Transcript of afternoon session (pages
1-40), 23 November 2011
|
|
Transcript of afternoon session (pages 1-40) Leveson
Inquiry
November 23
2011
1
2 (2.00 pm)
3 LORD JUSTICE
LEVESON: Yes, Mr Jay.
4 MR JAY: Mr Rowland, we're on the issue of
impact now and
5 you pick this up at paragraph 22 of your
witness
6 statement.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. In your own
words, how would you characterise it?
9 A. Well, it's an intrusion,
firstly. They have no right to
10 do that. It's appalling that it
should happen. I had
11 a large number of really quite sensitive
business
12 contacts that -- where it would be both embarrassing
and
13 potentially awful for my business if this
information
14 leaked out and it was traced back to me, and I felt
that
15 there was also an element that -- I mean, I've
never
16 worked for the News of the World, at that time I
didn't
17 know any News of the World journalists, but if
they
18 wanted to come and ask me something, then why was
it
19 that they routinely got someone to hack my phone
instead
20 of coming to me and asking?
21 Q. Press
regulation. You've obviously thought about this
22 carefully and
deeply. You give us the benefit of your
23 views in paragraph 23
in your witness statement and
24 following. You've, I think, heard
a lot of the evidence
25 over the last few days. You've been
taking a keen
1
1 interest in this Inquiry. What are
your
2 recommendations, please?
3 A. Well, I mean, when I
was at the Daily Telegraph, I did
4 a large number of investigative
stories in a slightly
5 odd climate, because if you'll recall, the
Telegraph at
6 the time was owned by Conrad Black, Lord Black,
current
7 address Cell Block H somewhere in Florida. He
was
8 forever, if you recall, buying and selling the
newspaper
9 or shares in the newspaper. He was either
privatising
10 it or floating it and that meant there was a
constant
11 regime of due diligence going on and he was
frightened
12 that having unresolved defamation actions on the
book
13 would damage the potential valuation of the
paper.
14 So there was a lot of moaning at the Telegraph
among
15 the journalists that what they saw as innocuous
pieces
16 that were routinely being put into other newspapers
were
17 being held out of the Telegraph by the
in-house
18 defamation lawyers. So it was a quite repressive,
they
19 said, regime.
20 Now I wanted to get more
investigative stories in,
21 if I possibly could, so I adopted a
different approach,
22 which was to go along to the in-house
defamation lawyers
23 and ask one simple question, which is what do
I have to
24 do to this story in order for you to be happy to run
it?
25 And they said, well, you know, you need to check all
of
2
1 the sources, you need to make sure that you have
proper
2 witness statements when you need it, you need to
decide
3 all of the things that Alan Rusbridger was talking
about
4 in the sort of lists of things that people do
these
5 days. They were making sure I did.
6 It
occurred to me that the mantra that exists at the
7 moment, the
orthodoxy that more regulation or tighter
8 regulation of the press
will inhibit press freedom
9 because journalists will have a lawyer
standing at their
10 elbow at the time, actually is completely
wrong. Having
11 a lawyer standing at your elbow improves the
quality of
12 what you do because the lawyer is the only person in
the
13 office, the defamation lawyer, who acts as a
proper
14 quality control mechanism.
15 Everybody
in a newspaper room think they know what
16 a good story is.
There's very few regulatory mechanisms
17 there to say, well, is it
fair? Is it accurate? And
18 has it been put to the people
properly before you run
19 it? And because I went through that
mechanism, I look
20 back at them now and I think actually they
were very
21 good stories and part of the reason was I had all
of
22 this great advice that was being given to
me.
23 So when things did go to some extent wrong
and
24 people complained and I was taken to the
Press
25 Complaints Commission on three occasions -- I
checked
3
1 with the PCC actually before this Inquiry
started, and
2 I was the very first national newspaper journalist
to be
3 exonerated in a PCC inquiry. And the reason I
was
4 exonerated is because I'd had the stories
lawyered
5 backwards, forwards, up and down, and they were as
tight
6 as we could possibly make them.
7 I would
argue that is an entirely beneficial
8 process.
9
I'd also say that I think there's been a disastrous
10
deterioration in the last ten years in a lot of ways
11 because
more and more stories are written by freelance
12 journalists and
they do not have the same access to the
13 same legal
resources.
14 I'll give you an example. I worked for a
long
15 time -- well, quite a long time, when they set up
the
16 supplement I was talking about at the Mail on Sunday,
so
17 I was a Mail on Sunday freelance journalist, and I
was
18 put in the position of running stories where I
thought
19 corners were being cut and I didn't have access
to
20 proper legal advice before they were run, and there
was
21 one particular occasion when -- it was a very
high
22 profile -- I won't refer to the actual details of
the
23 story, but it was as very high-profile couple who
were
24 involved in some rather esoteric house purchases
and
25 there was a whistle-blower and I was unsure about
the
4
1 whistle-blower and I thought we needed to go
back and do
2 some more checks, but they ran the story anyway.
And
3 I and Mr Caplan down here, the barrister for the Mail
on
4 Sunday, had to actually dig them out of the
hole
5 afterwards, and I would argue that the
freelance
6 journalists should have been talking to the
lawyers
7 before it was published, not afterwards.
8 LORD
JUSTICE LEVESON: All right.
9 MR JAY: Thank you very much, Mr
Rowland. You've given your
10 evidence very clearly, thank you
very much. May I just
11 check, is there anything you would wish
to add?
12 A. Yes, there is one thing.
13 Q. Yes,
okay.
14 A. When you had the seminars, sir, there was talk
there
15 about press practices in the 1970s and how
they've
16 improved greatly because of the regime that's been
put
17 into place by the PCC. One of the examples that
was
18 given was the theft of photographs, and I think it
was
19 Mr Dacre, the editor of the Daily Mail, who said
that
20 such a practice was outrageous and that it no
longer
21 took place.
22 Well, I would disagree.
I think that there are
23 many, many more photographs that are
stolen these days,
24 but they're stolen electronically. It's not
in my
25 evidence or my witness statement, but I had examples
of
5
1 photographs that have been quite blatantly
and
2 shamelessly stolen by national newspapers, not in
the
3 1970s but almost within the last seven
months.
4 The example I'm thinking about, I actually have
an
5 audit trail, because I was involved in it, that
I've
6 pieced together so you can see what was done and
when,
7 or rather what wasn't done and when, and they
just
8 sliced off the watermark on the bottom with
the
9 copyright notice of the photographer, and then
refused
10 to pay him. And that, in Mr Dacre's word, is
actually
11 outrageous and it's an abuse that could be stopped
by
12 a regime of punitive fines and that, I hope,
is
13 something that the Inquiry will think about putting
into
14 place.
15 I can make that photograph
available to you, if you
16 think it might help, and put it into
the record. I'm
17 prepared to do that.
18 LORD JUSTICE
LEVESON: We'll decide whether we should put it
19 formally into
the material that is read into the record.
20 Thank you very much
indeed.
21 A. Okay.
22 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank
you.
23 MR JAY: Thank you. I don't think we need a break.
Shall
24 we move on to the next person?
25 LORD JUSTICE
LEVESON: We don't need a break after seven
6
1 minutes, Mr Jay.
2 MR JAY: The next
witnesses are Dr And Dr McCann, please.
3 DR GERALD PATRICK McCANN and
DR KATE MARIE McCANN (sworn)
4 MR JAY: Thank you very much. First of
all, I'm going to
5 invite each of you to provide us with your full
names,
6 please.
7 MR McCANN: Gerald Patrick
McCann.
8 MRS McCANN: Kate Marie McCann.
9 LORD JUSTICE
LEVESON: Before we start, you've probably
10 heard me thank others
before you for coming along,
11 voluntarily, to speak of matters
which I have no doubt
12 are intensely personal and extremely
sensitive, and I am
13 very, very grateful to you for doing
so.
14 In your case, of course, nobody, and in
particular
15 nobody with children, could fail to appreciate
the
16 terrible impact of your daughter's abduction on you
and
17 your family, so words of sympathy for these
appalling
18 circumstances are utterly inadequate, but I am
very
19 grateful to you for coming.
20 MR JAY: I know
each of you would like your counsel to ask
21 a few preliminary
questions. Before he does so,
22 formally can I invite you to
confirm the contents of
23 your respective witness statements.
You, Dr Gerald
24 McCann, there's a statement dated 30 October,
and
25 there's a statement of truth at the end of it. Is
that
7
1 correct?
2 MR McCANN: It
is.
3 Q. And then Dr Kate McCann, a far more recent
statement
4 referring to your husband's statement and again
with
5 a statement of truth dated 22 November; is that
right?
6 MRS McCANN: That's right.
7 MR JAY: Just a few
questions from Mr Sherborne and then
8 I will
proceed.
9 Questions by MR SHERBORNE
10 MR
SHERBORNE: Thank you. As Mr Jay said, I'm going to just
11 ask
you a few preliminary questions.
12 Everybody is well aware,
particularly following the
13 submissions last week, that you've
been forced to take
14 a number of legal complaints or actions as a
result of
15 some of the coverage that you received following
the
16 abduction of your daughter. Not just articles that
were
17 published, but also to stop articles being
published,
18 often on weekends, and I know that Mr Jay is going
to
19 talk to you about that in due course.
20 Can
I just ask you, though, have you ever had to
21 give evidence
before?
22 MR McCANN: No.
23 Q. So this is the first and, I
hope, the last time. Given
24 that you've had a lifetime of
lawyers, nice ones, of
25 course, can you just explain to the
Inquiry why you've
8
1 agreed to give evidence?
2 MR McCANN:
I think it's for one simple reason, in that we
3 feel that a system
has to be put in place to protect
4 ordinary people from the damage
that the media can cause
5 by their activity, which falls well
below the standards
6 that I would deem acceptable.
7 Q.
Of course, we all here understand that your overriding
8 objective
is the continuing search for your daughter.
9 We've seen from your
statements, or we will see, once
10 the statements are publicly
made available, that in
11 terms of reporting, you've experienced
what I might call
12 the good, the bad and the particularly ugly
side of the
13 press. One might ask this: is it helpful to
have
14 Madeleine permanently in the public eye?
15 MR
McCANN: I've talked about this on several occasions in
16 the
past, and I do not feel it's helpful, and
17 particularly at the
time when there were daily stories
18 running throughout 2007 and
2008. It became very
19 apparent to us early on there was an
incredible amount
20 of speculation and misinformation. It led to
confusion
21 amongst people. All we need to do is
periodically
22 remind the public who have supported us so much
that
23 Madeleine is still missing, there's an ongoing
search
24 and those responsible for taking her are still at
large
25 and have to be brought to justice.
9
1 MRS McCANN: I was just going to say obviously there
was a
2 period when Madeleine was on the front page of a
paper
3 every day, and I know occasionally people would say
to
4 me "That has to be a good thing, hasn't it? She's
in
5 the public eye", and that isn't the case because
when
6 the story is so negative about her, and we'll come
into
7 that, obviously then that is not helpful. As
Gerry
8 said, I think it's a reminder that's important,
that's
9 all.
10 Q. That's Madeleine. What about you
both being in the
11 public eye? Is that helpful?
12 MR
McCANN: I don't think it is helpful. Obviously we
13 realise that
as Madeleine's parents, and particularly
14 given what's happened
to us, that if we are delivering
15 the message, then it offers
more appeal and is more
16 likely to get coverage. And of course
we have also
17 acknowledged that the media have been very helpful
on
18 occasion particularly when we have launched appeals,
and
19 huge amounts of information have come into the
inquiry
20 as a direct result of our appeals, and we'd like
to
21 thank everyone in the public who have come
forward.
22 Q. Finally can I ask you this: there are a number
of
23 specific things you'll be asked about and Mr Jay
is
24 going to take you through your statement, but it
might
25 help Lord Justice Leveson and the Inquiry if you
could
10
1 just outline in very general headline terms what
your
2 concerns are about the culture, practices and ethics
of
3 the press.
4 MR McCANN: I think there are four main
areas I would be
5 keen to give evidence on that we have direct
experience
6 of. One is obviously libel, which has been very
well
7 publicised, but then also the lasting damage it
causes.
8 Secondly, the privacy laws and current, I would
say,
9 gaps in legislation at the minute where companies
can
10 use photographs, can hound you, without your
consent,
11 for commercial gain.
12 I think there
has been contempt demonstrated by the
13 media, primarily the press
but to some extent
14 broadcasters as well, both for the judicial
process and
15 also at times Madeleine's safety. And the fourth
thing,
16 which probably is not regulated by law and I hope
this
17 Inquiry will deal with, is about what are
acceptable
18 standards and how individual journalists and
corporate
19 entities, editors and subeditors, are held to
account.
20 MR SHERBORNE: I'm very grateful. If you wait there, Mr
Jay
21 has more questions for you.
22
Questions from MR JAY
23 MR JAY: Dr McCann, I have an eye on those
four themes and
24 if you don't mind, I'll come back to them at the
end of
25 your evidence. Your witness statement is
publicly
11
1 available and I can see it out of the corner of
my eye
2 on a screen, but if you could have it in front of you
in
3 print, you tell us in terms of your career
you're
4 a consultant cardiologist.
5 MR McCANN: That's
correct.
6 Q. And in terms of fixing ourselves back into the
dates,
7 the abduction of your daughter, I think was it 3
May
8 2007?
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. You tell
us in your witness statement that a photograph
11 was made
immediately available, provided to the
12 broadcast media and to
the press, and was, as it were,
13 displayed everywhere. Is that
correct?
14 A. There's two elements to that. The first element
was
15 what we were doing on the night and obviously we
had
16 digital cameras and we were trying to get
photographs
17 printed of Madeleine from the holiday.
18
Q. Yes.
19 A. To give to the police, but secondly, a very good
friend
20 of ours who we spoke to in the early hours of 4 May
took
21 upon himself to issue photographs of Madeleine to
all
22 the major media outlets in the UK.
23 Q. Within a
very short space of time, the British press and
24 perhaps the
international press had descended on
25 Praia da Luz; is that
correct?
12
1 A. It is.
2 Q. And you had to make a
decision as to whether to interact
3 with them and, if so, on what
basis?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And what decision did you make and
why?
6 A. The first thing to say is it was incredibly
daunting.
7 We had been away all day. It was also apparent to
us
8 whilst we were in the police station of Porto
Mario(?)
9 in the Algarve that there was already
extensive
10 coverage, particularly on Sky News, which was running
in
11 the police station, somewhat bizarrely, and when we
were
12 driving back towards the apartment, it was in
the
13 evening and we could literally see tens, if not
hundreds
14 of journalists outside the apartment and satellite
vans,
15 et cetera, a large number of cameras.
16
There were two things going through my head: what
17 are they going
to be saying? And we've seen, I think,
18 over many years our
privacy being invaded and what
19 stories could be published, but
ultimately, possibly
20 because we've seen the same thing being
done in the UK,
21 I thought it was an opportunity to issue an
appeal.
22 I was given no guidance one way or the other whether
to
23 do that. I knew there could be a very heavy downside
to
24 interacting, but I made the decision at the time
with
25 the information I had that it would probably be in
the
13
1 best interests of the search for our daughter,
and
2 decided to interact.
3 Q. Yes. You say in your
statement, paragraph 15, that in
4 the initial stages, your
engagement with the press
5 worked well. Are you able to amplify
that just a little
6 bit for us, please?
7 A. I think for
those people who can remember, it was a very
8 unusual scenario,
and we got a distinct impression that
9 there was a genuine want to
help attitude from the
10 journalists there, and I think also many
of the
11 executives who perhaps saw what had happened to us
and
12 there was a huge amount of empathy. So I really
did
13 feel early on there was a desire to help.
14 Q. As
you explain, the position changed, but the segue
15 perhaps into
that change is some evidence you give in
16 relation to the
Portuguese criminal system. Now each
17 culture, each nation has a
slightly different criminal
18 system, and obviously there can be
no criticism about
19 that, but what you say in Portugal is that
there is no
20 permitted interaction between the law
enforcement
21 agencies and the press; is that correct?
22
A. That's correct.
23 Q. Do you have a view as to the possible
drawbacks of that,
24 without necessarily being critical, but it's
pretty
25 obvious it gives rise to the possibility of
leaks,
14
1 doesn't it?
2 A. Sure. I think the
system is open to abuse is the first
3 thing, and clearly there was
a ferocious appetite and
4 perhaps in the United Kingdom with the
SIO and the press
5 office for the constabulary leading the
investigation
6 would have had a very clear agenda on how to work
with
7 the media, what information could be disclosed,
what
8 might be helpful, and steering journalists away
from
9 certain areas.
10 Obviously there was none
of that happening, and
11 there was tremendous pressure on the
Portuguese
12 authorities to interact with the media, and some of
you
13 may remember the very first time that happened,
the
14 spokesperson gave a short statement that didn't
really
15 say anything, was asked a number of questions
and
16 followed every single one of them with, "I can't
give
17 you any details because of judicial secrecy".
18
Q. Yes.
19 A. So there was a huge appetite, and we quickly
realised
20 that there was a tremendous amount of speculation in
the
21 coverage both in the newspapers and also you had
24-hour
22 news channels there constantly, and we found that to
be
23 unhelpful.
24 Q. In terms of the conduit type of
information, is this
25 correct, that whatever the strict legal
position in
15
1 Portugal, information was being leaked by the
Portuguese
2 police to the Portuguese press, that's stage one,
and
3 having been leaked to the Portuguese press, the
British
4 press then picked up on that self-same
information,
5 that's stage two? Is that an accurate
description?
6 A. I cannot tell you for certain that it was the
Portuguese
7 police who were leaking information, but for anyone
who
8 followed the headlines in July, August and
September
9 2007, I think it would be a perfectly
reasonable
10 assumption to make that elements of the inquiry
were
11 speaking to the Portuguese police -- sorry,
Portuguese
12 press. I do not know whether they were
speaking
13 directly to the British media, but what we clearly
saw
14 were snippets of information which as far as I
was
15 concerned the British media could not tell whether
it
16 was true or not, which was then reported,
often
17 exaggerated and blown up into many tens, in
fact
18 hundreds of front page headlines.
19 Q. The
British press did not have the means of verifying
20 the
information, but your complaint is that the
21 information was
distorted and magnified; do I have it
22 right?
23 A. I
think I'm complaining on all of the grounds, that they
24 didn't
know the source, didn't know whether it was
25 accurate, it was
exaggerated and often downright
16
1 untruthful and often I believe, on occasions,
made up.
2 Q. We're going to cover the detail of that in a
moment,
3 Dr McCann. Throughout the summer of 2007, the
interest
4 of the British press was retained in the story,
wasn't
5 it? They were constantly there in Praia da Luz; is
that
6 right?
7 A. Yes. It did surprise us. Obviously
after the initial
8 period, and I can understand that what we ended
up doing
9 by having an international campaign was
unprecedented,
10 but we did send a very clear signal, as the
attention
11 focused more and more on Kate and myself, that the
focus
12 should be on Madeleine and we fully expected,
around
13 mid-June, for the British media to leave. We decided
we
14 had to stay in Portugal to be close to Madeleine, to
be
15 close to the investigation, and certainly didn't
feel
16 capable of leaving at that point, so it did surprise
us
17 that there was so much ongoing interest when
there
18 really wasn't very much happening.
19 Q. In
terms of the advice you were getting or not getting,
20 I'm going
to put to one side the issue of the PCC into
21 a later sequence in
your evidence, but you tell us in
22 your witness statement that
there were two resources
23 available to you. Paragraph 21, first
of all, someone
24 from Bell Pottinger who gave you assistance.
Tell us
25 a little bit about that please and the value that
person
17
1 was able to provide to you.
2 A. Yes,
so Alex Woolfall who works for Bell Pottinger was
3 brought out
really to deal with the media crisis
4 management specialist on
behalf of Mark Warner, and at
5 that point he was leading the
engagement with the media
6 who were present in Praia da Luz, and
he was very
7 helpful. He just gave us some simple tips, which
we've
8 tried to stick to, and that was: if you interact,
what's
9 your objective, should be the question you ask
yourself.
10 And how is it going to help? And obviously
our
11 objective is to find Madeleine, and that's
something
12 that we have tried to apply when we interact with
the
13 media. Today is one of the exceptions, where it's
not
14 the primary purpose of our engagement.
15 Q. Thank
you. And you also mentioned someone called
16 Clarence Mitchell,
who was seconded to the FCO as part
17 of the media liaison in
Praia da Luz.?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And you fairly say that
person's help was invaluable.
20 Is there anything you would wish
to add in relation to
21 the assistance that person gave
you?
22 A. I think at times we've been criticised for
having
23 somebody to deal with the media, but the volume
of
24 requests was incredible, both nationally and
25
internationally, and it was almost -- well, I don't know
18
1 how Clarence managed it in May and early June
2007, but
2 it was a full-time job just dealing with those
requests
3 and it's been very important. As I said, we had
no
4 prior media experience, but in terms of just
shielding
5 us from the inquiries which were constant.
6
MRS McCANN: Gave us a little bit of protection, really.
7 MR McCANN:
And obviously we were working very hard behind
8 the scenes, and
let us spend some time with our family,
9 as well.
10 Q.
In paragraph 24 of your statement, Dr McCann, you deal
11 with the
suggestion, well, here you are dealing with the
12 press and then
in parentheses, on your own terms, that
13 almost allows the press
open season to deal with you on
14 their terms. Maybe I'm slightly
over-exaggerating the
15 point, but in your own words, please, what
is your view
16 about that suggestion?
17 A. Well, it has
been argued on many occasions that by
18 engaging then it was more
or less open season, and
19 I think it's crass and insensitive to
suggest that by
20 engaging with a view to trying to find your
daughter,
21 that the press can write whatever they want about
you
22 without punishment.
23 Q. The next section of your
statement deals with accuracy
24 of reporting and you point out
that after a period of
25 time, there was little new news to
report.
19
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. It may be at that point that
the agenda started to morph
3 and in paragraph 27 you state
"clearly it didn't take
4 long before innuendo started to creep
in". Are you able
5 to elaborate on that, if you were to wish
to?
6 A. Yeah, I mean I think there were two elements.
The
7 reporting quickly became highly speculative, and
often
8 stories -- for example, there must have been
"McCann
9 fury" on the front page of many newspapers over
that
10 summer that would quote an unnamed source or
friends,
11 and unless our phones were hacked, which I don't
think
12 they were, then these were made up because they
were
13 simply not true.
14 So there was clearly
pressure to produce a story.
15 The reporters who were based in
Praia da Luz, first
16 thing they did each day was get the
Portuguese press,
17 get it translated, and decide what they were
going to
18 write about, and I don't think any of it was
helpful.
19 Q. The date you give for the shift of the emphasis of
the
20 media reporting is about June 2007, is it, but then
you
21 feel the mood may have been moving or turning a bit
in
22 the British press? Or perhaps a bit later than
that?
23 A. Yeah, I mean obviously I think we've realised that
if
24 you're in the spotlight for anything, then
not
25 everything that's going to be written about you
is
20
1 either going to be sympathetic or supportive, so
we
2 quickly saw that what we thought may be a good thing
to
3 do would be criticised. Whether it would be
our
4 decision to go to Rome or not was criticised in
certain
5 quarters. Even at the time for us it was very
important
6 to us. So there was that element, and then there
were
7 more sinister elements were starting to creep into
the
8 reporting.
9 Firstly, the first really bad
thing was an article
10 that was written in a Portuguese paper
which was
11 entitled, "Pact of silence", and it was starting
to
12 refer that there was some sort of sinister
agreement
13 between us and our friends to cover up what
had
14 happened, and I thought that was rather
ludicrous,
15 considering that we were all acting under
judicial
16 secrecy and couldn't speak about the details of
the
17 event. But that -- it was probably towards the end
of
18 June 2007, and slowly deteriorated through
July,
19 culminating in September 2007.
20 Q. The real
spate of offensive and objectionable material,
21 if I can be
forgiven for using those epithets, starts in
22 September 2007 and
runs on to January 2008, and we'll be
23 looking at those in a
moment.
24 In paragraph 32, you make the general point that
UK
25 press articles were often based on bits and
pieces
21
1 picked up from Portuguese articles, transmuted
from
2 supposition into fact; is that right?
3 A. Yeah,
absolutely. And I think one of the articles that
4 springs to mind
actually was a piece in a Portuguese
5 newspaper where somebody was
talking to the prosecutor
6 and was asking what he thought had
happened and there
7 was a quote saying he didn't know whether
Madeleine was
8 alive or dead, and I think the following line
was
9 "probably dead", and that translated into the front
page
10 of the Daily Mirror with a photograph of Madeleine
with
11 a headline, "She's dead", which we saw at 11 o'clock
at
12 night, we were trying to go to bed. Obviously that
was
13 one of the most distressing headlines, it was
presented
14 as if it's factual, and it was just taken from
that
15 supposition, I don't know, probability.
It's
16 incredible.
17 Q. One key event in this narrative
is you becoming, if
18 I pronounce it right, arguido, under
Portuguese law,
19 which occurred on 7 September 2007, and this
is
20 paragraph 34 of your witness statement. To be
clear
21 about it, and you'll correct me if I'm wrong because
you
22 know more about this than me, arguido does not
mean
23 "suspect", it means "person of interest"; is
that
24 correct?
25 A. That's what we were advised was
the closest correlation
22
1 or translation within UK law at the time, and I
think it
2 is probably important to emphasise that as a witness
in
3 Portugal at that time you were not entitled to any
legal
4 representation. So if the police wanted to ask
any
5 question, which your answer may give
incriminating
6 evidence, then they must declare you arguido, then
you
7 were entitled to have a lawyer there. And in many
ways
8 you could argue that all parents of a missing
child,
9 certainly those who would have been the last to
see
10 them, could have to answer questions like that.
So
11 being labelled arguido was not necessarily such a
bad
12 thing.
13 However, I will acknowledge that
there were leaks by
14 elements of the investigation team which
clearly were
15 trying to portray that there was strong evidence
that
16 Madeleine was dead and that we were involved.
17
Q. Maybe there are two points here. The first point is the
18
obvious one that needs to be stated. There isn't an
19 equivalent
concept of arguido in English law?
20 A. No. And I think the aspect
on that is we've never been
21 arrested, we've never been charged
with anything. We've
22 never stood trial.
23 Q. Do you
happen to know whether under Portuguese law they
24 have a category
of suspect?
25 A. I think it is loosely used, but you could have
multiple
23
1 arguidos within any investigation, and at that
time, the
2 title "arguido" stayed with those involved until
the
3 file was closed.
4 Q. Do you think, rightly or
wrongly, the British press
5 somehow interpreted "arguido" as
equivalent to
6 "suspect", which carried with it, therefore, its
own
7 connotations?
8 A. Yes. I mean clearly the word
was used that way almost
9 exclusively.
10 Q. At this
point we are in the late summer, obviously, or
11 early autumn of
2007. If I can move you forward to
12 paragraph 39 of your
statement. You're making the point
13 that the story in terms of
objective fact is beginning
14 to run dry and reporters now are
thrashing around for
15 something new.
16 A. I think it's
probably worth just clarifying that within
17 ten days of being
made arguidos, the prosecutor made an
18 announcement that all
lines of inquiry, including the
19 abduction of Madeleine, were
open and no charges were
20 being brought at that time, but that
didn't stop the
21 continued reporting of inaccurate, untruthful
and
22 incredibly damaging reports.
23 Q. From the
perspective of the newspaper and the sort of
24 economic
calculation they may wish to conduct -- you
25 deal with this in
paragraph 39 -- but you have evidence
24
1 that this story was, at least in the opinion of
those
2 running one of the newspapers, boosting
their
3 circulation figures. Is that right?
4 A. I think
that's clear, and Peter Ellis testified that to
5 the Parliamentary
Select Committee.
6 Q. The specific tone of the articles changes in
September
7 2007. We're going to look at that particularly
in
8 a moment. In paragraph 40, however, you refer to
one
9 piece in the Evening Standard, which is I think the
very
10 day you were declared arguidos, 7 September
2007:
11 "Police believe mother killed Maddie."
12 A.
Mm.
13 Q. Was that the first time that point was made so
baldly
14 and so falsely?
15 A. There's been so many
headlines of similar gravity that
16 I can't tell you honestly
whether that was the first
17 time.
18 MRS McCANN: I
think that may have been the first time it
19 was in a headline.
In August 2007, we were told by
20 a BBC journalist, in fact he
stopped us and said, "Have
21 you seen what's getting reported?
They're saying
22 there's blood in the apartment, they're saying
that you
23 were involved. Madeleine's been killed and you
were
24 involved." So actually it was stirring up in
August
25 2007, but I think the headlines like that became
very
25
1 prominent once we were made arguidos.
2
Q. Then you refer to two articles in the Daily Mail which,
3
unless I've missed something, we don't have available
4 today, but
the first one published in September 2007 you
5 summarise in
paragraph 41, the subheading:
6 "I pray the Portuguese police
are careering down the
7 wrong track, but from the start a terrible
nagging doubt
8 has refused to leave me."
9 That,
for what it's worth, was corrected by another
10 piece as late as 4
May 2009, which you deal with in
11 paragraph 43; is that
correct?
12 MR McCANN: It is. I should probably clarify
that
13 paragraph 41 refers to Kate rather than myself, but
yes,
14 that's correct.
15 Q. In paragraph 46, you deal
with a theme which you're not
16 the first to address, namely
presence of photographers.
17 We know, of course, that you came
home at a certain
18 point, I can't remember precisely when it was,
but once
19 you're home, you then have photographers outside
your
20 home. Can you just tell us a little bit about that,
and
21 in particular the impact that had on you?
22 A. I
think the first thing probably to say is it started
23 when we said
we were leaving Portugal, which we'd
24 already told the police we
were going to leave before we
25 were declared arguidos, and the
journey to the airport
26
1 was one of the most terrifying experiences, I
think,
2 anyone could have, where cars were coming
across,
3 cutting in front, cameras, people hanging out
of
4 windows, motorbike riders. It was just
dangerous,
5 frankly dangerous.
6 When we got back
to our home in Rothley, again there
7 were tens of journalists --
we live in a cul de sac, at
8 the end of it -- camped outside our
house, cameras,
9 helicopter crews following us. We were hemmed in
the
10 house for a couple of days before the police moved
them
11 to the end of our drive.
12 Q. Then you tell us
that photographers were still banging
13 on car windows, even with
one or more children in the
14 car; is that right?
15 MRS
McCANN: And they stayed there until December 2007.
16 That was
only after we had help to get them removed, but
17 they were there
every day, and they'd wait for Gerry to
18 go and they knew I'd
have to come out of the house at
19 some point with the children.
It would be the same
20 photograph every day, we'd be in the car,
myself and two
21 children, the photographers would either spring
out from
22 behind a hedge to get a startled look that they
could
23 attach "fragile", "furious", whatever they wanted to
put
24 with the headline, but there were several
occasions
25 where they would bang on the windows, sometimes with
the
27
1 camera lenses, and Amelie said to me several
times,
2 "Mummy, I'm scared."
3 MR McCANN: I'd like to
point out the twins at that time
4 were still only two and a half
years old. Very
5 frightened.
6 Q. You deal with two
further matters, perhaps less serious
7 than this, because what
you've told us of course is
8 a plain breach of the code, that we
may come to in due
9 course.
10 There was a
photograph of you, Dr Gerald McCann, on
11 the golf course, which
obviously is a private place, and
12 then the distortion of
photographs of you, Dr Kate
13 McCann, to present, no doubt, a
certain image. Often
14 coupled with the adjectives "frail" or
"fragile", which
15 you've told us about.
16 In
terms of the effect on you, you described it, and
17 of course it
will be obvious to us, but looking more
18 broadly, the effect on
the continuing investigation,
19 which after all is your primary
focus then, as it is
20 now, are you able to quantify that for us
and describe
21 it?
22 A. Well, I think from --
reputational aspects aside, the
23 distress that was caused to us
was the clear message
24 that was going out nationally throughout
Europe and
25 internationally was that there was very strong
evidence
28
1 that our daughter was dead and that we were
somehow
2 implicated in her disappearance, and we knew that
if
3 people believed that, then there couldn't be
4 a
meaningful search, and it was incredible. And any
5 aspects of
campaigning for a search with what happened
6 to us and how it was
portrayed in the media meant we
7 were completely hamstrung in our
ability to counter
8 anything.
9 MRS McCANN: These were
desperate times. You know, we were
10 having to try and find our
daughter ourselves. We
11 needed all the help we could get, and we
were faced
12 with -- I know we'll come on to headlines, but
"Corpse
13 in the car"; I don't know how many times I read
"Body
14 fluids in the car". And it gets repeated that often,
it
15 becomes fact. There were no body fluids. We
16
desperately wanted to shout out "It's not true, it's not
17 true",
but when it's your voice against the powerful
18 media, it just
doesn't have a weight. We were
19 desperately shouting out
internally "Please stop, what
20 are you doing? We're trying to
find our daughter and
21 you're stopping our chances of finding
her".
22 MR McCANN: The point being, which I alluded to earlier,
is
23 that we were told in no uncertain terms that if
we
24 disclosed anything publicly which we knew to be in
the
25 judicial file, ie the results which had been shown
to
29
1 us, which we knew were not what was being
reported about
2 DNA, then we were threatened with a
two-year
3 imprisonment for breaking judicial secrecy, so we
were
4 being tried by the media and unable to defend
ourselves
5 adequately.
6 Q. You tell us in your
statement a series of steps which
7 were taken to try and abate
this flood. Can I try and
8 summarise it in this way? First of
all, a meeting is
9 organised with the editors of the major UK
tabloid
10 newspapers. That's in September 2007, when a
clear
11 message was put out to them, and you tell us that had
a
12 transient effect. It's paragraph 53 of your
witness
13 statement.
14 A. Sure. I think there's two
elements. Within the first
15 week of being back, we had appointed
solicitors,
16 Kingsley Napley, and Angus McBride, who is one of
the
17 solicitors who represented us at that time, he
thought
18 it was very important that he would -- we should try
and
19 modify the content of the press articles, and he
went
20 with Justine McGuinness, who was campaign manager
at
21 that point, and met with all the editors from the
major
22 newspapers and emphasised to them that it was his
strong
23 belief that there was no evidence to support what
they
24 were reporting. But it seemed to have very
little
25 effect.
30
1 In fact, I think Kingsley Napley then
pressurised
2 Leicestershire police to write to the broadcasters
and
3 editors, and there's a letter from Matt Baggott, who
was
4 Chief Constable at that time, urging restraint
and
5 saying there was very inaccurate
reporting.
6 We organised another round of meetings with
Angus
7 and Clarence, who then came back to work for us later
on
8 in September 2007, and that was followed up with
another
9 letter from the Chief Constable, I think on 17
October,
10 if my memory --
11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: 8
October.
12 A. Thank you. Failed.
13 MR JAY: 17 September,
8 October.
14 A. And obviously these things were done because
the
15 coverage was continuing such a bad way.
16 Q. You
identify the worst offenders, and we'll be looking
17 at this quite
carefully in a moment, amongst the
18 Express Group newspapers,
which included the Daily Star
19 and the Daily Express, the Sunday
Express and the
20 Sunday Star?
21 A. Yes.
22
Q. Did there come a point when warnings were given by your
23
lawyers in the context of possible claims in defamation,
24 by
which I mean libel?
25 A. Yes. Kingsley Napley had written to the
Express Group
31
1 twice, explicitly, telling them that they were
on
2 notice, that we felt that the content of the
articles
3 was libellous, and we reserved the right to take
action.
4 Then I think what you see in paragraph 66
is
5 a series of articles produced in January 2008
over
6 a very short period of time, rehashing largely, but
with
7 other things come on, and I think it's important
to
8 emphasise we had met with Adam Tudor from Carter
Ruck,
9 who is as you know a libel specialist, and we had
talked
10 about legal action, which for us was always a
last
11 resort. We felt we had a more important battle
to
12 fight, which was finding our daughter, but we felt
that
13 it was our only course of action open to us at
that
14 point that would stop it.
15 MRS McCANN: And I
think it's important to emphasise, again,
16 some of the headlines
that we faced. They were
17 incessant. And they're not just
slight inaccuracies.
18 I mean, "It was her blood in parents' hire
car".
19 Totally untrue.
20 Q. Let's look at some of
these articles, please. What I'm
21 going to do is invite your
attention first of all to
22 GM2, which is a schedule you have
prepared, with
23 directly underneath it articles in the Daily
Express,
24 specifically. These run from 27 September 2007
to
25 22 January 2008. The ones you have specifically
32
1 identified in paragraph 66 of your witness
statement we
2 can look at, but first of all, we can get the
flavour of
3 some of the headlines.
4 9 October
2007: "DNA puts parents in frame.
5 British experts insist their
tests are valid".
6 17 October 2007: "Parents' hire car hid a
corpse.
7 It was under carpet in boot, say
police".
8 Then "Priest: I was deceived".
9 I
haven't counted them up, but there are probably
10 about 25 similar
pieces running over a three or
11 four-month
period.
12 Let's just look at some of them, if you don't
mind.
13 MR McCANN: Sure.
14 Q. We're in GM2, and the first
of them --
15 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: We're not intending to put these
on
16 the website, are we, Mr Jay?
17 MR JAY: Well, if
there's a problem, we won't. I didn't
18 understand there to be,
but at the moment these are not
19 on any website, no.
20
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: No. I just don't particularly want
21 to
give greater prominence or currency to articles that
22 have caused
enough distress in their time.
23 MR JAY: Yes.
24 LORD
JUSTICE LEVESON: By all means refer to them and that
25 can be
part of the evidence, but it seems to me that's
33
1 sufficient.
2 Are you content
with that approach?
3 A. Obviously the articles themselves have been
pulled, but
4 they are -- their contents have been widely
disseminated
5 through many blogs, as you're probably well aware,
but
6 we have no issue with discussing the content.
7 MR
JAY: Yes. I think the best thing to do, unless someone
8 says I
should adopt a different course, is I'm not going
9 to ask for the
articles to be put on the screen, but I'm
10 just going to refer to
the articles and we can bring out
11 maybe one or two points. If
at any point you tell me
12 no, you don't want me to proceed down a
particular
13 road --
14 A. Sure.
15 Q. -- of
course I won't. So I'll do this as quickly and as
16 lightly as I
can, Dr McCann, just to give the flavour.
17 If you look,
please, at the internal numbering, it's
18 page 10 of
GM2.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. There's an
article:
21 "It was her blood in parents' hire car, new
DNA
22 tests report".
23 The overall flavour or
thrust of this article was
24 that there was DNA evidence which
linked your daughter
25 with a hire car. What do you say about
that? I'm sure
34
1 you have a lot to say about it, but in a
nutshell --
2 A. The first thing to say is it's simply
untrue.
3 Madeleine's DNA was not uncovered from the hire
car,
4 that's the first thing.
5 Q. Yes.
6 A.
The inference from this is, and I think the public who
7 think that
DNA is a very strong evidence in cases would
8 take this to mean,
absolutely, that Madeleine was in the
9 hire car that we hired more
than three weeks after she
10 disappeared. It's
incredible.
11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Interestingly enough, what
they're
12 doing is reporting a newspaper as saying that, so
that's
13 how it comes out. A Portuguese newspaper.
14
A. Well, often you'll find that there would be something
15 down
in the article. They weren't published in the
16 prominence that
they were in these papers. And no way
17 of checking the source,
which is a recurring theme.
18 These are all sources, unnamed
sources in the original
19 articles.
20 MR JAY: If we
move, please, to page 15, the headline reads:
21 "Madeleine:
McCanns are main suspects, say police."
22 Was that
correct?
23 A. Well, the police weren't speaking to the media
under
24 judicial law, and we haven't had any of the
police
25 identified who have given these statements. I
would
35
1 like to know who they are. Perhaps they could
face
2 contempt of court proceedings.
3 Q. Okay. Page
17, this is another headline you refer to in
4 paragraph
66:
5 "Priest 'bans' Madeleine. He takes down posters
as
6 Praia da Luz" and then I think this should be
open
7 inverted commas "wipes her from its
memory."
8 What's the innuendo there? It's pretty
obvious.
9 A. It is, and I think the key thing here is obviously
that
10 the Church community in Praia da Luz were
incredibly
11 supportive to Kate and I spiritually.
12 MRS
McCANN: And still are.
13 MR McCANN: And at that point they continued
to hold
14 a weekly vigil for Madeleine, so obviously saying
that
15 the town and the Portuguese locals had turned their
back
16 on us was a clear innuendo from this article,
which
17 again was not true.
18 Q. In GM3, if we can
quickly navigate our way through that,
19 this is another schedule
of articles; this time,
20 however, we're looking at the Daily Star
and the
21 Daily Star Sunday. There's a similar number
of
22 articles, really. No, it's more. Maybe about 50
of
23 them. What is similar is the broad dates,
from
24 27 September 2007 to 22 January 2008.
25
Two of the articles you specifically referred to in
36
1 your evidence, we can just quickly alight on
them. Look
2 at page 117, please, Dr McCann. An article in
the
3 Daily Star on 26 November 2007:
4 "Maddie
'sold' by hard-up McCanns."
5 This is the article you do refer
to, the selling
6 into white slavery allegation. Probably you
don't want
7 to dignify that with a comment?
8 A. That's
nothing short of disgusting.
9 MRS McCANN: I think this same
journalist, if memory serves
10 right, also said we stored her body
in a freezer.
11 I mean, we just ...
12 Q. The final one,
I've read all of these, Dr McCann, last
13 night. We could look at
all of them. These are
14 representative.
15 LORD JUSTICE
LEVESON: Just to make the comment, there's
16 absolutely no source
for that assertion in that article.
17 MR McCANN: No.
18 MR
JAY: There's a generic reference to a bombshell new
19 police
theory, but completely non-attributed.
20 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes.
Sorry.
21 MR JAY: Probably entirely made up.
22 Page
132. In capitals:
23 "She did die in hol [short for holiday
probably]
24 flat; blood traces [in capitals] are Maddie's,
car
25 fluids [again in capitals] are from corpse" and
then
37
1 "-- cops: body had been
moved."
2 And then there's a reference to a possible
grilling
3 by the British police, they have sensational
new
4 evidence. Are you going to dignify this with a
comment
5 or not?
6 A. I mean, you can, I hope,
understand why we felt we had
7 to take proceedings from the
severity and consistency of
8 the allegations being
made.
9 Q. Can we deal now with the proceedings? If you want me
to
10 go further through the schedule, through the
articles,
11 please let me know. I detect you probably don't.
We
12 have enough of a flavour; is that right, Dr
McCann?
13 A. Mm.
14 Q. But what happened next, your
solicitors have become
15 involved, letters before action had been
sent. To pick
16 up the story at paragraph 68, you say that on 7
February
17 your solicitors were contacted by the Express, and
they
18 proposed some sort of deal with you. Can you tell
us
19 about their proposal?
20 A. It was pretty much said
because we were arguidos, they
21 couldn't agree to our complaint,
but they did suggest
22 that we did an interview with OK magazine,
which we
23 found rather breath-taking.
24 Q. Right. It
goes without saying that that offer was not
25 accepted and matters
proceeded. Paragraph 69, the
38
1 Express by now had taken expert advice and they
now
2 indicated that their articles were defamatory; is
that
3 right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Could you give us
a sense of the timescale here? The
6 first offer from the Express
was 7 February, this was
7 the Hello magazine offer, but when did
the admission of
8 wrongdoing, as it were, come in?
9 A.
It did drag out a bit. I can't give you the exact
10 dates. I do
have it on file. But there was an
11 acknowledgment that they
might be prepared to make an
12 apology and also consider damages.
We wanted to make
13 sure that those damages reflected the
seriousness of
14 what they had published and it was -- to be
honest, the
15 damages for us were a secondary consideration. It
was
16 more about getting a front page apology to send a
clear
17 message that we wouldn't tolerate these
ongoing
18 allegations in other newspapers either.
19 Q.
The statement in open court was read out on 19 March
20
2008.
21 A. Mm.
22 Q. £550,000 was paid to Madeleine's Fund,
and there was
23 also an apology on the front page, is this right,
both
24 of the Express and of the Star? Or is it just
the
25 Express?
39
1 A. No, both.
2 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:
Express Newspapers, and given that
3 we've gone into it, it's
probably sensible just to read
4 that:
5 "In
addition to the allegations referred to above,
6 the Daily Star
published further articles under the
7 headlines which sought to
allege that Mr and Mrs McCann
8 had sold their daughter in order to
ease their financial
9 burdens. A further article alleged that Mr
and
10 Mrs McCann were involved in swinging or wife
swapping.
11 As the defendant now acknowledges, all of
these
12 allegations were and remain entirely untrue.
In
13 particular, there is no evidence whatsoever to
suggest
14 that Mr and Mrs McCann were responsible for the death
of
15 their daughter, they were involved in any sort
of
16 cover-up and there was no basis for Express
Newspapers
17 to allege otherwise.
18 "Equally,
the allegations that Mr and Mrs McCann may
19 have sold Madeleine
or were involved in swinging or wife
20 swapping were entirely
baseless. Naturally the repeated
21 publication of these utterly
false and defamatory
22 allegations have caused untold distress to
Mr and
23 Mrs McCann. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive
of
24 a more serious allegation."
25 That just
provides some context.
40
|
|
Transcript of afternoon session (pages
41-83), 23 November 2011
|
|
Transcript of afternoon session (pages 41-83) Leveson
Inquiry
November 23
2011
1 A. Thank you.
2 MR JAY: What may
be worthy of consideration though is the
3 possible rapidity of
change of stance. On the one hand,
4 they were maintaining their
articles, they get leading
5 counsel's advice, then all of a sudden
they say it's all
6 entirely wrong and maybe it's worth a
consideration how
7 and why that volte face occurs.
8 LORD
JUSTICE LEVESON: Could you tell me this. They
9 presumably
published something as well. Where was it
10
published?
11 A. The apologies?
12 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:
Yes.
13 A. They were on the front page. We insisted. And we
would
14 have gone to court to get that.
15 LORD JUSTICE
LEVESON: Do we have that?
16 MR JAY: I don't think we have the text
of the apologies on
17 the front page, do we?
18 A. Not
the full apology.
19 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: All right.
20 MR
JAY: We can look at those, if necessary.
21 You deal with the
issue of exemplary damages,
22 punitive damages in paragraph
71.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. But you decided in the end not to
pursue those; is that
25
correct?
41
1 A. It is. We were told that we had, after taking
counsel's
2 advice, that we would be very likely to be successful
in
3 such a claim, and my understanding of that was
that
4 there would be a very strong argument that Express
Group
5 Newspapers knew that the allegations, or many of
them,
6 were unfounded or certainly couldn't prove any of
them,
7 and despite the steps we had taken from September
2007
8 through to issuing proceedings made it very clear
there
9 was no evidence to back it up, that we could only
assume
10 they were acting for profit.
11 Q. After these
matters -- we're now in March of 2008 -- the
12 answer to the
question may be fairly obvious, but were
13 there any further
objectionable articles in the British
14 press?
15 A.
There was certainly a dramatic sea change within Express
16 Group
Newspapers and I think largely the coverage has
17 been much more
responsible and balanced. It doesn't
18 mean that there hasn't
been articles published which are
19 untruthful. They may not be
libellous or defamatory,
20 some of them, and we've had to have
certain articles
21 pulled, but there was a clear change. With
hindsight,
22 I wish we'd taken action earlier.
23 Q. In
paragraph 76, you deal with related litigation
24 involving your
friends, I believe, who were with you on
25 holiday. Can I take
this point quite shortly, that
they
42
1 too recovered damages?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q.
I think in total the amount was £375,000.
4 A. That's
correct.
5 Q. But so it's clear, I've been asked to draw this
from
6 you, that the defendant to the proceedings brought
by
7 your friends was again Express Newspapers?
8 A.
That's correcting.
9 Q. Or their publishers. The Sun reported it,
although the
10 Sun themselves, to be absolutely clear, were not
the
11 defendants, they hadn't defamed you. They
reported
12 those settlements, I'm told, at page 25, and there
were
13 similar reports in the Daily Mirror. But so there's
no
14 doubt about it, the Sun and the Daily Mirror are not
the
15 defamers. They are reporting what's happened
in
16 relation to proceedings brought by other organs of
the
17 press.
18 Paragraph 78 to 80, Associated
Newspapers, please.
19 You made a further libel complaint in July
of 2008 in
20 relation to coverage in the Daily Mail and the
Evening
21 Standard. Can we be clear which articles these
relate
22 to, since you don't specify it in paragraph 79?
Do
23 I have this right? Are you referring back to
the
24 article at paragraph 40 of your witness
statement,
25 Dr
McCann?
43
1
A. There had been a large number of articles, similar tone
2 to
the ones that we had complained of previously, so it
3 was more
again about DNA, blood, suspects, Madeleine
4 being killed, et
cetera, rather than anything else.
5 Paragraph 40 --
6 Q.
You identify one article in the Evening Standard
7 published on 7
September 2007.
8 A. Sure. There were many similar articles like
that,
9 particularly in the Evening Standard at that
time.
10 MRS McCANN: The corpse in the car was the Evening
Standard,
11 I think.
12 Q. In a nutshell, what was the
outcome of these libel
13 proceedings?
14 MR McCANN: We
did settle. They paid damages and there was
15 an apology
published in the Evening Standard. The
16 Daily Mail did not
publish an apology.
17 Q. One point you make, these libel proceedings
were brought
18 with the benefit of conditional fee agreements; is
that
19 correct?
20 A. Yes. I think it's very important,
given the scale of
21 the task that faced us, and we were given --
we made our
22 decisions after being fully informed of the pathway,
and
23 I think that's very important. It was a last
resort.
24 And at the time, given our circumstances, I do
not
25 believe we would have had the resource to go down
that
44
1 path if it wasn't for a CFA being in place.
2
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: This is going to be your choice. It
3 won't
happen to anybody else, but it will be your
4 choice. If you'd
like a break for five minutes, we'll
5 have it. If you prefer to
carry on, we'll carry on.
6 A. I'm happy to carry on.
7 LORD
JUSTICE LEVESON: Right. I ought to say, I've
8 confirmed it with
the shorthand writer.
9 MR JAY: There's a fair bit more, I don't want
to rush this,
10 but we'll see how we get on.
11
Paragraph 82, the first anniversary. You explain
12 that you
agreed to an interview with Hello magazine.
13 Just tell us a bit,
please, about why you did that?
14 A. I think the first thing to say,
it was very specific and
15 we had -- clearly we've talked about
our prime
16 objective, which is finding Madeleine, and what
we've
17 hoped is that some good would come out of what
happened
18 to us. And one of the things, through our own
research
19 and having been to the National Centre for Missing
and
20 Exploited Children in the USA, was to talk
about
21 AMBER Alert, and we decided that we would
start
22 campaigning for a joined-up alert system for
missing
23 children within Europe, particularly on the continent
of
24 Europe.
25 For that very specific reason,
because Hello is
45
1 distributed, I think, in 14 European countries, they
did
2 approach us and said that they would promote
the
3 campaign, and at the time we were lobbying MEPs to
sign
4 declarations supporting an alert system, so we agreed
to
5 do an interview on that basis, which, just for
clarity,
6 of course, we were not paid for.
7 MRS McCANN:
Many of the media outlets didn't really want to
8 run with the work
we were doing for the child rescue
9 alert, which in itself is
disappointing because it is
10 important but obviously it's not as
exciting, or
11 whatever the word is, when it comes to headlines
and
12 stories. So we saw this as an opportunity of
improving
13 things for the greater good really.
14 Q.
One rival however wasn't best pleased and you touch on
15 this in
paragraph 84. Maybe this is quite
16 understandable, but tell us a
little bit about the call
17 you received from the then editor of
the
18 News of the World.
19 MR McCANN: I think it would
be fair to say that Mr Myler
20 was irate when he learned of the
publication which
21 happened and was berating us for not doing an
interview
22 with the News of the World and told us how
supportive
23 the newspaper had been, the news and rewards, and a
time
24 of stress for us on the first anniversary, where we
were
25 actually launching a new campaign, we were
still
46
1 arguidos at the time, a new call number for people
to
2 come forward so we could continue the search for
our
3 daughter, and we were interacting with the media to
get
4 that message out.
5 He basically beat us
into submission, verbally, and
6 we agreed to do an interview the
day after.
7 MRS McCANN: Can I just emphasise, this is at an
extremely
8 stressful time. It was the run-up to one year of
not
9 having our daughter with us. Emotionally as well
as
10 logistically, everything we were trying to do, it
was
11 incredibly hard. So to get a call like this, and
you
12 actually almost feel guilty, you know, because
they're
13 saying, "We helped you, we got a reward", and you
almost
14 say, "I'm sorry", and it's almost like somebody
won't
15 help you unless you give something back.
16 MR
McCANN: And of course we were trying to make the
17 distinction
between interacting with the media for what
18 we thought was
something helpful for the search, and
19 simply doing an interview,
which we knew would focus on
20 the human interest aspects and not
necessarily the
21 search for Madeleine.
22 Q. The News
of the World come into the narrative a few
23 months later, as you
rightly say at paragraph 86. It
24 may be that Dr Kate McCann
would like to deal with this,
25 but I'm in your hands. Out of the
blue, 14 September
47
1 2008, transcripts from your personal diary appear
or
2 purport to appear in the News of the World. Can
you
3 tell us a bit about that, please?
4 MRS McCANN:
You're right, this was totally out of the blue.
5 It was Sunday
lunchtime, we'd just got back from church
6 and I got the text
message from Gail, who works in the
7 nursery where Madeleine, Sean
and Amelie went, and it
8 just said, "Saw your diary in the
newspapers.
9 Heartbreaking. I hope you're all right." And it
was
10 totally out of the blue, and I had that horrible
panicky
11 feeling, confusion and, you know, what's she on
about?
12 I didn't have a clue. We rapidly found out, it was
the
13 News of the World. I went and looked at it
online,
14 which was five pages, including the front page. I
got
15 my original handwritten copy of my diary out and
sat
16 there, and it was lifted in its entirety and put in
the
17 newspaper without my knowledge. Apart from the
odd
18 word, which was -- I think it was a translational
error,
19 that had obviously been taken -- translated
into
20 Portuguese, and then a Portuguese copy had then
been
21 translated back to English, which was slightly
different
22 from the original, but pretty verbatim and it had
been
23 put there.
24 I felt totally violated.
I'd written these words
25 and thoughts at the most desperate time
in my life, most
48
1 people won't have to experience that, and it was my
only
2 way of communicating with Madeleine, and for me,
you
3 know, there was absolutely no respect shown for me
as
4 a grieving mother or as a human being or for my
5
daughter, and it made me feel very vulnerable and small
6 and I
just couldn't believe it.
7 It didn't stop there. It's not
just a one-day
8 thing. That whole week was incredibly traumatic
and
9 every time I thought about it, I just couldn't
believe
10 the injustice. I actually just recently read through
my
11 diary entries at that point at that week and I
talk
12 about climbing into a hole and not coming out
because
13 I just felt so worthless that we'd been treated
like
14 this.
15 Q. Can we be clear as to the provenance
of the diary. You
16 mentioned a Portuguese translation, which may
be a clear
17 indication of provenance but perhaps I can take
this
18 quite shortly, that the judicial or police
authorities
19 in Portugal had obtained or had seized a copy of
your
20 diary, or perhaps it was the original, in August
2007;
21 is that right?
22 MRS McCANN: Yes, it was
--
23 Q. We're talking about a hard copy, manuscript
document?
24 MRS McCANN: It was just handwritten. They'd come and
said
25 they had taken clothes from the villa and we had
to
49
1
leave, and when we got back later that day, they said
2 they'd also
taken my diaries as well, which I have to
3 say was a little bit of
a shock, but it did come back to
4 me about 24, 48 hours later, so
I obtained the original
5 copy. Obviously, photocopies were taken
during that
6 period.
7 Q. Yes. It wasn't clear from
your statement, but it now
8 is. It was within quite a short space
of time that the
9 original was returned to you, you believe by
order of
10 a Portuguese judge, so it sounds as if the
initial
11 seizure had been a step too far, or whatever.
But
12 a copy of the original must have been taken by
someone,
13 presumably someone within the Portuguese police
or
14 judicial authorities; is that correct?
15 MR
McCANN: I think it's clear that the police had copied
16 the
journal and had it translated, and of course at the
17 time we
didn't understand why the journal could have
18 been relevant
because Kate only started keeping it
19 a couple of weeks after
Madeleine was taken, so we
20 didn't know there was a copy until
the file was released
21 the following summer, but within the file,
the
22 Portuguese judicial file, there is an order from
the
23 judge, who's read the translation and says, "This is
of
24 no interest to the investigation, it's Kate's
personal
25 thoughts and should not ..." and he actually used
the
50
1
word "violation".
2 MRS McCANN: He used the word "violation". He said
use of
3 which would be a violation of its author.
4 MR
McCANN: And ordered that any copies be destroyed.
5 LORD JUSTICE
LEVESON: And further investigation of that has
6 revealed, if
anything? To unpick where this came from?
7 MR McCANN: I would like
further investigation as to where
8 it came from.
9 MRS
McCANN: An investigation.
10 MR McCANN: Because clearly it was an
illegal copy.
11 MR JAY: I think what it relevant, and I think this
has
12 already come out from Dr Kate McCann's evidence, is
that
13 one or two things were lost in the translation,
or
14 changed, which indicates that the piece in
the
15 News of the World was a translation from the
Portuguese.
16 MR McCANN: Yes.
17 Q. Because had it been
precisely verbatim, it might have
18 led us --
19 MRS
McCANN: Very subtle changes but things like where
20 I said I was
"really upset", it says I was "fed up". It
21 does change the
meaning slightly.
22 Q. It may be we can investigate that or it may be
that we
23 will receive an admission as to --
24 LORD
JUSTICE LEVESON: I'd like to know whether there is a
25
byline.
51
1
MRS McCANN: It would be nice to know the source.
2 LORD JUSTICE
LEVESON: Is there a byline on the article?
3 MR JAY: It says "in her
own words".
4 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes, yes, yes, I understand that,
but
5 is there a reporter's name associated with it?
6 MR
JAY: Pardon me, yes, there is.
7 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: There you are,
there's a potential
8 line of inquiry.
9 MR JAY: It's a
point I'd like to think can be dealt with
10 very quickly by
someone. It can be confirmed, because
11 it's pointless denying it
really. There's only one
12 reasonable inference
here.
13 You do refer in paragraph 93 to a conversation
which
14 was reported to you from Clarence with the deputy
editor
15 of the News of the World as he then was, Mr
Ian
16 Edmondson. Can you tell us a little bit about
that?
17 MR McCANN: I think the first thing to say is that
Clarence
18 would speak to Ian Edmondson, who was deputy editor
and
19 was probably responsible for most of the stories
about
20 Madeleine at that time. So Clarence spoke to Ian
on
21 a regular basis and one or two of the News of the
World
22 reporters. Clarence had mentioned it to me, just
saying
23 that the News of the World had indicated that they
would
24 do a supportive story, mainly attacking the
Portuguese
25 police, but generally supportive. That was it.
There
52
1 was no mention of having a copy of Kate's diary,
no
2 mention that they were intending to publish it
verbatim.
3 So as Kate has already said, it was a complete
shock
4 when we heard that it was printed.
5 Q. Yes.
They have breached a number of tortious
6 obligations which it's
not necessary to spell out. It
7 culminated in a complaint, the
possibility of
8 litigation, but that was avoided by an apology
from the
9 News of the World and the payment of a further
donation
10 to the fund for the search for Madeleine; is
that
11 correct?
12 A. Mm.
13 Q. I'm just going
to touch upon the section continuing the
14 relationship with the
press. I am not going to cover
15 paragraph 97 unless I'm asked to
specifically. If you
16 wish me to I will, but I wasn't minded
to. I was going
17 to ask you though about paragraph
100.
18 A. I mean, I think 97's probably important.
19 Q.
Okay, well tell us about it in your own words.
20 A. For one of the
stories that was not published and isn't
21 libellous, not
defamatory, but we were alerted to it and
22 it was done by a
freelance journalist who has written
23 many inaccurate stories,
and had submitted it, I think
24 it was to the People, if I'm
right, the People on
25 Sunday, and the editor or the deputy editor
called
53
1 Clarence just to say they were running this, this was
on
2 the evening of the Saturday, and Clarence phoned us
and
3 it was complete nonsense, but it was basically
saying
4 that we were undergoing IVF treatment with a view
to
5 getting a new baby to replace Madeleine.
6 MRS
McCANN: I think the important thing, this demonstrates
7 it's not
just the articles that have been published that
8 have been a
problem. We've had many weekends destroyed
9 because we've had to
try and stop articles like this
10 from actually ending up in the
press. And weekends are
11 important for Gerry, that's our only
family time. We've
12 had to involve lawyers on --
13 MR
McCANN: Friday nights. Another example there which
14 I don't
think is in our evidence, but again it
15 transpired on a Friday
evening, is journalists had gone
16 to speak to my mum, I think
they said even -- you know,
17 Clarence said it was okay and my mum
let them in and
18 a lady journalist took a copy of an
unpublished
19 photograph of Kate, myself and Madeleine when we
lived
20 in Amsterdam that was very special to us and they
were
21 going to publish it in a Scottish newspaper on
the
22 Sunday and we had to involve Adam and Isabel
from
23 Carter Ruck to get that stopped.
24 I
think the only way we managed to get a very
25 stroppy interaction
with the editor was that we own
the
54
1
copyright of the picture and they were not in the least
2
apologetic.
3 MRS McCANN: They were fighting it, actually, saying,
"We've
4 got the picture". It was like, "It's our
daughter."
5 Incredible.
6 MR McCANN: The impact that
these things have in what should
7 be a little bit of respite, but
there have been several
8 occasions where we've gone behind the
scenes at the
9 eleventh hour.
10 Q. Thank you. Then
paragraph 100, you deal with a piece in
11 the Daily Mail, quite
recently, July of this year, about
12 an alleged reported sighting
in India. What are your
13 feelings about that,
please?
14 A. It's probably one of the most recent examples of
what
15 I would say is the contempt for Madeleine and
her
16 safety. There was no check. This sighting had
been
17 reported to the police, I think we were actually
on
18 holiday. They emailed us a photograph and we
quickly
19 indicated that it was not Madeleine, and as far as
we
20 were concerned, it was dealt with. And then a day
or
21 two later, it's published and the newspaper on
that
22 occasion have chosen to publish it and they may want
to
23 justify why, but from our point of view, they don't
know
24 whether it's true, they haven't contacted us,
and
25 additionally we have the issue that if this really
was
55
1
a genuine sighting of Madeleine, then her captors may be
2 alerted
and move her.
3 So the story has precedence over the safety of
our
4 child. And that's clear. And that has been done
by,
5 I think, every single newspaper, as well as
similar
6 instances of amateur sleuthing and details about
the
7 investigation which should only be known to
the
8 witnesses and the potential to contaminate evidence
by
9 having read something that you shouldn't really
know
10 about, and all of the newspapers and broadcasters
have
11 been guilty of it.
12 Q. Thank you. Out of
sequence, I'm then going to come back
13 to the PCC because it's a
more general point, I think,
14 under the heading "Kate's book",
paragraph 111. It may
15 be in your hands as to which of you would
like to deal
16 with this piece of evidence.
17 A.
Sure.
18 Q. Book published in May of 2011, so we're at the
fourth
19 anniversary, it was to mark that, to coincide with
that.
20 Obviously a difficult decision. Do you want to tell
us
21 a little bit about that?
22 MRS McCANN: You're
right, it was a very difficult decision
23 for obvious reasons, for
all the reasons we've been
24 discussing. But ultimately we are
responsible for
25 conducting and funding the search to find our
daughter.
56
1 Q. Yes.
2 MRS McCANN: And ultimately I had to make
the decision, we
3 needed to raise money, I knew this was something
that
4 I could do that could maintain the search and
possibly
5 help us find our daughter, and that's why I took
the
6 decision then to do it. Obviously in the ideal
world,
7 you wouldn't choose to do anything like that.
8
Q. There was serialisation of your book in two
9 News
International titles, the Sun and the Sunday Times?
10 MR McCANN:
Yes.
11 Q. You talk about a meeting with Rebekah Brooks, which
led
12 to a review of your case, a formal review. Just
to
13 assist us a little bit with that, can you recall
when
14 that was?
15 A. I think it's probably worth just
elaborating a little
16 bit because it's quite a complex
decision-making process
17 in terms of agreeing to serialise the
book.
18 News International actually bid for the rights
to
19 the book, along with Harper Collins, and one of
their
20 pitches was the fact that they would serialise the
book
21 across all of their titles, and we were
somewhat
22 horrified at the prospect of that, given the way
we'd
23 been treated in the past, and the deal was actually
done
24 with the publishers, Transworld, that
excluded
25
serialisation.
57
1 Now, we were subsequently approached by
2
News International and Associated to serialise the book,
3 and
after much deliberation, we had a couple of meetings
4 with the
general manager and -- Will Lewis and
5 Rebekah Brooks and others,
and what swung the decision
6 to serialise was News International
committed to backing
7 the campaign and the search for Madeleine.
And that
8 passed our test of how it could help, and we had
been
9 lobbying behind the scenes for two and a half
years,
10 with successive Home Secretaries, to try and
get
11 a review of Madeleine's case, and we felt that
having
12 News International helping in that, and ultimately
where
13 I think the media have helped in this situation,
of
14 galvanising the public, having them reengaged with
us
15 and Madeleine, is what tipped the balance.
16 Q.
Her intervention was successful?
17 A. It was.
18 Q. There
may not be a module three issue.
19 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:
Yes.
20 MR JAY: It's right to say in terms of the sequence
of
21 events, I think the Prime Minister was involved
just
22 a bit before, and then the Home Office the day
after?
23 A. Yes, I think --
24 Q. The same day announced
--
25 A. We had written to the Home Secretary saying that we'd
be
58
1
launching the book, and asking her to update us on where
2 they had
got, and we got one letter which really didn't
3 say very much, and
then we did the open letter to the
4 Prime Minister, which was
published on the front page of
5 the Sun.
6 Q. Turn back
to the issue of the involvement of the PCC.
7 This is covered
both in your witness statement and
8 in evidence you gave, Dr
Gerald McCann, to the Culture,
9 Media and Sports Select Committee
in 2009, and then it
10 was picked up in the second report, I
think, of that
11 committee. There's a whole section of the report
that
12 goes to that issue.
13 The position I
think is -- I'm back in your
14 statement, paragraph 101 -- the
PCC's position is that
15 at an early stage they put a message out
that they were
16 ready, willing and able to assist you. This was
in May
17 2007. Do you follow me?
18 A. Yes.
19
Q. I think your evidence is, well, you never got that
20 message.
Was that right?
21 A. If I did, it was lost in the time when we were
obviously
22 dealing with lots of things, and I would say
probably
23 similar to Mrs Gascoigne who gave evidence earlier
this
24 morning, that I was only vaguely aware of the PCC
at
25 that
time.
59
1
Q. In paragraph 103 you say:
2 "We have on a number of
occasions had cause to
3 contact the PCC. The PCC was extremely
helpful in
4 dealing with the unwanted intrusion into the privacy
of
5 our twins."
6 Are you referring there to the
business with the
7 paparazzi taking photographs when you're back
in the
8 United Kingdom?
9 A. Yes.
10 MRS
McCANN: That's right.
11 MR McCANN: I think we had also indicated
earlier in the
12 summer of 2007 that although we tacitly agreed to
having
13 photographs of us taken in Praia da Luz, largely
because
14 we felt that we couldn't stop it, particularly
with
15 international media being there, that as the
situation
16 dragged on over months, we didn't want
continued
17 photographs of Sean and Amelie to be published, and
we
18 were obviously concerned at the time, they were just
2,
19 but as they got older, they could be recognised.
So
20 there was an agreement -- and I can't remember
exactly
21 if the PCC were involved in that, but we asked the
media
22 not to publish photographs of Sean and Amelie, and
that
23 was adhered to with pixelation up until we arrived
back
24 in the UK and then it went out the window
again.
25 Q. In terms of the PCC assisting you in relation to
the
60
1
wider issue of inaccurate, unfair and sensationalist
2 reporting,
it may well be that there isn't a factual
3 dispute between you and
the PCC at that time, of course,
4 speaking through Sir Christopher
Meyer. If you kindly
5 look under tab 9, Dr McCann, you'll see
relevant
6 extracts from the report of the Culture, Media
and
7 Sports Select Committee published on 9 February
2010.
8 I invite your attention -- the pagination is working
--
9 on the top right-hand side of each page, to page
87.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. You should find a heading, "The role of
the PCC",
12 I hope, and then paragraph 354. There we deal with
the
13 message which they say they gave to you and you've
told
14 us really, well, you don't recollect it, and of
course
15 a lot was going on, but there was a meeting, and this
is
16 355, on 13 July 2007 --
17 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:
That was just accidental.
18 MR JAY: Yes.
19 The
general thrust of what you were told by
20 Sir Christopher Meyer
during the course of an informal
21 conversation, is this correct,
is that if you wanted to
22 deal with the issue of libel, well,
then the route was
23 legal recourse, legal action. But if you
wanted to deal
24 with it in some other way, then the PCC might be
able to
25
help?
61
1
A. Yes.
2 Q. Does that capture the sense of that meeting?
3
A. It's probably fair to put in there that I had a number
4 of
conversations with Sir Christopher, primarily because
5 we became
friendly with his wife, Lady Catherine,
6 through her work with
PACT, so on that first occasion
7 I met Sir Christopher and he
broadly asked, "How are the
8 media treating you?" and we were very
open and at that
9 point we said, "Considering the interest, not
too bad",
10 and we didn't really have too much in the way
of
11 specific complaints.
12 I did have further
informal conversations and they
13 also dealt with correspondence
from Kingsley Napley over
14 the period, but the gist of the
conversations, and most
15 of my dialogue with him, informal rather
than written,
16 was that we agreed with our legal advice and we
took the
17 best legal advice we could get, that the way to
stop
18 this was to take legal action and not to go to the
PCC,
19 and I think Sir Christopher agreed with that.
20
Q. That's a fair summary, Dr McCann. It's what the
21 committee
think as well, although Paul Dacre expressed
22 disappointment that
you didn't make a formal complaint
23 to the PCC, although Sir
Christopher disagreed with
24 Paul Dacre so we have two views
--
25 A. I think the ultimate thing was we discussed a course
of
62
1
action and our advice, which was given in no uncertain
2 terms,
this is legal advice, was that the PCC were not
3 fit to deal with
the accusations, the nature of them,
4 the number of them and the
severity.
5 Q. The Inquiry will note, but it's not necessary for me
to
6 read it out, the conclusions of the Select Committee
on
7 these issues. They start at paragraph 364 and 365
in
8 bold. And the direct criticism is made by the
Select
9 Committee of the PCC that the press were beginning
to
10 ignore the requirement of the code and the PCC
remained
11 silent.
12 Then under the heading
"Lessons learnt", they review
13 your case. They rightly point out
that this was a very
14 unusual case. They state that the coverage
was
15 "freakish", and then their conclusions are set out
at
16 paragraphs 373 and 375.
17 Perhaps I should
read those out?
18 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: The word "freakish" is the
committee
19 saying it's far from clear that the McCann coverage
was
20 really so freakish.
21 MR JAY: Paragraph
373:
22 "The newspaper industry's assertion that the
McCann
23 case is a one-off event shows that it is in denial
about
24 the scale and gravity of what went wrong and about
the
25 need to learn from those mistakes. In any
other
63
1 industry suffering such a collective breakdown, as
for
2 example in the banking sector now, any regulator
worth
3 its salt would have instigated an inquiry. The
press
4 indeed would have been clamouring for it to do so.
It's
5 an indictment on the PCC's record that it
signally
6 failed to do so.
7 "The industry's
words and actions suggest a desire
8 to bury the affair without
confronting its serious
9 implications, the kind of avoidance which
newspapers
10 would criticise mercilessly and rightly if it
occurred
11 in any other part of society. The PCC, by failing
to
12 take firm action, let slip an opportunity to prevent
or
13 at least mitigate some of the most damaging aspects
of
14 this episode and in so doing lent credence to the
view
15 that it lacks teeth and is slow to challenge
the
16 newspaper industry."
17 Is there anything
you wish to add or subtract from
18 that?
19 A. I think I
would agree with it, and it's probably for
20 others to decide
whether the PCC could have changed it.
21 I think that's a moot
point.
22 Q. Can I deal now with some general points, including
the
23 four general points you made at the start? But
before
24 I deal with those four points, I'm back to your
witness
25 statement at paragraph
116.
64
1 You refer to the or a culture change which
is
2 required. May I invite you, please, to put that in
your
3 own words, both to identify the existing culture
and
4 then the change which you think is required?
5 A. I
think we can speak with experience about how powerful
6 the media
are, and how much damage they can do. We've
7 already said how
many good things that they have done as
8 well, so there is power,
there is no doubt about it.
9 But what we see on a daily basis are
front page tabloid
10 headlines in particular, sometimes followed
by a clamour
11 with 24-hour news channels and Internet and a
blurring
12 of the media, of stories which appear to have no
factual
13 basis, or exaggerated, or distorted.
14
You've heard about several of hundreds that were
15 written about
us, but we see them, I walk into the shop
16 in the hospital every
day and I see front page
17 headlines, whether it's about Chris
Jefferies who is
18 going to give evidence, or contestants on the X
Factor,
19 and I think information has been written and lives
are
20 being harmed by these stories, and something has
to
21 change. A commercial imperative is not
acceptable.
22 Q. Thank you. The four specific headings you've given
us,
23 in one sense you've largely covered these but
it's
24 helpful if we can bring the strands
together.
25 The first is libel. Might it be said, and
can
65
1
I just invite you to deal with this, well, this in fact
2 is an
example, your case, of the system working to the
3 extent that you
decide at a certain point that enough is
4 enough. Obviously as
professional people you're not
5 going to put your house on the
line to fund legal
6 action, but conditional fee arrangements were
available,
7 you took advantage of that.
8 Within
a reasonably swift timeframe, and it's for
9 others to decide
whether it was quick enough or
10 whatever, the position of Express
Newspapers changes,
11 they admit liability, they make a statement
in open
12 court, they pay £550,000, which in the scale of
things
13 is a significant amount of money with modern
libel
14 awards, and there's a front-page apology. Is that
an
15 example of the system working or do you have a
different
16 take on what I've just said?
17 A. I think
it is an example of the system working in part,
18 however we would
much rather we weren't awarded any
19 damages and the stories had
not been published, and
20 I think it's very important to emphasise
that we have
21 experienced long-lasting damage as a result of
the
22 headlines and the media coverage, including recent
trips
23 to Holland and Spain where our taxi driver said,
"Oh,
24 you're the parents who are accused of killing your
own
25 daughter, what happened?" and secondly in Spain
where
66
1 they showed a film that supposedly had us
showing
2 tablets that were tranquillisers that we'd
supposedly
3 given to children, stated as virtually
fact.
4 So although we've worked incredibly hard to
change
5 things in the UK, the damage is more
widespread.
6 So the money is only for me -- and I understand
that
7 the costs may be more of a deterrent than the
damages,
8 per se, but it's only a partial compensation, and
once
9 it's there, yes, the apology goes part of the way,
but
10 as we've seen, often the reporting is much wider
than
11 the original offending outlet, and the damage
is
12 long-lasting.
13 And if you go on the
Internet now, which our nearly
14 7-year-old twins will be doing,
most of these
15 allegations are still there and we will have to
continue
16 dealing with them going forward.
17 Q. You
make two points there, I think, Dr McCann. The
18 first is the
point damages are never proper recompense,
19 and it's right, the
judges recognise that, whether it's
20 a reputation case or
personal injuries case, the money
21 can never provide
reparation.
22 The particular point in your case is there's
an
23 international dimension and whatever happens in
the
24 United Kingdom in terms of statements in open
court,
25 they're not going to carry any mileage or impact
outside
67
1 this jurisdiction.
2 A. No.
3 Q. Hence
your experiences in Spain and the Netherlands.
4 A.
Correct.
5 Q. That's a helpful observation. What about your
second
6 heading, which was privacy laws? Could you help
us
7 a bit more with that, please?
8 A. Yeah. I think
it's something obviously we probably
9 hadn't thought too much
about before we found ourselves
10 in the situation that we are.
You take your anonymity
11 for granted. What I find disturbing,
clearly, when
12 you're being followed, you're being put in danger
by
13 either reporters' or photographers' behaviour
and
14 secondly I think it is probably an anomaly within
the
15 legal system that a commercial organisation can
take
16 a photograph of you, use it in their product, which
they
17 sell and make a profit without your consent, and I
think
18 that should be remedied.
19 I think if
I'm here, I know I'm in public, I'm
20 giving evidence, I
understand that images will be used,
21 I fully understand that and
I'm implicitly consenting to
22 it, but whether it's us going for a
run or driving out
23 of our front drive, and particularly with
children,
24 I don't think it should be allowed. I think you
should
25 not be allowed to publish photographs of
private
68
1 individuals going about their private business
without
2 their explicit consent, signed.
3 Q. The
existing PCC Editors' Code speaks of either
4 a private place or a
public place where there's
5 a reasonable expectation of privacy.
I think your
6 evidence is suggesting that that latter concept is
quite
7 a difficult one to understand and in particular
to
8 apply.
9 A. Mm-hm.
10 Q. So that indeed
further thought need be given to that.
11 The third issue we
may or may not have brought out
12 adequately but please expand it
if you wish to.
13 Contempt for the judicial process, namely the
secrecy
14 implications of the Portuguese law, I think, and
for
15 your child's safety.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q.
You have addressed that issue, but is there anything you
18 would
like to expand, bring any strands together?
19 A. Yes, it wouldn't be
explicit to judicial secrecy in
20 Portugal, and by judicial I
meant the whole process
21 which in Portugal is obviously overseen
by a judge. So
22 you have information. We were told we were
under
23 judicial secrecy not to give details of events.
What
24 became very apparent was, you know, the media
were
25 trying to create a timeline of what happened, and we
had
69
1
obviously created a timeline and given it to the police
2 and tried
to narrow down to the closest minutes when we
3 think Madeleine was
taken to help the investigation.
4 But when that information
goes into the public
5 domain and the abductor shouldn't know it,
or the only
6 person who should know it were the people who
were
7 there, then that's a concern. It can
contaminate
8 evidence. You could incriminate yourself by
knowing
9 something that you shouldn't have
known.
10 So that's the first process, and I think clearly,
as
11 again I'm not a lawyer and I may be speaking out
of
12 turn, but it's probably clear when there is a court
case
13 on in the United Kingdom, about what's to be
reported
14 and what not, and the police are very careful
about
15 which information they give to the media in
this
16 country, but for me there was contempt about that
whole
17 investigative process. There was no regard for
the
18 outcome. It was much more important for the
media
19 outlets to have the detail or perhaps to have
the
20 contradictions, and the salacious aspects that
followed
21 it.
22 And then the point about
Madeleine has never been
23 raised, I think, before, and clearly
every outlet,
24 I think, has been guilty of this, about
reporting
25 sightings, suspicious people, without giving it to
the
70
1
proper authorities. And that is of grave concern, and
2 obviously
our concern and focus is Madeleine, but it
3 applies to other cases
as well.
4 Q. Your fourth heading is quite a broad one:
acceptable
5 standards.
6 A. Yes. I did have a quick
look at the National Union of
7 Journalist's submission and there
are standards, but
8 there are no penalties for not sticking to
them, and
9 whatever your profession is, particularly in
this
10 country, then there is fairly strong regulation which
we
11 have to abide to, and I have seen no
individual
12 journalist or editor brought to account over
the
13 stories, be it within Express Newspapers Group
or
14 Associated or any of the other groups and I think
if
15 there are repeated offenders, then they should
lose
16 their privilege of practising as a journalist.
17
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Quite difficult, that. I understand
18
exactly why you're saying that, but just let me share
19 with you
the difficulty, that what journalists do is
20 exercise the right
of free speech, and whereas you as
21 doctors require licence to
practise medicine, and if you
22 are taken to the GMC then the GMC
have all sorts of
23 sanctions available, it's quite difficult in
relation to
24 the exercise of free speech.
25
That's not to say that there shouldn't be
penalties,
71
1 there shouldn't be some mechanism whereby
there's
2 a holding to account for what you've done.
3 A.
Sure.
4 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But --
5 A. Thank you, sir. I
would like to emphasise that
6 I strongly believe in freedom of
speech, but where you
7 have people who are repeatedly carrying out
inaccuracies
8 and have been shown to do so, then they should be
held
9 to account. That is the issue. I don't have a
problem
10 with somebody purporting a theory, writing
fiction,
11 suggestions, but clearly we've got to a stage
where
12 substandard reporting and sources, unnamed,
made-up,
13 non-verifiable, are a daily occurrence.
14
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. I wasn't criticising you at
15 all,
but I was simply seeking to explain why that
16 particular remedy
may be very difficult to apply in this
17 context. But it's not to
say there shouldn't be
18 something. Now, I'm not saying what,
because that's
19 part of what I'm here for, if anything, I
say
20 immediately, but you've doubtless read that
different
21 people have been suggesting different
models.
22 A. Sure.
23 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: And it's
actually that question which
24 is the burning part of the job that
I have to do, which
25 only underlines how extremely valuable your
experience
72
1 has been, and how very grateful I am for you sharing
it
2 with us.
3 A. Sure.
4 MR JAY: I have no
more questions, Dr McCann, Dr McCann. Is
5 there anything you want
to add? Maybe Mr Sherborne has
6 a point, but that concludes all I
have to ask.
7 A. No, I think we've covered all our points, thank
you.
8 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank you very much. Mr
Sherborne,
9 did you want to ask something?
10 MR
SHERBORNE: Sir, I realise that we all need time properly
11 to
digest the very uncomfortable evidence that the
12 McCanns have
given. As I mentioned last week, we say
13 it's nothing short of a
national scandal, but there's
14 one point I do formally want to
raise. It was touched
15 on earlier.
16 We've
seen representatives of the media
17 organisations stand up very
quickly to respond to the
18 criticism of their newspapers
--
19 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Is there going to be a
question,
20 Mr Sherborne?
21 MR SHERBORNE: There
is.
22 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Then I'd like to hear the
question.
23 MR SHERBORNE: It's not a question. I raise this. It
was
24 mentioned by the McCanns and you mentioned it as
well,
25 and that is in relation to News International, and
what
73
1 we do ask is they provide a response, sir, as
you
2 mentioned, in relation to the publication of
Kate
3 McCann's diary --
4 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Mr
Sherborne, I think that is
5 a speech. We can discuss what we
should do, and of
6 course I'm in a position to do something about
it,
7 because if there's a name, then I can issue a
request,
8 and I put the word "request" in inverted commas,
under
9 Section 21 of the 2005 Act, and I can find out.
10
MR SHERBORNE: Sir, I understand that. It's not just the
11
byline, if I may say, with respect, because that's the
12 person
who wrote the story. There is also the question,
13 which I'm sure
the McCanns would like to be dealt with,
14 if possible, which is
who obtained and in what
15 circumstances they obtained the diary
from the
16 Portuguese police.
17 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I
understand.
18 MR SHERBORNE: That's a decision at a higher
level.
19 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: That's a thread, and I'm
absolutely
20 alert to the point. I really am.
21 MR
SHERBORNE: I'm very grateful.
22 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank
you.
23 Dr McCann, Dr McCann, thank you very much
indeed.
24 I can only wish you everything well in your
continuing
25 search for
Madeleine.
74
1 MR McCANN: Thank you.
2 MRS McCANN: Thank
you.
3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank you.
4 MR JAY: Sir, I've
been handed something I'm not sure I can
5 ingest immediately.
It's probably something that can be
6 dealt with as between two of
the core participants in
7 the first instance, rather than
troubling you, and if it
8 can't, we'll come back to it tomorrow
morning.
9 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: All right. Is there anything
else
10 that I can deal with now?
11
Discussion re procedure
12 MR JAY: There are two issues. First of
all, there's HJK
13 for tomorrow, and I'm going to leave Mr Barr to
deal
14 with that.
15 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON:
Yes.
16 MR JAY: Secondly, over lunch I've heard various
proposed
17 additional redactions from Mr Garnham in
relation,
18 I think, to at least two witnesses' evidence
tomorrow.
19 To be clear, the core participants have seen
witness
20 statements in unredacted form, so they know what
the
21 maximum scope of the evidence is going to be and
they
22 can provide lines of questioning to us.
23
Mr Garnham has various concerns, which I hadn't been
24 able to
apply my mind to in any detail since I was
25 thinking about other
things over the short
adjournment,
75
1 in particular the evidence we have just
heard.
2 I imagine his concern is what is the final version
of
3 the witness statement which is going to be placed in
the
4 public domain and on the screens here tomorrow
morning?
5 If we spend time discussing it or negotiating
the
6 contents of the proposed redactions, we are likely
to
7 run into a cul de sac, but on the other hand this
is
8 a public Inquiry and I don't wish to stifle the
9
presentation and production of evidence which should be
10
provided.
11 I think what I would propose on this
occasion,
12 because I don't really want to spend time debating
this,
13 there is really quite a lot else to do overnight,
is
14 that if the other core participants agree, and
they
15 don't even know what the proposed redactions are,
we
16 live with the redactions Mr Garnham has
proposed.
17 Those, therefore, or rather the witness
statement
18 goes on the screen in line with those redactions,
but
19 then if there's an objection by anyone tomorrow
morning
20 that the proposed redactions go too far or are
not
21 substantiated, we then address the objections on
that
22 basis.
23 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes.
24
MR JAY: That, in my submission, will be quicker. However,
25 what
I'm not suggesting is some sort of procedure
which
76
1 ordinarily applies, namely the default position is
that
2 which the MPS would desire, because that is not
right,
3 without further submission.
4 LORD JUSTICE
LEVESON: It's not what I've said. Indeed,
5 quite the
reverse.
6 MR JAY: Yes.
7 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I've said
the opposite.
8 MR JAY: Precisely.
9 I am proposing
with a degree of reluctance
10 a pragmatic solution which will
speed things up, but I'm
11 not endorsing a procedure which is
going to apply more
12 generally. Anybody can turn up tomorrow
morning and say
13 no, that redaction is inappropriate, we should
lift it,
14 or indeed, the more effective way of dealing with it
is
15 that we'll just hear the evidence and then the
witness
16 statement can be put in a different form online a
little
17 bit later.
18 It's not as if the public
nature of the Inquiry is
19 going to be disrupted save for a short
period of time,
20 but I really don't want to spend time now
involving
21 other core participants and discussing the precise
text
22 of redactions. I will live with what Mr Garnham
has
23 proposed, with reluctance, and then we'll have to
think
24 of a way forward for the future.
25 LORD JUSTICE
LEVESON: I think it's very important that
one
77
1
goes back to thinking about what truly would potentially
2
prejudice a criminal investigation or prosecution.
3 MR JAY:
Yes.
4 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: In the very unusual circumstances
of
5 this case, where there is in fact a great deal
already
6 in the public domain, and one knows that if there is
to
7 be a criminal prosecution, it's a long way down
the
8 track. But I understand Mr Garnham's point,
9 I
understand your approach, I am content to follow it,
10 but we have
to devise a mechanism whereby these concerns
11 about redactions
are provided perhaps rather sooner or
12 dealt with rather sooner
so that we're not in the
13 position of adopting this approach.
Right?
14 MR JAY: The whole issue of redactions is beginning to
cause
15 us concern that we have to prioritise a number
of
16 things. The main priority is to ensure that
the
17 evidence comes out clearly, that lines of
questioning
18 from the core participants are accommodated, and we
give
19 proper thought to the evidence, since that is the
public
20 face of the Inquiry. We spend hours on redactions
each
21 day that will divert us from --
22 LORD JUSTICE
LEVESON: Redactions should be the exception
23 rather than the
rule.
24 MR JAY: Yes indeed they should.
25 LORD JUSTICE
LEVESON: Those preparing the statements
know
78
1 the position, know what I've said, they know
that
2 I don't wish to prejudice any continuing
investigation
3 or potential prosecution if there is to be one,
and
4 therefore they should be prepared on that basis and
I'll
5 require some convincing that sensible lines haven't
been
6 drawn.
7 MR JAY: Yes. We may need to come back to
that which we
8 were discussing this morning. However, in the
first
9 instance may I invite Mr Barr to deal with HJK who
is
10 giving evidence first thing tomorrow morning?
11
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Right. Mr Barr, I've seen the
12
application made on behalf of HJK. I'm conscious that
13 the
protocol in relation to anonymity by witnesses has
14 not yet been
promulgated. That's in part, as I said,
15 because each time I've
thought I've done it, there's
16 been another set of submissions
and I've had to go back
17 to it merely to make sure that I've
considered
18 everybody's submissions, but it seems to me, and
I'll
19 hear anybody who wants to suggest to the contrary,
that
20 the position of HJK is very different to the position
of
21 journalists and others who wish to give
evidence
22 anonymously.
23 This is a person whose
privacy is presently
24 protected. In other words, he's not
seeking to say of
25 any outlet, "They are about to do something
outrageous
79
1 or breach my privacy", because he has protection
in
2 relation to that. He is, however, going to talk
about,
3 as I read his draft statement, the impact upon him
in
4 relation to the issue -- the main issue that we've
been
5 discussing, the question of interception. Is
that
6 right?
7 MR BARR: That absolutely right, sir. An
open application
8 was made by HJK, it's been circulated to the
core
9 participants. It sets out at paragraph 5 a number
of
10 protective measures which are sought. I'm not going
to
11 read them out verbatim unless you invite me to but I
can
12 summarise what their effect would be.
13 It
would be essentially that the public would be
14 excluded from this
room whilst HJK gives evidence.
15 There will be no video or audio
broadcast of HJK's
16 evidence, and confirmation will be sought
that the
17 equipment is off before HJK enters the room. A
live
18 transcript will also be turned off. A transcript of
the
19 evidence, though, will be promulgated by the
Inquiry
20 after he has given evidence and those who represent
him
21 have been able to confirm that to put out the
transcript
22 will not violate the witness's right to
privacy.
23 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: We'll all know at the time when
it
24 happens, won't we, because the real point is that
HJK's
25 concern is that in the anxiety of giving evidence,
and
80
1
I have no doubt there are some people in the room today
2 who will
understand that, that he will say something
3 that he didn't mean
to say and that would therefore
4 compromise the privacy that he is
seeking to protect.
5 But the idea is that the core participants,
their
6 lawyers should be here, and they will actually see
HJK
7 and hear him, but that it will have no wider
8
promulgation, although immediately after his evidence is
9
concluded, and I emphasise that word, his transcript
10 will be
made available.
11 MR BARR: That's right, sir. The final matter is
that he's
12 submitted a confidential annex and unsurprisingly
the
13 application is that that confidential annex will not
be
14 referred to during evidence.
15 LORD JUSTICE
LEVESON: He explains why he seeks the relief
16 that he
seeks.
17 MR BARR: The information in the confidential annex
combined
18 with the closed application does precisely that,
sir.
19 And could I submit that these are appropriate
measures
20 which are a proportionate way of safeguarding
this
21 witness's privacy.
22 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: All
right. Thank you very much.
23 I make it clear that I do not
intend to use HJK as
24 a template. I don't think it's got any
relevance at all
25 to the issues of anonymity that are raised in
relation
81
1 to journalists. I don't believe he will be giving
any
2 evidence specifically touching a named person or
taking
3 any further that which we already know in relation
to
4 interception.
5 Does anybody have any
observations to make about the
6 application that's been
made?
7 Right, thank you. I make orders accordingly,
and
8 possibly they could be drawn up in appropriate form
so
9 that I have complied with the terms of the
legislation.
10 MR BARR: Sir, I'm sure that that could be
done.
11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank you very much. So
it's
12 important to underline that first thing tomorrow
morning
13 we will be closed. I don't apprehend it will take
very
14 long, but for the public and the press, save for
those
15 who are core participants and attending as
core
16 participants, they will have the unenviable problem
of
17 just having to wait for us.
18 Right. Is
there anything else?
19 MR JAY: I have now ingested this
correspondence and I'm
20 going to be quite short about it. One
core participant
21 is complaining about another core participant's
media
22 blog regarding evidence we heard this morning. They
can
23 sort it out between themselves.
24 LORD JUSTICE
LEVESON: Thank you very much. If anybody
25 wants to bring
anything to my attention because
they
82
1 feel it's necessary, then they can do so, but
they'd
2 better have a pretty good reason.
3 Has
the position that was being discussed just
4 before lunch been
resolved?
5 MR JAY: I'm not sure. I think it depended a bit
on
6 Mr Caplan, but --
7 MR CAPLAN: Can I say this, we're
not pursuing that matter
8 at the moment.
9 LORD JUSTICE
LEVESON: Right, thank you very much indeed.
10 Thank you very much
indeed.
11 (4.10 pm)
12 (The hearing adjourned until 10
o'clock the following
day)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
83
|
|
|
Oh no, today a favourite Czech newspaper shows a picture of Maddie and a picture of a women looling like V. Beckham - the destroyed parents are still seeking for their daugter, please, who can help them? My God, stop plaing this theatre, nobody can see this play anymore!
ReplyDeleteBest regards Martina
Hi Martina, thank you very much for this info! As you say the comedy show or PLAY has lasted far too long! What is needed is a good trial which would start with the lies reported by the McCanns' families and close friends, then all the rest would ensue. They would have to answer ALL the questions, and it would be, this time, real great entertainment for us!
ReplyDelete