Tom Crone is gone

An unexpected event in the News International crisis.

Tom Crone has left News International. These are words one would never have expected to type. The sudden closure last week of News of the World was a shock; but to those in the small world of media law this is a development of a similar magnitude. One would have expected the ravens to depart the Tower of London before Tom Crone ceased to be the legal manager of News International.

The remarkable thing about Tom Crone is the high regard he is held by all those who deal with him, journalists and lawyers alike. The phrase "well-respected" invariably accompanies his name both in print and private conversations. Notwithstanding the odours of the Sun and the News of the World in particular, and of the legal and tabloid worlds more generally, his reputation indicated that a lawyer can have a good name in a bad job.

Hence the surprise at his departure. It would be wrong to speculate as to the exact circumstances. No one can tell whether it is part of a damage limitation plan, or that there has been an adverse event. His exact involvement in any high-level strategy in respect of phone hacking or in the dealings with the Met might never be fully known: much of his role may (rightly) be cloaked by legal professional privilege. After all, lawyers advise, but it is their clients that decide.

And from one perspective, the circumstances may not matter. There are certain events the significance of which lies in themselves. This is one such event, for this news means there is perhaps only one individual connected with News International whose departure would be even more unthinkable: Rupert Murdoch.

 

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of New Statesman. He was a contributor to a previous edition of Crone's Law and the Media.

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.)

Getty
Show Hide image

How Theresa May laid a trap for herself on the immigration target

When Home Secretary, she insisted on keeping foreign students in the figures – causing a headache for herself today.

When Home Secretary, Theresa May insisted that foreign students should continue to be counted in the overall immigration figures. Some cabinet colleagues, including then Business Secretary Vince Cable and Chancellor George Osborne wanted to reverse this. It was economically illiterate. Current ministers, like the Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, Chancellor Philip Hammond and Home Secretary Amber Rudd, also want foreign students exempted from the total.

David Cameron’s government aimed to cut immigration figures – including overseas students in that aim meant trying to limit one of the UK’s crucial financial resources. They are worth £25bn to the UK economy, and their fees make up 14 per cent of total university income. And the impact is not just financial – welcoming foreign students is diplomatically and culturally key to Britain’s reputation and its relationship with the rest of the world too. Even more important now Brexit is on its way.

But they stayed in the figures – a situation that, along with counterproductive visa restrictions also introduced by May’s old department, put a lot of foreign students off studying here. For example, there has been a 44 per cent decrease in the number of Indian students coming to Britain to study in the last five years.

Now May’s stubbornness on the migration figures appears to have caught up with her. The Times has revealed that the Prime Minister is ready to “soften her longstanding opposition to taking foreign students out of immigration totals”. It reports that she will offer to change the way the numbers are calculated.

Why the u-turn? No 10 says the concession is to ensure the Higher and Research Bill, key university legislation, can pass due to a Lords amendment urging the government not to count students as “long-term migrants” for “public policy purposes”.

But it will also be a factor in May’s manifesto pledge (and continuation of Cameron’s promise) to cut immigration to the “tens of thousands”. Until today, ministers had been unclear about whether this would be in the manifesto.

Now her u-turn on student figures is being seized upon by opposition parties as “massaging” the migration figures to meet her target. An accusation for which May only has herself, and her steadfast politicising of immigration, to blame.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

0800 7318496