Why the Times should apologise over NightJack

The emerging questions over the hacking of a blogger's email account.

It is today reported that Tom Watson MP is calling for James Harding, the editor of the Times, to return to the Leveson inquiry to answer questions about the hacking of the email account of NightJack.

But what should the questions be?

Over at Jack of Kent I have started to put together a detailed chronology of the hacking of the NightJack account together with information about other computer hacking. Looking carefully at what can so far be established, there are a number of questions which at least could usefully be posed to the editor of the Times.

It may be that the specific hacking incident is less important than the decisions -- taken by managers and executives -- which followed. After all, the journalist admitted the incident to his managers, and he was disciplined. There is no point making him the scapegoat for this, even though there might be a natural tendency for culpable senior figures to shift the blame downwards.

On the basis of the information so far collected, it would appear to me that three particular managerial or editorial issues need to be addressed.

First, why were NightJack's lawyers and the High Court not informed of the hack? The Times has admitted that it knew of the hack before publication. As the story was eventually published the day after the court handed down judgment, this can only mean that the Times knew while the litigation was live or during the period the paper was waiting for the judge to deliver the judgment.

In either case, it would appear to me that the fact of the computer hacking really should have been disclosed. There can be no doubt that the blogger's lawyers would have sought to rely on it. As it was, the blogger's lawyers were forced to concede that there had been no invasion of privacy or breach of confidentiality.

Second, there does seem to be uncertainty as to who within News International knew about the incident and it seems odd that it was not disclosed to the Department of Culture Media and Sport select committee in November 2011 .

Here dates are important. The hacking incident was disclosed to the Leveson inquiry in those three witness statements dated 14 October 2011. (One of these statements -- from the CEO of News International, Tom Mockridge -- contains a material inaccuracy which was corrected by a further witness statement of 16 December 2011, which refers interestingly to "further enquiries".)

But on 10 November 2011 James Murdoch appeared at the DCMS committee and was asked a number of detailed questions by Tom Watson about computer hacking. It is clear from the answers that Murdoch either was completely unaware of the computer hacking incident (notwithstanding the three witness statements submitted to the Leveson inquiry only the month before) or was being very careful not to tell the committee about it when being directly asked.

Third, it is clear that the Leveson inquiry has so far been told relatively little about the 2009 computer hack. It was only by comparing four witness statements that one could work out any detail about what happened. No mention was made in those statements as to whether the hack had been in relation to a published story, or (perhaps significantly for Leveson) that there had actually been privacy litigation relevant to the story which was published.

Given that following the coverage here, and by David Leigh at the Guardian, the Times volunteered such details in an article published at the end of last week, one wonders why these significant details could not have also been provided to the Leveson inquiry itself.

The Times is a great newspaper, with many excellent columnists and outstanding reporters. But something very wrong happened when NightJack was outed, and this wrong may well have been compounded by subsequent decisions made by senior managers. There could be a perfectly satisfactory explanation as to all what happened, but it would be good to hear it either at the Leveson inquiry, or elsewhere.

And there should be an immediate apology to the blogger whose email was hacked. The Times itself ruled internally that the hack equated to professional misconduct and that it should not have happened. The paper should have promptly informed the blogger and apologised. It is difficult to see any good reason why that was not done.

The Times should now apologise to the blogger without further delay.

 

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

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 Images
Show Hide image

Sadiq Khan is the radical Mayor that Londoners need

I've lived and worked in this city all my life. Sadiq is the mayor we need, says Andy Slaughter MP.

I have lived and worked in London all my life and for the past 20 years, as council leader or MP, represented one of its most politically fought over and eclectic parts, Hammersmith & Fulham.

I do not exaggerate in saying much of what makes London communities work is on the line in next year’s Mayoral election.

My constituents, already facing five more years of a Tory Government, need a champion in City Hall.

The current mayor has not proven capable, siding with vested interests over the needs of Londoners.

Whether it is destroying the 100 year-old Shepherds Bush Market or demolishing 750 good quality council houses in West Kensington to make way for high-rise luxury flats, Boris Johnson used his planning and regeneration powers against the wishes of residents and small businesses alike.

Boris was keen to take control of the London NHS but silent in speaking out against hospital service closures at Charing Cross, Ealing or Lewisham.

Another Tory Mayor, however presented, will be no different.

We must win to prevent the hollowing out and social cleansing of London, but we must win for positive reasons too.

That’s why we need a Mayor with a radical and bold agenda for a progressive city. For me, that person is Sadiq Khan.

The son of a bus driver and immigrant parents who moved to London for the opportunities many take for granted, he is a Londoner born and bred.

His family gave the young Sadiq the platform on which he built a career as a leading human rights lawyer, campaigning Member of Parliament and now a frontrunner for the Mayoralty.

That track record of standing up for the rule of law, universal human rights and access to justice is why so many leading figures from the legal world are today supporting Sadiq’s campaign.

Writing yesterday, in a letter to the Solicitors Journal, Michael Mansfield QC, Imran Khan and Matthew Ryder - part of the legal team who secured justice for the Lawrence family - add their support, stating that Sadiq as Mayor would “represent the very best of modern, tolerant and diverse London".

Shadow Attorney General Willy Bach and Shadow Solicitor General Karl Turner, former Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Keir Starmer, former Shadow Attorney General Emily Thornberry MP and leading human rights lawyers Baroness Helena Kennedy and Ben Emerson, are all supporting Sadiq.

What unites Sadiq’s supporters is a desire to see London governed by a dynamic and modern Mayor, suited to represent this vibrant and diverse city.  That person has to be Sadiq Khan. He can be the champion that Londoners need.