As I say, and I repeat, this is not a comment on Mr Grant's evidence. These are allegations of fact which go beyond merely saying, as Mr Caplan said that his clients might, that the inference that was drawn by Mr Grant was wrong or mistaken. It was said to be a lie, and I don't need to point out that in the context of somebody giving evidence to this Inquiry, that is an allegation of the most serious kind. It is the intimidatory nature of it which, in my submission, is something, sir, that this Inquiry needs to take very seriously.
As I said in my submissions last week, this was foreshadowed by the Daily Mail, and Ms Platell in particular, in her article on 20 September when she described the Leveson Inquiry and the line-up of witnesses in the way that I read out last week, including reference to "S&M spanker Max Mosley, prostitute procurer Hugh Grant, gold-digger Sheryl Gascoigne" and so on, and followed that with:
"Gerry and Kate McCann are also expected to appear ... What sleazy, degrading company for those who truly suffered."
If one needs a reminder, given that it is said that Mr Grant -- and everyone heard his evidence yesterday -- hates all the media, which is said to be his motivation -- if one needs a gentle steer as to who hates who here, Mr Jay did not read out Ms Platell's article that was written about Mr Grant after the birth of his daughter, but can I simply refer to a very few passages to give you a flavour of what was said. Ms Platell said this:
"Once a loved actor, the truth is that Grant has become a lonely, bitter man, consumed with hatred of the media ..."
Sounds something like a party line.
"... consumed with hatred of the media who helped make him a star. One can only imagine how scarred his abandoned daughter is going to feel. It remains to be seen if the self-obsessed Mr Grant will be able to give any long-term commitment. Pity his poor daughter. In truth, this great moral crusader is just another hypocritical celebrity who enjoys the money and fame that media exposure gives him but refuses to accept the accompanying responsibilities. This week's news that he secretly fathered a child certainly puts into telling perspective his efforts to silence the press by demanding privacy laws."
Mr Caplan made his little speech yesterday morning. I made a rather bigger one last Wednesday. This is not, as you say, a time for speeches. This is the time for evidence. Mr Grant has given his. If Associated Newspapers wants to put evidence in on oath, then they should do so. It's important to say, of course, as was said very publicly yesterday by Ms Khan herself, that she, the first time she ever knew about this story was when it appeared in the Daily Mail, contrary to what was said yesterday by Associated Newspapers that somehow it was a source that had spoken to her that had provided it.
If and when Associated Newspapers do file their evidence, perhaps they can deal with why there is a specific reference to what this supposed LA executive's voice sounded like, and how anyone knew that this woman had a "plummy voice". Maybe that's just me speculating.
But what is also important to remember is that Associated Newspapers were forced to apologise and pay damages to Mr Grant, damages which were given to a cancer charity, following the publication of the article, an article which they did not defend at all.
And if I can leave the last word --