The statements were usually released to the public after the public sessions. Commentaries, analyses and case studies usually supplied spontaneously by members of the public or organisations. DCI Jones , Philip.
Kirkham , Peter. Neil , Andrew. Kampfner , John Keller , Daphne. Quarmby , Katharine. Quick , Bob. Yahoo Yates , John Yelland , David. Youth Media Agency. Zink , Ronald. Well, two things. The first thing, in a way I felt strangely relieved that I hadn't dreamed this story, because I had been told of the hacking and the evidence was in front of me, but I was absolutely disgusted by it, by the sheer invasion of my privacy.
They had all my, you know, home, work numbers, which were in the same flat because I was working from home, and I just felt absolutely violated in my privacy. The amount of messages being hacked and the transcripts of personal conversations were just, you know, despicable, really.
Thank you. Finally, is there anything that you would like to say to Lord Justice Leveson about what changes you think might be made for the future regulation of the press to help prevent other people from becoming victims in the way that you did?
I'm sure you have a tough job here. I think one of the elements which was critical for me was the threat of publication, I realise now, was meant to shake us, the individual X as well as myself, stress us out, to test who was going to eventually come out with a statement.
So the threat of a publication to an ordinary member of the public should be something used as a formal notification, not as a part of a weaponry of tools to press people to make a statement. I think that would be one important bit.
The other important bit is, and I don't know what the mechanics in the future should be, but I would not have been able to bring any action that I'm bringing, either in the JR or in the civil claim, without a conditional fee agreement, and I think that it would have been -- I would have been prevented to seek justice in any way, shape or form if that mechanics was not available to me.
Unless there's some other way of going about it that doesn't involve the whole panoply of High Court proceedings. I think it's about being able to choose who your legal representation would be and the funding of it. The mechanics, you know, might be something else.
But at least the ability to finance ordinary members of the public is crucial, otherwise the press might have a free rein on anybody like me in the future who won't be able to seek justice whatsoever. I have no more questions for this witness. The arrangement is that the transcript is going to be checked to ensure that it can properly be put out into the public domain. There may need to be some slight redactions, there may be some slight delay in that happening, but that is what we are going to do.
There is going to be a redaction of the newspaper titles, and I've made it clear that that document is not going to be put into the public domain until those affected are content that it's in a proper format to be published. I think it's clear from your evidence, but I want there to be no doubt: you do not consider yourself a public figure of any sort?
That's not to demean you, it's meant to provide the context within which you are giving evidence. Context, absolutely. If I may just have a conclusion about this, I felt very harassed for the best part of nine months, and I witnessed my life goings up in flames around me for something that people would claim to be the public interest and I would challenge that very thoroughly because I don't think, if there was any public interest, we would have known about it because there would have been publication.
What I intend to do is to rise so that we can reconstitute the Inquiry, that we can admit the public, that we reconnect the equipment so that the transcript is visible to all and the audio and television aid available both in the marquee and online.
I was just going to rise about the mechanics of the transcript. I know, sir, that you're keen for the evidence to be available as soon as possible for obvious reasons. I understand the process that will be involved and I was just wondering in terms of timings how it was going to work because obviously we'll want to continue with giving the evidence. Well, I've risen. There is one matter. It's something that can be easily dealt with and I don't want to explain it here.
But it is one point that I picked up and I understand exactly why it crept in, because it's very difficult to keep using cyphers. I'm not saying it's anything that's particularly worrying, but I can deal with that. I'm really talking timings. I don't know whether, sir, you want to give us 15 minutes break so that I can deal with that point and we can then get the transcript of HJK's evidence available No, don't.
I want to crack on. We have a lot of witnesses to deal with. We'll get it printed quite quickly and if you want to alert the shorthand writer to the point you can do so in the next few minutes while we reconstitute the room, and in that way we'll not lose any time. I know. I'm not suggesting you're not.
But I'm just conscious that we have a number of witnesses to get through today. An open source tool for making transcripts really easy to read, search and share on the modern web.
Built by mySociety. A Poplus component Poplus. We provide commercial services through our wholly owned subsidiary SocietyWorks Ltd Hearing, 24 November HJK. Link in context Link. Lord Justice Leveson. Mr Barr. You tell us that you at that time met a well-known individual, who we will call X. At paragraph 4, you tell us about a telephone call that you received in April And at the time you tell us you simply thought it was very strange?
Yes, that was end of April, and it was indeed the case, yeah. What I would like to ask you is: how did you feel when that occurred? An anonymous member of the public who had a relationship with an unidentified celebrity. The barrister David Sherborne told the Leveson inquiry that a newspaper doorstepped HJK out of the blue in , and that the News of the World subsequently hacked their phone. HJK will be giving evidence in private. Sienna Miller was the first celebrity to accept compensation from the News of the World after it accepted liability for her phone hacking claims.
Miller's case stands out because, unlike other cases, News International also admitted liability for computer or email hacking. Sherborne told the inquiry that Miller had suffered "persistent harassment" from the press and that information obtained from her emails was used in a series of articles.
0コメント