Mulcaire and confidentiality

What impact will the withdraw of litigation funding have?

Since the revelations in the New York Times revived the phone hacking scandal back in September 2010, one of the most puzzling aspects has been the "settlement" agreement that News International had entered into with Glenn Mulcaire. In particular, as was pointed out at Jack of Kent, a conventional settlement agreement made no sense if Mulcaire was not actually an employee to begin with.

Since then, it has become clear that the agreement had two key terms in addition to any cash payment for Mulcaire to compromise all and any legal claims against News International, if he ever had any such claims at all.

First, there was an obligation of confidentiality on Mulcaire. This is standard in such agreements, though in this case it was clearly convenient to News International. A cynic may even suggest that was the whole point.

Second, there appears to have been an indemnity for the payment of Mulcaire's legal fees for defences to civil claims. This may have been tied into a further right of News International to conduct his defence. This would have been sensible from a strategic point of view, as it appears News International was facing a number of actions as co-defendant with Mulcaire.

However, after pressure at yesterday's select committee hearing, it has been announced that this funding of legal costs has been withdrawn. Apart from the direct financial detriment this will have on Mulcaire, it is not clear what impact this will have on either the confidentiality provision or any right of News International to conduct his defence on his behalf. If the agreement is sophisticated and well-drafted, it may be that the indemnity can be dropped without any effect on whether other obligations can be enforced.

In any case, it would now seem that Mulcaire has no direct interest in co-ordinating any defence to the civil claims with News International. He may well feel at least morally released from any obligation of confidentiality. The withdraw of funding his defence may have a significant impact on the course of the outstanding civil claims. In this way, as in many others, the events of this week mean that News International cannot carry on as before.

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman. He is the author of the Jack of Kent blog and can be followed on Twitter and on Facebook.

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman and author of the Jack of Kent blog.

His legal journalism has included popularising the Simon Singh libel case and discrediting the Julian Assange myths about his extradition case.  His uncovering of the Nightjack email hack by the Times was described as "masterly analysis" by Lord Justice Leveson.

David is also a solicitor and was successful in the "Twitterjoketrial" appeal at the High Court.

(Nothing on this blog constitutes legal advice.)

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Jeremy Corbyn may be a Eurosceptic, but he still appeals to the values of many Remainers

He reassures Labour MPs defending majorities in heavily pro-EU areas that things will be OK.

There are two facts about Brexit that everyone seems to forget every few weeks: the first is that Jeremy Corbyn is a Eurosceptic. The second is that the first fact doesn't really matter.

The Labour leader's hostility to the European project is back in the news after he told Andrew Marr that the United Kingdom's membership of the single market was inextricably linked with its EU membership, and added for good measure that the “wholesale importation” of people from Eastern and Central Europe had been used to “destroy” the conditions of workers, particularly in the construction industry.

As George Eaton observes on Twitter, Corbyn voted against the creation of the single market in 1986 (and the Maastricht Treaty, and the Lisbon Treaty, and so on and so on). It would be a bigger shock if the Labour leader weren't advocating for a hard exit from the European Union.

Here's why it doesn't matter: most Labour MPs agree with him. There is not a large number of Labour votes in the House of Commons that would switch from opposing single market membership to supporting it if Corbyn changed his mind. (Perhaps five or so from the frontbenches and the same again on the backbenches.)

There is a way that Corbyn matters: in reassuring Labour MPs defending majorities in heavily pro-Remain areas that things will be OK. Imagine for a moment the reaction among the liberal left if, say, Yvette Cooper or Stephen Kinnock talked about the “wholesale importation” of people or claimed that single market membership and EU membership were one and the same. Labour MPs in big cities and university towns would be a lot more nervous about bleeding votes to the Greens or the Liberal Democrats were they not led by a man who for all his longstanding Euroscepticism appeals to the values of so many Remain voters.

Corbyn matters because he provides electoral insurance against a position that Labour MPs are minded to follow anyway. And that, far more than the Labour leader's view on the Lisbon Treaty, is why securing a parliamentary majority for a soft exit from the European Union is so hard. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.