giving evidence, going to be giving evidence in the full glare of live TV, and therefore the raising of that right is itself in many ways a self-defeating proposition -- I don't accept that it's self-defeating. I understand the point, but if I'm not going to be specific with the way in which the evidence is put before the Inquiry, then I can hardly be specific with the witnesses who are giving evidence. Well, that I am reassured by, but I have to say, sir, that up until today we had not quite understood that to be the position. I'm not so sure about that. If you go back to the questions that were raised in the notice in August, it's pretty clear that those questions are specific. Of course they are, and you shouldn't be at all surprised about that, but that's not to say that I am constrained by the questions that were asked in the notice in relation to what I adduce by way of evidence to the Inquiry. It's pointless not asking the specifics, because one doesn't know what answers one is going to receive. The danger then arises is in relation to questions posed of others, where they touch upon her position, quite what happens. The same is going to be so for everybody. That's the point. That's precisely the problem. If I can't descend into who -- and I don't want to descend into who did what to whom, as I have now made my mantra, then inevitably there is a knock on. What is important is that everybody understands the knock on, but nobody has yet suggested that I can't do the job notwithstanding that knock on. I'm not suggesting that either. That's what's critically important. What I am suggesting is that those -- while everyone may be affected by that general proposition, there is a category of persons, of whom my client is one, who are in a peculiarly vulnerable position at the moment. Well, Mr Chawla, I hope I have demonstrated that I understand that. No, I'm conscious of -- I understand why you repeat it, and I'm not being critical of you, but I am acutely conscious, but that won't necessarily -- do you suggest that that impacts on other parts of the Inquiry? The difficulty at the moment, sir, is I don't know, because unless we know -- for example -- what the different witnesses are saying, both whether giving evidence or submitting or, and this will touch on anonymous witnesses as well, whether, for example, allegations are being made. To go back to something that Mr Jay raised at the beginning of this month, whether you, sir, are entitled, and if so how you are entitled, to deal with any concern raised based upon suspicion, these are all questions about which I'm not yet clear. Well, suspicions are one thing. If I am not going to do who did what to whom but I am concerned about risks that require to be regulated, then the position of individuals may become less significant. Sir, to go back to what you have previously said. This may simply be a question of the granularity of this. Yes. Quite whether one goes -- how far one goes in respect of an individual. I have to say I am -- I thought it right to air the concern that we have in the way that we hope will be most helpful to the Inquiry. As I said, I am prepared to receive them and I was prepared to listen to you as well. I'm grateful. Thank you. Mr Sherborne. Submissions by MR SHERBORNE Sir, I have very little to say on behalf of the core participant victims. The starting point, as I said last week, is that no one, certainly not the victims themselves, wishes to risk the prosecution succeeding or hinder any investigations, far from it. A number of my clients will be giving evidence during part one, module one, about the extent and the manner of what happened to them in terms of the unlawful accessing of their voicemails and other private information. The types of interceptions they suffered and the number of interceptions they suffered and so on, and the effect on them as a result. That's precisely the evidence that I expect them to be giving. Sir, indeed. I would be right in saying that they won't be in a position evidentially to name names or identify who they say was responsible specifically or generally. Sir, their evidence is at a micro level, but not in terms of naming names. Naming names is different, I understand that. That's fair. Of course you'll be aware that there are a considerable number of matters already in the public domain, not just about the types of interception, but also the level of knowledge and involvement of those at high levels within the newspaper industry. That's already in the public domain, at least in general, rather than specific terms. As I say, no one is naming names, and indeed, sir, as you will appreciate, in the civil litigation before Mr Justice Vos, the use of cyphers for the names of those potentially involved is commonplace, and it's a practice which, sir, no doubt you will adopt. That's what I have rather suggested to Mr Garnham earlier this morning. Sir, yes, exactly. But it's artificial, in my submission, to ignore the reality of what is already in the public domain, because, put bluntly, the question of whether this was simply checks and balances which weren't observed in relation to a number of very junior journalists -- thankfully the fantasy of one rogue journalist has since been put to bed -- or whether rather this was a deliberate and systematic employment or encouragement at the highest levels of unlawful activities in order to obtain stories about private lives of individuals must be relevant, sir, in my respectful submission for you to decide when determining the true and unvarnished state of the culture, practice and ethics of the media, and relevant, we say, to the recommendations you must make. What -- Whilst I understand the macro and the micro level, we say it's rather a question of who did what and to whom, that might be the better way of looking at it, if I can put it that way. The only phrase that I think I might cavil with in what you've just said are the words, "At the highest level", because deliberate and systematic might be capable of inference from length and breadth. In other words, the inference that it can't be -- Indeed. -- one or two youngsters anxious to make a good impression -- Sir, yes. -- might be, and indeed I will know the names of those persons who are linked in, even if the -- it's not their names that matter, it's their length of service, their position within the organisation. And their levels of seniority. That's the point. Without necessarily putting that into the public domain, because it's simply a question of linking -- I mean, they could be put in bands of seniority. Sir, yes, bands of seniority. I have no problem about that. I'm just looking for ways of making sure the picture is as clear as possible without doing anything that runs the risk of creating an argument that somebody may say, "Well, of course I can't possibly be fairly tried." Which I have no doubt is the very last thing your clients want. The very last thing, indeed. I understand that. My question to you is: having heard what I've put to Mr Garnham and debated with others, I deliberately went to Mr Caplan not because I wanted to welcome him back to the jurisdiction, but because he represented a media interest that wasn't News International. And then have worked my way through counsel accordingly, whether you felt or wanted to submit that I could not satisfactorily cope with my terms of reference by doing that which I have suggested. Sir, I'm not suggesting that. All right. Thank you very much. I'm grateful. Does anybody else want to say anything who has not had a chance to say anything? Submissions by MR CHRISTIE My Lord, I would. Richard Christie, appearing on behalf of Mr Jonathan Rees. You will remember that we appeared before you some while ago. Yes, I remember. I hope that the solicitor for the Inquiry has passed on the information that I was delayed in another court this morning so I have only just arrived but I have been kept abreast of what has been -- Have you put anything in writing on this? We've put nothing further in writing, but we did submit a letter to you, dated 22 September, which I trust made its way to you. Yes. I say that, because we received a reply, as I understand it, acknowledging the letter, but without any comment upon its content. All right, but that's not dealing with the subject that I have just discussed. I think it almost certainly touches on it only tangentially, because what we would wish to suggest to you today was because of the position in relation to one of Mr Sherborne's clients, we ought to be a core participant, if that core participant was going to be addressing you about any details in relation to his particular claims. The reason that we think it is likely that he might seek to do so is because civil proceedings have already been initiated in that regard, quite separate from the civil proceedings to which Mr Sherborne has already made reference. I don't know. I don't know whether we're talking about the same people or not. I simply don't know. In any event, what you did miss this morning, Mr Christie, was a debate that I had with leading counsel for the Surrey Police, who were concerned to be made core participants on the basis of the criticism of the police arising out of their failure to investigate, if there was a failure -- as to which I know nothing -- in 2002 at the time of an awareness that Milly Dowler's telephone had been intercepted. Sir, I appreciate that that has been debated this morning, because Mr Shepherd(?), my instructing solicitor sitting beside me, has kept we abreast of some of the developments, albeit in short form. We had, I think, two points to make, one macro, to use the in vogue expression, and one micro, both of which we set out in that letter of 22 September, and relating back to your judgment, sir, on whether we should become a core participant, and in particular paragraph 32 of that judgment. If you're wanting a response to your letter of 22 September and you've not yet received one, then you don't need to make a submission to me now to do that. I appreciate that, although it might bear possibly on the point that has just been raised by Mr Sherborne, whose client doesn't (inaudible) and who is the claimant in the case that is presently being brought before this court in the civil division. All right. The reason that we raise it is simply because in your judgment at paragraph 32, you said in the concluding paragraph that you did not anticipate that you would be considering the specific behaviour of the individuals, not least because of the pending police investigation and possible prosecutions. That you did not believe therefore that Mr Rees is likely to fall within rule 5(2)(c). The position is that Mr Hurst, to use the shortform, the "Stakeknife" allegations, which, sir, you may be familiar with, relating to Northern Ireland. He's, as we understand it, since you ruled upon this, been made a core participant in these proceedings in this Inquiry. Yes. As far as we can see, the only way in which he would become involved is by making the sort of claims that he has made in his pleadings in that case against a number of individuals, including my client, but also including News International. There are five defendants in those proceedings. It is alleged against my client that he has been involved in certain parts of revealing identification of individuals from Northern Ireland. That is, of course, denied. If Mr Hurst was to be giving evidence before you and descending into any detail about what had happened to him, it seemed inevitable to me that he would be going into the detail -- He can descend into detail of what happened to him without necessarily seeking me to adjudicate upon who was responsible. For part one of the Inquiry, the direction is different. The direction is: broadly what's happened? Does that mean there's been a regulatory failure? Should there be a new regulatory regime? We are quite content with that limitation on it, with the rider that we've indicated, that if we were to be descending into any detail at all, and it seemed to us difficult if Mr Hurst was to be making a statement to the Inquiry, that he would avoid making assertions against us. Well, Mr Christie, we'll have to wait and see. Of course, if your interests are adversely affected in such a way that I think it is at all relevant to the purposes of this Inquiry, then of course you will be given the opportunity to deal with it and the rules make it abundantly clear that fairness to you would require me to give you that facility, and I shall. I'm very grateful for that indication. Thank you. The macro point is one that probably will fall better into module two, or part two of the first module, namely the police and press, but may I mention this very briefly now, because I think there may have been a misunderstanding with the submission that I made last time -- Your letter deals with that; doesn't it? It does deal with it and it's about the Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act, which is a macro point. Yes, I've seen the letter and you are entitled to a substantive response and if you haven't had one, you will have to get one. Very well. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anybody else before I ask Mr Jay? Right, Mr Jay. Submissions by MR JAY Sir, I am always attracted by the search for a practical solution, and I note your interchange with Mr Garnham. May I enquire when you've had the chance to look at the judgment of Mr Justice Vos on 18 March, this year. I have, yes. Which touches on some of the issues which concern us. If I may alight just on a couple of points without labouring the matter. He dealt with a public interest immunity objection by the police which he rejected. He gives us there a background chronology, which of course is in the public domain and well-known to your Lordship. The judgment is not paginated, but that starts at paragraph 33. Yes. Sir, I think to link this would be the journal we've been talking about, and the journal is of course Mr Mulcaire's notebook. Yes. What was before Mr Justice Grace in January 2007 were 20 counts on the indictment, the first 15 were the conspiracy counts which covered both Mr Mulcaire and Mr Goodman, and they related to the interception of the voicemail messages of three members of the royal household. The evidence was in relation to that that Mr Goodman himself, on occasion, accessed the relevant voicemails. Then of particular interest to us, since it may span the breadth of the Inquiry, counts 16 to 20, which covered the five non-royal victims, where Mr Goodman was not on the indictment. The individuals concerned were Mr Taylor, Mr Andrew, Ms Macpherson, two others. Of course, it is of interest to know, if it be the case, who was it within News International who was involved with Mr Mulcaire in relation to those interceptions. The material before Mr Justice Grace was necessarily limited, although his Lordship pointed out in his judgment that there were others involved, and I'll be referring you to that in more detail when I come to open the case in two weeks' time. There is evidence I've seen in the Mulcaire notebook which may provide the answers to those questions. Yes. It's for that reason, when, sir, you referred to the individuals in News International who have been given a code, if we can know the identity of those individuals and then they will be placed in the public domain only with a cypher or code, subject to your view as to what is appropriate. Because you need to know the length and the breadth of this unlawful activity and the more individuals we have within News International -- Of course, and therefore there's a point to be made that they are identified, albeit that I make an order that their identification should not enter the public domain for any purposes. Yes. Not that I will then make a finding that a particular person, X, Y, Z, did this, that or the other, because I won't, but in order to get the picture right. So I need not only to know a name, but, I accept, broad bands: casual worker, whatever. I'm not trying to do it on the hoof. Yes. These names have been called "corner names", inasmuch as they typically appear on the top left-hand corner of the relevant page of the Mulcaire notebook. And where they do appear, they don't appear in every case; there is a first name only, but it may be possible to deduce from the first name what the full name might be. It's not, frankly, that difficult an exercise. But insofar as this will enter the public domain, subject to your final conclusion, there will only be a cypher. Certain information is already, however, in the public domain. I'm not going to read it out, but may I just alight, if I may, on paragraph 43 of Mr Justice Vos' judgment. Yes. There's reference there to an individual within News International. Yes. I don't want to be too coy about it. This judgment is a publicly available judgment and if you rule that I can read it out, I will provide it, but on the other hand I don't want to appear to be sensationalist in any way. But there are names in the public domain, there's no question. There are other names as well, as Mr Justice Vos points out, a little bit later on in his judgment. Paragraph 81 -- Yes. I've seen that, but it may be, and this is something which will obviously have to be considered, that what is the rule for good reason in relation to some actually should apply to all, whether or not their names have previously entered the public domain. Yes, sir, that may be right. What Mr Justice Vos did was he made an order, as he said, in order to protect the integrity of the police investigation and privacy rights, that the hitherto unrevealed names of suspects would be cyphered. We learn that from paragraph 85, from his Lordship's conclusion at paragraph 133. So what was under contemplation, although the full scale of this is not altogether clear at the moment, is that there were at least five other News of the World journalists who might have been involved. I say "might have been involved" since their mere identification as a corner name on Mr Mulcaire's notebook page would not provide conclusive proof, it would provide an inference, and would be a matter for you in due course, in the light of that and other evidence, to assess what inferences may appropriately be drawn. As a matter of generality. As a matter of generality, indeed, applying one's common sense. So what we are seeking by way of a possible practical solution to gain insight into the length and breadth of this, and indeed by cypher the individuals within News of the World who may be inculpated in this unlawful activity, is the sort of evidence, the sort of material which you discussed, sir, with Mr Garnham. Yes. It could be provided to the Inquiry team on a full basis, as it were, but it would then be provided to the world at large on a cypher basis, and indeed can be probably quite shortly analysed and then synthesised by me in my opening submissions so that you have the picture in a nutshell. I wish to emphasise to you strongly that in part one of the Inquiry we're not just looking at phone hacking. No, I agree. The danger is, because it was the trigger for the setting up of this Inquiry, that we focus on that to the exclusion of all else. What we are concerned with is the culture and practice and the ethics of the press. We are looking at the full range and the good, the bad and the ugly. It would be wrong just to look at the alleged bad practices of the press; that would be one-sided and inappropriate. There are, having read the substantial body of press evidence, numerous witnesses who say, "Our culture, our practice and our ethics are good", and that evidence will be presented to you and you will have to consider it. But, on the other hand, there is other evidence to suggest that culture, practices and ethics are not so good, and we're not just looking at phone hacking, we're looking at a range of activities. Yes, and it's likely to be different across different areas of work. Yes. In the sense that in real life, not everybody is black and evil or wrong, and not everybody is white. Yes. There's a grey. Yes. It may be that there is a lot of grey here. But we are focusing primarily on methods which are either illegal, but that applies to few of the methods under consideration, but certainly phone hacking is plainly legal, or unethical or sailing close to the wind and/or in breach of the code, and there are a range of activities which fall under those rubrics which you will be asked to consider, and in respect of which there is no ongoing police investigations and you will hear general evidence about. Yes. I ought to make it clear when I mean everything is black and everything is white in one organisation. Yes. You have been told that there may be other evidence out there. I'm not going to refer to that other evidence. It was touched on in Mr Garnham's 26 October submissions. I make no submissions about it, but whether it really is necessary for that evidence to be considered is going to be a matter for you in the light of the ongoing police investigation. The critical evidence on the phone hacking issue may well all be contained in the Mulcaire journal and the inferences which may properly be -- Well, and the Operation Motorman. Yes, that's a separate -- yes. To be absolutely clear, that is going to be considered in some detail, since we have a mass of evidence from Mr Thomas, who has greatly assisted the Inquiry, and possibly evidence from one other witness. So we'll be looking at that at an early stage, since chronologically it probably pre-dates the phone hacking, but some aspects of phone interception, of course, are quite old. One has in mind the interception of the Prince of Wales' phone, which took place in 1989, and which is fully in the public domain, and which is a criminal offence under the 1985 Act. So, in the old biblical proverb, there's nothing new under the sun. All we see is manifestations, as technology advances, of people using different and sometimes more sophisticated means of subterfuge, but the ultimate issue is the subterfuge and unlawful or unethical means to achieve what some people say are unlawful or unethical ends. Some may be, sometimes they may be, sometimes they may not be. That's the problem, isn't it? Yes. The great tension between the role that investigative journalists legitimately play in the public interest and trying to create a line between that and going beyond that which is obviously legal, but beyond that which exceeds the bounds of appropriate journalistic activity. Yes. I'm deeply conscious of that issue in particular, and it's going to be set out in some detail in my opening submissions to the Inquiry, which now will be given in exactly 14 days' time, but unless you have any questions of me now, there's nothing more I want to say -- No. Thank you very much. Thank you for the note that you prepared and, indeed, all counsel for the notes they prepared, because it has allowed this analysis to proceed much more quickly. Mr Garnham, this started as your application, so I'm prepared to give you a final word if there's anything you want to say. There's nothing I want to say on that, sir, although I want to address you on the question of anonymous evidence. We'll deal with that slightly differently. I'm very conscious that I didn't give the shorthand writer a break. (Pause) The other topic that I raised was the question of anonymous evidence that might be provided from a number of persons who have written to the Inquiry on that basis. Since then, as I have indicated, I shall be making the National Union of Journalists a core participant, and it may very well be the journalists will feel able to communicate with their union, or with the national union in any event, and it may be that evidence will be forthcoming which will be based upon sources which a journalist is unprepared to identify, so it comes back the other way, quite apart from those who come directly to the Inquiry. If anybody wants to make any submissions, I think, Mr Jay, you'd probably better start on this topic, if there's anything you want to say in addition to that which you've already said. Submissions by MR JAY Sir, I can assist to this extent. I'm grateful to Mr Caplan for providing us, and by extension you, with a draft anonymity protocol. So am I, yes. We were giving thought internally to this this morning, and would like to take it forward in a number of respects. We would expect within the next 48 hours or so to come up with a second draft, which we would circulate for comment. The draft we see is drawn in the main from the Al-Sweady protocol. In that case, it's right to say that the witnesses who might be seeking anonymity had already been identified. They were likely to be military witnesses, and they had legal representation. The anonymous witnesses who may be coming forward to this Inquiry, have not been identified in advance, and some of them may well not have legal representation, and therefore consideration has to be given as to what is quite a subtle approach here, namely an open submission and a closed submission, whether that's going to work in this sort of situation. One can see that if the witness has the support of the NUJ, then these problems may well disappear, but if the witness is entirely unsupported, then the problems are going to exist. It would be right, wouldn't it, Mr Jay, to say that if a witness was prepared to give evidence to the Inquiry but only under conditions of anonymity, it would probably be wrong to allow the identification of the particular journal about which the witness was then speaking. So if we then went back to cyphers, in order to say, well, they're different rather than the same, it would go to general practice, ethics, culture, but without in any sense giving rise to material which then the relevant newspaper would feel obliged to deal with, and in fairness, may be required to deal with, may be entitled to deal with, which would give rise to questions about identification and the rest of it. Yes. Sir, the other matter -- I raise that as a question so that everybody can hear it and think about it. Yes. The other matter which may be -- may need to be made explicit in the protocol should be to reflect what you said last Wednesday, namely: if at the end of the day you were to rule that the evidence could not be given anonymously, then the identity of the witness, or putative witness, must nonetheless be respected and that it would not enter the public domain, nor would we then serve a Section 21 notice on that witness to force him or her giving evidence on what, ex hypothesi now, would be an open basis. Yes. In other words, somebody who approached the Inquiry must know that their identity will not enter the public domain without their consent. Yes. Of course, if I rule against the application, then the whole thing might just fall to one side. Yes. Yes. Those are our present thoughts on the protocol, and as I've indicated, we'll take that forward as quickly as we can. Insofar as there are objections in principle to this whole proposal, may I deal with those after those objections? Yes, certainly, certainly. Right, Mr Garnham, do you want to say anything about this? Submissions by MR GARNHAM Yes, if I may, sir. First of all, the devising of a protocol. I will say only this, that as Mr Jay rightly says, Mr Caplan suggests that the protocol come appears to come from the Al-Sweady public inquiry. There are other models, and the Al-Sweady public inquiry's model is a somewhat legalistic one, and without wanting to give evidence, having been involved in that inquiry, it does result in a rather prolonged procedure. Anything that isn't overly legal will only be advantageous, provided it is sufficiently clear -- Yes. An alternative method was used, for example, in the Baha Mousa Inquiry, which, despite a huge number of such applications, worked extremely efficiently, and all I was going to say in that regard is that we would be happy to correspond with Mr Jay about the devising of a suitable formula. Thank you. The second point I wanted to make, though, sir, is rather more fundamental and it's anticipated in our written submissions. We are concerned, sir, about the possibility of your being in receipt of either secret or anonymous evidence, and so I am clear, I'll define those terms if I may. First, "secret" being material that you receive, which is not just anonymous in the sense that its author is unidentified, but which the existence of which is not revealed to core participants. "anonymous" is self-evident; it's material you have received without knowing the author. Sir, our concern is fair trial concerns. If it is made public, as contemplated by you but not decided by you last Wednesday, that you are willing to receive evidence of either secret or anonymous type, which may be exculpatory of particular individuals, then there may arise a real danger. At subsequent criminal proceedings, it might be said by a defendant, "There is or there might be material in existence which would help me in my defence, which is held by the state in the form of this Inquiry, which I cannot get my hands on or know what it means, and I ought to be able to, if I am to have any prospect of the a fair trial." We say that in consequence, sir, you should consider indicating that if there is exculpatory material received by you, particularly if it's received by you on a secret basis, it will be disclosed to the prosecution. I have to think about that, because what I absolutely don't want to do is to encourage lots and lots of people to think this is a wonderful way to generate some exculpatory material, by arranging all sorts of people to say anonymous things to generate stuff that I have to then pass to you on the basis you have to disclose it and so -- The circle is complete. -- complete the circle. I have sufficient experience of the criminal law to understand the risks. Absolutely, and we appreciate that as well, but it wouldn't be right for us not to make the submission that you're indicating a mechanism by which secret material can be generated, without pointing out the obvious fair trial difficulties. But my only interest would be to receive information about the culture, practice and ethics of the press. I would not be asking, necessarily, for the sort of material that might be at all relevant to specific exculpatory -- Right. But I understand the point. If that were made public, that goes some way to the concern we have. Okay. Mr Caplan, thank you very much. I'm not prepared to allow anyone anybody to criticise you for doing the work on a protocol, because you did it. Thank you. It might not be the right model, but you did it. Thank you. Submissions by MR CAPLAN Thank you very much. Sir, very briefly, we've obviously set out our submissions on this and we do see it as an important issue, as I'm sure do you and everybody else, because a public inquiry, of course, is a public event, and as far as possible everybody wants to know what evidence is given to you. If it is strictly necessary, of course, to derogate from that general principle, and no less restrictive option is available, then of course in those circumstances, a procedure has to be devised. Sir, the matters obviously that concern us are certainly that if evidence is given, critical of a party or by a journalist or a third party, that there should be an opportunity to challenge that evidence and to put the other side. Otherwise, of course, the risk is obvious, that it will be given unchallenged and there will be a question as to what weight, if any, can be given to it. Therefore, one does need to divide a procedure which will allow, so far as possible, core participants to make representations to you in relation to each individual application, and that's what we have sought to do in the protocol which we have devised. Yes. Thank you very much indeed. Mr Rhodri Davies, do you want to say anything on this topic? No, I don't, sir. Thank you. Where am I going? Just this, and I'm sorry to be an irritation, but the protocol ought not to be limited just to core participants, if the allegations are made against those who are not core participants. Well, yes, but, Mr Chawla, we've done this. The fact is that if any allegation is made that touches upon any individual, the rules require me to allow the representative of that individual to put questions to the counsel to the Inquiry to ask or to ask me whether they can ask questions, so I understand the point. Thank you. Ms Decoulos, what's the interest that you have on this issue? It's not on this particular issue, but I don't want you to close before I have an opportunity to say something, because it's getting close to lunch. But I think I'll be back after lunch. Oh, thank you. I may not be; we'll see in a moment. Mr Sherborne? I have no observations. Thank you very much. Anybody else? All right. What's the point you want to make, Ms Decoulos. As you know, I applied to become a core participant and you denied me, so I felt that was very unfair, considering I'm not a phone hacking victim, but as Mr Jay just emphasised a few moments ago, this Inquiry is also about the standards, practices and ethics of the press, which (inaudible), so unfortunately I felt I had to put in an application for judicial review, which I think you might be aware of, and I'm very concerned that my application will not be determined before this Inquiry commences, and I think that's unfair -- Ms Descoulos, that's a concern you should express to the Administrative Court. There's nothing that I can do about it. I have no intention of delaying the conduct of this Inquiry. You're entitled judicially to review my decisions, that's absolutely within your right, but concerns about the timetable, therefore, should go to the Administrative Court. Thank you. Can I just say one other thing that Mr Caplan raised about the documents being made public? I'm concerned that there have been four core participants added since I asked to be a core participant and the judgment for those have not been made public, as my own has not been made public, and I'd be grateful to know when they will be made public. Yours, there's no reason why the judgment that I gave in public, in the presence of everybody who was here, should not be made public. If it's not gone on the web, there's no reason why it shouldn't. Equally, actually, there's no reason why it should. It was transcribed and I have seen it, as I'm sure you have, so there's no secret about it. As regards the other applications, I will give a judgment, which I shall hand down tomorrow. The reason I am not doing it now is because I am going to reflect just a little bit further on the application in relation to the Surrey Police, but I have identified what I've said about the others already, but I will give a judgment. Thank you. Is there anybody else who has any other issue? I have one other thing to raise. Right, Mr Caplan, there's one other matter that I wanted to raise with you. Yes. When we last met, you were making submissions about, among other things, the lectures or briefings, and the seminars, and I made it abundantly clear how I saw them going, but I said that I will be very pleased to receive any submissions that anybody wanted to make, if it was felt that what had happened in relation to the briefings had been wrong or needed correction or balance. So I just wanted to emphasise that if you did want to make any submissions in that regard, because a fair number of your clients were certainly present at most, if not all, of those events, then I would, of course, be very happy to receive them. Thank you very much. Anything else? Thank you very much, indeed. (12.58 pm) (The hearing concluded)