David Guyatt Wrote::lol::lol::lol:

Quote:One is a competition issue, the other an allegation of criminal activity."

And never the twain shall meet eh.

BskyB slam dunk.

Quote:Phone hacking: Coulson taped backing sacked News of the World executive

Former No 10 PR chief Andy Coulson caught on tape saying Ian Edmondson was 'a great operator' who was 'doing a brilliant job'

James Robinson guardian.co.uk, Monday 7 February 2011 10.44 GMT

Andy Coulson told a reporter at the News of the World he had "total and complete faith in" Ian Edmondson, the news executive sacked by the paper last month for ordering a private investigator to hack into mobile phones.

Coulson describes Edmondson as "a great operator" who is "doing a brilliant job" in a conversation with an unnamed reporter at the title, a recording of which has been obtained by Channel 4's Dispatches, to be shown tonight.

Coulson edited the News of the World for four years until January 2007. He resigned after the paper's royal editor, Clive Goodman, was jailed for illegally intercepting voicemails left on mobile phones belonging to members of the royal household. Glenn Mulcaire, an investigator on the paper's books, was also sent to prison.

The tape, made by a former journalist without Coulson's knowledge at some point during his editorship, also records Coulson telling the reporter: "I need more stories. I need more exclusives and I need it to be self-generated stuff." The two men do not discuss phone hacking, but Dispatches says other recordings exist which "might provide damning evidence".

Coulson stepped down as David Cameron's communications director last month, saying coverage of the phone-hacking affair had made it impossible to do his job. He maintains he knew nothing about phone hacking at the paper.

The News of the World last month gave emails retrieved from Edmondson's computer to the Metropolitan police, which reopened an investigation into alleged phone hacking at the title the same day.

Separately, the News of the World's chief reporter, Neville Thurlbeck, has been named in evidence submitted to parliament as an executive who organised "endemic" phone hacking at the paper.

Max Mosley, former president of the FIA, the motor racing governing body, told the home affairs select committee that Thurlbeck was one of several senior journalists at the title who issued "instructions to hack phones". He told MPs that Thurlbeck, who is still employed by the paper, "commissioned potentially illegal investigations" by Mulcaire.

In written evidence published on the committee's website, Mosley said the Metropolitan police had recovered documents from Mulcaire's home in the course of the 2006 investigation leading to his arrest and that they proved Thurlbeck had instructed the private investigator to hack into phones belonging to public figures.

"Even a cursory examination of these papers will have identified a number of NoW journalists who had commissioned potentially illegal investigations by Mulcaire," Mosley said.

"There appears to be endemic criminality on a significant scale within the News Group organisation."

He added: "It must have been clear to [the police] on the face of the papers seized from Mulcaire, that instructions to hack phones came from journalists other than Goodman, including the NoW news editor, Ian Edmondson, and the NoW chief reporter, Neville Thurlbeck."

A growing number of well-known figures are suing the paper's owner News Group, part of Rupert Murdoch's media empire. They include actor Sienna Miller, comedian Steve Coogan, former Sky Sports pundit Andy Gray and sports agent Sky Andrew.

Evidence of Thurlbeck's involvement in the practice has emerged previously. The Guardian published an email 18 months ago that was sent to Mulcaire by a reporter on the News of the World which contained a transcript of hacked voicemails and the message: "Hello, this is the transcript for Neville."

A spokesman for News International said: "If presented with any evidence of further wrongdoing, we will act quickly and decisively on it."

• James Robinson and Nick Davies
  
• The Guardian, Friday 11 March 2011 John Yates, who has been accused by a Labour MP of misleading parliament over the News of the World phone-hacking scandal. Photograph: Lewis Whyld/PA One of Scotland Yard's most senior officers was accused of misleading parliament in evidence he gave to a select committee about the phone-hacking scandal at the News of the World.
  Labour MP Chris Bryant told the House of Commons that assistant commissioner John Yates wrongly claimed it was difficult to secure phone-hacking convictions because the Crown Prosecution Service adopted a narrow definition of the legislation outlawing the practice.
  Speaking during a Commons debate on phone hacking, Bryant said the CPS told the Met five months ago that Yates's evidence was misleading and warned it against relying on that interpretation of the law. Bryant said he could name eight MPs who have been told by Scotland Yard they were targeted by Glenn Mulcaire, a private investigator employed by the News of the World, but didn't identify them.
  Yates told the home affairs select committee in September 2009 the CPS relied on a narrow interpretation of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which meant a crime was only committed if a voicemail is intercepted by a third party before it has been listened to.
  "It was on that basis and only on that basis that Yates was asserting there were only really eight to 12 victims," Bryant said. "Yates maintained time and time again there were 'very few victims'. We now know that to be completely and utterly untrue."
  The CPS has since made it clear that a criminal offence may have been committed whenever a voicemail is intercepted, even if it has already been listened to by its intended recipient.
  Bryant said Yates' claim about the CPS advice "was the very reason, and the only reason, why the Metropolitan police refused point blank to reopen the case until January this year. Yates misled the committee, whether deliberately or inadvertently. He knew the number of potential victims is and was substantial."
  The shadow Europe minister added that Yates wrongly told MPs in September last year there was no evidence that former deputy prime minister Lord Prescott had his phone hacked.
  Prescott was told by the Met in January that his phone messages may have been intercepted by Mulcaire, following its decision to reopen its investigation into phone-hacking. He claimed that further evidence would shortly emerge proving that a journalist at the Sunday Times, another Rupert Murdoch-owned paper, was hacking into mobile phone messages.
  Bryant alleged that the practice of hacking was rife when Rebekah Brooks, now chief executive of the titles' parent company, News International, was editor of the News of the World. News International denies this.
  
  
  

Quote:Jonathan Rees and the News of the World

Journalist has contacts with Fleet Street going back more than a decade

Sandra Laville guardian.co.uk, Friday 11 March 2011 18.26 GMT Article historyKey Events

Late 1990s
Jonathan Rees works regularly for national newspapers, particularly for the News of the World, the Sunday Mirror and the Daily Mirror, specialising in paying police for information. Steve Whittamore and John Boyall work for the News of the World, specialising in sale of confidential data.

April 1999
Scotland Yard places covert listening device in Rees's south London office.

September 1999
Rees arrested for plotting to frame innocent woman for possession of cocaine.

January 2000
Andy Coulson becomes deputy to NoW editor Rebekah Wade.

December 2000
Rees convicted of conspiring to pervert the course of justice. Sentenced to six years, increased to seven after an appeal.

September 2002
Guardian runs lengthy expose of Rees's involvement with corrupt police officers and illegal newsgathering for the News of the World and other papers.

January 2003
Coulson promoted to editor of News of the World.

March 2003
The Information Commissioner's Office raids Whittamore's home. Boyall later arrested.

March 2003
In evidence to a select committee, Coulson and Wade acknowledge payment of money to police officers.

April 2005
Whittamore, Boyall and two others convicted of buying information from the police computer for NoW and other papers.

2005
After being released from prison, Rees resumes work for NoW.

August 2006
Police arrest NoW royal correspondent Clive Goodman.

January 2007
Goodman and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire jailed for phone hacking. Coulson resigns as NoW editor, claiming to have no knowledge of illegal activity at the paper.

January 2011
Coulson resigns as David Cameron's communications director, claiming to have no knowledge of illegal activity during his time at NoW.

Quote:Murder trial collapse exposes News of the World links to police corruption

David Cameron hired Andy Coulson despite knowing that as editor he employed Jonathan Rees, who paid police for stories

Nick Davies and Vikram Dodd guardian.co.uk, Friday 11 March 2011 18.17 GMT

A man cleared of murder can be named as a private investigator with links to corrupt police officers who earned £150,000 a year from the News of the World for supplying illegally obtained information on people in the public eye.

Jonathan Rees was acquitted of the murder of his former business partner, Daniel Morgan, who was found in a south London car park in 1987 with an axe in the back of his head. The case collapsed after 18 months of legal argument, during which it has been impossible for media to write about Rees's Fleet Street connections.

The ending of the trial means it is now possible for the first time to tell how Rees went to prison in December 2000 after a period of earning six-figure sums from the News of the World.

Rees, who had worked for the paper for seven years, was jailed for planting cocaine on a woman in order to discredit her during divorce proceedings. After his release from prison Rees, who had been bugged for six months by Scotland Yard because of his links with corrupt police officers, was rehired by the News of the World, which was being edited by Andy Coulson.

The revelations call into question David Cameron's judgment in choosing Coulson as director of communications at 10 Downing Street in May 2010. Both he and the deputy prime minister had been warned in March 2010 about Coulson's responsibility for rehiring Rees after his prison sentence.

Nick Clegg had been informed in detail about Jonathan Rees's murder charge, his prison sentence and his involvement with police corruption and that he and three other private investigators had committed crimes for the News of the World while Coulson was deputy editor or editor.

In September 2002 the Guardian published a lengthy exposé of Rees's involvement with police corruption and illegal newsgathering. But since April 2008 the press have been prevented from revealing Rees's connections with the News of the World, or placing it in the context of News International's denials about any knowledge of illegal activity on behalf of the company.

News International had until recently claimed there was just one "rotten apple" at the company and that the paper had no knowledge of the illegal activities of another private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, who was paid £100,000 before being sent to jail in 2007.

Rebekah Wade, now chief executive of News International, was deputy editor of the News of the World from 1998-2000 and editor from 2000 to 2003. Coulson was deputy editor of the News of the World from 2000 and editor from 2003 to 2007. Rees worked for the paper until 2000, when he was jailed for seven years, and then again after his release from prison in 2005.

Rees, now aged 56, worked regularly for the Daily Mirror and the Sunday Mirror as well as for the News of the World. His numerous targets included members of the royal family whose bank accounts he penetrated; political figures including Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell; rock stars such as Eric Clapton, Mick Jagger and George Michael; the Olympic athlete Linford Christie and former England footballer Gary Lineker; TV presenters Richard Madeley and Judy Finnigan; and people associated with tabloid story topics, including the daughter of the former miners leader Arthur Scargill and the family of the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe.

Jonathan Rees paid a network of corrupt police officers who sold him confidential records. He boasted of other corrupt contacts in banks and government organisations; hired specialists to "blag" confidential data from targets' current accounts, phone records and car registration; allegedly used "Trojan horse" emails to extract information from computers; and according to two sources commissioned burglaries to obtain material for journalists.

On Friday the crown said it could offer no evidence against Rees and two other men accused of Morgan's murder. An Old Bailey judge ordered the acquittal of Rees and his co-defendants.

The prosecutor, Nicholas Hilliard QC, said the weight of paperwork about 750,000 pages going back over 24 years made it impossible to guarantee that defence lawyers would be able to see everything they may need for the trial to be fair.

Morgan's family has called for an inquiry into the case. Scotland Yard admitted that corruption in the first murder investigation had shielded the killers of Rees's one-time business partner.

The Rees case raises new questions about the failure of Scotland Yard's 2006 inquiry into phone hacking at the News of the World. For more than a decade Scotland Yard has been holding detailed evidence of Rees's corrupt activities for the News of the World and other titles, including many hours of taped conversations from a listening device that was planted in Rees's office for six months from April 1999. Despite this the Met in 2006 accepted the News of the World's claim that its royal correspondent, Clive Goodman, who had been caught hacking voicemail, was a "rogue reporter". Detectives decided not to interview any other journalist or executive from the paper. They also decided not to seek a court order to force the paper to disclose internal paperwork.

In February 2010 the Guardian wrote to Coulson asking him to comment on his responsibility for hiring Rees. The Guardian's letter also asked about three other private investigators who were convicted of crimes committed on behalf of the News of the World. Steve Whittamore and John Boyall admitted buying confidential data from the police national computer, and Glenn Mulcaire was convicted of hacking voicemail messages. Coulson has always maintained he knew nothing of any of this activity.

He was also asked to comment on the fact that Scotland Yard was believed to have arrested and questioned Coulson's former assistant editor, Greg Miskiw, in 2005 and questioned him about the alleged payment of bribes to serving police officers and the employees of mobile phone companies. Miskiw declined to respond to Guardian questions about this.

Along with Rees, Glenn and Garry Vian were also acquitted yesterday in the Daniel Morgan murder case.

The police case involved a series of supergrasses and the crown dropped some of them during some of the longest legal argument ever seen in an English criminal court.

After his acquittal Rees said: "I want a judicial inquiry, ideally a public inquiry."

In a statement read on his behalf, Rees's solicitor said: "When Daniel Morgan was killed it was an awful shock to me and to our business.

Whatever anyone may say on 10th March 1987 I lost a friend and business partner."

Quote:Unsurprisingly, Monday's Panorama on phone-hacking meant that its revelations about illegal news-gathering activities got major attention.

But there was a real scoop in that programme that only the Irish Times appeared to spot - the breaking from cover of a former British army intelligence officer.

According to the paper, it was the first time that the man previously known by the pseudonym 'Martin Ingram' had revealed himself to be Ian Hurst.

Ingram/Hurst was involved in exposing a senior IRA figure, Freddie Scappaticci, as an informer. His codename was alleged to be Stakeknife.

In 2004, Hurst (as Ingram) wrote a book with the Irish journalist Greg Harkin, Stakeknife: Britain's secret agents in Ireland, which alleged that British intelligence officers had orchestrated assassinations in Northern Ireland.

Hurst served in the army's intelligence corps and the covert military intelligence unit known as the Force Research Unit (FRU). He served in Northern Ireland in two tours between 1981 and 1990.

He is regarded as a controversial figure, within both the British army and within Sinn Féin. He married a woman from Co Donegal, from a republican family, and says he now favours a united Ireland.

A lengthy Wikipedia entry on Ingram reflects suspicion about him and his claims from both sides.

Hurst decided to reveal himself because he believes the threat to his life has diminished. He told me: "It was an open secret for a long time because my name has been widely disseminated on the internet.

"Frankly, the IRA know where I am. There are no secrets from the IRA. I really don't perceive any meaningful threat from them."

Though he was filmed in France, Hurst no longer lives there. He is said to be "somewhere in England."

There appears to be some confusion about whether or not Panorama should have broadcast a picture of Scappaticci, and whether there were legal problems if it had chosen to do so.

This led to the publication of his picture in today's issue of the Irish-language newspaper Foinse, which is distributed across Ireland with the Irish Independent, with a claim that Panorama was prevented from using it.

In the programme itself, there was a bizarre scene in which Hurst was seen interviewing a computer expert (who was unidentified, with a pixelled face), who was allegedly hired by a private investigator to hack into Hurst's computer.

The expert, who was not named because he is said to be facing several charges, admitted placing a so-called Trojan virus on the hard-drive of Hurst's computer.

Hurst told the Irish Times that the now-dormant virus was discovered after Panorama sent it for technical examination.

It is claimed that the information allegedly gleaned was faxed to the News of the World's Dublin office. It was later shared with MI5, which implies - says the Irish Times - that the source for the programme's information about the newspaper's conduct came from MI5.

Quote:Phone-hacking case policeman John Yates under pressure to resign

Director of public prosecutions directly challenges account senior officer repeatedly gave MPs about scope of investigation

Nick Davies guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 5 April 2011 17.58 BST

The senior police officer at the centre of the phone-hacking affair is under intense pressure, with a House of Commons select committee hearing new evidence suggesting he may have repeatedly misled parliament.

In a special session of the House of Commons home affairs committee, the previous evidence of the Metropolitan police's acting deputy assistant commissioner, John Yates, was directly challenged by the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer.

The chairman of the committee, Keith Vaz, said the DPP's evidence was "astonishing", that it clearly contradicted earlier evidence Yates had given, and that he would be writing to Yates to ask for an explanation.

Chris Bryant said the DPP had vindicated the position he took in the House of Commons last month when he accused Yates of misleading parliament. Bryant said Yates should now "consider his position'' at Scotland Yard.

Tom Watson, a member of the culture, media and sport committee, which has twice investigated the hacking affair, said Yates had "some big questions to answer".

Yates has claimed repeatedly that police found only 10 or 12 people whose voicemail had been intercepted by the News of the World. Evidence has since emerged, however, that police knew of "a vast number" of victims.

Yates has told parliament on four occasions that he quoted the lower figure because prosecutors had told police they needed to prove not only that voicemail had been intercepted but also that this had been done before the messages had been heard by the intended recipient.

In written evidence, Starmer listed a series of claims that directly contradict Yates's account of the legal advice the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) gave to police during their original inquiry, in 2006. Starmer said that:

Police had been advised that phone hacking was an offence under the 1990 Computer Misuse Act regardless of whether messages had or had not been heard by their intended recipient.

In the early stages of the inquiry, an in-house lawyer at the CPS had raised the possibility that under the 2000 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) it might be necessary to show that messages had not been heard by the intended recipient; but an email sent by the CPS to police in April 2006 had warned that this view was "very much untested and further consideration will need to be given to this".

This early, provisional advice had then been set aside by David Perry QC, who was appointed as prosecuting counsel in July 2006. He had advised that they should take no position on the issue unless the defence raised it "He is clear that he did not at any stage give a definitive view that the narrow interpretation was the only possible interpretation."

The charges that were eventually brought against the NoW journalist Clive Goodman and the private investigator Glenn Mulcaire included counts where there was no evidence about whether messages had already been heard.

In evidence to the home affairs committee and to the culture, media and sport committee, Yates last month cited the early advice from the CPS in-house lawyer. In contrast to the DPP, he claimed this was "unequivocal", and he made no reference to any advice provided by Perry when he took over, nor to the Computer Misuse Act, which was clearer on the issue.

Vaz asked the DPP whether he accepted Yates's claim that a narrow interpretation of Ripa had restricted the scope of the police investigation. Starmer said: "They were not given advice that limited the scope of their investigation."

Vaz told him his evidence had been "very open and clear and transparent", and his written evidence had been "astonishing". He said: "It does, in our view, contradict what was told to this committee by Mr Yates last week."

Dr Julian Huppert described Starmer's evidence as "one of the most compelling pieces of legal literature I have ever read", and suggested that Yates's previous account to the committee "was clearly not what happened".

Starmer said he had given Yates an advance draft of his evidence and invited him to correct any factual inaccuracies, and that while Yates had sent him some comments, he had not wanted to correct the facts.

Questioned by MPs, Starmer said police had certainly been aware that Ripa was not the only law available to them. They had been told that a conspiracy charge or a charge under the Computer Misuse Act would raise no question about whether voicemail had been heard: "They were aware of, advised of and proceeded on the basis that other offences were available," he said.

He repeated that Goodman and Mulcaire had been charged with offences where there was no evidence whether intercepted messages had been heard: "The way that the charges were set out in the final indictment demonstrates that no definitive view had ever been taken that the narrow interpretation was the only interpretation."

Tom Watson said the framing of the indictment was a "killer point". In a blog post, he wrote: "The police must have known in 2006 that prosecutors were not working with the narrow version of the law ... Had the police thought at the time that the only messages which counted were those which had not been listened to, they would certainly have queried the indictment as soon as they saw it. The indictment is clear, contemporaneous evidence of the state of mind of the police and counsel at the time of the prosecution, namely that before/after did not matter."

In a statement, Chris Bryant said: "His evidence makes it abundantly clear that, contrary to the evidence given by John Yates, there was absolutely no legal reason why the Metropolitan police should have restricted their investigation in 2006."

Quote:Phone hacking: Mobile companies challenge John Yates's evidence

Four phone companies dispute that police 'ensured' they warn potential News of the World phone-hacking victims

Nick Davies guardian.co.uk, Thursday 7 April 2011 19.48 BST

John Yates, the senior police officer at the centre of the phone-hacking scandal, faces a new set of allegations that he has misled parliament.

A Guardian investigation has found that all four leading mobile phone companies dispute evidence that Yates has given to a select committee about police efforts to warn public figures whose voicemails were intercepted by the News of the World.

During the original police inquiry in 2006 phone companies identified a total of at least 120 politicians, police officers, members of the royal household and others whose voicemail had been accessed by Glenn Mulcaire, the NoW's private investigator. Yates told the home affairs select committee last September that police had "ensured" the phone companies warned all of their suspected victims. But all four companies have told the Guardian police made no such move and that most of the victims were never warned by them.

Two of the companies, Orange and Vodafone, wrote to Scotland Yard last autumn, spelling out the fact that they had told none of their customers that they had been hacked and that police had never asked them to. The home affairs committee on Thursday said that more than four months after those letters were sent to the Yard, it was unaware of Yates having made any attempt to tell it that there might be a problem with the evidence he gave.

The committee chairman, Keith Vaz, said he would write to Yates and to the phone companies to clarify the position.

The latest allegations come after a public dispute in which Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions, has challenged Yates's account to parliament of the advice that police were given by prosecutors and the impact this had on the original investigation of the affair and the number of victims who were identified. At a session of the committee on Tuesday, Vaz said the DPP's evidence clearly contradicted the account which Yates had given to the committee the previous week and that he would be writing to Yates to ask for an explanation. Yates is currently acting deputy commissioner of the Met.

In relation to the phone companies, the key evidence from Yates was given to the committee in September last year when Vaz asked him whether police had warned all the public figures whose pin codes had been found in Glenn Mulcaire's paperwork.

Yates said: "We have taken what I consider to be all reasonable steps in conjunction with the major service providers the Oranges, Vodafones to ensure where we had even the minutest possibility they may have been the subject of an attempt to hack or hacking, we have taken all reasonable steps."

MP Mary Macleod asked what he meant by "reasonable steps", and Yates replied: "Speaking to them or ensuring the phone company has spoken to them."

The four leading mobile phone companies all say that this is not correct and that the police did not ask them to warn any victims among their customers. All of them searched their call data as part of the police inquiry in 2006 and all initially followed the standard procedure, which is to keep such inquiries confidential.

Vodafone found about 40 customers whose voicemail had been intercepted. They told none of them that they had been victims but warned a small number in particularly sensitive positions to check their security. A spokesman said: "We were not asked by the Met police to contact any customers but believed it was important that we inform as many as we could. As it was a live investigation, however, we were very limited in the information we could pass on to customers. We were only able to remind customers, where we believed it was appropriate, of the importance of voicemail security."

Orange identified about 45 customers whose voicemail had been dialled from Mulcaire's phone numbers. It said it warned none of them but passed the customers' details to Scotland Yard. A spokesman for Orange said: "At no point during the investigations were we asked, nor did we feel it right, to take further action in relation to these customers. The Metropolitan police are fully aware of our position on this."

T-Mobile gave police information from its call records but says it never finally identified customers who were victims and therefore warned none. A spokesman said: "We have never been supplied with a list of names or telephone numbers by the police of customers who may have been compromised, nor were we asked by the police to contact any of them."

O2 identified about 40 customers whose voicemail had been successfully accessed. It is the only company to have taken a corporate decision to approach and warn all of them. Asked about Yates's evidence, a spokesman for O2 said: "We weren't contacted by the police and asked proactively to get in touch with customers to warn them if they had been victims."

It is now clear that police failed to inform not only those victims who were identified by the phone companies but a large number of others whose details were found in notebooks, computer records and audiotapes seized from Mulcaire in August 2006 but never properly investigated until the Yard began its third investigation into the affair in January.

The failure means that police broke an agreement with the DPP that they would contact "all potential victims". It also means many of the victims were deprived of the chance to check the call data, which is kept by the phone companies for only 12 months, and that they had no opportunity to change their pin codes or to assess the damage done by the interception of their messages.

The immediate problem for Scotland Yard is that the phone companies, like the DPP, are now challenging the evidence given to the public and parliament by the most senior officer in the affair, John Yates.

In July 2009, he made a public statement: "Where there was clear evidence that people had potentially been the subject of tapping, they were all contacted by police." In February 2010 he wrote to the culture, media and sport committee: "Where information exists to suggest some form of interception of an individual's phone was or may have been attempted by Goodman and Mulcaire, the Metropolitan police has been diligent and taken all proper steps to ensure those individuals have been informed."

Yates's evidence about the phone companies last September prompted an exchange of letters. According to one senior police source, speaking on condition of anonymity, Detective Chief Superintendent Philip Williams, who works directly under John Yates, wrote to mobile phone companies in October, claiming that he believed that the companies had contacted "all of the people potentially identified as being victims."

On November 2, Orange wrote back to DCS Williams. The company is understood to have told him that police had never asked them to contact victims and that they had not done so. On November 22 Vodafone also wrote to DCS Williams. It is understood that the company expressed surprise that he was claiming to believe that it had contacted victims in 2006; it pointed out that it was for the police, not for the phone companies, to establish who had been victims of crime; and indicated it had no record of the police ever asking it to contact customers.


Last month more than four months after that exchange of letters Yates gave evidence on phone-hacking to the home affairs committee and to the culture, media and sport committee. He made no reference to the letters. Nor did he tell the committee that the two companies had challenged his previous account. However, in evidence to the media committe, he did indicate some awareness of a problem. He said: "I think there is some confusion with some of the mobile phone companies as to who was doing what, and we need to get some clarity around that … I am not sure that the follow-up was as thorough as it could have been."

In a statement on Thursday night, Scotland Yard said Yates had told the home affairs select committee in September 2010: "We think we have done all that is reasonable but we will continue to review it as we go along." A spokesman said the correspondence with the phone companies was part of that review and Yates had acknowledged in recent evidence to both select committees that more should have been done for victims. A spokesman said the current inquiry was reviewing the victim strategy.

Quote:Phone hacking: NI to apologise to victims including Sienna Miller

NoW publisher admits liability for hacking into phones of eight public figures and offers to set up compensation fund

James Robinson guardian.co.uk, Friday 8 April 2011 15.25 BST

News International is to apologise and offer to pay damages to eight News of the World phone-hacking victims who are currently suing the paper, including actor Sienna Miller, former culture secretary Tessa Jowell and former Sky Sports commentator Andy Gray.

In one of the most dramatic apologies in the history of Fleet Street, Rupert Murdoch's News International said its previous inquiries into phone hacking were "not sufficiently robust" and issued an "unreserved apology" for the fact hacking took place at the News of the World.

The others who will be offered apologies and damages are Jowell's former husband David Mills, football agent Sky Andrew, publicist Nicola Phillips, Joan Hammell, an former aide to former deputy prime minister John Prescott, and interior designer Kelly Hoppen. News International will offer to pay damages and legal fees.

In the Hoppen case, News International is admitting her phone was hacked on several occasions from 2004 to 2006. It still contests her claim that her phone was hacked in 2009.

News International is likely to offer to settle more cases. A total of 24 people have begun legal actions but the company believes that in many of the cases too little evidence has so far been produced to judge whether or not it was culpable. Others taking legal action including actors Steve Coogan and Leslie Ash.

It will propose next week to Justice Vos, the high court judge in charge of all the hacking cases, that all the cases should be heard together.

The publisher said: "Following an extensive internal investigation and disclosures through civil legal cases, News International has decided to approach some civil litigants with an unreserved apology and an admission of liability in cases meeting specific criteria.

"We have also asked our lawyers to establish a compensation scheme with a view to dealing with justifiable claims fairly and efficiently."

It added: "We will, however, continue to contest cases that we believe are without merit or where we are not responsible."

No executives are expected to resign as a result of the apology.

Charlotte Harris, a media lawyer at Mischon de Reya, which represents agent Sky Andrew, said her firm will be considering whether to accept News International's offer of damages after taking advice from clients. She added: "An admission from the News of the World is something we've been working towards for years now. They persisted with their 'one rogue' defence for far too long.

"It was clear for a very long time that the practice of phone hacking was rife and that the News of the World should take responsibility. I hope these apologies do not come at the cost of finding out precisely what happened and who was responsible for covering it up."

The Guardian revealed in July 2009 that News International had made secret payments totalling £1m to settle cases involving three people including Gordon Taylor, chief executive of the PFA.

News International claimed hacking at the paper was carried out by a "rogue reporter", former royal editor Clive Goodman. He was jailed in January 2007 along with private investigator Glenn Mulcaire for illegally intercepting voicemail messages left on mobile phones belonging to members of the royal household.

Andrew Neil, a former Murdoch executive and former Sunday Times editor, told BBC News: "This is one of the most embarrassing apologies I've ever seen from a major British corporation.

"I don't think NI had anywhere else to go. The evidence was piling up against them. It may cost them a lot more than they think. There are plenty of other people involved. They are trying to close it down with their chequebook but I don't think they're going to succeed."

He added that settling civil actions would have no bearing on the criminal investigation currently being carried out by the Metropolitan police.

Solicitor Mark Lewis said none of the clients he represents have heard from News International. "No deals have been done and no apologies have been received yet."

He described News International's admission as "a responsible step in the right direction ... But it's a step that [they] have been forced to take ... It's still early days to work out what will be paid ... and who the victims are. It will improve tabloid journalism and it will stop people using cheap tricks to find things out."

Tom Watson, the Labour MP for West Bromwich East, said: "One of the biggest media organisations in the world has been brought to its knees in the courts." But he added: "I think we need all the facts out there."

The only reason they are offering to apologise now is because 14 civil litigant cases are currently going though the courts."

They should apologise to their readers. I would like to hear from Rupert Murdoch".

He said Murdoch should apologise for the manner in which the News of the World obtained their stories and root out the executives and reporters who were responsible for phone hacking."

Referring to the new police inquiry which began in January, Watson added: "The new investigation team are clearly doing a more thorough job [than the original 2006 inquiry] but there are still lots of loose ends in this."

He said: "News International won newspaper on the year in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, when we know that phone hacking was going on. They subverted journalist. They undermined out democracy."

Keith Vaz MP, who chairs the home affairs select committee, said: "This is a step forward by those who don't want to spend entire days and months of their lives in court." He added that it would not prevent the police investigation continuing, however.