Phone Hacking

Bails · **Joined:** Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:16 am **Posts:** 957

What happened when this first became big news, with some documents found near Rebakakakah's house? I'm trying to remember what it was, but wasn't something potentially incriminating 'left' in a car park bin?

Arnold · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:14 pm

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3512&p=153111&hilit=car+park#p153111

new puritan · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:06 pm

Thurlbeck nicked on suspicion of witness intimidation. It may, or may not, have something to do with this:

http://www.nevillethurlbeck.com/2012/03 ... -news.html

satnav · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:07 pm

I didn't realise their were any 'witnesses' in this case I thought everyone working at News International heard nothing and saw nothing in relation to phone hacking or police corruption. I suppose it could mean that members of the MSC are now effectively being viewed as witnesses by the police.

Paul · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:30 pm

Former NotW chief reporter Neville Thurlbeck arrested on suspicion of intimidating a witness

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1pA0CeFTW

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:34 pm

satnav wrote:

I didn't realise their were any 'witnesses' in this case I thought everyone working at News International heard nothing and saw nothing in relation to phone hacking or police corruption.

Why do you think they all clammed up? They were Nevilled.

Paul · **Posted:** Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:10 am

Nevilled Clams. (Met Style)

something Keith Floyd would have you salivating at, lots of garlic, peppers and mushrooms.

All pan fried on a high heat, splashed with G & T.

smod · **Posted:** Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:20 pm

Sounds like Leveson was rolling with the punches today:

Quote:

Former Times legal chief Alastair Brett today admitted he made a “mistake” by failing to divulge the fact one of the paper's reporters hacked into an email account to reveal the identity of anonymous police blogger NightJack.

Earlier this year it emerged that former Times reporter Patrick Foster hacked the emails of Lancashire police detective Richard Horton to reveal he was the man behind the award-winning blog.

The paper controversially revealed his identity in June 2009 after it successfully overturned a privacy injunction at the High Court – but in its submission to court it claimed Foster deduced Horton's identity using only publicly available information.

At no point did it acknowlege the fact Foster had in fact first discovered Horton’s identity through hacking into his email.

The inquiry heard today that in the days approaching the injunction hearing of June 2009, Brett received a question from Horton's lawyers suggesting that Foster had hacked their client's email. Brett replied that this was a "baseless allegation". He said today: "Baseless was not the best word to use."

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp ... =48955&c=1

Interestingly.....

Quote:

He said he had initially believed Foster may have had a public interest defence under the Data Protection Act for hacking the email account, but said that he had not been aware at the time of the Computer Misuse Act, which has no public interest defence.

How can a legal chief for a top national newspaper not know this piece of legislation?! It's baffling.

Some choice tweets from David Allen Green:

Quote:

So Brett and others didn't even tell their QC re email hacking. So Times misled court, own lawyer and #NightJack's lawyers. #Leveson

Quote:

Agreed. RT @HungryHatter: @JackofKent I don't think I've ever seen Lord Leveson this angry before. He's furious with Brett.

Quote:

My general theory re hacking: generation of newspaper lawyers knew libel/contempt law, but not technology law such as CMA and RIPA. #Leveson

Tubby Isaacs · **Posted:** Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:53 pm

Quote:

He said he had initially believed Foster may have had a public interest defence under the Data Protection Act for hacking the email account, but said that he had not been aware at the time of the Computer Misuse Act, which has no public interest defence.

How can a legal chief for a top national newspaper not know this piece of legislation?! It's baffling.

It's even worse than that. The Times is the paper with the most famous Law section.

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:01 pm

Leveson tore him two or three new ones. I suspect he may have a period of gardening leave in his immediate future. Essentially writing a pack of lies to present before a High Court judge is largely frowned upon.

Tubby Isaacs · **Posted:** Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:02 pm

That's not a criminal offence?

Tubby Isaacs · **Posted:** Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:09 pm

No point asking the bloke from The Times, obviously.

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:32 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

That's not a criminal offence?

I assume it's either perjury or perverting the course of justice...

Arnold · **Posted:** Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:49 pm

Or possibly both. I would have thought that Horton might have got the injunction if the court had known where the info came from.

Tubby Isaacs · **Posted:** Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:21 am

So Tom Baldwin would have no defence if Ashcroft actually produced that evidence he told us he had.

Shouldn't there be a public interest defence to computer hacking?

Phone Hacking

Who is online