Indeed. In the final bullet point:
"It is not clear what the purpose of taking my documents and communications was in this case. The material does not readily appear to be newsworthy and it is not clear that it was obtained for the purposes of publication. Even though the evidence in Ian Hurst's statement (paragraph 15) appears to indicate that the hacking was conducted at the request of a journalist working for News International, it is not apparent that my documents were taken solely for publication as news stories. Therefore, the possibility of the hacking having another purpose rather than simply gathering news stories must be contemplated and investigated."
That's a very reasonable inference, I think.