David Allen Green

A critical and liberal look at law and policy

Reading what Rebekah Brooks says

What today's statement says and does not say.

By David Allen Green Published 05 July 2011 17:18

The statement by Rebekah Brooks on phone hacking is fascinating reading and deserves to be read closely.

Dear All,

When I wrote to you last week updating you on a number of business issues I did not anticipate having to do so again so soon.

However, I wanted to address the company as a matter of urgency in light of the new claims against the News of the World.

We were all appalled and shocked when we heard about these allegations yesterday.

These are not new claims. They have been current in journalistic and media law circles for some time. For example they were mentioned in the recorded conversation between Hugh Grant and Paul McMullan, and they were put to John Yates by the Parliamentary Select Committee. It also appears from Nick Davies and Amelia Hill's report that the News of the World had already freely told the local police.

Note she does not state which "allegations" are appalling and shocking. This will be the major flaw in the statement: it is never clear what facts or allegations are being discussed at any point in what follows.

I have to tell you that I am sickened that these events are alleged to have happened.

Here we have the combination of the legally cautious "alleged" and the emotional "sickened". Again, she does not specify what the alleged "events" are which sicken her.

Not just because I was editor of the News of the World at the time, but if the accusations are true, the devastating effect on Milly Dowler's family is unforgivable.

Now she is combining her editorial responsibility with an appeal to Milly Dowler's family's sensibilities. It is interesting that she cannot even bring herself to devote one entire sentence to her editorial responsibility without trying to deflect attention. Again, the actual "accusations" are not stated.

Our first priority must be to establish the full facts behind these claims. I have written to Mr and Mrs Dowler this morning to assure them News International will vigorously pursue the truth and that they will be the first to be informed of the outcome of our investigation.

More deflection. The intention may be to make it look like News International is "doing something". However, what is glaring is a lack of any denial at all.

Our lawyers have also written to their solicitor Mark Lewis to ask him to show us any of the evidence he has so we can swiftly take the appropriate action.

This is a red herring. It is not for Mark Lewis to provide evidence of wrongdoing at this stage of the claim which the Dowlers are reported to be bringing. One notes that it is not denied that News International has the evidence itself.

At the moment we only know what we have read.

A wonderfully vague statement, which carefully avoids saying that what they read was actually news to them.

Since 2006, when the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) seized the documentation from the private investigator Glen Mulcaire, News International has had no visibility on the evidence available.

The process of discovery is complicated. The MPS first present relevant documents to potential victims. We only see the evidence much later during the legal process.

This all means the documentary and witness "evidence available" of other parties. This statement cannot logically mean any documentary and witness evidence possessed by News International.

This morning, in our regular Operation Weeting meeting, we have offered the MPS our full co-operation to establish the veracity of these fresh allegations.

I have also written to the chief constable of Surrey police. Although their nine year investigation is now complete, I want to offer our co-operation should they intend to discuss this matter with us.

I am determined that News International does everything it can to co-operate fully and pro-actively with the MPS, as we have been doing for some time, to verify the facts so we can respond in a robust and proper way.

This is again send a positive signal that they are "doing something". Again, the lack of a denial is glaring. One can also note that the "robust" phraseology is evocative of previous internal investigations.

It is almost too horrific to believe that a professional journalist or even a freelance inquiry agent working on behalf of a member of the News of the World staff could behave in this way.

Mulcaire was sufficiently closely employed by News of the World to sign a settlement agreement in respect of any employment claims. This is not consistent with the strained label of "freelance inquiry agent". Note the reference to "working on behalf of a member of the News of the World staff" and not "working on behalf of the News of the World".

If the allegations are proved to be true then I can promise the strongest possible action will be taken as this company will not tolerate such disgraceful behaviour.

At what stage will the allegations be "proved to be true"? News International is closing down the civil litigation claims with generous pay outs. The allegations may never be proved in a way to trigger the "strongest possible action". She also does not offer to resign, even though the allegations are about conduct under her "watch". One will recall that Coulson resigned when the allegations were about conduct on his "watch".

I hope that you all realise it is inconceivable that I knew, or worse, sanctioned these appalling allegations.

This is a formulation of almost Clintonesque proportions; but it is not a denial. Also, of course, one does not "sanction" allegations: presumably she means the hacking.

I am proud of the many successful newspaper campaigns at the Sun and the News of the World under my editorship.

In particular, the 10-year fight for Sarah's Law is especially personal to me.

The battle for better protection of children from paedophiles and better rights for the families and the victims of these crimes defined my editorships.

More deflection; this time it is a crass appeal that won't anyone think of the children.

Although these difficult times will continue for many months ahead, I want you to know that News International will pursue the facts with vigour and integrity.

I am aware of the speculation about my position. Therefore it is important you all know that as chief executive, I am determined to lead the company to ensure we do the right thing and resolve these serious issues.

Even though the allegations are not "proved" and that News International wants to see "evidence", she has prejudged the situation as meaning that there could be no conceivable proof and evidence which would make this a resigning matter.

We will face up to the mistakes and wrongdoing of the past and we will do our utmost to see that justice is done and those culpable will be punished.

We will see. Note how "mistakes" are added to "wrongdoing". And note how the word "culpable" is used instead of the word "responsible". Those responsible will not be punished, only the culpable.

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Rebekah Brooks News of the World

More from David Allen Green

View the discussion thread.

47 comments

Wed, 2011-07-06 11:49 — Arthur O'Connor

Good grief - I couldn't be arsed reading a book by the talentless lying inside trader Piers Morgan - but that is open admission of a criminal offense. What are the police doing about it. ?

Wed, 2011-07-06 12:07 — Cj lam (not verified)

Fine analysis but one truth remains - this is no different to the tactics used by business and politicians to maintain their positions while behaving in a manner which suits their needs. We may comment, critisise and be rightly annoyed - behaving in this manner is in effect saying they consider people are far less intelligent than them, they are able to dispel most outraged people in this manner, however, even if the true nature of their position is exposed, by means of an analysis like that provided and additional comment from people, unlike the masses, are able to see such behaviour for what it is, the parties continue in their respective position. The question, therefore, is no longer what was meant in the letter, that is obvious - it is what will people do about parties in a position of power who use these tactics to maintain their position? This question extends beyond the scope of this article to politicians, directors of companies like enron, the banks etc, other than comment what are people going to do to ensure change and that those who lie and cheat to maintain their positions at the expensive of others suffer proper castigation?

Wed, 2011-07-06 12:47 — tuttifrutti (not verified)

@ Arthur O'Connor
The police are taking backhanders while sitting on their hands.

Wed, 2011-07-06 14:02 — Mike Barnes (not verified)

"I am proud of the many successful newspaper campaigns at the Sun and the News of the World under my editorship.

In particular, the 10-year fight for Sarah's Law is especially personal to me.

The battle for better protection of children from paedophiles and better rights for the families and the victims of these crimes defined my editorships."

What on earth does this deranged rant have to do with anything? Even in a letter to defend herself, she's banging on about paedophiles.

"We may have hacked a dead girl's mobile phone, but we ain't no nonces."

Wed, 2011-07-06 14:08 — Lou (not verified)

David,

Can you enlighten me on a matter please. Yesterday in the fall out from the Milly phone hacking scandal, I heard a commentator say that potentially the fact that this evidence was not put before the court in Milly's trial and the fact that it (hacking, deleting of evidence) took place at all, could be grounds for a mistrial application by Milly's murderer and potentially he could walk free.

Is this right?

Wed, 2011-07-06 14:22 — chicgods40

Wonderful.

Share a website with you ,

put this url in google sirch

( http://www.chic-goods.com/ )

Believe you will love it.

We accept any form of payment.

Wed, 2011-07-06 15:34 — Tucola (not verified)

Well, he wouldn't 'walk free', because he's already banged up for other serious offences...

I wouldn't have thought that this ought to be anywhere close to amounting to a mistrial, but then again I am not a criminal lawyer...

Tue, 2011-07-05 17:29 — Duncan (not verified)

"I hope that you all realise it is inconceivable that I knew, or worse, sanctioned these appalling allegations."

One might weep. I'm afraid she gets no benefit of the doubt from me. She's trying to make something that isn't a denial sound exactly like a denial. She has spent her career working out how to say things that sound like assertions when they are merely aspersions, and this is just another one.

Tue, 2011-07-05 17:31 — Carl Gardner (not verified)

A brilliant analysis.

Wed, 2011-07-06 16:09 — Lou (not verified)

Thanks Tucola, forgot about the previous sentences.

Tue, 2011-07-05 17:37 — Phil Alexander (not verified)

Even taking what she probably meant, rather than what she actually said, how on earth can she consider it "inconceivable" for her to have known about the phone hacking going on? I find it not only easy to conceive, but on balance of probabilities more likely that she knew perfectly well what was being done by those on her staff.

Tue, 2011-07-05 17:45 — Jane J (not verified)

This sickens me. Truthfully. The question regarding her personal culpability is that if it was inconcievable that she knew what was going on then she was a bloody poor editor- is that what she's saying? If you are that bad at leadership, resign your post now. If, on the other hand, you profess to be a capable professional then you must admit that you knew and 'sanctioned' everything.Which one is it? Are you amoral, a liar or an idiot? Choose.

Tue, 2011-07-05 17:47 — Richard Morris (not verified)

Brilliant stuff; As I've blogged, like Sharon Shoesmith, Rebekah Brooks needs to learn that with great power comes great responsibility - and responsibility is just as much a reason to resign as blame. http://aviewfromhamcommon.blogspot.com/2011/07/sharon-shoesmith-rebekah-...

Tue, 2011-07-05 17:53 — Zefrog (not verified)

I would add to the above:

"I have to tell you that I am sickened that these events are alleged to have happened."
She is actually telling us that she is sickened by the fact that there were allegations made but not by the events (whatever they are)

"I hope that you all realise it is inconceivable that I knew, or worse, sanctioned these appalling allegations."
Even if she didn't know (and that's hard to believe) this is an admission of total incompetence from someone who should be in charge. And again she is talking about the allegations, not what actually happened

Tue, 2011-07-05 18:08 — Clacker (not verified)

"I hope that you all realise it is inconceivable that I knew, or worse, sanctioned these appalling allegations."

The subject of that sentence is the 'allegations', not the phone-hacking.

Whether or not she knew of or sanctioned the allegations (though evidently she does know of them otherwise why e-mail?!) is immaterial.

Did she know of or sanction the hacking? That's the point. And it isn't addressed here

Tue, 2011-07-05 18:09 — Alex Baldwin (not verified)

"I have to tell you that I am sickened that these events are alleged to have happened."

My reading of this is that she's sickened at the allegations, is that not the first impression to anyone else? I guess most people have felt the sinking feeling of being "busted" for something they thought they had gotten away with.

Tue, 2011-07-05 18:09 — nicolacerisa (not verified)

Excellent. And isn't it disclosure, not discovery? Maybe it's a recycled statement.

Tue, 2011-07-05 18:10 — Alex Baldwin (not verified)

Ah, pipped to the post by Zefrog!

Tue, 2011-07-05 18:10 — Kershan (not verified)

Superb analysis.

Tue, 2011-07-05 18:34 — iain (not verified)

"I hope that you all realise it is inconceivable that I knew..."

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Tue, 2011-07-05 18:43 — Evetsb (not verified)

How is it "inconceivable that (she) knew"? The NotW published a story directly based upon Milly's hacked messages. How is it inconceivable that - as the editor - she would have asked what proof her reporters had that the story was true?

Tue, 2011-07-05 18:51 — brightsider

Nice analysis. I seem to rememebr her coming up with some great formulations at the select committee too, that menat the opposite of what they seemed to say.
Sorry to repeat a comment but this is important. There is clear evidence *in the NOTW itself at the time* that they hacked the late Milly Dowling's phone, as reported the other day in the Guardian. They published (14 April 2002) a story referring to an 'employment agency [that] appears to have phoned her mobile.' How did Rebekah Brooks, as editor, think her reporters had obtained a story entirely based on Milly Dowling's mobile phone messages? How was this stood up? Who approved its inclusion, if not her? Is she saying she was so hands off that she didn't even read a lead story in her own paper? Because, no doubt about it, she would have asked these questions even if she didn't directly authorise it. Would she please now explain this publicly?

Tue, 2011-07-05 19:01 — Lou (not verified)

@brightsider.

You're right. Bang to rights I believe is the expression

Didn't she also refuse to testify before the committee?

Ford UK are withdrawing advertising from the NotW, npower and Halifax are considering their options.

Tue, 2011-07-05 19:11 — Freeman2

Typical media lawyer's letter.

Tue, 2011-07-05 19:16 — mcquade

"I am determined that News International does everything it can to co-operate fully and pro-actively with the MPS... to verify the facts so we can respond in a robust and proper way."

This is surely an admission that NoW has evidence. Otherwise against what will they be verifying the MPS's facts?

Tue, 2011-07-05 19:25 — Lou (not verified)

Nick Robinson said on tonight's news that News Inc had carried out it's own investigations regarding claims about the Soham girls after they were first raised in the House a few weeks ago (by Tom Watson I think) and they found no evidence following their investigations.

Tue, 2011-07-05 19:32 — Clacker (not verified)

According to Robert Peston on BBC R4 6pm news just now, NI are 'not contesting these allegations'.

Surely not? According to Rebecca Brooks' e-mail, as posted above, she, a senior NI executive, finds these 'appalling allegations' 'inconceivable' ...

As an organisation which prides itself in news management (some might say manipulation) News International are clearly adrift at sea today, in a total flap.

According to Peston there are worse revelations yet to come.

Tue, 2011-07-05 19:50 — Matt (not verified)

It would be fascinating to strap her in to a polygraph and only allow yes/no answers.

Tue, 2011-07-05 20:15 — Lou (not verified)

C4 news is breaking a story the gist of which is that NI were hacking and following a murder detective investigating a murder linked to PI suspects who had links to News Inc. So concerned were the police that they mobilised a counter surveillance eram. Apparently Brooks was informed at the time.

Tue, 2011-07-05 20:45 — Touristfromtheguture (not verified)

How she imagines this B$ will be swallowed by the great British Public is beyond me. A nice forensic piece - she should resign now.

Tue, 2011-07-05 21:23 — ManCityThad

Any CEO is responsible for the culture of their organisation which should be built on a set of values or fundamental principles. What does this all say about the values of NoW and NI? Integrity, honesty,fairness: I think not.

This issue is similar to the need for CEOs to be tried for corporate manslaughter. They can't excuse themselves by saying they didn't know about a health and safety risk.

Rebekah Brooks is manifestly corporately responsible for these actions.

She must go!

Tue, 2011-07-05 21:48 — Stuby (not verified)

All very disturbing.Despite the occasional sacrificial lamb resignation to appease & blaming a "single rogue journalist", this just wont go away & nor should it until we find out the real truth.The allegations are far too serious.Too many Questions need answering.This is all so abhorrent. Reeks of Blackmail & collusion with the Met Police with deals done to stifle the truth.Truly frightening. Murdochs surely too tainted now to allow his takeover of BskyB to be @ least delayed until this is cleared up. Former editors investigating themselves with links to Cameron.....We need & deserve a Public Enquiry now for our societys sake.

Tue, 2011-07-05 21:53 — Graeme Hancocks (not verified)

The Wicked Witch of Wapping at her wicked worst...what a bitch.

Tue, 2011-07-05 22:11 — Awelon (not verified)

Go to http://www.avaaz.org/en/murdoch_messages_2/96.php

www(dot)Avaaz(dot)org

To write to Hunt and Cameron... this is just unacceptable

Tue, 2011-07-05 22:19 — Burt Renolds (not verified)

Wrong I know her personally and whatever the analysis of the text it should be of character and this is not what she would set out to do.
End of story.

Tue, 2011-07-05 22:35 — Awelon (not verified)

@burt
Looking at tomorrow's Independent (6/7/11) it is clear she is without blame:
http://twitpic.com/5lq1db

Tue, 2011-07-05 23:06 — Marcusbailius (not verified)

Ever since I heard the phrase "non-denial denial" uttered by the late, great Jason Robards in the film "All The President's Men"...
Wondering if what happens next is that Wade herself is hung out to dry in order to protect those higher up...

Tue, 2011-07-05 23:06 — Stuby (not verified)

@ burt (must be a wind up)
"Wrong I know her personally and whatever the analysis of the text it should be of character and this is not what she would set out to do.

End of story".
Please expand I think its a bit more than a "story".So who is actually responsible then? No questions asked about the "freelance"source & paying the Met Police "Yes we paid police ... and future payments depends on the situation"
Speaking to the Select committee with Andy Coulson.

Wed, 2011-07-06 00:51 — Dave Goldman (not verified)

Writing from the US, where we have to deal with Murdoch but not Rebekah Brooks: From what I'm reading, Brooks seems absolutely amoral and capable of anything. Is that her reputation in the UK? Does she have any credibility?

Wed, 2011-07-06 01:08 — Lou (not verified)

It gets worse. BBC and Sky news are reporting a family member of a 7/7 victim is also alleged to be a hacking victim. This is going to run and run

Wed, 2011-07-06 01:12 — Clacker (not verified)

@Dave Goldman

No, she has no credibility over here journalistically or otherwise.

On a personal level, she had a failed marriage the reasones behind which have -thus far - been hushed up (allegedly)

Thu, 2011-07-07 21:59 — Michael (not verified)

I'll bet the News of the World shredding machines will be working flat out for the next couple of weeks

Wed, 2011-07-06 23:54 — ksquared (not verified)

God, the woman can't write English. How reassuring that she runs half the UK media. I mean, apart from the fact that she is clearly utterly self serving and lacks any moral compass whatsoever.

Wed, 2011-07-06 09:45 — zhongzko

Believe you will love it.

welcome to: http://www.jordansforking.com

Quickly snapping up right

Wed, 2011-07-06 10:42 — Arjan (not verified)

Ms. Brooks' email to staff reminds me of the phrase the Benjamin Bradlee character used in "All the President's Men". It is a non-denial denial. The fact that after having had much time to investigate she still is unable to unequivocally deny that she knew of the hacking must mean that in fact she did know.

The mere fact that she chooses to stay on says more about her and her character than anything she could ever say or do from now onwards.

Wed, 2011-07-06 11:16 — frugalp

Has anybody here read Piers Morgan's book 'The Insider'? In it he details how, when he was editor of the NOTW, he got Rebecca Wade to dress up as a cleaner to enter the Sunday Times offices and steal one of the first copies off the press of the paper which included a story about a book on Prince Charles by Jonathan Dimbleby the Sunday Times editor wouldn't give to their sister paper. Morgan then stole the story and printed it in full in the NOTW. Obviously it's tame stuff compared to these Milly Dowler hacking accusations, but it goes to show that these people are capable of doing absolutely anything to get a good story.