The transcripts of the official inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press. More…

  • Two points. First of all, as you know, the Dowlers are on the list of witnesses who will be giving evidence in the first week or second week of the Inquiry. Their witness statements aren't available, and we don't know what criticisms they may make, if any, of the Surrey Police.

  • The second point, and the broader point: how much detail are we going to go in part one of the Inquiry? I deal with this in my written submissions starting at paragraph 28.

  • Maybe the heart of the matter is to be found in paragraph 32. It's the difference really between a microscopic approach, which would plainly be mandated by the part two terms of reference, and what we might call the macroscopic approach, which no doubt you will be adopting for part one purposes.

  • I have nothing to add orally to paragraphs 28 and following of my written submissions, but I draw attention to them. They are there in the public domain.

  • All right. Thank you very much indeed.

    I have received other applications for core participant status. They come under slightly different headings. There has been an application by the National Union of Journalists, and there have been applications, one of which I have previously granted, but will formally grant, from the two other media groups. That is to say, the Telegraph and Trinity Mirror, not, as I understand it, the Independent.

    I don't think I need trouble any of the persons who make those applications to do so more formally. It's impossible to distinguish between Trinity Mirror and the Telegraph on the one hand and those whom I've granted core participant status representing publishers on the other, or editors, on the other. I do see the National Union of Journalists as having a different window on the subject matter of part one of this Inquiry. I shall deal with all those by granting them, but I shall reduce my reasons into writing so that it's clear for everybody to see.

    I shall look at the material that Mr Beggs has produced and has asked me to before making a decision about Surrey Police.

    I shall also add a comment about the role that core participants have and the role that they don't have in connection with the Inquiry. I have said that there is no bright line, and that might have been slightly misunderstood because I don't intend that those who might be affected, but who are not core participants will necessarily be given the chance to make representations at every occasion that issues arise it for me to make a decision. I will decide whether in my discretion to allow submissions on a case-by-case basis, and it may be that submissions in writing will be sufficient. But other than that, I don't think it's necessary to go.

    Does anybody else want to say anything else on the subject of core participant status?

    Thank you.

    Mr Beggs, you're very welcome to stay. If you wish to, and listen to the other not unimportant issues, one of which concerns the extent to which the Inquiry can use material that is presently being looked at by the police in connection with their investigation, but if you don't want to, it won't in any sense be considered discourteous.

  • Right. I think that we will now move on to the submissions made on behalf of the Metropolitan Police from the Crown Prosecution Service.

    I wonder whether -- and I'm open to suggestions -- it's not sensible to start that with Mr Garnham rather than Mr Jay, but I think that's probably easiest, and then I'll hear Mr Jay at the end.

  • Thank you very much for the document that, as it were, put it all together in one place. I hope everybody has had the chance to read them, because it struck me that if I asked -- I mean, the reason I suggested that you should start is that Mr Jay would then feel inevitably necessary to go into what you've said, and whereas we can take what you've said as read and then get into the detail more quickly with you and then we'll work out where we are.