Dr Moore.

Thank you.

We know that the process is moving forward as quickly as it can.

Thank you, sir.

I fully accept that. We are working absolutely flat out. We thought rather than send intermittent emails we should try and go through -- I see your point about it being concurrent rather than consecutive. May we try and be practical, but I would simply ask that the button isn't ...

What Ms Ellis reminds me of course is Linklaters didn't act in relation to the transaction so they have to liaise with Allen & Overy and the client about what is particularly sensitive.

Sir, can we try and hold off pressing the button on publication until Linklaters have had ...

We are doing it absolutely as quickly as we can. There are a lot of documents to go through. We can certainly explore someone coming down with --

I know that Ms Ellis has been in contact with the office and has been pushing this forward over lunchtime. I don't yet know whether an email has gone.

The difficulty, sir, is as you've said, having been alerted to it, we are now turning the pages as quickly as possible, but it is important that material which is properly regarded as commercially sensitive shouldn't come out accidentally. That's our position.

I take that as an example just to show what's happened. It's not perhaps the most sensitive. There are others where the same thing has happened, where it's more obviously sensitive. There's an end date to a contract, for example, which is accepted is confidential.

As ...

EX.L.74. You see the extent, it's on page 07334. And that is information that the department accepts is commercially confidential and ought to be redacted.

When the same email appears at EX.L.92, 07348, it appears in entirely unredacted form. And once I spotted that, I ...

I'm sorry, it only came to our attention late. You're right that the documents were released about five days ago, but there's an enormous amount of material.

What I spotted yesterday, I can just give you an example. There is an email at EX.L.74, which ...

Not in May. July.

No, we have one to share.

We have a copy of the relevant extracts.

All of what I'm saying is essentially by way much reminder. Ms Sarma also explained why the unidentified journalists may well have not have been aware of any illegality and what I did want to remind you of was that the vast majority of the Operation Motorman data in ...

You have in mind the Sunday Times was said to have 52 transactions involving seven journalists. When we asked who those were and what they were, it was "corrected" to four transactions involving one journalist.

But we also expressly asked for the information to enable us to investigate it and ...

Yes.

Yes.

It's a very minor grumble. The application was, as I understand it, for a direction that the newspaper core participants should answer two questions in relation to the Operation Motorman data, if I can use that compendious term. The first we question was what happened to the journalists who ...

Thank you very much.

May I then turn to Mr Sherborne's application on Wednesday afternoon? Transcript pages 74 to 5, Mr Sherborne sought a direction. It was be a application of which there had been no advance warning.

I haven't, but may I make this observation: that there was little attention on anybody else and their interaction with politicians in Mr Jay's opening, and therefore I suspect that our desire to say something in response may be somewhat more pressing than other parties'.

May I? May I also raise one other matter that Mr Jay's mentioned to you, which is on behalf of News International. We would greatly appreciate an opportunity to make a short opening statement on Module 3 on Monday morning. Mr Jay's opening of this module was focused ...

Absolutely. I'm not pressing. We've had a long day and covered a lot of territory.

Sir, did you want to hear submissions in relation to Mr Sherborne's application?

My Lord, we'd like to reflect.

Thank you. News International would like to take the opportunity to repeat its apology to the Dowler family for the fact that Milly Dowler's voicemail messages were accessed by the News of the World.

News International notes from paragraphs 13, 35 and 37 of DCI MacDonald's witness statement ...

Thank you very much.

It certainly meets our concern, which is to have an opportunity to respond on anything which might be damning of press as a class. I see that in a sense we've moved together. May I reflect on whether it meets all my concerns?

So one would want it kept to the press core participants, this --

One immediate concern we would have, the Rule 13 letters are confidential under the rules.

Yes.

Absolutely.

Finally on the application of Rule 13 to the press as a whole or a section of it, you've seen what we say in writing. The problem here is really the small class. Particularly if you were to identify, as an exchange between us a moment ago suggested might ...

To be entirely practical, what we have in mind is that the dividing line would lie between simply naming NGN, which published both the Sun and the News of the World, as opposed to naming NGN as the publisher of the News of the World in relation to particular criticisms ...

Yes.

We understand that.

The title point. We're looking, on our side, for a practical solution with sufficient granularity. News International had, at the material time, two subsidiaries. Each published two titles. What we're concerned about is not to have a system, either under Rule 13 or at later stages, which doesn ...

Shall I say something about the other two matters?

Having sat here and heard a lot of the evidence, I can see that that is a very real matter for debate, the dividing line I've just formulated.

I'll reflect on whether or not I'm putting my foot in an elephant trap.

I don't want to have more than my share of the time, but in my submission, there may be a proper line to be navigated between a concern and a finding of fact, in the sense that the evidence you received about a practice within at least one title ...

I would so submit.

Absolutely.

The latter example relates to the title that we know about. Our particular concern is that a finding of a general practice applying across the press, in the absence of exploration of whether it actually happened at any particular time --

You know what public statements have been made in relation to one title.

As we've said in our submission, if there was an admission, then we could see you could do that, but we don't understand, particular with the witness that I have in mind, there to be any admission of a practice occurring at any title at any point in ...

It would be meaningless in terms of attaching knowledge to people, because you wouldn't know where they were at the particular location --

The word "happening", absent the additional words "where and when" would be meaningless, and we haven't investigated whether it was happening where and when.

Well, what we understood you were not going to do was make findings about individuals' roles in relation to it, and that is our concern, that if you don't make findings about individuals doing it, to make findings about other individuals knowing about it having been done lacks an ...