Did the Mail Publisher's Lawyer Mislead the Leveson Inquiry?

The trial involving senior lawyer Liz Hartley, representing the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, has sparked significant debate surrounding allegations of unlawful information gathering by the newspapers. Hartley has denied accusations of lying during the Leveson Inquiry in 2011 when she stated that there was "no evidence" of unlawful practices associated with private investigator Steve Whittamore, despite ongoing investigations at that time. The case, brought forward by seven prominent claimants, including the Duke of Sussex and Sir Elton John, centres on alleged grave breaches of privacy.

Last updated: 19 October 2023 (BST)

What’s happening now

The High Court trial is currently examining the integrity of statements made by Hartley during the Leveson Inquiry, which investigated press standards following the phone-hacking scandal. Hartley's assertion of no evidence of wrongdoing is under scrutiny as claimants allege that such statements hindered their ability to pursue legal action sooner. The case continues to unfold, with Hartley facing intense questioning about the internal investigations that were ongoing at the time of her testimony.

Key takeaways

Liz Hartley denied accusations of lying during the Leveson Inquiry.
The trial involves high-profile claimants, including the Duke of Sussex.
Allegations centre around unlawful information gathering by the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday.

Timeline: how we got here

The timeline of events regarding this case is crucial for understanding the legal proceedings currently underway. Below are key milestones:

2002: The Information Commissioner's Office conducts a criminal inquiry into private investigator Steve Whittamore.
2005: Whittamore admits to breaches of the Data Protection Act.
August 2011: Hartley leads an internal investigation into payments to private investigators ahead of the Leveson Inquiry.
October 2011: Hartley testifies at the Leveson Inquiry, stating that Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) had seen "no evidence" of unlawful practices.
October 2023: The ongoing trial examines the implications of Hartley's statements and the evidence presented.

What’s new vs what’s known

New today/this week

During the trial proceedings this week, Hartley faced allegations that she had not been truthful regarding the evidence available to her in 2011. David Sherborne, representing the claimants, challenged her assertions by presenting evidence of payments made to Whittamore, suggesting that she had access to information indicating potential unlawful practices.

What was already established

Previously, it was established that Whittamore had a history of obtaining private information unlawfully and that ANL had conducted internal investigations into payments made to him. However, Hartley's testimony at the Leveson Inquiry stated there was no evidence to support claims of unlawful activity, a statement now under scrutiny as new evidence is brought to light.

Impact for the UK

Consumers and households

The implications of this trial extend beyond the individuals involved, potentially affecting public trust in media outlets. If the claimants succeed, it could lead to increased scrutiny of journalistic practices and further regulation in the industry, impacting how newspapers operate and report in the UK.

Businesses and jobs

The outcome of this trial may also influence the wider media landscape, particularly for businesses within the publishing sector. Should the claims against ANL be upheld, it could encourage a shift towards more ethical practices among media companies, as they may face greater pressure to ensure compliance with privacy laws and regulations.

Policy and regulation

This case has the potential to influence future policy decisions regarding media regulations in the UK. A ruling against ANL could set a precedent for further legal actions against other media entities, leading to stricter enforcement of privacy laws and possibly prompting legislative changes aimed at protecting individuals from unlawful information gathering.

Numbers that matter

£1.2 million: The amount reportedly paid by ANL to Whittamore, reflecting significant investment in private investigation services.
5: The number of high-profile claimants involved in the current trial, highlighting the broad implications of the case.
6.5 weeks: The expected duration of the ongoing trial, indicating the complexity of the issues being addressed.

Definitions and jargon buster

Leveson Inquiry: A public inquiry into the culture, practices, and ethics of the press in the UK, initiated in 2011 following the phone-hacking scandal.
Private investigator: A professional who is hired to conduct investigations, often related to legal, financial, or personal matters.
Data Protection Act: A UK law that governs how personal data is used and protected, ensuring individuals have rights over their personal information.

How to think about the next steps

Near term (0–4 weeks)

In the immediate future, the trial will continue with Hartley and other witnesses expected to provide further evidence. Observers should pay attention to details regarding the evidence presented and how it aligns with previous statements made by ANL.

Medium term (1–6 months)

As the trial progresses, there may be implications for media practices and regulations in the UK. Depending on the outcome, we could see a push for reform in how newspapers handle sensitive information and privacy rights.

Signals to watch

Rulings from the court regarding the admissibility of evidence presented by the claimants.
Public response to the trial, which may influence media practices.
Statements from ANL regarding their approach to privacy and information gathering post-trial.

Practical guidance

Do

Stay informed about the proceedings and understand the implications for media ethics.
Consider the broader context of privacy rights in the UK and how they may evolve.

Don’t

Assume that the trial's outcome will not affect the media landscape; it has the potential to do so significantly.
Dismiss the importance of privacy rights and their enforcement in the digital age.

Checklist

Monitor updates from the trial for any significant developments.
Review personal privacy rights and how they are protected under UK law.
Consider the implications of media behaviour on personal privacy.

Risks, caveats, and uncertainties

While the evidence presented in court may suggest wrongdoing, it is essential to approach this case with caution as the proceedings are ongoing. The complexity of the allegations and the historical context means that interpretations may vary. Additionally, the current legal framework around privacy and information gathering is subject to change, which could impact the case's outcome.

Bottom line

The ongoing trial has the potential to reshape the media landscape in the UK, with significant implications for privacy rights and journalistic practices. As the case unfolds, it is crucial to remain attentive to the evidence presented and the broader impact it may have on public trust in the media and regulatory frameworks.

FAQs

What are the main allegations against the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday?

The main allegations involve unlawful information gathering practices by the newspapers, with claimants asserting that their privacy was violated through illegal means.

Who is Liz Hartley, and what role does she play in the trial?

Liz Hartley is the legal director of DMG Media Ltd, the holding company for ANL. She is giving evidence in the trial regarding statements she made during the Leveson Inquiry.

What is the significance of the Leveson Inquiry in this case?

The Leveson Inquiry investigated press standards and ethics following the phone-hacking scandal, and statements made during this inquiry are central to the current trial and the allegations against ANL.