Scotland Yard have launched their third inquiry, the prospect of criminal trials remains and three select committees are examining the affair. But what are the issues at stake?
The phone-hacking scandal continues to unfold. Scotland Yard's latest inquiry - their third into the affair - is expected to continue for some months. There may then be charges and criminal trials. In the background, dozens of public figures have instructed lawyers to consider pursuing the truth through the civil courts. And the scandal is now being probed by three different select committees in the House of Commons. Key questions remain to be answered.
• Has anybody misled parliament?
John Yates, acting deputy commissioner for Scotland Yard, submitted evidence to the culture, media and sport (CMS) committee that prosecutors had repeatedly advised the inquiry in 2006 to adopt a narrow interpretation of the law. Keir Starmer, director of public prosecutions, in October submitted evidence to the home affairs committee that appears to state the precise opposite. If either Yates or Starmer is found to have misled the committees, that would constitute misleading parliament and the guilty man would be expected to consider resigning.
• What does the law say?
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 makes it an offence to intercept a communication "in the course of transmission". In 2009, the DPP twice told the CMS committee that this means it is a crime only if the voicemail is intercepted before it is heard by its intended recipient. However, he now suggests it is illegal to intercept any voicemail at any time. Yates yesterday indicated he had always accepted the first interpretation, although he now accepted that the current Yard inquiry was working with the second. The 1990 Computer Misuse Act makes it an offence in all circumstances. Neither the DPP nor Yates has explained how this fits into their account.
• What did the Met tell the victims?
This question is becoming increasingly central. In 2006, Scotland Yard agreed with the DPP that it would approach and warn "all potential victims". It is now accepted by Yates that the inquiry failed to do that. Civil actions by public figures have revealed, for example, that police failed to approach Sienna Miller and her friends and family, even though they had seized paperwork that showed they were potential victims; and that they repeatedly said there was no evidence John Prescott had been hacked, although they now admit they did have evidence and failed to investigate it. The current Yard inquiry is taking the initiative in approaching all those whose names were found in material seized from Glenn Mulcaire.