Closing the News of the World makes no legal difference
All the court cases and the police investigation will continue as before.
By David Allen Green Published 07 July 2011 19:43
Whatever the PR and political merits of the decision to close the News of the World, it makes no legal difference whatsoever in respect of the phone-hacking scandal. The applicable criminal and civil legal obligations are owed by News International and the individuals concerned. All that has happened is a withdrawal of a branded product from the marketplace. The product in question may well be a venerable and famous newspaper, but the law will be blind to this.
The criminal investigation and the civil actions against News International and the relevant individuals will continue as before.
David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















7 comments
All that will happen is that the 'News of The World' sign will be replaced with a more symmetrical 'The Sun on Sunday' - and nothing else will change.
All that will happen is that the 'News of The World' sign will be replaced with a more symmetrical 'The Sun on Sunday' - and nothing else will change. http://www.homeimprovementhq.net/
Is this before more revelations I wonder?
Any kind of attempt at cover up will
not be accepted in any case.
Seems like a political and legal minefield.....I hope!
The first publication of this post also had the sentence "And, of course, the treatment of the purchase of the remaining shares of BSkyB is in no way affected."
This was incorrect as I had completely forgotten that the "plurality" test still is to be appllied.
I apologise for my mistake.
Wow! You don't say! What would we do without your whiz legal brain, eh? Gee, thanks.
what if I told you I could give you back 5 years?
Is there any prospect of action under the Proceeds of Crime Act, ie NOTW bank accounts?