Leveson inquiry: Sue Akers, Paul Dacre, Dan Wootton appear
• Met team probing police bribery expanded after Sun arrests
• "Relatively senior" NoW staff arrested by Operation Elveden
• NoW showbiz ed: subjects not pre-notified to protect exclusives
• S Mirror writer 'didn't tell film-maker to obtain medical records'
• IPCC: no evidence that police disclosed Milly Dowler's number
• Daily Mail editor defends Jan Moir over homophobia claims
• Claims Hugh Grant has 'hijacked' inquiry to wound the Mail
• Says Grant has spent his whole life invading his own privacy
• Inquiry has given 'one-sided view' of the Mail and the press 5.56pm: The inquiry has now finished for the day. 5.55pm: Dacre says that the way the inquiry is being conducted and televised means that "the British public are receiving a very bleak picture ... of an industry that employs thousands of people". 5.51pm: Lord Justice Leveson says that it is unacceptable for Dacre to be questioned on issues on which he has not been pre-notified, but accepts that the issue of Grant and the Mail's "mendacious smears" statement has become "totemic". He adds that it is fair to everybody that it is "resolved rather more carefully" than at present. Leveson does not rule out that Dacre might be recalled "shortly" if the matters are not resolved. 5.49pm: The Hacked Off campaign has issued the following response to Paul Dacre's comments: The Hacked Off campaign and the Media Standards Trust categorically refute Paul Dacre's baseless accusations that we have "attempted to hijack" the Leveson Inquiry by somehow putting pressure on Hugh Grant, a supporter of the Hacked Off campaign, to "wound" Associated Newspapers at the time Mr Grant gave oral evidence to the inquiry.
5.47pm: Sherborne asks how journalists for the Daily Mail obtained Tinglan Hong's mobile phone number. He suggests that a Daily Mail journalist did not identify himself as a member of the press to a letting agent who gave the journalist certain details about Hong. Jonathan Caplan QC intervenes again to say that Dacre and Associated Newspapers have had no notice of these questions. 5.44pm: Sherborne suggests that attacks by the Daily Mail's columnists on actors are ways for the title to generate more stories. Dacre says he does not understand what Sherborne means. Sherborne reads a column by Amanda Platell on Hugh Grant titled "Hypocrisy and the tawdry self-love of Mr Grant". Once a much-loved actor, the truth is that Grant has become a lonely, bitter man consumed with hatred of the media who helped make him a star... One can only imagine how 'scarred' his abandoned daughter is going to feel. It remains to be seen if the self-obsessed Mr Grant will be able to give any long-term commitment (apart from a financial one, by dipping into his £40million Hollywood fortune)?
Sherbourne describes it as "very nasty". 5.43pm: Sherborne says that Dacre's statement is "just another shooting from the hip attack" on Hugh Grant. Dacre categorically denies that. 5.36pm: Sherborne asks Dacre about his latest "curious" supplemental witness statement. The statement is not yet public but Sherborne describes it as making further observations about Grant. Sherborne says Dacre wrote Grant was "happily being photographed in public places". He points out the contrast with a Daily Mail article from 4 May 2007 that said "Grant, as usual, was annoyed to be photographed in the street" and "Despite the fact that they've played such a big part in making him both famous and wealthy, he detests the media, believing he ought to be above being bothered by such vile, ordinary people." Dacre says he is bemused at being asked questions without notice about articles published five years ago. "The point I'm trying to make that this is a man who has assiduously … courted the press," he says. 5.33pm: Lord Justice Leveson says that this particular dispute has achieved a significance "that maybe rather large than it merits" and that Dacre's statement details extensively his newspaper's relationship with Hugh Grant. Leveson allows Sherborne to put a limited set of questions to Dacre. 5.30pm: David Sherborne, representing the victims in the inquiry, rises to say that he needs to ask questions of Dacre. Sherborne says his concerns stem from the Associated Newspapers "mendacious smears" statement. He says he is in a "very unsatisfactory" position and that questions could take the inquiry until after 6pm. Jonathan Caplan QC, counsel for Associated Newspapers, argues that Sherborne should not be allowed to put questions to Dacre. 5.28pm: "You have painted a very bleak picture of the Daily Mail," Dacre says, adding that the examples raised by Jay are minimal and that Daily Mail readers enjoy and support the paper. "You presented a somewhat one-sided picture of the Mail." 5.27pm: Dacre is asked whether he is as proud of Mail Online as he is of the Daily Mail. Dacre says he is, but notes that it is young and is still evolving. "I am very proud of Mail Online, which last week became the world's most popular newspaper website," he says. He adds that it is an achievement by British journalism that should be celebrated. 5.25pm: Jay asks whether Dacre had a better relationship with Gordon Brown than Tony Blair. "You could say that," he says. He points out that he got to know Brown when the prime minister asked him to chair a committee reviewing the 30-year rule on government secrets. 5.20pm: Jay raises a section in Dacre's 2008 Society of Editors speech which said that the editor had a meeting with Gordon Brown and raised concerns over an amendment to section 55 of the Data Protection Act that could have led to the jailing of journalists. Dacre said: About 16 months ago, I, Les Hinton of News International and Murdoch MacLennan of the Telegraph, had dinner with Gordon Brown and raised these concerns. We also raised a truly frightening amendment to the Data Protection Act, winding its way through parliament, under which journalists faced being jailed for two years for illicitly obtaining personal information such as ex-directory telephone numbers or an individual's gas bills or medical records. This legislation would have made Britain the only country in the free world to jail journalists and could have had a considerable chilling effect on good journalism. The prime minister - I don't think it is breaking confidences to reveal - was hugely sympathetic to the industry's case. Whatever our individual newspapers' views are of the prime minister - and the Mail is pretty tough on him - we should, as an industry, acknowledge that, to date, he has been a great friend of press freedom.
Dacre says that Brown was "sympathetic" to concerns put by Dacre, Murdoch MacLennan and Les Hinton. "In the public interest they still can," Dacre says, referring to breaches of the Data Protection Act. "We felt this would put journalists in a very difficult position," he says of the potential for custodial sentences. Dacre says it "preposterous" to suggest that the amendment suggested by the newspaper representatives was self-serving. 5.18pm: Dacre says he has turned down the editorship of the Times and the Daily Telegraph because he felt he would not be guaranteed editorial independence. He adds that Rupert Murdoch has been a great proprietor but "I don't think there's any doubt he had very strong views which he communicated to his editors". 5.16pm: Matt Kelly, the Trinity Mirror executive, has just tweeted: Paul Dacre hasn't been spoken to with such brusqueness since the headmaster took him to task for scrumping those apples in 1867.
5.14pm: Daily Telegraph chief reporter Gordon Rayner has just tweeted: Jay versus Dacre starting to head towards Nadal v Djokovic territory length-wise #leveson
5.13pm: Lord Justice Leveson notes that Dacre has been giving evidence for three hours, saying that Dacre probably wants to finish his evidence today rather than come back another day. "That's probably the understatement of the year," says Dacre. The inquiry is now taking a short break. 5.11pm: Dacre explains the circumstances of his meeting with Jack Straw, Murdoch MacLennan and Rebekah Brooks to warn against curbs to press freedom, including that journalists should not be jailed for breaches under the Data Protection Act. Jay suggests that Dacre and Straw were close – the Daily Mail editor went to university with the former home secretary – and he was attempting to influence policy. Dacre says this is an insult to Straw. 5.06pm: Jay points out that Morrissey used a conditional fee arrangement (or "no win, no fee") deal to fight the case against the Mail. Dacre says CFAs are not a bad thing in themselves, but they have been hijacked by "predatory" lawyers. He adds that fees can be £500,000 for cases that secure £5,000 damages. 4.58pm: Jay points out that the Daily Mail settled with Morrissey over the case. Dacre says the paper's sources were "not prepared to go to court on it". Jay says that the paper took a month to reply to Morrissey's offer to settle if the paper apologised, and when it did, it said it would make an apology on page 2. Morrissey complained the apology was "not given sufficient prominence" compared with the original story. He pressed on with the case, won "substantial" damages and applied for permission to make a statement in open court. 4.57pm: Jay asks about a submission from the Men Behaving Badly actor Neil Morrissey. Morrissey complained about a Daily Mail article that falsely claimed he had been banned from a bar in France because of binge drinking. The story, headlined "Homme behaving badly: TV star banned from bar near his idyllic French retreat after locals object to 'le binge drinking'", was published in March 2010. Dacre says that his journalists spent several days checking the story and suggests that the thrust of the story – the binge drinking claim – was not disproved. He says that the story was in the public interest because Morrissey is a famous actor and "a role model for young people". 4.52pm: Dacre says that Jay makes a "caricature" of the Daily Mail when he says the paper publishes "loads" of stories purporting to show a link between cancer and other events. The Daily Mail news desk will reject two or three stories of this kind a day because they do not trust the provenance, Dacre says. He tries to play the story down, saying that the article in question was only small downpage one and the paper gets hundreds, thousands of stories coming in. Dacre says the criticism is based on a misunderstanding of how journalism works – a phrase he has repeated several times. He goes on to say his paper has done huge range of good work on medical and science stories. 4.49pm: Jay asks whether it is the job of some journalists to put a "sensationalist" spin on scientific research. Dacre denies this. Jay says he has tracked down the original piece of research from Israel and it relatively "uninteresting, save for scientists". It says nothing about an increase in cancer as described in the article, Jay says. Dacre says that that link between night-time trips to the toilet was based on agency copy and a quote from a researcher. He adds: I categorically dispute that we adopt an irresponsible stance on medical stories.
4.44pm: Dacre is asked about a Daily Mail article headed "Cancer danger of that night-time trip to the toilet". Its introduction began: Intro: "Simply turning on a light at night for a few seconds to go to the toilet can cause changes that might lead to cancer, scientists claim." Roy Greenslade pointed out in his blog that: It was, of course, bunkum. The Tabloid Watch blog links to straightforward and crushing denials by the said scientists, Professor Charalambos Kyriacou from Leicester University's department of genetics and Dr Rachel Ben-Shlomo from the University of Haifa. Their research, on mice by the way, was all about the likely effects of the prolonged exposure of nightshift workers to artificial light. There is nothing in their study about trips to the toilet. As Kyriacou told AOL Health: "The 'switching on of lights causes cancer when you go to the bathroom at night' is an eye-catching fabrication of the press." For a run-down of other things that the Mail has alleged are causes of cancer see this Facebook list. It includes sausages, tea, potatoes, hugging (I kid you not) and there are 135 more examples too.
4.42pm: Hugh Grant has "spent his life invading his own privacy", says Dacre. He denies it is intrusive to send photographers and journalists to Grant's home on the news of his child's birth. Sending photographers to someone who has had a baby to ask for a photo is "as old as time itself", he adds. "It worries me that you can't understand this." 4.39pm: Dacre states unequivocally that he knows of no instances of phone hacking at the Associated Newspapers title. He repeats that the statement was a "perfectly sensible" way to defend "my company, my newspapers". 4.36pm: Jay asks Dacre about evidence given by Hugh Grant and Associated Newspapers' statement that the star had made "mendacious smears driven by his hatred of the media". Dacre says he was off work that day and heard a BBC headline that implied Associated Newspapers had been "dragged into the phone-hacking scandal" by Grant's evidence. Dacre agreed with the Mail on Sunday editor to describe it as a "mendacious smear". "I had to instantly rebut the fact that your inquiry was being told that we … were hacking into phones," he says. "The damage was being done. I'm glad to say once we got that out we had much more balanced reporting from the BBC and other media." Dacre denies he shot from the hip too swiftly with the statement. He accuses Grant and the Hacked Off campaign of "hijacking this inquiry in a highly calculated attempt to wound my company". 4.30pm: Jay says it has been suggested that the reason for the Mail's siding with the Lawrence family was because Lawrence's father had done some plastering work for him previously. "It is an unfair suggestion," Dacre says, before listing a series of campaigns that the Mail has mounted on the Omagh families, plastic bags and Gary McKinnon. "I really do find that insulting," he adds. 4.26pm: Dacre says that the McCanns complaining to the PCC would have "nipped things in the bud" earlier. "The Mail's reporting of the McCan story was much more responsible that most papers. I can't say any more than that," he adds. Newspapers felt they had the "green light" to write what they liked about the McCanns after the couple employed a public relations adviser, Dacre says. The McCann story was one of the few examples of a story that boosted sales, says Dacre. He says, with hindsight, he is glad the Mail didn't splash on it too much. 4.25pm: Jay asks Dacre about the Daily Mail's coverage of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Dacre is asked if the Daily Mail refused to publish an apology because supportive articles outnumbered the harmful ones. Dacre says he does not know. Jonathan Caplan QC, counsel for Associated Newspapers, intervenes to say that the legal settlement was agreed between the McCanns and the publisher. 4.22pm: Dacre is asked about the Daily Mail's coverage of the arrest of Joanne Yeates's landlord Christopher Jefferies. The Mail paid damages to Jefferies for libel, rather than contempt of court like the Sun and Daily Mirror. The attorney general has been "less and less clear" over the years on what constitutes contempt of court, says Dacre. He adds: "Standards did slip in this area, we accept that." "I apologise to Mr Jefferies," he says, claiming that the Daily Mail was one of the least worst offenders. "We have learned from the experience," he adds. He welcomes firm guidance from Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, on the matter. The offending headline was cleared by lawyers, Dacre says. "The backbench rewrote the headline after I left but I stand by it – I'm the editor." 4.16pm: Jay reads out a passage from the article: The sugar coating on this fatality is so saccharine-thick that it obscures whatever bitter truth lies beneath. Healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again. Whatever the cause of death is, it is not, by any yardstick, a natural one.
Dacre responds: "I've already said I think the piece could have benefited from a little judicious subbing." He adds that usually he leaves the office at 10pm, but on that night he was at the opera with his wife. 4.14pm: Dacre says perhaps the timing of the piece was "regrettable" and it could have "benefited from a little judicious subediting". He adds that he would "die in a ditch" defending a columnists' right to expression. "There isn't a homophobic bone in Jan Moir's body," he says. Dacre compares the Jan Moir article on page 37 of the Daily Mail to coverage in other newspapers, holding up front pages of the Sun and other titles. He notes that most of the 22,000 complaints to the PCC about the column were the result of "tweetering" from a famous celebrity (Stephen Fry). "Most of those people conceded they hadn't read the piece," he adds. 4.10pm: Dacre is asked about Jan Moir's column in the Daily Mail about the death of singer Stephen Gately, which was titled "A strange, lonely and troubling death" in print. Online, it was originally headed "Why there was nothing 'natural' about Stephen Gately's death", which was later amended to the print edition headline. Moir was accused of homophobia over the piece and there were 22,000 complaints to the PCC. 4.08pm: Leveson points out the "difference in view" between Baroness Hollins's complaints and the Mail editor's belief that the articles were in the public view. If the feature distressed Hollins "then I hear that," Dacre says. "I can't see how it could have been more sensitively handled," he adds. 4.04pm: Dacre is asked about the evidence by Baroness Hollins on a 2005 Daily Mail article that linked an attack on her son to an entirely separate attack on her daughter. It was titled "Abigail, the brother who dotes on her and the riddle of another random, brutal attack". "This shows why I don't believe the inquiry understands how popular newspapers work," Dacre says, adding that the feature was handled with "massive sensitivity". Dacre says it was in the public interest to link the two attacks because both attackers were allegedly on drugs. He says in any case Hollins's son was named in open court. "Most members of the British public would think it an extraordinary coincidence [that both siblings were attacked]," he adds. 4.03pm: Dacre says editors might have "dropped their guard" on the What Price Privacy Now? report because almost all national newspapers were potentially implicated. He adds: "I moved decisively and ruthlessly to stamp it out. Other newspapers didn't, and we did." 4.00pm: Jay says it could be the case that illegally-obtained information is still in Associated Newspapers' offices. Dacre says that the information would likely only be in reporters' notebooks and not on the publisher's computer systems. 3.54pm: Dacre resumes his evidence and reasserts that the What Price Privacy Now? report examined detailed events that happened 10 years ago. "I would accept there is a prima facie case that Whittamore could have been acting illegally," he says, adding that he does not believe Daily Mail journalists acted wrongly. 3.50pm: Caplan told the inquiry in November that private investigator Steve Whittamore was used to help speed up journalistic investigations and to help verify the accuracy of stories pre-publication, not to break the law. He said: His assistance was required as far as Associated journalists were concerned to help trace people quickly, usually to verify facts or to comment on stories that were written or in progress prior to publication. It should also be stressed that Mr Whittamore did not work simply for newspapers, he was hired by organisations such as banks, local authorities and firms of solicitors who were similarly seeking to locate people. While Mr Whittamore was prosecuted no journalist has ever been charged because there simply is no evidence they ever asked Mr Whittamore to do anything illegal, or they knew he was, or might, be illegally accessing databases. Another key difference between phone hacking and the data provision provided by Mr Whittamore was that journalists using him were not engaged in fishing expeditions.
3.38pm: The inquiry is now taking a short break while Dacre has a discussion with Jonathan Caplan, counsel for Associated Newspapers. 3.37pm: Dacre says that private investigators were used because it was quicker than journalists conducting the checks themselves. "Time is everything in journalism," says Dacre. Jay suggests that suspicions should have been aroused by the expense of Whittamore's undertakings and how quickly they were completed. "Some of these [Whittamore] inquiries could not be justified by the type of explanation you have given," says Lord Justice Leveson. He says he is not attempting to label the Daily Mail, but simply to get the overall picture and "move on from what is a long time ago". 3.36pm: Dacre says that his journalists believed they were acting within the law, using Whittamore to obtain telephone numbers and addresses to check news stories. Jay asks how Dacre knows this. "From my managing editors," says the editor replies. 3.33pm: Operation Motorman "barely registered on the consciousness," Dacre says. "All newspapers were still using this agency … I'm not sure an investigation at that stage was warranted," he adds, when asked by Jay why Associated Newspapers did not conduct an internal investigation into whether its use of inquiry agents was legal. Dacre says the Mail wrote to Whittamore's inquiry agency, which gave the paper assurances about his methods. 3.31pm: From 2005, the Daily Mail sent a series of emails and letters to staff warning them about restrictions under the Data Protection Act, Dacre tells the inquiry. Dacre says he does not know exactly when the Daily Mail stopped using Whittamore. "In 2007 we brought the shutters down and banned – banned – the use of inquiry agents," he says. Dacre claims that the BBC spent a similar amount on search agents as the Daily Mail. 3.28pm: Dacre confirms he was aware that the Daily Mail was using search agents before 2006 but not to the extent as revealed by What Price Privacy Now?. "Not the numbers," he says. He says he was aware that the paper used private investigator Steve Whittamore "sometime about 2004, 2005-ish". 3.26pm: Dacre is asked about Operation Motorman. This was the information commissioner's 2003 investigation by the Information Commissioner's Office into allegations of offences under the Data Protection Act by newspapers employing private investigators. What Price Privacy Now? was the key ICO report into the unlawful trading of confidential information published in 2006. The Daily Mail was identified as the paper with the the most transactions followed by the Sunday People, the Daily Mirror and the News of the World. The nature of the transactions was not identified in this report and could have included general research and legal searches such as electoral roll checks or searches of births, deaths and marriages records. 3.21pm: Chris Bryant MP has just tweeted: Dacre's idea of withdrawing press card for gross malfeasance is identical to @IvanLewis_MP plan, which the Daily Mail savagely attacked
3.19pm: Dacre says he is "utterly unaware" of any policy to "bury" complaints on Mail Online, when asked by Jay. "The beauty of the Mail Online is that it doesn't have to carry many corrections, because things are quickly corrected or removed," says Dacre. Dacre stresses that apologies relating to stories in the print edition are run in the paper. He expresses displeasure at Jay's suggestion that apologies for print stories are run online. "Anybody can make such as accusation and smear a paper", he adds. 3.18pm: Dacre warns against the new regulator having the power to insist on where newspapers print apologies or corrections. He says that this would undermine the editor and would be more easily accommodated by quality newspapers than tabloid titles because they have more stories on the front page. 3.15pm: Dacre is asked about newspaper corrections. The Daily Mail introduced a page 2 corrections column to coincide with the introduction of the Leveson inquiry. He says the idea of a consistent place to print corrections "has virtue". 3.14pm: Dacre says that it would be beneficial if the press could move to a "transitional arrangement" sooner rather than later. Jay: "Or to avoid the sword of Damocles?" Dacre: "I wouldn't say that, Mr Jay." 3.12pm: Dacre suggests that a new committee should be set up to define the meaning of the public interest. Privacy is impossible to define, but the public interest is more difficult, he adds. He says the definition in the current PCC code is "too loose". Senior appointments to the new regulator should be made by an independent panel including lay members, he says. 3.11pm: Dacre is asked about paparazzi photographers. He says he has been "distressed" like others at evidence given to the inquiry on harassment by paparazzi photographers. There is a "vast vast market" for paparazzi pictures abroad, he says, adding that this is compounded by "everyone becoming a citizen photographer". He adds that the PCC editors' code of practice could deal with freelance photographers. Picture agencies should sign up to the new regulator and those who do not should not be used by newspapers or other publications, Dacre says. He adds that better use should be made of harassment law. 3.08pm: Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger has just tweeted: Dacre proposes new press card system for j'sts working for accredited print orgs.Hasn't thought thru digital j'ism #Leveson
3.06pm: Dacre says this is different from the state licensing journalists "because it's the industry doing it". It would come into effect in government press briefings and other events in public office. "It is in the interests of both sides, news providers and news obtainers, why should they not have the right to believe they are dealing with accredited journalists?" he says. Non-accredited journalists could be deprived access from the press facilities at sporting events and other conferences, Dacre says. 3.04pm: Guardian head of media and technology Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted: Breaking: Paul Dacre proposes a licensing system for journalists in effect - blows the debate wide open.
3.03pm: Dacre suggests a new press card system for signed-up members of the new regulator. He recommends that press events only be open to those with this new card. "It is my considered view that no publication could survive if its reporters were banned" from such events. The "beauty" of this system is that it would be the newspaper industry policing journalists, not the state. "I'm suggesting it should come under one umbrella, whether it's the standards arm of the new regulator, whether it's the Newspaper Society." He adds: "I'm being very honest – the existing press cards don't mean much". 3.01pm: Dacre says that Lord Hunt's idea for contracts to lock newspapers into the new regulatory body is "attractive". He welcomes the arbitration arm but has concerns about its financial cost. He adds that he is worried about how the new body could "lock in the Desmonds". "By and large Mr Desmond does not produce the kind of journalism – mostly celebrity bland journalism – that would end up in this court or arbitration model," he says. He describes Richard Desmond's titles, naming OK! magazine, as producing "very bland, slightly sycophantic" journalism. 2.59pm: The Financial Times media correspondent, Ben Fenton, has just tweeted: Jay:What are you prepared to sign up to? D: I don't understand the drift of this conversation.[Paraphrase:It was my idea, of course I agree]
2.55pm: Dacre is asked about proposals for a new PCC. Jay asks if he is fully signed up to Lord Hunt's proposals, heard last week. "Of course," says Dacre. He says he didn't suggest the contractual aspect of Hunt's plan, but that it "sounds very interesting". "I may be missing something but I don't understand where this conversation is running," he says, when asked whether he would sign up to the ideas in principle or in reality. Dacre points out that he has already put forward his proposals – at a Leveson inquiry seminar session last year. "I don't want to be immodest … but it was me that set a lot of these hares running," he says. 2.53pm: Dacre accepts that the PCC "couldn't deal with press standards". He says it would be a good idea to set up a new body alongside the PCC to deal with standards and impose sanctions, run by an ombudsman. He adds that the PCC should be allowed to continue its complaints-handling role. "I think a new system can improve things," Dacre says, when asked to answer yes or no whether the state of the PCC is such that it needs a new regulatory system. 2.51pm: Dacre says that Sunday newspapers have lost a "latitude" to investigate and break "sensational" stories. "I wouldn't have the News of the World in my house, but it did break great stories ... and had a lot of serious political coverage," he says, adding that it's a "pity" it is gone. 2.49pm: Dacre is asked about the makeup of the PCC. He says that critics of self-regulation "promote" the view that the PCC is not independent, adding that this is disproved because of the majority of lay members on the committee. The newspaper industry needs to think whether the PCC should be able to impose sanctions in "exceptional areas of malfeasance". He suggests that tougher sanctions would be imposed for payments to public officials and phone hacking. 2.43pm: Dacre says that press behaviour is "much improved", but that there are still areas of improvement. 2.41pm: Dacre reads a quotes from Mr Justice Tugendhat and professor Tim Luckhurst on privacy and freedom of expression. Luckhurst wrote: The notion that moral failures such as adultery are entirely private and do not matter to the wider world is an affront to the very idea of community. A taste for titillation must explain some people's interest in Ryan Giggs's alleged extramarital activities. But for many others, cheap thrills were the last thing on their mind when they rebelled against privacy injunctions and remote, arrogant judges. This admirable majority resent public figures who think they can turn publicity on and off like a tap. We reserve the right to scrutinise and censure the conduct of people who have grown rich on our wages or claim authority over our lives. And, in asserting democratic accountability, we are proclaiming our loyalty to a virtuous principle. In the 18th and 19th Centuries, British philosophers developed a concept called the 'sanction of public opinion'. They concluded that popular morality should not ban infidelity or imprison men for betraying their wives, but it could create an incentive to behave responsibly. People tempted to stray might be persuaded to think again by the certainty that their friends and neighbours would think less of them.
2.40pm: Asked about privacy, Dacre says that some celebrities "intrude into their own lives" by selling details about their private life. He complains that Jay's questions are too broad and asks him to focus on specifics. Dacre is asked about his recent Society of Editors speech. "I was clearly trying to express a growing concern … that certain areas of jurisprudence were going in an anti-newspaper, anti-democratic direction," he says. In the speech, Dacre attacked Mr Justice Eady's judgments in several cases as "amoral and arrogant". He clarifies that he was attacking the judgments, "not the man". 2.37pm: Dacre says "commercial success follows" if editors are left to edit their newspapers. 2.35pm: Dacre says it a "canard" that he imposes his personal will on the Daily Mail. He says he does not impose a "world view" on the newspaper and its standpoint is "vigorously debated" by the paper's top writers. Dacre says its top writers would leave if he attempted to tell them what to write. "Do you think I tell Max Hastings, Janet Street Porter, Craig Brown and others what to write?" he adds, Dacre says some of the views expressed on the paper's Irish edition "make my hair go white" but he does not attempt to interfere. He adds that the paper aims to reflect readers' "anxieties" rather than their prejudices. 2.32pm: Dacre is asked what he meant by saying that the inquiry's assessors did not understand how mass-market newspapers operated. He says the assessors seem to come from a "narrow" background, with little experience of mainstream newspapers. 2.30pm: Dacre is the longest-serving editor on Fleet Street and chairman of the PCC editors' code of conduct committee. He has been editor of the Daily Mail since 1992 and editor-in-chief of Associated Newspapers since 1998. 2.27pm: Paul Dacre, editor-in-chief of the Daily Mail, has taken the stand. 2.22pm: The inquiry has now resumed. Jemima Khan and Hugh Grant have submitted supplementary witness statements were submitted late on Friday and Saturday. Robert Jay, counsel to the inquiry, says it is "disappointing" that the evidence was submitted so late. Lord Justice Leveson says he does not want the inquiry diverted into a dispute between witnesses and core participants. 2.20pm: Our colleague Lisa O'Carroll has just tweeted that the video link is down and the inquiry can't proceed without it. 2.18pm: Ben Fenton, the FT's media correspondent, wins the 'boom boom' moment of today's inquiry. He has just tweeted: 2.03pm: Our colleague David Leigh's story on the IPCC investigation into News of the World payments in the Milly Dowler case is now live. He writes: Two suspicious payments by News of the World journalists during the Milly Dowler case are under police investigation, the police anti-corruption watchdog has revealed. The Independent Police Complaints Commission [IPCC] said they were supervising the ongoing investigation, which resulted from paperwork handed over by the newspaper, but no evidence had surfaced so far to link the payments to corrupt officers. The IPCC disclosure came in the course of a report published on Monday, which dismissed claims that a detective constable from Surrey police had sold information to journalists in 2002, including the missing teenager's mobile phone number. The report said the information, which came from a former Surrey police officer calling himself "Andy" , was unsubstantiated "supposition and rumour". But the report added: "Officers from Operation Elveden, the investigation by the Metropolitan Police Service into allegations of corrupt payments by journalists to police officers, informed Surrey police they had documentation from the News of the World indicating that two payments had been made by journalists in 2002 in connection with Milly Dowler."
You can read the full story here. 1.54pm: Our correspondent at the Royal Courts of Justice, Lisa O'Carroll, has just tweeted that Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre has not yet arrived before his turn in the stand. 1.51pm: The investigative journalist, Tom Bower, has been on Sky News ahead of Paul Dacre's evidence to the Leveson inquiry. Bower described Dacre as "one of the great" newspaper editors and "the last hope to save this ridiculous inquiry from going off into the wilderness". He is no fan of Lord Justice Leveson. "I think Leveson has failed as an operation to find out what has gone on," Bower said. "Leveson personally doesn't understand the press. I don't think a judge is the right person [to conduct this inquiry] in the first place." He added: "The problems are minor. There was one terrible error but not worthwhile of this massive apparatus. The News of the World went off in a particular way – that is regrettable – but they had a different way of operating to the Daily Mail." 1.07pm: Here is Sue Akers's witness statment:
12.58pm: Here is a lunchtime summary of today's evidence so far: • The Scotland Yard team investigating payment to police by journalists has been expanded following arrests at the Sun. • News of the World journalists arrested under Operation Elveden were "relatively senior", DAC Sue Akers told the inquiry. • The Former News of the World showbiz editor, Dan Wootton, said "need to protect exclusives" was justification for not pre-notifying subject of stories in some instances. • A Sunday Mirror journalist, Nick Owens, denied he encouraged undercover film-maker Chris Atkins to disclose celebrities' confidential medical records. • The Independent Police Complaints Commission has found no evidence to suggest that a Surrey police officer disclosed Milly Dowler's phone number to the News of the World. 12.52pm: The inquiry has now broken for lunch. It will resume at 2pm for evidence from Paul Dacre, editor-in-chief of the Daily Mail. 12.51pm: Owens has completed his evidence. 12.50pm: Owens is asked about the reaction of the Sunday Mirror editor, Tina Weaver, when told about the conversation. Weaver thought Owens had acted unwisely and made "some clumsy comments", he says. 12.45pm: Here is Chris Atkins's record of his converation with Owens, as it appears in his witness statement: I then gave him several fabricated operations of real celebrities: CA: Well - one of Girls Aloud NO: One of? CA: One of - boobjob, consultation NO: Oh really - OK - that's good CA: Mr Hugh Grant - had a bit of a face tuck - that's happened a while ago NO: Face tuck? CA: Yeah NO: That's OK CA: Rhys Ifans - tummy NO: Oh really - Rhys? Tummy tuck CA: Yeah, again don't know how long that was NO: He's not going back for more? CA: I don't know - I don't know NO: OK CA: I don 't even know what this is - but Guy Ritchie apparently - chemical peel CA: This is the one which is literally quite recent is Gemma Arterton... a gastric NO: That's surprising isn't it? NO: Girls Aloud is potential... very very good story. Depends who it is. If it's Cheryl then it is massive - with Cheryl you can expect a big pay, that makes it less dodgy for your source. It's almost worth the wait, till she had it done... Have they had it done or it is just a consultation? CA: No - consultation. NO: Are we talking about Cheryl CA: No
NO: Not a problem - CA: Nicola NO: Nicola - that is still a good story. That is the best one ... And Gemma - the other three are like maybes. NO: I think Rhys is funny - cos, you know Rhys Ifans wanting a tummy tuck is a very funny story - but then again - is it justified in the public interest? That's the problem. We could get away with Gemma - that's massive, good story that ... because as you see she does not need one. You have got to ask yourself why? Why is she bothering? That age as well. So that's all great. CA: What sort of figure, this would never be ... but so I've got a ball park - NO: Think you are looking to get over three grand minimum - that is a start. How it works is right, page lead in the paper is a grand - but the further it gets to the front of the paper - the more it is. Get a spread - well you won't get a spread out of this as it's one fact. That is the problem - unless you get some kind of... Fern made a spread cos of the issues surrounding her. This one is "Nicola's got a boob job" it is a one fact story ... there's no getting around it ... As a journalist you write that story up, there's almost a point where you put a full stop and you've finished the story. Then you have to write round it. CA: Just rehash old stuff? NO: Yeah you have to. NO: [About Rhys Ifans] having a tummy tuck to get rid of his beer belly isn't it? It's a fucking good story that - but out of all of them you could do Rhys - if you wanted to do one you could probably do Rhys Sunday.
NO: If it's a boob job then that goes without saying - if you say to me that she [Nicola] has had a boob job in May - and we know about it and then we put pictures on her very early on - and we would be the first paper to fucking run that story - do the before and after pictures. Because what you do with boob job stories is "has she or hasn't she had a boob job?" And we know she has, which means I can write it quite strong. With Gemma Arterton it is slightly more tricky cos it's a consultation for a gastric band and obviously it goes without saying you can't see it. Cos then we do have to go to her - with her we might need some documents, we need to know when it happened. NO: [about Rhys Ifans] Having a tummy tuck to get rid of his beer belly isn't it? It's a fucking good story that - but out of all of them you could do Rhys - if you wanted to do one you could probably do Rhys Sunday, but we're not gonna do that. But looking at it, Rhys you could probably get away with because it's so funny. The other two you have got to wait - Gemma and Nicola you have got to wait - CA: Yes but which ones would she need to NO: I don't think we would need anything more on Nicola because it would be there - in plain view for all to see CA: But what if ... we don't want to be in a situation where they deny it- and they come back to us and say I need something tomorrow, or it's dead, do you know what I mean? NO: Yes the thing is - with that she'll need - in my opinion is that with an operation like that - it is quite a big operation - they will normally need a couple of weeks off - so it will come when there's a gap in their thing - we'll be able to work it out- no one has seen them for a few weeks - where has she been? I think we will be fine on that - I mean I think we will be all right - and obviously fit looks like she has got bigger tits we can easily say she has had a boob job and we will be all right. Gemma Arterton we'll need if possible some documentation. The thing to say to your friend is "what can you get?" Because the more the better really. If she can't get anything then fine. CA: She is an administrative nurse, that's the thing, so she probably can NO: If she can, yeah get a document on everything.
12.44pm: Owens says that by the end of his conversation he had come to the view that he would not act on the information. The meeting was not mentioned afterwards to the news desk, he says. 12.43pm: The witness statement of Sue Akers has now been published on the Leveson inquiry website. 12.42pm: Owens says that newspapers do often investigate claims and that was his aim in meeting Atkins. He suggests that he kept open the possibility of exposing Atkins after the undercover film-maker claimed to be able to get his friend drunk to obtain information about celebrities. "I went away thinking that there was potential to expose what he was doing," he tells the inquiry. Barr suggests that Owens was "positively encouraging" Atkins to get his friend drunk. Owens denies he was doing this and "alarm bells began to ring" that Atkins himself may be worth investigating. 12.33pm: Barr claims that Owens told Atkins that he was "keen to keep talking" about potential stories involving celebrities and cosmetic surgery. Owens says: "I didn't believe it was dynamite information. I was there to find out what the information was." 12.24pm: Barr continues to press Owens on what he meant by certain exchanges in the transcript of the recording. He asks about Atkins's suggestions that he could obtain information about a member of Girls Aloud, Hugh Grant, Rhys Ifans and Guy Ritchie Barr suggests that Owens had come to conclusions about the value of certain stories to be obtained from Atkins. Owens denies he had reached final conclusions and says he was going along with Atkins just to "keep his interest". 12.20pm: The Independent Police Complaints Commission has said there is no evidence that a Surrey police officer gave Milly Dowler's telephone number to the News of the World. In a statement, the IPCC said: The Independent Police Complaints Commission has concluded that there is no evidence to support allegations that a Surrey police officer subject to an IPCC investigation, gave information to journalists during Operation Ruby, the investigation into the disappearance of Amanda (Milly) Dowler in 2002. The matter was referred to the IPCC by Surrey police in August 2011 after they received information from three newspaper journalists that they were going to publish the allegations. IPCC commissioner Mike Franklin said: "The allegations that a Surrey police officer provided information to journalists during Operation Ruby, and may have been paid for doing so, can only have added to the terrible loss endured by Milly Dowler's family. Surrey police, quite rightly, came under a great deal of scrutiny over this issue - the allegations are serious and required independent examination. "I hope our finding that there was no substantive or factual evidence to support the allegations will provide some reassurance to the Dowler family on this issue at least. "It appears from this investigation that unsubstantiated information, perhaps not surprisingly, quickly gained currency in a climate where the relationships between the police and the media are under intense public scrutiny. "A police officer was criminally interviewed and remained under suspicion for some months, as our investigators sought to establish the facts,. We have provided Surrey police with our report and indicated we see no need for further action. "The terms of this investigation were specific to these allegations and this officer." The Dowler family has seen the IPCC report into the specific officer. They are conscious of the fact that other investigations not involving the IPCC are ongoing and have no further comment to make.
12.19pm: Owens denies he was coordinating a strategy to publish stories based on the claimed medical records. He says that "nothing happened" after the meeting, proving that there was no "strategy". 12.16pm: Barr suggests that the transcript suggests Owens had a "wish list" of what cosmetic surgery pocedures he wanted information on, and that gastric bands were the best story. Owens denies this. 12.13pm: Barr says it is "self-evident" that Owens told Atkins that the Sunday Mirror would be interested in the stories even if it could not obtain confidential medical records to back up the claims. Owens again contests this, saying he wanted to establish what hard evidence might be available if asked by his newsdesk. Barr suggests that the phrase in the transcript "just ask her what she can get hold of" were active encouragement to obtain documents from a source. Owens denies this. 12.06pm: Owens says that the conversation is "not reflective" of the Sunday Mirror because he was having an informal one-to-one conversation. Pressed on the exchanges about Fern Britton, Owens tells the inquiry he is being candid and was simply attempting to establish what information Atkins was claiming to be able to obtain. This would have helped Owens explain to his news desk what evidence might be available, he says. 12.03pm: For Chris Atkins's version of events, you can read his witness statement on the Leveson inquiry website. 11.59am: Owens is asked whether it was "ethically appropriate" to meet Atkins in this context. Owens says it was because he was just listening what Atkins had to say. "The key is what you do," he adds, pointing out again that no story was published by the Sunday Mirror based on this information. 11.56am: Owens says he made it clear to Atkins that there need to be a strong public interest justification if it was to run a story about Fern Britton having a gastric band operation. He points out that this was "an informal" meeting and the information discussed "did not lead to any information being published". 11.52am: Owens felt that Atkins had some information that would be interesting to hear, and cannot remember what was going through his mind at the time of the 2009 conversation. According to the transcript as read by Barr, Owens said "great" when Atkins said that he knew someone who could get private information on celebrities. "I certainly wasn't delighted to hear that," he says. "I couldn't tell you why I said that word three years ago." 11.48am: Owens is asked about Chris Atkins's Starsuckers film. Barr reads aloud parts of the transcript of the undercover recording. Owens says that he made clear early in the conversation that they were discussing a "very sensitive" issue, namely medical records of celebrities. Owens says that as a journalist "we have a duty to engage with people and hear them out" and that is what he was doing. 11.43am: Owens says that the Sunday Mirror has a lawyer in the office at all times, unlike at the Lancashire Evening Post. Lord Justice Leveson asks about his undercover report into a Bernard Matthews turkey factory. Owens says the newspaper found it justified to go undercover as an employee to investigate the factory. 11.40am: Leveson asks Owens what "protective measures" are taken before any undercover investigation by Owens. He says news editors would be involved at all stages. Owens talks about an undercover report into traffic wardens while he was at the Lancashire Evening Post. Readers of the paper had expressed concerns about wardens and so "probably the only way" to investigate the potential story. He says that being "economical with the truth" was justified because of the level of concern expressed from readers. 11.37am: Owens says that he deals with stories on a case-by-case basis. Asked about Chris Atkins, the filmmaker behind the Starsuckers undercover sting, Owens confirms he only told his newsdesk he was going to meet someone – not who he was meeting. 11.32am: Owens says that in March 2009 he was very familiar with the PCC code. This is the time when Owens was filmed apparently suggesting the Sunday Mirror would pay for celebrities' medical information. 11.31am: David Barr, counsel to the inquiry, is leading the questioning of Owens. Owens joined the Sunday Mirror in 2006 from the Lancashire Evening Post. 11.29am: The inquiry has resumed and Sunday Mirror reporter Nick Owens has taken the stand. Owens was covertly filmed for the Starsuckers film suggesting he would pay for private information about celebrities. Owens later apologised for his remarks. The Sunday Mirror editor, Tina Weaver, defended Owens when she gave evidence to the inquiry last month. "He realised it wasn't in the public interest at some stage and didn't even report his meeting to the news desk," she said. "I would like to say that this story would never have been published ... Apart from this incident, he's a very good and honest reporter." 11.20am: Wootton has completed his evidence and the inquiry is taking a short break. 11.19am: Lord Justice Leveson asks Wootton about newspapers in his native New Zealand. Wootton says that there is a self-regulatory body that is not made up of serving editors. Newspapers in New Zealand are compelled to publish findings of the regulator in full if they are found against, he says. 11.15am: Wootton is now working for the Daily Mail, a magazine and a TV programme. He is asked about Hugh Grant and stories last year about the birth of his daughter. "I was very concerned and disappointed when I heard one aspect of Hugh Grant's evidence," he says. He suggests that Grant's publicists in the US have a policy of not speaking to British tabloids and describes this as "frustrating" when a journalist is attempting to give right of reply. "I definitely think there needs to be a two-way street." 11.11am: Wootton says he would not write about Hugh Grant, for example, because "he didn't seem to enjoy being a celebrity". He says it is "naive" to say you can be a Hollywood celebrity and bemoan the press attention that comes with the role. "All celebrities have a right to privacy," Wootton says, adding that in particular areas – sexuality, health issues, children – this is sacrosanct. 11.08am: Wootton is asked about the public interest. He gives the example of one celebrity who was employed by a supermarket brand and had spoken publicly about her family life amid allegations of drug abuse. He suggests this was in the public interest because it showed hypocrisy. He contrasts this with another celebrity who had not spoken about their private life so the NoW could not mount a public interest defence on grounds of hypocrisy. "It could go both ways," he tells the inquiry. 11.02am: There were no complaints made to the PCC about Wootton's stories in the final three years of his time at the News of the World, he says. Wootton was named showbiz reporter of the year at the British Press Awards in 2010. One of the pieces that won him the prize was on the death of Boyzone member, Stephen Gately. 11.00am: Wootton says that he was once bylined on a story that he had not worked on at all. He points out that his showbiz column, headed with his name, ran 52 weeks a year – and he did not work all year. "There are certain accepted tabloid conventions," he says. 10.58am: Wootton says that he would sometimes inquire about the source of information from freelance contributors. He believes he would sometimes take a more cautious approach than other journalists at the NoW. 10.56am: Wootton tells the inquiry that "there is a need to protect exclusives" and on a small number of occasions there would be a "commercial decision" not to pre-notify on a showbiz story because of a fear of leaks. He says that right of reply would only not be given if the editor was 100% confident of the facts of the article; it was more likely to happen on positive stories. It was Wootton's policy to give right of reply on 99% of his stories, he says. 10.52am: Wootton says there was "probably" times when his opinion was overruled as to whether the NoW would run a story. He recalls one occasion when a senior executive at the paper had been told that a celebrity was going to take a certain job. Wootton says his gut feeling was that the story should be checked, but the executive did not and requested that Wootton also did not check the story. 10.50am: Wootton says the job of showbiz editor is "definitely walking a tightrope" by being fair to celebrities and not becoming a stooge. "Because the News of the World was coming from a position of weakness, it was felt that that was particularly important," he says. 10.47am: Jay asks whether Wootton felt he was "colluding" with celebrities to put stories with a certain angle out. Wootton denies this. "I was always conscious not to become a stooge to celebrities," he says. His stories were built on trust that the celebrities would be treated fairly. "One of my jobs was to make sure celebrities felt confident to give interviews and stories to the News of the World," he says, adding that the paper had to work on rebuilding trust in 2007, following the convictions of Goodman and Mulcaire. 10.45am: Wootton says that there was a fear that "secret squirrel" stories could be leaked. He says these were one-fact stories, such as celebrity A had split from celebrity B. They were kept within a small group of about five people. "The News of the World was particularly conscious that stories could be leaked, because they had in the past," he says. Wootton says that none of his stories were obtained by subterfuge and about half came from celebrities themselves. 10.45am: Wootton denies there was a bullying culture at the News of the World. He adds that individual desks in the newsroom "very much ran as separate entities". Wootton operated on the features desk and would have "very very minimal" contact with the news desk, he says. Wootton spoke to the head of news about twice in his four years at the paper, he says. 10.44am: Wootton says that he joined on a day when the News of the World was holding its first regular PCC seminar. He was given a pocket-sized PCC guidebook which he carried "at all times". He says that every story – including "the most trivial" – would be read by at least four people in the newsroom before publication. Wootton says he felt the News of the World was in competition with its sister title, the Sun. 10.40am: Wootton says that he was assured following the conviction of News of the World royal correspondent Clive Goodman in early 2007 that that was an "individual incident". "When I started it was made absolutely clear that that behaviour would not be tolerated in any way by [then editor] Colin Myler," he tells the inquiry. 10.37am: Wootton joined the News of the World in 2007 and was at the paper until its closure in July last year. There is an interview with Wootton shortly after the paper's closure on the BBC website. 10.34am: Dan Wootton, the former News of the World showbiz editor, has taken the stand. 10.33am: Akers has completed her evidence. 10.33am: Akers is asked about Operation Kalmyk. It is a scoping exercise that arose from Operation Tuleta evidence of at least one person being involved in illegally accessing computers for financial gain. Operation Kalmyk was the subject of a recent BBC Panorama programme, Akers confirms. One person has been arrested under Operation Kalmyk and are on bail until March. Leveson says "my train isn't stopping" in terms of pushing ahead with his inquiry. 10.31am: Akers says that the Met is examining 4 terabytes – a vast amount – of information under Operation Tuleta. She describes it as a "huge amount, vast" when asked what it would look like if printed out. 10.29am: Jay asks about Operation Tuleta. Akers says that about 20 police officers are looking into 57 claims of "data intrusion" on behalf of journalists. Most of these claims relate to computer hacking, medical records and phone hacking. Some of these claims go back to as long ago as the late 1980s, Akers says. "Some of these are connected to very historic investigations that the Met has undertaken," she adds. 10.27am: Akers is asked about timing of Operation Elveden. She says she is "less confident in saying we're nearer the end than the beginning" with Elveden, unlike Operation Weeting. Akers says because News International is giving "voluntary disclosure" to police, the Met is not obtaining evidence via a production order. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, the police are not entitled to seek a warrant where there is co-operation. 10.25am: Akers says that information from News Corp's MSC led to the arrest of a journalist at the Sun in November last year. The further arrests at the Sun last month came from disclosures from the MSC "as well as our own analysis" of material handed over, Akers confirms. The police want to question one further journalist who is abroad, she adds. 10.23am: Akers says that the Met police has a "co-operative working relationship" with News Corp's internal investigation unit, the management and standards committee (MSC). Akers says that "reasonably senior" News of the World journalists have been arrested under Operation Elveden between June and December. No police officers have been identified as suspects in relation to the News of the World, Akers confirms. The material has come from the newspapers and so the sources are not identified. 10.19am: Akers is asked about Operation Elveden, the investigation into payments to police officers by journalists. Akers says there is a "very legitimate public interest" in investigating this. She adds that 40 police officers and staff are currently working on Elveden, but that team will be expanded to 61 officers in light of the investigation into the Sun. Fourteen people have been arrested so far under Elveden. 10.18am: Jay asks if Akers "is nearer the finishing line than the starting gun". She agrees. Akers adds that a total of 90 police officers are working on Operation Weeting, including 35 who are "dedicated to the victims, which has been quite time consuming". 10.17am: Akers says that "a number of key witnesses" have come forward but the police want to see more. "That process is ongoing. It will take a few more months," Akers tells the inquiry. Jay says that 300m emails have been retrieved from News International, including material that the police thought had been lost. Akers says the search of that material is in a relatively advanced stage. The Met police has found hard archives of some material. 10.15am: The police have contacted 581 of those 829 likely phone hacking victims, Akers says. A further 231 are uncontactable, but are identified in Mulcaire's notes. Seventeen people have not been contacted for "operational reasons". Two of the 17 people arrested under Operation Weeting have had no further action taken against them and 15 are on bail. 10.13am: The number of people contacted by police or writing in to police asking if they were hacked is 2,900, Akers confirms. Of those, 1,578 actually appeared in Mulcaire's notes. Akers says there are 829 "likely" victims – those who have detail around their names that make it likely they were hacked or had potential to be hacked. 10.08am: Jay confirms that there are 6,349 potential victims – identifiable names of people in information held under Operation Weeting – of phone hacking. There are 11,000 pages in the seized notes of private investigator Glenn Mulcaire. The number of names with phone numbers alongside is 4,375. 10.05am: Akers is the police chief in charge of the Operation Weeting investigation into phone hacking; the Operation Tuleta investigation into computer hacking to procure information on behalf of newspapers; and Operating Elveden, the police investigation into inappropriate payments to police officers by journalists. 10.02am: Sue Akers, the detective assistant commissioner of the Met police, has taken the stand. Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, is leading the questioning. 9.59am: Our correspondent at the Royal Courts of Justice, Lisa O'Carroll, has just tweeted that Sue Akers, the deputy assistant commissioner of the Met police, will be the first witness of the day. Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre is expected to appear this afternoon. 9.41am: Former News of the World showbiz correspondent Dan Wootton has revealed his pre-Leveson preparation: an uplifting dose of the Canadian singer Alanis Morissette. 9.40am: Good morning and welcome to the Leveson inquiry live blog. Paul Dacre, editor-in-chief of the Daily Mail, and Sue Akers, the Metropolitan police deputy assistant commissioner in charge of three major investigations into alleged press illegality, will give evidence to the inquiry today. Fleet Street's longest-serving newspaper editor is likely to be asked about the Daily Mail's use of the private investigator Steve Whittamore, as uncovered in the information commissioner's report What Price Privacy Now? in 2006. Dacre is also expected to be asked about Associated Newspapers' accusation of "mendacious smears" against Hugh Grant after the actor gave evidence to the inquiry last year. Akers will become the first serving police officer to be quizzed by the Leveson inquiry. Two journalists, the Sunday Mirror reporter Nick Owens and the former News of the World showbiz correspondent Dan Wootton, will also appear. Follow the inquiry live from 10am.
Josh Halliday, Dugald Baird
2012-02-06T18:07:27Z
| 
