David Allen Green

A critical and liberal look at law and policy

RSS

The Times and NightJack: an anatomy of a failure

The story of how, in a string of managerial and legal lapses, the Times hacked NightJack and effectively misled the High Court

By David Allen Green Published 12 April 2012 12:19

The Times and NightJack: an anatomy of a failure

The NightJack blog.

October to December 2011 – the Leveson questionnaire

The team at the Leveson Inquiry sent out questionnaires to various senior figures in the mainstream media. Three of those asked to provide witness statements in response to these questionnaires were Harding, Simon Toms (recently appointed interim director of legal affairs at News International) and Tom Mockridge (Rebekah Wade’s replacement as chief executive officer of News International). Neither Toms nor Mockridge was in post in 2009, and so neither could know any more about the hack than what he was told for the purposes of replying to the Inquiry’s questionnaire.

One question asked related to computer hacking. Because of the disciplinary proceedings against Foster, the NightJack hack could not be denied or ignored, and so somehow it had to be mentioned. Yet the witness statements -- all signed on 14 October 2011 -- seemed to play down the incident.

Toms:

Question Explain whether you, or the Times, the Sunday Times, the Sun or the News of the World (to the best of your knowledge) ever used or commissioned anyone who used “computer hacking” in order to source stories, or for any reason.

Answer I am not aware that any NI title has ever used or commissioned anyone who used “computer hacking” in order to source stories. I have been made aware of one instance on the Times in 2009 which I understand may have involved a journalist attempting to access information in this way. However, I also understand that this was an act of the journalist and was not authorised by TNL. As such, I understand it resulted in the journalist concerned being disciplined.

Harding:

The Times has never used or commissioned anyone who used computer hacking to source stories. There was an incident where the newsroom was concerned that a reporter had gained unauthorised access to an email account. When it was brought to my attention, the journalist faced disciplinary action. The reporter believed he was seeking to gain information in the public interest but we took the view he had fallen short of what was expected of a Times journalist. He was issued with a formal written warning for professional misconduct.

Mockridge:

Neither I nor, to the best of my knowledge, the Sunday Times or the Sun has ever used or commissioned anyone who used “computer hacking” in order to source stories or for any other reason. In relation to the Times, I am aware of an incident in 2009 where there was a suspicion that a reporter on the Times might have gained unauthorised access to a computer, although the reporter in question denied it. I understand that that person was given a formal written warning as a result and that they were subsequently dismissed following an unrelated incident.

Mockridge had initially been given incorrect information about the hack and this was corrected by his second witness statement of December 2011:

At paragraph 20.2 of my first witness statement I referred to a reporter at the Times who might have gained unauthorised access to a computer in 2009. At the date of my first witness statement, it was my understanding that the reporter in question had denied gaining such access. Following further enquiries, I now understand that the reporter in fact admitted the conduct during disciplinary proceedings, although he claimed that he was acting in the public interest. The journalist was disciplined as a result; he was later dismissed from the business for an unrelated matter.

These four statements were not immediately revealing. For example, from these statements alone, one would not know that the incident even related to a published story, let alone one where there had been related privacy litigation. Perhaps the hope was that no one would notice or investigate further.

January 2012 – How the story began to emerge

The four Leveson witness statements were published on the Leveson website on or after 10 January 2012 -- first the one by Toms, and then the others. The only mention in the media seemed to be a short report in the Press Gazette of 10 January 2012 that a Times journalist had been disciplined for computer hacking.

I happened to see the Press Gazette story and because of the 2009 date of the incident, I immediately suspected it was about NightJack. I had blogged about the outing at the time and had long been concerned that the “dark arts” had somehow been engaged. When the other three witness statements were published, I pieced together what they did say over 16-17 January 2012 on the Jack of Kent blog.

In essence, one could deduce from the witness statements the following apparent facts:

the incident was in 2009;
the reporter was male (“he”);
the computer-hacking was in the form of unauthorised access to an email account;
a disciplinary process was commenced after concerns from the newsroom (not entirely correct, as it turned out);
the reporter admitted the unauthorised access during the disciplinary process (also not correct, as it was admitted before publication, let alone the disciplinary process);
the incident was held to be “professional misconduct” and the reporter was disciplined;

and

the reporter was no longer with the business, having been dismissed on an unrelated matter.

On 17 January 2012, Harding gave evidence to Leveson Inquiry, but he was not asked about the computer-hacking incident referred to in his witness statement.

Meanwhile both Paul Waugh and I connected the incident with NightJack, and late on 17 January 2012 David Leigh at the Guardian confirmed that a Times journalist had indeed hacked into the NightJack account. The next day at the New Statesman I drew attention to the worrying possibility that the Times may have therefore misled the High Court. It was the first time the possibility had been raised that the High Court had been misled.

Then, on 19 January 2012, the Times itself admitted the computer-hacking incident was in respect of NightJack. Harding sent a letter about NightJack to the Leveson Inquiry (which was not revealed until 25 January 2012):

As you will be aware, in my witness statement to the Leveson Inquiry I raised concerns that I had about an incident of computer-hacking at the Times. I was not asked about it when questioned on Tuesday but I felt it was important to address the issue raised by the publication of my statement with our readers. So I draw your attention to an article on page 11 of this morning’s paper which seeks to give a more detailed account of what happened.

In June 2009 we published a story in what we strongly believed was the public interest. When the reporter informed his managers that in the course of his investigation he had, on his own initiative, sought unauthorised access to an email account, he was told that if wanted to pursue the story, he had to use legitimate means to do so identifying the person at the heart of the story, using his own sources and information publicly available on the internet. On that basis, we made the case in the High Court that the newspaper should be allowed to publish in the public interest.

After the judge ruled that we could publish in the public interest, we did. We also addressed the concern that had emerged about the reporter’s conduct, namely that he had used a highly intrusive method to seek information without prior approval. He was formally disciplined and the incident has also informed our thinking in putting in place an effective audit trail to ensure that, in the future, we have a system to keep account of how we make sensitive decisions in the newsgathering process.

This was an isolated incident and I have no knowledge of anything else like it. If the inquiry has any further questions about it, I would, of course, be happy to answer them.

In the meantime both Tom Watson MP and I called for Harding to be recalled to the Leveson Inquiry to answer questions about how the High Court seemed to have been misled. I also blogged that the Times owed Horton an apology.

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

Tags: NightJack Leveson Inquiry The Times

More from David Allen Green

View the discussion thread.

58 comments

Thu, 2012-11-29 10:11 — cheap nba Snapback caps (not verified)

The expressing goes, "Make this entire world a trendy place", whoever has explained this knows the relevance of design and the part clothes and components can play in creating a person appear very awesome and trendy.Mesh Snapback Hats Aside from funky outfits, a single main accessory that can support an individual attain the seem of urbanity and superiority and adds fashion in their general appear is the new period fitted hat. When sports activities lovers all more than the globe like to flaunt their fashion, really like for sports activities and their favorite group, they normally opt for a new period hat to go to a ground and cheer their favorite staff. It is a great version of the hip hop design and fashion it has turn into a lot more of an exemplary and archetypal layout than something else. A single can locate these hats in the browsing heart,NBA Boston Celtics Snapback Hats super market place and even at an e-shop making use of the world wide web. The major element that can make these hats a well-liked garments product or accessory is the design with which they are produced of. They are designed with the radical thought of trying to keep type and comfort of the wearer in brain. The sole cause of putting fantastic effort of generating the new period snapback caps with so a lot interest on comfort and layout is so that the clients do not get afflicted with uneasiness although they invest in the goods. Apart from excellent seems, these caps are also acknowledged for quality and toughness and are produced with drinking water resistant and sweat band center. This is the most critical component of any merchandise that is worn outdoors or in the sunshine since the rough and tough weather situation exactly where the wearer is much more very likely to confront the sweat can damage the caps and make the wearer sense uneasy. Despite the fact that, we all like to costume in style and put on incredibly good seeking components but there is no denying the simple fact that price range remains the major portion in deciding what we ought to acquire. Thanks to the globalization of the web, customers can now evaluate charges and get remarkable offers on their obtain of new period fitted hat. In reality, a good deal of e-shops also give these Tisa snapback Hats at prices if you program to buy a great deal of caps at once. There is no denying the truth that the internet is a fantastic location to store and acquire new period snapback or fitted hats but currently being a responsible consumer, it is crucial for you to verify the trustworthiness of the e-shop before positioning an buy.Click here

Mon, 2012-10-15 14:25 — Snapback Hats (not verified)

Hat shade, decorative, NBA Snapback Hats warming and protection. So many different types, choose also to pay attention to. First, based on face to choose suitable hat. Secondly hats to choose according to their own body. Hat but also Cheap hats according to the choice of activities.Wear a hat and wearing the same clothes,to try to avoid weaknesses.The form and color of the hat must and clothing matching.NCAA Snapback Hats This multi-win game on the other side.Come take a look, and sure you like the hat Click “here”.

Wed, 2012-10-03 04:34 — Fitted Hats (not verified)

Obtaining the Most suitCapable hat is Complicated for some Individuals. They are unCapable to Locate a hat which Matchs Nicely on their Mind and Really Appears Wonderful. It can Undoubtedly be frustrating for these People when they see a Hat they like, but are unCapable to Purchase it as it does not Match Nicely. The Sizing is Possibly As well Huge or As well Little and Therefore does not give the Seem it is meant to. There is Having said that Decent Information for these Individuals. A new entrance into the Style Marketplace of New Era caps aObtain hats Requires Aside this Difficulty and has Produced it Feasible for Individuals to Put on all Varieties of these Hats Not Possessing Possessing to Be concerned about Match Once aObtain.SnapBack aObtain hats Offer Individuals with the Most effective Type of Match that can be Discovered in hats along with the comfort that A single Demands Whilst Put oning Mindgear. They are Offered in a Big Wide Variety which Creates it Feasible for Each and everyA single to Pick that Specific Mindgear, which not only Fits them, but which Aids them in Developing or Carrying out their Specific Design. It is only Via Style that A single can Carry out his Specific Design Declaration so why not use Inexpensive Supreme Snapback Hats aObtains to do so?With the availability of Inexpensive Solutions, Individuals have been Capable to Purchase these hats and Remain Nicely Inside of their Variety Whilst portraying their Specific Design. They are Frequently Utilized by Individuals to Help their Sports activities Group by Possibly Possessing the Brand of the Group printed on the Back aObtain or by Purchaseing Inexpensive Pieces which Arrive with the Brand Previously printed. Either way, they are Regarded as to be a Superb way for Individuals to Display their loyalty to the Groups they Help. In comparison to other Points which are Utilized to Display Group loyalty This kind of as Outfits and jerseys, Inexpensive Solutions are the Simplest and Inexpensiveest way of Displaying loyalty to A singles Group. Other than Getting Utilized for Ymcmb Snapback Hats Sports activities Functions, they are also a Superb way for Helping or Advertising a Specific Firm or Maybe even for Advertising a Induce. And the Most effective Component is that these Inexpensive snapBack aObtains can be Put on on a Every Day time Time frame which would Support Obtain Reputation and Help for the Induce.Other than Making use of Inexpensive snapBack aObtains for This kind of Functions, they can also be Surpriseed to Close Buddys and Loved ones. Not only are these Inexpensive snapBack aObtains trendy and StyleCapable, they are in Design and are Frequently affordCapable by Lots of. Hence when Providing a Surprise to someA single you Adore, you would not have to Commit a Great deal of mA singley when Purchaseing Inexpensive snapBack aObtains and However you would be Capable to give that Unique someA single a Surprise that is trendy and which could be Utilized on a Frequent Time frame. It is even Much better if your Buddy/Loved ones Fellow member is a Sports activities Admirer. You could Constantly get their Preferred Group's logo/emblem printed on the Back aObtain. This is Anything they Certainly would Adore and Put on Close to Each and every Day time. The Most effective Element about these Hats is that you do not Require to Be concerned about the Sizing and Regardless of whether it would Match or not. They are Produced in This kind of a way that they Match all Mind Sizings and are adjustCapable as Nicely.These are Undoubtedly a Superb new Add-on into the Style Marketplace. They can be Utilized for Several Factors as mentiA singled above or they could Merely be Put on as an Add-onal Style accessory. NBA Snapback Hats aObtains are Very trendy and Enjoyment to Put on. These are Superb Surprises to give to Other people as Nicely. So why not Attempt sporting Inexpensive snapBack aObtains and Carry out the StyleCapable you?

Thu, 2012-08-23 08:52 — Atalanta (not verified)

More plugs can be bought independently as needed.Universal TesterA great force specialist can make checking out straightforward using hardly any decrease of coolant no hand-pumping required kfzdiagnosegeraet.de. Temperature call features (the majority are color-coded) test pressure amounts through zero in order to 35 pounds.Lack of CoolantInternal or perhaps outer coolant loss, flowing whitened smoking, enlargement container water together with darkish colour, loss in essential oil, gas altering shade and soaring powerplant temperatures are signs and symptoms of mind gasket as well as coolant method disappointment.

Sun, 2012-07-22 17:25 — olek (not verified)

@helenlewis 'Respected' authority - newspaper-speak for 'authority on whose opinion the entire premise of my article rests'.
prezent na chrzest

Wed, 2012-07-18 12:35 — Lippriermpego (not verified)

Thanks for sharing excellent informations. Your web-site is very cool. I am impressed by the details that you’ve on this blog. It reveals how nicely you perceive this subject. Bookmarked this website page, will come back for extra articles

Wed, 2012-07-18 04:37 — Simonstar (not verified)

His secret identity had to remain a secret for him to continue his work on the blog and in his day job. When the newspaper revealed him to the public, he probably would have lost his job and also his sense of security at blogging under anonymity. Was it really ethical to do so? Could a lawyer have helped prevent this from happening?
Simon - Investment Fraud Lawyer

Fri, 2012-05-04 18:49 — edgarlob (not verified)

Quote:
"29 to 31 May 2009 – the Times finds a “golden bullet”

After the first hearing, there was frantic activity at the Times to establish that Horton’s identity could somehow be established by entirely public means. Unless this was possible, it was likely that the Times would lose at the resumed hearing.

It was at this point, it seems, that Brett realised the Times did not actually have a copy of NightJack’s entire blog. Horton had taken the blog down after the call from Foster, and it appeared neither Foster nor Brett had thought ahead to retain a copy before that call was made. So, on Friday 29 May 2009, the day after the initial hearing, Brett asked Tench for a full copy of the NightJack blog:

It is important we see a full copy of the blog in order to make a detailed analysis before the hearing next week.

Why was Brett requesting the blog at this stage? The implication is that the Times had yet to make a detailed analysis of the blog’s content. The Times was looking for any information which would allow it to show that Horton could be identified by information in the public domain."

It appears that The Times DID POSSESS a copy of the blog :

OFFICIAL LANCS CONSTABULARY LOG (FOI)

"Caller: Foster, Patrick
Received: 28 May 2009 13:43
Organisation: The Times
Press Officer: _ - Contact Details:_ -Deadline Date:
Logged by: Status: Closed Type: REACTIVE
Call Subject: Call Division:
Notes: Update on Pc Richard Houghton. Confidentially, as we are not meant to be
discussing this, but we are likely to be going back in court this afternoon for
an injunction hearing. His lawyers wrote to us last night instructing that we
don't print the story which we agreed to do. We want to run the story
tomorrow. Can you tell us whether you have spoken to him and whether he
has denied it or has not said anything?
Response by: - 28 May 2009 14:50 (1 hours 7 mins)
Form of Response:
Cleared by:

Response text: Patrick has been asked whether he can provide a hard copy of the
blog as it has now been shut down and is password protected. He emailed over the
hard copy which contains 90% of the content which has been emailed to PSD.
Patrick still asked for guidance on whether he has been spoken to or not and
whether he admitted it or denied it. He was told, STRICTLY OFF THE RECORD
AND NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES CAN HE PUBLISH, that the
question has been put to the officer and he has neither denied nor admitted being
the author of the blog - the same response he gave to The Times when questioned.
We have now launched an investigation as the statement said."

The Police had no copy and no access as it was password protected.

If, as claimed, The Times had no copy how did Foster access the blog?
Did he "crack" the password the day before The Times wrote to Dan Tench for a copy?

Also there is no "Official" request of the Times photographic requesting a photograph AT ANY TIME of DC Horton.

How did The Lancashire Evening Telegraph know the name of an anonymous blogger two hours after Foster made his allegations to The Police?
Lots of questions unanswered still in this saga.
Just out of interest:

Is it an offence for the Police to act on information obtained criminally?Is it an offence to supply the Police information obtained criminally in order that they act upon it?
And, even if they didn't know at the time, would the police be under an obligation to act against the perpetrators, on discovery and would any investigations, conclusions & findings conducted by them be negated by this? In effect would Nightjack's record & written warning withdrawn?

Fri, 2012-05-04 17:46 — edgarlob (not verified)

Now that you are in receipt of the Official Police records from here:
www.edgarlob.co.uk
Do you feel the need to update this blog?
Police records do not seem to concur with elements of your excellent report.

Thu, 2012-04-19 11:56 — David Allen Green

I have now set out at The Lawyer five points which I think arise from the NightJack affair: http://www.thelawyer.com/thinking-about-the-nightjack-story/1012233.article

Sat, 2012-04-28 16:13 — Kevin McNally (not verified)

A very good article.

I find it disturbing that in this case two of the safety barriers for modern society have shown themselves to be as corrupt as any individual or organisation that they have exposed over the years. I must now seriously reconsider the integrity of some previous newspaper exclusives.
There is no excuse for Mr Eady, he told Foster that what he did was illegal, when Foster subsequently fits things to suit how he identified his target, Eady then writes Fosters statement containing how he identified his target when he knows it is a lie. Eady then failed to mention it to the Times barristers resisting the confidentiality application in court. I bet the counsel was highly impressed, I wonder if legal people have straighteners in such circumstances, you know like in the army, "you and me, gowns and wigs off, out the back now"

Sun, 2012-04-29 13:12 — David Allen Green

I think your references to Eady are intended to be references to Brett?

Mon, 2012-04-16 00:44 — edgarlob (not verified)

I hope Richard Horten's damages include the damage done to his career at Lancs Con-Stabulary.
What do you do with a briliant writer who has won the Orwell Prize and has many years loyal service in, but has one lapse that earns him a written warning?
Would you give him a highly paid post in their media communications dept informing the public how his local constabulary serves the public?
No you would give that job to the "toady" reporter who, publishes the local forces attempt to out "Nightjack" throughout his working area asap.
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/4403220.Acclaimed____Night_Jac...
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/blackburn/4441668.Police_Night...
http://www.how-do.co.uk/north-west-media-news/north-west-publishing/henf...
Note the dates on these two publications from the local reporter.
This is NightJack's career move to date!
http://www.lep.co.uk/news/local/net-to-close-on-flasher-in-park-1-4388061

Sat, 2012-04-14 12:55 — Martin Keegan (not verified)

I find it impossible to believe that the lawyer for the Times (Mr Brett?) did not know about the Computer Misuse Act 1990. To me, it is likely that his claim to the effect that he only realised a CMA s1 or s3 offence had been committed is as true as his claim in the witness statement that they'd not even used email hacking in the first place.

His message to the editor looks like arse-covering, referring to the 1990 legislation as "the recent law governing email accounts". This is misdirection: there's nothing particularly special about email accounts as opposed to other functions of a computer; knowingly accessing the email function of a computer without authorisation is as criminal as accessing any other function. Before 1990, this stuff was charged (dubiously) as criminal damage, so the line of thinking is thirty years old, not "recent" even by the standards of the law.

Can someone explain to me why the journalist was not reported to the police by the in house counsel after external counsel had advised that a crime had probably been committed?

Sun, 2012-04-15 08:33 — David Allen Green

"Can someone explain to me why the journalist was not reported to the police by the in house counsel after external counsel had advised that a crime had probably been committed?"

The whole point of legal advice, and the reason one has legal professional (or "client/attorney") privilege, is that the lawyer does not whistleblow and notify the police. There was no positive duty on Brett to report the matter to the police, and he was right not to do so. The question is what he should have told the court.

Sun, 2012-04-15 23:48 — Martin Keegan (not verified)

Understood, thanks. I get the idea that your lawyer mustn't grass you up.

Is there any general duty on non-lawyer colleagues to report crimes to the police?

Also, does the in-house counsel face any comeback from the Law Society for misleading the Court?

Mon, 2012-04-16 00:07 — David Allen Green

"Is there any general duty on non-lawyer colleagues to report crimes to the police?"

No. There are some specific areas, like money laundering, where there is a positive duty to alert the police of a suspected offence. But the general rule is that there is no duty on someone to report the suspected crimes of another.

"Also, does the in-house counsel face any comeback from the Law Society for misleading the Court?"

Am not commenting on possible consequences for anyone involved in the incident; only interested in establishing the correct narrative.

Fri, 2012-04-13 21:43 — Dr Aust (not verified)

I've asked it on Twitter, but I'll ask it again here.

How on earth is Mr Harding still editor of The Times?

Whether you are convinced or not by Harding's account of what he knew when, it is clear The Times misled the High Court. After a judgement that was quite possibly heavily influenced by those fabricated statements, they then proceeded rapidly to out NightJack - irrevocably - on what I would see as pretty thin (and distinctly self-aggrandising) 'public interest' grounds.

All of this happened on Harding's watch. It was his editorial decision to publish, even when it was quite clear that the 'provenance' of the revelation was (at the least) tainted. It was also his management of his subordinates. Surely he should accept responsibility on both counts and resign?

And if he stays on, what does that say about the standards of editorial integrity of The Times, which used to consider itself the UK's 'Newspaper of record'?

Finally, if this ISN'T a resigning issue for the editor of a purportedly serious newspaper, what the hell would be? Throwing a reporter off a balcony?

Fri, 2012-04-13 22:04 — Peter Jukes

I talked to a senior member of The Times editorial staff when this email hacking story first broke in January. The source said that it was in the public interest to out Nightjack because he was a public servant, and some of the victims of crime he describe might be identifiable. I retorted that outing Horton only made them more identifiable! To give this source some credit, he/she conceded the point.

Fri, 2012-04-13 18:25 — Madame Hardy (not verified)

What a first-rate piece of reporting. Clear, irrefutable, fact-backed, and devastating.

Fri, 2012-04-13 17:21 — robincac (not verified)

Why would one ever buy a newspaper again? Outstanding piece, thank you.

Fri, 2012-04-13 16:08 — David S (not verified)

Has any complaint about Brett been made to the Solicitors Regulation Authority? I would expect a fairly severe sanction for what he did, perhaps even striking off.

Fri, 2012-04-13 14:20 — Ann Kittenplan (not verified)

And how's this for a Comment on a NJ post from 2008. Is there an Orwell Prize for Comments too?

David Forward says:
February 23, 2008 at 7:23 pm
United Kingdom, now that’s a joke, there’s nothing united about it at all. As for kingdom, well it is that all right, a place where everybody thinks they’re the king. King of what ever evil little empire they are building for themselves.

The politicians are such huge liars and fraudsters, is it any wonder the rancid rot of parliament has seeped right through the rest of society. Politicians outward appearances just shout out that they are out of touch with the real world and only in the job for what they can get out of it for themselves. No wonder fewer people vote at each election, there is no longer a choice of honest people you can trust.

Throughout the structure of all the authorities needed to run the country there is a culture of self survival to keep ones job by hitting all targets set by government. And so people no longer manage for the sake of the people of the land, but bean count to tick the right boxes, so as to step up a rung of the ever sinking ladder, sinking into the sick quagmire that is Nu Labour’s dictatorship hell hole.

If the troops lack the right leadership then the team falls to pieces and its everyone for themselves and survival of the fittest is the rule of the day. We are seeing all our leaders, managers and associations failing their responsibilities to those they are in charge of because they are too busy feeding spin control at Number 10. Nobody believes any of the twaddle Number 10 spouts out with every knee jerk reaction to all the disasters that they have created themselves in the first place.

If from the top down everybody was more honest and truthfully contributing to make the country a better place for all rather than spreading the greed culture that they perpetuate, then the people right at the bottom of society who have no interest in working or contributing in any way, other than to provide unnecessary cases for the emergency services, would instead find themselves appropriately trained and respected members of the community.

Until there is a change in the moral fibre of those in privileged positions at the top then the crime level will continue to rage and prisons continue to overflow. Prevention is always better and cheaper than a cure, therefore the majority will always suffer until they boot out the corrupt and start to help their fellow citizens by voting resources to where they are needed most, on a morality issue, rather than to provide a quick profit for the share holding vampires.

Fri, 2012-04-13 14:10 — Ann Kittenplan (not verified)

In case you're interested the NightJack blog has been archived here http://nightjack2.wordpress.com/
I took myself off to the first posts and even there you can see how he ended up with the prize.

Incidentally it all rings true with long conversations I had with a PC (Police Constable) friend 20 years ago.

Fri, 2012-04-13 00:08 — David Boothroyd

David, you make much of your position as a liberal (and indeed a Liberal). So do you now contend that the courts ought to have ordered prior restraint on publication of the name of Nightjack?

I think the answer must either be Yes or No. If 'No', then the followup question is what this post is really all about because that was the only legal ruling involved; The Times has a lot of questions to answer about its conduct but to answer 'No' is to say that it doesn't in practice make any difference how they obtained the name.

If your answer is 'Yes', then the followup question is what has happened to your belief in freedom of expression. Most people involved in the law, and certainly everyone with a traditional liberal approach, would say that prior restraint is a form of legal censorship which should be granted only in wholly exceptional circumstances. Preventing exposure of conduct which fell "short of the standards of professional behaviour we expect" (as the official Lancs Constabulary press release put it) does not seem to be one of them.

Fri, 2012-04-13 15:48 — Surreptitious Evil (not verified)

Most people involved in the law, and certainly everyone with a traditional liberal approach, would say that prior restraint is a form of legal censorship which should be granted only in wholly exceptional circumstances.

Like commission of an criminal offence, by the journalist, in order to gain access to the material? Your excusing of what seems actually to be a s3 CMA offence - by his current story, Forster will have caused an unauthorised change to the Hotmail data (Horton's password) and thus impaired the proper functioning - i.e. Horton getting access isn't that dissimilar to allowing journalists to "break and enter" your house and copy your documents for their personal access.

I would also note that what Foster did was, legally, far worse than the breach of "the standards of professional behaviour we expect" Horton was disciplined for.

Sat, 2012-04-14 14:07 — David Boothroyd

I'm not excusing anything; it's pure invention on your part. I am addressing the one external legal decision in the story. Your comment about Foster is neither here nor there; it's not a balancing operation. Prior restraint on publication is a very specific and fundamental issue.

Although Eady J accepted assurances which turned out to be wrong, his reasoning for refusing prior restraint are not touched by them. Neither you nor David Allen Green will say clearly and unambiguously whether you think that the law should have censored The Times from publishing the name of Nightjack.

Sun, 2012-04-15 16:14 — AJ Hall (not verified)

The only person who could have made the decision as to the balance of public interest in revealing Nightjack's name or not was Eady J. It now transpires that the evidence on which he carried out that balancing act was not merely wrong but those putting it forward - who had signed statements of truth in respect of the evidence concerned - knew it to be wrong. The question, therefore, which needs to be addressed is whether Eady J. should have weighed the public interest in discouraging perjury as greater or less than the public interest in publishing news items obtained by criminal means. Those weren't the questions he was able to address, by reason of the misleading evidence, but they were in fact the questions which should have been before the court.

Sun, 2012-04-15 17:12 — David Boothroyd

For the avoidance of doubt, can you confirm that you are of the opinion that someone who writes anonymously can obtain a legal judgment censoring newspapers who wish to publish their identity, with criminal sanctions if they went ahead anyway? It sounds like you are, but (as with others) you don't want to say so directly and unambiguously.

Your argument rests on the erroneous assumption that Eady J was primarily interested in the way The Times identified Nightjack. In fact it is incidental to the judgment: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/1358.html. Also, even if we accept that The Times were prima facie guilty of perjury in the evidence they presented, that doesn't mean they stand to lose on the merits of the main case; they are two separate issues.

The more interesting suggestion you implicitly make is that whether there is a legal prohibition on revealing the identity of an anonymous writer is dependant on how their identity is discovered. I wonder if you have thought through the implications of that.

Thu, 2012-04-12 21:16 — MattK (not verified)

Seconded on Peter Jukes' second point. How do you hack an email account the way they claimed happened (guessing answers to security questions) without knowing personal details already? And normally that results in a password reset, and an email to say that has happened. Horton would have noticed this.

This does suggest that Foster played his "reconstructing after the fact" trick more than once. Not only did he retrospectively "deduce" the information he already knew from hacking, but this does seem a lot like he retrospectively explained a simple way he could have hacked the account, having already used more egregious methods.

Fri, 2012-04-13 21:13 — Pigfarmer44 (not verified)

Any emails sent to hortons account regarding the password reset would surely have been deleted by foster. If foster used a password reset mechanism by guessing the answer to a security question, then he would have had to create a new password. Unless horton had an email with this information then foster would have had to choose a random password which in all probability wouldnt have been the same as hortons original password. At this point, in order to access his account, Horton would have had to follow the same process as foster had.

Fri, 2012-04-13 21:13 — Simon Pigfarmer (not verified)

Thu, 2012-04-12 19:46 — Michael Taggart (not verified)

Just goes to show what bull it is that blog posts have to be short. Bravo; I needed that!

Thu, 2012-04-12 19:28 — SimonWB (not verified)

Forensic blogging! Thanks.

I'm glad I never use any Murdoch products. This reinforces my decision. His corrupting influence extends throughout his empire.

One wonders whether anyone senior in an NI organ reads their emails. After the boy James the excuse is wearing a bit thin.

Thu, 2012-04-12 17:49 — Nick Gordon (not verified)

An outstanding piece of work, even by your normally very high standard. Thank you.

Thu, 2012-04-12 17:31 — CarlEve (not verified)

Brilliant article David.

Thu, 2012-04-12 17:31 — CarlEve (not verified)

Brilliant article David.

Thu, 2012-04-12 17:31 — Phil M (not verified)

Great post.

Re the revelation above that he now works for the Guardian, he doesn't seem to have written anything for them since 5th Jan, ie just before the Leveson revelations. I think we need some information from the Guardian as to what they've done with him...

Thu, 2012-04-12 17:21 — Anony Mouse (not verified)

And as ever, we can see that bent journalists can lie to courts with impunity, because perjury is a crime only when it's done by the little people. Patrick Foster is a liar. Alistair Brett is a liar. They lied under oath. That's perjury. They admitted to a variety of other crimes, both individually and corporately, under the computer misuse act. And they get away with it. Foster's employed by the Guardian, because boy Alan doesn't really give a shit about phone hacking so long as the stories keep rolling in, and no-one's going to be charged with anything.

Thu, 2012-04-12 17:09 — Anony Mouse (not verified)

"oster only got the job at the Times in the first place because his dad worked there. "

And he got his job at the Guardian on his track record at the Times. The Guardian's smug claims to be opposed to hacking email are just a charade: it was absolutely obvious at the time that the Nightjack revelation stemmed from corrupt activities, so the Guardian's employment of Foster was entirely cynical. He was getting stories corruptly for The Times, and The Guardian wanted a piece of the action as well.

Thu, 2012-04-12 17:29 — Blue porcupine (not verified)

Possibly worse than that - Guido Fawkes wrote it up that Foster was the Guardian's source at The Times for some of the hacking stuff, and that this was the reason he was eventually fired by the Times. If that is true then Foster's subsequent Guardian gigs were presumably part of the quid pro quo.

Thu, 2012-04-12 17:07 — Anony Mouse (not verified)

What an amazing revelation: broadsheet journalists are as corrupt as tabloid journalists, journalists lie smoothly and easily under oath to courts and judicial enquiries and News International is an organisation staffed almost entirely by liars and knaves, whose newspapers will mercifully survive neither the rise of the Internet nor the inevitable US anti-bribery actions. All those years of journalists claiming to be some positive force for good, and now we see that "honest journalist" is an oxymoron.

Thu, 2012-04-12 16:47 — Blue porcupine (not verified)

Now that is an act of destruction. Thanks for writing it. Sad proof that all it takes to fell one honest man is a rampaging egotistical twat and a bunch of people who don't read their emails properly. What a shower. And they wonder why nobody buys their poxy half-researched rags any more.

It's news to me that Horton is suing. Good for him.

Thu, 2012-04-12 16:20 — Neuroskeptic (not verified)

Fantastic post. The Times, it is now clear, is no more than a tabloid.

Thu, 2012-04-12 15:56 — SalilTripathi (not verified)

Outstanding.

Thu, 2012-04-12 15:38 — Peter Jukes

Going through this fantastically detailed account again, two things stand out:

1. Harding's explanation that he didn't know about the 'hack' looks very tenuous. It seems Brett is indeed being set up as the fall guy for a clear editorial decision.

And just as importantly

2. The current explanation of the 'hack' make no sense. Unless you know somebody's identity in advance, how can you crack their password (D.O.B, pets, etc).

Like other cases of outed bloggers, it leads me to the suspicion that some other means was used to "access the files"

Thu, 2012-04-12 15:36 — McTodd (not verified)

Superb article, a magnificently precise description of an appalling chapter in British journalism.

Is it not ironic, however, and rather sordid, that The Guardian, which did such sterling work in exposing the widespread nature of this culture in Fleet Street now chooses to employ the egregious Patrick Foster?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/patrick-foster

There's a rather amusing article here about Patrick Foster's School Days:
http://fabulousblueporcupine.wordpress.com/2009/06/17/patrick-foster-who...

Thu, 2012-04-12 15:22 — severnbore (not verified)

A very good & thought out article, I have followed Leveson and in particular this story, although sadly never got to read Night Jack's blog.

But what a sad tale of woe this really is. Outing a blogger for what purpose?

Oh, I know it MADE A SPLASH

I hope in time to come Night Jack is well rewarded with the only thing Murdoch's empire seems to know MONEY. And hope to see a lot of them serve time.

ROFL - on bail\ police interviews by appointment! I bet Night Jack would have something to say interestingly about that.

I have long given up reading the newspapers, word processed twaddle & hobby horse content.