The police were aware in February 2007, when documents were recovered from a hard drive involved in a separate investigation. At that stage, they were aware that not only my documents but that the phone records of the person that I refer to in the statement -- that his phone records had been obtained and that News of the World had paid £850 for that. At that stage, when they -- because me and the subject of that phone record are intimately linked, for one reason or another, they -- the police were aware in 2007, directly, unambiguously, that I and my family's security had been compromised and they took a decision not to inform us.
That information was then leaked a matter of weeks later to a journalist, who will be giving evidence to this Inquiry shortly, and it was then produced in a book which was published in 2008, but unfortunately I didn't see sight of that book and wasn't aware of it.
And then in April of 2009, when Mr X was arrested, again documents which clearly show that mine and specifically that my wife's information had been accessed -- my wife's a nurse, and they had obtained her CV, her PIN number and other associated documents concerned with our telephone, our address, and that information had then been passed on to a further specialist person, who I'm well aware of and well acquainted with his techniques, who then obtains the exact people that you are dialling, so the phone records.
So there's copious amounts of knowledge that the police had. But more worryingly, my investigations identified the Serious Organised Crime Agency had possession of documents and computers which were relevant to me. I then made contact with the Serious Organised Crime Agency and engineered a meeting, a confrontation, which is video-recorded, two hours, and I put a series of questions to them, which is quite heated in points. I then write to the director general of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, inviting him to -- I detailed my children -- this is for key word purposes, so there's no excuse, me, and a whole range of subjects and then requested him to inform us of any documentation that he holds, and he politely refused, citing a public interest.
And then we exchanged further communication, which I'm more than happy to provide under discovery to his Honour, and he then relented subsequently, which was very good of him, and passed it to the MPS.
So I don't -- my major bone of contention here today is focused upon those who have knowingly contrived and have conspired to place me and my family in a position of danger.