Hugh Grant's evidence to Leveson inquiry - live blog

Instant coverage and analysis as the actor gives evidence to the phone-hacking inquiry.

4.23: The hearing is over. Thanks for joining us.

4.19: Grant says he is "the opposite of a muzzler", and that he doesn't want to see the end of the popular press. He says he would defend the Britain instinct to be sceptical and to "take the piss", but that it has become too toxic in the last 20 years. He says that the UK is historically good at standing up to bullies and it's time to stand up with this one.

He also says he is disappointed he wasn't able to read his statement out before having to defend his positions.

4.18: Another top line from Grant, explaining why giving interviews to the press to promote films does not give them license to harrass him forever: "You sold me your milk, you slut. I'm now entitled to help myself to your milk for ever".

4.15: Grant has given a list of "10 myths" on this subject. They are:

1. That it is only celebrities and politicians who suffer at the hands of popular papers.

2. That egregious abuses of privacy happened only at the News of the World.

3. That in attempting to deal with the abuses of some sections of the press you risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

4. That any attempt to regulate the press means we are heading for Zimbabwe. Self-regulation clearly hasn't worked, he says.

5. That current privacy law under the Human Rights Act muzzles the press.

6. That judges always find against the press.

7. Privacy can only ever be a rich man's toy. Attempts to water down conditional fee agreements are driven by the tabloid press, he says.

8. That most sex exposes carry a public interest defence. Grant says that the argument that it is a public interest because celebrities trade on their good name is very tenuous. "I've never had a good name," he says. "I was arrested with a prostitute and the film still made a ton of money."

9. That celebrities want to be in the papers, and need them, and therefore our objections to privacy intrusions are hypocritical. Grant says that he is obligated to do some publicity for films, but keeps this to a minimum.

10. That the tabloid press hacks are just loveable rogues. They glamorise themselves, says Grant, but hacking the phone of a murdered schoolgirl is not loveable.

4.03: "The press is the only industry which has a profound impact on other citizens which is regulated only by itself," says Grant.

3.53: "For the parts not based on misreporting, it is perfectly fine to hate me," says Grant, in response to the lawyer's questions about fair comment. "It's been fashionable for some time now and it's what I've come to expect in this country."

3.49: It's clear that Grant views the British press as particularly bad. He says that although there is some "toxic" journalism abroad, "on the whole, it is still done with a certain elegance, which we have lost in the last 30 years in this country".

3.43: Grant adds that at the press conference in question, he took a flippant tone, saying that he is always flippant or neutral when asked about the British tabloid press, because anything else invites editorial revenge.

3.41: Grant is being challenged about an interview where he said he "understood" why people were more interested in his love life than his films, and added that he was more interested in "who actors are shagging" than in their next film. In response, he maintains that that remains true but that doesn't mean that information should be obtained illegally or unethically.

3.39: Discussing the internet, Grant says that something on a newspaper website will spread much faster than if it's simply on a blog or a tweet, and becomes accepted as fact across the world.

3.36: Grant had a bit of a set-to with the lawyer, saying: "You have been very fair to Associated and News International". Jay responded: "I hope I have been fair to everyone", to which Grant said: "You told me back stage that you were going to bat me straight balls. If these are straight balls I'd hate to see your googlies."

3.26: They're back and discussing a recent article in the Sun about Grant's "new girlfriend" -- who he claims does not exist. He's elaborating on other fabrications in stories about his lovelife around the time that his daughter was born. He picks out Amanda Platell's Mail article "Hypocrisy and the tawdry self-love of Hugh Grant" as a hatchet-job.

3.12: The questioning has ended for a short break.

3.09: Apologies for a brief technical fault with the NS site. While we've been gone, Grant has discussed the way that the mother of his child was hounded by paparazzi. It was primarily the Mail perpetrating this harrassment. He appears to be going after the Mail in particular today.

2.47: They are now moving onto Grant's supplementary evidence, which deals with the injunction he has obtained to protect his baby and her mother.

2.45: Grant says he is "curious" to know who at the Mail and the Mirror commissioned Glenn Mulcaire to hack his phone -- the notes he saw referred to stories published in these two papers.

2.39: They are discussing the section of Grant's NS piece in which McMullan appears to suggest that the Mail was involved in phone-hacking:

Me And . . . it wasn't just the News of the World. It was , you know - the Mail?
Him Oh absolutely, yeah. When I went freelance in 2004 the biggest payers - you'd have thought it would be the NoW, but actually it was the Daily Mail. If I take a good picture, the first person I go to is - such as in your case - the Mail on Sunday. Did you see that story? The picture of you, breaking down . . . I ought to thank you for that. I got £3,000. Whooo!

The QC suggests that McMullan could be referring only to selling photographs, rather than phone-hacking.

2.33: QC Jay is asking Grant about his chance encounter with former NotW journalist Paul McMullan -- he taped a conversation with McMullan which he then published in the New Statesman. You can read the transcript of that conversation here.

The NS has had a mention, with the QC referring to the "zippy title" ("The bugger, bugged"). They are now examining the transcript of the NS piece.

2.26: Grant is now talking about the paparazzi, saying that there are two types; those employed by national newspapers who occasionally show a "modicum of decency", and freelancers, who will go further in pursuit of a picture. He alleges that many of them are already criminals and will digitally alter photographs so that they can sell them for more. He says he suspect it is this latter category who tailing Princess Diana.

2.23: In response to the QC's suggestion that his medical records might not have been accessed by the Sun, Grant says sarcastically: "No, maybe it was a lucky guess." He is clearly very angry about the continual breach of his privacy. He says it is "fundamental to the British sense of decency" that medical records should remain private.

2.18: Referring to an incident where a news story was based on his medical records, Grant says, "if the use of an individual's medical records for commercial gain is not within the remit of the PCC, then what the hell is it for?"

2.10: Grant is talking about a story that the Mail ran in 2007, saying that his relationship with Jemima Khan was on the rocks because of his late-night phone conversations with a "plummy voiced studio executive from Warner Brothers". He sued for libel and won, and subsequently realised that he had been having phone conversations with a friend in LA wth a "plummy voice". The implication is that the story must have come from phone-hacking. "I would love to know what the Mail's explanation or source was, if it wasn't from phone-hacking."

2.06: The inquiry says they are not interested in "the events of July 1995" -- referring of course to Divine Brown. Grant says, "I wish you would [ask about it]", saying that the press storm around his crime was to be expected. His campaign against press behaviour is "emphatically not" because of embarrassment over this episode; the only aspect which still disturbs him is that his London flat was broken into soon afterwards.

2.04: Grant has taken the stand. He's talking about when he first became very famous, with Four Weddings and a Funeral in 1994, and the initial positive treatment he received from the press.

1.52pm: I'll be live-blogging Hugh Grant's appearance in front of the Leveson inquiry. It's due to start at 2pm.

Today sees the first alleged victims of phone-hacking giving evidence to the inquiry. This morning, we heard from Bob and Sally Dowler, the parents of murdered schoolgirl Millie Dowler.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Everyone's forgotten the one issue that united the Labour party

There was a time when Ed Miliband spoke at Momentum rallies.

To label the row over the EU at Thursday’s Labour leadership hustings "fireworks" would be to endow it with more beauty than it deserves. Owen Smith’s dogged condemnation of John McDonnell’s absence from a Remain rally – only for Corbyn to point out that his absence was for medical reasons – ought to go down as a cringing new low point in the campaign. 

Not so long ago, we were all friends. In the course of the EU referendum, almost all of the protagonists in the current debacle spoke alongside each other and praised one another’s efforts. At a local level, party activists of all stripes joined forces. Two days before polling day, Momentum activists helped organise an impromptu rally. Ed Miliband was the headline speaker, and was cheered on. 

If you take the simple version of the debate, Labour’s schism on the EU appears as an aberration of the usual dynamics of left and right in the party. Labour's left is supposedly cheering a position which avoids advocating what it believes in (Remain), because it would lose votes. Meanwhile, the right claims to be dying in a ditch for its principles - no matter what the consequences for Labour’s support in Leave-voting heartlands.

Smith wants to oppose Brexit, even after the vote, on the basis of using every available procedural mechanism. He would whip MPs against the invocation of Article 50, refuse to implement it in government, and run on a manifesto of staying in the EU. For the die-hard Europhiles on the left – and I count myself among these, having run the Another Europe is Possible campaign during the referendum – there ought to be no contest as to who to support. On a result that is so damaging to people’s lives and so rooted in prejudice, how could we ever accept that there is such a thing as a "final word"? 

And yet, on the basic principles that lie behind a progressive version of EU membership, such as freedom of movement, Smith seems to contradict himself. Right at the outset of the Labour leadership, Smith took to Newsnight to express his view – typical of many politicians moulded in the era of New Labour – that Labour needed to “listen” to the views Leave voters by simply adopting them, regardless of whether or not they were right. There were, he said, “too many” immigrants in some parts of the country. 

Unlike Smith, Corbyn has not made his post-Brexit policy a headline feature of the campaign, and it is less widely understood. But it is clear, via the five "red lines" outlined by John McDonnell at the end of June:

  1. full access to the single market
  2. membership of the European investment bank
  3. access to trading rights for financial services sector
  4. full residency rights for all EU nationals in the UK and all UK nationals in the EU, and
  5. the enshrinement of EU protections for workers. 

Without these five conditions being met, Labour would presumably not support the invocation of Article 50. So if, as seems likely, a Conservative government would never meet these five conditions, would there be any real difference in how a Corbyn leadership would handle the situation? 

The fight over the legacy of the referendum is theatrical at times. The mutual mistrust last week played out on the stage in front of a mass televised audience. Some Corbyn supporters jeered Smith as he made the case for another referendum. Smith accused Corbyn of not even voting for Remain, and wouldn’t let it go. But, deep down, the division is really about a difference of emphasis. 

It speaks to a deeper truth about the future of Britain in Europe. During the referendum, the establishment case for Remain floundered because it refused to make the case that unemployment and declining public services were the result of austerity, not immigrants. Being spearheaded by Conservatives, it couldn’t. It fell to the left to offer the ideological counter attack that was needed – and we failed to reach enough people. 

As a result, what we got was a popular mandate for petty racism and a potentially long-term shift to the right in British politics, endangering a whole raft of workplace and legal protections along the way. Now that it has happened, anyone who really hopes to overcome either Brexit, or the meaning of Brexit, has to address the core attitudes and debates at their root. Then as now, it is only clear left-wing ideas – free from any attempt to triangulate towards anti-migrant sentiment– that can have any hope of success. 

The real dividing lines in Labour are not about the EU. If they were, the Eurosceptic Frank Field would not be backing Smith. For all that it may be convenient to deny it, Europe was once, briefly, the issue that united the Labour Party. One day, the issues at stake in the referendum may do so again – but only if Labour consolidates itself around a strategy for convincing people of ideas, rather than simply reaching for procedural levers.