April Casburn's Conviction - Myths And Misconceptions

The latest from my regular contributor.

Within 24 hours, via Google search, there were 457 news artcles on-line reporting the conviction of Detective Chief Inspector April Casburn for misconduct in public office.  Casburn's trial (background here) was the first of Operation Elveden, the Metropolitan Police (MET) investigation into alleged multiple incidences of News International's bribery and corruption of police officers, prison officers, members of armed forces and other public officials.  The story generated interest beyond the UK and was published in, amongst others, the Vancouver Sun, LA Times, The Hindu, Oman Tribune, The Australian, and the Braintree and Witham Times.   

The accounts (thanks to the press wires) are pretty similar:  DCI Casburn of SO15 Counter Terrorism attended a meeting detailing a review of the phone hacking investigation named Operation Varec (for details see here).  Casburn phoned the News of the World (NOTW) the following morning, offering insider knowledge for payment.

It was reported too that Casburn was particularly resentful at what regarded as interference by John Prescott.  The day after Casburn's conviction, Prescott referred to her in the House of Lords debate on the Leveson Report:

The more recent case, which does involve me, is that of the chief superintendent (sic) who was found yesterday to have been paid by the News of the World. When they ring up to say, "Will you give me a few bob because I'll tell you Prescott's pressuring us for an inquiry", that is as serious as the actual payment. We in our job have to do what we think is right; and, in my case, I was pressing for a further inquiry because the conclusions of the first one were not true. I am right to do that as a parliamentarian, yet they can ring up a paper like the News of the World. She wanted to use the public interest defence but it was financial, as the courts found yesterday.

Even more surprising than the story's global reach is the sobering knowledge of just how much of the above is inaccurate.

- Myth 1:  DCI Casburn was paid by NOTW.

The evidence to the court was an aide-memoire NOTW internal email written by NOTW reporter Tim Wood, stating Casburn was willing to "sell" information on the re-opened investigation.  Coming at the exact time NOTW phone hacking was under scrutiny, Wood suspected her phone call was a sting.  Casburn denied asking for payment, no evidence of payment was presented to the court, nor did the prosecution even suggest that NOTW followed up Casburn's leak let alone make her a financial offer.

- Myth 2:  Isn't it only an offence if there is payment involved?

Casburn was convicted of Misconduct in Public Office.  Misconduct is a serious offence with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.  The standard of misconduct must fall demonstrably below that reasonably expected of the trust the public place in a public official.  Arguably it is the breach of trust which primarily the offence, whether or not payment was involved. Casburn's defence argued that names she gave of former NOTW journalists to be newly investigated were already in the public domain. Operation Varec's SIO (Senior Investigating Officer), Dean Haydon, gave evidence that Casburn's leak included crucial information not in the public domain - strategic, tactical and timing information which jeopardised the whole investigation - in addition to which legal offences were being considered by Varec.  In Haydon's view, Casburn's aim was to undermine the new investigation.

- Myth 3  Casburn was aggrieved by fellow officers' cavalier attitudes at SO15 meeting on Operation Varec.

No such meeting took place.  Casburn was not a member of the tight-security, 'need-to-know' Varec investigating team - she headed Counter-Terrorism Financial Investigations Unit.  Only one of her 60 staff was required to provide some short term support to Operation Varec on a confidential basis.  Casburn should therefore have had no knowledge of Varec details.

That key meeting when SO15 officers joked about meeting Sienna Miller, acted like "Life on Mars in the 21st century", and welcomed re-opening the phone hacking investigation as a "jolly" at public expense? Despite Heruclean efforts (including overnight as the trial itself continued), Scotland Yard could find no trace of the alleged meeting - no minutes, no notes, no records.  Those alleged to have attended had no knowledge of it.  It was not logged in any alleged attendees time-sheets or diaries - nor was it even in DCI Casburn's own diary.

The prosecution argued that, on arrest, Casburn offered no explanation as to how she knew the details of Operation Varec, nor why she had contacted NOTW.  It was only many months later, whilst on bail, that Casburn first mentioned the alleged meeting. Prosecuting counsel argued that her account of a meeting was invented later, in order to cover up how she'd really got access to the Varec information and to invent a justification for her contacting NOTW the next morning.  Clearly the jury agreed - though should any record of the disputed meeting surface it could of course be used in any appeal.

- Myth 4:  Casburn felt intimidated by her line manager who had an intrusive management style.

The line manager with alleged 'intrusive' style, Detective Superintendent Christos Kalamanianous, was only appointed as Casburn's line manager on 6th September 2010.  Casburn telephoned NOTW early on 11th September 2010 - just 5 working days after Kalamanianous' appointment. This was hardly enough time for him to demonstrate his management style, and certainly not a sustained period of stress-inducing bullying.  However the MET did not dispute that DCI Casburn had been disadvantaged previously by not being resourced with either a desk or an office.

DS Kalamanianous gave evidence in person, and brought to the court's attention that during a break in proceedings he had been approached by a member of the press for comment.  Justice Fulford, as can be imagined, was not best pleased and issued a firm rebuke to the press gallery on the inadvisability of attempting to talk to witnesses - particularly one who had yet to complete giving his evidence to the court.

- Myth 5:  DCI Casburn contacted the newspaper as a whistleblower.

Casburn asserted that she felt powerless to prevent the waste of counter-terrorism resources being spent on re-opening the phone hacking investigation.  Context is important here: the offence pre-dates large scale, resource-heavy Operations Weeting, Elveden and Tuleta (here).  Casburn conceded though that she was not part of the Varec team, had no idea what resources were actually to be committed, made no attempt to find out through standard operating procedures, nor did she raise her strongly held reservations with any colleague.

The court heard that she had chosen NOTW because it was a large circulation paper to get her whistleblower story out into the public domain, and because NOTW was a Sunday newspaper it was most appropriate as she was made her call on a Saturday morning.  Casburn denied choosing NOTW because they were exactly the newspaper under suspicion - prompting prosecuting counsel to risk sounding like Humphrey Bogart by observing "Of all the papers, in all the world..." The unanimous guilty verdict seems to show the jury disagreed with Casburn's attempt to paint herself as akin to the high-minded Deep Throat of Watergate fame.

- Sentencing to follow

Justice Fulford is the judge who appears to be allocated all Hackgate-related hearings (known and unknown).  His sentencing remarks in a couple of weeks time will therefore be extremely interesting to Hackgate watchers.  Other police and public official 'Misconduct' arrests have been made and - whilst the circumstances and contexts of each individual offence are unique - Casburn's sentence may act as a weather-vane. Indeed the sequencing of Casburn's case as the first trial of Hackgate is significant in that respect - juries judge the evidence, but the judge deliberates on the sentence.  It is the first trial resulting from email information volunteered to the MET by News Group Newspapers' controversial MSC (Management and Standards Committee).  It is also the first conviction of Operation Elvedon - overseen by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).  This may leave future defendants trying to read the runes on what kind of sentence they might anticipate if found guilty.  There can be little doubt that Fulford's name will become more and more familiar over 2013 and beyond.

And when more trials come to court there remains that salutory lesson on myths... You cannot believe all you read in the papers - or even all you might hear in the House of Lords.

Related Articles
Hackgate - Varec Revisited - Dissent In The Ranks
Hackgate - Sue Akers' Swansong
Hackgate - "Newsdesk Here, Kelvin Speaking..."
Hackgate - Andre Baker - A Hackgate Footnote?
Hackgate - Ten To Watch For
Hackgate - Dear Surrey Police


You can contact the author on Twitter @brown_moses or by email at brownmoses@gmail.com

Varec Revisited - Dissent In The Ranks

The latest from my regular contributor.

Operation Varec is a little fuzzy round the edges.  It has its own formal 2010 inception date and terms of reference, but in some senses, it pre-dates that and grew out of John Yates' response to The Guardian article on the News of the World (NOTW) phone hacking, published July 8th 2009. This was Yates' 'Ratner moment' - undertaking a hasty fact-finding, presenting a same day, televised press statement, and later pronouncing on his own actions as "crap".

Lord Justice Leveson took the view that Yates could have, perhaps should have, excused himself from quasi-review of the phone hacking investigation - given his longstanding friendship with former NOTW executive, Neil Wallis.  Yet, even though his premature 'no new evidence, no re-investigation' press announcement was dismissive, should Yates accrue a little more credit?  After all, he didn't just let it drop there.

A series of meetings was convened by Yates over the next few months to establish if there were still skeletons in the closet of that original 2006 Goodman/Mulcaire investigation (Operation Caryatid).  Amongst those attending were DCS Phil Williams and DS Keith Surtees (investigating officers from 2006 operation), Steve Kavanagh (now sucessor to Sue Akers overseeing Operations Weeting, Elveden, Tuleta), DS Dean Haydon (Staff Officer to John Yates) and Sara Cheesley (Specialist Operations Press Desk, MET Directorate of Public Affairs).  The minutes of many of these are included as Exhibits to John Yates evidence to the Leveson Inquiry.  They seem characterised by a hyper-defensive mindset and a focus on presentational issues rather than evaluating the 2006 investigation.  Much effort was dedicated to developing responses to criticism of the Met from victims, government departments and Select Committee - reputational risk priortised perhaps at the expense of a more rigourous scrutiny of Operation Caryatid.  There is extensive background here in Sara Cheesley's witness statement to the Leveson Inquiry.

Recently, insights into those meetings have emerged which show a distinct lack of agreement on what action was needed - dissent in the ranks.  Tom Watson MP (3rd Dec 2012) raised this issue in the House of Commons:

May I draw his attention to a very late submission to the Leveson inquiry from Detective Chief Superintendent Surtees, which appeared on the (Leveson) website this week? He states that in July 2009, he argued internally that there was enough intelligence to warrant reopening the investigation into phone hacking. The hon. Gentleman will know that at no point was that raised with the Culture, Media and Sport Committee during its inquiry. That might be something that he and the Committee want to look at.  

Surtees 2nd Leveson witness statement (here) clearly spells out his trenchant view that the phone-hacking Investigation SHOULD be re-opened.  He says that he also suggested that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) be called in.

Surtees assertions are echoed by Phil Williams (here).

Both submissions appear to be tardy attempts to mitigate criticism of the investigating officers contained in the Leveson Report. Presumably, these MET-sanctioned statements were prompted by Section 13 letters.

On 1st September 2010, the New York Times published their exposé ' Tabloid Hack Attack on Royals, and Beyond'.  On the face of it, the article included new information, new informants, and new victims of phone hacking - including Andy Coulson who was then Director of Communications at 10 Downing Street.  Obviously, a disinterested and objective consideration of NOTW phone-hacking was again necessary.  This was a crucial point at which John Yates had another chance to step back, recuse himself, and request that the Commissioner task a different senior officer team without the baggage and closeness to NOTW.  However, Yates chose to have oversight of the new enquiries - Operation Varec - himself.  His own Staff Officer, Dean Haydon, was appointed Senior Investigating Officer (SIO).  Haydon had been closely associated with the 2009 scrutiny as a member (and minutes taker) of the Gold group meetings.

Started formally on 2nd September 2010, Varec's primary objective was

To assess whether allegations being made in the media since 1st September 2010 provided any new evidence of criminal offences, namely unlawful interception of communications, at News of the World, in 2005/6 

It has been alleged that, within ten days of Varec commencing, a senior MET officer contacted NOTW offering to supply information. (Daily Telegraph) The media stories addressed by Operation Varec covered the New York Times story, Guardian follow up, and the Channel 4 Dispatches October 2010 documentary 'Tabloids, Tories and Telephone Hacking'.  When Dean Haydon contacted The Guardian for information, Alan Rusbridger replied in a scathing email

Nick Davies was further able to reveal incontrovertible evidence of the involvement in phone hacking of other NoW reporters and executives: the material is sitting in your own files,... Seeking to obtain evidence from the Guardian should, it seems to us, be a matter of last resort for the police... But the fact that three separate news organizations have been able to uncover this story must give you hope that you, too, could get to the bottom of it without too much trouble   

Twenty one strands of inquiry by Operation Varec were followed, including:

• Asking the New York Times to supply names of their anonymous sources.  They declined.
• Interviewing ex-NOTW's Sean Hoare.  Contraversially, he was interviewed under caution and so refused to answer any questions. Another ex-NOTW journalist simply refused to speak with the police - let alone attend an interview.  
• Other NOTW executives and journalists were questioned about Operation Caryatid and refused to answer, denied any knowledge, or (on legal advice) submitted pre-prepared written statements.
• Anonymous allegations were received by the MET, implicating three NOTW journalists in phone hacking. Each was written to by Operation Varec requesting information. None of the three responded.
• Colin Myler, NOTW Editor, was asked to provide a list of journalists still employed since 2006 (in addition to those above).  Myler did so.  Every one of the list of 19 journalists was individually written to by Varec to ask for cooperation and interview.  Not a single one of the 19 even replied.

Unsurprisingly, Operation Varec came to the conclusion that they were unable to obtain any admissible evidence to warrant re-investigating phone- hacking at the News of the World. For details of the 21 investigatory strands, see here.

The genesis of Operation Varec still leaves some key questions unanswered:

• On the first opportunity to recuse himself from the 2009 quasi-review, why did John Yates not do so?
• On the second opportunity to recuse himself from the 2010 investigation, Operation Varec, why did John Yates not do so?
• Given the obduracy, obstructiveness and disregard shown by such a large number of former and serving NOTW journalists, why did the MET continue to collude with News International's thin veneer of cooperating with the police?

Assistant Commissioner Yates resigned on 18th July 2011.

Related Articles
Hackgate - Dacre's Dodgy Dossier - War Of Attrition 
Hackgate - Sue Akers' Swansong
Hackgate - "Newsdesk Here, Kelvin Speaking..."
Hackgate - Andre Baker - A Hackgate Footnote?
Hackgate - Ten To Watch For
Hackgate - Dear Surrey Police


You can contact the author on Twitter @brown_moses or by email at brownmoses@gmail.com

Dacre's Dodgy Dossier - War Of Attrition

The latest piece from my regular contributor.

What on earth could have brought about The Mail's scatter-gun 'Dodgy Dossier'?  For a start, it's not even news...

13th July 2011
Way back, in the dim distant days before the Leveson (yes, there really was a time before Leveson...), Prime Minister David Cameron announced he was setting up a judge-led inquiry into press practices. Lord Justice Leveson was appointed to report to the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport. 

20th July 2011
The Prime Minister announced the Terms of Reference and appointment of “a panel of experts” to assist the Inquiry.  He named each of them and observed (Hansard, 20 July 2011, column 918): “These people have been chosen not only for their expertise in the media, broadcasting, regulation and policing, but for their complete independence from the interested parties.”  Ed Miliband too welcomed the Inquiry "and, indeed, the panel members chosen by the Prime Minister". Cameron praised cross-party agreement which had “worked well over the judicial inquiry, the panel, the terms of reference". (Hansard, 20 July 2011, column 918 onwards)  So it is clear that the Assessors were Prime Ministerial appointments, in consultation with two Secretaries of State, and with cross-party agreement. They were not appointees in Leveson's gift.

At that time, News International might have been the most apprehensive about the forthcoming Inquiry. Yet, arguably, Paul Dacre and Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL) have proved the most challenging to Lord Justice Leveson. The Inquiry would hear evidence on ANL's past record with the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) when confronted with criticism - allegedly approximating string it out, object, delay, object some more, delay, go missing, too busy, fail to respond, object again.  Leveson may well have reflected later that this obdurate strategy was mirrored in ANL's dealings with him - the self-same modus operandi in macrocosm.

28th July 2011 
Leveson held an initial session and press conference to introduce himself, Assessors & Terms of Reference etc.  He also drew attention to the Inquiries Act, and its provision that any objections on Assessor appointments could be made within 14 days. None were made.

Summer 2011
Coordination, planning and procedural sessions continued on a variety of topics, including deciding who would have crucial Core Participant status. For example,
"Mr Mathieson of RPC repeated his position, identified in correspondence, that Associated Newspapers Ltd were minded to ask for core participant status but said that he was not in a position to do so in the absence of the Editor in Chief.  On other issues, he was without instructions." 

Pre-evidence discussion Seminars were scheduled  Mindful to include a range of experience and opinion, Leveson invited Paul Dacre to chair one of the Seminars: "I did ask him to participate. Unfortunately, on 6th October he cannot, and I am waiting to hear from him about the 12th, I understand."

26th August 2011
ANL wrote to Leveson, questioning the role and remit of the Assessor function, and challenging three of the six Assessors - Sir David Bell (here), George Jones (here), and Elinor Goodman (here).

In addition, ANL complained that the panel of Assessors lacked balance as none had tabloid or mid-market newspaper experience (oddly overlooking Elinor Goodman's freelancing for ANL's own Mail on Sunday).  Written exchanges continued with ANL adding concerns about Inquiry strategies they considered political partisanship for good measure.  Letters, submissions, maneuvering rumbled on all summer, delaying and distracting from the main business of the new Inquiry, leading to this revealing exchange:

MR CAPLAN: I am sure you will understand that Associated Newspapers, whom I represent, do not in any way wish to be confrontational with the Inquiry, but you will also understand of course --

LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: The letters didn't quite read like that.

 Leveson made a salient point about ANL's argument that long experience of working with tabloids should be the prime criterion for balance of Assessors.  If so, he suggested, it "would have been open to them (the Ministers) or to me to appoint, for example, Mr Mulcaire.  He has expertise."  (ANL Oral Arguments)  Far from being swatted away dismissively, Leveson mustered the patience of a saint to give ANL's objections due consideration.

17th October 2011
Leveson's formal Ruling reiterated any appeal against Assessors would have needed to be promptly addressed to the Ministers who appointed them not Leveson himself, and that he was satisfied with their relevance and integrity.  By this point, it should be remembered, the Inquiry evidence Hearings hadn't even begun. Finally in mid-November the Evidence Hearings started. But by Day 2, ANL's Opening Submission again set an uncompromising tone.  There were three main issues raised: the absolute necessity of press self-regulation, objections to anonymous witnesses, and - red rag to Dacre's bull - ANL's asserted innocence re Operation Motoman. (for background see here)

21st November 2012
Hugh Grant gave evidence.  That evening, "Paul Dacre, the Associated Newspapers editor-in-chief, had a hand in the drafting of the Daily Mail publisher's statement accusing Hugh Grant of "mendacious smears" (Guardian) 

Who can forget the interminable arguments in Court 73 twixt ANL and Mr Sherborne..?

2nd December 2011
Leveson held a closed session with Core Participant counsel to discuss the general treatment of Operation Motorman materials. A consensus was reached that there was prima facie evidence of newspaper 'bulk users' illegalities.  On condition of that collective consensus, Leveson proposed not to make the Motorman files public.

2012 dawned. Perhaps New Year's resolutions would bring peace and goodwill...

13th January 2012
Application for Judicial Review

High Courts of Justice, Case No: CO/11362/2011:
Before LORD JUSTICE TOULSON, MR JUSTICE SWEENEY and MRS JUSTICE SHARP
 Between: (Claimant)
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS LIMITED
- and -
(Defendant) THE RT HON LORD JUSTICE LEVESON (AS CHAIRMAN OF THE LEVESON INQUIRY)

In short, ANL applied for permission of overrule Leveson on allowing anonymised witness evidence from those fearful of victimisation.  ANL opined that Leveson would thereby be trampling on natural justice, risked causing them reputational damage, and trangressed their section 10 Human Rights.  Mr Justice Toulson declined...

...to micromanage the conduct of the Inquiry by the Chairman... (I) refuse this application for judicial review. For the future,...protocol will be matters of detailed consideration for him, which should not foreseeably give rise to further requests for judicial interference.

Mr Justice Sweeney: I agree.   

Mrs Justice Sharp:  I also agree.

The week scheduled for evidence from Editors was inconvenient for Dacre - again.  Robert Jay reported, ...

some people may be wondering why Mr Paul Dacre is not on the list for today. The answer is he's not available for the rest of this month, and indeed for today, but we have lined him up, as it were, for 6 February

6th February 2012
Dacre's first appearance. Duly sworn-in, Leveson welcomed him: "Mr Dacre, I thank you, as I've thanked the editors of other newspapers who have allowed me to visit their newsrooms. I know you weren't there at the time but I'm grateful to you for allowing me to do so"

Asked by Robert Jay if complainants to the PCC were commonly worn down by a protracted ANL 'war of attrition', Dacre categorically denied it (p45).  When questioned closely on Motorman and use of Steve Whittamore, Dacre became obstinate and combative.  He refused to accept ANL's titles might have been complicit in illegality so Leveson called a short break to allow him to consult Counsel.  On return Dacre was hardly pacified, asserting that whilst Whittamore may have done illegal acts ANL journalists had demonstrably not. (p57)

Because of the spat over Hugh Grant and the 'mendacious smear' allegation - Leveson directed that Dacre return for a second appearance.  Mr Caplan QC first argued against Dacre having to appear again, and then seemed to prevaricate as to whether Dacre would even comply. The exchanges are interesting:

LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: We, of course, as you know, fitted in to Mr Dacre's timetable....  We WILL find some short period of time for this to be the subject of further evidence and we shall do that this week. And there it is.
MR CAPLAN: Sir, I obviously will have to make enquiries of --
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes.
MR CAPLAN: I have no idea of Mr Dacre's whereabouts.
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Mr Caplan, I'm very sorry. I know that Mr Dacre is busy. We have worked very hard to fit ourselves around his commitments. I cannot believe that in the next three days it is not possible to find a few minutes. We shall fit ourselves around him to such extent as we can but I beg you not to ask me to go further. 

(for more, see The Motorman Files and Dacre's Dilemma)

9th February 2012
Required to give that encore appearance (and clearly there grudgingly), yet another Dacre robust defence was prompted re Grant's "mendacious smears" - and a testy 11 page Supplemental Statement.



14th June 2012
ANL's counsel wrote to the Inquiry and, arguably, reneged on the consensus understood to be have been reached that the Motorman files demonstrated prima facie offences by press journalists.

18th June 2012
The Mail splashed its story alleging that Leveson had threatened to resign, was stifling free speech, and had clashed with Michael Gove's right-minded defence of press liberty.


19th June 2012
A seeming Motorman-related Submission from ANL on 'Standard of Proof', challenging Lord Justice Leveson. (here)

In ANL’s submission the issues to be considered are as follows:
(1) Whether it is open to the Chairman to express concerns based on suspicion?
(2) If so, in what circumstances, including, whether the grounds giving rise to the suspicion must be reasonable grounds or whether a lower standard of proof is acceptable, having regard to the duty of fairness?
(3) Whether it is fair or appropriate when dealing with allegations of a criminal or quasi-criminal nature for the Chairman to state that he finds such allegations proved on the civil standard?

10th July 2012
Leveson's measured response, via written Ruling - addressed solely to ANL - was that he considered "it would not be appropriate to reach a conclusion about the Whittamore material that one of the most significant core participants (and one of the largest users of Mr Whittamore’s services) wished to challenge without deploying that evidence in public" (p8)  So, Leveson was being very clear that he could and would put selected Motorman evidence into the public domain. As just ANL were recanting, he was prepared to arrange that only Motorman files exclusively linked to ANL titles would be made public.  To reinforce the point, he was happy to order the necessary additional public Hearings in August.  It did not sound as though Leveson was making an empty threat.

13th July 2012
ANL backed down by apologising for any misunderstanding: "It was not our intention to resile from the position confirmed on a confidential basis to the Inquiry in December 2011." (see here)

Lord Justice Leveson and Mr Jay QC must have given sighs of relief.... prematurely.

20th July 2012
ANL Closing Submission, (p41)

ANL also remains concerned that one of the Assessors who will be assisting the Chairman in his task is the former chairman of the Media Standards Trust, whose proposals for regulation - opposed by ANL and other publishers - include a proposed regulatory "backstop"

23rd July 2012Future Directions Ruling (here).  Amongst other observations, Leveson returned to Operation Motorman.  One outstanding issue he identified was "concerning the attitude of Associated Newspapers Ltd to the evidence revealed in the documentation seized from the private detective Steve Whittamore."  He reported back publicly ANL's letter apologising for any misunderstanding on the Motorman evidence.  Leveson also reminded that Mr Sherborne (Counsel for Core Participant Victims) was in the process of collating information on journalists named in the Motorman files who were still in continuous employment with the relevant titles. This exercice was to determine if those journalists had been rewarded by promotion or had perhaps retained data obtained from Whittamore.  Once presented, Leveson required responses from the newspapers by 10th September.  at time of writing, only one of those responses has been made public on the Inquiry web site - from ANL.

7th Sept 2012
Two days before the deadline, ANL sent the Inquiry 'Witness Statement from ANL re Steve Whittamore data'.  It suggested that the Inquiry misunderstood the organic, perhaps haphazard, nature of working journalists collection and retention of people's personal data that they procured.  ANL considered it disproportionate to search for and collate this "low grade" personal information, failed to name any journalists, and said they did not realise that Leveson actually required a response to his request made to Dacre as the Inquiry team had omitted to remind them.

16th November 2012
Safely past the cut-off date which may have risked another Leveson admonishment, Dacre launched his 'Dodgy Dossier' fusillade. Obviously unused to not getting his own way, the 'Special Investigation' targeted Leveson's questionable associates, raising "disturbing questions"  of the "quasi-masonic nexus" of "an elite" of "People-Who-Know-Best". (Dossier here)

What could have provoked Dacre's itchy trigger finger?  Well, there is one thing left out of our timeline as we don't know the 'if' or 'when'.  It is a requirement that Lord Justice Leveson write, giving notice and inviting response, to anyone he intends to criticise in his Final Report.

Hmmmm.... could it be that Dacre's Mail have had a Section 13 letter from Lord Justice Leveson? 

Related Articles
Hackgate - Sue Akers' Swansong
Hackgate - "Newsdesk Here, Kelvin Speaking..."
Hackgate - Andre Baker - A Hackgate Footnote?
Hackgate - Ten To Watch For
Hackgate - Dear Surrey Police
Hackgate - The John Boyall Files

You can contact the author on Twitter @brown_moses or by email at brownmoses@gmail.com

Sue Akers' Swansong

The latest piece from my regular contributor.

Metropolitan Police Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers (Retired) has now delivered her FOURTH - and final - witness statement to the Leveson Inquiry.  Dated October 31st and 'taken as read', Akers' Hallowe'en missive updates Leveson, as promised, with current developments in the multiple MET investigations into phone and computer hacking, corruption of police and other public officials and so on.  No doubt with some sense of relief, she reminds the Leveson Inquiry

However, on 31 October 2012 I will be retiring from the MPS and will be handing over responsibility for Operations Weeting, Elveden, Tuleta and all related investigations to DAC Stephen Kavanagh. 

In her 15 page statement, Akers has much to say of interest and includes  (either explicitly or by omission) some developments in those intriguing 'related investigations' or  'sub-operations' are implied.

The MET continue to liaise closely with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on which charges are most appropriate and have the most chance of advancing successful prosecutions.  Both MET and CPS will be acutely aware that each and every one of their charging decisions, and indeed their liaison process, will come under intense public scrutiny given the criticisms and consequences of the 2006-7 Operation Caryatid investigation into phone hacking by the (NOTW) News of the World's Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire. Neither MET or CPS can afford any more reputational damage or suspicions of lack of backbone in confronting alleged offences by the press. Unsurprisingly then, Akers reveals that both individual and CORPORATE charges are under consideration.

Operation Weeting:  She sets out the known charges brought so far against 7 former NOTW journalists and executives, plus one non-journalist - see CPS statement here, with a provisional trial date set for September 2013.  All eight are now on court bail.  Also, of  "the 17 arrested, six individuals have been released from police bail with no further action being taken. The remaining three individuals remain on police bail until November and December 2012. All three are on bail for offences relating to conspiracy to intercept communications."  The 1 non-journalist above plus another non-journalist are also awaiting charging decisions in relation to associated money laundering allegations.  Lastly, six others previously arrested under Weeting have been released from police bail with no further action to be taken.  Weeting sub-investigation, Operation Sacha, has so far resulted in seven individuals charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice: "A hearing for defendants’ applications to dismiss is scheduled for 12-13 December 2012."  One for the diary.

The large proportion of Weeting police resources which had to be devoted to notifying possible victims is almost complete. Those number contacted is at present c. 2,500.  The number of officers tasked is now being scaled back to 12, from a peak of 40.

Operation Elvedon:

...52 arrests consisting of 27 current or former journalists, six police officers, 12 current or former public officials and seven individuals who acted as conduits for corrupt payments. Files have been submitted to the CPS to advise on appropriate charges for three public officials and four journalists (current and former). One police officer has been charged with misconduct in public office and an offence under the Official Secrets Act 1989.

The misconduct charge of this last individual has been reported as being in connection with Operation Varec.

Elvedon charging decisions are now being considered under a range of offences:

• corruption under the 1906 Prevention of Corruption Act
• conspiracy to corrupt
• misconduct in a public office
• conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office
• aiding and abetting misconduct in a public office
• money laundering contrary to s328 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 
• bribery contrary to Section 1 Bribery Act 2010

The last is intriguing - it means offences being considered must therefore include allegations which post-date 2010.

Kelvin Mackenzie, amongst others, may belatedly realise that not all of the offences being considered jointly by MET and CPS have a public interest defence. Whilst re-acquainting themselves with the law, Kelvin and his ilk should note that the CPS have overhauled their guidance on what may be held to constitute 'public interest' in evaluating potential charges (see here) and provided a very handy guide to 'Criminal Offences Most Likely To Apply To Be Committed In Cases Affecting The Media', with maximum penalties spelt out clearly.

Akers states that Operation Elvedon is pursuing evidence realting to News International, Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, Daily Star and Sunday Star.  Express Newsgroup seem to be more amenable to MET investigation than Trinity Mirror does.

Operation Tuleta:

is conducting an assessment of 142 complaints of data intrusion, including allegations of phone hacking, computer hacking and improper access to banking, medical and other personal records... a vast quantity of data across 70 storage devices is being searched for evidence to support or contradict allegations made... MPS counter corruption databases and relevant HOLMES databases are also being searched. 

Counter-corruption databases?  Must be some joined up thinking going on.  Seventeen individuals have so far been arrested, plus one interviewed under caution on suspicion of offences re the Computer Misuse Act, handling stolen goods (alleged to be mobile phones), and/or perverting the course of justice.

And that's it for Tuleta....  A screechingly abrupt halt on page 10.

But sharp-eyed readers will remember that Sue Akers submitted a 15 page witness statement.  That's easily explained - page 11 REDACTED,  page 12 REDACTED, page 13 REDACTED, page 14 REDACTED, and page 15 REDACTED.

So, presumably for operational reasons and ongoing enquiries, Tuleta's sub-operation Kalmyk is off-limits (for background see here). As are any speculative links to any other past police investigations.


So it's hello to Steve and so long to Sue....

Enjoy your retirement, DAC Akers - "Thank You & Goodbye".


Related Articles
Hackgate - "Newsdesk Here, Kelvin Speaking..."
Hackgate - Andre Baker - A Hackgate Footnote?
Hackgate - Ten To Watch For
Hackgate - Dear Surrey Police
Hackgate - The John Boyall Files
One Rogue Email And The Indestructible Archive  


You can contact the author on Twitter @brown_moses or by email at brownmoses@gmail.com

"Newsdesk Here, Kelvin Speaking..."

The latest from my regular contributor.

The phone goes. Someone is ringing to offer the news desk of the Sun a very big story indeed.

Let's imagine this time the call came in the summer of 2007 shortly after the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had decided the evidence collected by Surrey Police (true) was not strong enough to charge Jimmy Savile with the sexual abuse of four young girls.

The voice on the end of the line says he's a legal clerk/Crown Prosecution solicitor/police officer outraged at the decision of the CPS not to prosecute.

They make a stunning offer; I will hand over the CPS file so your journalists can study the evidence and make your own inquiries. But there's a catch - they insist "this is dangerous for me, so if you publish anything I want £1,000 in cash.

So writes Kelvin Mackenzie, former Editor of The Sun, in the Huffington Post this week:  'How Catching Jimmy Savile Would Have Meant Breaking the Law'.  It didn't take long for other ex-News International executives to rally in support

Kelvin Mackenzie on Sun arrests and the threat to Press freedom. Put aside any red top prejudice and have a long think. huffingtonpost.co.uk/kelvin-mackenz…
— Neville Thurlbeck (@nthurlbeck) November 8, 2012

Tabloid veteran Kelvin Mackenzie hits out atarrests of 21 Sun Reporters under little-known law no-one had heard of huffingtonpost.co.uk/kelvin-mackenz…
— Neil Wallis (@neilwallis1) November 8, 2012

Nice 'moral maze' scenario, Kelvin - one we should definitely think about - and look a tad more closely at your journalistic dealings with an imaginary Surrey policeman.

Mackenzie protests at how ridiculous it is to think your average newsdesk journalist might have been aware of the relevant laws governing their trade.  Sounding more like Harry Enfield's Kevin than Kelvin ("It's so unfaaaaair..."), he simply fails to see that perhaps a senior Editor could (nay, should) have ensured appropriate training.  And in Kelvin's World, it would be unrealistic to expect that highly motivated, Press Complaints Code-aware newshounds would have the skills in research, investigative techniques, or curiosity necessary to find out what legal constraints they should abide by.

Ah, but it's that word 'constraints' that peeves you so - isn't it Kelvin.

His ire is particularly, but not exclusively, aimed at the 1906 Prevention of Corruption Act.  And - even more outrageous - the 1906 act has no public interest defence!  Fortunately, that hypothetical Surrey policeman would be well aware of the Prevention of Corruption Act to save Kelvin and his newshounds from their blissful state of ignorance.

1906?!  So old, so obscure.  Who knew...?!

But that's why newspapers employ top flight lawyers.  If in doubt, journalists can double-check with these in-house legal specialists.  Why, they even have to undertake annual Continuing Professional Development (CPD) training so that they keep up to date.  Their essential role in advising and protecting against reckless journalism is exemplified by Times legal eagle Alistair Brett's evidence to the Leveson Inquiry

"Mr Foster wanted to know if he had already broken the law and if there was a public interest defence on which he could rely... "
"... I knew there was a public interest defence under section 55 of the DPA. I told Mr Foster that he might have a public interest defence under the section... by accessing someone’s computer as I did not think it was a RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) situation...."

"Q: Had you heard of the Computer Misuse Act?

A: I hadn't at that stage."

(later) ".... I realised that Mr Foster’s accessing of NightJack’s computer was far more serious than I initially thought as there was no public interest defence to Section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act."

There's a Computer Misuse Act?!  So recent, so new-fangled.  Who knew?!

Never mind, at least another News International title had some legal expertise on hand to keep it out of trouble.  Tom Crone's evidence to Leveson  (pp 36-39) showed how News of the World was on top of its game and well advised by him:

Q. The question you were posed related to the legality of paying public servants, including police constables, for information either in cash or in kind.... on such occasions, can you assist us, please, as to what your advice was?
A. Consistently that it would be a criminal offence to pay someone in public office for information which they shouldn't have been passing out.
Q. Was that advice ever put in writing?
A. Not that I'm aware of, no.

Well, that's clear then. And here's hoping that somebody at News Int is up to speed with the 1906 Prevention of Corruption Act provisions for CORPORATE level charges, the Bribery Act 2010 and even, say, the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. (Telegraph)

It's not fair - there's just too much law to keep up with isn't there, Kelvin.

Who knows, there may even be laws which are supportive of others - whistleblowers or those pressured to become conduits for illegal payments. Or to prevent newspapers gaining future leverage over public officials compromised by accepting payment, or who have private indiscretions they don't want exposed.  I don't know - and clearly you are no legal expert either.

But, Kelvin, you say you know exactly what the newsdesk would have done when that hypothetical Surrey policeman phoned in asking for "a few bob":

The news editor/editor would have agreed to the bargain in a shot. And, with the newspaper bar set a good deal lower than the judicial one, reporters would have used that leaked information to go back to the victims, heard their harrowing story, weighed the evidence and, I am sure, decided to adopt the old adage; publish and be damned.

Oh, Kelvin, Kelvin, Kelvin - where do we start?

• Use illegally leaked information to locate and harass victims? 
• Hear their harrowing stories - under pressure from hacks to tell all?
• Consider offering them money too? Thereby scuppering prosecutions by paying potential witnesses? 
• Weigh the evidence?  Who made you the best judge?
• Mightn't this have compromised any subsequent investigation whilst Savile was alive? 
• Even if your hypothetical leak happened after Savile's death, would it not prejudice other investigations into Savile's enablers and colluders?  Such as current Savile investigation, Operation Yewtree?
• And what about the effect on Savile's vulnerable victims? Brave enough to come forward, safe in the knowledge they could trust the police not to leak intimate details of their ordeals to the red tops? 

Would you not stop and give that any thought, Kelvin?  And yet you're so CERTAIN any news editor would have published a story on Jimmy Savile from a CPS file leaked by a hypothetical Surrey policeman? Really, Kelvin?  Really?

Or do you know something the rest of us don't?

You really ought to think through the implications of your imaginary scenario, Kelvin. Hypothetically, your Surrey policeman could have been arrested for leaking that Savile information for "a few bob".  In absolute horror, we would now be waiting to see Operation Yewtree in slow motion collision with Operation Elvedon - with fallout more spectacular than the Large Hadron Collider cranked up to maximum.

Consider that scenario, Neville and Neil. Think it through, Kelvin.  Because THAT would be, in your words,  "A very big story indeed".

Hypothetically.

Related Articles
Hackgate - Andre Baker - A Hackgate Footnote? 
Hackgate - Ten To Watch For
Hackgate - Dear Surrey Police
Hackgate - The John Boyall Files
One Rogue Email And The Indestructible Archive 
John Yates And Neil Wallis - A Mutual Understanding


You can contact the author on Twitter @brown_moses or by email at brownmoses@gmail.com

Andre Baker - A Hackgate Footnote?

The latest from my regular contributor.

Readers of these Brown Moses posts on Hackgate may remember a recent post - 'News Corp - Diplomatic Immunity?' It offered a different perspective regarding politicians subjected to News International 'dark arts' - shifting the focus from WHO to WHAT Offices of State they held at the time they were allegedly hacked, burgled or put under surveillance. This current article is an experiment in doing the reverse - shifting the focus from WHAT law enforcement office was held to WHO?

The starting point is a small gathering in a side office at Scotland Yard - convened to confront Rebekah Wade and ask why the News of the World (NOTW) had apparently undertaken surveillance of a Metropoltan Police (MET) officer investigating the barbaric axe murder of Daniel Morgan.   At the meeting were Rebekah Wade, Dick Federcio, the MET officer himself Dave Cook, and Cook's boss Commander Andre Baker.

But WHO is Andre BAKER?  And what are his connections to the complex Hackgate saga?

Andre (Andy) BAKER has had a lengthy career in the MET.  He joined in 1975 and rose through the ranks in posts throughout London, including notoriously tough beats in South East London around Lewisham, Eltham and Catford. 

October 2001 He was promoted to the rank of Commander, Serious Crime Directorate (Homicide). As such, he would have been well aware that three previous investigations into Daniel Morgan's murder had been abortive, and that one of those investigations had involved MET bugging conversations of suspects (Operation Nigeria) - eavesdropping on apparently corrupt procurement of information by NOTW.

21 March 2002  Milly Dowler disappeared from Walton-on-Thames.  Surrey Police started their abduction - then murder - inquiry.  The MET Serious Crime (Homicide) - under Commander Andre BAKER - liaised closely with Surrey Police in case Milly's murder might be linked to suspects in other London murder investigations.

It is not known if Surrey Police at that time apprised Andre BAKER and his team that NOTW had hacked Milly Dowler's phone.  If Surrey Police did, then this knowledge would have added considerably to Commander BAKER's growing intelligence on the 'dark arts' and NOTW.

25 June 2002  Detective Chief Superintendent Dave Cook appeared on BBC Crimewatch to appeal for any information on the murder of Daniel Morgan.

10 July 2002  Cook noted an unfamiliar parked van outside his home. It tailed him whilst he drove his children to school. His then wife, Jacqui Hames, later noticed photographs of their house being taken surreptitiously from a parked vehicle. Further investigations by fellow MET officers are alleged to have connected NotW to this covert surveillance.  The MET were concerned enough to give the Cook-Hames family witness protection status and additional security.



9 January 2003  The confrontation at Scotland Yard.   Dick Fedorcio arranged the meeting, at the request of Andre BAKER.  As Fedorcio described it (Evidence to the Leveson Inquiry p54)

Commander Baker was doing it because of his concerns about Mr Cook's concerns, really. It wasn't about taking any action against the News of the World; it was to help Mr Cook understand and come to terms with what had gone on. That was how Commander Baker described to me, as a welfare meeting, looking after a member of his staff

At a subsequent Metropolitan Police Authority meeting (the then MET oversight body) in 2011, a Member understandably asked why (MPA: Strategic and Operational Policing Committee minutes -14-Jul-11 p4)

... no further action was taken. He asked: first, who took the decision to proceed in that way - a conversation with the editor but no further action - and were then Commissioner or Deputy involved or informed? Secondly, were any other senior officers involved or informed? And finally, would John Yates' team who reinvestigated the Daniel Morgan murder have known?

The MPA were advised by the MET Acting Commissioner that no public response could be made as the Cook-Hames alleged surveillance was now under active investigation.

November 2004  Levi Bellfield arrested in west London on suspicion of murdering French student Amelie DelaGrange.  Commander BAKER said "There were reasonable grounds to arrest this individual" . A Daily Mail report added, "detectives have previously linked the murder to five other attacks in south-west London."  Publicly at least, no connection was yet made with the Surrey murder of Milly Dowler.

2006  As a consequence of Operation Motorman uncovering prima facie Data Protection Act breaches by journalists of national newspapers (including NOTW), the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) published 'What Price Privacy' and 'What Price Privacy Now?'  These two Reports (here and here) to Parliament and relevant law enforcement bodies detailed industrial scale data procurement by national newspaper titles from private investigators.  The ICO Commissioner also informed the Press Complaints Commission that the ICO would have no hesitation in prosecuting any journalists suspected of similar data breaches in future.

2006-7  Operation Caryatid - the investigation of phone hacking of the royal household by NOTW's Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire. As the sheer volume and extent of phone hacking became apparent, the MET Operation Caryatid team liaised with and briefed other relevant law enforcement agencies (para 72) - including the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA).

By this time (from January 2006), the Deputy Director of SOCA was Andre BAKER.

2006-07 was clearly a busy time.  The Haute de la Garenne child abuse scandal in Jersey (in which Jimmy Savile is now implicated) needed a mainland, ACPO-nominated authority to oversee the investigation. Former MET Homicide Commander, Andre BAKER took up the role in addition to his Deputy Director of SOCA duties. This necessitated liaison with Jersey States police and several visits to Jersey.  The controversial Haute de la Garenne investigation was ramped up by lurid, sensationalised  press reporting. A subsequent Review observed (final para)

The approach taken by the States of Jersey Police to releasing information about the teeth found was unusual, not consistent with normal working practice in the UK and encouraged further media reporting and speculation.

2007-09 At the same time, back on the mainland, Surrey Police were still pursuing the Milly Dowler murder investigation as well as allegations of sexual abuse by victims of Jimmy Savile.  Just as knowledge of the NOTW Dowler phone hacking was apparently not shared by Surrey with the MET, it seems perhaps the Surrey team investigating Savile were not informed of crucial information known to MET and Jersey police forces.

Throughout this period, some of the national press were critical of police crime-fighting.  For example, The Sun's crime reporter, Mike Sullivan, castigated Andre BAKER, the MET, and Surrey Police for failing to catch the killers of several murder victims - including Milly Dowler.

2007-08 SOCA researched and complied an intelligence report entitled 'The Rogue Element of the Private Investigation Industry'.  It highlighted the corrosive effect of press collusion in illegal practices such as phone hacking, Police National Computer abuse, computer hacking, corruption, vehicle tracking, surveillance etc etc.

2005-09  Operation Millipede.  This was a lengthy SOCA investigation into a network of private investigators' blagging and computer hacking.  It led to four arrests in 2009 and four convictions in Feb 2012.



July 2009 John Yates undertook an 8 hour consideration of Operation Caryatid before concluding there was no necessity to re-open the investigation.  Two days later, Yates received a written briefing from two of the original Caryatid investigating officers. It reiterated that "briefings of the emerging security risks in relation to mobile phone voicemails were given to SCDI4, The Security Service, Cabinet Office, The Royal Household and SOCA."  (p6)


2010-11  First a New York Times report on phone hacking, then Nick Davies' Guardian exposé of NOTW's hacking of Milly Dowler's mobile phone prompted demand for an independent, judge led Inquiry.  Lord Justice Leveson's Inquiry into 'Culture, Practice and Ethics of the Press' started in October 2011.

June 2011  Serial killer Levi Bellfield is finally convicted of the murder of Milly Dowler.

2012  BAKER, Deputy Director of SOCA, moves to another post as Deputy Chief Executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) where he will probably be involved with police investigations into the Jimmy Savile scandal.

Andre BAKER will no doubt be grateful that he was not called to give evidence to Leveson, and that his name is relegated to a footnote in the history of Hackgate - a mere bit player at that small, informal Scotland Yard meeting with Rebekah Wade.

Related Articles
Hackgate - Ten To Watch For
Hackgate - Dear Surrey Police
Hackgate - The John Boyall Files
One Rogue Email And The Indestructible Archive 
John Yates And Neil Wallis - A Mutual Understanding
Alex Marunchak - Presumed Innocent

You can contact the author on Twitter @brown_moses or by email at brownmoses@gmail.com

Ten To Watch For

The latest piece from My Regular Contributor, looking at ten things to watch for in the ongoing Hackgate saga

1  Hole-in-the-Wall:  Steve Coogan told the Leveson Inquiry how the minutiae of his life was intruded on by Glenn Mulcaire.  Coogan was shown Mulcaire's notes (p14):

I saw a redacted copy, which had information about money I'd withdrawn from a cash machine,...the precise amount of money I'd withdrawn from a cash machine, which would suggest someone was looking over my shoulder when I was doing it.

Shoulder-surfing is only one explanation. A case cited in the 2008 Serious Organised Crime Agency report ('The Rogue Element of the Private Investigation Industry') is clearly Glenn Mulcaire. Following a description of his modus operandi, is this curiosity (p5, SOCA 2008):

The investigator also managed to intercept the landline of an Automated Telling Machine at a local shop to distance himself from his calls to the voicemail boxes.

Mulcaire is known as a former footballer, not telecomms technician.  Did he have that expertise himself?  Or was technical expertise recruited from amongst a wider private investigator network?  What kinds of ATM info interception were feasible?

2  Tracking: UK parent company of News International, News Group Newspapers (NGN), does not dispute that it commissioned Derek Webb to do surveillance on targets for stories.  Ex-policeman Webb was variously designated as private investigator / freelance journalist depending on when it was considered politic for him to hold an NUJ card.  But NGN has also admitted (p8 para 31, Admission of Facts) that information, unlawfully obtained by its own journalists from Mulcaire, was used to enable un-named "private investigators employed by News of the World to monitor, locate and track individuals to place them under surveillance."  It will be interesting to know what tracking and surveillance technology was deployed, and by whom.

3  Safety First: And on the subject of security technology, this small nugget from Mary-Ellen Field's evidence to Leveson is intriguing - the last time she ever spoke to celebrity client Elle McPherson after acrimoniously parting company:

I received a call out-of-the-blue from Elle asking me who the security people were who checked her house, office and car.  Elle did not explain why she wanted this information -- however I provided it to her.  It occurs to me now that it is likely that she needed that information following contact from the police in relation to phone hacking, having arrested Mulcaire.  I know now that Clive Goodman's column in the NOTW was cancelled the previous week.

If accurate, it is interesting to note police interest in how celebrities are willing to pay elite private security companies to safeguard their privacy.  For example, one such specialist company - Brookmans International - were very supportive in providing protection and security technology to Kerry Katona. Sadly, their best efforts did not prevent stories about Katona's private life appearing in newspapers.

4  Still on the topic of technology:  Operation Tuleta will soon be back in the news as awaited charging decisions are due.  The ongoing Operation Tuleta investigation includes Operation Kalmyk, focusing on alleged computer hacking related to Northern Ireland.  Outgoing MET DAC Sue Akers was asked about computer hacking at her final appearance before the Home Affairs Select Committee in early September

Q You mentioned computer hacking in the course of your remarks. What can you tell us about the progress of investigations on that, please?
Akers: It is difficult for me to go into any detail, obviously, because it is an ongoing investigation, but there are seven people who are on bail in relation to computer hacking.
Q  I know it is difficult for you but are you able to tell us generally what the nature of the allegation is in those cases, the general character?
Akers: You will have seen, maybe, the Panorama programme. There are inquiries in connection with that. It is difficult for me to go into much more detail.
Q  Are you able to say anything about the characteristics of the seven people who are under investigation, what category they might fall into?
Akers: I suppose the general category you would say is private investigator, some of them ex-police.
Q  Are there files with the CPS in relation to those matters or not?
Akers: Yes.

5  Weeting: There are still charging decisions outstanding under Operation Weeting.  Eight have already been charged:  Rebekah Brooks, Andrew Coulson, Stuart Kuttner, Glenn Mulcaire, Greg Miskiw, Ian Edmondson, Neville Thurlbeck and James Weatherup.  However the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Principal Legal Advisor announced at the same time that three others arrested would have no further action taken and

There are two suspects in relation to whom the police have asked me to defer making a decision whilst further enquiries are made. For this reason I do not intend to give their names or say anything further about them at this stage.

6  Andy Coulson - is still waiting for his Appeal over News Group Newspapers refusal to pay his legal fees.  In essence, Coulson argues NGN are contractually obliged tp pay his legal costs accrued as a result of his time in employment at NGN, whilst they argue their contractual obligation does not apply to illegal acts he may have undertaken. At the time of his unsuccessful hearing in December 2011, Coulson had been arrested by both Operation Weeting and Operation Elvedon.  Since then he has additionally been arrested once more (Operation Rubicon) and charged twice (Operation Rubicon and Operation Weeting).  Coulson is therefore clocking up massive legal fees for which he is, pending Appeal, personally liable.  The Appeal Hearing should be instructive.

7  DCI April Casburn - suspended from her MET job in Counter Terrorism Command (Specialist Operations), is due back in court, at the Old Bailey on November 2nd.  She is charged with offences which include an alleged offer to supply News International with insider information on Operation Varec - a sub-investigation of Operation Weeting.  Arguably the most significant aspect of Casburn's Old Bailey appearance is that she "must enter a plea to the charge"  - the first defendant to do so since the News of the World scandal erupted.

8 ICO:  There may be more charges to come, but this time by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).  Asked about the future sequence of events which might, in time, signal the closing stages of Hackgate, DAC Akers told the Home Affairs Select Committee that it would be necessary to involve the ICO in charges to be laid.  The ICO has its own powers to take action in relation to the Data Protection Act, in addition to any police/CPS prosecutions -

the Information Commissioner must get involved where there is not quite such serious criminality but, nonetheless, there are breaches of privacy.

Given the criticism of the ICO's failure to achieve convictions under Operation Motorman, they would doubtless be glad of the opportunity to take action on data protection offences.  And who is to say that potential prosecutions might not result, belatedly, from Operation Motorman itself?

9  Will Hackgate spread further?  Possibly

Home Affairs Select Committee  Q49 Mr Winnick: In your evidence to the Leveson inquiry, you said that Trinity Mirror, News International and Express Newspapers were being investigated for corrupt payments to officials. That is what you said?
Sue Akers: Yes.
Q50 Mr Winnick: Are there other organisations now involved in the investigation, apart from those?
Sue Akers: Those are the organisations that I have said publicly, and I think I should not go any further than what is in the public domain.
Q51 Mr Winnick: When you say you do not want to go any further, I do not want to press you when you consider that it would be inappropriate, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, but you have mentioned companies already to the Leveson inquiry. You are saying, in effect, if I understand you, that there are other companies but for some reason you do not want to mention them today.
Sue Akers: I am certainly not ready to say anything in the way that I did about the Mirror Group and the Express Group because our investigation is still continuing.
Mr Winnick: If that is the position, I will not press you further. Thank you.

10  Sue Akers' replacement - is MET Deputy Assistant Commissioner Steve Kavanagh, so his name will become familiar to Hackgate watchers.  His face may already be familiar from his press conferences during the London riots in 2011.  There is already one Hackgate gig awaiting him at the Leveson Inquiry. In addressing Future Directions, Leveson said

As I have just made clear to DAC Akers, it is important that my report is based on what is then the most up to date information about the progress of the criminal investigation.... I make clear that I will issue another request under s. 21 of the Inquiries Act 2005... Notice of a hearing will be provided in good time to all core participants to Modules 1 and 2 

Unless Lord Justice Leveson decides to accept a substitute written statement, Steve Kavanagh could be back in front of the cameras soon in Court 73.

So, plenty still to watch out for....

Related Articles
Hackgate - Dear Surrey Police
Hackgate - The John Boyall Files
One Rogue Email And The Indestructible Archive 
John Yates And Neil Wallis - A Mutual Understanding
Alex Marunchak - Presumed Innocent

You can contact the author on Twitter @brown_moses or by email at brownmoses@gmail.com