This was three days after the Guardian article of 8 July. I'll just read one or two bits out. Five lines down:
"This was not the time for a half-hearted investigation. We put our best detectives on the case and left no stone unturned, as officials breathed down our neck. The Guardian has said it understands that the police file shows that between 2,000 and 3,000 individuals had their mobile phones hacked into, far more than was ever officially admitted during the investigation and prosecution of Clive Goodman. Yet my recollection is different, as I recall the list of those targeted which was put together from records kept by Glenn Mulcaire went to several hundred names. Of these there were a small number, perhaps a handful, where there was evidence that the phones had actually been tampered with."
That sentence may need to be considered with Mr Hayman in due course.
"Had there been evidence of tampering in the other cases, they would have been investigated, as would the slightest hint that others were involved."
Again that's something which may have to be considered.
"As is so often the case in the storm of allegation and denials, the facts get lost. Well-known figures such as John Prescott are said to have been the victims of the hacking without any clear evidence that their phones were in fact hacked."
Then it continues, but you draw this to our attention, for which we are grateful.
Paragraph 31, you take the story forward to the judicial review proceedings, and the first step there was 26 November 2009, when you instructed your solicitors, Bindmans, to write to the MPS with a specific Inquiry. This is at the first page of your exhibit, which is going to be about page 05518, I think, of our numbering. You'll have it as page 1 of the exhibit bundle:
"We are instructed to ask you for the following information on behalf of our client: is the Met police aware of or in possession of any evidence to suggest that our client was the subject of unlawful investigative activities ..."
You, I suppose, would wish to draw attention to the breadth of that request, Mr Paddick?