First of all, make yourself comfortable, Mr Sanderson, and provide us with your full name.

My name is Daniel Mark Sanderson.

Thank you. You have provided a witness statement which starts at our page [5]2723, which extends over four pages. Have you now signed a copy of that statement?

I have.

And is that the evidence that you give to this Inquiry?

Yes.

Can I ask you first about your career and about yourself? You started, I believe, at a regional newspaper; is that right?

That's right, yeah.

Just tell us in your own words your career path until the News of the World?

I started my journalistic career as a local newspaper called the Worthing Herald. From there I went to a company called Kent News and Pictures. I was at Kent News and Pictures for about eight months and then I moved to a company called Ferrari Press Agency. From Ferrari Press Agency, I was -- I started work at the News of the World on a Saturday. I worked on a Saturday for about a year, and then was offered a full-time job at the News of the World.

Yes. And the year you're referring to is that the Saturday job started, I think, towards the latter part of 2006; is that correct?

That's correct.

And then the contract job in 2007, is that also correct?

That's correct.

When did you become a staff reporter at the News of the World?

That was in 2009, I believe.

So in 2008, when the McCann diaries story came out in September, you were in a very junior position; is that correct?

I was. I was probably the most junior reporter at the newspaper.

Right. You tell us something about the background to this McCann diary story, that on 28 July 2008, the story appeared in the Sun newspaper which said that extracts of Kate McCann's diary had emerged in Portugal; is that correct?

That's correct.

Did Mr Edmondson ask you to track down the person who was in possession of the diary and was leaking extracts of it in Portugal?

That's correct.

What did you do to track down the diary, as it were?

I phoned -- I made contact with two newspapers in Portugal. I was advised that one particular journalist was in possession of a copy of the diary and made contact with that person.

Was that person a Portuguese journalist?

That's correct.

Was there a discussion then about how much it might cost to obtain the diary from -- I think it was a woman, from her?

I believe that formed part of the conversation, yes.

Yes. But you, of course, did not go out to Portugal yourself, did you?

No.

You say in your statement that you liaised with Mr Edmondson, who was the news editor, was he?

That's correct.

And were told to ask a freelance journalist called Gerard Cousins, who was based in Spain, to travel to Portugal to meet the journalist and collect the diary; is that right?

That's correct.

And it's at that point that your involvement, as it were, ceased until the diary arrived in the News of the World's offices on Saturday, 6 September 2008; is that correct?

That's correct.

Can I ask you this, though, in relation to the diary: were you aware that the ultimate source of the diary was the Portuguese police?

I wasn't aware at the time, no.

When, if at all, did you become aware of that fact?

I haven't -- I didn't speculate as to where the diary came from at the time. Yeah.

So is your evidence you didn't know from where the diary came at the time?

All I knew at the time was that I'd read in the Sun newspaper that there were extracts being circulated around Portugal, and obviously somebody was responsible for circulating those extracts, so I was then asked to make enquiries as to how that was the case and who was in possession of a copy of the diary.

But you didn't believe, did you, that the McCanns had put out the diary in some way?

No, but I didn't speculate at the time where the diary had come from. It's the point I'm trying to make.

You may not have speculated, but it's quite an interesting question. Were you at all concerned about the provenance of the diary? We now know that the Portuguese law does not permit all this and that this diary was obtained quite wrongfully. I'm not suggesting you knew that at the time, but I appreciate you were doing the bidding of the news editor, but were you concerned about the provenance of the diary and the propriety of doing what you were being asked to do, or not; was it just a question of being told what to do and you did it?

I don't want to give the impression that I just flippantly, you know, was told to find out the source of the diary and so I did that. You know, a diary is clearly a private document, but at the time, as I say, this was being publicly circulated around Portugal. What the newspaper planned to do with the diary once we were in possession of it I didn't know at the time. Does that answer your question?

I understand that, and it may be that copies are going around Portugal. But you did not concern yourself, you were simply doing the job that you were asked to do?

No, it's not -- every story I ever embarked on with the News of the World I considered things like privacy, public interest and, you know, whether I was adhering to the PCC code. It was clearly a private document, I understand that. But the reality of the situation is that at that stage we weren't in possession of the diary, so we didn't know what we were dealing with.

The other point that I think it's very important to make is that as I understand it, the News of the World had no intention of publishing that diary --

I'm only interested -- now you're going to -- were you told this at the time or is this something again you learned later?

Was I told what at the time?

About the intentions of the News of the World?

No, no, I was told at the time that we would not be publishing the diary unless we had the specific express permission from the McCanns.

I see. We'll come back to some of those questions, I'm sure Mr Jay will, when you've actually read the translation of the diary.

Were you told by Mr Edmondson before the diary arrived in the offices of the News of the World, which we know to have been Saturday, 6 September 2008, that there was no intention of publishing a story based on the diary until the McCanns' express consent had been contained?

That was my understanding, that there would be a conversation between the News of the World and the McCanns to obtain their permission to publish the diary.

Were you told that by Mr Edmondson in those terms?

Yes.

You said that you weren't going to speculate as to the source of the diary. You also said it was a private document. Did you think at all about the provenance of the diary?

My understanding was that we were going to -- the News of the World was going to obtain permission from the McCanns.

But that's a separate issue, Mr Sanderson. There's the issue of obtaining consent and there's the issue of the provenance of the diary. Were you thinking at all about the possible provenance of the diary?

Of course I was. My understanding of the situation was that -- at the time -- it's very, very difficult to speculate about the provenance of the diary until it was actually in the office, and, you know, I was a junior reporter at the time.

Mr Sanderson, I'm not going to be critical of you in relation to the decisions you've made about this. You were asked to do a job and you did it.

Yes.

But one of the things I am required to think about is the culture, practice and ethics of the press, as I'm sure you are very, very aware.

Yes.

Therefore, what junior members of staff are thinking about is actually not unimportant, and that's why you're being asked the questions.

I know, and I fully appreciate that.

Can you assist us then with your answer? Because we have a private diary and that diary has somehow entered the public domain. Those are the facts which you know.

Yes, absolutely, but as I've said before, they were already in the public domain circulating in Portugal and I have to say I wasn't aware of the judge's comments that you're referring to at the time about it being, you know, a private document. I wasn't aware of that at the time.

I think you said earlier that you were aware that it was a private diary --

I was aware it was a private diary. A diary is by definition a private document. I accept that, and, you know, with hindsight it was clearly the wrong decision to publish.

When you come back to the office after the weekend on Tuesday, 9 September 2008, Mr Edmondson shows you a copy of the diary. It's all in Portuguese, so it's been translated evidently from the original?

That's correct.

Was there anything about the diary which caused you to speculate as to its source or was your state of mind the same as it had been previously?

Thinking back, I mean it had obviously been translated from English to Portuguese. I mean, the source was -- I suppose, thinking back, it must have come from the Portuguese police, absolutely.

Why do you say that?

From memory, when I was looking through the documents, I believe there were comments on certain pages, I think. I can't remember.

Which -- obviously you don't speak Portuguese --

No, but there were notes and comments, and I don't know, it looked like some kind of official document, if that makes any sense.

So was it at that point that you realised that the source was probably the Portuguese police?

Oh yes, no absolutely, absolutely.

Did that cause you any concerns?

The whole thing caused me concern. The whole thing caused me concern.

Did you share those concerns with Mr Edmondson?

Did I share them with Mr Edmondson? It's very, very difficult for me to try and explain, but essentially my thinking throughout this whole process was that this story was going to be published with the co-operation of the McCanns. Does that make any sense?

Yes.

So, you know, we were translating the document, we were writing the story, we were checking with the McCanns that they were happy with the story, it would be published, the McCanns would know all about it. That was my understanding of the situation throughout. Because, don't forget, I wasn't aware necessarily of what the newspaper planned to do with the diary once it was in the News of the World offices.

But once it was in the News of the World offices, the position was that it was translated on a piecemeal basis?

That's right.

And the English translation came back to you; is that correct?

That's right. I arranged for the diary to be translated from Portuguese back into English, and as you can probably imagine, that was quite a laborious task.

Indeed. And when the translation comes back, do you start writing up the story?

That's right, yeah, yeah. The translation was coming through in sections and I was writing the story during the week.

I think it was your concern also to ascertain that the diary was not a fake, so you were checking the translation against Internet sources; is that right?

That's right. We looked at the diary and for every entry we would cross-check that, we would cross-reference that with stories that may have appeared in the newspapers.

So, for example, I think there was an entry -- there was one entry about the McCanns planning to visit the Pope on a certain date, and we -- I cross-checked that with reports that they had seen the Pope on that date.

Yes. In relation to obtaining the agreement of the McCanns, your evidence is, and this is page 52725, under question 6, just above the lower hole punch:

"My understanding of the situation was that Mr Edmondson had sought permission to publish the diary from Mr Mitchell. I acquired this understanding because Mr Edmondson told me he was going to speak to Mr Mitchell about the story at the end of the week."

So the conversation was likely to take place, if it was going to take place, on the Friday, 12 September; is that right?

That's my understanding, yes.

But it's not your understanding, is it, that there was any earlier conversation between Mr Edmondson and Mr Mitchell?

No. No.

Had you completed the story, at least from your end, by the end of the week?

Yes.

So it follows, does it, that by the time the story was given up by you to Mr Edmondson, you didn't know one way or the other whether the McCanns' consent had been obtained?

No, my understanding was that the McCanns' consent would be obtained.

Well, your understanding, at its highest, was that the McCanns would be asked through their agent whether they consented. Is that not the true position?

Sorry, can you repeat that?

Your understanding was, at its highest, that the McCanns' agent would be asked for consent at the end of the week. Is that not correct?

That's correct, yeah.

But you didn't know one way or the other whether the McCanns would give the green light to the publication of this story, did you?

No, but my understanding was that if they hadn't given the green light, then the story wouldn't have been published.

Your understanding was that if they didn't give the green light, at a point after you provided the story to Mr Edmondson, then the story wouldn't be published?

That was my understanding, yes.

Was the story, once you'd given it to Mr Edmondson, in other words your copy, between then and its publication, how at all was it changed by editors?

How was the story changed?

Yes. Well, your copy, how was it changed?

Well, from memory, I wrote a story based on the extracts from the diary and it was changed -- it was changed -- what essentially happened was that all of my pieces were taken out, and the diary was just published in its entirety, or extracts of the diary were published in their entirety without any -- without any writing from me at all. Does that make sense?

So it wasn't a story that you'd written at all. It just became the diary?

Basically, yeah.

And was that the bits that you'd taken out of the diary or other bits?

No, no, that -- so I filed this very long story that had explanations of bits of the extracts in, and the story that appeared in the paper, all of those explanations were taken out and it was just the diary. There was a bit on the front page that I'd written, but ...

I see. So the front page contained your --

It was like an introduction. It was an introduction.

And then the rest of it were just extracts from the diary; is that right?

Yes.

So your story, as it were, was somewhat mutilated, if I can --

It was changed, yes.

It was changed. Of course, as your statement makes clear, and this is in relation to Mr Edmondson speaking to Mr Mitchell, you say:

"I didn't actually ever have the conversation with Mr Edmondson specifically that he had received permission to publish from the McCanns."

No.

So this was because, presumably, you'd handed over the story to him before he'd had any conversation with Mr Mitchell; is that correct?

That's true. Yeah, that's the case.

You also say in your statement under paragraph 5, but still on page 52725, you say:

"However, with hindsight, the decision to publish Mrs McCann's diary was clearly the wrong one. Having read how the article made Mrs McCann feel, I intend to apologise to her for writing the story once I have given evidence."

So you're giving that apology publicly and we understand that. But can you explain why it was clearly the wrong decision, in your own words?

Yes, I have every intention of apologising to the McCanns for my involvement in the story. I know it's not your question but that is my intention. I felt -- I did feel very bad that my involvement in the story -- my involvement had made Mrs McCann feel the way that it had. So that's the first thing.

Why was it the wrong decision to publish? Because they didn't have the permission to. They didn't have Mrs McCann's permission to publish that story.

Can we unpick that a bit, too? You read this diary?

I did.

Some of it is factual.

What do you mean --

Some of it is factual, she's describing events that have happened?

Yes.

But it's also an intensely personal document.

Yes.

As you read it for the first time, did you think you had any business writing a word of it without making sure that this truly was what they wanted?

Seeking their permission, seeking the McCanns' permission wasn't in my sphere of responsibility.

You see, it's all very well having a conversation with somebody saying, "Is it all right?" but a lot depends upon the tenor, and what's actually happening, what's being done.

Mm.

And one can visualise somebody saying, "Yes, well, if you're simply going to say I kept a diary, that's fine".

Sure.

But to reveal the most intimate moments may actually give rise to other considerations which require a rather more careful consent.

Absolutely. My understanding of the situation was that the news editor spoke to the McCanns' press secretary on a daily basis, so in terms of getting the McCanns' consent or having those conversations, that really was a job for the news editor. I didn't have the McCanns' mobile number, I didn't have the McCanns' press secretary's mobile number. The first time I spoke to the McCanns' press secretary was about three weeks ago, when I heard how the story had made Mrs McCann feel and I phoned him to tell him my intention to apologise. That's not just for this Inquiry, that's because I'm genuinely sorry.

I'm sure it is, but did you expect -- I appreciate that the word copy approval is never given, but did you expect that in order to get a fully informed consent, effectively the McCanns would be shown what you had written?

You would have expected that, yes.

Can I ask you some general questions about culture in the News of the World? How would you define the culture in the News of the World when you were there, Mr Sanderson?

It was a high pressure environment to work in.

Yes? Anything more that you could tell us?

What would you like to know?

Well --

How it manifested itself. How the high pressure manifested itself.

In order to work at the News of the World, you have to give a certain part of your life over to it. It's very, very hard work. The phone is constantly -- the phone is constantly on. You can be called evenings, weekends. There's no point making any plans with friends because if you do, they're likely to be cancelled because the news editor wants you to go on a job. It was very hard work. It was very hard work.

Did you feel you had to buy into that, as it were?

Yeah. I mean, you can't work at the News of the World if you're not prepared to work hard.

Was there a culture of bullying in your view?

No. I didn't experience that.

You heard the question I asked Mr Myler based on Mr Wallis' evidence about a certain conception of the story driving the direction into which it's going to go and be written.

Mm.

Do you feel that that was the position or not?

No, I think that's nonsense.

Why do you say that?

Because, it's like Mr Myler pointed out earlier on, a story only ever appeared in the News of the World if -- well, stories that I worked on, the first thing you did was you made sure it was true.

Is that the first thing you did and the last thing you did, or were there other things you did before considering whether it was appropriate to proceed with a story?

You talked about -- you talked about picking up the phone and receiving a tip. To take you through the process, you know, the first thing you did when you received the tip was ascertain whether the tip was true.

I mean, there were other things, like, for example, you picked up the phone and you saw -- you worked out whether the story was appropriate for the News of the World, so you used your values and experience of the newspaper to see whether that story that the person is phoning in with is appropriate to the News of the World. And then you went about proving that it was true. It was never that you sat there thinking, "Oh, well, you know, let's make up this story about this person". The story had to be true.

How did you go about verifying its truth?

Well, there were numerous processes that you went through to prove a story was true. Do you want to know them or --

Yes.

I mean, for example, with any story, if you met somebody with a story for the News of the World, the first thing that you did was you sit down and say, "Okay, you're telling me this story. What evidence have you got that what you're telling me is the truth?" Okay? So there would be things like text messages. You're telling me something, how can you then prove that that's true? Can you show me text messages that prove what you're saying is true? Can you show me credit card bills? You said you were somewhere, can you prove that for me? Are there other people who will back up your story? Will you sign an affidavit saying that what you're telling me is the truth?

There were so many levels that you went through to prove that a story's true, because you're the first gatekeeper, if you like, and then that story that you've managed to establish is true then goes to the news editor and then goes up to the editor.

And then in terms of compliance with the PCC code, in particular privacy issues, but that's not the only issue, what process, if any, do you go through to satisfy yourself that those matters are being addressed?

Well, the whole time that you're operating as a journalist, you have the PCC code -- you're considering the PCC code at every level.

You've given us a very precise process, if I may say so, in terms of verifying fact or verifying evidence.

I'm just trying to explain to somebody who might not know the intricacies of the operation, that's generally how you work.

But in relation to the code, very often it's a balancing exercise between rights of individuals and the public interest.

Yes.

Is that a process you were familiar with?

It's something that you have to think about as a journalist every day. You have to consider the PCC code, and I think Colin -- Mr Myler said earlier it's about personal standards, and you have to maintain those personal standards while you're operating as a journalist.

Were there occasions when, apart from the case we've been discussing, when you felt uncomfortable in relation to your obligations under the code on the one hand and what you were being tasked to do in relation to a particular story on the other?

No.

Okay. Thank you, Mr Sanderson.

Facts are one thing. What about comment?

What about comment?

Yes. Newspaper stories do not merely consist of a recitation of facts. They are then the subject of comment, which actually then provides the focus of the story, doesn't it?

Yes.

Would that comment be yours or one of your more senior manager's?

I'm sorry, I don't follow.

I want to know to what extent did you include within your stories comment and context which was yours rather than the facts that you'd actually simply been given.

You got the facts and then you wrote the story.

With your own comments to it?

I was quite factual when I wrote my stories. I didn't really add comment.

You didn't add comment? Did you ever see that comment was added?

Stories are sometimes changed by subeditors, so you'd write a story, you'd send that through to the news editor, they'd send it through to the subeditors, and it would be changed to fit with the space of the page. But, you know.

But not in any sense to change the slant of the story?

Not in my experience.

I see. All right. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Sanderson.

I think the next witness is due to start at 2.00, so we can have a slight longer --

Very good. All right, thank you. Thank you very much indeed.

Good afternoon, sir. The only witness this afternoon is Mr Derek Webb.

Certainly.