Clik here to view.
One imagines there to have been limited joy in heaven after News International's qualified statement of repentance
One imagines there to have been limited joy in heaven yesterday afternoon as the news broke of News International's qualified statement of repentance. Yes, the company has expressed "genuine regret" for its past behaviour over phone hacking. It has offered an unreserved apology and damages to some, but not all, of those who have launched legal actions. And it has admitted that the company's previous inquiries had failed to be remotely searching enough. This is a massive move from the company's original stance in July 2009, when News International's chief executive wrote to MPs claiming that this newspaper had "substantially and likely deliberately misled the British public". Of course the statement, qualified as it is, should be welcomed. It is a substantial concession from a company which has hitherto not only denied a pattern of criminal behaviour, but spent large sums of money covering it up.
But with the overall welcome come questions. The move is a clear attempt to stop the multiple civil actions in their track before the torrent of discovered documents and emails is exposed to the public eye. The high court has been resolutely demanding that claimants are given access to police files, phone records, notebooks and internal emails. Next Thursday, for example, the police are due to hand over unredacted copies of the material raided from the home of the private investigator Glenn Mulcaire. No wonder the company is desperate to draw some kind of line in the sand. And no doubt many claimants will wish to wait and see what documentary evidence emerges – together with who was responsible – before deciding on whether to settle.
But the more that information has been dragged out of News International and a disgracefully unco-operative Metropolitan police, the more disturbing the picture has become. This week the police arrested Neville Thurlbeck, the current chief reporter of the News of the World, as well as its former news editor Ian Edmondson. Both the director of public prosecutions and the four leading mobile phone companies have called into question the evidence to parliament of John Yates, the police officer who until recently was leading the inquiry. Mr Thurlbeck has not been suspended by News International, which continues to pay the legal fees of Mr Mulcaire, as he resists attempts to reveal what he knows.
The police inquiry must, of course, continue. There are searching questions under section 79 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act about the governance and responsibility of the company and its directors for criminal acts. Who is going to hold the police to account for – until recently – their lamentable performance over this case? MPs who previously backed down from calling News International witnesses will doubtless feel more emboldened now. And there are very uncomfortable questions over the performance of the Press Complaints Commission under its chair, Baroness Buscombe, who had the remarkable distinction of being forced to pay libel damages to one of the claimants' solicitors, in her apparent keenness to pour cold water on the allegations.
But the biggest question is for the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, who was poised to wave through News Corporation's bid for full ownership and control of BSkyB, thereby creating the largest and most powerful media company Britain has ever seen. It is now apparent his predecessor as culture secretary, Tessa Jowell, had her phone hacked. Imagine if a bank had hired investigators to hack the chancellor of the exchequer's phone. It is difficult to imagine that Mr Hunt could possibly allow the bid to go through in the circumstances when so many unanswered questions hang over the company and where so many documents have yet to be revealed. Only a full judicial inquiry can now answer the many unresolved issues.
