Leveson inquiry: Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre has been giving evidence 

5.19pm: The witness statements of Heather Mills have now been published here and here.

The witness statement of 'plummy-voiced' woman Tricia Owens is also online here.

5.18pm: The Guardian's Josh Halliday has just tweeted: 

Josh Halliday@JoshHalliday 

Dacre looked like a man unburdoned as he left court. Smiling with his lawyers. #Leveson

 9 Feb 12 Reply

Retweet

Favorite

5.09pm: The hearing has now finished.

5.05pm: Leveson says that this is the 40th day of hearings and today provisionally marks the end of module one.

The inquiry has heard from 184 witnesses and a further 42 statements have been read into the record.

Module two will start in a fortnight.

5.04pm: Leveson says that he may well wish to hear from the editor of Mail Online. Dacre welcomes this.

5.03pm: Dacre half reads out a statement saying that if the mainstream media can't follow internet stories, it will become increasingly irrelevant.

5.01pm: Leveson says he will be returning to the question of how the press move forward throughout the inquiry. He suggests that Dacre may be recalled to give more evidence.

"I have shown this week I am prepared to devote a lot of time to it," Dacre replies.

4.59pm: Sherborne asks Dacre to withdraw his "mendacious smears" statement. The Daily Mail editor says he will do so if Grant withdraws his repeated statements about the Daily Mail.

4.58pm: Sherborne puts it to Dacre that he believes attack is the best form of defence.

Dacre says Sherborne is attacking his newspaper group and he will defend it.

4.57pm: Dacre says: "Mr Grant is obsessed by trying to drag the Daily Mail into another newspaper's scandal."

4.51pm: Sherborne asks about a Mail story and why Jemima Khan and Hugh Grant were not contacted prior to publication.

Dacre says he thinks the reporter did speak to a spokesman.

The Daily Mail counsel, David Caplan, says a paragraph in the article says a spokesman for the couple said "no comment".

4.50pm: The Guardian's head of media and technology, Dan Sabbagh, has just tweeted:

Dan Sabbagh@dansabbagh

Fleet Street abandons all first editions as all newspaper hacks watch Dacre on internet TV instead of filing...

 9 Feb 12 Reply

Retweet

Favorite

4.48pm: Dacre says one of the meanings of "mendacious" is false and, in the context of the seriousness of the allegations made by Grant, he felt it was was justified to use that term in the statement.

He adds that Grant slandered the Daily Mail on four occasions.

4.42pm: Dacre says Grant's comments alleging hacking at the Daily Mail were "toxic" and "explosive" and "he knew the damage it would cause".

Dacre describes Grant "the poster boy for [phone-hacking campaign group] Hacked Off". He says it is untrue that the private investigator at the centre of the phone-hacking scandal, Glenn Mulcaire, worked for the Daily Mail, as Grant claimed at the Hacked Off launch. He says he has conducted an extensive and thorough inquiry at the paper and of the group's payment systems.

he says if he had allowed Grant's allegations "get traction" it would have turned into "a fireball".

4.40pm: Lord Justice Leveson intervenes to say he is not going to make a finding about the source of the story.

However, his main concern is the Associated Newspapers statement accusing Grant of spreading "mendacious smears" in his evidence to the inquiry.

4.38pm: Dacre says he "resents" Sherborne's line of questioning:

I cannot be any more unequivocal – our group did not hack phones and I rather resent your continued insinuations that we did … I am not going to speculate. I am not going to be drawn by your innuendo.

4.36pm: Sherborne says the point is that it is "a coincidence" that the very time of the article about a Grant's flirtation with a woman that there was a woman of that description leaving silly or flirtatious messages on his phone.

Dacre says he is not going to comment on coincidences.

4.34pm: Sherborne is brings up Sun editor Dominic Mohan's evidence earlier this week when was quizzed about articles referring to people being "bombarded" with phone calls.

"I didn't hear Mohan's evidence and I deeply resent the comparison to my paper," says Dacre.

4.33pm: The Guardian's head of media and technology, Dan Sabbagh, has just tweeted:

Dan Sabbagh@dansabbagh

Dacre swatting away the hopeless Sherborne. Isn't the only question here why Associated said Grant's evidence were "mendacious smeaers".

 9 Feb 12 Reply

Retweet

Favorite

and

Dan Sabbagh@dansabbagh

Sherborne misses the point. Dacre says the MoS article was wrong, and Associated paid damages. What else is there to say?

 9 Feb 12 Reply

Retweet

Favorite

4.29pm: Dacre says the story was written by Katie Nicholl, and sourced by showbiz writer Sharon Feinstein, from a "source in the Grant camp" that had been "impeccably accurate" in the past.

He denies categorically that the source of the story was phone hacking.

4.27pm: Sherborne says that it is now known there is a "plummy voiced woman" who works for a production company associated with Warner Bros, Patricia Owens.

Owens confirms she was leaving messages late at night and might have been misconstrued as "a bit flirtatious, a bit jokey" in her evidence to the inquiry.

4.25pm: Dacre accepts the story was wrong and his group paid modest damages to Grant.

He stresses that he was not the editor of the paper at the time, though he has since seen the material.

4.19pm: Sherborne says he is not going to ask about the birth of Hugh Grant's child.

He begins with a 2007 Mail on Sunday story referring to late night calls Grant was allegedly having with a "plummy voiced" Warner Bros executive.

Grant had suggested that the information could only have come from listening to his voicemails.

Sherborne says there are eight references to "phones" or "phoning" in the article and three or four references to her voice. He argues that the "clear emphasis" of the story is the woman's voice and the phone calls.

4.16pm: The inquiry has resumed and Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre has returned to give evidence.

He is being addressed by David Sherborne, the barrister representing Hugh Grant and other victims.

4.04pm: Leveson says he has received a contribution from Max Mosley containing suggestions on regulation.

He extends the deadline for such submissions until 24 February; it was previously today.

David Sherborne, counsel for the victims, confirms that he has not yet made his submissions and will do so by 24 February.

4.03pm: Clifford has now finished his evidence.

Paul Dacre has not arrived yet and is not due to arrive until 4.15pm.

4.01pm: Leveson asks Clifford about who he spoke to at the News of the World about the Max Mosley story.

Clifford says he believes it was Ian Edmondson, ruling out Neville Thurlbeck and Neil Wallis. He says it could have been a reporter working for Edmondson.

3.59pm: Clifford says a "responsible body" is needed to restore the confidence of the British public in the press.

He adds: "I think the credibility of the British press has sunk in recent years … the more responsible and the more caring the British press, the better. I would also love to see good news in the British papers because it helps to give the nation a lift.

"I don't think having a responsible body … would be damaging to them in their freedom and would help in the long term their survival."

3.57pm: Clifford is being asked about Heather Mills's written evidence that he told her that he would destroy her if she didn't take him on.

"It's totally untrue, 100% untrue without any foundation at all," he says. "There's an awful lot of things I could say about Heather Mills."

3.53pm: Clifford says apologies could be placed on the front page, but not necessarily in full – they could trail a full apology on an inside page.

He says it wouldn't work for papers being forced to pay to print apologies in other papers – they need to be read by the original readers.

3.52pm: Clifford says Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre is "a law unto himself".

3.49pm: Clifford says Alastair Campbell "got a bit carried away" with Tony Blair's power in government.

He says Alastair Campbell's modus operandi wasn't his way: "he was telling rather than asking the press".

3.48pm: Clifford says Rupert Murdoch's support does make a difference to politicians, unlike Lord Patten who told the inquiry last month politicians were "kidding themselves" that the mogul had the power to swing elections.

Common sense would tell you Rupert Murdoch supporting David Cameron in the last election made a difference.

3.43pm: The inquiry has resumed and Clifford is asked about politicians and the media.

He says the UK has followed the US model where "image is everything", noting that "David Cameron was a PR man I believe years ago and it shows".

Clifford adds that the media have became far more intrusive over the past 20 years; "the kind of things Winston Churchill might have got away with, you wouldn't today".

He adds that politicians are guided by the PR people behind the parties.

3.36pm: The inquiry is now taking a short break.

3.35pm: Clifford says Alastair Campbell was mistaken to suspect the news of Cherie Blair's last pregnancy came through phone hacking.

"It was from somebody very close to Cherie Blair who she told, they told me and I told … [Piers] Morgan and he consulted Mr Campbell," says Clifford.

3.35pm: Clifford says he calls in favours as much as he can to help his clients.

 Imogen Thomas. Photograph: John Stillwell/PA

3.34pm: Clifford says glamour model Imogen Thomas went to him because of an affair with a famous footballer.

Clifford called the editor of the Sun and found they didn't have enough to prove it. He advised Thomas to phone the footballer and let him know so he could be on his guard.

"The famous footballer then went to his lawyer and the rest is history," he adds.

3.32pm: Clifford says: "The biggest part of stopping damaging stories – mostly about sex – is anticipation."

3.29pm: Clifford says most of his clients pay him £200,000 to £250,000 a year.

Giving the example of Simon Cowell, he says: "It was initially about promotion, but as he became famous it became more about protection."

Clifford says he introduced Cowell to the Murdochs through his contact with News International's Rebekah Brooks.

3.28pm: Clifford says any replacement to the PCC needs to be well publicised.

"If you need an ambulance you know who to call," he adds. "If you are facing a potential media nightmare you need to know who to call."

3.25pm: Clifford says part of his job is damage limitation – stopping stories getting into the paper.

"Public relations is about anticipation. If you were aware of a problem you can do something about it," he says.

"You have to have a strong and independent PCC," he adds. "Members of the public have no protection."

The new body must be well funded and the press should not have a controlling financial interest in the new regulator.

He says there is no place for serving editors on the body, but there might be room for a retired editor.

However, he quips: "I wouldn't want to see Kelvin MacKenzie on the board."

 Robert Murat. Photograph: Luis Forra/EPA

3.22pm: Clifford also represented Robert Murat, who sued over stories libelling him in relation to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Clifford says Murat was "bordering on suicide" and he was happy to help.

Murat won £600,000 from four newspapers in 2008 in relation to the coverage.

He said the PCC was useless in relation to Murat.

3.22pm: Clifford says a huge market has grown up in the past 20 years for celebrity stories.

"To me it's always been much to do about little but it's became a big industry," he adds.

3.21pm: The Guardian's Josh Halliday has just tweeted: 

Josh Halliday@JoshHalliday

Clifford: "I'd rather enjoy my sex life than read about other peoples' sex lives". Leveson removes glasses and rubs his face. #Leveson

 9 Feb 12 Reply

Retweet

Favorite

3.19pm: Barr asks about another famous Sun headline – this time from 1992 when the paper revealed then Conservative MP David Mellor allegedly had sex with (his client) Antonia de Sancha wearing a Chelsea football shirt.

Clifford says he has no idea if that was true and he didn't give that to the paper. De Sancha gave the interview and the only people who know what Mellor wore were her and the MP.

3.16pm: Clifford says he couldn't ever justify the Sun's famous "Freddie Starr ate my hamster" headline as being in the public interest.

He says someone went to the Sun in 1986 that Starr had eaten his hamster after he fell out with a friend who was her boyfriend.

Clifford phoned Starr, who denied it. His manager denied it, and they both asked him to stop the story. Clifford phoned Kelvin MacKenzie, the then editor of the Sun.

Clifford said to him that Starr denied it but he was more than happy for it to go in because the comedian was about to go on tour and it would be great publicity for him.

"I was happy to encourage – it I was looking after Freddie's career," Clifford says.

3.13pm: David Barr, junior counsel to the inquiry, raises a Guardian article in which Clifford said only 20% of his stories would pass a public interest test.

3.11pm: Clifford says the woman who organised the Max Mosley orgy came to him after the News of the World threatened to identify her.

Not everybody that goes to me is looking for money. Sometimes they want justice, or just a question of 'stopping things' – for example with Max Mosley. Within a period of time the women who had organised Mosely's entertainemnt came to me. There was no Nazi theme to this at all.

What she said was that "the NoW are now trying to say to me there was a Nazi theme … and if I dont they will put my name all over the paper."

Clifford rang the NoW and it didn't run the story.

3.07pm: Clifford says newspapers can destroy people: "Potentially they destroy people, they also do a lot of good things, wonderful things."

He adds that if we didn't have a free press we wouldn't know about scandals such as MPs' expenses.

However, he adds: "Some of the most successful papers are the most savage. People prefer to read nasty things about others than to read nice things".

3.05pm: Clifford says he believes editors are now frightened – partly because of the Leveson inquiry, partly because of the public backlash following the Dowlers' and McCanns' testimony at the inquiry.

"That sent shockwaves throughout Fleet Street, particularly tabloids," he says. "[I have heard people] wouldn't run with something because of the Leveson inquiry."

However, he says the change in newsroom culture post-hacking, post-Dowler is "a good thing".

3.03pm: Clifford says he became "increasingly aware" of phone hacking. He believes hacking was confined to a few people under pressure to get stories.

"Methods became more and more creative," he adds. "In my view that was what was going on … a tiny minority, a cancer that now hopefully has been cut out."

2.56pm: Clifford came to a settlement with News International after being told by police his phone had been hacked. It was unusual in that it was negotiated with Rebekah Brooks herself. He says:

It was over a quiet lunch … It was £220,000 a year for three years plus all my legal costs.

Part of the deal was that Clifford would provide story tips to the paper. He adds:

The whole package came to just under £1m. We shook hands, there was no contract which I didn't until News of the World lawyers revealed the details of my settlement.

2.52pm: PR veteran Max Clifford has taken the stand.

2.50pm: Stanistreet has now finished her evidence.

2.49pm: Stanistreet says she thinks Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre's proposal for accrediting journalists as a kind of kitemark is a "ridiculous notion".

She adds that it's impractical, unworkable and would put all the blame on journalists.

2.48pm: Stanistreet says the union was in the process of kicking Webb out when he resigned.

She adds that he had a press card, and has been asked to return it.

2.47pm: Stanistreet adds: "I also find it staggering that an organisation would instruct, as Webb alleges, that someone who has been working as a investigator [to join the NUJ] … the conceit of it, an organisation that does not let an independent union cross its threshold."

2.42pm: Patry Hoskins asks Stanistreet about private investigator Derek Webb, who became an NUJ member while he was undertaking surveillance for the News of the World.

Stanistreet explains that the News of the World and the Sun refuse to recognise the NUJ and News International have set up their own staff organistion called NISA. This is not considered an independent organisation.

Webb subimtted an application form backed by a proposer and seconder, who were both "journalists in good standing", she says.

He described himself as a "freelance researcher" on the application form.

Stanistreet says most freelance applications are asked to supply examples of their work, but researchers don't have bylined material.

Pressed on whether Webb really qualified for membership, she says: "I don't believe he was eligible for membership of the NUJ."

2.38pm: Another testimony came from a freelancer working on casual shifts for the past four years.

"The culture in most newsrooms can be really intimidating especially if you are a young journalist," they said.

As a shift worker, they did the same job as others, but didn't get the same benefits and felt unable to speak out as they couldn't afford to lose their job.

They said newsrooms also use a huge number of interns to work for free which undermines the journalist's chances of getting on even more.

They said they haven't hacked phones "but there is someone in every newsroom who can turn round ex-directory numbers".

Stantistreet says this is common in newsrooms. Some papers force shifters to take unpaid leave when they come to the end of their 12-month contract before they can employ them again.

2.37pm: Another journalist with more than 20 years' experience said a proprietor demanded anti-asylum stories, either in person or through the editor.

2.35pm: Another journalist said they added "substantiating quotes" which were "often entirely made up" to copy. If he did not, they would "magically appear" anyway.

2.34pm: Another reported discussed Islamophobia.

Whenever they complained, or removed parts of the articles they were asked to write, they would somehow find that bits of the article would find their way back into the article when published.

When the journalist complained, they were portrayed as the "token leftie" in the newsroom and then "targeted" to write the most stories about Islam. The journalist said they were in tears but they were nontheless their bosses continued to do this. They eventually resigned.

2.33pm: Former News of the World showbiz editor Dan Wootton has just tweeted:

Ben Fenton@benfenton

@danwootton What is, Dan? I've done about 30 tweets in past half hour.

 Dan Wootton✔

@danwootton

@benfenton This anon evidence. I was there from 2007 to 2011 and don't recognise it. Fact they don't give dates or any context is silly.

 9 Feb 12 Reply

Retweet

Favorite

2.31pm: A fifth journalist has worked at the NoW and several other nationals over 25 years. They described "ritual humiliation" at the paper.

2.29pm: The Guardian's Josh Halliday has just tweeted:

Josh Halliday@JoshHalliday

Another ex-NoTW journalist claims in NUJ evidence that hacking was "endemic" in industry and "tip of the iceberg" at that paper #Leveson

 9 Feb 12 Reply

Retweet

Favorite

2.25pm: Another ex-News of the World journalist said they had heard hearsay evidence that other papers used Trojans on computers, ie placing a computer program onto a computer in order to discover what's on a hard drive.

Reading his testimony, Patry Hoskins says over six months they learned from an investigator how to construct a Trojan" and after a period of trial and error they found they could get stories using a method "better than from bugging, theft of bribery".

They add that they only targeted people who worked abroad but this was to ensure they didn't draw the attention of the British police.

2.23pm: The Guardian's Josh Halliday has just tweeted:

Josh Halliday@JoshHalliday

"We've all been brutalised by that organisation but doesn't mean we're not telling truth" - ex-NoTW hack anonymous statement #Leveson

 9 Feb 12 Reply

Retweet

Favorite

2.22pm: The journalist said they have no reason to believe things have changed. Executives talked openly about them on a newspaper they worked on; "those who objected were rebuked publicly," they added.

Some of those who practised the dark arts have been promoted to senior positions, even to the most senior position on a newspaper, they claimed.

2.19pm: Stanistreet heard from a fourth journalist, who had 32 years' experience in local and regional newspapers and broadsheet and tabloid and broadcasting. This journalist is still working in newspapers and TV.

They became aware of "dark arts" practised on newspapers in the 1980s. They learned journalists regularly used private investigators, met the PI and worked with him on several stories.

The PI was able to furnish the journalists with Police National Computer checks, social security records and frequently provided the most up to date addresses for people which was "invaluable".

2.17pm: Clive Goodman, the former royal editor of the News of the World, said he was well paid and senior but still "came under a lot of flak" in front of 20 to 25 people at the paper's news conference.

"There was no doubt in my mind, he was under intense pressure to deliver," said the anonymous witness.

2.14pm: The inquiry is back to anonymous evidence from another journalist, this time with six years' experience, including the News of the World.

It describes constant bullying, including emails sent about his weight

Young reporters were made wear stupid costumes for stories; they cite an example of a reporter "having to go head to toe in meat" following Lady Gaga's appearance at an awards ceremony two years ago. This was "sexist and degrading", they said.

2.13pm: Leveson says just because there are some examples of poor behaviour does not mean journalism has been tarnished; much reporting is of great value

2.11pm: Stanistreet says journalists feel that newspapers' managers have also betrayed them as they tried to pin the blame on them.

2.08pm: The journalist said the freelance situation is as bad.

They said the money was terrible, freelancers were expected to use their own laptop and car. They were "expected to pull stories out of the bag just like staffers", who were on much better conditions. Quite often it was difficult to claim expenses.

"Being pragmatic, if you did what Sean Hoare did or Paul McMullan did, you don't work in the iindustry again – their reputations have been trashed," they said.

The journalist added that they feelsjournalists have been betrayed and have been "vilified by Leveson in the public domain".

2.04pm: The first testimony comes from a journalist with more than 30 years' experience on national titles and worked on the News of the World for three years

There was "tremendous pressure"; they were given "impossible tasks" and if they didn't deliver they would be considered a failure, they said.

"There was a real military chain of command and you did what you were told … if you want a career in the future you shut up and keep quiet," they said.

"The culture is macho, it pervades the industry."

2.03pm: All the journalists whose evidence she has supplied are still working in the industry. The submissions have been redacted to exclude names, names of papers and specific incidents which might identify newspapers, apart from the News of the World. This follows directions given by Lord Justice Leveson.

1.59pm: Stanistreet says these are not individual journalists with a gripe against their newspaper, but a consistent picture.

Some she spoke to "were too scared about their experiences being shared with the inquiry, petrified".

The issues she raises in the evidence include bullying, sexual harassment and cases of journalists being put under "intolerable pressure". She says these are similar to the ones that the NUJ deals with every day; sadly the experiences are "prevalent within the industry today".

1.56pm: The inquiry has resumed and Michelle Stanistreet, general secretary of the National Union of Journalists, is asked about anonymous evidence from members.

She explains none of the 40 or so journalists she spoke to wanted to give evidence publicly.

"Sadly that's not an option [to give evidence publicly]," she says.

In her written submission, she says this was for fear of punishment, being "thrashed" by others in the industry and the fear of not being employed.

1.30pm: Dan Sabbagh's story on how Ian Edmondson's evidence contradicted former boss Colin Myler's testimony is now live. It says:

The former news editor of the News of the World has contradicted evidence given to the Leveson inquiry by his one time editor Colin Myler over what a spokesman for the McCanns was told about the planned publication of Kate McCann's diary by the now closed Sunday tabloid in 2008.

Ian Edmondson, giving evidence to the inquiry on Thursday, said he was instructed by Myler to call Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns public relations representative, and tell him only in "very woolly" terms that the newspaper would be running a story about them without giving the family any indication that the tabloid was going to publish her diaries in full.

The editor's instruction, Edmondson said, was to give Mitchell the impression "that we were running a story, but not tell him specifically what story" and that "certainly don't tell him [Mitchell] that we were in possession of the complete diaries". Myler, Edmondson added, was "frightened that if Clarence knew what we had, he might take action".

Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, asked Edmondson what was the purpose of "having an ambiguous or woolly conversation?" Edmondson replied that the purpose would be "in order to blame Clarence Mitchell that he hadn't acted properly upon instructions" if there was a row post-publication.

1.23pm: We now have a transcript of Ian Edmondson's claim that he was told by News of the World editor Colin Myler not to tell Kate McCann's PR adviser that the paper had her diaries:

Jay: The McCann diary story. May I start by reminding us all of Mr Myler's version – or rather, his evidence, pardon me. Tab 8, page 89. This is part of the transcript of his evidence given on 14 December last year. Particularly at line 20, I think, but we can skim read a little bit earlier on but can I just try and get to the heart of this. The question was: "But did Mr Edmondson make it clear to you that he had made it clear to Mr Mitchell that he had the whole diary and was going to cause extracts from it to be published in the News of the World?

Edmondson: That's what he led me to believe, yes.

Jay: Because reading the transcript, and this is something which you didn't, of course, see at the time, the transcript of the conversation "... And then we identified the transcript."

Edmondson: Mm-hm.

Jay: Or maybe it's not necessary to go on, because we're then trying to interpret the transcript, about which you give clear evidence. But the gist of it is, the bit I read out between lines 20 and 24. Can I seek to deal with your evidence carefully in this way: first of all, you make it clear that your only conversation with Mr Mitchell was on Friday, 12 September 2008; is that right?

Edmondson: That is right.

Jay: Recalling the conversation, what is your evidence in relation to that. I think you say it's standard practice?

Edmondson: Yes, it was. Jay: Were you given an instruction to do so on this occasion?

Edmondson: I was, yes. Jay: By?

Edmondson: Colin Myler. Jay: Do you know why you were given that instruction?

Edmondson: Reinforcing please tape it – and it was standard practice to tape those types of phone calls and I might even say that to a reporter but I would reinforce it.

Jay: But was it standard practice to make it clear to your interlocutor that the call was being recorded?

Edmondson: No.

Jay: And why not?

Edmondson: You wouldn't get, in general terms, a true conversation.

Jay: Because?

Edmondson: They would play to the camera.

Jay: Do you feel that it's entirely a frank and honest procedure to conduct an interview with someone but not make it clear that it's being recorded?

Edmondson: Yes, I do.

Jay: Because?

Edmondson: Accuracy.

Jay: Obviously it gives you concrete evidence (overspeaking) subject to experting what's being said, one understands that, but is there not an element of deception – or maybe I can put is slightly lower than that, because that, I think, is a slightly sort of sinister tone, but at least an element of misleading the person you're speaking to that you are recording them and therefore it might be used to (overspeaking)?

Edmondson: I think that's fair.

Jay: But your feeling is, well, if you did make it clear that it was being recorded, then they would do what?

Edmondson: I would imagine freeze up, not talk to you freely, not talk to you honestly. They might not want to talk to you at all. A number of things.

Jay: I can see that they might not want to talk to you at all, but you think if we did make it clear to them that this he were being taped, there would be more incentive to be dishonest during the course (overspeaking)?

Edmondson: I would say that's fair, yes. Jay: Had there been occasions when you've had conversations with people which haven't been recorded?

Edmondson: I'm sure there has been, but certainly not on a call that is paramount to a story, and something that might be used later on as evidence

The third question which was put to you in a written notice, which we see at the bottom of page 60272, the question was this: "During the during the course of that conversation (conversation with Mr Mitchell] did you make it clear to Mr Mitchell that the News of the World had obtained a copy of Dr Kate McCann's personal diary from a source who had ... (reading to the words)... intended to write a story based on that diary quoting verbatim from it? If so, please identify with reference to the transcript of your conference where you made it clear." And then your answer, please, Mr Edmondson?

Edmondson: I didn't make it clear.

Jay: And you say because you were given express instructions by Mr Myler?

Edmondson: Correct. Jay: When did he give you those instructions? Can you recall?

Edmondson: From memory, at a meeting on Thursday of that week.

Jay: Why did he give you those instructions?

Edmondson: I attended a meeting with Mr Myler and Tom Crone where we discussed this story. I think we got the story to a point where I was prepared to present it to Tom and Colin, the editor. Colin gave – sorry, I beg your pardon – Tom gave his legal view, which I'm told I'm not allowed to repeat, but which dismayed, shall I say, Mr Myler. So he decided to ask me to make a call to Mr Mitchell, not make it clear what we had, telling him in general terms, basically make it very woolly. I think someone previously used the word "ambiguous" – that is absolutely spot on what he wanted.

Jay: So the preferred outcome for the end point of the conversation with Mr Mitchell would be what?

Edmondson: To give him the expression that we were running a story, but not tell him specifically what story, certainly don't tell him that we were in possession of the complete diaries, as we understood. There had been extracts in the diaries – of the diaries in Portuguese papers which had been translated into the English papers, but certainly not to the sent that we had. He was frightened that if Clarence knew what we had, he might take action.

Well, he would do – was the fear that he would, at the very least, tell his clients, the McCanns, what was going on?

Edmondson: Correct.

Jay: ...and they would certainly get back to Mr Myler by phone.

Edmondson: Correct.

Jay: Or make an application for an injunction to stop the News of the World publishing? Is that what it amount to?

Edmondson: That's exactly what it would.

Jay: What was the purpose, though, of having an ambiguous or woolly conversation, as you've described? What was the you intention? That you would have Mr Mitchell's part assent? Could you put it in your own words?

Edmondson: Yeah, it would be in order to blame Clarence Mitchell that he hadn't acted properly upon instructions.

Jay: I see. And was that part of Mr Myler's thinking?

Edmondson: That was his thinking. Jay: Was it Mr Crone's thinking?

Edmondson: No.

Jay: So you presumably were uneasy in carrying out these instructions?

Edmondson: Yes. I had an alternative, which I presented to Mr Myler. He was the only one to have Gerry McCann's mobile number, and up until that point, he had a reasonable or very good relationship with him, and I thought he could argue that we could work collaboratively to get the diaries in the paper, and that was my suggestion.

Jay: And what was Mr Myler's reaction to that suggestion?

Edmondson: No.

Jay: Because?

Edmondson: I think he believed, from memory, and I can't be sure, that that wouldn't be a successful outcome.

Jay: I understand. So you were sent out to make it call and presumably in the light of the evidence you're giving to us, you felt uneasy by what you were being asked to do?

Edmondson: Yeah, I'd developed a very good relationship with Clarence and I liked him a lot. I felt very uneasy.

Jay: Why did you do it then?

Edmondson: I was told to.

Jay: Do you feel that this was a sort of one-off, because we're looking at this one example, or do you feel it's part of a general sort of system or culture or practice, however you want to put it, and this is just one exemptfication of that?

Edmondson: I must admit I can't remember an occasion of this ill be. I'm sure there was occasions where an editor both want you to effectively deceive someone, yes.

Jay: So there were other occasions of deception, to use your word, but this was a particularly egregious (overspeaking)?

Edmondson: I think it is, yes.

12.58pm: The inquiry is now breaking for lunch and will return at 1.55pm.

12.50pm: Stanistreet says she does not believe any of these individuals colluded in their evidence; she did not ask any of them if they had spoken to the Guardian's investigative journalist Nick Davies.

Contemporaneous notes were taken of all interviews, she says, and she typed them up immediately afterwards. She did not record the interviews.

Patry Hoskins gets from confirmation Stanistreet that the two of them met yesterday to discuss the interview notes. Patry Hoskins says she saw nothing that would undermine the witnesses' evidence.

12.43pm: Stanistreet is asked about her second statement, which deals with the union's appeal for journalists to give anonymous evidence to the inquiry.

About 40 journalists got in touch as a result. She personally interviewed them either face to face or on the telephone. Some gave evidence in writing.

Stanistreet has reported what 12 of them told her, as some individuals' feedback discussed their general views of the inquiry so far; others didn't want their evidence shared, even in confidence.

She says she didn't reject any examples of positive comments. "Sadly I haven't had a queue of journalists wanting to share news of great experiences in the newsroom," she adds.

12.43pm: "It's vital that journalists have the protection of an independent trade union within their workplace," says Stanistreet.

Some papers are hostile to the NUJ, she adds.

12.38pm: In her opening statement Stanistreet says the NUJ has campaigned for a conscience clause for many years and everything she has heard at the inquiry to date shows how vital it is that every journalist has such protection.

 Leveson inquiry: Michelle Stanistreet

12.36pm: Michelle Stanistreet, general secretary of the National Union of Journalists, has taken the stand.

She is being questioned by Carine Patry Hoskins, junior counsel to the inquiry.

12.36pm: Mills has now completed her evidence.

12.33pm: Mills says there needs to be "huge penalties, not these small amounts that don't make any difference to large organisations".

She says the PCC needs to be "absolutely 100% changed". She adds the new regulator also needs to take account that the expense of taking a newspaper is prohibitive for most of the public.

Mills adds that all photographers should be licensed, and they could be struck off if they harass people.

She adds:

The biggest problem is they [the public] feel helpless … I feel if all photographers, paps, are llicensed and that no newspaper can use a photograph unless it's from a licensed photographer … then they can be struck off should they cross the line in that area.

12.33pm: Mills says that Sunday Mirror editor Tina Weaver ran a story accusing her of misdirecting charity money even though she was told it was untrue.

12.29pm: Mills says she complained to the PCC many times. Initially she was unaware of the body and launched libel actions.

She praises the work of the PCC director, Stephen Abell, who she says tried to act as a mediator.

However, she says editors were judging themselves on the PCC and complaints only resulted in "postage stamp" sized apologies.

12.28pm: Mills says newspapers only give "postage stamp" sized apologies even after going to court.

Until there is a disincentive for them to write so many lies and untruths and abusive comments, it's going to continue. If I was an editor and I knew I was going to be embarrassed every week with front-page apologies I would make sure every story was correct.

12.25pm: Mills said coverage of her in the press was fine until she met Paul McCartney in 1999 and then it was "'one-legged bitch', 'cow' and every gutter word you can think of".

12.24pm: Ian Edmondson's witness statement has now been published on the Leveson inquiry website.

12.20pm: On the video, Showed photographers are shown apparently trying to get a shot of Mills's house through a fence. One photographer apparently says "we don't just turn up … we do it because we are being asked to do it".

They are also shown chasing her when driving, and there is the dramatic noise of screeching tyres and a car smash.

Mills makes statements on the DVD about pursuit, pacticularly by one car, which she says has followed her from Kent to Dorset.

12.19pm: The inquiry has now resumed and is watching Mills's DVD of alleged harassment by photographers.

12.10pm: Financial Times media correspondent Ben Fenton has just tweeted:

Ben Fenton@benfenton

[Leveson taking break ostensibly to get the sound working, but possibly because FA press conference on Capello is about to start - joke ]

 9 Feb 12 Reply

Retweet

Favorite

12.07pm: The inquiry is now taking a short break while it prepares to show Mills's DVD.

12.05pm: Mills talks about harassment of herself and her family. She says she was assaulted in Brighton and she was told she needed to get evidence by police because the photographers can legally stand outside the door.

She then proceeded to film everything; she has 65 hours of abuse and harassment by the paparazzi.

There are awful things, going over pavements when mothers are pushing prams … we have 60-odd hours of video footage if the court ever needs to see that.

12.01pm: Jay asks about a 2006 article written by Piers Morgan in the Daily Mail in which he said he had listened to a message McCartney left on Mills's mobile phone – but refused to reveal his source.

She says she never shared her voicemails with anyone.

Asked if she ever gave Morgan permission to listen to the recording, she replies: "Never ever."

Jay asks: "Speaking more widely, and it will be my last question on this topic: did you have any reason for sharing a voicemail message with Mr Morgan?"

Mills replies:

No, never. I can't quite believe that he would even try and insinuate, a man that's written nothing but awful things about me for years, would absolutely relish in telling the court if I had personally played a voicemail message to him.

11.57am: Mills says she was contacted by a former Trinity Mirror employee later that day who said had heard the message.

The employee said the paper had she had had an argument with McCartney and it had heard him singing on her phone. She said that they could only know that if they had been listening to her messages, and the employee laughed.

Jay makes it clear that this person was a Trinity Mirror employee, not Piers Morgan or anyone then working for him at the Daily Mirror.

The story was never reported.

11.50am: Mills is asked about a voicemail left for her by her then husband Sir Paul McCartney. Piers Morgan claimed in his book that he had heard the voicemail, which has given rise to allegations that it was obtained by phone hacking. Morgan was asked in his evidence about the incident.

Mills says in February 2001 she was on holiday with McCartney. There was an earthquake in Gujerat and she that she wanted to help with prosthetic limbs as she had previously helped in Yugoslavia in this area.

She made contact with Phil Hal, then the editor of Hello! magazine, pretty soon after she had returned from India. She had had a relationship with the magazine – every time they did a story with her they would make a donation to her chosen charity.

She did not know Hall but set up a meeting. He said they needed some pictures if she was going on the trip and he put a photographer on the story.

She started researching what was needed for the trip. She had a row with McCartney and went to stay with a friend.

When she got up there were about 25 messages from McCartney. They said "would I come back and one of them said, please forgive me and sang a little ditty of one of his songs onto voicemail. That afternoon I went back and all was forgiven."

She then deleted the messages; she never recorded them.

Mills was later shown evidence by detactives from Operation Weeting that the private voicemail messages of her and her sister were hacked.

"We were shown my PIN numbers, PUK numbers over three different telephones over a period of five or six years," she says.

She said she can't say if they related to the Vodafone mobile she had in early 2001 because the police wouldn't given them the evidence.

11.49am: Mills has submitted two statements – 20 January and 6 February – and a DVD which the inquiry is going to look at later.

11.46am: Heather Mills is now taking the stand

11.43am: Sky's Michael Greenfield has just tweeted:

Michael Greenfield@SkyGreenfield

Heather Mills has just arrived in the courtroom #Leveson

 9 Feb 12 Reply

Retweet

Favorite

11.40am: The Guardian's head of media and technology, Dan Sabbagh, asked Lily Allen on Twitter what she thought of Darry Lyons's evidence:

Dan Sabbagh@dansabbagh

Would love to know what the likes of Sienna Miller, @MrsLRCooper and others think of this Big Pictures shambles.

 9 Feb 12 Reply

Retweet

Favorite

She replied:

Dan Sabbagh@dansabbagh

Would love to know what the likes of Sienna Miller, @MrsLRCooper and others think of this Big Pictures shambles.

 lilyrosecooper✔

@MrsLRCooper

@dansabbagh not much

 9 Feb 12 Reply

Retweet

Favorite

11.35am: Here is a summary of this morning's evidence so far:

• The former News of the World head of news, Ian Edmondson, has said that the culture of bullying at the paper came from the editor.

• He said he did not draft emails to women in the Max Mosley case, contradicting chief reporter Neville Thurlbeck's evidence.

• He said the editor told him not to tell Kate McCann's PR the paper had her diary.

• Big Pictures boss Darryn Lyons said celebrities use the paparazzi to promote themselves.

11.34am: Edmondson has now completed his testimony and the inquiry is taking a short break.

11.34am: Leveson asks Edmondson some more questions about the Kate McCann diary. Did he or did not make it clear to Clarence Mitchell that he had the entire diary? "No," says Edmondson.

11.32am: The News of the World was an "autocratic" organisation, says Edmondson.

Leveson asks if there was bullying even if staff were in a senior position.

Edmondson replies:

Yes … It is not a democracy at a newspaper – autocratic.

 Colin Myler. Photograph: Oli Scarff/Getty Images

11.30am: Edmondson says Colin Myler was part of the culture of bullying.

"If there wasn't a culture of bullying", then you would have seen a different type of paper, an "alternative product", he adds.

He is asked if there was bullying at the Sunday People where he had worked previously.

"Nowhere near: there were elements of, but it's a considerably smaller paper," he replies.

11.29am: Jay asks if this means the culture of bullying comes from the editor.

Edmondson responds "yes", but says he does not want to go into detail.

Jay says he can understand his diffidence.

11.28am: Edmondson is asked more about bullying.

Edmondson says he has an employment tribunal hearing coming up and his answer may cross over into that.

He says the entire culture of the paper came from the editor.

Every part of the paper is dictated by the editor of the paper … you don't do anything unless you are told to do something.

11.25am: Edmondson says the culture at the paper changed when Myler took over and throughout the industry "for obvious reasons". The paper's staff were given seminars on the PCC and legal briefings.

He is asked whether before Myler's arrival in 2007, there was bullying or unethical behaviour at the paper.

Edmondson says it's on the record that mistakes were made; the culture of the paper changed on Myler's arrival.

Jay makes it clear that he wants Edmondson to answer in terms of everything but phone-hacking, which he cannot ask him about.

Edmondson says there were was huge pressure to get stories.

For everyone one story you get in the paper, nine would be thrown away.

11.24am: The Guardian's head of media and technology, Dan Sabbagh, has just tweeted:

Dan Sabbagh@dansabbagh

This is a big Leveson moment. Edmondson offering a clear account that Colin Myler took the key decision as regards McCann diary publication.

 9 Feb 12 Reply

Retweet

Favorite

11.22am: Edmondson says the paper deceived the McCanns.

"I can't remember an occasion of this ilk," he adds. "I'm sure there were occasions when an editor would want you to effectively deceive someone, yes."

Asked by Jay if there were other occasions an editor would want to deceive someone, but this was a particularly egregious example, he replies: "I think so, yes."

11.20am: Edmondson agrees with Jay that the thinking behind this was to prevent the story being injuncted.

He told Myler, who had Gerry McCann's telephone number, that they could have worked "collaboratively" with the McCanns but Myler said this wouldn't work.

11.18am: Edmondson says he was told to "not make it clear what we had, tell him in general terms, something woolly".

He adds: 

… to give him the impression we were running a story, but not tell him what story, certainy not tell him we were in possesion of the complete diaries. There had been publication of extracts of the diaries in Portugal but not to the extent we had; he was frightened he [Mitchell] would take action.

11.16am: Jay asks about the News of the World's publication of Kate McCann's diary without her permission.

Edmondson says he was instructed by Myler to record a call with the McCanns' press adviser at the time, Clarence Mitchell, regarding the diary. He adds that recording such calls was standard practice.

He says that, on the instruction of Myler, he did not make it clear in the call that the paper had a copy of the diary.

He says he was uncomfortable about this, as he was friends with Mitchell. "I liked Mitchell a lot. I felt uneasy, but I did what I was told."

11.15am: Edmondson says he expressed "very considerable surprise" to Crone over the decision to use surveillance because he did not see such a story getting into the paper.

He told Crone: "I hope you are paying for this."