Phone hacking scandal deepens

[Jan Klimkowski]

Former Murdoch newspaper editor and PM Cameron spin doktor, Andy Coulson, has been revealed as either incompetent or a liar.

Now, Scotland Yard's top cop, John Yates, has been exposed as either incompetent or a liar.

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."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/05...NTCMP=SRCH

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.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/07...NTCMP=SRCH